I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) two weeks ago today, the Prime Minister and Minister for Health claimed to have signed a COVID-19 vaccine supply deal with AstraZeneca;
(b) when the Minister for Health quoted AstraZeneca in the House on 1 September 2020, he omitted the company’s clarification that it had only signed a "letter of intent", and that "there are still many details to be confirmed"; and
(c) in contrast to Australia's one letter of intent, at least 17 countries have signed at least 49 supply agreements, covering at least six billion doses of potential COVID-19 vaccines; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Minister for Health to lay on the table by no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 3 September 2020, the so-called 'deal' with AstraZeneca referred to by the Minister for Health, and to explain to the House whether a single dose of any potential COVID-19 vaccine has been secured for Australia.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for McMahon from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) two weeks ago today, the Prime Minister and Minister for Health claimed to have signed a COVID-19 vaccine supply deal with AstraZeneca;
(b) when the Minister for Health quoted AstraZeneca in the House on 1 September 2020, he omitted the company’s clarification that it had only signed a "letter of intent", and that "there are still many details to be confirmed"; and
(c) in contrast to Australia's one letter of intent, at least 17 countries have signed at least 49 supply agreements, covering at least six billion doses of potential COVID-19 vaccines; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Minister for Health to lay on the table by no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 3 September 2020, the so-called 'deal' with AstraZeneca referred to by the Minister for Health, and to explain to the House whether a single dose of any potential COVID-19 vaccine has been secured for Australia.
If there is a deal, the government should welcome this debate. They should embrace this motion. They should love this motion.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for McMahon be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. Just admit it! There is no deal. There is no deal—even AstraZeneca is saying that. A letter of intent is not a deal.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Barton be no further heard.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
They're all spin and no substance. They're all photo-op and no follow-up.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be now put.
The question now is that the motion moved by the member for McMahon be disagreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020 will futureproof Australia's higher education system, cutting red tape and simplifying regulation.
The bill amends the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011(TEQSA Act) to:
It also amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to replace references to 'Indigenous students' with 'Indigenous persons'.
PCS Review
The 2017-18 budget included a measure to undertake a review of the higher education provider category standards, which are part of the higher education standards framework threshold standards. The PCS review was completed in 2019 by Emeritus Professor Peter Coaldrake AO, who recommended amending the provider category standards to clarify and streamline the regulatory framework to ensure it is fit for purpose for all stakeholders, including students, the regulator, and current and future providers. The government accepted all 10 of the PCS review's recommendations.
The key recommendation of the review was to both simplify and enhance the categorisation of higher education providers by:
The university college category will introduce a mark of quality and better signal diversity and differentiation in the non-university sector. It will provide an opportunity for the highest-quality providers to operate in regional and thinner markets without the burden imposed by the need to undertake research in the university categories. It will offer an achievable and practical transitional pathway for institutions seeking to work towards university status. It will also provide a new pathway for the future establishment of 'greenfield' universities, should a state or territory government or significant Australian or overseas entity wish to establish a new university from scratch.
The new provider categories also clarify the obligations of institutions in both the Australian university and university college categories to be active participants in their communities and enhance the employability of graduates through civic leadership and engagement with employers and industry. The new categories also clarify how the quality of research activity will be assessed in the Australian university category, giving more certainty to institutions about the expectations for research quality.
The amendments to the TEQSA Act in this bill are consequential to the amendments to the standards themselves, which will be remade through a new legislative instrument once this bill has been passed. The changes to the standards have been drafted by the Higher Education Standards Panel, as required by section 58 of the TEQSA Act. The commencement date for the related provisions in this bill will be fixed by proclamation so that they take effect on the same day as the new threshold standards instrument. I expect this to be 1 July 2021, so that higher education providers have certainty and time to prepare for any minor impacts expected.
Impact review
This bill also enacts a change recommended by the Review of the impact of the TEQSA Act on the higher education sectorundertaken by Deloitte Access Economics in 2016-17. While the majority of recommendations from this review were responded to through a previous bill, an outstanding recommendation to simplify the framing of the threshold standards in the TEQSA Act was deferred until after completion of the PCS review. These amendments will present the threshold standards as a single unified framework, instead of four distinct types of threshold standards. This will enable the structure of the threshold standards instrument to be simplified, making it clearer for providers, students and others to read and use.
Student records provisions
The recently announced Job-ready Graduates Package of higher education reforms included a measure to provide TEQSA with the legislative authority to assume control of higher education student records from a registered higher education provider in the event the provider ceases operations. These amendments will give TEQSA similar legislative powers to those of the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) in relation to providers that cease operating. This is a significant reform that will help current and future higher education students obtain ready access to their academic records in the event a higher education provider ceases to operate.
Other measures
Other measures in the bill to improve higher education regulation will:
Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to replace references to 'Indigenous students' with 'Indigenous persons'. These amendments will confirm the existing arrangement that higher education providers can use Indigenous student assistance grants to assist prospective, as well as existing, Indigenous students.
In summary, the measures in this bill will reduce red tape and simplify the regulation and administration of Australian higher education. I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) extensive television and newspaper reporting of the Assistant Treasurer's involvement in wide-scale branch-stacking;
(b) the Assistant Treasurer has so far refused to explain himself in the House, and instead moved to gag debate; and
(c) the Prime Minister has not condemned the Assistant Treasurer's actions, despite clear breaches of the ministerial standards;
(2) invites the Assistant Treasurer to attend this House within the next 60 minutes and make a statement of no longer than 60 minutes length; and
(3) further notes, if 60 minutes is not enough, the minister may request a further 60 minutes for his statement.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Blaxland from moving the following motion immediately—
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) extensive television and newspaper reporting of the Assistant Treasurer's involvement in wide-scale branch-stacking;
(b) the Assistant Treasurer has so far refused to explain himself in the House, and instead moved to gag debate; and
(c) the Prime Minister has not condemned the Assistant Treasurer's actions, despite clear breaches of the ministerial standards;
(2) invites the Assistant Treasurer to attend this House within the next 60 minutes and make a statement of no longer than 60 minutes length; and
(3) further notes, if 60 minutes is not enough, the minister may request a further 60 minutes for his statement.
Tick, tick, tick! The clock is ticking on this minister. John Howard would have sacked this minister last week. That is exactly what he did when he was Prime Minister in 1996. He sacked three ministers for the misuse of taxpayers'—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Blaxland be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded?
Seconded. The Prime Minister must sack this hack or back his stack. That is the choice. The clock is ticking—
The member must resume his seat. The minister has the call.
I move:
That the Member be no longer be heard.
The question is that the member for Whitlam be no longer heard.
The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Blaxland be agreed to.
The motion simply says, 'Give him 60 minutes to talk, and if 60 minutes isn't enough, give him another 60 minutes.'
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be now put.
The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Blaxland be disagreed to.
I call the Manager of Opposition Business on indulgence, as we agreed prior.
In accordance with the conventions we're following, the member for Melbourne asked for it to be recorded that, in the votes associated with this suspension and the previous suspension of standing orders, had he been able to be here, he would have voted the same way as the opposition.
I thank the Manager of Opposition Business.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Economic Disruption) Bill 2020 is a significant step forward in the Morrison government's fight against transnational, serious and organised crime groups.
Transnational, serious and organised crime—or TSOC ('tee-soc')—harms our communities, our economy and our national security.
TSOC groups pursue criminal profit at the expense of the health, prosperity and safety of ordinary Australians. Whether this is done through the importation of illicit substances, or through tax evasion, market distortion or money laundering, the direct cost to Australia is estimated to be $47.4 billion per year. When the indirect social and economic impacts are factored in, the full cost is immeasurable.
TSOC groups operate as sophisticated and compartmentalised businesses generating huge profits from their criminal pursuits. In order to 'clean' their proceeds of crime and realise these profits, the TSOC business model relies on money laundering. This allows profits to be concealed and reinvested in further criminal activity, or used to fund lavish lifestyles.
These organisations are well financed and are intent on retaining their profits through any means necessary. As such, Australia needs a tough regime aimed at destroying their business model.
The bill demonstrates the Morrison government's continued commitment to combatting TSOC and giving honest Australians a fair go.
Key features of the bill include an overhaul of the Commonwealth's money-laundering offences in the Criminal Code to address the increasingly complex methods employed by TSOC actors. In addition, the bill includes crucial amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act to strengthen and clarify provisions to ensure that law enforcement agencies can restrain and forfeit the profits gained by TSOC actors.
Money laundering networks are becoming increasingly complex and more difficult for law enforcement agencies to disrupt. The networks are typically led by 'controllers' who issue directions to others to launder criminal profits, while keeping themselves at arm's-length to avoid criminal liability. The person who physically deals with the money or property is intentionally kept ignorant of its criminal origins.
The bill ensures that the Commonwealth's money-laundering offences can effectively target the controllers at the heart of the operation by treating them as though they dealt with the criminal money or property themselves, and are punished accordingly.
These reforms also target individuals who are wilfully ignorant to the criminal nature of money or property they deal with, by creating new offences which remove the need to link money or property to knowledge of a kind of indictable offence. The bill also amends the defence of 'mistake of fact' as to the value of money or property, ensuring that potential loopholes in the current defence cannot be exploited.
The bill also creates an additional tier of offences for the highest-level money launderers, who deal with money or property valued at $10 million or more. This ensures that penalties keep pace with the increasing scale of money-laundering operations.
Together these amendments will make it harder for offenders to evade the reach of law enforcement. They will support increased prosecution and sentencing outcomes for serious money-laundering offences, severely degrading the ability of TSOC actors to realise the profits of their offending.
Schedule 2 of the bill clarifies that undercover operatives are exempt from the obligations imposed on investigating officials under part IC of the Crimes Act, and brings the definition of the term 'investigating official' into line with the Commonwealth Evidence Act.
These measures ensure that any lawfully obtained evidence gained by undercover operatives is admissible, subject to the court's ultimate discretion regarding admissibility of any evidence.
Schedule 3 tightens the circumstances in which a person can apply for a 'buy back' order under the Proceeds of Crime Act. This is to prevent criminals or their associates from buying back their forfeited property.
In order to ensure that forfeited property is not repurchased using illicit funds or unexplained wealth, this measure also provides law enforcement with appropriate information-gathering powers to confirm the money used to purchase a property is 'clean'.
Schedule 4 ofthe bill clarifies the definition of the term 'benefit' under the Proceeds of Crime Act to include the avoidance, deferral or reduction of a debt, loss or liability. This reinforces that the act can be used to confiscate the benefit a person gains through the criminal evasion of import duties, excises or taxation, ensuring that a person does not profit from this criminal behaviour.
And schedule 5 clarifies that all courts with jurisdiction under the Proceeds of Crime Act are able to make orders in relation to property located overseas.
This amendment makes it clear that TSOC actors cannot simply move their tainted property offshore to avoid the reach of Australian law enforcement.
The bill also seeks to enhance the ability of law enforcement to enforce compliance with the information-gathering powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act. These powers provide law enforcement with valuable information about an individual's property and its potential links to crime.
Operational experience has demonstrated a willingness by suspects to obstruct the information-gathering process meaning that the offences for noncompliance are currently impractical to enforce. These amendments will greatly assist law enforcement agencies to target offenders and their tainted property, and also allow for enhanced information sharing between law enforcement agencies.
In addition, the bill strengthens the powers of the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. It enhances the ability of the trustee to manage property that has been forfeited under the Proceeds of Crime Act. It seeks to remedy an existing limitation which prevents the trustee from effectively dealing with property which has already vested absolutely in the Commonwealth.
Further, the bill contains measures to enhance the official trustee's cost-recovery powers.
The Commonwealth's partnership with the states and territories is crucial in the fight against TSOC. To this end, the bill provides a more efficient mechanism to make grants from the Confiscated Assets Account to the states and territories for crime prevention, law enforcement, drug diversion and drug treatment measures.
I urge members to support the passage of this critical legislation. Together, we can ensure that the flow of illicit funds that enables the devastating harm caused by TSOC in this country can be switched off. Permanently.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees.
by leave—I move:
That:
(1) Ms Payne be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and that, in her place, Mr Georganas be appointed a member of the committee;
(2) Mr Clare be discharged from the Select Committee on Regional Australia and that, in his place, Ms McBain be appointed a member of the committee;
Question agreed to.
The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has agreed to the following resolution:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia on its inquiry into the destruction of caves at the Juukan Gorge be extended to 9 December 2020.
[by video link] The terrorism-related citizenship loss provisions in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 were first introduced by the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill in 2015. Given the unprecedented nature of that legislation, the then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, now the Minister for Home Affairs, gave a written undertaking that the new provisions would be reviewed by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor by 1 December 2018. The Minister for Home Affairs did not honour his written undertaking. Instead, he asked the Attorney-General to introduce the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Strengthening the Citizenship Loss Provisions) Bill on 28 November 2018. That bill would have amended one of the terrorism-related citizenship loss provisions, section 35A, and left the other two, sections 33AA and 35, untouched. It was a very bad piece of legislation, and it was rightly opposed by Labor.
Instead of proceeding with that rushed and misconceived bill, the Morrison government actually did what Labor urged it to do. It abandoned the bill and referred all of the terrorism-related citizenship loss provisions to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor for review. The then monitor, Dr James Renwick SC, completed his review in August 2019 and made a number of very significant recommendations for reform. Most significantly, Dr Renwick recommended that sections 33AA and 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act be urgently repealed and replaced. Notably, Dr Renwick also recommended that section 35A, the provision that the Morrison government had tried so hard to amend in late 2018 and early 2019, be retained in its current form.
Under sections 33AA and 35, any dual nationality citizen of Australia loses their Australian citizenship automatically if they engage in terrorism related conduct that repudiates their allegiance to this country. That occurs without any decision being made by the minister or another Australian authority. Indeed, a person's Australian citizenship can be cancelled without anyone even being aware that it has happened. Dr Renwick found that sections 33AA and 35 operated in an uncontrolled and uncertain manner. ASIO subsequently told the Intelligence and Security Committee that the fact that those provisions operate automatically may lead to unintended or unforeseen adverse security outcomes for Australia. This is because there may be circumstances in which the better security outcome would be that a person's Australian citizenship is retained, even if the person meets the strict legislative criteria for citizenship cessation under section 33AA or section 35. In other words, measures that the government said would make Australians safer could, in some circumstances, place Australians in greater danger. That is an intolerable state of affairs.
The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019 would repeal sections 33AA and 35—the provisions that create this intolerable state of affairs—and replace those provisions with section 36B, a ministerial decision-making model of citizenship cessation. In doing so, the bill would implement several of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's key recommendations. For that reason, Labor support the bill.
As ASIO told the Intelligence and Security Committee in supporting the move to a ministerial decision-making model:
While fully supporting the move to a ministerial decision-making model, Labor does have concerns with aspects of the citizenship cessation bill. To the extent possible, Labor believes that the bill should be consistent with the following key principles.
First, given that the key concern about sections 33AA and 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act relates to the automatic operation of those provisions rather than their inadequate scope, the proposed new section 36B should not expand the range of circumstances in which an Australian may lose his or her citizenship beyond the scope of the existing provisions. Second, any decision by the minister to deprive a person of his or her Australian citizenship must be subject to what Dr Renwick described as 'meaningful review'. Third, the limitations and safeguards in respect of the power to cancel a person's Australian citizenship should be consistent with the fundamental democratic values of our nation that the provisions are designed to protect, including the rule of law, and reflect the seriousness of depriving an individual of Australian citizenship. Fourth, the bill should be consistent with Australia's international obligations, including the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Fifth, the bill should be placed on the strongest possible constitutional footing.
Had the government implemented each of Dr Renwick's detailed and considered recommendations, Labor believes, the citizenship cessation bill would be broadly consistent with each of these principles. As it happens, the government has not implemented each of the monitor's recommendations, nor has the government adequately explained why it has failed to do so. In respect of the first principle that I have just mentioned, section 36B would not merely replace sections 33AA and 35 with a ministerial decision-making version of those provisions it would also expand the range of circumstances in which the minister would be able to cancel a person's citizenship. For example, under section 36B it would not be necessary for the minister to be satisfied that a person engaged in proscribed conduct with any particular intention. By contrast, under the existing section 33AA a person must have in fact engaged in proscribed conduct and must have in fact done so with a terrorism related intent. Section 36B would apply retrospectively to conduct that occurred on or after 29 May 2003. By contrast, the provisions that section 36B would replace—sections 33AA and 35—have no retrospective application at all, and under section 36B it would no longer be necessary for a person to in fact be a citizen or a national of another country; it would only be necessary for the minister to be satisfied that the person would not 'become a person who is not a national or a citizen of any country'.
None of those features of the new section 36B has been sufficiently explained or justified. In an additional comment to the intelligence and security committee's report on this bill, tabled yesterday, Labor members of the committee set out in detail a number of problematic features of the bill and how those matters ought to be addressed. I would urge people to read the additional comments.
While I do not have time in this speech to elaborate on all of Labor's concerns with the bill, I would like to put a few additional matters on the record. The power to cancel a person's Australian citizenship is an extraordinary power. It must only be exercised in extreme circumstances and only where doing so is in the interests of the wider Australian community. And this extraordinary power must be subject to stringent safeguards. Australian citizenship is not akin to a visa and it must never be treated or thought of like one. And yet there are a few worrying signs that the current government appears to regard Australian citizenship as if it were no more significant than a visa. For example, several aspects of the proposed section 36B are very closely modelled on section 501 of the Migration Act 1958—that being the minister's power to cancel a person's visa on character grounds—and in an appearance before the intelligence and security committee last year a senior official from the Department of Home Affairs repeatedly characterised Australian citizenship as a mere privilege, a proposition that was strongly and rightly rejected by multiple committee members, including, to his credit, the member for Goldstein.
It is partly because of the value that Labor places on Australian citizenship that we believe that the power to take it away should only be exercised in extreme circumstances and subject to stringent safeguards. To that end, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor recommended that the minister's determination of whether a person had engaged in prescribed terrorist conduct be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is true that there is currently no merits review under sections 33AA and 35, but that is because the issue of 'merit' does not arise in a legal sense, because those provisions operate automatically. There is no 'decision' by the minister to review. Also, a person must have, in fact, engaged in prescribed conduct with terrorism related intent in order to lose his or her citizenship under section 33AA, which is a higher threshold than ministerial satisfaction.
The government has offered no coherent justification for rejecting that modest proposal by the monitor for merits review by an independent tribunal. The government's failure to offer any proper justification for the retrospective application of section 36B, or section 36D for that matter, is equally concerning. It was after all the current Attorney-General who, in late 2018, said:
Retrospective criminal law is probably the most serious and unwarranted thing that any government anywhere, in any democracy can do…
Yet here they are introducing retrospectivity on a huge scale.
It is not Labor's position that retrospective laws, including retrospective laws that affect fundamental rights, can never be justified in any circumstances, but the circumstances will be very rare and such laws must always be clearly justified. This may be one of those rare circumstances where the government has not explained why that is so. In fact, far from justifying the retrospective application of these new terrorism-related citizenship loss provisions, the government has said that it does not even know how many individuals are likely to become immediately subject to having their Australian citizenship cancelled if these provisions become law. Those matters were not even considered in the development of this legislation. That is an extraordinary and unconscionable failure of basic due diligence, for which the Minister for Home Affairs and his department should feel embarrassed. Of course, I know, from long experience now, they will not be.
As I noted before, Labor members of the intelligence and security committee have set out in detail our concerns with the citizenship cessation bill in an additional comment to the committee's report. The government should read that additional comment carefully. Labor members of the committee have also made a number of recommendations to improve the bill, but we have also said that the government's adoption of those recommendations is not a condition of Labor's support for the bill. That is not because we think those recommendations are unimportant. Rather, it is because the urgent repeal of sections 33AA and 35 is more important. And, while the ministerial decision-making model in the citizenship cessation bill is far from perfect, that model would at least provide the government with the flexibility to better manage the risk of potential adverse security outcomes.
The passing of laws, including this citizenship cessation bill, does not guarantee better security outcomes. Ultimately, it will be up to the minister to exercise the extraordinary powers in this bill responsibly and in the best interests of Australia. The Minister for Home Affairs will be personally and individually accountable when it comes to the use of these powers. It follows that if the powers are exercised in a manner that is contrary to Australia's national interest, including in a matter that puts the lives of Australians here or overseas at greater peril, responsibility will lie with the minister.
I'd like to end by noting that the recent decision by the High Court in Love and Thoms against the Commonwealth has arguably called into question whether the Commonwealth has the power to cancel a person's Australian citizenship, and the High Court is about to hear another case that is likely to provide more clarity on this question. On multiple occasions, Labor has asked to see the Solicitor-General's legal advice in respect of the constitutionality of the existing terrorism-related citizenship loss provisions. The government has repeatedly refused to provide Labor members of the intelligence committee with a copy of that advice, even under strict conditions of confidentiality and notwithstanding that those members frequently receive information of the most classified nature. Instead, the government has provided repeated assurances to the parliament and the Australian people that the terrorism-related citizenship loss provisions are on a strong constitutional footing. The worth of those assurances has been found wanting in the past and will ultimately be determined by the High Court.
The first duty of any government is ensuring the safety of its citizens. Whether it be protecting us from crime, combating foreign agents or cybercriminals who want to undermine our interests or defeating terrorists who want to destroy our way of life, defending our security must be our government's first priority.
This government has always understood that responsibility and has prosecuted it with commitment and relentless vigour. This is a government that has increased funding for law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies by $3 billion since 2013. This government is funding 100 more intelligence experts, more than 100 more tactical response and covert surveillance operators and a further 100 forensic specialists at the forefront of the fight against crime and terrorism. We have passed 18 tranches of national security legislation to strengthen our law enforcement and intelligence agencies and to give them the tools they need to deal with terrorists. We've given the ADF the power to target international terrorists with lethal force and we've given our law enforcement officers the power to arrest homegrown terrorists before their plots come to fruition. We've invested $45 million in counter-radicalisation programs to try to suppress these threats before they are fully developed; and, just last year, we committed an additional $513 million for the AFP to detect, deter and disrupt terror threats.
All of this has, sadly, been necessary because there are all too many people who are willing to benefit from our community's prosperity and protection while rejecting the mutual obligations to their fellow Australians that are fundamental to citizenship of this country. It is very difficult to believe some of the things that Australians have allegedly been capable of.
The first Australian to have his citizenship removed under the provisions that this bill, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019, addresses was Sydney man Khaled Sharrouf. Mr Sharrouf was involved in a terrorist plot in 2005 in which he helped gather guns, ammunition and equipment to make bombs for use in attacking his fellow Australians. Having served his sentence for that crime, he left, as early as 2013, to join ISIS and gained notoriety around the world for posting truly disturbing images of his nine-year-old son involved in the gruesome violence around Raqqa.
In total, around 230 Australians have travelled to Syria or Iraq to fight for and support the Islamic State terrorist group. They have done so despite that group's self-confessed involvement in burning alive innocent people; in throwing others from tall buildings, on the basis of their sexuality; and in systematic slavery and sexual abuse of women from ethnic minority groups. In doing so, many have directly fought against this country's closest allies and even risked the lives of dedicated servicemen and women of our ADF. There is no doubt that this represents a fundamental rejection of Australian values and a repudiation of everything that our community holds dear.
Perhaps worse, however, there are dozens of Australians who have been convicted of preparing or executing acts of terrorism on our own shores, which, in the words of convicted terrorist Abdul Nacer Benbrika, were designed to cause maximum damage to our way of life. There were 54 people in jail in Australia at the beginning of this year on such terrorism offences. These include individuals who were close personal connections of Osama bin Laden, who created detailed handbooks to teach others how to execute terrorist attacks or who were stockpiling explosives for use in our capital cities. In total, as of last year, 75 people have been convicted of terrorism offences in Australia and 30 more remain before the courts.
The reality is that to commit a crime of that nature is to utterly reject Australia and all it stands for. It is to spurn the society of your fellow Australians. In committing these crimes, these individuals have told us that they have no interest in being a contributing part of our community. I doubt any right-minded person in Australia would want to keep them here after such a violent and fundamental rejection of our very way of life. That is why the government introduced its 2015 amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act. These ensured that where the government could do so without breaching its obligations under international law, Australian citizenship would be stripped from those who have so fundamentally rejected their reciprocal obligations to fellow Australians. To date it has been successful, and the minister has previously stated that more than a dozen such individuals have had their citizenship revoked.
However, the threat remains. In total, 250 Australian passports have been cancelled or refused because of the applicant's connection to the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. In the middle of last year there were 80 further Australians in Syria and Iraq connected to those conflicts who had not returned but who may try to do so in the future. As I've mentioned, there are also around 50 Australians in custody in Australia who have been convicted of terrorism offences, and arrest warrants are outstanding for a further 39 who are currently overseas. Since 2014 our law enforcement agencies have disrupted 17 major terrorist plots. In short, today, the threat is as alive as ever. We must constantly update and improve the protections that are available to the government to keep Australians safe, to prevent future terrorist attacks and to meet the community's expectation that this government will not accept into our society those who would seek to harm our way of life from within.
The bill before the House today does just that. It provides the Minister for Home Affairs with discretion to revoke the citizenship of any dual national who has been part of a declared terrorist organisation overseas or who has been convicted of a terrorism offence and sentenced to three years imprisonment, rather than the six years currently in force. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, if you ask most Australians, there is no such thing as a minor terrorism offence. This bill will ensure that the minister can meet the community's expectations in dealing with any individual who plans acts of terrorism. Secondly, the bill expands the period of time from which an individual's actions can be taken into account when deciding whether to revoke their citizenship. Once again, for most ordinary Australians it does not matter in the least whether an individual planned a terrorist attack aimed at killing their fellow Australians in 2016 or 2006. What is important is that that individual has rejected their fellowship with other Australians and rejected our community's way of life. Once again, by allowing the minister to take terrorism offences and activities in an overseas terrorist organisation into account going all the way back to May 2003, this bill will allow the minister to respond appropriately to community expectations.
I'm certain that this Minister for Home Affairs will fully meet those expectations. The minister was a Queensland police officer for a decade, protecting not only Queenslanders through the drug and sex offender squads but all Australians through his service in the National Crime Authority. The minister saw and combated the worst of crime in our society and he understands what works. That knowledge and that experience have been manifest in his tireless and resolute work on national security to date. The minister has overseen the cancellations of visas for more than 5,000 dangerous criminals and kept our borders secure year after year. I know that he will use this discretion authority with firmness and discretion.
However, it is important that these safeguards are in place to ensure that this henceforth discretionary power is used appropriately not only by this minister but by all ministers for home affairs to come. To that end, the bill contains three such safeguards. First, under the bill, the minister must inform a person who has had their citizenship revoked either immediately or within five years where there is a national security reason to delay the provision of that information. The individual can then apply under the bill to the minister to request that their citizenship not be cancelled, and the Commonwealth must ensure that natural justice is afforded to them to make representations on their case. Second, judicial review will be available to individuals who have had their citizenship revoked. Third, the minister must report regularly to the parliament and to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on how they have used these new discretionary powers.
All of these provisions and the others laid out in the bill were based on recommendations of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor in its report into the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Act 2015, commissioned by this government. They will ensure the effectiveness of this regime and they will ensure that accountability, fairness and justice are preserved.
The coalition knows what it takes to keep Australians safe and, critically, we listen to the experts about the best ways to do this. With this bill we are demonstrating that yet again. We need to send an ongoing message to those who would threaten our community and reject our way of life. To fight overseas for terrorist groups against Australia's national interest or to plan or execute acts of terrorism that harm fellow citizens or the infrastructure on which we rely are actions that Australians will not tolerate. There is no such thing as a minor terrorism offence, and there is no expiry date on our nation's rightful rejection of those of our own who seek to harm Australia or Australians.
This bill gives the minister greater discretion to meet our community's expectations and to remove individuals from among us where they have shattered this common bond and opposed our shared values. Wherever the opportunity exists, we need to protect our citizens from those who would do us harm. However, equally the bill gives the minister discretion to take individual circumstances into account and to decide on a case-by-case basis whether citizenship should be revoked. It also ensures that there are provisions to allow the reinstatement of an individual's citizenship where it is in the national interest or following judicial review.
Australians expect all of us in this place to help keep them safe, and they expect us to treat them fairly and within the law. That is our duty, and it is a duty that the Liberal-National coalition resolutely and steadfastly embrace. In improving Australia's processes for withdrawing the citizenship of those who have rejected our way of life, this bill makes an important contribution to our ability to fulfil that duty, and I commend it to the House.
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:
(1) welcomes the move by the Government to fix the significant problems with two of the existing terrorism-related citizenship loss provisions in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, sections 33AA and 35;
(2) recognises that sections 33AA and 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 operate in an uncontrolled and uncertain manner, which may lead to unintended or unforeseen adverse security outcomes;
(3) further recognises that the bill would replace sections 33AA and 35 with a ministerial decision-making model of citizenship-cessation, which will allow the potential for adverse security outcomes to be better managed; and
(4) calls on the Government to:
(a) ensure that the bill is on the strongest possible constitutional footing;
(b) also ensure that the powers in the bill are used judiciously and in the best interests of Australia and Australians; and
(c) implement the recommendations of Labor members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security".
Labor acknowledges the critical importance of protecting Australia's national security and the Australian community from terrorism. We will always support appropriate measures that achieve these goals. The citizenship loss provisions introduced in 2015 were always intended to be part of a suite of measures to protect Australia and Australians from terrorism.
Labor notes the recommendations of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that citizenship loss because of terrorist conduct may be necessary and proportionate in some cases. That is why Labor supported the 2015 legislation. But Labor has had concerns about the complexity and potential impact of this legislation. That is why PJCIS members issued a minority report in 2015 criticising the government's legislation and processes and recommending that provisions introduced by the 2015 act be referred immediately to the INSLM for review.
These concerns were borne out. In ASIO's submission to the PJCIS review of Australia's citizenship cessation laws in September of last year, ASIO explained that citizenship cessation should never be viewed as the only tool in the toolbox. ASIO explained that there may be occasions where the better security option will be that citizenship be retained. That is why removing the automatic citizenship loss provisions from our current legislation is so important. As the INSLM recommended in his 2019 inquiry, these provisions operate in an uncertain and uncontrolled manner and need to be repealed as a matter of urgency. As it stands, and as the Department of Home Affairs admitted in PJCIS hearings last year, under the current legislation there may be cases where an individual's Australian citizenship has ceased under the law but the government is not aware that this has occurred. This needs to change as a matter of urgency.
Labor notes that the government has acted on the INSLM's recommendations that the current operation-of-law model, where a dual national's Australian citizenship is automatically renounced through their actions, will be replaced by a ministerial decision model. This bill, while still far from perfect in the opposition's view, will fix this important issue and introduce a range of other needed provisions. We take our commitment to national security seriously, as we all should, and I commend the second reading amendment and the bill to the House.
I thank the member for his contribution. Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
I thank the member for Cowan. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, and to this the honourable member for Shortland has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Before I get into the detail of this bill, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019, I'd like to take a little bit of time to speak to the substantive issue of this bill, which is the issue of citizenship. Like all the members of this House, I attend citizenship ceremonies and am often asked to preside over citizenship ceremonies welcoming new Australians to our Australian family. Some of them, of course, have been here years—I think I met somebody who had been here 55 years and had decided to finally take up citizenship—and others a lot less than that. But there is one part of the citizenship ceremony that never ceases to move me. It is an extraordinary part of that ceremony, and that is the pledge of allegiance, because, in Australia, we don't just pledge allegiance to the country. Our pledge is not just to Australia but to Australia and her people. That is an extraordinary thing—that, when somebody takes up citizenship, they are pledging their allegiance not just to this imagined idea of a nation and borders but to the human condition of shared responsibilities, shared values and common goals of the Australian people.
So the conferral and the revocation of citizenship should not be taken lightly. Citizenship is not just the conferral of a formal status, a piece of paper, but a pledge that recognises an act that carries with it rights and responsibilities—above all, the responsibility to fellow Australians, to their wellbeing and, indeed, to their safety and their security. When new Australians take that pledge, they are, as we all are, conferring upon themselves an act of taking responsibility for the safety and security of their fellow Australians.
That said, there can be no greater responsibility of government than to ensure and protect that safety and security, and that is why Labor is not opposing this particular citizenship cessation bill. This bill has been through the PJCIS, and Labor members of that committee welcomed the proposal in this bill to replace the existing operation of the law in citizenship loss provisions, known as sections 33AA and 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, with a new part which requires a ministerial decision-making model of citizenship cessation.
This is the primary reason why we are supporting this bill—because that part of the act that was first introduced in 2015 around the cessation of citizenship was, indeed, a flawed model, as has been pointed out by security agencies and experts along the way. Under those sections, sections 33AA and 35, any dual-national citizen—and I stress that it's dual-national citizens—would lose their Australian citizenship automatically if they engaged in terrorism related conduct that repudiates their allegiance to Australia and, I would add here, to her people, coming back to my opening remarks about the pledge of allegiance to Australia and her people. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, in his review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of terrorism-related citizenship loss provisions contained in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, made very clear that those provisions operate in an uncontrolled and uncertain manner. The implications in the counterterrorism space, particularly of having provisions that are not subject to rigorous and robust monitoring and are able to operate in such an uncontrolled manner, really undermine the effectiveness of our counterterrorism efforts. So it is very reasonable, but also extremely important, that these sections of the current act be repudiated and replaced with a new model of ministerial decision-making. In accordance with the monitor's recommendations, both of those sections were replaced, and we stress that those must be repealed urgently, which is why we lend our support to this bill.
The bill, however, is not without its faults, and these faults have been made clear today by the member for Isaacs, the shadow Attorney-General. They've also been made clear by Labor members of the PJCIS who issued additional comments on the bill. I stress again, as did the member for Isaacs, that we would not oppose the bill in its entirety because of the urgency of repealing sections 33AA and 35 and replacing them with the ministerial decision-making model.
Some of the other key recommendations in the monitor's report really have not been adopted by the government, including the proposal in relation to the availability of merits review. Labor is concerned that some of the other features of the bill have not been addressed adequately, which is why Labor members of the PJCIS issued some additional comments.
There's a history to this bill. This report marks the fourth time that the committee has issued a report in relation to the terrorism-related citizenship loss provisions of the Australian Citizenship Act of 2007. The first time that citizenship loss was considered was in 2015, at which point the committee issued a very detailed 218-page report with 27 recommendations, following the review of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, which first introduced section 33AA, section 35 and section 35A into the Australian Citizenship Act. Collectively, those sections would allow for the repudiation of citizenship.
The committee's 2015 report was fairly extensive, as I mentioned—218 pages and 27 recommendations. It considered a whole range of issues and concerns raised by submitters, including things like the meaning and value of Australian citizenship and the effectiveness of citizenship cessation in combating terrorism. That's something that I've spoken about before in this House, in relation to a number of other terrorism related provisions that have been introduced in this House since my time as the member for Cowan. It also considered Australia's international obligations—again, I think this is something that warrants further consideration—and whether the citizenship loss provisions were constitutional.
Despite also being raised by submitters in each of the committee's three subsequent inquiries, Labor members are disappointed that the committee's three subsequent reports, including this report, have failed to engage adequately with those same issues and concerns. I would reiterate that, to my mind, from the years that I spent studying and researching this issue, these are extremely important issues that we need to be considering in any counterterrorism response. The value of Australian citizenship, the effectiveness of citizenship cessation in combatting terrorism—in fact, the effectiveness of any legislation that's introduced in this House in combatting terrorism—our international obligations and maintaining a proportionate response, are extremely important, particularly in light of the fact that, sadly, we have not seen an end to terrorism and ISIS and the likelihood of other so-called theatres of jihad emerging in different parts of the world.
The rationale for terrorism-related citizenship loss provisions is looked at in two ways: a national security rationale and a symbolic rationale. These two rationales should not be seen in opposition to each other. Indeed, they shouldn't be seen as autonomous or discrete factors when we consider counterterrorism legislation and our response to counterterrorism. As ASIO pointed out in its submission to the inquiry on Australian citizenship loss:
In a globally interconnected world, the location of an individual offshore as a result of citizenship cessation will not eliminate any direct threat they pose to Australian or other interests overseas …
It will not prevent their reach back into Australia to inspire, encourage or direct onshore activities that are prejudicial to security—including onshore attacks.
That quote really does, to me, encapsulate the modern nature of terrorism, where it's not just about physical or hard security but also about the securitisation of values. That is why I say that the national security rationale and the symbolic rationale should not be considered as two very different rationales that we need to pursue, and we need to look at an integrated framework and an integrated response that protects physical things as well as the things that we value around Australian citizenship, including that pledge of allegiance to Australia and her people.
In closing, I point the House to the comments made by the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, around the issues that the Labor members of the PJCIS raised and their concerns with this bill. But I also reiterate the importance and the urgency of passing this bill today, to ensure that the sections in the existing citizenship loss provisions that are ineffective and potentially counterproductive are removed and replaced by a ministerial decision-making model of citizenship cessation. I commend the Labor members of the PJCIS for their comments on this and indeed all members of the PJCIS for the work that they've done on this and the bipartisan nature with which national security in this country proceeds.
[by video link] I want to make a few brief comments on behalf of the Greens now. Some fuller comments will be made by our justice spokesperson, Senator McKim, when the bill reaches the Senate. We're dealing, in the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019, with one of the most critical decisions that could ever be made about someone, which is to strip them of their citizenship. We're dealing with a situation where someone has Australian citizenship and has citizenship of another country and the government wants to strip that person of their Australian citizenship. Taking someone's citizenship away when they have got it either because they were born here or they've taken the step to get Australian citizenship is one of the most fundamental decisions that a government can make, because you basically lose all your rights with respect to the country that you're a citizen of, including, fundamentally, the right to even live here. So we're dealing with a situation where a government can make a decision—in this instance, under this bill, through the stroke of a pen—that renders someone potentially not stateless, because they have to have citizenship of another country, but unable to be in Australia and enjoy all the rights and privileges of an Australian citizen.
The government's approach, prior to this bill, has been to say that will just be automatic on the occurrence of certain events. You get no quibble from us. I think everyone would agree that many of the events that are covered under this bill are heinous events and attacks on the Australian people. The government's approach, instead of saying, 'If someone has committed a crime, you bring them before a court, you try them and, if they've done something wrong, you lock them up and they pay the penalty'—which is the way the rule of law works—is to say, 'If they've done these things then you just strip them of their citizenship, and it happens automatically.' That's been the government's approach up till now. Not surprisingly, a lot of people have questioned whether that is the right approach from the perspective of combating terrorism and whether it is even constitutional. The normal rule-of-law process is that you get tried in a court: you get brought there, you get convicted if you've done something wrong and you get sentenced. If instead the government is able to simply say, 'You lose your citizenship,' serious questions are raised about what that means for the rule of law, what that means for our fight against terrorism, whether it's even effective, and whether it is even a constitutional approach. In a sense, the shift that has been made in principle to say, 'Let's move away from something being an automatic decision to something that is subject to some form of potentially challengeable decision,' might have something going for it. It makes a bad situation slightly better. Indeed, it's something the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor has called for. It has said there are real problems with this approach of simply saying we are going to junk the rule of law and instead have legislation that automatically strips someone of their citizenship.
The problem is that this bill doesn't just simply move away from that automatic approach, if you want to call it that, to one where the minister has to make the decision; it does other things as well that aren't picking up the independent recommendations made by the national security monitor, and that is cause for great concern. It gives the minister enormous discretionary power and essentially lowers the bar of the test that the minister has to apply. But then, when the minister makes the decisions, there are restrictions on the procedural safeguards that you might expect to be there—for example, judicial review is diminished and merits review is removed. Those procedural safeguards that you might want when a minister is making such a significant decision are not there in the way that they should be and are not there in the way that has been recommended. You also end up, therefore, in a situation where decisions could be made by a minister who has enormous power that are not only not challengeable but, contrary to one of the problems the bill was designed to address, could potentially render someone stateless. What happens if the other country to which the person has a dual nationality also says that they are not interested in having them back? You could potentially end up in a situation where, instead of having someone who has done something wrong in prison, where we know who and where they are, they could say Australia's shutting the door to them and other countries are shutting the doors to them, and they could potentially become rogue agents on the world stage.
Fundamentally, giving this minister—the minister we have at the moment—significant power is also of grave concern. In order to diminish the risk of terrorist attacks against Australia by Australian citizens and to minimise the risk that people who are Australian citizens might want to start doing things that cause harm against the Australian people, one of the best things that we can do is make sure that Australia is a place where everyone feels that they have a place. In other words, address risks of social exclusion from the beginning. A lot of people will say that one of the steps—of course, it's a multifaceted problem; there's no silver bullet here—to address the risk of radicalisation is to address issues of inclusion from the beginning and inclusion in all its forms.
Let us not forget, though, that the very same minister who is going to get enormous powers under this legislation—including, namely, the power to determine whether someone is a citizen—is the same minister who is quite happy to whip up hatred against individual groups of people based on their ethnicity in order to try to win votes. I remember Minister Dutton saying very, very clearly, that apparently people in Melbourne, where I am from, were afraid to go out to dinner because we were worried about African gangs, in his words. What rubbish! That was simply not true. What I can say is the case is that when Minister Dutton goes and says things like that, when we hear these terrible statements that are made using race to try to win votes—the minister is worried about losing votes to One Nation, so he tries to use race and racism in order to win votes—that increases the risk of social exclusion. That does not make everyone in Australia feel that Australia is a place where they have got a place. So, rather than get up with chest-thumping rhetoric about how we need to give the minister more power to strip people of their citizenship, the minister should first have a look at his own words and what he might be doing to increase dislocation and social exclusion in Australia, to foment discord just in order to win a few votes and to use race to try and win votes.
If the government had taken a more consistent approach to making Australia a more inclusive place and had been prepared to stand up to the racism that we see peddled across society, then the government might be able to come to this chamber with a bit more seriousness and with cleaner hands and say, 'We need to take steps to deal with people who commit heinous acts against this country.' But the government do not come to this debate with clean hands; the government come to this debate with a history of using race to try and win votes. So the government come to this debate, on the one hand, saying that they are very concerned about Australia's safety and, on the other hand, doing things that they should not be doing that increase the risk that people will feel Australia is a place to attack rather than a place to call home. The government needs to go back to square one in thinking about its approach to ensuring social cohesion in this country, and the government needs to ditch the vile racism of trying to drive wedges in the Australian population.
On the bill itself, as I mentioned, further comments will be made when this bill reaches the Senate. It is very, very disappointing that the bill looks likely to pass despite the fact that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's recommendations are not going to be picked up. As I've said before, we may end up in a situation where the provisions on the automatic cessation of citizenship—which is an important issue with respect to the rule of law—are removed from the act but where a minister who does not have a good record for standing up for values of equality in this country will now have a significant amount of power, without the capacity to be held accountable. Those are recommendations that were made, and those are recommendations that should be implemented if we are going to give this minister such significant powers.
I, too, would like to make a contribution on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019. I make it clear from the outset that Labor will be supporting the passage of the bill, but I do wish those opposite would have regard to the amendment that has been moved by the opposition in relation to this matter. We welcome the fact that the bill picks up many of the recommendations of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. I say 'picks up many' because it doesn't pick up all those recommendations. Some of those recommendations have also been supported by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I will come back to those.
I want to emphasise the fact that Labor will always work with those opposite when it comes to issues of national security and safeguarding the nation and its people. These are things that should be beyond politics and certainly beyond the sabre rattling that goes on when we talk about the issue of immigration and refugees. This debate must be contained to addressing issues of national threat, particularly as they relate to terrorism. Having said that, the simple fact is that, unfortunately, the Australian terrorism threat level still remains at 'probable'. This means that there is credible intelligence from the security agencies to indicate that individuals or groups continue to have an intent and a capability to conduct terrorist attacks against our nation.
In this environment, it's important that we strike the right balance to ensure that our laws keep Australia as a nation, and its people, safe from the threat of terrorism. The bill amends the current terrorism-related citizenship loss provisions for dual citizenship in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, to which amendments were passed in 2015. I might add that those amendments were passed with bipartisan support. The citizenship loss provisions were always intended to be part of a suite of measures to protect the community from terrorism. The advice of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the PJCIS was that citizenship loss because of terrorism may be necessary and proportional, in some cases.
But, in effect, the bill changes the way in which citizenship is lost, by moving from the automatic loss-of-citizenship model to a ministerial decision-making model. This addresses issues where it may be the case that an individual Australian citizen has ceased to be an Australian citizen under law but where the government may not even be aware of it. Labor has previously and consistently criticised the automatic loss model and advocated a decision-making model where the decision is to be made by the minister.
The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor recommended in 2019 that automatic loss in the current model should be repealed urgently and replaced with a decision-making model. It determined these measures to be, effectively, uncontrolled and uncertain. It really should fall to the minister to make a determination, and the minister's decision-making process could be subject to judicial review. It's also a measure which is welcomed by the Law Council of Australia, which noted the INSLM's comment that automatic loss of citizenship by conduct is 'not a necessary or proportionate response to the threat of terrorism'. Similarly, ASIO has emphasised that the blanket, automatic cessation of citizenship measures introduced in 2015 may be counterproductive. They said:
There may be occasions where the better security outcome would be that citizenship is retained, despite a person meeting the legislative criteria for citizenship cessation—
because, they said—
In some instances, citizenship cessation will curtail a range of threat mitigation capabilities available to Australian authorities.
Essentially, what ASIO is saying there is that there could be various options which are curtailed if this is just a blanket action taken simply because of an individual's conduct or a group's activity. There may be other things in play which need to be considered, and it's appropriate for those to be considered by the minister responsible.
The bill also introduces a range of other changes, including amending the sentencing term threshold, from six to three years, for which a person convicted of a specific terrorism offence may be considered for citizenship cessation. This would lessen the period for the new sentencing threshold to three years for conduct engaged in on or after 29 May 2003. Another change is to the stateless test so that the minister is not permitted to make a citizenship cessation if the minister is satisfied that the person would then effectively become stateless. It also amends the provisions for giving notice of a citizenship cessation, including the provision where the determination to withhold notice not being revoked within five years is automatically taken as being revoked. And there is a new process for revocation of citizenship cessation determinations by which the person may apply to have the determination revoked and where they will ultimately have the ability to review the minister's decision in a court, through judicial review. These are significant changes in the bill which is before the House.
While we welcome the ministerial decision-making model for the citizenship cessation, in this bill the government has still not addressed a number of key issues, including some of the recommendations by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. These include the retrospective application of provisions for the relevant convictions and the reduction of the sentencing threshold for cessation based on conviction for certain offences. Other issues are also noted, including the lack of recourse to a merits based review under the bill, with judicial review the only option under this bill that would be available in relation to the minister's decision. That means that this will be an inadequate oversight of the minister's power, we would suggest. There are also other issues posed by the changes in respect of the statelessness test under the bill, increasing the risk of a person becoming stateless. The measures will also allow a minister to make the citizenship cessation determination if reasonable but mistaken matters are brought before the minister. Therefore, other than simply waiting for final judicial review, there is no prospect of the minister having the option of conducting a merits based review of the decision.
As I said, we support the passage of this bill. We think the government has introduced a number of provisions which will ensure that the provisions for cessation of citizenship for dual citizens occurring due to issues of terrorism have been fine-tuned to ensure that the minister is the decision-maker, as opposed to the more legalistic situation where the actions would be the sole determinant of whether a citizenship would be revoked. We note the fact that the minister's decision would be subject to solely judicial review and presumably through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. These are reasonable matters, and it is reasonable that the decision be made by the minister responsible, as opposed to simply relying on automatic revocation of citizenship. I support the bill. I also support the amendment which accompanies this bill. I would request those opposite to have regard to that amendment.
I want to say thank you to all of the members who have contributed to the debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019 continues the government's efforts to address the very real threat of terrorism and delivers on our commitment to keep the Australian community safe.
The bill's central reform is the replacement of the current operation-of-law provision for citizenship cessation with a ministerial decision-making arrangement. This is a key recommendation of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor following his review of the current citizenship loss provisions. In his report, the INSLM states:
The notion of allegiance by citizens to Australia is thought by some to be outdated; however, there can be no doubt of its current legal relevance in international law, the law of Australia and the laws of other countries …
In recognising the importance of laws to cease a person's citizenship, the INSLM recommended that sections 33AA and 35 be replaced with a ministerial decision-making model. Under this model, the Minister for Home Affairs can determine that a person ceases to be an Australian citizen if satisfied that their conduct demonstrates a repudiation of their allegiance to Australia and that it is not in the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen.
Importantly, the bill provides that the minister cannot seize a person's citizenship if it would result in the person not being a citizen or national of any other country. The provisions of the bill will apply to dual citizens who engage in specified terrorism related conduct, who fight for or are in service of a specified terrorist organisation overseas, or who have been convicted of specified terrorism related offences and sentenced to a period or periods of imprisonment totalling at least three years.
I would like to say thank you again to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for its work on this bill through its inquiry and recommendations. The committee's advisory report on the bill made three substantive recommendations. Specifically, the committee recommended that the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to require the committee to commence a further review of the provisions in this bill in three years time. The committee also recommended that the explanatory memorandum clarify that the minister must be reasonably satisfied of the matters proposed in section 36B(1) of the bill—that is, the minister must be satisfied that the person is engaged in terrorism related conduct, which is a repudiation of their allegiance to Australia, and that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen. The committee also recommended that the EM clarify matters which must be taken into account in making or revoking citizenship cessation determinations. The government supports the committee's recommendations, and I'll shortly be moving an amendment to implement the committee's recommendation for a further review. I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum, which provides additional clarifying material in response to the first and second recommendations of the PJCIS as well as advice of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.
The amendments in the bill build on, adapt and modernise the terrorism-related citizenship cessation provisions. They strengthen Australia's ability to respond to increasingly complex national security challenges. The amendments, further, establish citizenship cessation to be considered alongside other measures including control orders, prosecution, temporary exclusion orders, the Commonwealth high-risk terrorist offenders scheme and countering violent extremism programs. That can be applied appropriately and proportionately to keep our communities safe.
The overarching purpose of the bill remains the same as when citizenship cessation provisions for terrorism conduct were first passed into law in 2015. The parliament recognised then, as it does now, that Australian citizenship is a common bond involving reciprocal rights and obligations. Citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, sever that bond and repudiate their allegiance to Australia. A citizen's duty of allegiance to Australia is not created by the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 but it is recognised by it, and this bill reinforces that obligation. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019 continues the Morrison government's work to protect Australians and our way of life and to keep our communities safe. The bill deserves the support of all members and I commend the bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Shortland 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.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019 in response to the recommendation of the PJCIS. I move the government amendment on sheet RC116:
(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 19 (line 28), omit "review, by 30 June 2021,", substitute "commence, by the third anniversary of the day the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Act 2020 commenced, a review of".
The amendment to the bill will require the committee to commence a further review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of Australia's terrorism-related citizenship loss provisions in three years time. It's essential Australia's counterterrorism laws continue to evolve and adapt as the threat environment changes. Accordingly, the government welcomes the committee's advice for this further review. I commend the amendment to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) today's National Accounts confirm Australia is in recession for the first time in three decades;
(b) Australia has plunged into the worst recession in almost a century;
(c) one million Australians are out of work, with 400,000 more expected to lose their jobs by Christmas;
(d) the Reserve Bank Governor says unemployment is going to be higher for longer, and still around seven per cent in two years' time; and
(e) the Prime Minister is withdrawing support for Australians and the economy; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Government to develop a plan to create jobs for Australians instead of withdrawing support and cutting wages.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) today's National Accounts confirm Australia is in recession for the first time in three decades;
(b) Australia has plunged into the worst recession in almost a century;
(c) one million Australians are out of work, with 400,000 more expected to lose their jobs by Christmas;
(d) the Reserve Bank Governor says unemployment is going to be higher for longer, and still around seven per cent in two years' time; and
(e) the Prime Minister is withdrawing support for Australians and the economy; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Government to develop a plan to create jobs for Australians instead of withdrawing support and cutting wages.
At the very time when the economy is under pressure and unemployment is going up, support for the unemployed is going down, both in terms of the JobKeeper reductions, in terms of rates, and in terms of the withdrawal of support—
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? The member for Rankin.
The deepest recession on record, a million unemployed and rising, and still no plan—
The member for Rankin will resume his seat. The minister has the call.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the motion for the suspension of standing orders be disagreed to.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Grayndler's private Members' business notice relating to the disallowance of the Australian Postal Corporation (Performance Standards) Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2020, and presented to the House on 10 June 2020, being called on immediately.
The reason that I moved this motion is that the member for Grayndler put a motion on the Notice Paper calling for the disallowance of Australia Post regulations made by me as minister which temporarily varied what Australia Post is required to do in delivering letters to enable it to better respond to COVID-19 and to keep delivering parcels and letters. This was part of a baseless scare campaign in the lead-up to the Eden-Monaro by-election.
A similar disallowance motion has been moved and defeated in the other place, and it is now urgent that the member for Grayndler's disallowance motion in this House be debated. It is urgent for several reasons—first because, if not debated, after a period of 15 sitting days the motion takes effect, so it is urgent that it be voted on. Second, it is also urgent because it's important that Australians understand just how misleading the claims made by Labor on this issue have been. The claims made by Labor are untrue in multiple respects. It's been claimed by the Labor Party that Australia Post will cut jobs and remove one in four posties. This is not true. Australia Post has said there will be no forced redundancies or plans to cut posties' take-home pay due to the new temporary arrangements. Many posties will continue delivering letters on bikes, and others will be retrained to deliver parcels in vans, putting them where the work is, securing their jobs with Australia Post and better meeting the increasing needs of Australians for parcel deliveries.
It's been claimed, falsely, by Labor and by the unions that Australia Post want to cut delivery services in half. Again, this is not true. Australia Post is permitted to adjust its delivery frequency, in metropolitan areas only, from every business day to every second business day. Delivery frequency in rural, regional and remote areas will not change.
It's been claimed that waiting times for letters will more than double, from three to seven days. This not true. Mail speed standards for regular interstate letters—that's to say, mail travelling around the country—have not changed. Whether measured in business days or in actual days, the speed of delivery for intrastate mail has changed by only one or two days for regular intrastate letters, not by four days as suggested. It has been claimed by Labor and the unions that regional Australians and small businesses will be disadvantaged compared to metropolitan areas. This is not true. While the delivery frequency of regular mail has been adjusted in metropolitan areas, the delivery frequency for regular mail for rural, regional and remote areas was protected and remains unchanged.
Licensed post offices, which, together with community postal agencies, represent around 2,300 small businesses in regional and rural communities, have come out in support of the temporary regulatory changes. It's quite instructive to read what it is that the licensed post offices association, LPOGroup, has had to say. It said:
LPOG does not support the current media campaign by the CEPU that can be broadly described as an attempt to protect an inefficient letter delivery service from the winds of change that have been blowing for many years.
… … …
The massive ongoing decline in both business and social mail is understood all around the world and it is also that Australia Post as a postal service must also change to meet the changed customer preferences.
Those are the words of the licensed post office group, and it does know, I would suggest to you, a little bit about the postal service and how it operates. This measure will deliver benefits to community postal agencies representing around 2,300 small businesses in regional and remote communities, and that's why they've come out in active support of the changes that our government has introduced through the making of this regulatory relief.
It's also been falsely claimed by Labor and by the unions that vulnerable Australians will be most impacted by the changes. Indeed, who can forget the memorable claim from the Leader of the Opposition that this was about isolated and vulnerable Australians? It was about one isolated and vulnerable Australian, the Leader of the Opposition himself. The claim that vulnerable Australians will be most impacted by the changes is simply not true. These temporary regulatory changes give Australia Post flexibility to provide additional services that better support vulnerable Australians, such as delivering medicines and grocery boxes to those in need, those who may not be able to leave their homes because of isolation.
It has been claimed falsely that these changes are permanent. Again, this is not true. It is one of a wide range of claims made by Labor and the unions in relation to this temporary regulatory change which are not true. Let's be clear: on the face of the regulations as drafted, these regulations are written such that the changes will automatically end on 30 June 2021. That is how they are drafted. That is how they operate. I make the further point that the government has made it clear that we will assess the effect of these temporary changes before the end of the year and decide if they are to stay in place for the full period expected. Any extension of the temporary relief measures will be informed by appropriate consultations. Our position on this, therefore, is clear.
We had the go-to claim from the opposition when trying to rev up a scare campaign, the same kind of scare campaign we've seen them use, for example, in the 2016 election when they made the ludicrous claim that this government had plans to privatise Medicare. Remember that ludicrous, false claim?
Of course, we saw another ludicrous, false claim from Labor in the context of the 2020 Eden-Monaro by-election. We had the claim that the government wanted to privatise Australia Post. This is the one they go to that's in the bottom drawer when they've run out of all other scares that they can mount. We had this claim from Labor that the government apparently wanted to privatise Australia Post. Let us be absolutely clear on that and let me repeat the government's position: the Morrison government is fully committed to Australia Post remaining in government ownership. There will be no change to Australia Post ownership; it will remain government owned.
This was but one of the rich array of falsehoods and misleading claims made by the opposition and by others in the context of this debate. That's why it is important that standing orders be suspended to allow this matter to be brought on for debate now. For all of these reasons, this matter is urgent and standing orders must be suspended.
The timing of this government couldn't be worse. Less than an hour after Australia officially went into the first recession in 30 years, they're in here bringing on a debate about cutting jobs at Australia Post. Be in no doubt: that's what it is about. This is just as two things have occurred: (1) Australia is in recession for the first time in three decades and (2) Australia Post has just posted record revenue. The fact is that this morning we also had the report that Australia Post has asked workers to volunteer to help clear a massive backlog of parcels caused by the coronavirus pandemic. But—wait for this—the Australia Post workers have to use their own cars at the same time. So they're asking them to volunteer to work, using their own cars, to deliver parcels at the very same time as they're introducing changes in regulations that will mean fewer staff. That will mean a delay in services for people right around Australia—a delay in deliveries.
We've heard them talk about it, 'Oh, people don't use letters anymore.' Really? Is that right? Why is it that every kid out there knows, if they're lucky enough to have a grandma or a grandfather, about getting that card in the mail with $5 in it. My boy is 19 and he still gets a couple of cards, and he appreciates them at age 19! I think he'll keep that going as long as he can! The fact is that Australia Post still provides an absolutely essential service. So on the one hand we have workers being asked to volunteer and to use their own cars to deliver parcels, and on the other hand what do we have? Senior executives. How are they going? Senior executives have $7 million in bonus payments—that's how well they're going. We have to cut back on workers on the front line; they have to volunteer and they have to use their own cars. But at the top end there are $7 million in bonus payments. And those bonus payments are despite a message from Australia Post chief executive, Christine Holgate, to her staff in March, suggesting that not only would the executives forgo the bonuses but they would take a 20 per cent pay cut. But, of course, none of that has happened. The government is attempting here to halve postal deliveries and therefore threaten literally thousands of postie jobs.
Posties have one of those jobs, like the chemist, like banks used to when they had branches, where they are known throughout their community. The postie is someone who knows that you're away. They might pick up the newspapers if they're at the front of your house and haven't been put inside; they help out. They're people who are friends, not just workers. They're part of our local communities. And they're particularly important in regional Australia. At this time, when unemployment is going up, this is a part of government support that's going down. Those opposite have got something wrong. When you are in recession, what you should be doing is increasing government support. It's Keynesianism page 1; it's the stuff that's in bold. It is common sense and it is also particularly important in regional communities.
In moving this suspension, the minister spoke about Eden-Monaro. Let's talk about Eden-Monaro! I'm quite happy to talk about Eden-Monaro, where Kristy McBain, the new member for Eden-Monaro, proudly campaigned with the CEPU and with Australia Post workers, in support of their jobs. One of the reasons why Kristy McBain sits here today as the member from Eden-Monaro is that she stands up for her local community and stands up for local jobs—but of all days to speak about jobs!
As the minister said, these regulations were presented to the House on 10 June, but they sat there. They were made on 14 June. The government wouldn't bring on the debate. Remember the suspensions that we moved to bring on the debate? They never actually want to debate their own position. We just saw them, earlier on, shut down a debate on Australia's economic position—what the plan for the economy is. Even today they're not prepared to debate the economy. And, during the Eden-Monaro by-election, they certainly didn't want to talk about jobs; they didn't want to talk about jobs in regional Australia. That's because this government, which has presided over the first recession in 30 years, which produced mugs with 'Back in Black' on them—they'll produce ones for this year's budget, when it comes down in a month or so, that say 'Back in Bleak'; that's what they should say under this government—during the election campaign, had the Prime Minister saying that we 'were in surplus in the future, next year'. The government had 'brought the budget back to surplus next year'—an exercise in linguistic contortion that deserves a mug. That deserves a mug.
The problem for the government is that they're treating Australians like mugs. The government are saying: 'We are going to increase the time that it takes for a letter to get from A to B. We'll extend it by days. We'll cut service delivery to a couple of times a week. But that won't cost jobs and that won't mean less service.' It is quite extraordinary that this government is prepared to argue in a way that is completely against all logic. They say that they want to stand up for quiet Australians. What they really want is for Australians to be quiet about the impact of changes they are making not just to this but combined with the JobKeeper updated legislation that provided for cuts in wages for some of the poorest paid workers. People like retail workers had their wages slashed by $300. The government wouldn't even support putting in a safety net at the same level as JobKeeper. It is quite extraordinary.
Under these provisions, we know that people in regional Australia, who already wait longer for letters than those in my electorate—or in the electorate of the member for Bradfield, who was so familiar with different regional areas that he ran for Bradfield and for Cook in preselection against the current Prime Minister; he was flexible about where things were located!—as a result of this will get less service. And that is just one further way that the government is letting down regional Australia.
And where are the Nats on this? We'll wait and see if they come in and how they'll vote on this, because the National Party of course have abandoned regional Australia.
So, at a time when families are struggling to pay their bills and we need to create jobs, not cut jobs, this is the wrong move by this government. That's why we should oppose the suspension of standing orders, because if it doesn't get up then the regulations won't come in. So we'll be voting against the suspension, and then we'll be moving the proposition, if we are not successful in opposing the suspension. (Time expired)
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Through the course of the pandemic, we've often heard the expression, 'We're all in this together.' So our message to the minister is: 'When you say it, mean it,' because a lot of Australia Post workers—and these are average Australians who are driven very much not by the pay packet, and certainly not by the pay packets earned by the executives in Australia Post—do their work from a sense of service, and, importantly, they do it at times and in a way that most average Australians would recognise is pretty hard going.
Every single person on this side of the House is familiar with Australia Post workers and knows what their day looks like, and I will give you a sense of what it's like. Every single one of us on this side of the House is prepared to stand with average Australians who work at Australia Post, and we know what they do—like the van drivers who start their day at the end of our day clearing the mail; like the mail centre workers whose working day is always the night; like the line-haul drivers who cross state lines at midnight, delivering mail; like the posties who are up before dawn getting ready to do their day delivery; like the people you see in the post offices who greet you and help every single person in the community and know your name; even down to the video coders who make sure that your bad handwriting is not going to stop the mail being delivered. It's all those average Australians who we stand up for and are proud to stand up for in this place. They, through the course of this, had to live with the kind of job anxiety and insecurity and this whole crisis that had been cultivated by Australia Post managers, backed in by the government, who, we're told, will bring in a whole series of temporary changes that will last until June next year—not very temporary for them! They're the ones who saw their overtime cut, the ones who saw the amount of hours that they work cut, the ones who knew that their jobs were likely to be cut. At a time when they knew how much post was going through, the postal execs a few months earlier were saying, 'Post volumes are dropping.' Even this minister was saying that the numbers were dropping. What we discovered, through the parliament that this government didn't want to sit and the parliament from which this government didn't want the answers to come out, was that mail volumes were actually going up in the middle of the pandemic—going up!
So we've had a crisis generated by Post managers a few months earlier, and then, a few months later, we've had the managing director of Australia Post saying: 'At Australia Post, it's Christmas every day'—bragging about how much is going through Australia Post. These are the same executives who, after creating that level of crisis and that level of anxiety, then managed to reward themselves on a job well done by giving themselves big bonuses! The same people doing this are being supported by this government. Only this government can stand by. Only a Liberal MP could stand by and endorse the notion that you get a million-dollar bonus, or millions of dollars of bonuses, for scaring your workforce and lying to the public. Only the Liberals could back that in and only the Nationals could let them get away with it. Only the Nationals could—the people who are supposed to stand up for people in the bush, either for the Australia Post workers that are in regional communities or for the communities that those workers are helping. The Nats don't say a single thing about it. It is wrong on so many levels.
As the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out, after all that revenue is up. They're doing okay. They can see what's happening on parcels. They've had all this stuff happen. They award themselves a bonus in that way. Then after all that they say to Australia Post workers, 'Now, could you help us clear the mail with your own cars?' This is the genius of Australia Post management that they do that—'If you could just help us out in that way?'—after making them so nervous about what's happening.
The other thing is the minister is wrongly accusing our side of lies. When Australia Post workers were briefed in their workplace—
Order! The member for Chifley will resume seat. The minister.
The member's five minutes has come to an end.
It is 10 minutes. I call the member for Chifley.
Australia Post workers get told by their own managers to get ready for job losses. Their own managers are telling them that they will have to brace for job losses, and the government is out trying to suggest otherwise. Australia Post is out trying to suggest otherwise. Those postal workers know the way their work is configured and they are absolutely concerned by it. They are concerned by it. So why is it that Post and the government work so hard hand in hand denying the truth, saying that everything else is rosy? Of course, they are getting the licensed post offices in to back them up, because they're worried about their own futures as well. They know how their bread is buttered. They are hardly the most convincing audience to use to back you up. It is those postal workers that we feel most strongly for. It is those postal workers, as I said, that have a sense of service and a sense of duty and do stuff that most others Australians recognise is a hard job. They've been hard done by. They've been put in these positions where they are prepared to work with management. Postal workers know exactly what the minister has been saying. They get where technology is going. They understand the way that postal volumes have changed. They know they have to change with it, and they have over many years. They have worked with management. But this management crew that this government brought in—it was telling—would not let their workforce know before the public knew—
Order! Point of order, Minister?
The speaker is only entitled to speak for five minutes and has been going for some 7½ minutes. I ask that you consult with the Clerk.
The member for Chifley has the call. Point of order?
Point of order. I don't know who they are—they're not members of parliament—but people are coming in and wanting to negotiate on the floor directly with the clerks. If people are not members of parliament or clerks or attendants, they go to an adviser's seat and they wait there. They don't come in and try to take over the building. I don't know who that bloke is, but it cannot go on. He is not elected, and that sort of behaviour and pressure being put on the clerks should not be tolerated.
Order! The member for Chifley has the call.
By the way, those advisers, if they want to send a message, should try to use post these days! It'll get there in the end!
Here's the thing: most postal workers know that their workplace is changing, and they're prepared to work with Australia Post on it. The unions are also prepared to work on it. What was telling was: Post management, backed in by the government, didn't take their workforce into their confidence, didn't let them know. What happened was that most postal workers had to find out about their futures through the media. They did not find out from Post management bringing them into their confidence and working with them; it was all dropped in the media. Then Post management and the government wanted to use the message 'Trust us.' There was no climate of trust that was built up. There was no attempt to work with the workforce. There was no attempt to bring into confidence people whose livelihoods would be affected. You would think, at a time when the economy is under such pressure, when we should save every single job, that the government would work to protect ordinary workers under their umbrella, and they refused to. We stand with every Australia Post worker and the communities that depend on them to make sure that that service is upheld and that at this time, right now, in a recession, all jobs are protected.
The question is that the motion moved by the Minister for Communications be agreed to.
The
Mr Speaker, a point of order. It goes to the operation of the chamber and an issue that affects all members. It goes to the use of the advisers' boxes on both sides. I won't mention names, but, on recent occasions, there's been an increasing tendency for some staff, when they come in, to not go to the advisers' box but to come right to the floor of the chamber to try to grab the attention of either the minister at the table or, in this case, the Clerk, and try to conduct direct negotiations. It would be helpful to the operation of the chamber, and also to preserve the fact that the focus of the chamber is on—
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The member for Lingiari is not helping. The Manager of Opposition Business is articulating a point of view by way of a point of order, and I'd like to hear him without the cackle in the background.
Mr Speaker, I'd like to make a comment about it as well.
You don't do that by way of interjection. As someone who's been in this House since 1987, you should be aware of that.
Put simply—and I suspect I speak for all members—it would be helpful if a strong statement were made from the chair about the use of the advisers' boxes so the parliament can operate in its normal way.
I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. As he'd appreciate, I only entered the chamber in the minutes after this was raised. I did see him raising it on a television in my office and came in anticipating the division in any event.
I just want to be very clear about this. There have been issues over the years in both advisers' boxes, on the opposition and government sides. But I agree there has been an increasing tendency—I've dealt with a couple of issues myself. Just for clarity: the way this has worked over the years is, of course, that the government are responsible for their side and the opposition are responsible for their side, on the basis that the rules are very clear. They're advisers' boxes. There are attendants to take messages. That's why they're there. Ministers and shadow ministers and members can, of course, approach the advisers, but that's the way it works. Advisers—let me be very clear—cannot gesture, call, seek the assistance of a clerk or stand next to the advisers' box waiting for either an attendant or for a member of parliament to come to them. I want to be very clear about it.
At the moment, of course, we have a maximum of three advisers in the box for the physical-distancing requirements, so, if there are three in the box and another adviser comes in, they're not to take a seat. They can certainly give a document to an attendant or a message to another adviser or can, obviously, swap into a seat that's there. I think it will help if this statement is very clear. Enough of you know that some of us have been advisers before. I managed to do it without incident for 10 years—so I don't think I'm being too hard—as did a number of others. Obviously, if there is a repeat on any side, now that I've made this statement, of advisers not complying with what are very clear rules—and I have to say it's a privilege to sit, essentially, next to the floor of the House—those advisers will not be allowed in the advisers' box for an unspecified period of time.
Ms Swanson interjecting—
What did the member for Paterson say?
Ms Swanson interjecting—
Yes, okay. Well, that's probably why you weren't taking the point of order.
I move:
That the Australian Postal Corporation (Performance Standards) Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2020 made under the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 on 14 May 2020 and presented to the House on 10 June 2020, be disallowed.
This government is making a range of changes to workers' entitlements under the cover of the pandemic. This is not the only one. We have an attack on superannuation, even though it has been legislated and promised on not just one occasion. It was promised prior to the 2013 election, and that promise was broken. It was promised again prior to the 2016 election, and that promise was broken. It was promised again in the 2019 election, and that promise is going to be broken by those opposite if they can get away with it. They've done that.
They have, under the cover of the pandemic, extended the labour market flexibility changes that were there for companies that were in dire trouble to make sure that workers and employers could continue to keep their relationship into the future. They've extended those labour market flexibility provisions, which were agreed to by the unions, to what they call 'legacy cases'—that is, companies that are actually doing much better. They've introduced changes so that a worker who works for a company that is worse off and therefore still eligible for JobKeeper will receive a level of income support that's reduced but still there, but a worker who works for a company that's only had a 10 per cent reduction in its turnover could well lose 40 per cent of their hours and 40 per cent of their income. And who might they be? They're retail workers, hospitality workers and frontline workers. The government made that provision there as well, even though we offered to support a sensible suggestion of having a safety net so no-one could actually be worse off than they would be under JobKeeper. What we'll have is some workers who are working three days a week getting paid less than those workers who are not working at all because their companies have stood them down temporarily but they have access to JobKeeper. It's an extraordinary proposition from those opposite.
And then there's this proposition, at a time when Australia Post are doing 'extraordinarily well'—in their own words—and at a time when Australia Post had their busiest day on record yesterday, with 2.5 million letters and parcels delivered around the country. They are so busy that they've asked for volunteers to help deliver parcels using their own cars. These are the same workers who are having their conditions attacked by the Australia Post management, put there in cahoots by this government. This is a government that's never seen a worker entitlement that they didn't want to get rid of.
Scott Morrison made an election campaign vow to keep the promise of Australia for all Australians. Remember he said that? It turns out there was a little asterisk next to the word 'all', and the fine print is in the post. It's in the post; it's on the way. The fact is that those opposite aren't prepared to defend their position on the economy and aren't prepared to defend their position on jobs, of all days—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the motion moved by the minister for communications be agreed to.
The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Yes, a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is along the lines which I indicated to you when the division was called. We have unusual circumstances here, whereby the government has just moved to gag me, to stop me from speaking and participation in this debate. Having moved a suspension to bring on this very debate, they've then shut it down.
The circumstances are these: if, then, the motion isn't seconded, what will the circumstances be, whether we come back and debate it another day or whether a disallowance takes effect if it's not dealt with by the House? The government has chosen not to deal with it on the 11 days. We have tried to suspend standing orders in the past to deal with these regulations, going as far back as June. I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, as to what the circumstances would be if the motion isn't seconded. If the government wants to shut down debate, as happens every time I stand to my feet at the dispatch box, then it's up to them—of course, they have the numbers to do that. But I'm raising the issue of what the consequences of that are in terms of debate and outcomes in this House—in this particular example, what the implications would be for the disallowance motion that they seemed to be keen on half an hour ago but now want to shut down and not have a debate about.
I can only really be definitive about the first point which the Leader of the Opposition made. On the second point: I don't know all the details—the time line of the disallowance and all the rest of it—and I haven't dealt with one myself for years. There's a very simple proposition that applies to every motion: a motion that is not seconded lapses. There is no difference in any motion on that. Having said that, I now need to ask: is the motion seconded? There being no seconder, the motion then lapses.
Motion lapsed.
I continue my remarks on the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020 from where I left off the other night. I was making the point that the measures in this bill are not limited to the worst of the section 501 visa cancellations but that they apply to all persons in detention, including asylum seekers and visa overstayers, most of whom have not committed any serious criminal offences and who present no threat to Australian society whatsoever. They apply to people like the family from Biloela—a Sri Lankan mother, father and two young children—who have been kept on Christmas Island for the past year, at a cost to the taxpayer of millions of dollars, after having been for six or seven years good members of the Australian community where they lived and whose only crime is that they want to stay in Australia. Whether they should be allowed to stay in Australia is not the issue—there are legal processes in place that would determine that—but keeping them isolated on Christmas Island and reopening the detention facility solely for that family is neither reasonable, necessary nor proportionate to the risk they pose. It's an abuse of authority by the minister and a good example of why the minister should not be granted additional, unaccountable powers.
The minister and detention facility operators already have search and seizure powers to deal with the examples of contraband and illegal products used by the government to justify this legislation. Most of the things that the government wants to ban or confiscate are already illegal—the minister has actually used that term—and, as such, would be covered by existing state or federal laws. So it is clear that this legislation is primarily about targeting phones, which officers currently cannot confiscate and which some detainees allegedly use for illegal purposes and criminal activities. If phones are being used for criminal activity, I believe that authorities would already have the ability to confiscate them. Notwithstanding whether that is the case, I have no objection to ensuring that that particular ability is made absolutely clear. However, we know that there are very different cohorts of people being held in detention facilities and, once legislated, the rules about confiscation of items will apply to all detainees, who will be subjected to the discretion of the minister, administrators and staff of detention facilities. That in itself is unsatisfactory. Staff and officers of these centres are effectively being given greater authority than that of trained and sworn police officers.
Secondly, those who have had items, including phones, confiscated will inevitably persuade or force other, vulnerable detainees who have not had their items confiscated to hand over or share the items they need. So, in reality, other detainees will be put at risk unless they are kept separate from the high-risk detainees. I don't know whether that is going to be the case or not, but it is a serious concern because, if they are put under pressure by those who have had their phones and other items taken away from them, it will mean not only that their own safety cannot be secured but that they may in turn be forced to do things which will be detrimental to their applications to stay here.
Thirdly, for many asylum seekers their phone has become their only connection with their family, lawyers and others. The rate of mental trauma in detention facilities is already at a shameful level. There have been numerous reports over the years that have confirmed that that is the case. The reason for detaining these people is very different to that for detaining criminals. Confiscating their phones would be disastrous. In today's society, mobile phones are no longer a luxury. I can't imagine any adult wandering around this country who doesn't have a mobile phone. It has become literally a necessity of life, and it is equally so for detainees, particularly for those who have very little connection in this country but who have made some kind of effort to come here. Whether they are being held because they are an asylum seeker or for another reason, their only intent is that they want to stay in this country. For them it would be a very harsh penalty to take away the one item that keeps them connected with the outside world, particularly given that they have not been handed a criminal conviction. This legislation, to me, seems more about silencing people in detention facilities and preventing them from communicating with the outside world. One of the reasons they obviously do that is to expose the very atrocious conditions that they are sometimes subjected to. That is why I speak in support of Labor's amendments to this bill.
In concluding my remarks, I make this point: the Morrison government's oversight of the immigration system in Australia has been appalling. People are now waiting years to have their citizenship applications processed, and there is still a backlog of applications in the system—a backlog of tens of thousands of people. Around 180,000 people are waiting to have their partner visas processed, with an average processing time of around 28 months. That is over two years. At the commencement of this year, over 66½ thousand cases were before the immigration and refugee division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Just how long it will take to get through those cases is anyone's guess. As at 31 March, over 281,000 people were on bridging visas, awaiting their substantive visa applications to be processed. In addition to all of those backlogs, there are now thousands of Australian citizens stranded overseas who simply cannot get back home. None of these people are criminals or undesirables, but law-abiding citizens or applicants who are being treated shamefully by a country that claims the motto of 'a fair go'. This legislation is simply another example of the Morrison government's contemptible treatment of people who are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families, like so many other migrants to Australia have done before them.
Today I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020, more easily known as the 'taking away the mobile phones bill'.
I stand with the 154,340 people who have signed the petition opposing this bill. The stated purpose of this bill is to grant additional powers to the Australian Border Force to confiscate items deemed prohibited by the minister from those in immigration detention centres. The bill specifically targets the banning of mobile phones, SIM cards and internet enabled devices to detainees. The justification provided by the government is that there is an increasing proportion of detainees in immigration detention who are criminals whose visas have been revoked and who are awaiting deportation. These criminals, the government claims, are using mobile devices to order drugs, download paedophilia and run organised crime operations.
However, there's limited evidence presented to demonstrate this alleged risk or these facts. There's also little evidence provided by the government of criminal activity being conducted inside the detention centres. The government has not sufficiently justified the need for Border Force to have these very significant expanded powers. Where the devices have been used to conduct an illegal activity, there's already a body that has search and seizure powers in relation to criminal activity, and that is the police. Whilst I support strong law and order, the extent of these measures must be balanced by the cost to individual rights.
I have four major concerns about the actions of the government in relation to this bill. Firstly, the lack of justification for the bill and the risk that the powers will be used to withhold access to legal advice to detainees—that is a significant breach of human rights. Secondly—the absence of due process in the Senate inquiry. Thirdly—the need to end offshore detention and accept New Zealand's offer to take those left on Manus Island and in Papua New Guinea. And fourthly—concerns about those remaining in alternative places of detention.
This bill grants significant discretionary powers to the minister. Accordingly, adequate protections from abuse of power are needed, but are absent. Despite the recommendations of the committee, it has not been sufficiently justified to me that this bill and the powers contained within it are necessary. The powers represent a significant overreach and an unnecessary conference of powers to authorise officers who could be Border Force or—and this is important—private security contractors. This raises enormous alarm bells of abuse for me, and it should for most members in this parliament. The minister's response to the Senate committee's request for further information and a justification for the need for the provisions has not been published. The committee was concerned at the lack of justification for this bill, and, given that the minister's response is not published, there has certainly been nothing on the public record that alleviates that concern. I remain unconvinced as to the case for these powers. The Law Council of Australia—an important body—strongly object to this bill. They do not often take the position that there is no justification for or element of a bill that should be passed. However, in this case, that is exactly what they have done.
This is resurrected legislation. It was rejected in 2017. Most significantly, the bill makes no attempt to distinguish between the rights of the types of detainees. By tarring all detainees with the same brush, the bill violates the rights of many who have never committed a crime. They do not intend to use their devices for nefarious purposes, but, instead, they actually need them to keep in touch with their families, supporters and legal teams. These are basic rights of a free and democratic nation.
We have heard assurances that these powers would only be used in relation to detainees where there are criminal records. But there is nothing in the bill that actually provides any protection for refugees that are currently in indefinite detention and have committed no crimes and need their mobile phones to be able to access legal advice. While the bill does not mandate that the same rules apply to all detainees, it makes no provisions for the differentiation of detainees. It's all left to the discretion—again, this is important—of the manager of the detention centre to determine who has access to devices once the minister has deemed them to be prohibited. This is a very dangerous power to put in the hands of the manager of a detention centre.
I have received many emails and calls in relation to this issue. As far as I can tell, the only groups that support this legislation are those that stand to benefit from it: the government, the Department of Home Affairs, and Serco, the private company that staff and manage the detention centres. These groups stand to benefit from the legislation as it makes their job easier. It reduces the risk of being held accountable if there are breaches. It further weakens the rights of refugees and asylum seekers once they're held indefinitely in detention centres. Of course, the important groups that oppose this legislation include the Law Council of Australia, Amnesty International, the Refugee Law Centre and many others.
I always ask myself these questions: Is this legislation ethical? Is it good law? This is not good legislation. As stated by the Law Council of Australia, this bill has been reintroduced to the Australian parliament, despite a previously unsuccessful attempt, at a time of public emergency and reduced scrutiny. Immigration detention facilities must operate in accordance with the rule of law. Measures imposed on detainees must be necessary, reasonable and proportionate. No evidence presented to this parliament has indicated that the measures contained in this bill are reasonable or proportionate or necessary.
Administrative detention must not be of punitive character. The Constitution vests Commonwealth judicial power only in the courts, recognised in chapter III. This bill is inappropriate, as a sizeable percentage of immigration detainees and asylum seekers have committed no crime. The bill would significantly expand the warrantless search and seizure powers in the Migration Act. Current law, section 252(2), already allows discretionary search and seizure power with respect to a person detained, without a warrant, for the purpose of finding out whether a person is hiding a weapon or other thing capable of being used to inflict bodily injury, or to help the person escape. The bill expands this already broad power to allow search and seizure of a prohibited thing. The definition of a 'prohibited thing' can include anything the minister is satisfied is a risk to the health, safety or security of persons in the facility, or to the order of the facility, and declares by legislative instrument. So the order of the facility is really what we are getting to, and that is not defined in this bill, which imparts significant discretion to the minister. So if those pesky detainees seek legal advice or actually try to convey to the outside world some of the conditions in which they are held, that would be sufficient to justify that there is a problem to the order of the facility.
The bill explicitly anticipates mobile phones, SIM cards and internet capable computers and devices as examples of a prohibited thing. It is not evident how mobile phones consist a risk to health, safety or security. These items are often crucial to providing timely and detailed legal advice to persons in detention. They are also critical to communication with family and friends. For so many Australians, these periods of lockdown have been incredibly challenging. Imagine being in a lockdown, isolated, for seven years with no access to a phone to actually stay in touch with family or understand what your rights are.
The broad discretion granted to the minister may amount to an inappropriate delegation of legislative power. Search-and-seizure powers in subsection 252(2) and 252AA(1)(a) allow authorised officers to search or conduct screening of a person whether or not the officer has any suspicion that the person has a prohibited thing. So we already have a situation where someone can be searched without there even having to be a reasonable suspicion that there is a prohibited thing hidden on their person. Surely reasonable suspicion should be a minimum requirement for a search, otherwise there is substantial risk of abuse of human rights occurring. This is concerning. It brings back really concerning images and allegations of times when society has absolutely failed to protect human rights, and it's quite shameful that that is happening in the name of Australia.
This proposed breadth of powers opens the power to potential misuse. The bill, of course, interestingly, follows the 2018 full Federal Court decision of ARJ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, which held that a blanket policy that immigration detainees were not permitted to possess mobile phones and SIM cards lacked statutory authority and was invalid. Clearly the introduction of this bill is an attempt to circumvent the outcome of that case. As I said, many people in Warringah and elsewhere in Australia have contacted me in opposition to this bill. It does raise a lot of the peripheral issues that we do need to speak to. We have seen repeated attempts to ram it through without sufficient alteration or justification. To me, that demonstrates a real failing to grasp the need to put in place good law that has proper justification. We need better integrity. When the government attempted to pass the legislation in 2017 it failed, and yet it is presented again without substantially addressing any of those concerns.
I urge this government to withdraw the legislation and, at a minimum, amend the legislation to define and restrict its application to persons with a relevant criminal record. I also urge the government that we need to deal with this indefinite situation of detention of refugees. We know that there is an offer from New Zealand. I urge the government to expedite the acceptance of New Zealand's offer to welcome the 360-plus refugees who remain on Manus Island and in Papua New Guinea. These people have been waiting more than seven years. It is criminal. We hear people complaining about a few weeks of lockdown. Start imagining seven years! The US deal is almost done. I have been speaking with Amnesty International Australia, who recently met with the New Zealand High Commissioner to Australia, and she confirmed that the New Zealand deal to accept 150 refugees per year from Papua New Guinea and Manus Island is still on the table.
Why won't the government accept this offer?
They have said that the New Zealand deal would only be considered after the US deal was completed, but that deal is now almost done. Had the New Zealand offer been acted upon when it was made, a substantial number of refugees would already have been placed and moved to New Zealand. The other reason given, of course, is always that it's going to be music to the ears of people smugglers. I question the logic of why a New Zealand deal would be music where the US deal is not. The New Zealand offer was made in 2017, some three years ago, so 450 refugees could have been resettled there by now. There are around 360 refugees remaining in offshore detention. Therefore, all of the refugees remaining in PNG and Manus Island could have been in New Zealand by now.
The cost of holding refugees offshore—and this is relevant because Australia is in a recession, so we need to make sure public money is spent to the best effect for Australian people—is estimated at over $400,000 per person per year. That is ridiculous. Surely that is a cost we cannot afford in the current recession. I urge the government to consider releasing those refugees who remain in alternative places of detention and also in community detention. They were evacuated from offshore detention for medical reasons. They've been living without sufficient medical attention in hotels and confined living quarters. Surely the risk of releasing these people into appropriate community detention arrangements would be less costly and lead to better outcomes for all involved.
I would like to thank people in our community who are working so hard on behalf of refugees and trying to uphold Australia's reputation in the face of an onslaught and our failure to uphold basic human rights—people like Craig Foster, with his campaign of 'seven years too long'—hashtag #GameOver. This is a really important campaign, and I thank them and encourage them to continue until the job is done.
The Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020 is a renewed attempt by the government to amend the Migration Act to allow the minister to prohibit or ban almost any item from use within an immigration detention facility, including the alternative forms of detention facilities such as hotels like the Preston Mantra and the Kangaroo Point hotel. I cannot, at least in my initial review or analysis, understand this bill. What I mean by that is that I really can't fathom the government's rationale or reasoning, because prohibited items are already illegal under state, territory and Commonwealth laws, particularly drugs, child exploitation material or weapons, as they present an obvious risk to detainees and to staff. They should be prohibited.
Labor and I oppose this bill, in summary, for a couple of reasons: there is no justification for this bill and its sweeping powers, and it is also a bill which has clear impingements upon the human rights of detainees. So what is the reason, if not the reasoning, for the government to put this bill up again? Let me just go through some of these reasons why we oppose this bill. The first is that it is, I can only assume, another power grab by Minister Tudge and Minister Dutton. This is deja vu—another power grab from the Minister for Home Affairs, because the government already has broad powers under the Migration Act and has already utterly failed to make the case as to why illegal activities in detention centres cannot be handled on a case-by-case basis through those existing state, territory and Commonwealth laws. Again, this bill is deja vu. It's been here before, and it's been opposed before. It grants the Minister for Home Affairs more significant unchecked powers, giving the minister the ability to prohibit or ban almost any item from use within an immigration detention facility. Of course, we are concerned that the minister and the government have not established or even elaborated on how existing laws and common-law powers are insufficient in addressing those issues.
The bill also undermines Australia's commitment to human rights, fair and just legal processes, and natural justice. No matter who you are, you deserve to be treated fairly and you deserve to be treated with dignity, because this is Australia and people in immigration detention are people—people who are under our protection, who we are responsible for. Forty-two per cent of the total immigration detention cohort has been in detention for over a year. Almost 26 per cent of the total cohort has been in detention for over two years.
This bill would allow removal of phones, SIM cards and almost any other item. As we've heard, mobile phones generally provide a positive benefit to detainees and their welfare. I know this because I'm in contact, and have been in contact, with detainees at some of these facilities, on the phone—I've spoken to them. If those people had had to go without their phones, it would have been extremely difficult to get their story heard, to be able to express themselves and to be in touch with family, friends and legal teams, as we've heard. The phones are a lifeline to people in detention. Due to COVID restrictions, people held in detention have not had any visits from family, from friends or from their lawyers since 20 March. Imagine being in a stage 4 lockdown, as we are here in Victoria, without your phone, with no way to communicate with your loved ones—no social media, no Zoom. As much as we all complain about being 'Zoomed out', it's a necessary technological function that allows us to communicate.
Mobile phones have become the primary means of contact for detainees. Importantly, they allow detainees access to their lawyers, who can protect their legal rights. The current legal frameworks permit the confiscation of a mobile phone from a detainee if there is reasonable cause. This is as is should be. However, this bill, with a blanket ban on phones, threatens rights to privacy and freedom of expression. The bill also proposes to permit strip searches of individuals living in immigration detention, regardless of whether a suspicion has been formed that the individual is concealing a prohibited item. This is simply unjust. It's simply unacceptable. The government simply have not made a case as to why these broad, sweeping powers are required—except, I suspect, for the one reason they won't actually articulate or admit, and that's for a power grab, another grab at more unchecked power for the Minister for Home Affairs.
In lockdown here in Victoria with COVID-19, and across Australia, we have all experienced this. The government continues its default position of inhumane treatment of people in these facilities. Cramped conditions in detention centres, like the Mantra hotel in Preston, just outside my electorate, represent a very high-risk environment for coronavirus to be transmitted. Social distancing is effectively impossible, and I've heard this directly from the individuals in those centres. I've spoken to them. They're terrified of contracting the virus. A reasonable approach would be to organise the release of detainees who have been cleared through security checks and have friends or family who could support them. Many people in immigration detention are in administrative detention. They have committed no crime. If they were released under those conditions, it would protect their mental and physical health and would assist in the nationwide efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19. Where is the government's plan to protect people in immigration detention facilities from COVID-19? This is another failure, like the many we've seen in the Immigration portfolio and in the Home Affairs portfolio.
This bill is just the latest in a long line of failures, trying it on with another pathetic dog whistle, which this bill basically is. I've seen the former Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Minister Tudge, tweet recently, and I'll quote him:
Labor's failures on immigration and border protection are well known, but their latest move to block legislation—
the legislation we are talking about—
that will keep Australians safe from paedophiles, violent extremists and other serious criminals is gobsmacking.
Really, Minister? 'Gobsmacking'? He talks about saving us from paedophiles and criminals, but this minister clearly does not know the law. As I have said and as many speakers have said—and it bears repeating, and hopefully the minister is listening or watching—prohibited items are already illegal under state, territory and Commonwealth laws, particularly drugs, child exploitation material or weapons, as they present an obvious risk to detainees and to staff. So why don't the minister and the government focus on their jobs? In fact, what is gobsmacking, what is utterly shocking, is their repeated failure on the substantive work necessary in this portfolio.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
[by video link] This is a terribly sad day for our country. The run of economic growth that started when I was in grade 6 has come to an end. Recessions deeply hurt the people that I represent in this chamber. The coalition represents our country at one of the most difficult times that we've faced, and I hope they succeed, but I'm desperately worried. The COVID economic response so far has been JobKeeper and JobSeeker, a couple of policies which have kept our country on life support. We now know that 1.4 million of our fellow Australians will be unemployed by Christmas and many more will be underemployed without the hours they need to survive. So it is time to move beyond the question of how we will help those people put food on the table to the urgent question of how we will help those people get back to work.
The coalition has spent seven years deteriorating the things that drive growth in our country. R&D spending has been hacked into, the universities are under siege, young people cannot afford to get the skills that they need, small businesses face massive supply chain issues. The government's been sowing the seeds of this problem for seven years and what are they doing about them now? Virtually nothing. They are taking away JobSeeker and JobKeeper prematurely, at a moment when unemployment will still be on the rise. That won't create jobs. It's going to lead to a deeper and longer recession and more pain for the people who I represent in this parliament. My constituents need and deserve a strategy— (Time expired)
Today I rise to pay tribute to Kevin McGlinn, OAM. Kevin is a resident of Beacon Hill who was recently awarded the Order of Australia medal for service to the community through Freemasonry. Since 1973 Kevin has been a member of the masonic care subcommittee, while also acting as the grand secretary of the United Grand Lodge of the New South Wales and ACT Freemason Society from 2004 to 2015. He's the former state president of the masonic Secretaries Association and a former representative of the global network of Freemasons.
He joined the Freemasons at the age of 23, given that he was interested in community fundraising and wanted to contribute to the local area. Kevin and the Freemasonry often put their principles into practice through charitable activities such as the Masonic Youth Welfare Fund, which was formed to assist expupils of New South Wales masonic schools and the children of deceased or incapacitated masons.
Kevin has also had a distinguished business career. He worked for the Packer association Consolidated Press for a number of years, becoming finance manager for the World Series cup in 1977, while also working as a financial controller at the famous Manly pacific hotel on Manly Beach. I applaud the work that Kevin has done for the community and congratulate him on his success.
[by video link] Australians are really sick and tired of this government's hapless handling of Australia Post. What we've seen today is Australia Post asking for employees to volunteer their time and use their cars to deliver mail. This is at the same time as Australia Post is cutting services across our communities. It is an absolute disgrace that this hapless minister allows this to happen. At the same time they're allowing Australia Post's executives to get bonuses and support. Millions of Australians are without work and this this government is supporting the top end of town.
What needs to be made clear is that this is costing small businesses, businesses like Tom Joseph's in my electorate. He lost his business, because they can't guarantee express post. When it takes 14 days to go from Rowville across to Dawson we've got to say something's wrong. It's people's passports. It's their Medicare cards. I spoke to Donnie Whittleson this morning. He started getting his deposit for his hearing aid, because the mail arrived two days after the appointment. I've had bills arrive the day they're due, because of Australia Post cutting services.
It's not the people on the ground that have caused the issue. The posties have busted their backsides to get things done. It's the management of Australia Post, supported by the hapless minister of this pathetic government, that is causing the problem. People right across Victoria are screaming about the services that're being cut by Australia Post. Now they want to cut mail to every second day. You just cannot believe that this would be allowed at this time when people desperately need mail, and at the same time Australia Post are saying, 'We've never been busier.' (Time expired)
I rise today to pay tribute to a truly great South Australian. The late Neil Sachse was an Australian rules football icon, spinal cord injury research advocate and incredibly kind, passionate and generous person. He passed away last week on Tuesday 25 August at the age of 69.
South Australians will remember Neil and honour his memory for many reasons. He was a star as an AFL football player, playing 94 games for North Adelaide, five games representing South Australia and two for Footscray in Victoria. It was in his second game for Footscray that he suffered a catastrophic spinal cord injury that rendered him a quadriplegic. Neil spent nine months recovering from the accident at Austin Hospital before transferring to Adelaide's spinal injury unit. He then dedicated much of his life to helping others with spinal cord injuries. I've witnessed firsthand his kindness through his support for Trent Rothall from Kingston South East, who suffered a similarly catastrophic spinal cord injury playing football on his 21st birthday.
Neil co-founded the organisation now known as the Neil Sachse Centre for Spinal Cord Research, raising over $8 million for research into the treatment of spinal cord injuries. Thanks to Neil's work, the way that spinal injuries are treated by medical professionals changed forever. I'm grateful to both Neil and to Neil Sachse Foundation patron Mrs Jenny Hurley for making me aware of his incredible work. He is survived by his wife, Janyne; sons, Ben and Sam; and five grandchildren. Just as he did on the field, his achievements for medical research have made South Australia and the nation very proud.
Sadly, over 450 elderly Australians have now died in aged care. Distressingly, many would have died alone, without family or loved ones by their side in their last hours of life. Their only comfort would have come from the compassionate care and company of aged-care workers who, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, have sacrificed themselves and their families and who, under trying conditions, have done an extraordinary job. To those aged-care workers we say thank you. They deserve our thanks.
But saying thank you is simply not enough. What they need is safer workplaces, fairer pay, better work conditions, better training and equipment and more staff. The aged-care sector is in crisis. Elderly Australians are dying, and too many others suffer terribly. Too often we hear the stories of that suffering and too often we hear of the cases of them dying. After seven years in office, it is time that the Morrison government stopped procrastinating, stopped delaying and stopped hiding behind a royal commission and fixed the problems that have been made clear time and again. Our elderly deserve better and they don't have time on their side.
Over the years we've seen what our local communities have to offer when it comes to caring for our environment. They're doing great work to manage, conserve and protect our natural habitats—land, rivers, wetlands, coast and all the species they support. I want to acknowledge the work they've been doing through Communities Environment Program grants in my electorate of Lyne.
Coomba landcare got a $15½ thousand grant. They have been active for over 40 years, preventing proliferation of weeds, planting endemic species and improving their reserves. Karuah and Great Lakes Landcare have been removing weeds and teaching best-practice control methods to all their members. The Hawks Nest Tea Gardens Progress Association has done restoration works on the Myall River foreshore with environmental stabilisation. At the Dungog Common reserve, $20,000 has gone into controlling lantana and woody weeds. The Rail Motor Society at Paterson has been preventing erosion and sediment contamination. Mid Coast Women in Dairy have used their $16½ thousand to engage the wider farming community in best practice for plastic waste recycling. Tinonee Public School has been planting koala feed trees, and Old Bar Men's Shed have been constructing possum boxes for FAWNA New South Wales. This just goes to show what local, practical community environmental programs can achieve.
Last night, the Prime Minister shut down debate on his plans to make humanities, law, commerce and communications students pay more for their degrees, to make it harder for students from low-income families to get to university in the first place, and to cut a billion dollars from universities. Once again, this Prime Minister made a mockery of parliament and democracy. Once again, he tried to stop me from speaking up for my community. He tried to stop me from speaking up for VCE students Monica and Stephanie, whose mother asked me to make noise for those who can't be heard. He tried to stop me from speaking up for Melissa, whose son loves politics, history and law—he gets A and A-plus grades—but came home from school after hearing the government's plan to hike up fees for his chosen degree and said, 'What's the point?' He tried to stop me from speaking up for Adrian, who wants his daughter and all future students to be able to study the subjects they're passionate about and skilled in without being penalised tens of thousands of dollars by the government. He tried to stop me from speaking up for Dr Emma, who's driven by this government's brutal policy to consider walking away from her career as a university lecturer and who wants to know what to tell her daughter, who's studying humanities subjects in VCE, thinking she's following in her mum's footsteps. He wants to stop me speaking up for John, who describes the so-called job-ready university reforms as like treating a dental cavity by removing someone's mouth. Well, here's a message for the Prime Minister: you can't stop democracy, you can't hide from the impacts of your policies, and you can't tell Dunkley residents to just be quiet and go away. I will continue to be my community's voice.
I rise today to recognise and commend the incredible work done by the team in the Parliamentary Education Office here in Parliament House. In a normal year, the PEO welcomes and educates over 90,000 students from across the country. Since its establishment in 1988, over 2.3 million Australian students have come to Parliament House and had a hands-on learning experience about our Australian parliamentary democracy. I know a lot of us here actually look forward to meeting students from our homes here in Parliament House.
One of my highlights earlier this year—it feels like an eternity ago—was meeting with a great bunch of year 6 students from Loreto Nedlands Primary School. Of course, when COVID-19 hit us, the PEO had to cancel its on-site delivery programs and its outreach visits. While the on-site visits have recently resumed, about 80 per cent of the program visits for this year have had to be cancelled or postponed. Fortunately, the PEO already had experience in doing digital outreach and videoconferencing, and they quickly increased their capacity. They have already delivered video sessions to three times as many students this year as they did in the entirety of 2019. While none of the schools in my electorate did any videoconferencing last year, I know that one recently did, Quintilian School, and that Christ Church Grammar School has got five sessions lined up soon. I would like to commend the great work done by the PEO, particularly in this time of COVID-19.
I'd like to share with the House a wonderful community project in the Warringah area that has been driven by local schoolboy Jack Berne. Many of my colleagues here will be familiar with Jack and his brilliant Fiver for a Farmer campaign. In 2018, Jack was in year 6 at St John the Baptist Catholic Primary School in Freshwater and he asked his classmates to dress up as farmers and donate five dollars for drought relief. Jack expected he would raise a thousand dollars or so. Well, from little things big things grow. Two years later, Jack's campaign has raised $1.8 million.
This year, with the Australia Day Awards, Jack was recognised by the Northern Beaches Council for his outstanding community service. We're all so proud of the amazing work he has done. Now in year 8 at St Augustine's College in Brookvale, acknowledging that many families across Australia are doing it tough financially this year, he's raising awareness and has a new campaign. Jack is calling on all of us to focus on buying Australian produce and products. In his own words: 'With the farmers continuing to provide us with amazing Australian produce and products, we need to support them back. This means checking your labels when grocery shopping. This means buying fruit and vegetables that are in season. And this means taking the time to buy local.' So, on Friday 18 September, I urge my parliamentary colleagues to support Jack's initiative and to encourage their communities to buy Australian-made. Jack, Warringah is very proud of you.
When Mr Ian Armstrong was the Leader of the National Party at a state level, he said, with regard to SEPP 46 under the Native Vegetation Act 1991, that he would 'tear it up' the moment he got back into government. Why? Because it is merely socialism by another name. It is merely the divestment of a private asset from an individual to be vested in the state without payment. It's Gucci socialism. And what it is doing is absolutely smashing the capacity of people in regional areas to act in a way that allows them to take full advantage of the private ownership of their asset, paid for with their money—with money owed to a bank. Now we have the next step in this legislation, the so-called koala protections, taking the number of trees from 10 to 123—yet another imposition, which the conservative side of government should never be supporting. I condemn Minister Kean, at a state level, for dragging us to the left. I congratulate Chris Gulaptis, the member for Clarence, for standing up and being heard.
I've also heard from the minister for ag, Adam Marshall, in the paper, and also John Barilaro; they say that they will move a bill to counteract this regulation. I say to them: good on you, but you've got to do it. Don't bluff—do it!
I rise today on behalf of workers in Eden-Monaro, like Warren Sunderland from Bermagui, who are facing the very real prospect of losing their jobs, thanks to border closures. Warren is a merchant seaman who has been in the Bass Strait for the past four weeks working on a drill platform. It is a critical service. Warren goes to work so that gas can be delivered to Victoria and New South Wales. Yet, upon his return to Sydney, despite having all the required paperwork, Warren was forced into two weeks of quarantine. That was the case for all four employees on the ship who came from New South Wales, but not the case for the other eight employees who live in other states around Australia. It means he will now spend two weeks away from his wife and five children, but, even worse, as a casual worker, he's worried he'll lose his job. Jobs like Warren's are critical to regional economies.
The Prime Minister needs to show some leadership through his so-called national cabinet. Critical workers like Warren are crying out for a commonsense approach. Their jobs depend on it.
On 31 August, the member for McMahon tweeted, in relation to the drug hydroxychloroquine, 'No, there aren't a "range of views expressed by people on all sides".' Well, to assist the opposition's shadow health minister, here is a list of a few medical professionals that might disagree with him: Dr Hanan Mohamed al-Kuwari, Dr Luis Francisco Sucre, Professor Harvey Risch, Dr Scott Atlas, Dr Kulvinder Gill, Professor Michael Keane, Dr Zelenko, Dr Roland Derwand, Dr Martin Scholz, Dr Richard Urso, Dr Andrew P Harris, Dr John Campbell, Dr Simone Gold, Dr Augusto Di Castelnuovo, Dr Francisco Sanchez, Dr Elizabeth Lee Vliet, Dr Ramiro Da Silva, Dr James Todaro, Dr George C Fareed, Dr Michael M Jacobs, Dr Donald C Pompan, Dr Devesh Patel, Dr Mohammad Hussain, Dr Lowell Phipps, Dr Christian Perronne, Dr Shiva Ayyadurai, Dr Mikko Paunio—and the list goes on and on. There's also the Indian Council of Medical Research, headed by Professor Balram Bhargava, and 107 authors of the latest peer-reviewed medical research, published in the European journal of medical literature, that concluded: 'Hydroxychloroquine use in the latest peer-reviewed study is associated with a 30 per cent lower risk of death in hospitalised COVID patients'—a 30 per cent lower risk of death!
Nothing could demonstrate more clearly the priorities of this government than that contribution from that member. There are over 8½ thousand people in my electorate who have lost their jobs. The number doubled in the last three months. There is no comfort for them in the national account figures today. They know that that number is likely to double again between now and Christmas.
The government's case for election not 12 months ago was that it and it alone could manage the budget, it and it alone could drive down debt, it and it alone could drive growth, and it and it alone could manage employment in this country. Now we have a government deficit approaching $200 billion, government debt approaching $1 trillion, unemployment in excess of one million, and workers not knowing whether there is a plan for the future.
The first instinct of any decent government would be to put in place a plan. But what we have from this government, while unemployment is going up, is a plan to drop income support. In four weeks this government proposes to cut income support for those on unemployment benefits and those on JobKeeper. They're after a trophy every time something goes right and a scapegoat every time something goes wrong. Well, there's no trophy for economic management for this mob.
River communities understand all too well that water equates to wealth. When irrigation communities lose water, the economic impacts are profound. That's why our government maintains the position of being implacably opposed to water buybacks.
Under the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, water does need to be recovered. But that recovery must be undertaken in a way that doesn't cruel communities. The Murray-Darling Basin Economic Development Program is a mechanism that seeks to ameliorate the economic harm occasioned on river communities impacted by water recovery under the Basin Plan. Recently, I was pleased to announce that six communities in Barker would share in $3.8 million in grants under the most recent round of this program. There is $450,000 for the Blanchetown Revitalisation Project and roughly the same amount for the Mannum Murray River and Heritage Tourism Project. There is $250,000 for the Murray River Agritourism and Food Cluster, $446,000 for Morgan Murray River Tourism Development, $450,000 for the Murray Bridge Riverfront Development, $448,000 for Wellington East, $450,000 for the riverfront project at Waikerie and the same amount for the Waikerie central business district. These programs are about diversifying our river communities and supporting their economic prosperity and growth. I look forward to seeing them built.
Last night the Prime Minister shut down debate on the so-called job-ready graduates bill, so today I'm speaking up on behalf of the 3,953 students, professional staff and academics at the Ourimbah campus of the University of Newcastle in my electorate. Ourimbah campus is dedicated to excellence and equity. Approximately 28 per cent of students at Ourimbah campus come through enabling programs—programs like Open Foundation and Newstep. These programs are now at risk because of the government's job-ready graduates bill. Enabling programs are debt free and offer a fair go at higher education. They produce many of our teachers, allied health workers and nurses—like my friend Renee, a paediatric nurse at Gosford Hospital. Sharon, a single parent from Wyongah in my electorate said: 'I am well aware that I owe much of my success to Open Foundation. It was so freely offered and well supported.'
Insecure funding will shut the door on local people before they even start. According to the University of Newcastle, under the current advice up to 60 per cent of our enabling program students would miss out on funding under the program. The Central Coast has been hit hard by COVID-19. When non-essential services were shut down the coast felt it. The national accounts today confirm Australia is in recession. One million Australians are out of work and another 400,000 are expected to lose their jobs by Christmas. At the same time, the Prime Minister is withdrawing support and hiking up the cost of education. COVID-19 recovery deserves a jobs plan—and it's not the job-ready graduates bill. (Time expired)
Almost 30 per cent of Australians were born overseas, and Australia's multiculturalism is successful because it is based on social cohesion, inclusivity and diversity—and Reid is a great example of this. Our policy of multiculturalism focuses on integration as opposed to assimilation. We want people to identify with Australian values and our way of life without sacrificing their history and heritage. The Morrison government has dedicated $71 million for social cohesion initiatives for this reason. When we invest in our migrant communities, they invest in Australia's economy and society.
Migrants are more likely than non-migrants to be small business owners in Australia despite 83 per cent of migrant business owners not owning a business before they came to Australia. The Prime Minister has said it: if you have a go you will get a go in Australia. This was the case for Jennifer Du, the owner of Taste of Shanghai. Her personal migrant story shows her resilience and entrepreneurial spirit. I'm lucky to have one of her beautiful restaurants just down the road from my office. The more we support multiculturalism the stronger our nation will be.
It was distressing to hear of the comments last night by former Prime Minister Abbott on the COVID-19 pandemic. Phrases such as 'virus hysteria', 'health dictatorship' and 'unaccountable experts' are very damaging—spouting the by-lines of the hard right such as QAnon and the reactionary media. This really increases community anxiety and distress and encourages dangerous behaviour. Like many in the coalition, such as the member for Hughes, these comments may grab attention, particularly from some groups elegantly described by a Victorian policeman as 'the batshit crazy'—
No, the member for Macarthur will withdraw that. He cannot bring unparliamentary language in by way of a quote.
I apologise and I withdraw. But they are insulting to our wonderful health experts and public servants, who have saved thousands of lives by their actions and their hard work and excellent advice.
Let me be quite clear: Australia has done so well because we have a fantastic public health system and experts and leaders of all political stripes who have acted with great courage. We'll get through this pandemic by all working together, listening to the experts and acting on evidence based advice. People in aged care are not expendable. Sick people are not expendable. Commentary by unconscionable rejects is inappropriate and harmful, and I call on the government to denounce it immediately. (Time expired)
Today is Early Childhood Educators Day and, with 90 childcare centres across Lindsay, I want to take the time to acknowledge the hard work our teachers and childhood educators put in with our children every single day. At the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, I had a teleconference with childcare operators in Lindsay and the secretary of the department of education. We talked through the problems and concerns that they were having in coming up with local solutions, and I want to thank them for sticking by our families and our community during that time.
One childcare centre I have visited recently is Explore & Develop in Glenmore Park, a fantastic local childcare centre. Elaine, who works there, says: 'Providing high-quality early childhood education and care supports children to be confident, enthusiastic learners. I love my job, and this is part of the foundation of all of our children for their learning, their health and behaviour right throughout their lives. I feel privileged to be able to do this at an early childhood service and give children the best start in life.' Early childhood education means so much to families, and, on behalf of our community, I thank every single teacher, carer and educator for the work they do and for the positive impact they have on our children.
One million Australians don't have a job. Four hundred thousand Australians will join them by Christmas. But, when Australians need support, this week the government has cut JobSeeker, cut JobKeeper and cut wages. They've made a provision for a $300 cut in wages. What the government has done this week will make the recession worse. Australians will be out of work for longer. More businesses will fold. Families will be worse off.
We don't need a government that just tells us how bad things are and picks fights through a recession. We have voted for every one of the government's stimulus packages—every one. The fact is this government is all marketing and no preparation—all slogan and no plan. The worst and most heartless thing you can do in a recession is cut support for the people who need it, but that's exactly what this government has done. The Treasurer will tell us what the unemployment rate is in Barcelona or Boston, but that's no comfort in Blacktown or Broadmeadows. The Prime Minister likes his nickname of 'ScoMo'. It should be 'ProMo'. He's all talk and no walk. There is no action when it comes to this government. It is all marketing and no substance. The fact is that, because of the actions of this government, this recession will go longer and be deeper. (Time expired)
August has seen two great remembrance days for our defence forces. On 15 August, the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, we acknowledge the services and sacrifice of over one million Australians who fought in that war. Remarkably, there are 12,000 ex-servicemen still alive today.
On Vietnam day or Long Tan Day, on the 18th of the eighth, we celebrated at Mount Larcom with Jeff and Lindy Feros—Jeff Feros served with the United Nations in Western Sahara in 1992 and 1993—and Brian Kessner, the Mount Larcom RSL president. I salute all those people who've come back and, of course, recognise the fact that 520 Australian soldiers were killed in Vietnam and there were over 3,000 casualties. The Vietnam families, along with members of the community, gathered to pay their respects. It is important for us all to remember that these events shaped our nation. I hope that our future generations will always remember. Lest we forget.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Australia has plunged into the worst recession in almost a century?
This is a devastating day for Australia. The COVID-19 global recession and pandemic that has impacted the world has impacted Australia. Australians know that's the case. Australians knew many, many months ago that this day would come, and this day has come. As the pandemic continues to have its impact—not just here but all around the world—there will be further difficult days ahead. That is why the government acted with the most unprecedented act of intervention to support Australians in their time of need. As harsh, severe and heavy as this blow today is on Australia, we know that as a government we have acted to seek to cushion the blow as much as we possibly can. That has been done at a great cost and a price worth paying for the peace of mind, the assurance and the confidence of Australians so that, despite these heavy times, they know that the government has stood up and been there not just for today but for the future as well.
Australia will recover and Australia will grow again. The jobs will come back and they will support the lives and livelihoods of Australians, as they have in the past. Our plan for that to occur is to build on the resilience, strength and enterprise of the Australian people and to build on the businesses they run, the jobs they have in those businesses and the efforts they will put in—whether it is the skills that they need or the infrastructure they need, whether it is being able to keep more of what they earn and have the hard-earned reward for their effort—to ensure they can have available to them in their own lives and in their businesses what they need to invest in their future, to ensure that our federation works better and to ensure the many projects that are necessary, whether on water, on energy or on transport, will continue to be rolled out. Almost $10 billion of infrastructure has been brought forward just for the purpose of supporting those jobs. The energy costs that must come down and have been coming down, more importantly, will support affordable and reliable energy into the future to drive those businesses into the future.
This is the JobMaker plan the government has been rolling out and will continue to roll out and that Australians can rely on. They know that when Australia is under economic threat the wise and experienced hands of economic management matter, and that is what the Australian people know of this government. But today, for them, it is a heavy day and we stand— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the COVID-19 recession confirmed by today's national accounts is impacting Australian workers and businesses and on how the Morrison government's JobMaker plan is working to cushion this terrible impact and provide the pathway to recovery?
As I have just said, this is a devastating day for Australia. The Australian economy has been savaged by the COVID-19 global pandemic and recession. It is delivering an awful and heartbreaking blow to Australians and their families all around the country. Australians know why we are in a COVID-19 recession, and they also knew, as the government has known, that this day would come. The government has acted to protect lives and livelihoods promptly, long before the numbers presented today, to suppress the virus and to cushion the heavy economic blow. More than a million Australians are out of work, but, as Treasury advises, without the actions taken by the government that number could be 700,000 more. We also know that we have avoided the even more severe impacts that we've seen in other places. But that is no comfort to the Australians who are dealing with a heavy blow today. It is no comfort to them that Australia, because of how we have responded, has been able to cushion the blow. The blow is still great.
As we have acted in this way, I know that that impact is still bitter and it is still real, and so we will continue to work, not just on cushioning that blow but on the road back and on the road beyond, to open up Australia, to ensure that we are not that dislocated nation. A dislocated nation is not success. That is a continued resignation to the virus. Australia will not resign to this virus, and our economy will not resign to this virus. What we will do is continue to believe in Australians and their resilience and their enterprise. We will make it easier for businesses to employ and to invest and to get Australians back into jobs, as the businesses of Australia lead the recovery, bringing the workers of Australia together with them as we go forward. Because of their effort, our government will ensure that they get the rewards of their effort. They will keep more of what they earn, and they can rest assured in the essential services that we will guarantee so they can rely on them. We will continue to be stronger and safer and together.
My question is to the Prime Minister. One million Australians are unemployed, another 400,000 will be out of work by Christmas and Australia is in the worst recession in almost a century. Isn't this the worst time for the Prime Minister to be cutting JobKeeper, cutting JobSeeker and cutting the wages of some of the poorest workers in this country?
Because of the economic plan the government will continue to implement, in partnership with the states and territories, I look forward to the day when our economy will not need JobKeeper. I look forward to the day when we will not need the extraordinary supports that our government have provided. But we did not hesitate to provide them.
Opposition members interjecting—
I note the jeers and the laughter of those opposite, on the most devastating day for Australia we have seen in our economy, and I note the politicking of those opposite on this day. The only people who seem to be in a pleasant state of mind today are the opposition.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton is warned!
On such a devastating day, our government will continue to focus on the plan and the response that we have provided, in a measured and carefully architected way. That plan has been working. More than 700,000 Australians would have been added to the number that the Leader of the Opposition refers to. Our plans will continue to deliver on these urgent tasks. But JobKeeper has been extended, it has been expanded and it will continue to be provided. JobKeeper must be transitioned. I refer to the words of the Leader of the Opposition himself. He said:
We obviously do need to shift away. The mechanisms won't be in place forever …
He also said:
But with JobKeeper, the fact is it needs a transition.
These are the each-way bets of the Leader of the Opposition. He says JobKeeper should be extended but it should be transitioned. He says it should be higher and he says it should be lower. What the Australian people know is that, with his each-way bet plan, the Leader of the Opposition is no-one that you can trust in a crisis. He is not someone who can be relied upon. Despite his many years in this place, where he considers himself the prince of the parliament, he has spent more time taking points of order than he has spent sat in a budget Expenditure Review Committee.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on today's national account figures and how the Morrison government is working to cushion the significant blow of the COVID-19 pandemic on Australian workers, families and businesses?
I thank the member for Ryan for his question and I commend his work in this place on behalf of his constituents and indeed all Australians. Today we received devastating economic news. GDP fell in the June quarter by seven per cent. To put that in perspective, it was the single largest fall on record since the series began in 1959. Prior to today, the single largest fall was a two per cent fall in 1974. Our record run as a nation of 28 consecutive years of economic growth has officially come to an end. While we are talking about these numbers in this place, Australians are living these numbers. Some 1.3 million Australians lost their jobs or saw their hours reduced to zero since the start of this crisis.
The numbers we saw today here in Australia were very severe and very hard to take. But we also know that COVID-19 has wreaked havoc around the rest of the world, and that the falls that we have seen in other economies have been more severe than what we saw today. In the United Kingdom—
Cold comfort.
It is cold comfort. The member for Rankin is absolutely right: it is cold comfort for many people who are doing it tough, but it does indicate the significance of COVID-19 on global economies and they also underscore the significance of the actions that we have taken and what they have delivered. The United Kingdom saw their GDP fall by more than 20 per cent, France fell by around 14 per cent, the United States fell by around 9.1 per cent, Canada fell by 11½ per cent, Germany fell by around 10 per cent. Around the world we have seen devastating GDP numbers in June.
But we are focused on the road out. This is the JobMaker plan: investing more in infrastructure; tax incentives for businesses to get them to invest; 340,000 new training places for people who need to re-skill and re-equip themselves to get a job; and, of course, cutting red tape to make it easier to do business. Today was a hard day to take, but we are focused on the road out and getting Australians back to work.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Won't the Prime Minister's decision this week to cut JobKeeper, cut JobSeeker and cut wages make the worst recession in almost a century even deeper and even longer?
As you know, Mr Speaker, JobKeeper is at $101 billion and is the single largest economic support program that this government, or indeed any Australian government, has ever undertaken. Right now it is supporting 3½ million Australians and around one million businesses. Around the country, in every corner of this great country, there is a great story about JobKeeper and how it's keeping people in work.
We've always said, though, that the program was temporary and targeted and that there would be transition. Not just those on this side of the House have said that it should be tapered and it should come down. One person has said, 'what they should be looking at is a kind of tapering'. Somebody said this about JobKeeper:
There needs to be some transition over time away from these extraordinary levels of support in the economy.
The same person went on to say, '… which recognises that JobKeeper won't be there forever.' The same person said that the government should be considering better ways to transition the JobKeeper program. That wasn't the member for Flinders, that wasn't the member for Wannon and that wasn't the member for—
Honourable members interjecting—
I will ask the Treasurer to pause for a second and I'll ask members on my left to cease interjecting. I'm going to say to the Treasurer that, obviously, the Hansard doesn't pick up his pauses—
Sorry, Mr Speaker.
But I'm just going to draw him back to the question—
So—
No, hang on! I haven't ruled, okay? Unless you can read my mind! The question was quite specific, so whilst you can compare and contrast to an extent you can't use the rest of the answer to speak about what the opposition's policies are.
I hadn't revealed who it was yet, Mr Speaker.
The Treasurer can resume his seat! I'm just going to say to the Treasurer that it doesn't matter; the rules are quite clear. I'm trying to maintain order in the House and that can't just be when it suits those on my right. The Treasurer has the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Those comments were made by those opposite, but the point is that we are seeing this payment transition—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon is warned.
We are seeing this payment transition over time, but right now it's supporting 3½ million workers. It's transitioning and it's tapering, just as the member for Rankin asked for it to do.
[by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, by one estimate Australian retirees will be $135 billion worse off post pandemic from reduced superannuation, personal savings, property income and share dividends. Fixing this will take bold reform, implemented urgently, including to the age pension, compulsory superannuation and voluntary savings. For example, the pension and compulsory super need to be increased and the assets and income tests and taper rates adjusted to stop penalising people for saving for retirement. The deeming rate needs to be lowered and eligibility expanded for the Commonwealth seniors health card. To this end, Prime Minister, when will the retirement incomes review be released? And do you commit to the bold reform needed to ensure a fair go for older Australians? (Time expired)
I thank the member for his question. The Retirement Income Review report was handed to the government in late July 2020. It was recommended by the Productivity Commission in its report, Superannuation: assessing efficiency and competitiveness. It was chaired by Mr Mike Callaghan, with fellow panellists Carolyn Kay and Deborah Ralston. The review establishes a fact base to help improve understanding of how the Australian retirement income system is operating and how it will respond to an ageing society, as the member indicated. It considers three pillars of the existing retirement income system: the age pension, compulsory super and voluntary savings. The panel has identified four principles to use in assessing the performance of Australia's retirement income system: adequacy, equity, sustainability and cohesion.
It is very true that this devastating COVID-19 recession is going to have a significant impact on Australia's incomes today and will also impact on them in the longer term. That is also true in terms of the Commonwealth's finances and those of the states and territories. What we are investing today is to ensure that Australia can make its way through these most difficult of times. And in this most difficult of times, it is true that the government has enabled people who are in hardship and distress to access their own money, their own savings and their own superannuation to assist them to get through this very difficult time.
Now, the review that was initiated by the Treasurer will continue to be considered by the government and it will be released at a time when the government will also make a response. That is the normal process. I remember when the Henry tax review was handed to the government. The shadow Treasurer will remember that because he was working for the Treasurer at the time. They held onto it, I think, for about a year and then they ignored it.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
I'm sorry, but the shadow Treasurer is correct. They didn't ignore it; they introduced the mining tax that didn't raise any money. That was, I think, probably one of the genius recommendations from the shadow Treasurer, whose training wheels were even bigger back then than they are now.
But the matters raised by the member are very important, and we take them incredibly seriously. In this House yesterday, I indicated that the unintended possible consequences of the indexation that applies to the pension will be addressed by the government, and I want to assure pensioners to that end—as we were able to at the last election, when those opposite sought to strip away from self-refunded retirees their own earnings and their own superannuation. That's what those opposite think when it comes to people's savings, and these days they argue in this House that that money doesn't belong to those people but belongs to industry fund managers.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the Morrison government's economic support packages and our JobMaker program will support the Australian economy to recover, and help families and businesses through the challenges of the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for Bonner for his question and I acknowledge his hard work, on behalf of his constituents, to ensure that they are able to get through the COVID-19 crisis. We saw it in today's national accounts, but we have been seeing it throughout the year—and that is the havoc being wreaked by this once-in-a-century pandemic. To put it in context for the House, at the height of the GFC in 2009, the global economy contracted by 0.1 per cent. That was the only time the global economy had contracted in 40 years. The OECD are now saying that the global economy will contract this year by a full six per cent, and we've had the World Bank saying that more economies will contract this year than at any time since 1870. We've had the International Labour Organization say that effectively 500 million full-time jobs have been lost globally as a result of COVID-19.
We approached this economic crisis from a position of strength. We had delivered the first balanced budget in 11 years. We inherited an economy where unemployment was at 5.7 per cent and we brought it down to 5.1. So we were able to respond by putting in place economic support measures like the JobKeeper program, like the cash flow boost, like the $550 coronavirus supplement and like the new incentives for the instant asset write-off and the 50 per cent accelerated depreciation. The initiatives on our watch have helped, according to Treasury, save 700,000 jobs. The unemployment rate was 7.5 per cent. It's expected to go to around 10 per cent by year's end, but it would be five percentage points higher but for the economic support that we have put in place.
Now, we know that a quarter of the national economy is Victoria, and its being subject to stage 4 restrictions has seen a huge drag on the national recovery. But our focus is on our JobMaker plan; bringing forward infrastructure investment of up to $10 billion; getting greater flexibility in the labour market, like we did with the passage of the JobKeeper legislation just yesterday; providing 340,000 new training places and a skills package which is in partnership with the states and the territories through the good work of the Prime Minister and the national cabinet; and, of course, cutting red tape, which is making it easier for businesses to do business. Our focus is on helping Australians get back to work. The road to recovery will be long, the road to recovery will be hard, the road to recovery will be bumpy, but we will be with Australians every step of the way.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Tori from Lang Lang is a primary school relief teacher engaged by an agency. Tori is pregnant. She says the Prime Minister's cuts to the JobKeeper wage subsidy will be catastrophic for her. Why is this Prime Minister cutting JobKeeper for people like Tori in the middle of the worst recession in almost a century?
JobKeeper is a lifeline to Australians. It has been seeing Australians through for the past almost six months and it will be extended for a further six months. This is a program that taxpayers have willingly supported, to the tune of around $11 billion every single month. As we move into the next phase of JobKeeper, what we are hoping to see is that fewer businesses will be dependent on that JobKeeper support and, in the period after that, as we get into next year, that fewer businesses again will be needing that support. What we hope to see, with our plan for the recovery and as the budget has its impact from October of this year, and with the many measures that have been introduced prior to that time, is that there will be more and more Australians who will be in a position where the companies that they work for will be able to support them with actual work and not be reliant on the economic income supports that are provided by the government. That is the goal.
That is why the transition plan is important: to ensure that our economy can move from a position of absolute supports to one where it can stand on itself, because, if you don't make that transition, the Australian economy won't be in that position to provide the support to Australians that it needs to provide. But the supports will remain, and the combination of JobKeeper together with JobSeeker will work together to ensure that the necessary income supports are in place for all Australians, as they have been from the start. We will continue to calibrate these measures, as we have always done, in response to the economic circumstances that we face. That has been one of the hallmarks of the government's response: to be balanced, to be carefully considered, to understand what can be sustained over the short, medium and longer term, and to put in place the supports that Australians need but to also ensure that, when businesses are in a position to employ again, they can do so and they can bring people on and they can bring hours back.
That's why we are pleased to see in the most recent payroll data that there has been a recovery of half the jobs that were lost by women. We've particularly seen a bounce or a return of those who are under 20 finding those jobs again. There are many more jobs still to be created and returned to Australians. That's what our plan will focus on. To do that, we cannot remain behind the constraints that have been limiting our economy to support the very people that the member refers to. Those constraints need to be lifted. We need to look forward, we need to look ahead, and we need to surge forward. We cannot hide behind this virus with our economic plan; we must defeat it by ensuring that we allow our economy to grow again and that we lift the constraints on that economy. (Time expired)
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is supporting the creation of every possible regional job as part of the plan to support the Australian recovery from the COVID-19 crisis?
On 18 July last year in Dubbo, in the member for Parkes's electorate, The Daily Telegraph held its inaugural Bush Summit. It was in the midst of one of the worst droughts that this nation had ever seen. There was an air of doom and gloom over that gathering. Last Friday, in Cooma, the second Bush Summit was held. Whilst it was in the middle of a terrible global pandemic, there was an air of optimism and hope at that meeting. Those who attended felt as though the recovery was not far away, certainly from the drought. There's a sheen of green around the nation. In many parts, welcome rains have really helped our regional communities. Hopefully, we'll get the best harvest we've had for many, many decades.
We know that many Australians today are hurting. Many Australians are mourning. But there is hope and help for them. There is optimism in sight. I know the member for Flynn works hard every day, certainly to create jobs and to build hope and optimism in his electorate. The fine people of Flynn know that the resources and agricultural sectors of central and northern Queensland are going to help our recovery efforts as we battle through COVID-19 and make sure that we get through this together.
I know that mayors in his electorate, such as Kerry Hayes, who heads the Central Highlands Regional Council, know how important jobs and, certainly infrastructure stimulus are to the fine electorate that the member for Flynn represents. He is very pleased that the federal government is investing $40 million in the Tambo-Springsure road. It's only 246 kilometres, where we're bitumenising certain sections of that road. It's a cattle road. We're making sure—
Opposition members interjecting—
I don't know why you're yelling out. We're sealing sections of that road. We're putting bitumen down on that unsealed road to ensure that we create jobs.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Don't take my word for it, member for Hunter. You've got your own problems, mate! Mayor Hayes says:
'The Springsure to Tambo road effectively connects Western Queensland to the Port of Gladstone via our agricultural powerhouse …
The inclusion of the Springsure-Tambo road link in Roads of Strategic Importance funding is a result of a combination of strategic advocacy by the member for Flynn, by the council and by local advocates, because they know that the truth is jobs are so important. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Noni from Carrum Downs in my electorate works in the construction industry and says that she is barely able to make ends meet on the current JobKeeper rate. When the Prime Minister's cuts to JobKeeper kick in this month, Noni says her family will have to live off savings, and she's worried they won't last. Why is this Prime Minister cutting JobKeeper for people like Noni in the middle of the worst recession in almost a century?
There have been many measures that the government has introduced. JobKeeper has obviously been the most significant. But we also note that there are some sectors that were facing very significant additional impacts as a result of the COVID-19 recession. Australians know why the numbers in our economy are what they are today. Australians know that the COVID-19 recession has been produced by the global pandemic and the global recession that has followed from that. Australians know that. And anyone who would seek to suggest that it is other than that clearly isn't living in the same country that the rest of us are, or in the same place. Australians know why.
But Australians also know that we were quick to put in place JobKeeper. We were quick also to put in place a very significant package for HomeBuilder, which was designed and is being effective in ensuring that Australians who want to go and build homes and do major renovations on their homes are going to go about doing that. We've seen that in Victoria. We've seen it in New South Wales. We've seen it particularly in Western Australia, where the program has been picked up, endorsed and supported by the Western Australian government, who have added to that project and have commended it for its timeliness and for its targeting. So whether it's the construction industry, whether it's the entertainment sector, whether it's the hospitality sector or whether it's the aviation sector in particular—these areas so significantly impacted—the government has stepped up, we've stepped in and we will stand with them each and every step of the way.
But the path to recovery will not be paved with endless, endless support of the government. It will be paved with the endless effort of Australians, their enterprising spirit and restoring and building their businesses, whether it's a home-building business, a construction business, a transport business, the aviation sector or a retail business—whatever it is. Those businesses will drive those jobs and the incomes Australians will rely on. That will drive our economy back, and we need to ensure the constraints are taken off them so they can get back to what they were doing, which was employing millions of Australians to support the very Australians that you're referring to.
So JobKeeper will remain in their businesses, including in the construction sector, which will be a priority area for opening up in Victoria. That is an area where you can open up your residential construction, in Victoria, in a way that is both COVID-safe and high economic impact. I've been quite adamant about that being a key part of the Victorian reopening strategy, and I welcome the positive discussions I've had with the Premier about that very issue. That's where the jobs will come from. That's where the income will come from—by these businesses getting back on their feet and ensuring that they can provide ongoing support for their employees. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting the mental health and wellbeing of Australians during the COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID-19 recession?
I want to thank the member for North Sydney, who's been a passionate advocate for mental health, along with so many members of this House—indeed, all members of this House. One of the reasons, of course, is that his electorate, like every electorate, has so many Australians who suffer with the challenges of mental health. In any one year, four million Australians will be struggling with some form of mental health challenge. Over the course of the life of this government, we've therefore invested, taking the resources available from about $3.4 billion to $5.7 billion, a more than two-thirds increase.
But this year has been a tough year—a global pandemic, with more than 25½ million people diagnosed now and, by the time this parliament reconvenes for the budget, most probably over 30 million, with most probably more than a million lives officially lost, and many more lost. Australia has not been immune to that. We know that the impact of this condition has had a profound health effect. Seven out of eight states and territories have, fortunately, put themselves in a position where it has largely been defeated, but we are on watch.
In Victoria, the challenge that we face, of course, is that the lockdowns have a profound impact on mental health, on the ability of people to exercise, on anxiety, on depression. All of these elements are at risk. That's why, through the course of this pandemic, we've invested very strongly, firstly, and perhaps most importantly, on a national basis, with the creation of a 10-year plan for telehealth, delivered in 10 days. We have whole-of-population telehealth, now with well over 28 million services, and mental health being a large part of that. As I mentioned, 59 per cent of services for mental health in the last month in Victoria were delivered through telehealth.
In addition do that, $74 million has been invested specifically in support services: $10 million for Beyond Blue; $14 million for Lifeline and Kids Helpline; support for Orygen and, in particular, headspace, and Head to Health online; and support for older Australians, with the funding that's been provided to assist them with their mental health through in-reach. Within Victoria, we've doubled the number of MBS psychological services. That's been a critical step forward, as well as making sure that we are investing in 15 new psychological and mental health centres that will be available not just now but over the course of the coming year, and potentially beyond, I hope and expect. That's an important investment in saving lives and protecting lives.
It's a pandemic which has affected the world, but it's a pandemic where we have come into it with a plan to protect the lives and the mental health of Australians, and we will continue to fight to do that.
[by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. At JBS meatworks in Dinmore, Queensland, more than 1,700 full-time workers are at risk of permanently losing their jobs because the Prime Minister has excluded them from JobKeeper. There are already one million Australians who are unemployed. Why is the Prime Minister adding these workers to the unemployment queue in the middle of the worst recession in almost a century?
When JobKeeper was introduced, there were rules that were established to ensure that it was a targeted program, that it focused on, particularly, smaller and medium-sized businesses. For large businesses with turnovers over $1 billion, it is available to those businesses where they have suffered a fall in their turnover of over 50 per cent, and for other businesses—smaller businesses and medium-sized businesses—of more than 30 per cent. That support, through JobKeeper, has been supporting almost a million businesses across the country and some 3.6 million employees across the country.
But JobKeeper was not the only support that the government introduced. In fact, our first response was to ensure that we strengthened the JobSeeker support for those who would become unemployed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID-19 recession that we knew would result from the global pandemic and the global economic impacts. So we put those in place, and today it is still the case that JobSeeker is there, in an elevated format, in a way that will provide support to Australians who find themselves out of employment. What I also know is that, were it not for the interventions undertaken by the government, some 700,000 additional Australians—as we are advised by Treasury—would have also found themselves unemployed.
These very large businesses, of more than $1 billion in turnover or approaching that, if they have not had the blow of the COVID pandemic in the way that others more seriously have, then those companies of course are going to reach into their own resources to provide support to their employees, and many have. Although Qantas have had significant support through JobKeeper—they are one of the most significant beneficiaries of JobKeeper—at the same time they have gone to the markets, they have raised capital and they have sought to keep as many people on as possible. And they have had one of the most significant blows.
For those who find themselves without employment, JobSeeker is there, and they can earn up to now $300 a fortnight without that impacting their JobSeeker supports. I see the member for Blair throw his hands apart because he believes that JobSeeker is something less than JobKeeper. I don't have that view. I know that JobKeeper and JobSeeker in the next phase will combine together to give the supports that Australians need. We will ensure that the economic— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is supporting small businesses to create every possible job they can to help secure our recovery from the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for his question. I know that he has a very deep understanding of the challenges that small businesses are facing, particularly in rural and regional communities such as his own in the electorate of Barker.
One of the ways that we're backing small businesses to create jobs is by ensuring that they have the skilled workers that they need now and in the future. We're doing that through the JobTrainer plan, because we understand that skilled workers are essential for productive businesses, particularly in regional Australia. Again, this is not just about a business bottom line. This is about people. It's mums, its dads, its grandparents, wanting to ensure that their kids have the opportunities to get a skilled and well-paid job in their local region.
There is a fantastic example of that in the member for Barker's electorate, with Bowhills Engineering in the Murraylands. This is a multigenerational family business that's been growing for over 40 years. It started as a machinery repair shop and evolved into a steel fabrication business that was supplying industries including mining, water, defence and construction. It's a great Australian manufacturing success story. Jodie from Bowhills is on the record as saying that she is 'stoked' with our JobTrainer plan and that it would support her business, which currently has 15 apprentices. She sums up the value of apprentices to her business: 'We've had 40 apprentices in total over the years, and we're incredibly proud of that. We identified years ago that our apprentices and trainees were our best and brightest, and we invested in that. There is so much potential within our local youth.'
That is exactly what JobTrainer is all about—developing the potential so that mums and dads can be assured that there is a pathway ahead for their kids. And it's helping businesses create every possible job that they can. JobTrainer is rapidly going to give more Australians access to free or low-cost training in areas of identified skills needs, but we're also investing $120 million to create apprenticeships in rural and regional Australia and $17.4 million in skills for mature-aged workers. It's all designed to make sure that small businesses and Australian industry have the skilled workforce that they need, because a skilled workforce is essential to the jobs now and of the future.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Governor of the Reserve Bank said that unemployment is going to be higher for longer, and still around seven per cent in two years time. Why is the Prime Minister withdrawing support from the economy and the jobs market, which will make it even harder for Australians to find jobs and put food on the table?
As the Governor of the Reserve Bank said just yesterday, the fundamentals of the Australian economy remain strong. He pointed out that unemployment will remain elevated for some time, and this is consistent with the Treasury's view. As I said to the House in an earlier question, unemployment today is at 7.5 per cent, and the expectation is that it will reach around 10 per cent by the end of the year, but, as the honourable member for Rankin knows, the situation in Victoria has been a major drag on the national economy, with Treasury saying that up to 400,000 people in Victoria will either lose their jobs or see their hours reduced to zero as that state is subject to stage 4 restrictions. As a quarter of the national economy, the impact of what we're seeing in Victoria does have a much broader consequence for the country.
Our JobKeeper program is continuing, it's expanding, it's being extended and, at $101 billion, it's the single largest program any Australian government has ever undertaken. We are transitioning that program, because seven out of the eight jurisdictions in this country are managing the virus. But, in my home state of Victoria, it's a different situation—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The member for Lyons is warned!
The member for Rankin would like to pretend there hasn't been a once-in-a-century pandemic. The member for Rankin would ignore the fact that Victoria is in stage 4 restrictions. The member for Rankin would ignore the fact that we have undertaken the biggest single economic support program in Australia's history. The member for Rankin would ignore the fact that our contribution of $314 billion is around 15.8 per cent of GDP and the state contribution has been around $48 billion, or 2.4 per cent of GDP.
I'd say to the member for Rankin, pick up the phone to the Premier of Queensland and suggest that they spend more on infrastructure, more on social housing, more on payroll tax relief and more on land tax relief, and come with the Commonwealth. As the member knows, there are plenty of water projects that we are looking for additional Queensland investment and infrastructure for. There are plenty of road projects that we are looking forward to increased expenditure in Queensland.
We are doing everything in our power to get more Australians back to work. Of the 1.3 million Australians who lost their job or saw their hours reduced to zero since the start of the crisis, around 700,000 are now back in work, showing that our JobMaker program is working.
My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Attorney please outline to the House how the Morrison government is working to drive jobs growth across Australia, which is of a critical importance as we come out the other side of the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for her question, for her hard work in her electorate and for her representation of Tasmania. As the member knows, today's figures highlight the importance of everything that we have done as a government to save jobs, everything that is being done to save more jobs and all of the policies to create job growth into the future.
In terms of policies that have worked to save jobs, the industrial relations employment flexibilities that were built into the first round of JobKeeper were clearly a critical component of saving hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs. Without those flexibilities, many businesses would very likely have collapsed, costing jobs and livelihoods.
One example from the member's home state of Tasmania is a business employing 20 people—an events management business. Members can imagine how the turnover for that business was affected. They said: 'JobKeeper flexibilities gave us the ability, when we stopped dead, to re-engineer the business, which was a very positive thing. Without the JobKeeper flexibilities, the business wouldn't have lasted in its pre-COVID form for six months and would have resulted in significant job losses. The worst-case scenario is that we would have gone into liquidation and debt.'
In a survey conducted of those businesses in the first round of JobKeeper, 80 per cent of the respondent employers said that they viewed the industrial relations flexibilities as either important or essential for the continued operation of their business and for keeping their employees in jobs. And four out of five of those employers supported extending the flexibilities for a further period of time, with those businesses citing job losses and business closures as being the most likely outcome if the flexibilities were removed. That is why with JobKeeper No. 2 we had a plan for those legacy businesses who were coming back but who were not yet out of the woods—those businesses that might still be down 15, 20 or 25 per cent of their turnover. That plan allowed them, subject to very clear protections for employees, to access those flexibilities for another six months, to help them get back to prosperity and job growth and to save those jobs. That plan was clear and it was passed into law by this parliament.
The opposition's position on that was simply to say, 'We don't agree with that.' They had no plan and no alternative—just a no. Had that legislation not been successful and those flexibilities not extended, jobs would have been lost. This is an absolutely key part of ensuring that jobs are preserved and that jobs can be grown. We now have unions and businesses who have spent in excess of 100 hours with each other considering other ways and policies where they can reach agreement to grow jobs. That process is going to be critical.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Tony Abbott says that older Australians with COVID should be left to die, 'while nature takes its course'. Why hasn't the Prime Minister already condemned this heartless remark by a former Liberal Prime Minister?
Honourable members interjecting—
Before the Prime Minister begins his answer—and I'm reluctant to interrupt him, but I can hear the level of interjections. There are a number of people who have been warned and I'll just warn them again. The Prime Minister has the call.
I think all members of this House have known the government's position when it comes to the need to take action to protect the lives of all Australians during the COVID-19 pandemic, and we have acted in accordance with that very strong view. While I have not read every statement of the former Prime Minister, I do not understand that that was the intent of the former Prime Minister's statement. I'm not aware of that, as I have not seen it. My focus has been—on a day when the member opposite may want me to be reading speeches—on the millions of Australians who have received the news today that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia has entered into the worst recession that we have seen in this country since the Great Depression.
That has not enabled me to be reading a lot of the matters that the member has referred to. But what I do know is what we have done. I do know what we have done, and I do know that our government's policies and our actions during the COVID-19 pandemic have been to value every single life. Every single life matters when it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on Australians right across this country. That is how we've acted and that is how we've responded. The Australian people know that that is the policy of our government.
My question is to the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is supporting our resources sector to create every possible job and help drive Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the honourable member for that question. The member for Forde knows that, even in those tough economic reports today, there is a ray of hope for the Australian people, and it is in the resources sector. How does that affect the member? The member for Forde has the Caterpillar distribution centre at Yatala—so jobs in the member's electorate directly affected by the resources sector.
We know the coronavirus has hit regional Australia hard. We know it has hit Australia hard. I am absolutely heartbroken for all of those individuals who have lost their jobs, who have lost hours, who have lost their businesses, who find themselves in incredibly difficult circumstances. But I say to each and every one of them: there is a ray of hope in the story today, and it is in the resources sector and it is in mining. Those numbers are straightforward. The resources sector went up 0.2 per cent in the June quarter, and that is up 1.1 per cent compared to last year. So it is a sector which continues to grow and continues to provide jobs. And the industry is still investing in Australia. It is still investing in our country and our people and jobs. In fact, that investment was up 1.3 per cent in the June quarter compared with the March quarter and up 7.9 per cent since June last year. That is $13½ billion worth of investment in the last three months and $52 billion over the last financial year.
They are numbers, and those numbers probably don't mean a lot to most Australians, but what they do mean to each and every one of them is jobs and opportunities. There is hope in our economy. There is a path forward. We have a JobMaker plan, a plan for a recovery. I was in Mount Isa in recent weeks. Glencore at Mount Isa has more than 300 open positions right now—300 jobs in Mount Isa, well paid, well trained and available for individuals who meet those needs. I met with an adult apprentice who has taken on an electrician's job. I'm very partial to electricians, as a former electrician, I have to say! This individual had arrived in Mount Isa, towing a boat, to visit a family member, and what happened? He got a job at the mine and he stayed. He went to town for two weeks and he hasn't left for years. These are the stories of opportunity in regional Australia. These are the opportunities that we have for all Australians.
The resources sector is a shining light in our economy. I want to thank every single one of the working men and women in the resources sector who are doing everything they can to continue to build Australia's economy, to continue to build opportunities for us and our kids and those into the future. They need to continue to do that, because it is in the national interest. For those who are opposed to the mining sector, I say, 'Shame on you,' because where would we be positioned right now if not for this industry, if not for this sector, if not for the jobs that it provides, the taxes it pays, the royalties it pays, for hospitals and roads? (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. News Corp has launched the Aged Care 360 campaign to bring greater transparency to the aged-care sector. Will the Prime Minister provide the transparency that families of aged-care residents deserve, including the details of COVID infections and deaths, by aged-care facility, giving families exactly the same information that is available to the Prime Minister himself?
Very importantly, one of the things we've sought to do right from the outset, when we set out in February the national strategy of containment—to flatten the curve and build the ability to deal with every situation, to go to the previous question—is to seek to save every life, fight for every life, because, as the Prime Minister said then and again today, every life matters. Against that background, what we've sought to do is twofold. Firstly, it is to build that capacity within the aged-care sector, to ensure that there is funding, to ensure that there are the places. We've boosted the capacity of the aged-care sector from $13 billion to $22 billion to $23 billion to $24 billion and to $25 billion. In addition to that, each day now we have a report from the Victorian Aged Care Response Centre, set up jointly with the Victorian government, on the activities and actions and on the outcomes and the sad losses. That is provided by the Victorian Aged Care Response Centre. That is a joint partnership with the Victorian government. That sets out the transfers—now over 480 transfers, for example—that have been carried out, that sets out the work of the ADF and that sets out the terrible losses and figures.
I rise on a point of order. It was a very specific question. News Corp's campaign goes to every state that News Corp tabloids are running, including The Courier-Mail, the Daily Telegraph
The Leader of the Opposition can resume his seat. The Leader of the House on the point of order.
The minister was asked a question about the provision of information. Then he has provided an answer about the provision of precisely the type of information that was asked and he's clearly relevant.
I've listened to the point of order. I think the minister was being relevant and then enlarging on the topic, but I'll listen carefully to his final point.
With regard to the figures, on a state-by-state basis, in terms of lives lost within aged-care facilities, there have been zero in the ACT, 29 in New South Wales, zero in the Northern Territory, one in Queensland, none in South Australia, three in Tasmania, 433 in Victoria, one in Western Australia, which is 467 across Australia. I would note that the opposition has made much of the accuracy of particular figures. There are two occasions—and I would not have brought this to the attention of the House until the fact that the opposition seems to have raised this—
I say to the minister that he needs to stop there. It's not an opportunity to answer a different question. The question was specific. He's stuck to the facts but it did not talk about the opposition in any way, shape or form.
There were two occasions when the Leader of the Opposition—
No. The minister will resume his seat.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline to the House how the agricultural sector will play a significant role in supporting the Australian economy to emerge from the COVID-19 recession as part of the government's plan?
I thank the member for Grey for his question and acknowledge the contribution the electorate of Grey plays to not only South Australian agriculture but also the Australian agricultural industry. Over the last 18 months farmers, not only in Grey but right across the country, have faced numerous challenges: drought, fire, floods in north-west Queensland and now COVID-19. But despite the challenges that they face they continue to just get on with the job. They've been the economic backbone of this country, at the start of this COVID pandemic, in making sure that we are fed and clothed.
Despite these challenges, we should be proud of the fact that Australian agriculture, this financial year, will actually increase to $61 billion. That's an enormous result considering the challenges that our Australian agricultural industry has faced. Some gleaming examples of that are that the export of meat and live animals is up 35 per cent on the five-year average, and horticultural exports are up 34 per cent on the five-year average and this year's winter crop will, in fact, beat the 10-year average, such has been the rain that we've received across many parts of eastern Australia. That's a real advantage for those farmers but more importantly those communities that support them.
We've tried to support them through the drought, with over $10 billion worth of support in commitments; the north-west Queensland floods, with over $3 billion; and the fires, with over $2 billion in direct assistance. One of the key measures around the drought was a $4 billion investment in the Regional Investment Corporation, allowing farmers to refinance up to $2 million of their debt from a commercial bank with no interest and no repayments for two years. That would save a farmer, on interest only, at six per cent, around $120,000 a year. That is money we're taking out of big banks' pockets and putting back into farmers' pockets. We're allowing farmers to use that to replant and restock. They need time for their budgets and the cash flows to repair. That takes time, and giving them that interest-free repayment period allows them to do that.
What happens when you do that for farmers? You put money in their pockets, they invest it in their business with better efficiency and productivity and they invest it in their local communities. It's being complemented by the instant asset write off, lifting the cap to $150,000. Since July, when this came in, there has been a 24 per cent increase in the number of tractor sales, 33 per cent in balers and 14 per cent in front mowers. That's a significant investment putting money back into local communities. We're seeing economic growth in these communities from these measures that are supporting not just agriculture but regional communities. If we support agriculture and we support regional Australia it's good for all of Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Treasurer admitted that only $85 billion of the $314 billion of economic support has been delivered by the government. Are today's figures better or worse because the Prime Minister failed to deliver most of the support he announced for families and businesses doing it tough in the worst recession for almost a hundred years?
The commitment that the government has made through the JobKeeper program, through the JobSeeker program, through the cash flow support, through the many measures—whether they be HomeBuilder, JobTrainer, all of these programs, including the balance sheet support that is being provided by the Reserve Bank, through which there has already been some $50 billion of support to keep rates low and to support the investments that have been made by businesses—these investments that are being made by the Australian government are not just for today, they're for tomorrow. They're extended out to the end of March and, for many of these programs, well beyond that.
The shadow Treasurer may be unaware that when you make funding commitments you do it not just now but over the next few years. That is how budgets work. I know the shadow Treasurer has never put a budget together and I know these are not matters that he may be well versed in, when his mentor on this was former Treasurer Swan, but I can let the shadow Treasurer know that the support we have announced is not just for today. It's for tomorrow and for the many months and quarters and in some cases for the years ahead. What is important as we move through this crisis is that we give that support both for today and tomorrow but also that we provide the road back for Australian businesses as they seek to make their way back.
Today's news is terrible news. It's devastating news. While it is true that, through the measures we've put in place, we've been able to cushion the blow with the expenditure already undertaken and the expenditure still to come, which Australians can count on, because it's been committed in the way we've set out, we have been able as a country to suppress this virus so much more than so many other countries around the world today, despite the very significant outbreak we've had more recently in Victoria. The same has been true to mitigate the impact, and far more devastating economic impacts that have been experienced in so many other places. There has been a 13 per cent fall through the year in Canada, a 19 per cent fall in France, an 11.3 per cent fall in Germany, a 10 per cent fall in Japan, a nine per cent fall in the United States, a 21.7 per cent fall in the United Kingdom and in Australia a 6.3 per cent fall. Devastating as that is, what I can also say is the death rate in Canada is nine times higher than in Australia, it's 18 times higher in France, it's four times higher in Germany, it's 21 times higher in the United States and 23.8 times higher in the United Kingdom. Australia is getting the balance right to save lives and livelihoods in a crisis. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government, through its continued investment in critical infrastructure, is working to create every possible job and to support our economy as we come out the other side of the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for Berowra for his question. As the Prime Minister just pointed out, the national accounts figures have been devastating, and behind all of those job losses, of course, are individual families, extended friends and loved ones, and they're all feeling it.
So our great task is to rebuild those jobs over the years ahead, and one of the big levers that we have, as the member alluded to, is through our Infrastructure Investment Program. As members would know, we have a $100 billion investment program, and that means projects right around Australia are being undertaken right now. Since November of last year, we've brought forward new money—$10 billion of extra funding into the forward estimates—to get even more projects underway and get more jobs underway.
One of those very large-scale projects, in the member for Berowra's electorate, is NorthConnex. That project alone—which I know the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, along with the member for Berowra, visited just recently—is creating 8,700 jobs, a massive jobs boost for that area. Of course, it will have a huge impact across the northern suburbs of Sydney when it's complete as well, taking 5,000 trucks off Pennant Hills Road in the process. That's just one major project which is underway right now.
Across Sydney, we've just recently announced, as the member for Lindsay is aware, the Western Sydney Airport rail. That will be underway later this year, and 14,000 jobs will be created just in that project alone. That, of course, is on top of the 10,000-plus jobs being created during the construction phase of the Western Sydney Airport itself.
Down in Victoria, where we need so many jobs because we've been hit so hard down there with the restrictions, later this year we're going to see the monster North East Link project get underway. That will be 10,000 further jobs for the residents of Melbourne—and jeez we need those jobs! Of course, the contribution we're making to the M1, as the member for La Trobe knows so well, is equally creating thousands of jobs, as are the M80 and so many other projects.
We have other projects creating thousands of jobs around the rest of Australia, including the Metronet for Perth, as the member for Curtin and other members know, as well as projects in Adelaide and Tasmania and elsewhere. This is such an important part of our recovery efforts. We've got projects underway now. There'll be more to come, because it creates jobs, which means supporting families, supporting livelihoods and getting us back on track.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Rankin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's lack of a jobs plan which is leaving too many Australians behind.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Today was the darkest day in the Australian economy for almost a century, as we had confirmed what so many Australians already knew, which is that Australia is in the deepest, most damaging, most devastating recession on record. Recessions rob communities of jobs, they rob families of breadwinners, they rob nations of opportunities and they risk discarding entire generations of people who are disconnected from work for long enough that they find it hard to ever find their way back again. These are the human consequences and the human costs of the type of recession that Australia finds itself in today.
Australia's had a really remarkable run of continuous economic growth. No other developed nation like ours can claim to have grown continuously for almost three decades, as Australia has done. That is a tribute, most of all, to the Australian people—Australian workers, Australian businesses, Australian communities—who have achieved something truly amazing, something that the rest of the world has envied us for for some time: a remarkable three-decade run of continuous economic growth. It began under Paul Keating, of course, under the Labor government of the early nineties; it was protected when it was last most at risk by another Labor government—Kevin Rudd, working with Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan; and that's something that this side of the House is really proud of. The fact is that that remarkable run comes to an end today, officially, on the watch of those opposite.
This is the worst recession in almost a century. We do already have a new record: more than a million Australians are jobless for the first time in the history of this nation. The government tell us that they expect something like an extra 400,000 Australians to join the unemployment queues between now and Christmas. The Treasurer has spent much of today telling Australians what they already knew, that things are bad, things are grim—people already knew that; they already felt that—but, remarkably, still not a word about what the government actually intends to do about it; still nothing that resembles a credible, genuine, comprehensive plan for jobs in this country. And that is what the nation most needs right now, as we face these dark days of recession and the long tail of unemployment. We fear the intergenerational disadvantage that comes from long-term unemployment—the lost generation, the disadvantage that concentrates and cascades. Unfortunately, it's something that has happened in many of the communities that we on this side of the House represent. That's the thing that we are trying to avoid here. That is the reason why we are so passionate about getting the economic decisions right—because the human costs of getting it wrong are diabolical. And it's not just for the next few months, as important as that is, and not even for the next few years, as important as that is. But, if the government continues to get things wrong, this nation will wear the costs and consequences of that for generations, and that's what we're trying to avoid.
This recession is deeper than it needs to be, and it will hang around longer than it needs to hang around if the government continues to get at least three things wrong. The first is that they were too slow out of the blocks to provide what is welcome support in the economy. Unfortunately, they show all of the signs of withdrawing that support too soon. So, having come in too late and too narrowly, they risk withdrawing that support too soon and too broadly. As the Reserve Bank governor and others have pointed out, that does have the potential to cruel the recovery before it even gathers pace, and that is something we need to avoid. That's the first mistake.
The second—and, unfortunately, it's become a feature of the government, of those opposite—is the mistake of thinking that announcing support for the economy is a substitute for delivering that support to real people in real communities, and real workers and businesses right around Australia. The announcement of that support is not the thing that keeps the economy going; it's the delivery of that support. We heard yesterday, and again today, the government saying they're delivering $314 billion of support, when in reality they can only get to $85 billion. What that means is that, having not got enough support out the door, the recession is deeper than it needs to be and it will hang around longer than it needs to hang around.
The third mistake that those opposite have made may be the most consequential one, and that is that, in their rush to withdraw support from the economy, they don't have a plan for jobs to replace it. If they said to us, 'We want to replace this support with something else,' we would listen. But the reality is they're in this rush and they're all clambering over each other to withdraw support out of the economy, but there's nothing to replace it. That is also going to have devastating consequences for the economy.
Australians are really worried right now, for good reason. There's a lot of anxiety. We all know it. We all hear it and feel it when we engage with our own communities. And people are anxious for the right reasons. They're worried about how they'll put food on the table, put school shoes on their kids, pay the rent or pay off the mortgage. These are very real concerns that those opposite need to understand. When the Australian people are as concerned as they are, they look to the government for support, of course. But they also look to the government for a vision of what happens next, how we get out of this together and what we need to do to stand up for each other, speak up for each other and work together to get ourselves out of this mess that we are seeing in the economy right now. That plan for the future and that plan for jobs is entirely absent. We heard that again in question time today.
The Treasurer has had a lot to say today, of course—it's an important day for the Treasurer to seek to explain what's going on to the Australian people. But they have not explained to the Australian people what they're going to do about it. I think that at the end of today, when Australians tuck their kids in and fall asleep, all they will really have learned is that there are some abstract numbers from the Bureau of Statistics which confirm what they already knew, but they're none the wiser about what the government wants to do about them.
I think it's becoming really clear that the Treasurer is not up to this task. I don't say that lightly, because we do want the government to succeed. If the government succeed with their policy agenda then more Australians will keep their jobs or find work, having lost their jobs to this recession. But I think it is clear that the Treasurer is not up to it. If you could create jobs in this economy by spinning and grinning your way through it, if you could create jobs by networking or if you could create jobs by being really good at poring over other people's transcripts with your little yellow highlighter out then this would be the guy—we've got our guy! But, unfortunately, we need a Treasurer with a bit of vision, a bit of humility, a bit of depth, a bit of grunt and a bit of understanding of what's happening to real people in real communities. It pains me to say that we don't have that.
He is in many ways a poster child for the problem with this government: the preference for spin over substance, chasing headlines and not chasing jobs—as the Leader of the Opposition says, 'always there for the photo op but never there for the follow-up'. This is a real problem with this government. This is not just a political criticism that we're making; it actually has consequences for people. When you have a government that prioritises the headline over the job and the announcement over the delivery then more and more people are going to suffer during this recession. It's no wonder that when we opened the paper during the course of last week we saw what even the Treasurer's own colleagues were saying of him, in Rob Harris's piece in The Sydney Morning Herald:
"We were announcing stimulus packages in the morning which were irrelevant by the afternoon, but you'd pick up the paper and read about how Josh did this or that and how the policy was formed," one colleague said on the condition of anonymity. "I thought to myself 'how on earth does he have the time to promote himself when we are dealing with the biggest challenge we've faced in a century?'"
I think there's something to that criticism. Whoever that was over there, I think you're right. I think that's a legitimate criticism.
One of the ways we know he spends more time promoting himself than trying to identify with the real needs and anxieties of the Australian community is that, when we got the worst number in almost a century today, his response was, 'Well, the good news is we're not doing as badly as Donald Trump's America'. If you're one of the one million unemployed in this country, or you are one of the 400,000 who are about to lose their jobs, the idea that things are a little bit worse in Donald Trump's America is absolutely meaningless to you. It is cold comfort for all those people who have lost their jobs and all of those businesses who have hit the fence in the last little while. We desperately need those opposite to reconsider their withdrawal of support from the economy. We need them to get the support that they announced out the door and, most importantly and most fundamentally, we need to hear a plan for jobs in this country.
The member for Rankin's assertion about there being no jobs plan is simply factually untrue. He knows it's untrue because over the past two weeks he has been debating in this place aspects of our jobs plan and, by all appearances, trying his best to frustrate and delay our plan. I think that most Australians do know about our plan. Those opposite might not wish to recall it, but there was a poll over the weekend showing that, on the question of having a plan and a vision for the future of Australia, the Prime Minister and our government held the widest margin over an opposition at any time in the last 10 years. I'll quote from the article; it said, 'Voters overwhelmingly back Mr Morrison, the Prime Minister, in a time of crisis as having a plan for the future.'
Inconveniently for those opposite, the article went on to add that the results reveal a political problem for Labor and for the Labor leader. While those opposite might wish to focus on their political priorities, Australians know that the government's focus throughout the course of this once-in-100-years crisis has been to save lives and to save livelihoods. The government has this week extended JobKeeper and our other support measures. Australians know that, as we and the rest of the world emerge on the other side of this crisis, it is only the Morrison government which has demonstrated a commitment to move quickly, with policies like JobKeeper, and to consider every lever at our disposal to save jobs, to create new jobs and to maintain our prosperity.
We know that these are extraordinary times and that there are no simple answers and no silver bullets when it comes to addressing the dual health and economic crises of COVID-19. And that's exactly why we have a multipronged jobs plan that leaves no stone unturned when it comes to getting Australians back into work. From our unprecedented economic support packages, to reforms to skills and apprenticeships, to deregulation and cutting red tape, to our industrial relations forms, to the record investments we're making in nation-building infrastructure, to the much-needed reforms we're making to Australia's taxation system—the Morrison governments plan is providing an unprecedented level of policy support for Australia and Australians during COVID-19. And that includes the more than $100 billion that we have committed to the unprecedented JobKeeper program, which to date has seen more than $42 billion delivered in temporary and targeted JobKeeper payments to more than 900,000 businesses, providing income support and a vital economic lifeline to around 3½ million Australian people.
And we continue to provide this unprecedented support to households and businesses by extending the JobKeeper program by six months in the laws that we passed through the parliament just this week. The businesses kept open and the workers whose jobs are saved aren't just statistics as was mentioned on the other side just then; they are our friends, our family and the many tens of thousands of people in the community and on the street who we represent in this chamber. I know I'm not alone when I say that I have met and spoken to thousands of constituents over the course of this crisis who have looked to the federal government for help this year and have been able to rely on the economic and other policy lifelines provided by our government in this moment of significant need. Many of these local constituents, these local businesses, tell us what we know: that the Morrison government's policies, including JobKeeper, are delivering results. More than half of the 1.3 million Australians who have either lost their job or seen their hours reduced to zero during this crisis are now back in work. That support has helped to save 700,000 Australian jobs. The unemployment rate would have been about five per cent higher than it is in Australia today were it not for our support.
We don't seek to downplay or trivialise the unprecedented economic hardship being felt by so many Australians, which was revealed in those figures today. At the same time, it is a reasonable approach to assess how the government's jobs plan is faring in respect to this pandemic. And when you do that it is of course important to compare our experience to that of other comparable nations. The economies of almost all countries will contract this year, according to the IMF, with many of those countries, including countries very much like ours, experiencing huge declines. The figures show staggering declines in GDP around the world—20 per cent in the UK, 14 per cent in France and 10 per cent in Canada. Here in Australia, today's national accounts reveal the pain that Australians are feeling. They show a figure of seven per cent, which is much less than what we are seeing in most of the countries we reasonably compare our situation to. We know that we are not magically immune from the wrecking ball of COVID. We know that Australians are doing it tough at this challenging time. And the government will continue to do everything we can to support Australian households, businesses and our economy.
The government's plan even extends to non-economic portfolios like my own. In the area of waste reduction and recycling, the government's proposed reforms will contribute to 10,000 more jobs being created in the resource recovery sector. Our recycling bills, the first of their kind, combined with our government's Recycling Modernisation Fund and our other reforms around recycling, are of course all designed to accomplish better environmental outcomes in Australia and across our region, including through the reduction of plastics in our oceans. But these recycling bills and other reforms will also achieve economic benefits, economic growth and more resilience in Australia's economy. Creating value through transforming waste-streams back into valuable resources is a better, smarter way of dealing with our waste. And, ultimately, it means prosperity and jobs. The jobs in the resource recovery sector are many and varied: equipment operators, maintenance workers, chemists, scientists, logistics managers. In short, we're building here in Australia the recycling facilities and infrastructure we need to process the waste streams that, until now, we've been sending offshore.
Every Australian needs to see some of the latest technology that's available for sorting and processing waste. It's an eye-opening experience when you see the conveyor belts taking co-mingled recyclables whizzing along at a million miles an hour, and the machines using spectrometry—lasers, essentially—to instantly check whether that piece of plastic is, say, clear PET or white polypropylene, and then the jets of air and magnets and so on pushing them onto different conveyor belts, so that ultimately you get these tubs of perfectly sorted resources. Seeing that is when you realise that this is something we should and can do more of in Australia.
Our recycling modernisation fund, together with contributions from the states and territories and industry, now forms the basis of a $1 billion transformation our government is overseeing of Australia's domestic waste and recycling industries. That is going to create so many new jobs. Those jobs—10,000 new jobs—are what our government's plan, just in this space, is supporting. Many of these new jobs, I hasten to add, will be in exactly the parts of the country where we need to see them the most—in regional Australia and in outer suburbs. Keep in mind: these investments and the new facilities being built will simultaneously help our nation to become more self-reliant and self-sufficient in key industries, including manufacturing and remanufacturing, which is exactly what Australians want to see happening right now.
Whether it's through our ambitious plan for waste and recycling or through the hard work of ministerial colleagues across almost every area of policy and economic reform, our government has a strong, multipronged plan for jobs. In coming years, as we emerge on the other side of this crisis, Australia is going to need a federal government which can be trusted with the economy and which has the proven capacity to help industry to create significant numbers of jobs. If those are the criteria, there is only one government in all of Australia's history that has created, to date, over a million and a half new jobs. That's the track record of this government, and the Morrison government will remain focused on building confidence and momentum in our economy, saving lives and saving livelihoods. We'll remain focused on the road out and on getting Australians back to work.
It's a dark day: a recession, the first in 30 years; a seven per cent contraction in the economy over the last quarter. But behind that word 'recession' lies the fate of millions of Australians. One million Australians are out of work. Another three million Australians are on JobKeeper, reliant on government support for their livelihoods in the full knowledge that, in three weeks time, the government is going to slash $300 of support from each and every one of those people. Unemployment's going up. Business investment's going down. Hope's nowhere to be seen. The government's slashing $300 a head from all of those people who are relying on their support.
I speak with some experience on what it's like to attempt to enter the workforce in the midst of a recession. I left school in 1983, in the midst of a recession, but, in particular, a regional recession in the Illawarra, created by the collapse of the steel industry. In the months before I left school, the steelworks contracted from a workplace employing 23,000 people to a workplace employing 13,000 people—10,000 people in a period of very few months lost their jobs, 10,000 fathers and mothers in households throughout one region alone. Jobs walked out the door. But it wasn't just the experience of those people who lost their jobs; it was all my classmates, who had the legitimate hope and expectation that, if they applied themselves at school, in the next few months, they would follow their fathers or their brothers or their uncles into a job as a boilermaker or a fitter in the steelworks or a sparky in the mines or an operator in one of the manufacturing industries that worked in unison with the steelworks. Those legitimate hopes and expectations were smashed in months.
In situations like this, the government has a role. The region on its own could not bring itself out of that recession. We needed assistance and a plan from the government, and we got it. The election of the Hawke Labor government saw a turning of the fortunes for the people of the Illawarra. The steel industry plan was put in place. The government went to BHP, as it then was, not with false hope but with a real plan: 'Yes, people are going to lose their jobs, and this business will not exist in another 10 years unless the owners of that business make some investments and transform it into a productive enterprise. But, at the same time, you have an obligation to the workers that you're about to lose and the workers that you're going to keep. You need to train those workers to ensure that they have the skills for your workplace in the future. You need to upgrade your plant and equipment so that it's not the clapped-out, sweated capital that doesn't have a hope of competing in a manufacturing industry of the future.'
This is the sort of plan that we need today: government working in partnership with business, saying, 'We are going to invest with you and help you to become more productive enterprises and help you to help your employees, so long as there is an agreement that there will be a sharing of the productive benefits when growth does come.' It doesn't all get squirrelled away into profits; it's shared between the workers and the business, and there is a transition plan for those workers who are losing their jobs. Unless you do all three of those things, it will not work. That's what we need, not just in one region but all around the country.
What we don't need is a recovery built on a press release. It won't work. What we don't need over the next few months is a proliferation of grants programs that dole out money to National Party or Liberal Party electorates on the basis of mateships. We don't need that. This is a recession affecting the whole country, not just National Party or Liberal Party electorates. What we need is a plan that truly brings together the life of the slogan the Prime Minister is happy to repeat: 'We're all in this together'. We're happy to work with the government on this plan, but we'll be criticising it every step of the way when they fall short. (Time expired)
The Commonwealth government has a comprehensive jobs plan that is working to protect and create jobs during this once-in-a-lifetime health and economic crisis. At a time like this, a multipronged approach is needed. The Commonwealth government's plan has several aspects, including funding for more apprenticeships and traineeships, a focus on deregulation and cutting red tape, necessary industrial relations reform to create more flexible workplaces, tax reform to give money back to hardworking Australians, investments into infrastructure, and, of course, the economic support packages that have been protecting Australian jobs for many months now. All of these elements will be crucial to ensure that enough jobs can be created to support Australia's recovery out of the worst recession we have faced in almost 100 years.
Today I want to focus on one point in particular—the JobKeeper payment, which I know has protected and will continue to protect jobs in my electorate of Mallee and across the country. Now worth over $100 billion, the JobKeeper program has acted as a lifeline for over 3.5 million people and nearly one million Australian businesses. In the month of May, there were 4,200 businesses in Mallee who applied for JobKeeper. In recent weeks, I've heard from a range of businesses across Mallee who have benefited enormously from the JobKeeper payment. I repeatedly hear that JobKeeper has kept businesses alive, has kept employees in jobs and has facilitated regeneration in an incredibly challenging environment.
Many of the small hotels and motels in Mallee have been hit hard due to a lack of visitors and professional clients. The Junction Motel in Maryborough, operated by Janet McDonald, is almost fully reliant on guests coming out of Australia's capital cities. Janet said that, if it weren't for JobKeeper, she would be fearful for her business surviving. Janet was desperate for an extension of the JobKeeper payment when I spoke to her in July, and I was glad to later inform her of the extension to the program. Janet knows that the tourism industry will be one of the last to recover from this pandemic, due to the ongoing need for restrictions, and she's incredibly grateful for the ongoing support of the Commonwealth government.
I've also heard from Brian Wood, the Director of Wood & Co Real Estate in Swan Hill. His business has been affected by reduced rental income as they negotiate rental relief for commercial and domestic tenants due to the pandemic. Seven of Brian's staff have been retained through the JobKeeper payment. Another business in Swan Hill is Tan's Tucker Box, owned and operated by Tania Hovenden. Tania told me that her business would be closed without JobKeeper. She said the payment was a lifesaver at the start of the pandemic when everything was so uncertain. Trade at her business is still variable due to ongoing restrictions, and she still needs JobKeeper to survive. Tania has been able to retain two staff with the payment and is now confident she will be able to trade out of this crisis into a healthy position.
I also want to welcome the significant infrastructure investments that are being made around the country. My electorate of Mallee has received funding for five projects, totalling $4.2 million. These projects include the Charlton 2020; Burchip Streetscape; Buloke Roads of Strategic Importance; projects in Buloke Shire Council; stage 1 of Our Game Plan in Swan Hill, with its rural city council; Ouyen Livestock Exchange in Mildura Rural City Council; and Woodbine accommodation facilities in Yarriambiack Shire Council. The 12 local government areas in my electorate have also received $18 million in new funding through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. I know that councils in Mallee are putting this money towards priority projects that will create jobs in the short and long term. Northern Grampians Shire Council, for example, is using the money for numerous infrastructure projects in Saint Arnaud, in the south of my electorate.
The Commonwealth government does have a plan to ensure that Australian jobs are protected and that more are created. This is clearly evident through the success of the JobKeeper payment and the significant infrastructure commitments we've already made and will continue to make through the JobMaker plan. The government has a multipronged approach to solve the challenges facing Australia in terms of job creation, and this plan is leading us out and on the road to recovery.
The numbers that we've received today have told us something that Australians knew. They knew because they could see it and they could feel it. They could see it in the shuttered shops. They could see it in the Centrelink queues snaking around the block. They could see it in the eyes of the person struggling to keep their business open at the local cafe they were used to visiting. And they could feel it in their own anxiety, in their worry about losing their job or losing hours at work, or feeling bad because, like us, they've got secure work and they feel terrible for the people they see—their friends and relatives, the people they went to school with—that don't have that same security. We didn't choose this pandemic. What we can do, though, is choose how we respond to it.
I think it's quite right—I think there is agreement across both sides of the chamber—that we need to do everything we can as a parliament to keep people healthy, to keep them safe and to keep them working. But what there's not agreement about is what measures to take. What do we do? What do we do to keep people working? What do we do to get the economy back on track? Over here we have a plan to get people back to work, to keep them in jobs and to make sure their wages and conditions are supporting their confidence to go out and keep spending and investing to create jobs for other people. On that side we've got two things happening: we've got announcements—sadly, too many of those have turned out to be empty rhetoric—and, even worse, we've actually got measures that make things worse now, not better.
We all know about the announcements. We've got JobKeeper, JobSeeker, HomeBuilder and JobMaker. JobKeeper we're now actually reducing. JobSeeker we're now reducing. JobMaker nobody really understands. As for HomeBuilder, yesterday the minister claimed it was supporting hundreds of thousands of tradies. Well, we know that not a dollar has actually gone out the door for HomeBuilder, so that's a pretty good effort, isn't it—supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs without a dollar spent! As for the small business loans, the Treasurer confessed yesterday that less than five per cent of those loans have actually made it to small businesses. So they are very big on announcement but really terrible at getting that support into the hands of the people who are desperate for it, who desperately need it and are relying on it to make ends meet, to pay the bills and to keep their businesses open. That's a serious problem.
But you know what's even worse? What is even worse is that there are things this government is choosing to do that are making things worse, not better—deliberate decisions that are taking money out of the hands of people who desperately need it to make ends meet. Cutting JobKeeper is one example. Another is cutting wages for people who are still employed. Wages were flatlining before COVID-19 hit the Australian economy. They've been falling since COVID-19 hit. What do the government want to do? They want to make it worse by changing the industrial relations environment so that people lose more out of their pay packets. We've seen Qantas. They're about to sack 2,500 people, not because the jobs aren't there but because they want to rehire a cheaper workforce. Do we hear the government objecting to that? Do we hear the government objecting to the fact that the Australia Post executives want to pay themselves a bonus while they ask their staff to deliver parcels as volunteers? The government are making it worse by preventing the indexation of the pension. They say they're going to fix that. They're waiting for a good time for a big announcement, are they? Have they not cut the ad yet? Is that the problem? Is that the delay—they haven't got the advertisement ready?
I want to finish on this one: universities. Why on God's earth would you make it harder and more expensive for people to get an education at a time when unemployment has gone through the roof? More than a million people are unemployed and another 400,000 are set to lose their jobs by Christmas, and this government chooses this time to make it harder and more expensive to get the education that would help you in this competitive jobs market. Why? (Time expired)
Earlier today the Treasurer outlined the record fall of real GDP by seven per cent for the June quarter and the record fall in household consumption. As the Treasurer pointed out, today's figures only confirm the recession. Australians know, because they are living it. The people of Moncrieff are living it.
But there's a sense of hope and a sense of momentum, and that's coming from this side of the House. When I visit local Gold Coast businesses, I so often hear that it would have been so much worse without the decisive action of the Morrison government. Small business owners tell me the doors are open thanks to the government support, giving them a bridge to their future. Workers tell me they still have a job thanks to JobKeeper, like Carol in Surfers Paradise, who has been working at the same restaurant for 25 years. She and all the staff at the restaurant are on JobKeeper. That decisive action has been on a tremendous scale. There has been over $300 billion in economic support packages by our government, and that has been so important for the Gold Coast: JobKeeper, cash flow boosts, the coronavirus supplement, stimulus payments, backing business investment, supporting apprentices and trainees, instant asset write-offs and more. That decisive action has prevented 700,000 people from losing their jobs. Unemployment would have been five per cent higher without the Morrison government's support packages.
While the government has been spreading hope and delivering support, Gold Coasters get a very different message from those opposite. It's a message of fear. The member for Rankin says we don't have a plan. He sends his Brisbane mate Senator Watt down to the coast to spread fear and misinformation, ignorant of the reality, because Labor ignored the Reimagine Gold Coast forum with business and with industry leaders, supported by many members on this side of the House. But Gold Coasters aren't listening to the Labor message of fear. The work ethic of people like Carol in Surfers Paradise can't be crushed by Labor's message of fear. Business and industry are leading the way and on this side of the House we are supporting them. I back business and I back industry.
The $62.8 million Local Jobs Program was announced yesterday by the minister. The program will deliver a local employment facilitator who will work with local stakeholders. Those stakeholders are the City Heart Taskforce that I convened in May, an across-industry task force who have already done the work at the Reimagine Gold Coast forum—which was a COVID-safe event held two weeks ago—that will provide the necessary insights to work alongside the Local Jobs Program. The Local Jobs Program will assist Gold Coasters with reskilling, upskilling and setting up employment pathways for local jobseekers. Through the forum, the City Heart Taskforce has ensured that the Gold Coast is ready, willing and able to work alongside the Morrison government to match skills with jobs through the Local Jobs Program and the local jobs plan. The National Skills Commission is part of the government's $585 million package delivering skills for today and tomorrow, and its data will be used to assist jobseekers.
The government's approach to skills and employment contrasts with the mess that Labor left behind when last in office. Nobody has forgotten the debacle of bogus courses by unscrupulous training providers permitted by Labor's changes to the VET FEE-HELP program. I know Gold Coasters are relieved that during this pandemic the steady hands of our Prime Minister and our Treasurer are on the wheel, because instead of pink batts—remember those in the GFC?—they get JobKeeper and they get JobSeeker. The contrast could not be greater.
On the Gold Coast business leaders are determined to create jobs for today and tomorrow. The skills focus of this government is the best to complement it. The member for Rankin has a bit of a blind spot when it comes to jobs, because he doesn't want to talk about the harm of the state border closure by his friend Annastacia Palaszczuk. When it comes to border closures he said today: 'I think she's been right.' The member for Rankin is a supporter of an alternative plan for jobs. It is the Queensland Premier's plan. It's the plan for her job and it's probably a plan for 'dodgy Jackie's' job. It's not a plan for Gold Coast jobs and it comes at the expense of Gold Coast businesses. The harsh border closures are hurting Gold Coast businesses, so that she can keep her job by looking tough rather than helping people doing it tough. By contrast, the Local Jobs Program is about putting Gold Coast jobseekers at the very heart of our city's economic recovery.
In March my constituent Chris Endrey found himself jobless. As he put it:
The financial distress of this period has pressed onto other areas of my life, with deleterious impacts upon my health, a loss of housing security, and the loss of the higher order capacities which evaporate in the face of such baseline pressures.
… … …
I am so desperate to end my hours of infinite couch-surfing and writing stupid letters and instead channel my energy and talents into something of use to our rumbling society.
Chris Endrey is among the one million Australians out of work, and another 400,000 will lose their jobs before Christmas. Unemployment can have devastating impacts on physical health, on mental health, on relationships, on marriages and on children. A job isn't just a source of income. It's also a source of self-esteem and identity. That's why we so often ask someone at a party, 'So, what do you do?' The impact of joblessness is worst for young people. There's Treasury research showing that the scarring impacts can last up to a decade and have gotten worse over recent decades. That's why the government's short-sighted cuts to university are so damaging to young people.
Today, we've learned that there was a seven per cent drop in national income last quarter. Australia, as of today, is in its first recession in a generation and the worst downturn in nearly a century. The Australian economy approached this downturn from a position of weakness. We started this year with the worst wage growth on record. Household spending was growing at the slowest pace since the global financial crisis. Retail was in its deepest slump since 1990. Last year, new car sales fell eight per cent. Construction was shrinking at its fastest rate since 1999. Business investment was at its lowest level since the 1990s recession. Labour productivity, output per hour worked, fell 0.2 per cent in 2018-19. The rate of new business formation was declining. The rate of job switching was down. Geographic mobility had fallen. We were in the Morrison stagnation at the start of the year, and we're in the Morrison recession now. Despite this, the government has left out casuals, arts workers and the university sector from its response. The government now plans to cut JobKeeper and JobSeeker at the end of the month. The economy has not snapped back as the Prime Minister promised, but he's snapping back support all the same. The HomeBuilder policy hasn't delivered one dollar of support. Australians are flying blind, with the government having promised to provide regular unemployment data to the COVID committee and having broken that promise.
What we need isn't just fiscal stimulus; we need stimulus that also leaves a positive legacy. That could include investment in renewables: making buildings more efficient and building cycle paths, car chargers, public transport systems and solar and wind farms. We could improve educational outcomes, given that, as we know, Australia's test scores in maths, science and reading have dropped since the start of the century, and COVID has widened the educational gap. We could help turn that around by engaging additional educators to provide intensive support to our most vulnerable students. We could build more social housing, as the member for Blaxland has pointed out, dealing with the fact that the home ownership rate is now at a 60-year low. And we could work to reduce inequality. Recessions tend to hurt the most those who have the least. Low-income workers are less likely to be able to telework. People with few assets are most vulnerable to dropping off the edge. We should make paid pandemic leave available to all workers. We should expand child care to help counteract the disproportionate effect of the downturn on women. Firms getting JobKeeper shouldn't be paying out massive CEO bonuses and excessive dividends. I thank the member for Herbert for his support of that position in the press today.
If we get this right, we have an opportunity to emerge from this crisis as a nation that puts connectedness ahead of selfish individualism. We need an engaged egalitarian approach. We need to recognise that the world isn't our enemy—that trade, migration and foreign investment have been fundamental to Australia's productivity growth. If we continue the attacks on 'negative globalism', if we continue the populist political attacks on overseas nations, then Australia will be poorer and our recovery will be slower. If we're going to get out of the Morrison recession, we need a clear plan, we need a smart stimulus and we need engaged egalitarianism.
Today, the national accounts have shown just how much we've been affected by this once-in-100-years pandemic. This is why the Morrison government has been implementing an economic package throughout the pandemic that has assisted, I'm really pleased to say, 4,500 businesses in my community. Many of them have spoken to me about this package being a lifesaver or throwing them a lifeline so they can continue to employ local people and continue to do the important work they do across our community. As the Prime Minister says, we are fighting a war on two fronts: on the health front, to defeat the virus, and, on the economic front, to promote jobs and stability to the millions of Australians who have felt the impacts of the coronavirus. To achieve these, we need to deliver projects that create jobs and support the thousands of local businesses, including in my electorate of Lindsay and including our new emerging industries.
Yesterday, the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business announced a new $62.8 million local jobs program. This program helps Australians reskill and upskill and find employment as quickly as possible. It's really encouraging that at home in Lindsay we will now have a local employment facilitator. The facilitator will use local expertise to connect jobseekers in Western Sydney with training, job opportunities and other support. They will chair a local jobs and skills task force made up of government representatives, Indigenous representatives and community organisations. The task force will develop a local jobs plan to identify priorities, opportunities and skills gaps. They'll build pathways for local people, and pathways are so important. I've seen this, working in a social housing organisation: how to step out of intergenerational welfare and have financial independence. These pathways will help people enter industries with jobs on demand. Our local recovery funds will support and develop projects that place jobseekers at the forefront of our economic recovery.
As the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure said today in question time, the delivery of the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan, the building of the Western Sydney Airport and growing industries that will create jobs in the Aerotropolis is how we create jobs. In Lindsay we're looking at the jobs of the future in emerging industries around space, defence, advanced manufacturing, STEM, research, start-ups and more. These industries will play an important role in Australia's roadmap beyond coronavirus, creating jobs and supporting local families. We're creating 200,000 jobs by supercharging the Aerotropolis and the Agribusiness Precinct, building the skills in our local community through new educational opportunities to ensure that the jobs of the future in Western Sydney stay local and that people don't have to do that long commute that 300,000 people in Western Sydney do every day for their jobs.
The construction of the airport will create over 11,300 direct and indirect jobs and 28,000 full-time jobs within five years of opening and, on top of that, the Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport line, which runs through my electorate of Lindsay, will create 14,000 jobs. I created the Lindsay Jobs of the Future Forum to bring together small business owners, employment, education, training and manufacturing across Western Sydney to collaborate on ways our kids can be trained and educated in the jobs of the future that are coming to Western Sydney, because of the infrastructure investment that the Morrison government is making.
Recently, I held a teleconference meeting of the Lindsay Jobs of the Future Forum, and we discussed the important opportunities that are coming. This was where we established the Advancing Manufacturing Taskforce. This will investigate, promote and advocate for policies that create local, national and international opportunities for local Australian manufacturers.
Australian innovation, value and quality set us apart from our foreign competitors and give us that competitive advantage. By educating and training our kids in the jobs of the future, we can sustain and generate generations of local jobs through advanced manufacturing. This is what I'm committed to doing through my community and through the Advancing Manufacturing Taskforce.
Australia is in recession. Millions of Australians are out of work or have been stood down, but the scariest statistic is that between now and the end of the year another 400,000 Australians will join the unemployment queues. Australians don't blame the government for the pandemic, but Australians are justified in blaming this government for its lack of a credible plan to get people back to work as quickly as possible. They've got a plan to withdraw support from JobKeeper and JobSeeker but they don't have a plan to get people back into work, and that is the problem with this government.
All of the speakers on the other side have claimed that this government is for jobs and that this government is for Australian workers, but the facts prove that those claims are simply not true. Darrin Lenton is a single dad with two kids who lives in my electorate. He has worked for Qantas for 23 years. Last week he was told by Qantas that he would lose his job, along with 2½ thousand of his co-workers. In the ultimate insult, he was told by Qantas that the jobs will go to a foreign corporation who will employ people to do the work that Darrin was doing on lower wages and conditions.
When you're in government and you sit by and you allow Australia's national airline to do that to its workforce, you're not for Australian workers' jobs at all. When you allow penalty rates to be cut for the lowest-paid workers in the country so that they take home less pay each week to feed their families with, you're not for Australian workers' jobs at all. When you're the party of Work Choices—and many of those on the opposite side came into this parliament and voted for Work Choices, voted for a program that forced people onto individual contracts so that their wages and conditions could be cut—you're not for Australian workers' jobs. When you're the party that, in 1998, conspired with a company to sack its entire workforce on the wharves overnight and bring in dogs to keep people out of work, you're not for Australian workers' jobs at all. When you're advocating for a cut to a promised rise in superannuation for Australian workers and you happily pocket 15 per cent superannuation yourself, you're not for Australian workers' jobs; you're a hypocrite. So don't come in here and say that you're all for advocating for Australian workers' jobs. When you've got people on your side advocating for temporary flexibility workplace measures—that have been put in place with the goodwill of the unions, to provide support for Australian workers to get through this difficult period—to be made permanent, you're not for Australian workers' jobs.
When you do these sorts of things to Australians, you're in fact the opposite; you're anti jobs. When you tell Australian workers that you're supporting their jobs and you go about and do these things to workers, you're not for jobs; you're not for Australian workers. In fact, you're a coward, because you're telling mistruths to the Australian people and asking them to believe you, when it's simply not true. The Australian people deserve better from their government, particularly during the time of a pandemic. They deserve a plan, a road map out of this recession, a plan that supports those that can't return to work and prioritises jobs growth so that those that are able to return to work can get back into jobs as quickly as possible. Importantly, we need a plan that boosts demand in our economy as soon as possible, and that's what's sadly lacking from this government.
There is a blueprint for this—there's a way to do it—and that's how Labor did it during the global financial crisis, when we acted quickly and decisively, with programs like Building the Education Revolution to support the construction of the education facilities that we all still visit in our electorates every single day when schools are open, and investing in social housing, ensuring that you're boosting assets and providing roofs over the heads of Australians that are struggling. They are programs that you could implement almost immediately to support Australian workers' jobs in the construction industry. If this government were fair dinkum about supporting Australian workers' jobs, then they'd get on with the job, quick smart, of boosting our economy and providing a road map out of this recession, particularly around the construction industry.
Indeed it was a sobering set of national account figures that were announced today, but they presented the story that we already knew, and that was that Australians are doing it tough, right across the country, because of the COVID-19 recession. But what Australians right round the country know, as they're dealing with the COVID-19 recession, is that the Morrison government has their back. They know that the Morrison government has created jobs before, over a million of them, and that we can do it again. They know that the Morrison government stepped in very quickly once the full scale of COVID-19 became clear, to introduce JobKeeper and JobSeeker—and it was only yesterday that the government passed our extension to JobKeeper, a program keeping thousands of Australians in jobs in one of the toughest times, a program which represents the largest economic lifeline in Australian history, a program without which Treasury estimates Australia's unemployment rate would be five percentage points higher.
Labor members are all over the shop when it comes to JobKeeper and other support measures. First they want to claim that it was their idea, then they want to run it down, then they want it amended, then they want it extended, then they want it reduced, then they want to vote against it. The Australian people simply do not know where Labor members stand on this and other issues. They do know one thing: that Labor members opposite have a plan. They have a plan to try and keep their own jobs by playing politics with the COVID recession and the COVID pandemic. That's not the plan that the Australian people want. The Australian people know that, in contrast, the Morrison government will never stray from the task of keeping Australians in jobs and creating new jobs wherever possible. Prior to COVID-19, we had already created 1.5 million jobs right across this country. Under this government, female participation levels had risen and the gender pay gap had fallen to record lows. We promised that we would create jobs, and we did it. And now we will do it again.
I've been talking to a local business owner—as I'm sure other MPs have been talking to local business owners in their electorates—about how they're affected by the COVID-19 recession. This business owner put it to me very, very simply. JobKeeper was what enabled him to keep his business open and his employees in work. He described it simply as this: 'Julian, it saved our bacon.' Now, they are not saying that about the Labor members opposite. They're not saying that about the Labor state governments around the country. They weren't saying that when the Labor members opposite took $387 billion worth of new taxes to the last election. That's still their plan, by the way. Imagine if we had gone into the COVID-19 recession saddled with Shorten's $387 billion worth of taxes—taxes that Labor members opposite still have as their policy today.
The most important part of Australia's economic recovery is getting Australians back into jobs, and that is what we are focused on. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Michaelia Cash, are doing that through the JobMaker program, preparing our labour market for the future by strengthening the education and training sector. We know that the jobs that come after the COVID-19 pandemic may not be the same jobs that were lost during it, so it's vitally important that we are prepped and ready with the skills we need to rebuild and recover.
I made the point earlier that Labor MPs only have one plan, and that is to keep their own jobs by playing politics. Nowhere is it more stark than in my home state of Queensland, with its Labor state government. The politics that they are playing with the COVID recession sadden me. They would try and blame all of Queensland's woes on the COVID-19 recession. But we remember that it was under the Queensland Labor state government that before coronavirus, Queensland had the highest unemployment; before coronavirus, Queensland had the highest number of business bankruptcies; and before coronavirus, Queensland had the lowest level of business confidence of any state. They're the only state not to bring down a budget. I know Australians will take the plan of Morrison government MPs over Labor MPs any day of the week, because we are about creating jobs, not about our own. (Time expired)
The discussion has concluded.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) comments from Tony Abbott reported today that suggest the families of older Australians with COVID-19 should just "let nature take its course";
(b) the Prime Minister has previously said comments like this are "amoral" and "hideous";
(c) the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians was willing to condemn Mr Abbott's comments, but given the opportunity, the Prime Minister refused;
(d) the Prime Minister's moral standards do not seem to extend to former Liberal Prime Ministers; and
(e) comments like Mr Abbott's must be condemned in the strongest possible terms; and
(2) invites the Prime Minister to make a statement in this House on this matter immediately.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Franklin from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) comments from Tony Abbott reported today that suggest the families of older Australians with COVID-19 should just "let nature take its course";
(b) the Prime Minister has previously said comments like this are "amoral" and "hideous";
(c) the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians was willing to condemn Mr Abbott's comments, but given the opportunity, the Prime Minister refused;
(d) the Prime Minister's moral standards do not seem to extend to former Liberal Prime Ministers; and
(e) comments like Mr Abbott's must be condemned in the strongest possible terms; and
(2) invites the Prime Minister to make a statement in this House on this matter immediately.
We have 450 families that have loved ones that are deceased, who are pleading with the Prime Minister—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded?
Does the Prime Minister refuse to condemn Tony Abbott because he privately agrees with his views?
The member needs to say whether she's seconding the motion.
I second it. Does the Prime Minister refuse to condemn Tony Abbott because he privately agrees? This is a Prime Minister who has described aged care as—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no further heard.
The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
Every life is precious. I've worked in hospitals for nearly 20 years.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be put.
The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Franklin be disagreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report on the 2018-19 annual reports of bodies established under the ASIC Act.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present a corrigendum to the committee's advisory report on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020.
[by video link] I'll pick up where I left off, and that is to ask the government and the minister to do their job, not to go ahead with another dog whistle—this bill—but to do their job in the Home Affairs and Immigration portfolio, because, frankly, they haven't. When you look at the substance, there has been absolute failure. There have been processing delays of years. People are waiting years for their citizenship or their partner visa applications. Waiting times have exploded under this government. With respect to permanent residents going towards citizenship, the government has actively tried to make it harder and make it take longer for people on permanent residency to become citizens. The program makes people choose between parents for parent visas. There was a multimillion-dollar strategic review into the Department of Home Affairs that was finalised last year and never made public. What are they hiding?
We have a Prime Minister who makes a big show, a big song and dance, complaining that Australia is full, saying there's too much congestion in our cities and blaming that on there being too many migrants. He makes a big boast that he reduced permanent migration—and this happened before COVID-19—in order to do congestion busting. In actual fact, under his government and over the seven years of the coalition government, those opposite have increased temporary migration. There are 2.2 million people in this country on temporary work visas, 87 per cent of whom are in Melbourne and Sydney. So this government has increased temporary visas and then claims it is busting congestion by reducing permanent migration.
So while the Minister for Home Affairs laments the strain on our capital city infrastructure—and, by the way, they should probably invest more in infrastructure, which is absolutely necessary—and talks about overcrowding, his own department and the Prime Minister are contributing to that strain by increasing temporary migration while undermining our proud history of the strong permanent migration program that has been the basis of the economic, social and cultural success of this country post-World War II. We need a recommitment to that permanent skilled migration because it's about making sure that people come here, become Australians and want to become Australians. Many people on temporary migrant visas want to do that as well. They should be given that opportunity rather than being delayed and blocked by this government.
On the treatment of refugees in this country, we saw the department under the Minister for Home Affairs repeal medevac after the election. This was an attempt to ban those who arrive by boat from ever setting foot in Australia. This was another of the bills which they tried to put up. Even if they were a tourist or a spouse, apparently they were going to be banned. I recall how ridiculous that was when I and the Labor Party opposed that at the time. A refugee who might end up in New Zealand and potentially become a minister in the New Zealand government would be banned from ever arriving in Australia. This is how ridiculous their overreach is. This is how they're not doing their job. Effectively, what they're doing is dog whistling and trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator through this portfolio.
Australia is a successful multicultural country. It is a reality of Australia that we are diverse and we are multicultural. This government should actually be promoting the fact that we have been world leaders in generations past in welcoming both migrants and refugees. We are a successful multicultural nation and we should be celebrating this success rather than trying to suppress it. We need an Australian government that embraces and recognises the strength of multicultural Australia instead of punishing and demonising those who have come here seeking a better life.
The government needs to rethink this bill based on the suggestions that Labor through our shadow minister for home affairs has put to the government in writing, although I won't hold my breath that they will reconsider. We oppose this bill for the reasons I've articulated: the human rights issues, yes; and the further power grab by an out-of-control and unchecked Minister for Home Affairs, yes. But this is also because it's the latest in a long, sad line of attempted legislation that has at its core—and there's no other way to describe it—political skulduggery, pathetic wedge politics and dog whistling clothed in the fake solemnity of national security. It is nothing of the sort. It is, however, an appeal to the lowest common denominator: fear. It is indicative of their go-to political weapons: fear and the demonisation of the most vulnerable into the bad guys that we should all fear. All of this is just to score political points.
That is not leadership. It is not looking after the substantive national security issues and policies needed within this portfolio. It is instead the politics of division. It seeks, by its very nature, to divide us. This government and this minister have a dismal track record of using all the usual tropes of ethnic and sectarian difference to sow discord while pretending they're protecting us from threats unseen. It is a direct threat to the social cohesion that we have built up over decades in this country. It's another terrible attempt at fear for votes that only further diminishes our well-earned and fought-for social cohesion. For these reasons, as well as for the substantive reasons that I've outlined, Labor and I oppose this bill.
I rise to express deep and sincere concerns about the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020, the lack of evidence upon which it stands and the disturbing signal it sends about our collective values. I stand to give voice to the people from my electorate of Indi who have implored me to speak in this place about bills such as this. More than that, though, I stand to give voice to the very people who are rendered voiceless by bills such as this, bills which seek to take away not just a phone but what last shred of connection they have to a world outside the darkness they find themselves in.
For too long in this country we've been sold the idea that, to be kind, we must be cruel and, to avoid people drowning at sea, we must detain those who do not. This bill is founded upon a false assumption that the current detention regime is respectable and worthy of refinement. The truth is it is not. Since I arrived in this place, I have called out the current detention arrangements for what they are—a cruel stopgap that we should have dismantled long ago and replaced with a system that is fair, orderly and humane. That we are still here debating how we should operate these punitive institutions is a problem in and of itself.
An extensive body of evidence has long demonstrated the great mental and physical harm caused to detainees of the current detention system. While immigration detention is ostensibly for administrative purposes, anyone who takes even a brief second glance knows that these centres have all the same characteristics and restrictions of regular prisons but without the same level of accountability. It's no secret that the purpose of this bill is to allow the minister to ban mobile phones in detention. Indeed, there are specific notes in this bill that make it very clear this bill is about removing mobile phones from detention. It's wholly unclear to me, and to many of those who've made submissions to the Senate inquiry into this bill, whether the minister will make that decision based on any evidence whatsoever. Indeed, this bill would not require any evidence. All it asks is that the decision-maker thinks, or is satisfied, there might be a risk to the health, safety or security of persons in the facility. I know I speak for many when I say I am uncomfortable giving such a discretionary power to a key architect of the current detention arrangements. Do we really believe the minister will be cautious and proportionate in making such a decision, putting the physical and psychological health and wellbeing of detainees first? I struggle to believe so.
There are deeply disturbing provisions in this bill. First, detention officers can search detainees for items the minister deems are prohibited, even if the detention officer does not have any reason to believe that the detainee is in possession of that item. I want to repeat that: even if the detention officer does not have any reason to believe that the detainee is in possession of that item. It is pure, unfettered discretion. Second, detention officers can conduct strip searches of detainees if they suspect, on reasonable grounds, that a detainee is in possession of that prohibited item. This is currently limited to strip searches for weapons or things that could help a detainee escape from detention. Under this bill, it could be any manner of objects. Third, officers can conduct searches of an entire detention facility, whether or not they have any reason to think there are prohibited things present in the facility. Officers can use dogs in that search. They can also designate anyone else to be an assistant to help conduct the searches. In fact, the minister can direct officers to exercise seizure powers under any circumstances he so desires—private security guards with dogs. It's beyond me how such powers could be considered fair, orderly and humane. To me, and the many constituents who write to me and call my office on a very regular basis, this is about increasing the securitisation of these centres, without due regard for the vulnerable populations who spend their lives inside them.
Mobile phones and other communication devices are essential to people held in immigration detention, for them to maintain regular contact, private contact, with loved ones and with lawyers and other forms of support. Mobile phones are essential—they are an essential link to the outside world. To remove them would compound the isolation, desperation and vulnerability felt by those under our care. Immigration detention centres are not prisons. Those seeking asylum should not be treated as prisoners. They deserve so much better than that from us.
The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre's submission recounts a story that would be difficult for any parent to read, a story of a father whose only contact with his children from detention is via a mobile phone:
I cherish my skype time with my daughter. Each day, she asks me when I am coming home from my holiday and says that she wants me to come home and play with her. I ask her about her pictures, what TV she is watching, her favourite colours and toys. I always remind her to listen to her mother and that I will be home soon to be with her again. Our skype time always ends with 'see you soon' and 'I love you'.
He goes on:
I recently had the joy and at the same time, the torture, of watching my children open their Christmas presents, yet again from my phone in a detention centre, rather than being able to kiss and hug them and play with them.
Last Monday it was my daughter's first day of kindergarten. I feel so upset I was not able to walk her there or hear her news on the way home. But at least I got to see her on skype as soon as she came home, and got to hear all the details of her day …
This story is painful enough to read as it is. As a parent, as a midwife, as a public health researcher and as a human being, this is hard to read. But this is a story we must listen to. The contents of this story, if we did not know its origins, would be just so familiar, so domestic; but this case is just so tragic. And it is so absurd that, in a nation such as ours, this is a story we have to hear.
This bill is a blunt instrument that would make this man's life even more harrowing. It lacks the nuance and evidence to tackle a problem that this government has not got any data on. Right now, there are no minimum standards, statutory standards or a proper legal framework for standards in immigration detention. There's also no independent review or legal means for detainees to challenge their continuing detention or meaningful ways for them to complain about their treatment.
This bill fundamentally misunderstands who we are meant to be caring for. It's common for asylum seekers to be reticent to speak up to authority figures, following subjection to police persecution and corruption in the countries of origin from which they've fled. These centres should be a place where asylum seekers should feel as though they can trust detention officers and work with them, not fear them. They could be places where people learn, for the first time, that Australia is proud of its institutions that support and empower its citizens, not dehumanise them.
This bill forgets that we have an alternative to detention. Community arrangements for asylum seekers, refugees and stateless persons have been in use by countries around the world for many years and to great effect. Sweden, for example, has used a reception program under which asylum seekers are issued with identification documents on arrival, which are used by immigration officials to track their cases. After spending around a week in a transit or processing centre, asylum seekers are released into the community and can use their documentation to access some basic services. In Spain, asylum seekers have been released into the broader community or accommodated in an open reception centre from which they are free to come and go. They are given a small monthly allowance and permitted to access medical and psychological services, a social worker, legal aid and educational opportunities. Here in Australia, we have been offered the opportunity of resettlement for eligible asylum seekers in New Zealand, and yet we have not taken that option.
This bill misses humane opportunities such as these. The concessions being negotiated to this bill ignore opportunities such as these. This bill is motivated by fear. I will not be supporting this bill—I will not support any bill like this—and I urge my colleagues to follow suit.
I just rise to sum up the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020 before it is put to the vote in this House. Firstly, I thank all the members for their contributions. To this bill: this is a really important one. I'm very passionate about the need for this, because it goes straight to the heart of protecting our staff in the detention network and innocent adults and children out in the community. I want to explain exactly how it does that, but, before doing so, I want to just briefly touch on two or three points which have come up repeatedly in the debate from those opposite and some of the crossbench.
The first point I want to make is about the make-up of those who are in the detention network today. I think it is poorly understood by those opposite that the 1,558 people who are presently in our immigration detention network do not entirely comprise asylum seekers and refugees. In fact, more than 70 per cent of the 1,558 are in the detention centres today because they are being evicted from the country under section 501, and that only occurs when people have very serious criminal records. They're foreigners. They've committed very serious crimes, putting them in prison here in Australia for a year or more, and hence we take the decision to cancel their visa and send them abroad. We make no apology for doing that. That's the bulk of those who are in the immigration detention network at the moment—more than 70 per cent. You then have a couple of hundred people who are in the immigration detention network today because they've come out here under Labor's medevac legislation. They've all been assessed: 25 per cent of them are not refugees, and the others have been assessed as being refugees. Under the legislation and under the consent documents which they all provided, they were due to come out to Australia, get their medical treatment and then return. So really you're only talking about a couple of hundred people who the member for Indi is particularly concerned about. Frankly, this legislation's primary activity has less concern about that group than about the 70 per cent who are there for very serious criminal reasons. That's the first point I want to make.
The second point I make is that a point made repeatedly by the opposition is that we already have the powers to deal with some of the criminal activity which this bill is seeking to address, but the answer to that is: no, we do not. Under the legislation presently, an Australian Border Force officer looking after an immigration detention facility has the power to search for and to seize three items only: a weapon, an escape item or escape assistant, and a migration document—those three things only. They—and this has occurred—can see a person with what looks like drugs in their possession, and the Australian Border Force officers have no power to remove those drugs from the individual in the detention network. This is not a hypothetical; this has occurred in our detention facilities. You can have an individual who has violent extremist material on their iPad, in full view of the Australian Border Force officers looking after these detention networks, and they have no power to remove that iPad from that individual. Again, this is no hypothetical; this has occurred. You can have an individual—a disgusting, disgraceful individual—with child exploitation materials on his mobile phone sending it out to others abroad, in full view of the Australian Border Force officers looking after those detention facilities, and those Australian Border Force officers have no ability to remove that mobile phone from that individual—disgraceful man!
Again, that is no hypothetical situation. In fact, last month alone we had two examples of individuals—one man in Melbourne and another man in Brisbane—who were using their mobile phones to distribute, allegedly in one instance, child exploitation materials to others. This is one of the most disgraceful, despicable things that you can possibly imagine. Yes, the police were called, and they took 24 hours to get to that detention facility in that instance. How much child exploitation material was distributed in the course of that 24 hours? How much evidence did that individual man destroy within that 24 hours?
When individuals have drugs in their possession and they are seen, and they think perhaps the police will be arriving soon, what do you think they'll do with those drugs? Do they distribute them among some of the other individuals in the detention network? Do they get rid of the drugs? They consume the drugs, and that puts at risk the health and safety of some of the other people who are in the detention network.
This is what is at stake. The members opposite pretend that they are in favour of the health and safety of those in the detention network.
The minister will resume his seat. Is the member for Scullin making a point of order?
I am. The minister knows very well that he shouldn't be reflecting on the motivation of members.
I think the member is speaking generally, but I will listen closely to what he says.
The members opposite assert that they are acting in the interests of the safety and welfare of those in the detention network. But if people are consuming drugs in those detention networks and becoming violent in the process, it is innocent people who get affected, including the staff. We've had other examples where detainees use their mobile phones to harass victims in respect of whom they have already been convicted of a crime. They are harassing their victims outside of the detention network using their mobile phone—and Australian Border Force officers have no power to remove that phone.
This is a very important bill and it goes straight to the heart of protecting the staff and protecting the security of these facilities. Seventy per cent of the occupants of these facilities are being evicted from the country because of serious criminal records. It goes straight to the heart of protecting members of the Australian community, including children. So, yes, this is an important bill. Frankly, I'm disgusted that the Labor Party is standing on the side of some of the foreign criminals who are using their phones to distribute child exploitation material and not standing on the side of innocent children out in the community who are affected by it. I'm passionate about this, as you can see. As the acting minister, I'm not going to stand in this place and not do everything I can to protect children in the Australian community.
This is not a widespread power.
Mr Giles interjecting—
The member opposite is making appalling interjections. This is not a widespread power. This does not remove the mobile phones from every individual in the detention network—far from it. It gives the power to the Australian Border Force officers or those others managing the detention facilities to search for drugs if they believe the drugs are there, to search for other things which may put people's health and safety at risk, and, yes, to use their discretion when there is a reasonable case to be made to remove an individual's mobile phone, then and there, when they see something damaging occurring—not waiting 24 hours for the police to arrive, but being able to take that action now. Not waiting for the police to arrive, during which time the drugs may be able to be consumed or hidden or flushed down the toilet.
Will these individuals—even such vile individuals who use their mobile phones to distribute child exploitation materials—be without phones from now on? No, they won't, and the members opposite know this. They won't be without communication devices. There are landlines available in every single one of the detention facilities. There are computers available in every single one of the detention facilities. They will remain available. But I tell you what, if you've got a man who is distributing child exploitation materials in a detention centre, then he should have his phone removed and he should have it removed immediately, as soon as that is spotted. That's what this bill would facilitate. So, yes, I am disgusted with those opposite who will stand for those crooks—those disgraceful, disgusting individuals—rather than stand for the protection of children and innocent people.
I know that the Labor Party will be voting against this bill, but I do implore the crossbench and the Senate to seriously consider what this bill is about. It is measured. It provides the discretion that the Australian Border Force officers need. It provides exactly the same discretion the Australian Border Force officers already have at our borders. Given that 70 per cent of the Australian immigration detention networks currently comprise of individuals who are being evicted from the country because of serious criminal records, yes, absolutely, we need these powers. So I commend this bill.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Scullin 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.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
It wasn't my intention to make a contribution at this stage of the debate, but the summing-up by the minister, and, in fact, the attitude of all members opposite, requires a response. This legislation has been before the parliament for three years—three years. And in those three years—and members opposite should understand this—we have consistently sought to be constructive in addressing the issues that government members say are at risk. They have not responded for three years. Two Senate inquiries, hundreds of submissions, and this bill is friendless. There's a good reason why the bill is friendless—because it's pointless, absolutely pointless.
All the rhetoric—and I see the member for Dickson down there. I don't know if he's pleased or disappointed by the audition that we are seeing from the member for Aston, but I can say this, I think, on behalf of all members on this side and most members on that side: Minister Dutton, you are the man for that job, not the member for Aston, because you believe what you are saying.
Put your lance away.
You are wrong—
Government members interjecting—
The member for Scullin—
You are wrong, but you believe—
The member for Scullin will pause for a second. Let me emphasise that we're in consideration in detail. He really needs to confine himself to the bill.
Thank you for reminding me. I shouldn't have been provoked by members opposite, Mr Speaker. But let me just say this. The minister, in summing up the bill, misrepresented both its provisions and the position of members on this side of the House, and that is unworthy. What it shows is that there is nothing 'liberal 'about this Liberal government. Despite what the minister said—and he should seek to correct the record here—the powers that he seeks for himself and his officers are not proportionate. He has had every opportunity to make them proportionate to the case that he makes in this place. Instead, he consistently chooses to use rhetoric that's inflammatory and to reflect on the motives of other lawmakers. This is of course a very difficult area of public policymaking, but, actually, the politics need not be difficult. He can state the case he wants to make. He can state the problem that he wants this legislation to solve. He has chosen not to do so. The members opposite in this government have chosen not to do so. They should be condemned for it.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The question is that the bill be now read a second time, to which the member for Gellibrand has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question before the chair is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Here, again, we have more government rhetoric—more of the government pretending to deliver big, in the critical area of broadcasting and regional media, but doing very little. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio and Other Measures) Bill 2020 is another of those bills introduced with big fanfare. There was a big press conference. There was big talk. The government said they'd put their arms around regional media, they'd support regional journalists, and that this bill would deliver lasting reform.
Instead, what we have in this bill that is before us is housekeeping—when major reform is needed. I say that as a regional MP and one who is deeply respectful of my local regional media. We have many outlets in my electorate which deliver the local news and the local content for many demographics. I am proud to say that, despite all the challenges that regional media have had recently, we've been able to hang on to so many of our regional media services. But we have lost a few.
Only a few weeks ago we lost the brekkie team at hit91.9 Bendigo. Their target audience was a younger demographic in the Bendigo region, and I know that they'll be sorely missed. It wasn't that long ago that we also lost the Bendigo Weekly, a popular weekly newspaper that went into every household in Greater Bendigo. Over 34,000 households received this news. When the paper finished it was purchased by the Bendigo Advertiser and stopped being free, and I spoke publicly about how disappointed I was that so many households in Bendigo would now not have access to free print media.
But whilst we've lost a few papers and a few radio breakfast shows we have been able to hang on to many. When I spoke to regional media about this bill and about why they believe they've been able to hang on when so many others haven't, they said it is because they've had the backing of so many businesses locally. Despite the tough times in the area of the Macedon Ranges and Mount Alexander shire, those businesses have continued to support their local papers: the Midland Express and the Castlemaine Mail. I'm really proud to be not just one of the advertisers in these papers but also a contributor. Why do I advertise in these papers? Like so many local MPs I know the importance of these advertising dollars to keeping these papers afloat. I also believe it's important that my constituents know where they can contact my office. Much of the media that regional MPs have in these local papers is bipartisan and apolitical. It's more about representations and supporting the local community.
One of the issues that regional media constantly raise with me, particularly the smaller independent media, is the fact that they don't get access to federal government dollars for advertising. I would have thought that with the coronavirus outbreak and the government so desperate and keen for people to adopt and download the COVID-19 app it would actually have called upon some of our smaller independent media to spread some of the advertising dollars further. The good news is that some of these papers did receive quite substantial support from the state government. It's a win-win when federal and state governments advertise with local papers; it secures these papers and supports journalists' jobs, and also spreads an important government message. These are just some of the critical things that our local media do.
We always talk about how important the ABC is in times of emergency, particularly in the regions. We've had one of the worst summers on record and there is already talk that this summit could be just as bad. I know, like so many, that my family will be listening to the ABC continually to make sure that we are up-to-date and hoping, with our fingers crossed, that we don't have a fire break out near us. The ABC doesn't just report the news. In times of emergency it also saves lives. It is critical to our regions. It's so disappointing that, whilst not part of this bill, in other actions this government has continued to attack the ABC over and over again, whether it be through freezing their increases or cutting funding. Throughout the government's seven years it has made it very hard for the ABC to continue in their current format. That has a huge impact on the regions.
In the government's attempt to support commercial radio they have failed to do something. Whilst they've allowed for greater flexibility they haven't actually listened to the concerns that are being raised. One of the reasons why regional media are calling for greater flexibility is because they haven't actually had the support required from the government to keep people employed in the regions so that they can continue to deliver local content.
You could see a mile away that the COVID-19 global pandemic was going to mean a hit on advertising, yet we've seen this government being slow to act to get in there and support local media. As a result, we've seen far too many newspapers close and far too many radio stations having to cut back or end services, and these are the commercial print and radio services. Whilst we mourn losing Hit FM, we are now getting the Melbourne version. I do acknowledge the other commercial radio stations in my electorate, which continue to deliver local stories and local content. We have Gold FM. We have Triple M, which used to be 3BO—and I'd be in trouble if I did not mention its original name, 3BO. We also have many community based/commercial stations—they are a bit of a mix of the two—whether it be Phoenix FM, Main FM or Highlands FM. They are all contributing to telling our local story.
One of the reasons why regional media is so critical is to tell that local story. People in our town care about what the footy results were on the weekend. They care about what the weather is going to be. They even have a laugh when they do a traffic report and the report is simply: 'There are no delays in Bendigo. Isn't it great to live in a town where you're five minutes from work?' We understand that in metro they may not get the same broadcast, but it's that tongue in cheek that we get locally that people really appreciate. Local stories matter, and what worries me is that, on this government's watch, we've lost far too much of our capability of recording and telling those local stories. In parts of Queensland, parts of WA and parts of regional New South Wales they've lost so much of their regional media that they look to places like Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong in envy—we still have a number of regional outlets able to tell a local story.
I'd like to acknowledge the great work done by both Nine and WIN, two of our commercial TV stations who still have an evening bulletin. Whilst they're not always as kind to me as I would like, they do tell the local story and ask the local questions. I'd like to acknowledge the great work of the Midland Express, the Castlemaine Mail, the Tarrangower Times, the McIvor Times, the Bendigo Advertiser, to name just a few of the local papers we still have active in our area, and I hope they are here for many generations to come.
What is so heartbreaking about what has happened in our regional media in the past 12 months alone is that we are losing mastheads that have existed in this country for over a century. And, whilst we still have the Bendigo Advertiser, which is one of the oldest papers in Australia, I know that many other regional towns and regional cities do not share the same fortune. It is disappointing and heartbreaking to see that those towns will not have access to the same local stories, but times are tough, and we all know it. Yet all we get from this government is more window-dressing. All we get from this government is a bill that's inadequate, that merely has a few provisions around broadcasting. It is not a holistic, strategic package. It is not a partnership. It is not a framework of reform that will deliver real outcomes to secure regional media, ensure that we are recording our local stories for generations to come and ensure we're keeping regional people informed.
I've lost count of the number of students that have contacted me to say that they've read an article about a former federal member for Bendigo and wanted to get comment for their school assignments or their university assignments. They've trawled back through old editions of the Bendigo Advertiser and want to know whether an issue is relevant today. Unfortunately, a lot are. We are still having a debate about whether a government should intervene to save manufacturing jobs. We are still in a fight to ensure that the government is doing its fair share when it comes to the environment and landcare. We are still in a fight to ensure that citizens in this country all have equal rights. Bendigo is an old town, a town that was part of the early days of Federation, and we're still having a debate in this country about what it means to be a citizen. But that's part of the importance of our regional media. Today, it may be news; tomorrow, it is history. It's an important record for all of us—telling our local story—and this is an area that I'm very concerned about. It isn't just our news which is part of recording and telling our local story. It also comes down to the more fictional side of things. I am proud that, in my electorate, the town of Castlemaine has hosted and been the backdrop for three series of Glitcha very popular TV program that was filmed in the regions. It generated lots of local jobs and lots of income for the local economy.
It's disappointing that, under this government, we've also seen a slashing of funding towards this sector. Instead, this government has prioritised other industries or other parts of the sector, prioritising big-budget overseas Hollywood films to be filmed on the Gold Coast as opposed to supporting local artists, local scriptwriters, local stories, local producers and local actors to tell a version of a local story. Why does it have to be one or the other, and why can't it be both? Undervalued is the creative economy. Under-represented is the creative economy. It's an opportunity for all of us to invest now and into the future.
Right now, we are going through an unprecedented time, and, in many years to come, people will look back and want to know what the story is. And whilst I can be confident that, in my part of the world, we have had independent journalists reporting on how Bendigo has reacted, how my region has reacted and where people can get support, I know it's not the same for others. It's very hard to inform people about where the local testing clinic is if you don't have a local radio station, if you don't have local media. It's very hard to talk about the differences or the extra support an area may need, compared to metro, if you don't have access to that local media.
We're politicians and we're representatives—we know that if we want to communicate a message, we need to have that independent media there to help tell our story. I can safely say that I probably wouldn't be the federal member for Bendigo if we didn't have such a strong, independent media team in my part of the world, who were willing to ask and tell the story. When you have big money from those opposite, expensive campaigns and friends like Clive Palmer that come in over the top, it can be hard to get a local message out. It is critical, therefore, to our democracy that we have a strong regional media network—a network that is willing and able and wanting to tell the local story and to ask the hard questions.
I'm quite surprised that those opposite aren't more concerned about this, that they're quite comfortable with metro coming into their regions and telling Melbourne's stories, Adelaide's stories or Sydney's stories and that they're quite comfortable for big money to come in and misconstrue messages, to confuse electorates and to put out misinformation, like the money we saw from Clive Palmer at the last election—just to name one of many. Regional media is critical, particularly at a time when Facebook and other social media forums have such misinformation. Regional media is also key to helping to neutralise the misinformation that may be appearing en masse in social media.
That's a debate for another day and another area where this government is failing to actually reform. This bill is inadequate. It simply tinkers with a few provisions and doesn't deliver a strategic plan. Whilst our regional media is struggling, it isn't its fault that it's failing. It's the failure of this government to stand up and do more. I call upon the government to do something meaningful for regional media, not just do the window-dressing whilst we see the doors close on so many outlets. (Time expired)
(Quorum formed)
I've got to thank the member for Paterson, because I do love an audience! So thank you, colleagues, and thank you to the member for Paterson for drawing attention to the state of the House. To those of you who are leaving, just quickly: the member for Bendigo was just bemoaning how her campaign was so poorly funded, but I do wonder whether United Voice would have been there pushing pretty hard for an ex-organiser. In any event, we're not here to talk about that; we're here to talk about regional media and its importance.
In rising to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio and Other Measures) Bill 2020, I want to start at that point—namely, acknowledging the essential service that regional radio, television and media outlets provide to regional communities and, ipso facto, the nation. My constituents in Barker, and indeed people in all of regional Australia, depend on these services, not only to provide relevant news but also to provide a sense of community that you just don't get from metropolitan papers.
This amendment legislation serves to strengthen regional media to ensure that that industry will be viable years into the future. It does so with the stated aim of seeking to avoid losses to local content and media services more generally. To achieve this, of course, burdensome red tape that fails to substantiate any real increases in quality or services is proposed to be removed. This is just another benefit from reducing regulations, giving business the means they need to succeed. Governments should never work in opposition to the reality out there in the community. The reality for regional media—let's be plain—in a COVID-19 recession is tough and will be tough. It's been a strong industry, and we're providing strong support for change within commercial radio, which has been flagging since 2016. Similarly, in 2017 Free TV Australia advocated for exemptions in regional and remote licence quota obligations.
From 15 April our government introduced a range of measures. They included tax relief, a $50 million investment in regional journalism and red-tape relief, and we also decided to bring forward $5 million from the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund. The relief this amendment legislation provides serves to complement those supports already given by our government to support this vital industry. These amendments exemplify our government's attempt to stimulate the economy through sensible, impact-free deregulation.
Regulation damages small and medium enterprises disproportionately due to constraints on resources. A survey recently found that 48 per cent of Australian businesses spent more than $10,000 per year on compliance. For large corporations, this may be an acceptable cost—indeed, it might be just a drop in the ocean—but, for small regional media outlets, this regulation must be rolled back in a way that doesn't compromise service or quality, as this bill guarantees. If COVID-19 has taught us anything, now is not the time to bog industry down with the dead hand of government regulation.
The proposed amendment to schedule 1 of the bill allows broadcasters to split their five-week exemptions over two periods. Businesses, especially ones that provide vital services, need autonomy to make the best decisions for themselves and their consumers. Currently, the default exemption period is over Christmas. But, as all of you know in this place, there's more than one time of the year that has religious or cultural significance to Australians. Many media outlets want the ability to split the five-week break over Easter as well, offering a reprieve from public holidays that makes labour difficult and, indeed, expensive to acquire.
This industry is clearly doing it tough, with regulatory inflexibility not creating beneficial outcomes for audiences or enterprises. By allowing media outlets to decide when and how they distribute their five-week exemption period, it will enable them to utilise their break most effectively based on their region's greatest needs.
Regional communities vary as much as the Labor Party policies on this front. That is why deregulation outlined in schedule 1 will allow for more decentralised decision-making. Media outlets, instead of following imposed national standards, will be able to react to their local needs and demands. Decentralisation is necessary to improve the quality of regional media now and into the future.
Within my own electorate, Mount Gambier Community Radio Station, with the call sign 5GTR FM, serves our community in ways metropolitan radio could never. The idea of the radio station came from a few passionate locals in the early 1980s. Within a couple of years, they were broadcasting their voices to the community. In fact, my late brother was a presenter on this station. I recall being introduced to Paul Kelly, Billy Bragg and others by visiting the station with him and listening to his rather eclectic music tastes. It's true—he had good taste, and he was a good bloke. During this time, it was the only community radio station outside of metropolitan Adelaide.
To the north of my electorate, we have Riverland Life FM, which is another community radio station. They describe their origin as nothing short of a miracle, as they often struggled through funding application processes and dealing with the lack of technical expertise. Despite all of these challenges, they succeeded and now operate not only to present local news but to share their faith with their community.
Radio stations such as 5GTR FM and Riverland Life FM need regulatory relief. This amendment will provide that to them so that we can continue to hear regional voices. Regional news is considered a low priority for metropolitan broadcasters. We can understand that. We get it. We understand the economies of scale. Unlike cities, which may be more homogenous, the variations in our regions we so often celebrate lead to metropolitan broadcasters avoiding generalisations in covering such diverse areas. This is not meant to be an attack on metropolitan broadcasters but, instead, is intended to highlight the value that regional broadcasters provide.
Unfortunately, as a result of changing advertising priorities, regional broadcasters have been unable to sell their available advertisement slots. The television broadcaster industry group ThinkTV released data from December 2018 to December 2019—a period long before we were introduced to the economic impact of COVID. It reported a 4.9 per cent decrease compared to the previous 12 months. Speaking to my local media outlets, I can tell you that revenue has simply fallen off the cliff. These advertisement losses are often as a result of competition from the internet, and, of course, that's a forum or a mode that's not subject to the same regulations or licensing requirements. For media outlets, this makes broadcasting a full suite of multichannels not commercially viable.
Under this bill, our government aims to better reflect the market by providing regional broadcasters certainty in situations where, due to their affiliation agreements, they fail to meet their local content requirements, through no fault of their own. For regional communities, when their local media outlet closes, there are rarely close competitors willing to fill their shoes. I've obviously experienced that in my community, with WIN Television. The stories, issues and community achievements that would've been reported effectively go unacknowledged.
In 2017, 12 broadcasters breached their local content obligations. Two of these broadcasters serviced my electorate of Barker and were located in the Riverland and Mount Gambier. The services they provide for the regions allow local stories and journalists to be heard when they may otherwise be passed by. These 12 broadcasters in breach represent 19 per cent of all regional broadcasters in the country. A licensing requirement that has just less than 20 per cent noncompliance is one that doesn't reflect the industry ACMA regulates.
Thankfully, ACMA exercised restraint, offering relief this time around. Noncompliance with multichannel quota obligations can attract harsh penalties, including suspension and cancellation of licences. This is despite the 12 licensees significantly exceeding their local content requirement on their primary channel, with their breaches occurring in the other channels they are required to maintain. There is no doubt in my mind that these significant penalties would impact not only broadcasters but also constituents in my electorate if the harsh penalties were brought into effect.
These changes will support broadcasters in my electorate, providing them with certainty in meeting their multichannel obligations in situations where they are dependent on metropolitan broadcasters whose decisions are far beyond their control. The current legislation leaves regional broadcasters at the mercy of their metropolitan affiliates and vulnerable to program scheduling changes. I believe all of us in this place agree that we cannot allow smaller enterprises to suffer such harsh penalties, particularly for events that are out of their control.
The advertising market has been further affected, obviously, by COVID-19, and, with the major sporting events not being aired, revenue is likely to decrease further. Market forecasting predicts regional advertising revenue to decline by a further 11 per cent. The content regulator, ACMA, is exercising forbearance in 2020—I'm grateful for that—and, potentially, they say, in 2021. But the revenue losses for regional broadcasters will likely impact their ability to meet their quotas on a range of channels for some time into the future.
Another change this amendment implements is moving from a mandatory local content plan to one that licensees provide upon request. This allows regional media outlets who consistently meet their obligations to save time and money on the preparation of these content plans. Local content plans are a significant administrative and compliance burden on the media industry, and improvement in local content for communities rarely eventuates. These minor but practical changes will enable broadcasters to spend their time and energy not on meeting regulatory requirements but instead on producing the high-quality local content that our regions depend on and my constituents demand.
Additionally, instead of requiring 12½ minutes of local content per day, the amendments allow for an average of 62.5 minutes per week, a much more sensible approach. Effectively, broadcasters can choose how they allocate this time over the week. In reality this will likely only be utilised in weeks with public holidays, offering a reprieve from staffing and costing issues by distributing the local content throughout the week. This also allows broadcasters to present local content on weekends, if they choose to, depending on their individual circumstances and resources and the demands of their listenership.
It may be argued that Australian media will be diluted and that local content might not be as prevalent, but the simple fact is that Australian content consistently rates well and has the highest content ratings on commercial television. The economic pull factors are there. Media outlets would be absurd to go against market forces, particularly in regional communities that switch off if the media they're consuming isn't relevant. Producing local content is not only supporting the Australian economy; it has also been seen as a profitable course of action for media companies.
These minor changes build on a program we've implemented to deal with the economic effects of the COVID-19 recession. They will enable broadcasters to spend more time on meeting the needs of their listeners than on their obligations to the regulators. I commend the bill to the House.
I too rise to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio and Other Measures) Bill 2020. In regional and rural areas, our media is exceptionally important in terms of reflecting our local issues and what's important to our local communities. But the reality is that regional media is in crisis, and that's due to some of this government's cuts and also the lack of support we see from this government for the regions generally. So the fact is that it isn't regional media that has failed; it's the Morrison government that has failed regional media and regional communities. I don't think there are any National Party members speaking on this tonight, and that is very disappointing. As I've often said, National Party choices hurt, and some of their cuts to regional media have really hurt rural and regional Australia. What they need in those areas is support, not cuts.
This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005, with a range of measures to reduce the regulatory compliance burden on regional commercial radio and commercial television broadcasters. Once again we are seeing the government serving up regulatory changes when what is actually needed is major reform. This government has been refusing to act on these issues for years. Yet again, the government delays genuine reform when the industry is really crying out for support. As we said, we're not opposing this bill; we won't stand in the way of relatively minor amendments to alleviate the burden on our regional broadcasters. But we are very concerned that regional Australians are missing out as a result of this government's ongoing failure to support regional media.
I would like to pay tribute to the local media in my area, on the New South Wales North Coast. Whether it be print, radio or TV, they are all outstanding. Unfortunately, the media landscape in areas like mine is diminishing. Only a short while ago, we saw the closure of several News Corp newspapers on the New South Wales North Coast and a whole range of closures by News Corp across the country. These newspapers are now digital-only editions. The fact that those newspapers stopped printing was a devastating blow for our local community. These papers include Ballina ShireAdvocate, Tweed Daily News, Byron Shire News and The Northern Starall local newspapers for our area. The fact is that local newspapers and local journalists play an essential role in breaking news and telling stories that matter to us, to our families and to our communities. Our newspapers have been an essential service in times of bushfires and floods and recently with the coronavirus pandemic.
Over decades, these newspapers have been our community noticeboards for local events and sports announcements. They've also been an important place for advertisers to promote our outstanding local goods and services. It is important to note that this has been very difficult for older Australians, who have relied on their regular newspaper. Not many of them are on the internet, and they are really disappointed to not have their local community paper. I've been very fortunate to work with so many local editors, journalists and photographers over many years, and I know they all have a very deep commitment to the region. I wish them all well. It was a very devastating blow to have those major job losses in a regional area.
I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the outstanding independent newspapers in my region—newspapers like The Byron Shire Echo, Tweed Valley Weekly and The Nimbin Good Times. They are all run locally and independently. They provide great local information for our community. I note their important role, and they are even more important now with fewer newspapers in our region. We also have some new community newspapers starting up, which is very exciting. I wish them well. It is wonderful to see such strong independent newspapers, and we would like to see some more. Our community is certainly very supportive of that.
It's been a very difficult time for regional media right across the country. Also, this government's cuts to the ABC have made it very difficult for our region and many others. This is an issue that people raise with me all the time. The ABC is vital everywhere and it is exceptionally vital for regional Australia. It seems that, in the face of a crisis in regional media, this government is actively making things worse by cutting ABC funding. Since 2014, around 800 ABC staff have lost their jobs, the Australia Network has been axed, short-wave radio has been shut down, and the number of hours of ABC factual programming has dropped by 60 per cent, drama by 20 per cent and documentary by 13.5 per cent. It's important to note the final report of the ACCC's digital platforms inquiry examined ABC funding and found:
Further, the public broadcasters are not currently resourced to fully compensate for the decline in local reporting previously produced by traditional commercial publishers.
They recommended 'that stable and adequate funding be provided to the ABC and SBS'. They're very clear about that.
At a time when the government should be investing in the ABC, in fact we see the Morrison government continuing their cuts to the ABC. The latest budget locked in over $83 million of ABC cuts. The fact is that in times of crisis Australians turn to our national broadcaster for trusted news and information. Especially recently, we've seen how we really value and need a strong ABC. It's not just a critical part of the media or a critical part of the public service they provide but a critical part of our communities. I know my local ABC, ABC Lismore, really have provided vital information and updates during the floods that we've had, during the bushfires and, of course, most recently, during the coronavirus pandemic. I know all who work there are very committed to our region and our community. The ABC is such a trusted public service. It's been invested in and built up by generations of Australians and really dedicated ABC staff. I think that's one of the consistent themes that we see—a really dedicated workforce in the ABC.
As I've said many times, National Party choices hurt. I think one of the cases where it hurts the most is those cuts to the ABC in our regions. It is so detrimental. Many in our community, of course, do hold the National Party to account when it comes to those cuts. Not too long ago, we saw further reports of the impacts of the government's cuts to the ABC. Now, again, due to those years of cuts, the ABC has been forced to cut 250 staff across news, entertainment and regional divisions. This has been devastating for those regional areas.
The fact is that since this government was elected in 2013, they've cut $783 million in funding for the ABC. Let's remember that this really is a major broken promise by this government. When this government was elected, they specifically promised no cuts to the ABC, and of course that promise was broken almost straightaway. We all remember when the former Prime Minister, the former member for Warringah, promised on election eve that there would be no cuts. Since then, what have we seen? We have seen successive cuts to the ABC's budget. At a time when we are losing so many media outlets, we see these constant cuts. The government's also ignored the ABC's warning that this latest cut would make it very difficult for the ABC to meet its charter requirements. It's not just Labor calling on the government to reverse these cuts; people right throughout the community are continuing to do it. We certainly will continue to hold them to account because it is devastating, especially for the regions.
This bill says it all about this government's failures in regional media. It's inadequate and it sells regional Australia short. It really only tinkers with a few provisions and minor regulatory changes. Whilst the bill might ease some compliance burden for regional broadcasters, the measures are relatively minor and are insufficient to address the concerns about the widespread issues that we have in regional media—which, as I've said, are very wide ranging. It really does sell regional Australia short, because it assumes that, where broadcasters face challenges in meeting Australian content requirements, the answer is to relax those content requirements rather than assist those broadcasters to bridge the gap or undertake genuine reform to address structural changes or provide necessary funding and support. That's what's required here, and that's how it continues to sell regional Australia short.
Also what we're seeing is that when it comes to regional media, this government just has no plan. In fact, they have no plan right across the board. We know that, whether it's about addressing the very dire economic situation—here we are in the worst recession in almost a century, and they've got no plan for jobs. We don't see any plan for job creation at all, we certainly don't see any plan for the regions and we certainly have no plan for regional media.
The government has had years and years to fix the outdated regulatory framework and to address the systemic challenges facing regional media but they just haven't done it, and that's despite calls from so many people for them to address it because of its importance in our regions. What we've seen from the government instead has been a lot of reviews and there have been a lot of recommendations made and yet they just continue to absolutely ignore them. The government did release its response to the ACCC's digital platforms inquiry in December 2019 but, unfortunately, the government did not support all the recommendations that the ACCC made. That's very challenging, because they did make some good recommendations—particularly around proper funding of the ABC and SBS.
The fact is, as I've said, that we really have an absolute crisis in regional media and a crisis in public interest journalism. This existed way before the coronavirus pandemic. It's been in place and I think it has got a lot worse since the pandemic, but it certainly was there. Data collected by the ACCC shows that between 2008 and 2018 106 local and regional newspaper titles closed across the country, representing a net 15 per cent decrease in the number of these publications. These closures have left 21 local government areas previously covered by these titles without coverage from a single local newspaper. That is just so devastating when we look at that. Also, according to the Public Interest Journalism Initiative, 200 titles have closed since January 2019.
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance has stated that in recent months we've seen more than 150 regional and community newspapers cease printing. This is on top of the 106 local and regional papers that have closed over the previous decade. Many of those papers were more than a century old and many may never reopen. It shouldn't be this way. The stories of regional and rural Australia are important—our stories matter. In regional Australia, the local paper is the heartbeat of the community. It provides local news which the big cities can't or won't provide. It's often also a focal point for community connection, cohesion and education. That really encapsulates the importance of our regional media.
Yet the fact is that on this government's watch we have widespread closures of newspapers, closure and consolidation of multiple television newsrooms and the mass sacking of journalists as well. That is such a devastating loss for so many local communities—the jobs there, the stories they tell, for our culture and, indeed, for democracy. I will certainly continue to condemn this government, and especially the National Party. I'm very disappointed that none of them are speaking on this bill; this is about the heart of regional and rural Australia and the fact is that they're not here at all. It's because of them and the choices the National Party make that regional Australia is now facing this crisis, along with a range of other ones as well. The fact is that the National Party, along with the Liberal Party, have really failed our regions.
But Labor will always stand with regional and rural Australia. We're very proud of that. We will fight for them all the time, whether it comes to regional media, or it's about job creation and sustaining regional economies, or it's about better services, or it's in health or education, only Labor will stand with these rural and regional areas. That's because we understand them and we will fight for them, unlike the National Party.
(Quorum formed)
I am delighted to stand here today and speak about regional broadcasting and to share the House with you in the chair, Deputy Speaker Claydon, one of my regional neighbours. It is so important. Sometimes I wonder whether, as politicians, we all forget the thrill of what it's like for someone to hear their name on the radio, to see their picture in the paper. We forget how important it is for local people to hear local stories and, more importantly, to be able to share those stories.
I am a proud product of regional education. The University of Newcastle was where I did my Bachelor of Arts in communications. When I was finishing my final year at Newcastle university, I was thrilled to be offered a job at NBN television. For a girl from Heddon Greta it was a dream come true to go and work at the local TV station. In fact, I couldn't believe it.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Yes, Big Dog was there in those days. He put a lot of kids to bed, member for Moreton. I'm sure he put you to bed.
I then went on to simultaneously work with a great radio broadcaster at a station in those days called 2KO. David Jones did breakfast. I worked with David Jones on that breakfast shift. I used to get up at half past three in the morning and drive from my house at Heddon Greta over the mountain to Charlestown and start work at about half past four. We would be on air from five until nine. Then I would quickly get changed and drive into Newcastle to start my job in TV. You can do that when you're 20. When you're getting closer to 50 it is a bit tiring!
I then went to work for the ABC in Newcastle and 2BL in Sydney. Over the years I have worked for 2GO, CFM, 2hd—the mighty broadcaster that was actually once owned by the Australian Labor Party. I did breakfast on NEWFM. Finally, when I ran for the seat of Paterson I finished in the media at 2NURFM, so the circle was completed. I was back at the University of Newcastle where that station broadcasts from.
I can only tell you how proud I am to have served largely in regional media broadcasting the stories of my community; helping raise the profile of important issues, like PFAS; telling the stories of people like Mary. I will never forget her. She rang me and said to me: 'Meryl, I go out every morning. The first thing I do is switch on the wireless and then I put on the kettle. There it is in my kitchen every day, my extended family.' She said to me, 'And you feel like one of my daughters, because every day I tune in and I listen and sometimes your voice and those voices on the radio are the only other voices I hear in a week.' Can you imagine that?
In fact, I think that these days, in isolation, people living on their own would very much understand that the voices coming out of the radio or the television can provide a great deal of comfort and company in times of isolation, and we've all experienced that.
Even now when I go to public events as a parliamentarian, people still reflect on my time on the radio. In fact, sometimes when they say, 'Gee, you were good on the radio,' I wonder whether it's a back-handed compliment to my parliamentary career! But I have shared so many stories over the years and truly loved it. I have worked in situations involving bushfires. I've helped people navigate their way home when they couldn't gain access to any other navigation to get through. My local knowledge helped people get through bushfire affected areas, especially around the Medowie and Port Stephens areas when those big fires came through there.
I've also worked during floods and natural disasters, and I know that, when the electricity's off and you're relying on a transistor radio and you are hanging on that local information, it is absolutely vital to you. It is the thing that gives you that information. Whether there are flood waters rising near your house or a fire burning towards your home, these are the things that people want when they feel that their lives or their livelihoods are seriously under threat. They turn to their broadcasters, particularly their radio broadcasters.
Regional stations and regional media throughout Australia have long known that change was afoot. They know now that they needed greater flexibility. They could see the great behemoths that are Facebook and Google and the big stations bearing down on them. So it's not as if they haven't been aware and haven't wanted flexibility, particularly regulatory flexibility. They've been calling for it.
So now we have a government that's kind of wading into the regulatory waters but not very deep. Indeed, we should be throwing some of this old, stale water away and providing real reform so that regional media can have the platform it richly deserves to continue to tell the stories that make Australia great. I am pleased that the government has finally started to listen to industry and provide some of these minor amendments. Frankly, it's a little embarrassing when I speak to my ex-media colleagues. They just wring their hands and say: 'The industry needs reform. We know that the earth has shifted. The ground has shifted from under our feet in the media landscape.' This government, which has been at the tiller for seven years, has just, by an infinitesimal amount, changed our course. They need to be swinging on that tiller and really making some big differences. The reform is needed.
We're not opposing the bill, because we don't want to stand in the way of these relatively minor regulatory amendments, but we know that much more is needed. For a long time now, regional Australians have been missing out as a result of this government's abject failure to support regional media. It is important to note that the bill will not lower the amount of local content. This is important, because that local content must stay. Also, I know how much my community love the opportunity to hear stories that relate to them. Regional radio really is like a friendly neighbour, and we know how important friendly neighbours putting their heads over the fence have been in these times. It is so important that people stay connected.
I want to mention The Maitland Mercury. It is Australia's third-oldest regional newspaper; it was established in 1843. This year, for the very first time in its 177-year history, the printing presses ground to a halt. We were distraught, to say the least. For a lot of it, of course, we can sheet the blame home to COVID, but we knew that this was coming long before, and so did the publishers of The Maitland Mercury. They knew that the advertising spend was changing. They knew that things needed to change, and they haven't had the scaffolding. They haven't had the reform that they've needed
For the first time in its 52-year history, the mighty Cessnock Advertiser stopped printing. The office was shut. It is a travesty. We have to keep telling these stories.
Our wonderful masthead The Newcastle Herald has done so much. If we hark back to its history when it was The Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners Advocate, it has done so much good work. In recent years, with the able assistance of members like Sharon Claydon, the member for Newcastle, it has worked with incredible journalists like Joanne McCarthy and with Julia Gillard to run the Shine the Light campaign, which was able to secure a royal commission into institutional abuse. That has forever changed the lives of Australian people in a real and meaningful way, and that came about because of a regional masthead. Also, when my community, the community of Williamtown and surrounds, started to put pressure on the government, The Newcastle Herald backed us and walked with us for every step of that journey. Journalists like Carrie Fellner were on the story. That led to real and meaningful change, and we pressured the government into providing compensation for those people whose lives have been irrevocably changed by PFAS contamination.
So this is the real power of regional media. This is why we need those journalists to be on the ground, to be hearing stories, collecting those stories and collating the information. It's not just about copy, paste, rinse and repeat. It is about really good journalism—journalism with integrity, knowing the right questions to ask, knowing the right quotes to include in a story and knowing the sources. The only way you know the sources is if you spend time on the ground with them. That's why regional media is so important. It not only tells the stories but holds us all to account. It holds governments to account. It holds politicians to account. Regional media is very important for these reasons, and, when I see tinkering at the edge, it makes me really wonder where the future of our media lies.
I just want to spend a moment talking about the ABC. Of course, I declare that I've worked for the ABC. It was a long time ago now—20 years. It's an incredible institution. When I hear people, particularly members of the National Party, criticise the ABC, I can't help but shake my head, because, for everyone I know who lives in regional, remote and rural Australia, the ABC is definitely a lifeline. Whether it's Country Hour, stock reports or weather reports, they tune into the ABC like their life depends on it, because often it does. When I hear that there are cuts being made to the ABC, I find it soul-destroying. It is our national broadcaster. It is one of the best public broadcasters in the world. The Prime Minister this week has taken a liking to comparing Australia with other countries, saying how well we've done compared to Mr Trump's US or to Britain. Well, I want to say that the ABC, despite incredible and incremental cuts in the last seven years, continues to be one of the most outstanding public broadcasters the world over. It still has correspondents in all portions of the globe. It still provides us with essential news locally. It's still the national response broadcaster when there's an emergency. It is so vital that we continue to properly fund the ABC, not for some perverse political bias that conservatives feel that the ABC has against them but because the ABC tells our stories like no other. It is incredible, whether it's via the radio, as it's done for so many decades, or via the new platforms.
I want to give a shout-out to the ABC in Newcastle. Ben Millington and the team up there have been doing a fantastic job in doing a lot of TV these days. If you're watching the ABC News bulletin in New South Wales and you see more stories coming out of Newcastle, it's because they've been able to embrace the technology and present some more stories. That's the sort of reform that we need to see funded. These are the sorts of reforms that we need to see so that regional media can pick itself up out of the hole it's found itself in and start to flourish again and tell the stories that are just so incredibly important to us all.
In closing, I just want to relate a little story. I think I was 25 and I went to New York for the first time. I'd never been there before. When I saw the bull sculpture in Wall Street, I remember thinking: 'Wow! I've seen that in heaps of movies and on the news, and here it is, in all of its brass glory, in Wall Street.' And it hit me. I thought: 'Oh, my goodness! This is what Americans experience.' It's their local place. They see their stories come to life. When you see one of your stories come to life, when you see something local come to life, it's deeper than it just being on the telly or on the radio or in a movie. It's about our culture. It's about the things that we hold dear. It's about our democracy. It's about our legal systems and institutions. It's the very fabric of who we are. So, when you as a politician pen your next letter to the editor, just remember that. You want to hope that that letters space is still there for you to be able to put an opinion, because those opinions matter. Everyone's opinion matters.
(Quorum formed)
[by video link] I rise to speak to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio and Other Measures) Bill 2020, and I support the amendment moved by the member for Gellibrand. The bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 to ease the regulatory and compliance burden on regional commercial radio and TV broadcasters. As in so many other portfolio areas, this government serves up minor regulatory housekeeping when major reform is needed. But Labor will not oppose this bill. We won't stand in the way of these minor amendments to reduce the regulatory burden, particularly in the face of concerns about the market failure of regional commercial TV. However, Labor is deeply concerned about this government's ongoing failure to support regional media and to deliver real reform in the context of ongoing regional job losses in media, a shrinking media market and cuts to our national broadcaster, the ABC.
In my electorate of Corangamite, we rely on the ABC. Instead of cuts, the Morrison government must recognise that regions like mine—which takes in Geelong, the Surf Coast, Bellarine, Golden Plains and the Otways—require a strong ABC presence to deliver quality news, analysis on local issues and, importantly, information when there is a crisis like the Ash Wednesday fires or COVID-19. I'll continue to fight for a strong local ABC presence in the form of a local bureau for our rapidly growing population. I'll also continue to be a strong supporter of a thriving local broadcast and print media industry. In my region, we're fortunate to have many good newspapers and radio: The Times News Group; K rock and Bay FM; Geelong Advertiser, one of Australia's oldest newspapers; Ocean Grove Voice; The Indy; and Queenscliff Herald, just to name a few.
These amazing organisations have been the training ground for many journalists, including me. Back in the day, I did a cadetship at the Geelong Advertiser. It was a time when the newspaper was king. We had a bustling newsroom with a large team of journalists, a team of photojournos and a darkroom where photos were actually developed. In the basement, compositors pasted bromides into place, and each night the massive printing press located out the back of the building came to life, printing the paper six days a week. How times have changed. The printing press has gone, and so too have the compositors and darkroom. But what remains is a newspaper with a proud history of providing local news on the issues that matter to local people. We know that our local media outlets are having to adapt. They are doing so, and we need them to continue to be a critical source of information and independent analysis about local issues. May they also continue to be a crucial stepping stone for our brightest and best young journos.
Schedule 1 of this bill does permit greater flexibility for regional commercial radio broadcasting licensees, with minor amendments to local content and reporting requirements. Crucially, this bill will not lower the amount of local content that is currently available to regional audiences on commercial radio. Schedule 2 of the bill permits regional licensees to be deemed to have complied with the multichannel transmission quota obligation even if they have not broadcast the required 1,460 hours of Australian content. This will assist licensees where they miss their quota as a result of programming decisions which are outside their control and made by their metro affiliates. These are relatively minor amendments, but Labor's criticism is that this bill is too late, it is inadequate and it sells regional Australia short. The bill is too late because it only now addresses local content obligations, which this government has known about since at least 2017. The department itself considers this to be an early warning sign of market failure. In the department's own words:
In order to fulfil the intention of its policy, the government will need to take action before market failure occurs, as this would limit regional audience's access to Australian content …
It is perplexing that this bill is being considered at exactly the same time as the government has this issue under formal review. Over three years ago, the government started a review of the Australian and children's screen content rules. The ongoing delay and uncertainty around this protracted process has caused frustration for the broadcasting industry and the production sector. When the government introduced this bill in June, the department had consultation on its review of the Australian content rules.
The review began on 15 April and ran until 3 July. But it would be remiss of me not to note that the government introduced this bill before it had even taken the time to respond to the consultation on its own options paper. This bill is inadequate, because it merely tinkers with a few provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act, when wholesale reform of the policy and regulatory framework have been necessary for years. This bill sells regional Australia short because it assumes the answer to meeting Australian content requirements is relaxing the rules rather than undertaking genuine reform to address structural challenges.
For years, Labor has been calling on this government to implement a real plan to support Australian content, public interest journalism and regional media in a landscape transformed by digitisation and convergence. Years ago, this government itself criticised the current regulatory framework as 'analog era', yet it has failed to produce a digital-era replacement. We need reform that addresses news services, the shift in advertising revenue and the uneven playing field. In 2017, former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described his government's changes to media law as 'a new era for Australian media'. But less than three years later the department stated that it was of the view that the broadcasters' difficulties in meeting content requirements can be taken to be an early warning sign of market failure. A transformation from a new era to market failure in under three years is what we've seen under the Liberal government—all headline, no delivery. The government has numerous reviews and recommendations at its disposal to assist with media reform. Yet they continue to ignore them, or they cherrypick them in a lopsided manner.
Australia's media was already in crisis before COVID-19. This government's many failures on regional media have left the sector exposed, and COVID is exacerbating those changes already underway. The ACCC data shows that 106 local and regional newspaper titles closed across Australia between 2008 and 2018, a 15 per cent net decrease in the number of these publications. The sector needs urgent help and all it has received is silence. My colleague the member for Greenway wrote to the Minister for Communications in April urging those opposite to consider the regional and community media sector to be part of the government's $1 billion regional and community fund. She received no response.
On top of these closures, this government is actively making things worse by cutting funding to the ABC, which is vital to regional Australia. Since 2014, and in breach of their 2013 election promise, the coalition has continually cut the funding to the ABC. Around 1,000 ABC staff have lost their jobs, and community funding cuts total over $780 million from 2013 to 2022. The ABC managing director confirmed that the ABC will have to absorb cumulative budget cuts amounting to $105.9 million per annum by 2022. The hours of ABC factual programming have dropped by 60 per cent, drama has dropped by 20 per cent and documentary has dropped by 13.5 per cent. This will mean even fewer programs and services.
In times of crisis, Australians turn to our national broadcaster for trusted news and information on bushfires, on droughts and on COVID-19. So, instead of cutting the ABC when we need it most, I urge this government to support our national broadcaster. Indeed, the digital platforms inquiry report found that public broadcasters are not currently resourced to fully compensate for the decline in local reporting previously produced by traditional commercial publishers and recommended that stable and adequate funding be provided for the ABC and the SBS. And yet the cuts have continued. Labor continues to call on the Morrison government to reverse these cuts, many of which have deeply affected regional Australia. I would remind those opposite that it was our current Prime Minister who made these cuts when he was Treasurer, in 2018, and then claimed that there were no cuts to the ABC. The ABC chair herself, Ita Buttrose, was forced to release a statement clarifying the facts of the cuts. Even the New South Wales Nationals leader and Deputy Premier has contradicted the Prime Minister's claim.
Finally, the RMIT ABC Fact Check came out to clarify the situation. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts have been caught red-handed misleading the Australian public about ABC funding cuts. RMIT ABC Fact Check found that the government's claim that there are no cuts to the ABC's budget because ABC funding is rising each year to be misleading. In the face of devastating ABC job cuts and service reductions, both the Prime Minister and the minister for communications repeatedly claimed on multiple occasions that there are no cuts and that the ABCs funding is increasing every year. Fact Check found that the budget shows a year-on-year decline in real funding over four years set out in the 2019-20 budget. Budget Paper No. 1 for 2022-23 shows a 10.6 per cent decline in real operational funding, while the portfolio budget statements show a 7.7 per cent decline. So Fact Check concluded that ABC funding decreases year on year in real terms. It therefore can be, and should be, referred to as a cut. This government's arrogance, poor judgement and contempt for the truth are on full display. The Prime Minister's cuts to the ABC are irresponsible, and his denial of ABC cuts is misleading.
The ABC is an essential service that keeps Australians safe and our democracy secure in our cities, in the bush, in the Asia-Pacific region and in my electorate of Corangamite. Cutting the national broadcaster is reckless and irresponsible. Labor will support this bill, but, as I've said, all it does is tinker at the edges. It does nothing to fix the major structural problems besetting our whole media landscape. In particular, it does very little to give regional Australia and my electorate of Corangamite a diverse, reliable, frank and fearless broadcast and print media.
(Quorum formed)
Traditional media is under the pump, not just rurally but right across the board. I listened to those on the other side who spoke on this bill, telling us that some magic form of government regulation is going to change that situation. But it isn't the case. It's like many other facets of our life, where the traditional is under assault from new technologies, and, as things change, we have to adapt to that change. My own industry of agriculture is having to adapt to that incredible change.
In speaking about the value of news sources, I have long thought that the decline in traditional media is an underlying threat to our democracy. What's happening is that the funding sources that paid for traditional media are quite quickly slipping away. If you look at the stable of old Fairfax papers, one of their greatest sources of income was the classifieds. It was called Fairfax's 'river of gold'. They barely exist anymore. It's all gone to this little thing here—the telephone. If you're looking for real estate now, you don't pick up the newspaper; you go straight to the internet. If you're looking for a car, you don't go to the newspaper; you go straight to the internet. Along with that, fewer people are buying newspapers and fewer people are watching traditional television—free-to-air television—because there are so many options. So the advertising dollars are drying up.
The great question for us as a nation is: how do we have reliable news services for people to access? We can fund them, if we wish, directly. We fund the ABC a magnificent amount of money—over a billion dollars a year. I hear people talking about the cuts to the ABC. Every other news organisation in Australia would be very pleased to be putting up with those cuts at the moment, if that's what they are, I can tell you. The question is: what do we fund and how do we fund it? Traditionally, news has funded itself. So many people are not only not buying a reliable news service; the media they are watching does not even supply a news service. It's a challenge for members of parliament to actually communicate with a great many people in their electorates because they're plugged into music. They might be plugged into Spotify. They might be plugged into a local FM radio station that runs a two-minute news service on the hour, or whatever. But, typically, there just is not a news service in their life. I know many people who don't watch any kind of current affairs on television, so their lives are informed by fiction. This is the threat.
So what do we do? We could either plough resources in or direct movement towards the change, which may be inevitable. We may have to find a way for these platforms to fund themselves properly and come up with reputable news services that sit within the platforms, or we can try and do what we can to sustain the current industry. I am a traditionalist, and I am for fighting for what we've got at this stage. If things change enough in the future, perhaps I will change my view. But, at this stage, that's what I think we should be fighting for. The bill before us now is actually dealing with some of that change and the onslaught that they are facing.
We did have a major reform of media ownership only three years ago, which was mentioned by a previous speaker. It was a major reform because no-one had been in that space for more than 10 years. It was quite a significant change. But tonight we're debating a bill about support for regional services. I'm going to touch on newspapers before I go to the content of the bill.
In my electorate, how you classify it is a little difficult, but there would be 10 major titles spread across the electorate. There are some other lesser ones. There is an electronic newspaper at Coober Pedy—a very good one. Of the 10 major titles, two are owned by family companies—the Yorke Peninsula Country Times and the Plains Producer at Balaklava. They are pretty successful papers and they cover big areas. They've still got a very high level of readership. That encourages me that there is a model that works. Having said that, I'm pleased to report they are both accessing JobKeeper, and in recent time they have both been accessing government grants aimed at keeping regional newspapers alive and vibrant. I have spoken to one of the owners. He said, 'We wouldn't be here anymore if it weren't for this federal government.' They are managing to battle on, and I hope they will have a long and illustrious future.
There are another eight titles that are now owned by Australian Community Media, in the former Fairfax Rural Press news stable, which includes a lot of the country newspapers across Australia. I spoke not that long ago to the new owner, Antony Catalano, and he informed that me he bought over 400 titles and paid an awful amount of money for them. Having just paid all that money for them, he really wasn't in the mood to go around closing them all up. He believes in the future of those newspapers, and I wish him well. Of the eight titles that he has in the Grey electorate, one did go into recession, the Port Lincoln Times. Three have reopened—the Whyalla News, The Transcontinental and TheRecorderof Port Pirie. Then there are another four titles, including the West Coast Sentinel, Eyre Peninsula Tribune, the Clare Northern Argus and The Flinders News, which are still in suspension at the moment. When I talked to Antony, he said, 'Had I not suspended publications, we wouldn't be in business anymore right across the board.' That's how serious the COVID virus is for country newspapers, and it's right that we've been in that space. I wish him well; I wish him every success. I urge my local businesses and communities to support those newspapers and to make sure we can get them back up and being successful.
Now I turn to radio, and that's where we come to the legislation that is before us today. Across Grey, I'm fortunate to have some great studios—5CS, 5AU and Magic 105.9 in the Upper Spencer Gulf, managed by Gary Kernahan in Port Augusta; and 5CC and Magic 899, managed by Darren Allard in Port Lincoln. They are very successful and very attuned to their communities. The fact they still carry high levels of advertising is showing us that they know what they are talking about. What we are doing in this case is allowing a little relaxation or flexibility in their local content rules. At the moment, they have a five-week period when they don't have to broadcast local news. Generally speaking, that's from Christmas through to about the end of January. But it doesn't make sense that we are hard and fast on that rule.
It's very important we keep these local news services going. I hesitate to use the word 'insidious' in relation to radio, but it is like a companion—it can be with you in the workplace, it can be with you in the home and it can be with you in the car as you travel. It's very important that we keep a news service sitting within radio programs. I talked before about people that switch off and go to music land or some other area; they are just not getting any news in their life at all.
We've also allowed some leniency around the broadcasting of news on public holidays, without getting into the debate about public holiday loadings in Australia. Let me say that the radio stations face all the same issues that the other businesses do in Australia, and you can see why they're not as keen to operate on public holidays as they might be the rest of the time. Once again, that makes sense. It allows them to manage their budget better, and they will stay in place.
On top of that, across Grey, we have an FM operation, Flow FM. They have multiple repeaters. It goes right through into Victoria as we1l. That operates out of Kapunda. It's a very good operation, and they too will benefit from the introduction of flexibility into their programming. Good luck to all of them. Long may they live. Long may they prosper.
Then, of course, television, in the electorate of Grey, covers—I get to say this in this place every now and then—92.4 per cent of South Australia, which is an area that is about 10 per cent bigger than New South Wales. For a local member, and for a lot of other people as well, it's very important that we keep our local news services on our televisions. We are lucky in the seat of Grey, with Southern Cross Austereo Spencer Gulf located in the primarily Upper Spencer Gulf. They have reporters in Port Lincoln, Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie. Unlike WIN—and my sympathy goes to those areas that lost their local news services—they have retained their local newsrooms, and they are such an important part of our local communities.
Because of the network size, or the footprint, they were granted an exemption some years ago, which sits within the act, that actually allows this one television station to broadcast Channel 9, GEM, GO!, Channel 10, 10 Peach, 10 Bold, Channel 7, 7mate and 7TWO. The whole lot of the commercial network is coming out of this one television station based in those four separate areas that actually straddle so much of my electorate. It probably covers about 70 per cent of the population, in reality. It's a very good platform. We're very lucky to have it. Once again, may I say to them, long may you prosper and long may you stay in place.
It is important that the legislation that we did past two or three years ago—whenever it was when we had the major media reform—allowed for some ownership changes in the television space. I'm not sure too much has happened in that area yet, but the possibility is there. There has been a lot of talk in the press at different times about one group moving on another, amalgamating with the city forces, but still retaining those local content requirements. As long as they stay in place, I don't particularly care who owns the operation. Let it go to that grouping which can most successfully turn a dollar out of it, quite frankly—that's what it comes back to.
Once again, this legislation before us allows them some flexibility in their local content rules, and so it should. It has been described by those on the other side as help at the edges. If you are under enough pressure I can tell you that any help helps. I don't hear suggestions coming on what else to do. When I started speaking on this bill I was talking about the onslaught of technology, and television, just like the other two technologies, is under great pressure. I'm staying in a hotel in Canberra at the moment—it's not one that I normally stay in, but it's a very, very nice place—and there is Fox Movies on tap there. Cable television is in enough houses. It all undermines the viability of the free-to-air television networks that we so greatly value to deliver the news message to the bulk of Australians. I can't see anybody suggesting—and certainly I'm not—that we've got to get rid of the cable networks or that we've got to get rid of the satellite networks, so that's not going to happen. King Canute drowned—I think that's what happened to him—
An honourable member: And Netflix.
And Netflix. There are multitudes of platforms. Sure, maybe they need more help, but I can tell you that any help that we give is appreciated, and they've fed that news back to me. What I'd like those who say it doesn't go far enough to do is give us some suggestions, and give us some suggestions that won't bedevil the Australian taxpayer with billions of dollars in the future. We have to find a way forward with these issues of technology that confront us in so many areas of our lives.
[by video link] I'm pleased to be contributing to this debate today on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio and Other Measures) Bill 2020, because there is no doubt that regional media has been hit by a triple whammy: digital disruption, COVID-19 and, of course, this government, which has done absolutely nothing about it. It's not just regional media that's in crisis; it's Australia's media sector more broadly that's in crisis and, in fact, was in crisis before COVID-19. This government's many failures have left regional media unexpectedly exposed to the effects of both the pandemic and the recession. The result of that is that many communities are now without a local newspaper or radio or television news service, and this is at a time when it is more important than ever that our communities have access to reliable, local, trustworthy information.
While there's nothing in this bill that is objectionable, it's what's not in this bill that's problematic. There's no plan. There's no plan for how this government is going to support regional media through this time of crisis. There's no idea, more broadly, about how this government sees its role in terms of our media sector and the provision of information in our community. This is a really serious issue for our democracy, and it's not an issue that this bill seems to take seriously enough. So while Labor won't stand in the way of these relatively minor amendments to alleviate the regulatory burden on regional broadcasters, I absolutely support the amendment moved by the member for Gellibrand saying that this bill doesn't go nearly far enough to support regional media.
Unlike many of the speakers on this bill, I'm actually not from a regional area, but I'm speaking on this because this is an issue that goes beyond just those who are living in regional areas and affects us all. In fact, we often hear from members on the other side about how regional Australia is the lifeblood of this country. Well, then, why are you abandoning their media sector? Why are you giving away their television, their radio and their newspapers? Why aren't you supporting them more? There's no doubt that regional Australia's hurting and regional Australians are missing out as a result of this government's failures. This decline has happened on this government's watch—newspapers, radio and television all closing and, again, no serious plan to address the decline.
We know from the ACCC that, between 2008 and 2018, 106 local and regional newspaper titles closed across Australia, a net 15 per cent decrease in the number of these publications. That left 21 local government areas which were previously covered by regional media without coverage from a single local newspaper, and that was prior to the pandemic, which, of course, has exacerbated all these problems. So now, according to the Public Interest Journalism Initiative, 200 titles have closed since January 2019. I want to be clear that these closures aren't just numbers. They're missing stories about how our local communities operate. They're a gap in accountability for our local councils. They're a lack of space for a community to raise early warning signs about trouble at the local hospital.
I've worked as a regional journalist—it's where I started my career—and I know how important these services are to making communities strong. At their very best they contribute to creating a sense of community. They support local businesses, sporting clubs, business endeavours and community groups. They are really the lifeblood of these communities, and they're closing on this government's watch. They're the place where a lot of journalists get their training. I know that, when I was working in regional areas, I was lucky enough to be supported by a wonderful team—by editors, subeditors and all the people who helped me become really good at my job. Without that infrastructure in place and without the support for the sector more broadly, where's our next generation of journalists going to come from? We're going to need strong media in this country over the coming years and decades; where's the support for that? We are just not seeing it from this government.
We know that, when traditional media is not there and we don't have independent sources of news and information, people turn to sources of disinformation and misinformation. That's dangerous, particularly now when we're in the middle of a pandemic. I know that some of the members opposite don't seem to have a problem with sharing misinformation or disinformation, but it is a problem. We do need trustworthy, reliable information, and we need that in our regions as well as in our capital cities.
Previously, Australians in regional areas could have relied on the ABC for their local news services—but not under this government. Since 2014, around 800 ABC staff have lost their jobs. The number of hours of ABC factual programming has dropped by 60 per cent, drama by 20 per cent and documentary by 13.5 per cent. We know, again from the ACCC digital platforms inquiry, that ABC funding is not currently resourced to fully compensate for the decline in local reporting previously produced by traditional commercial publishers. And, of course, that inquiry recommended that stable and adequate funding be provided to the ABC and SBS. Yet what is this government doing? The latest round of budget cuts was $83.7 million, forcing another round of redundancies at the ABC. What we have seen since 2014, when this government first started cutting the ABC's budget, is cut after cut after cut, and that's journalists gone and regional newsrooms closed down.
We know, and we've seen just this summer, that some of the services the ABC provides in regional areas are literally life-saving. They're the people on the ground who understand these communities in times of crisis such as bushfires. I know I, like many people around our country, was glued to the ABC's coverage last summer because I knew that they understood what was happening in their communities and that the information they were providing about what was happening in that deadly time was accurate. Under this government, it's becoming harder and harder for the ABC to supply these services.
We know these cuts are ideologically driven. This government has decided that it doesn't like the ABC—it doesn't think it agrees with it—so it's doing everything it can to undermine it. Well, I think you've misread the mood of the Australian people. People love the ABC. It is still the No. 1 issue that people raise with me. Earlier this year, before we all had to socially distance, I held a rally in my community to save the ABC. Hundreds of people turned up, because this is an issue that people care about. They are passionate about saving the ABC and they are passionate about saving the ABC from this government. I will certainly do all I can to make sure that the ABC is funded properly and that it is allowed to operate independently, because, as a society, we need this news service. We need independent, accurate news, and our regions need this service as well.
Of course we know the government has a pile of reviews and recommendations about regional media at its disposal to choose from, but it really hasn't come up with a plan for our media sector. We've got bits and pieces of change ahead of us here, but nothing substantial—nothing that's going to make the changes that we need to see for a strong and healthy regional media, and indeed a healthy media sector across our country more broadly.
Another area that this government has left out in terms of our media sector is community television. Again, this is something that people in my community feel quite passionately about. Channel 31 here in Melbourne is respected and loved by a lot of people. It's where, in fact, a lot of media people got their start and their training—a really important service to our community. Again, particularly at this time, when we see a decline in the media more broadly and local newsrooms closing, why would we not support a community television service? But in fact that's what's been happening under this government. They have tried to take away this important community local service from us. At a time when social cohesion, national culture and our identity needed to be fostered, this government was trying to take away the signal for community television and instead put it online.
I heard, very clearly, from people involved in community TV and also from those who watch this service—particularly older people, who are not used to watching online—what a change that would mean for them. It would mean that their service was really no longer what they were looking for and relying on. That really is just a broad indication of how this government views media and how it views it as a service to our community—not as something that needs to be supported and not as something it needs to think about. 'Yes, this is a time of disruption; things are changing and the traditional model is being disrupted and doesn't provide the revenue that it once did.' Where is the thinking by this government about how it steps in and supports a broader media sector in our regions and in communities like mine?
It's time for the government to put its money where its mouth is. We don't need piecemeal changes like this; we need a broader plan for how this government will support storytelling in communities across our country. Without it, we're at risk of being exposed to misinformation and disinformation. We're at risk of people pushing agendas and we're at risk in times of crisis—in a pandemic, in a bushfire—of people missing out on information that could literally save lives. Is that something this government wants to be responsible for?
There is more that this government could be doing to support our media sector and there is more that it could be doing to support our ABC. In fact, it is vitally important that this government fund the ABC adequately and that it make sure the ABC can employ the journalists it needs in our regional centres and our cities across the country so that we get accurate and timely information. It's time for the government to think much more broadly about how it supports this sector and what the overall plan is, rather than piecemeal reform. If the government really cared about regional and rural media, it would include the broader sector as part of the regional grants it's been putting out there, but that hasn't happened either. It's time for the government to come up with that broader plan and the broader suggestions about support. Otherwise, I fear that there won't be a next generation of regional journalists or a generation of people like me who learnt how to do our jobs in regional areas, who got to talk about and support communities and who were part of the infrastructure that kept local businesses going. We told the stories of local sporting clubs, went to the local council meetings each week and did all those things that actually help to keep our communities ticking over.
If we don't do something now those services will not be there in the future. Perhaps we will be running off a local Facebook page—perhaps, if those communities are lucky. They certainly won't have a regional television service. Unfortunately, many of them already don't because of the failures of this government. They won't have a regional radio service; again, too many of those have closed. They won't have a regional newspaper; newspapers which have existed in our country for decades now are closing on this government's watch. I'm amazed that people in the government, particularly those who say they stand up for regional and rural Australians, think that's acceptable. I'm amazed that they think they're doing enough and that this bill does enough. It doesn't. We need a much more comprehensive plan. Our media is in danger and it's time for this government to step up.
[by video link] I too rise to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio and Other Measures) Bill 2020. It's a delight to follow the member for Jagajaga, who, alongside the member for Paterson and, I think, also the member for Macquarie, actually cut her teeth on journalism in our regions and feels so passionately about it.
This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act, and it does so with a range of deregulatory measures to ease the regulatory and compliance burden on regional commercial radio and regional commercial television broadcasters. It has sat on the Notice Paper, I note, for quite some time. Once again, this government has served up regulatory housekeeping when major reform is needed. Once again, this government has dithered at delays on genuine reform when industry is crying out for uncertainty to end. Regional media—including regional commercial radio, regional newspapers and regional commercial television and community television—are in crisis today.
As Labor have said, we won't oppose this bill—we don't want to stand in the way of what are relatively minor regulatory amendments to alleviate regulatory burden on regional broadcasters, particularly in the face of market failure of regional commercial television—but we are concerned that regional Australians are missing out as a result of the government's ongoing failure to actually support regional media. This is late, it's inadequate and it sells regional Australians short.
It's late because the government and everyone in the regions have known about this problem for years. The government has known since at least 2017, but it's only finally getting around to doing something about the issue now. The bill is inadequate because it merely tinkers with the problems in regional broadcasting and media. There are some big problems here, and they will require wholesale reform. But, instead of doing the hard yards to reform the legislative framework, the government is again shifting the deckchairs. All the government knows how to do is to dismantle piece by piece. Finally, this bill sells regional Australia short. It sells regional Australia short because it assumes that, where broadcasters face challenges in meeting Australian content requirements, the answer is to relax the content requirements rather than to assist broadcasters to bridge the gap somehow or to undertake genuine reform to address these structural challenges. When faced with the problem that some regional broadcasters are finding it difficult to satisfy their transmission quota, what does the government do? It looks to relax the consumer safeguard, not support these broadcasters to reach the consumer safeguard.
While the bill doesn't lower the amount of local content that is currently available to regional audiences of regional commercial radio, it does permit a reduction in the number of hours of Australian content on regional commercial television that is currently available to regional audiences. At best, this will only be an indirect and modest reduction in the number of hours of repeat Australian content or simulcast content already available to regional audiences—content that is currently used as filler to make up the hours to satisfy quota. At worst, though, it may have unintended consequences and result in a significant reduction in the number of hours of Australian content available on regional commercial television. This may lead to regional and remote licensees reducing the number of multichannels they carry, particularly if they're unprofitable. Or we could see metropolitan networks further diluting the Australian content they broadcast on their multichannels. Worryingly, we could see regional and remote audiences being deprived of first-release Australian drama, children's or documentary content. It is clear that regional media is facing challenges, partly as a result of the government's failure to keep the regulatory framework up to date, and regional Australians are missing out as a result. The bill does not do enough.
I live in a regional community. I'm speaking in this parliament from one at the moment. I'm very proud to represent the regional community of Ballarat. I know firsthand how important local media is to my community and the communities that I represent. Regional local journalists tell our stories. They examine and inform us about our communities. They report on issues that might not get a lot of attention from the metro papers but which make a real difference to our lives. That has been incredibly important, particularly here in Victoria at the moment as we go through stage 3 lockdowns in the regions—being able to communicate with each other, to tell our stories, to tell the wonderful things that people are doing in the face of really difficult times.
When I look around the country at the paper closures that are hitting regions across Australia under this government, I realise that, while Ballarat has been lucky to keep our 150-year-old major newspaper, that does not mean that we've been unscathed. We've lost 140 jobs with the closure of ACM's print site. ABC cuts have hurt every regional community. Jobs have been lost in commercial media, such as at 3BA, our radio station. We've had our losses, but I know Ballarat and the small towns that make up my electorate are largely still lucky to have a range of locally based news, with proud old newspapers like The Courier; quality small publications like the Ballarat Timesor The Ballarat News, the new online News Corp paper; and a range of community and local papers in other smaller towns that I could name. At the same time, we are lucky to have two local nightly television bulletins, a range of locally based commercial and public radio broadcasters and a strong local ABC that is focused on telling our stories.
Despite the success of our outlets, we're still facing job losses—most recently, as I said, with the closure of ACM printing in Ballarat and the loss of over 100 staff. We see that our news service from 3BA is mostly coming out of Geelong. We see that on WIN TV the broadcast news is mostly coming out of Wollongong. My thoughts are with many of the workers who have lost their jobs, particularly at ACM most recently and across the course of this pandemic. I fear that those won't be the last in regional media in our community.
Regional media across the country has been hit by a triple whammy of digital disruption, COVID-19 and, frankly, a government who couldn't care less. The crisis in Australia's media began long before the pandemic; indeed it is the many failures of the government when it comes to regional media that have left the sector so exposed to these sorts of shocks. These trends have been felt everywhere, but nowhere have they been felt more acutely than in our regions. Regional media in Australia has been pushed to the brink of market failure by this government's inaction, as the bill's own explanatory memorandum actually notes.
Data collection by the ACCC shows that, between 2008 and 2018, 106 local and regional newspaper titles closed across Australia, representing a net 15 per cent decrease in the number of those publications. These closures have left 21 local government areas previously covered by these titles without coverage from a single local newspaper in either print or online formats, including 16 local government areas in regional Australia. Since 2018 it has gotten even worse. According to the Public Interest Journalism Initiative, 200 titles have closed since January 2019. The number of contractions in the Australian public interest news landscape has grown to over 200 since January 2019, according to data from the Public Interest Journalism Initiative's Australian Newsroom Mapping Project. These 200 titles gave people jobs, kept their communities informed and kept local public figures honest. COVID has seen even more closures. Many of these papers are more than a century old. For over a century they've told the stories of their communities, but under the watch of the government they're closing, with many never to reopen.
Media is essential to our democracy, particularly in regional areas, but under this government that doesn't seem to matter. Media diversity in regional and remote areas is at or below the minimum number of voices in 68 per cent of licence areas, and multiple local television stations have closed their doors. On this government's watch, we have news deserts emerging, widespread closures of newspapers, closure and consolidation of multiple television news rooms and mass sackings of journalists. It's a devastating loss for many local communities and for our stories, culture and democracy.
For many regions, the ABC has historically provided a local trusted voice, but in the midst of this crisis the government is actively making things worse by repeatedly cutting ABC funding. Since 2014, around 800 ABC staff have lost their jobs; the Australia Network has been axed; short-wave radio has been shut down; and the number of hours of ABC factual programming has dropped by 60 per cent, drama has dropped by 20 per cent and documentary has dropped by 13.5 per cent. The final report of the ACCC's digital platforms inquiry examined ABC funding and found:
Further, the public broadcasters are not currently resourced to fully compensate for the decline in local reporting previously produced by traditional commercial publishers.
They recommended 'that stable and adequate funding be provided to the ABC and SBS'. The government needs to listen to that report.
Earlier this year the royal commission heard that the ABC saved lives over the summer of fires, but just a week later—a week later—the Morrison government was back with further cuts. These cuts hurt our regions more than anywhere else. The crisis requires a relief response. Labor welcomes the relief announced by the government, but it is inadequate and much more is needed.
While we are not opposing these bills, as I said, I do join with my colleagues in imploring the government to go further and to save regional media; to understand that it is regional voices that are important to be heard, whether it be in this place, in our national parliament, or whether it be in our own homes, to hear those local stories and to provide that opportunity for us to tell those stories to the nation and to the world.
I remember the Liberal government opened the ABC radio station here in Ballarat. It was a terrific day to actually have an expansion of ABC services into our community. To have an ABC regional radio presence in Ballarat was cause for much celebration. We love having it here. But one of the things that was also supposed to happen, and was to happen in regional communities across the country, was that we were, in fact, also going to have a small regional ABC TV studio being able to broadcast people who live in regions and country towns—such as that of even the Deputy Speaker, I suspect—to be able to go into that ABC studio and be able to broadcast our voices to the nation and to the world from our homes. As a direct result of the cuts of the government that work was immediately put on hold. So it's not just about the cuts that the government has given to the ABC and the cuts that we're seeing are shrinking the service, it's the loss of opportunity to expand those services and for the ABC to make up for the gaps—the news services deserts we're seeing because of the collapse in commercial media across the country.
The government does need to act to ensure that regional voices and regional diversity is maintained in this country. So far what we've seen from the government is, again, the tinkering around the edges: no reform, small amounts of work to try and fix problems as they come up, but no real sense about what is important here in ensuring that we continue to have regional voices and regional media across the country.
This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act and the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act with a series of regulatory changes for television and radio stations in regional Australia. These changes ease some of the compliance measures for local content without lowering the overall content requirements. As my colleague said, we won't be opposing the bill, although we have some concerns about it.
I wanted to speak tonight about the value of local media organisations to their communities—to regional communities, to country areas, but also in suburban areas. Having a local lens on news and current affairs, on what's happening in the local community, is so important and so valuable, and we really do have to protect it.
In the almost six years that I was Deputy Leader of the Labor Party I travelled all over Australia, pretty much five or six or seven days a week, and on those travels I spoke to many, many fine local journalists, people who could have worked anywhere in Australia. They would have been at home here in the press gallery, they would have been at home in a major metropolitan newsroom, but they chose to stay in their communities because they were so deeply committed to their communities, proud of their communities, part of their communities. So tonight I really wanted to give a shout-out to them, to the phenomenally valuable role that they play in our media universe here in Australia. It is one of the most important things in a democracy like ours to have a strong, vibrant, free and fair media, and so much of that is done at the local level. If we don't have local media, we don't have scrutiny of decision-making at a grassroots level and we don't have that focus of communication, that centre of communication that spreads out throughout our communities and holds those communities together.
Yesterday I spoke to Murray Jones from 4CA radio in Cairns. Murray has interviewed me many times over the years. He is a tough interviewer but he is fair. I think it's great to have people who have that perspective on their local community. I always loved speaking to Martin Agatyn, at 7AD in Devonport, on those trips across Northern and north-west Tasmania, or Brian Carlton. I know Brian is not in Launceston anymore; he has moved to Hobart. There was no fiercer advocate for people who lived in Launceston than Brian. I always enjoyed sparring with him. There was also 101.5 FM in Caboolture and 4RO in Rockhampton. I've got favourites that I've met along the way. What unites them is not that they gave me an easy time, or that it was an easy interview or that they agreed with me; it is that they were so passionately committed to their local communities. You could hear it in the questions they asked and the arguments they made.
When you look at the scale of the crisis that is impacting on regional media at the moment, you can see how very important it is that we do what we can to protect and preserve the diversity of voices that we have in this country. In May, News Corp announced massive changes to its roster of community and regional newspapers. Sadly, 125 newspapers are either being closed or becoming digital only, with hundreds of jobs being lost in the process. This is not a criticism of News Corp; this is what's happening in our media environment in Australia at the moment. Advertising revenue is gone, and it's very difficult. If people aren't prepared to pay for good journalism, they will lose good journalism. This is a tragedy for every one of these towns—towns that will no longer record there own story. They will know longer have a physical memory of their history. Some are losing a particularly long heritage. The Rockhampton Morning Bulletin has been in print since 1860, the Daily Mercury in Mackay has been in print since 1867 and The Northern Star in Lismore has been in print since 1876. No longer will these newspapers, older than Federation itself, be sold by local newsagents—and it's a tragedy.
In total, Australia has lost more than 200 mastheads over the past year, by closure, by merger or by the end of print editions. We almost lost AAP, which is the lifeblood of our media; it means smaller publications can report on events that they can't physically attend or can't physically photograph. In June we learnt that the ABC had been forced to cut another 250 jobs across news, entertainment and regional divisions. Since 2013, after Tony Abbott famously said there'd be no cuts to the ABC or the SBS, funding cuts to the ABC have caused the loss of around 800 jobs from that organisation and reduced the number of hours of factual reporting by about 60 per cent. Funding the ABC is one of the most direct and important ways that the government can help regional media.
It's disappointing to see the speakers list tonight. I would've hoped there would be a list of Nationals talking about protecting the ABC, their local mastheads, local radio stations and local TV content. Sadly, the Nationals have let us down again with characteristic silence when it comes to standing up for the bush.
The crisis in our news media is hurting everyone, from small towns to local papers in our cities. In my own electorate, in the heart of the busiest city in the country, papers like The South Sydney Herald, Star Observer and City Hub are all feeling these financial pressures as well. What I'd like to see is the power of local government, in this instance, supporting these vital local news outlets. Councils, for instance, are among the biggest advertisers in local papers. And yet, in Sydney, the papers I've just named—The South Sydney Herald, Star Observer andCity Hubhave barely benefited at all from the City of Sydney Council's $1.76 million advertising budget. Can you imagine how disappointing that would be if you were running these fantastic local papers, some of them almost entirely run by volunteers, like The South Sydney Herald, for example, which is almost entirely run and distributed by volunteers? You really would think, given how widely read these papers are, that the City of Sydney Council would help them and support them through a mutually beneficial arrangement where the council gets good-value advertising in these local papers. But no.
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance are doing all they can to help people affected by these cuts. Their members are really facing a very strong tide. Our media environment has changed fundamentally in recent years. We all need to do our bit to be better here. The Commonwealth government, of course, should be doing everything it can to ensure that we protect the diversity of media voices in this country. That means radio and television in regional areas. It means local newspapers in regional areas. But we shouldn't confine ourselves to only thinking about regional areas, because your average suburban newspaper is also under phenomenal pressure in an environment where advertising revenue has shrunk dramatically and the big social media companies are trying to make sure that they get away with not paying for news media content.
What's left? What's left is an impoverished public debate and an impoverished record of the history of our nation, because we're not prepared to invest in it. If we lose local media, we will be losing a service that is essential to the functioning of democracy in Australia. Community newspapers record births and deaths. They scrutinise local elections and council budgets. They report on sporting premierships and school awards nights. They investigate development decisions and the people who make them. They look at what we need to do to protect local amenity and local environment. No democracy can survive without this crucial witness. Democracy depends on a flourishing news media with the staffing and resources it needs to do its job properly. The world might be becoming more connected and we might all be more plugged into national and global politics, but so much of our lives is still lived locally. If we don't act decisively, with legislation more serious than this, we won't have anyone left to cover our local communities, and I'm sure we would all regret that.
I thank the member for Sydney for a fine defence and advocacy for local community radio, newspapers and television, and that's what I want to do as well—to focus on community broadcasting, which honourable members should know is Australia's largest independent media sector and a key pillar in the Australian media landscape. There are over 450 community radio services across Australia, 76 per cent of which are in regional and remote communities. In my community, in Darwin and Palmerston, community radio supports jobs. Around the country, it supports maybe as many as 700 full-time jobs, and some very good people in my electorate are employed in community radio. As happens everywhere else in Australia, loads of Territorians tune in every day to community radio. When I think about community radio in my electorate, I know how many people enjoy tuning in to 104.1 Territory FM. They're a great radio station, and I take my hat off to them. They provide a great news service and great music, and they're very much appreciated in our community. Along with the commercial media, community radio services have faced significant challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has impacted significantly on their resources, staffing, and volunteers.
Debate interrupted.
Before I call on the adjournment, I'm just going to call on the Manager of Opposition Business, on indulgence, dealing with some important procedural matters with respect to the remote parliament.
on indulgence—Mr Speaker, as we've been doing for the remote parliament, those crossbenchers who can't be here during this time have texted through at different points which way they would have voted. We've had so many divisions today that, rather than pop up every time, I thought I'd do it now.
For the Australia Post division that took place, the member for Clark indicated that he wanted to note his vote was the same way as the opposition. For all the suspensions of standing orders—I'm not sure how many there were—and the various votes associated with them, the member for Melbourne asked that it be recorded that his vote would have been with the opposition on those occasions.
I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. That's saved a lot of time, compared to him having to do it on each vote.
I rise to raise a little-known issue which has caused constant annoyance to numerous Australian businesses for years. It's been exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis as more people are working from home, remotely, and I promised a number of local businesses that I would look into this and raise it. So I acquit my promise here.
Every day, small businesses and sole traders receive thousands of calls from telemarketers, interrupting their working day, harming productivity and leaving them distracted and annoyed—frankly, driving people nuts, as the Australian Psychological Society identified. They didn't use 'nuts'; that was paraphrasing. But I hear this from numerous local people—from local tradies, a plumber or a sparky, who have to publish their mobile number to keep their business alive. You're out on the job, you're up the ladder and the phone rings. You get it, and it's the third call that day from an electricity company trying to flog you a better plan.
Small local businesses, like the optometrist, the corner store or the accountant, don't have enough staff for a receptionist, so other staff waste untold numbers of hours trying to get telemarketers off the phone. Only last month, a friend who's a barrister actually told me that the single greatest annoyance with the transition to working from home was his complete inability to stop telemarketing calls that were forwarded to his mobile. These businesses all have better things to do than bat away unsolicited and unwarranted calls. Individually, this might seem like a small issue, but the overall impact adds up because unsolicited calls cost small businesses and the Australian economy a fortune in lost productivity. It's literally thousands of hours of paid employees' time spent answering unsolicited calls.
I believe that businesses, or at least small businesses, should be allowed to opt out of telemarketing calls via the Do Not Call Register. The register was introduced in 2006 by the Howard government and was strengthened in 2009 by the Rudd government. It allows individuals to register their phone number so that telemarketers don't and cannot call them. Each month, the marketers submit their phone list to the register, and those registered numbers are removed, preventing those unsolicited calls in a process called list-washing. But unfortunately, 14 years on, the Do Not Call Register still applies only to phone numbers that are used primarily for private and domestic purposes. Business and emergency service numbers are not eligible to register. But the departmental data shows that, year after year, businesses still constantly try to register, so, clearly, there's a demand from business for these numbers to be included on the register. Constituents who raise this with me from time to time plead for this service. They just want to get back to business.
To my mind, this change is a no-brainer. Both the original legislation, interestingly, and the 2009 Rudd government amendments proposed that business be able to opt in to the register. Yet, after the Senate mucked around with it—they muck up our good work at times—it wasn't included in the final version of the bill, and I think it is time we fixed this.
The numbers are big. In 2009, 11 years ago, the Australia Institute estimated that the time wasted on unsolicited telemarketing calls was worth over $1.58 billion per year. Of course, there were also other economic costs, to be fair, including impacts on competition identified by Access Economics, so there's a cost-benefit. But, in the last 10 years, I think the case to let businesses, or, at least, small businesses, register has only strengthened, because, as a proportion of the overall direct marketing spend, phone calls have decreased in favour of emails, social media and internet campaigns.
Also, we're seeing a radical transformation in the working arrangements of small business in Australia, accelerated by the pandemic. So, as more businesses turn to work-from-home arrangements, moving to mobiles and diverting phones to employees working from home, COVID-19 is making it hard enough for them to be efficient. Millions of people are working from home with children and numerous distractions competing for their attention, and the last thing workers need is more unsolicited calls from telemarketing companies for mobile phones, electricity, insurance deals—you name it.
Of course any legislation needs to be sensibly crafted and workable, but it is doable. Ultimately, it's a matter of political will. Consultants and think tanks can come up with any form of cost-benefit numbers that support or distract from the case. They'll use assumptions one way or the other—that's how these things work. But, on this issue, I don't think we should be swayed by the he-said, she-said of cost-benefits. The issue has remained unresolved for so long, and we should be guided by common sense. More than two million small businesses and sole traders should have the right to choose to opt out of annoying telemarketing calls, to just let them get on with business. It's not a big thing, but it adds up across the economy, and it would mean so much to so many sole traders who have no choice but to put up with these calls every day. So I'm calling on the government, in thinking about their future legislation, to put the issue back on the policy agenda and introduce legislation to expand the Do Not Call Register.
I rise tonight to speak about the important role being played by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, or ARENA, in supporting the technology which will be at the heart of Australia's energy and economic future. Since the industrial revolution, the world has been shaped by the ingenuity of humanity through the development of new technology. I am now of an age where many of the innovations that occurred during my childhood and teenage years have already become museum items. Things that had us in awe as youngsters are now relics, such has been the pace of technological change. I know that there are some in our community who are apprehensive, at times, about the speed of those developments. For me, they are exciting and show that we, as a global community, can tackle most problems if we set our mind to it. That's why I'm always an optimist about the future, including when it comes to our capacity to address the challenges of climate change.
The work of ARENA will help be a catalyst and an enabler for that kind of problem solving, for, while science and technology have something of a life of their own, government support has so often been essential to realising the ideas of our scientists, engineers and technologists. In ARENA's case, it bridges the gap between great ideas and commerciality. In other settings, it would be considered an angel or early VC investor, bridging what is sometimes called the valley of death for innovators.
ARENA has rightly developed a world-class reputation for developing clean tech, aided by the fact that Australia has some of the greatest renewable resources in the world. It's a natural fit, really, for our potential as a nation. Federal government bodies like ARENA, the CSIRO and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation have the capacity to secure Australia's place as a renewable energy powerhouse and provide thousands of jobs for Australians as we recover from the current pandemic.
Since 2012, ARENA has invested $1.58 billion across 543 projects, leveraging a total value of $7 billion. That's a leverage ratio of one dollar for every $3.09 raised, a remarkable feat by any standards.
ARENA has a string of success stories under its belt. For example, its support for solar has unlocked over $1 billion in private investment from $90 million in federal government funding. ARENA and the federal government have also contributed to the world's largest battery in South Australia. The Hornsdale Power Reserve uses Tesla's utility-scale Powerpack system, and, based on an impact study from consulting firm Aurecon, the battery saved consumers $116 million in 2019. This project has been such a success that the project has now received further funding to allow for its expansion.
Earlier this month, I had the great pleasure of visiting the University of New South Wales School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering, or SPREE, as it's more easily known, which is responsible for much of the innovation in technology behind solar panels. It's one of Australia's great success stories. In fact, more than 75 per cent of commercial solar PV cells available in the global market are based on UNSW's technology. We should be celebrating this, as much as we do our other great national achievements, and the late Stuart Wenham and Martin Green should be household names for their contribution to our involvement in solar energy.
Today ARENA is helping fund some of the cutting-edge work that the current crop of UNSW scientists are conducting. Last week I joined several of my parliamentary colleagues to learn about some of the exciting work ARENA is funding in the area of electric vehicles in one of their ACT projects. This project is testing the potential of EVs to also serve as batteries on wheels, helping grid reliability. In one of the most exciting opportunities for Australia, in conjunction with the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, ARENA's renewable hydrogen deployment funding is helping to build momentum for a clean and competitive domestic hydrogen sector. It's an industry of the future for Australia which will support more jobs and industry on our own shores.
It is all these reasons and many more that make me so passionate about the role of ARENA as we come out of COVID and move forward as a nation. Their work will help unlock our potential in a low-emissions future. They will ensure great ideas don't remain dreams but can be backed financially. I'm very focused on ensuring support for ARENA continues beyond its legislated funding, which is technically set to conclude in the next financial year, so that it can continue its strong track record, investing in innovative renewable projects well into the future. I've already met with the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction to discuss this issue, and I will continue to advocate for the ongoing role of ARENA with the strong backing of the federal government. While our technology has advanced so considerably in just a few decades, we are still scratching the surface of the potential.
I want to follow on from the member for North Sydney's contribution and just acknowledge that in the chamber right now—and, for the people I don't reference, please don't take this the wrong way—there are four of us, the Speaker, the member for Whitlam, the member for North Sydney and myself, who have focused on the area of technology and innovation for quite some time and have recognised its ability to transform environments in a way that provides opportunity to get things done better. I don't speak for the four—well, I certainly speak for myself, but not for the other three. I would hope that, as we often contemplate what impact we might have made in public policy through the course of our participation in this great place, at some point someone could say that the thing that the member for Chifley did, if you don't mind me speaking in the third person, is keep banging on about the value of technology to the country. I've been hoping and praying that business gets on to this sooner rather than later—that is, that they actually realise technology is of benefit, rather than something they shirk away from. So many of our public policy debates, particularly some of the most bedevilling ones that we've faced, have been unable to recognise the value that technology brings in terms of public policy improving the way that business works and improving the way that communities operate, and seeing things done in a much easier way. Technology is about not only doing things faster but doing them smarter and, in many cases, doing them much more efficiently.
That very long preamble that I've provided is basically to give a sense of what I'm thinking when it comes to this issue of media reform and where we're at. We have very big companies in the technology space and in the media space that are going head-to-head over, understandably, their futures. It has been largely a case that business failed to understand the direction of technology when it came to publishing and they didn't get onto this quick enough. Now we're getting to the point where we're trying to shove the genie back in the bottle, and it isn't pretty to watch. What we're seeing is a lot of media players that have staked a reputation on being antiregulation embracing a regulator to see a business outcome that works in their way. And I get it, because tech's market power in this country, particularly big tech like Google and Facebook—two of the biggest firms on the planet—cannot be ignored. But it also cannot be ignored that we have a media market that has been one of the most concentrated on the planet for quite some time. We need to be able to ensure publishers get paid but do it in a way that's much better. And the government have got to find a way to get through what they have, in terms of media reform, because it's looking like a slow-moving car crash.
We cannot have a situation where negotiations on this get prematurely concluded 10 days before they were supposed to. There's no indication that the ACCC had any problem with the way that Google or Facebook were going, and then suddenly the government terminated the negotiations and are bringing in this code where there are serious concerns about the way it may or may not work. I think what we should see is an outcome where the publishers do get negotiated agreements with those big tech firms but not in a way that a lot on the other side, the party of free enterprise, in any other circumstance wouldn't abide. We do need to ensure that there is fairness and we do need to ensure a moderated, negotiated outcome, but we cannot afford to see what I'm genuinely concerned about, which is a system where we may have some of the biggest tech players on the planet decide not to play ball with us because we couldn't get a deal that worked for everyone.
Many stories have been shared to mark the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, and I'd like to share the stories of some veterans I was fortunate enough to meet a few weeks ago. On 20 August, I had the privilege of meeting Max Christmas, Don Bayles, Marie Brearley, Harry Reeve and Ronald Jones at the Launceston RSL, presenting them with the commemorative medallions to mark their service and to say thank you for their significant contribution. I'd like to take the time to thank retired Major Peter Williams, secretary of the Launceston RSL Sub-Branch, for all his work in arranging their attendance and for the lovely afternoon tea. It's significant to speak of these veterans today as we mark Battle for Australia Day, a time to acknowledge those who served in campaigns to the north of Australia and on the home front in protecting our nation.
Meeting ex-servicewoman 96-year-old Marie at the event was especially wonderful. Marie joined the Navy at the age of 18, leading the way at a time when women were just starting to join the forces. Marie worked as a telecommunications operator, decoding messages sent across the world. Cementing her place in history, Marie was on duty when the message was sent through that the war was won and, after six years, was finally over. There's a section in the Launceston RSL highlighting Marie's service during the war, and I highly recommend that those interested in the history of our local veterans pay a visit.
For Don Bayles, an aircraftman in the Royal Australian Air Force who was deployed the Indonesia when the message came through that the war was over, his strongest memory is not his experience in wartime but rather, upon returning home, walking into the Salvation Army in Bourke Street, Melbourne, and seeing his brother. It was the first time they had seen each other in close to five years. Both of Don's brothers had served in the war, one in Darwin and one at Kokoda. Thankfully, all three returned home safely.
For RAAF Leading Aircraftman Ronald Jones, his deployment to Darwin after arriving as a third engineer at 3 pm on 19 February 1942 took an abrupt and dramatic turn. Just one hour after he arrived in Darwin, the Battle of Darwin, regarded as one of the largest single attacks ever mounted by a foreign power in our country, began. Almost 80 years later, Ronald recalled being somewhat unfazed by the bombing, stating it never bothered him. He said:
It was no worse than being anywhere else really, you just had to watch your step, and be a bit more careful.
Continuing to missions in the Pacific islands, including New Guinea and Borneo, Ronald was in Borneo when the news came through that the Allied forces had won in the Pacific. 'I remember exactly the moment the war ended,' Ronald said. He then participated in the VJ march in Sydney and spent three months in hospital recuperating before moving to Tasmania, where he established a paper mill.
Army Private Max Christmas joined the Army when he was 18, as it was the right thing to do. Despite the fact that 75 years has passed since the end of the war, receiving the medal just a few weeks ago meant a great deal to him. I don't take the opportunity to meet with him or those other veterans that day for granted.
But perhaps my favourite moment of the day came when presenting 100-year-old Harry Reeve with his medal. I leant closer to hear him, and Harry whispered, quite sheepishly: 'Darren Chester has already sent me one of these. Can I keep this one too?' Given his service, I told him I certainly had no problem with him having two of the medallions. I was very chuffed to learn that Harry has his handwritten 100th birthday card from me on his wall.
During the war Harry was a member of the Royal Australian Navy, conducting convoy work in the Pacific—chiefly in the New Guinea area. He has previously described this work as 'terribly monotonous—she wasn't all beer and skittles'. The day after the ceremony, Harry wrote a letter of thanks to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Darren Chester, and asked me if I could get it to him. Harry, I look forward to personally delivering your letter to Minister Chester. To Max, Don, Marie, Harry and Ronald: thank you for sharing what stories you were willing and able to.
There are just some 12½ thousand surviving World War II veterans left in this country. To each and every one of them I say thank you, we are forever in your debt. Lest we forget.
Apprenticeships have been lost at the rate of 60 a day under this government, and it's got worse since COVID-19. Australia has a crisis with apprenticeships. If we don't fix it, this crisis is going to mean that we will have a shortage of tradespeople to fix our cars, to build our houses and to maintain our factories and our buildings.
The crisis pre-dates the pandemic—the pandemic has only made it worse. Fewer apprentices means higher youth unemployment. In the Illawarra, youth unemployment sits at 17.6 per cent, which is higher than the national average, and in the three months since March this year it's doubled. The shortage of apprenticeships will hamper economic recovery and will deny young Australians the opportunity to get ahead. We already have a shortage of bricklayers, electricians, mechanics and other critical trades. Without urgent action it's going to get worse.
The Prime Minister is keen to promote himself as the tradies' mate but the fact is that the problem has got worse through ripping $3 billion from vocational education since the coalition government came to power; apprenticeship numbers have plummeted as a result. In the six years that the coalition has been in power we have lost apprentices at the rate of 60 a day, with total apprentice numbers plummeting from 403,000 apprenticeships in 2013 to 272,000 in 2019. In the Illawarra the numbers are diabolical. They have dropped by more than 50 per cent in the last six years. Six years ago, 1,473 apprentices commenced their apprenticeships; six years later only 677 started a trade.
The pandemic has made it worse. A recent report by Business NSW found that an estimated 30 to 40 per cent of apprentices will lose their employment by the end of 2020, while there will be a 36 per cent drop in apprenticeship commencements in 2020 compared to 2019. Fewer leaving; fewer coming in.
The Morrison government will point to its wage subsidy program as an indication of what they're doing to turn this situation around. We welcome it, but it won't fix years of neglect. It also won't fix the problem if one arm of government policy is working in the opposite direction to another. A prime example has been raised by a small business in my electorate. I want to talk about Curran Plumbing, a small family business located in Albion Park Rail. They've been serving the Illawarra and South Coast regions for more than 30 years. They've also been servicing the Defence Housing Authority for 25 years. Sadly, they've had to cease providing plumbing services to DHA because of the attitude DHA has taken to apprentices.
I've read the supply contract. On the face of it, it seems pretty benign, but there's a provision in there which enables DHA management to pick or choose which employees come on site. I'm informed by Curran management that DHA management will tell them over the phone, 'You cannot charge for apprentices, there's no point bringing them on site.' I've written to the government regarding this issue. Quite simply, we need to overhaul these contracts to ensure that clauses like this and practices like this do not prevent businesses from doing the right thing by employing and retaining apprentices. We need to do this, but we need to do much, much more.
The government should maintain the wage support measures and should also ensure that these measures aren't in conflict with other practices. They could go further. At the last election, Labor proposed that a condition of all large infrastructure projects should be the employment of apprentices. We're told the government is about to embark on millions and millions of dollars worth of infrastructure projects. Employing apprentices should be a condition of winning those contracts. But we need to go further than that. This should be picked up across a range of government infrastructure and other service provision arrangements. Wage subsidies are important, but ensuring one arm of government policy isn't in conflict with another arm of government policy is absolutely crucial.
I'm certain the example I've given tonight concerning Curran Plumbing from my electorate and the Defence Housing Authority is not an isolated example. With the best will in the world, we in this place can send a message to the departments which administer our legislation to ensure that we get it right.
I rise to speak on the recent sod turning for the new Kempsey headspace. In doing so, I reflect on 30 years ago, when I commenced work as a police officer in the very same town. Having completed all my training, I knew all about the law and I knew all about procedure. But what we did not know about was how to recognise the symptoms of mental ill health in young people, let alone how to help them and what to do. This quite often then moved to just thinking that they were bad kids from bad families, and ultimately they became part of the criminal justice system. The overwhelming majority of them were Indigenous kids, who ended up becoming statistics in the overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in custody.
Thankfully, those times have changed significantly in relation not only to the police approach but to the community's approach to youth mental health and support. From 2006 onwards, as a lawyer in criminal law, I had quite a bit to do with mental health and headspace. I very quickly realised that headspace was not a cold, clinical, forensic place that attempted to deal with the result in front of them but rather a soft entry to support and address the cause. In my experience, the results were remarkable.
I did have the good fortune of attending the ground-breaking ceremony, led by Uncle Fred from the Dunghutti and Thangatti nation. The people there spoke highly of this initiative. One said it was the best thing to happen to Kempsey in many years. Another said that it will provide a place for the Macleay youth to go and give themselves a better shot at life. The Primary Health Network has chosen the Samaritans to deliver the headspace services, but this is only through the Morrison-McCormack government providing $111.3 million to increase the number of headspace services across Australia, and I'm so happy that Kempsey is one of them. Not only is it being delivered through a $3.4 million investment; it's creating a further 10 jobs, five of which have been earmarked for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The fact is that one in four kids that walk through that door will be Indigenous.
We know how successful headspace is, but it alone cannot overcome the awful reality that one in four young people will experience mental ill health and that suicide is still the leading cause of death for young Australian people. The young people that come into headspace and similar places are there because they are victims of trauma not of their doing. They're victims of domestic violence, of sexual abuse and of exposure to drugs and alcohol at a very early age. We have to change our way of thinking and the way we act to keep those young people safe.
Good mental health starts at home. It starts with having caring families, and it starts with families taking time to care for themselves and for their children, both physically and mentally. It starts with having good access to quality childcare services and schools, and, of course, to vocational training opportunities to achieve a worthwhile job. The Morrison-McCormack government continues to work hard on all of these things, through our JobMaker plan and other reforms.
I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Kempsey Community Suicide Prevention Action Plan, with the project leader being the Macleay Valley Workplace Learning Centre, who, since last year, have trained over 200 people within our community in suicide prevention, intervention, crisis response and bereavement. They've also formed a successful collaboration with the Kempsey TAFE campus for work placements for students studying mental health, and they have engaged well with the Macleay community, with Macleay Valley Workplace Learning Centre staff spending time with families to hear and share stories about suicide and its prevention.
The Kempsey community is grateful, as am I, that the youth now have an additional layer of support to help them achieve a better future for themselves, and I thank this government for its investment.
House adjourned at 20:00
First of all, I commend the Chair of the Environment and Energy Committee, Mr Ted O'Brien MP, for conducting this inquiry in the quite exceptional circumstances caused by COVID-19. I also thank the member for Clark, my colleague on the crossbench Mr Andrew Wilkie MP, for introducing the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment (Transparency in Carbon Emissions Accounting) Bill 2020 and enabling a very important debate. The bill seeks to amend the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 to ensure transparency and accountability in the way the Australian government reports carbon emissions. To achieve this aim, the bill amends the reporting requirements of greenhouse gas emissions to include scope 3 emissions, which are the indirect greenhouse gas emissions arising as a consequence of the activities of a facility, and requires the minister to table Australia's national greenhouse gas emissions inventory estimates in parliament every three months.
Although I declined to dissent from the report on this bill, I will make some general comments on the bill. I support many of the remarks that were made in the committee's advisory report. I agree that, at this time, measuring scope 3 emissions is likely to be costly and complicated and may result in inaccurate estimates. However, given the value shown by some evidence presented to the committee, there should be further consideration of the bill and measurement of scope 3 emissions in general as circumstances and methodologies evolve.
The committee learnt that scope 3 emissions are significant in general because in some cases at a company level scope 3 emissions dwarf scope 1 and 2 emissions by up to 40 times. Evidence presented to the committee estimated that, at a country level, scope 3 emissions associated with Australian fossil fuel exports could be up to five per cent of global emissions.
Various inquiry participants provided evidence that measuring scope 3 emissions is a growing practice in top Australian companies. The fact that Australian companies are measuring emissions means that it is a material consideration in their business operations, in their decision-making and for their shareholders and must, therefore, be of inherent value. Indeed, we can look at the news and see weekly reporting on companies being compelled by their shareholders to disclose scope 3 emissions or sign onto climate targets, including on scope 3 emissions.
We see climate risk becoming a material consideration for directors in exercising their duties. This will include some consideration of scope 3 emissions. We also see scope emissions being factored into planning decisions on major projects. So clearly scope 3 emissions need to be dealt with and a plan needs to be developed. By creating uniformity in the measurement of scope 3 emissions we can be ahead of the trend and provide investors, shareholders, communities and businesses with certainty in a transition economy.
The committee also heard evidence from individuals and stakeholder groups as to the value of scope 3 for informing the public. I agree that the public should know the true extent of Australia's impact on global emissions. Without knowing, the public cannot make an informed choice at elections and for what to advocate. I expect demand for this knowledge will grow as society becomes more and more concerned with climate impacts. It flies in the face of the frequently asserted position by the coalition that, being only 1.3 per cent of global emissions, we can't possibly be expected to take action. What this ignores is that, on a per capita basis, we are one of the highest emitters. As a result, we do bear a responsibility for what our scope 3 emissions are overseas as a result of our export industries. I accept that, for the moment, the IPCC has not included a scope 3 or a standardised methodology for assessing that. Inquiry participants stressed the importance of measuring scope 3 emissions, particularly in respect to the transition to a net-zero economy—something that I strongly advocate for. I agree that we do need to know how reliant we are on fossil fuels in order to plan for a transition. We must also understand how exposed Australian exports are. As other countries commit and transition to a net-zero economy, we need to be able to pivot accordingly.
The second portion of the bill would compel the minister to table the quarterly greenhouse gas estimates in the House 15 days after publication and that the release of the data is handed to the regulator, resting formally under the department. On this aspect, the committee received evidence that the release of the estimates happened, on average, 46 days after they are currently required to be released. This is unacceptable, and I would call on the minister and the government to fix this as soon as possible. This is important information that the public should have access to in a timely way, as stipulated by legislation. It's essential that the public remain informed as to Australia's emissions and progress towards the Paris targets. Climate change policy and data are too important to be politicised. Therefore, I support measures in the second portion of the bill, which would hand the coordination of the data to a clean energy regulator.
Lastly, this inquiry was conducted under a very compressed time frame, and very limited evidence was able to be heard by the committee. With only one public hearing and a handful of submissions, the Australian public would be much better served with a more thorough investigation of this matter. We all know our emissions, whether they be domestic or international, are an issue that needs to be addressed. We need to find ways of making sure they are properly accounted for and published and make sure the Australian public is properly informed. To this end, I will be presenting to parliament later this year, in November, the climate change bill, which will in fact address this reporting framework and the delays we currently have in the system and will establish a sound legislative framework to ensure we have proper reporting, proper risk assessment, proper adaptation and resilience plans and, most importantly, proper mitigation to ensure we get to net zero.
I'm pleased to be standing to speak on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment (Transparency in Carbon Emissions Accounting) Bill 2020 report that was done by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy. This is starting to look at something that we need to spend more time looking at, and we need to make sure we get it right. Scope 3 emissions are those indirect emissions that come from when we ship our coal overseas or we ship things away and they're accounted for in another country but not on Australia's account. There are a whole range of things that could potentially be looked at on this. I'm really pleased that the committee spent time on it. It is disappointing that they didn't have more opportunity in such difficult times to be able to explore it, but there are a few things that struck me about it.
I certainly understand and support the view that, at this time, any attempt to measure scope 3 emissions is likely to be very costly and really complicated and may not be accurate. But I also note the additional comments made by the deputy chair, Mr Wilson, the member for Fremantle, and Josh Burns, the member for McNamara. I want to draw on some of the comments that they made—that is, that right now, while Australia's system of greenhouse gas accounting and reporting is structured to be in compliance with agreements that are, in turn, covered by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, each of us is responsible for measuring emissions.
I was most disquieted by the evidence from the Department of Science, Industry, Energy and Resources, who felt that there wasn't rigour in how you'd estimate scope 3 emissions. Their view was that it would not be a terribly accurate view. Yet, at the same time, we know that more than a quarter of ASX 200 companies are reporting scope 3 emissions already. They're doing it. They're working through the complexity and the cost. That tells you that it can't be prohibitive to do. I think it would be worthwhile to see the department undertake a further assessment—or perhaps it would be their preliminary assessment—on how to do a sample of that and work out what the basis and the quality of the estimates is.
It might be that people wonder why we worry about this sort of detail—that it is, essentially, bean counting. I want to talk about why these things are important and why it's really important, as the member for Warringah said, to get this stuff right. We all know that in a region like mine, which suffers extraordinary fires and floods, all the evidence shows us that rising emissions are going to lead to more extreme weather events and natural disasters. In fact, just this morning I was involved in urging the government to look at the Australian Bushfire and Climate Plan that the Climate Council and Emergency Leaders for Climate Action released, the final report of which provides a whole lot of practical, sensible things to do. The basis of it is recognising that we need to be able to reduce emissions. You can't tackle the problem on the surface and not deal with one of the key root causes.
To get this right will mean seeing a genuine commitment at all levels of government. I don't care which party people are in. I don't care what tier of government they are. It's about accepting that the science tells us that we're going to see more and more disasters. As someone who's come out of a horrific 2019-20 bushfire season—and hopefully will not be going into another horrific one—I'm aware that a few years down the track we may well see another one, so the need to measure emissions so that we know whether our attempts to reduce the emissions are effective is absolutely key.
It will be one thing to get this sort of legislation happening. It will be another to see a real acceptance of all the other measures that we can take and an understanding of what works and what doesn't. There are some really practical considerations for people. They might see this legislation and think that it doesn't have anything to do with their lives. One key thing is: in the communities of the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, people's houses burn down in these heightened summers. I experienced it myself in 2013, when my house burnt down in the big Blue Mountains bushfires—my home and the homes of 200 other families. Of that cohort, the majority of us were underinsured. That is a practical implication: the link from a piece of legislation that sits here to what happens when our house burns down and we're told that we can't afford to rebuild it to the new standards. There are lots of things that this parliament can't do, but there are lots of things that we can do. To get the legislation right is one of the things we can do so that these things can be measured.
In my community, in the Hawkesbury, around 20 houses burnt down last summer. Of those homes, only two people have even started going through the pre-DA process. That's something like nine months of being homeless, of having every possession they owned, lost. Through that trauma they're trying to find a way to rebuild, but the big problem that so many people have is that they weren't insured enough.
The insurers are involved in this in a number of ways. They have been saying for years that we need to get this right, that we need to accept that the climate is actually making their business harder and is pushing premiums up and reducing their profits. I've worked with the insurance industry going back 20 years and way back in the early 2000s this was the message they were giving to governments and to the wider community. Sadly, they weren't giving the message effectively enough to their customers and they weren't telling people, 'Your insurance will not cover your rebuild.' They weren't telling people that the standards are changing and the standards keep changing and therefore the cost of a rebuild keeps changing. Any member who has bushfire affected residents will have this same experience.
There probably are things worse than losing your house—I can say this as someone who has lost their home to a bushfire—but you certainly wouldn't wish it on anybody. But even worse than losing your home is being told that you can't rebuild it in the same spot simply because you weren't insured for enough, even though you had paid your insurance for decades and thought that there was no question about it. I remember very vividly the first thought in my mind when I heard my house had burned down. I said to my husband, 'God, I hope I paid the insurance.' The very next day I made a call to the insurance company and was reassured, 'Yes, your insurance is up to date.'
I felt really relieved but, two days later, when the assessors came to my property and said to me what they had been saying to just about everyone in the street, 'No you haven't got enough to rebuild,' we were shocked. It was the first time anyone had mentioned it to us. I had never intended to build a new house, so that was a whole new journey that I had been having for a couple of days, but, to be told that you couldn't even take the first step on that journey, was a real shock. We think that we are very lucky in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury that we only lost 40 houses in the last fire. But, for communities but where the loss is greater, there will a huge number of people who simply can't rebuild and can't buy somewhere else and they will leave the community—and communities have the heart ripped out from them at the very time that they are trying to recover.
That's why I feel very strongly that there is an obligation on this parliament. This is not just about saying that the piece of legislation we have in front of us is not perfect and it's not great and we're not going to proceed with it. I accept the committee's findings that it needs work and that more work is needed on the issue, but I really urge this parliament to look at the hard, and maybe boring, accounting side of emissions counting so that we are able to look at the truth of what is happening. That's what we need. We need evidence, we need fact, we need science and we need to marry those together with goodwill and common sense, knowing that it is up to us to change the rules so that communities like mine and others in this chamber are not ripped apart by natural disasters that we could have done something to mitigate.
I rise to make some brief comments about this report. I'd like to thank all my colleagues on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy and the chair and the deputy chair for the review process. It is quite educational when you get involved in these reviews, and there were some take-home messages from this inquiry. Australia does have a very extensive and accurate national greenhouse energy reporting system in place. Our figures can be believed—unlike some other nations in the world that fudge their figures—and we do report scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, which is the requirement.
The inquiry resolved in the negative, not to support the amendments that were proposed. The reason for that is pretty straightforward: it would mean that Australia would be taking on the obligations of other nations who are end users of our raw products. We all have to contribute to CO2 reduction, but what we are doing as a nation, providing energy that powers Asia and India and our own industry, is we have a lot of natural gas—which reduces the greenhouse footprint compared to coal by about 20 per cent, plus or minus a few per cent. There is less particulate matter that goes up into the atmosphere and there's less C02.
The other thing is the energy density of our coal. The black coal that is exported and highly valued sells incredibly well on the international market. The reason these other countries want it is that it improves the energy density of their fuel stock. A lot of them don't have energy-dense, rich black coal. By sending our raw product overseas we are helping reduce their footprint, rather than using brown coal or less energy-dense black coal, with lower thermal energy. It means we would be double counting. Our responsibility would go up exponentially and our competitor nations would be getting off scot-free. There'd also be double counting on the international figures, because they have to account for it as well.
It was just a question of practical common sense and equity, in the greenhouse reporting schemes, that all the nations in the world should undertake. I would like to commend the report to the House. Thank you very much.
Debate adjourned.
Between 2 and 7 November last year I went to India as part of the parliamentary delegation representing the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy. Parliamentary committees are charged with investigating and proposing solutions to topical issues within Australia. The committee has previously investigated topics as wide ranging as wild flying foxes and water management, and we're currently looking at feral cat management.
For this parliament, the early focus was energy, particularly nuclear, as we sought to understand the circumstances and prerequisites for any future government's consideration of nuclear energy generation. The delegation was sent to India to consider their nuclear system, how it's developing, and the challenges and obstacles facing their environment, cities and climate more broadly. The trip was broad ranging and rich. We variously went through cultural experiences to visiting nuclear power plants and talking to government ministers and think tanks. India is an extremely vibrant and diverse country with on old culture, so it was a privilege to travel there as part of an official delegation.
A major topic is energy transition. One of the assumptions often made in Australia about India is that they are not contributing in the journey to net zero. That could not be more wrong. Prime Minister Modi was re-elected in a landslide at the last national election. One of the key pillars of his success, in his last term, was his plan to electrify India. This plan includes a huge focus on renewable energy. Impressively, India has already met several of its renewable targets. They had an initial target of 20 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2022 as part of their contribution to the Paris Agreement. As a result of achieving that early, in 2019, they've ramped up their ambition, shooting for 170 gigawatts of renewables by 2022 and 523 gigawatts by 2030. To put that in perspective, that's 10 times the size of Australia's grid. They believe this initiative will lead to 1.1 million jobs. Analysts have projected that renewable energy will account for 73 per cent of India's generation capacity by the end of this decade. That's made possible as renewables are now the least-cost form of new generation in India.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently inaugurated India's largest solar power plant with a capacity of 750 megawatts in Rewa, a small district. Amazingly, in the middle of this pandemic, India attracted record applications for a four-gigawatt solar tender. While India has ambitious targets for renewable energy, the challenge will be how to integrate new wind and solar, which is where our experience can be useful. As global leaders in energy transition, there are enormous opportunities for Australia to supply the expertise, technology, material and shared knowledge for their transition. Overall, India was very impressive with their appetite for new energy generation and will continue to impress the world if they keep meeting and exceeding their targets under the Paris Agreement.
They do face environmental challenges. One of Prime Minister Modi's key policies is a national focus on cleaning up waste and air pollution and implementing clean water and hygiene practices. The Indian government in January announced their National Clean Air Program, a five-year plan with a target of reducing air pollution by up to 20 to 30 per cent on the 2017 levels in 102 of their cities by 2024. I must say, when we visited, we got firsthand experience of the air pollution. It was very much a matter of masks being necessary, very poor visibility and very, very heavy air pollution. It was with some dismay that in Warringah, at the end of last year, when we had the bushfires, the smoke blanketing cities like Sydney was not dissimilar to the experience I'd had in Delhi.
Policies to lower air pollution in India include expansion of national air quality monitoring and public awareness, an emphasis on enforcement of breaches and sectoral-specific strategies—even strategies like restricting what days cars can be driven by numberplate. On the worst day that we were there, it was actually implemented that numberplates finishing with an odd number drove on one day and numberplates finishing with an even number drove on the next day. There were some exceptions for the transport of children and women, but other than that it was quite amazing to see the level of compliance. Clearly it is about thinking about and finding solutions.
What was also very visible is every building we went into had air monitoring displays. It was very much in real-time data so you could be aware of the level of air pollution where you were and in the area generally. Ironically, it also showed the source of the air pollution. It could be traced back. For example, if there was a coal power plant in the vicinity, it could actually it trace back to the source. I could only wish that we could start to have that kind of monitoring in some of the areas where air pollution is fast becoming a problem, in particular areas like the Hunter Valley. These policies also align and work in synergy with India's National Action Plan on Climate Change; its plan for electric vehicle uptake, the National Electric Mobility Mission Plan, which will have six to seven million electric vehicles on the road by 2020; and its Smart Cities Mission, discussed below. The roads of India are well-known for being fairly busy. I welcome that ambition to transition to electric transport, because there are a lot of cars on the road.
Although Australia is not on the same level, we do have similar health impacts from air pollution. I would like to see Warringah-wide, in our major cities and across Australia the advancement of air pollution monitoring, national policies to improve pollution—particularly when it comes to a transition of our transport to electric vehicles—and the phasing out of coal-fired power. There is no doubt that, from a transport point of view, we still have some of the weakest emission standards when it comes to vehicles and fuel. These simple things could be improved to make a dramatic difference to air pollution and our emissions. Transport is our fastest-growing emissions sector.
An interesting program was the smart cities and adapting to climate change. On Tuesday the 5th we met with the Smart Cities Council India, which is led by Dr Ghosh. The council was formed under Modi's Smart Cities Mission. The primary objective of this program is to enhance the liveability of 100 cities in India by incorporating innovative technologies like artificial intelligence, retrofitting buildings with solar, increasing walkability and efficiency, preserving open and green spaces, and promoting transport options, amongst many other things. A total of $23.31 billion will be invested in over 5,000 projects across 100 cities. Some $9 billion is already in construction and development, with another series of tenders to go out in 2020.
We're doing similar work in Australia through various programs, including the government's Smart Cities and Suburbs Program. This program distributed $50 million in grant funding to projects last year. I certainly am thankful for that. I encourage there to be more funding for retrofitting and further enhancing smart cities.
Feeding into city design and planning is also a focus on understanding what are the key challenges that cities will face as the climate continues to warm. During the trip we met with the Council on Energy, Environment and Water, who are doing great research in this area. These are some of the things that people don't think about. Steady increases in temperatures, changing groundwater levels, increased rain in some areas and solar radiation will affect the durability and functioning of things like road infrastructure. These effects will shorten the longevity of road surfaces, increase cracks, expand bridge joints, affect the ability of drainage systems to cope and affect the inland waterways. This will add huge costs to the infrastructure that we all rely on so much. As a result, in India the government is starting to integrate systemwide resilience and sustainability planning into all levels of the decision-making process to cope with these added climate impacts.
This very much needs to form part of the conversation in Australia. We need to have much better assessment of all the impacts across all sectors that a warming world will cause. That is why, as part of the climate change bill that I will be introducing, we have the risk assessment adaptation plans and the resilience planning that is needed.
I rise to give some very interesting comments about the delegation's visit to India. First of all, I would like to thank everyone who facilitated the trip, including the delegation secretary who travelled with us; my good colleague the member for Fairfax, who produced a stellar report for us; the member for Fremantle; and the member for Warringah. It was a real eye-opener to look at the energy capabilities of India, what they have achieved over the last 50 to 60 years as well as what they're doing now to expand their energy system. I would like to particularly comment on their nuclear energy program.
I'll give some background on why this delegation went to India. India is one of our major trading partners and we've got so much to learn from them. The committee was involved in an inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia. With that background, India fitted the bill because they have an extensive and long history of being involved in nuclear energy for both medical isotopes and energy production since the 1950s. The very famous Mr Bhabha led the Indian nuclear power program. They have a very extensive range of nuclear power plants—first-, second- and third-generation nuclear power plants. They have built their own endogenous designed nuclear power plants. They have a whole workforce involved in design, building and maintenance. There are something like 25,000 people involved in their nuclear power system, which is run totally by the government.
During our travels there, we were hosted by the high commission and the mission. I'd like to formally thank them for their hospitality and their assistance in making the delegation's trip so fascinating. We visited the national parliament as well. The member for Warringah explained some of the other things we did. I would also like to thank the Honourable RK Singh, the Minister for Power and New and Renewable Energy, and another minister, the Honourable Prakash Javadekar, and the Honourable Jitendra Singh. We also met with the Department of Atomic Energy officials and the officials and board members of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India. The final nuclear part of our inquiry and travels in the delegation was a visit to the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, which was absolutely fascinating.
There are some prescient things that I would like to put on the record. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India makes a profit every year for the Indian nation and delivers billions of dollars into the government coffers to supply services to them. They have the full nuclear cycle. We know that they're a nuclear power as well, but we focused on the nuclear energy and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. They are a huge nuclear power. They are constructing, I think, four or five plants and have approval for about eight more. The member for Warringah focused on their rapid expansion into renewable energy, and that is similarly amazing. Since Mr Modi took control of the country, they have put electricity through 120,000 villages. They have expanded their solar and wind capabilities as well and they are expanding their baseload energy sources out of coal and gas. As I mentioned in another speech in this same place, they love the black coal that Australia sends them, because it's very energy dense. The only thing that's more energy dense would be nuclear. It's really important that we realise that they have been doing it safely for many years, unlike other nations that have had mishaps, like Chernobyl, and the one that we all know about that was triggered by the tsunami, at Fukushima.
The take-home message is that they have the full nuclear cycle. In their waste management by recycling the spent nuclear fuel rods, they get a lot of medical isotopes and the recycled energy source is put back into the reactors. They're investigating thorium reactors, which can be added to other nuclear fuel sources. They are really cutting-edge. Most people don't look at India as a nuclear powerhouse, but they are, and they have done it very successfully since the 1950s. At the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, we saw their small research reactor. It's slightly bigger than we have at Lucas Heights. They gave us extensive briefings on that and I found it absolutely fascinating. We also visited some of their other centres and schools of nuclear material and related entities at the site. It's absolutely massive. As I said, around the country, they're building more and it will be a major part of their energy mix. The most important thing is how they are reducing their greenhouse gases as a proportion of their energy mix. Everyone knows that gas is a transition to clean energy, because it reduces the greenhouse gases and all the particulate matter by about 20 per cent. If you build a modern, high-efficiency, low-emission coal-fired power station with dense black coal, you can reduce your footprint by 43 per cent. It's basic arithmetic. That's double the benefit we are getting by going to gas. People focus on the source of the fuel rather than the technology that turns the energy from the raw product into electricity. It is an important thing for Australia to realise that India has been doing it—43 other countries have been doing it—and that we can learn a whole lot more from India.
It was a great honour to be sent on a delegation. It's been one of the highlights of my time as a parliamentarian. If anyone gets the chance to go visit India, it is a fascinating country. My wife and I spent a very pleasant 2½ weeks there several years ago, so it wasn't my first time in India.
The other thing that they are doing is getting right into recycling, like Australia. That was one of the other things that we looked at. We visited quite a few of the research and not-for-profit institutes that are looking into waste management, and we met the relevant ministers and executives in that space. The member for Warringah mentioned the meeting with the Smart Cities Council and the pollution control board at Maharashtra.
It was a fascinating trip. It was a good, beneficial fact-finding mission. All of this will contribute to the knowledge and the deliberations of our nation, as we are using technology, not taxes, to improve our energy system.
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:32