by leave—The world has changed in unthinkable ways this year. Industries that are normally sure bets for Australia, like tourism, have been amongst the hardest hit by COVID-19. The road going forward will be winding, there are new obstacles in our path and our challenges are numerous. Yet amidst the obstacles, our path is paved with opportunity. Australia has always been a manufacturing nation. As the Prime Minister has said—we make things and we're good at making things. Today, in this ministerial statement on Australian industry and manufacturing, I will outline the government's plan to keep making things in Australia.
There will be no business as usual in the post-COVID-19 world. This once-in-a-century global pandemic has revealed many things: It's revealed the ingenuity and determination of our manufacturers in the way they stepped up and pivoted to make masks, ventilators and other essential medical supplies. It's revealed the vital nature of our manufacturers as they worked to keep supply chains operational and our supermarket shelves stocked. And it's also revealed our vulnerabilities as a nation.
Before the pandemic, we'd already been working on our manufacturing plan and delivering support for manufacturers to encourage investment and modernisation. But now we are turbocharging our efforts with our $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy—to create income and jobs not just for the recovery, but for generations to come, including in regional Australia.
Our strategy is about Australian manufacturing taking on the world by building scale and capturing income in high-value areas of manufacturing. It's about harnessing our strengths in key priority areas to help our manufacturers become more competitive, more resilient and to scale up. Our goal is not only to deliver more products for Australians—but to position quality Australian products as the solution for other nations looking for reliable supply in an increasingly uncertain world. It's about expanding our value-added exports and, in the process, creating jobs and strengthening our supply chains in the interest of long-term national security. The strategy reflects both our common sense and our core beliefs. This is not about propping up failing firms, this is not about government subsidies, this is not about bureaucratic fiefdoms and this is not about national isolation.
When it comes to manufacturing, we are determined to harness the lessons of our whole-of-government COVID-19 response in order to meet the economic imperative of creating jobs. Underpinning it all is the core belief that this must be enterprise driven. Australian businesses have demonstrated more than ever during COVID-19 an incredible resolve and adaptiveness. Now our strategy is about giving them a leadership role, ensuring we are creating the conditions and investing in the right policies to help them thrive.
That brings me to the first pillar of our strategy—getting the economic conditions right. Past manufacturing strategies have failed to recognise that getting the fundamentals of our economy right is essential for our manufacturers to compete. Getting the economic conditions right includes:
And of course these build on the practical support, like JobKeeper, we've provided to help businesses weather the storm of COVID-19 restrictions.
A great example of how our support is helping business grow is Specialist Electrical Solutions in Queensland, which export specialist switchboards around the world. Not only have they just taken on two new apprentices to expand their skilled workforce but they've started a new arm of the business to produce component parts they previously bought from China and Thailand. They say the instant asset write-off was the catalyst for bringing this process back to our shores and securing their supply chain. These are the sorts of decisions that we want businesses to have the confidence to make.
But we know that if we're going to create transformational change in manufacturing it requires more than just getting the economic conditions right. We need a laser focus, and that is where our Modern Manufacturing Strategy really comes to the fore. We are making science and technology work for business, building resilience and focusing on areas of advantage. Instead of trying to be all things to all people, we're strategically investing in our National Manufacturing Priorities—those with the greatest potential to scale up and create jobs, to make Australia secure and to grow our national income.
The six national manufacturing priorities we have identified are: resources technology and critical mineral processing, food and beverages, medical products, recycling and clean energy, defence, and space. There should be no surprises in that list, because it was developed on the basis of solid evidence. This is about setting priorities and aligning efforts so everyone is pulling in the one direction. We are signalling to the market where we as a government are focusing our efforts and where we want to mobilise efforts from industry, researchers and investors.
You cannot create scale in every area of manufacturing, and we know that scale is key to creating the jobs that we need and want to see. But it's important to remember that, as we grow these sectors, others in the supply chain will also benefit. For example, if we look at food and beverage, obvious beneficiaries of growing this sector are our farmers and producers. But a big component of food manufacturing is also transportation, meaning when we grow food and beverage manufacturing, transport companies also benefit.
Take Volvo in Wacol Brisbane for example—a very successful manufacturer of Australian-made trucks—80 per cent of them bespoke. They directly employ over 500 people, including a team of 30 engineers, and they source their component parts from 90 different local manufacturers, meaning their factory holds Australian-made certification. Volvo in Wacol competes on both cost and value and are local market leaders. So just making the truck that will transport food products is itself an amazing manufacturing story. Demand for these bespoke trucks will grow as we grow food and beverage manufacturing.
Our tech sector, as a key enabler, is also part of the manufacturing story. Innovative tech companies stand to benefit by offering solutions and inputs that our manufacturers need. Max Kelsen is a growing Aussie business that is offering cutting edge digital solutions to increase productivity through data science and AI. These are the sorts of companies that are crucial to manufacturing in a modern economy. Moreover, these are the types of skills we're good at and give Australia a competitive edge.
Australia has a track record in developing cutting edge science capability that delivers new and innovative products and services. Dresden, a NSW based optical store, is a prime example and has started reinventing how eye glasses are made, and how they are used. Before Dresden came along, glasses were fragile and costly, and they weren't recyclable. The optical industry has a very particular supply chain, and it didn't deliver on Dresden's needs. So they went out and found brand new partners and ways of working.
With federal government support through a CRC-P grant, Dresden was able to assemble partners to work with recycled plastics to create glasses, at a time when virgin plastics were actually cheaper. The university sector was important, especially the University of New South Wales, through its SMaRT Program. This collaboration between industry and researchers allowed Dresden to design and deliver a new product to their customers at the same time as making glasses on the spot, manufacturing them in Australia and not generating plastic waste.
Today Dresden manufactures 100 per cent recyclable, modular, strong, durable product that is made cheaper than any other country in the world—including China. They are a fantastic example of what we can achieve when we make science and technology work for Industry.
But we need to make this story more common. We need to shift the focus of our research community from viewing the publication of their discoveries as the final step in their journey. We need to start defining success as commercialising those great ideas. That's why we are enlisting the CSIRO to engage even more closely with industry—invoking the 'I' in CSIRO, which, of course, stands for 'industrial'.
The CSIRO already does a remarkable job in helping businesses commercialise their products. This will be even more crucial as we look to grow scale. The budget provides close to an additional $460 million for the CSIRO to address the impact of COVID-19 on its commercial activities and ensure its scientific work can continue delivering for our economy.
We bring all these goals together with the centrepiece of our strategy—our $1.3 billion Modern Manufacturing Initiative—which will help Australian manufacturers scale-up and create jobs. The initiative will unlock private sector investment and create the path for our manufacturers to deliver on the world stage. It will provide co-funding for large manufacturing projects that have broad benefits across our priorities through three targeted streams:
All streams will operate on a co-investment basis. This isn't a hand out, it's a partnership—and we make no apologies for only backing those projects that are able to attract private sector investment.
Importantly, how and where this funding is delivered will be informed by the industry-led roadmap process, which is already underway. The newly refocused and renamed Industry Innovation and Science Australia will play a critical role in these road maps. IISA has a new emphasis on industry growth, with five new industry leaders appointed to the board last week. The IISA will work with industry-led expert teams, together with key stakeholders, to co-design a two-, five-, and 10-year vision for each sector, with clear deliverables. Each roadmap will identify opportunities for achieving scale. This is about strategic policy that will make a lasting difference for our nation. We are determined to get it right. Like our manufacturers we're placing a premium on quality, and we will make every dollar count. But we do very much recognise the urgency.
For those enterprises with shovel ready projects that will help to create jobs or help upskill workers, we have another round of the Manufacturing Modernisation Fund. This will be open before the end of the year and the government will contribute one dollar for every three dollars the business is prepared to invest in itself. This will get projects to revitalise the sector underway as soon as possible, and this builds on the 200 projects we announced earlier this year in the first round of the fund.
One of those recipients is Marpac in Victoria with their Project Reclaim & Replace. This project is centred around upgrading and updating their manufacturing lines to replace both imports of steel and composite canisters, metal ends and current rigid plastic canisters with a more sustainable and environmentally friendly composite canister that has a smaller carbon footprint. It will increase business sales and bring employment back to Australia. More Aussie jobs resulting from Aussie ingenuity—with the benefit of being better for our environment.
Another vital component of the Modern Manufacturing Strategy is our focus on improving sovereign resilience, which has been in the spotlight during the COVID-19 pandemic. That's why we're investing $107.2 million, through the Supply Chain Resilience Initiative, to ensure Australia is best positioned to respond to any future crises. We will consider a range of domestic and international supply options to address vulnerabilities, and assess their costs and benefits. This could mean more domestic manufacturing, it could mean long-term contracting of international supply or it could involve broader activities to promote better information sharing and collaboration between industry and governments. From mid next year, support will be available for businesses to establish or scale a capability that addresses a supply chain vulnerability. We know that our supply chains have an impact on sovereign capability—for example, Bluescope helps produce oxygen needed for our hospitals at the Port Kembla Steelworks, and chemical feedstock production is vital for plastics and fertilizers.
More than ever, Australians understand and support this goal. We've seen a surge of interest in buying Australian made. Australians know that when our manufacturing sector thrives, our nation thrives. Because, when you buy Australian made, you're not just supporting that manufacturer and its workers but Aussie businesses and workers right along the supply chain—from our farmers to our truckies to graphic designers.
For too long, successive governments have tinkered at the edges when it comes to manufacturing policy. Post COVID we know we have to create the opportunities for more of our brightest minds and best companies to succeed here at home. Because that will create jobs, and it's that simple. The naysayers who have talked down Australian manufacturing have been left red faced as we all pulled together and our manufacturers stepped up to the plate.
Old notions of what manufacturing is have been turned on their head. We know it is about so much more than just the production part in the middle. It's also about the research and development, the design and engineering, and the post-sale services. This is nothing like the protectionist, high-cost policies of the past. This is about us taking on the world, competing on value, and winning in a market that is now primed for quality and reliability.
We know that Australian businesses have been looking for a strong signal from government that we are going to back them in taking risks to invest in these uncertain times. Our Modern Manufacturing Strategy is exactly that—it's a strong signal that not only are we open for business, but we mean business. Let's make it happen!
[by video link] Firstly, thank you to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology for foreshadowing that there would be a statement today and for providing an opportunity for us to talk about a very significant sector to our economy—a sector that has diminished in recent years, a sector that has fallen as a proportion of our economy and our labour market, and needs greater levels of support from government.
It's true to say that the government elevated the rhetoric on manufacturing in the lead-up to the budget, particularly in terms of a manufacturing-led recovery strategy. But, whilst Labor have some criticisms, and I'll outline some of the concerns that we have with respect to the government's history on manufacturing and also in relation to the plans ahead, we want to discuss this sector. We want to see more support for our manufacturers to ensure that we make things in this country. Labor have a great record in partnering with manufacturing and ensuring that we see growth in high-skilled jobs and in innovation in order to ensure that we are part of supply chains around the world.
Now, after seven years of inaction, frankly, the government has finally realised the importance of Australian manufacturing due in no small part to the pivotal role that many of our manufacturers have played in adapting their processes to provide much-needed personal protective equipment—and I would like to thank all of the manufacturers that have been involved in that critical response to this health challenge. What was announced, however, was a timid attempt at a plan, a lot of rhetoric and a giant missed opportunity.
As the minister just outlined to the House, there should be no surprises in the government's six national manufacturing priorities list because it was developed on the basis of solid evidence. Well, that's correct. But let me make this clear: that solid evidence was developed years ago under a Labor government, with the announcement of the 2013 Plan for Australian Jobs. Let's be clear, these are Labor ideas. We're happy for the government to copy them; imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. However, what is a particularly galling and common practice of this government is that, when it formed government, it abolished Labor's plan, spent seven years doing nothing and waited until a global pandemic to rediscover the importance of manufacturing.
The minister claims this is about setting priorities and aligning efforts so everyone is pulling in the one direction. What a shame then that they've spent the last seven wasted years swimming in the opposite direction from Labor's 2013 plan. The priorities outlined in the proposed plan by the government are identical to some of those sectors that were identified seven years ago by a Labor government. If the Morrison government had stuck to Labor's plan, rather than abolishing it in the 2014 budget, manufacturing in this country would have been thriving; businesses would have been thriving, employing thousands more workers; and we would be better placed to deal with this global health and economic challenge.
The government's track record when it comes to Australian manufacturing is, quite frankly, appalling. Nothing would be more emblematic of their disregard for manufacturing than when this government ripped $500 million out of support for Holden and goaded the company to leave our shores, which they promptly did. They failed to deliver an energy policy after more than 20 attempts, which has provided no business or investment certainty and has led to energy costs for manufacturers going up and up and up. They presided over the depletion of critical skills, over 150,000 cuts to apprenticeships, the destruction of the viability of smaller manufacturers further down the supply chain and the withdrawal of priority capital from research and development. They have spent seven years attacking and undermining Australian manufacturing and now they want Australians to believe they support manufacturing. What a waste of years of economic growth and taxpayers' money.
In a stunning admission on ABC's Insiders program with David Speers on Sunday the minister admitted that in the depths of the Morrison recession, when it is now that support is needed, less than three per cent of the manufacturing funding will be available to manufacturers this financial year. With unemployment soaring in an economic recession, the first in 30 years, the government provides less than three per cent of the spend to manufacturers in this financial year—$40 million, it was conceded, out of $1,500 million that is supposed to be provided to this critical sector. That's not enough—too little, too late. But the Prime Minister and minister for industry continuously talk about the importance of medical technology and manufacturing as we deal with COVID-19 and the Morrison recession, begging the question: why won't this government provide greater support to Australian companies at the time they need it most? The government's lack of immediate action will mean the recession will be deeper and will be longer than is needed.
Let me put this into the context of the inadequacies of the government's Modern Manufacturing Initiative. According to the minister the biggest part of the government's manufacturing initiative is the collaboration strength, worth around $800 million. But the expectation is that there will probably be 10 projects that are supported. That is only 0.012 per cent of the Australian manufacturers who will benefit from the collaboration scheme. Invitations for expressions of interest won't open until late in the first half of next year. The Australian government has committed $52.8 million to the Manufacturing Modernisation Fund program. This second round builds on the first round of the program. As of 30 June last year, only 150 firms out of 85,000 will benefit. It is clear many of the jobs promised by the Morrison government are not worth the press release they've been written on. The manufacturing plan promised up to 80,000 direct jobs and up to 300,000 indirect jobs, but Treasury officials confirmed that neither figure was, 'used anywhere in the budget or any of the budget documents'. In reference to the claimed 130,000 jobs created by the government's technology roadmap, Treasury officials, in Senate estimates, confirmed that they were, 'not used in the budget', so, therefore, what can we conclude from that?
This is a figure that's in the minister's press release and in the Prime Minister's press release, and yet it is not in any of the budgetary documents or the budget itself, because this is a Prime Minister that chases headlines but not Australian jobs.
We also harbour concerns about the government's integrity when it comes to the distribution of funding. In June 2020, The Sydney Morning Herald reported on the first round of funding under the SME export hubs grant program. According to the industry department's business portal, the SME grant supports businesses developing local, regional and Indigenous brands. The first round saw $4.4 million spent over nine projects. Eight of those nine projects were in coalition electorates, with the ninth shared between a coalition and a Labor electorate. In the first round, 97 per cent of funding announced in March 2019, close to the election, was spent in the coalition's electorates—97 per cent. How many small businesses were overlooked because the Morrison government was solely focused on winning the election rather than on providing a strategic plan to grow businesses and regions regardless of whether they sit in a particular electorate?
The government says they are providing an extra $2 billion of funding for R&D tax incentives, but let's be honest: $1.8 billion was already existing and threatened to be cut. And of course they withdrew that bill from the parliament. But really, isn't that just a backflip? That is not new money. It's not new investment. In fact, at a time when higher education research and development is falling rapidly, the net result of R&D expenditure and investment in this country is in decline. So a measly $200 million over the forward estimates, in such an important area for government investment in the private sector, is woefully low.
The manufacturing industry is one of the biggest users of the RDTI scheme, and any underinvestment of R&D will jeopardise Australia's manufacturing future of highly skilled, well paid, secure jobs. Under the Morrison government, Australia's R&D investment is dismal and has fallen below two per cent of gross domestic product. Australia's investment levels are below those in countries such as South Korea, Israel, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Singapore.
As we emerge from this pandemic, opportunities will present themselves. A renewed national focus on a manufacturing future for Australia will give those who have lost their jobs and businesses throughout the pandemic encouragement that there are highly skilled, well-paying jobs in manufacturing in this country. It will encourage our young people in school to study STEM subjects in the knowledge that this study will provide them with a sturdy foundation for a long-term, reliable and rewarding career in manufacturing.
Investment in STEM courses and degrees is just that: an investment, not a cost. For every dollar we invest, we do much better as a social and economic dividend. Yet, in the government's recently passed higher education legislation, we saw a decrease in government investment in many STEM areas. Once again, we got the big announcement that fees for STEM students will be reduced, but the fact that the government contribution for these same students will also be reduced barely rated a mention, meaning our education institutions are expected to teach more students with fewer resources. For a student wanting to study science next year, this government will provide $3,010 less than they did this year. If the government is serious about turbocharging manufacturing, then action needs to match the rhetoric. You can't claim that STEM is critical and that we need to encourage more young people, particularly girls, to study STEM without putting your money where your mouth is. This government is all about announcements but lacks the substance to implement its promises.
Labor recently announced a very concrete plan to provide support for our manufacturing sector. As outlined in the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech, an Albanese Labor government will have new policies and a new direction that will build a lasting benefit. Importantly, we will build manufacturing in Australia through our National Rail Manufacturing Plan. By manufacturing trains here, Labor's plan would create up to 659 full-time jobs creating a rolling stock export industry and boost Australia's GDP by up to $5 billion. Liberal governments have consistently said we cannot build trains here, yet the ones they have bought from overseas have been too long for our stations, too narrow for our tracks or too tall for our tunnels. Australia has always been a nation that makes things, and we must put all our effort behind a push to ensure that continues. That National Rail Manufacturing Plan is a concrete proposal that will actually improve the sector, improve skills and capability, and provide jobs. That is a concrete plan. That is something the government should embrace. It's all very well for them to embrace all other Labor policies, but I would invite the minister and the government to consider this policy that has been put forward by the Labor leader, an important contribution, I believe, to this debate.
As I said, this government is all about announcements but lacks the substance to implement its policies. What we have witnessed is the failure of the government to understand the importance of the manufacturing sector as it waited for a pandemic to truly drive the message home. This is a government that abolished Labor's manufacturing strategy and then reintroduced it seven years later. They abolished Commercialisation Australia and now talk about the importance of commercialising Australian research and products. They abolished the instant asset tax write-off and brought it back. They abolished loss carry-back and have now brought that back.
Manufacturing is critical to Australia's economic future, to the prosperity of our regions, and to the capabilities that underpin the success of so many other industries. Labor has always been a great supporter of this sector. If you think back to the car plan of the Button years and the investment Labor has put in through the Rudd and Gillard governments, we are a political party that has always considered manufacturing to be a critical part of our economy, of our country and of creating well-paid jobs. That's what we would like to see.
If the rhetoric of the government is to be matched in any way, it has to stop making announcements and failing to deliver. To date, it has been all about spin and announcements. There have been no concrete plans. When there has been some taxpayers' money spent, too often it seems to be spent through the prism of political partisanship, as I outlined earlier, in terms of the money for export hubs. The government has to become serious about this sector. Manufacturing in this country has fallen as a proportion of our GDP faster than any OECD country in recent years. We need to reverse that. I think our manufacturers have managed to show how quick they can be to respond to significant economic challenges given their response in this recent global pandemic. That in itself should give us confidence that we can grow manufacturing. A future Labor government will partner the sector in order to provide those opportunities that we have seen on display in recent times. But it would appear that it has taken a pandemic to expose the failures of this government with respect to supporting this vital sector.
I've had a long personal history in this sector. My parents were factory workers. Manufacturing gave them jobs and livelihoods. The sector has transformed in recent years. There's no doubt the jobs that existed for many manufacturing workers 40 years ago have changed dramatically to jobs now that are higher skilled and that provide, I think, better opportunities and career paths. But what we have seen, unfortunately, in the last seven years under the Liberal-National government is a disregard for the importance of manufacturing, and, really, a lack of confidence and a lack of interest by subsequent ministers to ensure that we see this sector thrive.
We need to do better. Labor has plans to ensure that that can happen, and we will be announcing more plans in order to elevate this sector and in order to make it a priority well before the next election. That's something we can do. We just hope that the government would embark on an investment and decision-making process that would ensure that manufacturers in this country really feel that the government is partnering with them in order for them to be the sector that they can be.
On behalf of the , I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the private Members' business notice relating to the disallowance of the Industry Research and Development (Bankable Feasibility Study on High-Efficiency Low-Emissions Coal Plant in Collinsville Program) Instrument 2020 made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 on 18 June 2020 and presented to the House on 24 August 2020, standing in the name of the Member for Hindmarsh being called on immediately.
Question agreed to.
I thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs for moving the suspension that would allow this motion to come on before the House. I move:
That the Industry Research and Development (Bankable Feasibility Study on High-Efficiency Low-Emissions Coal Plant in Collinsville Program) Instrument 2020 made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 on 18 June 2020 and presented to the House on 24 August 2020, be disallowed.
This instrument bears all the usual hallmarks of the energy minister's scandal ridden, ham-fisted handiwork. This is a rorted process to hand over taxpayer money to back a project that is entirely without merit. To call the grant a 'bankable feasibility study' particularly shows a sense of irony, perhaps even a sense of humour, on the part of whoever drafted it. What we all know, and what those on the other side will admit in their moments of honesty, is that no bank would touch this project with a barge pole. They won't touch it with a barge pole, which is why we are going through this farce of taxpayer funding for a feasibility study into a project that will never go ahead.
This project—let's be clear—was a cynical, transparent election ploy to sell false hope to the people of Queensland at the last election that there would be new jobs and that there would be cheaper power delivered by a new coal-fired power station at Collinsville. It will never happen, and it's a cynical election ploy that is going to be funded by yet more borrowed taxpayer money.
I'll return to the question of merit in this grant, but first I want to deal with the process that got us here. This grant was originally designed, as I said, as a cynical election ploy in Queensland at the last election. Unsurprisingly, given its complete lack of merit as a project, it fell into a very deep hole after the May election last year—a hole that I imagine the Prime Minister hoped would be permanent. But, in a very widely reported screaming match between the Prime Minister and the then resources minister, Senator Canavan, it was resurrected. It was resurrected in the Prime Minister's Office after a screaming match that was widely reported and apparently overheard by a number of the Prime Minister's colleagues and the Prime Minister's staff. To apparently keep Senator Canavan and his fellow travellers happy, an announcement was then rushed out by the minister for energy. It was rushed out so fast it happened before the project proponent, Shine Energy, had even submitted an application for funding for a feasibility study. They'd submitted no application for a feasibility study and no application for a business case. Indeed, it's been widely reported that the government had to ask the company to submit something two days after they'd already announced that money would be handed to the company. Unsurprisingly, having been told through the media that they would receive several million dollars to conduct their own feasibility study into their own project—lo and behold!—Shine Energy did finally submit an application. Even for this minister, this rorted process is beyond the pale.
An announcement of borrowed taxpayer funds for a company that had not even submitted an application and that were then invited to submit an application to conduct their own feasibility study into their own project is something that I have caused to be reported to the Auditor-General. I've written to the Auditor-General to conduct an inquiry into this process. Frankly unsurprisingly, the Auditor-General has agreed to conduct an inquiry into this. To add insult to injury, notwithstanding the fact that there has been a motion before this House now for several weeks and notwithstanding the fact that this has been referred to the Auditor-General, it's been reported through Senate estimates that the government has already handed several hundred thousand dollars of cash to this company, Shine Energy.
Not only is this a rorted process; this is a project entirely without merit. You don't need a feasibility study to convince you of that; you just need a rudimentary understanding of what's happening in the energy sector generally and particularly in the energy sector in Queensland. The department told Senate estimates that they have the first phase of a study that no-one has yet seen and apparently no-one is allowed to see that says that Central Queensland needs a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station for system security. That is complete rubbish, as any energy expert would advise. There was an existing coal plant operating in Collinsville that closed down in 2012 because of a lack of demand. Indeed, it's been very widely reported by all analysts that the only way in which some unmet demand might emerge in Central Queensland for a project like this to fill would be the early closure of the power plant already operating at Gladstone, and that's been openly acknowledged and widely reported through the media as being Shine Energy's strategy. Their understanding is that the only way you can create unmet demand in Central Queensland for a project like this to fill is to shut Gladstone power plant early. Although Shine Energy have said this widely through the media, I suspect that those opposite, including the minister for energy, have not gone up to Gladstone and told the existing coal-fired power station workers up there that this project is essentially predicated on the loss of their jobs earlier than was going to happen.
The project boosters will also promise that this is going to deliver cheaper power prices. You only need to read the words of the Prime Minister to know what a high-efficiency, low-emission coal-fired power station means for power prices. The Prime Minister said in 2017:
… let's not think that there's cheap new coal, there's not.
… … …
… new cheap coal is a bit of a myth.
The Prime Minister said that back in 2017.
There are different estimates about what the cost of a HELE power station would be in Australia given we don't currently have one, but it would be substantially north of existing wholesale power prices in Queensland, which in the 2019-20 financial year ran at less than $60 per megawatt hour. Alan Finkel, the Chief Scientist, said in a report that a HELE power station would deliver wholesale power prices well in excess of $80 per megawatt hour. The Queensland government's assessment was that it would be north of $100 a megawatt hour. In the last three months, Queensland's wholesale power prices have been running at less than $40 a megawatt hour. So let's not pretend there is any serious argument that this power station fantasy is going to deliver anything more than expensive power prices in Queensland, vastly more expensive than the world-leading solar power that is available in Queensland, particularly in that part of Queensland, including with firming added.
Also, let's not pretend that this is low emissions. It's a wonderful marketing slogan for this Prime Minister. We know, again, that this is rubbish. The International Energy Agency defines HELE power stations as power stations operating at somewhere between 740 and 800 kilograms of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, which is already in excess of the system-wide average emissions intensity of the National Electricity Market, an emissions intensity that is dropping all the time because of the expansion of renewable energy. So let's not pretend this is going to do anything for emissions in the system.
I would say the economics of this project are hopeless, which is why this company has had to come to the government to get taxpayer funding for what would otherwise be a private investment. Even the company realise this, because they've admitted they have no hope of getting this power station up without also receiving a taxpayer indemnity against any risk of any policy in the future that might impact that asset, an asset that would be expected to have a life of 30, 40 or even 50 years, an indemnity that the Australian Industry Group has calculated as being as much as $17 billion just for one power station. This is not only an indemnity sought by the company; it is an indemnity that has been backed in by the local member, the member for Capricornia, who is happy to spend $17 billion in taxpayer dollars, and backed in by Senator Canavan for a project that otherwise is not going to be bankable. But, again, I'm not sure that they've gone to the Gladstone Power Station or any other power station in the country and said, 'We're going to give a taxpayer indemnity to this power station, but we're not going to—
Mr Chester interjecting—
Well, I've got five power stations in my electorate—I will say that to the minister—all within about two kilometres of my office. But I bet they've not gone to any other power station and said, 'We're going to give this power station a taxpayer funded indemnity and protect them against future policy change, but we're not going to give it to anyone else. We're not going to give job security to any other of the thousands of power station workers that operate around the National Electricity Market. It is just for this favoured project to please the Queensland federal Nats.'
Remarkably, the Prime Minister, in February this year, wasn't even able to rule out this act of economic vandalism and clear preference given to one power station over every other power asset in the National Electricity Market. Let's be clear: this is a plaything for the Queensland National Party, and only for the Queensland federal National Party. A few months ago, the Gladstone Observer reported that the LNP state party was focused on renewable energy instead of this project. That article was titled, 'LNP divided on funding coal-fired power station construction'. At least the LNP state party knows that is this is a fantasy that will never deliver jobs or cheaper power prices to the people of Queensland and simply wastes millions of dollars. It's not only the federal LNP that is divided from the state LNP on this question; the coalition party room here in Canberra is also deeply divided on this point.
I'll go to some quotes from members opposite. They are not currently in this chamber; I suspect they might duck this debate. The member for North Sydney, Trent Zimmerman, was asked what he thought of this feasibility study being funded by taxpayers. TheGuardian Australia reports:
… Trent Zimmerman told Guardian Australia his view was the government should not be investing in coal-fired power stations.
I note the minister laughs when I read out quotes from the member for North Sydney. The Guardian Australia states:
Zimmerman said any "fair" feasibility study would demonstrate there were better alternatives than a new coal plant in north Queensland.
His view was echoed, apparently, by the member for Wentworth. The member for Wentworth is quoted as saying:
The Collinsville feasibility study into a high-efficiency low-emissions plant was an election commitment and we should honour it.
But my own view is that new coal-fired power generation, even of the HELE variety, does not stack up economically or environmentally.
The article in The Guardian Australia states that the member for Mackellar, another of the minister's colleagues in the coalition party room, said the feasibility study should proceed:
… because it was an election commitment, but it will not lead to a new coal-fired power station being built because there are more economically efficient and environmentally cleaner options for power generation in Australia.
Members of the coalition party room are belling the cat that this is simply a gross expenditure of taxpayer funds to satisfy Senator Canavan and a couple of other members of the coalition party room, when other members of the coalition party room recognise the realities of economics in the energy system; recognise what is happening in technology, including in Queensland; and know that they might spend several million dollars on this, but it's not actually going to change anything on the ground.
We will simply not support this waste of taxpayer funds. At a time when this government has racked up a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt, the idea that taxpayers have to borrow yet more money to fund this fantasy, this cynical election ploy, for a few members of the Queensland LNP is not something we are going to support. We're not going to support false hope continuing to be sold to the people of Central Queensland that some new coal-fired power station is going to deliver jobs and cheaper power prices when every serious piece of analysis, some of which has been read and noted by members opposite who won't come in for this debate. But it has been read and, at least, bravely they're talking about that publicly. This is a rort. This is a project without merit and it won't be supported by this side of the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and I intend to make a contribution.
I appreciate your eagerness, but the minister has the call on rotation.
I second the motion and I move:
That the question be now put.
A division having been called, the bells having been rung and the doors having been locked—
The Manager of Opposition business has indicated he wishes to raise a point of order. Members! Could the back row of interjectors give us a bit of quiet so I can hear the Manager of Opposition Business. He is trying to take a point of order.
My understanding of what happened, which led to this division, is that the minister at the table stood up and, when it was asked, 'Is the motion seconded?' said that he seconded it and then immediately moved that the question be put. If that's what happened, it means the question was never stated by the chair, in which case right now we are voting that the question be put when there is in fact no question before the House.
The Manager of Opposition Business might have noticed I was having some discussions. That is my understanding of what has happened, and I think it is clear-cut: the motion that the question be put can't be put until that question is before the House. So what I would suggest now is that the count not proceed, I state the question, and then, obviously, that motion can be put any time after I've stated the question. Are members happy with that course of action? I mean that's—
A point of order: I presume, Mr Speaker, that means once you state the question the matter is open for debate and other speakers who sought to debate can seek the call?
Well, they can try; that's true.
I'm working on the novel concept that we might have a debate on this.
That's alright; I'm just working on precedent over the last few weeks! I'll just say to the tellers: we will not proceed with the division. There being no objection to that from the House, the doors can be opened. The motion has been seconded. I need to now state the question that is before the chair, and that is that the motion moved by the member for Hindmarsh be disagreed to. I call the minister.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. 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 Hindmarsh be disagreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion on the matter of public importance.
Debate adjourned.
I present the explanatory memorandum for this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I'm pleased to introduce the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Consumer Law—Country of Origin Representations) Bill 2020. This bill marks the next step towards implementing the government's commitment to establish robust country of origin labelling laws for Australian made complementary medicines.
The amendment lays the foundation for Australian made complementary medicines to have robust access to a safe harbour Australian origin claim and to the 'Australian Made, Australian Grown' logo—the iconic kangaroo in a triangle symbol.
We are justifiably proud of our vitamin and minerals manufacturers, our "complementary medicines" sector, and the high quality, diverse product range it delivers to growing local and export markets.
The sector made various representations to the government, outlining concerns about the impact of changes to country of origin claims in Australian Consumer Law made by the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Act 2017.
This 2017 amendment limited the circumstances under which products can meet the definition of 'substantially transformed' in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, which in turn limited access to the safe harbour provisions that apply to an Australian origin claim.
To address these issues, the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, the Hon Karen Andrews MP, established a task force to review the industry's concerns and identify possible solutions.
This bill has been informed by the task force's extensive consultation with relevant stakeholders including state and territory government agencies, Complementary Medicines Australia, manufacturers within the complementary healthcare sector, industry stakeholders with an interest in 'Made in Australia' claims, consumer organisations and Australian Made Campaign Limited.
Reporting in February 2019, the task force highlighted the importance of origin labelling to the Australian community while also acknowledging the high level of concern from the complementary medicines sector, with the loss of Australian origin labelling.
The report also highlighted the great faith consumers placed in an Australian origin claim.
The research indicated that labels featuring an Australian origin claim, together with a bar chart and a statement indicating the proportion of Australian ingredients, best conveyed this information.
Complementary medicines manufacturers believe the Australian brand, together with our high product safety standards and scrutiny of manufacturing practices by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, are all key to our strong reputation for well-made, safe products.
Following the task force's report, we undertook a public consultation process in October 2019. We sought the views of the public and industry on a number of options to make Australian origin labelling more accessible for complementary medicines.
And finally, we put a reform proposal to the states and territories through the Consumer Affairs Forum.
State and territory ministers representing their consumer affairs portfolios agreed with the Government's proposal to amend the Australian Consumer Law in a two-step process.
That is why in December 2019, as a first step, we restored access to 'Australian Made' claims for complementary medicines manufactured in Australia, by enacting the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian-made Complementary Medicines) Regulations 2019. These 2019 regulations were an interim solution.
The ongoing solution we are now preparing to deliver with the passage of this bill is part of the second step the states and territories are supporting us to undertake.
Following passage of the bill, we will make new regulations to prescribe one or more processes in the Australian manufacture of complementary medicines that will meet the definition of 'substantially transformed'. We will also introduce an information standard to govern labelling on complementary medicines when an Australian origin claim is made under these reforms.
The Prime Minister has been very clear in tasking the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology to map the way forward and work, with a whole of government approach, to create the right conditions for Australian manufacturing to grow.
Our export capability is a vital driver for manufacturing. It is difficult to overstate the critical importance of export markets to enabling real growth for our economy.
We are a trading nation, always looking at how to develop and diversify our export markets.
The complementary medicines sector is an important and growing contributor to Australia's economic prosperity through increasing exports. It has a positive reputation, both in Australia and overseas, over a diverse product range.
The industry supports the employment of around 29,000 people, with exports valued at over $1 billion in 2019, up over 15 per cent on 2018.
In the first three months of this year we exported almost $225 million worth of complementary medicines.
It is in the national interest to grow this lucrative sector, and the bill that I am introducing today marks another step on that journey.
In these current challenging times, there has been a groundswell of community support for Australian made products, which is good news for local manufacturers of complementary medicines.
I know businesses are always concerned that, when regulation is introduced, the compliance will be onerous. Regulations made under the changes we are introducing will only apply to those businesses that choose to rely on the new safe harbour provision.
If a business does not want to make an Australian origin claim under these reforms—that is, these changes to the act: the creation of new regulations and an information standard—then that business will not face any additional regulatory burden. It will not be required to comply with new labelling requirements.
These changes will provide long-term certainty to the complementary medicines sector on their safe-harbour Australian origin claims while responding to consumers' concerns on country of origin labelling.
The bill strikes the right balance between encouraging domestic sales and exports and maintaining consumer confidence in the transparency of Australian origin claims and in the value of the widely recognised 'Australian Made, Australian Grown' logo.
This bill reflects the government's commitment to support manufacturers and ensure that they continue to play a critical role in creating more local jobs and further driving Australia's future economic growth.
I commend this bill.
I rise today to speak in favour of this bill. I also move an amendment to the second reading that has been circulated in my name:
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 expresses concerns over deficiencies in the bill, including:
(1) that the bill provides the Minister with powers to create new measures without proper parliamentary scrutiny;
(2) while the bill fixes concerns raised by the sector and Federal Labor over two years ago, it has taken too long to be enacted, causing uncertainty for Australian manufacturers; and
(3) despite the Prime Minister and the Minister often citing the importance of Australian manufacturing, their proposal in the bill to require a bar chart on complementary medicines will hinder, if not deter, manufacturers from keeping their production processes in Australia".
Labor has been calling for the government to address the issue that has caused great uncertainty in the complementary medicine sector since 2017. It took more than a year for the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology to respond to Labor's calls and act to stop an industry worth over $5 billion to the Australian economy from being forced offshore, which would put close to 30,000 jobs at risk.
The delay in addressing the definition of substantial transformation, so that manufacturers could claim safe harbour provisions when making Australian made claims, caused much uncertainty in the complementary medicines industry. While this bill will address the issue of what constitutes substantial transformation, it is the proposed information standards and regulations that will follow the passage of this bill that have created new uncertainty about the impact this will have on Australian manufacturers, particularly the requirement to include a bar chart stating the percentage of Australian ingredients.
The industry is calling for the regulation amendment that has already been introduced to be maintained and that no further action in relation to the information standards and regulations is required. Many of the companies affected have made significant investments in manufacturing in this country, including Sanofi's $40 million investment in their Brisbane manufacturing facility. Household names like Blackmores, Swisse, Nature Zone Health and Cenovis were all affected by the previous dithering and delay by the government. This requirement will have further detrimental effects.
While the interim regulations were welcomed by these and other companies, several of them have raised concerns regarding the requirement for complementary medicines to be required to display a bar chart on their packaging that displays the breakdown of Australian ingredients. Specifically Blackmores, in their submission on country of origin labelling, said: 'To be very clear from the outset, the proposed changes will damage a thriving Australian industry and hurt Australian jobs.' Further, they noted that the changes are unnecessary and unjustified. Despite the minister's often repeated aim of reducing red tape, this regulatory burden is unnecessary in an already heavily regulated sector and it demonstrates, as always with this government, that they are all announcement and no follow-up.
The requirement for a bar chart was introduced for food and beverages following the importation of contaminated berries from overseas that caused a hepatitis A outbreak. This was the right thing to do. However, it is unnecessary for the same requirement to now be placed on complementary medicines. Complementary medicines are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration and are therapeutic medicines. They are manufactured in state-of-the-art facilities under the strict manufacturing protocols that apply to the manufacture of pharmaceuticals. This is Australian high-end manufacturing. The nature of complementary medicine manufacture means that certain ingredients are sourced from different parts of the world depending on seasons and supply chains. Many of these ingredients are not grown or produced in Australia. So whilst they may have to be imported the value-adding by transformation of those ingredients is worth $5 billion to the Australian economy every year.
To require manufacturers to display this bar chart means that many will have to assess their raw product and change their labels for each batch, depending on where they can source ingredients from time to time. This is a costly and cumbersome imposition, considering the economies of scale that are involved in preparing labelling. Blackmores have already had to change their labels due to a change in TGA regulation and that cost $7 million. The bar chart requirement would mean they, and all affected manufacturers, would have to scrap those labels and have to spend a considerable amount of money to comply with the proposed regulations.
The submission to the country of origin labelling for complementary medicines has claimed, 'The proposed changes will damage a thriving Australian industry and hurt Australian jobs.' This is one of the few manufacturing industries in Australia that isn't currently declining, so you would that think this government would be doing everything to protect it. But it was only on Sunday that we learned that less than three per cent of the funding slated in the budget for Australian manufacturing will be spent this financial year. COVID-19 has already demonstrated why we need a strong, sovereign manufacturing supply chain here in Australia. Let's not put that at risk. These changes are unnecessary, and the government should listen to the industry and not proceed with the requirement to add the bar chart.
The Australian Made logo gives our manufacturers a competitive edge, especially in Asian markets. Some manufacturers have said that, if, due to the regulatory hassle and the added cost of the bar chart, they aren't able to claim that their products are being made in Australia, they see no benefit to retaining their local manufacturing operations. This is a government putting in place regulations that will literally drive Australian manufacturing offshore.
When the complementary medicines industry and federal Labor first raised the prospect of many of our manufacturers potentially losing their 'made in Australia' status, Minister Andrews stated that the industry 'should be assured that I'm doing all that I can to assist'. Well, here is an easy fix that will assist industry, and the minister can do it today to give this important sector of our economy the confidence that they can continue to operate as they have under the interim operations introduced this year. By not prioritising the issue of country-of-origin labelling when Labor first raised it, the government has hurt Australian manufacturers, workers and consumers. By dragging its feet on this, the government puts close to 30,000 jobs at risk in a $5 billion industry.
The complementary medicines industry has said clearly and loudly that this requirement is not only necessary but potentially dangerous. These products already require strict dosage and duration controls, and, as I said earlier, they're already regulated by the TGA. Australia is one of the few countries in the world that regulate complementary medicines as a therapeutic good. If the government doesn't make that distinction between complementary medicines and food, at the very least it should class them as the same as highly processed foods, such as food for special medical purposes, and exempt them from the bar chart regulation.
Australian products that can claim to be made in Australia have a significant competitive advantage internationally, and we should guard the integrity of that scheme. But the bar chart requirement will prove costly and burdensome, with no benefit. The government's lackadaisical approach to these matters puts a multibillion dollar industry at risk. Australians agree we need to support our manufacturing industries even more than we are now, and even the government is saying this. But the government must now deliver, not just show up for the photo op.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment. I too want to speak about the labelling laws and the complementary medicines industry. The complementary medicines sector made various representations to the government and to the federal opposition, outlining their concerns about the impact of this legislation, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Consumer Law—Country of Origin Representations) Bill 2020. We know that there is a thirst among the Australian public and the Australian consumer for good labelling, knowing what's in their products and where they're sourced. That may be said for food products and different manufacturing products, but in the case of complementary medicines there was a bit of overkill. Many pharmaceutical companies that produce complementary medicines source particular ingredients, parts of ingredients, from other parts of the world when they cannot be grown or sourced here to make that product. What happens is that those ingredients and products come here, and the complementary medicine is manufactured here. The bulk of the work is done here in Australia—as we heard, by over 30,000 people employed in a $5 billion industry. As a parliament we should be doing as much as we can to keep those jobs here, to keep these companies manufacturing products here and to ensure that we are creating jobs out of it.
I will give you some examples of the way that the legislation will work. Let's look at some of Australia's iconic products and names. One that used to exist but no longer exists—and we won't go into the reasons why it no longer exists—is Holden. Can you imagine Holden, an iconic Australian brand and product, manufactured in Australia, as it had been for many years, not being able to meet the requirements to sell itself as an Australian made product because the raw ingredient of the rubber had to come from Malaysia? That's similar to what's happening here in the pharmaceutical industry. Another example is Arnott's, a great, iconic company in my electorate, in Marleston. They produce Tim Tams. You can't get more Australian than Tim Tams. They have to source the cacao from Africa, I think, because we just do not produce it here. It doesn't come from anywhere else. Can you imagine if they weren't allowed to get their Australian Made logo?
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
[by video link] I want to start by congratulating Victorians on what is an incredible day, with two numbers of zero in terms of COVID infections and deaths in Victoria. I am particularly pleased to see that the number of cases in aged care in Victoria is down to four. What we've seen in Victoria and across the nation and in aged care particularly has been truly tragic, with over 683 deaths and over 2,000 cases in aged care across the country.
Our concern on this side of the House—and I raised this last week—is that we're still not ready if we get further outbreaks in residential aged care across Australia today. The royal commission's special report into COVID gave the government six recommendations. The two most significant of those are to put more staff on the floor in residential aged care to deal with visitors to ensure that older Australians in residential aged care are not isolated. The other most important one was to do with infection control on site. We need infection control officers in residential aged-care facilities on the ground right across Australia.
Labor has also called on the government to ensure that residential aged-care response centres are able to stand up immediately anywhere in the country any time we get an outbreak. This is a really critical thing. We've had an admission from Professor Murphy that if the federal government had done more sooner we would have avoided some deaths. (Time expired)
I wish to inform the House of the economic development initiatives being undertaken by the City of Joondalup within my electorate in promoting the economic recovery of our community post coronavirus. The city's economic recovery unit, led by Nashid Chowdhury, aims to coordinate the investment and marketing activities of local business operators with essential infrastructure provided by government to increase the number of visitors to our region. A number of planning workshops have been held with local stakeholders.
At a business forum to be held next week, the city will launch a brand new strategic document entitled Joondalup destination city plan which seeks to empower a thriving, innovative and resilient visitor economy that attracts more leisure, education and commercial visitors to Joondalup in partnership with industry and government. This is another important step as the local, state and federal levels of government work together to promote the growth of Joondalup whilst ensuring the 12,900 businesses in Moore can rebound from COVID-19 and continue creating local jobs. Together, we are working cooperatively to put Joondalup on the map.
[by video link] Time's up, Prime Minister. Australians want a national anticorruption commission. There's been the sports rorts scandal, the $30 million that this government paid for airport land that's worth a tenth of that, the use of a forged document by the energy minister, unjustifiable payments to executives and the head of the corporate watchdog having to step aside—and the list goes on and on. This government is mired in sleaze and scandal, and whenever the trail of suspicion leads to a minister this Prime Minister's response is not to enforce the standards demanded by his own statement of ministerial standards. No, like the marketing man he is, this Prime Minister's response is to frantically try to cover up the sleaze, usually through the use of some powerless, secretive sham of an inquiry, ideally conducted by a mate. This government has been doing all it can to delay establishing a national anticorruption commission and it has been sitting on legislation that it's had for almost a year.
Meanwhile, the independent Auditor-General has been doing what he can to ensure taxpayers' money isn't rorted. Just this week, we have learnt that the government has been undermining the Auditor-General, too, slashing his budget by almost 20 per cent since 2013. The ever-growing list of scandals surrounding the Morrison government shows why Australia needs a powerful and independent Audit Office and a powerful and independent national integrity commission— (Time expired)
The Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the member for Tangney, wrote an excellent opinion piece in the Perth Sunday Times. He argued that state borders have their place in dealing with COVID-19 insofar as they have slowed the spread of the virus, but that borders are only one part of the response to the coronavirus and that border closures should be proportionate to the health risks and based on clear health advice. His central point: they are no substitute for a strong public health response based on testing and tracing capabilities and strong social distancing principles. And I agree.
Border closures should also be the least permanent because of the cost to Australians' liberty. It is no small thing to deny an Australian citizen movement within Commonwealth borders. It should be done only in extremis.
Decisions of state often involve trade-offs, and those trade-offs have human costs. Many in WA have borne those costs this year: a father with cancer, three kids and no family in WA; a pregnant mother in hospital with complications and no family in WA; working parents trapped interstate, separated from their children; defence families wondering if they're going to see their sons or daughters in 2020. Many have applied for exemptions, and many have been denied. And, Member for Brand, your work on social media has created a lot of fear in the community—
The member for Canning will direct his comments through the chair.
The national cabinet last week adopted a framework towards reopening by Christmas. I hope the WA Premier will honour the sacrifice of Western Australians this year and take the same posture. (Time expired)
We tell our children that the most important thing for your future is education: 'Get an education. Get training.' And this year has been the year from hell for most of the students in my state of Victoria and around the country. Yet they have a federal government which—not content with cutting billions from TAFE, providing over 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees today than when they first came to office, slamming universities by keeping them out of JobKeeper and presiding over thousands of jobs being lost—have now just trashed the dreams of so many young people who want to go to university and study arts and humanities and subjects that are about thinking and which—objectively, the research says—are about helping to get a job.
In my electorate, Cooper, 13 years old and stoically dealing with health issues, wants to be a lawyer and has wanted to be for years. When he was talking to his mother about these changes to fees, he said: 'Mum, that's expensive. Maybe I'll do something that's cheaper.' And, as his mum quietly said to me: 'Isn't this response sad, when money defines your career choice?'
Nic has a son who's in first-year law and a daughter in year 12 who wants to do law next year. Her son will graduate having to pay about half the fees of her daughter. And, as she said to me: 'This government is not only trashing education; it doesn't care about women and employment and the workforce.' (Time expired)
Fishing is one of the north-west, west coast and King Island's most popular pastimes and one of Tasmania's biggest tourist drawcards. So today I'm pleased to report to the House that, after 25 years, we are on the verge of eradicating carp from Tasmania. Carp impact our regional environment as well as affecting us economically and socially. They are described as water wreckers, resource hogs or trash fish.
Thank you to the Tasmanian government and the staff of Tasmania's Inland Fisheries Service for their dedicated work in eradicating the carp from Tasmanian waters over several decades. With financial support from the federal government, the TFS has developed a successful multipronged program to remove and eradicate carp while protecting the natural values of our lakes. TFS's innovative approach to carp management has been recognised both nationally and internationally.
Tasmania's Lake Sorell has been a prized fishing location for generations, but the carp infestations have meant that there are now young adults who are in their 20s who've never had the opportunity to fish this beautiful lake. Thanks to the partnership between state and federal governments, Lake Sorell and Lake Crescent are both open again, and the great family tradition of heading to the great lakes for a weekend of trout fishing is able to continue.
Hear, hear! I'll echo those sentiments of the member for Braddon.
The COVID-19 pandemic and international travel restrictions have highlighted the overreliance of Australian horticulture on overseas workers. Usually, eight in 10 workers in this sector are on short-term visas, a mix of backpacker and seasonal worker visas—but not this year. Australian horticulture will be 26,000 workers short over the next six months, the key picking season for our fruits and vegetables, and growers are predicting devastation.
In Tasmania, around 7,000 fruit picking and harvest jobs have been advertised on the Harvest Trail website since July. Less than 200 of them have so far been filled. The government's gap year idea to encourage young Australians to spend a summer on farms is laudable, but I doubt that it will fill the huge gap. Fruit Growers Tasmania has launched 'Rescue the Season', which aims to raise $1.8 million in order to transport 1,000 workers to and from farms. The reasons for severe labour supply problems in Australian horticulture are longstanding and well known. There is report after report, and recommendation after recommendation. What is needed is action and commitment from government to fix the known issues. Improving wages, conditions and job security are key, but these are mid- to long-term issues and we have a crisis right now. This year's fruit and vegetable picking season is already here and we need people on farm right now. The government must do more.
I rise to update the House on the latest medical research into hydroxychloroquine. Firstly, a peer-reviewed paper published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents concluded:
Hydroxychloroquine at low dose in combination with zinc and azithromycin proved to be an effective therapeutic approach against COVID-19
This study found that the odds of hospitalisations of the treated patient group was 84 per cent less then the untreated group. Secondly, a study by the Peruvian Ministry of Health found a 43 per cent reduction in death for those who received treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. Despite these latest studies adding to the overwhelming evidence, health bureaucrats continue to deny Australians the right to this medical treatment, claiming it is unproven. Even if these bureaucrats are right, their ban is in direct violation of the ethical principles set out in the Declaration of Helsinki, of which section 37 states:
… where proven interventions do not exist … the physician, after seeking expert advice, with informed consent from the patient or a legally authorised representative, may use an unproven intervention if in the physician’s judgement it offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health or alleviating suffering.
This unprecedented violation of the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, denying Australians access to this drug, must end.
I rise today to speak about the Keep Australia Beautiful Tidy Towns Awards held online on 14 October this year. It is my pleasure to confirm that Beechworth, a picturesque former goldmining town in my electorate of Indi, is the overall winner for 2020—what an achievement in a field of towns right across Australia! Beechworth was also declared winner in three of the nine categories, including Litter Prevention, Environmental Sustainability—Energy, and Environmental Communication and Engagement. Running since 1990, the Australian Sustainable Communities Tidy Towns Awards build awareness of the importance of community led environment action. Beechworth has been at the forefront of this action and was recognised for its long-established dedication to the community and to sustainability. The commitment to consultation and collaboration demonstrates the pride and spirit the community has in this beautiful town. Beechworth is a worthy winner. Congratulations to the Indigo shire, Iris Mannik, Anne Wilson and the whole Beechworth Tidy Towns Committee, and all other partners that made this happen. My congratulations also go to the other finalists, who are all, 'litterly', just as proud of their communities—Mount Gambier, Nhulunbuy, Bunbury, Murrurundi, Gympie and Wilmot.
Vic Alhadeff, CEO of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, is stepping down after 16 years at the helm. Vic is one of the great men of multiculturalism in Australia and one of our most recognisable and respected community leaders. A few years ago a bipartisan group of MPs rated Vic the most influential community leader in New South Wales. Vic is effective because he is knowledgeable and engaging. He is forthright in putting his case not only in calling out anti-Semitism and defending the state of Israel but also in calling out hatred directed to other groups as well, cognisant of the wisdom of Jonathan Sacks that 'the hate that begins with Jews never ends with Jews'.
Vic has built coalitions across many communities and was the spokesman for the Keep NSW Safe campaign, which resulted in reforms to New South Wales laws regarding incitement to violence on the basis of race, religion, gender and sexuality. He spearheaded initiatives to ensure Holocaust education is part of the curriculum. He conducted highly impactful trips to Israel for emerging political leaders, journalists and NGOs. Vic, who can trace his roots to Rhodesia, Zimbabwe and South Africa, where he was a prominent anti-apartheid journalist, has been a fixture in the Jewish community since he migrated here. Prior to being the CEO of the board, he was the editor of The Australian Jewish News.
Throughout all of his endeavours he's been supported by his wonderful wife, Nadine, herself a great ambassador for the Jewish community. No doubt the next phase of Vic's life will bring more time for marathons, more time for Nadine and more time for the grandchildren. Vic Alhadeff, we salute you. Kol hakavod!
The government has made a huge song and dance about its investment into defence shipbuilding. The announcements have been champagne affairs. The reality has been a cup of cold, weak tea and a stale biscuit. It's vital when you spend billions of taxpayer dollars that you deliver strategic outcomes, Australian jobs and sovereign defence capability, but you've got to keep your promises. In WA the Liberals took out four-page newspaper ads saying we would get 50 per cent of shipbuilding work. They have repeatedly said they would make a timely decision about submarine sustainment in the national interest. We're still waiting for them to make good on that promise, but they are creeping and crawling away from the commitment out of political cowardice. They think they can break their promise so slowly that no-one in WA will notice.
Last year the Minister for Defence said the decision on the full cycle sustainment of the Collins class submarines will be made by Christmas. We should have asked which Christmas. Yesterday the minister wouldn't even commit to making a decision before the next election in 2022, and that leaves workers in both WA and South Australia in the lurch.
This government is making a horrible mess of Defence shipbuilding. It is delays and cost blowouts as far as the eye can see. It is crumbs from the table for Australian companies that want to be involved in this work, and that puts our sovereign shipbuilding and sustainment capacity at risk. It puts the jobs of Australian shipbuilders and seafarers at risk. For WA it is nothing but broken promises.
This week has been a great one for Victoria. Together, we have had a major victory, and our community can now re-open. I'm especially proud of the Chisholm community for achieving zero cases.
Let's make no mistake: this wasn't easy. People have suffered enormously. I hope that the Victorian contact tracing is now up to the national standard and that Victorians remain free. Businesses have ground to a halt, mental health has declined and spirits have been at an all-time low. But we finally did it. We stopped the second wave of infection. Premier Daniel Andrews has finally given Victorians the freedom that he promised and that they earned.
While the cost to our community has been immense, thankfully, as of tonight's easing of restrictions, we can finally start to recoup this cost. Victorian businesses can now re-open, young people can enjoy their youth and socialising while safely socially distancing and families can regain a sense of sanity. Today is a day hard fought and well earned to all Victorians. We open safely and we stay safely open. (Time expired)
No politics from me today—just some words to all the year 12 students sitting their final exams. To say it's been an unusual year for this group is an understatement, especially for Melbourne students, including our daughter, Georgette. To all of you: you have this. You are resilient. You've learned what is important and what is not in a once-in-a-generation experience. I'm not going to pretend that this time in your life isn't a big deal and I'm not going to tell you not to worry. Of course you're worried. Of course you feel stressed. You've worked hard to get to this point. You've juggled sport, music, family and friendship alongside the studies. Because of social media, you put up with pressures and distractions that most of us never had to put up with as teenagers. You've made the sacrifices. We respect you.
And your families make sacrifices too. Right now, all around Australia there are mums and dads churning out favourite meals, washing lucky clothes and running the best-organised taxi service you'll ever see. The younger siblings, who spent weeks on their best behaviour keeping quiet when study sessions are underway, doing more than their fair share of the chores, understand that their year 12 brother or sister is the priority. We all feel like we're a part of it—involved and interested. We want to do what we can to help, and it's okay if you tell us to back off, if you roll your eyes and if you leave the room—you can thank us later.
Speaking of the people who you should remember to thank, please thank your favourite teacher for the difference they've made in your life. I promise you that you'll think about them for a lot longer. Finally, the most important message I wanted to pass on today is something you already know: the number you see on your screen in a few weeks does not define you. It does not define you. Good luck and God bless.
Many people in Reid have been waiting close to 20 years to see an upgrade to Homebush Bay Drive. The Morrison government has committed $50 million to the project, which is being delivered in partnership with the New South Wales government. This project will resolve delays and long queues on Homebush Bay Drive and the Australia Avenue and Underwood Road roundabout. It will also mean better access to suburbs like Sydney Olympic Park, Wentworth Point, Newington, Homebush, Rhodes and surrounding suburbs.
I'm very pleased to provide the House and my constituents with a progress update. The project is currently in the development and planning stage, and Transport for NSW are finishing up geotechnical investigations to get more information about the foundations of the site. Following this, a value management workshop will be held. It will be the final step on the scoping works. Several specialists will come together, along with other key stakeholders like the local council, to discuss the road and urban design options for the road and intersection. This means that we're one step closer to a solution for Australia's worst roundabout. I can also confirm that in early 2021, community consultation will also be opened to residents in the area. They will get the chance to have their say on the best options to improve Homebush Bay Drive. I look forward to the next stage of this project and hearing the community's input. Thank you.
I would like to thank the people of Victoria. Last week in this place, my friend and colleague the member for Gellibrand, Mr Tim Watts, explained, 'It's been hard to be a Victorian in the last few months, and, frankly, if you weren't there, you wouldn't know what it's like.' As a Western Australian, I don't know what it has been like for Victorians to endure this very difficult COVID lockdown, but I do know that they've achieved an incredible thing for this nation.
Together, Victorians have crushed the second wave of COVID-19 and, in the process, proven that it is far better to listen to the medical experts than the naysayers and the cranks. Frankly, I think that the Victorian people are heroes. I miss being able to go to Victoria, but not as much as Victorian people miss spending countless hours having coffees, beers and parmis, enjoying South Melbourne Market demonstrations and going to the footy. My lifelong friend Vanessa, who lives in Macleod and is a footy and racing tragic, sent me a text the other day. She can hardly believe she hasn't been to a game this season in 2020—it's unimaginable. And, with the TAB shut, she couldn't drop in a little bet on the Caulfield Cup in the Cox Plate.
In the grand scheme of bringing a global pandemic to a halt and lowering the tragic deaths that have happened in Victoria, and around the world for that matter, these are small sacrifices, but they remind those of us who haven't lived it, how the little things add up and make it all so much harder. I thank the leadership of the Premier, Daniel Andrews. I thank my Victorian colleagues—those who are here and those who aren't here. But, most of all, I thank the millions of Victorians for simply enduring.
This week is Veterans' Health Week. It's an opportunity to raise awareness of the importance of the health and wellbeing of veterans, current serving personnel and their families. In a year that has challenged us all, with many feeling isolated from friends and family, maintaining social connection is such an important part of our mental health and wellbeing. That's why the theme of this year's Veterans' Health Week is social connection. There's a range of events locally across Australia to support veterans and their families and maintain that vital social connection.
In Lindsay this morning the St Marys RSL sub branch hosted a morning tea for local veterans to catch up and share the important messages of Veterans' Health Week. The Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia's St Marys outpost is hosting a lunch on Thursday and a morning tea on Saturday, giving local Vietnam veterans a chance to reconnect. There are over 300 events happening across Australia, both in person and online, and I encourage our local veterans to get involved. I'd like to thank all the organisations for their hard work all year round to support our veterans, but particularly for hosting Veterans' Health Week events this year. You can find the full list of Veterans' Health Week events at dva.gov.au or by calling 1800VETERAN.
It's known that the rot starts at the top, and that's exactly what we're seeing unravel when it comes to Australia Post under this government and this embattled Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts, whose performances in this place over the past few days have made MPs on his own side cringe with embarrassment. The once trusted Australia Post brand has been utterly trashed, but this minister and this Prime Minister take absolutely no responsibility for their failings.
The Prime Minister beat his chest at the dispatch box last Thursday, proclaiming that he was appalled and shocked at the revelations of the largesse in the form of luxury Cartier watches being rewarded to highly paid Australia Post executives. When is the Prime Minister going to be appalled and shocked by the sheer incompetence of this minister for communications, who is ultimately responsible for Australia Post? When is the Prime Minister going to be appalled and shocked by the fact that this is the same minister who, in his previous portfolio, signed off on the $30 million purchase of land in the Leppington Triangle that was worth only $3 million? I won't hold my breath as long as this government continues to stack the Australia Post board with cronies like Bruce McIver, who was appointed to this plum position just three months after standing down as the president of the LNP in Queensland. Yes, Mr McIver brings a lot of experience to the role, holding an executive position with Clive Palmer's Asia Pacific Shipping Enterprises. It's time this Prime Minister took responsibility for his actions and started standing up for Australia Post. (Time expired)
To build a more modern, resilient and competitive economy, the Morrison government is investing $13 billion in advanced manufacturing for the 21st century, including in the critical field of medical technology products. This strategy is important for strengthening our economy, as well as for securing our sovereign supply chains.
One local company which exemplifies modern Australian made manufacturing is Microbio. One of the company directors, Matt McNamara, is a constituent in my electorate of Higgins. Microbio has developed a new type of COVID-19 test that has the potential to determine if someone with detectable COVID virus is infectious. The company has developed a test that is rapid and can be done in just 45 minutes. This first-of-its-kind test assesses messenger RNA for COVID, not just viral RNA. Identifying the presence of messenger RNA has the power to detect if the virus is actively replicating or not. If clinically confirmed, the potential benefits of this messenger RNA test include quicker and better contact tracing and quicker and better identification of COVID patients when they are presymptomatic. This is a potential game changer for learning to live with COVID.
Already there has been significant international interest in Microbio's test, including from the United States. Microbio is currently in the process of establishing onshore manufacturing of Australian made test kits. This is Australian science R&D in action and at it best. (Time expired)
With the last Victorian students returning to the classroom this week, I'm sure we're all celebrating and acknowledging the huge effort they've made—the principals, the teachers, their parents, their families and most particularly those students who've missed their friends and missed the classroom for so long. A year ago, remote learning would have seemed impossible. Switching almost overnight to remote learning would have seemed beyond us, and yet we did it right across Australia for varying lengths of time.
Of course, going back to the classroom is good news because we know that, although remote learning was terrific and necessary during the lockdown, it has come at a cost. Many students didn't have access to the internet. Many didn't have devices. And disadvantaged students in particular fell behind their peers. Some of the research shows that disadvantaged students were learning at about half their normal rate, so in two months of lockdown they'd lose a month of learning.
Months ago, I wrote to the Minister for Education—I'm glad he's here—saying, 'Please, for goodness' sake, help these kids catch up.' It's no good crying crocodile tears for the disadvantaged kids and what they've missed out on. Let's invest in helping them catch up. The Grattan Institute is just one organisation that has great examples of how we could do that by investing in extra one-to-one and small-group tuition. We should be doing that. You can't run up a trillion dollars worth of debt and not help the most disadvantaged kids. (Time expired)
This Saturday is the Queensland state election, an important election for the Queensland economic recovery for the next four years. We want a government with a plan to boost the economy and create more jobs. Labor announced on Wednesday that they'll build a second highway—I don't know what happened to the first highway. The federal government has already committed $10 billion. Can you explain the route? Can you explain the grand plan? When will work commence? We are continuing to invest in the inland road network. This supports the safe movement of freight and people along these routes. Before voting on Saturday, I urge all Queenslanders to think: Will it affect my community? Will they be robbing Peter to pay Paul? Queenslanders need the answers to these questions, and we need them now.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
by leave, I move:
That the House:
(1) commends the people of Victoria for the sacrifices they have made in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic;
(2) congratulates the people of Victoria for their achievement in overcoming the second wave;
(3) notes the people of Victoria have succeeded because, despite the hardship it has entailed, they have heeded the advice of dedicated public health officials;
(4) expresses its gratitude to the people of Victoria on behalf of a grateful nation; and
(5) resolves that this message be conveyed to the Premier of Victoria.
As our fellow Australians in Victoria emerge from lockdown, we should join together in this place to acknowledge the magnitude of their efforts. We express, through this motion, our admiration of Victorians for their bravery, their fortitude and, not least, their sheer stamina. Victorians have demonstrated the true meaning of 'We are all in this together.' Victorian businesses have been doing it tough. Victorian families have been doing it tough. Members of parliament, of course, have had to quarantine in order to attend the parliament, but it's their families that have done it tough through this process. While the rest of the country came out of the harshest lockdowns, silence fell across the great city of Melbourne. We watched the rest of the nation returning to some semblance of normal life while Victorians endured—but understood—the necessity for restrictions on activity, with curfews and the five-kilometres radius.
During this second wave, Victorians were under strict stay-at-home rules for some 110 days. That has an impact on people's mental health. It has an impact on the way that they live their everyday lives. No issue could be more important for this parliament to deal with than the motion that I've just moved. On the weekend, Victorians even had to endure watching an AFL grand final being played at the Gabba. Victorians showed their resilience by the fact that two Victorian teams, Richmond and Geelong, fought out such a fantastic game on Saturday night, but it was tough for the supporters and for the normal activity that takes place. I'm a proud Sydneysider, but I recognise that the Melbourne Cricket Ground is the greatest stadium in Australia. There is no question that that is the case.
Victorians have indeed paid a price, but now they reap the benefit, the dividend. Consider the numbers. We only need to go back to 30 July. On that day, Victoria had 723 new cases. This was just behind the United Kingdom, which had 846 cases, and uncomfortably close to France, which on that day had 1,377 cases. Let's have a look at yesterday. France, from 1,377, was up to 26,768 new cases. In the United Kingdom numbers were about the same as Victoria just back in July. Yesterday it had 20,890 new cases. It's a nation going back into lockdown. That's why the sacrifice of Victorians should be acknowledged by our national parliament—because the whole of Australia has benefited from their sacrifice. The whole of Australia has benefited from the fact that the Victorian government listened to the health advice, took action and ensured that those numbers were turned around so that, instead of an increase such as in the UK from 846 to 20,000, they went from 723 new cases to zero cases.
There was some criticism on Sunday of the fact that the Premier of Victoria took the sensible position of waiting until the tests that had been taken in the northern suburbs of Melbourne came through. They came through with a beautiful figure—zero, a big doughnut. And, today, that's turned into a bagel—double zero. For two days in a row there have been no new cases in Victoria. Because of that, tonight at 11.59 pm, Victoria opens back up. That's good news for all Victorians. It's good news for Victorian businesses, particularly in hospitality and in other activities. It's a return to normal.
The fact is that Victoria has done it tough. There are 817 people who have died from COVID-19 in Victoria, overwhelmingly in aged care, and aged care is something that this parliament is responsible for. So in this moment, as Victoria emerges, we want to be in a position, though, of passing on condolences to all of those who have been impacted. We also remember the fact that it has been difficult in terms of people being unable to visit loved ones as well.
This motion is a good one and I am pleased that the government has allowed for this debate. In terms of the motion that is before the parliament, it will be seconded by the deputy leader. I commend the motion to the parliament where we wish all Victorians well going forward. We ask that this be conveyed on our behalf to the Victorian Premier and the Victorian people, and we say, 'Well done.'
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I, indeed, would have been happy to second the motion. I join with the Leader of the Opposition. I believe it is very important that this parliament come together today and express its thanks and gratitude to the people of Victoria for their extraordinary resilience, their determination, their patience and the care that they have shown for each other through what has been an exhausting, difficult and overwhelming time for so many.
There have been many things asked of Australians over the course of what has been probably, in most people's living memory, one of the most difficult times they have ever experienced. Certainly as a nation and in our collective experience it has been many generations since Australians have had to go through a time such as this. But, for Victorians, this has been a time that no other Australians have really had to endure. So it is right for our parliament to congratulate and to thank Victorians for the way that they have conducted themselves over these many, many difficult months. Indeed, yesterday I was pleased to hear of the decision of the Premier and the Victorian government to take this next important step forward. I said at the outset of the Victorian lockdown that Australia will not win unless Victoria wins, and we are now starting to see Victoria win again, and I welcome that. This is a good thing for Australia. It's a good thing for all Australians, and we all welcome it, I am sure, from every corner of this country.
When the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic hit this country, we brought together all state premiers and chief ministers in what was an innovation in the national cabinet, which has now met on 30 occasions. It is unprecedented in our federation history for premiers and chief ministers to come together with the Prime Minister and work in the way that we have. There have been critics of the national cabinet and there have been disagreements amongst the national cabinet from time to time, but I can assure Australians, as I do—
Opposition members interjecting—
I don't know why there are interjections, Mr Speaker—this is a bipartisan motion.
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on both sides!
In that national cabinet, as we worked together to deal with that first wave and the many challenges it presented, it was, indeed, the Victorian Premier, the New South Wales Premier—all of the premiers and chief ministers—who supported that national effort. What we sought to do in that first wave was to build our national resilience, to build up our health response, to ensure the respirators were in place and the testing and tracing kits were in place, and to ensure the COVID-safe practices could be established.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Speaker, the interjections continue, but I will endure over them—
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on both sides!
because it is important that Australians know that this parliament has come together on this issue today, and I would urge those opposite to cease the interjections, because we are at one on this. And this is the truth of Australia's success—that, well outside of this place, Australians have supported each other, each and every day, through this pandemic. Outside of this place, governments have worked together, each and every day—each and every day—and the national cabinet has been an important part of that process.
As we built up that national resilience as a country, as a people, as governments, all across the country, we looked forward to that time where we had agreed as a national cabinet that we would be open again in July. We looked forward to that day and we were moving well towards that day. In seven states and territories, that progress continued. But, sadly, in July we saw the case numbers begin to rise in Victoria, and we saw the failure of the quarantine, which is understood and well known and has been documented. We saw the issues of contact tracing and we saw Victoria descend into what was a cataclysmic second wave of this virus. And it was the right decision of the Victorian Premier and the Victorian government to impose the lockdown measures, which I welcomed at the time, and I urged all encouragement to Victorians to endure those measures, because they had become necessary. That lockdown had become necessary, as borders between New South Wales and Victoria had become necessary.
But I say this: borders and lockdowns are not demonstration or evidence of success. They are not evidence of success. They are evidence of outbreaks that have got out of control. They are evidence of things that have not gone as they should. So, now, with the opening of Victoria and the endurance and the sacrifice of Victorians and the way they were able to work through this issue, I welcome that; I think it's tremendous. And I think it's great that Tasmania is opening up again. I think it's fantastic that South Australia has opened up again. And I'm encouraged by the words of former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, who believes things should open up again. I'm encouraged by that. People in this place know that I've always wanted Australia to work their way through this crisis and not get stuck in a rut, and that's what we must do. So I welcome the fact that Victoria is opening.
As Victorians went through this crisis, I can assure you of this: this government stood by them. This government stood by them: 28 Commonwealth GP-led respiratory clinics assessed over 175,200 people in Victoria; 1,400 interviews assigned to Commonwealth teams on contact tracing; 27.8 million masks from the National Medical Stockpile; some $1.3 billion in funding for specific COVID-safe health costs in Victoria; testing for aged-care workers, interstate truck drivers and train drivers; support through communications; tailored mental health programs; 15 mental health clinics; $200 million every day of support to see Victorians through this crisis. Our government has stood by Victorians every single day of the lockdown that became necessary as a result of the outbreak that got out of control.
As we look to the future and we look to the new three-step process that has been agreed by national cabinet—and I thank in particular the Premier of Victoria who was one of the first to sign up to open by Christmas when we agreed this in September—we cannot look to a future of lockdowns as a way of managing this virus. What we must do is ensure we have the testing, the tracing, the isolation, the quarantine options and all of these things which national cabinet and my cabinet are working to deliver for Australians. Because we are going to open safely, and we are going to safely remain open, under the policies of our government, working hand in glove with the state and territory premiers and chief ministers around this country.
I join with the Leader of the Opposition in commending Victorians. I thank the many public health workers in Victoria. I thank the tram drivers. I thank all of those who have worked, whether in aged care, child care, distribution centres, schools, hospitals—wherever they have been they have been champions of this country in their time of crisis. I thank them for every single sacrifice, because the cost of the lockdown has been significant. It has been a heavy blow. There are so many Victorians who will carry the scars of this lockdown for years to come. That is the advice we have received from Christine Morgan, my National Suicide Prevention Adviser, and the Deputy Chief Medical Officer for Mental Health, Ruth Vine. There will be scars that will be carried by Victorians. I assure those Victorians that just as we've stood by you throughout this terrible lockdown, we will stand by you through the recovery. We will continue to support you in the economic needs that you have and get you back into jobs, to open your businesses again and to rebuild your lives.
This Christmas I want Australians to come around their tables and talk about 2021 with positivity, with hope, with aspiration, looking forward to what they're going to do, the schools their kids are going the go to, the training courses they're going to do, the jobs they're going to get into, the health that they will be able to enjoy, because in this country we have one of the best records, if not the best, of managing the health and economic impacts of this pandemic of any country in the world. God bless Australia.
I start by thanking the Leader of the Opposition for moving this motion and I thank the Prime Minister for his words in support of those in Victoria. In the story of this year the significance of Victoria having just recorded two consecutive days with zero cases is hugely important. On 30 July, just 12 weeks ago, Victoria recorded 723 new cases of coronavirus. On that same day in Great Britain there were 846 new cases. Today with zero cases in Victoria, we saw yesterday in Great Britain 20,890 new cases of coronavirus recorded. It speaks to how contagious this virus is. It speaks to how easily this virus can spread if it is not checked. But it also speaks to the incredible achievement of bringing under control the outbreak of this virus which has occurred in Victoria over the last few months. Around the world there is hardly a precedent for it. The credit for that first and for most goes to the people of Victoria.
In regional Victoria over the last few months we have been living under stage three restrictions. For many people in this chamber, indeed for many people around the country beyond Victoria, that is an experience that was lived earlier in the year. But in Melbourne, over the last few months, people have been living under stage 4 restrictions, and from speaking with colleagues, with friends, with family, I can tell you that enduring the stage 4 restrictions in Melbourne saw as big a difference between that and stage 3 as there is between stage 3 and nothing.
In my lifetime, I have never witnessed up close such an experience of stress within our society—p eople making a decision every night about how they were going to spend that precious single hour outdoors the next day; p eople in Melbourne living under a curfew in a way which I would never have imagined. It has changed life in every way, including in this place . The members of parliament who you see on the screen behind me speak to that, and I want to acknowledge every one of the Victorians who is not here today.
There were m onths on end of not seeing loved ones in aged - care facilities —and, as COVID-19 started to work its way through aged - care facilities, an utter sense of terror on behalf of grandparents, on behalf of a father, on behalf of a mother. The families of 653 aged - care residents have had the heartbreaking experience of saying goodbye to their loved one in a way that they would never have wished to, in a way that was characterised by loneliness.
In the journey from the dark days of July to where we are now, there has been a story of leadership. Yes, t here have been mistakes, and t he Victorian government immediately established a judicial inquiry which is working through those issues as we speak. But the Victorian government has also been a source of crystal - clear decisions , at the heart of which has been the very best medical advice, which has guided us from where we were back in July to where we are right now.
The rhythm of life for Victorians and for Melburnians is defined by great cultural and sporting events , and the significance of what has occurred in the last 48 hours is that Melburnians can now look forward to the Comedy Festival in March, having a beer at the Espy over summer , visiting the Vic Market on a Saturday morning once again , going to the tennis — the Australian Open at Melbourne Park—and seeing the Boxing Day Test at the MCG with a renewed sense of confidence, of hope and of optimism.
The Victorian people have been magnificent. The Victorian people 's dedication and their commitment to adhering to the rules have seen the number of daily cases reduced to zero yesterday and today , and it is their victory and no-on e else's victory . The Victorian people have suffered so much — the pain, the cost, and the loss of Victorian people. It should never ever have come to this. With the greatest respect to those opposite, the comparison is not with the United Kingdom, the comparison is not with the United States; the comparison is with New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and South Australia.
My children are the same as the children of everyone else from Victoria in this place—s ix months lost from schooling; s ix months that they will never ever get back. The children of the Northern Territory lost one week in school. The children of South Australia lost just two weeks of school. The children of Victoria lost more than six months. Those in year 12 will never, ever get that opportunity back. With the more than 800 Victorians who have lost their lives, their families will never get them back. And it all comes back to the failures in hotel quarantine, for which we still do not have any answers.
An honourable member interjecting—
The honourable member is right: there is an inquiry. But unless that inquiry asks everybody who has questions to answer to provide evidence, we won't get the answers and the Victorian people will be left in the dark. The fact of the matter is our state—I'm from Victoria and I am for Victoria. The fact of the matter is the member for Wannon is from Victoria and he is for Victoria. The member from Flinders is from Victoria and he is for Victoria. And this Prime Minister has stood by Victorians every stop of the way. More than $200 million per day is going from this government to the people of Victoria. There is JobKeeper, JobSeeker, the cashflow boost—$750 payments have been going into the pockets of Victorians and Victorian businesses. That's been going to support them through this crisis.
My thanks today are to the people of Victoria, because we know this lockdown has not come without a cost: a 31 per cent increase in Medicare subsidised mental health visits in Victoria, a 77 per cent increase on people going to headspace in Victoria compared to those other states, and there is Lifeline and Kids Helpline. I got a text message from a friend of mine the other day who said that a friend of his had taken his own life because he had lost his job in Victoria. In the same message, he said that friends of friends had started to self-harm. These aren't unique cases. This is across the state. This is the price that has been paid during this lockdown.
I have spoken up as the Treasurer of Australia and as a proud Victorian, and the facts are that Victoria makes up 26 per cent of the national population but today 40 per cent of those effectively unemployed across our country. On every day of the lockdown, on average, 1,200 jobs have been lost. In the same period, for every day of that lockdown across the rest of the country, 2,000 jobs have been created.
An opposition member interjecting—
'So what?' is the interjection—an interjection from someone from another state outside Victoria. I tell you what, the small businesses of Australia—their owners and their employees—don't say, 'so what?' They say that they have paid a very, very heavy price. The Leader of the Opposition said in his statement that the decision that was taken not to open up on Sunday—well, the businesses of Australia spoke very loudly about their disappointment, and we, as a government, spoke very loudly.
My thoughts today in supporting this position are with those Victorians who were kept in their homes 23 hours a day. My thoughts today are with those Victorians who weren't able to move more than five kilometres from their home. My thoughts today are with those Victorian who weren't allowed out at night because of a curfew that we didn't see in other parts of this country. My thoughts today are with those Victorians who've been fined $10,000 for opening their business and trying to put food on their table and keep their staff employed. My thoughts today are with the families of those people who have suffered with mental health concerns as a result of the lockdown.
I am so happy to join with all those in this place in celebrating the fact that the numbers have come down. But don't pretend there hasn't been a price. And the price has been immense, and the cost couldn't have been higher for more than six million Victorians. So today we give thanks for those numbers coming down. We give thanks to those Victorians who have paid the ultimate price and to their families. We say thanks to those health workers who have been working so hard, together with our Defence Force personnel who have been working with the Victorian government. We, on this side of the House, have stood with Victorians since the start of this crisis, we have stood with Victorians through this crisis and we will stand with Victorians to the end of this crisis.
The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
My question is to the Prime Minister. This country is heading towards $1 trillion of Liberal debt. The most recent budget contained more than 30 buckets of money with more than $5.7 billion of discretionary funds. Don't taxpayers have a right to know their money is being spent honestly and wisely? And why won't this government legislate for a national integrity commission, given you've had the draft since last year?
Mr Speaker, you've just heard the passionate words of the Treasurer, a proud Victorian—like so many other proud Victorians in this chamber, not restricted to either side of this chamber. The question has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition about the wisdom of the spending commitments that the government has made in the budget. He's questioning the expenditure that this government is putting in to ensure that this country recovers from the COVID-19 recession. The Leader of the Opposition likes to say he supports the government's plans out of one side of his mouth, and out of the other side of his mouth he is happy—
The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Yes, Mr Speaker, on direct relevance: it wasn't about whether the funds should exist; it was about whether they should be scrutinised to make sure they're not rorted, just like sports rorts, another program where they have been.
The Leader of the Opposition has made his point of order.
Speaker, you've just heard the Treasurer say where our investment is going that has led to the increase in the debt, and right now that's $200 million every single day to support Victorians through the biggest challenge they've seen in generations. It's there to ensure that businesses have been able to stay in business. It's there to ensure that Australians have been able to remain in their jobs. Were it not for the investments that we've put in place throughout this crisis, 700,000 additional Australians would have been out of work—700,000.
So, if the opposition is looking for a reason as to why the government has gone into unprecedented spending to get Australia through this crisis, he need look no further than those 700,000 Australians he scoffs at with this question. He scoffs at the Australians who have been supported by a government who gets it—a government that understands that, in the most unprecedented crisis in 100 years, a health pandemic, the government would step up to support businesses, to support industries and to keep people in jobs with cash-flow assistance.
And it's not just for today, and it's not just for the recovery tomorrow that will recover what has been lost through this crisis. It's the investment we make for the future, whether it's the manufacturing plan which the minister for industry had the opportunity to speak to this parliament about today: $1½ billion, building on the economic reforms that will make manufacturing businesses competitive in this country, but also the $1.9 billion which the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction is putting into new technologies to ensure that not only do we have affordable energy and the gas for the feedstock that this country needs to grow manufacturing businesses and to grow heavy industry, but also to ensure we have a lower emissions future.
The Prime Minister's time has concluded.
I'm happy to take an extension!
You'd need someone to move it. I can't move it!
As a proud Victorian, my question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison government has provided crucial support to states and territories to lead Australia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and recession?
That's a very timely question from the member for Goldstein, with the theme that we're able to speak to today. There is no greater friend of self-funded retirees in this country than the member for Goldstein. A champion they have in him, there is no doubt about that—protecting hundreds of thousands of self-funded retirees, standing up for them as we went into the last election to save them from the retirees tax that remains on the books of the Leader of the Opposition as a constant insult to self-funded retirees in this country.
It was in September that the national cabinet agreed—
An honourable member interjecting—
bar Western Australia—to ensure that we got Australia open by Christmas. As we remarked earlier in the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, yesterday we took a very important step with the lifting of those lockdown restrictions commencing in Victoria from later tonight. That is the first necessary step, but there are many more steps to take between now and the end of the year to realise that commitment. Throughout this crisis we have worked to support the states and territories as they have taken the decisions they've had to take and it was within their jurisdiction and their responsibility to make. We respect those responsibilities that they have to their own electors in each of the states and territories. We have sought to work with them, whatever decisions they have taken, in their view, in their state's interest.
We have supported those states and territories with unprecedented support in the fiscal budget of this country. Some $272 billion in direct measures alone, some 13.7 per cent of the size of our economy, this government has invested. Some $16½ billion to deal with health measures alone within our states and territories has been invested by this government. Combined, all of the other states and territories together, every single one of them, in direct measures, including their health expenditure—have committed $47 billion. That is a significant multiple of the investment by the Commonwealth government over the states and territories and it has been our responsibility to do that—to step in with some $257 billion in direct income and economic supports into our economy, carrying state economies if they have gone through the heavy lockdown that Victoria has experienced or the measures, particularly early on in the pandemic, and they were affected in those other states. As other states have been able to emerge and move forward, they have graduated from much of that support. But those who haven't been able to do that up until now have continued to get significant support—some 2,200 ADF personnel— (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Treasury has confirmed the government's $4 billion Hiring Credit program is only expected to deliver 45,000 new jobs—just 10 per cent of the 450,000 jobs the government announced would be supported by the program. How can Australians trust this government to spend taxpayer dollars in their best interest when its announcements never match its delivery?
I would point the honourable member to Budget Statement No. 1, page 23. I will help him with it. It states:
It is expected that around 450,000 positions for young Australians will be supported through the JobMaker Hiring Credit at an estimated cost of $4 billion from 2020-21 to2022-23.
The JobMaker Hiring Credit will help 450,000 Australian young people find a job. Importantly, they are people who have been on income support—
Opposition members interjecting—
If the Treasurer could pause for a second. With regard to interjections: I'm not going to continually keep warning the same people over and over again. If you interject, you'll be ejected.
The JobMaker hiring credit is a vitally important initiative supporting jobs throughout our community but, importantly, focusing on those who are aged 16 to 35, because the numbers show that young people have been impacted most by this crisis, having lost their jobs. So I never thought I would see the day when the Labor Party and the member for Rankin would try to pit younger workers against older workers. We on this side of the House are for all Australian workers and for creating more jobs, using the JobMaker hiring credit to do so.
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 focusing on the delivery of infrastructure around Australia, particularly in my electorate of Nicholls, helping to create jobs and to drive the economy and recovery as soon as we get out the other side of the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for his question. He is an unwavering advocate for the communities of Nicholls and for regional Victoria. We've just heard some fine and passionate words from the Treasurer. Indeed, Melburnians have done it tough. So have regional Victorians. They have done it very tough, and I commend the regional members for their advocacy for their communities and I thank those people who live in regional Victoria for what they've done to help us through this dire situation.
The member for Nicholls understands how important investment in regional infrastructure is for productivity, for jobs. Throughout the pandemic our delivery of infrastructure projects has surged ahead, particularly in regional areas. With more than 200 major projects currently across the nation, this is a game changer. The federal government is doing its part to assist in our recovery from COVID-19, and it's up to the states and the territories to take the opportunity we have presented. With only three locally acquired cases reported across the country in the past 48 hours, it is time for the states and territories to safely re-open their borders, to re-open those businesses, to re-open those communities, and to re-open their economies and get back on track.
Through our $110 billion, decade-long pipeline of infrastructure, we have transformational projects large and small in every jurisdiction, including $39 billion of investment we have committed in New South Wales, $28½ billion in Queensland. $2.7 billion in the Northern Territory, $975 million in the ACT, $9.8 billion in SA, $15.4 billion in WA and $3.2 billion in Tasmania. Victoria is no exception, with our total infrastructure funding reaching more than $31½ billion across the state.
In the member's electorate of Nicholls, our infrastructure investment includes the Shepparton bypass. I know how hard he fought to achieve that commitment. It includes the Echuca-Moama Bridge. Again, he fought hard for that. It includes the Shepparton Art Museum. I was there on a couple of occasions not only to make that commitment but also to expand upon it and the Shepparton alternative freight route. Importantly, there is also $320 million for the Shepparton rail line upgrade stage 3. Nine hundred and ninety direct and indirect jobs are expected to be supported by this important project—a project about which Sam Birrell, CEO of the Committee for Greater Shepparton said: 'Stage 3 of Shepparton rail line upgrade funding is a fantastic outcome for the Greater Shepparton region. It will enable us to move from five to potentially nine daily services in faster, more comfortable VLocity trains to and from Melbourne. During peak periods, that could be a train on the hour. It brings us a rail service which is, in per capita terms, equal with Bendigo and Ballarat.' That's delivery. That's commitment. That's getting on with the job. And those are the important things that the member for Nicholls does. (Time expired)
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that $715 million meant to help the domestic airline industry during the COVID-19 crisis was extended to owners of luxury private jets?
What we've done with our sector-wide aviation assistance is to keep planes in the air, because what we know is that planes in the air mean jobs on the ground. We have provided it on a sector-wide basis. What we have done is to make sure that, whether it's commercial or whether it's charter, planes are able to go to some ports which would otherwise, but for our sector-wide assistance, not receive aviation services at all. For those 35 centres in rural, remote and regional Australia, that has meant the world of difference. What it has meant is that personal protective equipment, vital respiratory devices, face masks and, perhaps most importantly, frontline medical personnel could get to those places, and to make sure they did the vital job that they have done. We thank them. We thank them and we thank the airlines, and they have thanked us. They have been very appreciative. Whether they're running businesses, they have thanked us for the support that we have provided.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
I'm not quite sure why you're going 'kerching, kerching', Leader of the Opposition. This has meant the world of difference to those communities. Perhaps if the borders were reopened, and reopened sooner, then we could get on with interstate travel, because interstate travel is going to help those travel agents, it's going to help those tourism industries and it's going to help parts of Australia which have not even had a coronavirus case and yet have been impinged upon. They've had restrictions placed on them, by faraway premiers and chief ministers in capital cities, that have been quite unfair, quite unfair on their communities. But they have persevered, they have endured, because they are in it with the rest of Australians. They are in it to make sure—
I'd just say to the Deputy Prime Minister: it was a very specific question. He's certainly been answering it and being relevant. The member for Brand—
It wasn't me, I'm afraid.
An opposition member interjecting—
Oh, was it you?
I think they're only being supportive—in fairness to them—Mr Speaker. I think they're being supportive of my answer. And with that I'll conclude it!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, on 31 December unemployment benefits are scheduled to return to $40 a day. To many people this will be a devastating start for the new year, impacting their ability to pay for rent, food and clothing. No wonder they're sick with worry. That $40 a day is unacceptable is not in dispute; for instance, the BCA, ACOSS, the RBA governor and even former PM John Howard have all argued against the old Newstart rate. Please, Prime Minister, will you today commit to the principle of unemployment benefits being above the poverty line or, at the very least, no less than the current JobSeeker rate?
I thank the member for his question. As I've stated on numerous occasions now and as I'm sure the member is aware—and the Treasurer has done likewise, as has the Minister for Families and Social Services—a further decision about the ongoing arrangements for the COVID supplement beyond December will be considered before the end of this year. There is a mid-year statement that is due in December, and obviously this parliament will be rising in that first week of December, or thereabouts, which would require any such change to the COVID supplement to be legislated by that time. So we will be considering those issues about the going forward arrangements for the COVID supplement and its level prior to parliament rising, enabling us to bring that change into the parliament so it can be done before we rise at the end of this year. That will deal with the COVID supplement and its ongoing arrangements. I've been pretty clear, and lent into it pretty heavily, that people can expect the COVID supplement to be going forward beyond the end of this year. The precise level and the arrangements that will sit around that are matters that the government is considering now, and we will be doing so over the next couple of weeks.
This is a position which, I note, is actually supported by the opposition. The shadow Treasurer, when asked in July about what number he would put on the level of JobSeeker payments and the COVID supplement, said:
We haven't been prepared to put a number on it. One of the reasons why we want the Government to update the budget is because the Government needs to take into account all sorts of considerations about the state of the budget and state of the economy. We expect that the new JobSeeker rate will be lower than what it is right now, but it should be higher than the old Newstart rate.
I've quoted him completely. The point I'm making is simply that what we've learnt during this COVID-19 recession is that we have to avail ourselves of the most recent information, as things change very quickly. We will consider all of that information. But the primary decision that we have to make before the end of this year is the ongoing rate of the COVID supplement, beyond the legislated period, which is at the end of December this year.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House how the extensive range of economic support, including tax cuts, in the Morrison government's economic recovery plan is helping families to get ahead and businesses to create jobs, especially in my electorate of Boothby? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies?
I thank the member for Boothby for her question. I acknowledge her time at the chamber of commerce, as a journalist and for taking on GetUp and winning. Well done, Member of Boothby! The member for Boothby, like those on this side of the House, understands that the economic recovery across Australia is now underway, with 446,000 jobs having been created in the last four months. Sixty per cent of those jobs have gone to women and 40 per cent have gone to young people. We saw an increase in consumer sentiment this month—of 11.9 per cent. That was the single-largest increase in consumer sentiment in a budget month since the series first began in 1974. We've seen Australia's AAA credit rating recently reaffirmed, and I can inform the House that today consumer confidence increased for the eighth straight week. Consumer confidence is now back to the level it was at the start of the pandemic, in early March.
The reality is that the Morrison government has responded with an unprecedented level of economic support, and that economic support has helped save 700,000 jobs. We saw in the budget the next phase of our economic recovery plan. There's extra money for research and development, for skills, for training, for bringing forward infrastructure projects and for investing in new infrastructure projects. Importantly, we're also putting money back into the pockets of Australians, with tax cuts for more than 11½ million Australians. If you're earning $60,000, you will pay $2,160 less tax this year than before our program was rolled out. We've also seen an expanded instant asset write-off and a loss-carry-back measure. These are all designed to support jobs and economic activity.
I'm asked whether there are any alternative approaches. We know that only those on this side of the House stand for lower taxes. The member for Rankin and the member for McMahon took to the last election $387 billion of higher taxes, which are still on their books. Do you remember the member for McMahon saying, 'If you don't like our retirees tax, you don't have to vote for it.' The news for the member for McMahon is: Australians didn't vote for it! We also know that the member for Rankin let his guard down the other day at the Press Club and revealed the real truth when he said that the legislated tax cuts were a handout. Well, tax cuts are not a handout from government; tax cuts are the government handing back to the Australian people their money. We on this side of the House stand for lower taxes for all Australians.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the government has subsidised the use of luxury private jets for Crown casino, Clive Palmer's Mineralogy and the Leppington Pastoral Company to the combined value of $73,000? As Australia hurtles towards a trillion dollars of Liberal Party and National Party debt, why on earth is the Deputy Prime Minister spending borrowed money on these luxury flights?
I thank the opposition leader for his question. We have committed $2.7 billion of assistance for the aviation sector, and we've done it on a sector-wide basis. We've made sure that we maintain minimum—I would say essential—air services across Australia, including more than 400 return flights per week to more than 120 locations, of which 110 are regional and remote. Seventy operators who have been given assistance and who have accessed assistance and rebates under the sector-wide aviation assistance include aeromedical, and charter flights for fly-in fly-out. This has been important. This has actually kept, for those regional communities—indeed, for the people in them—the ability to fly around the nation. This is so important, and I'm proud of the aviation assistance we've provided.
Mr Speaker—
And I've concluded my answer.
The Deputy Prime Minister has indicated he's concluded his answer.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House how the Morrison government has been supporting all states and territories to drive Australia's economic recovery through our unprecedented response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
I thank the member for Forde for his question and acknowledge his time in small business and the financial services sector before coming into this place, taking on a former Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, and winning.
The member for Forde understands, as we do on this side of the House, that the Australian economy, the global economy, has faced a once-in-a-century economic shock. In fact, the IMF is suggesting that the global economy will contract this year by 4.4 per cent. That compares to a contraction of just 0.1 per cent during the height of the GFC. The equivalent of around 600 million people have lost their jobs globally over the course of this year. And, here in Australia, at the height of this pandemic, 1.3 million Australians either lost their jobs or saw their working hours reduced to zero.
The Morrison government has responded with an unprecedented amount of economic support: JobKeeper, JobSeeker, the cash flow boost, $750 payments to millions of Australian pensioners, helping to save 700,000 jobs. Our Commonwealth response has totalled $507 billion, or the equivalent of 26 per cent of GDP, when you include fiscal and balance sheet support. There has been $257 billion in direct economic support. That's the equivalent to 13 per cent of GDP. In comparison, the states have announced—have announced—$40 billion of direct economic support, just two per cent of GDP. Out the door already is $124.4 billion: $41.6 billion to New South Wales; $34.6 billion to Victoria: $24.1 billion to Queensland, and, in comparison, the Queensland government has announced just $7 billion of direct economic support; 11.6 billion to WA; $7.6 billion to South Australia; $2.3 billion to Tasmania; $1.7 billion to the ACT; and $0.9 billion to the Northern Territory. That is what the Morrison government has already delivered—$124.4 billion to Australian families and businesses.
The JobKeeper package alone has already seen nearly $70 billion out the door, supporting around 3½ million Australian workers. The cash flow boost—over $30 billion or around 800,000 Australian businesses are benefitting. This is helping the economic recovery, a recovery which has already seen 446,000 jobs being created over the last four months alone. We're getting on with the job, and our job is creating jobs for all Australians.
My question is to the Minister for Health: The Minister has announced that the budget includes a landmark guarantee for the funding of new medicines. But, yesterday in estimates, his officials admitted that this funding is not in the budget but that new PBS cuts of $250 million a year are in the budget. Why did the Minister announce funding but instead deliver cuts?
I could not be more pleased than to have a question on the PBS from that side of the chamber. Let me be clear about what is in this budget and what is not in this budget. What is in this budget is $41 billion for the listing of new medicines such as Lynparza, for ovarian cancer. Three hundred women will benefit from a medicine which would otherwise cost $140,000. Listed are Avastin and Tecentriq to deal with liver cancer for 500 Australians. These are medicines that would otherwise cost $170,000 a year. There is a landmark new agreement, which will produce an expected $2.8 billion of investment directly in new medicines. The difference is, and this is what's very important, that those medicines will no longer have to be offset from within the portfolio. Why is that very important? Because we saw a moment in history when that requirement led to a previous government stopping the listing of new medicines. That was the very thing that Medicines Australia sought and welcomed on budget night.
I had the privilege of speaking today with the CEO of Medicines Australia, Liz de Somer, who reaffirmed her delight at the outcome. This is what they had sought for over a decade. Why? Because in 2011 the then government stopped listing new medicines. Why did they stop listing new medicines? It was due to fiscal circumstances: 'The listing of new medicines will be deferred until fiscal circumstances allow.' These medicines included medicines for schizophrenia, for skin conditions, for endometriosis and for IVF, amongst other things. They stopped listing new medicines for schizophrenia, endometriosis and IVF in one of the moments of great health shame in this country, in this parliament. They were responsible; we fixed it. Not only have we fixed it in this budget, we've fixed it forever. That leads to Lynparza for ovarian cancer, to Avastin and Tecentriq for liver cancer and to the new medicines we announced on the weekend for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, to provide those outcomes— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's plan to build capacity in our hospital system through the COVID-19 pandemic has strengthened our hospitals and helped to keep Australians safe?
Dr Freelander interjecting—
The member for Macarthur can leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Macarthur then left the chamber.
I want to thank the member for Robertson, who has not only been a passionate local advocate for the Central Coast medical school but, in a great sense of prescience, has been an advocate for action on respiratory and immunological diseases since before this year. This year, as we know, has in many ways been the hardest of years, and for Victoria it's been the darkest of winters. The fact that we now have light is something to welcome.
We know that when we look at Australia today, with two cases of COVID in the community, and we then look at the world, with over 400,000 cases for a sixth consecutive day, we can recognise the extraordinary achievement which came from Australia having, executing and implementing a plan from the earliest of days in January and February. That plan included dealing with the pandemic in capacity, borders, testing, tracing, distancing and containment.
One of the central elements of our capacity was to boost and support our hospital capacity. That started with making sure that we would never see what we saw in Italy, Spain, France and New York with the fight for ventilators and respiratory equipment. The building and construction of a national capacity of 7½ thousand ventilators was overseen by the minister for industry, the private sector, the medical community and Australian firms. They were all working together in one of the most important and significant Australian joint collaborative projects.
It was also involving the work set out on 13 March of the public hospital agreement for COVID-19, which the Prime Minister brokered with all of the states and territories, which has seen us invest and allocate $3.1 billion for our public hospital capacity. As well as that, there's the private hospital capacity with the private hospital viability guarantee, which brought over 30,000 hospital beds, $1.7 billion of allocated funding and over 100,000 potential workers into that sector. It has seen over 500 people in Victoria transferred to those private hospitals and given support. Then, because we know this disease can be ongoing, we kept those going. We saw in Victoria 140 days ago a zero day and, since then, we've seen over 18½ thousand cases, so we know that this disease can come back. We know we have to prepare. That's why, in the midst of a pandemic, we brokered an agreement which adds an additional $33 billion to hospital services within Australia. This year we've prepared our hospitals for the worst of all possible outcomes, but we've also prepared them for the future to save and protect lives.
[by video link] My question is to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that, when asked about the government's announcement that its technology roadmap would deliver 130,000 jobs, Treasury yesterday said, 'That's not a figure that was used in the budget; that was the figure in the minister's press release'? Is this another case of spin over substance?
The technology roadmap, like all the other programs, were part of the government's economic forecasts for where jobs growth would be. Jobs growth, according to our budget numbers, is for 950,000 jobs to be created in the next few years. I don't know what those opposite have got against creating jobs, but we, on this side of the House, are in favour of creating jobs. There were 446,000 new jobs created over the last four months alone, of which 60 per cent have gone to women and 40 per cent have gone to young people.
Tragically, we have seen jobs being lost in my home state of Victoria, whereas in other states we have seen jobs growth. Whether it's a technology roadmap; whether it's the JobMaker hiring credit; whether it's our investments in infrastructure, either bringing projects forward or investing in new projects; whether it's research and development or whether it's skills and training, we, on this side of the House, are in favour of more jobs.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Following on from the minister's statement to the House today on industry and manufacturing, will the minister outline how the Morrison government's investment in national manufacturing priorities will create a stronger manufacturing sector to create jobs and new economic opportunities?
I thank the member for his question. I was delighted this morning to deliver the ministerial statement on industry and manufacturing and set out the very clear vision that this government has for industry, specifically manufacturing, in this nation, because our manufacturers in Australia are ready to take on the world and we are backing them, absolutely, to be able to do that.
Our strategy for manufacturing is based on building competitiveness, building resilience and building scale. But, before we did that, we had to make sure that we were putting in place the very strong economic foundation that was needed and that would support all of industry, all of businesses and all of manufacturing. That includes the instant asset write-off. It includes the work the minister for energy is doing on gas. It includes the work that is being done on deregulation. That is the very strong economic base on which the $1.5 billion manufacturing strategy is built.
What we have been very clear about is that we have acknowledged that we cannot be all things to all people. What we have to do is name some pretty clear priorities, some national manufacturing priorities, where we have either a competitive or a comparative advantage or we need to build that capability because of the strategic priorities of this nation. The six national priorities that we have named are: resources, technology and critical minerals processing; food and beverage; medical products; recycling and clean energy; and defence and space. We are backing those key priority sectors so that we can build the scale that we need.
I understand that those opposites are focusing their manufacturing strategy on trains. Frankly, that is the only platform they have for manufacturing. They have no idea. They do not understand what manufacturing in this nation is all about. We on this side of the House understand it and we are backing Australian manufacturers every single day. Australian manufacturers can rely on this government because we understand what they're about. We are building them. We are going to make small businesses medium enterprises. We are going to build our medium enterprises into large businesses. We won't turn our back on them. We will put our money into developing those key strategies and we will make sure that we are delivering the jobs that are needed now and for the future.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Yesterday in question time a matter was raised with me concerning LNP promotional material in relation to the candidate for Southport appearing in a licensed post office at Main Beach on the Gold Coast. I've investigated that matter with Australia Post. I'm advised that the material has now been taken down from the relevant licensed post office and also that Australia Post has reminded all licensed post offices of their policy of impartiality and of not displaying political material in outlets.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Clark proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s approach to the protection of the environment.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I'm confident that I speak for a great many Australians when I say that the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments have done a dreadful job of caring for Australia's environment. I will start to address that issue by first of all talking about the most pressing environmental concern this country and the globe has, and that is climate change. It is abundantly clear that the federal government does not have a plan to deal genuinely with climate change and instead is committed to a carbon future, in particular through its fascination with gas. Let's not beat around the bush: gas is not a transition fuel; gas is a carbon fuel. The fact that this government has laid out a road map for reliance on gas for decades to come is all the proof you need that this government is not committed to dealing with climate change.
Let's not fall for the spin from the government when it says it is doing something about climate change. Let's not fall for the spin when the government talks about our emissions going down. The only reason they've gone down in any significant way is because of a temporary reduction in global and national emissions on account of the pandemic. We can be absolutely confident that once this pandemic is behind us the economy, industry and transport will come back with a vengeance, and not only will we return to the old levels of emissions we will return to much higher emissions.
It is not good enough, it is simply unsustainable, for the government to use the Kyoto credits. No other countries are doing that. There's no basis in international law or within the agreements that are on the table. What's needed, of course, is for the government to lay out a roadmap and put us on the pathway to 100 per cent renewables and zero net carbon emission, and that would be so easy to achieve. For a start renewables are cheaper than carbon energy. It's that simple. It's an undeniable fact that to build wind, solar and other technologies is cheaper than to build a new coal-fired power station or a new gas-fired power station. And let's stop this nonsense about, 'renewables are only effective when the wind blows and the sun shines'. Anyone with any nous understands perfectly that wind and solar are just two parts of the jigsaw. They're just two technologies which we would use as part of a holistic solution that would also rely on technologies like batteries, hydro, pumped hydro, geothermal, wave, tidal, green hydrogen. There are so many ways that we can have reliable and cheap energy in this country. It just takes the political will to commit to it and the political will to discard coal and to discard gas. It is well within this country's capacity to achieve what I describe and what the community wants. We've got the know-how. We've got the money. We've got an abundance of renewable energy resources. It just takes the political will to do it.
Of course, when we talk about the environment it is more than climate change. It's also about our flora, our fauna and our threatened species in particular. To that end, what the government needs to do is stop misusing changes to the EPBC Act and actually commit to an entirely new environmental framework for this country. The EPBC Act would be a good act if it was improved. But it doesn't go far enough. We need an entirely new legislative framework that goes way beyond the EPBC, that will genuinely provide protection for all flora and all fauna in this great country and that will provide protection for our river systems, our water resources and so on. It needs to have tough standards. It needs to have an independent panel to implement it. If the government can't bring itself to a radical overhaul of our entire environmental framework then let's at least get the EPBC Act right. Many Australians, many members of my own community, were not just disappointed, they were downright alarmed that, when Professor Graeme Samuel completed his interim review into the EPBC, rather than the government saying, 'Wow, a very, very credible person looked at this made some very important recommendations and we commit to implementing those recommendations', instead the government cherry-picked one recommendation—that environmental approvals be devolved to the state and territory governments—and rammed through this place, in a recent sitting week, the necessary change to the EPBC Act. Even though Professor Graeme Samuel was absolutely clear in his review of the EPBC Act that any devolving of authority for environmental approvals must be accompanied by an independent agency to oversee the implementation of the EPBC Act—an independent body, a national watchdog, that would be able to lean on tough national standards that would need to be complied with by the state and territory governments. It is not good enough. I say to the minister: if you're going to cherrypick one recommendation from Professor Samuel, you must also go to his other key recommendations, because Professor Samuel was absolutely crystal clear that you must not devolve authority to the state and territory governments unless you do, indeed, have an independent watchdog—a strong watchdog—and you have tough national standards.
I'm particularly concerned for my own state of Tasmania as a result of this development in this place—which, by the way, was rammed through here without proper debate and now is sitting up and hasn't even been dealt with by the Senate. So why the federal government would ram it through here without proper scrutiny by the crossbench and the opposition—or even by its own members—beggars belief. There was no urgency, because the Senate hasn't got to it and won't get to it for ages. And I hope the Senate does what it did in 2014, I think, when it rejected a similar proposal under the Abbott government to devolve environmental approvals. I do worry for my own state, because, in my own state, not only do we now have the prospect of the Tasmanian government having the authority to make the environmental approval for projects; we also have the recent ramming through the Tasmanian parliament of the major projects legislation, which basically gives the government and the minister authority to run roughshod over proper process.
I'll add to that another layer: the fact that Tasmania has the weakest political donation laws of any jurisdiction in the country. In fact, it could be said we've got no donation laws in Tasmania.
So we've got the federal government devolving decision-making for the environment to state and territory governments—in my case, obviously, to the Tasmanian government. We've got the Tasmanian government now with legislative authority to run roughshod over proper process and basically declare anything it wants to be a project of state significance. And we've got next to no donation laws, so we don't know who's giving money to which party and to which candidate. You add that to the mix, and we have a recipe for an environmental disaster in Tasmania. And, in large part, the key ingredient in that recipe is the federal government allowing the state government to make environmental approvals.
Surely everyone in this place understands that this country has one of the most remarkable collections of flora and fauna of any place on the planet. And we are the custodians of it. This government and this minister are the custodians of that. But at the same time we have a frightful extinction rate. And what are we doing about it? We're doing bugger-all! We can do better than this. And it's not just about what we want or what our political donors want or what our mates in industry want or what our mates up the Murray-Darling want with their water. It's not about them. It's about the inherent value of our natural environment in this country and the fact that we are custodians of that for our children and their children and forever into the future. I'll tell you what: future generations are going to lament our generation and this government, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, for being key players in the destruction of this priceless natural environment that we have in our country. Frankly, we are betraying our children.
So I call on the government and I call on the minister: lift your game. Do better on climate change. Do consider a whole new environmental framework to protect the natural environment in this country. Go beyond the EPBC. But I say to the minister: if you are going to lean just on the EPBC, then listen to the experts—listen to people like Professor Graeme Samuel—and implement their recommendations. Have a national watchdog. Have tough standards. And only then consider giving authority to the state and territory governments, because, if we'd relied on them in the past, we would've dammed the Franklin and we'd have oil mining on the Great Barrier Reef. (Time expired)
I thank the member for Clark for bringing this important issue of environment protection to the parliament today. I think other crossbenchers are speaking on this MPI; I don't know that the Labor Party is. So I'm actually delighted to have an opportunity to talk about the government's record and our key commitments on the environment.
The member for Clark started with energy, and I know that the energy minister has laid out a practical, low-emissions pathway, including his announcement last month of a $1.9 billion investment package in new and emerging low-emissions technologies. Renewables are often a key indicator of a country's commitment to clean energy, and Australia has a per capita rate that's one of the highest in the world. We will overachieve our 2030 target as part of our commitment to the Paris agreement. I'll leave that there, with the very competent energy minister.
I want to mention two other areas that the member for Clark talked about, before I come to the things that we are doing—and we're very proud of every single one of those. He talked about the EPBC Act. He knows me better than this, and my commitment to strong compliance and my commitment to Graeme Samuel's recommendations on strong compliance. I've talked about that several times since the interim report was released. It is disingenuous for the suggestion to be made that we are stopping at the statements we made at the interim report stage and that we are not waiting for the final report, because, of course, we are. And I've said that many times.
I've also made it very clear that we're not simply sending the power to do approvals in a devolution model to the states. We are accrediting the states against strong Commonwealth led national standards. Graeme Samuel is working on those standards. He's held some excellent meetings with key stakeholders, because it's important you get broad agreement for this and that you come up with standards that demonstrate strong Commonwealth led interest in the environment, which is what the EPBC Act is about, but also that you have everyone at the table. So Graeme Samuel has undertaken an excellent process and I look forward to his final report, and I want to reassure the member for Clark that it is not just about devolution to the states; it is about strong Commonwealth standards and it is about accreditation of the states against those standards. I'm not dragging those states kicking and screaming to the table. I haven't got D-day after which they will all have to do it and we will step away. Absolutely not. If they don't want to do it, they don't have to. They all indicated at national cabinet with the Prime Minister on 24 July that they wanted to—that they wanted to step into this policy area because the act, at the moment, is duplicative, it's inefficient and it doesn't give that clarity and consistency. While I don't like to characterise the environment debate as people on one side wanting conservation and people on the other side wanting development—because it's actually not really like that in the real world—what I do want to say is that no-one on either side of this debate loves that act. The fact that we are acting swiftly and sensibly to reform the EPBC Act should actually be getting a loud cheer from this parliament. Unfortunately, I don't think that's happening.
The member for Clark talked about threatened species and our iconic natural environment. I agree with him 100 per cent. We are custodians of an incredible biodiversity that had been threatened since white and European settlement 200 years ago. We have amazing ecosystems and we are acting to protect them. I want to run through a few key statistics: 99.9 per cent of all listed species and ecological communities have either a conservation advice and/or a recovery plan in place guiding recovery action; since September 2013, 36 recovery plans have been made, covering 100 threatened species and five threatened ecological communities; since May 2019, I have added 43 species and six ecological communities to the national threatened species list and transferred 13 species between listing categories, based on expert advice from the independent Threatened Species Scientific Committee; and since May 2019 I have also approved 71 conservation advices. We're about to enter a new 10-year Threatened Species Strategy. I welcome to the views of the member of Clark and, in fact, the views of every member of this parliament on what that strategy should look like.
In covering the three key points the member for Clark made, I'd like to move on to our record in the environment.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith is interrupting. I don't mind if she interrupts me anytime with a question or a proper motion on the environment or an opportunity for me to demonstrate our commitment to the environment. We do have a proud and strong record, as a coalition government that achieved World Heritage listing status for the Great Barrier Reef in 1981 and banned oil and gas operations on it. We're backing that up today with $2.7 billion of investment in the reef. It was a coalition government that created the EPBC Act, and we're actually going to reform it. John Howard created the world's first ocean policy in 1998. It was a coalition government that established one of the world's largest representative networks of protected marine parks—2.8 million square kilometres, the size of Argentina. The coalition government created the position of minister for the environment, and the Morrison government is continuing the coalition's strong track record on the environment through comprehensive policies and record funding: $1.8 billion in this year's budget of new money over the next five years.
And it's not all about the money; it's about the policies. We've got those too. If you think about Australia as an island nation and the oceans, there is $14.8 million to tackle the marine impacts of ghost nets and plastic litter and $28 million for compliance and enforcement in our marine parks. We will re-establish native oyster reefs at 11 sites, providing employment opportunities and, importantly, enhancing the marine habitat. We're building on our leadership in the space of international blue carbon partnerships on rainforests and we're working really hard, as I said, across the reef to manage crown-of-thorns starfish and reduce marine debris pollution. We've got an ambitious world-leading Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program.
The member for Clark comes from Tasmania and he, like me, will be very proud of the Australian Antarctic Division and our investment in Antarctic science. In fact, the work that is done in Antarctica on southern climate systems is internationally acclaimed by the IPCC. We are the experts, because in the north they know a lot about the north, but we own that space in the south. We're drilling a million-year ice core. We've had to slow down due to COVID, and we wish all our expeditioners well in what is a difficult time for them. But that will give us clues as to how the climate on Earth changed a million years ago. So the investment that we're putting into our Antarctic Division is really, really important, and I think the division is extraordinary and loved by every Tasmanian. And I want to send good wishes to Tasmania; you haven't opened up your border to people from New South Wales, but, as soon as you do, I'm looking forward to coming down there and appreciating some of the natural environment.
People talk about climate adaptation and resilience; we're walking that talk. We've always lived in a changing environment. The rate of change we face today is unprecedented, I know that; and the role that science plays in helping us is vital. So, with our $200 million bushfire wildlife recovery funding, we took the advice of experts. I put together an expert panel of scientists to list the species and the ecological communities most at threat. We've delivered $50 million of that bushfire funding for immediate habitat restoration. We're developing plans with seven communities across key fire scars in Australia for how they will spend a further $110 million of that funding, using the community's wisdom, their interest and their commitment, and making sure that every single dollar hits the ground in practical, meaningful action, and, most importantly, that it helps our threatened species; it helps our precious wildlife.
The importance of our national parks is something we've been able to underscore in our recent budget, with a $233 million investment in our six iconic Australian national parks. One of the things we're most proud of is how we bring traditional owners to the table, whether it be for their advice throughout the bushfire royal commission on Indigenous cultural burning, recognising their connection to country, their sense of loss at so much of what has happened to their own iconic species since white settlement, or their views on how to manage the land in an incredibly sustainable way in the interests of everyone who uses it. We're tapping into that wisdom as part of our science of adaptation and resilience.
We've got a National Environmental Science Program. It's just issued round 2 of funding, about $149 million. It's through hubs of marine science, threatened species, and climate and adaptation science, and I really look forward to the work that our scientists bring to us.
I should mention the Bureau of Meteorology, which is in the environment portfolio. There is a record investment in the bureau to make sure that the Australian community can continue to have reliable, secure and ongoing access to weather, climate, water and oceans information.
We as Liberal and National parties have a strong and, I would say, a powerful record on the environment. Fifty per cent of our environment is managed by farmers, and we bring them to the table in the amazing movement of Landcare, as well as the great work we're doing in biodiversity. (Time expired)
I'm pleased to finally be able to debate the Morrison government's approach to the environment. Earlier this year, the government commissioned a review, led by the eminent Graeme Samuel, of the performance of the Commonwealth legislation protecting our natural environment and biodiversity. In June, Mr Samuel presented the interim report, with a final version due by the end of this month. But, on 3 September, pre-empting the outcomes of that report, the government put forward its proposed amendments to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, allegedly in response to the review commissioned.
The recommendations of the review were quite clear, and there were many; however, the government chose to pick only one—the devolution of responsibility for environmental management to the states. The review explicitly recommended against implementing this in isolation from clear national standards and an independent federal cop to police those standards. Of course, what did we do? Instead, the Morrison government presented and passed—rammed through this parliament—a rehash of a failed attempt at legislation from 2014, in the Tony Abbott PM era. In fact they were so embarrassed by this legislation, you can only assume, that there wasn't a single member, really, prepared to speak on behalf of that legislation. Instead, the government chose the actions of gagging debate and circumventing the consideration in detail stage, where amendments were pre-empted. The government should be ashamed of their behaviour that day. That is not how you manage the environment, not how you be a good custodian of the environment.
This is an issue Australians care deeply about. We are people blessed with abundant nature. We're famous for our unique wildlife, from iconically cute koalas to dangerous—I would say infamously dangerous—snakes, spiders, sharks and crocs. In my electorate of Warringah, a survey of constituents revealed that the protection of our natural environment, and the climate, is the No. 1 concern, and I would say it is not the only electorate where that is the case. It is echoed in many electorates across the country. It should be a primary consideration. We hear a lot of facts and figures that the government wants to claim credit for—accomplishments it wants to boast about. Let's talk about some of the real facts we have on the table when it comes to protecting the environment. Since enacting the EPBC Act, we've had 1,890 species listed as threatened. Four species per decade, on average, are going extinct. Native animals are being preyed upon by feral cats, which are in 99 per cent of Australia. We've got animals whose habitats are being wiped out by land clearing. We have a horrendous rate of land clearing in Australia. Approximately 44 per cent of Australian forests and woodlands have been cleared since European settlement. We have animals that have been decimated by the scorching blazes of the summer. Over three billion animals perished or were displaced. So protecting our environment is now more critical than ever.
I've been inundated with correspondence from people, in Warringah but also in many other electorates, who are worried about the environment. They want stronger environmental laws, not weaker ones. So it was really a horrendous day when the government chose to push through weak laws, and now those bills are sitting there unpassed because they haven't even been put through the Senate. There was really limited consideration of the Samuels report. The devolution model proposes a high degree of risk. That was completely ignored, of course, on promises that more legislation is coming. But, really, what faith can we have?
We saw recently the government's lack of commitment to addressing rapid biodiversity loss at the UN leaders pledge on biodiversity. Prime Minister Scott Morrison said earlier this month that his government would not sign up to this pledge. He said he was not signing the country up to the commitments to reverse biodiversity loss because the plan was inconsistent with existing policy. Sixty-four countries signed up to the pledge to protect 30 per cent of land and sea area by 2030 in an effort to reduce the rapid deterioration of biodiversity. But, no, Australia, the US, Brazil, China and Russia refused to sign. They're not facts to be proud of. We were lonely companions amongst environmentally recalcitrant nations. I think it's symbolic of the government's approach to environmental protection, and I urge the Morrison government to do more.
I want to start by echoing the sentiments of the Minister for the Environment, who responded to the matter of public importance raised by the member for Clark this afternoon; in particular, the point that we welcome this opportunity to talk about the outcomes, policies and measures of the Morrison government in stewarding our environment, because they go to the core of who we are as a Liberal government. As a Liberal government, we understand responsibility; in fact, liberalism is anchored by the principles of responsibility and empowerment and handing to future generations an economy as prosperous as the one we inherited, a society as united as the one we inherited, and an environment that's as healthy as the one we inherited.
The one question I do have to ask is whether the Leader of the Greens is going to be speaking on this motion, and I suspect he will. This government, our party and our record, has been consistent in supporting the environment as part of advancing this forward-looking nation. As the minister outlined, we were the party that established a minister for the environment. The minister left one thing off the list. John Howard's government established the Australian Greenhouse Office, something no doubt the Greens and others would like to airbrush out of history, particularly when you compare it to the Greens as a political party being founded on a platform to oppose renewable energy investment—and we should never let them forget that.
I was reminded of this the other day when I got an email from Christine Milne AO, a former member of the other place, from the Bob Brown Foundation, with her and the founder of the Australian Greens arguing against more renewable energy investment in Australia and particularly connecting renewable energy from Tasmania to the mainland. It is just despicable. But that's the difference between their approach and ours on this side of the chamber. We are achieving practical outcomes, delivering for the Australian people and taking the community sustainably forward with us. That's compared to the high and lofty rhetoric of our political opponents, not just those in the opposition party but those in other parties and, at times, Independents, who like to talk the talk but have no practice in reality at walking the walk.
We see this critically in the area of climate change, where our government took targets to the last election and the one before it to deliver outcomes by 2020 and 2030, and we are in the process of developing those for 2050. Compare that to our political opponents, who set lofty ambitions of what they wanted to achieve by 2030, but you do not hear them utter a word about it anymore. In fact, they now talk about targets so far outside their control they're guaranteed to make sure they are never held to account—that's for any single person sitting in this chamber. It's an abrogation of their responsibility. They like to talk the talk, but they are not interested in the delivery.
What we have focused on at every point is how we transition the Australian economy to take Australians with us by making sure we deliver not just with the targets but with practical outcomes and investment to make sure the improvement in the environment is realised. Whether it is the $1.9 billion reef plan, whether it's our investment in the Antarctic, whether it's the investment in ARENA, whether it's the investment in the CEFC or whether it's small-scale investments throughout the country to transition different parts of the economy in agriculture and energy—no matter where it is—we are there and contributing every step of the way.
We saw this only last night in this chamber with the Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management trying to pass legislation in this very parliament to modernise our recycling sector. That's important legislation which will lead to more investment to critically address some of the issues we've had around the volume of exported materials that can be recycled here, creating jobs and investment in our great country. And what was the political response? It should have been for our opponents to support it every step of the way and stand up and speak in favour of it. Instead, they frustrated it and obstructed it at every point. It took hours to pass through this parliament and for no reason other than political vanity from our political opponents because they simply have no plan of their own in comparison to the concrete measures we are implementing every day as part of the legacy of this government.
[by video link] This government has a list of achievements that no-one would be proud of. If species extinction was an Olympic event, Australia would sadly be getting a podium finish under this government. Because our environment laws are so weak, Australia has become a global leader in species extinction. We've got environment laws that are so weak that they don't protect animals and they don't protect our environment. But, also, our environment laws are so weak that they don't protect our First Nations heritage either. Under our environment laws and with this environment minister, we've seen the destruction of the Juukan caves. But we've also seen, recently, under this government—approved by the federal Liberal government and carried out by the Victorian Labor government—the chopping down of sacred Djab Wurrung birthing trees in Victoria. That is how weak our environment laws are: they lead to massive extinction and they allow the destruction of natural and Indigenous heritage.
One of the things that the government could do, if it wanted to, is to put in place some strong standards. That's what has been recommended to it by the independent review: a cop on the beat and some strong national environmental standards. The government doesn't want to do that. Instead, the government bowls up legislation which hands off power to make decisions to the very same state governments that the laws are meant to protect us from. It has been state governments who've been responsible for much of the environmental destruction in this country, and we need strong national standards to keep those rogue state governments, which are very often in the pockets of the developers, in line.
But there's some good news. As we've watched significant rates of species extinction and seen, here in Australia, the first mammal climate extinction event, with the extinction of the Bramble Cay melomys, it can be easy, at times, to feel despondent and that the task is too hard. But we are seeing some very good news as well, due to the global climate movement. Climate change is, of course, one of the biggest threats to biodiversity that we've seen. One of the biggest threats to our flora and fauna is from rising temperatures and the fires that we saw burn several billion creatures last summer and take out large parts of our natural environment. What we're now seeing is the global environment movement starting to step up and take action. And our trading partners are listening, even if Australia is not. As a result of decisions taken by Japan, Korea and China, who have all committed to net zero emissions targets, three-quarters of Australia's thermal coal exports are now going to go. Once those targets kick in, 75 per cent of Australia's coal exports, which go to those three countries alone, will not have a home. So we are seeing action on the coal front. In response to the environmental movement and people wanting climate action, we are seeing other countries starting to phase out their use of coal.
But we are seeing this government sitting on its hands and ignoring the reality—the reality that coal now has a limited future. What we should be doing is planning to support coal workers and communities as other countries transition out of thermal coal. I repeat: just three countries alone having now committed to net zero targets means that three-quarters of our coal exports are on borrowed time and will be at zero at some point very soon. Now, that will be good news for the environment, but we need to look after the communities and the coal workers who are currently being sold false hope by the government and being told a lie. The government tells them that coal will remain in the system for decades to come. Labor says the same thing. But it is simply not true. And if you don't want to listen to the Greens, listen to what our trading partners are saying: they don't want it anymore. We need to give our coal communities a future for when the rest of the world tells us to stop digging, because that day is now coming.
That is why we need not just strong environment laws but a green new deal. We need a plan of government-led investment and action to provide decent, meaningful jobs for people in coal communities in this country—jobs in manufacturing; jobs restoring our transmission lines; jobs building new public housing. That is what a green new deal and strong environmental protection and looking after workers and communities looks like.
Like the minister and the member for Goldstein, it is my great pleasure to talk on this MPI today and to talk about the record of Liberal-National governments when it comes to environmental management, because, like them, I would pit the record of the practical achievements of Liberal-National governments when it comes to managing the environment against the virtue-signalling and grandstanding of Labor, the Greens and the Independents any day of the week. Those opposite are all talk and no action.
Many of the great environmental achievements in our nation to protect, preserve and value our environment occurred under Liberal, not Labor, governments and not the Greens or Independents. It was the Menzies government that signed the Antarctic Treaty, preserving that pristine environment for future generations. It was John Gorton who established the Office of the Environment and who banned drilling and mining on the Great Barrier Reef. It was the McMahon government that appointed the first Minister for the Environment, Peter Howson. It was the Fraser government that banned whaling in Australian waters, a coalition government that declared the Great Barrier Reef a marine park, a coalition government that banned sand mining on Fraser Island and that made Kakadu and south-west Tasmania World Heritage areas. It was the Howard government that established the mandatory renewable energy target in 2000 that created incentives for investment in renewable energy. It was the Howard government that established the climate action partnership between Australia and the United States, that initiated collaboration on climate change with Japan and that signed bilateral climate change agreements with China, New Zealand and the European Union. It was the Howard government that established the Natural Heritage Trust, and it was the Howard coalition government that established the Australian Greenhouse Office. It was a coalition government—not Labor, not the Greens and not Independents—that passed the first Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. We are the custodians on this side of the chamber for that legislation that has guided the environmental management of our nation. It was the Howard government that increased the green zones in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park from five per cent to 33 per cent, the world's largest representative network of protected marine parks. It was coalition governments that took direct action that enabled us to meet and beat Australia's Kyoto emissions targets when so many other nations around the world were failing to meet the same targets, despite all of their big talk. They weren't meeting their targets, but this coalition government was just getting on with doing it. It was our government that set the new Paris aligned target of 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. It is our government now that is on track to meet and beat this 2030 target. Finally, it is this coalition government—not Labor, not the Independents, not the Greens—that established the position of a dedicated assistant minister for waste reduction, who is here in the chamber, who yesterday passed Australia's first Recycling and Waste Reduction Act, the first such act that Australia has seen, despite, as the member for Goldstein said, the political games of those opposite, who sought to simply obfuscate and delay its package with silly political games. It is the priority of the Labor members, of the Greens and of the Independents to play those silly games. We on this side of the chamber, coalition governments, are happy just to get on with protecting and managing our environment.
It is Labor and their mates in the Greens that are the prophets of environmental doom and gloom and of crisis and emergency and that are the foretellers of death and destruction, yet when they are in government, what is it that they achieve for all of this rhetoric that they give to the Australian people? They give us broken promises on a carbon tax, a scheme that, for all their grandstanding, the Greens failed to support. The give us pink batts. They give us recycling and clunkers for cash. Labor members gave us targets at the last election that were uncosted. They had no idea of how many jobs of Australians it was going to cost to achieve those targets. Now they would say to everyday Australians that they are environmental vandals just for lighting their gas stove or expecting cheap and reliable energy to see their goods manufactured or their businesses survive. Everyday Australians won't wear the rhetoric of the Labor members opposite. They know they don't have to choose, either the environment or the economy. They know that this coalition government will both protect and manage our environment and protect and manage our economy and keep Australians in jobs.
I want to talk about a very important environmental issue to begin with, and that is the Murray-Darling river system. It is a classic case of tragedy of the commons. At any given point in time there is only so much water in the system. The water resources are divided up by a series of allocations, and the problem is that more water has been allocated than the river system can actually sustain. This is a fundamental problem that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan sought to solve, and, as climate change is reducing the long-term flows in the river system, the problem is only getting harder to solve.
There are two main ways the plan seeks to achieve a solution. First, the government, via the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, buys water to ensure the river continues to flow and that the river system gets enough water so that the ecosystem does not collapse. This has proven to be the most cost-effective way to keep water in the system. The other way the government hopes to keep water in the river is by building infrastructure to manage the water more efficiently. This is far, far more expensive to the government, but more palatable to the large corporate water users, who do not want to see any water leave the market.
In 2015 the federal government caved in to pressure from the large corporate irrigators and introduced a 1,500 gigalitre cap on buying back water, deciding to prioritise funding for infrastructure projects instead. However, the government have not even reached that cap; they are deliberately going slow. I am calling for the 1,500 gigalitre cap on buybacks to be recovered as a matter of urgency. The quickest, cheapest and most efficient way of recovering water is by immediately reinstating voluntary water licensing buybacks through an open and transparent tender system. Without this, the Murray-Darling Basin, the river, is doomed to a slow death.
I've got the end of the river in my electorate. We have the most vulnerable part of the river. We don't want to see this plan fail. In recognition of our vulnerability, leading up to the 2018 by-election in Mayo, I called upon the federal government and South Australian government to establish an institute in the region. Such an institute would be dedicated to research on how we make the river more resilient and how we look at and manage salinity, wetlands, ecosystems and nutrient levels to provide real-time summaries on the ecological condition. It's hard to believe that we don't have this at the end of the river. Whether it's emails, letters or feedback to many community forums, the environment would have to be in the top three topics of concern raised with me as the federal member at every single forum. Every day I get emails about the environment. The nation is genuinely concerned about how we are managing such a finite resource.
I voted against the government's plans with respect to the EPBC Act. This absolutely devastated my community. I can't believe the way the government rushed through that bill, not allowing the member for Warringah to even put forward the amendments that she had, very good amendments. She didn't even get the opportunity to speak to those amendments. Change should not be rushed, especially when there's a strong case for further inquiry and establishment of appropriate safeguards. On streamlining approvals for the bill, because what we've already had was just a temporary position, particularly just with an initial review, we don't have a final review and yet the government is determined to change the EPBC Act without any due diligence by this parliament. Professor Graeme Samuel is conducting the final review. He released an interim report, but the government only cherrypicked what it wanted out of that report. It must be heartbreaking, if you are someone such as Graeme Samuel, to do all of this work and then have your work cherrypicked for what is really for the benefit of corporate Australia, certainly not for the benefit of the environment.
Centre Alliance will continue to be very concerned with respect to the EPBC Act. We will continue to be very concerned with respect to the management of the river. South Australia has the most to lose if we don't get the Murray-Darling Basin Plan right. I think South Australia has the most to lose if we don't get the EPBC Act right. This parliament can't do that. We are custodians for the next generation of our environment. We are here to protect the environment for the next generation and we really need to do a much better job in this place of working together for the benefit of the environment and not for the benefit of corporate Australia
We live in a great country. Australia is unique in many different ways. It's definitely the best country in the world, and one of the reasons why it is the best country in the world is our wonderful environment. Our weather is brilliant. We have such a good environment. In 2011, before I came into this place, I had the privilege of travelling right around the country in a caravan for six months with my young family at the time. We really have a wonderful country. In fact, I went to the member for Mayo's electorate, to Kangaroo Island, and was out spotting echidnas and koalas with the kids. It was a great time.
I, as a federal member of the Coalition, love the environment, and Liberal-National governments have done a lot for the environment over the years. It was a Liberal-National government, federally, that created the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act back in 1999. It was a Liberal-National government that achieved World Heritage listing for the Great Barrier Reef, way back in 1981. It was a Liberal-National government that established the world's largest representative network of protected marine parks. It was a Liberal-National government that created the position of Minister for the Environment and elevated that position to cabinet, and it was a Liberal-National government that, just yesterday, passed the nation's first recycling bill in this House, under the assistant minister for recycling—the first in a federal government.
We've also announced the biggest single investment made in Australia's Commonwealth national parks, with millions put into tourism and infrastructure and creating more jobs—Indigenous rangers and jobs in remote communities. We've also invested an additional $216 million, pledged last year, to upgrade and remediate the Kakadu National Park, which I've been to as well; it's a wonderful place. We've also invested $1.9 billion over a decade to implement the Reef 2050 plan, which includes funding to improve water quality, manage the crown-of-thorns starfish and reduce marine debris pollution. This is an unprecedented investment, and what do we get from those opposite when this happens? We've given the money to the wrong group, whoever it is. But the fact is a lot of money has been put into the environment.
Let me say as well: the Liberal National Party shadow minister Mr David Crisafulli has committed $80 million—and you'll know this, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta—for protected areas in Queensland over the next four years. That's $20 million a year under Deb Frecklington and the LNP, if they're elected this weekend. To put that into perspective, the Labour Party, the current Palaszczuk government, is putting $1.5 million a year into it.
In my own electorate, we're doing a lot for the environment. There are lots of tree plantings going on. Five years ago we put tree planting into Clontarf, Griffin and North Lakes. Those melaleucas are now five metres high. People are concerned about koalas, particularly in the city, because of dogs, roadkill and so forth. I would say to the people in my electorate who are concerned about koalas: look at the LNP's plan before you vote this weekend. There's $80 million for protected areas, including koala conservation, which is $20 million per year, compared to $1½ million this year under the Palaszczuk government.
We're also doing a lot with climate change, as you know, Deputy Speaker. Australia's emissions are down 12 per cent today, compared to 15 years ago, per capita. If you want to go back to 1990, we're down 41 per cent. That's a 41 per cent emissions reduction compared to 39 years ago. We've also signed the Paris Agreement. We've got a commitment of 26 to 28 per cent by 2030. We will meet that target, just like we met our Kyoto target, yet those opposite don't even have a target and those on the crossbench, in their irrelevance, just say we're not doing enough—not all of them, but some of them. The fact is: when you look at what we're doing on climate change, we're doing a lot.
Let me just mention electric vehicles and charging. A lot of people are driving EVs, and the number will only continue to grow. The Morrison government has invested $21 million into electric vehicle charging, for those wanting to make the switch to EVs, and we're doing that without killing jobs in our traditional mining sectors. Only the Liberal and National parties will protect the environment, create more jobs and look after Australia's future.
I'm proud to represent a region endowed with diverse and beautiful geography, with mountains, rivers and fertile lands. We are rich with national and state parks, wetlands, rivers, grasslands and abundant fields, fauna and flora—from the grass trees in the Warby Ranges to orchids in the Chiltern state park. We are rich in cultural heritage too. These are the lands of the Waywurru, Dhudhuroa, Bangerang and Taungurung peoples. Where I live, in Wangaratta, the signs of the Bangerang people abound. Rings trees, canoe trees and birthing trees signal that these are lands that are abundant in food, water and spirit. These custodians have protected our environment for tens of thousands of years, and frankly I find it a bit rich when the member for Ryan says people here on the crossbench and in other places are all talk and no action. That's coming from someone who's coming from the city of Brisbane, from a small electorate of 370 square kilometres, I believe.
I'm representing 29,000 square kilometres of magnificent natural environment, and that natural environment drives our local economy: tourism, food and fibre, forestry, viticulture, agriculture, timber processing and manufacturing. Our great outdoors attracts visitors for skiing, trail running, kayaking, caving, bushwalking and camping. We have internationally renowned wine and gourmet food growing in our rich, fertile valleys. We have skin in the game. The protection of the environment is inseparable from regional prosperity, our jobs, our economy—our way of life. Our fresh air, clear skies and majestic beauty have not happened by accident. The relationship between conservation, regeneration, protection from invasive species, and agriculture and productive land use is one we live every single day.
The importance of the environment to my constituents is why I, as an independent MP, will scrutinise any attempt by any government and, in this case, this government to water down its protection. Today we are debating the government's approach to the protection of the environment. We only need to look at the actions of the government at the beginning of September to answer this question. On that awful night, the government guillotined debate and rammed through its EPBC amendment act—and, as the member for Clark pointed out so acutely, for what point? It's still sitting in the Senate undebated. This started the process of taking the Commonwealth out of environmental approvals, which would leave states and territories as the sole approver for projects.
I opposed the bill on the basis that it was rushed, that consultation had not concluded and that the protections recommended by the review's interim report were not included. And I say this as someone who has 50 per cent of the water going into the Murray-Darling Basin coming from Indi: there was no chance to debate the water trigger. I also supported the member for Warringah's well-founded amendments. There was no chance to debate those either. But on that night the government silenced all debate. This is a government who say they are worthy custodians of our environment. This is the government who quite rightly told us they introduced the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act many years ago. I think their forefathers would be rather disgusted by the fact that there was no opportunity to discuss that very act.
If that night in September is anything to go by then I fear this will happen again the next time the House considers environmental protection. If that's the case then I want to make some more points right now. Firstly, we can't rush the EPBC Act. It's flagged to get a major overhaul. It will affect projects for generations to come, and we need to get it right. We need robust environmental laws for the sake of our way of life. If we don't have strong protections, what would happen to heritage towns like Beechworth and Chiltern? Could we still keep our alpine resorts pristine by warding off inappropriate development? These environments are key to Mansfield, Bright and Myrtleford and to their economies too. And how could we protect our incredible natural environment that brings in billions of dollars in tourism in our magnificent alpine areas in Buxton and Taggerty or our wetlands in Yea and Winton? We need these assets protected. Protecting our environment creates jobs, and we have a small army of biologists, conservationists and heritage workers employed to do great work under a solid environment protection act.
Climate change poses an immediate threat to our environment and tourism and agriculture systems too, and we need meaningful action on climate change now. I support the member for Warringah in her bid to have the Climate Change Bill 2020 debated in this House. I commend her for her leadership. Likewise, the work from our electorate is strong and important for our environment.
I travel around my electorate of Cowper. Everyone here knows that it is the most beautiful electorate in Australia, from Port Macquarie up to Coffs Harbour, with the beautiful valleys of Macleay and Nambucca in between and the plateaus of Dorrigo. I speak to all the schoolchildren and with people in the street, and we talk about the environment and what we as a government are doing, but I always bring it back to thinking globally and acting locally. That is what I've been trying to do as a first-term backbencher, in talking to people and in understanding what they want—thinking globally but acting locally.
I'm very pleased to say that this government has helped my electorate locally. I'll look at the beautiful Solitary Islands Marine Park, just north of Coffs Harbour: the marine park is home to more than 550 species of reef fish, over 90 species of hard coral and is dotted with islands. It brings in an estimated annual economic value of about $1.3 million to the region. One way our government has been enhancing the protection of this park is through the Communities Environment Program. The Dolphin Marine Conservation Park, which is an iconic business in Coffs Harbour—it's been there for decades—received a $20,000 grant from our government to help marine wildlife and improve conservation education.
On 10 September, I had the great pleasure of meeting up with one of the scientists there from Dolphin Marine Rescue and five local schoolkids to release two green sea turtles at Diggers Beach, just north of Coffs Harbour. It was great fun. We got in the water and let these well-advanced turtles go. It was one of the great experiences I've had not only in this place but growing up as a country boy. Given that, globally, the population of green sea turtles are on the decline, it was great to be able to release these two turtles back into the wild. The kids who attended were part of EcoGrom, an education program run by Dolphin Marine Rescue for children interested in marine biology.
It would be remiss of me not to talk about the government's approach to the protection of the environment in light of the black summer fires. In my electorate of Cowper, fires burned across the very dry landscape from about September to February 2020. In response, it was environment minister Sussan Ley who came up immediately after with the Treasurer and the Threatened Species Commissioner, Dr Sally Box. In response to those fires, the environment minister provided an initial investment of $50 million on that day. Among those other measures, up to $25 million was provided to national resource management groups in bushfire affected areas to carry out emergency interventions, $7.5 million was provided for on-ground wildlife rescue and $5 million was provided for Greening Australia to reseed native vegetation in areas destroyed by bushfire. In May, our government committed a further $150 million to bushfire affected regions to prevent extinction and limit the decline of native species. This took our government's investment in bushfire recovery for native wildlife and their habitat to $200 million. So again, when I talk about thinking internationally but acting locally, this is what our government is doing for me and for my constituents for Cowper locally.
The government are concerned about the environment and continue to invest. I was very pleased to be part of the government's stance to reduce waste and increase capacity in Australia's waste and recycling industry, through the $1 billion transformation of our waste and recycling industry, and I will continue to work both here and at home to ensure that we continue to do the good work.
In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Hindmarsh on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed.
The question is that the motion be disagreed to.
I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the Manager of Opposition Business claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes—one of the worst I've had.
Honourable members interjecting—
Yes, that bad.
You may proceed.
During the MPI, the member for Petrie said that the Liberals had established the world's largest network of marine parks. Given that I established them, this means the member for Petrie has called me a Liberal. It's an extraordinary claim to make. It was under the Gillard government that we established the world's largest network of marine parks, and it was under the Liberals that they cut them in half.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to give my speech in continuation. As I was saying earlier, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Consumer Law—Country of Origin Representations) Bill 2020 and the amendment that has been moved by the member for Burt are very important, because what the current legislation had was that they wanted bar codes on there which would show every little ingredient in the pharmaceutical goods or the vitamins or whatever the pharmaceutical company was producing to actually show where it had come from, in order to get their certification as being Australian manufactured. As I said earlier, and as the member for Burt said, in some cases you have to source the product from overseas. It doesn't exist here. It doesn't actually grow here or it's not made here or whatever. It would be a pity if, because of this one small ingredient or something that would be impossible to source here in Australia, some of these industries wouldn't get the certification that is required.
We know that people, consumers, like to know where their products have come from, where they have been made and where they have been manufactured. In this case, the majority of the manufacturing or the putting together of ingredients is done here in Australia, and they do it very well. In fact, as we heard, the industry employs over 30,000 people and it is a $5 billion industry. Why would we jeopardise it? Why would we have legislation that goes way too far and that perhaps is a motivator for these companies to go offshore and decide they might as well produce their whole product offshore?
As I said, an example would perhaps be Arnott's Biscuits, which are in my electorate, and I mentioned them earlier, who produce Tim Tams. They are made in my electorate, in Marleston. They are Australian made. They employ over 200 people at the Marleston factory. It is an iconic product that all Australians know. It is exported all around the world, including to the US and Europe. There is one particular ingredient that they cannot source here in Australia and that is the product that makes chocolate—cacao. It is just impossible to source here. They can only get it from Africa. It was explained to me when I did a tour of that factory. Wouldn't it be a pity to take away that iconic branding that they have that they are made in Australia because they cannot source a particular small ingredient?
It is the same with this particular industry. In fact, Blackmores submitted to the inquiry that was taking place on country-of-origin labelling from the beginning that the proposed changes would damage this thriving Australian industry and hurt Australian jobs. They also said that they believed that the regulations and amendments that have already been introduced should be maintained, which is a good thing, with no further action or information statement required. That's because complementary medicines are not foods. They are basically therapeutic medicines. So companies like Blackmores and many others value-add to the research and development. They are advanced manufacturers and they are employing people here in this country putting their products together and selling them here in Australia.
There are many, many examples. For example, another iconic industry in my electorate is Rossi Boots. They are Australian made. They are one of the last bootmakers left in Australia. They source most of their products from Australia, but there is a particular product that they cannot source here and that is the ingredient that makes the colouring to colour the boots and other products that they make. They have been selling a brand which is iconic for over 100 years in my electorate. Wouldn't it be a pity to take away from them that brand which is so celebrated, that we still have a bootmaker that produces boots? It would be far cheaper for them to go offshore and produce them somewhere else around the world if they couldn't say they were Australian made because they sourced a particular product overseas that goes into the colouring which they cannot source here. There are many, many other examples. RM Williams is another one we heard about last week. Twiggy Forrest has just bought the company, keeping it in Australian hands. It's a good, iconic product that is sold here in Australia.
As I said, the Australian public demand to know what is in their products. They want to know if it is Australian made and they want to know where it has come from. In this case, these products are manufactured here. Most of the ingredients are sourced here in Australia. But when they cannot source a particular ingredient I think we should be lenient with those industries. Here's a classic example where the industry would be hurt if this barcoding continues and they can't get that specification.
You can go on forever about Australian made products. Another area in Australia is service. We could perhaps in the future look at service industries actually having a brand or a logo that says something like, 'This particular bank that you are doing business with is not offshoring work overseas for call centres and settlement of properties et cetera; it's all being done here in Australia.' I think the Australian public should have the right to know that. At the point of signing a particular contract for a service industry, the consumer should be told that there is a chance, or a likelihood, that their information will be going overseas. It is in the fine print in the contract but it's too small and too detailed for people to notice it or look into it. If we had a logo for the service industry—like an Australian Made logo—I reckon you'd find that we would be able to create more jobs here. It'd be an incentive for some of these industries to keep their services here in Australia instead of offshoring and going overseas. And the examples go on and on. Informative labelling telling people where a product is from, where it was manufactured, is extremely important. In this case, we want to keep the pharmaceutical companies that are producing many of these products here in Australia. It's a great industry. It's worth $5 billion and over 30,000 jobs, and we don't want to jeopardise it. And they are doing the right thing. They are manufacturing here in Australia, and that's very important.
I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Consumer Law—Country of Origin Representations) Bill 2020 will make an important range of amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The amendment lays the foundation for Australian made complementary medicines to have robust access to a safe harbour Australian origin claim and access to the 'Australian Made, Australian Grown' logo—the iconic kangaroo in a triangle symbol. The Australian Made claim will help to create the right conditions for Australian manufacturing to continue to grow. This in turn will support the complementary medicine sector's exports, which were valued at over $1 billion last year. This industry is a significant Australian manufacturing success story and supports the employment of around 29,000 people.
We know that businesses are always concerned that, when regulation is introduced, the compliance can be onerous. Regulations made under the changes we are introducing, though, will only apply to those businesses that choose to rely on the test in the new regulation to make an Australian origin claim. If an Australian business does not want to make an Australian origin claim under these reforms—that is, these changes to the act and the creation of a new regulation and information standard—it will not face any additional regulatory burden. Such a business, therefore, will not be required to comply with any currently proposed new labelling requirements.
The bill therefore strikes the right balance between encouraging domestic sales and exports while maintaining consumer confidence in the transparency of Australian origin claims and in the value of the widely recognised 'Australian Made, Australian Grown' logo. I thank members for their contribution to the debate on this very important bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
I want to continue my remarks about the poor standards of aged care in this country and also the piecemeal approach to aged care that this government continues to offer older Australians. When I was elected, the number of those on waiting lists was somewhere around the 70,000 mark—a shocking number—which was too high at the time and which the government has now left to skyrocket to six figures. I note that new data has revealed that there are now 102,000 older Australians still facing a lengthy wait for home care, in my opinion, confirming in crystal-clear data that the Morrison government has failed to respond to the initial findings of the royal commission.
We know the royal commission's interim report described the waiting list for home care as 'neglect' and called for urgent action last year, yet 100,000 Australians are still waiting for care. It is not good enough. Despite a number of splashy and over-the-top announcements for so-called new home-care packages, once again, the Morrison government is found to be delivering big on headlines and announcements but failing to deliver real change for older Australians waiting for care. Putting it simply, there were 100,000 Australians waiting for care when the royal commission called for action, and there are still 100,000 waiting today. The tragic failure of the Morrison government to not better protect older Australians in aged-care homes from COVID-19 will only mean more people will choose to receive care at home.
The home-care packages announced in the budget won't come close to fixing the lengthy waiting list. My question to the government today, to the minister and to the Prime Minister's office, is: how is it acceptable that older Australians in their 90s are waiting for years to receive the care that they have been approved for? Last month officials confirmed more than 30,000 older Australians had died in the last three years while waiting for care packages that they had already been approved for. Those are some a pretty hard-hitting facts, and it's a tragedy that I have to rise in this parliament and speak out for those people who don't have a voice within this government.
Day after day, the evidence mounts of serious neglect in aged care, and all we're seeing from the government is them simply running away, passing the buck and not accepting their own failures. Today I draw the line in the sand and speak out on behalf of aged-care residents and people in desperate need of care packages in my own electorate and call out the government for its neglect. It's quite frankly shocking that the government isn't on its feet every day, trying to look at solutions for this.
In my home state of Queensland, where I represent and talk to older Australians, one of the last things I did before we went into lockdown was host my seniors morning tea in the suburb of Jindalee, at the Jindalee Bowls Club. I put on a morning tea once or twice a year, and hundreds of seniors join me, normally with our local hardworking state member, Ms Jessica Pugh, and members of the Queensland Police Service, for safety tips at home. Once again I was bombarded with residents coming to me to say a loved one, a partner or spouse, was in desperate need of care yet the government was simply ignoring them. Quite frankly, it has simply got worse during the COVID crisis.
The aged-care community of this nation are the legacy holders for our country, and it is the government's responsibility to look after the very people who brought us here today, the people whose work this nation was built on. I'm very proud to represent thousands of seniors in the Oxley community. I speak for them and their families when I say that when I met with them in their homes, pre-COVID, or when I've spoken to them on the telephone during the pandemic and coming out of it there has been fear in their voice and there have been tears in their eyes. It's unacceptable that people at such a vulnerable time in their life are left with literally no hope due to the ridiculous delays in processing these home-care packages.
The Prime Minister says the government wants to help people with 'the choices they want to make about their future', but these figures prove that older Australians have very little choice. Not a single pensioner is choosing not to receive the home-care package they have been approved for, yet that is what the government is forcing them to do. National seniors advocates—respected Australians like Ian Henschke—have said older Australians overwhelmingly want to stay in their homes, which costs the government less than it would to place them in nursing homes. To take a look at the concerns about how this is impacting the community, you need only turn up to any seniors gathering. They will all tell you the same thing: home-care providers are flat chat. And I pay tribute to all of those amazing frontline workers who have continued to provide aged-care services in homes.
There is another issue that I want to place on record today. I represent over 50,000 people who were born overseas or have family from overseas. The lack of non-English-speaking aged-care package support workers is a huge problem. I know the member for Greenway, who represents a diverse community, has had representations from local residents with cultural and language barriers. There's a significant problem in the Vietnamese community that I represent. In the Oxley electorate I represent one of the largest Vietnamese communities in the country, in the suburbs of Darra, Inala and Durack. These are people who helped build those suburbs. They came out with absolutely nothing and have made such a wonderful contribution to our local economy through business endeavours and through support for education and higher education, yet we see a lack of non-English-speaking support services. I know that places additional strain on family structures where there are people with early-onset dementia, who have confusion over language and sometimes return to their first language. It's very difficult for families to coordinate aged-care services. So, once again, I call on the government to look particularly at home-care packages for people from non-English-speaking backgrounds.
As I said, these reforms have done nothing to address the growing home-care package waiting list. Sadly, we know that around 25,000 older Australians have entered residential aged care prematurely in the past two years because they could not access their approved home-care packages. They are 25,000 Australians who wanted to stay in their home but, because those home-care packages weren't available, were, in some cases, removed from their local support networks, whether it was their local GP, their local pensioner club or their neighbours, and placed in a residential aged-care facility. They perhaps couldn't afford to go into it, but it was all that was available. That is an absolute disgrace when, under the Morrison government, Australians were promised choice.
The median waiting time for older Australians going into residential aged care has grown by more than 100 days under the Liberal and National parties—from just one month to a five-month wait. The Productivity Commission's report on government services, released in January this year, pre-COVID, revealed that older Australians waiting for high-level home-care packages are waiting almost three years to get the care they've been approved for. The report also revealed that older Australians are waiting longer, as I've said, to enter residential aged care. The government has made improvements to the transparency of home-care fees, however, home-care recipients are still raising concerns about the rising cost of administrative and daily fees that're deducted from their packages, therefore, impacting on the amount of care hours they receive.
Then finally we come to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety interim report, which was handed down in October last year. The commissioners have already put forward what needs to happen urgently, and yet we are a few months well down the track now and still nothing has taken place. Our seniors need the care they need most in the comfort of their home. We need to end the over-reliance of chemical restraint in aged care. We need to end the unacceptable amount of young people entering residential aged care.
As usual, the government's response to the interim report has been utterly hopeless. The commissioner has recommended urgent action to address the home-care packages waitlist, but the government has only put around 5,500 home-care packages into the system from 1 December last year. As we saw, this is woefully inadequate, as there are more than 100,000 older Australians waiting for their approved home-care package.
I am really pleased that the shadow minister, and member for Franklin, has been highlighting this, alongside our Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, who has given keynote speeches and will continue to hold the government to account on their appalling record when it comes to aged care. I know from consulting with my own local residents; aged-care providers in the Oxley electorate, brilliant aged-care providers who are stretched to the max and having my own lived experience with parents who have lived in residential aged care—point in case with my mother living in aged care for around seven years. She loved the aged-care facility that she was residing in, but due to staffing short cuts she was admitted to hospital with dehydration and malnutrition. That is not a reflection on the level of care that she was given. It was simply they didn't have the resources. She is only one of literally tens of thousands of people who have suffered due to poor care, because this government is not investing and not supporting the aged-care sector.
I'll finish where I began. I am strongly in support of the second reading amendment today to highlight to this House the government's piecemeal approach to aged-care reform. I will continue to keep speaking out for older Australians in the Oxley electorate. I will continue to keep speaking out for older Australians in this country. We need to do better for those who are frail and vulnerable and this government needs to start listening to that message.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Franklin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' are to be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the request in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
I thank the member for Oxley for his contribution to this debate. Unfortunately, it is incumbent upon me to make a number of corrections to the statements that he's made to the House. Firstly, it would occur to the House that many of the statements that he made are inherently contradictory. On one hand he says that because people couldn't get hold of home-care packages they are entering residential aged care sooner than they wanted. On the other hand, he claims that people are coming in to a residential aged-care homes later than they wanted because this government isn't spending enough on aged care. One has to wonder though whether $27 billion is chicken feed to those opposite, because $27 billion of support by the Australian taxpayer seems to me quite a substantial commitment of spending for aged care in this country.
Those opposite continue to say that there are 100,000 people waiting for home-care packages. What they don't point out though is that the overwhelming majority of those people—it fluctuates between 85 and 95 per cent—already have aged-care packages but are simply seeking to get further enhancements to those home-care packages.
The other thing that no-one in this chamber ever says is that so much of the home-care packages that this parliament, that the Australian taxpayer generously provides to those people who wish to stay in their home is, in fact, not care. A lot of it is domestic help. A lot of it is gardening services. A lot of it is cleaning services. In a recent review we found out that a not insubstantial amount of it goes on things like home repairs. There was a constituent of mine who saved up their home-care package so they could use it to get their roof retiled. I am not entirely sure that the Australian taxpayer really believes that this is a proper and fit purpose for their taxes. This bill is all about—
Ms Swanson interjecting—
Maybe those in Paterson believe that, instead of caring for the elderly in their home, caring for the elderly in aged care, it should be used for tiling roofs. Maybe those opposite believe that that is proper and fit care while talking about fact that we don't spend enough on aged care.
I would also mention to those opposite that I have been involved in a number of these debates in this chamber—and the member for Oxley once again alluded to it just before—where they had made claims of, frankly, criminal behaviour by aged-care providers. They are very happy to do that in this chamber with the protection that this chamber provides them. I ask them to step out of this chamber and name those people who've committed criminal acts, because if they believe a scintilla of what they are saying then they should have the courage to do that because those people are still operating in the aged-care sector. If criminal acts have been performed and if they have knowledge of them then I believe they have a responsibility to step outside and to make those claims in public, not under privilege, but they don't. But I note they don't.
Now, those of us who are perhaps too old and too cynical may come to a view that perhaps those claims are made for political purposes rather than the fact that they actually did occur. So I warn those opposite, as I said in an MPI only last week, that the greatest attack on the credibility of this chamber is the creation of myth. If criminal acts are occurring in residential aged-care facilities, if criminal acts are occurring by providers of home-care services, name those people who recommitting those acts of criminality and don't just use it as some convenient political point to be made when talking about aged care. Stop scaring elderly Australians.
This government—
Ms Swanson interjecting—
I say to the member for Paterson once again: if you have knowledge of people who have committed criminal acts, step outside, step outside this chamber and make those claims so that they can be properly investigated by the authorities. But I once again suspect that that won't occur.
The government has introduced the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020 to pay home-care providers after they have paid services to align with current government payments and to ensure a sustainable system as more home-care packages are released and in readiness for future reforms. This bill amends both the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 such that a provider will not receive a payment in advance but will be paid the full monthly subsidy for a home-care recipient upon lodgement of a claim with Services Australia after the end of each month.
This is a sector that I spent 15 years in before entering this place. I have seen the massive changes to residential aged care in that time period. When I started in this sector around the year 2000, many nursing homes resembled Dickensian work houses. The stench of ammonia and urine was very hard to take. People were isolated on one hand and on the other hand they were stuck in rooms with four other people. The provision of services was not great. Around that time, the Howard government introduced reforms to the aged-care sector, and in those reforms they allowed the private sector to enter this system and to provide innovation and money. They also allowed individuals to contribute to their own care. Having done that, we now see the provision of five-star care in residential aged care.
That hasn't stopped those opposite making claims of criminality, without evidence—without the courage to step outside—and without the courage to report those things. We know that, in the last 35 years, the level of care that is provided to Australians who need it has improved beyond our capacity to imagine it 15 short years ago. By the way, probably only seven out of a thousand Australians will find themselves in residential aged care. The vast majority of us will pass from this Earth, will shuffle off this mortal coil, while at home, not in a residential aged-care facility.
But many of the people who are now entering residential aged-care facilities, who have had the capacity to stay in their own homes longer, find themselves entering that care in a frailer state. I know that the member for Oxley can simultaneously claim that people are coming in too soon and that they're coming in too late. We noticed that incoherent proposition that he put to the House. As a matter of fact we know that, actually, because of these home-care packages, people are able to stay in their homes longer. Because of that, they are entering residential aged-care facilities later and the level of care they require is higher; and, because the level of care is higher, the level of spending by the taxpayer and also by the individuals involved in that care is also higher because the provision of care is better and more suited to what they need.
This bill is an important step towards the delivery of an improved home-care system into the future. It's about improving aged care for all senior Australians, which continues to be one of the government's key priorities. We're not about scaring people; we're about telling people in this country that, in their last few years, Australians look after each other. We're not about trying to claim, for political purposes or because our donors make a big fuss, that there's criminal behaviour where there is none. This bill, if passed, will also establish a unified system for the care of our elderly in their homes. It delivers a seamless system of care, tailoring services to the needs of those people in care, not the one-size-fits-all system that we inherited so long ago. Improving care is the goal of this bill; that is the goal of this government's policy. The changes to payments in arrears back our commitment to that goal. The bill continues to ensure that more Australians have access to home care and that those who need it are able to access support quickly, and it prepares the system for important future reforms.
We are delivering record spending to the aged-care system. It was $13.3 billion in 2012-13 under the previous government and it is growing to $23.8 billion in 2021 under this government—under the Liberal Party. It is estimated that funding for aged care will grow to more than $27 billion in 2023-24. Since the 2018-19 budget, the government has spent $4.6 billion for an additional 73,000 home-care packages. It is estimated that home-care packages will have increased from 60,000, when Labor was last in power, last in government, to 185,000 this financial year. That's an increase of 125,000 places. I think that is something that should be celebrated, not ignored and certainly not sneered at. Under this government, in a single year—between 31 March 2019 and 31 March 2020—there has been a 38 per cent increase in the number of people receiving home-care packages. In addition, the number of people in the home-care national prioritisation system, NPS, dropped by 20 per cent in one year, between 31 March 2019 and 31 March 2020.
These are things to be celebrated, not criticised. The current system of home care allows for packages of $8,900 up to $51,900, and this funding has historically been provided in advance to providers. This means that money often sits untouched in providers' bank accounts and has created a rising level of unspent home-care funds. This way of funding differs from how the Australian government ordinarily pays for programs and services. The discrepancy in payment arrangements has been highlighted by the Aged Care Financing Authority and a number of aged-care stakeholders.
In the 2019-20 budget, the Australian government announced improvements to payment arrangements for home-care packages, with services to be paid for as they are delivered. Last year, the Aged Care Financing Authority and the Department of Health undertook extensive consultation on how these changes should be and would be implemented. Initially, the measure was to commence providing home-care payments to providers in arrears in June 2020. On 27 March 2020, the government announced that the implementation of improvements to payment arrangements for home-care packages would be placed on hold due to COVID-19 to ensure the key role of the aged-care sector was to help combat this virus and support older Australians.
This bill will allow home-care payments to be paid to providers in arrears from February 2021, once the bill has passed. The February commencement date will be legislated by proclamation. The initial change requires minimal system and operational changes. Home-care providers will receive the January 2021 advanced payment in mid-December, as per normal for that time of year. This will be the final advance payment. Providers will not receive a February advance in early February but will instead receive the full payment for February when they lodge their February claim in early March. Providers continue to lodge their claims as per normal and with the same information that is currently required.
This government is doing what it takes to make sure that people in their final days, amongst us, live a comfortable and prosperous life. It is not always possible, but we are doing the best we can on behalf of all Australians that wish us to do so.
The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety observed in its interim report that a fundamental overhaul of the design objectives, regulation and funding of aged care in Australia is clearly required. This bill, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020, will not address the issues raised by the royal commission. It will not decrease waiting times, improve affordability of home-care packages or make it easier for older Australians to take control of their own care needs. The purpose of this bill is to change the payment of home care package subsidies to approved providers from one month in advance to one month in arrears. This is a small change, but the broader policy proposal underlying the bill will have implications for both providers and recipients of home-care packages.
Under the current system, home-care providers use an online claiming system to report relevant information to the department, such as gaps in services, where the client has chosen not to receive assistance, due to holidays or alternative family arrangements, or when the client stops receiving home-care altogether as a consequence of a transition into aged-care hospitalisation or indeed passing away.
The system relies on the provider to accurately report on and reconcile funds advanced to them by the government for the care of their consumers and to disclose the unspent funds they hold on behalf of their client because, notwithstanding the limited funds available to consumers in receipt of home-care packages, there are instances where the funds allocated for the care of the client are not spent in their entirety. On these occasions, the funds remain in the approved provider's books to be drawn upon by the client as needed.
In recent years the reporting by providers has revealed a cache of unspent funds. The royal commission heard evidence that the average underspend per person per package was around $6,720 per annum across all four care package levels. They received evidence from leading aged-care services in Australia that in October 2018 a total of $34 million in unspent funds was held by just 17 providers managing just over 6,000 packages. Earlier this year, financial analyst StewartBrown revealed the results of their latest Aged Care Financial Performance Survey, incorporating data from over 34,700 home-care packages. The quarterly survey is a known benchmark of financial performance in the aged-care sector. Their analysis suggests that the biggest single issue of concern in the industry is the level of unspent funds, with the average amount of unspent funds per person now over $7,290, up from $6,720 a year ago. Their analysis also estimates that the total unspent funds on the books of providers across the country may grow to $900 million by the end of the year.
The true case of the unspent funds phenomenon is unclear. Accusations have been levelled at ACAT teams for allegedly assessing clients at a higher level than their genuine need on the premise that an individual is likely to wait 12 to 18 months for a package and, during that time, their health will possibly decline and their reliance on others to address their care needs will increase. Others have suggested it is a consequence of a lack of client awareness on how best to direct their funds or, indeed, a mistaken belief that the funds should be stored away for a rainy day.
The royal commission will consider the reasons behind the causes underlying the growth in unspent funds in their final report, but what concerns me most is the lack of transparency around how these funds are being used. Are clients going without care or with reduced care to enable some unscrupulous home-care providers to apply the subsidy to their own capital expenditure programs? We simply don't know. Whatever the cause or use of the unspent funds may be, the lengthy delays facing over 100,000 people currently awaiting their home-care packages is clear. On the government 's own quarterly report on the national prioritisation system, those in need of a level 4 package, the highest available, will face a wait of at least 12 months, with other reports, such as the Productivity Commission' report on government services, suggesting the wait will be possibly up to even three years.
This bill will not address the delays, but it will potentially improve transparency with respect to how and where these funds are being spent by providers. In the 2019-20 budget, the government indicated that the current reconciliation process was unsatisfactory and set out a suite of reforms to the home-care package system. The bill gives effect to the first stage of reforms, which the government says will improve payment administration arrangements for home-care packages and, in turn, improve financial integrity in aged care.
The reforms as announced form three parts. Part 1 is the bill before the House today which changes the payment of subsidies to providers in advance to arrears. Part 2 would require providers only be paid the subsidy for the goods and services they actually provide to the client rather than receiving the full monthly subsidy amount. Again, this could be paid in arrears rather than in advance, with any unspent package funds for the recipient to be held by the government on behalf of their client. Part 3 would provide for subsidy payments to providers to be reduced by a portion of the unspent package funds for that recipient. There would be no change to the amount paid to approved providers and nor would it change the amounts received by home-care package recipients.
At the request of the government, the Aged Care Financing Authority was tasked with examining the impact of these proposed reforms on the aged-care sector. With respect to part 1—the change from advance payments to arrears payments—the ACFA believes that most providers would likely absorb the short-term cashflow issues without difficulty; however, smaller providers operating in thin or difficult markets and under financial pressure may face challenges in dealing with the change in payment arrangements.
I've spoken to home-care providers in my electorate and am concerned that the transition to payments in arrears will place an undue burden on already struggling providers in locations in my electorate where they provide an essential service to a small number of people within a small community. These providers operate on narrow margins and, if they go under, we are unlikely to see larger providers move into the marketplace, simply because it's not profitable to do so. The profitability of some home-care providers is already in question, with both ACFA and StewartBrown noting that earnings of home-care providers fell by over 60 per cent in the 2018 year and that further declines continued in 2019.
While the government has established a business advisory service operating via PricewaterhouseCoopers that will provide managerial and accounting advice to home-care providers to assist in their transition, it relies on providers recognising that they may have an issue in the first place. I then query what assistance will be provided to those providers who, through no fault of their own, but rather as a consequence of the size or perhaps location of their services, are running on margins that will not manage the transition without some impact on the quality of care provided to their clients. In that instance, I support the recommendation of ACFA to extend short-term financial assistance to these providers. It may be that assistance provided to residential aged-care providers through the Business Improvement Fund could be extended to approved home-care package providers.
While noting that part 2 and part 3 of the reforms are not before the House today, the government must ensure a smooth transition for approved providers, which may require not only financial support but some additional time for providers to adjust to the new system. The government has stated that the proposed reforms will improve financial accountability and allow for better transparency over the actual use of funds for home-care service delivery, and, while I broadly support that statement, I echo the concerns of stakeholders in seeking to ensure that those providers, particularly in rural and regional areas, are provided with support throughout the transitional period. I look forward to working constructively with the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians to ensure measures are in place to identify and support these particular providers through the government's reforms.
Finally, the government's proposed reforms will, in theory, reduce the amount of unspent funds sitting in providers' accounts and, instead, those funds will remain in government coffers. But transferring from one account to another is hardly addressing the inefficiency in the system identified by the royal commission. Redirecting unspent funds back into the system would greatly assist those with unmet needs as a result of funding being assigned at a level at less than assessed need or those waiting for funds to be assigned.
I expect, and my community expects, that the government will reinvest the estimated $900 million per annum in unspent funds to address the delays in the national prioritisation queue while we await the recommendations from the royal commission and the government's subsequent response. The rationing of home-care packages must end, because care should not be based on the funding whims of a government but rather be provided in accordance with assessed need. This should be a basic entitlement for everyone in the aged-care system. I think of the elderly people I've met in my electorate, those in their 90s who have waited more than a year for their aged-care package, and one elderly gentleman saying to me, 'If I'm 93 and I've waited this long, my goodness, who does qualify for an urgent package?'
The importance of the aged-care sector has been on full display this year. Australia knows the Morrison government is committed to delivering quality care for senior Australians, particularly with our increasing commitment to home aged care—something senior Australians tell us they want. They want to be in their home for longer and for a safer period of time. This bill is an important step towards the delivery of an improved home-care system in future.
This bill has been introduced so that home-care providers are paid after they have provided services, rather than in advance, as is currently the case. This brings the payment practice in line with current government payments and, indeed, standardised practice in the private sector. The current system of home care allows for packages of $8,900 up to $51,900, and this funding has historically been provided in advance to providers. This means that money often sits untouched in providers' bank accounts and has created a rising level of unspent home-care funds.
With senior Australians increasingly choosing to remain in their own homes for longer, and the government committed to supporting this choice, this bill is important to ensuring taxpayers' money goes to delivering the services for which it is intended. Since the 2018-19 budget, the government has invested $4.6 billion for an additional 73,105 home-care packages. Home-care packages are estimated to increase from 60,000 in 2012, when we came to government, to 185,000 in the 2020-21 budget. That is a tripling of home-care packages. The 2020-21 budget includes the delivery of 23,000 home-care packages, at a cost of $1.6 million, in addition to the 6,105 packages already announced in July at a cost of $325 million.
As a government, we want to ensure the long-term sustainability of the aged-care sector. This is why we are introducing this change. Moving to payment in arrears backs our commitment to continuing to ensure that more Australians have access to home care, and that those who need it are able to access support quickly, and it prepares the system for important future reforms. This bill is an important step towards the delivery of an improved home-care system into the future to support our senior citizens.
The Morrison government is cognisant that these changes may impact the cash flows of some providers. We plan to assist this to ensure a smooth transition. In fact, the change was initially due to start in June 2020. However, in March, when COVID-19 hit, we announced that the implementation of improvements to payment arrangements for home-care packages would be placed on hold during the crisis. This was to ensure that the key focus of the aged-care sector was to help combat this virus and support older Australians. With COVID-19 now under control, it's time to introduce this important change.
The Aged Care Financing Authority has assessed that the vast majority of providers would be able to accommodate the cash-flow impact of the change in payment arrangements due to either unspent funds on hand or access to capital. The change is now set to come into effect in February 2021. At the same time, financial support will be on offer to some providers during the transition. We want to make sure that we help providers get to the other side of this crisis as well as get to the other side of the transition to a modernised payment system. Home-care providers will also be able to apply to the government's free business advisory service for advice on managing their finances.
Improving aged care for all Australians continues to be one of the government's key priorities. We are delivering a record investment across the aged-care sector—growing from $13.3 billion in 2012-13 under Labor to $23 billion in 2020-21 under the Morrison government. It is estimated that funding for aged care will grow by a further $4 billion, to $27 billion, by 2023-24. Every Australian knows that we have an ageing population. Every Australian knows that, as the baby boomers get older, we are going to need to provide more support for them. Australia is certainly not alone in that regard; every developed country has an ageing population. Senior Australians are increasingly choose to remain in their own homes for longer. The government is committed to supporting this choice—and even more so through the COVID crisis, with more than $746 million committed to aged care through the COVID response measures as part of the $1.6 billion in COVID-specific support in aged care.
I'd like to make a few remarks about the government's response to the COVID crisis and our support for the aged-care sector through this period. Although no country has been able to prevent aged-care communities from bearing the brunt of COVID deaths, Australia has done better than most—despite the community outbreak in Victoria, which now, I'm proud to say, is fully under control. Compared to other countries, our fatality rate for those in aged care is one of the lowest in the world, at around 0.1 per cent. By comparison, Canada's aged-care sector reports a death rate that is 15 times higher, Ireland's and Italy's 30 times higher and the UK's 53 times higher. We should also take solace from the fact that the vast majority of facilities in Australia have had no deaths from COVID and over 90 per cent in Victoria have had no cases of COVID. Compared to the international experience, it appears that, for the most part, we've kept COVID out of aged care.
It's also important to know that, when community transmission took hold in Victoria, there was a very rapid pivot to resources being sent directly to Victoria. We already had a national plan for aged care that had been in place and constantly updated as the COVID crisis hit Australia. But I'm proud to say that the Victorian Aged Care Response Centre was rapidly deployed to ensure that there was a person in charge in every aged-care centre that was connected back to the federal government and that our resources were made available. In particular, significant amounts of resources in the form of PPE were made available at a very rapid rate. Knowing that COVID had a predilection for the aged and infirm, the federal government acted swiftly and early to implement the world's best practices, to keep our senior citizens safe. Locally, aged-care providers in Higgins were aware a community outbreak may have devastating consequences for their residents. They acted early. And I spoke to many, if not all, of my CEOs in the seat of Higgins.
We know that locals were finding it very difficult because the local aged-care providers knew that they had to change visitation rules to minimise contact of residents with outside visitors. This was actually incredibly heartbreaking for families. I heard so many stories of residents who were suffering from dementia who were unable to see their families, and many people wrote to me about their fear that their parents may die without seeing people they'd loved and known in the previous weeks. It has been a very, very difficult period over the last few weeks and months during this lockdown period. I know that my constituents understood that these measures were necessary to keep their loved ones safe, but that is not to underestimate how significant that was. If you had a mother or a father who had dementia whom you were unable to visit, the lack of stimulation from the lack of family visits may have had a very significant impact, with a decrease in their cognitive ability over that period of time. It was heartbreaking to hear these stories and for families to know that they may not see their loved ones again as they were ageing and perhaps dying—not necessarily because of COVID—without seeing their families in those critical weeks and months at the end of their lives.
Unlike the Morrison government, delivering quality care for senior citizens does not appear to be a priority for Labor. In fact, the opposition leader's budget in-reply speech made no mention of or commitment to funding home care. There was no support for staff and nothing on quality and safety. It was quite surprising to me that that wasn't in the budget in-reply speech. Perhaps there's more to be heard.
The Morrison government has delivered and will continue to deliver on aged care. We had done so before COVID, we are now delivering during COVID and we will deliver as we move out of COVID. This bill aligns home-care payments with other government payments and ensures a sustainable system as more home-care packages are released in readiness for future reforms.
I would just like to say a few words, now that Victoria has managed to contain COVID. I know that my constituents are looking forward to being able to see their loved ones again. I know they are looking forward to being able to join in family celebrations, to return to having weddings and funerals, to visit their loved ones in hospital—to get back to life again. And I know that businesses are celebrating the opportunities to open up again.
It's been an incredibly tough and long winter. It's been an incredibly tough and long lockdown in Victoria. But I know that each and every Victorian has done the right thing in order to keep other citizens, as well as their families and their loved ones, safe. I thank them, particularly the constituents of Higgins who have written to me and rung me and provided their stories to explain to me how hard it has been for them, so that I can provide practical support and pragmatic and strong advocacy for them, to make sure that their voices are heard here in parliament but also across the Victorian government response as well.
The aged care sector is in crisis, and it has been for several years. That's why I speak in support of the amendment moved to the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020 by the member for Franklin. When the royal commission was called by this government in to the aged-care sector, the previous aged care minister, the member for Hasluck quite rightly said, 'We don't need a royal commission; we know what the problems are.' When I say 'quite rightly', he was absolutely right with his comments about the fact that with know what the problems are. We knew what the problems were because there have been, in recent decades, over 30 different inquiries into the aged-care sector. Amongst those 30 inquiries there was an inquiry into the Productivity Commission in 2011 and there was an inquiry by the parliamentary Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport that reported to the House in 2018. Both of those inquiries carefully looked into the needs of the aged care sector.
Indeed, I was a member of the health, aged care and sport committee of the parliament that handed down its report with its 14 recommendations in 2018, and I can recall the hearings of that committee throughout the course of the inquiry. A number of people from every sector of society, from the health professionals to the staff within the centres, to residents' families and even to resident operators, highlighted the flaws, the problems and the needs of that sector. And so, when I say the sector is in crisis, it was absolutely clear to me then that it was in need of complete overhaul, or at least of a great deal more support than it was getting. And yet, this government, which has now been in office for seven years, simply fiddles on the edges with respect to the decisions that need to be made.
Indeed, the royal commission for all of its value, is highlighting to date the matters that were already brought to the attention of governments. I see the royal commission as an excuse by this government to simply defer making the necessary commitments that need to be made to the sector. Whilst the royal commission is in progress, the government continuously says that we need to wait for the findings of the commission. I accept that we do, but I also accept that what matters are known to government need to be addressed right now.
Not surprisingly, the royal commission handed down an interim report 12 months ago which called for a number of changes to be made. It was an interim report entitled Neglect. That term alone highlights and says it all with respect to the sector. Regrettably that neglect has continued over the last 12 months since that interim report was handed down. When we look at the number of people who have died as a result of COVID-19—the total deaths around Australia as of the last figure I saw was 905—683 of those were from within the aged care sector. It's a sector where people would have thought there was a level of care going above and beyond what is possible, even at home, and yet it was quite the opposite. For those who were in aged care—and I stress the word 'care', unfortunately, that wasn't to be the case. Some 2,000 of them contracted COVID-19 and, as I said, 683 died. That highlights that not only is the sector in crisis but also that, even since the interim report, very little has been done to change it.
This legislation makes three key changes to the process of making payments with respect to both home support and homecare packages. The first is that the payments will go from advance payments to payments in arrears. The second is that any unspent money will be held by the department and not by the providers of the service, as was previously the case. The third is, if there is unspent funds for a particular package, clearly that package will be reassessed and then the new package will be based on the expenditure incurred. All three appear to be fairly sensible cases, but I do note that as at June 2019 to date, homecare packages, in terms of the money that's been set aside or unspent as a result of payments not being made, was $750 million. I understand that by June 2020, when the figures are released, the figure is more likely to be about a billion dollars.
As other members have pointed out, home-care packages come in four different levels. Yes, it is true that there are over 100,000 people waiting for packages, but some of those people are on lower packages than they have been classified for. The fact that they are on lower packages still means that they have unmet needs. It means that the packages they have been approved for are not being provided to them. So 103,000 people, as I understand it, are still waiting for their approved package. I note the government made a budget announcement of an additional 23,000 packages. What I don't know is over what period of time they will be allocated, how many of those packages have already been added to this year's allocations, how soon they will be rolled out and what level of packages they are. Will they simply be packages that give level 1 support, which for most people is nowhere near adequate, or will they address the real shortage of packages that people are waiting for? Time will tell when the statistics are assessed. Perhaps in 12 months time we'll know just how committed this government is to those 23,000 packages.
It has been rightly pointed out that we live in an ageing society. Indeed, my understanding is that, by the year 2056, 22 per cent of the population will be over 65 years old. Currently the figure is about 15 per cent. Effectively, there will have been a 50 per cent increase in the number of Australians proportionally who will be over 65. Therefore, the need for age services will undoubtedly increase. It's also the case that people are not only living longer but, because of that, are entering residential aged-care facilities at an older age, which means that they enter those facilities at a time in their life when they have greater need. Indeed, my understanding is that of those people in aged care right now over 50 per cent suffer from dementia or dementia related illnesses. That means that the level of care that is needed for them is much greater than it might have been in the past. So for the 220,000-odd people who are in aged care right now, when more than half of them are at a high level of care, it obviously means that the centres providing that care will require more staff and more support services for them. Yet, from the parliamentary inquiry that I participated in, it's clear that the level of allied medical services in particular for many centres is declining—it's not getting higher. It's not improving or getting better; it's declining. Indeed, for many of those centres I understand even GP services are starting to fall back, because GPs find that it is not viable for them to continue to provide the services that they have been providing, so some of them have stopped going into those centres. That creates another problem, because as soon as someone in aged care requires medical support the aged-care operators immediately transfer them to a public hospital, and that in turn clogs up public hospital beds when the level of care could actually have been provided in the aged-care facility had there been access to a GP and to qualified nurses to provide the medical support that was required.
The interim report from the royal commission highlights not only the things that we knew but some of the things that urgently need to be done. I note that counsel assisting the commission has released another 124 recommendations embracing a whole range of human rights principles and an independent process for oversight of the aged-care sector. Both of those matters go to the heart of the issues that were exposed by the committee of this parliament. In particular the aged-care principles and the rights of people within those centres were a real concern to members of the committee, as, I might say, were the oversight principles. In my view, there was insufficient government oversight of many of those facilities. I know that legislation has gone through this parliament to try and improve that, but, again, it appears from the royal commission's reports to date that not much has changed.
There are some 2,700 aged-care providers across Australia, and 1,000 providers—less than 50 per cent of the total providers—responded to the royal commission's service provider survey. They self-reported 274,409 instances of substandard care over a five-year period to the year June 2018. That is 50,000 instances of substandard care being reported per year. I don't know what the total numbers would be if all providers had responded to that survey, but 274,000 suggests to me that the figure would well and truly be close to, perhaps, a million instances of substandard care being reported. And this is voluntary reports. I can only guess at what the number would be if every operator was prepared to honestly report all of the issues that were raised with them. Those issues include things like: physical abuse; dreadful food and malnutrition; poor continence management—and I understand something like 75 to 80 per cent of residents in these centres have an incontinence problem; dehydration; patchy and fragmented palliative care; inadequate prevention and management of wounds, sometimes leading to septicaemia and even deaths; maggots in open wounds, as we've heard in this place many times; falls that have not been attended to and ultimately lead to death; overprescribing without consent of sedative drugs and physical restraints; inadequate allied health support; and then we have the figure of some 50 sexual assaults each week being reported. Those stats alone highlight the woeful state of the aged-care sector in this country. In a very recent report, only one in four aged-care clients of home and residential care believed that their care needs were always being met—one in four. Those figures alone should be of concern to this government.
Why are there these problems? It's because the sector is underfunded, there are inadequate staff within the sector—often insufficiently trained—and the sector is essentially driven by profit. Since 1997, when the laws were changed, the sector has become one where profit now seems to be the motivator for many of the people within the sector. While the government provides some $25 billion in funding, and that represents about 80 per cent of all of the funding that goes into the sector, the reality is that a good deal of the operators—something like 41 per cent of the operators, and that doesn't mean 41 per cent of the beds but 41 per cent of the operators—are private operators who clearly put profit before service.
The issue with this legislation, as others have highlighted, is that some of the smaller and regional providers might find it more difficult as a result of getting payments in arrears, and that is a genuine concern. And for the regional and smaller operators—again, this was made very clear to the parliamentary committee's inquiry—it is much more difficult to remain as viable operators. My concern about all that is that if viability goes out the window for them, then people in country and regional Australia will be left without any service whatsoever, unless the government steps in and provides additional support to those smaller operators. That's not where the private operators want to go, because they can't make profit out there. But the people out there need the aged-care services, just as they do right across Australia.
I agree with much of what the member for Makin had to say, particularly his outlining of some of the disgraceful treatment of those elderly Australians who have been put into residential aged care because they need that level of care and their families are not in a position to look after them anymore. I think it's disgraceful that those people have been treated in the manner. We should as a society recognise that one of the important measures of our civilisation is how we take care of our elderly. When we hear stories as the member for Makin has outlined and as we've seen told at the aged-care royal commission, we should be very disappointed and reflective on what we need to do as a society to improve the level and quality of care that our senior Australians get when they need it.
Someone else in an earlier contribution in this debate made the reflection that it's these senior Australians who built the country that we have today and that we have the opportunity and the blessings that we have in life because of their hard work, effort and contribution to our society and that, in reflection of that, we should ensure that the level of care that they receive is first class and the best it can be.
In line with the recommendations from the commission's report handed down in 2019, the government has outlined that it would establish a single unified system of care for our elderly in the home to deliver a seamless system of care tailoring services to the needs of the individual. These bills are a step in that direction. Obviously, the final changes will be guided by the final recommendations of the royal commission and will have the ultimate goal of improving care and ending the wait for home-care packages.
As an example of the level of investment that the Morrison government is making into aged care, funding has grown from $13.3 billion in 2012-13, under the previous Labor government, to nearly $24 billion in 2021-22. This investment includes $4.6 billion for additional home-care packages since the 2018-19 budget, and the government estimates that home-care packages will continue to grow, from 60,300, where they were in 2012-13, to nearly 185,600 in 2020-21.
These huge numbers also allow me to drill down into the electorate of Forde, where we have over 10,000 senior citizens and a number of organisations that support seniors, including Jimbelunga Nursing Centre at Eagleby, and the Beenleigh and Districts Senior Citizens Centre Inc, the largest senior citizens centre in south-east Queensland. But I also want to take this opportunity to reflect on a number of other aged-care service providers in the electorate. I know there is rightly condemnation for those residential aged-care service providers that don't look after their residents, but I'm pleased to say that I have some very good residential aged-care service providers in my electorate of Forde who do an outstanding job. There is, as I've already mentioned, Jimbelunga aged-care facility at Eagleby, which looks predominantly after the Indigenous community in a culturally sensitive and appropriate way. But what's important at Jimbelunga is that they also take other residents who don't have an Indigenous background or cultural background, and those residents get to enjoy the same care that the Indigenous residents do. But the important part, particularly for the Indigenous residents there, the cultural aspect of their care.
I know the member for Oxley in his earlier contribution mentioned the importance of culturally appropriate settings for the Vietnamese community in his electorate. Jeta Gardens in my electorate also does that for the Malaysian and Chinese community in a culturally sensitive and appropriate way as well. Other aged-care facilities in my electorate who do an outstanding job include: palm lake aged care at Eagleby and at Bethania; Oxford Crest at Eagleby; Infinite Care at Cornubia; St Paul de Chartes, who I visited recently over at Boronia Heights. They're just some of the great aged-care facilities across the electorate of Forde who do an outstanding job each and every day. I forgot to mention Seasons Waterford West. Seasons' model is very interesting in that they have a mix of over 50s retirement village units. It is designed such that if one of the partners requires aged care and high care they can transition from their normal unit into a high-care unit within the same facility, but their husband or wife is still close by, so they can still catch up for lunch and dinner, go and spend time in each other's rooms and socialise together, which I think is a tremendous model and works very, very well.
I want to take this opportunity to thank all of those who work in these services around the electorate of Forde and all of those who work to support our senior citizens. It's a vitally important job. I know from the many that I speak to that they thoroughly enjoy the job, and they are very appreciative of the opportunity they have to look after our senior Australians. I want to give my gratitude to all of those staff, the nurses that work in the various facilities around the electorate, for the work they do each and every day.
As I'm sure others in this chamber do, I hold a seniors expo every year. Unfortunately this year, due to COVID-19, that wasn't to be the case. I get to speak with hundreds of seniors who attend. They tell me they would much rather have home care than go into residential aged care. They feel that that's because they will have more autonomy and freedom at home and feel more in control of their own affairs. I have seen that firsthand over the last 12 or 18 months with a family situation. As my father-in-law's dementia got worse he made it very clear that he didn't want to go into residential aged care. My wife, Judi, and her sisters took on the task of looking after him at his home, in particular Judi's sister and her husband who moved in to give him full-time care. They were also able to get assistance with a home-care package. I have seen the time and effort that is required by families to look after a loved one who is in that situation where they require a high level of care. It is an important message, because until you actually live that experience and go through it I don't think you can say you can fully understand the time commitment and effort required.
This bill is about changing the way that payments are made to the home service package providers. The current system of home care allows for packages between $8,900 and up to $51,900, depending on your level of package that you've been assessed for. This funding has historically been provided in advance to providers. This means that the money often sits untouched in providers' bank accounts. It has created a rising level of unspent home-care funds. This particular way of funding differs from how the Australian government ordinarily pays for programs and services. The discrepancy in payment arrangements has been highlighted by the Aged Care Financing Authority and several aged-care stakeholders.
In the 2019-20 budget the Australian government announced improvements to the payment arrangements for home-care packages to pay for services as they are delivered. This bill will allow home-care payments to providers in arrears from February 2021—the initial changes requiring minimal systems or operational changes. The home-care providers will receive the January 2021 advanced payment in mid-December, as per normal for that time of year, and this will be the final advanced payment. The providers will not receive a February advanced payment in early February, but instead will receive the full payment for February when they lodge their February claim in March. The providers will continue to lodge their claims as per normal with the same information that is currently required.
I think it's important to reflect on one of the areas that I get feedback on. I think it is still an area that needs to be dealt with in due course. I get comments from constituents who have home-care packages on the level of administration fees that some of these home-care service providers charge in comparison to the services they actually provide. I have made a representation to the minister on behalf of a number of constituents for that to be an area we look at to ensure that the constituents who are receiving a home-care package actually get proper value for money and that a large sum of those packages isn't being eaten up in administration fees charged by the home-care service providers.
We all agree, I think, that having unspent funds sitting in the aged-care providers' accounts is not the optimal situation. We need to ensure that we get bang for our buck when it comes to aged-care funding. One concern that has been raised on these changes is the question: can home-care package service providers manage the change? The government asked the Aged Care Financing Authority to assess providers and determine if they can accommodate the change to cashflow arrangements. The determination is they can and, for those who need transitional support, there is financial support to assist with that transition.
In conclusion, the Morrison government has a record of funding the aged-care sector, including a huge funding boost for home-care packages. We know that ageing in the home is, in most cases, a better option for seniors than residential aged care and potentially saves more in the long term from seniors going into hospital. We have heard the voices of our senior citizens and we will continue to provide record funding for the aged-care sector and, in particular, for home-care packages. I am proud of our government's record in this area over the past seven years. When I speak with seniors at the Seniors Expo they tell me that they are generally happy with the services the government provides and covers financially.
Obviously with the establishment of the royal commission we are seeking to rectify the issues that have been raised through various means and avenues, as I outlined at the start of my contribution and has been outlined by many in this debate today, about practices which are not acceptable. We eagerly await the final report of the royal commission. In terms of the payment model for aged-care funding and in particular how we fund providers of home-care packages, I want to see and we as a government want to see and ensure that the unutilised funds are used to support those for whom the funding is provided. We are determined to ensure that providers are supported through the transition process, but we are more determined to ensure that our senior citizens, who have contributed so much to this country throughout their lifetimes, have the best quality of care, which they deserve. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020. I welcome this legislation. This amendment seeks to bring the payment mechanism for home care in the aged-care sector into alignment with business leading practice and the NDIS. This bill will assist in preventing the accumulation of unspent home-care packages. Currently, there is nearly $800 million in unspent home-care packages in Australia. Under current arrangements, if a home-care package of $40,000, for example, is provided to a person and only $30,000 is spend, the remaining $10,000 is not reallocated and these funds build up in a person's individualised budget.
There are more than 100,000 people waiting for approval of their home-care packages. This is not a good outcome. Figures from the Department of Health released last month show that, in the last two years, 28,000 people died while on the waiting list. Government needs to urgently enable the reallocation of funding where allotments are underspent. The government missed the opportunity to fix the backlog problem. It announced—and I welcomed it—the additional 23,000 places, but, in a situation where the waiting list is still over 75,000, clearly more should have been done. While this bill will help, I encourage the government to consider how they can assist providers who may need support through the transition to this new payment measures.
The submission made by Leading Age Services Australia to the Aged Care Financing Authority was an important one and highlighted that consideration of the financial impact on home-care providers is a result of changes in payment arrangements whose report is included in this bill. The submission notes that 40 per cent of surveyed home-care providers would find the implementation of these measures financially challenging to manage their cashflows. So phase 1 of the implementation of this bill was initially due to commence in June 2020, but was delayed for at least six months due to the COVID-19 outbreak, and I think that's a good thing because, clearly, managing that transition will be important.
Aged-care provider peak bodies—the Aged & Community Services Australia, Leading Age Services Australia and Catholic Health Australia—all stated that they supported the proposed changes in principle, but they raised a number of concerns that they identified as needing to be addressed prior to the implementation of the proposed amendments. And so I urge the government to listen to those peak organisations, resolving outstanding payment issues prior to transitioning to new arrangements, resolving potential cashflow issues for providers and resolving the need for flexible and responsive payment systems—for example, providers receiving funds within 48 hours of submitting a claim. The announcement of a delay in implementation in March this year was welcomed by these peak bodies, allowing them to focus on the health of their clients.
Locally in Warringah, aged care is a key issue, as 15.7 per cent of the total population is aged over 65. This proportion is growing. I have spoken with the CEOs of several aged-care facilities in the electorate, including Anglicare, Allambie Village and Twilight Aged Care. They've told me that families are very emotional and frustrated, because they've taken the right steps but are not getting the help they need. Families feel guilt, because they can't supply the care their loved ones require.
The wait for home-care packages can be long and often with dire consequences. Families wait up to two years for their home-care package following the assessment. By this time their parent's condition has deteriorated and the family can no longer cope in caring for them. The elderly deserve respectful, affordable, accessible and safe aged-care options that are offered in a timely manner. We want aged care that promotes independence and wellbeing with choices so that people can stay at home longer while being healthy and connected. We need more options for a suitable mix of home help and medical support.
We can't talk about aged care without talking about carers in the system. It's really important to understand the needs carers also have. Residential respite is a key issue for those who provide full-time care to their loved ones. Two weeks ago we celebrated carers week, and I'd like to thank all of those who continue to dedicate their lives to the care of others and use this opportunity to highlight some of their needs. Carers, of all people, need to be able to plan ahead. The logistics involved in preparing for an absence are huge.
I've received many, many letters requesting clarification on the government's policy on residential respite. I ask that the government consider the proposal that the subsidy for residential respite be allowed to be used towards a resident carer in the patient's home. In the words of many of my constituents, 'Imagine not being able to plan or look forward to your next break from work, which is not just nine to five, five days a week, but is actually 24/7 for 365 days a year with no weekends and is both physically and emotionally draining to the point of desperation.' Respite has become a key issue during the COVID pandemic, with carers feeling even greater pressure than before. The stress of working with vulnerable people and the constant strain on carers, not wanting to be the one who brings COVID into the homes of those their care for, has been enormous.
The inability of carers to get together to share their stories and debrief their experiences has been very much curtailed. So I urge all of those working in home care to look out for one another and to engage with mental health providers and support as and when you need them.
I've met with Anglicare, Twilight and Allambie village. All these facilities are also feeling the strain, but they are very pleased and so proud—and we are proud as well—of their staff and residents and how they responded to the pandemic.
Those who offer home care are feeling the pinch as well. We should not forget that, like child care, the burden of this unpaid and unrecognised labour falls disproportionately to women, and, in this regard, I continue to call for greater gender equality and balance in caring arrangements. There's no doubt that, for so many women, time is taken out of the workforce not just for child-rearing duties but also for caring duties for elderly parents, and this is something that's simply not addressed.
There are still many issues with the sector. There's an inherent unfairness in the age cut-off for NDIS eligibility. Once someone hits 65, they're no longer eligible for the NDIS but only for aged-care plans. But the support provided under My Aged Care plans does not come even close to that provided under the NDIS in meeting the costs incurred by people and their families. Last year, I presented a petition to parliament calling for an end to the age discrimination in the NDIS. So I urge the government to address this issue as a priority, for all those older Australians who continue to suffer from a lack of adequate care. They are not many, but they do fall between the cracks of these two systems.
The aged-care royal commission is ongoing and of course continues to raise horrific stories of neglect. The concerns and recommendations are many, emanating from over 10,000 submissions received to date. The interim report, which was presented nearly a year ago already, highlighted three areas where immediate action could be taken: to provide home-care packages to reduce the waiting list for higher-level care at home; to respond to the significant overreliance on chemical restraints in aged care, including through the 7th Community Pharmacy Agreement; and to stop the flow of younger people with a disability going into aged care and speed up the process of getting those young people who are already in aged care out of that system.
I support this bill and its efforts to more efficiently allocate the limited funding that is available to home-care providers for our elderly population. We need to look after our ageing population and those who look after them, including both paid and unpaid carers.
If you sit in this House for even a short period of time, you notice something about the Morrison government: they seem to wait until things have got really bad, so everybody knows there's a problem, then they rush forward with their silver announcement, and they make an announcement. But when you dig underneath it, you find there's nothing there. And there is no area where this is more true than in aged care.
We in Australia have known that we had an aged-care crisis coming for decades. We had the Hawke and Keating government writing papers on the ageing of the population. Peter Costello went on and on and on about the ageing of the population and the changes we needed to make to ensure that this country was able to care for its people as they aged. We knew about the needs of the workforce. We knew all about it. We've known about it for decades. We've also known for quite a few years now that the crisis had well and truly hit and that the standards in our aged-care facilities were not up to it. We've had stories of extraordinary numbers of people malnourished, of people lying in beds unable to get out of them, of people with maggots in wounds—we've had some dreadful stories. But we've also had some really across-the-board assessments that up to a third of people were simply not getting the care that they needed, with enormous numbers malnourished. So we have known for a long time that the crisis was well and truly here.
Two years ago, this government finally called a royal commission into aged care, after nearly a year or more of being begged for it—by the community, by the people who worked in aged care, by the opposition, by people whose parents were suffering and by people whose partners, who they loved, were being left lying in urine. We heard dreadful stories for months and months and months. Finally the government said, 'Okay, royal commission', and they've done nothing but brag about it ever since. The Prime Minister gets up and says, 'I called the royal commission.' Well, it was two years ago. Two years ago we knew the situation was so bad that even the Prime Minister knew we needed a royal commission and finally called one. That was two years ago. A year ago now we had an interim report that was entitled Neglect. How often do you see a royal commission put out an interim report with such a totally outrageous title? Neglectit says everything about what it found.
Meanwhile, we had the government saying over and over again, 'We can't do anything, because there's a royal commission happening; we have to wait for the findings,' even though what we were hearing through that royal commission was stories of appalling neglect. Every day this government did nothing, someone—in fact, hundreds and thousands of people—lay in bed, unable to get out, sometimes all day. Those of us who have struggled through lockdown in the last six months know how dreadful it is not to be able to leave your house. But for these people there is no out, there is no end. It doesn't stop when we get a vaccine; they're there for the rest of their life, living in circumstances that most of us wouldn't wish on our worst enemy, let alone people that we love and people that we care about. Yet this government, dragged kicking and screaming to the royal commission itself, ignored all the evidence, ignored the interim report and kept saying, 'Nothing we can do here; we have to wait until the royal commission is over.'
The report is due in November, and today we're looking at a bill. Apparently the government can do some things while the royal commission is going on. It's hard to imagine why this bill was so urgent that it had to be done before November. The final report will be there in November. They've been saying they couldn't do anything until that time, and now, suddenly, 'Oops, must do this!' The bill does three things. It triggers a change to the way providers are paid. Providers are currently paid one month in advance. After this bill passes the Senate, they'll be paid one month in arrears. Again, it's hard to imagine why they couldn't wait another month to read the full recommendations of the royal commission, which they said was so important to wait for, before they did this. The second phase of the reforms, which commences in April 21, means that providers will only be paid the subsidy for what they actually provided to consumers, and the third phase will mean that subsidy payments to providers will be reduced by a portion.
In some ways these are quite minor changes, relative to the kind of effort that is needed right now, and has been needed for several years, in the aged-care system, and given the aged-care system that we know we're going to need as the population ages. We're living longer. We're healthy for longer. The number of people with dementia is going up. As we live longer, more and more really high-needs care is required. We're stuffing around at the moment with this sort of stuff, when really there is major work to be done.
I want to talk specifically about home care at this point. For all that we've seen of the problems within the aged-care system and for all of the major changes that are going to be needed in terms of the quality of the workforce, the way the funding works and the whole funding system, there's another part of the aged-care system which is probably much easier to fix, and it's called home care. It's an incredibly good policy, home care. It was introduced a number of years ago now, before the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government was elected, and it's particularly important because it allows people to stay in their homes longer. One of the great interesting things about health care, generally, is that in the vast majority of cases what's best for the person is actually cheaper for the taxpayer. The person can stay home longer if their bathroom is renovated so they can't slip. If they can make minor changes to make their home safe, if they can have someone coming in and checking that they're okay and that they've taken their medication—all those small things can be done and people can stay at home longer.
For communities like mine, where large numbers are born overseas and putting a parent or partner into an aged-care facility is something they would not even consider, home care becomes even more important. A lot of these families will work tirelessly to keep their loved ones home for as long as possible, because that's what they do. So home care is incredibly important. And yet, according to the government's own Productivity Commission report this year, the waiting time for people with high care needs is up to three years. So you are assessed and, if you are found to need the care, you wait three years. Before the royal commission was even called, there was a waiting list of over 100,000 people for home care. There is still a waiting list of over 100,000 people for home care. The list has not changed. The number of people waiting has not changed.
And you can see why that is when you look at how the money has been allocated. The government is really good at making announcements but, when you look at it a little bit, the money is not there anymore. In the 2017-18 budget, they announced 14,000 home-care packages—that's over a number of years, by the way, so it's not a lot—but they were funded entirely by a reduction of 26,000 residential care places between 2017-18 and 2020-21. They took the money out of aged care and stuck it into home care. But they still didn't put enough places in home care to affect that queue of 100,000 people. And now there are lengthy waits for people to get into residential aged care as well.
In MYEFO in 2018—there was still lots of criticism; there were still 100,000 people waiting to get into home care—they put in $287.3 million. But all they did was bring it forward from a later year. Again, that was no additional money and no real effort to solve it. In February 2019, on the eve of the royal commission into aged care hearings, they announced another couple of hundred million dollars over five years. But it was actually a re-announcement of the 2018-19 budget. Again, there is nothing new here. And do you know what? Even if there was new money, the nature of being a government is that you don't get to stand in this place, or out there in front of the media, and make wonderful announcements about how fantastic you are if you are failing in this way. This is serious and it needs to be solved. You can get up here and brag that the government called the royal commission and claim that you put new money in. But even if the government did put new money in, if it doesn't fix the problem, they are responsible for the problem.
The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has been in this place for seven years, and this problem has been growing and getting worse every year they've been here. In spite of all their announcements, they have not made a difference. If they didn't understand it, if they weren't aware of just how bad things were, if they hadn't been listening to the evidence to the royal commission, if they hadn't been listening to people telling them in the electorates of all the members over there—just as all of us over here are told every day—if they weren't aware of how bad it was then COVID should have shown them. The COVID pandemic exposed, in the bright light of day, just how under-resourced our aged-care system is. My mum was in hospital last year. I went in there and showered her and took her to the toilet. I went in there every day and spent two or three hours with her. If I didn't, she wouldn't have had the care. But a lot of people in aged care do not have family. COVID exposed just how under-resourced aged care is. It exposed the issues with a casualised workforce. It exposed the issue of workers going from one centre to another because they only have a few hours here and a few hours there. It pulled apart the curtain and showed us what has been going wrong in our aged -are system for years. We have a huge budget, we are billions and billions of dollars in debt, and there is not a single extra dollar for aged care in the budget. Given what we've just seen, given that we've got the report of the royal commission into aged care coming down the pipeline in just a minute and given all that we know about the disaster that is aged care and the growing problem with home care delays—there's a three-year delay for getting urgent assistance at home—you would expect the government to say: 'We're spending all this extra money. We can spend it. This is a great way to create jobs, a great way to help our ailing aged-care system.' But, no, there's not another dollar in the budget.
The home-care packages announced by the Morrison government recently won't even come close. The 23,000 additional packages are just a drop in the ocean, because they're not all in one year but spread out over a number of years. They're not even going to touch the sides, when it comes to it. Again, you need to look behind the figures and announcements, because there's always nothing there. Documents tendered at the aged-care royal commission recently revealed that the Morrison government will deliver just 300 new home-care packages by 2024. That is, royal commission evidence revealed just 300 new home-care packages by 2024. There are 103,000-odd people waiting in the queue now, people getting older every day. The entire population is getting older. In spite of all of the announcements, the home-care packages haven't touched the sides, and there'll only be 300 new ones by 2024.
In my electorate I hear from people every day about this. One woman came to me about her mum, who'd been approved for a level 3 home-care package. Her mum is in her 80s. She had a heart attack and a stroke last year. Owing to her condition, she was assessed as needing bathroom and home modifications and domestic assistance, which would have allowed her to stay at home. Then this woman found out her mum might need to wait two years for the modifications—two years! One of two things happens there: her mum goes into aged care or someone gives up a bit of work to care for her. Neither of those is the best solution. The best solution is proper funding of home care by this government right now.
Another one: a local man in his 70s contacted me about the long wait for services. He'd been approved for a home-care package and assessed as being in need of domestic help with cleaning—not particularly heavy help, by the way. None of the local service providers have the capacity to provide this service, so he's just waiting and waiting and waiting. He hasn't even been given a time frame; he's been told just that nobody can help. Again, this is easy to fix, yet we've got a government that year after year makes announcements that it is, and fails miserably. There's been no change over several years: 100,000 before the royal commission and still 100,000 waiting in the queue now.
I thank my good friend the member for Parramatta for her excellent speech pointing out the shortcomings of this government on aged care. It's been some time since this bill, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020, was before the House, so I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to it. One of its key purposes is to change the payment of Australian government subsidies for home-care packages from payment in advance to payment in arrears. This change is part of intended reform to the home-care payment arrangements to move towards an NDIS-like system where home-care providers are paid a fee for service for the older Australians they are caring for. This does raise some concerns as to the potential risks to the financial viability of service providers, especially smaller rural and regional service providers, such as those in my electorate, which may struggle with the cash flow to deal with payment changes with the change to an arrears payment system. Some service providers have indicated that if the new payment arrangements increase their administrative costs then those costs will end up being passed on to consumers, which in turn, of course, reduces the level of services available to a consumer under their package.
As the member for Parramatta pointed out, it may be somewhat premature that we're dealing with this now, given that the final report of the aged-care royal commission is to be handed down imminently. It may well be the case that the royal commission makes a recommendation around home-care payments and unspent funds, which have been part of the evidence presented in hearings. These are issues that need to be looked at in more detail, and Labor will move to have this bill referred to a Senate committee for that reason.
More broadly, I'd like to speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Franklin, the shadow minister, which notes this government's piecemeal approach to aged-care reform. I recently received an email from my constituent Anna. Anna is in her late 70s. She lives in one of the small rural towns in Tasmania's north-east, in my electorate. After a lengthy wait and difficulties with her service provider, Anna is now receiving two home-care hours a week to help with housework and that sort of thing. Unfortunately, the process of getting this support in place was so drawn out that these two hours are no longer enough to meet Anna's needs. She is dependent on a walker, needs help with her shopping and getting to and from appointments. Most urgently, she requires modifications to her bathroom, as the current configuration is entirely unsuitable and unsafe. Despite these urgent needs, Anna is essentially right back at the start of the process, with no idea about how long she might be waiting to get the support she needs to remain in her home.
You can see the vicious cycle that is going on here. Somebody makes an application for a home-care package based on their needs at that time—these are older people already—and they wait so long for the package to come through that their needs have increased. They make a further application based on their new needs, and they've got to wait for that. By the time that comes in their needs have increased again and they may well be on their way into a home, which could have been avoided if they'd had the payment when they needed it. You can really see what happens there.
Despite her urgent needs, Anna is essentially right back to where she started. In her email to me, Anna wrote: 'I'm still having trouble with my provider and administrator of my home-care package. My bathroom renovation has flown into an uncertain future. I was approved for a level 3 package, but, thanks to the infinite national queue, I have now joined the many unfortunates that have to wait, regardless that I need help now. But one cannot be selfish.' Isn't that what we hear all the time from older people in our community. They put other needs before their own: 'One cannot be selfish.' She continues: 'Thanks to the inadequate funding for the release of more packages and the lack of available packages, we will wait in limbo until we either finally give up waiting or die.' It's not right that an elderly woman like Anna has to feel that she's in such a terrible state that she has to either give up or die for a home-care package that she's perfectly entitled to.
Anna's frustration is clear, and she has good reason to be frustrated. She is just one of 103,000 older Australians who are waiting for home care. As the member for Parramatta pointed out, it was 100,000 before the royal commission, and all these years later it's still 100,000. Despite all the evidence that we've heard over the years—all the stories and the incident reports of neglect—we still have 100,000 people on that waiting list. In Tasmania there are 2,000 people waiting for a home-care package, and the waiting list for that is about three years long. My office has a veritable laundry list of constituents struggling with wait items and issues with the aged-care system more generally, as I suspect most members in this place would have. David, for example, is in his 80s and lives alone in Devon Hills in the north of my electorate. For several months, David has been receiving two hours a fortnight of support through a home-care package. It's a minimal amount but essential to supporting David to remain in his own home. That is the best solution not just for David but also for the economy. If David doesn't get the minimal support he receives to stay in his own home, he will have go to an aged-care home, with all of the expense and inconvenience to the Commonwealth that that entails. It makes good economic sense to keep David in his home. In March the visits for those two hours a fortnight of support stopped with no contact from his service provider. It turns out that the service provider had expended all the funds from David's package, but instead of notifying David, they simply stopped showing up.
My office also has assisted Marie from Sorell, in the south-east of my electorate, to try to navigate the aged-care system. Anybody who is familiar with the computer systems of this government would know that navigating the aged-care system is no easy task, despite years of experience with such things. Marie cares for her husband, and he receives 19 hours a week under his home-care package. Marie applied for home-care help in her own right and was offered a level 2 package. If Marie had accepted this package it would have meant fewer hours overall for her and her husband but at a much higher cost. So Marie rejected this package, as any sensible person would, and as a result was placed on a non-priority waitlist, meaning a wait of up to three years for the support that she needs. I could go on, but I think the point has been made loud and clear that the wait times for home-care support are simply unacceptable.
The government did announce, in the recent budget, an additional 23,000 home-care packages, but that is just a drop in the ocean for what is needed. Stakeholders have described the budget measures as merely tinkering with the aged-care system, an aged-care system in severe distress. Patricia Sparrow, CEO of Aged & Community Services Australia, argues:
The kind of financing and budget reform that is necessary to set up Australia for our ageing population means a total rethink - not just a series of announcements that prop up the current system.
That really gets to the heart of what we are talking about here. As has been touched on by the member for Parramatta and many others, this is a government that is addicted to announcements. It confuses announcements with action. It thinks a slogan is a solution. It's not good enough. There is more to governing than putting out a press release, getting your head on the telly, putting out a meme on Facebook that you are down at Bunnings having a snag. There is more to governing than that. There's actually looking after people and making sure you are doing the right thing, not just getting good press to try and win an election.
Grant Corderoy, senior partner at aged-care accountants StewartBrown, shared a similar sentiment to that of Ms Sparrow, noting:
…it's a holding-the-fort type budget. It's waiting for the royal commission and I believe that some reforms really need to be introduced prior to the royal commission's recommendations.
Clearly this recent budget announcement is insufficient. Once again the government's announcements of new home-care packages have consistently failed to address the true scale of the aged-care crises in this country. Documents recently presented at the aged-care royal commission revealed that the government would deliver just 300 new home-care packages by 2024, despite a series of announcements promising thousands more.
It is important to note that the aged-care workers who are on the frontline working under tough conditions, and particularly over the last few months, for relatively low pay are not in the gun here. They are just working like Trojans. I've been on the floor with some of these guys when I've done 'a day in the life of an aged-care worker', and I can't even pretend to know the conditions that they really work under. They work extremely hard for relatively low pay. They are not in it for the money. They are dedicated people who want to do the best for the residents in these places. It is really important to make that distinction. What we are concerned about is the state of the system. This is nowhere near an attack on the people who work in a broken system. Labor will not allow workers to be used as a scapegoat.
The interim report of the royal commission called for action on the unacceptable number of Australians waiting for care, referring to the current wait list as 'neglect'. That is the title of the report: Neglect. You would think that would spur the government into action. You get a royal commission interim report titled Neglect, that's something that you act on immediately. You don't wait months and down the line and say, 'We will get and to it when we get around to it.' In the words of the interim report:
Many people receiving aged care services have their basic human rights denied. Their dignity is not respected and their identity is ignored. It is a shocking tale of neglect.
This is royal commissioners saying this. Royal commissioners have said this is 'a shocking tale of neglect'. Yet months later we have tinkering from the government. No real call to action from those opposite other than, 'We are going to wait for the final report before we maybe get around to doing something.' It is nothing short of heartbreaking when neglect is a word used to describe, by royal commissioners, the aged-care system in Australia, but that is the legacy of this government on aged care. Just last week, there were devastating revelations of more than 100 reports of assault and sexual assault in Australian aged-care homes each week. That is something else to confront. So, despite completely unacceptable figures and reports, the Morrison government is still yet to introduce a Serious Incident Response Scheme that would respond to cases of assault and abuse in Australia's aged-care system.
The Morrison government does not have a plan for aged care. It does not have a plan, despite everything, but Labor does. Labor has an eight-point plan that the government can consider to immediately address known issues in the aged-care sector, which has been pushed to the brink by the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. First, set minimum staffing levels in aged care. Second, reduce the home-care package waiting list so more people can stay in their homes for longer. Three, ensure transparency and accountability of funding to support high-quality care. Four, have independent and public reporting as recommended by the royal commission. Five, ensure every residential aged-care facility has adequate personal protective equipment. Six, have better training for staff, including on infection control. Seven, have a better surge workforce strategy. Eight, provide additional resources so the aged-care royal commission can inquire specifically into COVID-19 across the sector while not impacting or delaying the handing down of the final report. I would like to commend here my colleague and friend the member for Franklin, the shadow minister, who has done a magnificent job holding this government and particularly the failed minister to over this diabolical situation facing aged care. The member for Franklin has done a superb job.
Labor knows that older Australians deserve dignity and respect in their later years of life. Those opposite have presided over an aged-care crisis in this country, robbing people of that opportunity. With that in mind, I will leave you to ponder this recent statement from the royal commission:
Had the Australian Government acted upon previous reviews of aged care, the persistent problems in aged care would have been known much earlier and the suffering of many people could have been avoided.
That says it all.
I'm pleased to rise tonight to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020. This bill speaks to some very important issues, but in many ways it is the issues it doesn't speak to that are even more critical. The administrative changes it makes will have consequences, but the changes it isn't making have consequences as well. My electorate on the New South Wales South Coast has the second-highest number of people over the age of 65 in Australia. We have more than 40,000 people over the age of 65, nearly 27 per cent of my total electorate size. People come to our coast for many reasons, but many come to retire and live a good, relaxed life by the sea, so it is no surprise that legislation like this is extremely important to many people in our community—not only those who want to access homecare now but also those who may need to in the near future, their families and friends.
As our population continues to age, we need to make sure we are supporting older Australians to live in their homes for as long as possible. We know, now with agonising detail thanks to the aged-care royal commission, many of the problems that are facing our aged-care system. We have seen the tragedy that Covid-19 has wreaked throughout aged-care homes across Australia because the government was not repaired. What we need to be doing now more than ever is making sure people are supported to stay at home for as long as possible. Staying in your home for longer has so many benefits not just for the person receiving care but for their family, for our aged-care system as a whole, for our economy and for everyone, and the truth is that we need to be doing better. Across every aspect of aged care, that is true, but today I want to focus on home care.
We need to do better on home care. The interim report from the aged care royal commission, which was titled Neglectand doesn't that just say at all—and which we received a year ago highlighted that urgent action was needed now to ensure older Australians are getting care at home when they need it most. It is no secret that the waitlist for home-care packages is out of control. More than 102,000 older Australians are waiting for home-care packages. Wait times have blown out, with older Australians in our community waiting almost three years for the high-level packages they have been approved for.
In this year's budget, the Morrison government announced 23,000 'additional' packages. But documents tendered at the aged-care royal commission showed that the government will deliver just 300 new home-care packages by 2024, despite their promises in the tens of thousands—only 300. What a disappointing response to a huge problem. Three hundred new packages are simply not enough, and that much is just glaringly obvious. We need urgent action on a huge scale, and it has to start now.
I want to share the stories of some of the people in my electorate who are struggling under the current home-care system. Perhaps this will finally help to put a human face on that figure I mentioned of 102,000 people, because it seems that the government keeps forgetting. These are people's mothers and fathers. They are aunties, uncles, friends and loved ones. They are people, and they deserve better than a three-year wait for help.
Aunty Joyce is a beloved Aboriginal elder from Gerringong. She is well known on the South Coast and has spent her life working hard to help other people and contribute to our community. But now Aunty Joyce is the one asking for help. She has applied for a home-care package and been approved for a level 2 package. But she has been told it will be at least two years before she is able to access one. Aunty Joyce has emphysema and she has sadly had a couple of recent falls. She wants some help with home services, like someone to mow her lawn and help her get out and about to visit friends in the local area. She's been told that, while she waits for a level 2 package, she can access a level 1 package—after she waits up to three months. We know that Indigenous people in our community have a unique set of challenges and we also know we need to be doing more to help close the gap. Aunty Joyce has told me how she just wants to make sure local Aboriginal people like her can access the aged-care services they need, when they need it.
I have spoken before in this place about the innovative home care program being run in the south of my electorate, the Illawarra Retirement Trust's Booraja Home Care program. This is a home-care program delivered by Aboriginal people for Aboriginal people, and it is exactly the type of program people like Aunty Joyce need. Unfortunately, Booraja is based in Moruya and doesn't extend up to the Gerringong area. But, as some people might remember from the many times I have raised it in this place, I have had to fight and fight to help Booraja continue to receive funding from this government, funding that would allow it to stay open. They wanted to extend the program to more local Aboriginal people, but the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support it. I could never understand why, when it is so clearly a no-brainer. I was so delighted when some funding did eventually come through. Common sense did prevail eventually.
I would like to thank all of the workers at Booraja and IRT who advocated for this funding: Booraja Home Care Manager Uncle Bunja Smith, and IRT Foundation Manager Toby Dawson, to name just two. Without their advocacy, I know that even more Aboriginal elders in the Batemans Bay area would be struggling to access services. But this is the type of pilot program we should be encouraging and replicating so that people like Aunty Joyce can access culturally appropriate services in an appropriate time frame that doesn't leave them languishing without adequate help for years. Years—sadly, that is no exaggeration.
Then there is Warren from St Georges Basin. Warren is in his 90s and he had hip surgery 12 months ago. He was told by My Aged Care at the time that the home modifications to his bathroom would be completed before he was discharged from hospital. But, here we are, 12 months later, and Warren is still waiting. Warren told me how he has paid $170 for the plans for the bathroom, but they have heard nothing back. It is not just this though; Warren was also assessed as needing a level 2 home-care package but is only receiving a level 1. Why, 12 months after it was promised, is Warren still waiting for help?
Adriana from Ulladulla was approved for a level 3 package almost a year ago. Since then, sadly, she has had a stroke and her needs have only increased. But Adriana and her husband are being told it will be at least another six to nine months before she can get a plan appropriate for her needs. In the meantime, Adriana is receiving a level 1 package, but it is simply not enough. She needs more help and she needs it now.
I could go on. Sadly, I hear the same story over and over again, and I am left asking the same question: why is the Morrison government forcing people like Aunty Joyce, Warren and Adriana to struggle without the support we know they need? It is simply unfair and it is tragic.
The purpose of this bill is to change the payment of the home-care subsidy to approved providers from being paid in advance to being paid in arrears, but it doesn't impact the overall amount available to the home-care package recipient. According to the Aged Care Financing Authority, this legislation will be the first of three phases to reform the home-care payment arrangements. But even the explanatory memorandum for this bill acknowledges, as it states:
Some of the submissions suggested that the new payment arrangements would be a risk to the viability of some providers.
… … …
Many of those submissions specifically reference providers in rural and remote locations.
As is so often the case, country areas, the hardest hit, are being left behind once again by this government, when the truth is that our community is already struggling with the availability of local providers. It's another story I am hearing too often—local people approved for packages but no-one to deliver them. Service providers are also concerned that, if the new payment arrangements increase administrative costs, then these costs would be passed onto consumers. This in turn would reduce the level of goods and services available to a consumer under a package.
Tracy from Burrill Lake has been assessed as needing a level 3 package, but his provider was taking 46 per cent of the pool provided to him. Tracy's wife was finding it difficult to navigate the system and understand the fine print. She tried to find a provider that wouldn't charge so much but realised that there were really only two options in the local area. But what would happen if those providers couldn't afford the changes in this bill and were forced to close? Or what if they were forced to pass along even more costs to Tracy, leaving him with even fewer services? I don't want to see the changes in this bill making things even harder for people like Tracy and his wife. I don't want to see fewer providers—and of course that would also mean fewer jobs in our local community. Local people have had to deal with so much. We need to make sure we are supporting them now more than ever.
The truth is that the government have not detailed the savings associated with the change in these payment arrangements or what the funds will be used for. That is a big concern of mine, because we have seen their track record. Counsel assisting the royal commission released their final submission on 22 October. That includes a number of recommendations directly related to home care. This includes the government clearing the waiting list by December 2021 and making home care a demand driven system rather than one that is rationed. That is real reform. We need to be overhauling the system, not tinkering around the edges and making changes that could actually make things worse.
This government's record on aged care is nothing short of appalling. 'Neglect' was the word the royal commission used, and it is an apt word for it—neglect. We have heard how, in the last year, 10,000 older Australians have died waiting for a home-care package. Perhaps the most heartbreaking case of all was that of the poor gentleman in my electorate who tried to get some help for his wife. She had been approved for a level 4 package but was only receiving an interim level 2. She was terminally ill, but she waited six months for her home-care package. Devastatingly, she passed away before that assistance arrived.
This isn't about statistics. It isn't about numbers. It is about people—real people who are struggling. In the aftermath of COVID-19, I had a strong army of volunteers who were helping me call older Australians in my electorate to check in on them. Many of these calls centred around aged care and home care. Many of the stories I have told tonight come from these calls. They weren't people looking to complain or to get ahead; they were just getting on with it, struggling through on their own. What concerns me is all the people suffering in silence, all those people in my electorate whose story doesn't get to be told tonight—because we know they are out there.
The royal commission has been a heartbreaking and confronting exercise. We have seen so many experts stand up and give a bleak picture of a broken system that needs major reform now. We have heard heartbreaking and traumatic accounts from loved ones who have endured what no-one should have to. At the end of the day, our aged-care system is failing our community. It is failing our families. It is failing our mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts and uncles. It is failing people like Aunty Joyce, Warren, Adriana and Tracy. It is failing Australia.
But the Morrison government just does not seem to be listening. Instead, the Treasurer made a flashy announcement during the budget of 23,000 home-care packages, but the reality was much different, with only 300 of those actually being new packages. We saw the interim report released a year ago, but here we are still talking about the same mess, still without any real policy plan to fix it. The commissioner described the waiting list for home care as cruel, unfair and discriminatory, but the government simply released an additional 10,000 packages to fix a waiting list that at the time consisted of 119,000 people. What we need is real reform, because the consequences of nonaction are too high. They are certainly too high for me. I will not accept it—not now, not ever. People in my electorate deserve better, and I will always be here standing up for them.
I feel privileged to have been in this chamber to hear my friend and colleague the member for Gilmore give that speech on behalf of her community and be the voice for the people she represents. They chose very well at the last election. She's an amazing advocate. You can't help but be moved by those stories.
I want to start my contribution on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020 with the quote that the member for Lyons finished his contribution on, a recent statement from the royal commission:
Had the Australian Government acted upon previous reviews of aged care, the persistent problems in aged care would have been known much earlier and the suffering of many people could have been avoided.
As the representative of a community with loved ones in aged care who suffered through the spread of COVID-19 I, too, regret that action wasn't taken earlier to avoid the suffering. I also regret that when this House moved a motion of congratulations and thanks to the people of Victoria today for what they have done to get through the second wave of coronavirus, which has been nothing short of magnificent, there wasn't appropriate acknowledgement from either the Prime Minister or the Treasurer about the role that inadequacies in preparation in aged care played in so many of those tragic deaths.
Perhaps it's that failure to acknowledge mistakes and lack of action that is partly the impediment to taking action. We won't get anywhere until we acknowledge what is wrong and then fix it. We have to acknowledge that, over the last three years, 30,000 Australians who loved and were loved died waiting for care that they had been approved for, that Australians assessed as needing high-level packages for residential home care are waiting three years to get that care. There surely isn't a person in this place privileged to represent their community who hasn't received a phone call, an email or a visit from a distraught person not understanding why they have been approved for a home-care package that they desperately need but they can't get it or from their families who are beside themselves to get the care for their parents or their loved ones so that they can continue to live a life of dignity in their home. They have been approved for that care, but they are waiting three years to get it. Surely it moves everyone who has the privilege of serving in this place the way it moves the member for Gilmore, the member for Lyons and everyone else who I have heard speak today about people in their communities. There are 100,000 Australians waiting for a home-care package. Announcements don't deliver home-care packages. We have draft recommendations from council assisting the royal commission recommending that the government clear the waiting list, not because it is a number of 100,000, but because it is 100,000 people waiting to get that care that they need to end their lives in dignity and comfort. Surely, as human beings, that's what we owe the other citizens of our country.
It was a year ago that the interim report was titled Neglect, and I know that other contributors to this debate have mentioned it, and that is because it has to be mentioned. A title of a report into our aged-care system in this country that we are so proud of titled Neglect is shameful. The first recommendation of that interim report, over a year ago, was to fix the home-care package waiting list. There were 100,000 older Australians waiting then and there are 100,000 older Australians waiting now for home care. The government doesn't need to wait for February next year for that recommendation to know that it should have acted before, and it needs to act now.
The people who have been brave enough to give evidence to that royal commission are amazing, and we all owe them a debt of gratitude. There have been more than 10,000 submissions and experts after experts backing in the experience of individuals to say that this is a system that is broken. This is a system where apparently 50 sexual assaults a week happen in residential aged care—50 sexual assaults a week. We can't stand for that. How could we stand for that?
It's just extraordinary that under this government there was no COVID plan specifically for aged care, and there's been no acknowledgement of that failure. So it's no wonder that there are so many people—too many people—who don't believe this government when it says that it will fix the problems. It is no surprise that there are so many people—too many people—who just don't believe this government at all and don't have any trust in politics or politicians. That has to change. There are 1.2 million Australians and their families who rely on us here in this place making that change—the people on those benches over there making that change and those of us on this side of the parliament pushing them to make that change. It has to happen.
We shouldn't have to rely on the families of people in aged care to make that happen, but so often we do. We saw the second recommendation of the interim report of the royal commission directed towards chemical restraints in aged care. One of the reasons that occurred is because of brave people like my constituent Edgard Proy and his parents, who he loves so dearly. When you hear him talk about them, you just know that they are, along with his children and his wife, the most important people in his life. Monica Proy is a woman who spent her entire life working as an advocate for the elderly and as a carer in aged-care homes. But, cruelly, as happens to so many older people in our community now, as she aged she began to suffer the symptoms of dementia. Her loving husband Silvio and the family tried all they could to keep her at home. They didn't want her to go into aged care—you might suspect they knew a bit about what happens in aged care—but when Silvio had a stroke the family had to make that decision. Last year, Edgard spoke to SBS and participated with Human Rights Watch in a documentary to try to stop what then happened to Monica happening to other people.
They had no choice but to put Monica into an aged-care facility and put Silvio with her, but Monica's dementia got worse. She would wander around away from her room and vocalise loudly. Those behaviours led to her nursing home heavily medicating her and trying to reduce her frustration. They chemically restrained her. It took the family quite a time, not surprisingly, to realise what was being done to their beloved mother and grandmother. Edgard is absolutely clear that the cocktail of drugs his mother was being given made things worse. Not having a great grasp of the English language didn't make things any easier. Edgard knew something was wrong, because, even with dementia, she hugged him, she laughed and she giggled, but the medication meant she just couldn't be consoled. As he said to me in an email, the medication took the life out of her. She'd lost her power with the dementia, and then the drugs took away her capacity to deal with the dementia. Human Rights Watch said last year that a third of people of people in nursing homes are on sedatives and 32 per cent are on antipsychotic drugs. We know that Monica's story is not unique, but it was powerfully unique to her family.
Do you know what the Proys did? To some extent they're lucky that they were able to do this, but it was a sacrifice. They had to employ a carer to go and help care for their mother while she was in aged care and had to detox from those drugs. It took two years for those drugs to get out of her system with the support of her family, her wonderful carer and the workers at the new facility in Mount Eliza where she now lives. Edgard knows that the people who were prescribing the medication were doing the best they could with the knowledge they had, but, as he said to SBS, if they're not trained in looking after the elderly, specifically people living with dementia, what hope do those people have? Is it any surprise that draft recommendation 71 of counsel assisting the royal commission is that antipsychotic drugs need to be prescribed by appropriately qualified medical practitioners?
If anyone is reading this speech or watching this speech, I encourage you to google 'Edgard Proy', and you will find the video and see his mother now. Edgard says that his mother has been medication free for over a year. She and Silvio are together in a new nursing home—the family are still paying extra for her to have a carer—and the sparkle is back in her eyes. Edgard says his mum's emotions are heightened: 'She's not giving up. When I hug her today she's at peace.' Edgard's now an advocate with Dementia Australia, and clearly a very effective one.
Of course, after the interim report the government brought in some regulations. There were negotiations with the shadow minister about those regulations to deal with the use of chemical restraints. I'm pleased that that happened, but, given that the draft recommendations of counsel assisting the royal commission include recommendations about chemical restraints, it is clear that there is still an issue. They include recommendations about introducing new requirements regulating the use of chemical and physical restraints—comprehensively regulating them—informed by reviews of quality-care principles, reports of the parliamentary joint committees on human rights and on the operation of the NDIS:
A person receiving aged care who is the subject of a restraint should be readily able to seek an independent review of the lawfulness of the conduct.
I couldn't agree more.
We know, because of the royal commission looking into the absolutely inadequate and failed preparation and response of this government at the time into COVID in nursing homes, that the government need to come back to this parliament by 1 December to report on what they have done. I am calling on the government and the minister, when they do that, to report about how often chemical restraints are now being used. That information should be available to the public. We should know whether or not the reforms that were introduced are working and what else needs to be done. We owe it to Monica, we owe it to Edgard and we owe it to every other person in aged-care facilities, because we all have parents and we're all going to that age one day. It's not a problem of numbers and dollars; it's a problem of what we value in this society. Do we value older Australians or don't we? I know what my answer to that question is, and I'm pretty sure it's everyone's answer. So we need to match those words with action.
I just want to conclude my contribution today by saying how amazing people that work in aged care are. They don't do it for money; they do it for love. They are people who do a job that can be without reward, apart from the fact that they are loved and are loving others. We don't do enough in Australia to value people who work in our care economy, from the start of life to the end of life. As the royal commission has said, we need to do more for the staff in aged care. I look forward to being part of doing more and bringing in those reforms.
I rise to support this bill, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020 because it makes a straightforward, positive change to Australia's home-care system. Right now, home-care providers are provided the full amount of their clients' home-care packages in advance. This means that any unspent funds, which are often substantial, sit on the books of the provider.
Last week, in the wake of the federal budget, I held a roundtable with home-care providers in my electorate to understand their priorities and challenges. And addressing this issue of holding unspent funds was one of their key concerns. I'd like to thank Leanne Christie, Leonie Painter, Nicola Burns, Jane Archibald and Tracey Hooper, who participated in this roundtable. As a former director of a residential aged-care facility, I know how hard so many providers work on behalf of their clients. I can tell you that these women who I spoke to work very hard every day to do their best for the older people in Indi. I add to the words of the member for Dunkley to say that aged-care providers and aged-care workers right across this nation are the most undervalued people in our society. Only last night, we heard, on ABC's Q&A, from the ethicist Simon Longstaff, who spoke to this as well. When we speak in this place of highly paid professionals in the corporate world and we think about our aged-care providers, we can only hang our heads in shame, quite frankly.
My discussion last week at the roundtable reinforced the broader point that the issues in the home-care sector are substantial, widespread and urgent. This bill is a good bill, but really it's a drop in the ocean of the reform that needs to take place in home care. Let's just consider the state of the home-care system right now. The government's latest data from March shows that more than 103,000 Australians are waiting for a home-care package, the same as a city the size of Ballarat. That figure includes 22,000 people waiting for a level 4 package—that is, people who've been assessed by the government as needing around $50,000 a year in order to take care of their basic needs. And they're getting nothing at all. What's worse, these figures are from March. The government has not yet released data from the June quarter, which will reveal the impact of the pandemic, which has exacerbated these issues even further.
On top of that, these figures are projected to go up enormously by 2024 as our population ages. And, on top of that, we know that more and more people are choosing to stay home rather than go into residential aged care. And aged-care providers are telling me that, because of the negative perception of residential aged care, because of the absolutely devastating findings of the royal commission and because of the pandemic, people are scared and increasingly trying to stay at home. So the demand for home-based care is rising significantly. We need to be adding thousands of packages every year just to stay afloat, and we need to add vastly more than that if we are to work through the backlog of people waiting for packages.
The current waiting time for a home-care package is over 12 months. I've heard from constituents that they've been waiting for over two years. Indeed, tragically, some 30,000 Australians have died in the last two years while waiting for the care they need. Before the budget, the Council on the Ageing called for 60,000 additional care packages to be released in the October budget. But what did the budget deliver? Just over a third of that. Twenty three thousand home-care packages is woefully inadequate for the problem that we face. It's also fiscally reckless. We know from studies undertaken very recently from Victoria University that investing in jobs in aged care or, for that matter, child care—the full spectrum of caring—would lead to a dramatic multiplier effect in our economy and have a huge effect on GDP.
But, while it is fiscally reckless because of this, the whole point of the home-care system is to ensure people can stay in their homes as they age. When people don't get the support they need to stay at home, the alternative is that they move into residential aged care, which, on a per resident basis, is four times more expensive for the government than even the most expensive home-care package. So, from an economic perspective, it simply doesn't add up. Yet 50,000 Australians are in residential aged care because they couldn't get the support they needed at home. These are people who wanted to stay home—50,000! The failure to stump up enough home-care packages and fix the other blockages in the system is not only heartless and cruel, it actually ends up costing the government more. So it really doesn't make any sense to me.
The home-care sector also called for the budget to signal significant reform in the sector. It's not just about the lack of packages; there are other bottlenecks that simply adding more packages does not solve. For instance, providers are telling me that there are also significant delays in the assessment of people, largely due to the lack of a trained workforce for aged care assessment teams, particularly in rural and regional Australia—in places like where I live—and it's even worse in remote areas.
There's also a fundamental mismatch between the package a person receives and the care they need. For instance, imagine an individual assessed as needing a level 3 package whose health actually improves once they receive that package 12 months after they are assessed. That person, in our current system, can't go down to a level 2 package, and has no incentive to either because, if their health deteriorates again, they will need to go through the full assessment process before they can be bumped up to a level 3 package. So people hang onto these things even if they don't actually need them at that point in time. Imagine if we had a more flexible system that allowed us to move people through. It would save us a lot of money and it would be a much higher quality level of care. Bringing us back to this example: that person would have $34,000 a year for their level 3 package sent to their home-care provider but they'd only be spending, say, $15,000. That means possibly $20,000 a year would sit with their home-care provider doing absolutely nothing. And $20,000 is enough for a whole level 2 package, and then some. But, because of a badly designed system, it sits in an account doing nothing. And because of a badly designed system, whilst 100,000 people languish in the queue, there are substantial amounts of money sitting in the accounts of providers going to waste.
The point is that the problems in the home-care system are not just about a lack of funds; it's also about a gross misallocation of funds and a total failure, over many years, to fix these gaping issues in the home-care system. Moreover, home-care providers in Indi tell me that the process for actually delivering packages is incredibly confusing for many people and causes huge problems for them and for providers alike. When a person gets assessed by an aged-care assessment team they subsequently receive a letter notifying them that they've been allocated a package, but being allocated a package does not mean that your package will actually be delivered anytime soon. I think I've demonstrated pretty clearly that it certainly doesn't mean that. When people get this letter it actually means they face a 12-, 18- or possibly 24-month wait to be assigned that package, but they don't realise that. The providers I speak to tell me heartbreaking stories of people who call them up excitedly saying they've been assigned a package, after which the provider sends somebody out to meet them, only to have to explain to them that they'll have wait another year or two before anything arrives. That's not only devastating for the person involved but time-consuming, costly and a very difficult conversation for the provider.
Fast forward a year or two, and that person gets a second letter saying they've finally been assigned their home-care package. They then have 28 days to choose a home-care provider. If they don't do that in 28 days, their package, possibly after they've waited years for it, gets cancelled. The providers I speak to tell me there are people who actually don't understand what this second letter is about, and that many people, after waiting months or years with no support and already having received a letter that really didn't deliver them anything, simply throw this second letter in the bin and, without knowing, forfeit their right to a package. Clearly that's a travesty, and it's not the fault of the vulnerable older Australians who are bamboozled by the labyrinth of the system that we have. It's the fault of a government that has failed for years to design a system that actually works for the people who need it.
Over recent weeks, in addition to my roundtable with home-care providers, I've asked my community what they think of the budget and of the government's plans for recovery. So far I've had 1,200 responses to this survey, and better quality aged care is the second most important issue for people. Just nine per cent of those 1,200 respondents think the government is doing enough on aged care. Eighty-four per cent think it needs to do more. But the numbers don't say nearly as much as the words do. Here is just a tiny portion of what my constituents told me about the home-care system. These are anonymised, and they are direct quotes. From respondent No. 14: 'My mother died waiting for a level 4 package. She was on level 1. My cousin and I had to put her into a nursing home for the last week of her life because my dad couldn't look after her and we couldn't access nursing care in the home.' From respondent No. 112: 'My mother waited almost two years to receive her package. The money came through when she was 91.' From respondent No. 142: 'As a 74-year-old, I find myself visiting more and more of my friends in residential care. Many of them would like to stay at home but, with no live-in care or assistance, it's simply not possible.' Respondent No. 128: 'I had to find an aged-care facility for my dad and his wife earlier this year. They'd both been assessed for a home-care package, but this was going to take at least 12 months to come through, so we just had no option, as they could no longer live at home.' Finally, from respondent No. 96: 'My neighbour died of neglect in a system that should have cared for him. He was found unwell by some other neighbours, who took him to hospital, but he was sent home too soon, with not enough home support, and he was left to the care of the neighbours. And then the neighbours found him for the second time, but this time they were too late; he'd died. This man had no family to care for him. He relied on the system, a system that had let him down. And there was no funeral; there were no answers. His body was just taken away, just gone.'
These are not my words; these are the words of everyday Australians who either are themselves trapped in a cruel system or have watched their loved ones die, as the royal commission described, of neglect. I wanted to quote my constituents verbatim today because I want this House to hear, loud and clear, the anguish that so many people feel. So many Australians are crying out for help, and I want this House to hear that cry. As a former nurse, these stories devastate me but they do not shock me. Anyone who's seen the system up close knows that it's broken. Older Australians built so much of the prosperity that we here enjoy. They raised us. They helped build this wonderful country of ours. Yet we condemn so many of them to live out their final years in the indignity and suffering of cruel neglect.
The ongoing crisis in our aged-care system is a blight on this government, and so, while this bill is an important one and a good one and I commend it to the House, I implore the government: hear the voices of my constituents; hear the voices of everyday Australians around our country. We need you to hear them, but we need you to respond.
The community obviously wants a choice for older Australians. Older Australians want choice. They want to have the choice to grow old and even to die at home. We need to give them that choice. That's certainly what my community is saying to me. It is what older Australians are saying to me. It is my own lived experience.
If you'll excuse me for being a little indulgent, Mr Deputy Speaker Zimmerman, I'll recount my own family's circumstances. First my father and then my mother both desperately wanted to grow old at home. They both did grow old at home exactly as they wished. In fact, they both died in the family home, as they wanted. I certainly got to see, firsthand, the importance of giving people that choice and making it work. I would have thought, too, that my honourable colleagues would see the sense in compassionate policies and that the bean counters would see the sense of allowing people to stay at home for as long as possible, if only to ease the pressure on the residential aged-care system. Having said all of that, I find it unfathomable that governments haven't really been fair dinkum about funding home-care adequately.
I fear that in many ways a number of governments have paid lip-service to it over the years, because, how else do you explain the fact that there are currently more people waiting for home-care packages than there are people receiving home-care packages? Clearly we are not taking it seriously enough. Clearly, governments are not funding it adequately. I think it goes back to the whole funding model. It should be demand driven. It should not be budget capped. It shouldn't be the case that someone who is waiting for a home-care package literally has to wait for someone to go into residential aged-care or to die. What sort of policy is that? What sort of funding model is that? There are people waiting for other people to die before they can get the home-care package they need to continue to live at home with dignity. As the member for Indi recounted, there are people who are being effectively forced into residential care, because they can't get the home care they need. That's another reason why the residential care system is under so much pressure and performing so badly.
What governments need to do is get fair dinkum about this and fund it properly. Yes, by some estimates it will cost maybe a couple of billion dollars extra a year to come up with the 100,000 or so extra home-care packages, but surely we can afford that? Surely it's all about priorities.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record in this place, can I just remind my colleagues, the government and the minister that we're a fabulously wealthy country. We can afford to look after our very young with adequate early childhood education. We can afford to look after people with a disability properly. We can afford to look after people who are relying on the aged-care pension properly. We can afford to look after people properly in their home with home-care packages. We can afford to look after people who go into residential aged care. By examining figures that have already been provided by the federal Department of Health, I see that we might need $2 billion to $2½ billion extra to go into home-care packages to fill the very severe shortfall. Well, we are the 11th richest country in the world measured by GDP. We are the second wealthiest people on the planet when compared by median wealth per adult, second only to the Swiss. If there's a country in the world that can get rid of this shocking situation where people are waiting years for a home-care package, surely we're the one country in the world that can achieve that. Not only do we need to find the money to do this right so that people genuinely have the option of staying at home, being well looked after, living with dignity and staying out of residential aged care for as long as possible, or perhaps forever—not only do we need to look at that, but we also need to look at the design within the system.
I have been saying to governments for years that the way the service providers structure their fees for people benefiting from home-care packages needs to be seriously looked at. It just beggars belief that it is not unusual for service providers to be taking 30, 40, 50 per cent—I've even seen one example of 70 per cent—of the budget for that home-care package, stripping it out in fees. That is just ridiculous. I can't explain it. There is no way to explain it. A cynical observer would say it's mismanagement, inefficiency, gouging or I don't know what. How on earth a home-care service provider can routinely take half of the government's package in fees is just beyond bizarre. I'll give you a case study. I'll use his first name, Les; he's a lovely fellow in my electorate. Les is being billed $483 a month for 'case management'. What is case management? How does it cost $483 a month? At $40 an hour, that's 12 hours. That's just absurd. That's an hour on the majority of the working days of the month. Les is also being billed for 10 hours travel for service provider personnel within a 31-day month, and he lives in the middle of Hobart! Les lives in the middle of Hobart, and the service provider is billing him—in other words, taking it out of the government's package—for 10 hours of travel a month. That needs to be looked at.
I've raised these issues with governments for years. I was assured by the government several years ago that when home-care packages went to consumer directed care the market would work it out. I was told that, when consumers could choose their service providers for home-care packages, they would shop around and it would force service providers to become leaner and more efficient and to bring all of these management and other fees down. But that just hasn't happened. Frankly, I think we should all have known that this would be the case, because a lot of people aren't able to shop around. That can be for 101 different reasons. Let's say you're a person of faith; you'll probably just default to a service provider of that faith. There's nothing wrong with that; it's understandable. But it does tend to debunk the whole idea of consumers shopping around and forcing service providers to improve their service and lower their fees and for the consumer to be better off. This is a particular issue in Tasmania. Much of Tasmania is what you might describe as a thin and regional market. If you're in a small town, you might be lucky to have one service provider. You're not going to shop around. The service provider has a monopoly. They'll charge 50, 60 or 70 per cent in fees. Chances are if someone is on a package of $50,000, the service provider will pocket $25,000. If for whatever reason the consumer doesn't have access to everything they might need or want, or even be aware of it, they might end up buying $15,000 of home care, effectively, with a $50,000 package. That's an extreme example, but it's not an unbelievable example. Frankly, I think the whole idea of consumer directed care fixing problems in the industry—and it is an industry—is proven to be misplaced.
I'll tell you something I've learnt from my own lived experience of my mum and dad growing old and dying at home and their wishes being fulfilled. They were both in receipt of home-care packages, and they were very grateful for those home-care packages. They were lucky to have home-care packages. They didn't have to wait years like some consumers do. But they were ultimately only able to grow old at home like they wanted because my sister, a nurse, gave up nursing for a decade to be their carer.
As we talk about home-care packages, I think we need to also be talking about carers, because—let's face it—home-care packages can't meet all of the needs, and often carers, who are most often family members, are giving up their livelihoods, their professions and their social lives. They are staying at home and helping out with their mum, dad, brother, sister, son or daughter. I got to see first hand how a very talented senior nurse gave up nursing for a decade. It was obviously to the detriment of the community that that person wasn't able to work, at Tamworth Base Hospital in this case. But also it meant that that person didn't have a regular income for a decade, couldn't accumulate super for a decade and lived on quite a paltry carer's payment.
I think we as a country should have a different approach to carers. I don't think we should see them as people on welfare from Centrelink. I think we should see them as public servants or members of the community doing a genuine public service. I don't even think Centrelink should pay carers. I think they should be paid what we might characterise as a wage, have access to necessary things like workers' compensation and even be paid super. That is a fairly bold idea, but I think that would elevate carers to their correct position or status in all of this. They are not people on welfare. They are people who are working, and they are saving the government a fortune. They are saving the government billions of dollars. They are ensuring, too, that the loved one in care is in the most loving environment and not stuck in some ordinary residential aged-care facility where the long-suffering, overworked and underpaid staff might have eight minutes in the morning to get the resident sorted, help them wash, have their breakfast and whatnot. I think carers are among the unsung heroes of the country. They are actually a critical component of the home-care system, and I think we should treat them as such. They save the government a fortune. Why don't we compensate them a little better? If we do nothing else, let's pay them super. I think that would be a really positive start.
Let's not forget there is a gender dimension to this. Those carers are most often females, who are already behind the eight ball when it comes to their professional development and progression and their super balance. That is another reason to look carefully at this.
This is a desperately serious matter. The fact is that we are very short of home-care packages and the government needs to find the money to meet that need. It is not a case of 6,000 more packages one month and 20,000 more packages at another time, because we would just be putting bandaids on the problem. We need 100,000. We need an approach to funding which is demand driven. We as politicians, as leaders in the community, need to be able to look our older Australians in the eye and say: 'We guarantee that we will look after you as you age. We guarantee that, if you choose to live at home, you will get all of the support you need and you will get it within months of applying. We guarantee that if you decide to or need to go into residential care that that residential care facility will be world's best practice and absolutely first-class. It will be safe, it will be comfortable and it will be loving. Your meals will be just like you used to get at home.'
We can afford to do all this. We are a fabulously rich country. It is all about priorities. We seem to have thousands of priorities, but what really matters? I would have said it is our very young people, our very old people and people with a disability—disadvantaged members of the community. I think that is what really matters. All of us here can look after ourselves. But there are an awful lot of people out there who need help from us, and it is our duty to help them. I am very grateful for this time tonight, because this is such an important issue.
Debate interrupted.
The EPBC Act exists to protect the Australian environment from harm and to ensure that the incredible living diversity of our continent and our oceans is maintained. It's in the name, after all: the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Surely there can be no question that we must achieve those imperatives; we must achieve protection and conservation. Yet our national environmental protection framework has failed and is failing. The EPBC Act and the associated departmental resources, the government programs and the budget allocations that support all these elements of our protection framework are failing.
As the government-appointed EPBC Act reviewer, Mr Graeme Samuel AC, declared in his interim report:
Australia’s natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. The pressures on the environment are significant—including land-use change, habitat loss and degradation, and feral animal and invasive plant species. The impact of climate change on the environment is building, and will exacerbate pressures, contributing to further decline.
Just to make it completely clear, he also said:
The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable.
He went on to say:
The current settings cannot halt the trajectory of environmental decline, let alone reverse it.
Mr Samuel's prescription for addressing the problem is utterly sensible in its simplicity: (1) create and apply legally enforceable national environmental standards and (2) establish an independent regulator responsible for monitoring compliance, enforcement and assurance—a regulator that will be, in Mr Samuel's own words, 'a strong cop on the beat'.
Yet there was hardly time for the interim report to hit the desk before the Minister for the Environment had ruled out creating an independent watchdog and compliance agency. To be honest, that is the end of it: that is the end of the minister's environmental credibility; it is the end of the government's environmental credibility. We have a failed protection framework. We have an environment that has been hammered and is on a trajectory of decline, and the Morrison government rules out the key element of the expert advice for fixing the problem. And it is a key element, because, even we develop stronger national standards with a potential to deliver better environmental outcomes, what guarantee is there that those standards will be applied, monitored and enforced? One of the greatest black marks against this government has been the Australian National Audit Office finding that 79 per cent of EPBC decisions involved a failure of some kind, and there was no effective compliance regime. Is that surprising when the government has cut 40 per cent of the funding to the department of the environment? Make no mistake, without an independent watchdog and compliance agency, there will be no improvement to our trajectory of decline.
In a scorched landscape of environmental protection failure, even our parliamentary process or, at least, our parliamentary culture is failing, to the extent that the government wouldn't even allow these things to be properly debated in this place. For no reason whatsoever, the debate on the government's rushed and senseless EPBC amendments—which by themselves did absolutely nothing to improve environmental outcomes—was gagged and guillotined in this place. Dozens of Labor and crossbench members were unable to be part of the debate. I as the shadow assistant minister for the environment wasn't able to participate. The member for Watson, a former minister for the environment, wasn't able to speak. And for what? For what? It now appears the government has put those daft changes into the freezer box, at least temporarily.
When it comes to protecting the Australian environment, there are some who will be quick to say, 'Of course we have to look after the environment, but it's all about striking a balance,' and they're usually the same people who rabbit on about the terrible burden of green tape and the terrible inconvenience of local environmental activists who resist unacceptable degradation and the terrible inconvenience of traditional owners who dare to stand up for the health and heritage of their country! What is hard to believe is that some of the people who have spouted that rubbish in the last few years are not just members of parliament; they're not just ministers in the government; they're literally the people whose role is minister for the environment.
So let's be completely honest with ourselves. That balance that we're supposed to be striking is badly out of whack. That balance right now is steeply tilted away from a sustainable environment. The green tape, if you want to call it that, is not strong enough. We cannot keep putting our environment and our native plants and animals into profit-yielding stress positions in the name of striking a balance. We're in a situation of stark imbalance right now, and it's getting worse. Right now, if we want to keep dozens and dozens of species from the brink of extinction, if we want a clean ocean and a healthy coastal environment for our children and their children and if we accept our responsibility as custodians of Australia's incredible biodiversity, we have to radically improve what is a failed environmental protection framework. (Time expired)
Tonight I rise in the House to speak about the danger button batteries pose to our kids—unfortunately, not for the first and probably not for the last time. My heart goes out to the Conway family from the Gold Coast, who recently spoke about the loss of their little girl, Brittney, to a button battery. Brittney was just three years old when she tragically passed away in July after swallowing a button battery. Her parents never suspected that Brittney could have swallowed such a thing. As a parent I am so careful to make sure all of the button batteries in my home are secure; however, stories like these remind me and all parents how easy it is for unsuspected button battery products to end up in the hands of our kids.
One child each month is seriously injured by ingesting a button battery. These injuries can cause lifelong complications and, regrettably, the number of button battery injuries is growing. Just last weekend at the AFL grand final, 30,000 wristbands were given out containing unsecured button batteries. How many of these are now sitting on the floor at home or in the car, unsuspected and left there by parents? One of my constituents reached out after seeing one of my Facebook posts, saying that they had two of these wristbands floating around the car and they had no idea they contained button batteries and were a danger to their kids until they saw that Facebook post.
Parents are only human. We can be as careful as we possibly can be, but it is so easy to have something as simple as a wristband and not to think to check for button batteries. That is why we need legislation to give parents peace of mind that the products they bring into their homes are safe. In the lead-up to Christmas, this is particularly important and something to keep front of mind. New toys, watches, remotes and musical greeting cards are just some examples of products that contain button batteries. The shiny exterior of the battery is attractive to kids, and it can be swallowed in a matter of seconds. A chemical reaction occurs when the battery comes into contact with saliva, and it causes severe internal burns. Serious injury can occur in as little as two hours, and the results can be fatal. It is tremendously painful.
The ACCC have launched their 'Tiny batteries, Big danger' campaign. They provide useful tips for how to prevent button batteries getting into the hands of your kids. Check before you buy, secure button batteries, store them out of reach of children, learn how to dispose of them properly, know what to do in an emergency and make your family and friends who your kids may spend time with aware of the danger. I encourage all parents to visit the ACCC website, particularly in the lead-up to Christmas, to learn how to secure your home and these kinds of products that contain button batteries.
I've given the ACCC a bit of a bouquet, so now I'm going to give them a bit of a kick too. Minister Sukkar has tasked the ACCC with formulating recommendations for the federal government to create legislation that will ensure the safety of all products containing button batteries. Enough is enough. This has been a top consumer priority for the ACCC for two years now. We must take action sooner rather than later to protect our kids from the dangers of unsecured button batteries. It is as easy, as simple as mandating a screw to secure any button battery on a product that contains them. If there's a screw in place, that means the kids can't get access to them without a screwdriver. Having that mandated would give parents the security and the knowledge that the products they bring into their home are safe.
You'd still need supervision, of course, but mandating this kind of security for button batteries would give added peace of mind to parents. It's an additional cost to the manufacturing of these products, sure, but I know every parent in Australia would gladly pay the price of one or two cents extra per unit to have these button batteries secured by a screw rather than risk the thought of another parent going through what Brittney's parents did or another kid like Brittney losing her life in such tragic and senseless circumstances. I urge the ACCC to finalise their recommendations to Minister Sukkar as quickly as possible—to get on with it so we can protect parents and their children from these preventable injuries and deaths, so that not another family has to go through what Brittney's family went through, and so not another child has to have what is a very preventable injury, and we can prevent these things from happening in the future.
Another week in parliament and another call from the crossbench for a federal integrity commission, with the member for Indi doing what the major parties won't: placing a bill before the parliament to establish the Australian federal integrity commission, doing so with the unanimous support of the crossbench and the majority of Australians. Regular surveys show 80 per cent of Australians support the establishment of a federal corruption watchdog. All states and territories have an integrity commission. They have variances on how they operate, but in one way they are the same: they have investigated and revealed corruption and abuse-of-position scandals in all states on all sides of politics. From a lack of power pole maintenance in the West to Ultranet in Victoria, the Obeids in New South Wales and most recently the allegations regarding Daryl Maguire and the New South Wales ICAC.
But at a federal level there is no proper body to investigate serious allegations of abuse of position or power. The closest thing we do have is the Auditor-General's office, a body that is looking into scandals at the federal level, revealing damning reports, such as the sports rorts scandal and most recently the Leppington land sale. The Auditor-General is going above and beyond to investigate such matters with severely limited resources this year, slashed even further by the Morrison government. Many observers have suggested that this cut in funding is a direct result of it exposing certain scandals.
Despite the lack of a federal integrity commission, many scandals have been revealed, often by the media or from internal whistleblowers. To summarise just a few that have hit the media just in the last five years: $100 million in sports rorts; $80 million in water rights; $30 million in airport rights for the purchase of the land at Leppington; $440 million for the Great Barrier Reef Foundation after a meeting that they never even asked for; $60 million for Rupert Murdoch to promote women's sport, which was spent on second-grade rugby league games; the allegations of forged documents to attack a political enemy; the poisoned grassland scandal; and not to mention the use of taxpayer money to pay for salaries of staff and then stacking branches, which of course we have seen happen on both sides of politics. So it is a reminder that both major parties are guilty of questionable conduct and decision-making.
This week in the Senate estimates we've heard more and more examples of where a federal integrity commission is sorely needed—matters such as: the ASIC chair using taxpayer dollars to sponsor his personal accounting and the deputy chair using taxpayer dollars to pay his exorbitant rent; the questionable purchase of Cartier watches from staff at Australia Post; and, just today, here in this very place, we debated—or tried to debated—the matter of the $3.3 million payment to Shine Energy to conduct a feasibility study into the Collinsville coalmine, a payment that has serious question marks surrounding it. We cannot refer it to a federal integrity commission, and I'm pleased to hear it has been referred to the Auditor-General. I'll certainly look forward to that outcome. The reality is that a federal integrity commission would provide a forum for proper investigation and inquiry—an opportunity for wrongdoers to be exposed but also for those wrongly accused to be exonerated.
All sides of politics claim to support the need for a federal integrity commission and for cleaning up politics and making sure that the Australian people have a trust in government and politicians, but the Australian people have seen little action. The government promised to establish an integrity commission over two years ago, but it has repeatedly delayed, prioritising other legislation. I, like many other Australians, don't accept the excuse that the COVID pandemic caused the delay. I do not believe that extensive consultation would not have been possible. In the last six months, during COVID, the government has brought forward into parliament legislation ranging from easing restrictions on political donations, banning mobile phones in immigration detention and dramatically restructuring university fees. In fact, the pandemic has brought about a record amount of government spending and funding, which calls for more scrutiny. In the last few years there has been a disregard and carelessness to accountability and good governance that is dangerous and an insult to our communities. Other Australians are subject to rules and expectations in their duties and jobs. There is no reason that public servants, MPs, senators and their staff should not be held to the same standards. It's time to bring on the debate.
It was a great pleasure to listen to Minister Karen Andrews give an address to this chamber at lunchtime today talking about the government's priorities to reinvigorate manufacturing in this country. I can't tell you how strongly I endorse, and am proud to be part of, a government that recognises the need for us to engage very directly in developing manufacturing and industry opportunities in this country for the jobs of the future.
Of course, I am a South Australian. The great Sir Thomas Playford is, I believe, the longest serving leader of a government in the history of the Westminster system—some 37 years as premier of the state of South Australia. He left an unbelievable legacy on my state through the manufacturing and industry that he developed during his tenure. He recognised the need to bring the inputs together, which in that era were cheap electricity, cheap labour—not because they were lowly paid but because cost of living was low, particularly the cost of housing. Soon after the Second World War, when there was an enormous opportunity to bring new migrants into the country, he brought all those factors together and we saw rapid development of manufacturing and industry in my home state of South Australia, which was also happening around the country.
One of the icons of that era in my home state was the automotive industry. Sadly, of course, that is no longer with us, but from the late 1940s right through until this millennium that was a significant part of the baseload of our economy, the manufacturing of our economy. Now we need to look to what the baseload will be into the future. Clearly I strongly endorse the priorities that the government have identified, the six pillars. I see huge opportunities in my electorate and my home state.
In particular I'd like to address food and value adding in food and food processing, and defence and space, which are some of the significant opportunities in South Australia. I'm lucky enough to have some fairly iconic food processors and manufacturers in my electorate. I've got the Robern Menz factory which produced the very famous, particularly in South Australia, FruChocs line of confectionery. They have also now brought back the Violet Crumble, which they are exporting to the United States. Thanks to a very significant grant from the Morrison government they are bringing back the Polly Waffle, which many will remember as it's such an iconic Australian confectionary, which I'm happy to say will or should be manufactured in my electorate of Sturt. It will not just be sold throughout this country, but, hopefully, exported around the world. It's famous more recently as being identified on Facebook as being Keith Urban's chocolate bar of choice.
I've got the Penfold's iconic Magill Estate in my electorate. Wine is one of those sectors that is not only an agricultural exploit and also transformational. It's an opportunity to dramatically value-add. Through this package we need to be investing in exactly the sorts of technologies and skills in our workforce that are going to see us bring more jobs in that sector, keep more jobs in that sector here in Australia in my home state of South Australia.
Defence has obviously been a massive priority of this government, particularly defence industry. Since the election of this government we've finally recognised—given the last government had no priority whatsoever in developing sovereign capability—particularly through the ship building decisions that we've made but many others, that defence is not just vital to our national security, but an enormous opportunity to build and develop sovereign capability. It is a significant industry to boot that can supply our own requirements for capability for our forces. We should be able to harness the opportunity to export to our allies the advanced manufacturing defence industry products that we produce in this country.
In my electorate of Sturt I have a business called Supashock, which started, not surprisingly given its name, as a manufacturer of shock absorbers. They still produce shock absorbers for the civilian and defence sectors, but they have dramatically expanded into so many other opportunities, often supported by government. They are an advanced manufacturer in my electorate that is exporting around the world.
These opportunities are just the tip of the iceberg for us. I think what was outlined today by the minister; the measures, equally, in the budget; the work that we've done prior to that; and clearly the renewed focus on this issue into the future are going to deliver enormous economic outcomes for this country and also give us a sovereign capability that we desperately need.
I get that people love a simple solution. Liberal politicians especially seem to love a quick fix, even if the science doesn't add up. When it comes to the flooding in the Nepean-Hawkesbury Valley, the New South Wales minister for Western Sydney, Stuart Ayres, especially loves to use fear to compel others to support his Warragamba wall-raising proposal. 'It's raining,' he says, 'a lot,' he, says. 'It might flood,' he says, 'so we need to raise the wall by 17 metres.'
Let's get a few things clear. Mr Ayres, on the nightly news, is not the person to listen to if you are worried about flood warnings. A federal government agency, the Bureau of Meteorology, is the body that issues not just the official flood warnings but also the official flood alerts. If you go to the BOM site, find the water information and then flick to the national flood forecasting and warning service, you can read about the process and see any current warnings. There are none for the Hawkesbury or the Nepean right now. There's not even an alert. It's probably time that Mr Ayres dispensed with the fear campaign and focused on the facts—all the facts, not just the ones that suit his purpose.
There are a set of reasons why raising the wall is a flawed proposal above the dam, and there are another set of reasons why it's a flawed proposal below the dam. IAG, the country's largest insurer, have made a decision that they no longer support the proposal, and they cited the impact on the probable loss of significant Aboriginal cultural heritage sites and important natural habitats. I'm going to focus, though, on the downstream reasons.
The fact is that the New South Wales Liberal government wants to increase the number of people who settle in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley by 134,000 over the next 27 years. That is from Infrastructure New South Wales's own 2017 report. That's a doubling of the population and a lot of extra people to move quickly in a major flood, especially given there's been so little investment in evacuation routes. That target ignores the lessons people thought had been learnt by the horrific 2011 Brisbane floods, where previous state and local government decisions allowed housing developments on high-risk areas of the Brisbane River flood plain, falsely believing the Wivenhoe Dam had flood proofed the valley.
Of course, we face what's called the 'bathtub effect'. Sackville Gorge acts like a plughole and banks up the water. But it isn't just water from Warragamba that's coming in. It could be the Grose River, Colo River, South Creek—in fact there are a number of sources of water. Our reality is, as former head of the SES Chas Keys says:
We need to recognise the fundamental reality that floods cannot be eliminated and that the community must not be misled into thinking that mitigation will completely solve the problems that floods pose.
But there are things that governments should be doing. Labor did it when it was in office. It acted on the engineering and the science advice that it received, not to assist developers but to save lives. We built the Jim Anderson bridge to facilitate evacuation. We also made the dam wall safer and put in auxiliary spillways. These were sensible things to do. These days an obvious thing to do is to improve evacuation routes. A $950 million program of upgrades was dismissed by the New South Wales government in 2017, which is probably less than what it will cost to raise the wall. Upgrading North Richmond bridge to offer evacuation routes to the west is another obvious one. It's due to start being built in 2024 and finished in late 2026, so that would be a relatively fast option for our community, yet the RMS is refusing to consider any sort of flood-resilience measures in constructing that bridge, aside from very, very basic means.
But, rather than me espousing a particular solution, what we really need from the New South Wales government is an honest discussion with the community, not just a fear campaign to scare people into accepting one flawed proposal. We need a genuine, transparent, fact- and science-based conversation about the risk and the options.
I'd like to pay tribute to a prominent member of the Blue Mountains community affectionately referred to as 'the Gnome Master', David Cook. David worked tirelessly for his community as a long-time Rotarian, having joined Lower Blue Mountains Rotary in 1995. As a past district governor, David and his wife Carolyn hosted youth exchange students and led group study teams, but his fame came from the Australian Gnome Convention. I was pleased to take the Leader of the Opposition there last year. Vale David Cook.
I have the best job in the world because I get to represent my community of Lindsay and deliver the projects and policies that make a difference to our community. This budget is our plan for Australia's economic recovery, and it's a plan that will deliver without increasing taxes. Whether it be for young families, our aspirational small businesses or our Australian manufacturers, we're getting on with the job to make sure that this budget delivers the best outcomes for our community. In fact, with the legislation we've already passed, around 80,000 people in Lindsay will benefit from the Morrison government's tax relief. We're making sure that people can keep more of what they earn to spend on what matters to them. It doesn't just mean more money in people's back pocket. It also means 50,000 jobs across Australia, and that is why it is so important.
The Morrison government—our budget and our economic recovery plan—is all about creating jobs, and I'm working hard to make sure that, importantly, we are creating local jobs in Lindsay. From the outset of the pandemic, we got behind Australians and small businesses to retain jobs and save livelihoods. The JobKeeper payment has been instrumental in our coronavirus response package, which helped save around 700,000 jobs. JobKeeper has supported around 5,000 businesses in Lindsay to maintain the connection with their employees, and the cash flow boost has happened over 5,000 local small and medium-sized businesses to stay afloat. These measures have helped small businesses in Lindsay get through the toughest times many of them have ever faced. Now we're emerging from the pandemic, and the Australian economy is fighting back. Thanks to our strong economic management, we were in a position to respond to the coronavirus from a position of strength. Australia is now one of only nine countries around the world to hold a AAA credit rating from all three major credit rating agencies. After we outlined our economic recovery plan in this year's budget, consumer confidence increased by a record 11.9 per cent in October, the largest increase in a budget month since the series began in 1974, and, as of now, consumer confidence has increased for the seventh consecutive week. Over the last four months 446,000 jobs have been created, and confidence is growing as people across Australia can see the first stages of our plan in action.
At a local level, this confidence is shining through from people in Lindsay. When the Treasurer came to Lindsay for his first stop after handing down the budget he spoke with members of the community and local small businesses to discuss what the budget means for them. Julie at Nepean Swim and Fitness told me how they've seen a turning point since the budget, and people are coming back through the doors. When I asked Julie what the budget means for our community, she replied, 'Confidence.' She said it's been so encouraging to see more local jobs return, and she is even advertising for a new swim instructor to join the team. Alan, the director of Nepean Swim and Fitness said: 'The bottom line for our business is families need to know that their income is secure, and that means having a steady job. Since the budget was announced, we have definitely soon a growth in the number of children attending lessons, to the point where we have now had to hire more swimming instructors and increase the hours worked of some of our existing instructors.' The budget measures and incentives around job creation, combined with tax incentives for investment, will give businesses confidence to re-hire people they may have shed during the pandemic and, hopefully, to create new positions. These are Alan's words. He said, 'With more people back in work and tax cuts in their pocket, he has hope for the future.' That's what this budget is about. That's what delivering for the people of Lindsay is about.
The Penrith CBD Corporation have been encouraging local businesses to look at the incentives for employing staff and to take on apprentices, and they're making the most of the measures we are implementing. They've reported these are being well received. A number of local businesses are reporting some of their best trading months. While five new businesses have opened during the pandemic, there are also three new restaurants and three other new businesses that will open before Christmas in the CBD of Penrith. We continue to rebuild our economy and create more jobs. Our local childcare centres are also benefiting. Since the time of the coronavirus pandemic I have been hearing from Explore and Develop in Glenmore Park. Not one family have withdrawn their children from the centre. Local families in Lindsay can trust that their children are receiving the best education and care.
Our economy is fighting back. The government is supporting small businesses to lead our economic recovery and, most importantly, to create more local jobs.
House adjourned at 20:00
():I was elected in 2007, and I, like many of my constituents, understood then that the internet was appalling. It was a shemozzle in my electorate, as it was around most of the country. One of the biggest contributing factors was the copper network. The copper network was of poor quality and meant that we barely could get ADSL in many parts of my electorate. Of course, Labor had a visionary plan to install a fibre network across my electorate. Indeed, many suburbs were the beneficiaries of this. It was a great disappointment to me and the rest of my constituency that had not received that fibre network to then have the Liberal Party elected in 2013, when they then opted for what they said at the time was going to be a cheaper model to deliver the National Broadband Network. Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister at the time, axed Labor's plan, saying it wasn't worth the government spending money on it. Of course, he at the time said it would only cost $29 billion. Well, we now know that that blew out to a cost of $57 billion, more than what Labor's original plan had been.
Now, after all these years of anguish, after all these problems my constituents have had—they've had more copper put in the ground, meaning that their internet is limited—the Liberal Party have said that they need to go back and install fibre. Well, this is an 'I told you so' moment. We told you so. This is what we predicted, and it's a disaster that we're now back there. But, unfortunately for my constituents, we've now found out that, despite the Liberal Party saying that fibre is now the answer, only 10 per cent of the country is going to get this new fibre network to their premises. My question to this government is: will that include the suburbs of Aberfoyle Park, Hallett Cove, Happy Valley, Flagstaff Hill, Reynella, Christies Beach, Christie Downs, Morphett Vale and the list goes on? These suburbs had been struggling with poor internet, and the Liberal Party offered them only this: fibre-to-the-node technology, where they reinstalled copper. They reinstalled copper! They bought more copper and put that in the ground. I feel like a broken record. I have been talking about the need for decent internet in my electorate since 2006, since as soon as I became a candidate, when it became abundantly clear that this was a huge issue. The question for the Liberal Party is: will they finally admit their mistakes and come and install fibre to the premises in my electorate? That is what my constituents want. That is what they demand. I expect the Liberal Party to turn up.
It's a sobering statistic that almost half of the Australian population will be affected by a mental disorder at some stage in their lifetime. The government, in conjunction with the community, has been working hard to address mental illness. It's vital that people needing help feel willing and able to seek support, and it's vital that those seeking support are able to receive it. That's why the government has stepped up to the plate, including in this budget most recently, and is delivering unprecedented funding of $5.7 billion, which will be spent on mental health and suicide prevention in the 2020-21 budget. This extra support will be delivered to key areas such as Medicare funded psychological appointments, which have increased from 10 to 20 sessions under a patient's mental healthcare plan, a change which I strongly advocated for, along with the flexibility for patients to access sessions through the telehealth system.
We know that the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected many people's mental health, especially in the state of Victoria, but indeed all around the country. A few months ago, I met with CEO of Lifeline Australia and Wentworth resident Colin Seery. Lifeline, has many here would know, is an essential mental health service providing 24-hour suicide prevention and crisis support. Colin's office told me yesterday that Australians are turning to Lifeline in greater numbers than ever. Lifeline has averaged just under 90,000 calls per month—volumes never previously seen—which equates to one call being received every 30 seconds.
Since the start of COVID-19, our youth have also been one of the most impacted groups. The Black Dog Institute reports that 75 per cent have mental health issues emerge before the age of 25. In my own electorate we're extremely fortunate to have the invaluable organisation of headspace in Bondi Junction. Headspace, as members here would know, assist young people by providing psychological services to individuals aged 12 to 25. Their services encompass a multitude of issues, such as anxiety, depression, alcohol and drug abuse, bullying and coping strategies. To ensure we continue to grow the number of centres available for our young to access, the government has committed $630 million to increase the number of headspace centres from 124 to 153 by 2022 as well as injecting much-needed funds into existing facilities to assist with the extra demands placed on them as we navigate through these uncertain times.
Another local organisation I have had the pleasure of meeting and dealing with on several occasions is Woven Threads. The director of Woven Treads, Michi Marosszeky, explained how Woven Threads aims to destigmatise mental health issues through the medium of animation and short movies. Woven Threads recently released eight episodes in a mini-series highlighting the struggles that migrants and refugees face with mental health and acceptance. Now partnering with the Black Dog Institute and AIA Australia, Woven Threads have just released another series designed to start the conversation surrounding youth mental health more generally.
This is an important issue as we emerge from COVID-19, and I commend the government for its work in addressing this issue.
On this government's watch, many of our coalmining companies have dramatically increased their use of labour hire companies. I support our coalmining companies. They pay lots of tax, which we, of course, use to build schools, hospitals and roads and, most importantly, they create hundreds of thousands of jobs, including many thousands of jobs in my own electorate. But I don't support the use of labour hire for the sole purpose of lowering the cost of doing business, at the expense of our mineworkers.
We have far too many mineworkers working alongside their mates on less pay and without all the leave and other entitlements enjoyed by their mates. At BHP's Mt Arthur mine, for example, a mineworker working for the company under the enterprise agreement secured by the union earns $159,000 a year, while his or her mate working alongside him or her earns only $106,000 working for the labour hire company—and, in this case, a labour hire company wholly owned by the mining company, BHP. In other words, it was established for one purpose only. So same job, different pay; same roster, different pay; and same hours, different pay—year in, year out.
Labor went to the 2019 election promising to fix this by inserting into the Fair Work Act an objective definition of what is a casual employee. At the time, members of the government, including Senator Matt Canavan, ran around the electorate saying, 'We already got this covered; we have a bill in the House to fix this.' Mysteriously, that bill just disappeared after the election. But, worse, that bill would have made the situation worse for our coalminers, because what that bill is about and what this government is really about is overtaking the so-called WorkPac case, where the Federal Court said, 'If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, it's probably a duck,' and found that these mineworkers year in, year out, on the same roster, working the same days are entitled to the same rate of pay as their mates working for the mining company. This government is now joining with the companies in the court to appeal the WorkPac decision—in other words, to do over our mineworkers.
One Nation says that it supports our mineworkers; yet down here, day in, day out, One Nation senators support this anti-worker government. If One Nation is serious about backing our coalminers, they should join with Labor and do something about this overcasualisation.
It wasn't just the Richmond Tigers who had a great season this year; so too did the mighty Kenmore Bears in the Ryan electorate. I rise to congratulate the Kenmore Bears Junior Australian Football Club on their recent victory in the QFA grand final. As a young boy, I played for the Kenmore Junior Bears, and it was through my sterling efforts that we never got close to a premiership. In contrast, this year both the seniors and the reserve Kenmore Bears teams walked away the premiership title as a testament to their strong performance throughout the season. This was the first time since the club started in 1997 that both senior teams made it to the grand final. Both the seniors and the reserves teams fought tough battles in the finals against the Victoria Point Sharks and both prevailed. The reserves were undefeated in their season. Congratulations to the lads on this remarkable achievement. It was a pleasure to join the players, families and supporters at their annual awards night, affectionately nicknamed the Bearlow Medals, to celebrate the efforts of both premiership teams. A special mention goes to the Bears reserve team captain, Andrew Adermann. Andrew has been playing at the Bears since 1997 and this was his 24th straight season. As one of the longest serving players, his leadership and experience helped throughout the season to guide the Bears to victory.
This year also marked a milestone for the Junior Bears club as their girls team made it to their very first grand final. While they didn't come away with a win, the club is excited that, in the few years the girls' team has been playing at Kenmore, they have already made it all the way to the grand final. Of course, we all know that behind every successful community team is a vast array of tireless volunteers. The club president, Terry Mumford, worked his guts out this season to ensure that his team had the support they needed to get to the top. With the challenges COVID-19 imposed on local sporting clubs, having a leader like Terry to guide the club through these challenges has been absolutely invaluable. After more than a decade of service to the club, he still lends a hand in the canteen on game day and singlehandedly makes sure every job is done in the lead-up to game day. I'd like to congratulate Terry on his commitment to this fantastic local sporting club and, likewise, I'd like to thank all the community members, coaches, executive members and support staff for the role they played in keeping this season alive through COVID. Sport is such a valuable and uplifting part of the community and it was needed this year more than most. It would have been an easy decision to pack up when the pandemic first began and walk away, but the Kenmore Bears and the team have worked incredibly hard and they persevered to keep the season going in our local community. Congratulations to all of the senior players on their win in the QFA premiership and congratulations to the under 13s junior girls team on their efforts in the grand final. I look forward to supporting both the junior and senior Kenmore Bears clubs next season as well, when we go for the repeat.
We live in difficult economic times. For the first time, more than one million Australians are out of work and the government expects this figure to rise by Christmas. More people are dependent on a strong social security framework than ever before, and people who have never accessed welfare before are finding themselves waiting in lines at Centrelink or on hold on the phone as they attempt to navigate the department's complex systems. I hear truly terrible cases that come before my electorate office on a daily basis. There are cases of people being made to feel like criminals, people being intentionally forced between the cracks and people left behind by a social security system that has been designed by this government to make people just give up. From the outset, I want to make it clear that the staff at Centrelink do an amazing job. In particular, I want to acknowledge my office's truly incredible liaison at Centrelink for the work that she and her team do. However, staff at Centrelink are being let down by the government that oversees them.
Under this government, the effectiveness of our social security system has been severely eroded, and people are waking up to this fact. As I said, people who have never before accessed supports through Centrelink are experiencing the government's inhumane and laissez faire approach to providing so-called human services, and they are rightly outraged by the way the coalition has been treating fellow human beings for some time. Just this month, I was approached by a constituent who should be treated far better than he is by the government. This person clearly has an intellectual disability. He has very poor literacy skills. In fact, he can't read. His dealings with his assigned job service provider have been nothing short of shocking. The lack of attention to detail and the department's—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:14 to 16:25
Before the break, I was relating a story about a constituent who had an intellectual disability. He couldn't read or write. His payments were cut off because his job service provider was sending him written notices about appointments that he didn't read and couldn't attend. When he contacted them, they kept him waiting on the phone for two hours before he eventually just gave up.
Another constituent contacted my office. She'd come from Queensland to care for her very elderly parents, before they went into residential aged care. She couldn't get back to Queensland because of border closures. Notices of appointments were sent to her address in Queensland, which, of course, she couldn't keep, even if she wanted to, and she was cut off from her payments. This is absolutely shocking, and this is not the way our social security system should work. It should be supporting people with the most disadvantage in the worst situations. We must do better. Common sense has to prevail in this very difficult time, and it's time the government listened to the difficulties that people are having addressing their social security issues through Centrelink.
I would like to say how proud I am to be the member for Nicholls, under this Nationals government, and to be given this opportunity to deliver $320 million, for the people of Nicholls, for stage 3 of the Shepparton rail line upgrade. The Victorian government is going to contribute $80 million to this $400 million stage 3 project. Stage 3 will hopefully see, when it's completed, up to nine velocity services per week, travelling at 130 kilometres per hour, which should reduce travel time to under two hours.
I've been working on this since 2016. I've been working closely with local government and the broader community to deliver this efficient, modern, reliable passenger service for the region. In 2017 I spoke about how the passenger services into Shepparton from Melbourne had been completely neglected by the Victorian state Labor government. In that period of time, we'd seen hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, spent on velocity services to Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo, while the whole region around the Goulburn Valley had been totally left behind.
We've hosted ministers, we've had conferences with the City of Greater Shepparton, with the Committee for Greater Shepparton, with CEOs and with the mayors of the regions to specifically address the inferior passenger rail service to Shepparton. Their unified calls have been heard. Finally, we've had some action over the last few years. The state government contributed $33 million—that was a good start—and there were some capital work upgrades. In 2018 the state government committed just over $300 million for signalling and track upgrades on this line, to make sure the Shepparton to Seymour line was able to cope with these speeds. We have had level-crossings between Shepparton and Seymour completed, and platform extensions done in Shepparton, Mooroopna, Murchison East and Nagambie. We've also had greater amenity at the Shepparton line for stabling, which is very, very important.
Connectivity with Melbourne is absolutely critical. Melbourne is a great city, one of the greatest cities in the world, but, until now, Shepparton has been totally left out from connecting to this amazing capital city of Victoria. Hopefully now this project will be completed and we will get to see up to nine VLocity services every day to and from Shepparton and Melbourne. Once our services hit the metropolitan sprawl at Broadmeadows, we still need to find a way to get through that metropolitan system so that we can get straight through to the CBD. There is an opportunity if the Victorian government is prepared to build a designated tunnel as part of the Melbourne Airport Rail Link. The federal government is stumping up the money for the Victorian government to build the Melbourne Airport Rail Link properly, and they need to do so.
The Australian Red Cross is a remarkable organisation that has served this nation with distinction for more than 100 years. I'd like to acknowledge and congratulate the outstanding work of my local Red Cross. Their members are champions of our local community and they generously give their time to help others. From supporting someone in an emergency to assisting an elderly person to stay at home, to saving a life with first aid or a blood donation, the Red Cross has always been there. In my local area, the Red Cross has been there supporting our community through bushfires and floods, offering practical support where it's needed, not just during the crisis but before and after the emergency has unfolded. It's often during these emergencies that we witness the kindness, hope and compassion from our local Red Cross volunteers that really define this wonderful organisation.
The fact is: each year we're seeing disasters such as bushfires, floods and drought becoming more and more frequent. We know that, when communities are better prepared, they recover faster. This year, three Red Cross members in my electorate have been recognised at the Resilient Australia Awards for their outstanding service. I'd like to congratulate our local Red Cross resilience team, which includes Tammy Jones, Red Cross field operations and community engagement liaison officer for Tweed; Marie-Antoinette Rogers, Red Cross team leader from Murwillumbah and villages; and Jasmine Jones-Calvert, Red Cross team leader for Tweed Banora. The team have taken joint honours, along with Next Step Incorporated, in the community category, at the 2020 New South Wales Resilient Australia Awards. The team worked tirelessly to help prepare villages throughout the region to be more resilient communities, through their programs Pillowcase, RediPlan, the Get Prepared app and Business Ready. Pillowcase is a presentation to primary school children and equips them with the knowledge of what to take in their pillowcase if there's an emergency, just so they're prepared. RediPlan, the Get Prepared app and Business Ready are tools to assist residents and business owners to plan for emergencies by getting organised to pack an emergency kit before a disaster event.
The team also partnered with various local emergency services, community groups, schools and local councils to help them also prepare for emergencies. They also developed the community resilience team concept, an idea led by residents for residents—like a phone tree within your community with a focus on providing emergency preparedness information. So, to Tammy, Marie, Jasmine and all those involved, I say thank you. Our community is so privileged to have you helping us. Your successful community programs and partnerships have inspired so many people. I give my congratulations to all those volunteers of the Red Cross for the wonderful work you do.
Last Friday it was my pleasure to speak at the year 12 prize-giving ceremony at my alma mater, St Peter's College. In fact, it turned out there was a book I hadn't returned from 2001 that was raised with me on the way out, but I think I've been given grace on that! It was a great honour to be back at my old school 19 years after I graduated and to speak to the year 12 students. Obviously we're going into exam period now—certainly in South Australia; I'm not quite as au fait with other jurisdictions. But I know that, for the South Australian Certificate of Education and the International Baccalaureate, the year 12s are doing their exams right now. It's obviously been a very tough year. My message to them on Friday, which I take the opportunity to convey, through this chamber, to all the year 12s in my electorate, in my home state and across the country, is that we all feel for the challenges that you've had this year, of course. No-one could have predicted, at the start of the year, what would confront you in what is, in many ways, at this stage of your lives, the most important year so far. There's probably a temptation for some to decide that they can use the coronavirus as an excuse, perhaps to say, 'I'm not going to bother to make the effort I was going to, because it's not my fault that I've had this year of COVID-19 thrust upon me.' I really implore everyone to do quite the reverse of that and to use this as an opportunity to work harder and to study harder than they ever intended to.
Year 12 students have had a real challenge thrown at them this year. To those of you for whom this is the first major challenge you've had in your life: I promise it's not going to be the last. Challenges like this will confront you all through your life, and in some ways this is an opportunity to take a challenge earlier than you might have anticipated and turn it into a positive; that's how we get ahead in life. No matter whether it's your schooling or your career, or decisions you make in your personal life, life is not going to be easy; it's not meant to be easy. Learning that lesson this year might not have seemed like a good lesson to learn, but I hope that, in hindsight, you will find that you turned this year into a year of opportunity.
To those of you who have got exams coming up over the next few weeks: study hard. We certainly are very proud of the way all our year 12s across the country have confronted this challenge and not turned it into a reason to mope or complain, but, I hope in almost all cases, turned it into an opportunity to excel, to show that they can rise to a challenge and to show that they can handle the unexpected and succeed in life. I wish all the year 12s in my electorate and across the country all the best for their exams.
2020 has been a phenomenally difficult year for the travel and tourism industry. Labor has been spending many of the last few months highlighting the plight of people who work in this industry, in travel, tourism, aviation and related areas, and the fact that the government doesn't have a national plan for this sector. The holes in the Prime Minister's response are becoming more and more visible, and more and more damaging. The dnata catering workers have had JobKeeper withheld. Qantas baggage handlers have had their jobs outsourced. Thousands of Jetstar workers have lost work altogether. At the same time, the government is finding money to lend to Crown casino for private jets, to Mineralogy—Clive Palmer's company—for private jets and to Leppington Pastoral Company for private jets.
Amongst all of this chaos, one of the groups that have been overlooked—and I really do fear for their future—are travel agents. In an electorate like mine, there are thousands of people employed in the travel industry. This sector is feeling the pain very deeply. The vast majority of travel agents' revenue comes from booking overseas travel. Of course, it hasn't been happening this year and it's not likely to happen for some time into the future. Travel agents have often had to reach into their own pockets to repay deposits to people who booked travel, because they can't get the money back from companies overseas; the suppliers haven't been forthcoming. It has been a phenomenally difficult and stressful time for this industry. Of course, domestic tourism is great for Australian hotels and for the hospitality industry more generally. But people who are travelling within Australia generally aren't booking that travel through travel agents. So this particular group, even with a return to open borders between Australian states, is unlikely to see restoration of their previous levels of activity.
I have spoken with the Australian Federation of Travel Agents and with travel agents in my electorate recently—Peter, Mario, Grant and Christopher. I can tell you they're anxious. They're anxious about how they're going to pay their rent, pay back those deposits and so on. They're very, very anxious about how they're going to keep paying wages for their staff. They tell me again and again that their staff are like family; these are generally quite small and cohesive groups of people who have worked together for a long time. They're beside themselves about how they will keep their doors open and how they will keep people in jobs. Most of them tell me that it's unlikely that their businesses will survive much beyond the end of the financial year, and that announcements like the loss carry-back provision won't actually help them. If we don't want this downturn to be longer and deeper than it already is, the government must have a specific plan for this industry.
Reaching 100 years of age is an incredible milestone. In our roles as members of parliament, we often have the pleasure of meeting amazing people throughout our communities who have reached or exceeded a century of life. Today I want to highlight two who I have met in recent months, who both served our country in uniform.
It was a great pleasure to be invited to attend a 100th birthday lunch for Ernie, born in 1920. Ernie trained as a fitter and turner in Far North Queensland before joining the Royal Australian Navy in 1941, finishing up as a chief petty officer. Ernie saw combat in the Second World War on board the destroyer attached to the British far eastern fleet, working on the guns on HMAS Quickmatch. They covered the area from the bottom of South Africa to India and Sri Lanka. Later on they had a hand in the recapture of Okinawa in Japan. In 1944 Ernie received a commendation for removing a misfired round from one of the guns. It was a tense moment, where he cleared all personnel from the area to retrieve it and throw it overboard. After discharging from the navy in 1946, he worked at the sugar mills and contributed to the community for many decades, ultimately ending up in Townsville. At a birthday party surrounded by family and friends at the Cowboys Leagues Club, you wouldn't have known Ernie was anywhere near 100. He was extremely pleased when I presented him a birthday present: a signed bottle of wine from ScoMo. It wasn't too long until I was invited to another lunch with Ernie, this time at the RSL. RSL Queensland was keen to recognise Ernie's 100th birthday milestone with a lunch at the Townsville Sub Branch, and gave him a special certificate.
I also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to another inspirational member of the Townsville community: 103-year-old Colin. He is a well-known Magnetic Island local, who served on the Kokoda Track and in Borneo. It was a great honour to be invited by some of his closest friends for a special presentation. Colin had been nominated to receive one of the Australian government's medallions and certificates of commemoration. This has been a fantastic initiative to recognise the significance of the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, and is available to every living veteran of that conflict. Despite growing a bit old—he's now in high care—Colin was extremely pleased to have received the well-deserved token of appreciation, which he now displays proudly in his room next to a photo of him all dressed up wearing his many other medals. Townsville has many fantastic locals, and these two are true heroes of our community.
In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
These appropriation bills give effect to the elements outlined in the budget. It's time to be brave and bold and secure our economic future. There are some good measures, but unfortunately on the whole it is an opportunity missed.
The government is putting Australia into record debt: nearly $1 trillion net debt by July 2024, borrowing more to spend on business-as-usual measures that will not set Australia up for the challenges that we know lie ahead. Sadly, the government has announced four times more stimulus funding for fossil fuels than renewables. This seems just crazy. The government is digging its heels in against the global tide away from fossil fuels, desperately trying to put the brakes on the green recovery that is so desperately needed, and wasting the public's money in the process.
Nevertheless, there is an opportunity. The business community can take control of this. Business and individuals have the opportunity to jettison the government's planned gas recovery. They can supercharge a green recovery with the government's own measures. The biggest single measure in this budget, worth an estimated $26.7 billion, is focused on encouraging businesses to invest freely through full asset write-offs. This is an opportunity for businesses to supercharge Australia's transition to net zero emissions. Businesses can deliver the policy the government does not want to do and can undermine the government's obsession with the short-sighted gas-led recovery. With the tax incentives, businesses can take control of Australia's emission reductions in future and remain competitive in the net zero world that is coming, whether the Morrison government likes it or not. The tax incentives include the temporary full expensing measure—it's the largest single line item in the budget—instant asset write-offs; and the extension of the research and development tax incentive. These incentives total an investment opportunity of nearly $30 billion, according to the Treasury estimates.
All of these incentives provide an opportunity for businesses to invest in green initiatives, such as clean energy through installing solar, batteries and smart metres on your businesses. Many local companies in Warringah have already made this investment with great returns on that investment in their business. For example, Manly Spirits Co, Colourmaker, 4 Pines Brewery, Three Beans coffee group, McCreath Prestige Paint & Panel, Powerhouse Automotive and many more have all told me about how happy they were with their decision to install solar to power their business and reduce their operating costs. They know they are setting themselves up for the future.
Transport: electrifying vehicle fleets to bring down operating and maintenance costs, or installing an electric vehicle charger which will attract more customers to your business, especially if you're in a tourism industry—these are all measures in which you can take advantage of the measures in the budget but build a green recovery. Colourmaker, for example, have told me how happy they are with the electric vehicles they bought three months ago and that they're already looking at adding another EV to their fleet. This means as a business they have nearly negligible maintenance costs on a business fleet vehicle. Installing a charging station at your business opens up new marketing opportunities and puts you on the tourism map. These are important measures you can do to make your business future proof.
Reducing waste through investing in new and more precise technologies such as laser cutting tools: specialists in this area can also take advantage of incentives and opportunities in recycling and waste reduction that have, in fact, just passed. For example, I spoke just last week to Budgy Smuggler, a local Warringah icon, and they told me their new laser cutting machine has reduced waste fabric from their locally made swimwear production by over one-third. That's a huge saving in materials and costs for this great local textiles and design business.
Increasing water storage to future proof your business from drought: installing water tanks, water butts or a grey water system—all these initiatives and many more will make your business more competitive, and, businesses, you now have a limited opportunity for the next two years to write-off these assets. I've spoken about this to the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, and they have agreed that this is a great opportunity to improve the efficiency and productivity of businesses and improve cash flow and prospects for the future. With environmental, social and good governance goals becoming an increasing priority for businesses around the world, these initiatives will increase business objectives. They will increase efficiency and lower operating costs. They will access innovative and niche markets. They will increase employee motivation, and you will see increased engagement with clients. Businesses have been crying out for policy certainty in the face of global pressure.
The talk of Europe introducing a carbon import tax and the US following suit—depending on the result on 3 November—has many looking for ways to reduce their carbon footprint. The Morrison government's inaction on energy and emission reductions is making it harder for businesses to be globally competitive. Businesses need to take matters into their own hands to avoid being excluded from these markets.
Similarly, bringing forward the personal income tax cut will cut some $17.8 billion from government revenues, giving it back to individuals. The real question is: what will you do with it? I know that for many you are doing it tough and of course it must go to essentials. But, for those who can, consider investing this cash flow boost into your future: offset your household emissions with tree planting programs; improve your insulation; install a water tank; switch to 100 per cent renewable power; install rooftop solar; switch from gas to induction cooking; or switch your car to an EV or a hybrid. There are so many actions you can take. For more information, please check out the road map to zero on my website. It's absolutely time for each and every one of us to take control of our future. The tax cuts to both businesses and individuals empower us all to choose where we want to spend and invest our money.
The Governor of the Reserve Bank has said that we need much deeper reform to pull the economy out of this recession. There was no Nation Building Program and no focus on protecting our communities and building adaptation and resilience measures on climate impacts, like we have seen in so many other countries. This was a missed opportunity, as it will become more and more urgent. Communities hit by the bushfires last summer know that more needs to be done to protect and prepare their communities.
There were some positives announced by the government in the budget. I welcome the focus on youth and the JobMaker program, particularly the wage subsidies to employ young people, but I will closely scrutinise what the outcome of this policy is and how many jobs actually result from it. I welcome opportunities in the extension of the research and development funding of $2 billion; $1 billion for research at universities; $459 million for CSIRO, a nod to the need for innovation; and $1 billion for the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to incentivise institutional investment in affordable housing. Of course more could have been done with this budget to stimulate the construction sector and provide affordable housing and community housing. This was a missed opportunity. The Indigenous Home Ownership Program is another positive contribution to job creation for our regions and home creation for Indigenous people.
Unfortunately, we continue to have serious gender inequity, disparity, occurring in our society. The $240 million for the Women's Economic Security Statement is a tokenistic contribution to gender equality, and I found it personally quite offensive. This was largely seen as a blokey budget, and I have to agree. There was no stimulus package for industries that mostly employ women and no improvement of child-care and parental leave provisions. Australia spends 33 per cent less than the OECD average and nearly 75 per cent less than the UK on child care as a percentage of GDP. This is despite the Grattan Institute estimating that an extra $5 billion spent on child care would give a return on investment of over $11 billion. This is simple maths, and it beggars belief that the government would not take those opportunities.
Astoundingly, considering the outpouring of sympathy in parliament when Hannah Clarke and her children were murdered—and the statistics are not getting any better when it comes to domestic violence—women's safety and domestic violence missed out in this budget. We know that through the lockdowns and through the pandemic family violence has increased. More could have been done and should have been done to address this issue. I heard many of my fellow parliamentarians talk about their football teams in the grand finals over the weekend, but not a single bloke stood up and raised the issue of the increased domestic violence rates that occur around the grand finals. This was a missed opportunity.
The government fell short on aged care as well. There's a boost of 23,600 new home-care packages, but that still leaves more than 75,000 on the waiting list. What is supposed to happen to those?
Integrity and accountability have also been ignored in this budget. The Australian National Audit Office have had their funding frozen and their funding for investigations reduced. This means that the office will not be able to undertake the many investigations into how public money is being spent. Imagine no investigation into the Leppington land sale or sports rorts. There has been no substantial new money set aside for the National Integrity Commission and certainly no commitment to date from the Morrison government about establishing a federal integrity commission.
We have to get real here. Record amounts of public money are being spent. This is a debt that will impact Australians for generations to come—you, me and our children, especially our teenagers, who are currently facing huge challenges. We cannot allow this amount of record spending to result in record pork-barrelling. Surely everyone in this place has enough integrity to say, 'We need some safeguards. We need a federal integrity commission to make sure that money is spent appropriately in the public interest.' Accountability is sorely needed when we are facing such spending with so very little detail and so little scrutiny.
I'd like to thank the many organisations that tried so hard to make positive contributions to the government in preparing the budget: the state and territory governments, the business community, many lobby groups, including the BCA and the ACTU, green groups, Beyond Zero Emissions, economists, scientists, and many, many others, who all advocated so strongly that there be a green stimulus and that we address the threats of the future and build our economy to be future proof. We need that commitment to net zero by 2050 and we need an economy and a plan to match.
I want to thank all of those organisations for highlighting the opportunity that this budget presented to stimulate Australia's economy recovery from the COVID recession but, at the same time, demonstrate a commitment to achieving emissions reduction and making some real progress to that end. I know many were disappointed on budget night. And it was disappointing that the government did not listen and seems determined to put the brakes on Australia's economic opportunities in a net zero world.
I'm not interested in getting caught up in the partisan games that we see from the major parties on so many issues. We need to see our opportunities and we need to run with them. We need to keep pressuring both sides of government to support our more vulnerable. We need to make sure we take up the opportunities that we have and don't get stuck in the past. There is a big job ahead and we face many headwinds. Our youth, in particular, are the ones who will be burdened by the higher costs of living, huge debt and the increasing economic, social and environment or costs of climate impacts. We have a duty to invest into our future, into their future, and into the solutions.
The government may be short sighted and determined to put the brakes on our transition but we can get on without them. The world is moving to net zero by 2050. The list of countries and organisations grow every day. We need to legislate for net zero by 2050 with the Climate Change Act, and there will be an opportunity in November when I table the Climate Change Bill. It will set that five-year carbon reduction budgets and develop adaptation and mitigation plans which will give policy certainty for the business community.
We've got a duty to ensure communities develop more diverse business and employment opportunities. You can't stop progress, but you can be part of it. I urge the Morrison government to listen to the business community, listen to the investor community, listen to the broader Australian community and listen to the global community. Show leadership and be part of the solution, instead of being part of the problem and holding onto the past.
I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021 and related bills. Australia entered the coronavirus crisis from a position of economic strength which has prepared us to overcome the COVID-19 recession. The people in my electorate of Reid have responded with confidence to the Morrison government's 2020 budget. This budget delivers tax relief, record funding in health and mental health, and support for older Australians. For businesses and manufacturers, it means job creation and incentives for investment, to drive the demand across the economy.
The Morrison government has already passed tax relief measures that will put more money back into the pockets of hardworking Australians. Over 90,000 taxpayers in Reid will benefit from tax relief of up to $2,745 this year. This means that people in our area can breathe a little easier and can spend money on things that matter to them, creating economic activity and rewarding their hard work. We have also guaranteed the essential services people rely on, because our economy is strongest when people's health and wellbeing are put first. This budget delivers record health funding, of $93.8 billion, which includes funding for new life-saving medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to treat leukaemia, melanoma and Parkinson's disease and help women with ovarian cancer.
We are providing an additional $3.9 billion for NDIS participants to make sure that these people with disabilities have better choice and control on how they live their lives. I'm particularly proud to say that this year $5.7 billion is being provided to support mental health. This will see an increase in funding for critical frontline services and suicide prevention. I recently visited headspace in Ashfield, which is one of 100 centres across Australia, and we discussed the importance of additional services being made available, especially the doubling of the Medicare funded psychological sessions, from 10 to 20. Having worked as a psychologist before entering parliament, I know that these measures will better support Australians with complex mental health needs. As we deal with the toll of bushfires and the global pandemic, these services are more important than ever.
We're also continuing to look after older Australians in our community. The coronavirus pandemic has been tough on them and they have been isolated from friends and family to protect their health. To support more than 12,200 aged pensioners in our area, the Morrison government has provided $750 payments in April and July. They will further receive $250 payments in December and March. To help older Australians who need support to keep living at home, 23,000 more home-care packages will be provided. This brings the total to more than 180,000 places, three times the number of home-care packages when the coalition government was elected in 2013. This means more choice and independence for older Australians.
This is a budget that delivers for the people of Reid. It delivers the essential services we need, while focused on rebuilding the economy and creating jobs to secure Australia's economic future. Recently, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg joined me in Reid to visit one of the most iconic businesses in our area, Pasticceria Papa in Five Dock. The owner, Salvatore Papa, has a migrant story that is familiar to the many businesses in our multicultural area. He came to Australia from Italy and, at 21 years of age, set up a business with only one other employee. He now runs an operation that employs over 170 staff and provides business to a large supply chain. When the pandemic hit, like many business owners he saw his business suffer. Like 9,500 other businesses in Reid, he was supported by the government's JobKeeper payment. It allowed him to keep employing his staff and keep his business running at the height of the crisis. It was a lifeline. Now that the virus is under control in New South Wales, Pasticceria Papa no longer needs JobKeeper. Salvatore said that his business has bounced back. They're as busy as ever and their famous ricotta cheesecake continues to sweeten the residents of Reid. This is what the Morrison government's temporary JobKeeper payment was all about. It was the bridge we built so that businesses could get to the other side of the COVID-19 crisis. It has meant that businesses like Pasticceria Papa can reopen with confidence. It's a story we're seeing right across Australia.
To support new investment and increase cash flow, our government is building on the successful expansion of the instant asset write-off. We have made this investment incentive available for small, medium and larger businesses with a turnover of up to $5 billion, until June 2022. In Reid, around 28,500 businesses can now write off the full value of any eligible asset until June 2022. Other smaller businesses will deliver, install and service these purchases. This sort of investment incentive has a ripple effect across our economy, creating tens of thousands of jobs and boosting productive capacity. Of course, we know that there is a long road ahead and not every business is in a position to open its doors or get back to where they need to be. Many profitable businesses have faced losses through no fault of their own as the result of the pandemic. For this reason, the Morrison government is offering tax relief for businesses. Businesses with an aggregated turnover of between $10 million and $50 million will be able to access up to 10 small-business tax concessions as part of this budget.
The Morrison government has also introduced a scheme that lets previously profitable businesses making a loss due to the pandemic claim back their taxes on last year's profits. This will apply to losses incurred up to June 2022 against profits made during or after the 2018-19 financial year. This will give businesses more money to employ people and invest in equipment. It's estimated that the combination of the immediate expensing and loss carryback measures will generate an additional 50,000 jobs throughout Australia.
Backing businesses is just one way to rebuild our economy. The Morrison government is also creating employment opportunities targeted especially at younger Australians. In my electorate of Reid many year 12 students are sitting their HSC exams, and there are other students who are learning a trade or completing a university degree. These school leavers and new graduates are facing one of the toughest job markets in 30 years because of the COVID-19 recession. We know that getting these young people into jobs is essential to their futures, their wellbeing, and also the prosperity of our nation. The Morrison government is investing $1.2 billion in reskilling and training opportunities to create 100,000 new apprenticeships and traineeships with a 50 per cent wage subsidy for businesses who employ them. The new JobMaker Hiring Credit will also encourage businesses to hire younger Australians. It will be payable up to 12 months and immediately available to employers who hire those on JobSeeker between the ages of 16 and 35 years. Treasury estimates that this will support around 450,000 jobs for young people. We owe it to the next generation to ensure a strong economy so that their lives are filled with the same opportunities and possibilities we have enjoyed.
This is a time of great uncertainty for many young people pursuing their aspirations and wanting to set up their foundations for life. I want to assure them that as a government we are backing you. We are making sure opportunities are there. We want you to succeed. While this has been a challenging period, it is still an optimistic one. We're expecting a boom in industries like manufacturing, construction, sciences and technology, environmental science, agriculture, nursing, psychology, health care and education, just to name a few. These employment incentives are just another way to ensure the prosperity of the next generation of working Australians and secure Australia's economic future.
During the coronavirus pandemic we saw a resurgence of national pride in manufacturing. As global supply chains went down, people committed more than ever to buying Aussie-made products. Our manufacturing sector stepped up in the peak of the crisis. The government worked together with Australian businesses to make sure that we had the protective equipment and medical supplies we needed to keep Australians safe. The 2020 budget is making Australian manufacturing a central pillar of our economic recovery.
This is good news for Reid because we have a strong manufacturing base in the western suburbs of our electorate. In the last year, businesses like Decor Systems and Disk Brakes Australia in Silverwater, the heart of manufacturing in Reid, have backed with the Australian government grants to boost their research and growth. The Morrison government's $1.3 billion modern manufacturing plan will target priorities like food and beverage manufacturing, recycling and clean energy, medical products and more. By boosting manufacturing we're boosting economic activity across Australian supply chains. We're creating jobs while also strengthening Australia's sovereign capacity. This budget is creating jobs, rebuilding our economy and guaranteeing the essential services we rely on.
I'm very pleased to make some remarks on the appropriation bills and in support of the amendment moved by my friend the member for Whitlam. Of course, this is not a normal budget that these bills relate to and these are not normal times. Before I turn to the measures contained in the budget and to alternatives—and perhaps rather more to the alternatives—I want to begin by making some acknowledgments that reflect those circumstances and particularly the circumstances of more recent days of my home state of Victoria and my hometown of Melbourne.
Firstly I want to say thank you to the people of the Scullin electorate—indeed, to all Melburnians and all Victorians. What a couple of days we have had and, of course, what a year we have had. You have been magnificent, and I couldn't be prouder. Of course, there is so much more to do. I think we all acknowledge that this pandemic, this crisis, is far from over. But we have a sound foundation on which to work together and on which to rebuild together.
There are some particular acknowledgments I feel are appropriate right now. Everyone has played their part, every Victorian, every Melburnian, in a successful collective response to what is perhaps the ultimate collective problem, in the nature of this virus. Everyone has made sacrifices. All of this matters. It has all contributed to a couple of days that are really a remarkable success. As many have noted and as many experts have noted, the people of Victoria have come together to do something that is perhaps unmatched in the world. Some have been extraordinary while all have contributed.
There are too many categories of workers to mention—from retail to health care—but all those essential workers who have put themselves at risk to ensure that our communities can continue to function deserve all of our gratitude. I make a particular shout out to the healthcare staff at the Northern Hospital who have done extraordinary work. I can't find the words to fully express my gratitude for the efforts they have made. Also, our teachers have had to adapt to a very different world. As a parent, I know that the work that they have done to keep our kids in school and connected to learning has been something that has been quite remarkable.
I reflect on the work of so many local community organisations—in particular, Whittlesea Community Connections. The challenge of delivering services like emergency relief in an environment of social distancing has been formidable, and I'm amazed that they have been able to overcome that. They have been dealing with different cohorts of people, too. Different groups of people have found themselves in need in the pandemic, particularly international students and people seeking asylum. To make sure that they have been catered for has been a wonderful effort.
I also want to acknowledge my state colleagues, Lily D'Ambrosio, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Colin Brooks and Daniel Green, as consistent and empathetic leaders of a community that responded to their leadership and engagement. The Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, is someone I have known all my adult life, and I'm very proud to call him my friend. But I'm much prouder of everything that he has done for our state and how he has done it—his resolve, his determination and the leadership that he has shown each and every day. I want to put that on the record in this place.
While there's been much discussion about what the pandemic means for politicians, I think it's also appropriate that we should reflect more on what it means for our staff. Their work has never been more important, nor has it been more demanding, and it's often being done in particularly challenging circumstances—working from home with all the distractions that presents without the barrier from work life and home life, when they have often been dealing with people in extraordinary distress. I think particularly of those Australians, my constituents—and I'm sure my friend the member for Lyons has dealt with this too—stranded overseas with no secure pathway home.
I want to say thank you to Laurie, to Sally, to Jim, to Nick, to Jonathon, to Alice, to Alex and to Lachlan for the work that they have done. Through this, we have found new ways to talk to our communities and, more importantly, to listen to them. While I can't wait for the chance to be out and about again in the communities I represent, I'm sure these lessons of pandemic communication will enable more people to be more connected with community life, to political life and to the work of this place.
I feel very fortunate as a Melburnian to be standing here today, and for this I thank Jill, my wife, and Daniel and Alice, our children. I have been away for too long, I know. I feel that and I feel a deep sense of gratitude to you for the additional sacrifices you have been making so that I can participate in the work of this place. I thank the Speaker, too, and his counterpart in the other place for the work they have done in strengthening our democracy, at a time when this was needed, and enabling all of our voices to be heard in our national parliament—especially where physical attendance has not been possible. I'm thinking of my friends and neighbours from across the northern suburbs of Melbourne—the members for Calwell, McEwen, Jagajaga and Cooper. I know how much they'd all like to be here, but I have seen through this time how effective they've been in participating remotely, forcefully and thoughtfully speaking for their communities. It's the voices of those we have all been elected to represent—their concerns, their perspectives and their experiences—that matter, not where we get to do our work. I know the people of Melbourne's north have all been well represented by those members.
Turning to these bills, I think it's clear that a couple of weeks ago, in the chamber, the Treasurer presented a budget but the Leader of the Labor Party delivered a vision in his budget reply. There is a big difference here—a fundamental difference—between, on the one hand, a plan from Australia's government to get themselves through to May, to set themselves up for their attempt at re-election, and a plan for the future. Labor is articulating a plan for all of our futures. It is a plan for a more equal Australia, to emerge out of the experiences of the crisis informed by its lessons—in particular the critical role of government and political institutions as a foundation for that vision. It is a vision of a country in which no-one is held back and no-one is left behind, like workers who happen to be over 35 years old or anyone involved in the services sector—a huge chunk of the economy but one that seems to have been forgotten by the government, despite its trillion-dollar debt.
And the arts.
My friend the member for Lyons refers to the arts. The arts sector has been completely forgotten. Something that is vitally important is rebuilding our urban economies. It is something I am passionate about but something that has been absent from the work of the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister for infrastructure, and his minister for cities—no understanding of how our cities can be rebuilt. There is lots of rhetoric but no action.
Again, I turn to the contribution of the Leader of the Labor Party in his budget reply. There are a few points that I need to highlight in speaking in this debate on the budget. His speech, unlike that of the Treasurer, had as its centrepiece genuine economic reform: a genuine productivity boost for the Australian economy and a participation boost for our workforce—always two critical goals, but particularly so in this time. I'm incredibly proud of the work that he has done and that our shadow minister for early childhood education, the member for Kingston, has done to take a big step forward for more equal parenting, to boost participation in the workforce, to support Australian women in particular to have more choices and to take a big step towards recognising that early-years education and child care should be something that is universal. It is a fundamental building block to the sort of society we should aspire to live in, to the sort of social compact that will underpin that vision of a more equal Australia into the future and, in the shorter term, to our economic recovery in which everyone has a stake.
Some of the other aspects of that budget reply—things that could have and should have been included in the Treasurer's statement—are a real plan for manufacturing. The minister for industry talks a good story but it's almost like she hasn't been here for the past seven years, as manufacturing jobs have been chased away. I was in the parliament when a former Treasurer, the former member for North Sydney, goaded our automotive industries to leave the country, leading to horrendous job losses—particularly in places like the northern suburbs of Melbourne.
Mr Falinski interjecting—
You'll have a chance to make a contribution. If you want to talk about the auto industry, I encourage you to do so.
The member for Scullin!
Sorry, Deputy Speaker; I will return to my remarks. Thank you for your guidance. I shouldn't have been provoked.
Of course, there is the skills guarantee. Again, it's a building block to the sort of workforce that can underpin a high-wage, high-skill, future oriented economy. Another thing that would do that is our rewiring the nation initiative—again, a fundamental reshaping of our energy network, recognising the differences in technology and the differences in need that should underpin our recovery, including for manufacturing of course.
The last element I want to touch on in the budget reply is the opposition's commitment to social housing. There's no better way, as just about every economist has said, to kickstart a jobs boom in the short term and to deliver a much-needed social dividend in the medium term. On the other hand, we have the Prime Minister, who simply says, when so many Australians are out of work and so many more are likely to be out of work, if you are good at your job, you'll get a job.
An opposition member: A disgrace!
Yes, it's a disgrace and it's extraordinary hubris—and hubris is always followed by nemesis, I remind members opposite.
In terms of my electorate, the electorate of Scullin, the budget papers revealed very little other than in the negative, such as the impact of cuts to JobKeeper; particularly the impact which we've already seen on the universities, which are such important employers—La Trobe and RMIT; and the impact we've seen of the cuts to JobSeeker. There's a tiny amount of money for the E6, but that really is it. That's it. There's nothing for the northern suburbs of Melbourne. And I remember the excitement in the communities that greeted the talk by the minister for cities of the North and West Melbourne City Deal. Enormous work has gone into realising what the deal could be, but the federal government is not engaging with this conversation at all. It's just not engaging at all. The groups that have come together with the Northern Horizons' vision for infrastructure, the people who've been thinking about the manufacturing opportunities in food are not getting the support they need and deserve from the federal government. They're not paying attention. There is no evidence of any plan for local jobs.
When I think about the budget and Scullin, I think about some of the things that took place over the pandemic that have stayed with me as a local member—in particular, the tragedies that I saw at the Epping Gardens Aged Care Facility. This is an exemplar of how we should not treat vulnerable older Australians. What they are entitled to is so much more dignity and so much more support. We've got a way to go in terms of the royal commission, but its findings so far should have delivered more to those people and their families.
In my portfolio areas, in particular of cities and urban infrastructure, we see a budget which underdelivers, building on a long record of overpromising and underdelivering when it comes to infrastructure from this government.
In multicultural affairs, this budget does not sufficiently address the needs of migrant and CALD communities, continuing a trend through the pandemic. There are some budget measures which relate to multicultural affairs that are worthy in the social cohesion space, and I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge the reforms that have been announced to the AMEP program, but what we are seeing here is a government that's much better at talking at multicultural communities than listening to them. We see that in the announcements over the increase in the partner visa intake for the next year in particular and in the introduction of what was initially described as an English language test, a discriminatory test, with various justifications, which demonstrate that this is policymaking on the run.
That really sums up this budget and this government in a nutshell: policymaking on the run. The Treasurer, like the Prime Minister, is so much more interested in the politics of the moment than building a vision for the future. Everything is about the announcement, not about the delivery. On that, we have a great opportunity here. At the moment, trust in politics is going up for the first time in decades, but that's at risk because of a litany of scandals and the failure of the government to introduce a national integrity commission. If they can change one thing about their direction, they should commit to that now.
The member for Mayo, who was elected at the same election as I was, reminded me yesterday that it has been 4½ years since we entered this place, since both of us made our solemn oath to serve the people of Australia and this nation before God. It is an oath that I know all of us take seriously. It is therefore both fit and proper that from time to time we take stock of our time here, to ask whether we have been true to that oath, which we renewed just over a year ago.
Such assessments, of course, cannot take place in a vacuum, for the future cannot be foretold and even the most ardently sworn commitments are sometimes outrun by matters beyond our control. By any reasonable assessment, COVID-19 is one such event. It has resulted in the most severe global economic crisis since the Great Depression. Across the world, the equivalent of 600 million people have lost their jobs. During the 2008 financial crisis, the global economy contracted by 0.1 per cent. This year, through the COVID crisis, the global economy is expected to contract by 4½ per cent. In other words, the pandemic has resulted in an economic downturn 45 times worse than the financial crisis in 2008. Despite this, Australians have responded how they always do when called to act under adversity. Today we have news that the consumer sentiment has returned to where it was prior to the pandemic. In the June quarter, Australia's economy contracted by seven per cent. This, however, compares to falls of around 12 per cent in New Zealand, 14 per cent in France and 20 per cent in the United Kingdom.
Earlier this month the Treasurer handed down what I believe will be seen by history as one of the most important budgets since the establishment of this Commonwealth. It is the building block for the recovery of our nation's economy and our way of life. Our plan is based on the fundamental principle that only empowered individuals create empowered communities and, axiomatically, you are therefore better off in a job than on welfare. For this reason our plan is centred around getting businesses back to work and employing people again. JobKeeper is the $101 billion lifeline that is supporting around 3½ million jobs. The cashflow boost is helping around 800,000 small businesses restock and restart by providing over $28 billion. JobSeeker has also doubled the safety net for the unemployed. Together, these actions have saved 700,000 jobs, and we could only do it because the government entered this crisis from a position of economic strength.
We had brought the budget back into balance for the first time since we were last in government, and maintained our AAA credit rating. But that is in the past. Now we face the monumental task ahead of rebuilding our nation, this Commonwealth, better and stronger than before. More than half of those who lost their jobs are back at work, with 458,000 new jobs created in June, July and August. The new JobMaker hiring credit is encouraging businesses to hire younger Australians. They are the ones who will carry the burden of this debt into their adult years, so this credit will be payable for up to 12 months and is immediately available to employers who hire those on JobSeeker aged 16 to 35. It will be paid at the rate of $200 per week for those aged under 30, and $100 per week for those aged between 30 and 35. Every Australian business, other than the major banks, will be eligible. As we know, having a job is more than just money in your pocket. It provides economic security. It offers freedom. It creates opportunity. It produces a happier and healthier society. It creates empowered people who then create empowered communities, who, together, can rebuild the Australian dream. Having a job is the bedrock of our future, and it is the core of this budget.
Infrastructure spending is fundamental in creating jobs, building everything from roads and tunnels to warships, submarines and everything in between. Manufacturing and infrastructure get the economy moving. The government is investing around $4 billion, through the Urban Congestion Fund, to reduce congestion in urban areas, funding supports and upgrades to urban road networks to reduce congestion and ensure commuters get home sooner and safer by reducing travel times, so you can spend more time with your friends and family, assuming you have friends—I'm sure you have family though!
An honourable member interjecting—
This will lower vehicle operating costs, so you keep more money in your pocket to help pay for the friends that you don't have. It will deliver a more reliable road network for commuters and freight, which means less uncertainty on your drive to and from work. I fought hard to secure $50 million of funding for the Beaches Link tunnel, which will address congestion, improve safety and benefit those living on the northern beaches.
There is another piece of infrastructure that has regrettably gone largely ignored for too many years. That is the Wakehurst Parkway. At a time when the northern beaches has three of the 10 worst roads in Australia, when the federal government is funding the Beaches Link and when the federal government has been pleading with the state government to bring forward new road projects like Wakehurst Parkway, it is absolutely confounding that neither the local council nor the state government will put this forward. Despite it being made clear that the federal government can assist in paying for the widening of Wakehurst Parkway, for some unknown reason no formal request for funding has come forward. On Friday 16 October, four people were hurt in a head-on collision on Wakehurst Parkway at North Narrabeen. While that will sound confronting to this House, it isn't to my community, because it happens all the time. To provide you with some background: in 2017, $5 million was provided to the Northern Beaches Council to investigate options for upgrading the parkway. This study identified a number of options, which would also reduce the impact of flooding to the main road. However, when the New South Wales department of transport were asked what they were going to do, their response read: 'There are no current plans to widen Wakehurst Parkway from two to four lanes between Seaforth and North Narrabeen. Transport for NSW will continue to monitor the road and will update the community on any plans.'
During this year I've had the honour and privilege to represent one of the most beautiful parts of the world. I'm not just talking about the physical beauty of the beaches and the bush; I have the privilege of representing a community that believes in community, that knows we are all stronger together and that alone we can do much but together there is little we cannot do. As such I have the greatest number of rural fire brigades in Australia, which is only beaten by the number of surf lifesaving clubs I have in one electorate. There are two surf clubs that own their own clubhouses in Australia. Both are in Mackellar.
I know you should praise in general, but there are a number of people I want to specifically mention for being instrumental in building the place I call home. First I want to mention Peter Kinsey and Rob and Margaret Pearson of Long Reef Surf Life Saving Club. For 23 years this club has been trying to build a new clubhouse. Most of us would have learnt to give up in this time, but not Peter, Rob and Margaret and the team that they lead. This year they will provide well over 750 hours of patrols from a temporary clubhouse, but next year they will have the realisation of a vision 23 years in the making.
At the Whale Beach Surf Life Saving Club, Andrew Pearce and Kieran Gallagher have, over the last season, enjoyed the highs and lows of surf lifesaving and community groups. In doing so, they and the team they lead have shown commitment, dedication and humanity. When the bushfires came, they organised a fundraising dinner for the victims and volunteers, not because they had much but because they had been in the same position and knew what a big difference a little bit makes. As Andrew said that night, volunteering is the rent we pay for being on this planet. I've tried to come up with something better but could not, so I've been borrowing Andrew's line ever since and claiming it as my own!
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
Yes, most of my lines are borrowed! I'm waiting to borrow one of yours, Member for Lyons!
As the commander in charge of the Northern Beaches RFS, George Sheppard has shown me what leadership really is. It is not taking the credit and making long and eloquent speeches—his are far shorter and far more elegant than mine. It is the care and compassion you show those you lead and it is the trust and enthusiasm that you engender in those around you that make you a leader. It is, in short, what you give, not what you take. George, to you, your team and thousands who willingly put their lives on the line so that we may live ours, we thank you.
As I say, this is not even a sample of the people I should be mentioning. There is Dave Mason, Scott Penn, Daly Cherry-Evans, Des Hasler, Stephen Crawford, Brendan Paddison and Michael Ruthven, who keep the dream alive for so many sporting fans and whose work in the community goes unnoticed and untold. There is also Rod and Liz McQueen, who, with so many others, envisaged and enabled the Sargood centre, which has become a world-leading spinal injuries treatment centre. There is the Arcare group and John Knowles, who have built a five-star aged-care facility in Warriewood.
Then there are the entrepreneurs in our community. Marcus Blackmore and Toby Browne together represent two of the three most valuable and leading supplement companies in the world. There is Brett Crowther of Incat Crowther, who developed and designed $750 million worth of US battleships. Michael Jorigen is making the warehouses of the future of the world on the northern beaches. I particularly want to mention Lindsay Lyon of Ocean Guardian, who has designed and delivered non-invasive shark deterrents. Why the New South Wales government will not deploy one of his systems is simply beyond me. The environmental, economic and personal safety benefits are too huge to ignore. I will personally be getting one fitted to my surfboard in November when the latest system comes out. Finally, Safetyline Jalousie, whose team is headed by Leigh Rust, is designing, building and deploying the best louvres in the world—from cyclone shelters in the South Pacific to beachside homes on the northern beaches. These louvres are literally changing the world.
We can only change the world on the northern beaches because of the skills and talents of the people there and the opportunity they have to develop those skills. To our teachers go the laurels. Whether it is the STEM classes at Belrose Public School headed by Belinda Zorian, whose years 4, 5 and 6 developed an entire marine ecosystem out of robots; the year 6 students at Pittwater House, who ask more difficult questions than any journalist I've ever met; the incoming leaders at Forest High, whose hopes for the future have not been dimmed by the last 12 months but rather enhanced, for where some see problems they see worthy challenges that they have no doubt they will overcome; or the Covenant Christian School and the Northern Beaches Christian School, who students' zest and enthusiasm for the future is infectious—my community knows that the environment matters. They know that, whether it is PEP 11, live animal exports or a renewable-powered future, I share their views and I'm fighting for those views here in this place. No doubt the road is long but the journey is worth the destination.
In my first speech in this place I said that I believed Australia's best days are ahead of us because we have so much to hope for and so little to fear. While I must confess that my faith in this statement from time to time has wavered, it is renewed each time I realise that this parliament believes that we strive for individual freedom because no society has been fair without it. Replacing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome is the surest path to division and dystopia. Preserving the best of the past recognises those things we hold sacred and important and guarantees us a better future. More than anything, we know that compassion does not come from the hands of unelected bureaucrats, but from our friends, family and neighbours. These things I know that we know are worth fighting for and these are things that we will fight for every day.
Before I conclude I want to reflect on the member for Scullin's speech. There is a lot of mythology that goes on in this place around the car industry and Joe Hockey wanting them to leave when he was here. Nothing could be further from the truth. How do we know that is not true? Because the carmakers themselves announced under the Gillard government that they would not be renewing their investment in the Australian economy. Why? Because they could not get the productivity that they needed out of their sector. What were the biggest hold ups there? Was it workplace relations and the terms and conditions they had agreed? Was it the unions—the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union or the Australian Workers Union—who had something to do with this? We'll never know because, when Toyota went to sit down with them and talk about some productivity improvements they could make at these factories, the union refused to turn up. So they did the logical thing, and Nissan, Toyota, Ford and GM all decided to leave. They don't believe Australians should own housing. They believe Australians should be in social housing.
I'm very pleased to be here today talking on this budget appropriation bill. I thought: what am I going to talk about today? I actually thought: I'm going to go to people in Gilmore and ask them what they want from the budget, what they would have liked to have seen in the budget, and what the lasting legacy could be. I said 'Be bold, go for gold—whatever you want.' Let's see. These are the words from people in my community. You can see that there are quite a lot of comments here from people; and that was over quite a short period of time. I want to thank them for providing this feedback.
The first feedback that I want to mention is the enormous number of travel agents that have contacted me saying that they need targeted support for travel agents. What we have seen, what travel agents have gone through with closed international borders, has just been horrific. Travel agents haven't been able to sell a takeaway coffee or a takeaway meal. They really rely on those international borders being open. So while the government has cut back JobKeeper, our travel agents are still there with those closed borders and doing it tough. So I call on the government to provide that targeted support for our travel agents that that industry desperately needs. Our travel agents do wonderful work in our local community. They support our local schools, our local shops, our local events. They're really, really important for local jobs. I have seen a number close down. The government needs to support travel agents.
Now I want to go to some of the other comments that I have received. Veronica says that for her number one would be affordable housing. She also says a train line that goes to the border—we're talking about the New South Wales South Coast here—a bypass for Nowra and Ulladulla; and encourage and support innovative small businesses to revitalise our dying CBD areas. She says, 'I could go on. Good luck today.'
Veronica raises some really important points. We could be investing more in social and affordable housing. It's a sure way to kickstart investment in our local jobs and to improve our social housing through repairs that we desperately need. On the New South Wales South Coast we've been through the bushfires, the drought, three disaster declared floods. Our community needs help. We don't have airports. We don't have train lines south of Bomaderry, but people really want help and support.
That was Veronica. Gordon says they'd like a pension update. He says, 'The Liberals keep cutting the pension.' We have seen so many cuts to the pension. Pensioners just want a fair go. I have one of the highest numbers of aged pensioners in Australia in my electorate.
The budget has also excluded people over the age of 35 from the job hiring incentive, and I have had so many people contact me about that. It is discriminatory and it is not going to help, particularly in those regional areas where we have a lot of people that have moved there a bit later in life. It is going to hurt them.
Tony says, 'Keep it local. Build more social housing.' I think that's a flavour that we'll see through this. He says, 'Establish and run some aged care facilities, not privatised, to set the standards for that industry.' And I want to take this opportunity to thank all our aged-care homes and facilities and all our aged-care workers for the wonderful work that they're doing, not just through COVID, but again, through the bushfires where they have actually had to ensure people's safety over many, many months. I want to really say thank you there.
Tony also wants to see more funding for mental health in Gilmore, especially for young people. I do welcome initiatives in the budget around that, but I do want to see more funding for prevention and building resilience in our community. Just recently I was at a Shoalhaven Suicide Prevention and Awareness Network bereavement and remembrance ceremony with local people. That was put to me there: we need to invest more in prevention and resilience around mental health. We have had a lot of suicides in my electorate and we need to do a lot more there.
Alison says, 'Spend the $2 billion Morrison allocated for bushfire recovery so those in our community have a home.' The fact is that less than half of that funding has been spent. We still have people that are not in their homes, and we're approaching the 12-month mark from the bushfires. Clinton says: 'Thank you, Fiona. Don't we still have people living in caravans and tents after losing their homes to bushfire? Can we put the future on hold and look after the present?' Well, Clinton, I don't think we can put the future exactly on hold, but you're correct—we do need to make sure that people are looked after, and that means spending the $2 billion in bushfire recovery funding that was said to be there.
Ben has a rather long list here, but I think it's really important. Ben says: 'The budget did nothing to address our public housing and homelessness crisis. Building public housing creates jobs, and a well housed population are more productive,' and I couldn't agree more with Ben. Ben goes on to talk about public transport, and I'll read this: 'Also there is nothing to address poor public transport in regional areas. Currently in the Eurobodalla, the bus services aren't a viable alternative for the unemployed to use for transport to get to and from work. If an unemployed person doesn't have a car or drivers licence, they can't travel for work.' I won't read the rest of it, but we always talk a lot about workforce participation and how to get workforce participation up, but one of the big things that we need is more public transport in regional areas to help people to be able to actually get to jobs.
Kerry says, 'We need more affordable housing,' and, as we can see, that's definitely a flavour from these comments. Kerry also says, 'We need better public transport to the coastal villages by regular services up and down the highway, and shuttle buses going between the villages and the highway.' The government spent a lot, $30 million I think it was, on that airport land in Sydney, but what about spending that money in regional areas and helping people so that they can get to work? Pat says, 'More funding for our public schools, better public transport'—there it is again—'more public housing, better legislation to stop wage theft, action on climate change and no nuclear power in Gilmore.'
Margaret says: 'A fairer deal for our refugees. Everything else fails behind this. We are not doing the right, legal and compassionate thing for these people who have committed no crime.' Margaret goes on to say, 'Better funding for public schools, action on climate change and investment in green power with the money we save on running prison camps.' Margaret raises a really valid point, because people in my community, refugees and businesses, have said to me there was nothing there through COVID to help people, and businesses were saying that people need support, so Margaret raises a very valid point.
Joe says that she'd like to see a federal ICAC—a very common theme here. These are people from my community, so I think it is really important in this parliament that we actually listen. She also says that we should have job creation by focusing on shifting to a carbon neutral economy and social housing and have more for public education. Joe says that school infrastructure in the region needs serious attention, and I'll come back to that more as I speak.
Robert says, 'I would like to see more of the proposed budget being allocated to the construction of public assets. The country does need to borrow money. Where it's spent is the question. Sure, building roads will create jobs during construction, but that's where it stops. By building hospitals, schools et cetera, it not only creates jobs during construction but also continually employs and benefits people for the life of the asset'—a really important point. Roseanne says, in dot points: 'Social housing, more help for the homeless, upgrade our hospital, better roads, better services around beaches like coffee shops but not big malls, and how about public aged care?'
Maureen says she would like to see an emergency control centre for disasters in the Eurobodalla, and anybody who visited Moruya—it probably would have been hard to visit Moruya during the bushfires—saw they operated out of a small community hall, so they had no dedicated emergency management centre. It's really important that we make sure that we have centres that are appropriate so that our police, our SES—all of our emergency people—and our council have a centre and that they can be set up to help coordinate the bushfires. We know that in the Nowra area they have a dedicated centre. They don't have that in Moruya. I would certainly encourage other areas around Australia as well. We need to be prepared for future bushfires and we need to make sure that we have appropriate emergency management centres. Maureen also says, 'Funding to help the Eurobodalla become a renewable energy hub'—we have many keen groups in the Eurobodalla, the Shoalhaven and Kiama around that—'and to act on native wildlife extension and the protection of our precious oceans and marine life.'
Liz wrote to me and is very passionate about better funding of our public schools. Liz says her local high school has 22 demountable units and the biggest support unit on the South Coast. She said, 'The Bay and Basin is a growing area and, with population growth, student numbers are growing. We need a senior campus built with a TAFE so students in the Bay and Basin area have greater access to TAFE.' We have to remember as well that these are areas in which you can't just hop on a bus and go to the local TAFE, so it's absolutely critical that we have good transport as well. John says, 'Schools that don't leak.' At the Bomaderry High School there's been lots of flooding, roofs have caved in and there's possum excrement—everything you could possibly think of. John says, 'Classroom desks that are fit for purpose' and 'Where is the $2 billion for bushfire recovery?' Gabrielle says, 'Ulladulla is suffering a rental crisis because owners of investment properties are Airbnb-ing them for the summer holidays.' She said, 'We need homes for the most vulnerable.' Nicole says, 'Treaty.' Jort says he wants 'infrastructure that is future-proofed, four-lane each-way highways, dual train lines, and airports that you don't have to drive hours to get to.'
Kay said that she wants 'pensions that reflect some respect for the generations that have formed this country and not have them discriminated against constantly.' Sandra says she wants 'fairer treatment for older jobseekers with health problems. We are made to feel like we are a burden to Centrelink.' Again, I would say that the government should reconsider its hiring subsidy to not discriminate against people who are over the age of 35. Sylvia says, 'Ulladulla Public School is in desperate need of capital expenditure. Our children and community deserve a facility that can at least accommodate their education needs.' Wouldn't it be great if the federal government put infrastructure spending into something that makes a difference to people and is a long-lasting legacy for our children and our grandchildren? Alex says, 'More funding to trades, education and welfare. Less pork-barrelling and have a federal ICAC instituted.' Dawn says she wants 'the Uluru statement to be accepted and enacted, more environmental protections to be put in place for our wildlife and habitat, stronger penalties for crimes against women, religious freedoms to be entirely scrapped, and manufacturing powered by sustainable energy.'
Sam wants action on climate change. Leanne wants to remove the freeze on hiring in the Australian Public Service. David says, 'Schools, roads and hospitals—all important infrastructure.' Simon said, 'Green jobs'—there's a great idea—'and dental.' One of the biggest things that people contact me about is the lack of public dental care. We could be leaving a lasting legacy and setting that up as well. Thank you, Simon. Carol says she wants 'action on climate change and a rise in the JobSeeker rate.' She said, 'We have high unemployment and resulting poverty, and we need an increase in funding to the NDIS.' Increasing the permanent rate of JobSeeker is a really important part. People cannot live on $40 a day. The government could be choosing to leave a legacy. This is what people from the South Coast have said they want in the budget.
I'm proud to be standing here today in support of this government's plan to bring Australia out of the COVID-19 recession. I'm proud to be part of a government that understands the health, social and economic impacts of this pandemic. We are in the midst of a one-in-100-year health and economic crisis that demands real leadership and decisive action. The budget that this government has delivered is the budget that Australia needed. In the days that followed the Treasurer's budget delivery a couple of weeks ago confidence surged 12 per cent, to its highest level in more than two years. Business owners recognise that this is a budget that will deliver the jobs and the economic conditions that are needed to help us bounce back.
But there are people in my electorate of Longman who are still doing it tough. In fact, more than 12,000 people in my electorate received the coronavirus supplement to provide additional support through this crisis. Businesses and many industries, particularly those in events, tourism and hospitality, have been hit hard. But, when the pandemic struck, the government acted quickly and decisively to firstly protect the health of Australians. To combat the devastating economic impacts that followed, we introduced safeguards for many businesses, families and individuals who were affected. It is thanks to these measures that Australia has achieved some of the best health and economic outcomes in the world, despite the exceptionally difficult period we found ourselves in. Many businesses in Longman and indeed across the country were able to keep people in jobs because this government acted decisively.
The JobKeeper payment has supported 2,700 businesses in Longman, helping them through the pandemic and keeping them connected to their staff. I've heard first hand from business owners in my electorate about how the JobKeeper payment saved jobs. Ian Wust, at Caboolture Crash Repairs, told me that, in the days before JobKeeper was announced, he had made the decision to let several of his staff members go because work had dried up to such an extent. He had the letters of termination drafted and ready to be handed over. Then the government announced the JobKeeper program and those termination letters were torn up and thrown in the bin. Since then, as work has picked up again, Ian has not only maintained that level of staff but also put on new staff members. For him and many other businesses in my electorate, JobKeeper was a game changer.
But now, as businesses like Caboolture Crash Repairs kick on, they no longer need that level of support. That's why the JobKeeper program has been extended for businesses that still need it and pulled back for businesses that have moved on. This is called responsible economic management. This is how we reduce financial waste—by giving support where and when it is needed but also recognising when and where it is no longer vital. Under this budget we have extended the JobKeeper payment until March next year for those businesses that can show they still need some help.
But that's not all. Through the JobMaker hiring credit and the supporting apprentices and trainees wage subsidy, we are creating the conditions that will help young people get work and learn new skills to carry them into the future. Youth unemployment across the country is almost double the national unemployment rate, and that is what this government with this budget is seeking to address. The JobMaker hiring credit will provide incentives for businesses to take on young jobseekers. It is expected that around 450,000 positions for young Australians will be supported through this program.
Apprenticeships and traineeships are another key pathway into the workforce, particularly for young jobseekers and school leavers. Under this program, eligible small- and medium-sized businesses can apply for a wage subsidy of 50 per cent paid from now until 31 March next year, up to a cap of $7,000 per quarter. I spoke to a local business owner the other day and he is going to put on six apprentices next week. This measure will support around 90,000 small- and medium-sized businesses in Australia, employing around 180,000 apprentices. While this government recognises the plight of young people through this COVID recession, we continue to support mature-age workers as well. The Restart program offers a financial incentive of $10,000 to encourage businesses to hire and retrain mature-age employees who are 50 years of age and over.
To support new investment and increase business cash flow, the government is providing a temporary tax incentive that will allow around 9,300 businesses in Longman to write off the full value of any eligible asset they purchase. Already I have heard from businesses in my electorate like Caboolture Bus Lines, Loveday Electrical and Dossel's Engineering, who say they will benefit from this initiative. Until 30 June 2022, businesses with a turnover of up to $5 million can deduct the full cost of depreciable assets of any value. The cost of improvements made to any existing assets during this period can also be fully deducted. This supports businesses that invest. It also creates a strong incentive for businesses to bring forward investment before this temporary tax incentive ends.
The government will also allow companies with a turnover of up to $5 billion to offset tax losses against previous profits. This loss carry-back will help companies that were profitable and taxpaying but now find themselves in a loss position due to the COVID-19 pandemic. By allowing them to access their losses earlier, this will provide a much-needed cash flow boost to keep their businesses running, retain their workers and invest with confidence in the future. It will be available to around one million companies.
The government has also delivered cash flow boost payments to small and medium-sized businesses and not-for-profit entities to support them to keep operating, to pay rent, electricity and other bills and to retain staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. To date the cash flow boost has helped around 2,400 small and medium-sized businesses in my electorate of Longman. We estimate that these temporary tax incentives for businesses will create around 50,000 jobs by the end of the 2021-22 financial year.
This government also understands the importance of local manufacturing and has a plan to help local business grow and become more resilient and to boost global competitiveness. Manufacturing employs almost 5,000 people in my electorate, making up 7.4 per cent of all people in Longman who are employed in local industry jobs. The $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy will benefit manufacturing businesses in Longman, harnessing their capability to help drive our economic recovery and future resilience. This strategy also recognises that we must play to our strengths and target sectors that allow us to achieve scale and generate future growth.
Instead of increasing taxes, this government wants Australians to keep more of their hard-earned wages to spend on those things that are important to them. Around 4,100 taxpayers in Longman will benefit from tax relief of up to $2,745 this year as a result of the government's tax relief measures. The Personal Income Tax Plan is delivering lower taxes and a simpler tax system that benefits all Australians. The Treasury estimates that reducing the personal income tax burden on hardworking Australians through this measure will boost GDP by around $3.5 billion in 2020-21 and $9 billion in 2021-22 and will create an additional 50,000 jobs by the end of 2021-22. By putting more money in their pockets, families will keep more of what they earn, allowing them to spend more on what they need. Low- and middle-income earners will also benefit, with an additional one-off tax offset this financial year. This offset is worth up to $1,080 for individuals and $2,160 for dual-income couples, and will benefit around 10.1 million people. When combined with the stage 2 tax cuts a single person earning $120,000 will receive a tax cut of $2,745 in 2020-21. A dual-income family with both people on $60,000 a year will receive a combined tax cut of $4,320.
Australians expect the tax system to be fair. This government is committed to delivering a simpler tax system that remains progressive, fosters aspiration and rewards effort. When the government's plan is fully implemented in 2024-25, a person who earns $200,000—or 4.4 times more than a person who earns $45,000—will pay around 10 times more tax. Around 95 per cent of taxpayers will have a marginal tax rate of 30 per cent or less in 2024-25. The extra spending that this tax system generates will help keep businesses trading and keep staff in jobs. As their sales increase, this will further improve business confidence and encourage them to create more jobs and invest. This grows our economy now and in the future.
But it's not just businesses and their employees in my electorate who will benefit from this budget. The government wants to improve the wellbeing of individuals and families in my electorate of Longman. We will continue to deliver the essential social services that people in Longman depend on, while providing a safety net in response to the pandemic. Around 23,064 aged pensioners in Longman will receive a $250 support payment in December and March. This is in addition to the two support payments of $750 they have already received this year, which means that, in total, they will have received an extra $2,000. In April and July, 3,311 carers in Longman received support payments of $750. They will receive a further $250 payment in December and a further $250 from March next year. These payments will assist pensioners and carers through the financial challenges they continue to face as a result of COVID-19.
The government is also making a temporary change to the eligibility criteria for Youth Allowance and Abstudy. From 1 January next year, all Youth Allowance and Abstudy applicants will automatically be deemed to have worked over the six-month period, from 25 March to 24 September. This change will make it easier for young people to be deemed independent of their parents and not subject to the parental income test. The government is also supporting new parents whose employment was interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic by introducing an alternative paid parental leave work test period.
This government also has a plan to improve transport infrastructure in my electorate of Longman, making our roads safer, improving traffic congestion and supporting jobs. The $662 million project to widen the Bruce Highway, from four to six lanes, between Bribie Island Road and Steve Irwin Way received $38,400,000 in this budget. The federal government is contributing $530 million to this project, and major construction will begin soon. Work on the $163 million New Settlement Road overpass upgrade has begun, with $35 million included in this budget. These upgrades, along with the other safety improvements and planning for future projects, amount to more than $333 million spent in this budget alone. The total spend by the federal government over the lifetime of these Bruce Highway projects will be around $2.8 billion. The Bribie Island Road upgrade at Old Toorbul Point Road intersection received $500,000 funding in this budget. Work on this project, costing just over $30 million, is well underway. The federal government's contribution is $20 million. The black spot upgrade at Sylvan Beach Esplanade in Bellara will begin this year at a cost of around $365,000.
Also included in this budget is around $5 million for Moreton Bay Regional Council from the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. This program supports councils to deliver priority local road and community infrastructure, supporting local jobs. The council will receive a further $5 million from the Road to Recovery program to assist in maintaining and upgrading local roads. It has also been allocated more than $17 million from the Financial Assistance Grant program this financial year to deliver infrastructure, health, recreation, employment and environmental projects.
And speaking of the environment, this government is delivering crucial environmental recovery and restoration activities with an additional $1.8 billion investment over five years. We are making unprecedented investments to reduce waste, increase recycling and build capacity in our waste and recycling industries. This includes progressively banning the export of waste, glass, plastic, tyres and paper starting on 1 January next year. Native wildlife and habitat recovery remain a critical focus for this government, as we continue to roll out our more than $200 million commitment to bushfire wildlife and habitat recovery. We will develop a new 10-year strategy to protect Australia's threatened species. To protect our oceans and marine ecosystems, we are tackling the impacts of ghost nets and plastic litter, as well as investing in compliance, enforcement and monitoring across marine parks. Our national parks will receive record investment for new upgrades as well as funding to replace lost revenue during the COVID-19 pandemic. We are also supporting farmers in communities that experience drought, with $155.6 million over four years for a package of new measures.
This budget was made possible because of the solid grounding and strong financial position Australia was in before the pandemic hit. I'm proud to be part of a government which understands that by empowering people to seek employment, by creating new jobs, by establishing a fairer tax system and by investing in areas that need it most, Australia will come out of this COVID recession strongly. We want businesses to grow beyond being dependent on the government. We want to create the conditions that help businesses rebuild from this pandemic, allow them to grow and expand into the future. We are supporting our pensioners and carers. We are building the infrastructure that will ensure people in my electorate are safer on local roads and highways, and spend less time stuck in traffic. We're looking after our wildlife, oceans, waterways and national parks. This budget is our plan to achieve these outcomes. How good is this budget?
When it comes to this government, the Australian people have learnt to not only listen to what it says but to pay attention to what it does. This budget is a missed opportunity. Never have we seen a budget before that has spent so much to achieve so little. At a time when people are grappling with the challenge of the coronavirus, Australians need, and they deserve, much better than what this government is offering. People need a vision for the future, a vision for jobs, a plan to kickstart the economy and to get us through this recession. However, what we've seen—beyond this government's spin, photo opportunities and rush for headlines—is a $1.4 trillion debt and unacceptably high unemployment. We now have over a million of our fellow Australians out of work.
Nothing in this budget has anything about aged care. There's nothing about social housing, child care and very little to undo the damage that they have done through mismanagement and cuts to vital areas, including our universities, TAFE and vocational education. These areas are actually critical to our future. What the country needs is a government that actually understands community, its desires and its wants and, more importantly, a government that's prepared to put the needs of the community beyond politics. I know it might be rare—they've had seven years to think about this, but they still always prefer politics over community. The community wants a government that is prepared to be focused on the national interest and a government that understands that lives and livelihoods are being lost and destroyed through this pandemic.
The budget handed down by the Morrison government continues to prove this government's lack of understanding of what is needed to get us through this crisis and through this recession which has developed. We have had now a missed opportunity to rebuild our economy and do it for the better, to put forward a plan that delivers a stronger, fairer, more secure and more inclusive future for all Australians. But this budget, I've got to say, fails on this score as this government retreats behind short-term populism and short-term policies simply to get them through to the next election and certainly to get them on the front pages of newspapers and try to actually score on opinion polls. That's what this government has been about—as I said, putting politics ahead of community. I would have thought the smart thing for any responsible government to be doing at this time is looking to deliver the long-term, transformative changes that are necessary for our economy and our nation, and this is what this government has not even attempted to do. This is short-sightedness that simply leaves many Australians behind.
Our economy was already struggling before this pandemic. We had the huge casualisation of employment in all our workplaces. We've had stagnant wages, slow growth and a period with a significant lack of confidence from the business community, and what followed from that is a lack of investment from the business community itself. What's this government's response? They cut wage subsidies and they slashed unemployment benefits—that's pretty critical to areas that I represent. I know the government didn't create this pandemic, but they're the government responsible for actually helping get us out of it. But we have, since the outbreak of the pandemic, a situation where 440,000 jobs have been lost, and, as I understand it, it's now predicted that another 160,000 jobs are expected to be lost by Christmas. This government's response is to cut the level of support.
In my electorate—and I'm sure it's similar to other electorates, such as my colleague's here, the member for Werriwa—checking the statistics, I've got 17,000 people on JobSeeker at the moment, which is almost double what it was prior to the pandemic. At the moment I've got 5,000 businesses in my electorate that are relying on JobKeeper. In an electorate like mine, which certainly is not a rich electorate, the average household income is just a little over $60,000. I'm not talking about the average income; the average household income is just a little over $60,000. So these cuts to support have only added further stress in a very difficult and challenging time for people.
While the government is talking up its hiring wage subsidy, we know that, just like the original formulation of JobKeeper, the government once again has got it wrong. They have excluded more than 928,000 people over the age of 35 on unemployment benefits. Absolutely the government should be looking after young Australians, but you can't turn your back on those Australians whose only fault is that they're over 35, and that's what they have done. They've decided to give priority to young people. We're all for looking after young people. As a matter of fact, if the government were serious about looking after young people and their future—and basically the future nation—they would not have spent the last seven years simply making it harder and more expensive for young Australians to get to university, and this is what they've done.
This is the same Liberal government that, through relentless attacks on our university sector, has cut $2.2 billion funding from the sector. Let's not forget that it's our universities that we have relied on to provide the many skilled professionals that we now need and are heavily resting on to get us through this pandemic and hopefully have us on the path to developing a suitable vaccination for COVID-19. The Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, in an area I share with the member for Werriwa, is working very much in conjunction with the Liverpool Hospital, with both Western Sydney University and the University of New South Wales. What they are doing is integral to our region and, indeed, the nation. The universities in our electorates have played a very significant role in promoting the development and growth of our community. As Barney Glover, the vice-chancellor of Western Sydney University said when speaking about his university and its relation to Western Sydney:
… the University is part of its fabric. Alongside one another, the community, business and the University have transformed the region. This has changed the narrative from one of disadvantage, to one of promise.
And what does this government do? It puts the vital work of these universities and our tertiary education into jeopardy. We need to support and develop pathways for young people to be ready for the jobs of the future—basically, to be the future of our country. Whether it's in association with the development of Badgerys Creek airport, the aerotropolis, the Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research or through the growing needs of our health, it's really clear that our universities not only have been playing but continue to play a very significant role in the areas we have the honour to represent.
Of course, I cannot expect those opposite to fully consider that. After all, they are the same bunch that cut $3 billion out of TAFE and vocational education, something pretty critical if you want skills for the future. And up to the pandemic, want did we see? One hundred and forty thousand less apprentices and trainees. That's not a legacy you want to leave when building a country. Maybe you make some cuts if you want to save money for the next election, but that's not what you do to build a country. And that's why Labor will create the Australian skills guarantee. We've done this before. In that guarantee, we say that one in every 10 workers employed on a worksite receiving major Commonwealth government funding will be an apprentice or a trainee. We did that through the global financial crisis, and that was successful in creating jobs and creating the skills that we needed and are relying on now. We must ensure that Australians have the skills that they need to get the good jobs and that employers have access to well-skilled, well-trained employees. And that, in turn, will stimulate investment in the future.
I would have thought it was common ground that an investment in education is an investment in our future. It's an investment in our nation's prosperity. I've seen what it means for people, for families, in my electorate, and I know their view about education. I have one of the most multicultural communities in the country, and many of those in my community are refugees. They see education as a pathway to change their lives for the better. They see it as a vehicle of opportunity, and that's the way we should see it too.
There was nothing in the budget for families struggling with the cost of child care. We have some of the highest childcare costs in the world. Unfortunately this has resulted in many families now having to choose working for nothing or staying at home, with recent research showing that at least 100,000 families are being locked out of the system because they simply can't afford the cost. This has created a disincentive for the second income earner. On most occasions, that is the woman. The mothers out there are very, very important, but we do actually need people seeking full-time work. We need it for the productivity and the economic growth they deliver to the country. We should not be going out of our way to make it harder for them. This is not only making it harder for families; it's not actually delivering for the nation either.
Why is it that we have a government that has taken such a dim view when dealing with the disability and aged-care sector, two demographics which are overrepresented in my community, mainly because mine is not a wealthy community? In the words of the Treasurer, talking about the budget and the NDIS:
Funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is guaranteed. The Australian Government is providing a further $3.9 billion to the NDIS. This extra funding ensures Australians eligible for the NDIS have access to the supports they need now and into the future.
I would have said, 'Hear, hear,' except I remember what they did in the last budget. In the last budget, the government took $4.6 billion out of the NDIS, not because it wasn't needed by people with special needs and disabilities but to prop up the budget. Talk about rubbery figures!
This pandemic has also exposed the vulnerability of the aged-care sector, where regrettably now more than 680 people have tragically died due to the coronavirus. Despite the royal commission describing the situation facing aged care in the one-word title of its interim report, Neglect, there is nothing in this budget to address the neglect in residential aged care, and the government are simply awaiting the outcomes of the royal commission—a royal commission, by the way, that they were forced into, kicking and screaming.
The other area that the government have failed to invest in is social housing, which we know can be a powerhouse for lifting economic growth and creating jobs. We know this because this is where Labor invested money during the global financial crisis, and we were one of the few countries that came out of that relatively unscathed. The housing crisis has been building for years under this government. While homelessness and housing instability are a very real problem across the country, the situation is certainly dire in my electorate, where there is an overrepresentation of disadvantage, notably where we have a higher refugee population. It is no wonder that my electorate, Fowler, was top for rental stress according to research by the University of New South Wales, which showed that 44 per cent of households in my electorate are living with rental stress.
Australia needs a plan to get through this recession, a vision for the future. We need a government willing not only to protect the community in this pandemic but also to seize the opportunity to rebuild our economy for the future. All we've got from those opposite is $1 trillion of debt and little to show for it—no vision, no infrastructure projects and no reform.
Today I rise to speak on a budget that not only will secure the future of my generation, the future of generation Y or the much-maligned millennials but in my view will determine the nature of the economy my daughters, aged 10 and five, will enter when they first become taxpayers. Our government understands that a strong economy works harder in delivering better standards of living for the Australian people than any of us could. It's trite to say we're in unprecedented times, but in unprecedented times you need a government that is focused and acting decisively in the national interest. I think it's fair to say that the measures that we've introduced have been decisive, but they've also been targeted, proportionate and scalable. That's where the genius of the Prime Minister and Treasurer's actions in responding to this global pandemic has been set. There are no overpriced school halls and no pink batts, which were subsidised on the way in and subsidised on the way out and tragically took the lives of too many young Australians. It's a focused, proportionate and scalable response.
As businesses were forced to close due to the restrictions, we introduced a range of measures to stimulate demand to keep as many businesses afloat while we suppressed the virus on the health front. We continue to learn how to live with this virus. This budget will deliver the jobs that we need to rebuild our economy and our country. As a nation we've relied heavily on the private sector's ingenuity, innovation and adaptability. It employs 11.5 million workers, or 80 per cent of the total workforce in Australia. In our budget we're focused on doing all we can to get the economy working again. We're stimulating the private sector, which will always be the backbone of the Australian economy. The measures this budget introduces stimulate the microeconomy, as our government understands the macroeconomic outcome is the sum of the strength of the micro.
Our government's ability to respond to this crisis is due to the strength of the economy before entering into the pandemic-induced recession. Our previous budgets have given us the fiscal firepower to respond. A Liberal government understands that the federal government cannot support the economy indefinitely, which is why 90 per cent of the spending is occurring this year and next. Indefinite subsidy and government interference in the free market lead to losses in productivity and the creation of nanny states. This is not the Australia I want to see, which is why our budget has made these measures temporary for the purposes of getting Australians and Australia back to work. To achieve this, business stimulus has been at the heart of our response to this global pandemic from the start.
With the expanded instant asset write-off scheme businesses will now be able to deduct the full cost of eligible business assets. It's instant asset write-off 3.0 or, as I like to say the electorate, it's an instant asset write-off on steroids. This measure will apply to 99 per cent of businesses and will apply to approximately $200 billion worth of investment. More business investment means more plant and equipment, more tools, more trucks and more of any form of capital—all things that will make Australian businesses more productive.
This measure builds, as I've said, on the capacity of businesses to increase their output in the future, not just to keep the lights on so our economy doesn't fail. It's about ensuring that profitable businesses reinvest in plant and equipment and in their productivity and expand their businesses. It will benefit approximately one million Australian companies. These measures work in conjunction with other measures, including our continued commitment to reducing overbearing red tape. These conditions for businesses to operate are vital, which is why new digital streamlining processes have been included to minimise unnecessary costs.
Another worrying outcome of this recession has been the disproportionate impact on young Australians in the workforce. The possibility of us having a lost generation is one we can't tolerate. Obviously it's a lesson we learnt from the recession we had to have. That's why the JobMaker hiring credit was introduced: to incentivise hiring additional employees aged 16 to 35. Treasury estimates this program will support significant numbers of new positions for young Australians, providing businesses with the right incentive to expand their workforces and, of course, their production capacity simultaneously. Apprenticeships and traineeships are invaluable ways of learning a trade and developing skills for their future career. We're offering a 50 per cent wage subsidy for new apprentices to support businesses that are supporting the future generation of workers. The subsidy will apply to a whopping 100,000 new apprenticeships to the value of up to $7,000 per quarter until 30 September 2021. I speak almost daily to employers who are incredibly excited about the prospect of engaging young apprentices in their future trades.
During this recession, some jobs may be lost forever—that's the reality—which is why incentives to business to hire apprentices and trainees, and employees generally, are vital as we transition the economy to what I like to call 'our now normal'. I'm a bit over the phrase 'the new normal'. Moreover, our government understands how critical it is to the Australian recovery that Australians possess the prerequisite skills and training to succeed in the new market. That's why our government is making more short courses through TAFE free or for a low fee, to ensure workers of tomorrow are prepared for the changing industries of tomorrow. All these measures encourage private investment in the hiring of new workers, but, for these to be successful, we need to increase the demand for our goods and services; otherwise, hiring additional workers is, of course, futile.
Our government is bringing forward stage 2 tax relief, delivering approximately $9 billion this year and $32 billion next year in personal income tax relief. This is income tax relief for 11 million Australians. For low- and middle-income earners, this means they'll receive between $2,745 for individuals and $5,490 for dual-income families, in terms of additional tax relief compared to 2017-18 tax bases. It's estimated these measures would boost GDP by $3.5 billion this year and $9 billion next year. That's more money in our economy to boost the economic activity of our nation. The government can never spend the public's money as well as they can. It's imperative that the public keeps as much of their hard-earned money as possible—I certainly like to, because I want to purchase the goods and services that I prioritise as important to me, rather than those that perhaps others think I should have access to. This measure once again supports our government's focus on creating jobs, with an estimated 50,000 new jobs created by this measure alone.
Deputy Speaker Gillespie, I'd like to speak about the Building Better Regions Fund, which I know is something that you see as important to regional communities, as I do. This fund has $200 million allocated in round 5. I could provide this place with a list of projects that have proceeded in my electorate courtesy of rounds 1 to 4. Suffice to say they are projects that make my electorate, my communities, more liveable and, in achieving that liveability, have delivered very real jobs in construction phases but also in the continuation phases. I look forward to continuing to work with proponents, local governments, sporting organisations and not-for-profit organisations as we develop their applications for round 5 of that program.
Another program in which funding was continued in the budget is the Stronger Communities program. That's not a budget measure that gets a lot of attention. They're small grants that are provided by individual members to their electorates. There are 151 divisions in this place and each of them get access to $150,000 to allocate vis-a-vis small projects. I describe them in the electorate as 'modest but meaningful'. They're modest applications of money from Canberra, but I have to tell you: they're some of the most meaningful funding grants that are provided. Often sporting clubs and community organisations don't have the means to make a BBRF application but do have the in-kind support that means that, under this program, they can match, dollar-for-dollar, grants of between $2,500 and $20,000. They're modest but meaningful.
If I could mention a specific project of great importance to my electorate, the Princes Highway will receive $136 million as part of this budget. This particular piece of the national road network, in my view, was easily the most dangerous section of road in my electorate. I drive 100,000 kilometres a year. I get a fair feel for the roads. I thought it was pretty bad until I took that same route with a truck driver who insisted that I spend three hours in the cab with him. He was a chatty bloke, but there were times in our discussions—I don't mind a yarn—when he asked me to be quiet because he had to concentrate on the road. There were other parts of the road where he had to reduce his speed to 80 kilometres per hour because too often the rear vision mirrors on the truck collide with other rear vision mirrors on other trucks heading in the other direction. I got a whole new perspective on what it meant to improve the safety of that very significant road. We're continuing to invest in bringing it up to the standard that you'd expect.
HomeBuilder: I can't believe the success of this program; or what I should say is that I can't believe that in the middle of a recession induced pandemic I have builders coming to me and saying, 'Tony, we can't accept anymore work. Our books are full, but we have clients literally lining up.' Such is the success of this program. For the benefit of others in this place, it's $25,000 in direct financial support for people that want to build a new home. In South Australia, if you're a first-home buyer, that can be, if you like, $15,000 from the state government in terms of support, plus $25,000 makes it $40,000. A four-bedroom house and land package in my electorate in Mount Gambier can be achieved at about $350,000 to $400,000. We're talking about 10 per cent of someone's first home. Whilst the jobs are fantastic, the third-line outcome here, which is people owning their own home and beginning that home ownership journey, is the real win.
Manufacturing: throughout this pandemic supply chains have been tested. It's become apparent that more must be done to improve our domestic supply chain resilience. Our budget created the Modern Manufacturing Strategy, which will create a new era of Australian manufacturing as part of the JobMaker plan to rebuild our economy, create jobs and support the recovery from the COVID-19 recession. If there is a silver lining to this dark COVID cloud, here it is. It is the fact that the spotlight has been shone on Australia's need to have sovereign manufacturing capacity. As someone who has grown up in a timber town, who understands the importance of those downstream processing jobs to my community and the economy that sits around it, can I say this: we have been net importers of timber into this country for far too long. I'll say it again: we are net importers of timber into this country. At the very same time as we're exporting logs overseas, we're importing product back. Enough is enough. I'm sure the member for Solomon would agree with me—in fact, he has in another place—when I say that Aussie logs should be for Aussie jobs. I feel as though we have come together on this in a way that, when I campaigned to stop the sale of the South Australian forest estate, I stood arm in arm with an organiser from the then CFMEU, now CFMMEU. Some things are just right and should happen.
This is a challenging time. This was a budget for this time. I couldn't have imagined a budget of its nature when I entered the parliament in 2013 or at any point right up to March this year, but I commend it to the House. I congratulate the Treasurer on its design and I look forward to it achieving its outcome going forward.
As we celebrate Victoria's opening and thank all Victorians for their amazingly selfless effort and sacrifices for the common good, which are an example for us all, we should all look forward to the firing of the great cylinder that is the Victorian economy which will fuel the national recovery. Its reopening will allow Victoria to draw on its impressive trade and investment partnerships with established growth markets in the Indo-Pacific region. It's two-way trade relationship with South-East Asia alone grew by 30 per cent in the last decade to $15.3 billion. Not only for Victoria but for all Australians states and territories and for my beloved Northern Territory, trade and investment will drive a lot of our economic recovery. So that's what I wanted to speak about today in my appropriation bills speech.
Increasing the scale, scope and productivity of manufacturing in Australia is a big focus right now, and rightly so: we all want to see a future made in Australia. But we need to go beyond trite marketing measures like new logos for $10 million. Australia doesn't need a makeover. We don't need another branding exercise. We need an integrated trade and manufacturing strategy that goes well beyond this government's favourite gimmicks of rebranding strategies and its co-opting of celebrities, because we've all seen how that's not gone so well.
There's so much we can build better by building Aussie. There's growing demand for quality, clean and green Aussie-made goods today as much as ever. That's why it's important that, even as we focus on growing our manufacturing sector, we think of manufacturing and trade policy as two legs of the same economic recovery strategy, because the one can fuel growth in the other.
Across the country, necessary measures to suppress the vicious coronavirus pandemic of course slowed or limited trade orientated economic activity in order to save lives. Many farms, factories, office buildings and other export orientated workplaces that build, refine and sell their goods or services to overseas markets were limited or shut for long periods during lockdowns here and abroad. So the slowdown in trade, which is coming to an end, will give a welcome tailwind to our exporters everywhere. As Australians reap that trade dividend, it's an opportunity for the government to do a lot more to foster strategic industries that have high-growth potential, especially in our Indo-Pacific region as it also reopens and rebounds.
For too long, this government has divorced what we build and sell from the nation we build at home. For too long, the government has been happy to let the market decide trade and manufacturing policy without doing the work to diversify and strengthen our economic productivity and resilience to future shocks. It only really woke up to this economic and strategic imperative this year when overlapping economic shocks really kicked us in the teeth as a nation. For too long, the government rejected its responsibility for putting a strategy in place to grow manufacturing and other promising sectors to give Aussies a leg-up as they target growth markets like India and Indonesia. I don't need to remind those listening today, but I will anyway: it was those opposite when Joe Hockey basically goaded the car manufacturing industry to leave this nation. That was no good for our nation. I think a lot of people came to understand that. We need to rebuild that manufacturing sector. For too long, when things have gone wrong, the government has been happy to tell Australian exporters to take responsibility for their risk assessments: 'Just log on to the DFAT website and rake in the practically free dividends from our free trade agreements', for example. We've got new and improved opportunities being negotiated by a government that's the king of spin, with, sadly, very little substance behind it. You can't spin your way out of the atrophying of the manufacturing sector for years under coalition governments, of which, as I mentioned, the disastrous loss of Holden was only the most obvious major mistake in industry policy.
The government has a plan, it now tells us. Well, forgive me and forgive my constituents for greeting cautiously any one of these government rebranding exercises which looks fantastic on paper. During the presser it is fantastic. But, unfortunately, I am concerned it is going to spell more letdowns than deeds and dollars, and deeds and dollars are what Australian industry needs—not to be let down, not to be blamed and not to be knocked back when it needs to have just that from the federal government.
The Labor Party doesn't just have a vision; it has a plan for a future made in Australia—one in which we use our skills, smarts and people in industry to make things here and sell them on a global market. We want to build the high-quality, high-end products of a future economy that we can export in a strategy that diversifies and strengthens our economy over time—high-quality and high-end products of a future economy. Liberal governments have long said we can't build trains here. But what's missing, of course, is a government that (1) believes in manufacturing and (2) has a plan. Our leader has been clear: a Labor government will create a national rail manufacturing plan. Building and exporting go together like a horse and carriage. By better coordinating industry and trade policy, we can ensure that building and buying Australian gets us to a position of trading from strength, not from vulnerability.
Last year the Leader of the Opposition tasked me with leading a new Indo-Pacific trade task force of the Australian Labor Party, and to consult with stakeholders across Australia in business, industry, horticulture—every trade exposed sector in our electorates which cover every part of Australia—and to advise on trade and investment policy. The findings of the Indo-Pacific trade task force will soon be delivered to the leader and our shadow trade minister, Madeleine King, both of whom I thank for their leadership and advice in this process. We didn't need to reinvent the wheel, because of Labor's proud record of driving economic reforms under the Hawke and Keating governments and because of the deepening of Australia's integration into the Indo-Pacific region that we did under the Rudd and Gillard governments.
Labor has used trade to make Australia a fairer, wealthier, more decent and stronger nation. Labor's vision is one which recognises that trade isn't just a lever we pull in the hope it will make us richer, or deregulating to such an extent that we expose Australian workers and businesses to an economic rollercoaster without a seatbelt. No; Australia needs open trade and we still need market access to our important trading partners, even as we pivot over the medium term to new growth markets to spread out our risks. We should always remember the dark days of protectionism under conservative governments that imposed on Australia a handbrake that only limited us.
Labor believes in balancing international trade exposure with resilience to look after both our workers and the general population. There is no argument that this can be done, because we have done it. We will always uphold our values about making Australia fairer as we make it wealthier. These are not either/or values, and anyone who argues this is at odds with the hard facts on the historical record. These values shine through in Anthony Albanese's, the member for Grayndler's, vision statements and in our party's vision for Australia. You have to look very closely or maybe squint from afar to find any trace of vision in this government—and anyone who finds vision there should maybe see an optometrist! To paraphrase former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt—and I know that the member for Goldstein, in places he doesn't talk about at parties, knows that the government that he is a member of is bereft of vision. But, beyond vision, we have our eyes on the prize, which is growth in the economic productivity of our exporters in manufacturing, agriculture and other growth industries.
The Northern Territory is brimming with opportunities in sectors for which there is a resurgence of demand domestically and overseas, even as we speak. More than a new logo, what Northern Territory businesses need is some support to grow to their full potential in accessing markets. We don't need new funding sources or policies to do this. That funding could come from the $5 billion NAIF, of which about $40 million was spent last time I checked.
The NT is easy to stereotype. Everyone knows that we farm barramundi, we run cattle and we grow mangoes. Just ask some of my colleagues, from both sides of the House, who received some of the Top End's juiciest Kensington Prides last week. We were once famous for the dubious fashion stylings of Crocodile Dundee, with his leather vest and croc tooth accessories. I note that I am donning—not as a prop—a crocodile leather jacket.
Go on; take it off!
Member for Goldstein, I'll be keeping the jacket on! The point is that there are some great products that come from the Northern Territory. Some of you may not know this, but even the European fashion houses of Louis Vuitton and Hermes farm our crocodiles for their high-quality skin, to be used in high-end handbags, shoes and belts worth tens of thousands of dollars. My little beauty here that I am wearing today is not worth that much—but, if you are ever in the Northern Territory, pick up a crocodile skin belt. You will never wear anything else again.
I also want to point out—and, again, some members may not know this—that the Territory is home to an industrial hemp industry. The NT Labor government has awarded its first commercial licence. The first crop will open the doors for new jobs, manufacturing and export opportunities. Hemp is so versatile and profitable. It is used for food, fibre, oil, seed and potentially stockfeed, and it is used in the manufacturing of products like cosmetics, clothing, rope and other building materials. The Northern Territory has a competitive advantage when it comes to growing hemp because we produce a dry season seed crop over winter which can be supplied to the rest of Australia for summer planting.
About a fifth of all Asian vegetables that are grown in Australia are grown in the Top End. That includes bok choy, Asian eggplant, cabbage, bitter lemon, bitter melon, lemongrass, choy sum, galangal and chillies. We've been in a position to feed Asia for years. Not only do we have the capacity but the loyal crowds at our local growers markets on weekends will tell you that we're growing some of the tastiest produce in the country. We are growing table grapes in Alice Springs, in the member for Lingiari's electorate—and we've got black-lip oysters in West Arnhem Land. We are supplying the Middle East with dates. We're the largest Southern Hemisphere grower of spirulina—which often ends up in green smoothies in hip Sydney and inner-city Melbourne cafes.
The cotton and gas manufacturing industries are soon to take off, creating thousands of local jobs. I fully support the need to foster Aussie industries, but let's do it with deeds as well as words. And, by deeds, I mean money—moula, cashola.
The green stuff.
The green stuff. Without it, industry policy isn't worth the ecofriendly and sustainable hemp paper it was printed on—which would be another great use of the Territory's hemp.
While we are on the subject of money, let's talk about the value of our arts industry. The Northern Territory is one of the most creative regions in Australia. We are a major cultural drawcard for international visitors. We have a 60,000 year history of Aboriginal art, song and dance. We are home to internationally renowned musicians, and you know the names: Yothu Yindi, Baker Boy, Jessica Mauboy. Our artists exhibit all over the world to great acclaim and clean up at the nation's top art prizes. Our artists tell stories about who we are. They provide us with entertainment—yes, some food for thought—and they helped us survive the lockdown. Importantly, they also speak to who we are. I would have liked to have seen more support from the federal government for the creative industries. They were excluded from JobSeeker. They have not been as supported as much as they should have been, but they are an important industry in our nation.
It's wonderful to follow the member in his contribution to this debate. There are many things, obviously, that are grown in the Northern Territory in addition to the extractive industries, including the arts, but critically it seems that the Northern Territory have become expert in the development of the aphrodisiac sector with some of the products that they are creating, and we celebrate their achievement and contribution to the country. In the end, I'm looking forward to the member bringing down trays of Kensington pride mangoes that we can all enjoy in this parliament. It is a product that I enjoy, as I am sure many other members do as well.
Unfortunately, there has been some misinformation included in the member's speech, particularly around the claimed absence of a contribution from the Morrison government to sectors like the arts and cultural sectors, none of which were excluded from the JobKeeper subsidy. But, if it makes him feel better to mislead the parliament, that's his choice. In the end, the only one sector that was excluded from the JobKeeper subsidy was the banks. The banks were the ones who were excluded. In fact, if you're in the arts or cultural sector and you're employed by an employer, you are entitled to access JobKeeper in exactly the same way as everybody else. But the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance and the unions went around and deliberately misinformed the cultural sector about the application of JobKeeper to insert their relevance, to give the Labor Party something to rail against without actually understanding the practical solution. In fact, what we did is we made sure that we provided assistance not just through the JobKeeper subsidy but through all of the additional support, through the JobSeeker regime to make sure that—
Mr Gosling interjecting—
The member for Goldstein has the call. You're being disruptive, Member for Solomon. Could you please sit down, or are you raising a point of order? No. The member for Goldstein.
The member for Solomon is not raising a point of order; he's just going on a bit of a gallivant and a bit of a rant, and that's okay. He is entitled to do so. I believe in free society and I believe in free speech and I am not from time to time without the capacity to make an occasional contribution to another member's speech as well!
In the end, we made sure not just that JobKeeper supported those people who are employed but that additional support was provided to those who needed to rely on JobSeeker through a critical time. In many cases, many people found themselves unemployed through no fault of their own, and there was a near parity between the two when you factored in the different components of tax and everything else and, of course, the other supplements that went with them. And that is what this government has been able to do at every stage throughout the COVID-19 recession. We were able to do that because of the prudence, because of the sense of responsibility that we took not in the rainy days but in the days leading up to the pandemic when the sun was shining. We looked at the challenges facing our country and said, 'It is important to be prudent and it is important to be responsible,' because we are only the custodians of taxpayers' money. And our objective has been to balance the budget—and we did—so that we could put ourselves in the best position should a rainy day come. And, Deputy Speaker, a rainy day tragically did come. You know it. I know it. Even the members of the opposition know it. So to question how we went into this crisis, Australia went into this crisis better than most for a number of reasons.
On the health front, the biggest public health measure taken throughout this whole pandemic was the one introduced by the Commonwealth in closing our international borders and introducing a quarantine scheme for Australians arriving or returning home and, of course, for those from overseas seeking to get into our country. We're not alone in that. Ask New Zealand. Obviously, being in a comparative position, surrounded by ocean, has enabled us to keep the virus out. In fact, we've only had two big incidents of the virus penetrating that border. The first, of course, was the Ruby Princess in New South Wales, sadly because of failures at the New South Wales end, and of course the horrible consequences of the hotel quarantine scheme in Victoria, which has led to a mass outbreak in the great state and the lockdown of it for many months, which has had a ruinous impact on people's lives and livelihoods. We can all go on a long discussion about who's responsible and whatever else. As the Treasurer correctly said in parliament today, that is a matter that is being investigated by an inquiry and we expect that inquiry to fulfil its full duty, its full responsibility, and ask every question to make sure that we get to the bottom of it and make sure these failings aren't repeated again, and make sure that Victorians and Australians can have confidence in the security of their borders should we have further waves of this virus.
I know, like many Victorians, how difficult this time has been. The lockdown has been punishing for so many people through no fault of their own. The Treasurer was right today: getting case numbers down in Victoria is the victory of the Victorian people and no-one else. Now we have a policy framework which seems to have been built, finally, on trusting and respecting Victorians to do the right thing and not on implementing punitive measures when people should be trusted and respected. But, at every stage throughout this crisis, the Commonwealth has had Victorians' backs. We have provided every bit of assistance we can, on the health front, on the economic front, on the household front, on the individual front and on the mental health front. Wherever it has been, we have stood shoulder to shoulder, side by side with the great state to make sure that they can get through this stage. Now we pray and hope we are in the rebuilding stage as much as the rest of the country has been for many months.
This budget, under the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, is focused clearly on helping our great nation rebuild itself and build a sustainable footing, not just resuscitating the economy of the 20th century but building the future of the Australian economy for the 21st century, so that the investment we make delivers the return and that we can have the jobs that Australians need today, tomorrow and into the future. In doing so, we have also cast an eye on making sure the measures we introduce are temporary, though necessary, and that we target the budget so that we can head it back to a trajectory of prudence and responsibility, because that's what Liberal governments do. We take your money seriously. It is not our money; it comes from the hip pockets of Australians. Every time we take a dollar from the hip pocket of an Australian who's trying to get on with their life, it is only because we see an advantage in how we can spend it collectively to the improvement of their welfare and the interests and the security of the nation. Any dollar more than that is an indulgence of the hubris of members in this place and in the other place, because it says, 'We know more than you'—and we don't—'We have a better understanding about the challenges facing your kitchen table than you do.' That can only come from a position of arrogance. That is why Labor budgets always seek to raid the hip pockets of Australians in the way that Liberal and National governments do not. They carry the arrogance of thinking they know best. They carry the arrogance of thinking that they can run households better than people can themselves—without the information, without the proximity, without the localised context. It's not just the households: it's citizens' lives, communities' lives and the foundation of our great country that they're ignoring.
Our focus in this budget is clear: what do we need to do to get Australians back into jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs? We do so not for some sort of esoteric reason. We do so because we know that jobs are the foundation of people's dignity, their independence, their capacity to be able to live out their lives and their ambitions, realise their dreams and support themselves and their families. If we had a nation of 25 or 26 million people who could all stand on their own two feet and be independent, that is a better nation than the alternative of empowering 600,000 bureaucrats in this city. If you don't think that, I don't know, frankly, what members are doing here. We are elected to represent people and to empower them. That's what my focus is every day as the member for Goldstein: what do we need to do to provide assistance and enable people to live out their best selves?
In Goldstein, in the budget alone, we provided 75,700 taxpayers with relief this year so they could support themselves and their families. We made sure there was new investment through business cashflow. The government is providing a temporary tax incentive that will allow 25,300 innovators in business to write off the full value of any eligible assets so they can bring cashflow forward and be in a position, not just to help their business, but to go on and employ more others, to build confidence and the strength of the economy of the nation.
We provided 8,100 businesses in Goldstein with JobKeeper to carry them through this period. The cashflow boost has helped 5,800 small and medium businesses, and 5,300 Goldstein residents have received the JobSeeker supplement to carry them through this period too. We have also provided assistance to 10,957 pensioners in the community. One of the first measures we took in the pandemic was to reduce the drawdown rate of self-funded retirees so they are able to conserve more of their capital while the market rebalanced—because we get that, no matter what stage of life you're at, you need an income and you need surety and confidence.
The rebuild is where our focus now is. It's about what we need to do to deliver jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. That's why a critical part of this budget is focused strategically on making sure that those young Australians who are in temporary work, who have found themselves unemployed, who had their careers interrupted or are on the pathway of going into the workplace—we're going to provide assistance directly to those businesses to encourage them to employ young people. We do not want a lost generation. We do not want young Australians growing up in a country where they don't think that their ambitions and their dreams can be realised. We want them to get a job so they can go on and form their own success: have a family, buy a house, contribute towards the success of the nation and be in a position to retire with dignity and confidence.
This COVID-19 recession can be a moment that can destroy lives, or it can be one that provides us with an opportunity to build them. We're focused on the building, and we should be focused on the building. That's why there's so much investment and skills: to make sure that if people need to restructure their lives or their employment or professional arrangements, they can do so, so they're not exposed to risks unnecessarily. But, critically, we also understand that there are many people who aren't young who have faced adversity because of this pandemic. Support for mature workers, in encouraging them to be re-employed because of their skills, their knowledge and their capacity, should be valued by employers. They shouldn't be set back, as well.
At every stage throughout this pandemic, the Morrison government has had Australians' backs. Critically for the great state of Victoria, at this difficult time and over recent months, we have had their back. Now is the time for the nation to be able to stand up. As the member for Solomon, to his credit, said: we need the great state of Victoria and its economy to rev up, to be part of the powerhouse, the engine, of the economy of the nation. That is what this budget is about.
I rise to make my contribution to the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021 and related bills. Budgets are about making choices, whether it's family finances, the budgets of corporations and small businesses or those of governments. This government again has made choices, deliberate choices, which do little to assist the people of Werriwa. In fact, they have the potential to do real harm. If, like one of my constituents who contacted me last week, you're in your early 60s and have been made redundant and you have little hope of getting another job, you'll limp towards the pension age of 67. This man is a proud, hardworking Australian who thought he'd done the right things, followed the advice and planned his future finances. He now finds himself staggering towards the age pension, with the only viable option selling his house to keep his head above water. I note the Prime Minister's words in this place: 'If you're good at your job, you'll get a job.' Well, I invite the Prime Minister out to Werriwa, not for one of the sheltered photo ops at Western Sydney Airport but to tell this hardworking Australian, to his face, that the reason he faces financial ruin is that he's no good at his job. I also invite him to speak with another constituent of mine. She's in her mid-30s, with three kids and a mortgage. She was let go from her job in April and has been applying for dozens of vacancies ever since, with no success. These are but two stories from my electorate. There are thousands more.
The budget was an opportunity to pull Australia out of its first recession in 30 years, the worst downturn in close to a century. But the decisions made by this government will see some of our best and brightest, with plenty still to contribute, left behind. It will see our most vulnerable thrown on the scrap heap and it will see the opportunity that lies hidden in this once-in-a-century crisis slip away. This federal budget was an opportunity to steer Australia towards a fairer, more prosperous future, a chance to learn the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic—that there are forces beyond the cut and thrust of politics, forces that will not be bent to the will of the 24-hour news cycle. This virus has showed us up and has exposed our weaknesses. In doing so, it has challenged us to do better—be a better society, a better nation, a better planet. Global supply chains have been smashed, entire industries shut down overnight, society and culture turned upside down in a matter of days. The budget was a unique opportunity to tackle these historic setbacks. It was a chance to revive local manufacturing; fix child care, aged care and social housing; invest in technology research and health to ensure we are better prepared next time; and promote and incentivise the best parts of community building and human nature that we've seen over the last seven months.
By all measures, this government has failed and failed miserably. Decisions taken by the government will see this recession become deeper and longer than it needs to be. The government's major contribution to fixing unemployment is the JobMaker hiring credit. The program hopes to give businesses the incentive to take on new employees, but it is limited only to people aged 16 to 35, and, as I explained earlier, getting a job over the age of 35 can be difficult, and, for those over 60, it's near impossible. There are 900,000 people aged over 35 currently on unemployment benefits. There must be safeguards for all Australians. Regardless of those this is intended to assist, it's merely a short-term fix.
Like investment in education and health, investment in social housing is a long-term investment in Australia's future. It's also an investment right now in our tradies. It would create thousands of jobs for brickies, electricians and carpenters. As we saw during the GFC, every dollar spent in construction will flow through to the rest of the economy several times over. Labor's social-housing plan will invest half a billion dollars to fast-track urgent repairs in social housing. But, like so many other urgent crises facing this nation, the government continues to ignore the problem of housing and homelessness in Australia. Shamefully, the budget does not include a single dollar for social housing while 100,000 homes, or 25 per cent of Australia's social housing, need urgent repair and maintenance. Some of these homes are unfit for human habitation. They have severe problems like mould, leaking roofs and water damage. Meaningful investment in social housing would provide a win-win. It would generate work for local tradies and fix the many homes that need to be fixed.
Housing is a human right, yet too many Australians experience rental stress, overcrowding, couch surfing and sleeping rough. In my community there is a 20-year wait for social housing. During the GFC, the Labor government kept the nation out of recession by providing $5 billion towards 20,000 new social-housing dwellings, and repairing 80,000 others. Social housing provides a roof over people's heads and much needed work for our tradies and builders. It also gives people dignity, improves the educational opportunities of their children, and helps them find jobs and stay in jobs. This pandemic has emphasised the need for everyone to have proper access to housing. You cannot stay at home if you don't have one. My family benefited from social-housing policies of the late 1950s, policies that allowed my parents to buy the house I still call home. My life would have been far different without this certainty of secure housing. This budget was an opportunity to give that chance to a new generation of working Australian families, and the government has failed.
One of the hardest hit demographics during the pandemic has been women. Women have been hit hard because they are often in insecure part-time or casual roles, which were the first to disappear this year. Women are also more likely to be employed in those frontline essential worker positions. They account for 87 per cent of registered nurses and midwives, 87 per cent of aged-care workers, 96 per cent of early-childhood educators and 60 per cent of retail workers. The women working on the frontline have carried Australia through COVID-19, and have been thanked by experiencing the brunt of the adverse economic and social implications of the crisis.
I recently met with aged-care workers, cooks, kitchen hands and cleaners. These workers were not eligible for the aged-care retention bonus, but were still critical parts of the aged-care facilities they worked for. To ensure they don't get sick they have, for the best part of nine months, kept away from family and friends who they don't live with, and strictly limited their retail shopping to essential shopping only. Why do they do this? Because they think of the residents in their facilities as their families, and when families were not allowed to visit, they felt as if they should provide much needed support. They don't mind that this has happened, but it is unfair that, unlike others in this sector, they weren't entitled to the retention bonus.
This budget has failed to produce a meaningful plan to make sure women don't go backwards as a result of the pandemic. The Morrison government is racking up $1.1 trillion of debt, but the Women's Economic Security Statement contains just $240 million in spending promises over five years, without a plan to improve the participation of women in the workforce. The budget contains nothing to address the significant job losses in industries dominated by females.
The member for Bruce recently said that the response to the pandemic has been outsourced by the government. The number of people who felt the need to take money out of their superannuation funds just to survive is criminal, and this is because the government was slow to put in the help they needed and quick to wind it back. Accessing your superannuation when you are a woman with, on average, a 14 per cent pay gap compared to your male counterparts means an already difficult retirement becomes harder.
There is nothing new for domestic and family violence services. Unfortunately, in the last few weeks in Sydney more women's lives have been lost at the hands of current or former intimate partners. Without proper investment in options for housing, financial security and policing, and with relationships under increasing stress, I fear that we are destined to continue to simply send our condolences instead of keeping women and children safe.
Werriwa is the home of Western Sydney airport, a significant infrastructure project that, along with the development of the Aerotropolis, is destined to provide significant jobs and opportunities for people of south-west Sydney. But this opportunity will only be realised if the projects are well-managed. The ANAO report advising the federal government paid $30 million for a parcel of land not needed until 2065 and valued at $3 million is, to put it bluntly, appalling. As the Member for Werriwa, the home of the Western Sydney airport, it's also heartbreaking. That $26 million in additional taxpayers' money has a significant opportunity cost for my community. Here's a list of badly needed yet still unfunded projects in Werriwa that could have been funded with this gross overspend: $5 million for the upgrade of Middleton Drive to provide a second access into and out of Middleton Grange, easing the significant gridlock that residents face each and every morning and afternoon; $9 million for much needed improvements to parks and playing fields, upgrades to canteens, car parks and playing facilities at Amalfi park, Ash Road, Bill Anderson Park, Blamfield Oval, Hoxton Park reserve, Landa Park, Ron Darcy Oval and Winnall Reserve; upgrade for the lift at Macquarie Fields; and an upgrade at Cambridge Avenue so that the smallest rainfall event doesn't send significant traffic on a 25-minute detour.
The south-west of Sydney is one of the key growth areas in Australia and is on the cusp of realising its economic and cultural potential. It's critically important to the success of Western Sydney airport and the Aerotropolis that world-class transport links are built and built now. The south-west rail line extension from Leppington through to Western Sydney airport provides the quickest and most cost-effective solution. The land corridor is already preserved and would easily and quickly connect the airport to Liverpool, Campbelltown and the rest of Sydney via the existing rail network and also connect, more importantly, to Kingsford Smith airport. The project is sadly missing from the failure of a budget.
Universities have been left out by this government. Before the COVID shutdown, education was Australia's third-largest export industry, yet the Morrison government have provided very little in the way of support to this important sector, a sector that not only employs hundreds of thousands and brings in millions in export dollars but leads the world in research—research like finding a vaccine for COVID-19. And how is this sector rewarded? It's excluded from JobKeeper and, of course, just last week, an astronomical increase to the fees for humanities degrees. The decimation of the higher education sector is criminal. The loss of talented educators, researchers and students from the sector will be long felt—talented people from a range of disciplines that we will need to tackle our present and future challenges, disciplines like epidemiology. I wonder if it would be different if academics wore hardhats
A common word used to describe the last seven months has been unprecedented. However, that's not to say we didn't see something like this coming. Over the last century, we know there has been the potential for what is happening with COVID-19 now. There was the Spanish flu at the end of the First World War, and in recent memory there has been SARS, MERS, swine flu and Ebola. That's why a future Labor government has committed to establish an Australian centre for disease control. Our health, our lives and our economy all depend on us getting our response to pandemics right. It is a sad indictment of seven years of coalition government there's been no preparedness training since 2012. Medical stockpiles were so rundown at the beginning of the pandemic there were not enough masks for critical workers and a limited supply of gloves, and, worse still, most of these things are imported. I pay tribute and thank all Australian small businesses who leapt to the cause and pivoted their operations to produce respirators, masks, gloves and sanitiser. The Leader of the Opposition said it best during the budget reply:
creating jobs for today, and training our people for tomorrow; making quality child care a right for all, not a luxury for some; rebuilding our manufacturing sector; and powering our recovery with clean energy.
This budget was an opportunity to deliver on these things, and the government has failed.
The 2020-21 federal budget is totally focused on getting Australians back to work. It will provide a huge boost right across the nation and certainly it will do so in the electorate of Grey. I'm very grateful for the investments that are being made there. It's an extraordinary budget for extraordinary times.
The government is backing business to reignite the prospects of Australians. It is supporting businesses through the crisis with the JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments to individuals who have found themselves out of work. We've continued to support them. We're using taxpayer funds now as a lever to bring on investment and expansion from the private sector, and it's working. We hear today that consumer confidence in the nation is back to the level it was in March. It has lifted 11 per cent since the budget. That's a record. In fact, 2,000 jobs a day are being created around the nation, if you exclude Victoria. It is a net 800, but it's 2,000 a day around the rest of the nation. We dearly hope that Victoria now will join that rush and reverse the situation that has been happening there.
I expect various groups in my electorate will show great interest in the 50 per cent subsidy for new apprentices. We will be looking for people with trade skills in the electorate of Grey. We already have a number of businesses that require them, so the sooner the better. There will be great interest in the $4 billion JobMaker program to support youth unemployment. For people under the age of 30 there's a $200 a week subsidy and for those aged between 30 and 35 there will be $100 a week. I expect a number of jobs will be created in workplaces around both of those schemes.
With the instant asset write-off for business there will be some plant and machinery sold around the electorate. I understand that if you haven't made a profit it's not much of a hook, but plenty of places around have. Perhaps agricultural businesses are expecting a good year this year. They might well look at the opportunity to do that. Some of our manufacturing businesses will be doing the same.
The tax cuts dating back to 1 July will put more money into consumers' pockets and increase confidence again. The carry-back loss mechanisms for business are very important, particularly for those that have been smashed in the last eight or nine months because of COVID. They have paid taxes previously and have all of a sudden found themselves in a net loss position. They will be able to claw back some of the taxes that they paid last year. All of those things will excite business. They will join the rush around Australia to grow the economy and pass the levels we were at before.
The budget is funding a lot of important local infrastructure. Certainly in Grey we have not been passed by. There are incentives for people to invest in people and equipment. In May last year during the election campaign I was given the honour and privilege of announcing a $64 million commitment to begin the dual-laneing—I think I just turned a noun into a verb—of the Augusta Highway north of Port Wakefield. It is 200 kilometres to Port Augusta. It won't get all the way. There's $64 million on the table and there will be another $16 million from the state. It is an $80 million project. I sat down with the department of transport and industry in Adelaide a couple of weeks ago to talk about the advance planning process that they are getting underway at the moment. Boy, we're looking forward to that. It is a busy road that is becoming busier on the back of the resources growth in South Australia.
There's a special one for Rowan Ramsey. I'm pretty about happy about this. I've been doing some blogging on this. There's $100 million to seal the Strzelecki Track. This is a really big one. This is the route that goes from Lyndhurst, which is south of Marree, directly to Queensland. It goes through Innamincka up along the Cooper and to Burke's dig tree. It's sealed all the way from the South Australian border to Brisbane, but it's 50 per cent further than it is to Adelaide.
South Australia has lost a lot of the supply contracts to the Cooper Basin because the 372 kilometres to the turn-off at Gidgealpa takes 16 hours in a road train. That gives you some idea. I was talking to a truckie who was working up there the other day doing some roadworks. He had five trucks there. He is one of the best operators in the state with really good gear. He said, 'It's smashing my truck to bits.' That's why it's being avoided.
It will become one of the great tourist routes of Australia because you'll be able to drive down from Queensland to Cooper Creek and go out to Coongie Lakes, or vice versa. If you come 400 kilometres further south, you have a choice at the T-intersection to go to Lake Eyre or to the Flinders Ranges. It is going to provide a lot of opportunities. There will be a lot of excitement. People don't pull caravans down it now, unless they're a licensed welder. So that will be happening.
Councils are getting a $13 million boost through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. I have 27 councils in Grey, plus a number of Indigenous councils. There's $5 million as well for the department of transport. I'm just getting warmed up, but I know you'll let me come back tomorrow, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Order! It being 7.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30