I present report No. 22 of the Selection Committee relating to consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 9 November 2020. The report will be printed in the Hansardfor today and the committee's determinations will appear on the Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 27 October 2020.
2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 27 October 2020, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 9 November 2020, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts:
Inquiry into Australia ' s creative and cultural industries and institutions.
The Committee determined that statements may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.
Speech time limits—
Dr Gillespie 5minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 Ms Steggall: To present a Bill for an Act to establish a national climate change adaptation and mitigation framework, and to establish the Climate Change Commission, and for related purposes. (Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020)
(Notice given 22 October 2020.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 Ms Steggall: To present a Bill for an Act to create duties to consider climate change impacts and to deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from the enactment of the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Act 2020, and for related purposes. (Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020)
(Notice given 22 October 2020.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
3 Mr Thompson: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that Wednesday, 11 November 2020 marks Remembrance Day, formerly known as Armistice Day, when the guns fell silent during the First World War;
(2) recognises:
(a) that since the First World War, almost two million men and women have served in our defence forces; and
(b) the more than 102,000 defence personnel who have tragically died during, or as a result of, warlike service, non-warlike service and certain peacetime operations; and
(3) acknowledges the service and sacrifice of all those who served in our defence force and the families that supported them by encouraging all Australians to observe one minute's silence at 11 am on 11 November 2020.
(Notice given 21 October 2020.)
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Thompson—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 Ms Stanley: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges south-western Sydney:
(a) is one of the key contributors to economic growth in the Australian economy;
(b) is in need of investment to support jobs and growth;
(c) is home to diverse and endangered species;
(d) has a population of approximately 700,000, which is over 9 per cent of the NSW population; and
(e) provides over $30 billion in gross regional product to the NSW economy;
(2) notes that south-west Sydney is chronically underfunded and under-resourced in the following areas:
(a) road infrastructure and public transport;
(b) hospitals and health services;
(c) communications services; and
(d) schools and universities;
(3) acknowledges that investment in south-west Sydney is required to support jobs creation; and
(4) calls on the Government to provide the necessary support to:
(a) encourage business growth;
(b) encourage jobs growth; and
(c) build infrastructure to sustain growth.
(Notice given 6 October 2020.)
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Stanley—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
5 Mr Sharma: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 4 November 2020 marks 25 years since Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated at an anti-violence rally in support of the Oslo peace process;
(b) a condolence motion for Prime Minister Rabin was moved in this House on 23 November 1995 by the Prime Minister, Mr Keating, and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, reflecting the deep sense of loss and shock all Australians felt at the news of Mr Rabin's assassination;
(c) Yitzhak Rabin served as Israel's Prime Minister on two separate occasions, from 1974 to 1977 and then again from 1992 until his death in 1995, in addition to being a decorated general who led Israel's armed forces during the 1967 Six Day War and served as Israel's Ambassador to the United States; and
(d) Prime Minister Rabin promoted peace and co-existence in a turbulent time and region, concluding the Oslo Peace Accords with the Palestinians in 1993, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and the Israel-Jordan Peace treaty in 1994; and
(2) affirms Australia's ongoing commitment to Mr Rabin's vision of a peaceful two-state solution to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, mutually negotiated and agreed by the Israelis and the Palestinians.
(Notice given 22 October 2020.)
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Sharma—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
6 Mr J. H. Wilson: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) 6 and 9 August 2020 will mark, respectively, the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki;
(b) by the end of 1945, it is estimated that 213,000 people had died in those communities, and the legacy of chronic and terminal illness, stillbirths, birth defects, survivor discrimination, and acute environmental harm and contamination continues to the present day;
(c) 2020 also marks the 50th anniversary of the coming into force of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty;
(d) the ongoing work of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, an initiative founded in Australia that received the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for advancing a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons; and
(e) since 2017, 81 countries have signed and 38 have ratified the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which will enter into force after the 50th ratification;
(2) further notes with concern:
(a) a number of recent developments that weaken the international system of weapons monitoring, impair progress towards nuclear disarmament, and undermine agreements to prevent nuclear proliferation and explosive testing;
(b) the fact that the hands of the Doomsday Clock have been moved to within 100 seconds of midnight, representing the greatest yet marked risk of nuclear conflict; and
(c) a 2019 report by the United Kingdom Parliamentary Committee on International Relations that warns the risk of nuclear weapons is now as great as it was during the height of the Cold War; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) voice its concern about the deterioration in the multilateral framework for achieving nuclear disarmament and for minimising the risk of nuclear conflict;
(b) voice its concern at indications the United States:
(i) intends to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies;
(ii) may allow the START agreement to expire in February 2021; and
(iii) has abandoned the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty; and
(c) increase our diplomatic focus and the resources needed to play a greater role in global efforts to reduce conflict, build regional and international cooperation, resist the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, and progress their, ultimate elimination.
(Notice given 15 June 2020.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits—
Mr J. H. Wilson—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 Dr Freelander: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport held an extensive inquiry into the use and marketing of electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers in Australia, throughout the 45th Parliament;
(2) notes that the inquiry did not find, nor recommend, that e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers be considered to be 'health products', nor that they reduced harm to users;
(3) further notes that e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers:
(a) are not universally considered to be an effective tool in helping smokers to quit smoking or reduce consumption of nicotine products;
(b) may be considered to be a 'gateway' into the consumption of nicotine, tobacco and nicotine products; and
(c) involve the use of flagrant advertising and enticing flavours, which allure consumers to consume their substance;
(4) notes that the Senate is considering holding another superfluous inquiry into the use of such products, despite the House having held an extensive inquiry in the previous parliament;
(5) condemns any attempt from vested interests to promote the use of e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers within this parliament; and
(6) concurs with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport in its findings, namely that independent experts at the Department of Health, the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Therapeutic Goods Administration are well-placed to review the use and regulation of electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers.
(Notice given 3 September 2020.)
Time allotted—15 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Dr Freelander—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 Mrs McIntosh: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the role that Australian manufacturing businesses continue to play in ensuring our nation has vital supplies, including food and personal protective equipment, especially during the pandemic when global supply chains were disrupted;
(2) recognises that a vibrant manufacturing sector is important for our economic security; and
(3) congratulates Australian manufacturing businesses on their ongoing efforts to adapt to the current circumstances, keep people in jobs, support local supply chains and contribute to our national economic recovery.
(Notice given 6 October 2020.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mrs McIntosh—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 Mr Wilkie: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Tasmanian public health system is fundamentally broken and that is directly resulting in prolonged illnesses and avoidable deaths;
(b) this dire situation is despite the Tasmanian health system receiving more funding from the Commonwealth Government than the national average;
(c) independent Tasmanian public policy analyst Martyn Goddard estimates that, since the Tasmanian Government came to power in 2014, health and hospitals have been short-changed by $2 billion of GST money being diverted from Tasmania's public health system;
(d) Tasmanian hospitals are the worst-performing in the country, despite heroic efforts from staff;
(e) the latest state government figures show that 11,342 people are waiting for elective surgery—the most urgent category one patients, who should be treated in 30 days, have to wait an average of 130 days for their procedure;
(f) mental health services are another significant area of chronic under-investment, resulting in poorly treated and untreated illnesses causing great suffering and sometimes suicides; and
(g) there is precedence for the Commonwealth Government to intervene in the Tasmanian health system, for instance the take-over and hand-back of the Mersey Hospital; and
(2) calls on the Commonwealth Government to refer Tasmania's failing health system to the Productivity Commission to:
(a) conduct a public inquiry to identify the root causes of Tasmania's failing health system; and
(b) formulate a solution to fix the systemic and cultural problems within the Tasmanian health system.
(Notice given 27 October 2020.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits—
Mr Wilkie—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
28 October 2020
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 will provide stronger protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australia, by giving effect to recommendations from the 2019 independent review into freedom of speech in higher education undertaken by the Honourable Robert French AC, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.
The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) to:
In replacing 'free intellectual inquiry', the amendments appropriately distinguish freedom of speech as a common freedom from elements of freedom of speech and intellectual inquiry that are central and distinctive aspects of academic freedom. Key characteristics of academic freedom are set out in the new definition.
The Australian government is strongly committed to supporting academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australian universities. Our universities are critical institutions where ideas are debated and challenged. We must ensure they are places that protect all free speech, even where what is being said may be unpopular or challenging.
That is why, in November 2018, following reports of concerning incidents on university campuses across Australia, I announced the independent review into freedom of speech, undertaken by Mr French.
Mr French's review was a cooperative and consultative project that respected Australian universities' long held and deeply valued autonomy. As Mr French observed in his review: even a limited number of incidents seen as affecting freedom of speech may have an adverse impact on public perception of the higher education sector. I released the final report in April last year and announced that the government had accepted all his recommendations.
The central recommendation was adoption of a model code on freedom of speech and academic freedom across the higher education sector. Consistent with this approach, Mr French recommended amendments to the Higher Education Support Act and the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) legislative instrument to align this legislation with the model code.
The amendments I am introducing today are one of three key elements in the government's commitment to strengthen protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australian higher education.
In addition, we are working with and supporting universities to align their policy frameworks with Mr French's model code.
The French model code sets out a framework for universities that protects freedom of speech and academic freedom as paramount values of Australian universities.
All universities have undertaken to adopt the model code, in a way that is consistent with their individual legislative frameworks.
In August 2020, to support their efforts in implementing the code, I announced a review by lawyer and former Vice-Chancellor of Deakin University Professor (Emeritus) Sally Walker AM to evaluate the alignment of university policies with the principles of the model code.
A third element is focused on supporting the work of institutions and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency to monitor compliance with relevant quality standards.
This will involve making changes to the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) legislative instrument to align its language with HESA and the model code.
As work to implement the model code is well advanced across our university sector, these amendments are necessary to ensure consistency between the legislation and university statutes, and to support regulators and universities alike, in promoting academic freedom and freedom of speech in higher education campuses across Australia.
Mr French identified support for academic freedom, freedom of speech and institutional autonomy as the three central tenets of his model code.
More than 56 years ago, in August 1964, Prime Minister Robert Menzies gave voice to the importance of these elements. Speaking at the University of New South Wales, Mr Menzies described the right and duty of universities and academics to pursue new knowledge as 'of the most vital importance for human progress in all fields of knowledge'.
He noted that a university that treated an academic as no more than a person 'hired to study as directed and to teach in accordance with rules laid down by other people, would be an extremely strange university; it would have failed to understand the immense importance of true academic freedom.'
In the history of western civilisation, from the death of Socrates nearly 2½ thousand years ago to the Cold War era that helped shape modern geopolitics, scholars and the institutions that support and nurture them have been subject to internal and external incursions on their freedom to explore, understand, critique, engage with, and disseminate knowledge about the world.
The first quarter of the 21st century is no exception. Australia's university sector is affected by pressures at home and abroad that may diminish academic freedom on campus. It is vital to Australia's sovereignty and our moral, social, political and economic wellbeing that universities, their staff and students, and their governance bodies be empowered to resist these incursions. The legislation that regulates higher education should support them in this task.
The government considers that adoption of the French model code is the most effective means to ensure Australia's higher education providers are supported to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom, protecting Australia's reputation for quality higher education.
The consistency of language to be achieved by the measures in this bill will facilitate adoption of, and compliance with, the code, and provide for more consistent and transparent policies in relation to freedom of expression and academic freedom across the university sector, including key elements, principles, and any necessary limitations imposed on these freedoms.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today the Morrison government is introducing a package of bills to ensure that Australia's foreign investment review framework is equipped to keep pace with the emerging risks and global developments, while remaining welcoming and open to foreign investment.
Foreign investment is important for Australia's long term economic success, stability and prosperity. It creates jobs, improves productivity and connects Australian businesses to global markets. Australia remains one of the world's most attractive investment destinations. Our stable democracy, rule of law, highly skilled and educated workforces and world-class industrial capabilities mean choosing to invest in Australia benefits both investors and Australians.
Australia's foreign investment regulatory framework has always sought to strike a balance between welcoming foreign investment and ensuring that all investment is consistent with Australia's laws and, of course, our national interests. However, in recent times the risks to Australia's national interest, particularly national security, have increased as a result of a range of factors—including rapid technological change and changes in the international security environment.
The government's foreign investment reform package deals with national security risks, strengthens compliance measures, streamlines approval processes and enhances administrative arrangements. Importantly, the reforms preserve the underlying principles of our system—that Australia welcomes foreign investment for the significant benefits it provides but also wants to ensure that individual investments are not contrary to the national interest, including national security.
As part of this reform package, this bill amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975to give effect to the most significant reforms since this act was first introduced.
Key measures in the bill include:
In drafting this legislation the government undertook an extensive consultation process. This included the release of exposure draft legislation for public comment, more than 20 targeted stakeholder sessions reaching over 200 organisations such as peak bodies, state and territory governments, representatives from foreign private and government investors, and legal and financial advisers. Treasury, in addition, also held two public information sessions with over 120 subscribers.
Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Act 2015.
This bill forms part of the broader reform package to strengthen the foreign investment framework, as announced by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on 5 June this year.
The bill updates the existing fee framework to take into account the new roles and responsibilities of various government departments and agencies in the foreign investment framework, including to administer the new national security test and the expanded suite of compliance measures. It also takes into account the growing complexity of cases.
The government has long maintained that the cost of administering the foreign investment review framework should be borne by foreign investors, not Australian taxpayers. The government continues to hold this view.
The proposed amendments to the fee framework will ensure a fairer and simpler framework for foreign investment fees, while continuing to offset the full cost of the package.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill implements a number of streamlining and integrity measures.
Schedule 1 to the bill will amend the income tax law to ensure that no tax is payable on refunds of large-scale generation certificate shortfall charges.
This measure will apply to refunds paid since 1 January 2019.
Under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, energy retailers and other liable entities must surrender large-scale generation certificates or pay a shortfall charge. This shortfall charge can be refunded where the outstanding certificates are surrendered within the allowable refund period.
This measure will therefore clarify the operation of the income tax law for energy providers and will ensure that the market for large-scale generation certificates works as intended, meeting targets for clean energy while minimising costs for consumers.
Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Actto facilitate the closure of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and any transitional arrangements associated with AFCA replacing the SCT.
The AFCA Act will be amended to allow the transfer of SCT records and documents to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for ongoing records management, and will also allow the Federal Court to remit appealed cases back to AFCA, where previously these had been remitted to the SCT.
Schedule 2 also introduces a rule-making power to the AFCA Act, to allow the minister to prescribe matters of a transitional nature that may be required to facilitate the closure of the SCT.
Through this measure, the government is delivering on our promise to wind up the SCT at the conclusion of its work, allowing all superannuation related complaints to be now dealt with by AFCA.
Schedule 3 will enable the government to establish a more effective enforcement regime to encourage greater compliance with the franchising code by amending the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to increase the maximum civil pecuniary penalty available for a breach of an industry code from 300 to 600 penalty units, and increasing the civil pecuniary penalties for breaches of the franchising code accordingly.
Appropriate penalties in the franchising code are necessary to provide a strong deterrent against breaches of the code across the franchising sector, particularly by large multinational franchisors.
Schedule 4 to the bill will extend the operation of a temporary mechanism put in place during the coronavirus pandemic, which allows arrangements for complying with information and documentary requirements to be altered under Commonwealth legislation, including requirements to give information in writing and to produce, witness and sign documents. The temporary mechanism responds to the ongoing challenges posed by social distancing measures and restrictions on movement and gathering in Australia and overseas that have been introduced to respond to the coronavirus pandemic.
In recognition of the importance of continued business transactions and government service delivery during this time, this measure provides that a responsible minister may continue to determine that provisions in Commonwealth legislation containing particular information or documentary requirements (i) can be varied, (ii) do not apply, or (iii) prescribe that another provision specified in the determination applies, for a specified period of time. A responsible minister must not exercise the power unless they are satisfied that the determination is in response to circumstances relating to coronavirus. The mechanism is temporary and will be repealed at the end of 31 March 2021 or a later date determined by the Attorney-General should that become necessary due to continuing challenges posed by the pandemic. Any determination made under the mechanism will cease to operate when the temporary mechanism is repealed.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move:
That:
(1) The resolutions of the House on Monday, 26 October 2020 agreeing to the third readings of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, the Recycling and Waste Reduction (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020, the Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (General) Bill 2020, the Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Customs) Bill 2020 and the Recycling and Waste Reduction Charges (Excise) Bill 2020 be rescinded; and
(2) The order of the day for each bill be called on successively and without delay, with the third reading of each bill to be moved by a Minister and the question to be put for resolution without debate, and each bill to be disposed of.
We'll be supporting the resolution, but I think it's important, given that all we have heard is the words of it, for me to explain to the House why the House is now doing this. I can't remember the last time we had a rescission motion moved by the government, and I think it's important for people to understand exactly why this procedure is being adopted right now. On Monday afternoon, we all spent 1½ or two hours on these bills in the chamber. I explained at the time that a whole lot is done in this chamber through cooperation and it is easier to just provide cooperation and allow debate to take place in the chamber. The government didn't go down that path during question time that day and, as a result, cooperation was withdrawn. What then happened procedurally was that when we denied leave to move to the third reading—we said it should be dealt with on a subsequent day, which is what the standing orders presume—government ministers stood up and moved what is called a contingent motion. If you've got a copy of the Notice Paper, you will find them at the top of page 6. It says:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.
We then voted on that—I think it was after I had been shut down each time, or something like that—but the House having resolved that the third reading be moved without delay, on five separate occasions the minister forgot to then move the third reading. So what then happened was that the House sat there going through procedural motions for 1½ hours and voting as to whether the third reading would be agreed to without the third reading ever having been moved—even though, on each occasion, a minister had moved a motion insisting that they be allowed to do that.
Do I blame the minister who was there at the table? Not particularly. There are not many people in here who will be following the procedure that closely. But I do say: have a think about the price of cooperation, because it's not that high. The price of cooperation from us is that we allow the chamber to be a debating chamber. That's it. And all we were asking for, and the reason we stopped cooperation, was to say, 'Well, you can deal with it on a subsequent day, which won't matter, because the Senate isn't sitting at the moment anyway.' As it's turned out, we're now dealing with it on a subsequent day. So, in terms of what we said the price would be, tada!, we're here anyway.
I just remind those opposite that, for the price of making sure that the opposition doesn't get to give speeches at different points, an hour and a half to two hours of the time not just of the parliament but of every House of Reps member of the cabinet, including the Prime Minister himself, was spent here voting to be stubborn, to prove a point, and it turns out that every one of those votes were completely irrelevant because, in the moment, they got the procedure completely wrong anyway. The presiding officer was changing at different points. It's not on the presiding officer. It's not on the clerks. It's on the government for basically putting itself in this position for no good reason.
I've put it in a more fiery way on previous occasions. Today, I just say, calmly, in terms of 'be careful what you wish for', this is what you wished for. Now, for the first time in I don't know how long, we are having to move a rescission motion on votes because a minister, having demanded that they be allowed to move a third reading immediately, then didn't move a third reading after the House had resolved that they could. They didn't make that mistake just once; they made it five consecutive times during that hour and a half.
Let this place be a debating chamber. We all come from different parts of the country. There are 150 different parts of Australia represented. We all come here, and people have a right to believe that the people they voted for will be able to put their point, whether it's agreed to or not, and will argue it back and forth. But the silliness of constantly shutting down debate is what lands us in this sort of situation. How much time does that take now? These third readings will go through really quickly. It will happen really quickly. But Monday night wasn't quick. And what did the government achieve that night? Absolutely nothing.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill. While Labor will be supporting this amendment, this legislation does nothing to help more than 100,000 older Australians waiting for home-care packages, nor does it fix the systemic problems undermining our broken aged-care system and which the federal government is responsible for. Instead, this legislation tinkers at the edges. It is of some value, but ultimately it fails to deliver the home-care packages that will help to keep older Australians at home longer, keeping them connected to their communities and families.
This bill is designed to move the payment of the home-care subsidy to approved providers from an advance payment to an afterpayment. This will place home-care payment packages on the same model used for providers of the NDIS—a model that I'm regularly told places real pressure on providers' ability to do their work. Now, the issue that needs to be appreciated by this government and this House is that post-payment cycles can financially stretch service providers. This is particularly true for smaller service providers. Regional areas like my electorate of Corangamite are more likely to be covered by smaller providers and therefore will be harder hit.
This legislation is more noteworthy for what it excludes than what it includes. The amendment before the House does not implement the wholesale reform needed to protect the safety and dignity of older Australians. The neglect of the sector by this government was brought to light in the royal commission into aged care. The commissions interim findings have painted a bleak picture of many providers which put commercial profits before vulnerable people, and this callous behaviour is only made possible because we have a federal government that has not in its seven years of governing put in place the stringent guidelines needed. It was Labor that pushed for the royal commission and dragged the Morrison government, kicking and screaming, to act, despite the fact that they already knew there was serious misconduct in the aged-care system.
It must be said we owe a debt of gratitude to every loved one, provider and staff member who took the time to provide evidence on the failure of the sector to the royal commission. The first recommendation of the royal commission's interim report entitled Neglect,and what a shameful title, was for the Morrison government to fix the home-care package waiting list. When the interim report was released we had 100,000 Australians waiting on the list for a package. Today, 12 months later, we have 102,000 Australians still waiting on the list for a package and the government's response is to introduce 300 more home-care packages.
It's absolutely tragic that in the past three years more than 30,000 older Australians have died waiting for their approved home-care package. Over the past two years more than 32,000 older Australians have entered residential aged care prematurely. This is simply unacceptable. But true to form the Morrison government has made a stream of announcements without any real action. I know this because many of my constituents have raised their aged-care issues with me. They have experienced firsthand that the announcement never matches the delivery. Many talk to me about their anxiety when forced to place a loved one in an aged-care home. They know there are serious flaws in the system and fear their loved one will receive substandard care. I do understand the pain of losing a loved one in aged care during COVID. This happened to me. It is tragic. It is traumatic. It was awful not to be able to say goodbye. But it makes me even more determined to push for an overhaul of our aged-care system.
The coronavirus pandemic has only magnified the entrenched problems facing the aged-care sector. Almost 700 older Australians have lost their lives to COVID in residential care. Many of the workforce contracted the disease themselves—the same workforce has fought every day to keep residents in aged care safe. Tragically too many vulnerable people have died in aged care, because the federal government and the providers they regulate failed to do their jobs. Every one of these deaths is a tragedy and every one of these deaths is a lesson.
We now know the federal government, and many providers, failed to put enough staff on in place. They also failed to manage the right workforce mix. Training has been insufficient under this government, so knowledge of infectious control was, and remains, far too rare. Insecurity of employment and a casualised workforce drove further infection spread to other workers and clients.
The royal commission was willing to put pen to paper on some of these lessons, specifically finding there was no COVID-19 plan for the aged-care sector. Officials have very plainly said that if the government had moved more quickly to establish better resourced aged-care response centres lives would have been saved. The Prime Minister has boasted about the number of announcements his government has made in aged care, but they've failed to deliver the policies and resources our aged-care sector needs to survive this pandemic. The federal government promised an effective surge workforce for Victoria but didn't deliver. They promised protective equipment for all aged-care workers but too many missed out for too long. And even when our most vulnerable are at risk, even when the pandemic took hold, even when the country demands answers, this government is all photo op and no follow-up.
A key theme of the royal commission has been the repeated testimony of families that have been kept in the dark when it comes to important issues in the lives of their loved ones in aged care. Aged-care facilities receive about 75 per cent of their income from the taxpayer. Despite the heavy reliance on the public purse there is worryingly little reporting of how the money is spent. Families of our loved ones in care need transparency and accountability. When considering reform it's crucial that transparency and accountability of the aged-care sector are at the top of the list. Sunlight is a powerful tool in making sure organisations are behaving in line with community expectations. But this government has a strong track record of shielding dodgy aged-care providers from accountability. Such actions by this government are a disservice to those aged-care providers, like those in my electorate of Corangamite, who are doing their absolute best to put quality care at the forefront of everything they do.
The interim report from the royal commission does make note of the lack of fundamental transparency across the sector. It should be noted the report was handed to the government 12 months ago, but with little consequence. However, the debate we're having today is not about the gross neglect of Australians receiving aged care. Instead, more than a year after the royal commission first reported some of the most horrendous stories imaginable, this government has prioritised the timing of invoicing. Is this the crucial step we need to take for our aged-care system? The house is burning to the ground, and this government is talking about what colour hats the firefighters should be wearing!
We know this government has not turned its attention to the vital issue of workplace planning and management. The nurses and carers in the aged-care sector do deserve our sincere gratitude. This is especially true in 2020, but it has always been true. The royal commission's comments on working in aged care were nothing short of harrowing—in the words of the commission:
Workloads are heavy. Pay and conditions are poor, signalling that working in aged care is not a valued occupation. Innovation is stymied. Education and training are patchy and there is no defined career path for staff. Leadership is lacking.
The commission report went on to say:
Major change is necessary to deliver the certainty and working environment that staff need to deliver great quality care.
The conditions of the workforce described here cut to the very heart of the sector. The sector is nothing without the workers, the carers, who dedicate themselves to looking after our most vulnerable. We must show aged-care workers our appreciation. We need them now more than ever, and, on behalf of my constituents of Corangamite, I say thank you.
To meet the ever-increasing demand for aged-care services and support, the workforce will need to be three times its current size by 2050. That's a threefold increase in three decades. In Anthony Albanese's vision speech on ageing, he said:
Part of the answer to this crisis must lie in our aged care workforce. Those we trust to care for our most vulnerable, our parents, our grandparents, eventually ourselves.
There are too few aged-care workers, and they are paid too little. They have begged the Government to do something.
He said, 'But it is Labor—Labor—who is listening.' He went on:
Our aged care workers need proper pay and proper training.
The aged care workforce must also be able to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate care.
Staffing numbers, qualifications, skills mix and experience, all affect the ability of aged care workers to provide safe, quality care.
Under a Labor Government, solving this will be one of the priority tasks for Jobs and Skills Australia.
I believe in this vision outlined by our Labor leader and I am proud to support it.
This is a third-term government that wants applause for being dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledge the existence of these most serious problems. Well, no—seven years in, there are no accolades, no points, for identifying the catastrophe. So here is a checklist the Morrison government should not need. There should not be a disastrous overreliance on chemical restraints in our aged-care sector. There should not be aged-care workers who have to choose between meeting the medical needs of one patient over another because of inadequate resourcing. There should not be 50 sexual assaults in aged-care facilities every day. There should not be people living in aged-care facilities who are left in soiled continence pads. There should not be people living in an aged-care facility with ants crawling on their wounds. There should not be people living in aged care who are suffering from malnutrition. We should not have a residential aged-care system that fails one in five residents.
This government is failing our mothers and our fathers, our grandparents and our aged-care workers, and eventually the government's failure will affect us all.
In closing, it is important to remind all in this House that government must be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. It's time the Morrison government fixed the aged-care sector or got out of the way for someone who can.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020. Why this bill? More specifically, why now? There is nothing in this bill that needs to be done now before the royal commission hands down its final report in February 2021. This bill was introduced back in February this year, so we've waited eight months already. It seems far more responsible to wait until after the royal commissioners have handed down their final report. I think it's fair to assume there are serious recommendations coming for major reform to aged care. This legislation seems to be tweaking a system that's failing older Australians. They're tweaks to adjust how or when we pay service providers. They're tweaks that will do nothing to provide better services or release new packages.
Two years ago, when the Prime Minister announced the royal commission, he admitted it was likely to be a bruising outcome. Let's face it, he called the royal commission to get ahead of the bruising reports by the ABC's Four Corners program—a program on which his own minister appeared saying there was no need for a royal commission—how embarrassing.
The royal commission has been far more than bruising. The response of this royal commission was referred to as an opportunity of a lifetime. The stories we have heard from older Australians and their families have been appalling and heartbreaking. When senior counsel assisting, Peter Rozen QC, wrapped up last week he labelled this the most in-depth and thorough examination of Australia's aged-care systems that has ever been undertaken.
The senior counsel presented 124 suggested recommendations to the royal commissioners. There are no guarantees that all the suggested recommendations will be accepted. The fact is they deal with issues that will make this legislation before the chamber either redundant or irrelevant. Regardless of what the commissioners agree upon, there are changes coming and there will be many.
Let's look at a few of the suggested recommendations by senior counsel. Recommendation No. 8 suggested a new aged-care program combining all the existing aged-care programs into a more comprehensive continuum of care of older people. Why tweak a system that may be completely overhauled after the recommendations are handed down?
Suggested recommendation No. 9 is about meeting preferences to age and place. This suggested recommendation includes a requirement to clear the home-care package waiting list and immediately increase the home-care packages available, allocating a package to all those on waiting lists by 31 December 2021. Why tweak a payment system when what we really need is to clear the backlog?
Suggested recommendation No. 14 is about approved providers responsibility for care management. This would see an approved care provider assign a care manager to each individual. In the instance where there are more than one provider, the leading provider must assign a care manager. Why make life harder for aged-care providers when an overhaul is on the way?
Suggested recommendation No. 16 is about assistive technology and the home modifications category. This would provide aids, appliances and services to promote independence in daily living and reduce risks to live safely at home. Why tweak the system when what people need is more than what's being offered anyway? Older Australians simply want to age well, safely and securely at home.
The Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network, so ably led by CEO Merrilyn Strohfeldt, asked older residents in my community what they thought about services that provided care for older Australians. Among the things they wanted to see was more support to continue living at home as they aged. They wanted: more focus on prevention, such as exercise, balance and nutrition; more help to manage their health needs; and more services closer to home, such as visiting professionals and telehealth options. This is exactly what the royal commissioners found in their interim report so infamously called Neglect, and that's what the evidence that has been adduced before the royal commission shows since the interim report. It's what we want for our parents, our grandparents and for ourselves as we age. It's what home care is all about, or, rather, it's what home care should be all about.
Given there are more than 100,000 Australians still waiting for home-care packages, given we are just four months away from the final report of the aged-care royal commission and given there's a strong likelihood of major reform to aged care coming, why are we debating this legislation now? Is this the time to be tweaking a system, which isn't working, about how the government pays providers of aged care—tweaks that would put pressure on smaller providers? When we know we need more packages, is this the time that this legislation before the chamber is so important? If people are not being supported to live independently at home then they are more likely to require more expansive and expensive health and residential aged-care services. Do we want the see more Australians languishing and dying while waiting for home-care packages?
This legislation does nothing to address the current crisis. The legislation does nothing to address the challenges, the blessings and the burdens of our ageing population. The government hasn't even considered the issues of an ageing population. This is a government with a track record of ignoring the ageing population and the impact of longevity on our economy and our lifestyles and on jobs and on services.
I hear backbenchers in the government waxing on about their proud record on ageing. They must have political amnesia. A bit of history is really important. Back in November 2013—this is a third-term government—one of the first acts of this government was to scrap the Advisory Panel on Positive Ageing, just six months away from delivering their final report, their blueprint. But it shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone, because the coalition parties, going into the 2013 election, had a seven-page pamphlet—seven pages in total—that they devoted to aged care. That was their total policy commitment on the area of aged care. They said things like they were going to get rid of antiquated regulatory processes. How's that going? They thought this would put at risk standards in the industry. If they got rid of regulations, they thought it would also help, because people would be less susceptible to potential abuse and neglect. That's really gone down fantastically well, hasn't it? Honestly, what a joke that policy was.
'Ageing' wasn't a dirty word to former Treasurer Wayne Swan, who established this panel of pre-eminent Australians to lead the nation forward. At the same time this government was sacking Everald Compton and his panel, they axed the Aged Care Workforce Supplement—$1.2 billion designed in accordance with the sector to assist aged-care providers to pay and train their staff appropriately. Then, a few months later, in June 2014, they axed the dementia supplement. That was just fantastic! As we know, ACFI, the Aged Care Funding Instrument, doesn't cover severe behavioural issues and issues for those people suffering from severe dementia. It doesn't fully catch them, so the funding doesn't cover everything.
The previous Labor government designed a dementia supplement, providing 10 per cent extra, and a veterans supplement, also providing 10 per cent extra, for home-care packages and a daily payment for people living in residential premises who were living with dementia and severe behaviours. But what did this government do? One of its first acts was to get rid of dementia supplement, which was affecting, at that time, 330,000 Australians. So don't come into this place and tell us about your proud record. There's barely been a MYEFO and a budget that this government has brought forward that hasn't resulted in a mismanagement of the aged-care sector or a cut, particularly in their first three years under Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister Turnbull, to funding in the aged-care sector. I might add, the current Prime Minister was the Treasurer during a lot of that period.
Because those opposite are so excited and happy about what their record is, let's have a bit of a look at what they've done. On September 2017, there were 6,000 home-care packages. This was their first relief. They were all exhausted by December 2017, so, in the budget in 2017-18, there was no funding for 14,000 home-care places. They took them all away by reducing the 26,000 residential aged-care places. That was really a brilliant move! In the MYEFO in 2018, there was supposedly another 10,000 places. They brought forward some funding. That's all they did. They didn't put forward new funding; they just brought it forward.
In February 2019, they announced another 10,000 places on the eve of the royal commission hearings beginning over five years. It was because they wanted a little bit of an accounting trick. They are really good at it if you watch Senate estimates. They also reannounced that in the budget in 2018-19. Then in November 2019, prior to MYEFO and in response to the royal commission's interim report titled Neglect, they announced for one year from 1 December another 5,500 places. You can't really work out when you look at it whether that was new money or just rehashed or recycled money. So don't give us lectures about how good you are in terms of aged care when you have a royal commission damning you at the moment and you can't find a budget or MYEFO you don't want to cut the funding for. The government are obsessed with aged-care funding cuts.
This government has moved 'ageing' out of the departments of health and human services. It stuck it initially in the department of social security, where it got lost. Ageing became a government service without any consideration of how to address the ongoing health and active ageing policy agenda. Eventually aged care was moved back to the Department of Health after Labor campaigned for that to happen, and so many people in the sector did also. But the government remains focused on aged-care services rather than ageing policies. There is a distinction, but you wouldn't know it. I remember a former coalition minister for rural health telling a Senate estimates inquiry she considered 'ageing' and 'aged care' to be precisely the same thing. I can assure you they are not. I encourage anyone to have a look at the Department of Health website and look at it's 'health topics'. There's 'aged care' but no topic for 'ageing'.
Come to think of it, 'dementia' doesn't rate as a topic either. Dementia is the second leading cause of death for men and the leading cause of death for women. In 2016 it became the leading cause of death for women and the greatest cause of disability for older Australians. Dementia Australia tells us there are close to 500,000 Australians living with dementia at this moment and a further 1.6 million Australians are involved in the care of someone living with dementia. We recently buried my mother-in-law, who was living with dementia for many years. In the next 30 to 40 years, there will over one million Australians living with dementia. How does dementia not rate as a major health topic on the Department of Health's website? Dementia isn't an ageing issue. It is true that over half of the residents in residential aged-care facilities are living with dementia, but it is a disease that affects young people as well as older. Almost 30,000 younger Australians are living with dementia.
The research is vital. But where is the government's agenda on active ageing and dementia-friendly communities? We hear nothing from the government about positive ageing or age-friendly communities. A large part of the demographics of our country is getting older. The community that plans for this with appropriate infrastructure and public places, safe and stable walking services, plenty of seating and conveniently located restrooms is the community I want to live in and that Australians want to live in. It is a community that appreciates playgrounds are not just for kids but to provide exercise and recreational facilities as well. It is a community that employs older people and utilises their wisdom and their experience to mentor and train young people. It is a community that values and appreciates older people, rather than isolating and neglecting them. It is a community informed about dementia and aging, respecting and caring for those people living with those challenges. It's a community that provides appropriate housing options, age-friendly transport options and health, consumer and social services. This is a community that provides services and support for carers.
Labor took these policies to the last election, and I anticipate that we will do so again. On this side of the chamber, we want to wrestle with these options and develop comprehensive plans with stakeholders. We're a party that believe that the ageing of our population can be a positive thing, a blessing rather than a burden. It is a tremendous achievement in Australia that our population is ageing. It is something that we should celebrate. It is a good outcome for our health services and an achievement we can take pride in.
When I see all the challenges we face in the health and ageing sectors in terms of dementia and getting our communities ready for the demographic changes that will happen and I see legislation that tweaks things like this, I see that the government have utterly failed older Australians. They are languishing at home. This is an unacceptable performance by the government, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020 amends the way that home-care providers are paid a government subsidy so as to address stakeholder concerns regarding unspent funds and to align home-care arrangements with other government programs, such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The bill will amend the legislation such that an approved provider of home care will not receive a payment in advance but will be paid a monthly subsidy for a home-care recipient upon lodgement of a claim with Services Australia at the end of each month. The government has introduced a second bill, which will amend the legislation such that home-care providers will only be paid a subsidy for services rendered to a care recipient during a month, with Services Australia retaining the unsent subsidy for which a care recipient is eligible in each month. This unspent subsidy will be available for a provider to draw down on behalf of the care recipient as services are provided in future. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on this bill and commend the bill to the House.
The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020. I move the amendment 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:
(1) notes that:
(a) since the start of the recession, the number of people relying on unemployment payments has doubled;
(b) many pensioners—including those on the Age Pension, Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment—have faced increased costs during the pandemic; and
(c) the Minister has the power under the Social Security Act to extend the Coronavirus Supplement; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) extend the $250 per fortnight Coronavirus Supplement until March, in line with Jobkeeper;
(b) better support pensioners—including Age Pension, Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment recipients—facing increased costs in protecting their health because of the coronavirus pandemic; and
(c) announce a permanent increase to the base rate of the Jobseeker Payment".
I'd like to read the amendment into the Hansard because it is extremely important to this side of the House. I have moved that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House (1) notes that, (a) since the start of the recession, the number of people relying on unemployment payments has doubled, (b) many pensioners—including those on the age pension, disability support pension and carer payment—have faced increased costs during the pandemic, and (c) the minister has the power under the Social Security Act to extend the coronavirus supplement; and (2) calls on the government to (a) extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper, (b) better support pensioners—including age pension, disability support pension and carer payment recipients—facing increased costs in protecting their health because of the coronavirus pandemic, and (c) announce a permanent increase to the base rate of the Jobseeker payment'. That is the amendment circulated in my name.
I'd like to also point out to the House that there are 18 Labor people speaking on this bill, and also someone from the crossbench—compared to four from the government—because this is something that we consider to be absolutely important and it is consistent with what Labor have been saying for months and months, particularly about a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker. I advise the House that in estimates this morning the government refused once again to agree that there needs to be a permanent rate of JobSeeker, and they are busily backpedalling on that right now.
This bill seeks to implement a number of coronavirus support measures from the budget—measures which Labor has called for for many, many months. Labor has long called for greater support for pensioners, who were left behind by this government when it enacted its cruel and disrespectful pension freeze just a few weeks ago. For months, Labor has called on the government to adjust the work test to ensure parents who are impacted by the coronavirus recession who lost hours of work or lost work would not miss out on paid parental leave. At the height of the pandemic, we asked the government to adjust means-testing for youth allowance so students would not fall through the cracks.
The supports for families who lose a child to stillbirth before the child's first birthday will be welcomed by many of my colleagues in this place who have been brave and tireless advocates in that regard. Losing a child is a devastating and heartbreaking experience, and we commend the government for finally coming around to enacting these important supports, but I do once again put on the record that it is something Labor has advocated for a very long time.
Nevertheless, the government's budget has left too many Australians behind. There is no certainty for the 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker as to what support will be available after 31 December. There still has been no announcement about that. There is absolutely no reason why the government couldn't have addressed that issue in the budget statement just a couple of weeks ago. There was a deafening silence about this group of people. We are talking about 1.6 million people, the most vulnerable people in our community, who still don't know what their future holds after 31 December. We'll have to wait, obviously, to find out about that. It is certainly not addressing a permanent increase to the JobSeeker payment, which everyone agrees with, including a number of people on that side of the House and the former Prime Minister of Australia John Howard.
Almost one million Australians on JobSeeker are ineligible for the government's wage hire subsidy, and those who receive the pension, disability support pension or carer payment continue to face increasing costs in protecting their health because of the coronavirus pandemic. There has been much media commentary on this: additional costs for masks, additional costs for doctors' appointments, additional costs with psychiatrists' appointments and additional costs in just trying to keep safe. Many people, particularly those people on the age pension and the disability support pension, face compromised immune systems and many other issues that make them more vulnerable to coronavirus. I'm sure all my colleagues would agree with this question: what happens to people who are carers, who are making sure they're keeping their loved ones safe, many of them without any recognition for it? Those who receive these pensions—the disability support pension or the carer payment—should not have to face increasing costs. Our amendment calls for them to be compensated and reimbursed for those costs.
Pensioners have been facing rising health, dental, energy and grocery bills for years. Average GP out-of-pocket costs alone have gone up $11 under this government. Labor will be moving detailed amendments to better support Australians who are unemployed or who have endured extra costs because of the coronavirus pandemic. I read Labor's second reading amendment into the Hansard, but let me expand on it. Extending the coronavirus supplement is absolutely fundamental. Our amendment will create an obligation on the minister to extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper. It makes absolutely no sense to Labor that those on JobSeeker should not have the same respect shown to them and the same certainty as those people who have to rely on JobKeeper. It is $250 a fortnight but, once again, the people who are on JobSeeker, the 1.6 million people I spoke about earlier, have absolutely no certainty as to their future after 31 December. It must be terrifying for those people, who are just making ends meet as it is, and sometimes not actually doing that. Many of these people have absolutely no reserves to fall back on.
I'm just incredulous that the government, in particular the Treasurer and the Minister for Families and Social Services, have not recognised or taken up the responsibility they should feel for giving 1.6 million Australians some sort of certainty. How can we, as a society, hold our heads up if there is not that certainty for the most vulnerable? We're not talking about people who are sitting on the lounge and collecting money, as the government has briefed the media. We're talking about single mums. We're talking about women in their 50s and 60s who are renting. We are talking about people who are really struggling and know where every single cent goes. They are not bludgers. They are not sitting back and allowing the state to look after their affairs. They desperately want work and the least that we can owe them, the least that we can give them, is some sort of certainty after Christmas. That does not exist now. As I said, we are having estimates at the moment and there is a refusal to commit to anything. There is a refusal to actually say, 'This is what we're considering.' The idea that these people have to wait for the next statement for the Treasurer in the mid-year budget update is just outrageous. And who knows if there will be any certainty given in that? Who knows if it's not just an extension of temporary money?
There is no argument that people cannot live on $40 a day, yet that is the prospect that 1.6 million Australians have come 31 December. So Labor will be moving detailed amendments to better support Australians who are unemployed or who have endured extra costs because of coronavirus. Our members will create an obligation on the minister, as I said, to extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper. The coronavirus supplement is scheduled to end in December. With 1.6 million Australians currently on JobSeeker and a further 160,000 Australians expected to lose their jobs between now and the end of the year—it's not their fault, but that is the projection—now is not the time to be withdrawing support from Australians who are finding it extremely difficult to keep their heads above water. We should be recognising that. We should be acknowledging that and we should also be acknowledging that, for those people who will lose their jobs between now and Christmas, it is not because they want to be unemployed; it is because of the circumstances that the world finds itself in.
It is going to be an anxious and uncertain Christmas for so many people who are on JobSeeker, and it's cruel of the government not to give some clarity. You cannot tell me that there isn't some sort of understanding of what the government is planning to do. I just don't believe that. And the fact that there is a denial by this government to put some clarity around that issue is, as I said, cruel. It makes people anxious and it is unreasonable. It is completely unreasonable to make people wait until mid-December before there is a decision announced on the JobSeeker payment. Until then, Australians on JobSeeker won't be able to plan their finances around major expenses such as rent, gas, electricity bills and—actually—food and medical care. As I said, many of these people are young. Many of these people are single parents, and there are children involved. There are children involved who are relegated to poverty, relegated to the stresses that their parents must be feeling, because this government refuses to provide any certainty. I just don't understand that cruelty. I don't understand why the government can't clarify things and why they haven't taken the opportunity to do that. As I said, you cannot tell me that there isn't some sort of plan. The answer that the Prime Minister gave in question time yesterday told us very clearly that there is a plan, but he refuses to say what it is.
Labor's amendments will create an obligation on the minister to better support pensioners, including age pensioners, people on the disability support pension and carer payment recipients. Unlike the government, Labor acknowledges that older Australians, people with a disability and carers have experienced increased costs as a result of coronavirus, but surely it is not beyond the government's imagination or capacity to look at this as a real issue, to acknowledge it as a real issue and to make sure that people on those pensions are not out of pocket because of those additional costs. Please don't give me the argument that there are payments coming their way. Two lots of $250 does not make up for the additional expenses experienced by the groups of people I am talking about. In particular, they have seen increased costs in protecting their health during this pandemic. The terrifying prospect that these people face every day is that if they contract the coronavirus the outcomes will be dreadful for them because of their compromised immune systems, their age or their disability, and because the carers in particular are coming into contact with people in these groups.
So there is capacity for the minister, with the powers that she has been given, to create an obligation on the minister to better support these people. Labor acknowledges that older Australians, people with a disability, and carers have experienced increased costs. Cruelly, the government froze the pension in September. Those receiving an age pension, a disability support pension or a carer payment were affected by the fact that the government refused to think about indexation. In fact, according to the Prime Minister, he didn't realise it, which of course is not conceivable.
Labor's amendments will require the minister to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker payment. JobSeeker is scheduled to return to its old base rate at the end of December. It is clear to everyone that it can't go back. The Prime Minister's comments in question time yesterday acknowledged that. 'This will be a little comfort to people on JobSeeker,' was his answer. People on JobSeeker deserve to know what level of support will be available to them beyond 31 December. To make them endure an anxious wait is cruel, unreasonable and also unnecessary. Household budgeting for food, rent and bills is something these people spend a lot of time doing every week. The government could provide certainty by delivering a permanent increase to JobSeeker, which Labor has consistently advocated for. Some members of the government are also calling for that payment to be permanently increased. At least they're being honest. Since the rate of JobSeeker was temporarily boosted, Australians on JobSeeker and their children have been lifted out of hardship, and they've had more to spend on local and small businesses. They've been able to buy food, pay bills and meet their rent. In the wake of this pandemic, the budget was an opportunity to deliver lasting structural change for vulnerable Australians, while boosting local businesses and local jobs, but that economic as well as social opportunity was missed.
Labor is concerned about the Morrison government's plan to return JobSeeker to its old base rate of $40 a day in December with 160,000 Australians expected to lose their job and 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker at the moment. We know that the government continues to try to demonise those who have lost their jobs. It's just despicable. Implying somehow that these people are unemployed because of choice is just wrong. There is still a plan before the parliament to drug test welfare recipients. It has been foreshadowing a national rollout of the cashless debit card. With more jobseekers than job vacancies, there are simply not enough jobs for everyone who needs one. It's even more difficult to find a job in our regions—the result of the government's failure to deliver jobs programs for our regions. Australians are finding this a very anxious time, with an uncertain Christmas. There are many Australians who will be wondering what level of support will be available to them after December. Many are worried about how they will afford essentials, cover rent or pay the bills, let alone buy Christmas presents for the children.
We know that there are many people in our nation on unemployment payments who are spending those payments at local businesses, which, of course, is an economic measure. Social security payments play a vital role in sustaining local jobs, especially in times like these and especially in some communities. Australians on social security will have less to spend in those small businesses. And small businesses will have less to spend on wages and jobs. How many jobs will be lost when JobKeeper is cut in December? Labor has sought this information from the government, but the government either doesn't know or doesn't want to know.
The budget left behind Australians on JobSeeker aged over 35—almost one million Australians—by excluding them from the wage hire subsidy, and older Australians represent the largest cohort on JobSeeker. They also have the most difficulty finding work because of structural barriers and age discrimination. The government needs to permanently increase the base rate of JobSeeker payment. Women and young people have been disproportionately impacted by the unemployment crisis brought on by the pandemic.
The government was caught out on Labor on the pension freeze for 2.5 million pensioners, and that's the only reason why they acted on it. Labor fought the government's disrespectful and cruel pension freeze. The reality is that pensioners plan for their twice-yearly indexation, one in March and the other in September. The government was caught out on their pension freeze in August. The freeze took effect in September. They made pensioners wait for the October budget before announcing any kind of relief. The government has a long track record in cutting and attempting to cut the pension. They still haven't adjusted deeming rates, which remain significantly higher than interest rates. Pensioners won't forget the government's record on cutting the pension. They will not forget the fact that deeming rates are still not equitable.
The Liberals and Nationals are obsessed with cutting the pension, attempting to cut the pension in every budget, every year. That has been well documented by me and others. We know that in 2014 they tried to cut the pension indexation. In the same budget, that horror budget, they cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions. In their same horror budget, they axed the $900 senior supplement for self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. In that same budget they tried to reset deeming rate thresholds, a cut that would have seen half a million part-pensioners made worse off. In 2015 they did a deal with the Greens to cut the pension to around 370 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year. In 2016 they tried to cut the pension to around 190 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. In 2016 they tried to cut the pension to over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement. The government's own figures show this would have left over 563,000 Australians currently receiving this allowance much worse off. Over 10 years in excess of 1.5 million pensioners would have been worse off. They spent many years trying to get the pension age to be 70. Pensioners have paid their taxes and contributed their entire lives. They deserve our respect and the respect of this government.
This bill is adjusting how someone qualifies for paid parental leave. To be eligible a person must satisfy a work test. The existing work test requires a person to have worked 10 out of 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of a child and at least 330 hours in that 10-month period. During the pandemic the concern was that families would miss out on PPL because of job losses or having their hours reduced, making them ineligible for PPL, leaving them up to $15,000 worse off. Labor called for the government to temporarily suspend the work test in April so families would not miss out. I even wrote to the minister for social services. And in June we moved amendments in the Senate for the work test to be suspended but the Morrison government voted it down. Families need certainty about their access to paid parental leave during these challenging times.
This bill will also temporarily amend circumstances in which a person may be regarded as independent for youth allowance. In May Labor called on the government to provide case-by-case exemptions to youth allowance parental incomes tests. We were concerned that tertiary students would miss out on youth allowance and would be unable to afford to continue their studies. These are not ordinary times. What we don't want to see is students discounting tertiary studies because they can't afford it. It is disappointing that government has taken so long to act on these issues. It's been too long an anxious period for students.
In conclusion, Labor support the measures outlined in this bill, measures that Labor has been advocating for from the very outset of the pandemic. It is just seven weeks until Christmas and people relying on the coronavirus supplement need certainty, not cruel cuts and not a deafening silence, which is what we are hearing at this point in time. That is why Labor is moving amendments to extend the coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper—not an unreasonable ask. I know that there are many people on that side of the House that also believe it is not unreasonable. At least in line with JobKeeper and require the government to announce a permanent increase to the JobSeeker payment. This is something that we have been advocating for for a very long time. The government has an opportunity to fix these things. These amendments are serious amendments. They are amendments to provide certainty, to provide comfort, to those 1.6 million people on JobSeeker. It's doing something that the government is going to have to do anyhow, kicking and screaming, to increase the permanent rate of JobSeeker. This is not the end of this discussion so don't think it is. This issue will continue. It will continue because it is in the interest of the economy, 1.6 million Australians, 2.5 million Australians on the age pension, over 700,000 Australian on the disability support pension and many, many thousands of people on the carer payment. Those people have provided an enormous amount to this country. In some cases aged pensioners have provided a lifetime of commitment, a lifetime of service, a lifetime of paying taxes. Surely we as a parliament can remember that and we as a parliament can do the right thing by those people. That is what my amendments are seeking to do: the right thing. It is as simple as that: the right thing.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
I am very pleased to speak today in the House to support the amendments contained in the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 as they will better support those relying on Australia's safety net and receiving government support payments during this COVID-19 recession.
This year we have seen challenges that this country has simply never faced before. Hardworking young people and families have seen their workplaces shut down through no fault of their own. As a nation, we have worked tirelessly to reduce the case numbers of COVID-19 so that we can open our economy as quickly as possible and get workers back into jobs and to create new ones, but we cannot underestimate the scale of this challenge. The world economy has contracted by four per cent, compared to less than one per cent during the GFC. It's why this government has provided over $300 billion in financial support to Australian families already. It is why the 2020 budget was delivered a few weeks ago. It's focused on our economic recovery plan to get people back into jobs and to create new ones.
This government has combined this record financial support for business and to enable job creation with an enhanced safety net to get Australians to the other side of the crisis. Now Labor can, as the previous Labor speaker did, claim credit for our work as much as they like, but Australians know that it was this government who had their back during the crisis and that it's this government that still has their back during the crisis.
In relation to Labor's amendment that was just recently moved to increase the rate of JobSeeker past December: while the Prime Minister dealt with this yesterday in the House in a very clear way, we have provided financial assistance to Australians to get them to the other side of the COVID-19 recession throughout the last couple of months and these are not set-and-forget policies. The Prime Minister made it very clear that this pandemic moves fast. We have all seen this. We have all seen the circumstances change quickly. Those kinds of decisions about whether the JobSeeker payment is extended will be made prior to Christmas so that, if extra legislation is required in the House, there is time to do that as well. But these kinds of decisions are made by the government in a considered way. We see Labor trying to do the same thing that they did during the GFC, and that was to run off and spend money as quickly as possible without thought and consideration that it's due. That's simply all that we ask.
This pandemic moves fast, there's a lot of financial support going to Australians and they need it. So let's give this issue the consideration and due care that it requires. It's no disrespect to those who are receiving JobSeeker payments. We know that they are doing it tough, but this is taxpayers' money and the pandemic moves quickly. So let's make sure that, unlike Labor, who are simply keen to get as much cash out the door as possible, the support that we are providing Australians is fit for purpose for the stage of the pandemic and the stage of the COVID-19 recession that we are currently in.
I turn now to the substantive amendments in this bill. In the first few months of the crisis, many young people receiving youth allowance or Abstudy payments faced reduce work hours and were forced to rely obvious their parents' income to support themselves. Youth allowance and Abstudy require recipients to demonstrate independence by working a minimum of 30 hours per week for at least 18 months. It is estimated that 4,000 young people would have lost their payments as a result of not meeting this criteria during the six-month period between 25 March and 24 September. At a time where families are facing the pressures of this COVID-19 recession, the last thing that we need is for them to carry the further burden of covering lost youth allowance payments for their kids when their kids have lost those working opportunities through no fault of their own. By introducing the amendment proposed in this substantive bill, young people receiving youth allowance or Abstudy payments, or looking to apply for these payments in the future, will be automatically recognised as having worked 30 hours per week during the 6-month COVID-19 period, regardless of how many hours they actually ended up working during this time.
The Morrison government understands that this COVID-19 pandemic has put hardworking Australians in tough situations. It's our job, as government, to have their backs and to give them a hand up to get back on their feet. During the height of this pandemic the government introduced the economic support payments to cushion the blow of reduced work hours and to boost spending to get our economy moving.
Older Australians and those at-risk in the community have faced, in particular, increased costs of living to protect their health during this pandemic. The initial support payments were instrumental in ensuring that those more at risk of catching COVID-19 could pay for services, such as home food delivery and home maintenance services. I'm sure every MP on both sides of the chamber, throughout the COVID-19 recession and the COVID-19 period, have stories like this to tell about older residents in their electorates who they've phoned up or spoken to, who had some nervousness, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic, about going out to shops, but still required that important care, food services and medications so instead availed themselves of delivery services. Many MPs, I know I certainly did, helped facilitate this for older Australians living in their electorates. These payments were instrumental in helping them do that. It helped them, if they so choose, to reduce their contact with others to protect their health and avail themselves of the extra costs required to have these services delivered.
The further amendment contained in this bill will provide those receiving pensions, carer payments and DVA payments and senior health card holders with additional $250 support payments in November 2020 and February 2021. This will further support around five million Australians leading up to the Christmas period. It forms part of the government's economic road to recovery. As I said, the practical impact of that is allowing, particularly older Australians and at-risk Australians, to be able to avail themselves despite the extra costs of getting the services that they need delivered to their homes.
The Morrison government's plan for economic recovery is, of course, about creating jobs and getting people back into work. They were succinctly outlined by the Treasurer when he delivered the recent 2020 budget. With the restrictions on international travel due to this pandemic, our agricultural industry in particular has seen a decline in applications for seasonal work during the upcoming harvest season. To support this industry and to help young people who are on youth allowance and Abstudy to complete their required work hours, the government has introduced a temporary incentive by this bill to encourage young Australians to undertake agricultural work. The new criteria will give young people who engage in agricultural work the opportunity to demonstrate their financial independence faster than they would otherwise have been able to. A person who earns $15,000 through employment in the agricultural industry between 30 November 2020 and 31 December 2021 will be considered as independent in this new criteria.
Throughout this pandemic Australians have been reliant on our domestic capability, and we must continue to support our incredibly important agricultural industry, just as they have supported us this year. There are some very, very passionate advocates on this side of the chamber for Australia's agricultural industry, but we all know that supporting them and supporting our farmers is vital, particularly at this time. By introducing this incentive we will get young people into work and farmers will see a greater workforce for the upcoming harvest season.
The final amendments contained in this bill will directly support parents and families in the Ryan electorate, and I am very proud of the government for that. In normal circumstances, reduced work hours would see around 12,800 individuals lose their eligibility for paid parental leave and dad and partner pay. The changes to this in an amendment contained in the substantive bill will temporarily extend the paid parental leave work test period from 13 months prior to the birth of a child—or adoption, for that matter—to 20 months for parents who have had their employment impacted by COVID-19. This will give parents the ability to reach the required 330 hours of work that they need to satisfy in the eligibility test for these payments over a period of 20 months rather than 13 months. This government, the Morrison government, is dedicated to ensuring that families are not penalised because of the impact of COVID-19. We are working to ensure that parents are supported to take the time off they need when welcoming a new baby or addition to the family.
The last amendment contained in this bill is far and away, in my opinion, the most important of all and relates to an issue that I have spoken about a number of times in this place in just the last year and a half since the election. Each year it is estimated that 850 families are affected by stillbirth and 40 families experience the death of an infant. I cannot even begin to imagine the profound pain that parents experience with the loss of a child through stillbirth and infant death. It is truly an unthinkable tragedy. Parents affected by such a tragedy must be supported with these bereavement payments so they can take time off to grieve and process the loss with their loved ones.
From 1 January 2021, the measures contained in this bill will remove the discrepancy in the rates of the stillborn baby payment for first and then subsequent stillborn children and align the stillborn baby payment with the rates payable to families that experience an infant death. This will be achieved by establishing one rate for the stillborn baby payment equivalent to the current highest rate plus an amount equivalent to the maximum family tax benefit part A bereavement payment. Additionally, a top-up amount will be paid to families with children who receive the low rate of the newborn supplement and then who experience the death of the newborn before their first birthday.
For parents who experience this kind of loss, there is no money in the world that can numb the pain. That is for sure. But I hope that this change in payment that the Morrison government is putting through allows those families to take more time together to grieve and process such a terrible loss. There should never have been these kinds of discrepancies in the payments in the first place for stillbirths and early infant loss, and I really want to commend Minister Ruston for taking this step to address it and to address it properly.
The families in these circumstances deserve every bit of support that we as a parliament can provide and I will keep fighting for them, as I'm sure other members in this place will, to get even more support. On that point, I really commend the amendments contained in this bill to the House. I know that they will assist young people. I know that they will assist families in the Ryan electorate. I know they will assist older Australians, industry and all of us, all Australians, on the road to recovery out of the COVID-19 recession.
I rise in support of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 as drafted, as far as it goes, and note at the outset that Labor has called for many of these measures for months. The government's self-congratulatory prattle needs to be put in context. Many of these things could, and should, have been done months ago. But it's better late than never. This bill gives pensioners a few crumbs off Prime Minister Scott Morrison's table. It's two $250 payments. The government is racking up $1 trillion of Liberal debt, hurtling towards $1.7 trillion, and that is what pensioners get—$250. The urgency to get this through to the Senate is because that first $250 payment crumb is on 27 November. This is the government that froze the age pension. It is hoping with this $250 that people will forget over seven years of Liberal attacks on the age pension. It wouldn't be a Liberal government, we've come to think, if there wasn't another cut tried on the pension and attacks on age pensioners. This payment is of course for disability support pensioners and carers—$250 of hush money, in effect.
The second aspect of the bill, which we do support, is some concessions for people trying to prove their independence for youth allowance and Abstudy in the Morrison recession. And there is also—this is an interesting measure—a temporary incentive for young people in agriculture to prove their independence for the purposes of youth allowance. If they earn $15,000 over 13 months, the government will take that as evidence of independence. Frankly, I'm sceptical about whether this will work. The government has tried these incentives many times before—and, every single time, they announce one thing but under-deliver. The previous incentives to get young people and people on Newstart to go to the bush and engage in rural work have never achieved their targets. So I will be interested if the minister—whichever muppet they serve up to sum up the bill—could answer the question and inform the House how many young people they project or expect will be accessing this benefit. How many people do they think are going to be incentivised over the next year to go bush and do agricultural work?
The fourth change, which we welcome, allows parents to access paid parental leave where employment has been impacted by coronavirus. Again, this is stuff that Labor has called for for months—entirely common sense. Frankly it is administrivia which, I would bet my bottom dollar, the department served up to the ministers months ago, but it has taken them this long to actually get around to bringing it to the parliament—so constipated is the government's policy process while they are busy making announcements but never actually delivering.
The fifth measure, which we strongly support and have been calling for for a long time now, is the changes to stillborn baby payments and infant death payments. The bill defines a stillborn child and makes much fairer arrangements for families who lose a child through stillbirth or whose child dies before their first birthday. Currently, and quite unbelievably—I wasn't aware of this until I actually delved into this bill—if a family lose a child to stillbirth, they get a higher rate for the first stillborn child and then lower rates thereafter. I suspect that most people in this place would have direct or indirect personal experience of people in their family and circle of friends who have gone through the pain and trauma of this. One of the saddest funerals I have attended, a couple of years ago, was for someone who was very close to me who had lost a baby to stillbirth a week before the baby was due. It took them 12 months before they could get to the point emotionally where they could gather the family and friends and have that shared grieving. I can't imagine the pain. To lose a child is every parent's greatest fear, and it is something that I know members of this House have gone through.
The measures are fine, as far as they go, but I want to turn now to the second reading amendments moved by the member for Barton—which, in effect, go to what the bill does not do. As is often the case with this government when it comes to the vulnerable in Australia, it is not about the little crumbs that they throw at people, the little tweaks that they make, the administrative tidy-ups that they call policy and reform; it's about what they don't put in their legislation but should. The fact is that the hangover from the Morrison recession, however long it lasts, is going to be longer, harder, deeper and harsher than it should be because of the government's tardiness in introducing a wage subsidy and the fact that they are still making active choices to exclude hundreds of thousands of Australians from support that they need—casual workers, people in universities, people working in the arts and entertainment sector. And now, unbelievably, it seems that they are still proceeding with their nasty, ill-timed cuts. With the conditions we're seeing now, you couldn't think of a worse time to make cuts to the support that people are relying on.
Probably the worst thing about this budget in my view, given the people I represent in what is socio-economically the most disadvantaged council area in the whole of metropolitan Melbourne—people who rely on government to get by, people who need some support to get back on their feet through whatever their life circumstances have come to—is that this budget bakes in a cut to Newstart, or unemployment benefits, or whatever you call it now with your marketing spin. You thought you'd rename the program!
If you say 'job' a lot then everyone might think you have a jobs plan, might they not! I know—what a cunning plan, Baldrick! We're going to rename Newstart 'JobSeeker'! Then we'll call the wage subsidy 'JobKeeper'! Then we'll call our $3 billion of cuts to TAFE 'JobTrainer'! They may as well call their wage subsidy 'JobFaker', may they not? We learned at Senate estimates that it's not going to be 450,000 jobs, like the Prime Minister and Treasurer told us yesterday. The Treasury's over there telling the public it will be 45,000 jobs. They should call that one 'JobFaker'. We'll get on to 'MateKeeper' later, won't we—your rorts with Australia Post and stacking the AAT? That's a topic for another time.
The government are running around with their little talking points, saying: 'The recession's over. As the Reserve Bank governor has said, it might be over. We might be slipping back into positive growth, so it's all over; it's all better.' Try telling that to the 1.6 million Australians relying on JobSeeker. I don't think the government has any idea of the abject terror that people trying to survive on JobSeeker have of what's coming down the pipe from this government's budget—a cut back to $40 a day. They tell us—maybe give us a little hint—that maybe they're not going to do that. Tell us what you are going to do.
As the member for Barton so rightly said, 'People deserve the dignity of some degree of certainty.' People who are unemployed budget. They actually count their pennies, to use that old phrase. They know where every single dollar is going—every single dollar. All we're asking for is certainty—to tell people who are surviving on JobSeeker what your plans are and tell them what they're in for. Reassure them they won't be returning to $40 a day. Is that really too much to ask? That's what our second reading amendment does. It says that it puts a positive obligation on the minister to 'announce a permanent increase to the base rate' of JobSeeker and to 'extend the coronavirus supplement' until at least March. The minister has that power. She doesn't need our help here. She doesn't need our advice. She could get an instrument and sign it already. The parliament has already, as part of emergency measures, given the Minister for Families and Social Services the power to extend the coronavirus supplement. But she won't do it.
This bill is a missed opportunity to increase JobSeeker. There are 1.6 million Australians relying on JobSeeker, and the bill should have given them certainty and a permanent increase. How we treat the most vulnerable is a measure of what kind of society we really are, and they deserve certainty. By not giving people that certainty, they face an uncertain and anxious Christmas. The most effective stimulus, as all economists keep telling us, is not tax cuts. It's boosts in the payments in the pockets of the most vulnerable and poorest in society, because they spend every dollar. By not giving certainty and by baking in this cut to $40 a day, that will mean less to spend on local and small businesses in the coming months.
I'd be interested, when the minister muppet turns up with the summing-up dot-points speech to read out, in how many jobs will be lost when JobSeeker is cut. That would be good for parliament to know. What would the economic modelling say when JobSeeker is cut back to $40 a day—or whatever number the Prime Minister's got in his bottom drawer in store for people? How many jobs are going to be lost when that money is taken out of the economy?
We could also talk—as the second reading amendment touches on—about the one million jobseekers. These are the one million people of the 1.6 million people in the Morrison recession languishing on JobSeeker. We could talk about how the budget has abandoned unemployed Australians over 35 who are ineligible for their wage subsidy. Older Australians are the largest single cohort of those 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker. That older cohort face structural barriers—age discrimination, as the evidence shows—and enormous difficulties in getting back into the workforce, and the government is not making them eligible for their wage subsidies. They're forgetting about them. So I do touch on the second reading amendment that Labor is urging the government to accept. They are to 'extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper'; to provide better support—not just the crumbs-off-the-table hush money which the Prime Minister announced belatedly in the budget—to age pensioners, disability support pensioners and carer payment recipients, who, as the member for Barton outlined, are 'facing increased costs in protecting their health because of the coronavirus pandemic'; and to 'announce a permanent increase to the base rate' of JobSeeker.
Before closing, I'll make a few remarks about pensioners. The government were caught out with their freeze to the pension. I don't know how they could have thought pensioners wouldn't notice that the government were freezing their pension. Pensioners know about the small increases in March and September; they are baked into their financial planning. The government thought they could just get away with it: 'We'll freeze the pension. That's okay, isn't it? Why would anyone worry about that?' It was only because of the pressure that Labor put on the government—through the media, with stakeholders and with so many thousands of community members—that they acted on it. We fought this government's disrespectful and cruel pension freeze.
Of course, the government has a long track record of cutting, or attempting to cut, the pension. This context is important when considering our second reading amendment, which calls on the government to do more for pensioners, because with the government in its eighth year—after seven years of this government—the record of cuts is astounding.
They still haven't adjusted the deeming rates. They made a little gesture that way a few months ago, but the deeming rates still haven't been adjusted. They're higher than the typical saving rates that pensioners can get. The upper deeming rate is 2.25 per cent and the lower deeming rate is 0.25 per cent. Goodness only knows where pensioners with a little bit of cash in the bank are supposed to get 2.25 per cent—ask anyone in the real world. Maybe the investment banker mates they appoint to the Australia Post board and ASIC or stack their government appointments with through their 'MateKeeper' program could advise pensioners on where to get 2.25 per cent. They might get a Cartier watch for their trouble! You never know; it could be their lucky day.
The government's record of pension cuts should never be forgotten. The Liberals and Nationals, at every budget, have been obsessed with cutting the pension. In 2014 they tried to cut pension indexation, which in 10 years would have meant pensioners being forced to live on $80 a week less. It's lucky we stopped that one. They cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions in 2014. They axed, in 2014, the $900 seniors supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. Continuing the theme in that horror budget, they had a crack at resetting the deeming rate thresholds, a cut that would have seen half a million part pensioners worse off. Then there was the shoddy, shameful deal with the Greens political party, who still haven't lived that one down amongst pensioners—they remember it. They cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by fiddling the pension assets test. Hundreds of thousands of people were kicked off the part pension completely. Then they broke their promise. I remember that. That went well, didn't it? They said, 'You'll keep the healthcare card,' and they broke that promise. It took them a year or two before they finally backed down and said: 'That wasn't such a good idea. Maybe we should have kept that promise. People were a little bit mad.' In 2016 they tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit pensioners' overseas travel to six weeks. The government's own figures show that this would have left 563,000 Australians currently receiving a pension or allowance worse off. Over 10 years, in excess of 1.5 million pensioners would have been worse off.
Of course, they spent five long years—this was the current Prime Minister's policy; he sold it as the social services minister and then sold it as the Treasurer—trying to increase the age pension age to 70. There was no empathy and no understanding of what that would do to people, like so many in my electorate, who had engaged in heavy manual labour, whose bodies were wrecked from a lifetime of hard work. They weren't going to treat them with dignity. He only backed down after they rolled Malcolm Turnbull. Remember Malcolm? Whatever happened to him? This guy, his best friend, had his back. They only backed down after they realised they were hurtling towards an election and had to cauterise every wound.
This government's record on the pension is shameful. I commend the second reading amendment to the House.
The COVID crisis has impacted the lives of everyone, not just here in Australia but right around the world. It has, tragically, taken lives, crushed businesses and resulted in many job losses. In the wake of Victoria now getting its second wave under control, we as a nation are building back. Businesses are reopening, jobs are returning, and there's real hope for not only my electorate of Higgins but indeed all of Australia. From the Reserve Bank there have been welcome comments that a revival is in the air, the recession may be over, and we've had growth in the September quarter.
The Morrison government has had the back of Australians during the COVID lockdowns by preparing our hospitals, deploying ADF support and financially backing us in the form of JobKeeper and JobSeeker. The government had our back then and it has the back of every Australian as we build back our economy and our future. My electorate of Higgins has been affected by two lockdowns and the many local restrictions, but we are resilient and we are wanting to find a new COVID normal.
Through this bill, we intend to provide even more support to those within our economy who may be struggling with the new COVID normal. This bill has a diverse range of measures because our country is diverse. The Morrison government is not taking a single-handed approach to the recovery of our economy. We understand our COVID recovery is complicated and needs a nuanced response. That is why we are responding to the complexity of the COVID recovery with this bill, which responds to the needs of Australians in their time of need. This bill aims to help some of our most vulnerable citizens. It will help those who are suffering through no fault of their own, those who battle with finding themselves in completely unexpected circumstances. 2020 has been an extraordinary year because of the COVID pandemic, which is changing the very fabric of society—not just here, but all around the world—and we've had to make changes to keep ourselves, our families and our communities safe. This bill will help veterans and those on social security. It will help the young. It will help those who are grieving for the loss of a child.
The first of these new measures is to provide two further economic support payments of $250 to around five million social security and veterans payment recipients and concession card holders in the lead-up to Christmas. Christmas is a time of hope and happiness, a time for family and sharing, a time for gift-giving and cooking up a storm. I'd like to reflect on the buoyancy of Victorians, as they are so excited in this lead-up to Christmas that the lockdowns are lifted. You cannot understand how exciting this is, particularly for Melburnians. The payment will help make Christmas just that bit brighter for those who've suffered a really difficult and long winter, a winter that has been particularly difficult through the long and hard COVID lockdown in my home town of Melbourne. Not only will this $250 payment help those in need have a better Christmas; it has the multiplier effect of helping our local businesses and thus our overall economy in the lead-up to Christmas. My electorate of Higgins has many small, medium and family-sized businesses, and they know that they will all benefit from this additional support payment coming through our local economy.
We aren't just stopping there. Many young Australians have been very adversely affected by the COVID pandemic. We know that, when there's a recession, the young are those that are hardest hit. This bill will temporarily amend the circumstances in which a person may be regarded as independent for youth allowance purposes. This has been designed to assist young people to qualify for youth allowance who would have qualified if they had not lost or been unable to attain employment because of the economic effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Morrison government has already announced and implemented many support measures to support our struggling young Australians, including JobKeeper, JobSeeker and the JobMaker hiring credit. This last initiative brings huge hope to our young as they look to their future. We are also creating a temporary pathway for young people who are seeking to qualify as independent for the purposes of youth allowance. This will encourage young people to undertake seasonal agricultural work. This will jointly help alleviate concerns regarding workforce availability for the upcoming harvest season, terribly important in my home state of Victoria.
I'd like to turn to a part of this bill which seeks to introduce a revised paid parental leave work-test limit for a limited time to enable people to access to parental leave pay, and dad and partner pay, who do not meet the current work-test provisions because their employment has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. I'd also like to turn to another part of this bill and to talk about stillbirth and infant death leave. While it's been a year mostly consumed by COVID-19, the Morrison government has not allowed other important matters and the need for amendments in legislation to go ignored. Indeed, taking care of our most vulnerable remains a priority and this includes those affected by stillbirth or infant death. As not only a paediatrician, but a mother of four children the thought of losing one is unimaginable. As I said in my first speech, words like 'widow' and 'orphan' describe our losses but there is no word in the English language to describe the loss of a child. However, this is sadly the reality for too many Australians.
Interestingly, last week I represented the Minister for Health, Mr Greg Hunt, for the launch of the UNICEF and World Health Organization global reduction in stillbirth goals. I was proud to represent Australia and to discuss the road map of the Australian government National Stillbirth Action and Implementation Plan, which is being developed in close consultation with stakeholders. I asked the question of those on this Zoom call, of several hundred people from around the world, whether they had a word for the loss of a child in their language and no-one was able to provide that. It's interesting that that was seen around the world.
The national stillbirth action plan, which is expected to be publicly released later this year, will ensure efforts to reduce stillbirth and support bereaved families are strategically planned and delivered. The national stillbirth action plan includes priority and action areas, goals and implementation tasks, including reducing disparities in stillbirth rates between population groups. Importantly, this includes groups at increased risk of stillbirth in Australia and this includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, some migrant and refugee groups and women living in rural and remote communities. The plan includes actions focusing on culturally safe haven health services, addressing language barriers, health literacy and providing culturally appropriate bereavement care and support.
As a medical professional in my former life, I heard of a case of a woman from a refugee background who had no English. She presented to a hospital in Melbourne heavily pregnant. She was put under general anaesthetic, unable to communicate in an emergency setting, and woke up losing a child and having had a hysterectomy. It's difficult to imagine how a woman like this has had to face such incredible tragedy in the face of not having any English whatsoever. I welcome Minister Tudge's recent announcement of uncapping English lesson placements, because I think that ensuring that women and families, and men, coming to this country have the ability to access English lessons is incredibly important for their own health, welfare and wellbeing and for the social cohesion of our country.
I presented to the UNICEF, World Health Organization global audience examples of activities that the Australian government is currently funding to reduce stillbirth amongst high-risk groups. These include translation of the Safer Baby Bundle stillbirth resources into 23 languages, a really welcome initiative; co-designing stillbirth prevention resources for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; webinars and resources targeted at rural and remote clinicians and families; and developing a stillbirth education program, using bicultural workers, for migrant and refugee women.
I would like to take note and congratulate Professor Vicky Flenady of the stillbirth centre of research excellence for her amazing work and the centre's amazing work in raising awareness of stillbirth in Australia, and the excellent work that they are doing to not only promote Australia's work in this area internationally but to ensure that women in Australia get the best possible care. These activities complement our other Australian government initiatives that aim to improve maternal and infant health. Reducing disparities remain a key focus as Australia continues its focus post COVID to prevent stillbirth. While this is our goal unfortunately the reality in Australia is that one in every 135 pregnancies results in stillbirth. These events are tragic. They are tragic to the parents, they are tragic to their families and, indeed, they are tragic to the wider community, and that is why this bill is so important.
This bill will improve assistance for families affected by stillbirth and infant death in respect of payments for newborn children, by increasing the maximum amount that eligible families are able to access after a stillbirth and up until the first birthday equivalent. This one-off payment of $3,006 will be provided to the family as a support payment. The last thing any Australian should have to face during such a traumatic time in their lives is additional stress caused by financial burden. The payments can be used in any way to support the family. Some families need time off work to grieve. Some will seek mental health support. Some need the time to organise funerals. I welcome Minister Ruston's excellent work in this area.
This bill will also remove discrepancies within the payment system with respect to multiple instances of stillbirth or infant death within the same family. For families who've tried multiple times to start their dream of a family that has ended tragically in multiple stillbirths, this will be welcomed. This, within itself, is heartbreaking. Many of us in this chamber will know of someone with this struggle or possibly have faced it ourselves. That is why it's so important to pass this bill. By passing this bill today, it will help ensure these payments are made available to those heartbroken families on 1 January 2021 and into the future. 2020 has been a tough year for Australians. This bill will help ensure that no-one is left behind in our economic recovery. It will help ensure that those in need can have a good Christmas, that our young Australians can have a go and that parents are supported, in particular with financial support, in some of the most testing times anyone can face.
By passing this bill, we will help those in need to have a better start in 2021. I'm sure we can all agree across the chamber that Australia looks forward to a better year in 2021 than we've seen in 2020. We are a strong and resilient country. We're a resourceful country, with resourceful citizens, and I'm proud to say that we've worked together to face the COVID crisis. I look forward to a buoyant 2021 ahead.
I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020, and in support of the second reading amendment moved by my friend the shadow minister and the member for Barton. Before I turn to the substance of the bill, I'd like to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Higgins and in particular her affecting and informed remarks in terms of her former profession, going to the question of stillbirth, which is obviously one of the issues that is the subject of this bill. While I also share her hopes for 2021, I can't say that I share her entire assessment of the legislation that is before the House, but I wanted to acknowledge what a moving and important contribution she just made on that aspect of the bill. This is something that affects too many Australians, and I'm so glad that we've seen bipartisan action to give recognition to something that has been too little talked about in this building, while very often talked about around kitchen tables across this country. That that has been rectified and appropriately recognised is something that I think all of us in this place should be proud of, and I acknowledge her contribution in that regard.
Of course, the bill is designed to provide very significant support to pensioners and seniors during the pandemic, support which pensioners and seniors in my electorate in Scullin both need and, most definitely, deserve. But this bill, much like the Morrison government's 2020 budget across the board, is really defined by one characteristic: missed opportunity. We have before us a missed opportunity for pensioners, a missed opportunity for unemployed Australians, a missed opportunity for elderly Australians in aged care and a missed opportunity to make Australia a better place—a place where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. As we start to imagine what our country might look like beyond COVID, we simply can't afford not to seize this critical moment, not just to recover but to build a stronger society. In thinking about that, I'm thinking about the member for Barton, the shadow minister, and what a difference it would make to that aspiration if she were the minister, if she could bring her passion, her experience, her dedication and her deep sense of justice to the challenge that is before our nation now. The budget delivered a couple of weeks ago was a missed opportunity for Australians who've lost their job as a result of this Morrison recession, a missed opportunity because it failed to deliver much-needed certainty to people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. It was undoubtedly a good thing that the government increased the rate of JobSeeker for six months through the coronavirus supplement. I know that the emergency service providers in my own area of Melbourne saw the difference it made. I think of organisations like Whittlesea Community Connections and the Whittlesea Food Collective, which they helped establish, and of the stories of clients they weren't seeing, of families who, for the first time in quite some time, were able to feed themselves and start to improve their lives. What a difference that made.
But this bill doesn't provide certainty. That's why I'm so pleased to support the amendment moved by the member for Barton, which will create an obligation on the minister to extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until the end of March, in line with JobKeeper. An extension of that extra $250 is essential for so many Australians as we near the festive season. People need certainty and stability at this time of great disruption, and people frankly deserve the dignity that this would secure. Labor's amendment, to extend the $250 supplement, will help provide some much-needed certainty, because the truth is 160,000 Australians are expected to lose their jobs before Christmas and the number of people on JobKeeper is expected to reach 1.6 million. These Australians doing it tough deserve our support. They deserve the best shot at bouncing back from this recession. But in order for that to happen they need the certainty and security that the old Newstart rate of $40 a day won't grant them. We know that $40 a day will condemn people to poverty, to misery and to personal risk, too, as the pandemic has so awfully revealed in so many stories. This is what's at stake. Do we want to plunge more than a million Australians below the poverty line or do we want to be a generous nation, a nation that invests in our people, that's confident in them and their capacities if given the chance, if given the support? Do we want to be a nation that makes sure that if people lose their job they aren't held back by inadequate unemployment benefit and everything that that entails? We know that with more jobseekers then there are job vacancies there are simply not enough jobs for everyone who needs one. We know that this shortage of jobs is particularly acute because of the pandemic and for particular parts of the economy and particular regions of our country.
I want to speak very briefly about someone in my electorate, Shannon, although that's not her real name, from Epping. Shannon has been on JobSeeker since late last year, so she's seen the difference that the extra support from the coronavirus supplement has made. She says, 'Looking for work takes a lot of time, money and emotional energy. You actually need a reasonable amount of money to pay the bills, to pay for transport to go to job interviews and to pay for the internet to look for job vacancies.' She says, 'Just because you're out of work it doesn't mean the bills stop needing to be paid.' So please, Prime Minister; please, Treasurer; please, Minister for Families and Social Services: if you're not going to listen to me, listen to Shannon and do justice to Shannon and the hundreds of thousands of people in her circumstances, people who've been given an opportunity to make their lives with dignity and to look for work with confidence and who are seeing that slip away.
This bill will also temporarily amend the circumstances in which a person may be regarded as independent for youth allowance. In May, the Leader of the Labor Party called on the government to provide case-by-case exemptions to the youth allowance parental income test. Labor was concerned that tertiary students would be missing out on youth allowance and would be unable to afford to continue their studies. These are not ordinary times, and we don't want to see students discontinuing tertiary studies because they can't afford to support themselves or their families can't afford to support them. It is disappointing that the government has taken this long to act on this issue. May was a long time ago, as those of us from Melbourne perhaps feel particularly acutely right now, and it's been a long and anxious period for students, for those directly affected in particular.
I want to give a shout-out to the young people in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. I know that this year has been tough, and I know that so much of the burden of this pandemic has fallen on young people—something else properly acknowledged by the member for Higgins. From remote learning to endless Zoom meetings, from cancelled shifts at work to big nights out with your mates that simply couldn't happen and the 18ths, 21sts, graduations and all the other rites of passage that simply couldn't happen this year, it has been a difficult year. I want to acknowledge the sacrifices that young people in particular have made to keep all of us safe.
Let's be clear: it was this Prime Minister, when he was the Minister for Social Services, who cut the pension to 330,000 pensioners, including kicking nearly 100,000 of them off the pension entirely. It was this Prime Minister who sought repeatedly to increase the pension age to 70. So pensioners are under no illusion that this Prime Minister and this Liberal government couldn't care less about them.
Let's go through the list of shame. In 2014 they tried to cut pension indexation, a cut that would have meant pensioners would be forced to live on 80 bucks a week less within 10 years. Also in that year there was $1 billion cut from pensioner concessions, support designed carefully to help pensioners meet the cost of living. Again in 2014, the government axed the $900 seniors supplement for self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. Again in that year, that infamous year, they tried to reset deeming rate thresholds, a cut that would have seen half a million part-pensioners made worse off. The next year we saw a deal with the Greens by this government—
Shameful!
That was a shameful decision late at night in this parliament to cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension assets test. The following year we saw attempts to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks, something of enormous concern to the multicultural communities that I represent and I know, Deputy Speaker Claydon, to the communities that you represent as well. Again in 2016, they tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians through scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners.
Pensioners will always be better off under Labor. The pensioners that I'm proud to represent know this. I want to say this to them: I can't wait to be able to spend time with you again as our city safely opens up and to hear directly from you about your concerns. I know that older Australians, particularly older Australians from migrant backgrounds, are the ones who've found it most difficult to remain connected to political life through the pandemic. I know how important those meetings are both as ways through which you receive information but much more importantly as ways when you can give me and my state colleagues guidance about the things that matter to you. On these issues, I've heard your concerns loud and clear and so has the entire federal Labor Party.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the plight of so many elderly pensioners in aged care during the pandemic. In Scullin, the outbreak at Epping Gardens has taken the lives of 38 people and infected more than 120 residents, along with many staff members. This was a tragedy and my heart goes out to the families and loved once personally affected by it. It's a tragedy that will leave a lasting scar on the communities of Melbourne's north for many years to come. Let me just say this: it is a disgrace that the Morrison government has still not acted fully on the interim recommendations of the royal commission. It's an absolute disgrace that does not do justice to those people.
I want to speak very briefly on the changes in this bill affecting paid parental leave. The bill is adjusting how someone qualifies for PPL. To be eligible, someone must satisfy the work test, and the existing work test requires a person to have worked 10 of the 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of a child and at least 330 hours in that 10-month period. The concern has been that during the pandemic families would miss out on PPL because of job losses or having their hours reduced, making them ineligible and leaving them perhaps $15,000 worse off. So Labor called for the government to temporarily suspend the work test as early as April this year so that families wouldn't miss out. In June, we moved amendments in the Senate for the work test to be suspended. But, again, the Morrison government voted this down.
I've talked a lot about certainty—that is, the certainty Australians deserve to get through this crisis and to rebuild. That applies here. Families need certainty about their capacity to access paid parental leave during these challenging times. It is disappointing, to say the very least, that it has taken the government this long to make this adjustment. It's worth noting that next year marks ten years since the Rudd-Gillard Labor government introduced Australia's first paid parental leave scheme under Jenny Macklin, the former member for Jagajaga. It's a scheme that has been a major policy success story. It's something that deserves to be recognised. It has transformed lives and helped boost workforce participation—one of those three Ps that will drive our economy forward in the recovery.
In conclusion, Labor supports the measures outlined in the bill. They're measures that Labor has been advocating for from the beginning of the pandemic earlier this year—a time that feels much, much longer ago. But now it's just eight weeks until Christmas. Around one million Australians, relying on the coronavirus supplement, need certainty, not an unfair cut. That is why we are moving this vital amendment to extend the supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper, and require the government to announce a permanent, just increase in the JobSeeker payment. I hope government members are listening to their communities and their conscience and will support that amendment.
It's always a pleasure to rise in this House and speak about various pieces of legislation where we're looking to resolve issues and make life better for Australians. In the coronavirus pandemic, we have seen all aspects of our society impacted by this one-in-100-year sledgehammer event. Both the social and economic consequences of the pandemic have been severe and, to use the word we've all heard regularly over this past year, unprecedented.
The Morrison government has provided a never-before-seen investment in supporting the vast majority of Australian society, whether it's additional supplements to the JobSeeker payment, JobKeeper to keep employees linked to their employers or supplementary payments to seniors or other social security recipients as well as a variety of supports to the business community. We have sought to support as many citizens as possible through what has been, and continues to be, tough and worrying times.
The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 delivers further support, as outlined in the 2020-21 budget, for those who are receiving some social security payments. Let me outline for the House some of the measures in this bill. The bill provides additional assistance through two further economic support payments of $250 to certain recipients and card holders in the lead-up to Christmas and in the new year as part of the government's response to COVID-19. From 1 January 2021 amendments are also made so that the 6-month period between 25 March and 24 September 2020 will automatically be recognised as contributing to existing workforce independence criteria for youth allowance. The same concession will also be available for Abstudy recipients.
The bill also creates temporary incentives in the income support system to encourage young Australians to undertake seasonal agricultural work. The new criteria will recognise a person who earns at least $15,000 through employment in the agricultural industry between 30 November 2020 and 21 December 2021 as independent for the purposes of youth allowance.
I know from discussions with many of my regional and rural colleagues that that measure in particular is of critical importance, given the workforce shortages in those areas, due to the closure of our international borders. The bill will also introduce a revised paid parental leave work test for a limited period of time to enable people who do not meet the current work test provisions because their employment has been affected by COVID-19 to access parental leave pay and dad and partner pay. The bill also makes amendments to align the maximum amount that eligible families are able to access after a stillbirth or the child's death shortly after birth. These amendments remove discrepancies within the payment system in respect of multiple instances of stillbirth or infant death with the same family. This bill also makes some technical amendments to the child support laws to allow for alternative figures to be used in place of the male total average weekly earnings trend figure and the average weekly earnings trend figure for the purposes of the child support assessment calculations.
These measures are on top of the government already investing almost $200 billion in a wide range of supports during the COVID pandemic. This unprecedented level of investment, both direct and indirect, amounts to around $7,700 per Australian. This doesn't include the around $15 billion worth of measures by state and territory governments but clearly demonstrates that the Commonwealth government is definitely doing the heavy lifting in this crisis, as it should be. I do note with interest that several weeks ago the Reserve Bank of Australia did call on the state governments to lift their game and spend more to assist the economy with recovering and provide the jobs necessary for that recovery.
It's important to note that we've only been able to provide this level of support due to the careful budgetary management of the coalition government over the past seven years. The measures in this bill will have a direct impact on a significant number of people in my electorate, in particular for youth allowance recipients. The Parliamentary Library outlined that in my electorate of Forde I have had one of the largest increases in Youth Allowance recipients between December 2019 to May 2020: an increase of some 103 per cent. So it's important that this House support this bill in a timely manner so that the people who are receiving income support can benefit from the announced measures. The Commonwealth government's message to these people is that we have your back and we won't let you fall between the cracks. It is a vitally important message that I want all recipients of income support in Ford to hear loud and clear: we are here for you.
As I said, with the other measures we've already undertaken in terms of JobKeeper, JobSeeker, now JobMaker and the apprenticeship supports, and the job commencement bonus, there are a range of measures as a total package that we are looking at to provide support for our economy as we move forward. We recognise that we have a long way to go in this crisis, but one of the things that can help alleviate the impacts of this crisis is to ensure that our borders are open—and it was very pleasing to see the decision of the Victorian government yesterday to get their economy back up and operating. We need all of Australia working together at Commonwealth, state and local government levels together with the private sector to get our economy operating again, get people back in jobs and deliver the services that this country desperately needs and, more importantly, the jobs and the infrastructure that allows our economy to be built, stable and resilient for the long term.
I know the Australian people have the resilience, the ingenuity and the capacity to achieve this, and this bill, along with many other measures that we're making as a government, all go towards achieving that very purpose. I commend this bill to the House.
[by video link] I am speaking on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 today because it's critical that Australians who are struggling right now as a result of this pandemic get the extra support they need, especially those in my electorate of Jagajaga, who are only just coming out of stage 4 restrictions this week. I support this bill, and the timing is important; however, this bill does not go par enough. That's why I support the amendments moved by the shadow minister to extend the $250-per-fortnight coronavirus supplement until March in line with JobKeeper to better support pensioners—those on the aged pension, the disability support pension and the carer payment—and to permanently increase the base rate of the JobSeeker payment. There is a pretty special feeling in Melbourne this morning as we emerge from stage 4 restrictions. I certainly had a big smile on my face as I strolled up the street for my morning coffee and saw the chairs and tables back out in front of the cafes and the shops opening their doors. I even had to face some traffic, because I drove into the office this morning. So things are looking up for us.
But it would be ridiculous to pretend we're about to experience some sort of miraculous snapback and that people are not going to need support to navigate our COVID-normal landscape. We know, from previous recessions, that employment numbers take a long time to recover. We know, from looking at the current numbers, that it's not just people in Melbourne who are suffering job losses. The economy is weak not just in Victoria but right around Australia. The latest job numbers released so jobs were lost in every single state and territory. We've got a million people unemployed, and another 160,000 people will join the unemployment queues between now and Christmas. Pushing these people into poverty makes absolutely no sense. It's only seven weeks till Christmas, and people relying on the coronavirus supplement need certainty not a cruel cut.
We are well past the stage where this government should be legislating a permanent increase in the base rate of the JobSeeker payment. Even before this crisis, we knew that the level of this payment was leaving people in unacceptable poverty—people having to make decisions about which meals they could afford to eat in a day or cutting back on meals for themselves so they could afford to feed their children; people couch surfing or moving between precarious forms of accommodation because they couldn't afford rent or mortgages. And we know that older women and single parents have disproportionately been affected by this—people making unacceptable decisions because it's not possible to live on $40 a day. And we've seen stories of people who, since the increase in the payment, have done things they haven't done in years—gone to sleep without adding up the bills one final time; got a haircut or a new pair of shoes; felt equipped to actually begin the search for work, even within our current precarious employment environment.
Pushing people back into poverty will do nothing to grow employment in our community. It will do nothing to support the small businesses who are reopening in our community. When most people who are relying on the JobSeeker payment don't have the money to go to the shops, to grab an extra coffee or to buy the school supplies that they need, that will hurt our small businesses. It's time for the government to do the right thing and permanently increase the base rate of the JobSeeker payment. We don't need a Christmas cut, we need a permanent increase.
The budget left Australians on JobSeeker aged under 35—almost one million Australians—out of the budget and ineligible for the government's wage hire subsidies. Again, we know that older Australians represent the largest cohort on JobSeeker. These are the people who also face the most difficult challenge in finding work because of the structural barriers in front of them and age discrimination in our workforce. Just yesterday, I was contacted by a distraught member of my community who lives in Diamond Creek. She was made redundant this year as a result of the pandemic. She is now on the JobSeeker payment and she is struggling to cover her mortgage payments. She is acutely aware of how discriminatory the government's JobMaker program is. She told me: 'People of my age group have simply been left out to dry and thrown in the trash. Why would an employer, in the very limited job market, employ me over a person under 30 years of age whereby the government will financially assist the wages of a younger person?' She has really summed up the flaw in the Morrison government's support here. She also forwarded me an advertisement for a job she had applied for. The job criteria stipulated: 'Preferably you are under 30 years old and receiving one of these three forms of welfare in the last 12 months—JobSeeker, youth allowance or the parenting payment—so that the JobMaker grant is eligible.' So here's a woman desperate to work and doing what she can to apply for jobs. She is being left out of being able to apply for these jobs because of the discriminatory way this government has put together its JobMaker program. All the while, she won't know what payment she'll be receiving beyond Christmas this year because this government refuses to put in place a permanent increase in the rate of JobSeeker. It's unacceptable.
This is the reality facing thousands of middle-aged Australians who currently find themselves out of work and looking for jobs in a highly competitive market. The odds really are stacked against them. The Morrison government is just making it even harder for them to be considered for a new role. In Jagajaga at the moment there are almost 7,000 people relying on the JobSeeker payment. This is an increase of 4,130 people in our community who have been relying on unemployment payments since the start of this pandemic. These are people whose lives have changed drastically in the last few months, and the JobSeeker payment is what they are using to keep their families going, to pay their bills, to pay their health care, to make sure every day they can get up and keep going. At the same time as they are struggling to readjust their circumstances during a pandemic, this government is ignoring their need for certainty. These members of our community deserve to know what support they will receive and how they will pay their bills after Christmas. It is needlessly cruel of the Prime Minister and his social security minister to refuse to provide them with this certainty. These people need a permanent increase to the JobSeeker rate.
Labor's amendments to this bill will also create a requirement for the government to do more to support age pensioners, disability pensioners and carers. These people have experienced increased costs during this pandemic. I know I have been contacted by many who feel they have been left out in the Morrison government's response. They deserve security, and there is capacity for the minister to better support these people. Of course, we know the government often forgets about pensioners. The government were caught out by Labor on the pension freeze for 2.5 billion pensions, and that's the only reason they acted on it. Labor fought this disrespectful and cruel freeze. The reality is that pensioners planned their twice-yearly indexation, one on 20 March and the other on 20 September. The government was first caught out on their pension freeze in August. The freeze took effect in September, and yet the government made pensioners wait for the October budget before announcing any kind of relief. The government have had a long track record of cutting or attempting to cut the pension. And I note they still haven't adjusted deeming rates, which remain significantly higher than interest rates. This is punishing pensioners. We absolutely need to do more for pensioners—for age pensioners, disability pensioners and people relying on carers payments.
This bill is adjusting how some families qualify for paid parental leave. To be eligible, a person must satisfy the work test, and the existing work test requires a person to have worked 10 of the 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of a child and at least 330 hours in that 10-month period. I have been contacted by families who are concerned about how this work test would operate in the pandemic and how it may actually cut them out of a payment that they were expecting when they first got pregnant and thought about how they were going to support their child financially. Sitting here as someone who is expecting a child in two months, I feel very fortunate that I'm not worrying about how I will support her or him financially. But I am really aware that there is a lot going on in those months before a child is born. So these people really deserve certainty. Again, it's a shame that it's taken the government so long to act on this, when Labor called for the government to temporarily suspend the work test as early as April this year so that families would know that they wouldn't miss out, so they would have that time to plan and not add this financial stress to all the other stresses and lists that are in your mind as you plan a birth. Families do need certainty about their access to paid parental leave during these challenging times, and it's disappointing it has taken the government this long to make this adjustment. It really has been an excruciating wait for so many families.
This bill also temporarily amends the circumstances in which a person may be regarded as independent for youth allowance. In May Labor called on the government to provide case-by-case amendments to the youth allowance parental income test. That was in May, and we're only just getting around to it now. That's because we were concerned that tertiary students would miss out on youth allowance and would be unable to afford to continue their studies. I have heard this concern from a number of young people in my community—young people who are facing such disruption in their lives, who have gone to uni, who have gone online for learning, who have lost their casual jobs, who are in such a different position to where they expected to be at the start of this year. Many of them did not expect that they would be forced by financial circumstances to go back and live with their parents. They are really distressed about the economic situation they find themselves in. They are concerned about how they are going to be able to complete their studies. They are concerned about being a burden on their families.
These are not ordinary times, and what we don't want to see is students deciding that they need to drop out of study because they can't afford it, because we haven't made this change. Again, it is disappointing that the government has taken so long to act on this issue and has created a long and needlessly anxious period for our students. Currently in my community there are 466 young people relying on youth allowance. I want to make sure they are supported to get a good education, that they don't feel like their finances are going to drop them out, and so this is a very important change.
Throughout this pandemic, Labor has been supportive of measures that support people who need it most in our community. What we have at the moment is the need for certainty. People in our community on JobSeeker need certainty. They are doing it tough. They are the people who face the worries that many of us are fortunate not to have to think about, and there are too many of them at this time. These people do not deserve to return to a rate of $40 a day. They need certainty from the government. I know we had one answer from the Prime Minister yesterday in question time about what might be happening and another answer today in estimates from the relevant minister, but, as the shadow minister said in her speech about this bill, it's incomprehensible that the government hasn't already been thinking about what it might do with the JobSeeker payment beyond Christmas. That's only seven weeks away.
If the government is already thinking about it, if these plans are being put in place, be honest with the Australian people about the level of support you are going to give them beyond Christmas. People need to plan their lives. People need to know where they'll be living, how they'll be paying their rent, how they'll be supporting their kids to go to school next year. These are major life decisions. They don't get made with two weeks notice. It's up to the government now to do what it needs to do to support these people on a permanent basis and provide a permanent increase to the JobSeeker rate.
I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill and the amendment moved by the member for Barton. The bill, as others have said, will introduce budget measures, including two further one-off economic support payments of $250 each. These payments will be made to recipients of the age pension, disability support pension, carer payment, carer allowance and others, with the first payment being received from 30 November and the second from 1 March 2021. These payments are to those who received the first two one-off economic support payments of $750 each. While these payments are welcome, the budget doesn't do enough, especially for the most vulnerable. It doesn't go far enough for carers, for example, who will only receive an extra $500 over six months. That's less than $20 a week, which is not enough to meet the extra cost they have faced as a result of the pandemic.
It's no surprise, then, that many carers are feeling overlooked and left behind by this government. This is why Labor will seek to create an obligation on the minister to take actions that will have the effect of extending the supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper. The minister has the power under the Social Security Act to continue extending to supplement in three-month periods for as long as the economic impacts of the pandemic remain. People are relying on the coronavirus supplement, and they need certainty. They don't need a cut, certainly not now.
In May Carers Australia, in conjunction with Deloitte, released the report The value of informal care in 2020. The report findings estimate there are almost 2.8 million informal carers in Australia. This year these carers are estimated to provide 2.2 billion hours of care to family and friends. This represents an increase of over five per cent since 2018. Of this figure, 906,000 are primary carers and many of them—70 per cent, in fact—are women. Most hours of informal care are provided by primary carers. These individuals are estimated to spend an average of 35 hours per week providing care, and a quarter of them spend more than 60 hours a week caring for somebody else.
While carers are doing it because they love their friend or family member, it takes its toll and it's a significant burden on carers, forcing many to either reduce their hours of work or withdraw from work altogether. It is estimated that the employment rate for primary carers is less than 25 per cent in comparison to the wider population, and, according to the recent report, the total cost to replace all informal care in 2020 would be $78 billion. The estimated earnings lost by primary and non-primary carers combined was $15 billion, and there's a significant gap, about 18 per cent, in the employment rates between primary carers and other Australians.
Carers sacrifice a lot to look after their loved ones, and the onset of the pandemic has added significantly to the responsibilities that carers face every day, as formal support has fallen away and costs have risen. The Caring Fairly Coalition's 'Caring during coronavirus' survey highlighted the impact of the virus on the carer community. It will be no surprise to hear that 60 per cent of carers reported losing 'some or all of the support services for the person they care for', and four in five said that, as a result of this, their mental health had deteriorated since COVID-19. Nine out of 10 carers have experienced increased stress in their role as a carer, and close to half reported losing some or all of their regular income. The most vulnerable people—and those caring for them, who are often living with conditions or disability and need support themselves—have been overlooked by this government.
A recent survey by Mental Health Carers Australia on the impacts of COVID-19 on families and carers of NDIS participants living with psychosocial disability found that the provision of NDIS supports for participants, carers and families had 'dropped significantly' during COVID-19. Many, about six out of 10, said that the lockdown had impacted NDIS supports that they received, and a similar number said that they had not been in contact with their NDIS provider regarding their plan during this time. The survey found that families and carers had 'stepped into the breach left by providers', and it was, as I mentioned earlier, having a detrimental impact on their mental health and their wellbeing. Carers were concerned about their family's mental health, and they were particularly concerned about their own emotional and mental health and wellbeing. Half of carers said that their caring roles had increased significantly, to beyond what they could cope with, despite their resilience. Unsurprisingly, most carers were aged over 50, and nearly all respondents to the survey were women. For many, the day-to-day expenses had increased by over a half, and most of the carers, as we know, are retired or working part time because of their caring responsibilities.
The last finding of the survey was particularly concerning. We know carers are an at-risk group. As I said, they're caring for people who have a disability or are frail aged or have a complex and chronic health problem. But also, many people might not realise, the carer themselves often is experiencing those same hardships or difficulties. Whilst being so at risk and more vulnerable to COVID, they are also more likely to be struggling financially than other Australians.
The 2020 National Carers Survey report confirmed the strain that our carers are being put under. Most of the carers who responded were experiencing 'high or very high psychological distress', and many felt 'highly socially isolated'. Caring in itself is isolating; a lot of support and friends fall away, but this has been heightened during the pandemic. Many of the carers said that they 'never get time out from their caring responsibilities'—never, not at all. Less than half have enough time to keep on top of their other responsibilities, the day-to-day responsibilities that we all have to deal with. Many of them have found it really difficult to get information and to organise services to support the person that they care for.
This is why we're moving an amendment to extend these supplements for the most vulnerable people, people like carers who have gone above and beyond throughout the pandemic and who are facing the very real human, social and economic impacts of the virus. The other thing that they've had to deal with and that they're getting really disillusioned by and overcome by is having to deal with government agencies—whether it's aged care, the NDIA or Services Australia, agencies that should be on their side and should be supporting them—and having to deal with multiple agencies, particularly when they have very little time because of their caring responsibilities. It's not just the participant—the aged person or the person with disability—that's impacted; it's their carer and it's their families and friends as well.
I want to talk today about Christine. Christine is someone I know well. She's a carer for her 40-year-old son, Matt, who has quadriplegia. Matt applied for supported disability accommodation in September 2019, and it was approved in January, much to the family's relief. His mum had peace of mind with the SDA, the supported disability accommodation, because of what might happen to Matt without it, should she, in her words, 'fall off the perch'? Christine was forced to follow up repeatedly until Matt's supported living package was approved last September, and they were told it would arrive within 48 hours. The funding never came through. They never got it. So Christine was really worried about the supported living package. There was just silence from the NDIA. When, finally, the NDIA contacted Christine, she was told her son would be moved to a concierge model. I'm not sure if people are familiar with this model. It's more like the former group-home type of model, with a much lower ratio of support worker to participant. So Matt was told, just when he was about to move in, that he'd share one support worker with nine other residents. The support worker would be downstairs and would divide their care time between all of the residents over the course of the day. That just isn't safe, and, for Matt, it's just not suitable for his higher and complex needs. He was absolutely devastated. After hearing the news, he thought about throwing his bus pass into the lake and, as he said, 'Catching a one-way ride into the city,' because he was sick of being a burden to his own family. Carers like Matt's mum, Christine, have gone above and beyond for the people they care for, and it's no surprise that they're feeling that the government hasn't provided enough support for them during the pandemic.
The budget also missed an opportunity to permanently increase JobSeeker. With 160,000 more Australians expected to lose their jobs by Christmas and 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker, the government missed a significant opportunity in the middle of a crisis to deliver certainty for some of the most vulnerable and at-risk people in our community, people doing it really tough—people in regional communities like mine, outside the big cities. The government could permanently increase JobSeeker. In communities like mine, at the peak of the pandemic there were 36 jobseekers for every vacancy. It's down to 17 now, but it's still higher than the national average. There are not enough jobs, particularly in regional areas or for someone who's trying to make a start. Australians who are recipients of these benefits really need much better support. That would then provide direct stimulus into local economies, really kick-starting them. What's going to happen when JobSeeker is cut? We've tried to find more information from the government, but either they don't know or they just don't want other people to know.
The other people who have really been left behind are older Australians. In my community, one in five people are aged over 65. It's a really popular place for older people to live, but the budget's left Australians on JobSeeker aged over 35—almost 1 million Australians—out and ineligible for its higher wage subsidy. Older Australians represent the largest group of people on JobSeeker, and they also experience some of the most difficulty finding work, because of structural barriers or age discrimination or other problems that they face when trying to re-enter the workforce or continue in their career.
There are working people who are older, but there are also those who are receiving the pension. The government was caught out on the pension freeze, and that impacted 2.5 million older people. That's the only reason they acted—because they were caught out. It's cruel, at this time in the middle of a global pandemic, to have older people feeling more vulnerable financially. There is a known link between financial insecurity and mental health problems, and we know the consequences of that, the very real human consequences of financial insecurity. The reality is that pensioners plan for the twice-yearly indexation on 20 March and 20 September. It's something that they take that into account when they're planning their year ahead. The government was caught out in August and the freeze took effect in September, and pensioners had to wait until this month before knowing there would be any kind of relief. It's just part of this long track record. How can you rack up over a trillion dollars in debt and leave the most vulnerable people out, whether it's carers or people living with disability or older people—people who deserve dignity, people who deserve to be treated with respect and people who need certainty now more than ever?
The government still hasn't adjusted the deeming rates, which remain significantly higher than interest rates.
I now want to turn to paid parental leave. As I mentioned before, my community is a popular place for older people to live but it's also a really popular place for young families. It's more affordable, it's outside the big city and it has room for families to grow. But at the moment there's a lot of uncertainty over rising costs, and people need much more certainty. We know that to be eligible for paid parental leave a person must satisfy the work test. The existing work test requires a person to have worked 10 of the 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of a child and at least 330 hours in that 10-month period. We were really concerned that, during the pandemic, families would miss out on PPL because of job losses or cuts to their hours making them ineligible. That could leave them up to $15,000 worse off, and it is money families can ill afford to lose, particularly right now when there is so much uncertainty—when we don't know what's going to happen next week, let alone by Christmas. We moved amendments in the Senate for the work test to be suspended, but the government voted them down. Families need certainty and security, and they need to know that they can access their PPL, particularly during these really challenging and difficult times. It's disappointing that the government has taken so long to make this adjustment. It's been a really long wait for many people.
The other group the government has either overlooked or doesn't care about is young people. In May, Labor called on the government to provide case-by-case exemptions to the youth allowance parental income test. I know many members have had calls from parents—and I have as well—who've been impacted by this. People are really concerned that higher education students will miss out on youth allowance or be unable to continue studying. Study is always important, but especially right now, in regional communities with a really tough job market, young people need the chance to get the skills to start a career and have some certainty. These are not ordinary times. We don't want to see students forced to drop out because they can't afford to stick it out.
In my community currently there are over 2,800 people accessing youth allowance, and they need proper support from this government. They need to know that the government cares, that they matter, and that the government is going to do something about it. It's disappointing that the government has taken so long to act on this and other issues and provide proper support to vulnerable Australians in the middle of a crisis.
I am pleased to rise today to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020. I echo the words of the member for Barton in calling for substantive and important amendments to better support Australians who are unemployed or facing extra costs because of the impact of coronavirus. This is the right thing to do. Labor is moving amendments to this bill to create an obligation on the minister to extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper, and to create an obligation on the minister to better support pensioners—including age pension, disability support pension and carer payment recipients—who are facing increasing costs in protecting their health because of the coronavirus pandemic. Labor is also proposing important amendments to create an obligation on the minister to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of the JobSeeker payment above the $40 a day it is currently set at—that is, the $40 a day that those currently on JobSeeker can expect to return to living on come December because this government is unwilling to make a commitment to the more than 1½ million unemployed people in this country.
The government are willing to put Australia into $1 trillion of debt but not willing to help the most vulnerable people, whose welfare payments are set to go, once again, below the poverty line after this Christmas. They say they'll look at this later in the year and make considered decisions, but the Liberals and Nationals were all too happy to make the ill-considered decision to extend the $715 million airline support package to the owners of luxury jets. The Liberal-National government will not commit to increasing the JobSeeker payment to help Australian families live above the poverty line after Christmas, but they are all too willing to send tens of thousands of dollars to help out Crown casinos, Clive Palmer's Mineralogy, Leppington Pastoral Company and other members of Australia's business and financial elite—maybe some that a few members of this place hitch a ride across the country with from time to time. There's nothing for JobKeeper and nothing for jobseekers, but roll on the gravy train for good old 'MateKeeper'.
The legislation we are debating today implements measures outlined in 2021 budget, and they'll have an immediately positive impact on those affected by it as soon as next month. That's why we support the passage of this bill through the House. It implements two further one-off economic support payments of $250 each to recipients or holders of the age pension, disability support pension, carer payment, carer allowance, double orphan pension, family tax benefit, pensioner concession card, Commonwealth seniors health card and certain veterans payments and cards. These two payments are due to be made in November this year and March next year. These payments are being made out to the same group of Australians who received the first two one-off economic support payments of $750 each. Make no mistake: this money is needed, and it's needed now.
The group of Australians that this bill supports are among the most vulnerable in the country, and, with only a matter of weeks until Christmas, people are relying on these supplements, and they need this certainty and hope into the new year. Those on JobSeeker deserve clarity in the lead-up to what will be a very uncertain Christmas for many of us after a very challenging year. We must be clear: today the 1.6 million people on JobSeeker can only expect to go back to surviving on $40 a day come mid-December. This is the prospect for unemployed Australians today in the midst of a global pandemic as they approach Christmas. This is why Labor is moving an amendment to extend the coronavirus supplement until March in line with JobKeeper and requesting that the government announce a permanent increase in the JobSeeker payment.
With 160,000 Australians expected to lose their jobs soon and around 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker, the government has missed a huge opportunity to deliver hope and certainty to those Australians who were really doing it tough by delivering a permanent increase to JobSeeker in the budget. The budget was only delivered a few weeks ago. It's the budget that no-one is talking about anymore and the budget that delivered Australia $1 trillion in debt, which is $1,000 billion in debt, but no plan to increase JobSeeker payments beyond December. Merry Christmas. Honestly, what a bunch of wasters those opposite can be—paying $30 million for a $3 million block of land, publicly funding Cartier watches, blowouts in the NBN, handouts for owners of private luxury jets and $10 million on an Australia logo they've since discarded. It is staggering. They're $1 trillion in debt, and they can't properly commit to the support of Australia's most vulnerable people—those that cannot get jobs because the jobs simply aren't there.
Speaking of jobs, I'd like to touch on a large group of Australians that this Liberal government has somehow missed when putting together their budget on what they call jobs. I'm talking, of course, about those Australians on JobSeeker aged over 35. These people—almost 1 million Australians—were left hung out to dry in this budget. They're the largest cohort on JobSeeker, and yet they are ineligible for the government's wage hire subsidy. It's disgraceful, and it makes no sense. It's another group of Australians—one million of us—left behind by this government.
There is another group of older Australians that this government has left behind. Let's not forget the dismal record of the Liberals and Nationals in regard to Australian pensioners. This Liberal government was caught red-handed by Labor on the pension freeze that they've permitted for almost 2.5 million pensions, and, really, it's only because they were caught out that they have acted on it. The reality is that pensioners plan for their twice-yearly indexation—one on 20 March and one on 20 September. The government was first caught out on their pension freeze in August. The freeze took effect in September, and they made pensioners wait until the October budget a few weeks ago before announcing any kind of relief at all. My office in Rockingham received countless calls and emails from pensioners left bewildered at such an unkind and uncaring act by this government wrought upon the pensioners of this country.
The Liberal government have a long track record of cutting or attempting to cut the pension, and Labor has an equally long track record of defending Australia's pensioners at every turn. I want everyone to be very clear about how the Liberal-National government have treated Australian pensioners. In 2014, they tried to cut the pension indexation—a cut that would have meant pensioners would be forced to live on $80 less a week within 10 years. In the same year they cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions, support designed to help pensioners with the cost of living. They axed the $900 seniors supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. They also tried to reset deeming rate thresholds, a cut that would have seen half a million part-pensioners worse off. In 2015, they did a deal with the Greens—can you believe it?—to cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension asset test. In 2016, the government tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. In that same year, they tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. The government's own figures show this would have left over 563,000 Australians who are currently receiving a pension or allowances much worse off. Over 10 years, on their own figures in excess of 1.5 million pensioners would have been worse off under the government's plans.
The Liberals and Nationals spent five years trying to increase the pension age to 70. Pensioners have paid their taxes and contributed their entire lives to this nation. They deserve our respect, and the simple fact is they are not getting it from this government and they never have. I will always defend the pensioners of Brand from the thoughtless attacks of this Liberal and National government, and I will always fight to ensure pensioners and senior citizens are treated fairly.
Despite significant concern and sustained advocacy from pensioners, the government still hasn't adjusted deeming rates, which remain significantly higher than interest rates. They are used to determine how much pensioners earn from their secured financial assets, typically savings, for the purposes of determining their eligibility under the income test for the pension. The upper deeming rate is 2.25 per cent and the lower deeming rate is 0.25 per cent. With a cash rate nearing zero, it's difficult to see how pensioners could reasonably earn 2.25 per cent on their savings in these times. So we see pensioners are being short-changed by the government's unreasonable and unrealistic pension deeming rates.
This bill is welcome, but the process is symptomatic of the Liberals' approach to government, only moving on an issue when they're literally dragged to the table, maintaining a status quo approach when it's clearly not benefiting as many people as it should, only acting on a problem when they've been caught out making a mistake and then sometimes not even acting to address the problem. We can see that if we look at sports rorts, the crisis in aged care and the revelations of 'watchgate' earlier in the week. It's always the announcement, never the delivery, pointing the finger and taking a hands-off approach, telling Australians that, when it's too hard, it's someone else's problem. That, in my opinion, is small-minded and unacceptable.
As my friend and colleague the member for Rankin observed recently, imagine the tragedy if Australia and Australians endured this remarkable and painful time and failed to learn anything from it, if we do nothing different after than we did before. But here we are with a government continually adopting bandaid solutions to issues which need far more than that. This Liberal and National government has missed the boat on the chance to deliver meaningful reform. This government's short-term approach has delivered $1 trillion in debt and no plan to create the jobs Australians need, and we know the jobless rate won't go back to pre-crisis levels for more than four years.
So what happens in the meantime? Well, don't ask your federal government, because they clearly have no idea. If the government did have an idea or a notion of doing the right thing, there wouldn't be a need for Labor to move an amendment to this bill and call on the government to extend the coronavirus supplement until March. We wouldn't need to ask for the government to announce a permanent increase in the JobSeeker payment. But they haven't got a clue and they don't really care. So, while we support this bill, we must require this amendment to help the people this government are all too willing to leave behind. It is the right thing to do.
I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020. It is one of the first bills that this House is looking at following the budget that we saw delivered just a few weeks ago. Usually after a budget in this place we are inundated with bills that do things and change things. Usually we go to our meetings, when we go through the bills, and we have a pile of them and it takes us hours. It has been quite different this time, in spite of all the talk by the government about unprecedented times and the COVID recession and with all of the chest beating and flag waving about how wonderfully they're managing it. But we've actually seen very little so far.
This bill does some really important things, some very small important things, and we absolutely support it, because it will provide some assistance. But, in many ways, this is the kind of bill that you see when the departments are cleaning up things that they didn't notice. This is, in many ways, like the tax law amendment bills that we see when small changes are made that fix up small things the government missed or were slightly wrong about in previous legislation. It's almost administrative in its approach, and that's not what we need at this point.
What we have at the moment is 1.6 million unemployed Australians. We have many, many more on JobKeeper, because they're holding their job at the moment with a wage subsidy from the government. We have incredibly tough times coming down the road, as we see more people join the unemployment queue—not less, but more—by the government's own figures. And yet what we have here is a small collection of measures that essentially have been called for by the opposition and people that represent and work with people who are on Centrelink-style benefits, sometimes for months. Through much of this crisis these very issues have been pointed out.
Finally, we see a bill for them. It's late and with very small measures—although some are important for the people who will receive these small benefits from them. There are essentially four measures in this. The first one is for the pensioners who were well and truly left behind when the government enacted it's really rather cruel pension freeze. Pensioners had been looking forward to their indexation on 20 March and 20 September for a long time—I think last time there wasn't an increase was way back in the 1930s—but there wasn't one in September. That's in spite of the fact that pensioners have had increased costs in their lives—for example, because they can't necessarily catch a bus and are getting their groceries delivered. There are all sorts of costs associated with keeping themselves safe in their homes through this pandemic, and yet they had a pension freeze on 20 September. The government knew about it from August and yet only now are we seeing any kind of compensation from the government, which is two $250 extra payments between now and the end of March. That's something. We're going to pass it—absolutely. We're going to support it. It's better than nothing, but, really, this government has an appalling record on pensions.
This government really has quite an appalling record on pensions. I just want to work through that. They've been obsessed with cutting the pension since they were first elected. In the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, almost every year in every budget there was another attempt to cut the pension. In 2014, they tried to cut pension indexation. That cut would have meant pensioners would have been forced to live on about $80 a week less in about 10 years. In the same budget, they cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions. Those of us who were in this House will remember the state governments temporarily stepping in to assist pensioners who lost a whole range of concessions at that time. Those states, of course, stepped out again, so pensioners are worse off now because of those cuts.
In 2014 they also axed the $900 seniors supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. In 2014, they also tried to reset the deeming rate thresholds that would have seen half a million part pensioners made worse off. Then, in 2015, in giving up on making the cuts to full pensioners, they moved to part pensioners in a real way and did a deal with the Greens to cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension assets tests. In 2016, they tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. In my community I have people that have come to Australia from all over the world. They'll have six weeks to go back and visit extended family. In many cases six weeks after they have saved up so that when they retire they can make their last trip back to Greece. They tend to go for a year. They might go for longer. They've saved up for years to make that trip and suddenly they find out that if they go their pension will be cut.
Then in 2016 they tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. The government's own figures show this would have left 563,000 Australians who are receiving a pension or allowance worse off. And over 10 years in excess of 1.5 million pensioners would be worse off. And, of course, they've spent five years trying to increase the retirement age to 70. This is a government with an extraordinary history of doing the wrong thing by pensioners. We are seeing in the House again today how long it has taken them to address this cruel freeze, which they knew about in August.
As I said, there are four aspects to this. The first one is the pensions adjusting for that cruel freeze. The second one—it's quite extraordinary that the government missed this for so long—is an adjustment to the work test to ensure parents who were impacted by the coronavirus recession who lost hours of work will not miss out on paid parental leave. In order to qualify for paid parental leave you have to work a certain number of hours. Those on JobKeeper were already covered, but those who lost their jobs through this unprecedented COVID-19 recession—as the government calls it—through no fault of their own would not be qualifying for paid parental leave, which is quite extraordinary. People, including the opposition, have been calling for months to fix that and finally they have. At the height of the pandemic the opposition was calling on the government to adjust the means testing for youth allowance so students wouldn't fall through the cracks, the third one is they're finally making that adjustment. The fourth one is adjusting support for families who lose a child to stillbirth or before their first birthday and, again, we really welcome those changes. They should have been there a long time ago but finally they are there.
Again, four elements: the pensions, paid parental leave for people who've lost their jobs, youth allowance adjustments so that students wouldn't fall through the cracks because of what's been going on in this recession and support for families who lose a child to stillbirth or before their first birthday. Again, we will support all of those things.
I want to talk about some of these areas in more depth. The first one I want to talk about is the thing the government has clearly and totally missed on this, which is the opportunity to permanently increase JobSeeker. In my electorate of Parramatta there are 12,053 people relying on JobSeeker or youth allowance. Before the pandemic that was 4,900 so it's a 245 per cent increase in people on JobSeeker. For all the government's talk about how if you make JobSeeker too high people won't apply for work, for all of that sort of stick approach, it's as if they don't understand what has happened in this economy. They don't understand what has happened to these 12,053 people, and because they don't understand they've left those people believing that the JobSeeker payment would be cut to $40 a day at the end of this year. That's where we are at the moment. That's what is in the budget. It's back to the old dole or Newstart—whatever you called it in the past. It's back to $40 a day.
I find it hard to understand why a government would look at the Australian people, and look at these 12,053 people in my electorate, who've lost the jobs because of COVID and see the worst aspects of them and see people who might continue to not work because JobSeeker is too high. I can tell you that many of these people that I talk to have been working all their lives. They have got mortgages. They pay rent. They've got long-term leases. They've got car payments to make. They've got kids in school—sometimes kids in private school. They have got child care to pay. They're not going to hang around in the unemployment queue, even with JobSeeker as it is now, if they can get back into paid work. That's what they want to do. Reducing JobSeeker down to $40 a day has the opposite effect to inspiring or stimulating people to go back to work. The lack of certainty at this point is a disaster. Lack of certainty for people on JobSeeker, who don't know at this stage what the rate will be after 31 December, is even more destructive than uncertainty for business, because the two are related. Let's consider what happens if, at the moment, you don't know what your rate of JobSeeker will be after 31 December.
Say there are two people and one partner has lost their job. They don't know whether they can afford to keep paying the mortgage. They don't know whether they will be able to or not after 31 December, because they don't know what the rate will be. They don't think they can keep the childcare spot open any longer. They can't afford to pay for a childcare spot if they're not working. They know that, if they give up the childcare spot and then get a job, they won't be able to get the spot back again. They don't know if they have to go and live with their parents. If they go and live with their parents, their children will be in a different school zone and they will have to drive them to school, but they've got car payments and they don't know if they'll be able to make them.
So, just for a moment, can I ask the government to look at the people in my electorate that are on JobSeeker, and at that 245 per cent increase in particular, with many who were already on JobSeeker. Look at them as people who are trying to get their lives in order and do the right things for themselves, their families and the rest of us, and consider what it is they need to manage what, for many of them, is the worst crisis they have ever encountered, an unexpected crisis. They didn't expect this. They thought they had secure jobs and they made arrangements with their lives based on that assumption, and COVID, like a giant freight train, came and knocked everything they thought away. Look at those people and see the good people that I see. Look at those people and see people who want to do the right thing, who want to go back to work and do what they need to do.
It is crazy for a government to set its regulations and its rules for the worst characteristics of a small number of people and, in doing so, make it harder for the great majority of great people. And it makes no sense anyway, because rule breakers break rules. It doesn't matter what rules you introduce; the rule breakers are still going to break them. So can we have an approach to governing which is actually about people trying to do the right thing? That would be much more sensible.
There are also a few interesting things in this legislation for young people. Young people are doing it tough. They perhaps are being hit harder than any other group in our society at the moment. Youth unemployment in the Parramatta region is now 15.7 per cent. It is incredibly difficult for people in the Parramatta region. That's not counting all the international students that aren't included in the figures because they're not receiving JobSeeker, and all the skilled migrants that aren't included in the figures. So there are many, many more than that. The government is making changes that we've called for and that many advocates for young people have called for, in that the concessions to the paid work test for people seeking to demonstrate independence for youth allowance and Abstudy purposes are going to be changed. This is quite complex language and, when you read it, you think, 'Huh?' But I will read it: 'The six-month period between 25 March 2020 and 24 September 2020 will be automatically recognised as contributing 30 hours per week towards the independence through work test, regardless of the hours worked. The independence through work test requires a person under 22 to work an average of 30 hours a week for 18 months out of a two-year period in order to be considered independent. In line with changes to the general independence through work test, young people from regional and remote areas applying for youth allowance under the concessional workforce independence criteria will be taken to have met the required criteria between 25 March and 24 September 2020. A person claiming youth allowance as a student will be deemed independent if they earn $15,000 through employment in the agricultural industry between 30 November this year and 31 December 2021.'
That is really quite complex, particularly for a young person who has just been getting by studying. They have done their paperwork and they think things are fine. My question for this government is always: How are you letting people know? Where's the big fanfare announcement for this? How are you telling young people that there are options for them which will make them more independent and help them out? How are you telling them? I can tell you, you're not. You really need to do better.
I'm pleased to rise today to speak on this very important bill. The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 has the opportunity to further support our community as we deal with the economic challenges of this year. I support many of the measures in this bill today and I know they will make a significant difference to people in my electorate who are struggling. Many people have told me the difference the first two economic support payments made to them, and I also know from my many months of visiting many hundreds of local businesses that it made a difference to our local economy too. When people have enough money to get by, when they aren't rationing their food to pay their bills, they might go to their local butcher, baker or small grocer rather than try to save at the biggest stores. They might spend money on fresh vegetables for once—what a treat. They can spend where they couldn't before, and that helps local businesses.
I am also pleased to see concessions to the paid work test for young people to demonstrate independence for youth allowance and Abstudy purposes. Young people in my electorate have had their income and their ability to work even more crushed than many of their peers around the country. When we lost the summer trade during the bushfires this year, it hit young people particularly hard. They weren't able to work in their local cafe or at the local pub, because there were no customers. No customers means no shifts. When many rely on this income to get them through the year, that can be particularly tough. Another aspect of this bill that I find particularly encouraging are temporary incentives to encourage young people to undertake seasonal agricultural work during the upcoming harvest season. A student claiming youth allowance can be deemed independent if they earn $15,000 through employment in the agricultural industry between 30 November this year at 31 December next year.
My electorate on the NSW South Coast is famous for our food and wine—our locally grown produce. Without the usual influx of international backpackers, who are renowned for spending a harvest or two working on local farms, many farmers were feeling concerned about how they would get through this year. I know that many of our local farmers will be grateful for this small incentive to encourage more young people onto their farms. I do worry a little bit, though, as this bill doesn't address some of the structural issues that prevent local young people from working on these farms: issues like public transport, for one. But it is still a positive move nonetheless.
I also welcome the changes to paid parental leave and particularly the changes to improve payments for parents with a stillborn child. The loss of a child—any child at any point—is heartbreaking and difficult to fathom, and I am pleased to see additional support being provided to parents during what is already a very difficult time for them. Labor has been calling for these changes for some time and we welcome them now.
While there are many measures that I welcome in this bill, as I have just outlined, I also want to reflect on what this bill does not do. I am disappointed to say once again that this bill represents another missed opportunity by the government to fix some of the errors so far in responding to the pandemic. Once again our pensioners are being left behind, forgotten by this government, who time and time again have cut their payments and turned their back on them. These are pensioners that are facing increasing health costs as a result of the pandemic, who have lost super, who have lost savings. They are pensioners who have struggled to get by and who feel like they have been left behind by this government. This is hurting real people in my electorate.
Peter, from Tuross Head, wrote to me only this month. Peter said:
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has seen us all scrambling to survive. My problem is in regard to the people the government have missed – self-funded retirees.
Before you think ah yes the rich people of Australia, let me give you an example. I belong to this cohort.
I retired at age 60 after 40 years of full time work. For the past five years I have lived below the poverty line.
My superannuated pension is barely sufficient, given I pay rent that entails approximately 60 per cent of my income.
While I'm sure there are many permutations out there in the real world, I feel I've been punished for retiring early, even after 40 years of work.
That is Peter's story.
It is heartbreaking to hear, but Peter is not alone. Geoff, from Meringo, was receiving a part-pension. During the bushfires he and his wife were evacuated four times. They lost power for days, had their water supply compromised and lost the contents of their fridge and freezer. So in February they applied for the $1,000 disaster support payment. Geoff was promptly kicked off the pension, along with all his concessions, for doing so. I was able to help Geoff resolve this issue and reinstate his pension, but in the meantime he missed out on his concessions for his car registration, prescriptions and rates, costing him much more than $1,000. What a cruel and heartless thing to go through—first the bushfires and then having to fight to get help and keep his pension.
Many people have told me they feel the government discriminates against self-funded retirees and those receiving part pensions. Take the deeming rates, for example. Deeming rates are used to determine how much pensioners earn from their secured financial assets—typically their savings—to determine their eligibility for the pension. The upper deeming rate is 2.25 per cent. With the cash rate nearing zero per cent, it is really difficult to see how pensioners could reasonably be earning 2.25 per cent on their savings. This is simply unreasonable and unrealistic of the government, and it is hurting pensioners in our community. The government's record on helping pensioners is not exactly rosy. Since being elected in 2013 they have tried to cut pension indexation, which would have forced pensioners to live on $80 a week less within 10 years. They cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions, axed the $900 senior supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors healthcare card, tried to reset deeming rate thresholds that would have seen half a million part-pensioners made worse off, cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 by changing the pension asset test and tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. The government have made attack after attack after attack. There is no real help for pensioners in this bill, there was no real help in the budget and there has been no real help to deal with the pandemic. The economic support payments are welcome, but the simple truth is that they aren't enough.
Another lost opportunity in this bill is the opportunity to permanently increase JobSeeker. There is no argument about this anymore; we know it is true. Forty dollars a day is not enough to live on. Forty dollars a day forces people in our local communities to live below the poverty line. In my electorate of Gilmore there are more than 10,000 people receiving JobSeeker and youth allowance. That's more than 4,000 additional recipients since December last year. The Prime Minister has said, 'If you are good at your job then you will get a job,' but the reality is that there are not enough jobs for everyone. That is a fact. In regional areas it is even more true. It doesn't matter how good you are at your job, when you're competing with hundreds of applicants and there aren't enough jobs to go around people will be left behind. Linda, from Sanctuary Point, says,
I currently am on Newstart (JobSeeker) and have been for three years after sustaining an injury. Centrelink say that although I have lower limb disablement, I can do 15 hours work, therefore I cannot receive a disability pension. It is very difficult to find appropriate employment, therefore once I have paid weekly rent of $270, I am left with $50 which covers minimal food, and bills, just forget it, it's not that I don't want to pay them, there is no money left from my Newstart. Of course Newstart desperately needs to be increased.
Julie, from St Georges Basin, had some powerful words on this issue when she wrote to me back in May. I thank Julie for sharing with me her story of how she came to be on Newstart, now JobSeeker. After she spent a hard life struggling to raise her children and get by as a single parent, her life took a turn, and she had to ask for help. I want to share Julie's story in her own words, because it is so powerful. Julie says:
I feel the stigma and the shame around being unemployed is the fault of the government. Government do not want to have to pay people to do nothing and that is understandable. However, there are only a small percentage of people on benefits that want to be on benefits. I am not here to speak on their behalf. I am here to speak on behalf of the unfortunate cases, the battlers, the struggling students, the traumatised and suffering, the aging and the disempowered. This group are the majority that have been affected by the crippling Newstart system.
The increase has absolutely helped many through the pandemic and has helped many put and keep a roof over their heads, pay bills and eat more regularly. My cholesterol has increased from eating starchy foods because they were cheap but lately, I have been able to buy more fresh fruit and vegetables. At my age and needing to go on unemployment benefits has been one of the most depressing stages of my life, and I have had a few. The operation that led to me being on welfare was traumatic and depressing enough. The constant fear that I will not be able to provide for myself is affecting my physical and mental health. The recent fires and now the virus have affected us all. The feeling of hopelessness hangs over my head. Returning Newstart to the original $40 a day I feel will have many thinking what is there to live for? If only to struggle to survive and be isolated more?
That was what Julie had to say—a woman who has spent her life contributing to our economy but now has breast cancer. She is scared and she feels abandoned by our government. This is the human face, the reality of the government's dogged pursuit of $40 a day. It's not quite the picture many people have, I am sure.
We are suffering through our first recession in 30 years. The number of people in situations like Julie's is only set to increase, and the Morrison government wants to force them to live on $40 a day. It just isn't good enough. Local people deserve better. When people aren't living on the poverty line, they can help keep our shops open; they can do more than barely scrape by so they contribute more to our economy. If our shops are open, guess what—there are more jobs. Who would have thought! Supporting people when they're doing it tough actually helps people out of doing it tough. It contributes to our economy. It creates jobs. It creates opportunity. It's benefit, benefit, benefit—just what we need during a recession. So why is the government stubbornly refusing to do it?
There was ample opportunity in the budget for the government to create jobs in my electorate. We could have improved the Princes Highway, built the Mogo Adventure Trail Hub, the Kiama Arts Precinct and the much needed Eurobodalla Regional Integrated Emergency Services Precinct, and invested in social housing projects, like the one at Bomaderry, and local hospitals, in Milton and the Shoalhaven and the new Eurobodalla Hospital. All of these projects would have created new jobs and stimulated our regional economy. So why didn't the government invest in them when it had the chance? Regional areas have been left behind by a Liberal government that doesn't seem to care.
It is for these reasons that I wholeheartedly support Labor's amendment to this bill. Local people on JobSeeker deserve the same certainty as people on JobKeeper. At the very least—and it really is the very least—those on JobSeeker should be able to continue receiving the coronavirus supplement until March, just like JobKeeper. We owe people like Julie that much. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change things for the most vulnerable in our community. It is simply tragic that the Morrison government is wasting it—wasting the opportunity to help pensioners, to pull people out of poverty and to create regional jobs on the South Coast. What a waste. We can do better. I call on the government to listen to stories like these, take a good look around and decide to seize this opportunity for real change before it's too late.
Today Labor is trying to use this parliament to put an obligation on the minister to better support pensioners. We are moving an amendment to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 to put an obligation on the minister to support the millions of people around Australia who rely on a pension to be able to survive. In Dunkley, almost one in five people in our community is on the age pension, the disability support pension or the carers pension. Close to 25,000 people rely on that pension. I am proud to be standing here today to support the amendment moved by the shadow minister to make this government do more to help those people as we go through one of the worst economic crises this government has seen a century and a global pandemic.
I've had local pensioners contact me to say they don't know how they're going to pay the electricity bill, they don't know how they're going to put petrol in their car, they can't keep their private health insurance and they don't know how they're going to put the next meal on their table. We are a rich country. We are a country that is supposedly built on 'the fair go', which to me and my community means concepts of support and equality, particularly for people who can't always, as the Prime Minister would say, have a go. The Prime Minister likes to say that, if you have a go, you get a go. There are so many in our community who have had a go over and over and over again and are now on an age pension—which isn't allowing them to have a go, let alone live in anything above poverty. There are other people in our community who, through no fault of their own, have a disability or an ailment which means they don't have the capacity to have a go in the same way somebody born into opportunity, wealth and structural advantage has. Those people need support; they deserve our support. That's what our country is about. There are people in my community who are carers, who dedicate their lives and their time to caring for other people—people who are sick, people who have a disability, people who are foster children. They are giving them a better start in life. Those people are having a go but, under this government, they're not getting a go—and more needs to be done.
I've had pensioners say to me that the $250 supplement before Christmas feels to them like an insult. Their pension indexation has been frozen, their meagre savings are going nowhere, the cost of living has risen—and this government hasn't done what it needs to do to help those people get through the crisis that we are going through. To the 25,000 residents of my electorate who rely on the age pension, the disability pension and the carers pension: I've heard you. I've heard your phone calls, your visits and your comments on Facebook. I've heard your cries for just a bit more help to be able to live in dignity. My colleagues and I are urging the government today to hear that too and do more for Australian pensioners.
Labor's amendments today, if they find the support of the House, will also require the minister to announce a permanent increase in the base rate of the JobSeeker payment. There are more people in this country than ever who don't have a job—not because they don't want one, not because they haven't worked hard to get the education and skills required to get one, not because they haven't spent most of their lives running their own small business and always looked after themselves, but because of circumstances outside of their control. Those people face the prospect of having to live on $40 a day in a broken job market where there aren't enough jobs—even when there are jobs, they are often for only a few hours a week—
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] Senate estimates today revealed that the Morrison government provided the small business body COSBOA with $5 million to provide research and assist in the national campaign to encourage all Australians to support their local small businesses—a very worthy goal, which Labor supports. We do support the GO LOCAL FIRST campaign, and we have no reason to think COSBOA has acted improperly. However, given the track record of this government, and given that the hyperpartisan Liberal Party pollster Crosby Textor received some of this taxpayers' money to assist with this campaign without having to bid for the work in an open tender, Labor has the following questions for the government: Can the government guarantee data from the campaign won't be used subsequently in a politically partisan manner? Why are there no reporting requirements to government? How much of the $5 million ended up in the pockets of Crosby Textor? Why didn't the government ensure that taxpayer expenditure was subject to an open tender? Was COSBOA required as a condition of this funding to tender for such work? Did Mark Textor or anyone from Crosby Textor speak with the Prime Minister or the minister or their officers about this matter? These questions should be answered, otherwise we can conclude that the government has something to hide.
During Veterans' Health Week, we reflect at the visible and invisible scars our veterans bear, and look for ways to address them. This year's theme is social connection, which, during this once-in-100-years pandemic is even more relevant than ever.
RSLs and veterans communities are hosting a range of events. In fact, by being here today I'm unfortunately missing the Tanuda RSL veterans' health morning tea, as well as their Mannum RSL social inclusion workshop. Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, like you, I've had the great honour and privilege recently of presenting 75th anniversary medallions to surviving World War II veterans. I must tell you, it is amongst some of the highest honours that I've had in my time in this place. Each and every one of these veterans has an amazing story. Whether it's Howard Hendricks of Loxton, who flew Lancaster bombers no less than 30 times on bombing raids into Germany, or Cyril Jacobs, who served in the Royal Australian Navy and was in the China Sea when the atomic bombs were dropped. This is Australia's greatest generation—men and women who answered the call not out of a sense of adventure, perhaps as World War I veterans did, but out of a sense of duty, knowing that they were entering theatres of war that were hell on earth. I thank them on behalf of the Australian people.
[by video link] I rise to pay tribute to the people of Hotham, who I have this incredible privilege of speaking for in this chamber. These last few months have been hard. They've been really, really hard. COVID has fundamentally affected the life of every single person that I speak for in this chamber. I look across my electorate and I feel so genuinely humbled by the way in which households and families have dealt with the challenges that have been put in front of them in this last period.
Hotham has a very large number of people in the frontline battle against COVID—whether you're one of our healthcare heroes working at Monash Health; whether you're one of our world-beating scientists working on a COVID vaccine at the CSIRO; whether you're an aged-care worker supporting vulnerable residents from Mulgrave to Springvale; whether you're a retail worker who's kept my electorate with food on the table stacking shelves at Oakleigh South or Clayton; whether you're an educator at one of our truly outstanding local schools; or whether you're a good neighbour, as so many of the people I represent are, and you've been using this period to look out for the people around you, I want to say thank you. We owe you a debt of gratitude that the nation will truly never be able to repay. The people of my electorate have made a huge sacrifice, and I hope that I speak on behalf of the whole chamber when I say that Australians thank you, and they won't forget all the hard work that you've put into this enormous effort.
We've been blessed lately with substantial rain in our area. This has led to catchments being able to start to fill dams, which, during the drought, had been critically low. Chaffey Dam, was one of the ones that we first went to work on—when I say 'we', I mean the coalition when the coalition took the seat of New England. We took it from 60,000 megs to 100,000 megs. That didn't happen under Labor. It's now at 30.6 per cent, which relieved some of the water restrictions for the city of Tamworth.
Copeton Dam, which is one of the biggest dams in inland New South Wales, is at 16.3 per cent now, but that's about 200,000 megs of water. Glenbawn Dam is close to half full at 46.3 per cent. Split Rock, which has always had a problem with its catchment, is at 4.7 per cent. Even after all this rain, it's only at 4.7 per cent. Keepit, which supplies a lot of the water for the cotton industry around Narrabri, is about 26 per cent full—only a quarter full. It just goes to show you what a low base we're starting from and reinforces the need for further dams to be built. The coalition is doing that. Dungowan Dam is a classic example of one where work is soon to be underway. We look forward to other dams, such as one on Swamp Oak or Mullet Creek. These are essential in building our nation and making us a stronger place.
Sabah Hafiz was a young woman with her life ahead of her. She was 23 years old. On 14 October, she was murdered in her Wentworthville home, and her husband has been charged with her murder. According to the organisation Impact for Women, Hafiz was the 45th woman in Australia this year to be murdered. That number has increased to 47 since 14 October, and 40 of those murders are related to family and domestic violence.
Last night, Shakti Australia held an online vigil for Sabah. They wanted to remember the beautiful life she lived and to ensure her life did not go in vain. Shakti are a great organisation. They're a not-for-profit that were established by and for migrant women in New Zealand in 1995. They expanded to Australia in 2011 and New South Wales in 2012. They do amazing work, providing a specialist domestic crisis intervention service for women from African, Middle Eastern and Asian migrant communities.
There are very few specialist services for migrant women who often experience culturally sanctioned abuse. Shakti says COVID-19 has made migrant women like Sabah more isolated and vulnerable to domestic violence. It's been called 'the other pandemic', with a recent survey of specialists at 34 community services across New South Wales finding rising rates of women experiencing domestic violence since the onset of the pandemic, with 85 per cent recording an increase in complexity. We need to do much more. My condolences to Sabah's family and friends.
There is no doubt that Australia has been going through one of the toughest economic times we've seen, certainly since the Second World War and possibly since the Depression. So it was delightful news yesterday when the RBA made a statement to Senate estimates that they believe Australia has come out of recession after just two negative quarters of growth. While the rest of the world is still floundering—in many cases, with their economies and their health issues—it's quite an outstanding result that we've reached this point. It is at a time when Victoria has been going through a tough time and dragging the chain. We heard a very spirited speech in this place yesterday from the Treasurer going to the point of some of those concerns. But, at a time when Victoria has been losing 1,200 jobs a day, Australia has actually been gaining 2,000 plus a day. So we're in a net positive as a country. That is fantastic news for Australians, and it's also fantastic news that the women's employment rate is rising faster than the men's employment rate. These are great outcomes. The Treasurer also told us that consumer confidence is up 11 per cent since the budget—that is the best result any budget has ever received in Australia. In fact, consumer confidence levels are back to where they were in March, and—I can't go on anymore; I've run out of time!
You got that right!
Sixteen months ago the Productivity Commission recommended the federal government implement a new whole-of-life support system for veterans, with a focus on minimising and preventing harm during military service and beyond. This is the very least we can do for all those who have fought to protect our way of life. The productivity report is 16 months old, but the need for a support system for our veterans is much older.
Since 1970, there has been around 50 Defence inquiries into issues ranging from sexual and physical abuse to mental health and suicide. The lack of action in response to these inquiries is failing our veterans. So, in Veterans' Health Week, I urge the federal government to announce a royal commission into veteran suicides.
On 25 April this year, we say, 'We will remember them.' But if you're a woman serving in the Australian Defence Force, your risk of suicide doubles. If you're a man, your risk of suicide increases by 21 per cent. And if you're a man who was discharged on mental health grounds, the probability is 66 per cent higher. There are almost 6,000 homeless veterans in our country, and many more who need our support. John is one of them. He is a Vietnam veteran who supports a royal commission. John says, 'It will be too late for some, but a lifesaver for others.' We must do more. We must act. We will remember them.
Last month I had the chance to put on an apron early on a Thursday morning and go down to Rosetta restaurant in the CBD to help out with the Hope Delivery initiative. The Hope Delivery initiative has been set up by the Rockpool Foundation and Neil Perry, the chief behind the Rockpool Foundation. It's operating out of the Rosetta restaurant in Sydney and the Rockpool Bar & Grill in Melbourne. This initiative is all about utilising restaurants, that are otherwise closed, to prepare meals for those who are doing it tough in this pandemic—hospitality workers, the homeless and people who are out of work. In the mornings at these restaurants, volunteers come in and help prepare meals and then pack and dispatch them. So far, since March, since this initiative has been operating, they've delivered over 110,000 meals across Sydney and Melbourne.
Last week alone, it was 6,790 meals that they delivered. As I stood there cutting up polenta, sprinkling garnish over some beef ribs and helping to spoon out the sticky date pudding, I had alongside me Craig Foster, a former Socceroo, and across from me a woman called Michelle, who used to work in marketing for Qantas but was stood aside because of the pandemic but is instead giving her time and her effort to help those who are doing it tough. So I just wanted to give my congratulations to Neil, and people like him, and his Hope Delivery initiative, which is partnering with other charitable organisations, like OzHarvest, to provide meals and look after those in the community who are doing it tough during this difficult time.
This week the bushfires royal commission is scheduled to release its report, and my community, like many communities, is eagerly awaiting the recommendations. Hundreds of homes and outbuildings were destroyed in the fires in the Adelaide Hills and on Kangaroo Island, but our communities are resilient. Despite the double blow of fires and then COVID, recovery is happening.
This week we say a farewell to the BlazeAid volunteers who have been working in the Adelaide Hills. These amazing volunteers—who I'm told are of an average age of 68 years—started working with our residents in January. In the ensuing months, around 1,000 came and went, erecting more than 200,000 kilometres of fencing and helping more than 400 properties. The Kangaroo Island BlazeAid is still open and the volunteers are still working—rain, hail or shine. They're a real morale booster to our community.
Local CFS brigades are also enjoying renewed support. CFS data shows 887 new volunteers have signed up between January and October this year—the biggest annual increase in recruitment since 2015, when my community experienced the Sampson Flat fire.
The royal commission will no doubt make many recommendations about how we need to manage the growing threat of more frequent and intense fire behaviour. But, today, I would like to thank all the volunteers who have reached out to help the community—my community; our community—in our recovery journey.
I rise to commend the opening late last week of the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, ACCCE. Located in my home city of Brisbane, this facility is now Australia's frontline in the fight against child sexual exploitation. I want to commend Minister Dutton in this place on creating the facility. It is a tremendous legacy in the fight to protect our kids, and they have no greater advocate in this place than Minister Dutton.
The new purpose-built facility brings together resources from government agencies, law enforcement and other partners, like the Daniel Morcombe Foundation, into a centralised hub. I've visited the facility and I've spoken personally to the dedicated AFP and Queensland police officers undertaking this work. They are viewing the most horrendous material imaginable in order to track offenders and rescue kids. They are undercover in the darkest recesses of the internet, tracking and exposing predators. As a nation, as a parliament and as parents we owe these officers endless gratitude for the work that they do and the personal toll that they have to bear in order to do it.
In the last 12 months, the ACCCE received more than 21,000 incoming reports of child exploitation. The facility delivers an unprecedented capability to investigate and combat these crimes, and its latest operation saw 87 offenders arrested, over 1,200 offenders charged and 24 children saved. Thank you so much to these officers for leading the fight on behalf of Australian parents.
Australians are waking up to this Prime Minister from marketing. He loves announcements, but he never delivers what he promises. His favourite thing is the tacky marketing names for his programs. 'I've a cunning plan, Baldrick! I'll say 'job' a lot and then people won't notice that I don't actually have a jobs plan. I'll rename Newstart JobSeeker. I'll repackage my $3 billion TAFE cuts as JobTrainer.' The budget, though, gave us JobMaker, which the Prime Minister claims will create 450,000 jobs. Except Treasury told the truth: it'll only create 45,000 jobs—10 per cent of the Prime Minister's spin. He should rename that one 'JobFaker'.
If the Prime Minister weren't such a fake, we'd get more honest names. 'MateKeeper' would be No. 1—his program to keep Liberal mates and failed politicians close by stacking them onto boards. That's what Australia Post is for, right? And so are ASIC, the AAT and all the embassies—to give Liberal mates something to do. Once you're on 'MateKeeper', though, if you're really lucky, you'll be eligible for 'KeepMating'. That would not be a new policy for the baby boom; 'KeepMating' would be the honest name for their favourite mates on 'MateKeeper' who get the extra bonuses—Cartier watches, hotel suites and free rent. The Liberal Party could just be called 'MateTrainer'. As Angela tweeted:
And I can't wait for them to announce #HouseKeeper for all the women that end up jobless because this repulsive government had a #MorrisonRecession and a #BlokeyBudget
The Prime Minister from marketing is a nasty fake, and Australians deserve much, much better.
A point of order by the minister?
The member's not referring to the Prime Minister by his correct title, and he should do so.
The member was not referring to the Prime Minister personally in the way he was making his comments.
It's my pleasure to rise and update the House on progress on a very important project in my electorate, the Kensington Gardens Reserve, which is a great combination of three good governments—the federal government, the state government and the local Burnside council. I was there just a few weeks ago to be at the sod turning of that upgrade. We're committing $3 million to this project, as are the Burnside council. We are lucky that, with the recent state government announcement for local government stimulus grants, that project is going to be enhanced with an extra almost $800,000 from the state government. So now we've got all three levels of government coming together.
We've now appointed the lead contractor and work has commenced. It was very exciting to be there with my colleagues the state member David Pisoni and Mayor Anne Monceaux to turn that sod. The project is going to take about six months. It's going to be a great outcome for the local community from two points of view. Firstly, we're dramatically improving the local amenity, installing a nature play for young kids in the area and better facilities for families to enjoy that great local asset. But, secondly, it's also a very significant environmental outcome, because Stonyfell Creek and the duck pond there is being turned into a significant wetland. We're going to make sure that the stormwater that flows through the local neighbourhood is better cleaned before it goes into Stonyfell Creek and ultimately the River Torrens. I'm really proud of that commitment that we've made and, more importantly, that we're now delivering in my electorate of Sturt.
Seven years is a long time, and no doubt it feels so much longer for refugees who have been detained indefinitely. It's been seven years since New Zealand offered hope to those refugees in Papua New Guinea and Nauru to resettle them in New Zealand. So today we must say enough is enough and that the Australian government must do the deal, as more than 60,000 Australians have urged us, backed in by Amnesty International, Craig Foster and Sonny Bill Williams. This morning, I received this petition, along with many colleagues—the member for Barton, the member for Griffith, the member for Macarthur, the member for Cowan, the member for Bean, the member for Fowler, the member for Warringah and Senators Faruqi and Hanson-Young.
There are hard questions that we need to grapple with when it comes to the world that we live in in terms of people who are displaced and need our help. But this question should not be hard if we listen to our hearts and to the generosity of Aunty Violet, who welcomed us to country this morning and called on the Prime Minister and his government to act. So, Prime Minister, listen to her and listen to Sonny Bill. As he said, sign the paper; get it done. This is bigger than politics. We can—indeed, we must—secure our borders, but we can do so without abandoning our humanity.
It's appropriate you're in the chair, Speaker, because the great state of Victoria is back! Victorians have made huge sacrifices. Families have lost loved ones. Students lost six months of school. Teenagers have lost rites of passage. Workers have lost jobs. Small businesses have closed, and many are destined to never reopen. Families were locked in their homes for 23 hours a day. Everyone's mental health took a hit. Devastatingly, for some it was too much to bear. The front line wasn't in Spring Street or here in Canberra. The front line was hospitals, schools and communities, with barricades manned by nurses, doctors, teachers, carers and parents.
The privilege of Australia's geography has been that we can keep the virus out. The border should never have been breached. When it happened in Sydney, their contact-tracing system kicked in and stopped the spread. Sadly, the same cannot be said of my home state.
We now have a sustainable pathway, rebalanced from one suppressing freedom to one that trusts and respects Victorians. We hope the lessons have been learned. It didn't need to be this way. It should never have been this way. And that's why this is a victory for the people of Victoria, and no-one else.
While members of the government have been busy this week slapping themselves on the back for the things they've never done, Labor members of parliament have been busy uncovering and exposing scandal after scandal after scandal. What an extraordinary week it's been.
Last night, in Senate estimates, we heard about the helicopter for special forces that won't work—$3.7 billion for that little snafu. Tell us again about what great managers of money you are! Then we've got the COVIDSafe app. They spent $7 million in the last two months alone on an app that doesn't work. It discovers nothing. It was supposed to get us out from under the doona, but, instead, the COVIDSafe app has hit the snooze button and it's still under the doona. We've had the JobMaker program. It was supposed to create 450,000 jobs. It'll be lucky if it creates 10 per cent of those—again, a triumph of marketing over reality. There's $118,000 in unlawful payments to the top corporate regulator so that he could get advice on how to minimise his tax. Tell us again what great managers of money you are! And then you've got the one trillion dollars worth of debt, and nothing to show for it. Come on, stand up; tell us again what great managers of money you are!
Queensland's rural fire brigades and their volunteers are heroes. They were there for communities during the horrific 'black summer' of bushfires, and they continue to be there for our rural communities today, whether it's doing fire mitigation, or education and training in our local communities. But, sadly, the current state Labor government don't see the value of our rural fire brigades and have cut funding by $6.4 million over the last two years.
To rub salt into the wound of the residents of Forde living in the suburbs of Shailer Park, Cornubia and Carbrook, instead of delivering a rural fire brigade to these communities and to the rural Redlands, the government have decided to put an urban firefighting station just down the road from an existing urban firefighting station—on the eve of an election; it's another classic example of how incompetent this state Labor government is—with trucks too big and too ineffective to fight fires in the difficult terrain. The community does not want another urban station when there are already four brigades within a 12-minute response time.
This last-minute decision by the current state Labor government on the eve of an election flies in the face of 70 dedicated locals who have already put up their hands to volunteer for the Mount Cotton rural fire brigade, a brigade only approved earlier this year after years of dithering and delay by the likes of the member for Springwood, Mick de Brenni; and the member for Macalister, Melissa McMahon. It's an LNP team that will deliver the rural fire brigade service that is needed— (Time expired)
Yesterday the Treasurer was in here all angry—angry at the Victorian government, angry about what had happened in Victoria. The Treasurer doesn't have the right to be angry. He's in a position to do something about it. As Treasurer of this country, he's in the prime seat to lead the economic recovery that has government, and all of the powers that government brings, to do something about it. If the Treasurer is to be angry at anyone, it should be his own government, and the failed app. Don't be angry at the Victorian government for the lack of contact tracing. What about the app that particularly failed?
Victorians are in front of the Treasurer when it comes to the right to be angry—the people who've lost loved ones in aged care because this government neglected the sector, the people who've lost their businesses, the people who are struggling to get back on their feet—yet what we have is an angry government, angry and blaming everyone else. Well, you don't get that luxury. You are the government. It is your job to step up and help lead this country out of an economic recession that has been brought on by a pandemic but made worse because its government will not take responsibility and a Treasurer chooses an opportunity in this parliament to get angry and blame others, not to do his job.
The Treasurer has the power, through the budget, to help others out. Extend JobKeeper, extend JobSeeker, help small businesses through this tough time. Don't be angry, don't be a crankypants; do your job.
I rise to provide an update on the Morrison government's commitment to addressing the GP shortage on the Central Coast, particularly in suburbs across the peninsula, including Woy Woy, Ettalong and Umina Beach. Hunter New England and Central Coast Primary Health Network has been working with an advisory group of 10 local doctors, who meet monthly to advise on strategies and activities to improve the recruitment and retention of GPs across our region. Actions taken by the group so far include looking into the new health workforce distribution priority area classification system, which replaced the district of workforce shortage assessment areas. The advisory group is also undertaking a survey of a number of GP practices to ensure they gather a broad range of views to inform future recommendations, and working with the University of Newcastle to attract mentors and financial support for medical students to intern with local GPs. This work, I'm advised, will assist in building connections and fostering relationships with service providers to drive local solutions.
The lack of GPs across the Central Coast, in my electorate of Robertson in particular, with the difficulty that residents have in booking an appointment to see their local doctor when they need one, is an issue that we've been fighting to address. It's a challenge that I'll continue to ensure gets attention and action. I commend the work of our PHN so far and I'm looking forward to seeing more GPs on the peninsula to provide world-class health care to our region. (Time expired)
Last year the Prime Minister was so concerned to ensure that Craig Kelly continued as member for Hughes that he intervened to save his pre-selection. How has the member for Hughes been serving his electorate?
The member will resume his seat. The minister, on a point of order?
I'd ask that the member for McMahon refer to members by their correct title.
Craig Kelly—
I refer the assistant minister to my previous rulings on the matter, about context. The member for McMahon has the call.
How's the member for Hughes been serving his electorate? He's given 25 speeches in parliament over the past six months. One has been on legislation; four have been about Victorian lockdowns—Hughes is in New South Wales; three have promoted climate change denial; and nine have promoted dangerous disinformation about hydroxychloroquine. Only two could generously be regarded as being about his electorate of Hughes.
He's also been prolific on Facebook. He's had 152 posts on Facebook. Thirty have been about the Victorian lockdowns and his loathing for Premier Andrews, 27 have promoted climate change denial, seven have supported Donald Trump, and 63 have undermined the medical advice on hydroxychloroquine. None have been about his electorate. There've been no shout-outs to the people of Hughes, there's been no lobbying for his electorate—none—whilst 63 posts have promoted hydroxychloroquine. He has supported conspiracy theories about COVID-19 and the deep state.
Hughes deserves better than the member for Hughes. Hughes deserves a member standing up for it. Hughes deserves better than the captain's call.
In accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. When did the Prime Minister first speak to his foreign minister about the horrific treatment of Australian women removed from planes in Qatar almost a month ago?
As was indicated by the foreign minister in estimates earlier today, it was during the course of this week.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Today the government received the final report from the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements. Will the minister outline the government's next steps and how we are continuing to prepare for, and recover from, natural disasters?
I thank the member for Cowper for his question. I also thank him and I thank every member in this chamber in the way that they supported their communities through what was a very trying time for our nation. Tragically 33 people lost their lives. Ten of those were emergency service personnel. It's fitting that on national emergency service remembrance day the royal commission into natural disasters in Australia handed the report to the Governor-General this morning. The letters patent were signed by every state and territory and the Commonwealth in agreement around what would be looked at in that commission of inquiry.
It is now appropriate—the Prime Minister has written to every state—that we simultaneously release that report on Friday, so there's full transparency around recovery and around preparedness into the future. That recovery, in fact, started the very next day after fires went through a lot of those communities. Over $250 million was put out in immediate support payments to people impacted by these bushfires—$1,000 per adult, $400 per child. There have been 4,882 properties that have been cleaned up, in partnership with state and federal governments—helping that recovery.
There was a $2 billion fund created to help the long-term recovery as well. To date $1.2 billion of that has been spent. There are 29 programs covering the environment, mental health, child care. But the signature piece of that is the local economic recovery plans. This was about local recovery, not Canberra recovery. We want to empower the communities to tell us how they build back better? To engage and empower communities to tell us how we do that $448 million has been set aside. What is the infrastructure that they need to recover, not only economically, but socially?
We've also looked to the future. We've said we need to greater understand these events. There is $88 million into research and development—not only understanding the climate, but also equipping our firefighters with the tools to be able to do their jobs safely. It's also been around technology—telecommunications. There is $37 million in building resilience in the infrastructure that will keep us safe and keep our emergency service people safe during fires as well. We've worked with the states in terms of preparedness, trying to harmonise those recovery payments so there's consistency from one state to the next, but also, more importantly, making sure that our warning systems are harmonised, that those symbols that people rely on are harmonised. There's a single source of truth to keep them safe——practical measures. We thank the royal commission and the commissioners for their diligent work in understanding that this is a serious issue for Australia's future and preparedness. Our legacy to those who've lost their lives, particularly the emergency service personnel, is to learn from the past, but more importantly, to prepare better for the future.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can he confirm that he did not speak to his foreign minister about the horrific incident in Qatar involving Australian women until after Senate estimates today? I further ask when did the Prime Minister or his foreign minister first speak to their counterparts in Qatar to express Australia's outrage about the horrific treatment of these Australian women almost a month ago?
The assertion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is incorrect—
Mr Marles interjecting—
Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister has the call.
The assertion was made in the question about the contact between me and the foreign minister, and the assertion put forward in that question was not correct. The Minister for Foreign Affairs set out the timetable of the contact with the counterparts, including directly by our ambassador, with the consular officials and with the government of Qatar as well as with Qatari Airways.
Honourable members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will pause for a second. I again am going to say to members: when these specific questions are asked, I am not going to tolerate interjections. It's a farcical situation where specific questions are asked, I'm trying to listen to the answer and I have people interjecting and preventing me from doing that. The Prime Minister has the call.
The timetable for those exchanges was set out by the foreign minister today.
The Leader of the Opposition wishes to table a document?
I do. This is the draft transcript from Senate estimates, where Senator Payne indicates that she said no discussions—
No, I refer to my earlier ruling. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I've made it very clear that, when it comes to tabling documents, there is no point tabling Hansard or even draft Hansard.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
They are available; you've got it in your hand!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic as the Morrison government continues to implement its plans to keep us safely open and drive both job creation and economic growth?
I thank the member for O'Connor for his question. The economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession has begun. It's a recovery that is absolutely necessary for all Australians, whether it being in the member for O'Connor's electorate or anywhere else across this country. It was Standard and Poor's who spoke about the Australian economy beginning to recover when they affirmed Australia's AAA credit rating. The Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank has also made comments to this effect. Now, ultimately, technically, what the National Accounts figures show will be there for us to see in December, and we will wait till that time, but that will not change the actions of the government in responding to the most significant economic crisis this country has seen since the Great Depression.
Confidence is building as Australia reopens. We saw that with the response to the budget—the single largest increase we'd seen since records were kept in response to budgets: a lift of some 12 per cent. We've seen it in the Westpac survey, which shows that there is now a key turning point: there are more optimists than there are pessimists when it comes to the Australian economy. And it reflects a bit what the truth is in this House. The optimists about the Australian economy sit on this side of the chamber, and those who seek to talk down the Australian economy sit on the other side and constitute the pessimists. But the Australian people are increasingly confident as Australia reopens, and the national framework for reopening Australia by Christmas, supported by premiers and chief ministers around the country, is giving Australians more and more confidence. We particularly encourage and acknowledge again the major change overnight in Victoria. As Victoria reopens, indeed Australia will be more open. As businesses re-open, people get back to work. There are more steps to be taken, and that national framework ensures that not only does Australia safely re-open; it remains safely open. And that is through the important metrics and measures that are put in place: world-class surveillance systems, quarantine and isolation systems, testing and tracing, and outbreak health responsiveness. All of this is necessary to keep Australia open and to keep Australia moving forward.
The economic recovery plan set out by the Treasurer in this year's budget to the COVID-19 recession—whether it's getting people back into jobs supported by a hiring credit; whether it's the tax cuts that allows Australians to keep more of what they earn; or whether it's school leavers who are leaving school very soon and know that there are 340,000 extra training places through the JobTrainer program, the additional university places or short-course places made available by the Minister for Education. The HomeBuilder program is building homes all around the country. All of these programs are getting Australians back to work. The recovery in Australia has begun and will continue under this government. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why hasn't DFAT contacted any of the women involved in the horrific incident in Qatar but left it solely to the AFP? Why hasn't the Prime Minister talked to his counterpart in Qatar? Why hasn't the Minister for Foreign Affairs talked to her counterpart in Qatar? Why is it that the government has known about this incident since 2 October but it only came to light on Sunday?
The government has registered its strong disapproval and outrage at these events. We have done that directly with the Qatari government. I am appalled by these events. I cannot imagine—as I said today, I shudder at the invasive nature of what has occurred here, and the Australian government will continue to pursue these matters directly with the Qatari government. We have received the assurance that we will have the investigator's report on the matter. That will be provided to us. We expect to receive that before the end of this week, and we'll be taking further action after we have had the opportunity to review that investigative report.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians. The government's own data shows that the waiting list for home-care packages dropped by just 2,000 over the first six months of this year. At this rate, it will take 26 years to clear the home-care waiting list. What will the government do to accelerate the provision of home-care packages, and by what date does it expect to have provided home-care packages to every Australian entitled to one?
I want to thank the member for Indi, and I appreciate the intent, sincerity and focus in relation to this. One of the most significant sources of investment in the budget was precisely to address home-care places—$1.6 billion was invested to further reduce wait times. I'm advised that, at this point in time, 98 per cent of those who are seeking home-care packages have been given access to support through the Commonwealth Home Support Program or the Home Care Packages Program, but we want to make sure that reaches 100 per cent. That's why we invested $1.6 billion in 26,000 places, as part of the budget. Those places come on top of an extra 3,000 places, which were announced in recent months, and indeed they come on top of an increase from 60,000 places, when we came into government, to 185,000 places, before the end of this year.
So what we are doing to address what I think is a very important and real and significant question is to invest on a scale vastly above that which has ever occurred before. To put it in perspective, there has been a 28 per cent increase in those over 70 since we came into government, there has been a tripling or a 200 per cent increase in the number of places available for home care, and there has been a quadrupling or a 300 per cent increase in the total funding available, from $1.15 billion to $4.5 billion over the course of next financial year. All of those are immensely important, but, at the same time, they come on the back of the work that's been done to improve quality—the adoption of quality indicators, the royal commission, which the Prime Minister called at his earliest time upon coming into office—
The minister will just pause and take a seat for a second. The member for Indi on a point of order?
Yes, relevance. I'm keen to know what date the government expects to have provided home-care packages to every Australian entitled to one.
The member for Indi had a preamble and two questions. I'll ask the minister to return to the dispatch box. He has the call.
Thank you very much. As I indicated, already 98 per cent of those who are seeking home care have either received an offer or accepted Commonwealth home support or some form of home care. Our goal is, at the earliest possible time, to lift that to 100 per cent. That's the direct answer to the question.
More generally, not only have we made sure that there is a very significant increase—a tripling—in the number of home-care places, but, in addition to that, what we've done is work assiduously on the questions and importance of quality. I am reminded that today, on the best advice, received before coming to question time, we have no active cases in Victorian aged care, and I think that's a signature moment for everybody. (Time expired)
My question is to the
I thank the member for his question. He refers to the road back from COVID-19—a road which is paved with opportunity, a road which is paved with infrastructure investment, a road which is being helped by the budget that the Treasurer announced this month, a budget which was very, very good for regional Australia. I know that regional members on both sides of the House were very pleased as to what it will achieve and bring to their electorates—not least of which is the $2 billion road safety upgrades. Many of those upgrades will be in regional electorates. There is $1 billion for the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. In the member's electorate are Banana Shire Council, Bundaberg Regional Council, Central Highlands Regional Council, Gladstone Regional Council, North Burnett Regional Council, Rockhampton Regional Council, South Burnett Regional Council and Woorabinda Aboriginal Shire Council—all of which are going to share in $29.6 million under the LRCI Program. And there is $200 million for another round of the highly popular Building Better Regions Fund. That has made such a difference for regional communities.
The member for Flynn represents Gladstone. Gladstone is about coal. Gladstone is about powering Australia's economy. Gladstone is one of those wonderful regional cities, the potential of which is unlimited. Yesterday there was an opportunity for coal for Collinsville, for Gladstone, that was accepted and adopted by this side of the house. One member opposite, the member for Hunter, had a chance to support coal, to support what we are doing. He missed the boat. The ship has sailed.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith.
Speaking of ships, the Gladstone port is one of those deep ports which are providing such a difference for regional Australia. Opened in 1914, coal is 70 per cent of the exports through that port—50 million tonnes each and every year. I know that the member for Flynn supports that. The member for Hunter says he supports that, but we saw yesterday that he failed in his opportunity to do so. Our investment in road and rail, supported through the COVID recovery—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith will cease interjecting.
our efforts through the budget, are going to back regional Australia all the way. I was very proud this afternoon to launch the Regional Activators Alliance—talking up regional Australia. Plenty of those opposite are very pessimistic about the future. They talk down regional Australia. They talk down our nation in general. But we are there. We are supporting regional Australia through the budget. We are supporting infrastructure investment—our $110-billion pipeline of investment to support electorates such as Flynn, to support port such as Gladstone and the city in general, to support jobs. That's what we're about—supporting regional jobs, supporting regional communities and getting on with it.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that last night the Small Business Ombudsman and former Liberal Chief Minister of the ACT, Kate Carnell, told estimates, 'The costs of child care are just too high. It's a productivity issue and it's something that needs to be addressed'? Is he also aware that she said, 'I'm acutely aware that this is not the policy of the government at this stage, but my job is to put on the table what matters to small business'?
Because child care is so important is the reason the government made the changes to child care. As a result of those changes the out-of-pocket expenses for child care have fallen by just over three per cent. Prior to that, they were rising, that is true—and under those opposite they increased by 50 per cent when their reforms only saw childcare costs go through the roof. We had the Productivity Commission report. We listened to that Productivity Commission report. We crafted changes to the childcare system which not only saw the out-of-pocket expenses for child care, compared to before the reforms, come down, but, in addition, saw workforce participation increase. In particular, it saw female workforce participation increase to record levels, and it saw the gender pay gap fall to new lows. On top of that, we know that there are many, many—of course there are; women are incredibly entrepreneurial. All family makers are entrepreneurial. We have a government that has a minister for family business—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The member for Kingston has asked her question.
because we understand that, when you're running a family business, it requires all of the family's involvement, and the sacrifices that families make as part of those small family businesses are significant. Many of the members who sit on this side of the chamber, and in the other place, have grown up in family businesses. It's important that family businesses get that support, and that's why we made the changes that we did. But, as is always the case, in the supports that we provide, we make sure that they're targeted and we make sure that they're means tested and that those who need it the most get the most support, and that's what our changes did.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the Morrison government's strong economic leadership is helping the Australian economy recover from the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic? And is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Sturt for his question and acknowledge his time in the wool industry and acknowledge his time working in government. And, unlike the previous member for Sturt, this member for Sturt gets his own lemon when he has a G&T!
This member for Sturt and others on this side of the House understand that the economic recovery is now underway: 446,000 jobs have been created in the last four months, 60 per cent of which have gone to women and 40 per cent of which have gone to young people. We saw consumer sentiment numbers increase by 11.9 per cent this month—the single largest increase in a budget month since the series first began in 1974. We've seen our AAA credit rating reaffirmed. And Australia is one of only nine countries in the world to have a AAA credit rating from the three leading agencies. Consumer confidence has now increased eight weeks in a row, coming back to where it was in the early March period.
Our economic support measures have helped keep Australians in work and saved 700,000 Australian jobs: JobKeeper, JobSeeker, the $750 cash payments and, of course, the cash flow boost, which has supported the working capital of businesses. I had the good fortune to join the member for Sturt in his electorate at Hibernia Cafe in Magill, to catch up with James and the other staff at that cafe and to see firsthand how the economic recovery is underway in South Australia and, indeed, across the country. That business had used JobKeeper, that business had used the cash flow boost and that business was now graduating out of JobKeeper, with the customers coming back as the virus had been suppressed.
In the budget was the next phase of our economic recovery plan, a plan which will see the creation of nearly one million new jobs in the next few years. Of course, in that budget were tax cuts for 11½ million Australians. In that budget were further investments in research and development; in apprentices; in training programs like the JobTrainer program; and in the JobMaker hiring credit, which is designed to help those aged 16 to 35 move from the unemployment queue into work. That's what our budget was about—creating jobs across the Australian economy. The economic recovery is underway, and Australians can have hope about their economic future.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr Gary Barnier, who is being paid $920,000 in borrowed money by the government, bullied a 94-year-old, offered $10,000 of hush money to a family who complained about substandard care and ran an aged-care facility where a resident was found with maggots in her mouth?
I will ask the Minister for Health to add further to my answer. That information is not available to me. If the member would like to provide those details and that information, I will undertake to follow up that matter. The Minister for Health may want to add to the answer.
I'm pleased to take this question. I would respectfully caution the member about making such statements under the cover of this House. I think one thing that is incumbent on all of us is to treat with great respect the privilege which comes with the ability to use the dispatch box.
I'm very happy to provide the information that I have. Mr Barnier has been a member of the Aged Care Financing Authority since he was appointed by the then Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Jacinta Collins, in 2013. I'm also happy to advise that, on his appointment to the current role, the matters raised were considered by the department and government during the reappointment process. I think it's particularly important to indicate that in 2018 the Nous Group conducted an independent review into Opal Aged Care and that the report made a number of recommendations to identify areas for improvement. The report did not identify any wrongdoing or make any adverse findings in relation to the conduct of Mr Barnier. I believe that that is an important fact before this House.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting the health of Australians by investing in critical COVID-19 research and vaccines to assist in our road to recovery?
I thank the member for Wentworth. One of the things that have been incredibly important during the course of COVID-19 has been to look at what's happening in Australia and to look at what's happening around the world. What we see in Australia is that in the last 24 hours there were three community transmission cases. Globally, we've seen 459,000 cases and the seventh consecutive day of over 400,000 cases. What that shows is that the disease not only continues abroad but is accelerating: prior to this week there had been one week where there was one day of over 400,000 cases. So the challenge facing the world is greater than ever. Australia, obviously, through its containment strategy, has been deeply successful. We've had our challenges. We've had our agonies. We've had great loss. But by comparison, we've had an extraordinary outcome.
At the same time as the containment strategy there is also the capacity, which is fundamental to what Australia is seeking to do. Right at the heart of that capacity-building approach is what we do with vaccines. All up, Australia is investing approximately $2.3 billion in vaccine acquisition, vaccine research and therapeutic and treatment research. In particular, with regard to vaccines, we're investing over $1.7 billion in our two lead vaccine candidates at this point in time, the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine and the University of Queensland molecular clamp developed here in Australia. Both vaccines will be largely delivered through production at CSL's facility in Melbourne, which is an exceptionally important step for Australia. In relation to the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, there have been very positive reports this week of strong T-cell and antibody response to the vaccine. That's cause for hope for Australia and it's cause for hope for the world. This is a vaccine on which we were fortunate, on the advice of the medical expert panel led by Professor Murphy and Professor Paul Kelly with some of Australia's finest experts, to have made what appears to have been the right choice.
There are no guarantees, but this week's results, coming out of phase 3 trials, are deeply important. It means that we are on track for first vaccines to be delivered in the first quarter of 2021. Equally, the results coming out of the early phase trials in relation to the molecular clamp are also very positive—good T-cell and good antibody results, as the Prime Minister heard on his visit. So the vaccine story is one where we are giving real and genuine hope to Australian families. (Time expired)
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister justified giving tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to the owners of private jets because they helped ensure frontline medical personnel could get around the country. How many frontline medical personnel did billionaire Clive Palmer carry on his luxury private jet?
Our entire aviation sector will be critical in supporting the broader economy in the recovery from the COVID-19 crisis. It supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, promotes competition and ensures services regularly reach all Australians. 'It is not possible for the aviation industry to hibernate over coming months without adequate government support'—
Opposition members interjecting—
I can hear them yelling opposite, but that is what the member for Ballarat, the shadow minister for transport, actually had to say on 3 April. We acknowledge that it was necessary to provide the support on a sector-wide basis and we did not discriminate between airlines. We did not discriminate against those operating charter flights. Let me tell you that the Royal Flying Doctor Service was also a beneficiary of the support that we have provided—$2.7 billion of support for the aviation sector.
I'm asked about the importance of and what has transpired with charter flights. I've said all along, repeatedly and ad nauseam, that planes in the air means jobs on the ground. From a practical point of view, every commercial flight—and this is an important point—requires a minimum of one to two pilots, one cabin crew, one ground crew, one check in, one airport reporting officer, one air traffic controller, one maintainer engineer, one firefighter, one airline operations personnel and one refueller. So every plane that takes off and lands requires ground crew and requires people to ensure—
Opposition members interjecting—
You may laugh and you may mock, but the fact is we are providing valuable assistance for the aviation sector. That's valuable assistance that the shadow minister supported then and obviously does not support now.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Will the minister please update the House on how the Australian Defence Force has been deployed to assist states and territories with returned traveller movement and facilitation?
I thank the honourable member for her question and her keen interest in making sure that we can help Australians recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Obviously the federal government, from the very early days of this year, have been involved in making crucial decisions. We closed our international borders and, at that stage, the Defence Force were involved in that decision and they helped us carry out that decision. We have made decisions in relation to providing support to a number of areas across the country.
In particular, I really want to acknowledge the work of the Australian Defence Force and the work that they did in Victoria. In July, Commodore Mark Hill from the Royal Australian Navy and Colonel Bec Taylor from the Army were deployed to Victoria to provide senior military logistics and planning support to assist the Victorian DHHS in ramping up and improving contact tracing. Obviously there was a real concern in Victoria about the adequacy of the contact tracing, and the Defence Force have gone in to provide their expertise and to provide support to the Victorian government to help it get its standards up to where New South Wales and the other states were.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley can leave under 94(a).
The member for Chifley then left the chamber—
I know that, as of this week, there are currently 2,200 defence personnel deployed as part of Operation COVID-19 Assist, and I really want to pay tribute to the 9,000 personnel with the Australian Defence Force who have been deployed in total throughout the pandemic. It makes every Australian proud to see those men and women in uniform, providing reassurance to people in very difficult circumstances. It follows on, of course, from the work that thousands of men and women of the ADF undertook during the bushfire season—the support that they provided to communities to help those communities rebuild and to provide, as I say, the logistics and expertise that many other organisations, NGOs et cetera, just can't bring to the table.
Over many years the ADF has been trained to an exceptionally high standard. We've been able to invest in the ADF because we have put a lot of effort into getting our budget in order over recent years. We went into this pandemic having really dealt with the difficult situation budget-wise that we inherited from the Labor Party in 2013, and we have worked every day since then, including in the most recent budget—given that we do have a strong budget position—to provide support to Australians not just through JobKeeper and JobSeeker but by putting extra investment into the Australian Defence Force so that they can support their personnel to help Australia move beyond the devastation of COVID-19.
I commend the Chief of the Defence Force and all of the personnel. They should be very proud, as we are, of their efforts that have really made a significant difference to Australia's effort to combat the pandemic.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to the government subsidising Clive Palmer's luxury private jets and his comments about the LNP. As Clive says, 'I don't say goodbye to friends I've known for many years.' When did the government first realise it was subsidising luxury private jets for its friends?
I thank the member for Oxley for his question. In total, more than 1,360 operators have been supported to date. It's like the JobKeeper program. We didn't discriminate among those receiving JobKeeper. We provided it to all businesses that were eligible. It's like with the—
Opposition members interjecting—
I'm 23 seconds into the answer—
The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
The Deputy Prime Minister is answering by referring to the JobKeeper program for keeping people in work. We're talking about one of Australia's wealthiest people and his luxury private jet.
Manager of Opposition Business, I'm going to take that as a point of order on relevance, and the Deputy Prime Minister is 23 seconds into the answer. Before I call him back to the dispatch box—just put your seatbelt on for a tick! The nature of questions like this which are borderline, very borderline, where they're asking about political parties and friends and all the rest of it, certainly mean for me there is a much wider tolerance. The question could easily have been ruled out of order. I notice the Manager of Opposition Business shaking his head. If I applied the standing orders, I think I could have ruled it out five different ways, okay? And I won't go through them all now. So I do allow a lot more latitude, and, as I've said, we will address this at a later point. When it comes to questions and answers, I have to say—and I just give fair warning now—questions that are essentially political attack statements create a proportionate response, and, if the House wants to fix that, I'm more than happy to help, but it'll mean the questions will be very specific and the answers will be much shorter. But, on this question, the Deputy Prime Minister is being relevant to it—in fact, even re-reading it now, as I said, he's entitled to be answering in the way he is.
As I said, this program has supported 1,360 operators, including the one mentioned, who does employ a lot of Australians, let's face it. Love him or loathe him, he employs a lot of Australians, and we don't ask who goes on his planes. We don't ask. We haven't discriminated—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The Deputy Prime Minister will pause. The member for McMahon will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for McMahon then left the chamber.
I'd point out to those interjecting that there are a significant number of their colleagues who don't interject and I'm not going to detain the House by going through all of those I repeatedly ask not to interject. The Deputy Prime Minister.
I don't know why those opposite are engaging in this class warfare. We are getting on with the job of helping all Australians—all Australians, no matter what their stated income is—through this COVID recession. What I want to see, as the aviation minister, the minister responsible for transport, is more planes in the air, and we could do that by lifting those restrictions on our borders so that we can facilitate more interstate travel. More interstate travel means more planes flying to more destinations, and more jobs.
My question is on policy on a matter related to the Australian people, which is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's JobTrainer package is providing critical support to businesses as we recover from the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for his question. JobTrainer has been a crucial part of our plan for economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession. It's helping jobseekers to upskill and it's providing the skilled workforce that is needed. JobTrainer is a $2 billion investment supporting our businesses, our apprentices, our trainees and our jobseekers.
Mr Hill interjecting—
The member for Bruce is warned.
There's $1.5 billion in wage subsidies to help keep apprentices in jobs and to help the businesses that employ them to remain operational through the impacts of COVID-19.
The other component of JobTrainer is a $500 million co-contribution to the $1 billion JobTrainer Fund. This is a partnership, with matched funding from the states and territories, to create up to 340,700 extra training places that are free or at a low fee. These training places are in areas of identified skills need and they're for Australians who are looking for jobs, including our school leavers, who will graduate just next month. The participating states and territories help determine the priority areas through the National Skills Commission so that training can be focused on in-demand employment areas. This is about delivering the skilled workers that our businesses need now for the recovery.
So far, every state and territory in the country except Victoria has signed up to the JobTrainer Fund. These extra training places are already available in several states. We are continuing to work with Victoria and we do hope that they sign up. I encourage the Victorian government to take advantage of the opportunities that the JobTrainer Fund provides to them so that they are in a better position to recover quickly. Victoria is a great state. It has been absolutely heartbreaking to see what they have had to endure for the past couple of months, and our hearts clearly go out to the Victorians, but I want to say to the people in Victoria: the Commonwealth government is here to support you. We are ready, willing and able to provide an additional $130 million, through the JobTrainer Fund, for around 50,000 training places in both full qualifications and short courses.
Mr Hill interjecting—
The member for Bruce will leave under standing order 94(a).
An opposition member interjecting—
It happens when you interject after you've been warned; that's sort of how it happens.
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.
Skills training is so important as we recover from the pandemic, and the Australian government is here to support all Australians.
My second question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to the tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars given to billionaire Clive Palmer's company to subsidise his luxury private jet. What are the Deputy Prime Minister and the his Queensland mates getting in return? Why hasn't the Deputy Prime Minister asked for taxpayers' dollars back?
That question is out of order. Questions cannot impugn the motives of members in any way, shape or form.
Opposition members interjecting—
For those on my left not approving of the ruling, I refer them to occasions in the past when the boot has been on the other foot and they've been very supportive of the ruling. The member for Robertson.
My question is to the Minister for Education. As our year 12 students are facing their final exams and looking forward to future employment and study, will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting school leavers to get into training, university and work?
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney is warned.
I thank the member for Robertson for her question. I'm sure I say this on behalf of all the House: we wish year 12 students undertaking their exams this year all the very best. When they started off this year, they had no idea what was ahead of them—that a pandemic would be thrown at them and that they'd have to spend time outside of the classroom. Fortunately for year 12 students in the Northern Territory it's only been one week of no face-to-face learning. In Victoria it's been many, many months. To all year 12 students, right across the nation: we wish you well in your exams. But please understand that this will not define who you are and what you'll end up being. It will also be incredibly important that you are able to pursue employment opportunities and that you're able to pursue opportunities when it comes to university or vocational education. That's why the Morrison government is there, ready to help and support you as you pursue opportunities beyond your schooling life.
What are we doing? For those year 12s who might want to get a job, through our focus on making sure that our economy recovers, 446,000 jobs have come back over the last four months. We want to ensure that our economy continues to grow and that there will be employment opportunities there for you. If you want to go on to university, we're creating up to 30,000 additional places for you for next year so you'll be able to have the opportunity of going to university. Importantly, for those students from regional and rural Australia, there will be extra opportunities for you to pursue higher education at regional universities. We are also ensuring that there are opportunities for you when it comes to vocational education. As the minister before me said, there's our $1 billion JobTrainer Fund. There is also the JobMaker Hiring Credit that's available, and there are short courses for vocational education and 50,000 additional short courses when it comes to higher education.
So to all those year 12s out there: study hard and work hard. We all hope that your exams go well. But just remember that the Morrison government is there helping and supporting you by growing our economy and ensuring there are extra places when it comes to university and extra opportunities when it comes to vocational education.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said he was proud of the aviation assistance the government had provided to the owners of private jets. Is he proud of the thousands of taxpayer dollars used to subsidise the Leppington Pastoral Company's luxury private jet, on top of the $30 million already delivered to them for land that was worth just $3 million?
I'm proud of the assistance that the federal government has provided to help the nation recover from COVID-19. I'm proud of the fact that we have put in place $2.7 billion to help the aviation sector. I'm proud of all the measures that we put in place in the budget for regional Australia and to help those transport links. I'm proud of the fact that we have put in place the money for farmers to help them with their on-farm water infrastructure. I'm proud of the fact that we've put in place $2 billion to increase upon the $1.5 billion we had for the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund. I'm proud of the fact that midyear we put in place half a billion dollars for the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. I'm very proud of the fact that we topped it up by a billion dollars in the budget. I'm proud of the fact that we put $2 billion in place for road safety upgrades, which is going to save people's lives. I'm proud of the fact that I belong to a Liberal National government which is getting on with the job of getting this nation out of COVID-19. I'm very proud of that fact.
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is investing in new energy technologies that will create jobs and reduce emissions? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Bass for her question and for her unwavering focus on reducing emissions without compromising jobs or the economy. I note her strong interest in the important projects in northern Tasmania of Marinus and Battery of the Nation, which the federal government is investing in. Like all members on this side of the House, she knows that the pathway to meaningful emissions reduction, without compromising our economy, is through the development and deployment of new and emerging technologies, and that's why we're investing in these future technologies. There is $18 billion in the budget, which we expect to become $70 billion with other investment from state governments and the private sector, prioritising five main technologies including: hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, soil carbon, low emissions steel and aluminium for the manufacturing sectors and electricity storage. All of those technologies have clear, pragmatic goals, including goals like 'H2 under 2'—getting the cost of producing hydrogen to under $2 a kilogram, which means it comes into parity with alternative fuel sources. The member for Bass know that getting these technologies right will support 130,000 jobs as well as the 850,000 Australians in our manufacturing sector. It'll support reaching our Paris Agreement obligations and support other countries to do the same, which is why we've recently signed an MOU with Singapore affirming our joint commitment to bring down emissions with technologies. Technology, not taxes, is the pathway forward.
I was asked about alternative approaches and the truth is that members opposite are paralysed by indecision and division. They can't work out where they stand on gas. They don't know where they stand on affordable, reliable energy. They don't even know what their target for 2030 is. The Paris Agreement requires a target for 2030. It requires it. They are walking away from the Paris Agreement, that's what they're doing, by not committing to the 2030 target. Just today they confirmed that they have no plan to announce their policies or the targets any time in the future—no plan to even have a plan. Thanks to the member for Hindmarsh and his obsessive focus on drastic action, now they're walking away from the Paris Agreement. Just last week a former Labor minister said what those opposite already know: 'The member for Hindmarsh was one of two people that lost Labor the last election thanks to his economy wrecking targets, which were unachievable and uncosted.'
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm the government announced the $18 million Boosting Female Founders Initiative on 20 May 2018, re-announced it the next day on 21 November 2018 and re-announced it on 17 March 2020 but still hasn't provided a single cent in grants almost two years later—by 13 October this year?
The Boosting Female Founders program sits as part of the Women's Economic Security Statement, the second of which was included in this year's budget. The Women's Economic Security Statement not only goes to the challenges of ensuring that we see more Australian women found their own businesses and move forward; it's also to ensure that more Australian women find their way into STEM skills and STEM occupations and start small businesses and pursue their own entrepreneurial ambitions, as we see so many do under the policies of this government. That's why the Women's Economic Security Statement has been so important. It's addressed not only their superannuation and their future earnings and the choices they need there; it's also supporting—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I recognise the voice of the member for Lyons. He is warned. It looked like he was about to walk, but he's okay. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Yes, Mr Speaker. We know about the announcement and reannouncements. The question went to whether a single dollar has been delivered under this program.
I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that obviously there was a preamble prior to the question that was asked. The Prime Minister's obviously able to give some context. He's only 50 seconds in. I'm listening to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has the call.
I'd be happy to invite the minister for industry to add to my answer on this issue.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
I'll take the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition. The only person who needs help in this place is this guy over here. We saw that yesterday.
No, I'd just say to the Prime Minister—
We saw that yesterday—what an embarrassing performance from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.
No, the Prime Minister will either—
That's not me saying it, Mr Speaker—
The Prime Minister does not have the call. The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
Prime Minister, your microphone wasn't on, so I'm taking it that you—
Mr Morrison interjecting—
Well, if you want me to call the minister, I'll need to hear you.
I'll ask the minister to add to my answer.
Thank you very much. The minister has call.
I'm very happy to answer this question and add to what the Prime Minister has already said. This was an announcement that was made in 2018 that the funding would flow in 2020-21. What we have said very clearly is that we were going to go through a process of consultation. This has been answered very comprehensively in Senate estimates this morning.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Will you just be quiet?
Will you just answer the question?
Leader of the Opposition, the minister has the call.
It was answered very extensively in Senate estimates this morning, when Senator Deb O'Neill sought to rely on a press release issued by me, where the bottom part, where it talked about when the funding was to be rolled out, was just not visible in what she was trying to rely on in Senate estimates. So she was prosecuting a myth. This funding is now in the process of being finalised, ready to be rolled out. There were 2,200 applicants for this funding. Our process has been very solid, very transparent, and it will deliver in the very near future.
My question is to the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia. Will the minister please update the House on the Morrison-McCormack government's commitment to our resources sector, which is of critical importance as we come out the other side of the COVID-19 pandemic?
I thank the honourable member for that question. The member for Forde is another strong supporter of the resources sector because, quite simply, it drives jobs in the member's electorate. The member tells me that the Cat distribution centre is in the member's electorate—and they are cats that purr, though not the type you're thinking of, of course. 'Cat' is short for Caterpillar, that very well-known company that provides heavy engineering equipment right across the resources sector. Once again, the resources sector continues to drive jobs across the economy, whether they are direct or indirect.
Mining is in Queensland's DNA. It is a big driver of jobs in that region. I want to thank, again, those working in the sector, because they are keeping the lights on in this country, they are driving our economy, they are providing more opportunities and they are providing more jobs, and we are supporting them. There's an extra $153 million in the budget this year to explore and develop Australia's resources even further. We continue to drive new gas development. The Beetaloo Basin, for example—one of our first strategic gas basin plans—was reported in the media today as 'the hottest play on the planet' right now in terms of gas exploration. That is jobs into the Northern Territory, that is jobs for Australians and that is potential to drive down the gas price across the board over a longer period of time. We need to make sure we get the balance right there. But, once again, it provides jobs for individuals in Queensland.
I was recently in Rockhampton at a resources town hall run by the Assistant Minister for Northern Australia, Michelle Landry, where I met Jack. Jack is a young man who is very proud of the job that he had. He told me it is his dream job. He started his career as a cleaner, and he is now a drone operator at the Adani mine in Central Queensland. That job exists, because, on this side of the House, we support the resources sector. We support mines like the Adani mine. We support the jobs that they drive. People like Jack represent the heart and soul of the industry. He's proud of his industry, he's proud of his job and he's done the right thing. He's out there working hard for his country, himself and his family.
We will continue to see things like those opposite and those in Queensland showing up with borrowed hard hats and high-vis shirts. They're not theirs; they've been loaned to them. I'm absolutely sure of it. We know that, in Queensland, there are challenges in terms of approaches to this type of policy. Media today indicated that Deputy Premier Steven Miles in Queensland has been caught out again 'after a damning social media post surfaced of him criticising Queensland's push for new coal projects.'
Minister, resume your seat. The question did ask about alternative policies, but, under the Practice, that refers to federal policies. We've had a number of questions from my left. We've had some answers. Let me sum it up: I'll be glad when the Queensland election is over. I call the minister and ask him to be relevant to the question.
We know that those opposite are absolutely against the sector. We saw them yesterday move a motion to stop us delivering on our commitments to the sector—to stop us from committing the money that we've put forward and we committed to in the election. Shame on them.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Can the minister confirm the government has spent $3.8 billion on defence helicopters with doors too narrow for the troops to fire guns and rope out the door at the same time? Why has the government spent billions of dollars on helicopters that are not fit for combat?
I thank the opposition defence spokesperson. The MRH-90 helicopter referred to by the member opposite does meet Defence objectives, and it's no secret that this helicopter has had some technical challenges in its time. The member opposite may like to know that both Minister Reynolds and I have been working very closely both with industry and with the department to make sure that we do overcome these challenges and to make sure that we have the capability that our men and women in uniform deserve. Let me be clear: we know this is an incredible capability for our Defence Force.
I'd like to take a moment to quote General Angus Campbell from Senate estimates yesterday. He said, 'This is an extraordinarily advanced helicopter which can do things that no other helicopter on the planet can do.' We on this side are very proud of our $270 billion investment in our defence capability. They are world-class and technically advanced. Every now and then we experience challenges, but we on this side are committed, and we're up to the job. We're committed to our men and women in uniform and we're committed to our capability, and the Australian public know that we on this side can be trusted to make sure that our defence has the capability that it deserves.
My question is to the Attorney-General and the
I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his expertise in this area. The JobKeeper program has so far provided $69 billion of support to over 900,000 businesses and around 3.5 million workers. That support, of course, financially, was absolutely critical. But it wasn't just financial support, because the JobKeeper changes included genuine policy reform in the Fair Work Act to provide what are, essentially, unheralded flexibilities to businesses during COVID-19—commonsense things like the ability to direct flexibly on hours, location, duties and times of work during this pandemic.
Last week an independent report was tabled in this parliament which looked at the way in which those industrial relations flexibilities assisted businesses. I think that report shows two things. First, the provisions—the IR flexibilities—were very widely used by employers. They helped businesses adapt quickly during that very difficult time. Secondly, the types of flexibilities that helped businesses survive during COVID can also help them thrive and regrow as we come out of the COVID-19 pandemic. What that report showed was that three out of four eligible employees—three out of four of all eligible employees—actually used these flexibilities. Eight out of 10 employers said the IR flexibilities were either important or essential to maintaining operations through the pandemic, and eight out of 10 employers said that the IR flexibilities were either important or essential to keeping their staff in work. So, in number terms, that means about 500,000 businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic found those IR flexibilities were either important or essential to maintaining their operations through the business and to keeping people in work.
We have extended those flexibilities to the second round of JobKeeper, and, in a limited but very important form with flexibilities and protections, we have extended those flexibilities even to those businesses who were in JobKeeper but are now growing out of the problems that they had. It wasn't just employers who made their contributions known to this report; it was employee representatives. One employer noted for this report, 'Without these provisions, we wouldn't be open.' They said that the provisions were 'the difference between being able to continue to operate and not'. An employee representative is quoted in the review as saying, 'It has been an overwhelmingly positive program for workers.' So the challenge now is to grow and foster that cooperative ability to make real changes to legislation and our practices to grow more jobs.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I just discussed this matter with the Leader of the Opposition: today is the national memorial day for fire and emergency services workers. There was an important National Memorial Service held earlier today by the National Council for Fire and Emergency Services. I'm sure all of us here would like to join in remembrance of those, particularly over the last 12 months, who have lost their lives defending their communities, their families and our incredible nation, including those who came from overseas—friends from overseas who also paid the ultimate price. Those names of the 14 responders were remembered earlier today, and we remember their families, who live with their losses each day. Their names are: Phillip Bell, Ian Long, Robert Panitz, Geoff Keaton, Andrew O'Dwyer, Sam McPaul, Colin Burns, Ian McBeth, Rick DeMorgan Jr, Paul Hudson, Bill Slade, Mathew Kavanagh, David Moresi and George Baldock. We thank them for their sacrifice and we remember their families.
I join with the Prime Minister in paying tribute to these great Australians and also those who came from across the sea to help us during the bushfire crisis. These are people who, contrary to the natural human instinct to run from danger, run towards danger in order to protect us and our communities. We thank them. We thank their families for their sacrifice. We honour their sacrifice. We remember them today and each day for what they have done. We also remember their comrades they worked with, because all of them will continue to miss them each and every day, particularly when they go out in service. May we have a better and safer season in the one forthcoming than the one we went through over the Christmas and new year period.
As a mark of respect, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kingston proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The existing barriers to women working full time and starting small businesses.
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—
We have a government that has delivered a trillion dollar debt in its budget earlier this month. It was chock-full of marketing opportunities, but none of the announcements that they've delivered lets them stand at a doorstep with 51 per cent of the Australian population. Not one of their announcements in this budget supports Australian women to get back to work.
The Prime Minister said this week, or last week perhaps, 'If you're good at your job, you will get a job.' Except that the Prime Minister didn't really mean that. He seems to only be referring to his Liberal Party hacks getting jobs, because if he said what is actually happening, he would have said, 'If you're the second income earner, have young children and are lucky enough to have a job you're good at, we're going to make it harder for you to take on more hours.' In question time today the government said that they will act quickly to ensure that Clive Palmer's luxury jet stays in the air, but in this budget women barely got a mention. But, of course, we all should be lucky, as Australian women, that we get to drive on roads. I think that is something that all Australian women will be eternally grateful for.
Of course, in this budget, there is nothing in it to fix the child-care system. The budget did nothing to fix the system that is now so expensive many families are having to choose between working for nothing or staying at home. There was nothing in this budget to recognise the barriers to workforce participation, particularly for women working on the fourth and fifth day. According to the Prime Minister, his job is done. The system is working and women have never had it better than under his government. Well, tell that to the hundred thousand families that are locked out of the system because they just can't afford it. Tell that to the families that have had their fees jacked up by 4.5 per cent in the last year, pushing up out-of-pocket costs to over twice the rate of inflation. Tell that to the many families that see a system that is becoming absolutely impossible to access or more expensive every day. It's a system that is so expensive that half of families say it impacts on their weekly grocery budget. It's a system that has built-in design faults that acts as a barrier to second income earners working more.
This is a system the Prime Minister designed. Now, the government will often infer that the Productivity Commission designed the current system, but that is just not true. This week, the Productivity Commission confirmed the government did not adopt all the features of their recommended model back in 2015. Back in 2015, the Productivity Commission identified very high workforce disincentive rates faced by the second income earner and designed a new system to boost workforce participation.
But they did not recommend in their model cutting off the subsidy at any particular income level and creating large subsidy and taper cliffs. It was the Prime Minister himself that came up with that. They did not recommend in their model an annual subsidy cap. That was the Prime Minister himself that designed that. He built those structural design flaws into his system long before he built a chicken coop.
The Prime Minister's system penalises women who want to work full-time. We've heard case studies from many women about how the cost of child care is holding them back from working more days. Today we continue to hear more and more stories. We hear, for example, Melanie, who has two children and says that, after childcare costs, she only takes home $150 of pay. Melanie says it's hardly worth it.
But don't take our word for it. Labor has been talking about this over and over because that is what we hear in our constituencies every day. Let's take the CEO of the Business Council of Australia, who said before the budget: 'We've got to fix the childcare problem. It's absolutely essential.' Of course we agree. But it is also a massive handbrake on small and family business, and last night the small and family business ombudsman told Senate estimates that child care is a matter of significance for 38 per cent of small businesses that are owned by women. She pointed out that many small businesses are started by women when they are home on parental leave. She reported that many women grow their business from a micro stage at home but can't take the next phase because the cost of child care is too high. She said: 'You can't be an entrepreneur and work three days a week. It's just not possible.' She also said that the cost of child care is just too high. It's a productivity issue and it's something that needs to be addressed. Small business is the engine room of the economy, but this government won't even let women into the car. Women want to be entrepreneurs. They want to have a go, but they're not getting a go under this government. Why is the Morrison government holding them back?
Labor has a reform plan to better support families, to smash down barriers for women and to supercharge Australia's economic recovery. Our plan will increase subsidy rates and tapers for 97 per cent of families in the childcare system. We heard that the Prime Minister was very focused on means testing and targeting, but of course that hasn't been the case for his Liberal mates. It hasn't been the case when it comes to private jets. It hasn't been the case for so many wealthy Australians, but he has the gall to have a go at women wanting to get ahead. Well, he's holding those women back.
We will rip up the Prime Minister's annual subsidy cap, which has been such a barrier to work. Labor will ask the ACCC to look at price regulation mechanisms and shine the light on costs and fees. We will put the Productivity Commission to work on a comprehensive review of the sector with the aim to implement a universal 90 per cent subsidy rate. In short, we will fix the Prime Minister's busted childcare system and we will fix it for good and leave an everlasting legacy for our country.
The Grattan Institute analysis of Labor's plan confirms it will reward working families and allow second-income earners to work more and keep more of their pay. Overall, the Grattan Institute found, Labor's policy will lead to an 11 per cent increase in hours worked by women with young children. This increase in productivity will deliver a sustained boost to economic growth, and economic modelling by the Grattan Institute and KPMG has estimated that policies similar to Labor's would increase GDP annually in a range of $4 billion to $11 billion.
We will take the shackles off the current system. Women will be off to work more days, spend more time on their small business and get more money in their pocket. Australia will only pay off the trillion dollars of Liberal dependent by growing our economy, and our policy will happen do that. This Liberal government pretends that it is the friend of small business. It goes around getting pictures with small business, bragging to everyone that will listen, but they are not listening to small business. They assume that women aren't necessarily working in small business, that they don't need childcare support and that they don't want to actually work more and on more days, because it was the Prime Minister's own system that was designed to make women work for nothing on the fourth and fifth days. We on this side of the House want to see small business succeed. We want to see women entrepreneurs getting a go, unlike what was exposed in question time today.
The Liberal Party say a lot about small business and women entrepreneurs. They love an announcement, they love a bit of spin. But they announce something in 2018 and they are not prepared to deliver it until 2021. That is not the type of support that small business and women want. They want support now. They've got good business ideas, and what they need is a government that will support them. Unfortunately they don't have it. They have a budget that leaves so many Australians out and holds so many Australians back. We on this side are very proud that we are putting up a plan for the long term when it comes to child care. We are very proud of our plan to have a future made in Australia. These are the things that Australians are talking about.
The Prime Minister was also exposed in estimates today. He told The West Australian that he had to do a marketing strategy to try and get taxpayers to understand, and only then would he actually found some childcare changes. But the minister at the table in estimates today confirmed that there is no plan to have any new reform in child care. The minister at the table today also clearly said that there was no plan for any marketing strategy. So this Prime Minister talks from one side of his mouth and then he talks from the other side. You cannot trust anything this Prime Minister says. It's all about marketing, it's all about spin.
Compare that to Labor. We have a serious plan for Australia, a serious plan to boost women's economic participation, a serious plan to help women in small business to get go. Under Labor, if they have a go they'll get a go.
I'm glad to speak on this MPI and highlight the importance of women to our economy. I've only been in this place since 2013—not as long as some but a bit longer than others. Every time Labor gets an opportunity in this place, they talk down the opportunities for women in this country. But we want to talk women up, because they have a critical role in Australia's economy. Women are tired of those opposite using them as a political football. We've seen once again that, for Labor's spokesperson it's all about theatrics, it's all about using women as a political football. I, for one, am tired of that, and women in Australia who are in business, women who are trying to get ahead, know that the Morrison government has their back.
I want to talk about my portfolio and the impact and benefits of the defence industry to our economy. We are well aware of the need to grow our talent pool and to give women every opportunity to embark on an exciting career in the our defence industry. A couple of weeks ago, during National Science Week, I had the pleasure of having a call from my Perth office with a young woman named Tess Horton. What a cracker she is! Tess is a 20-year-old student at the University of Newcastle and the bright future of our STEM workforce. She is one of eight women, studying at three universities across Australia, who were awarded a science, technology, engineering and mathematics scholarship by Defence. If Tess is the future of our defence industry workforce and Australia's broader STEM workforce then it is a very bright future indeed. She spoke to me about how excited she was that Defence was giving her this opportunity. It is vital that we inspire more young women like Tess to go down this path.
The defence industry is growing fantastic new opportunities for women growing a small business in Australia. Our country is at the dawn of a new era of opportunity for SMEs in the defence industry sector. It's going to provide thousands and thousands of jobs in the defence industry. It's great to see these new enterprises for women in the sector. Last Friday, I was thrilled to join the Launch on Northbourne event in Canberra—virtually, of course, because I was in Perth at the time. It was a University of New South Wales event, showcasing innovation and defence and cyber areas that are developing new commercial ideas to improve Australian security.
One of the presenters was a lady called Amy Ormrod, who was with a company called Terra Schwartz Cyber. This company is developing an Australian cybersecurity system which is supported by a $420,000 defence sovereign industrial capability priority grant. It's developing an Australian sovereign cyberworthiness system. It was great to engage with her, albeit by Zoom, to hear how women like her are helping to grow Australia's defence industry systems for the future. It's women just like Amy who are the face of women in our sector. They can demonstrate the opportunities we now have in small business right across the country. We are all doing that so that we can knock down the barriers that women do face, and we are promoting these exciting opportunities in our defence industry.
That is the case right across our government. Our government's overarching objective is to return Australians—men and women—to work and to boost prosperity as Australia emerges from the COVID-19 crisis. The 2020-21 budget provides $98 billion of response and recovery support under the COVID-19 response package and the JobMaker plan, bringing the government's overall support to $507 billion. Increasing women's workforce participation is an economic and social priority. The JobMaker plan aims to drive down the unemployment rate and drive stronger economic recovery for all Australians, men and women, in Australia.
In addition to the budget, the 2020 Women's Economic Security Statement, which significantly builds on the 2018 statement, acknowledges progress made as well as the barriers that women continue to face from time to time. The WESS builds on the government's COVID-19 economic recovery plan by providing the targeted, tailored, specific support needed to help women overcome barriers to full participation in the economy and society. The 2020 WESS includes a wide range of measures to create new jobs, support more women in work, expand opportunities for business and build the skills Australia needs to support accelerated economic recovery and growth.
I would like to go back to my portfolio again, because we know that defence and defence industry is really a barometer for women in the workforce, and for some time now defence has been taking a losing role in building a strong record of inclusion. We know that women are absolutely vital in our quest to grow the defence industry workforce. So we are ensuring that we have access to the best talent from all parts of the diverse Australian community to build that very important defence industry workforce. I note that within the Defence portfolio there are specialist recruiting teams just for women. These teams compromise of current serving defence women who promote careers in defence and mentor other women as part of the recruiting process.
In 2019-20 defence's efforts to further gender equality have specifically focused on women's representation in leadership roles. Defence has been recognised for its commitment to gender equity, receiving the Athena SWAN bronze award in 2020. Congratulations! What an amazing achievement. The Athena SWAN awards are an initiative under the Science in Australia Gender Equity program, which aims to promote equity and diversity in STEM. The bronze awards have recognised defence's commitment to advancing the careers of women not only in STEM fields but also across all defence groups and services.
In February this year, defence sponsored the inaugural Catalysing Gender Equity conference. It is committed to championing the Women in STEM Decadal Plan, a shared vision for the STEM sector to attract, retain and advance girls and women in STEM education and careers.
Over the past 18 months in my role as the Minister for Defence Industry it has indeed been a great pleasure to be able to meet the captains of industry, especially the women, leading the charge in our very, very important defence industry. In October last year I travelled to the United States and visited Heat Treatment Australia's Los Angeles office. There I was immediately blown away by the incredible work of Karen Stanton and her family. For those who don't know Karen, she is the director of Brisbane based Heat Treatment Australia and she is a pillar of Australia's defence industry. Heat Treatment Australia is a key supplier in our global F-35 program and is one of the beneficiaries of our government's continued investment in this truly global program. Karen has continued to do an outstanding job in her position as director of HTA, and she's expanded its operations and broadened its horizons in our defence industry, going way beyond our shores.
I would also like to single out Gabby Costigan, who is the CEO of BAE Systems Australia. Gabby is yet another fine example of how the Australian defence industry is leading the charge in opening up greater senior leadership opportunities for women. For those who don't know Gabby's background, she is a former colonel in the Australian Army and led logistics operations for both the Australian and the US governments internationally. Following her distinguished career, there was no-one more deserving to take up the role of CEO of BAE Systems Australia in 2018. She is now responsible for one of the largest defence companies in Australia, supporting our men and women in uniform.
I'd also like to recognise Sarah Cullens, another outstanding supporter of the Australian defence industry and the work of the Morrison government in our defence industry. Sarah took the leap of faith and started up her own small business providing specialist advice to defence businesses. Sarah is the wife of a current serving member of our Defence Force and raises her children right here in Canberra. I've always valued Sarah's incredible contribution and insights into defence industry, and thank her for her incredible sacrifice to take care of her family as her husband has served his country.
I hope I've given you a sense of how important defence and also the industry called defence industry is in Australia. And I'm so proud of the opportunities that we are giving women in defence and defence industry. I want women in this country to know that, on this side of the chamber, we back them every day. There are opportunities, and we will be there for you when the others will just complain. (Time expired)
I want to thank the member for Kingston for this matter of public importance today and for the terrific contribution she made focusing on child care, in particular, earlier. I also pay tribute to her for the policy work that she's done to develop what is a fine childcare policy for Labor. Our policy will make child care more affordable and more accessible for Australian families. It will encourage women to take on that extra hour of work, that extra day of work. On this side, we never want someone to say no to an extra hour of work or an extra day of work because it doesn't make sense for them financially. Only our policy will increase participation and economic growth. It's not surprising that there is a difference in policy between our side and that side.
We saw today the release of a report from the Menzies Research Centre, co-authored by the member for Boothby. As the report acknowledges, the Liberal Party is nowhere near on track to meeting its commitment to seeing half of its elected members be female by 2025. We had the same goal to reach 50 per cent by 2025. We're almost there now. They're stuck at around about a quarter. I want to compliment the member for Boothby for her involvement in this matter. It is a brave thing to do; it's gutsy. I want to compliment her for calling out this problem in the modern Liberal Party, because it is a serious problem when you acknowledge that something is an issue, where you want to increase female representation and then you stick solidly to 25 per cent for decades after that. Unfortunately, the report goes on to vehemently reject any kind of quota or target system, saying that it undermines the principles of competitive enterprise and reward for effort.
Someone gave me a good bit of advice today about how we deal with this issue of inequality of female representation in politics and in other male dominated areas. They said, 'You could solve this problem overnight if only women had the confidence of a mediocre man.' I think there are a few people on the other side who would prove that point.
The truth is that things like achieving equality do not happen on their own. Organisations, including political parties, set targets for all sorts of things. Businesses set targets for profitability. Businesses set targets for market share. If a political party is prepared to be judged by the public on achieving gender equality, why wouldn't it be prepared to set a target?
Why wouldn't you set a target? How does progress happen unless we say, 'This is what we want to achieve, and this is our mechanism for getting there'?
I have made this offer before, and I make it really sincerely and in the spirit of bipartisanship: I would be happy to sit down with senior Liberal women, as I've done with some senior Nationals women and say, 'This is our experience. This is how we fought for and achieved change in the Australian Labor Party.' It doesn't happen by accident. It doesn't happen overnight. It's happened because these women here and many, many thousands more have fought for and achieved this change over time.
I'll tell you what, having women at the table when decisions are made gives you better policy. If you had more women around the cabinet table, you wouldn't have a Prime Minister saying 'I don't know what the women are complaining about. We've built them a great road to get to the maternity ward' that's hours away. You wouldn't have people on the other side saying, 'Well, tax policy is not gendered.' Give me a break! You wouldn't have this situation where you make an announcement in 2018—the Boosting Female Founders Initiative—then reannounce it the next day, then reannounce it the next year and still not have spent a single cent of that $18 million to support female entrepreneurs, which is obviously something that we support on this side as well. And you wouldn't have funding for domestic violence programs and sexual assault education in schools cut at the same time as White Ribbon is releasing information showing that 40 per cent of young men think that it's not domestic violence to punch—to punch!—or control your partner. That's the problem with not having enough women sitting around the table when decisions are being made. You get the wrong decisions. (Time expired)
I'm really pleased to talk on this MPI and to support the budget measures across all portfolios like the Minister for Defence Industry, who is at the table. Like her, I want to talk up the fabulous women, particularly those in rural and regional Australia. Whether it's through the economic statement or other budget measures, we know there are opportunities for women right around this great nation, and I want to encourage them all to take advantage of the opportunities they have, like so many of those in my electorate and elsewhere who have.
In talking up the great opportunities I'll talk about women like Erin and Tegan Studsor, who founded Traffic Force, a highly successful traffic management company servicing the whole of Western Australia, starting in Bunbury, in my part of the world. Along with Sharni Bennell, Tegan and Erin are also owners of the Kali Group an Indigenous and all-female owned business providing labour hire and recruitment services. They are great young women.
Another fantastic self-starter and determined and motivated woman is Larissa Versace, who started her own lawn-mowing and garden maintenance business in my home town of Harvey as a very young woman. She's a talented soccer and AFL Harvey Bulls player. Her business has gone through to Fremantle because she's playing Australian Rules football in the women's league for East Fremantle. What a great and fantastic young woman. I'm really proud to see our young women like Jo Gunning with her outstanding business, ShoeBeDoo; Renee Evans, who keeps evolving her store, Emporium of Eshe, in line with her customer's needs; and Vanya Cullen, who has grown her family's wine brand to a national and international level of acclaim.
I want to talk briefly about the fantastic Walk Talk Taste Margaret River. That's what Kellie Tannock has done in Margaret River. Of course, it's been somewhat affected by COVID, but it has won a small business award. Kellie describes herself as the chief walker and talker, taking people around Margaret River and tasting the wonderful locally grown produce. What a wonderful initiative from this woman. Cathie Rice started her business Cathie Rice Travel in Bunbury 50 years ago with nothing. She is a quality and trusted provider of travel services in all aspects of travel and escorted tours. What a fantastic effort Cathie has made. There's one fabulous woman after another, such as Lynnette Brazen. I could go on and on talking about the wonderful work of women in rural and regional Australia and how they're contributing to the economic diversity and economic opportunities that exist in what is rural and regional Australia.
So I really wanted to talk to the young women who are watching today, the fabulous next generation of young women. Whether they're looking at the budget or not, wherever they are right now, I want to say to them: you are in a fabulous place called Australia, and, whether it's in education, in manufacturing, in agriculture—across so many portfolio areas—or just in the ambitions that you have for yourselves, one great thing is that we are not limited by our postcode in this country in what we can achieve. The minister for defence materiel represents an enormous electorate—I think, one of the biggest in the world—and she knows that young women in her part of the world also have great opportunities, like all women in rural and regional Australia—those very innovative, capable women that we see in our awards, the rural women's awards, who are doing extraordinary things, no matter where they're located in this country.
We've seen, through COVID, so many of them take the initiative to do business differently, and, for them, business as usual is now uncertainty. Uncertainty is business as usual. But they are stepping up to the mark and getting the job done. I am just so proud of all of the women around Australia who not only have done everything they can to keep themselves and their families safe but also have worked in their community and with their community.
That's what we're seeing from women in rural and regional Australia at the moment, and I'm so proud of what they do. They are taking and making opportunities, and that's what happens when you're supported by the government; it enables you to do exactly that, as our government has in an ongoing way and through this budget. I just want to say to young women: take the opportunities you get, or make them yourself, and get on with being the best you can be and do the best you can in this country.
[by video link] Of course the women of Australia have been really having a go. They were having a go before the global pandemic. There were more Australian women than men in insecure casual work and part-time work. There were more women in Australia sharing the caring responsibilities in their family home, in terms of caring for younger children and also, outside the home, in terms of caring for elderly parents who can't get a home-care package. Then, of course, we got the global pandemic. But we had more women working on the front line, again in low-paid jobs. And what did we see after the pandemic? We had platitudes from government ministers, talking about how the global pandemic and the recession in Australia had adversely impacted on women.
And then we get to the budget, and Australian women were expecting the government to recognise the hard work they put in prior to the pandemic and during the pandemic and to provide some supports for them to get back into work. But what did we get? We got no new funding to deal with the gender pay gap, we got no new funding for frontline services for family and domestic violence, we got nothing at all to deal with the superannuation gap that women have in retirement in Australia and, of course, we got nothing to reduce the impact of increased childcare fees.
Quite frankly, the women of Australia are getting fed up. They're getting fed up with all the energy and effort that they are putting in that's not being recognised by this government. They're not being recognised for that caring role that they do in the home. They're not being recognised for the fact that a lot of them took on homeschooling. They're not being recognised for the fact that they were in low-paid jobs during the pandemic, on the front line, risking themselves and their families. And now, of course, we have the issue of childcare fees.
We've seen data in recent days talking about the increase in childcare fees—4.5 per cent across the country. Here in my home state of Tasmania, there are 16,000 families, and more than 28,000 children in child care. In the last year, childcare fees have increased in Launceston by over five per cent; and, in Devonport, 8.9 per cent. These are incredible fee hikes for families who are doing it tough because of the pandemic and the recession—families who have lost income, families who are trying to juggle their family budgets.
Surely government ministers and others on that side could have a bit more empathy and done more in the budget? Instead, after criticism about their budget not supporting women, we've had female ministers come out and say, 'It's okay because the budget is gender neutral and women can drive on roads.' Yes, women can and do drive on roads. They drive on roads to drop the kids to school. They drive on roads to do the child care drop-off. They drive on roads to go to the supermarket. Women are driving on roads all the time, perhaps a disproportionate amount, but they expect much more from government than that. That is, of course, what Labor has said in the budget reply. We need to do more. Helping families with childcare fees is something tangible that actually assists to get women back into work.
But it's not just Labor who is saying that. We had evidence last night from Kate Carnell who said, 'You can't be an entrepreneur and work just three days a week. It's just not possible. The costs of child care are just too high. It's a productivity issue and it's something that needs to be addressed.' Of course, the small business ombudsman is not alone in that. Last week the government's gender equality agency told Senate estimates, 'Child care, along with other things, is a barrier for women returning to the workforce, particularly after taking parental leave.' The evidence from everybody is overwhelming that the childcare system, designed by this government and this Prime Minister, is failing Australian families. It is not worth so many families doing extra hours or extra days work because of the way the childcare system has been designed with the subsidy.
The government needs to change tact. It has taken on lots of Labor's ideas during this pandemic, such as the wage subsidy. This is another thing that it needs to look at. We would be happy if it took on Labour's ideas in terms of child care. The government simply must do better by Australian women. Australian women have been doing the hard yards. They've put in the effort. They've had a go. They now need to get a go from this government. As the Prime Minister said, 'If you're good at your job, you'll get a job.' Australian women have been really good at their jobs and they've been working incredibly hard. It's about time that they got a government that actually supports them and actually delivers on policy that supports women and their families, and supports women to start small businesses and to get back into work.
One of the centrepieces of this year's budget was the updated Women's Economic Security Statement. This builds on the important work of my predecessor, Kelly O'Dwyer, the minister for women and member for Higgins who released the inaugural Women's Economic Security Statement in 2018. The statement was of particular importance this year with COVID. There are five priorities of this very important Women's Economic Security Statement, WESS. The first priority contained in the WESS is to repair and rebuild women's workforce participation and further close the gender pay gap, which was at record levels before COVID. Amongst other things, this is why the government has announced our $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy. This is not the manufacturing of old. We are talking about complex, high-value manufacturing using smart technology and levering off research and development, design logistics and services. We're talking about modern industries such as food and beverage, medical products, recycling and clean energy, defence and space. The Morrison government is particularly keen to see women lead this manufacturing revolution with sizeable investments targeted at women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM. This includes $25 million for the women in STEM cadetships and advanced apprenticeships to create STEM career pathways for up to 500 women through industry sponsored advanced apprenticeship-style courses starting next year. Another measure is the government's $36 million commitment to the Boosting Female Founders Initiative to support up to 282 additional startups and 4,300 women entrepreneurs. Access to early stage capital is one of the biggest challenges female founders face. This initiative provides early stage capital and allows female entrepreneurs to grow their businesses and expand into broader markets. The Morrison government is keen to see women crack into high-skilled, high-paying industries which will help us bridge the gender pay gap.
The second priority is greater choice and flexibility for families to manage work and care. We're doing that by investing in child care at record levels. In 2020-21 the government will pay a record $9.2 billion in childcare subsidy payments and that will grow to $10.7 billion in coming years. This investment continues to put downward pressure on the out-of-pocket costs that families pay. In fact, they have fallen by three per cent. Prior to us coming to government they were rising. Under the policy of those on the other side of chamber costs of child care had gone through the roof with an increase of more than 50 per cent. The childcare policies that we initiated in 2018 are working to help women get back into the workforce and to assist them in realising their dreams. Prior to COVID, the gender pay gap for women had fallen to a new low and female workforce participation had risen to a record high. As a government, we know that accessible and affordable access to child care is key to allowing women to work full time or start a business. We also want to make sure our government is supporting it in a targeted and means-tested way. Our childcare policy settings are designed to help those who need it most.
The third priority is to support women as leaders and positive role models. The concept that if she can do it, so can I is a very powerful motivator. Men take for granted that they have role models of power and influence; for women, this is a relatively recent development in our history. That is why the Morrison government is investing $47.9 million to expand the women's leadership program to help women retain employment and build career pathways, with an emphasis on male-dominated industries. Having a female role model can be the key to encouraging a woman to start the business she has always dreamed of.
The fourth priority is to respond to the diverse needs of women. We know that women experiencing multiple disadvantages have lower workforce participation rates than the national average for Australian women. The government is committing $41 million, across two years of the budget, for the Career Transition Assistance program. This program makes it easier for mature age jobseekers and volunteers to access training to increase digital literacy, find job opportunities and identify transferable skills. This is really valuable for women looking to get back into the workforce with increased hours at a very critical time of their life.
The fifth priority is to support women to be safe at home and safe at work. That is why the government is supporting women and children experiencing family and domestic violence with more than $2 billion through the National Legal Assistance Partnership 2020-25, by increasing funding to the Federal Circuit Court, and by providing $60 million to the Safe Places Emergency Accommodation Program.
For those raising families, re-entering the workforce or getting back into a business, the Morrison government is delivering in spades.
In Yass earlier this week, I called in on the Goodstart Early Learning centre with my friends Anthony Albanese and Amanda Rishworth. We had to be mindful of not getting in the way of busy mums and dads rushing in to drop kids off before getting out the door and on to work. It's a routine that many in this House and outside this chamber will be familiar with. Those parents and what they do in their day are in the engine room of their local community and economy. They are able to get on with creating a livelihood and building prosperity knowing that their kids are learning, laughing and being loved by professional educators and carers. But, before the busyness of that rush hour, those parents will have had to make some choices—choices that aren't always in the best interests of their family, themselves, their community or the wider economy. It's a dilemma and discussion that my husband, Brad, and I have had—and a special shout-out to Ruby, Max and Jack. I'll be home on Friday. Please be good for your dad; it's his birthday!
When I had my first child I knew I would have to go back to work, and I made inquiries at three separate childcare centres in my area. I was lucky enough to get Ruby a place in one. The first day of drop-off is incredibly hard, and we even witnessed it when we were at Goodstart in Yass on Monday. The childcare centres, the carers and their educators become part of your family. They educate your most prized possessions while you're at work. I want to thank Little Nippers Early Learning and Childcare in Merimbula and all the educators who have been part of my family's life. My youngest, Jack, is at school this year, but I've been through nine years, with three different kids, and I want to say a huge thankyou to everyone there.
Many families, mine included, have to discuss whether they can afford child care and how many days they can go back to work without simply working to pay childcare bills. In our family I became the secondary income earner and was able to enter paid work for two or three days. I also ran a small family business. I did the books for our business. That's unpaid work. If I worked any additional hours, we hit the cap and full fees kicked in, which we simply could not afford at the time. It's a reality that many couples will identify with and a situation that, more often than not, stops women from engaging in full-time work or trying to grow a small business.
The system should empower people and communities, not limit or restrict choice and potential. In regional communities, small businesses are our backbone. We need to support women and families to grow their businesses and grow their employment potential. Right now, the system under this government is a handbrake on livelihoods, a handbrake on small business and a handbrake on regional economies at a time when we need to reshape our future post-drought, post-bushfire and post-COVID-19. This will change when Anthony Albanese is Prime Minister and Amanda Rishworth is the early childhood education minister. Bring it on.
The Morrison system has failed parents. It's created a financial disincentive for many second wage earners to work full time or to grow their business. An Albanese Labor government will fix Australia's broken childcare system, and no family will be worse off. It's not a welfare measure; it's about making sure more women are participating in work, growing their regional businesses and unlocking their economic potential.
This week, in Yass, the Labor team spoke of early education as being a part of every child's life. In the same way that kids go to school when they're five or six, all children should have access to early education—when the foundations of their future selves are laid down in their heart, in their head and in their hands. As Mr Albanese said on Monday, 'The human brain develops 90 per cent of its capacity in those first five years of life,' and yet childcare fees for parents in Tumut and Tumbarumba have gone up by 12.3 per cent in the last 12 months. They haven't reduced; they've gone up. They've gone up in regional communities, and they've gone up in our metropolitan communities. If you can't afford it, your kids simply miss out. If you want to work more, you're penalised. This is the reality of how this government's childcare system works, or, more to the point, how it doesn't work. When they had the chance to fix it and deliver renewal and recovery in the recent budget, they failed to see the opportunity.
If this government is serious about creating jobs, create jobs in child care. Use child care to unlock jobs. Use child care to empower women to grow their business. Please start in Cooma. Even before Snowy 2.0, mums and dads in Cooma were struggling to access childcare places that they needed. The potential of the care economy in Australia's economy is clear for all to see, and an Albanese government will make that happen.
I want to thank the member for Kingston for putting this important matter of public importance on the agenda—the existing barriers to women working full time and starting small businesses. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue.
To my mind, the female workforce participation is not as high as I'd like it to be. It's not as high as it should be. It is increasing; it reached an all-time high of 61.5 per cent in January 2020, up from about 58 per cent in 2013, but there is still a very significant gap with male workforce participation. For males, at the same time, in January 2020, the workforce participation rate was around 71 per cent. So there is a gap of around 10 per cent that's still to be narrowed. In my first speech to parliament, I spoke about that. I said that reducing the gap between female and male workforce participation 'would be one of the most impactful and meaningful economic reforms we could pursue'. I also described the lost opportunity under employment and the lost human capital as a loss to economic opportunity for the country, and I continue to hold those views. This is an important issue, and we do need to look at what some of the barriers to more women entering the workforce and participating in the workforce are.
In that vein, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released a report in August—just a few months ago this year—entitled Barriers and incentives to labour force participation, Australia. It has a number of interesting findings, which I think are worth highlighting. The most important incentive cited for women who are not currently participating in the labour force was access to a childcare place. Fifty-two per cent of women rated this as very important. The second most important incentive was financial assistance with childcare costs, with 51 per cent of women surveyed citing this as important. Next, and closely behind, was the ability to work part-time hours, cited by 49 per cent. The ability to vary start and finish times was cited by 35 per cent of women, and the ability to work school hours was cited by 29 per cent of women. On the reasons that women working part time—that is, women who are already in the workforce—do not want to work more hours, in the ABS survey, 36 per cent nominated that as their preference; they were satisfied with the current arrangements. Twenty-seven per cent cited caring responsibilities. I think it's clear—at least, to me—that there are two issues here. One is access and affordability of child care, but the other is workplace flexibility. I think it's important when we're considering this issue that we consider both of those things.
On access to child care, the government's support to child care has been significant. We've committed to spending around $9.2 billion in 2020-21 for child care. Around one million Australians will be benefitting from the childcare package and, of those who are benefitting, around 71 per cent of these one million Australians will be paying no more than $5 per hour per day in daycare centres.
Now, our childcare subsidy is means tested. If your family income is over about $353,000, you're not eligible for the childcare subsidy. If your family income is between around $190,000 and $353,000, there's a cap on the amount of subsidy you can receive: around $10,500 per child per financial year. Personally, I think that's appropriate. We means test a number of benefits in Australia, and the case for giving this childcare subsidy to Australian households that are on high incomes is not well made.
I would say that COVID-19 has obviously been massively disruptive to our economy and to all people in the workforce and our overarching objective in our budget has been to return all Australians, men and women, to work. If we get the economy growing again, if we got people hiring again and if we get businesses investing again then all Australians will benefit. Of the jobs that we have created since May, 62 per cent have been filled by women. The other big disruption that has been caused by COVID-19 has been to workplace flexibility, the other barrier that I cited earlier on. I'm sure many of us here have seen this. I have certainly seen it in my own house. Workplace norms too often have limited flexibility. Things such as part-time hours, flexible hours or working from home were in the past frowned upon but have now been embraced by businesses and employers. Increasingly the ability for women in particular but also men to access flexible working arrangements, flexible hours and the ability to work from home is now becoming normalised and mainstream.
I did in the time remaining want to commend the report that was released today by my colleague the member for Boothby along with the Prime Minister. I think she highlights an important issue about female representation in the parliament, including in my own party. We do need a more diverse parliament, and that means diversity on gender and any number of other metrics. I think we have made progress there but we do have more to do.
I wanted to pick up on a couple of comments by those opposite in this debate on this matter of public importance. The minister spoke about defence industry and about how important that was to women's participation in work, but in her contribution the minister failed to acknowledge the gender pay gap that exists within her industry. Take my electorate. We have two big defence manufacturers. One of them manufactures uniforms. The predominantly women workforce are paid substantially less than the predominantly male workforce who work at Thales and manufacture Bushmasters. Both work in the defence industry, both in important roles. One keeps our defence troops safe in terms of uniform, the other in terms of the vehicles they drive, yet their pay is radically different.
Let's also talk about the gender make-up of defence industries. One in five people working in defence industries are women, one in seven are in management and one in 14 are apprentices. So, if the government wants to hold this industry up as an industry doing well for women, it's grossly mistaken.
The next speaker spoke about agriculture and agricultural workforce. Yes, we have lots of women involved in agriculture. However, only 32 per cent of the agricultural workforce are women. The speaker also spoke about the rural women's award, which I have had the opportunity to attend a few years now, with women from my electorate being successful. But what women raise at this awards night every year is that women are still fighting to be recognised as farmers. They're still fighting the concept that they are not the wife of the farmer but the farmer. We still have a long way to go in terms of norms when it comes to women in agriculture. Another speaker spoke about the fact that we had a high number of women take work back up since the pandemic hit and women were stood down. We've had a re-engagement of women.
Let's talk about the jobs they've gone to. It is the casual, insecure jobs. It's the few hours here. It's hospitality in retail. They're often told, 'When business picks back up, you'll get more hours.' It completely misses the point of this MPI. What we in Labor are saying we've put forward is that women do not take extra work. They do not pick up third and fourth days, sometimes at full-time employment, because of the cost of childcare, because of the barriers that are in place.
The final speaker spoke about women wanting more flexibility. Have we ever asked them why? Is it because they are trying to balance the cost of child care? That completely reinforces the point we are making. We have a childcare system that disproportionately affects women, who tend to be the second income earner in households, as the previous speaker on my side from Eden-Monaro mentioned.
I've got local examples. A pharmacist spoke to me. She said that, during the pandemic, her employer asked her to work more hours. She has two children in early childhood education. She actually paid to work. She thought it was her duty to work—it was a pandemic—but it cost her family money to ensure that she turned up and did her role for her community as a pharmacist. The cost of child care actually meant they were paying to work. A nurse, for whom I raised a question in parliament, said she would like to take the third and fourth day, but can't. These are the people that the government are saying are high income earners. Their means test is too mean. It is excluding nurses from taking that extra shift and the pharmacist from working full-time.
An academic at La Trobe University said that, now that her youngest has finished child care and entered primary school, her family is saving thousands. That's the problem. This government's means testing is targeting women. It's excluding women from working full time, if they choose to. If we are genuine about women having choices and flexibility, then don't lock them into part-time work by a means test that means they can only work a couple of days. Ensure that they have the opportunity to reach their full potential.
This also includes for business. I grew up in a small business family. My mum and dad ran that business. My mum worked just as hard as my dad. My younger sister was in child care. I never once saw my mum work part-time because of child care. She worked just as hard. To suggest that women can run businesses on the side, again diminishes the work that women do. This government doesn't know what to do when it comes to supporting women, whether it be in business or the workplace.
Today I would like to speak on the Morrison government's ongoing commitment to Australian women. As a woman who has worked hard to succeed while raising two beautiful and wonderful children, I want to teach my children the rewards that come from working hard. This led me beyond my original career as a speech pathologist into owning a small business and then working as an adviser to the Premier of Victoria 10 years ago before eventually becoming the member for Chisholm. This journey taught me the unique challenges that accompany being a woman in the workforce, especially the challenges faced by migrant women.
I admit that it was no easy task juggling all these responsibilities, but I am grateful that I had the support of both my family and the government to help me succeed in my professional pursuits while still raising a family. That's why I'm glad that the Morrison government continues to champion women's success in the Australian workforce. Australian women often struggle to balance or maintain their work life due to a number of challenges, whether that is inflexible workplace arrangements, difficulty in taking time off their careers to take care of the children, curtailing future career advancement or not having the support of extended family. As many Australian families are aware, the cost of child care is a significant factor in Australian women's decision to put their careers on hold to raise their children. As a single mother with an immigrant background, I would not be where I am without child care.
The Morrison government recognises this challenge and is committed to reducing the cost of child care to Australian families. We have demonstrated this commitment by providing record funding for child care. This means $9.2 billion will be delivered to families over the 2020-21 period, growing to more than $10 billion in years to come. As a migrant who couldn't rely on the support of my extended family, child care was essential. This package will support many migrant women in their pursuit of a family and a career.
Over one million Australian families who are balancing their work and parental responsibilities are benefitting from the package. Of these families, 71 per cent pay no more than $5 per hour in day care centres, and, within that subset, 24 per cent pay no more than $2 per hour. This support makes an enormous difference to each and every one of those families and empowers women to take control of their careers and their lives, while still allowing them to raise a family. Our childcare subsidy supported families and helped to deliver all-time high women's workforce participation, at 61.5 per cent in January 2020. COVID-19 has taken a toll on the number of Australians in the workforce. I can proudly say that 61.8 per cent of the jobs created since May have been filled by women, and the number of Australian women in the workforce will continue to rise through the Morrison government's commitment to jobs for women by supporting women in STEM and those who wish to develop a start-up.
As a member of the government that helped achieve resounding results in supporting women in the workplace, I can confidently speak on behalf of all of my colleagues when I say that the Morrison government has proudly supported and will continue to proudly support women in the workplace. It always has been and always will be a priority of our government.
The time for the discussion has concluded.
by leave—The potential of northern Australia is as vast as the north itself. The Morrison-McCormack government believes in this potential and the people of northern Australia. The north has a vibrant and innovative community, with the capacity to create wealth for all Australians.
It is an honour to stand here today as the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia to deliver this, the fifth annual statement to the parliament, on the progress we have achieved in developing northern Australia. I would like to acknowledge my colleague the Hon. Michelle Landry MP, Assistant Minister for Northern Australia. Michelle's belief in the north is underpinned by a wealth of experience and deep understanding of northern Australia. She knows and values the immense contribution that the north makes to our national wealth and global significance.
This is a 20-year vision, set out in the 2015 foundational white paper: Our north, our future, a strategic policy framework to build a strong, sustainable northern economy and, in turn, a secure and prosperous Australia. We have implemented 45 of the 51 inception measures of the white paper, with progress evident across the north. Building on the significant foundation this government created, we are continuing with dedicated initiatives to achieve the very best for the people of northern Australia.
COVID-19 response, fires, floods and drought
This year has brought with it some immeasurable challenges—for Australians and for the Australian economy. Prior to the global pandemic, fire, floods and drought took their toll. The government responded to this with more than $3.3 billion to assist farmers, businesses and communities. This includes funding for five regional recovery officers who are 'on the ground' directly helping the North Queensland flood recovery and rebuilding process.
The coronavirus pandemic caused significant shock to our northern tourism, agriculture, mining exploration and tertiary education sectors. This government's rapid response and early investment and support have maintained jobs and services in regional Australia. JobKeeper has been successful and has supported around 3.5 million Australians in over 900,000 businesses. And now, we begin the path back to economic recovery.
For northern Australia this means returning our focus to development, bringing forward new economic infrastructure projects, encouraging growth, and creating new jobs.
Our vision is for thriving northern communities playing an even bigger role in our nation's prosperity and economic resilience.
Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF)
Established in 2016, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, or NAIF, has driven development across the north.
To date, NAIF has made investment decisions totalling $2.4 billion in projects, which are estimated to generate around 8,000 jobs in the north. In the last financial year 11 investment decisions have been made across a range of sectors such as agricultural, resources and aviation.
Loans provided by the NAIF are helping to catalyse projects and investment in the north.
Just last week, on my behalf, my colleague Senator Sam McMahon announced that the Humpty Doo Barramundi farm in the Top End will receive a second NAIF loan of $24.2 million to construct a purpose built hatchery to house its saltwater barramundi breeding program. This will be undertaken in partnership with CSIRO, along with further investment in production infrastructure to make Australia more self-sufficient in barramundi supplies. This Australian family business is our most successful barramundi farm. It's going from strength to strength. It is growing over a third of Australia's barramundi and, with the aid of its first NAIF loan of $7.18 million, supports 178 jobs in the north.
This second NAIF investment in Humpty Doo Barramundi is a job creator in northern Australia and will enable total employment supported by the operation to grow to over 500 in the next decade.
Dan Richards, CEO of Humpty Doo Barramundi, says that the support from NAIF as well as the ANZ has been a major boost for the company and are pleased to be able to make this further investment in producing Australia's iconic saltwater barramundi and supporting jobs for our Territorians.
The provision of NAIF loans has also been useful to help crowd in investors for projects. The NAIF approved a $10.5 million top-up loan for the Kalium Lakes potash project in Western Australia to assist them to achieve a $70 million capital-raising target. I'm pleased to say that they raised more than what they needed and didn't require the additional NAIF loan to fill the funding gap.
Kalium Lakes CEO Rudolph van Niekerk commented that the additional NAIF loan was an important signal to investors that the project has the backing of the Commonwealth, and they're now on track for production to commence in September 2021.
Through the NAIF statutory review process we have listened to stakeholders in the north that have said that, while it has been a valuable investment tool for projects, more can be done.
On behalf of the Australia government, I recently announced a number of reforms that seek to turbocharge investment and open up more opportunities for project proponents.
Under these changes, projects will find it easier to get the support they need.
We're cutting red tape to speed up investment approvals.
We're expanding eligibility to make it easier for small businesses to qualify.
And there will be more flexibility and an increased risk appetite to support projects with the potential to deliver significant public benefit.
These changes come on top of my announcement in July extending the NAIF for five more years, confirming this government's absolute commitment to driving jobs and economic development for the people of northern Australia.
I would like to extend my thanks to the stakeholders that provided contributions through the consultation process, which helped informed the direction of the NAIF reforms.
Water
Water is the most precious of our resources—for people, agriculture, aquaculture, mining and energy. As a former sugarcane farmer I know this only too well.
That is why we have committed almost half a billion to water infrastructure and feasibility projects.
The investments include: the Adelaide River offstream water storage assessment in the Northern Territory as well as $176 million to build Rookwood Weir near Rockhampton and $30 million for capital works at Big Rocks Weir near Charters Towers, both of which can start once final approvals are in place.
Frank Beveridge, Mayor of Charter Towers Regional Council, recently spoke about how exciting the Big Rocks Weir project is, saying: 'It will double the capacity we have here now. It will create agricultural jobs and industrial jobs and be a catalyst for a whole range of projects in North Queensland.'
These projects show that we are actively and strategically working towards securing the water supply infrastructure that is so critical to sustainable development in the north, providing resilience to communities and building greater resistance to climate change.
Partnership with Indigenous Australians
Working in partnership with Indigenous Australians lies at the very heart of northern development.
Last December, the Northern Australia Indigenous Development Accord was established, providing a framework for governments and communities to work together to advance Indigenous economic development across the north.
The Indigenous Reference Group Chair, Mr Peter Yu, said, 'The accord is a landmark agreement and milestone achievement in moving toward more equitable participation of Indigenous people in the northern Australian economy.' The accord's work is important to all northern Australians.
We know that Indigenous participation and working even more closely together, is the key to jobs and prosperity. I'd highlight the Amrun bauxite mine as a prime example of this collaboration. Developed in partnership with the local Wik-Waya people, the mine is delivering jobs for 400 Indigenous workers and more than $1 billion for local businesses and suppliers.
Critical minerals
This government has also taken action to support the development of critical mineral projects, especially in the resource-rich north. The Critical Minerals Facilitation Office was set up earlier this year. It's had a busy first few months working with the states and territories and our trading partners to boost exploration, open up new basins and promote downstream processing hubs. All this results in jobs and export income.
The TNG Limited Mount Peake project in the Northern Territory will produce high-quality vanadium, titanium and iron ore and support 500 jobs during construction and up to 250 during the operations phase.
Arafura Resources is developing a major rare earths project north of Alice Springs. Production from its Nolans project will be in demand as an important component of high-tech permanent magnets and energy-efficient electric motors.
The NAIF has approved a loan of up to $150 million for Strandline Resources to develop one of the world's largest minerals sands project in Western Australia. The project is expected to benefit the local region to the tune of $922 million over 25 years and could create up to 315 jobs during the construction phase and up to 190 jobs during the operations phase.
The United States recently committed to developing concrete measures with other trading partners, including Australia, to bring new critical mineral supply online, reinforcing the global importance of northern Australia's critical minerals reserves.
Budget measures
The 2020-21 budget set out our national path for economic recovery, and it is a budget for the north. It contains measures worth more than $4.15 billion for families, business and communities. To spur on the 'gas-fired recovery', the budget included an additional $28.3 million to develop five strategic basins—including the Beetaloo Basin in the Northern Territory and the Northern Bowen and Galilee basins in Central and North Queensland. Development of gas reserves in the Beetaloo has the potential to generate billions of dollars for the Territory economy and over 6,000 jobs at a time when the region needs to make the most of every opportunity it gets to create jobs and attract investment. This government knows how important the sector is to the Australian economy, to regional Australia and for the businesses in this sector.
A few weeks ago I met a business owner, Steven Burt, the managing director of Gas Field Services. His business has been operating in the Queensland and New South Wales resources sector since 2007, starting as a team of three. They now provide a full suite of drilling services, running 12 rigs and employing 76 people. They also employ four apprentices and three trainee drillers. Steven and his team won both a mining contractor of the year award and a safety award, highlighting their passion and drive for delivery and improvements in safety. We are backing businesses like Steven's, creating jobs and business opportunities.
Communities in northern Australia will also benefit as part of the $13.7 million allocated to CSIRO's Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance, which provides rigorous scientific research to help local communities understand the impacts of unconventional gas exploration and this is so important to our collective journey of a gas-fired recovery. Now more than ever is the time to capitalise on the north's advantages in gas, critical minerals and renewable energy sources.
We are also committed to providing cheaper, more reliable power and jobs by helping to unlock the economic promise of the North West Minerals Province. The government has committed further support for the CopperString 2.0 transmission line project to progress to a final investment decision. This project is expected to provide 750 direct construction jobs, providing a much-needed boost in employment opportunities for the region.
The Exploring for the Future program is expanding, with a further $125 million to map and identify new minerals, energy and groundwater resources along the WA-NT border and along the NT-Queensland border. Anglo American has cited previous work undertaken by Geoscience Australia through the EFTF program in their decision to take up exploration opportunities in that area.
The EFTF will include minerals, energy and groundwater components in its examination of various areas. ACIL Allen completed a study of return on investment from the work of Geoscience Australia on these three components of EFTF funding totalling $45 million. ACIL Allen found returns of between $446 million and $2.5 billion which includes a return to Commonwealth revenues of between $92 million and $632 million.
Further investments to support healthy oceans, Commonwealth national parks and digital connectivity are being rolled out.
Relief and recovery fund
The relief and recovery fund is continuing to provide a much-needed boost to the north. We are supporting essential air services, connecting Cape York and the Torres Strait Islands, Darwin and Jabiru to West Arnhem Land, and Port Hedland through to the Pilbara. We are maintaining our vital agricultural exports sector by supporting a Darwin-Brisbane flight and Brisbane-Hong Kong flight via Cairns twice a week. And there's further relief that has been provided across regional arts, tourism, zoos and aquariums, and Indigenous arts centres, among others.
The government has also fast-tracked many projects to accelerate recovery and keep the northern economy strong. The Roads of Strategic Importance program has been fast-tracked over the next 12 months to help stimulate economic activity and road-building jobs across the north, such as $13 million to fund developments on Rockhampton to Yeppoon Road, and $9.8 million to upgrade two of the Northern Territory's main freight routes, the Barkly and Stuart highways.
Our investment in 38 road projects have upgraded 500 kilometres of major transport corridors under the Northern Australia Roads and Beef Roads programs—25 are complete, 11 are underway and the final two will commence shortly. Upgrades directly support communities, efficient and safe transport and freight and are expected to create over 2,000 jobs across the three jurisdictions.
Research
We are continuing to explore northern Australian agriculture, health service delivery and traditional owner led development research through the $75 million Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia. The CRC for Developing Northern Australia provides valuable information and data gathered from sectors and stakeholders across the region that helps shape the ongoing development of Northern Australia. To date, 40 research projects worth $35 million have been cooperatively commissioned.
Moving forward
I'm now focused on the next phase of development under the 20-year framework of the white paper on developing northern Australia. Going forward, we will build on what has been achieved over the last five years as well as the measures announced in the budget to implement our JobMaker Plan. The northern economy is still developing and the Morrison-McCormack government is committed to supporting this important region and generating jobs. Strategic investment will result in significant change and large productivity gains for our nation.
The next phase of the northern agenda is an opportunity to create more jobs and more business opportunities through capitalising on the assets of the north—its land, its water, its minerals, its energy and, most importantly, its people. We have been listening to stakeholders and are considering options that build on our industry strengths and capitalise on opportunities for growth. The next phase will have a singular focus: the same focus of creating jobs in the north.
This is a resilient region that continues to grow and adapt, building on traditional industries, while being strategically placed at the forefront of contemporary and emerging economies. The untapped potential, abundant resources and increasingly diverse population makes this a critical nation-building economic development agenda.
Concluding remarks
In conclusion, this government continues to deliver the practical policies and programs which are making a real difference to the people of northern Australia. Every day we work to create jobs. Every day we work to foster economic growth that is both enduring and sustainable, and contribute to the development of regional communities. And we do this with the cooperation and goodwill of the people of northern Australia. Their hard work, their fortitude and their capacity to stare down drought, flood and pandemic is why they, and the north, are so important to our nation's future. The people of the north learn these lessons early in life—resilience and acceptance of the situations and tough conditions in which they live, work and play.
I can assure this parliament, and all those in northern Australia, we will continue to represent you and work even harder for you. As minister I am proud to serve this great part of Australia and its people. And I wish to acknowledge the dedicated support of many: my colleague the Assistant Minister for Northern Australia, the Honourable. Michelle Landry MP, for her constant support through tireless community engagement; the Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon. Ken Wyatt AM MP, for his contribution to the critical role of Indigenous economic participation in developing the north; the members of the Ministerial Forum on Northern Development; Glenys Schuntner, as chair of the Northern Australia Advisory Group; Peter Yu, for his invaluable work as chair, and the insight of members, of the Northern Australia Indigenous Reference Group; the efforts of the team at the Office of Northern Australia, based right across the north. Much has been achieved. As always, there is more to do, but the people of northern Australia are up for the challenge.
We will continue to make progress and make the very most of the opportunities and promise the north offers for the entire nation. Because if it is good for the north, it's good for Australia.
I rise in response to the minister's statement and I thank the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia for providing an update of the government's plans for northern Australia. At least he bothered to actually front up, not like his predecessor who just tabled his statement in parliament, perhaps because he was too embarrassed to make a statement. I'm delighted to represent Senator Murray Watt and take note of this particular north Australia agenda. Like Senator Watt, I've travelled extensively across northern Australia, from the Torres Strait—the member for Leichhardt was there with me on one occasion—though to Cape York, Townsville and Cairns, and into the Northern Territory with Groote Eylandt, Arnhem Land, Maningrida and a whole range of areas across northern Australia with my good mate the member for Lingiari, and into the Kimberley as well in northern Western Australia.
It's an important part of Australia, and I would encourage Australians, when given the opportunity, to travel there and to witness the industry that's happening across there in tourism, in the resource sector and in the tertiary education sector as well. There is a whole range of service industries that are being provided, and I would encourage all Australians to realise the potential and to get behind our northern Australia agenda. I travelled there when I was younger. My mother lived up there in Cairns with her husband, and I travelled there many, many times before I was a member of parliament, and since.
At the outset, I want to say that Labor shares the government's commitment to north Australia. For decades, we've called for and supported its economic development, protection for its fragile environment, the provision of quality health and education services to the people, and the empowerment of the north's First Nations population, which is so critical. You cannot develop northern Australia without the participation, the knowledge and the involvement of Australia's First Peoples in the north.
We know northern Australia offers incredible opportunities in areas like tourism, agriculture, biofuels, renewable energy, mining, the resource sector and tropical medicine, for example. Thanks to Labor governments in my home state of Queensland as well as Western Australia and the Northern Territory, we've put in place enabling infrastructure like ports and airports and established supply chains. A competitive tax environment, of course, is really important, as well as a skilled workforce based on quality education and research institutions. These are very, very important. We need educational opportunities for people in the north just like there are for people who live in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.
Northern Australia is a place that embodies the best of this country. It's where cutting edge scientists play a vital role in the economy, as much as the farmers who cut the cane. Northern Australia is on the cusp of really exciting times with a key part to play in our engagement with our Asian neighbours, as it does with the domestic market in which it flourishes. It is recognised as a world-class producer and leading resources destination which is hungry for investment capital. It also has a long reputation as a reliable supplier of high-quality clean and green produce. While it may not always necessarily be acknowledged as the food bowl of Asia, we are fast becoming it's delicatessen and its premium butcher. Notwithstanding the impacts of COVID-19 on tourism, food has become an increasingly important component of the industry of northern Australia and a huge export earner for that part of our country—thanks, really, to the dining boom. More and more visitors are now coming to the north to sample our cuisine and cosmopolitan restaurants. It is a very multicultural community in northern Australia.
It is this tremendous diversity of opportunities which makes northern Australia a place where virtually anything is possible, but we need to provide support for the area. There are many challenges of living in the tropics, and the minister alluded to the droughts and cyclones that the people in the north face but that aren't faced, necessarily, by people who live in urban areas in the southern parts of the country.
This is of particular relevance to the growing needs of people living in the tropics, who, by 2050, will account for half the world's population. I would encourage people to go north to visit, see and realise the potential. Former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who pioneered Australia's cultural and trade relationship with China, once said that he wanted to be remembered not for what he was against but for what he was for. I'm very proud that Labor is for business, for growth, for jobs and for opportunity for all, particularly in the north. We are unashamedly bullish about the opportunities for our northern neighbours. I'm from South-East Queensland and I know how important the northern part of my home state, with the resource sector, agriculture and tourism, is to the prosperity of my home state of Queensland. And we know how important it is to have partners north of northern Australia, in the Asian region. Northern Australia—North Queensland, the Northern Territory and north-west Australia—is very connected to our Asian neighbours.
We want to see businesses take advantage of the NAIF, which the minister referred to. We want to see the government working with the private sector to deliver major projects of significance. We are willing to look at new funding models, but this needs to go beyond big-ticket items. Areas like tourism and smaller projects need to be looked at. At a micro level, small amounts of startup capital will make a big difference—the next Google or the next Skype. Innovation and collaboration are essential elements of the new economy, and we must build on these and compete today for the generations that follow. We really must. So it's vital that innovation and investment are brought together.
A few years ago, a group called StartupAus made the comparison that Australians bet more on the Melbourne Cup than our Nation's entire venture capital industry invests in startups in a year. We need to turn that around—notwithstanding that we are coming up to the Melbourne Cup very soon. We have to turn this around if we are going to be a competitive economy. This is crucial in northern Australia. To that end, we support investment in innovation, skills, business development and encouraging a startup culture, particularly in the north. We want to bring back innovative people, turning ideas into outcomes and building the jobs of tomorrow, particularly in northern Australia.
Innovation is a critical driver of economic growth, while technology is speeding up the pace of change. The telephone took 75 years to reach 50 million users—but the Angry Birds app took just over a month. That's why it's pleasing to see state and territory governments, like the Palaszczuk government in Queensland, embedding coding, computer science, robotics, Asian languages and, crucially, entrepreneurial schools in school curricula. The work we are seeing in medical research in Queensland to develop a COVID vaccine is a fantastic application of this, building on previous research into vaccines for malaria and other tropical diseases.
Diversification is another key strategic buffer against the disruption in our trade relationships and the peaks and troughs of our traditional strengths, such as mining and agriculture, in northern Australia. This is why Labor has been talking about the need to diversify these relationships—for example, broadening and deepening our connections with India. We need to diversify our export base, build on existing strengths, and foster the development of completely new industries. That's why I've mentioned the startup industries—and we can look at micro industries in northern Australia. Our gas sector, including liquefied natural gas, is a good example of an industry in the north where we can promote exports from the region and our own energy self-sufficiency.
Unfortunately, though, in northern Australia, what we have seen from this government, as we have seen in so many areas, is that plans go off into the never-never; they are taking forever to get out the door. The north Australia white paper is a prime example of what this government loves most: a flashy big announcement but almost zero follow-through. In 2015 we had Our north, our future: white paper on developing Northern Australia. I remember reading it on the plane flying home from Canberra on a Thursday evening after a sitting period. It made big promises to turbocharge growth and create jobs right across the region. Five years on, that paper has been left to languish somewhere in the bottom drawer. It has been very slow progress for a plan that was supposed to mark the beginning of a new era of growth in northern Australia.
We've heard from the minister today that the Morrison government still hasn't fulfilled all the measures it set out five years ago. Time and time again, this government talks about the north's potential; but what it doesn't seem to understand is that the people in the north are looking for action to realise that potential. It's easy to lose count of how many reviews and rehashes of programs the government have announced for northern Australia in the last few years. Ask anyone living in the north. They don't want another announcement from this government; they want delivery.
The northern Australia white paper's crowning jewel, its big-ticket announcement and basically what this minister is the minister for, was the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Many of the things the minister referenced in his speech today were really cross-portfolio areas that he has no personal responsibility for. But he does have the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, widely known by us as the 'No Actual Infrastructure Fund'. It has been a huge disappointment to Australians in the north. It has comprehensively failed to deliver what was promised. I would encourage those people who may be listening to look closely at the words of the minister, the fact that he's undertaken a review. He claims it's a prime mover, that it's driven development in the north. Well, I wouldn't like to get in a car with the minister and drive from Cairns to Townsville. We wouldn't get very far if this is what he thinks driving is all about, because I can assure you it hasn't driven much. The minister talked about getting rid of red tape and making the NAIF more flexible. He talked about the fact that he was going to change the eligibility guidelines. I say to the minister: you've been in power since 2013 and the white paper came down in 2015, so you've had five years to get this right.
The minister talked about the fact that he'd made all these investment decisions. I was just having a look at the minister's press releases. In his press releases, the minister has said some interesting things. In his press release on 30 September this year he talked about the NAIF having actually invested $2.4 billion. There you go: he created 7,200 jobs. That was 30 September. On 6 October it was only $2 billion—he'd lost $400 million—and he'd created 6,500 jobs. So he'd lost $400 million and 700 jobs in about seven days. That was the budget press release, by the way, on 6 October, so it probably would be pretty accurate. You'd forgive him for getting the one before wrong, but he's lost $400 million out of the NAIF investment decisions and he's lost 700 jobs.
Today I was reading his speech beforehand. For those who don't know, when whoever is in government—and we did this when we were in government—has to deliver a speech everyone gets a copy of it beforehand. It's the right thing to do, and I pay tribute to the minister for doing the right thing. I'd had a look at what he was going to say today and I was listening closely—and you would have heard him, Mr Deputy Speaker—to see if he actually said these figures. He's found the $400 million! It's back! The $400 million is back, and he's found 1,500 jobs—in the matter of a few days. Honestly, how can you believe the minister about how much money it is? By the way, Minister, you might want to have a look at your website and see what your actual department says about how much money you've allocated and how much you've invested.
A government member interjecting—
It's not the same as you've said today. So we've got four different versions of events from the minister about what the No Actual Infrastructure Fund has done. Can you get it right, Minister? Can you get it right for the benefit of northern Australia?
The most recent figures show that the NAIF has spent—spent, not made 'investment decisions', as the minister said today—and delivered $170 million of the $5 billion budget five years after it was announced. In my home state of Queensland the NAIF has released less than $2 million to only one project. Not a single Queensland project north of Townsville has received a dollar from the NAIF. The government have given themselves another five years to try to hit the funding target, but they're hanging communities in the north out to dry. At this rate, it's going to take 150 years for the government to deliver what's promised for the region—150 years. I won't be on God's green earth, and I'm sure the minister won't be, when that happens.
Labor has been calling for major changes to the NAIF for three years, and last month the Morrison government finally admitted its failures. The minister admitted it in the paper today. He admitted the failures, because they're going to change everything. They're going to overhaul the project. That's what the minister said today. The money's got to start rolling out the door faster, Minister. You talk about turbocharging. If you want to turbocharge the north, you've actually got to get it out.
During a COVID pandemic it's understandable that people in the north feel let down by the government, because the decision to pull back JobKeeper support too early has hurt businesses and workers in northern Australia—in Cairns, Townsville, Darwin and the Kimberley. They have all been hit hard by the international border closures. Tens of thousands of businesses across the north have been kept afloat by JobKeeper. Thank you very much for listening to Labor, by the way, and introducing JobKeeper. The Morrison government says it's for northern Australia, but it's cutting the very measures that have been keeping it afloat.
The minister touched on the JobMaker announcement. This is the government's priority list for jobs-boosting national infrastructure projects. When it was announced, the Prime Minister promised to fast track 15 major projects across Australia to boost the economy. How many were in northern Australia? What the Prime Minister failed to mention was that not one of those major projects was listed in the Northern Territory, for example, and there was not a single Queensland project north of Brisbane. Once again, northern Australia has missed out on its fair share. The government has failed to follow through on a promise to create jobs in the region. We've found out that, despite multiple promises to the people of Townsville last week, this government doesn't have a single full-time worker—not one—stationed in North Queensland at the North Queensland Water Infrastructure Authority. After the authority has been operational for 18 months the best the government can do for North Queensland is a team in Canberra consulting on important projects for the north. That's all they've got. Perhaps with this attention to detail it shouldn't be surprising they've scrapped the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility. It failed to deliver a cent of its $2 billion funds, but—hey!—it's just following the NAIF.
We want to see northern Australia flourish. We want the government to get the agenda right. We want the government to start spending the money it has put aside. We want the minister to get his press releases right, his speeches right and his website right, but he can't do it. He can't get it right, losing $400 million in a matter of days. We're talking about hundreds of jobs going missing, and then he finds them all. They can't even organise that. It's a great opportunity to develop the north of Australia. We need to expand industries like resources and agriculture. We need agriculture to expand massively. We need things like advanced manufacturing, startups and microbusinesses. But in order for the north to survive and realise its potential at a very challenging time we need the full support of the federal government, not just platitudes, not just righteous statements and unction from the minister. We want actions, not just words. Action has been sadly lacking under this government.
Today's ministerial statement makes it clear that all the Morrison government has delivered for northern Australia in the last five years, since the white paper was launched, is a series of announcements. That's all they've done. People in the north want more than that. They want help to realise their potential and to back in their resilience. They want respect, they want their fair share and they want action, Minister. It's time the Morrison government got on with this job. Those opposite claim they're in office. How about you be in power and do something? Start delivering real results for northern Australia rather than just talking about it and getting things wrong, like you've done today.
I present the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, NAIF, annual report 2019-20.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Review of the mandatory data retention regime:a review of the mandatory data retention scheme as prescribed by part 5-1A of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a Parliamentary Paper.
I am pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's Review of the mandatory data retention regime, the MDRR, as required by section 187N of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the TIA Act.
In 2015, the coalition government inserted part 5-1A of the TIA Act in order to enact new obligations on telecommunications and internet service providers to retain prescribed metadata for a period of two years for the purposes of access by national security authorities, criminal law enforcement agencies and enforcement agencies. It also requires service providers to encrypt the retained metadata, subject to certain exemptions, and outlines which enforcement agencies have access to the information and documents available under the scheme.
In its report, the committee noted:
… the technical difference between the mandatory data retention regime … allowing access to metadata and access to telecommunications data as provided for in sections 280 and 313(3) of the Telecommunications Act. In practice telecommunications data kept under the mandatory date retention regime can, after the two year retention period has expired and as long as it is still being kept, be accessed by a wide range of agencies under section 280 and 313(3) of the Telecommunications Act.
Therefore, in addition to reviewing the MDRR, the committee also looked at access to telecommunications data under the Telecommunications Act.
The committee's report makes 22 targeted recommendations that increase transparency around the use of the MDRR and increase the threshold for when data can be accessed under the MDRR and, importantly, does so in a way that does not have a great effect on law enforcement's and ASIO's ability to do their very important work. In addition, the committee makes recommendations that reduce the currently very broad access to telecommunications data under the Telecommunications Act.
We as the committee take our job very seriously. Our first priority, always, is the safety of the Australian people and making sure that our operational agencies have what they need for our national security. But we're also a parliamentary committee, and foremost in our minds in this review were the principles of transparency and accountability. It may be that the government and operational agencies advise us that some of the recommendations in our report pose difficulties for ongoing operations; we accept this. We're a parliamentary committee, as I said. We don't pretend to have detailed expertise or insight into operations, but we strive for accountability and transparency. That's our job as an oversight committee, particularly when dealing with the accessing of personal data of Australian citizens. We want to strike the right balance between national security and personal liberty, so we look forward to ongoing discussions and engagement on these questions and to working out the best possible balance, upholding national security and personal liberty with the government and the relevant agencies.
After reviewing the evidence, the committee had no major concerns over ASIO's access to data under the MDRR. For that reason, most of the committee's concerns were around access to data under the MDRR by law enforcement agencies. Importantly, the committee did not recommend any changes to the current two-year retention requirement. What the committee would like to see is more reporting on this access, and, as mentioned, an increased threshold for that access. To this end, the committee has recommended that the Department of Home Affairs should, within 18 months of this report, develop guidelines for data collection to be applied across the mandatory data retention regime to achieve the intended outcome of facilitating better oversight, including an ability for enforcement agencies and Home Affairs to produce reports for oversight agencies or parliament when requested. This should include the section of the TIA Act used to access the data; the case number associated with the authorisation; the specific offence or offences that the investigation is related to; if the authorisation related to a missing person case, the name of the missing person; and brief reasons why the authorised officer was satisfied that the disclosure was reasonably necessary. In addition, the committee has made recommendations that the law enforcement access to data kept under the MDRR will only be available in the following circumstances: voluntary disclosure, locating a missing person or the investigation of a serious offence or an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory, that is punishable by imprisonment for at least three years.
I mentioned the access to the telecommunications data under the Telecommunications Act. This was a matter to which the committee gave great thought. In order to reduce the number of agencies accessing telecommunications data in this manner, the committee has recommended the repeal of Section 280(1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act which allows for access where, 'disclosure or use is required or authorised under law'. It is the exceptionally broad language in this subsection that has allowed the access that has concerned the committee. I hasten to add that Section 280(1)(a), which requires disclosure where telecommunications data is required in connection with the operation of enforcement agency, is a section that the committee has made no recommendation on. Law enforcement will still be able to access telecommunications data via the Telecommunications Act when it so requires.
As I'm sure the House will appreciate, in this speech it's difficult to go through all 22 recommendations, that's why we have a report. It's good reading. Suffice to say, the recommendations all strive towards increased transparency and accountability with the accessing of telecommunications data of Australian citizens, whilst not affecting the important work of those agencies who are tasked with protecting and keeping Australians safe.
Before I close, I would like to acknowledge, as always—up there on the screen—the member for Holt, my deputy chair. He is always great counsel and helpful in getting these reports out of the committee, also the member for Isaacs, who has just popped up as well. I want to make, on my side, a particular mention of Senator Fawcett, who was around for the last report and provided a lot of insight and help with this report.
[by video link] by leave—In late 2014 the government introduced the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014 into the parliament and referred it to the intelligence and security committee for inquiry and report. While its 2015 report concluded that the introduction of the mandatory data retention regime was justified, the committee was not satisfied that the regime in its original form was subject to adequate safeguards and oversight. That is why the committee made 43 detailed and bipartisan recommendations to improve the bill. For example, in 2015 the committee recommended that the proposed mandatory data retention regime be amended to: (1) limit the number of agencies that could access telecommunications data without a warrant to prescribed law enforcement agencies and ASIO, (2) better protect journalist sources and, (3) provide for increased privacy protections and more rigorous oversight. The government accepted each of the committee's recommendations.
It has now been over five years since the mandatory data retention regime became law. Over that time many concerns have been raised about how the regime has operated in practice. Loopholes have been identified, gaps in oversight have emerged and the adequacy and effectiveness of key safeguards have been called into question. For that reason the committee's review—which began last year and formally concluded in April of this year—was timely.
Before I mention a few of the committee's key recommendations, it's important to place the mandatory data retention regime in context. Significant intrusions into privacy by government—such as the search of a person's home, opening a person's mail, installing a listening device or obtaining a saliva sample—generally require agencies to obtain a person's consent or a warrant from an independent issuing authority. By contrast, agencies do not require a warrant to access telecommunications data under this regime. Consistent with the position we took in 2015, the committee has not recommended the introduction of such a requirement now, but, make no mistake, when an agency obtains a person's telecommunications data without consent, that is a significant invasion of that person's privacy. The absence of a warrant requirement therefore makes it especially important that the powers to access telecommunications data be subject to rigorous oversight, and that they only be exercised in appropriate circumstances by properly qualified individuals. To that end, as this report makes clear, all committee members agree that the mandatory data retention regime is not currently up to scratch and a number of changes need to be made.
I do not have time to go through each of the 22 recommendations in the committee's report, but I would like to mention a few of them. The committee has today recommended that section 280(1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 be repealed. This should not come as a surprise and nor should it be controversial, but it is, nonetheless, significant. The committee received evidence that with assistance of that provision, at least 80 non-law enforcement authorities have been accessing the telecommunications data of Australians outside the framework of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. Those authorities include local councils and the RSPCA.
As I alluded to earlier, in 2015, the committee recommended that only prescribed law enforcement agencies and ASIO should have access to telecommunications data. Moreover the committee clearly intended that such access should be governed by the framework set out in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. The government accepted that position in 2015 and it was on that basis that the mandatory data retention regime was passed by the parliament. The way in which section 280(1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 has been used by dozens of authorities across Australia is therefore completely at odds with the way in which the mandatory data retention regime was intended to operate. It should be repealed urgently.
In addition, the committee has recommended significant improvements to existing record keeping and reporting requirements to facilitate greater oversight and public scrutiny and better decision-making by authorised officers. The committee has recommended that the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act be amended so that, among other requirements, only individuals who have completed a compulsory training program and who have the requisite experience, knowledge and skills be authorised to access telecommunications data.
The committee has recommended that the government prepare national guidelines on the operation of the mandatory data retention regime by law enforcement agencies to ensure greater clarity, consistency and security in respect of requests for and the collection and management of telecommunications data. The committee has recommended amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to increase the existing thresholds for ASIO and law enforcement agencies to access telecommunications data, and, recognising the ongoing difficulty in distinguishing between content and metadata, the committee has recommended that the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act be amended to delineate more clearly between content and metadata. Those are just some of the committee's recommendations.
It is true that in one respect Labor members believe the committee should have gone further in seeking to balance the legitimate interests of law enforcement on the one hand with the protection of privacy on the other. That is the subject of an additional comment by Labor members. I would stress that this is very much an additional comment, not a descent, and, rather than dwelling on that single area of this agreement, I want to use my time today to talk about the many more areas of agreement between Labor and Liberal members of this committee.
The report which the chair of the intelligence and security committee has tabled today is the product of a lengthy and ultimately very productive dialogue between 11 individuals from both sides of politics. That dialogue was informed by nearly 50 submissions from agencies, industries, civil society organisations and members of the public. I thank the member for Canning, the member for Berowra, the member for Goldstein, Senators Stoker and Abetz and, in particular, Senator Fawcett, for the constructive and considered way in which they approached this important review.
Finally, I would also like to thank the many submitters to this inquiry for their detailed, thoughtful submissions and the staff of the secretariat for the support that they continue to provide to committee members. Thank you.
[by video link] by leave—I am very pleased to speak on this report as a longstanding member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. In reflecting on my contribution today, I went back to the report that basically started this all, that basically created the foundation for the mandatory data retention regime which we are discussing today in this committee's report. It started with this. I want to read it to you because it highlights the work of the committee and how much influence this committee has had in the shaping of the mandatory data retention regime and also illustrates why it's important for this committee's recommendations to continue to be taken into consideration by the government given that the committee has had a substantially very positive influence on the legislation that has been brought forward post this original report. Mandatory data retention came before my committee in a letter that was sent to me by the then Attorney-General Nicola Roxon. Data retention was stipulated in these 2.5 lines:
… tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years for parts of a data set, with specific timeframes taking into account agency priorities, and privacy and cost impacts.
Our committee was asked to look at that. That was the information that the committee was given on mandatory data retention.
This was in 2012. May 2012 was when the Attorney-General sent that letter of request to the committee of which I was then chair. So what effectively happened was that the genesis of the mandatory data retention was in 2.5 lines. It was up to the intelligence committee of the day—and I refer here to George Brandis, who was the shadow Attorney-General, and Philip Ruddock, who was my deputy chair—to extract that out of the then Attorney-General's department, also working very collaboratively with the law enforcement agencies. I would like to pay tribute here to the former Director-General of ASIO David Irvine and the person that was formerly involved at the AFP that I worked with, Mike Phelan, who is now CEO of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. Without those two individuals and without the collaboration between the committee and the intelligence and security agencies, we would not have had the foundation that was enunciated, delineated and clearly articulated in the report that was tabled in 2013.
I point out this history because it is always good to learn about history when we look at these things. We should always reflect back on history. At the start of 2014, our intelligence agencies and security agencies didn't believe that we would legislate a mandatory data retention regime in this country. What changed all of that was the threat that was posed to Australia by the emergence of ISIL. Then the whole game changed. But we should always remember that history can turn very, very quickly. At the start of 2014, when this government actually had what it called a 'regulation day', they were going to abolish the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor—that was a thing that was being put forward. The second thing that was being put to me by agencies was their lack of confidence that there would be a mandatory data regime. ISIL changed everything. We then contemplated that legislation in 2014, and in May 2015 there was a very comprehensive report that drew extensively from the 2013 report on our intelligence committee. We set benchmarks. We agreed with the agencies that they needed these powers to actually perform their duties and that, to keep our country safe, we needed to give law enforcement agencies the powers to prosecute the people that we want prosecuted to protect our country and our civil society. But there must always be as a founding principle of any new legislation of this type corresponding civil liberty concerns and corresponding oversight powers that match the new and extraordinary powers that are given to agencies.
I'd like to point out that very few other places in the world have as comprehensively mandated a regime as Australia has with this regime. When we were first looking at this, we were looking at the United Kingdom and the United States. They do not have in their legislation anything that is as closely mandated as this data retention regime, and I would submit that that is because of the work that was done by the PJCIS in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. That laid the groundwork and improved the legislation. When we got the legislation in 2014, it needed significant improvement. The report in 2015 significantly improved the mandatory data retention regime and made it workable.
In keeping with that trajectory, this report also further improves on that legislation. It improves safeguards. It also gives confidence to the agencies. One of the things that the agencies are concerned about—and it's in this report, in testimony from both ASIO and the AFP—is that 87 parties, outside of those parties that are mandated under the data retention regime, could in fact access metadata. I remember, when we first looked at this in 2012, I didn't want the RSPCA to be able to access my metadata or the metadata of any Australian. But under the existing law, as it stands, they can. And they don't need to use it. They're not a declared law enforcement agency. They are just one of a host of agencies—of 87 that have been identified—that can use and have been using another provision of the telecommunications act to access metadata outside of the metadata regime. One of the strongest recommendations of this committee, which I would be very disappointed if the government didn't accept, is that that loophole must be closed. As Mike Burgess said, the metadata was created for a set number of agencies—security agencies and law enforcement agencies—to be able to get a prescribed set of information that is kept by telecommunications companies. It wasn't intended that the RSPCA, local councils or any other body were able to do that, and I think the public was justifiably concerned, and so were we.
One disappointment for me in listening to the evidence was that the department that was supposed to be monitoring this, the Department of Home Affairs, did not bring this to the committee's attention. Given than the committee has done so much work in terms of its involvement in the architecture of the subset of data that was kept in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, you would have thought that the Department of Home Affairs would have had the courtesy to inform the committee of a substantial breach of the metadata regime by agencies. That disappointed me a very great deal.
The recommendations in this report—this unanimous report with an additional, helpful comment provided by the Labor PJCIS members—will in fact strengthen this world-leading regime even further and offer further protections for that data, target it better and, most importantly, protect people who are accessing the data. The report talks about the number of people that can access it, and we quantify it. We insist on a unified regime where people have to go through a set procedure before they can seek the data from a telecommunications company. These things are not protecting just civil society; they're protecting the security agencies, their personnel and the police forces as well.
The report itself is a tribute to the bipartisanship that exists on what I think is the most important committee in this parliament. There have been many, many reports produced by this committee that have resulted in better laws that make our country safer, and both groups on the PJCIS, both Labor members and coalition members, work together to make that happen. That sometimes gets lost in rancour when we're having a party-political stoush like I saw yesterday. The key thing is that this is a bipartisan report with an additional comment, not a dissenting report.
I'd also like to pay tribute to the young man who chaired the committee. That's Andrew Hastie, the member for Canning. He's had an enormous workload. He has an enormous workload on those very broad shoulders of his, and we are very lucky to have a chair who has the patience, diligence and tenacity of this young man. I think he'll look at the legislation that's been passed in his tenure as chair, and it will reflect very well on him and bode very well for his future.
So I commend the report to this House. I would also like to thank other committee members, in particular the shadow Attorney-General, who did a huge amount of work on this, and my fellow committee members the shadow minister for home affairs and Senator Jennifer McAllister for coming together and working for a solution. What we recommend here will even strengthen a regime which has been used and which keeps Australians safe but does have appropriate safeguards and oversight. Thank you very much for your indulgence, Deputy Speaker.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
The Hansard green tells me that, when I finished speaking just before the 90-second statements before question time, I was speaking about the JobKeeper supplement, but, before I return to that, looking at the Hansard green prompts me to put on the record how amazing everyone who works in Hansard is. We wouldn't be able to do our jobs the way we do them without their assistance. Given the fact that I can look a few hours later at where I was in my speech, they are absolutely incredible, so I wanted to thank them for everything that they do for all of us.
I want to return to the issue of what we used to call unemployment benefits or Newstart and, in the current trend to put 'job' before everything, we now call JobSeeker. I want to set the scene about how my community in Dunkley has fared in 2020, during the global pandemic, the restrictions and the recession. In June the Grattan Institute produced a report about job losses, and in Dunkley we suffered the third-worst level of job losses in Victoria, with a drop of about eight per cent of jobs since the start of the COVID pandemic. In September the Department of Social Services released the most recent available statistics about people who are on JobSeeker and youth allowance, and in my community in Dunkley from March to July of this year there had been about a 45 per cent increase in people who are now reliant on JobSeeker and about a 51 per cent increase in young people now reliant on youth allowance.
Of course, we all know that in Victoria, in Melbourne and in my community in Dunkley, Frankston and surrounds we've had an extended stage 4 restriction since July, so I am, unfortunately, expecting that these statistics will be worse for us when we see the next lot come out. One of the things that's revealed from the statistics, which, of course, are people, is that it's all areas of our community that have been hit. Frankston South saw a 65 per cent increase in JobSeeker and a 68 per cent increase in youth allowance. Skye and Sandhurst saw a significant jump as well: an almost 60 per cent increase in JobSeeker and a 73 per cent increase in youth allowance. As I said, these aren't just numbers; these are people, often people who have run their own businesses and weren't able to sustain them. Sadly, in terms of youth allowance, a lot of young people who worked at the Peninsula Aquatic Recreation Centre—which the federal government refused to extend JobKeeper to because it was an entity under the local council—didn't get JobKeeper at all, and they were casuals. A lot of these people—
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
Order! The member for Goldstein will cease interrupting. There are plenty of opportunities in this place to have your say.
This is a chamber of debate, but, when you're trying to stand up for your community, you have to try to talk over the top of people like the member for Goldstein, who just yells out at you. The fact is that a lot of people in my community who are now on youth allowance were working in casual jobs and had been there for less than 12 months, and they were deliberately excluded from JobKeeper by the federal government, of which the member for Goldstein is a member. And that's the truth.
Honourable members interjecting—
It's alright. People in Victoria know what's important. And what's important is having someone who stands up here and fights for them. What's important is putting the pressure on this government to make sure that all of these people who are now on youth allowance and JobSeeker allowance are able to pay their rent, to buy food to put on the table, to pay their electricity bills, to look for work and to live lives of dignity above the poverty line. Sadly, they're not going to be able to do that unless the members opposite, who are part of the federal government, agree to support Labor's amendments to this legislation.
Our amendments will create an obligation on the minister to extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper. Cuts to the coronavirus supplement will cut more than $4 million a fortnight from Dunkley's local economy. So the people who live in my community will suffer and the economy of my community will suffer, which means the businesses in my community will suffer. I don't hear so much yelling out now.
There are 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker. At least 160,000 more are expected to lose their jobs between now and the end of the year. It is not the right time to be withdrawing allowances for people who are doing it tough, and it is absolutely not the right time to leave people who are currently supporting themselves and their families on JobSeeker in absolute limbo about whether they are going to be put back onto $40 a day come December. This government can't hold an answer consistently between the morning and question time about whether or not JobSeeker will be returned to $40 a day, below the poverty line, for people who just want to find work but can't because there aren't enough jobs available. There are 13 people receiving unemployment payments for every one job vacancy.
Labor's amendments are to make this government look after the people of my community and the people of Australia and to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker—what we used to call Newstart. It cannot go back to $40 a day. There were a number of people on the opposite side of the chamber who agreed with that. They need to stand up for their convictions and continue to agree with that and to agree with Labor and vote for our amendments, which mean that Australians won't be put back onto $40 a day.
Apparently, the best form of welfare is a job, but this government doesn't want to provide people with the basic financial assistance they need to be able to look for a job. I've had women sitting in my office crying, telling me that they want to go back to work and they can't because they've got to look after their children. Often I have heard about women looking after disabled children. They have to pay the rent. They have to put food on the table. Where is the money going to come from for them to do everything else they need to do to be able to find a job? It would be absolutely cruel to decrease JobSeeker in December, let alone put it back to $40 a day. We have to do better than that.
I spoke earlier about pensioners, and I reiterate what I said before. We have many, many pensioners in my community who are crying out for support. I am pleased that the bill adjusts the paid parental leave qualification tests. There have been improvements to paid parental leave in the last 12 months. But there is a lot more to be done. We need to give men more support to feel that they can stay home with their children, particularly in the earlier years, which will also allow women to get back to work. If we want to have a cultural shift in this country, where men's and women's workforce participation reaches something akin to equality, we need to look at the sorts of paid parental leave schemes that we see in Scandinavia and in countries with 'use it or lose it'.
In conclusion, nothing will stop me from standing up for my community, not being yelled at inside this chamber or outside this chamber, because the people who want to work need to know that we are here fighting for them and for their businesses. (Time expired)
[by video link] This bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020, is about social security payments and the level of social security payments that people should get. When we're in the middle of the biggest recession that many of us have seen in our lives, where we have one million people unemployed and where there are 12 people looking for every one vacant job, it's good that we're debating that. But I start from a simple proposition, which the government doesn't seem to agree with. In a wealthy country like ours, no-one should be living in poverty. In the middle of a recession, which is not the fault of anyone living in this country, we should be looking after each other. We should be making sure that no-one—and especially no child—in this country is forced into poverty by government actions and by government cuts.
About a million children are going to be affected by the government's recent cuts to JobSeeker. We have a million people who are finding themselves out of work in the middle of a recession, because businesses have closed down while we're fighting a virus. What does the government do? It doesn't bring in a bill to lift those people out of poverty, but it does have time to fast-track tax cuts for millionaires. The government has made sure that people who've kept their job throughout this recession and who are earning over a million dollars a year get a tax cut of a couple of thousand dollars, which is going to rise to over $11,000, but people who are unemployed, through no fault of their own, get a kick in the teeth. We know from statements from the government over the last couple of days that, once it considers that the coronavirus is under control, the government is going to cut their payments. It's going to cut the payments of people who are on social security, while millionaires will get a cash handout. Clive Palmer does not need extra money in his pocket, frankly, but the government is quite happy to give millionaires and the super wealthy a tax cut, a cash handout, while those who are doing it the toughest are going to have their payments cut, with less money in their pocket to deal with the essentials.
For many, many years this government has deliberately kept people in poverty. These are people who are looking for work. The government has kept them in poverty and forced them to live below the poverty line. Then, when the recession came along, caused by the coronavirus, what did the government do? All of a sudden it realised that millions of people in this country were going to see just how appallingly the government had been treating people without a job, and so it lifted the level of what was called Newstart and then changed to JobSeeker; it lifted the level of unemployment assistance. For people who had been living on $40 a day for many years, trying to make ends meet, for everyone who had been skipping meals and skipping the essentials of life because living on $40 a day is no way to survive, for people who had been unable to afford the haircut, the extra set of clothes or the training course to increase their chances of getting a job, that lift of JobSeeker to $1,100 was a blessing. Because, for the first time, many people in this country, including many children, were able to live a life above the poverty line. But now the government cannot wait—cannot wait!—to cut that back to $40 a day. $40 a day is not living; it is barely surviving. In a wealthy countries like ours, instead of finding billions of dollars to give tax cuts to the millionaires and the already well-off, we should be prioritising the million unemployed. We should be standing up for the million unemployed, not for the millionaires. And we should be standing up not only by directly investing in projects that would create jobs but also by ensuring that the level of social security payment is above the poverty line. If the government can find billions of dollars to give tax cuts to millionaires, there is no excuse for having the level of unemployment assistance in this country being anywhere below the $1,100 that it has been.
The government must return JobSeeker to where it was, and that is especially the case in my state of Victoria, where, having now endured the restrictions that we've all lived through, because we know that getting on top of the virus is critical, the jobs just aren't there. The jobs just aren't there—we're opening up, but it's going to be a while before things get back to normal. In my area of Melbourne, for example, a lot of people are employed in the entertainment and hospitality sector. Let's take the entertainment area and the arts and creative industries. They rely on getting a lot of people in the one room. It's the business model. It's the business model of the comedy festival, it's the business model of the various arts festivals, it's the business model of every live performer, and it's the business model that so many pubs and live music venues rely on. It is not clear when we are going to be able to get back to having those industries on their feet, because we've still got a virus to get on top of. In this situation, we should not be cutting JobSeeker. We certainly shouldn't be cutting JobKeeper, either, because the jobs just aren't there. But, in dealing with this bill, when it comes to dealing with people who are unemployed, we should not be cutting JobSeeker. It is going to hurt people in Victoria.
The government has been very happy, as I've said, to write big cheques for billionaires and for large corporations, and, in the budget that was just passed, the government found $99 billion a year in subsidies to big corporations or the well-off. That's $99 billion a year. For example, when Gina Rinehart's companies take their trucks to the bowser on a mining site, they pay the tax that everyone else in this country pays when they go to the petrol station to fill up. But then, come tax time, Gina Rinehart's companies get a huge big cheque back from the taxpayer for all of the tax they paid. So, in other words, everyone else has to pay 40-odd cents of tax a litre on petrol when they go to the bowser, but Gina Rinehart's mining companies get it tax-free and get a multibillion-dollar tax refund between all of them, every year, courtesy of the public. I think that Gina Rinehart could pay the same for her petrol as everyone else in this country. In return, we could use some of that money to make sure people don't live in poverty.
That's what this bill should be about. This bill should be about the priority of making sure Australia, especially as we come out of a recession, becomes a more equal society, not one where we take billions of dollars and give them to the mining billionaires, but one where we say that people who are doing it tough are going to get looked after. If the government was serious about creating jobs for people, then they would be using the money not to give tax breaks to big corporations and cash handouts to corporations, many of which have stayed very profitable during the coronavirus recession, but they would be using that money to directly invest to create jobs. It's $99 billion a year in handouts to big corporations and the like. Let's put that money into building public housing, so that we not only solve the homelessness crisis but create jobs, including apprenticeships. Let's put that money into free education, so that everyone who's dealing with the crisis at the moment doesn't have their fees doubled, as this government has proposed, and the cost of a degree is zero. We could do that instead of giving billions of dollars to big corporations, and that would help create jobs. We could expand our aged-care sector by putting at least one registered nurse in every setting and on every shift, but also expand the number of staff that are available there so that we provide good-quality care and stop running it at a profit, which, again, helps just the billionaires. That would create more jobs. So let's expand education. Let's expand care. Let's build infrastructure like public housing or high speed rail—then you create jobs.
Instead, this government is stuck in a trickle-down mentality of giving $99 billion a year in subsidies to big corporations in the hope that some of it will trickle down and find its way into jobs. We have had 30 or 40 years of this trickle-down fantasy and we know it doesn't work. Before this crisis started, we had high unemployment and under-employment. Nearly one in three young people in this country was without a job or without enough hours of work. It was before the coronavirus crisis started. Those people, instead of being supported by the government, are being punished. They are being forced to live on $40 a day. Some young people have been forced to live on even less. Some people haven't been entitled to any assistance at all. And now, as the numbers go higher in the middle of a recession, what does the government do? The government cuts their payment and refuses to put money into direct job-creating, nation-building, planet-saving projects. Instead, it gives $99 billion a year to big corporations and the like.
We are facing a crossroads. We could come out of this crisis with something to show for it. We could build legacies for future generations—we could deliver high-speed rail, half a million public housing homes and free education for this country and bring unemployment down to two per cent, genuine full employment, which is what it was between World War II and the 1970s—or we could go down the government's road, which is cutting social security payments, giving handouts to big corporations and subsidising coal and gas, and just hope that some of it ultimately trickles down. Not only would Australia come out of that more unequal, but it would take us longer to recover from the recession.
I say this to the government: if you're serious about this mantra of yours that the best form of welfare is a job and everyone who wants a job, if they are good at it, can get one, then offer a job guarantee. Offer a guaranteed job to everyone in this country, if they want it, working on a nation-building, planet- saving project. If you do that, that might be a future where people could learn skills, earn a decent wage and deliver something of lasting benefit to their country. That might be something people would get excited about. That was the approach that the US government took when they were getting their way out of the Great Depression. They didn't think, 'We just need to give billions more to big corporations and hope that, by repeating the mistakes of the past, things will be fixed up in the future.' No, they invested in planet-saving, nation-building projects. If we did that, we'd be in a position to offer a job guarantee to young people. You could have a free education, an income above the poverty line or a guaranteed job working on one of these projects. That's what we could be offering.
Instead, our het-up Treasurer, who likes to shout at Victorians and condemn them after all that we been through, says his unemployment target is six per cent, which means two million people either without a job or without enough work. When we get to six per cent, he is going to start cutting even further. That's the government's approach. The government's approach to getting out of this recession is to deliberately choose high unemployment and low wages. People who don't have a job, like those this bill is focused on, are going to be living below the poverty line.
I said that this bill was about the level of social security payments. There are measures in this bill that go a way towards redressing some of the inequality in our society. Those measures in this bill, which have been dealt with and outlined before, are measures that the Greens will support because they make slightly better a very bad situation for very many people. But, like everything with this government, they come in and they say, 'We understand that people are hurting, we understand that people want a more equal society and we understand that the Australian people want someone to stand up to the big corporations and the very wealthy and make them pay their fair share so that we can invest, create jobs and have a more equal society.' The government know that, so they pay lip service to it. But, when you delve into the detail, you realise they are still pushing people into poverty. Every chance that they can get, they are pushing people into poverty. They pretend to be about jobs, jobs, jobs, and then they come down with a budget that locks in six per cent unemployment and much higher rates of underemployment.
The level of unemployment coming out of a recession is a is a deliberate choice that the government is making to keep millions and millions of people unemployed and underemployed. We could have full employment again in this country. We could get back to two per cent unemployment, which it was between World War II and the 1970s, if we had the courage to ditch this trickle-down economics fantasy that the government is wedded to and start investing in those job-creating, nation-building, planet-saving projects. Not only would we tackle the unemployment and the jobs crisis but we would tackle the climate crisis and the inequality crisis in this country as well. That is why we are pushing a Green New Deal—a government led plan of investment and action that will tackle those multiple crises, not this trickle-down fantasy of the government that sees $99 billion a year going to big corporations, tax cuts to millionaires and kicks in the teeth to everyone else.
[by video link] When I was elected in a hard fought by-election in 2018, I promised the people in my electorate real change—change that can only be delivered by a party of government that is committed to change for the better. I'm a member of the Labor Party, because, in this great country, all major social change has been brought about by Labor. I am proud to stand here as a Labor member of parliament with the legacy this great party carries and to stand with the wonderful member for Barton, who is moving a substantial legislative amendment to this bill, which calls for a permanent increase in JobSeeker, better support for pensioners, and certainty for people relying right now on JobSeeker.
From the full employment policies of the wonderful postwar government of Chifley to the NDIS and paid parental leave policies, to name only two, of the last Gillard Labor government, it will always fall to Labor to make people's lives better. Those in conservative or neo-liberal governments, like the Morrison government—
Order. I'll ask the audiovisual people to get the member for Cooper back online.
[by video link] We must remember that they did not want to introduce wage subsidies, something the PM called very dangerous; they did not want to give people paid pandemic leave; and they did not want to support flailing industries. We had to fight for all of that, and still they've left many workers and people out of the important support they needed. Ultimately, they've had to admit that their economic policies of old do not support the whole of society, only a privileged few—like well-paid CEOs who use public funds to buy their mates gifts or to do their tax returns, like mates of theirs being appointed to highly-paid public roles and like ministers trying to rort the system for personal gain. These they protect, promote and support until it gets found out or gets too hot to handle any longer.
How quick the Prime Minister was to demand the CEO of Australia Post step down when she was found out, but not once did he admonish his own minister caught up in scandal after scandal. How is it we saw no action on the wrongdoings at ASIC until, again, all was made public? There were sports rorts, scandals, relief funds promised but unspent and infrastructure projects yet to begin, and today we hear that they are prepared to subsidise expensive private jet costs for their rich donating mates like Clive Palmer. As long as they like the lies that Mr Palmer peddles on their behalf, they will happily let taxpayers pay for his indulgences. And that's just in this horrible year.
As we've pointed out in this House over and over, this country had been going downhill long before the pandemic hit. With insecure work, record-low wages growth and rampant underemployment, this government was overseeing the weakest growth since the global financial crisis. As the shadow Treasurer said in his post-budget address:
This pandemic has entrenched the disadvantages of age, gender, geography and education. It has magnified structural weaknesses in growth, investment, dynamism and productivity. And it has exposed the unfairness and uncertainty inflicted by years of cuts to essential services, growing casualisation and financial insecurity.
The government's budget missed the greatest opportunity of recent times to rebuild this country fairly and securely.
So here we are again today. Yes, there are some good things in this bill before the House that we will support. But, once again, it has taken a long time and lots of pressure for the government to initiate these changes. Labor called on the government months ago to change the work test for paid parental leave and for there to be exemptions to the youth allowance parental income test. The delay has caused considerable anxiety and distress, and it's disappointing that they've taken this long to act.
We know that this government have dreadful form when it comes to supporting pensioners, with the cruel pension freeze and a long track record of cutting, or attempting to cut, the pension. They still haven't adjusted deeming rates, which remain significantly higher than interest rates, meaning pensioners are being short-changed by the Morrison government.
Once again, here we are, with Labor moving amendments to improve this bill because the government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other, offering a little extra here and there with this bill, for example—important changes, I grant you—but always taking more away than they offer—cutting pensions, cutting JobKeeper and cutting JobSeeker.
One hundred and sixty thousand Australians are expected to lose their jobs and 1.6 million Australians are receiving JobSeeker. In my electorate of Cooper, close to 12,000 people are relying on JobSeeker to get by. They are local folk who, through no fault of their own, find themselves without a job. Some are people this government could have kept in a job had they extended JobKeeper to their industries, like the workers laid off from La Trobe University or the many, many people in Cooper who work in the entertainment and arts industry or casuals and so many women. With one job for every eight jobseekers out there right now, a statistic that is in reality much worse given the number of employed people who are looking for more work to get by, for all of those people the situation is dire. There just aren't enough jobs. Even if you pulled yourself up by your blooming bootstraps, there still wouldn't be enough jobs.
Given that, the member for Barton has moved that the $250 coronavirus supplement be extended until March. But she is also moving for a permanent increase in the base rate of JobSeeker and better support for pensioners, disability support pensioners and carer payment recipients. The passing of these amendments would mean that JobSeeker payments would continue at their current amount until March next year, in line with JobKeeper, when the situation can be reviewed again. This will give people a better Christmas and less uncertainty moving into the new year. And everyone knows that it would be unthinkable to push the JobSeeker payment back to pre-pandemic levels—$40 a day is impossible to live on. It would be an act beyond forgiveness and definitely beyond the boundaries of responsible government.
JobSeeker has to be permanently increased, and the government could commit to doing that right now. Constituents have told me that the extra money means being able to live without anxiety and treating the kids to a new book or a new pair of shoes, let alone a decent meal. One single mum told me it has meant she has been able to finally focus on setting up her own business, something she's been trying to do for a long time but has never had the means to really settle into and make work. Imagine that: assisting someone to actually make their own way; making sure people can eat, be healthy, be well-dressed, be mentally well and ready to get out and find work where they can. God forbid this government would want to do that.
When it comes to unemployed people the Prime Minister and his government are only interested in chasing illegal and immoral robodebts and driving people further into poverty and, indeed, desperation. The Prime Minister has often tried to draw on the bow of Australian values, but they do not know the true meaning of Australian values and it makes me furious when they pretend they do. Their values are all about dog eat dog, or kick you when you're down. If you are poor, sick, uneducated, unemployed, young, old, female, from a migrant background, then bad luck it's your fault. The Treasurer let the cat out of the bag when he said he drew on Thatcher and Reagan for inspiration—the idea that governments should step aside and let markets rip. Decades of Thatcherism and Reaganomics has created the inequality and insecurity we face today. Wealth didn't trickle down to the masses. It flowed all the way into the deep, deep pockets of a very privileged few.
On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition, in his budget reply, spoke of his mentor John Uren, a truly great man. The member for Grayndler said he draws his values from what John Uren told him was a simple code for survival: the healthy look after the sick, the strong look after the weak and the young look after the old. I know whose values I trust more. To channel our Labor leader again, we say that with the right plans, the right policies, the right leadership, and strength and fairness we can beat this recession. We can launch a recovery and we can build a future where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. These amendments will go a long way to ensuring that.
I rise today of course to speak on Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 and in favour of the amendments moved by my colleague the member for Barton. I rise to speak on behalf of my community. My community is doing it pretty tough. I'm very honoured to represent the electorate of Macarthur and it's a community that I know and I love. Macarthur is a wonderful place to live and to work and its people are undoubtedly its greatest asset. Whilst some people say we're all in this together, I know that that's not true. I know that many people are being affected much more severely than others. In Macarthur many people are doing it tough and they have been for some time. We've had high levels of unemployment, particularly high levels of youth unemployment, and high levels of under-employment for a long time. I've long called for increases in support for those people so stressed.
The resolve of my community to band together and to support those in need is nothing short of inspirational. We have a number of community organisations, charities and local residents and businesses who are working harder than ever to support their neighbours in these very difficult economic times. I'm extremely proud to be their voice. There are far too many to name, but I would like to give a quick mention to Rose Versteeg and her team at the Arts Centre Cafe in Campbelltown Arts Centre. Working in conjunction with the team at We Are Community incorporated, a fantastic local charity, the Arts Centre Cafe has been generously cooking hundreds and hundreds of meals to donate to the homeless and those in need, including students. It is acts like this which demonstrate the true community spirit which is alive within the Macarthur community. I thank Rose, her team and We Are Community for their ongoing selfless efforts. People are doing it tough in Macarthur and the reality is that companies like Rose's and charities like We Are Community are doing the heavy lifting because the government is leaving people behind.
We are in the midst of the worst recession in almost a century, however, people in Macarthur have been doing it tough before that. Our unemployment and under-employment rates have been above the national averages for some time. People struggle to keep up with the cost of living. The Liberal-National Party governments, both here and in Macquarie Street, have done nothing to ease the pressures on Macarthur's families and businesses. Many of the people I saw as children are really struggling with a whole range of issues, with things like work, and they have been for some time. Many kids with learning difficulties that I've cared for struggle to find meaningful work. They struggle to find a roof over their heads, which in the 21st century in Australia is really astounding. The Berejiklian government in Sydney has really slugged the people of Macarthur with extortionate new taxes like tolls on old roads in the middle of a recession. This single policy failure will cost commuters in my electorate almost $3,500 every year. Those opposite and their colleagues in state parliament are out of touch with struggling communities. They have absolutely no idea about the needs of my community.
Before us we have a piece of legislation which deals with the social security framework in Australia at a time of unprecedented demand for our social security supports. As I remarked in the Federation Chamber earlier this week, people are accessing welfare in many cases for the first time in their lives. These experiences are really opening people's eyes to the difficulties that people who are struggling have when interacting with the social security system. They're being made to wait on the phone, sometimes for hours. They're not having their calls returned. They're not having important information passed on to them. They're made to feel sometimes like criminals—this was said to me on the phone only yesterday by a constituent who was really struggling to interact with Centrelink—and this is a tragedy.
Those opposite have no idea of these problems. Many of them come from multigenerational privilege. Let me tell you, multigenerational privilege does something to you. It means you come from a family that never has to interact with social security. It means that you always have steady employment. It means you always have a roof over your head and food in your mouth. Many people who are struggling in Australia these days don't have that.
We think that many people are underreporting the difficulties they're facing and the difficulties they're having when interacting with Centrelink because they just do not want to be treated so denigratingly again. People are becoming increasingly aware of the inhumane experiences they're being put through. The system under the coalition has been designed intentionally to repel some people from putting in a claim and seeking the assistance that they are entitled to. Those who are able to get through to Centrelink after spending hours on hold are often made to navigate a complex and very burdensome system. Those who have been successful in making a claim are often made to feel subhuman and even criminal if something goes wrong. We can do a lot better.
For years we've been told about how important small government is when, in fact, the business of government is about supporting the population. That may mean putting on a few extra social security staff, but that's what the government should be doing. It should be supporting people, not punishing people. Social security is meant to support those in need, to provide a leg-up to those who are in need of assistance. It's not supposed to beat people while they're down. We are not a poor country, yet we've seen the gap between rich and poor get larger and larger. We can afford to treat people, particularly those who are struggling, a whole lot better than we presently do. I've long been advocating for a permanent increase in the rate of the formal Newstart, or dole, now euphemistically called JobSeeker when there are not enough jobs to go around. That is very important for people to be able to put a roof over their heads, food in their mouths and feel at least that they're being treated as human beings.
The legislation before the House today is yet another missed opportunity for this government on this front. It's time for a plan for the future. A plan for the future means a plan for the future not just for property developers or billionaire business owners but for those who are really struggling to find a job and to interact with society as a whole. The need is long overdue, and I cannot understand why this government continues to torture people by not allowing them to plan for a decent future and be supported. We're told, 'Maybe the Treasurer and maybe the Prime Minister and maybe a few other members opposite think it is okay to increase the JobSeeker allowance on a permanent basis,' but they refuse to commit to it and they refuse to allow people to plan for the future.
The legislation before the House, as I said, is yet another missed opportunity, amongst many missed opportunities, to plan for the future. We know that they're putting us $1 trillion in debt and yet we have no real plan for the future, particularly for those most disadvantaged. With 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker, the government has missed a huge opportunity to finally deliver much-needed certainty to many desperate Australian families. The coalition ought to finally have committed to raising the rate. The old rate by general consensus across the parliament is not enough to live on. It's not enough to live on. It is not enough to provide a roof over one's head. It is not enough to allow people to interact in society in general. With more Australians expected to lose their jobs by Christmas, I fear that the Liberal-Nationals government will continue to leave people behind by their lacklustre approach to welfare support. The government is leaving far too many Australians behind throughout this pandemic, and it's most disappointing that they have, yet again, not sought to rectify this in the legislation today.
I want to thank my friend and colleague the member for Barton for her timeless advocacy. Unlike those opposite, she understands that people in her community are doing it tough. The member for Barton knows there needs to be a permanent increase to the JobSeeker rate and that people who are reliant on this payment deserve some form of certainty around their futures. This is particularly true for young people. Many of the kids I have cared for, now young adults, are struggling. They're struggling to get a job, struggling to get an education, struggling to get a roof over their heads and struggling to feel that the government does actually support them like the way the government supports others.
The member for Barton also understands that an increase to the JobSeeker rate makes economic sense, because the money that is given to people on the JobSeeker rate will all go back into the economy. The economy is floundering, and was doing so long before the current recession under the watchful eye of those opposite. It may not always be obvious from the streets of Toorack or Point Piper, but some people in Australia are doing it tough. A simple stroll down Queen Street in Campbelltown will tell you that. Those opposite would see empty businesses—many that had been there for quite a long time—that is, for years. If they ever cared to look, they'd see shops struggling to keep their doors open. One way those opposite could inject desperately needed money into the economy is through ensuring that people had a permanent increase to JobSeeker and a roof over their head by funding an increase in social housing. We know this money would flow through to support struggling local businesses and support desperately-needed jobs, so why won't the government finally take some committed action? They can find enough money in their trillion dollar debt to provide subsidies to billionaires and to property developers and to a whole range of chances and urges, but they cannot find enough money to make sure that people can put food on their table and a roof over their heads.
We are in desperate need of a job creation plan from this government not just for young people but also for middle-aged people and older people. They continue to ignore my request and the advice of experts to fund desperately needed job-creating and nation-building projects in the rapidly growing areas of south-west Sydney like Macarthur. There are many more jobseekers than there are job vacancies. There are simply not enough jobs to go around. Thanks to the government's continuing failure to provide jobs in our areas of need, we know that this will not improve in the immediate future.
Some Australians are doing it tough and are facing great uncertainty in the lead up to Christmas. The least the government could do is ensure we have a permanent increase to the rate of JobSeeker to ensure people do not fall even further behind and so that they feel that they do have a future and that the government, as a whole, does support them. And yet the reality is the reverse for many of the people in my electorate, because of the government's beloved trickle-down economics. People who have less money in their pockets have less money to spend supporting local businesses. Less income means small and family businesses have less money to spend on wages and local jobs. The government's tax handout to billionaires, like Rupert Murdoch, will not provide a single job in my electorate, but a permanent increase to the rate of JobSeeker has the potential to support and create countless jobs all over the economy. We risk losing even more jobs in December when JobSeeker is cut. Those opposite can't or won't quantify the number of livelihoods that they are placing at risk by winding back this support.
The pandemic is far from over. We have a long time to go in this pandemic. Those opposite are very optimistic about the development of a vaccine. Let me tell you, having spoken to many of the medical experts in this field, a successful vaccine is a long way off. The pandemic, as I said, is far from over and we're still in the midst of this economic crisis. The coalition has abandoned entire sectors of our society. It is now winding back critical financial support, like the JobKeeper program, for struggling Australians far too early. We have a trillion-dollar debt on our hands and the government refuse to find money, despite this unprecedented debt, to provide certainty to Australian families, yet they can easily find enough money to give a subsidy to a billionaire in New York.
Families and businesses in my community are being left behind thanks to so-called trickle-down economics—if such a theory really does exist—and the twisted priorities of this out of touch government. Its recent budget left much to be desired. It completely ignores whole sections of my community, from the arts community to the university community to international students. Many, many people feel they are being neglected by the Morrison government. In fact, this latest budget only makes matters worse for jobseekers over the age of 35, as if they are somehow different to younger jobseekers. People over 35, let me remind you, often have young families and are often trying to support a mortgage, and they need to be supported as well. The coalition government have left even young jobseekers worse off. They have closed their eyes to almost one million Australian jobseekers, pretending they don't exist. Older Australians have also done poorly. Once again, the government is not providing them with support. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 and the amendment moved by the member for Barton. This bill implements several measures from the budget—the very disappointing budget—including a further two economic support payments of $250 to pension recipients; concessions to the paid work test for people seeking to demonstrate independence for youth allowance and Abstudy purposes, allowing parents whose employment has been impacted by the coronavirus Morrison recession to more easily access paid parental leave; improved stillborn baby payments and infant death payments; and temporary incentives to encourage young people to undertake seasonal agricultural work during the upcoming harvest season, among other things.
These are important measures. Labor will not delay support flowing to those who need it. But the story of this bill is the story of this government: it announces big, delivers little. No doubt, as we move into a post-COVID world and must deal with the effects of the Morrison recession, this type of support is needed more than ever. With another 160,000 Australians expected to lose their jobs by Christmas and 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker, the government missed a huge opportunity in the budget to deliver certainty for Australians doing it tough by delivering a permanent increase to JobSeeker. With more jobseekers than there are job vacancies, there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone who needs one—it's simple maths.
It is even more difficult to find a job in our regions, the result of the government's failure to deliver a jobs program for the regions. In Tasmania there are 21 jobseekers for every available job. There aren't jobs available for them, yet this government seeks to punish those people. ABS figures released last week show that more than 50,000 Tasmanians either are looking for a job or can't get the hours they need to make ends meet. The number of jobs in Tasmania has fallen by 2,200 since August. Our unemployment rate is now at 7.4 per cent, up a full percentage point from last month—it's going the wrong way. We are all hopeful that the reopening of borders will improve the desperate job situation in Tasmania, but hope doesn't pay the bills. Hope doesn't pay the rent. It doesn't put food on the table. It doesn't put clothes on the kids. A jobs plan is needed, not a wing and a prayer.
In Tasmania the jobs crisis is also a wages crisis. Tasmanians have experienced a fall in wages of 4.9 per cent, when the average fall nationwide has been 3.3 per cent, and it's important to note that that drop comes off an already lower average wage in Tasmania. Tasmanian average wages have fallen $71 a week, from $1,448 to $1,377, while national wages have fallen $56 a week, from $1,714 to $1,657. What used to be a $266-a-week wages gap is now a $280 wages gap. A $71-a-week drop is no small thing for a Tasmanian wage earner on average wages. Little wonder that food charities such as Loaves and Fishes have seen demand for their services skyrocket by 70 per cent over recent months.
And it's not just unemployed people and students who are seeking food charity. It's a whole new cohort of what the Americans call the working poor: a class of people that we had hoped never to see in this country. They are people whose wages are so low that they do not meet the cost of living. These charities are depending on farmers, on supermarkets and on individuals to donate food to give to people. That's not the sort of society that we should be. I take my hat off to all those people involved in those charities. They are wonderful people. But we should do better as a nation and as a parliament so that this isn't the way people need to make ends meet.
This is the first recession in three decades, and people are hurting. The failure to deliver a permanent increase to JobSeeker means that Australians on social security will have less to spend on local and small businesses. Millions of dollars are being sucked out of local economies because of the cuts being made to JobSeeker and with JobKeeper coming off in March. Millions upon millions of dollars will be sucked out of local shops, out of local economies, causing a jobs spiral in local economies when these payments are cut off. Local and small businesses will have less to spend on wages and jobs. It will be a vicious cycle and vicious spin.
I know that many social services organisations in Tasmania share these concerns. TasCOSS's chief executive officer, Adrienne Picone, has said that the Morrison government failed to rise to the occasion in refusing a permanent increase to JobSeeker. She says of the budget:
It had the potential to provide much needed security and confidence to the more than 39,000 Tasmanian job seekers and 120,000 of our friends, family and neighbours surviving day-to-day on inadequate incomes, but the Morrison Government has failed to rise to the occasion.
This budget fails to build the resilience of Tasmanians and the Tasmanian economy to withstand future crises, and will increase inequities in health, education and access to essential services in our state.
Anglicare Australia Executive Director Kasy Chambers shared similar sentiment, saying the 'budget has left people on the lowest incomes high and dry.' She said:
1.6 million Australians are out of work. With this downturn due to last for years and so many Australians losing their jobs, record numbers of people are at risk of poverty and homelessness.
There were simple solutions to these problems: raise the rate of JobSeeker for good, and invest in social housing. One-off payments to people on the age and disability pensioners will provide some relief, but they don't go far enough.
I am particularly concerned about the impacts on older workers and those looking for work. This budget left Australians on JobSeeker aged over 35—almost one million Australians—out of the budget and ineligible for wage-hire subsidies. Older Australians represent the largest cohort on JobSeeker. In Tasmania in the month of September, of the 35,000 JobSeeker recipients, more than 22,000 were over 35. The majority of the 7,588 JobSeeker recipients in my electorate fall into this older cohort, who are locked out of the wage-hire subsidy. They will be competing for jobs directly with younger people who do qualify for the subsidy.
On this side of the chamber we have no argument with any measure that will support the hiring of young people, but you don't do it at the expense of older people who've got families to support. You don't lock them out, not now. Structural barriers and potential discrimination often mean that older workers will have difficulty finding work. Don't get me started on Restart, which is for over-50s. It's a dismal failure, with a 95 per cent fail rate in terms of projections. If you want to talk about Restart, maybe turn it off and turn it on again. My office has been contacted by many people in their 30s, 40s and 50s who are increasingly despairing over the difficulties they face finding work. They rely on the JobSeeker payment like they never have before to support their families, to put food on the tables, to go to the doctors and to send their kids to school. For many, this is the first time they've had to rely on any type of government support. With the way the budget has been structured for older workers, I fear that, for many, it will be the last time they'll ever work in their lives. We are talking about people in their 40s who will be competing directly with younger people for a job, and I do fear very much that willing and able people wanting to work will simply not have the opportunity to find work again.
Take Narelle, for example. Narelle is a hairdresser from Perth, in the north of my electorate. She contacted my office back in March as the effects of the coronavirus really started to hit Tasmania. She'd had to close her hairdressing business and was at a loss as to where to go for support. She had never before found herself in the situation of needing to engage with Centrelink or seek government support. She had supported herself her entire working life. My office was able to help Narelle with navigating the myriad social security systems, and ultimately she got access to the JobSeeker payment and, with it, some sense of financial stability in a time of great uncertainty.
You can imagine the feelings of anxiety that such a situation must have caused Narelle and the millions of Australians like her who have found themselves unemployed, just like that, as a result of the pandemic. This is why Labor is calling on the government to extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper. We know it can't last forever. There's not a bottomless pit of money. We understand that. But we are in the midst of the first recession in 29 years. Now is the wrong time to be taking money out of the economy, and it's certainly the wrong time to be taking money off people who are in desperate straits.
In her second reading amendment, the shadow minister, the member for Barton, made the point that it is cruel for the government to deny JobSeeker recipients some clarity around their financial future. It is completely unreasonable to make people wait until mid-December before there is a decision announced on the JobSeeker payment. Australians who receive JobSeeker deserve to be able to make financial decisions—to plan their household budgets, to plan what they can scrape together for the kids for Christmas, to have some certainty about what is coming in and what is going out. They deserve to be able to live their lives.
We know that the Prime Minister has some sort of plan for JobSeeker. He told us as much in question time yesterday. He just doesn't respect people who receive JobSeeker enough to tell them what it is. He's more than happy for those people to wait until it's in his political best interest, in terms of the media cycle, to announce a rise in JobSeeker rather than do what is right for Australian families who need this money and this certainty now. He's looking after his own interests, not the interests of the Australian people.
The amendment moved by Labor today requires the minister to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of the JobSeeker payment, something that we have consistently advocated for. It is clear that we cannot go back to forcing Australians to live on $40 a day. Yet that is the prospect that 1.6 million Australians face, come 31 December, if things don't change. It took a global pandemic for this government to even consider raising the rate, and Australians on JobSeeker have been lifted out of hardship as a result, many living above the poverty line for the first time in a long time. By failing to deliver a permanent increase to JobSeeker in the budget, the government missed the economic and social opportunity to deliver lasting structural change for vulnerable Australians while boosting local business and local jobs.
I want to come briefly to the issue of pensioners, who have been almost completely ignored by this government, apart from a couple of one-off payments. Deeming rates are used to determine how much pensioners earn from their secured financial assets, typically savings. The upper deeming rate is 2.25 per cent and the lower deeming rate is 0.25 per cent. Deputy Speaker Wallace, if you can find a bank that has accounts available for pensioners that is paying two or 2½ per cent interest on savings, let me know who they are and I will send my pensioners all the way to them. If they're in Queensland or New South Wales or South Australia or anywhere else, you tell me where those banks are and I'll send my pensioners there. It is absolutely reprehensible—it is unconscionable —that this government is telling pensioners that they're earning 2.25 per cent on their savings, and they are robbing them of a decent pension as a result. They are short-changed by the government's unreasonable, unrealistic, reprehensible and unconscionable pension deeming rates.
Pensioners won't forget this government's record on cutting the pension. This government is obsessed with cutting the pension. The government has attempted to cut the pension in every budget every year. In 2014, the government tried to cut pension indexation. In 2014, the government cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions. In 2014, the government axed the $900 seniors supplement. 2014, the government tried to reset deeming rates thresholds. In 2015, this government did a deal with the Greens to cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners. In 2016, the government tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners, as part of the plan to limit overseas travel. In 2016, this government tried to cut the pension for another 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. The government's own figures show that this would have left 563,000 Australians who are currently receiving a pension or an allowance worse off. Over 10 years, more than 1.5 million pensioners would be worse off.
This government has spent five years trying to increase the pension age to 70. It will be OK for you and I, Deputy Speaker, to work until we're 70, but not for somebody who's on the tools in a factory, or in a shop on their feet all day, or in an aged-care home pushing a cleaner. It's not OK for them to work until they're 70. Pensioners have paid their taxes and contributed their entire lives. They deserve our respect and they certainly deserve this government's respect, and they're not getting it. (Time expired)
I thought you were going to try to argue that I was 70!
I am very pleased to contribute to the debate on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020, and I am especially pleased to rise in support of the amendments from the member for Barton, which would ensure that the Morrison government provides more support to vulnerable Australians in the deepest recession in almost a century.
This bill legislates two one-off payments of $250 for people who receive income support payments. Anyone who got the first economic support payments of $750 earlier this year will be eligible, including age and disability support pensioners, carers, family tax benefit recipients and some veterans payments recipients. These bills will also make it easier for people to meet the eligibility criteria to receive the higher independent rate of Austudy or youth allowance. This will mean that many young Australians who have had their hours cut or lost their jobs during COVID shutdowns will still qualify for the increased payments. This is a sensible measure, especially when you consider that more than half of the initial job losses were for people under the age of 30.
The bill also makes a number of changes to accommodate for the impacts of coronavirus and to create incentives to work. It extends a time frame to meet the paid parental leave work activity test from 13 months prior to the birth or adoption to 20 months. It creates incentives to encourage young people to take on seasonal farm work. It gives the minister the power to determine the average weekly earnings trend figures for child support while the official figures are suspended. It allows young people to qualify for the independent rate of Austudy if they earn $15,000 or more working in agriculture in the coming year, and it improves payments for people who have a stillborn child or because a child dies before their first birthday.
Labor have been calling for a number of these changes for some time now, so we are very pleased to see them included in this bill. But this does not make up for the fact that jobseekers look set to lose the coronavirus supplement in just two short months. That's why Labor today has moved those amendments which would oblige the minister to extend the $250-per-fortnight coronavirus supplement until March to at least ensure it is in line with JobKeeper. This is absolutely fundamental. It says everything you need to know about this government—that it would seek to punish those on JobSeeker by slashing this important payment while planning to retain the payment for those on JobKeeper. Why are those 1.6 million Australians somehow less important?
The coronavirus supplement has returned dignity to so many people's lives. It has meant they haven't had to choose between purchasing nutritious meals for their family, filling prescriptions, heating the home or paying their rent. Cutting the supplement isn't devastating just for the individuals who rely on it to survive, though. It's a massive hit to regional economies, especially to the local small businesses who have been hit very hard already by the pandemic. In the middle of the most perilous economic times in living memory, the government has a responsibility to keep our economy moving. The government talks up tax cuts as the answer. But the reality is that tax cuts benefit you more the more you earn, and those who earn more are far more likely to save more and spend less. In contrast, jobseekers spend every dollar just trying to keep their heads above water. Unlike those who have the luxury of a regular wage, people on JobSeeker are very unlikely to be able to squirrel away money for a rainy day. Instead, they're much more likely to spend with local businesses and keep money circulating in those local economies.
But extending the coronavirus supplement isn't enough. Jobseekers also deserve some certainty. They need to know that they're not going to get plunged back into poverty. The idea that JobSeeker could be returned to $40 a day—it simply cannot happen. It is unthinkable that JobSeeker would snap back to this rate at any point, let alone in the midst of a recession. Groups as divergent as the Australian Business Council, the Australian Industry Group, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia and ACOSS have all recognised that the former rate of JobSeeker does nothing but entrench poverty, cripple people's quality of life and make it virtually impossible for them to find work. Frankly, when you get the Business Council lining up with ACOSS in any area of policy development, you know you've got an urgent policy imperative on your hands.
Labor have been advocating for an increase to the abominably low rate of Newstart since before 2019, and we continue to do so today. People mustn't be forced to return to living in poverty. The Morrison government has been the only opponent of this necessary change. This needs to stop—and it would with Labor's amendment, which would require the minister to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker.
Another concern that Labor has about this bill is the meagre support it provides to pensioners. Pensioners have been doing it tough in recent months. On top of the very real personal toll of being in a high-risk group during a pandemic, they have also seen the cost of living rise, while their income has been stalled or reduced. Health costs have climbed. Many have seen their investment earnings drop dramatically, as interest rates near zero. Then they got hit with the news that there will be no indexation of the pension for the first time in 25 years. Remember, this doesn't just affect this year's pension but every one that comes after it, because each year's indexation builds on the last one. Two lots of $250 doesn't even come close to making up for the financial hit that pensioners have endured. Regretfully, this failure to support pensioners is part of an ongoing pattern of neglect and cost cutting by this Liberal government.
Let's not forget that consecutive Liberal governments have axed the $900 seniors supplement; changed the pensioner assets test, ripping away $12,000 a year from around 370,000 pensioners; cut $1 billion out of pensioner concessions; tried to cut indexation so that pensioners would lose $80 a week within 10 years; and tried to scrap the energy supplement for new pensioners—remember that? Indeed, they have tried to cut the pension each and every year since they took office in 2013. It's clear the Liberals can't be trusted to protect pensioners—people who have contributed and given back to our society their whole lives. That's why we need Labor's amendments, which would oblige the minister to better support pensioners facing increased costs because of COVID-19.
We don't want to hold up payments, and many of the changes in this bill are reasonable and sensible, as I made clear at the outset, so Labor will support it. What's not reasonable or sensible, however, is that pensioners and jobseekers are being dudded by this government. Two payments of $250 aren't going to help pensioners, who are already living with the triple hit of having their pension indexation axed while their income is dropping and their cost of living continues to increase. Two payments of $250 aren't going to provide the certainty to the 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker who desperately fear being plunged back into poverty when their payments get slashed in just two short months time. I know there are government members who have spoken out on this issue, and I urge them to support Labor's amendments. But, whatever happens here today, the fact that the government is pulling support from jobseekers and those on JobKeeper in the middle of a pandemic is utterly unacceptable.
COVID-19 has thrown into stark relief the fault lines in our society. It has shown us what has been working and what we urgently need to improve. We saw the damage done by decades of hollowing out the Public Service, funding cuts and allowing the private sector to free range over key parts of our economy. When the Morrison government started out in its response to the pandemic with a seemingly sensible and humane approach, Australians were shocked but cautiously optimistic. Wage subsidies bolstering public service and increases to JobSeeker all seemed to demonstrate that the government had finally understood the principles of inclusive growth—that, if our economy is going to work for any of us, it needs to work for all of us. We dared to dream that the pandemic might also usher in a new period of reflection and self-improvement, where the government recognised that some of the fundamental principles that underpin its approach have not been working. But I fear that the Liberals' foray into compassion and economic understanding seemed to be a temporary affliction, because their spots are coming back one by one.
Indeed, what we are seeing right now is that, rather than demonstrating that they've learnt the lessons of COVID-19, the government is instead using the pandemic as a cover to double down on the very problems that we had in the first place. I am very worried that these cuts to income support herald a return to the failed philosophies of neoliberalism; of slashing wages and conditions; of cutting funding and reducing services; of handing over fundamental functions to the private sector and trusting the market to simply look after itself; of removing protections of citizens against the unethical actions of private companies; and, of course, of taking from those who can't afford it and giving to those who don't need it. It's little wonder that the Treasurer included Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan as his sources of inspiration. This government needs to be very, very cautious before going any further down this path.
As I mentioned, the Morrison government demonstrated early on that they are capable of acting with compassion and ensuring that vulnerable Australians have the support they need during this crisis. It's time for government members to do this again, to support Labor's amendments today. You know it's the right thing to do. You know it is a tried and tested pathway to recovery from a devastating pandemic and a shocking hit to our nation's economy. It is unthinkable to those 1.6 million Australians that the government has managed to rack up more than $1 trillion worth of debt, and is on a trajectory to clock up $1.7 trillion of debt, yet cannot find it in its heart to help those whom it will push back into extreme poverty if it carries out its intention to slash these payments in just two short months time. That's what happens. There are many vulnerable Australians already dealing with entrenched barriers in our society, but forcing a shocking financial hit at a time when people are at their most vulnerable would be unforgivable.
I don't think any Australian who is listening to this debate today and has been following the debate closely throughout this pandemic would feel, in any good conscience, that they would want to stand alongside this government as it announces its intention to strip a basic fundamental living allowance from our most vulnerable Australians during a pandemic. It is tough enough at any time, but during this pandemic it is totally unforgivable. I don't believe the government can do that. I remain forever optimistic that the government will see a way to ensure that there is a permanent increase to JobSeeker, that it becomes a liveable allowance for Australians and that Australians in receipt of JobSeeker will be able to live with dignity and have enough money to actually look for work. That is the outcome we seek to achieve in a nation like Australia. (Time expired)
I rise to speak in favour of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 and also the amendments moved by the member for Barton. I was happy to second the amendment earlier today, and reserved my right to speak until this moment. I cannot believe that we are standing here talking about changes to the Social Security Act, many of which are overdue, yet do not have a proposal from the government to increase or maintain the most significant payment, the coronavirus supplement. We are seven weeks away from thousands of Australians on JobSeeker and youth allowance being forced to go back to the old Newstart rate or the old youth allowance rate. We will see thousands of Australians forced back into poverty if this government doesn't act soon. That is why Labor has put forward this amendment calling on the government to at least keep the current COVID supplement rate, that extra $250 a fortnight, going until March. Line it up with JobKeeper. We believe there needs to be a permanent increase in the base rate in an ongoing way. The pandemic has proven that the old rate was just unliveable, and the newer rates have really changed people's lives. We've heard stories in our electorates of people who have been able to live with dignity, secure a roof over their heads and look for work—and not simply survive, not be destined to poverty, which is what the old Newstart rate did.
I want to share a couple of examples from my electorate of people who have spoken out about how their lives have changed and how petrified they are that this government will do nothing and simply let them fall back to the old rate in seven weeks time. Peter Austin said that, with the increased JobSeeker payment, he was able to buy warm clothes and shoes this winter. He said he was able to go out and buy some food and even put petrol in the car. This is the reality. They're not people who are living on millions. They're not people who are spending it on expensive trips or luxury items like watches. They're spending it on the basics. He said: 'It might not seem like much, but to me it was a lifeline. Every fortnight the old JobSeeker payment would go on bills. I was always trying to find some way to survive. I'd usually have to dip into what little super I had.' He said that he felt like he was being kicked constantly by this government. He had worked hard his whole life and this was not the Australia he grew up in. In that moment when he found himself unemployed at 65, those few years away from retirement, he felt abandoned. He said, 'I'm not living a lavish lifestyle; I'm just getting by.' The supplement that he is receiving is helping him, and yet what this government wants to do, pre Christmas, is kick him back to that old rate.
Melissa Anthony is a single mum in her 30s receiving the single parenting payment and she also qualifies for the supplement. She said the current payment increase allowed her to pay a little bit extra into her utility bills and her mortgage so she could have a small financial buffer, because she just doesn't trust this government and what will happen in the future. She also acknowledges that the job market has been severely impacted by COVID-19 and, no matter her previous experience or her previous roles, she doesn't know whether she'll actually gain a job, because of the competition. Melissa says that the base rate of JobKeeper must permanently be raised and supports what Labor is doing. She said that the misnomer out there that this will entice people not to work is simply a furphy, that having a higher rate keeps people out of poverty and allows them to look for work. With the increase, Melissa, who has a six-year-old child, has said she has been able to build a buffer, pay her council rates and actually smile and not stress about money.
Then there's Sharon. Sharon was on the old Newstart rate and spoke bravely to the media about her experience. She, unfortunately, is becoming the new face of who is on JobSeeker. She is in her 60s, unemployed and looking for work and also, prior to the supplement being introduced, was homeless. She said that the higher rate has made a world of difference. She said: 'All of a sudden I went from facing poverty, being homeless and being quite frightened to receiving enough money to keep a roof over my head and to start thinking about other issues, like finding work and addressing health issues. The extra money has given me a sense of normality. It is just enough to get by and I'm worried what will happen if I go back to the old rate. Will I be able to afford my new home?' These are real people and real stories. These are people who are saying, 'Don't push me back to the old rate.'
We are in a situation, because of the COVID-19 recession, where jobs are hard to come by. Sure, there are jobs available in my electorate. I see the job ads pop up on my Facebook feed. A lot of them are in hospitality and are for part-time or casual work. They also call for people with skills and experience in hospitality. It's hard to have experience in hospitality when the sector has been closed. But that's what they're looking for. I raise this because it's hard for Melissa, Sharon and Peter to apply for jobs in a sector where they don't have the experience. In the markets they've come from there simply aren't jobs. This government is not doing enough to help with retraining. There is a real disconnect between the people looking for work and the jobs that may be available.
The other part to this motion that I really hope the government supports is an obligation for the minister to better support pensioners. There was huge disappointment in my electorate when the government announced all pensioners would get is an extra $250 one-off payment. It doesn't increase the base rate. Increasing the base rate helps pensioners keep up with the cost of living helps. Everything is going up. If you take out child care, if you take out luxury items, if you look at the cost of fuel, if you look at the cost of basics, such as energy or food, CPI is going up—yet the pension did not. When people found out that all they got was an extra $250 in my electorate, I was told things like, 'It might help me pay for part of the summer energy bill,' or, 'It might help a little bit with Christmas, but it's not going towards supporting me to survive going forward.' Many of our age pensioners worked hard and started work in a world where there was no superannuation. They entered the workforce under the belief that they were paying it forward—that they paid their fair share of taxes, and, when they retired, there'd be a decent pension to live on.
I've also been contacted by people on the carers pension, the carers payment and the disability pension, all of whom are saying that costs have increased for them and that they need extra support from this government. They are disappointed. As one person said to me, 'Is this an attempt at a bribe—that I might be happy with this one-off payment?' They get the importance of a regular increase to their base rate. They get how that will make a difference.
I also really support the call for this government to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker. How much more evidence do they need that this rate needs to go up—that we as an economy and as a society cannot afford to have people fall back to the old Newstart rate? If you really want to see us come through this recession, the economic data is in: you increase JobSeeker and you increase these payments, and that money flows through the economy. It will have a better impact on our economic outcome in this country than very big tax cuts at the top end of town.
In relation to the bill that's before us—and we support the bill as it's been put forward—I do want to make a couple of comments. I cannot believe it's taken the government this long to put forward the required changes around paid parental leave. The fact that this bill backdates these changes to March 22, when the pandemic first hit, demonstrates just how slow this government can be when it comes to supporting families. There are babies that are now six months old. It's hard to believe that it's taken them that long. We've had how many sitting days since 2 March? It's not like we haven't been here, yet we're only dealing with these changes now. Because the government have delayed and brought this change in now, it will create complexity and confusion. Some families may have debts and others may be owed money. Tax time is going to be a nightmare for many.
It's disappointing it took so long for the government to extend support for new parents—people who had their babies in the most difficult of times and who've been through the last six months where, in states like my state, there have been no parent groups because of COVID, there has been no Tumble Tots because of COVID and there has been no opportunity for family and friends to get together. They've struggled on their own. When they've needed a government to help them, the government hasn't been there.
I've also got some concerns about the changes to youth allowance. I do support encouraging young people, if they want to do a gap year or to work in agriculture to earn a bit of money, to qualify for youth allowance. But I do have to ask the government whether they have actually put in place the safeguards. We know that the agricultural industry is riddled with exploitation. So, if young people take up this opportunity to work through November to December and take that gap year, the first question is: Will they earn the $15,000? Will they be exploited? Will they be properly paid? Will they be safe? Perhaps more of our young people would have the gap year in Australia if this government did more to clean up the industry and ensured the safety of people. I don't criticise all farmers; many farmers are doing the right thing. But there is an underbelly of exploitation in our agricultural industry. One of the reasons we've become so reliant upon overseas workers—undocumented workers and backpackers—in this industry is because it is riddled with exploitation.
I also can't believe that it's taken the government so long to bring forward the changes around concessions for people demonstrating independence when it comes to youth allowance and Abstudy. Again, this measure is backdated to 25 March 2020. I do welcome the improvements to stillborn baby payments and infant deaths. I couldn't imagine not coming home with Daisy last year—to be one of those parents in that tragic situation of not coming homing with their newborn. I couldn't imagine the heartbreak and the trauma. The least that we can be doing is supporting these payments so that they're not worried about money. It also gives me an opportunity to say that we need to be doing more: more research, more support, more funding for health care in this area for families so that they don't have to go through this heartbreak of losing a baby towards the end of their pregnancy or in the first year of their life. I feel for those families. I know that many in this place have spoken of their own personal grief of personal connection.
These changes before us are needed. Some of them are overdue. Some of them may help in terms of agriculture and helping people claim youth allowance but it's still quite small stuff. The government isn't doing enough of the big, bold reform to really help people, particularly when it comes to our social welfare system. I strongly urge them to back our amendment around JobSeeker. One million job-seekers have been left out. Older workers are not supported by this government in terms of finding real job opportunities. Pensioners missed out with only 250—That's it? That's all they get when you spend a trillion dollars plus in a budget? It's missed opportunity to help the hundreds of thousands of people who are on JobSeeker—but not a jobs plan.
We want the government to do better. They are the government until the next election. The foundations we put down now are what will determine whether this is a long and deep recession or a shorter recession. If we support them through a strong social welfare system they will then support the rest of us. It's not an old saying: you give someone on a low income a dollar and that dollar gets spent in their community. Supporting people on youth allowance and on JobSeeker supports local business. As I said, it's good for our economy, it's good for our community, it's good for these individuals and their families. I strongly urge those opposite to adopt Labor's modest, and I say modest, amendments going forward.
I'm very pleased to support the member for Barton's amendment to the Social Services and other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus And Other Measures) Bill 2020 and to speak on some of the measures that it contains. I want to start with the positives. The one thing that I'm really pleased to see in this bill is changes to the tests to be eligible for paid parental leave. It is extraordinary, as we've heard here today, that these changes had to be backdated. This is something that should have been in place right from the start. It was always obvious that people's work patterns were going to be interrupted, particularly the work patterns of pregnant women. We have no idea what coronavirus does to pregnancy and newborn babies, and certainly back in March we had even less idea. We've still got so much to learn about it. So it was always going to be an impact for women in that situation.
I was contacted recently by Louise who has been struggling with these issues about trying to meet the eligibility criteria for paid parental leave. Her baby is not due until December. She had a tough start to the year, in fact her father died in March, just as coronavirus was really taking hold. And not long after she found out she was pregnant. That in itself was a joy because it wasn't something that she had expected to happen easily. The advice to her from her GP, the supporting practitioners she had around her and the school that she taught at was that she should err on the side of caution so she did. But when it came to filling in the form that asked why she was off early, in terms of eligibility for paid parental leave, there wasn't even a box to tick to say, 'Well, that would be because of COVID.' The system hadn't even caught up with the fact that there was a problem.
She has been really distressed because she is only about 35 days short of the number of days she has to have worked to be eligible for paid parental leave, but missing out by 35 days means she misses out on the whole amount, and that means being up to $15,000 worse off. It's not something that she was looking forward to having to cope with. Right now, as a pregnant person who's not working—and she's not eligible for JobSeeker—the family income is already taking a hit. But with this legislation she is very hopeful, even confident, that she will be able to access paid parental leave. So I really welcome this amendment, because there are many Louises who, since March, have been wondering: 'What's it going to be like? How long am I going to have to survive on my partner's income?'
The other positive thing I see in this legislation is around youth allowance. Again, this has to be backdated, because the government has belatedly realised that, oh yes, there was a problem there. I know things had to happen fast, but there were certain obvious place to look, and supporting people who are the most vulnerable through our social security system ought to have been a key priority for the government. The changes to youth allowance will obviously support young people. For those who want to do working holidays and gap years, I hope that this facilitates those sorts of arrangements and allows them to meet the independence criteria more easily.
The key part of this legislation relates to people who are unemployed. I think that everyone in this place has recognised, whether they've admitted it or not, that $40 a day is not enough to survive on, let alone thrive. It's certainly not enough to be actively jobseeking and preparing yourself for the workforce. Yet we're here talking about a reduction to a benefit that has, as we've heard, transformed people's lives. It has allowed them to get on top of debt and plan in advance for certain events and certain bills. I've heard such stories in my own electorate. Yet we've got a minister and a Prime Minister who are refusing to give any certainty to this same group of people, saying: 'We'll tell you later; we'll tell you in December. We're just working on it.'
What we've had this week is the minister not being able to rule in or out future permanent rises but then stressing that what she was looking at was temporary assistance, temporary measures, temporary conditions and temporary supports. That's not going to do anything for the mental health of people on unemployment benefits. It's not going to do anything to give them confidence for the future. It's not going to do anything to allow them to plan, to maybe think about how to take the next step. I'm really struggling with the idea that the government has asked us to support something that is very temporary, rather than focus on the impact on the individuals. I think we all recognise the difference it makes to someone's hip pocket.
I want to look at the difference it makes for our economy, because that's the other major consequence of the government not getting this right. We learnt just today that the number of people on unemployment payments will surge to 1.8 million by December, 300,000 more than the previous projections. That's from the Department of Social Services in Senate estimates today. We've also had it confirmed that the number of people who will find themselves on unemployment payments will be higher in 2024 than it was before the recession. The projections are 1.3 million in 2021-22, one million in 2022-23 and then 900,000 in 2023-24.
To put that into context, there were 813,000 people relying on unemployment benefits in December 2019. This obviously shows us the jobs crisis is going to get worse, yet has been there no plan for jobs from this government. For the people who rely on benefits, for every person who doesn't have enough to live on, social security benefits flow through to our local economies. They flow through to my local businesses—the hairdressers, the coffee shops, the supermarket, the petrol station. Every single business in my community relies on there being a flow-through of funds, and we all know that people who are on social security benefits flow all that money through into the economy. So it is a very short-sighted move to say, 'Let's squeeze these individuals.' Even setting aside the impact it has on them individually—on their health, their families, their mental health—think about what the consequences are for our economy. I'm conscious that there is a perception that businesses are struggling to employ people. There's no doubt that it is a patchy recession and there are uneven consequences. But that's not a good enough reason to make everybody suffer, which is what concern about not having ongoing permanent support does. If JobKeeper can be sustained till March, why can't JobSeeker be sustained at least until then? Why can't we see levels commensurate with what we're putting into other things? This inconsistency is very hard to fathom.
I drew interesting conclusions from the latest Deloitte Business outlook, which talks about 2021 looking more like a usual recession rather than the sort of recession that we're seeing. We may or may not still be in a recession technically, but we all know the consequences of a recession: it gets cleaned up on paper a long time before it gets sorted through in the community. The report talks about families and businesses facing a cash crunch between now and the end of March 2021 as JobKeeper and JobSeeker are dialled back, so it reinforces the idea that while the recession arrived fast it's going to leave us slowly. Measures that pull back support too fast are absolutely going to mean there will be a cash crunch.
As I said, it is going to be different in different areas. I look at the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, in my electorate of Macquarie. My wonderful manufacturers of teardrop caravans, Frank and Olga, are doing really well. They are in one of those businesses that are really thriving in this environment. They're in South Windsor. Frank took a punt. He built seven of his teardrop caravans not knowing whether or not it was a good decision. It has proved to be a fabulous thing to do. They're being bought sight unseen online. But that isn't the case for every business. People aren't necessarily in businesses that have been able to thrive in this very peculiar and difficult set of circumstances.
Deloitte concludes that right now we need continuing government support. The government need to be going hard and going smart. That is what Australia needs right now. My concern is that this is not smart. It will be devastating for many individuals and their families, but it may also be devastating for our economy. What's absolutely appalling is that the Prime Minister has no plan to get even close to full employment—not even a hope of it, let alone a plan for it. They are the considerations I would urge the government to have.
The last point I want to make is about pensioners, because they are also covered in this bill. The pension freeze was a shock for pensioners. The rise wasn't going to be very much but it was factored into their expectations—a permanent small bit regularly to help them manage the additional costs they face. There is no doubt that COVID has cost people more money, not just pensioners but also people with disabilities, carers—there's a whole group of people who simply have had to hand over more money—yet what they're going to see is two lots of $250. That isn't sufficient, and I'd really ask the government to consider more compassion for people who really have no choice but to accept what they're given.
So these are some of the limitations of this bill. As I say, I wanted to start with the positives, but there are so many more things that could have been achieved by a piece of legislation such as this, and I only wish the government was able to put itself in other people's shoes and think about what would not only work not for those individuals but then flow through and support local economies like mine in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury.
We'll be supporting the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 but also speaking in support of the amendment that the member for Banks has put up. I think there was a missed opportunity by the government to permanently increase the JobSeeker payments. We know there are over 160,000 Australians expected to lose their jobs and 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker, so we really feel the government has missed a huge opportunity to deliver a permanent increase to JobSeeker in this budget and deliver some certainty for Australians that are doing it tough.
With more jobseekers than each job vacancy—and you can see that, for every position that's advertised in the papers, on the net or wherever, there are hundreds that are vying for that position. There are simply not enough jobs to go around for everyone who needs one. That is the simple fact. It's even more difficult to find a job in the regions and outer suburbs. I suspect a lot of this also has to do with the issue of delivering a good, proper jobs program for our regions and our areas where there is high unemployment. In my electorate, the unemployment rate in the northern suburbs is way above the average rate, with youth unemployment close to 15 per cent, and for those people the prospect of actually finding any work is pretty low. To be cutting the JobSeeker payments at this time will do more damage to those people than anything that is being proposed in this bill. We know that Australians are doing it tough. It's an anxious, uncertain time that people are facing, especially those people on JobKeeper or who are unemployed.
People on social security will have less to spend on local and small businesses. Local and small businesses will have less to spend on wages and jobs. The reality is that, if we want our businesses to grow so they can employ people, we need to put money in people's pockets so they can actually spend it in the economy to be able to stimulate that economy. I've made this point on a number of occasions. If you give someone on JobSeeker a small increase or payment, that will go straight back into the economy because, with those extra few dollars that they will get, they will go out and buy the pair of shoes they've been putting off for six months because they can't afford them. They will go off and buy the shirt that they needed because their old shirt was getting so old but, because the payments were so low, they couldn't afford to buy another shirt. That money goes straight into the economy. That's why I think stopping the extra increase in JobSeeker in December is a big mistake by this government.
I'd like to know how many jobs will be lost when JobSeeker is cut in December. We've sought this information from the government. We've asked numerous questions, but the government either doesn't want to tell the opposition or doesn't know. One million jobseekers will be left out—especially older workers. The budget has left Australians on JobSeeker at an average age of 35 or over—almost one million Australians—out of the budget and ineligible for its wage-hire subsidy. Older Australians represent one of the largest cohorts of jobseekers. If you look at all the statistics on people over the age of 45 or 50 who have lost their jobs, the prospect of getting another job is very low. When GMH shut three years ago, most of the people who lost their jobs relocated to other jobs or upskilled, but the majority of workers aged 50-plus are still unemployed. It's difficult to find work because of structural barriers and the age discrimination that takes place.
The other area of concern is pensioners. The government were caught out by Labor on the pension freeze for 2.5 million pensioners, and that's the only reason they have acted on it. Pensioners were meant to get the indexation, and it was the first time in years that it wasn't passed down to them. Now the government is passing on some sort of increase, but the reality is that they missed out on that indexation. We argued against the government's pension freeze and raised it in here, and the Leader of the Opposition raised it. The reality is that pensioners plan for their twice-yearly indexation, which occurs on 20 March and 20 September. So the government were first caught out on the pension freeze in August, the freeze took effect in September, and they made pensioners wait for the October budget before announcing any kind of relief.
This government have a long track record of cutting or attempting to cut the pension. They still haven't adjusted deeming rates. This is a big issue. Many pensioners contact me about issues they have with deeming rates. Deeming rates remain significantly higher than interest rates. Deeming rates are used to look at how much pensioners earn from their secured financial assets—typically, in most cases, savings—and this is used for the purposes of determining eligibility under the income test for pensioners. The upper deeming rate is 2.25 per cent, and the lower deeming rate is 0.25. With the cash rate at nearly zero per cent, it's difficult to see how pensioners can reasonably earn 2.25 per cent on their savings. So, on the one hand, they didn't get their indexation. On the other hand, they're punished by being short-changed by the unreasonable and unrealistic pension deeming rate.
Pensioners also won't forget this government's record on cutting the pension. The government are obsessed with cutting the pension, attempting to cut it in every single budget every year. In 2014, they tried to cut the pension indexation, a cut that would have meant that pensioners would have been forced to live on $80 a week less within 10 years. In 2014 they cut a billion dollars from pensioner concessions that were designed to help pensioners with the cost of living. Also in 2014, they axed the $900 seniors supplement for self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. Again in 2014 they tried to reset the deeming rate thresholds, a cut that would have seen half a million part-pensioners made worse off. In 2015 they did a deal with the Green to cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension asset tests. The assets test threshold has usually gone up over the years. This time they cut it and they dropped it, taking thousands of pensioners by surprise, as they had done their budgets for every year, with many losing as much as $12,000 a year through that particular change. In 2016, the government tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. In 2016 the government tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. The government's own figures show this would have left over 563 Australians who are currently receiving a pension payment or allowance worse off. Over 10 years, in excess of 1.5 million pensioners would have been worse off. They spent five years trying to increase the pension age to 70. Pensioners have paid their taxes and have contributed their entire lives, and they deserve our respect in this place. As I said, pensioners deserve better than that.
This bill is adjusting how someone qualifies for paid parental leave. To be eligible a person has to satisfy the work test. The existing work test requires a person to have worked 10 of the 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of a child and at least 330 hours in that 10-month period. The concern during the pandemic was that families would miss out on the paid parental leave payment because of job losses and of having their hours or days of work reduced, which would have made them ineligible, leaving a lot of people up to $15,000 worse off.
Labor, on this side of the House, called for the government to temporarily suspend the work test as early as April this year so that families would not miss out. Then in June we moved amendments in the Senate for the work test to be suspended, but this government voted it down. Families need certainty, just like pensioners need certainty when they're doing their budgets. People who are unemployed need to be able to afford to actually look for work. Families need certainty about their access to paid parental leave during what is one of the most challenging times in the history of our nation. It's disappointing that it's taken the government this long to make this adjustment. It's been an excruciating wait for so many families.
This bill will also temporarily amend the circumstances in which a person may be regarded as independent for youth allowance. In May, once again, the opposition, Labor, called on the government to provide case by case exemptions to the youth allowance and parental income test. We were concerned that tertiary students would miss out on the youth allowance and would be unable to afford to continue their studies. These aren't ordinary times and we don't want to see students discontinuing tertiary studies because they cannot afford them. It's disappointing that the government's taken this long to take on this issue as well. It has been, again, a long and anxious period for our students.
This is the worst time for the government to be cutting support for people who have lost their jobs or are unemployed. Unemployment is still going up and predictions are astronomical between now and Christmas. It's time the government does the right thing and increases the base rate of the JobSeeker payment—in other words, the amount that they were on before coronavirus and are about to go back on. It's about $40 a day, which means that they cannot afford to look for work. Just while I was sitting there I thought I would look up the bus fares in South Australia. It can be anything up to $5 for a bus fare. When there is a requirement upon you to have a certain amount of interviews per week and per month, which can work out to about 10, that's $50. If you're going to ten appointments a week and you need to catch a bus, that's $50. On top of that you'd need a mobile phone to be able to get your text messages, if you're being asked to go to an interview, and to be able to get emails. Just to buy a phone it will cost you around $1,000. One of the most minimum cards you can get is around $30 a month, which gives you limited access to internet and email. What we're doing is basically making it harder for people to look for work, even though there is a requirement on them to look for work. This is not a time to be doing that. This is a time when we should be offering all our support and help and be thinking and planning job creation.
Job creation is about creating work so that these people can actually work. There's no better welfare than actually having a job—we all know that—but we need to be able to stimulate the economy and create work. At this point, from what I have seen, there's no job plan. There is nothing that is stimulating the economy. If you look back to the economic crisis that we had in 2009, the Labor government then actually injected money into the economy. Whether it was one-off payments or school halls, it got people working. It ensured that we were the envy of the world when it came to the economic crisis. And we kept the economy going. In this case, all we are seeing is subsidies for big business. A lot of that money won't get spent. As I said, if you give a millionaire $100 it will sit in their bank account. If you give $100 to an unemployed person it will go straight back into the economy. It will be spent on vital things that they need for everyday life. If you give $100 to a family on a very low income they'll use that money immediately for things they've been putting off for weeks and months on end because they can't afford to buy them.
I'm pleased to be able to follow my South Australian colleague the member for Adelaide in this debate. I also note that my other South Australian colleague, the member for Spence, is here in the chamber. So it seems that the South Australians are holding up the numbers here well and truly tonight.
The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 varies or eases the criteria under which certain government payments, including youth allowance, parental leave support and stillborn baby leave support, are made. The changes are likely to be temporary and are in response to the abnormal situation presented by COVID-19 across this country. The legislation also provides for two payments of $250 to a range of government payment recipients, similar to the two payments of $750 made earlier in the year. The changes are welcome but they simply don't go far enough. Too many Australians struggling because of COVID-19, through no fault of their own, are again left behind by this legislation—as have so many Australians been left behind by the Morrison government's previously announced COVID-19 support measures and, more recently, left out of the Morrison government's budget.
COVID-19 has hit Australia hard, despite the claim that Australia has done much better than most other countries, and there is very likely much more pain and hardship to come. Regrettably the Morrison government support measures don't provide those in need with long-term security or certainty about their future. This government has always sought to cut support payments, with its mantra being that the best form of welfare is a job. Whilst there may be some optimism about a COVID-19 recovery and some jobs growth, the reality is that, for the one million or so unemployed Australians and the nearly two million underemployed Australians, some of whom have never previously been unemployed, job prospects over the months ahead still remain grim. Australians who have never before struggled have, for the first time in their lives, had at times to rely on community support to get by.
The Foodbank Hunger Report 2020, which relies on a survey carried out between June and July of this year, which was effectively in the middle of the COVID-19 crisis, exposes the extent of the struggles within communities across Australia. Foodbank last year provided some 210,000 meals a day to people in need, predominantly through some 2,400 charities across Australia. Foodbank also supplies 2,500 school breakfast programs nationally. So it's an organisation that understands need across this country very well. I want to refer to some of their findings in that report. In 2019, 15 per cent of Australians experiencing food insecurity were seeking food relief once a week. In 2020, that figure had doubled to 31 per cent. Almost three in 10 Australians experiencing food insecurity in 2020 had never experienced it before COVID-19 hit this country. It says two newly food insecure groups have emerged as a result of COVID-19: the casual workforce of this country and international students—again, two sectors that previously were not regular clients of Foodbank and not people that were in need. And two in five people who experience food insecurity still do not seek any form of help whatsoever.
Of the people who need government assistance, only 38 per cent suggested that JobKeeper and JobSeeker had helped their situation, and 62 per cent said that they were still not receiving all the help that they needed. The survey also says:
Almost 35% don't know how they will cope or expect they will not cope well at all when this additional support is no longer available.
Those findings, I believe, speak for many, many other Australians who perhaps did not participate in the survey and who do not seek out community support, even though they might need it as much as anybody else.
In particular, what that report found was that it was young people who were bearing the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic across this country, and, again, that's because it is young people who are most likely to be the casual workers of this country, working part time or working in temporary jobs. Again it is young people who appear to be getting left behind at a time that they probably need the greatest amount of support.
We currently have around 1.6 million people on JobSeeker across this country. The government's own figures project that perhaps another 160,000 will join the unemployment queues by Christmas. For them, the end of the $250 supplement at the end of the year will be a huge blow. Unless this government decides to continue some kind of additional support, they will be left on about $40 a day. It is simply inadequate. It has been inadequate for years. It is particularly inadequate when the people receiving Newstart, who were previously taxpayers with families, have children to support, partners to support, mortgages to pay and the like. And they are in this situation essentially because of circumstances that are beyond their control.
Even worse, for almost one million of them, getting a job has now been made even more difficult by this government, because they are over 35 years of age; as such, they will be competing for jobs against people under 35, whose employers will receive a supplement from the government to assist them to employ them. So they will effectively be competing on an unlevel playing field for whatever jobs are available. As I said earlier, for many of them, the jobs that might have been available to them in the past that they are competent for and skilled to do may not be available for some time to come. I can only imagine the uncertainty that they face, having to support their families and the like as they head towards Christmas. It is something that I believe will add to what has already become a major problem for this country, and that is the mental stress and mental strain on people as a result of the situation that they now find themselves in.
So I say to the government it is time that the Newstart payment was increased and increased permanently. It makes sense to do so. Businesses have been calling out for that to happen. It is good for the economy, and, quite frankly, it is good for the government, because, if the economy is stronger, then ultimately the government's ability to balance its budget is stronger. One of the very reasons why the government, quite rightly, brought in all of these stimulus measures in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic was to keep the economy strong while supporting families, and it has been proven to do exactly that. So, if the government do it in a time of need, then there is no reason why they can't continue to do it even after the so-called need period has ended. I urge the government to consider a permanent increase to the Newstart payment.
Debate interrupted.
Debate interrupted.
Three weeks ago we saw a federal budget that, much like JobKeeper and JobSeeker before it, spent a lot of money and was wrapped in lots of announcements. But, once you held it up to the light, you would see, just like with JobKeeper and JobSeeker, the cracks that so many Australians have fallen through. And now with the budget, those cracks are chasms. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the budget demonstrated the government's character: being guided by short-term politics, not long-term vision. It was a missed opportunity to build a future that Australians deserve.
COVID-19 has changed everything. Australians want a vision for our future and a plan for a recovery that is inclusive, that unites Australians and that is about giving Australians a fair go. Unlike the Morrison government, Labor has a plan for the future, one that aims for a fair, more secure and more sustainable nation. Our plan starts with a future made in Australia. A strong, local manufacturing sector can deliver world-class products, incorporate the best technology and provide the good, secure jobs our workers need and deserve. Our national rail manufacturing plan does just that. It will see more trains built in Australia by Australian workers, boosting local jobs and local industry. Our plan also includes an Australian skills guarantee, ensuring that one in ten jobs on Commonwealth funded infrastructure projects are given to apprentices, trainees or cadets. This is our plan to get Australia back to work.
Unlike the Morrison government, we know that empowering and supporting women is key to Australia's economic recovery and our future. Childcare fees in Australia are some of the highest in the world. In my own electorate of Wills, fees have gone up 4.5 per cent in the last year alone. Too often, it's working mums who cop the worst of it. For millions of working women, it's simply not worth working more than three days a week. An Albanese Labor government will invest $6 billion in child care to fix this, by scrapping the childcare subsidy cap and lifting the maximum childcare subsidy rate from 85 per cent to 90 per cent and increasing childcare subsidy rates and tapering them for every family earning less than $530,000. Under our plan, 97 per cent of families using child care will be better off—no child or family left behind.
Australia can and should be a renewable energy superpower. Labor will invest $20 billion to establish a new rewiring the nation corporation to rebuild and modernise our electricity grid and help the transition to a renewables dominated grid. We must deliver affordable, reliable energy to power our country into the future and tackle climate change at the same time. The Prime Minister's energy announcements left out renewable energy investment almost entirely. We can't afford to stall. We must address the challenges of climate change. Labor's plan to rebuild the electricity grid and modernise it will also create thousands of jobs and deliver up to $40 billion in economic benefits. It will also help us to reach our target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050—a goal that everyone except the Liberal-National government supports. We've even seen UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson trying to push Prime Minister Morrison on that target as well.
As pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, there are 100,000 public housing dwellings around the country that are in need of urgent repair—mould growing, windows smashed, front doors that don't close properly. These are government owned buildings. If it were the PM's office, it would be fixed instantly. If Labor were in government, we would be investing $500 million into public housing for maintenance and construction, creating jobs and giving people back their dignity. It's a win-win. As someone who grew up in public housing, this is an issue close to my heart.
There has to be a vision for Australia's future. We are at a moment in time, globally, with this pandemic, where there is an opportunity to make big structural reforms, to make big changes that will change the direction of the nation to be more inclusive and more egalitarian and give more Australians a fair go. This is our vision. This is our plan: make things in Australia; make Australia a renewable energy superpower and create thousands of jobs; empower women to get back to work with affordable childcare; and fix public housing and create jobs at the same time. That is how we are going to power the economic recovery.
COVID-19 has been a stress test for nations all around the world. The pandemic has pushed governments, institutions, peoples and societies to absorb, respond and adapt to challenges and hardships that have been unknown in the modern era. The loss of life has been staggering. This year, COVID-19 will have killed well over one million people, more than the death toll from malaria, more than the death toll from HIV-AIDS and more than the death toll from suicide. In the United States, the death toll alone has eclipsed that of World War I, 9/11 and the Vietnam War combined. The economic shock has been equally profound, of a magnitude similar to the Great Depression. We've had businesses destroyed, jobs lost, whole industries have closed and the number of people dependent on welfare has soared. All of this has put a profound strain upon societies—anxiety over health, fear for loved ones, stress from lost income, the mental toll of social isolation and uncertainty about the future.
Australia has experienced our share of all of this, but on the whole our country and our institutions have held up remarkably well. Governments have performed competently, balancing a confusing array of conflicting objectives to steer us safely through these uncharted waters. Our public health systems have proven robust. Our public health experts have shown themselves to be some of the world's best. Essential services have continued. Social safety nets were developed and deployed at rapid speed to cushion the economic blow, supporting household incomes and preserving jobs. Business did the right thing by workers, keeping staff on, supporting flexible practices and finding creative new ways to pivot. Rather than fraying, social solidarity and cohesion have grown through this crisis. How often have we heard the phrase, 'We are all in this together'?
The metrics bear this out. There are currently 19 active cases of COVID-19 in hospital in Australia, with none of them in intensive care. In the past week in Australia, we've had around 130 new cases. In this same week Canada has had 18,000 new cases, the United Kingdom has had 150,000 new cases and the United States has had 480,000 new cases. The death rate in Canada has been seven times higher than in Australia. In the United States and the United Kingdom it's been 19 times higher. The Australian economy, whilst it's taken a significant hit, is nonetheless in a much better position than nearly any other OECD economy, with the downturn less and the prospects for recovery greater. If COVID-19 is a stress test for nations, we have passed—and all Australians deserve credit for these achievements. They reflect well on us as a people and they reflect well on our institutions.
Sometimes you'd think from the public commentary and news reporting there is a crisis of governance in Australia. On a panel on the ABC's Q+A on Monday night, it seemed to pass for received wisdom that our system was broken and needed fixing. In parliament I hear this refrain week in and week out. It's been particularly pronounced this week, with a debate over a national or Commonwealth integrity commission. I think a carefully designed federal integrity commission would help improve the quality of governance, sitting alongside some dozen other institutions and processes which scrutinise government and hold it to account. But some of those making the case for this are guilty of gross overstatement and populist rhetoric. Let's keep things in perspective. The failings that exist are bugs, defects that need correcting. Let's not mistake them for features that are characteristic of our system of government. A healthy level of distrust towards the political system is always warranted, but despair and dramatic solutions are not. Why does the tone of this debate matter? It matters, to my mind, because, if we denigrate our political system too readily, if we are too quick to write it off and prescribe drastic medicine where none is warranted and to cry wolf, we risk doing it great damage.
This is exactly what's been happening around the world where populism has taken root. Around the world we've seen seemingly healthy democracies veer into authoritarianism. How has this happened? The charismatic populist potentiates and then weaponises a healthy public scepticism into something much more malign: a conviction that the entire system is broken or corrupted and needs a wholesale cleanout. Political competitors soon become enemies, rivals are labelled traitors, institutions become politicised, social divisions deepen, distrust grows, governance suffers and everyone's worse off. Australia has been mercifully immune to such polarisation and hyperpartisanship, but we cannot afford to take this for granted. Let's fix what needs fixing. Let's address problems that must be addressed. But let's not despair over or seek to delegitimise our system of government in doing so. Let's have a Commonwealth integrity commission, but let's be careful about how we make the case for it and let's be patient and deliberative in how we go about it.
We're just one week away from the US presidential election, and the eyes of the world are on the democratic processes of the United States. Unfortunately, the attention of groups of state backed hackers from around the world has also been trained on the US election as the US's adversaries seek to interfere in that great nation's democratic process. Last week the FBI, the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency publicly attributed another cyberattack on the 2020 election to Iranian backed hackers. A campaign of emails using the threat of violence to coerce voter behaviour began arriving in the inboxes of Democrat registered voters in Alaska, Arizona and Florida, purportedly coming from the far right Proud Boys group. Iranian hackers spoofed the Proud Boys email domain to enable these threatening emails to look like legitimate emails from the organisation. The source of the voter data used to build email target lists is still unknown, but there does not appear to be evidence that they came from hacks of government voter data registration. These attacks follow the successful hack-and-leak campaign undertaken by Russian backed hackers in the 2016 US presidential election.
These attacks are a salutary warning for Australia. They're part of an accelerating trend in which nation-state hackers target IT systems of non-government democratic institutions in an effort to interfere in another country's democratic process. These so-called hack-and-leak campaigns have emerged as a high-impact and increasingly common threat to sovereignty in democratic nations. This form of foreign interference involves a foreign adversary stealing data from the IT systems of a democratic institution and then publicly releasing it, often with fake data mixed into the release. The 2016 US presidential election is just one of these examples. We've seen similar attacks on the UK, French, German and many other democratic elections in recent times. Indeed, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has identified at least 20 elections that have been targeted by these operations.
More often than not the targets of these hacks are not government or parliamentary IT systems but the IT systems of other democratic institutions such as political parties, media outlets, think tanks, NGOs and research institutes. Indeed, a recent report from Microsoft found that NGOs were the most common targets for nation-state cyberoperations, constituting 32 per cent of all nation-state attacks. Australia is currently unprepared for cyberattacks on democratic institutions outside of government. There are currently no institutional frameworks to build resilience against foreign interference through cyberattacks on non-governmental democratic institutions. An Iranian Proud-Boys-style attack would be easily replicable in Australia via attacks on the IT infrastructure of Australia's political parties.
After the February 2019 cyberattacks on the networks of this chamber and the major political parties, the Prime Minister told this House that our democratic process was 'our most critical piece of national infrastructure'. But today, while the government does consider the IT systems of this Parliament House and the AEC to be critical infrastructure, the IT systems of other organisations targeted in this attack, like our political parties, are not treated as critical infrastructure. In 2017 the four major parties received one-off grants to assist the organisations to implement the Australian Signals Directorate Top Four mitigations on their IT systems, and in 2019 MYEFO provided a further $2.7 million over four years for the four major parties. But Australia lacks an ongoing institutional framework to build resilience against cyberattacks on non-governmental democratic institutions.
While government security agencies provide robust cybersecurity protections for their parliamentary email systems, these protections stop when MPs use private email systems, social media accounts, CRMs, privately hosted websites and smartphone apps. The cyber-resilience of these non-governmental democratic institutions falls through the cracks of our current arrangements. While each of Home Affairs, ASIO, ASD and the Department of Parliamentary Services have some indirect responsibility, none take ownership of the issue. While I'm sure there would be a significant incident response in the wake of a successful attack, there's little done to prevent these attacks in the first place or to build resilience through our information system to mitigate the impact of such attacks once they occur. There's no capacity-building program for our democratic institutions, no targeted cyberhygiene training, no real-time sharing of threat intelligence and no assistance with vulnerability assessments. Nor are there any public awareness campaigns on the nature of this threat to our sovereignty or any clear institutional responsibility for identifying and informing the public about cyberenabled foreign interference. The government is currently undertaking a consultation paper on Australia's current arrangements for protecting critical infrastructure and systems of national significance, and it reframes critical infrastructure as 'infrastructure supporting systems crucial to Australia's economy, security and sovereignty'. But despite the demonstrable threat that cyberattacks on non-government democratic institutions pose to our sovereignty, the paper fails to address this challenge. When the vector of this threat is a hack-and-leak campaign against these targets the government is blind to the threat. As a result, these non-government democratic institutions are left to face advanced persistent threats from sophisticated state backed hackers largely on their own. It's not a fair fight, and the stakes couldn't be higher.
Ten years ago to this day, I stood and spoke in this chamber for the very first time, delivering my maiden speech. I stood surrounded by the class of 2010. We quickly became friends, and those friendships have endured. It was a great day—the culmination of a lot of hard work for a lot of people. As I look back on that speech, most of the people I thanked then are still with me. I didn't have time that time to thank everyone in that 30-minute speech, and I certainly don't have time this time with only five minutes. But, suffice it to say, thank you to everyone who helped regain and retain Bennelong through four elections and one character building by-election.
Has much changed since then? In 2010, we didn't know it, but we were about at the beginning of a revolving door of prime ministers. In 2020, we have finally left that chaos in the past. Obviously, the pandemic is new and destructive, but its symptom—a sluggish economy—is something we are as familiar with today as then. A lot of the problems I spoke about then remain live today. Housing remains overvalued, and the market is even more volatile than it was back then, with Bennelong seeing some of the greatest fluctuations. Sports facilities underdeveloped, underutilised and going to the wall across Australia. But perhaps my biggest concern is the continuing lack of interest in the funding and planning of infrastructure.
The impact on the economy of the COVID virus demands government stimulation to recover, and central to this is the need for major infrastructure projects. The Treasurer has stated that we will spend astounding amounts on infrastructure and that it will be funded out of debt and future generations will repay the debt. I've been working for most of these ten years on parliamentary inquiries which have looked for ways to have this infrastructure paid for by the very beneficiaries who gain the most.
Evidence during the current inquiry demonstrates conclusively that the phenomenal gains in property values have occurred on the back of infrastructure announcements, especially around Badgerys Creek most recently. With each successive announcement—from the airport itself to the most recent announcement of the locations of stations on the metro rail line from the airport to St Marys—prices have moved from a base of rural agricultural use to what no doubt will be high rise, high density around the train stations. Therefore those chosen property owners, whether recent or long term, are the beneficiaries of huge windfalls. Twenty or 30 years ago, acreage in this region would have been valued at less than $2,000 an acre. Now, an acre within 500m of a train station is likely to fetch well in excess of $10 million. Does the infrastructure pipeline going forward mean that the taxpayer will fund even more phenomenal gains for some while impoverishing future generations of taxpayers? This is emblematic of the injustice of infrastructure funding for over 100 years. Will this result in our Commonwealth becoming a kingdom of indebted serf tenants—subjects to their lords?
For now, I'd like to end with some lines from my maiden speech, delivered ten years ago, as I believe them now as fervently as I did then:
Let us debate in this chamber a contest of ideas, a contest of visions. As with any endeavour in life, true and honest competition unfettered by political bias will produce, in this case, the best plan and the best result for our nation's future. We need the courage to attack this challenge. It has been ignored for too long. To shirk this responsibility, to say it is too tough, would be an affront to those who fought to make Australia what it is today—our forefathers, who had a plan, an optimistic vision, and who made the most of their opportunity to have a go.
I'd like to start by congratulating the member for Bennelong on his decade in this place—congratulations! The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the crisis in care in Australia: care for frail older Australians, support for people living with a disability and early childhood education for our young. It's said that we're all in this together when we're not. Before COVID-19 the royal commission had already laid bare the neglect in some aged-care homes. Now there are 102,000 older Australians waiting for home care. For the past two years there have consistently been more than 100,000 older Australians on the wait list, leaving them at risk and their carers vulnerable.
Childcare fees in Australia are some of the highest in the world. More than 100,000 families are locked out of the system simply because they can't afford it. This crisis has exposed the fault lines in our society. People in my electorate—and others like it—on the Central Coast of New South Wales, which is home to many young families and older Australians, are shouldering the burden. What a disappointment this year's budget has been for those Australians who were hoping these needs would be met.
We have debt approaching a trillion dollars and yet somehow vulnerable Australians are being left behind and people at risk are falling through the cracks. What every Australian was hoping for in the budget was a plan to get Australians back to work and to get communities like mine back on their feet, not to see support cut too soon, like JobSeeker or JobKeeper, while unemployment is still rising; not a series of announcements with big numbers that somehow don't get delivered. Australia needs a plan for secure, well-paid jobs for those hardest hit by the pandemic, for women and young people in particular because they were more likely to have been in insecure and low-paid jobs before COVID-19, and they've been left behind in much of the government's response. Since March 200,000 women have lost their jobs and 110,000 have left the workforce altogether. Youth unemployment has risen to 14.5 per cent from 11.6 per cent in March and is higher in regional and remote Australia, outside of big cities.
Where are these jobs going to come from? One of the biggest missed opportunities in the budget, and there were others, was for greater investment in the care economy. Investment in the care economy would be a win-win: a win for those desperately needing care, for those frail older Australians, for those people with disability, for young people and for those who need jobs and could be providing that care. But it seems that this government seems to think that the only jobs that matter are ones that give them a photo-op in a high-vis vest and a hard hat—jobs traditionally filled by men. Don't get me wrong, my dad was an engineer and a builder and I welcome investment in infrastructure and roads, and I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more of it in my electorate. I certainly hope some of the promised investment in manufacturing finds its way to the food hubs of the Central Coast.
With 17 jobseekers for every job vacancy on the coast—at the peak of the pandemic it was 36—clearly we are going to need more jobs. Who would benefit most from those jobs, the better paid and more secure jobs? It would be people working in the care economy. That's right: women and young people. Currently women make up 87 per cent of registered nurses and midwives, 87 per cent of aged-care workers and 96 per cent of early childhood educators. While we would welcome more men taking up jobs in these sectors, it's clear that greater investment in the care economy would boost women's employment opportunities and provide them more security.
These sectors can also provide opportunities for young people, opportunities which would be boosted through Labor's Australian skills guarantee, which, in cooperation with providers, would cover aged care, disability and child care. Under the Australian skills guarantee one out of 10 workers employed in a federally funded worksite would be an apprentice, a trainee or a cadet, which would make an enormous difference, particularly for young people living outside of big cities, for those in regional and remote Australia. Expanding the skills guarantee to the care economy would give thousands of young people a foothold, a firm start, in the workforce. Investment in care would grow the economy.
Labor's childcare policy would make quality, affordable child care universal, giving kids the best possible start through early childhood education, and supporting parents and families to more fully participate in, or to re-join, the workforce. Investment in the care economy would lead to greater workforce participation by people whose education and training or employment is held back because they don't have enough support in caring for family members living with a disability, illness or who are frail and elderly.
I'd like to see us come out of this pandemic a fairer place. I'd like to see our country be a more equitable one. I'd really like to see young people, women, those who have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 get more support and be able to more fully participate. We need to make sure that the most vulnerable aren't falling through the cracks, that they aren't left behind. In Australia where you are born, where you live and grow up, matters, and everybody needs to count.
It's now clear that after this week's Queensland state election Labor will not be able to govern alone. Their only, slim, chance lies in a coalition with the Greens. But, unlike the major parties, the Greens face no real scrutiny of their policies. Most voters know the public image of the Greens—that is, they are focused on climate policy. However, without proper scrutiny it is difficult for those same voters to be fully informed about the ruinous economic and social policies that lie beneath this so-called warm and fuzzy propaganda. For most Queenslanders, the Greens' full vision for our state is an economic wasteland of subsidence handouts, crime and poorly run state owned businesses—for everything—which would disincentivise small business and be fundamentally unacceptable.
At the last federal election, Queenslanders totally rejected the Labor Party's high-taxing agenda. However, if you thought Labor's $387 billion worth of new taxes was bad enough, just take a look at the Greens. The Greens openly admit that their so-called plan for economic recovery is to impose—this is just in Queensland—$67 billion in new taxes in just four years. That's $13,400 in new taxes for every man, woman and child in Queensland. The Greens would literally quadruple the rate of some taxes in Queensland and leave our economy in tatters. They would impose huge new taxes on resources, Queensland's biggest export, when we have never needed the export income as much as we do now. They would impose a big new tax on the banks, when small businesses are crying out for loans. They would impose a whopping 75 per cent developer tax on the construction industry during an economic crisis when hundreds of thousands of construction jobs are on the line, particularly on the Sunshine Coast. What do Queenslanders supposedly get for these vast new taxes? Apparently we'll get 78,000 new jobs and a wind turbine factory. The Greens intend to spend more than $850,000 of Queensland taxpayers' money on every job created, while devastating two of the state's most important industries and choking finance for the rest of us.
I would ask anyone on the Sunshine Coast, and indeed across Queensland, still considering voting for this dystopian vision of unemployment and economic collapse to look deeper into the Greens' policy proposals. On law and order, the Greens want to legalise public drunkenness and dangerous drugs in Queensland, ban young offenders from being charged with criminal offences no matter how serious their crimes, and scrap many of our state's prisons. Does this sound like a Queensland that you want to live in?
At a federal level—and, let's face it, they take their leadership across the board—the Greens have opposed the federal government's security legislation on nearly every occasion that cognate legislation has come before this place. It's the same legislation that has kept this country safe for several decades. They want to ditch the ANZUS alliance and cut military spending to boost the aid budget, at a time of the greatest geopolitical insecurity since World War II. They want to introduce a universal basic income, estimated to cost some $400 billion a year.
The individual candidates standing in electorates on the Sunshine Coast illustrate very well what lies behind the propaganda locally. Like his colleagues across the region, the Greens candidate for Glasshouse, Andrew McLean, would end dispatchable power generation in the Queensland electricity grid within 10 years, resulting in inevitable blackouts across the state. The Greens candidate for Caloundra, Raelene Ellis, is campaigning to prevent the state government investing in Bells Creek arterial. She wants to prevent the construction of this desperately needed, congestion-busting road which many of us have been fighting now for many years. This is the sort of stuff that the Greens are all about: debilitating taxes, industry destroyed, criminals set free, the government in control of our lives—and all for a free lunch. It's no exaggeration to say that a Labor-Greens coalition would be a disaster for everyone in Queensland.
House adjourned at 20:00
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to bring the House up to date on the impact the government's changes to Australia Post are having on the delivery of letters in Shortland. There is certainly a lot happening at Australia Post at the moment but let's be clear: the main story is that the Liberals and Nationals have agenda to reduce services and slash jobs at Australia Post, and, shockingly, they are using the COVID-19 pandemic as a cover to do this.
Australia Post recorded a half a billion dollar increase in revenue last financial year, yet they have commenced a reduction in the delivery of letters to every second day in the region I represent. This hits my constituents particularly hard in Shortland. Shortland is the sixth-oldest electorate in the country and 20 per cent of its people are over the age of 60, and they clearly rely on postal services more than those under 60, on average. My constituents were told in early August that they would only be receiving mail every second business day. This can be as little as two days a week.
Early anecdotal feedback from my constituents is that this is having a definite impact on delivery of their mail. One constituent provided an example to me. It is a letter that was sent to her. It's dated 26 May, and the envelope shows that it was scanned by Australia Post on 29 May, but she received it on Tuesday 13 October. That's 140 days to arrive—over four months. What a disgrace! I have a copy of an envelope sent to me from the Leader of the Opposition which contained a sympathy card for a constituent. It was posted from his electorate office in Marrickville, in Sydney, on 10 July. I received it in my electorate office on 17 September—over two months after it was sent. This is just not good enough. I do thank Australia Post for investigating the cause of this delay, but this is clearly unacceptable. The point I am making is that delivery of the mail is an important service to my constituents, and delivery every second business day is just not good enough—and delivery every few hundred days is definitely not good enough.
I also want to clearly state in my contribution that it is not a criticism of the employees of Australia Post. I know they are hardworking professionals, and I especially acknowledge the extra burden they are bearing in this pandemic. I don't begrudge the 34,000 frontline workers from receiving a $600 thank you payment and I don't begrudge the contract drivers for receiving gift vouchers. But more than $60 million was handed to 2,500 thousand workers who hold the title of either general manager, head of department, or senior manager. That's $24,000 on average each. That is the same as the annual age pension. My criticism is of the government and the stacked Liberal board, whose CEO wanted a pay rise in the middle of the pandemic. It's a disgrace. Australia Post must be fixed. (Time expired)
The electorate of Forde is home to the Spirits of the Red Sand, an Indigenous experience that embodies a dream more than 20 years in the making for co-founders, cultural elder Eddie Ruska and creative storyteller Mike Tamaki. Uncle Eddie Ruska, a proud descendant and elder of the Yuggera, Nunukul and Yugambeh people, has spent the last 22 years keeping his cultural alive through arts and entertainment programs for at-risk youth and many who have encountered the juvenile justice system.
Co-founder Mike Tamaki has over 30 years experience in tourism and travel, including the founding and management of a Tamaki Maori Village in New Zealand, delivering a cultural experience to more than 40,000 visitors annually. His knowledge and experience in balancing local community values, cultural integrity and the commercial realities have been widely recognised as a prototype for sustainable Indigenous tourism businesses, garnering awards, including the Supreme Tourism Award and the prestigious Sir Paul Harris Award.
Together they identified that there was a lack of availability of consistent and authentic day and evening Indigenous cultural experiences within the South-East Queensland region and set out to develop Australia's most comprehensive interactive educational Australian and Indigenous heritage cultural venue within the region, with the goal of securing sustainable, Indigenous employment and the empowerment of Indigenous people.
Located in Beenleigh, this three-year-old private and Indigenous owned small business is a trailblazer within the tourism and entertainment industry. Racking up awards left, right and centre, they are most recently the No. 1 must do Queensland experience as voted by the RACQ members, and they won the bronze award at the Queensland Tourism Awards for the best Indigenous experience. They currently offer cultural educational programs for schools and universities, cultural understanding programs for organisations, team-building events and function spaces along with tours that express the diversity of the Indigenous culture, attracting locals and international visitors alike. They are home to the largest variety of bush tucker plants in South-East Queensland. The Spirits of the Red Sand are continually growing and expanding their product offering and are now developing a world-class digital platform combined with augmented and virtual reality experiences, taking the visitor experience to new depths of cultural education and immersion.
Importantly, their story is one driven by the mission of empowering Indigenous people and providing sustainable economic development and employment opportunities for their community. Currently, 96 per cent of their employees are Indigenous, and they have a fully paid trading and hospitality program. (Time expired)
Today I want to talk about Frank and Jacob. Frank is Jacob's dad. He's the father of three boys, and Jacob is the youngest. He's 10 years old and he has Angelman syndrome. Angelman syndrome is a genetic disorder. It's caused by the partial deletion of chromosome 15, and kids with Angelman syndrome need constant care. They can't talk or they have minimal speech. They often can't walk. They have problems staying asleep. Jacob will wake up four times during the night. They have constant seizures, and there's no cure, not yet. So looking after a little boy like Jacob is very hard, and it got harder two years ago when Jacob's mum, Joanne, died from a brain tumour. Jacob lost his mum; Frank lost the love of his life and his partner in looking after their special little boy. It got harder again this year when Jacob's NDIS funding got cut by about 23 per cent. Frank rang my office in a panic. We rang the NDIS, we got a review done and we got the funding restored. That was good news. But it happened again last month. This time the funding for Jacob got cut by 50 per cent. Frank rang the office again. We rang the NDIS. We got some funding restored, but not all of it. Frank's now getting about 30 per cent less funding looking after Jacob than he was this time last year, and looking after Jacob is getting harder, not easier.
As he gets older and bigger and stronger, he needs more care, not less. Frank needs more help, not less. He's raising three boys and doing two jobs. He's got a lawn mowing business and a pest control business. These cuts mean that he can't get carer on the weekend to give him some time off to look after his other two little boys, and they need their dad as well. When Frank asked for the funding back, someone at the NDIS told him to quit his jobs and go on the carer pension. Really? Is that what we are telling people now? Apart from the fact that you can't live in Sydney and pay a mortgage and look after three kids on a carer pension, this is what the NDIS was about: looking after boys like Jacob and their dad and their family. And we're not doing that at the moment. We're not looking after them properly. So I urge the minister, I urge the government, please review Jacob's case again and please restore the cuts. We've seen so much waste in the last few weeks again of taxpayers' money by this government. Surely there's a bit of extra money to make sure that little boys like Jacob are properly looked after.
I would like to recognise J Watson & Son, a local bus line from Woodenbong. Watsons buses have been in the Watson family and in our community for over 72 years. In 1948 Joe and Minni Watson bought the local bus run. At the time the business had four buses and was run by his Joe, his son Les and Les's wife, Marj. Les used to say that he took pride in his business in providing the community with the very best of service.
The Watsons also started Watsons Earthmoving in 1952. Les and Marj had three children—Max, Bruce and Rodney. In 2005 Max and Bruce took over both family businesses with the help of their wives, Judith and Gail. Rodney also worked for his father for 10 years until he took over Woodenbong Driveway, which he still runs with his wife, Kim.
In all their time they never had any accidents. They would treat the children on the school bus as if they were their own grandchildren. Les was a great family man, fair and hardworking. He was a great believer in Woodenbong. Whenever there was something needed, he tried to do it. He, sadly, passed away in 2013.
After 72 years, the Watsons have sold their business to two new families. Mathew, Shannon, Nik and Sharon take over on 2 November and will keep the name Watsons buses. Congratulations to the Watson family. Thank you for your service and care for our community.
I'd like to recognise Darcy McFadden, who, sadly, passed away recently. We often speak about people who give back to our communities, but Darcy took this to another level. Darcy was born in Coraki and grew up with his 10 brothers and sisters in Woodburn. When Darcy was 16 he got a job with The Northern Star newspaper as an apprentice within the photography department. Some memorable photographic events for Darcy were Queen Elizabeth's visit to Lismore in 1954 and photographing the world-renowned pianist Winifred Atwell when she played at the Lismore City Hall. He also captured some devastating events, such as the Cowper and Clybucca bus crashes, major fires and the major floods in 1954 and 1974. He retired after 52 years at The Northern Star.
He was also an integral part of many community clubs, such as the Lismore Lions Club for 48 years. He was the recipient of over 18 awards, including the Melvin Jones Fellowship Award, the James D Richardson Honour Award and the Graham Pearce Award. He was also a member of the Lismore Apex Club for 62 years.
Karen and I extend our thoughts to his wife, Teresa; his children and their partners, Mark, Julie, Leanne, Peter, Craig, Tracy, Jason and Tracey; his grandchildren, Rian, Jared, Ciobahn, Hannah, Zack, Ethan, Maddison and Alec; and his greatgrandchildren, Boston, Winter and Maverick. Rest in peace, Darcy, and thank you for your dedication and commitment to our community.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair.
They're powerful words, but are we true to them? I've proudly represented Australia on the world stage, but this is not the Australia I'm proud of. This morning I joined with several other MPs to receive a petition of over 60,000 signatories calling for an end to offshore detention. Currently there are 290 people remaining in Papua New Guinea and on Manus Island. There is an offer from New Zealand to take up to 150 asylum seekers from PNG and Manus, an offer that remains on the table with the re-election of Jacinda Ardern. The Game Over campaign being championed by Craig Foster, Sonny Bill Williams and Amnesty International is seeking to call time on the seven years of detention these refugees have suffered and is demanding that Australia finally accept the offer on the table from New Zealand.
This government has been railing against restrictions in Victoria, where people were in lockdown for 112 days. Meanwhile it has kept a group of asylum seekers in lockdown on a remote island for over 2,555 days—people who came to Australia out of desperation and in need of our help. I strongly urge the Morrison government to take up the New Zealand offer. You have called for compassion from state governments. It's time to show compassion here too. It's time to call game over and get these people to safety so that they can rebuild their lives.
The Nangami Peace and Justice Group told me about the Jesuit Refugee Service and their foodbank, which almost doubled the number of parcels supplied to refugees and asylum seekers in need in the first three months of 2020. They're now providing food for 850 people per week. 'We have 174 individuals on the waitlist for food, rent, medication and psychological support,' they told me. One of the key asks of the Status Resolution Support Services is for more assistance for these groups. They are vulnerable and, unfortunately, the budget did cut funding further. Arrival detainee support groups also seek assistance. These are the people who were brought to Australia under the medevac legislation, but there are raised concerns about the inability of people to be referred to specialist health treatment and people now being shifted from community detention to bridging visas.
Finally, we have to acknowledge we have a looming crisis that we're contributing to. Climate change is going to displace huge amounts of populations. The Migration Data Portal, on disaster displacement, shows that some 9.8 million people at the beginning of 2020 were displaced due to disasters. We need to do more. It's time to say, 'Game over.'
When I worked with the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing on the government's HomeBuilder program, I was optimistic that it could restore the work which the Sunshine Coast construction sector had lost during the COVID crisis. However, with land releases selling out in days, and new homes on the coast being bought sight unseen by families moving to our community from both Victoria and New South Wales, this program has far exceeded anyone's expectations. The rapid growth will be a welcome boost for local businesses at a difficult time, but, as a region, we now need to make sure that the Sunshine Coast has the facilities that a community like ours needs and deserves. That means more than just roads and rail. In particular, I believe the time has come for us to make the Sunshine Coast Stadium ready to host more of the biggest games and the biggest acts. Plans have been drawn up for a $68 million upgrade for the stadium, which would see the fixed seating capacity grow from just around 1,100 now to nearly 12,000 seats, with an eventual capacity of more than 23,000. I've been in discussions with Sunshine Coast Council, community leaders and local state members to gather the funding we need. Following a welcome commitment of $20 million from the Queensland LNP team, we now have just $20 million to find.
An honourable member interjecting—
Eventually they came on board. They were very late to the party, but, yes, they did. I'll take that interjection.
I have already had several meetings with the Treasurer and other relevant ministers about this project and I'm grateful to them for their consideration. My constituents can rest assured that I'll continue to advocate for funding for the stadium in the run-up to next year's federal budget. In 2020, with Elton John's concerts and the Melbourne Storm playing on the coast, we've all seen how much the Sunshine Coast Stadium and the Sunshine Coast get behind these fantastic events. These events have been a fantastic way of drawing more visitors to the coast, and it's been great to see such a boost to our accommodation, houses, restaurants and tourist attractions. A bigger, better stadium would draw more professional sports and more big shows like those to the Sunshine Coast. Every show and every game introduces new people to the coast, who will visit again and tell their friends about the incredible time that they've had. I urge Fisher residents who agree with me that we need an upgraded stadium on the Sunshine Coast and more events like those that we've seen this year to contact my office and let me know today. The more voices the better. Every email helps to show how much of a priority this is for our community. Elton John and the champion Sunshine Coast Storm have shown us what is possible. Now let's see what other once-in-a-lifetime experiences we can bring to the Sunshine Coast.
COVID-19 has shown us just how dependent we have become on imported goods and just how important it is that we re-establish ourselves as a nation that makes things. Earlier this month I was pleased to welcome the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, to my electorate of Newcastle. We visited the rail maintenance service centre at Varleys, one of Australia's oldest and most advanced engineering and manufacturing companies. It was great to be there, but it was also bittersweet watching the crew fixing rail wagons that had been manufactured overseas. It reminded me of all the opportunities that are lost when governments turn their backs on local workers and local industry, opting to send rail manufacturing contracts overseas instead. When will we learn from the folly of this false economy that hurts our industry, our people and our nation? The truth is: when we build quality product right here in Australia, we save time and money and we're also backing local jobs in local industry.
Newcastle has a long and proud rail manufacturing industry stretching back more than a century. We are home to Lovells Springs, Australia's last manufacturer of rail suspension springs, and the only remaining manufacturer of rail wheels now, Molycops. We built the Tangara trains more than 30 years ago, and they are still going strong today. Sadly, that cannot be said for a number of the overseas train purchases made. Too often we have purchased trains offshore that have been too long for our platforms, too wide for our tracks or too tall for our tunnels. That's why it was so outrageous when the New South Wales Liberal Premier shut the door and her mind to Australian manufacturing when she made the ludicrous statement that New South Wales and Australia were no good at building trains. Well, Labor doesn't agree. It's a travesty when Australian rail manufacturing contracts go offshore, given the world-class manufacturing capacity we have right here at home. It's even worse to watch that capability being eroded because people in power refuse to back our people and their jobs.
We know we can make things here. We can value-add here. We have high-value manufacturing that positions us to not only supply domestically but also export to the world. That's why, in the budget reply, the Leader of the Opposition announced Labor's National Rail Manufacturing Plan, to see more trains built in Australia by local workers and ensure that every dollar of federal funding spent on rail projects boosts local jobs and industries. Labor wants us to build trains here, not overseas. A Labor government would ensure that Australian products like steel are used in the production and that we train apprentices to help rebuild a bigger, stronger manufacturing sector. There's a multibillion-dollar pipeline of rail projects in the next few decades. Let's make sure that opportunity is not lost. (Time expired)
The Victorian state government has at long last released its revised business case for the Murray Basin Rail Project, to the great disappointment of many stakeholders and communities in Mallee and beyond. The Murray Basin Rail Project should have been finished by December 2018, with a total budget of $440 million. It promised to take 20,000 trucks a year off rural roads by sending 500,000 tonnes of grain by train. Under the revised Victorian Labor business case, the Sea Lake and Manangatang lines will not be converted to standard gauge, and the Maryborough-Gheringhap line will not be converted to dual gauge, as was promised in the original plan.
The state government attempted to lay blame on the federal government for not allocating funding for the project in the 2020 Commonwealth budget. However, the federal government will not commit to funding something that will not be accepted by stakeholders. I recently spoke to Brian Barry, a third-generation farmer from Cocamba, near Manangatang. He has been involved in the Victorian Farmers Federation for many years. He said he was more than disappointed in the revised plan. He said that this project is paramount to the survival of Mallee farmers, who rarely put their hands up for anything from government.
The state government know their half-baked plan is inadequate, which is why they kept the revised business case secret until after the Commonwealth budget. They didn't have the courage to give stakeholders and the affected communities the opportunity to provide feedback. On top of this, the state government is offering a paltry $48.8 million to fix their mistakes while expecting the federal government to cough up $195.2 million, which is laughable, in an agreement that was always fifty-fifty. This project is critically important to Mallee and, indeed, to the Australian economy in order to create jobs, deliver investment and grow our agricultural sector to $100 billion by 2030.
The state government review also claimed that further standardisation of the network cannot be justified on a value-for-money basis. However, the review does not consider the millions of dollars being spent maintaining local roads, which continue to degrade as more and more producers elect to transport their goods by truck. These costs will continue to be met by cash-strapped rural councils that rely on federal funding to maintain their roads.
The proposed plan will not help farmers, industry or Mallee communities. Stakeholders are very worried. This is the best they are going to get. Once again, we have all been let down by the Victorian state Labor government, who cannot see past Bendigo or Ballarat.
The scandals surrounding the Morrison government are unfolding on a daily basis. Seriously, the list is endless, and it is greatly concerning. It gives further impetus to the establishment of a national integrity watchdog—a watchdog with teeth, an independent commission against corruption.
This is made even more vital when we see the Morrison government cutting funding—almost 20 per cent in real terms—to its own National Audit Office. This government is certainly averse to scrutiny. Why? You just need to look at the dodgy deals, the rorts, the jobs for mates and the misuse of taxpayer funds. Dodgy land deals by government departments to favour Liberal Party donors, like the $30 million purchase of land at the Western Sydney airport that is valued at one-tenth of that amount; illegal use of taxpayers' money for the clear purpose of Liberal Party election campaigning; the big stack of over 60 party friends appointed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; the CEO of Australia Post's purchase of $20,000 in Cartier watches using the public purse; the energy and emissions minister's forged document used to attack the mayor of Sydney. And who could forget sports rorts, and the Victorian Liberal Party with racist messages denigrating members of the Indian community and rorting of taxpayer funds for political purposes? What other rorts is this government hiding? We don't know, because this government is doing its very best to shield unacceptable behaviour from the public.
Two years ago the Morrison government committed to establishing a Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Now they're hiding behind COVID is a reason not to. But the government still found time to establish a Higher Education Integrity Unit to investigate students they thought might be cheating. They found time to implement robodebt, and they found time to take a holiday to Hawaii while the country was on fire.
We need a government that's not afraid to be put under the microscope. This is what the people of my electorate of Corangamite expect. This is what the people of Australia expect. The Morrison government needs to understand that it doesn't matter how good the marketing campaign is; corruption has no place in our country.
Every year I love putting on the Bonner Seniors Expo to meet with so many of my constituents and put on a fun and informative day. Unfortunately, with the coronavirus pandemic, it was important that we didn't put vulnerable people at risk with large gatherings, so for 2020 we've put together a virtual seniors expo. Last year's seniors expo was a success, despite my being in New York at the UN General Assembly. We had more than 500 people through the door, with a range of exhibitors and fantastic guest speakers at the Wynnum Manly Leagues Club, who always provide great hospitality. The virtual seniors expo is up on my website now. You can access links to all our amazing stallholders, and we still have some raffle prizes donated by our generous sponsors.
While we have not been able to come together for the annual seniors expo in Bonner, I still have had the opportunity to meet with seniors in our community. Following budget week I hosted an afternoon tea at Aveo Gardens in Manly West. It was lovely to see and catch up with everyone. They wanted to share how happy they have been with the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who they declared is a strong leader for navigating Australia through the global coronavirus pandemic. It was also a good opportunity to explain some of the measures in the budget to support older Australians, including the two economic support payments of $250 that are on their way to pensioners in December and March. Next week I look forward to enjoying morning tea with the residents of Mount Gravatt TriCare and Janoah Gardens at Manly West.
I hope next year we will be able to come together again for the Bonner Seniors Expo to enjoy hearing from our guest speakers, have a chat and have a delicious morning tea. But for now, our small morning and afternoon catch-ups are a great to stay connected and also keep everyone safe. Thank you to all the Bonner Seniors Expo exhibitors for embracing this year's virtual expo, including local support services, who have been invaluable in keeping our vulnerable seniors in our community safe this year.
As I was saying before I was so politely interrupted, councils in my electorate are getting a $13 million boost from the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program grant right across the electorate. And another $5 million has been allocated to the Department of Infrastructure and Transport in South Australia to complete roadworks in the same areas.
For any fabrication in Whyalla, a place that the Premier and I visited only a month or so ago will benefit from a $15 million grant, largely to install an onsite galvanising plant. At the moment if they press out metal and they want it galvanised, it has to go to Adelaide and be galvanised and then be brought back up to Whyalla again. Of course there is a lot of interest around Australia at the moment in building transmission towers for high-voltage lines. We're planning to build a transmission line from South Australia through to New South Wales to hook us up to Snowy Hydro mark 2 or the wind energy that sits within the Grey electorate. In fact, almost 35 per cent of the wind energy in Australia is generated in the Grey electorate, so that is a big thing for Whyalla. It is actually telling us something about the government's commitment to the steel industry in Australia. This is coupled with the announcements that have come from the minister for energy about the commitment for new energy schemes in Australia and the possibility developing green steel in Whyalla, where the owner of GFG Sanjeev Gupta has already expressed a great desire to move down that path. I think for Whyalla that's a really big and important announcement that is looking to—there we go!
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings suspended from 10:32 to 10:43
Ten projects across Grey will receive more than $9.5 million under round 5 five of the Bridges Renewal Program and round 7 of the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. I've already been to visit those sites and talk to those people. There's the Moonta historic mine. This is an absolute ripper! Moonta is one of the most historic mining towns in Australia. Its Cornish heritage really has to be seen to be believed. It's listed as a National Heritage site. The whole town will receive $4.9 million as part of the federal government's $61 million budget for environmental restoration and recovery through the $1 billion COVID relief fund. The same fund is providing almost $300,000 for a very similar community in Burra, a historic mining town which is also listed as a National Heritage site, to undertake repair work around the mining site—in fact, to the offices at Burra that sit near the great pit, which is now full of water. Then there are the Ediacara fossils at Nilpena, which is a World Heritage site. This is outstanding stuff in the Flinders Ranges. The area in the Flinders Ranges with the earliest signs of life on the planet will receive $490,000. They are really good wins for the electorate of Grey.
A number of other projects in the electorate are already underway, and some of them are very large infrastructure programs. I'm pleased to announce that work has commenced on the second Joy Baluch bridge at Port Augusta. Port Augusta is the crossroads of the nation. If you go east to west, you go through Port Augusta and you go over the bridge. If you go north to south, you go over the Joy Baluch bridge. It's become congested. The alternative is a trackway to the north called Yorkeys Crossing. If it's wet, that's out as well. At different times we've had accidents on the bridge where East Port Augusta is cut off from West Port Augusta, and there are no emergency services in West Port Augusta. It's a very big project—a $200 million project—with $160 million coming from the federal government.
Down at Port Wakefield, we're solving a perennial problem and one that's sat there for many decades. We're having an overpass intersection to the north of the town and dual lanes right through the town. Work is continuing on the ARTC, the Australian Rail Track Corporation, traffic management system. That's a $50 million program. There's $100 million for works on freight corridors west of Port Augusta, with $25 million of that being chiselled off for works to deal with the closure of the railway on Eyre Peninsula. Eyre Peninsula is where I live. That work is very important to the growers and the community of Eyre Peninsula. There's also $50 million for the Barrier Highway, $42 million for the Horrocks Highway—all with a 20 per cent top-up from the state. There's a lot of work happening in the Grey electorate as a result of the investment decisions of this federal government.
The support that the electorate has received through the Regional Airline Network Support package has put flights back into Coober Pedy, Ceduna and Whyalla. It was very important. I think there are also subsidised flights going into Port Lincoln. Those communities would have been completely cut off. It wasn't a regular service. It was making sure there were two services a week, but it did keep that population in touch. There was also a big increase over this period of time in Roads to Recovery payments. There was an increase of $12 million to the 29 councils across Grey.
In the last two years, I have opened two new headspace units in the electorate of Grey. We now have four. I need one more. I still need another one for Port Pirie. We're working our way down the list. I'm extremely grateful for the funding and so are the communities where those headspace units sit.
There's $6½ million for work shutting down leaking bores in the Great Artesian Basin. Most of this work is not going to be in South Australia, because the work has already been done there. It's largely going to be done in South West Queensland, but it's the same basin, so keeping the pressures up in that basin is very important to South Australia. There's $45 million for the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme. You might wonder why the member for Grey would be talking about Adelaide, but my electorate now runs within 32 kilometres of the CBD. In the last redistribution I picked up a lot of irrigated horticultural country on the Adelaide Plains, and this is a very important project.
There's a new allocation of $200 million for the BBRF. This has been a remarkable program in Grey across the years. In the last round, the Remarkable Southern Flinders received a $5 million grant for the development of tourist facilities and biking trails in the Southern Flinders Ranges. There's $6.6 million for the Silver to Sea Way, which is keeping a hold of the historical landmarks that sit between Broken Hill and Port Pirie. Of course, Broken Hill is where BHP was formed—Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited is what it stands for. The smelters in Port Pirie were built to deal with that first mining venture of BHP. It's a very important part of Australia's history.
There's $3 million for the Cowell foreshore development. We've had great investment in remote airstrips and in regional airports. The Drought Communities Program has run across 20 councils in Grey, and there's been some fantastic work done. I go into communities where they've been able to upgrade facilities, which they haven't been able to afford to do for a long time. I often tell the story about the young sparky I was talking to, who had the job of rewiring the town's showgrounds. He said, 'Without these grants I would have had to let my two men go, and I don't know whether or not I would have been able to survive.' He's providing that town with an ongoing service, which is exactly what the Drought Communities Program is about. In fact, I'm very pleased to be part of a government that has recognised that drought does not affect just farmers, it affects whole communities. If farmers have no money then they stop spending, and then the industries that service them dry up as well. There has been an increase of FAGs funding for councils. I can safely say that never before have we had this level of federal investment in a large regional seat like Grey, and very I'm pleased to be the member at the time when this great support is coming from the federal government.
This is a budget that is devoid of any vision for our nation. It offers no plan for recovery for our economy, and it fails to tackle the problems that Australians are facing on a daily basis. In summation, it offers little hope for Australians and for our nation.
This is a big-spending budget; the deficit will be $213 billion in the coming year. Gross debt will grow to $1.7 trillion, or 55 per cent of our nation's GDP, under this government. Will this budget leave Australians and Australia better off? The answer to that question is, no, it won't leave our nation better off. It doesn't deal with any of the problems that our economy has been facing over the period of this government: low wages growth; chronically bad productivity resulting in very little growth in GDP for our nation; business investment heading down, and continuing to head down; and workers falling further and further behind, and their families being worse off. It won't deal with these issues, or offer a plan to ensure that our economy can recover, and recover in better shape than it was in when it went into this recession. It's a big-spending budget, but the money has been allocated in the wrong areas. It has not been allocated to the areas where you're going to boost productivity, where workers and their families will be better off, where pensioners and self-funded retirees will be better off, and where small businesses have the support to grow and to become medium- to big-sized businesses into the future. None of that support is available from this government in this budget.
I want to deal with some of the myths that are being perpetrated by this government about their management of the economy and their management of our nation's finances. They always make this claim, those opposite, the Liberal and National parties, that the conservatives are better at managing money, that they're better at managing our nation's finances. Well that has been blown out of the water by the fact that the nation's biggest budget deficit and the largest amount of debt that the nation has ever taken on will happen on their watch. And I don't see them all having their little selfies and photos with the 'Back in black' mugs anymore, which they were prior to this budget.
An opposition member: Or the debt trucks!
Or the debt trucks! What about those debt trucks that were rolled out across the country? You would normally have seen the debt trucks rolled out by now, during the election in Queensland, if this was a typical time for the Liberal and National parties in Queensland; but, no, that's not occurring anymore, is it? That is not occurring anymore, because of what this government has done to our nation's finances.
I want to point out some of the wastage of taxpayer dollars that has been undertaken by this government, completely dispelling this myth that they are better managers of our nation's finances. It started with sport rorts. We all remember that, don't we? It was this wonderful program where the Liberal and National parties, through the minister and—guess what?—signed off by the Prime Minister, pork barrelled hard-earned taxpayer dollars into projects in seats held by the Liberal Party and National Party—against the advice of Sport Australia. The Australian National Audit Office uncovered what was going on with this scheme, and it resulted in the resignation of the minister—despite the fact the minister had been in constant contact with the Prime Minister's office. So there we have the first one: sports rorts.
Then we move on to water rorts, where the government paid double the independent evaluation for water licences to a company that was established by none other than the Minister for Energy in—guess where—the Cayman Islands! We've got a minister in this government establishing a company in the Cayman Islands. Why do people establish companies in the Cayman Islands? I can tell you why: to avoid paying tax in Australia. Yet this government paid well above the independent evaluation to a company established by the minister in the Cayman Islands! And it doesn't end there with this minister. Then there was the grass rorts saga, where this minister lobbied the environment minister to have environmental laws watered down because a company that he was previously a shareholder in had been investigated for breaches of land-clearing laws.
Oh, and it doesn't end there. Then we move on to the farcical situation with Badgerys Creek. If you want a good example of the Liberals with their snouts in the trough and abusing taxpayers dollars, look no further than what has gone on with Badgerys Creek, where this government paid a Liberal Party donor—I mean, you can't make this stuff up—10 times the amount that the land was valued at in Badgerys Creek. It's complete rorting, corruption and abuse of taxpayers dollars by this government. And they want to say that they are better at managing our nations finances! What a joke!
Well, it doesn't end there. Then we move on to some of the government big programs like the National Broadband Network. The Minister for Communications announced a month or so ago—guess what?—that this government was actually going to look to moving to fibre to the premises. Remember when the National Broadband Network was established, the original plan of the Kevin Rudd government was to ensure that every Australian had access regardless of where they lived and what their income was to high-speed broadband via a high-speed network to their premises—to their home or to their business. Then, the wonderful Minister for Communications, who thinks that he's the expert on everything to do with the Internet and communications, Malcom Turnbull, came along and said, 'No, we're going to change the system; we are going to make sure that, instead of rolling it out to your premises, we're going to stop at the end of the street and the rest of the connection will be via the copper network. And, in doing so, we'll roll it out more quickly and we will save money.' Well, guess what? They doubled the cost of it and it still has not been completed.
Now the minister has the hide to come along and say—at the cost of $4.5 billion, I might add: 'We are going to go back to Labor's original plan because'—guess what?—'the current system is not working.' The current system is not working because the copper network is basically stuffed and it's not delivering what the government said they would. So there they go—wasting another $4.5 million of taxpayer fund all for political expediency and basically so Malcom Turnbull could fulfil a dream and become Prime Minister of this country.
Then we move on to energy policy. They've had 22 different policies—and all the waste of taxpayers dollars that they spent on investigations and the Public Service putting together 22 different policies that have never got anywhere. And the country still doesn't have an energy policy. We're still paying too much for electricity and gas—guess what?—the nation's carbon pollution is going up and up and up and our kids are going to pay the costs. All of these abuses of taxpayers dollars have been undertaken by this government.
Then last week it was uncovered in estimates what is going on in our nation's postal service, where this government has lined the board with Liberal Party mates that are now abusing taxpayers dollars. They are giving away to senior executives Cartier watches that cost between $15,000 and $20,000 and the CEO spent money on high-priced hotels while basically living in Melbourne; yet, at the same time, the postal service is being cut back! Residents in my area have been told that the mail will only be delivered every second day, not every day as they are entitled to and that they pay taxes for. The government have lined the board with their Liberal Party mates, who are abusing taxpayers' dollars.
And don't get me started on what's going on at ASIC. You'd think they would have learned the lesson after the royal commission and all of the scandals and rip-offs of Australian taxpayers that have occurred and that we'd have a strong, independent Australian Securities and Investments Commission. But no. Once again they line the board with their mates. What's been going on? We find out, through estimates, that the chair of ASIC has had a $118,000 tax bill paid for by the taxpayer. Who on earth in Australia gets that? Who, of the hardworking Australian people who go to work every day and do their job, gets the government to pay their tax bill? No-one. Well, it happens under this Liberal government. Then we find out that the deputy chair has had his rent paid by the government. He has had to resign in disgrace. All of this is going on while only 10 of the 76 recommendations of the royal commission have been implemented by this government. It's almost two years since the royal commissioner handed down his findings in the royal commission, after all of the abuse that Australians had to cop in the financial services industry, and still only 10 of those 76 recommendations have been implemented, because this government is more interested in providing jobs for its mates on government instrumentalities and wasting taxpayers' dollars than getting on and doing the job of fixing up our financial services industry.
Then yesterday we uncovered that the government is providing subsidies to the operators of private jets in this country, whilst thousands of dnata workers who work for airlines in this country missed out on JobKeeper. These aren't high-paid people. They are good, salt-of-the-earth hardworking Australians that are on basic wages. They get nothing. They're out of a job, with no support whatsoever. Yet with people like Clive Palmer and others that fly around the country in private jets—'Yeah, we'll give them a handout, because they're a Liberal Party mate, and don't we owe them for the ads that they ran during the last election.' Qantas has sacked 2½ thousand of its workers and, guess what, they're going to bring in a foreign corporation to take those workers' jobs and offer wages and conditions that are lower than what the workers would have got. There is no support for them from this government. No. They're out on their backside, and the likes of Clive Palmer and other wealthy Australians get a subsidy to operate their private jets. The government are looking after their mates and forgetting the average Australians—the hardworking workers of this country and their families; pensioners and self-funded retirees, who've got nothing from this government during this crisis; and small businesses.
This is a budget that is devoid of vision and does not help those that are in need—not to mention the cuts to services that have been going on in this country. My wife is a registered nurse and works in a public hospital. The chronic staff shortages that are going on in our public hospitals, and the lack of services, are unbelievable. Hospital waiting lists for elective surgery are blowing out by the day. The government is making it harder for our kids to get an education. If you're a low- to middle-income family trying to get your kid into a university degree, this government has just put up the cost of that for anyone going into humanities, in some cases increasing it by 113 per cent. TAFE fees have doubled under this government for a kid trying to get an apprenticeship. And, as I mentioned earlier, Australia Post are now saying that they're going to deliver letters every second day rather than every day, as they should, and which our taxes go to fund. These are the services that are being cut by the government, yet in this budget they're continuing with tax cuts that take $130 billion out of the federal budget in the future, on top of the $216 billion deficit that they're going to leave Australians with. I ask those opposite and, in particular, the Treasurer: if you're taking all this money out of the budget and you're cutting services as they are, what else are you going to cut? You can't continue to run a budget and run the nation's finances like that, taking $130 billion out of the budget without cutting services. That is exactly what this government is going to do. It's going to cut services further so Australians are worse off, and it's not fair. That is why Labor, in its response, is trying to concentrate on the issues that are affecting Australians. Our policy deals with the high cost of child care and the fact that many people can't get their kids into child care because they can't afford to go to work, because of that high cost, making sure that the subsidy is fair and that people can afford to go to work. That will boost productivity and boost the growth of the nation. That is how you allocate public funds to a problem that exists in our economy and make sure you get a better deal for people.
Homelessness has been on the rise. We should be investing in social housing, and that is what Labor is proposing. But this government ignores those problems and instead lines the pockets of mates who do the right thing by the Liberal Party, which is the wrong thing by the Australian people. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the appropriation bills. When the Treasurer stood up 18 months ago to deliver his 2019 budget, you could tell it wasn't standalone. Like a Hollywood blockbuster, you could tell it was setting itself up for a sequel—the glorious 2020 budget, where the surplus would be reached, the sun would shine and Richmond wouldn't win the football again! And then 2020 happened, and all bets were off. So instead of the budget we wanted to have, we got the budget that we had to have, beyond ideology, to deliver economic stimulus where it was needed—into businesses and into people's wallets.
Around 83,000 taxpayers in Bennelong will benefit from tax relief of up to $2,745 this year as a result of the Morrison government's tax relief measures, which have already passed parliament. Around 7,111 individuals in Bennelong have received the coronavirus supplement, which was added to JobSeeker to provide additional support through this crisis. Around 12,847 aged pensioners in Bennelong received support payments of $750 in April and July, and will receive a further $250 payment in December and a further $250 from March next year. Around 974 carers in Bennelong received support payments of $750 in April and July, and will receive a further $250 payment in December and a further $250 from March next year. This means people across the electorate and the nation will have more of their hard-earned money in their pockets. In tough times like these, that extra money could mean the difference between skipped meals, rent being paid or the air-con running. It could be a lifesaver. Regardless of whether you spend this on necessities or desires, please spend it locally so that it can go towards helping our hardworking small businesses, many of whom have done it really tough.
In my time as the member for Bennelong, I have implemented a number of projects to help local businesses. Perhaps significant in these times is the Bennelong Village Business program. Started in 2010 as small businesses were struggling out of the GFC, it has continued ever since and has found new relevance this year. Through this program, I have actively promoted local shops and local village precincts to surrounding neighbourhoods to encourage people to shop locally. Buying locally means putting money in the pockets of local business owners and creating lively, vibrant local shopping precincts. Earlier this year I had been unable to physically visit shopping centres and meet with business owners because of the impact of COVID. Given the extraordinary success of NSW Health in controlling the virus, case numbers are sufficiently low now that I will be able to resume the Bennelong Village Business program in the lead-up to Christmas. I'm very much looking forward to speaking to our businesses, seeing how they are faring and assisting them as best I can.
Local shops which have been unable to keep trading due to the impact of the COVID virus have been particularly affected by the crisis. I recently conducted a business survey across my electorate to hear the opinions of business owners and to see how they have fared during the crisis. Most alarmingly, I found that not a single store that responded had experienced less than a 30 per cent decline in revenue. The government's JobKeeper payment has been so essential, supporting 7,500 businesses in Bennelong through the pandemic and keeping them connected to their employees. The cash flow boost has helped around 6,200 small and medium-sized businesses, providing payments to help businesses in Bennelong stay afloat.
Bennelong businesses have been versatile and innovative over the past few months. One of our favourites, Formula Chemicals, saw the need in the market and shifted rapidly to produce huge quantities of sanitiser to keep us all healthy. Top Ryde Tailoring saw a dip in people needing suits as people were working from home in their trackies but recognised that their excess fabric was perfect for face masks, which they started making, bespoke, to stay afloat. Scott Morrison has an embroidered one himself. Despite these innovations, they cannot do this alone. This is why JobKeeper payments have been so critical.
The next step is to rebuild, and the government has a plan to support new investment and increase business cash flow. The government is providing a temporary tax incentive that will allow 21,800 businesses in Bennelong to write off the full value of any eligible asset they purchase. This will build on the government's successful instant asset write-off measure announced earlier in the year. The possibilities with this are endless. Local manufacturers in West Ryde can buy new machines; the car repairers of Buffalo Road can replace their tools; the great restaurants of Eastwood can renew their kitchens before the post-COVID rush descends. Anything is possible. This is hopefully the sort of circuit-breaker that our economy needs to get back on its feet rapidly, encouraging people to get out and spend their money at Australian businesses, trickling the money back up the chain until we are back to where we were 12 months ago.
For all the good work this month, I can't help but feeling that there is a bit of a missed opportunity. By spending money on infrastructure, we can provide jobs and economic stimulus while also providing a future benefit for the people of Australia who get to use this infrastructure. Of course, there is infrastructure in the budget. Some of them, like the bypasses that almost finish the Pacific Highway upgrades, are long overdue and will fill critical gaps in our national infrastructure. Most of them are small, shovel-ready projects that can be turned around now for maximum impact, which is certainly a praiseworthy aim. But, with the continuation of the tradition of ad hoc building of small projects—fixing our problems but not the root cause of the issues—the can is simply being kicked further down the road.
I'll speak later today in the other chamber about the need for vision, but for now I would like to talk about a better way to fund infrastructure. Albert Einstein claimed the greatest power in the universe was compounding interest. I'm currently chairing the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities inquiry into financing faster rail, and we have discovered the greatest power in the Australian infrastructure funding and tax relief universe. This power is the compounding of property values due to infrastructure investment and rezoning. For over 100 years, a select group of property owners have been the beneficiaries, funded by governments with taxpayers' money. We recently heard evidence that conclusively shows the extraordinary rise in property values that have occurred when major infrastructure has been announced, most recently at the Western Sydney International Airport. This is hardly surprising. The land around one of the new metro stations will go from rural agricultural to high-density apartments basically overnight. A quick comparison of rural land prices versus inner-city apartment land prices demonstrates the huge financial gains to be made. The lucky property owners, many of them recent speculators, would be the huge beneficiaries of this great force of price uplift as their acreage goes from $2,000 an acre to over $10 million for selected lands close to train stations. That is an increase of 5,000 times, or 500,000 per cent. The greatest power in the universe indeed.
The fundamental questions are: who pays and who gains, and what responsibility does the government have? The answer is: the taxpayer pays and the select few gain. The government is elected to represent the people's interest. This inquiry has clarified a shocking oversight by governments that has escalated more over the past century. It must be remedied and remedied now before any more infrastructure announcements are made. We heard evidence from Professor Andrew McNaughton, the technical director of High Speed Two, in Britain, who has recently consulted for the New South Wales government on faster rail and high-speed rail. He provided evidence that was a perfect encapsulation of our past mistakes and what we should do now. He said essentially that property prices enjoy significant uplift within 500 metres of a metro station; however, increases in property values around regional fast-rail stations or high-speed rail stations are over a far greater area and are far more dramatic. His concluding advice was that before another infrastructure project is announced you must secure the current value of the lands that will be impacted on which to make your charge, because, the moment you make the announcement, within minutes, the prices have gone up and it is too late.
The purpose of this inquiry, announced pre-COVID, was to find the best practices to fund and finance faster rail, but the virus has now changed the imperative. The huge impact on the economy that this virus has had will obviously require huge amounts of government stimulus. As we have seen, much of this has gone directly to workers and businesses. But we must use this opportunity to invest in major infrastructure as well. Indeed, it has been announced that we will be spending astounding amounts on infrastructure. This will be funded out of debt and this debt will be paid by future generations. Does this mean that the taxpayer will fund even more phenomenal gains for some that will impoverish future generations of taxpayers? Recommendations that will flow from this inquiry must advise the government that they represent the taxpayer to gain a fair share of the profits to fund the infrastructure and therefore put downward pressures on taxes now and for future generations.
Hand in hand with these funding ideas is the idea of master planning. These recommendations followed repeated inquiries which called for more planning for our infrastructure. Long-term planning is essential for setting out the areas which will need funding but, more importantly than that, it gives certainty to industry, politics and the community. Building companies regularly say that the greatest cost of doing business in Australia is the constant gearing up and gearing down for a single project. A continuous program of works would alleviate most of these costs.
But there is a less prosaic reason than that. Imagine if we had a vision of what we wanted this country to look like in 10, 20, 50 or even 100 years—a roadmap of what we think we need and a plan on how to achieve it. In Japan, in the 1960s they planned out their high-speed rail to be rolled out across the country, which included a route to the north to be built in the 2010s—50-year planning that gave certainty to all levels of society about the direction of the Japanese plan. When the line was open on time a few years ago, the supporting infrastructure was ready to go and the community benefited from that certainty. Australia hasn't seen an integrated plan like this since Bradfield planned Sydney—and, even then, political opportunism stymied some of his big ideas. We need long-term planning of our settlement and then, when we suffer from our next economic shock—whenever that may be—we will not need to scrounge around for short-term, shovel-ready projects to stimulate the economy; we will have a full list of important nation-building projects that can be accelerated.
Ten years ago to this day, I stood in the other chamber for the first time and made my maiden speech. I had been the most unlikely candidate for federal politics. I had no credit whatsoever. However, I shared a common complaint that our leaders lack vision and engaged too much in unproductive negative repartee. I asked in that first speech that this be a place, an arena, for the contest of ideas. What I presented may have started out as an idea, but it has survived a number of inquiries and gained enormous support from academics and business leaders. So I conclude by asking our leaders to enter this great arena, leave the tools of your political trade on the sidelines and fight for what the people of Australia want of you. Keep your promise to represent us and give us a vision—a grand vision where our dreams and aspirations can come true.
) ( ): I rise to speak on the Appropriations Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021. We have seen a lot of big numbers from this year's budget: a $213.7 billion deficit this financial year; $480 billion of cumulative deficits over the forward estimates; the budget in deficit every year for the next decade; net debt of $703.2 billion this year, growing to $966.2 billion at the end of the forward estimate; and gross debt currently over $800 billion, forecast to get to well over a trillion dollars over the forward estimates and peaking at $1.7 trillion over the decade. This budget will rack up a trillion dollars of debt but still leave Australians behind, especially Australians living outside of big cities. The budget doesn't do enough to create jobs and fails to build for the future.
The pandemic has had a devastating impact on regional coastal communities like mine on the Central Coast of New South Wales. Figures from June 2020 show over 40 per cent of businesses on the Central Coast were receiving JobKeeper and, at the height of the pandemic, there were 36 jobseekers for every job vacancy. As of September, there are 17 jobseekers for every vacancy, still well above the national average, and nearly 20,000 people receiving JobSeeker on the Central Coast.
It's said we're all in this together when we're not. In some suburbs in my electorate there's been an increase in jobseeker recipients of over 95 per cent, and in no suburb was the increase less than 35 per cent. Local people are facing hardship and uncertainty, and this will get worse if the government cuts support too soon and if the government doesn't properly invest in a jobs-led recovery. Australians, especially those living in regional and remote Australia, will bear the brunt of the recession for years to come, and this will be particularly felt by younger people.
Before the pandemic the number of students completing TAFE courses in my electorate had dropped by 600 from when this government came to power. The government has announced, and we welcome, 100,000 new places for TAFE, but it's still 40,000 less than what they inherited from Labor in 2013. And under this government we've seen skill shortages, from welders, bricklayers, hairdressers to engineers. Australians, as I've mentioned, especially in the regions, especially young people living outside of big cities, deserve a properly funded public TAFE for when they're starting out, when they're changing jobs or when they need to reskill or upskill. It's critical.
The global pandemic has exposed the risk of being last in the worldwide supply chain and vulnerabilities in our supply chains. We've seen disruptions leading to shortages, and as a pharmacist this has particularly concerned me when it's led to shortages in critical and life-saving medicines. We need to invest in Australian manufacturing. Australia has a strong history and a proud track record of building and creating our own, and that's what we need to do now. On the Central Coast in my electorate there were just under a thousand manufacturing businesses before the pandemic. At one end, there are 430 sole traders—the people like my brother, a plumber—through to the 70-plus businesses that employ between 20 and just under 200 people.
The Central Coast is known for food manufacturing. Businesses like Sanitarium and MasterFoods call the Central Coast their home, and I'm really proud to say that the Central Coast Food Alliance, since its launch in September 2019, has really worked to raise the profile of the Central Coast as a thriving food hub. The government—and I welcome it—has promised in the budget investment in food manufacturing. I'll be pushing really hard to make sure that the Central Coast and other regions like ours get their fair share, because the Central Coast has a track record and the know-how and the people to be part of a manufacturing jobs-led recovery, and that's what we really need to see in my community.
Australia needs a plan for good, secure jobs, especially for people that live outside of the big cities, especially for young people in regional and remote Australia. As part of a 'future made in Australia' plan, Labor has announced the Australian Skills Guarantee. On every worksite receiving major government funding, one out of 10 workers employed will be an apprentice, a trainee or a cadet. It reminds me of when my dad started out. He grew up in public housing, he'd never met someone who'd been to university and he was able to get a cadetship with what was then the Department of Main Roads. That allowed him to start his career as a civil structural engineer. It gave him a start in life that he would not otherwise have had. So I have a strong personal interest in this. We really need to rebuild public TAFE. We need to provide a pathway to secure jobs and we also need through a skills guarantee to make sure that when someone has those skills that they have a start, that they've a foothold, that they can make a start in a steady career.
I want to turn now to infrastructure. The Central Coast is a growing community, and our region has a backlog of major infrastructure projects. It's a popular place for people to live—for young families, for older people. What we don't have and what has been overlooked is the infrastructure to support our growing communities. Investment in infrastructure should be central to the post-COVID recovery across Australia and in the regions. Instead, the coast has been left off the Liberal and Nationals infrastructure list. The Central Coast hasn't had a major infrastructure project since the M1 upgrade, which was kickstarted when Labor was last in government under the then Labor minister for infrastructure, Anthony Albanese. But locals in my community have been overlooked again. The government's original Central Coast Roads Package, which was worth just under $70 million and was welcome, gave 94 per cent of funding to the Liberal-held seat of Robertson, and, according to a breakdown, as recently as March one street in Saratoga in the Robertson electorate received more funding than the whole of my electorate of Dobell. Of course we welcome road funding; it's critical in our community to get people around the coast home safe, but it needs to be fair. We also need to see, in the growth area, which is particularly in the north, more investment in road funding to clear the backlog and to accommodate the growing community.
The Liberals promised to spend $26.7 million of this funding last year, but they've only spent $4.5 million. It's one thing to announce, but it's another thing to follow through. And that's what we need: money into the economy now, particularly local economies. I don't know why this funding was skewed towards Robertson and why the government is behind in these critical projects. Recently, the government announced another $16.7 million as part of the package, but it's unclear which road projects will be funded. The government needs to be upfront, and the community needs to know when their local roads are going to be upgraded and why they haven't been so far. This backlog has to be cleared.
I want to turn now to universities, particularly to the Ourimbah campus of the University of Newcastle in my electorate. The University of Newcastle has a proud history of both equity and excellence, and at Ourimbah campus it runs some of the oldest and largest enabling programs in the country. These are programs that give people a fair go, that give them a shot at higher education which they wouldn't otherwise have. And, importantly, these programs are debt free. Over the past 45 years, over 60,000 students have successfully completed an enabling program like Newstep or Open Foundation. What I'm concerned about is the government's job-ready graduates bill, which is removing funding from enabling programs from the Commonwealth Grant Scheme and replacing it with the Indigenous, Regional and Low SES Attainment Fund. What the local universities are concerned about and what they've said is that, under current advice, up to 60 per cent of their enabling students would miss out on funding under this program, and, if the money wasn't available to fund enabling programs, those students may not fit neatly into the equity categories of low SES or Indigenous or regional students.
This is a real concern because the loss of secure funding for enabling programs is a risk particularly to vulnerable students—students who haven't had the best start in life, whose circumstances mean that they haven't had a fair go at education. The university's own survey suggests that about 80 per cent of enabling students couldn't start if fees were introduced, so we have to make sure that that doesn't happen for people like Sharon, in my electorate. She's 40 now and she had to leave school to help care for her mother and her two younger sisters. At 33, after starting her own family, she decided that it was her chance to go to university and she enrolled in Open Foundation, and she says it changed her life. She studied with mature-age students who'd come through similar difficulties and backgrounds, and she discovered her own love of learning. She completed her Open Foundation course and went onto a Bachelor of Education, and she's got a scholarship to finish her PhD. It's for people like Sharon, whose only shot at higher education was through enabling education, that we have to keep them debt free and not shut the door on people before they even start. I was recently at Ourimbah campus with Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, and we met Georgia, who's studying law; Siena, who's studying nursing; and Nathaniel, who's studying teaching, and they're only studying today because of enabling programs. And do you know what they all said? They want to do enabling programs because they want to help other people who've grown up like them, who didn't get a fair go.
Speaking of a fair go, this budget doesn't have a proper plan for child care. Families were already paying higher childcare fees before the pandemic, with out-of-pocket costs soaring to sometimes more than seven per cent in one year. And, in the middle of a recession, when parents are relying on home load deferrals or rent moratoriums as well as sometimes JobKeeper or JobSeeker to get by, childcare fees will be out of reach for many people. Affordable child care increases workforce participation; it means more parents, mostly women, can take up job opportunities or increase their hours, which grows the economy as well as supports young people's learning. This is why Labor is looking at a working family childcare boost, to kickstart the economy and boost workforce participation, and under our plan 97 per cent of all families will save money, with no family being worse off.
I want to turn now to aged care. In my community on the Central Coast one in five people are aged over 65, which is higher than the state and national averages. It's a popular place for older people to live. As at 30 June, 1,105 people on the coast were still waiting for home-care packages. Over the past 12 months in my electorate three aged-care homes have closed or partially closed—Henry Kendall, the high-care dementia unit at The Orchards and Japara at Wyong.
On 22 September Anthony Albanese came to my electorate to visit an aged-care home to hear aged-care workers' concerns and learn from their firsthand experience on the frontline of the pandemic. Aged-care workers were really concerned that those on the frontline of COVID are not really recognised by the government. They have said to me that the time for applause and cupcakes is over. They really need proper support, whether that means access to PPE or training. These people are dedicated, capable and working really hard, but they aren't recognised. All workers in aged care deserve the retention bonus, not just some. I'm not sure why some are being carved out and others are being left behind. As they said, the time for applause and cupcakes is over. They need to be properly recognised.
That leads me to social housing. We know in New South Wales that over 31,000 people are homeless and another 36,558 people are at risk of homelessness. I used to work in mental health inpatient units and sometimes we would see people come in because they just needed a safe place, a shower, a hot meal and a rest. Hospitals shouldn't be a place of last resort for someone who doesn't have a bed for the night.
On the Central Coast each night there are 2,900 people homeless. We would like to see the government right now repair social housing. About 25 per cent of the social housing stock in Australia needs urgent repair. That would give people secure and safe places to live that aren't full of mould and don't have unsafe bathrooms and kitchens. At the same time it would create jobs. In my electorate there are 2,500 businesses working in construction. At the same time you're creating secure and safe housing for people you're creating jobs and stimulus in the economy. Investing in social housing is a win-win. I think the government really needs to take it up.
I'll finish now by turning to mental health, an area where I have a background and passion. Labor has welcomed the government's additional investment in mental health, but we haven't seen yet a Productivity Commission report tabled. This is a once-in-a-generation chance to really reform mental health and to look at mental health in all portfolios. Where you're born, live and grow up has a profound effect on your health and wellbeing. In order to reform mental health we need to look beyond the provision of health services and look at housing, the workforce and justice. The pandemic has had a big impact on mental health across Australia, and my community is no exception.
Yesterday I co-hosted a youth mental health roundtable with Liesl Tesch, the state member for Gosford, and Tara Moriarty, the New South Wales shadow minister for mental health. We heard from locals on the front line—Lester Pearson from Save our Kids; Dr Ash Bowden, an emergency doctor; and Rhonda Wilson from Arafmi. A common sentiment was that they felt disillusioned and overwhelmed by bureaucracy. They wanted to see community led solutions to local community problems.
I'll finish by asking the government to deliver on their headspace commitment. On 15 May, just a couple of days out from the 2019 election, the government announced $1.5 million for the establishment of a headspace at Wyong. I've written to the health minister and he said it would be in this budget. We haven't seen it in the budget papers. It's urgent. Young people in my community need this support right now. I know that the Prime Minister and the health minister are genuine in their commitment to mental health. We need to see it delivered.
We've heard some big numbers from the government in this year's budget. Let's start with the biggest—$1 trillion of debt, one thousand billion dollars of debt, one million million dollars of debt. And that's only the projection for the forwards. By the end of the decade, gross debt will be $1.7 trillion. That's another $700 billion on top of the $1 trillion. It was the Liberals who established that control of debt and deficit was the benchmark of good economic management. They cannot criticise Labor's $234 billion of debt as 'crippling' yet be permitted to describe their own one thousand billion dollars of debt as 'responsible'. It is hypocrisy. Labor's debt kept Australia out of recession during the global financial crisis. As other nations tumbled into recession, Australia did not, thanks to the economic leadership of Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan. The same cannot be said for this government. Despite $1 trillion of debt, the Liberals have delivered Australia a double whammy: the first recession in 29 years and more than one million Australians on the dole queues. The Liberals have failed their own test of good economic management, delivering Australia the biggest debt and deficit in the nation's history and the worst unemployment figures in the nation's history, and they should be judged by the standard that they themselves have set.
Worse than going $1 trillion into debt is the fact that poor decisions are leaving far too many Australians behind. Nine hundred and twenty-eight thousand Australians over 35 are deliberately—and, frankly, inexplicably—excluded from hiring subsidies. It's going to make it harder for them to find work. There's no plan to make child care more affordable, locking more women out of the workforce. There's no plan to do what's needed to fix the aged-care crisis, despite the royal commission, in its interim report, making it clear in the starkest of terms, from the title of the report, Neglect, that urgent action is required. There's no plan for energy. In seven years, the Liberals have drawn up 22 plans and they haven't delivered one of them. It's thousands of Public Service hours wasted, millions of dollars preparing reports, doing the policy work, wasted. Not one of these energy plans has landed. It's a nightmare for investment, and the ongoing uncertainty is keeping power prices higher than they should be. And there's no funding in the budget to expand Veteran Wellbeing Centres, which are so important for veterans' mental health.
Australians are being asked to shoulder a mighty economic burden, but there is simply not enough bang for the buck. This is a budget of short-term sugar hits, when what we need is long-term structural reform that sets the nation up for the challenges of the 21st century. The government, of course, is desperate to avoid responsibility. It wants to blame the coronavirus for everything from the recession and debt to its own failure to establish a federal integrity commission—just blame the virus, blame the virus, blame the virus. But the fact is: Australia's economy was already stumbling before COVID-19 landed with the Ruby Princesswhich this government allowed to dock. Annual growth was already well below trend, consumption was weak, business investment had fallen, underemployment and household debt had hit record highs, wages growth had hit record lows and debt had more than doubled, long before anyone had heard of coronavirus. Three decades of continuous growth, started by the economic management of the Hawke-Keating Labor governments and defended by the Rudd Labor government when it was most at risk from global forces, were ended by this Liberal government.
The fact is: this Prime Minister has the wrong instincts. His instincts are all wrong, whether it's the instinct to go on holiday overseas when bushfires are already ravaging the east coast or the instinct that says no to wage subsidies when global forces are saying that there's a recession on the way. His initial reaction was to say, 'We don't need wage subsidies.' He had to be talked into it by business, by Labor, by unions. His instincts are all wrong. His instincts were all wrong with his early push to reopen borders. If Mr Morrison had had his way, the borders in Australia would have been opened a lot sooner, and the spread of the virus would have been much worse. It's only through the leadership of the various premiers that we've seen this virus contained. The Prime Minister's instincts are all wrong. His instincts aren't wrong at looking after his own political interests—he's very good on Facebook, very good at getting his photo down at Bunnings with a snag, the happy snaps, the media manipulation. He's very good at that, but his political instincts when it comes to the economy and the welfare of Australians are all wrong.
Now we are dealing with the deepest, most damaging recession in almost 100 years. We've got a million unemployed, and a further 160,000 Australians are expected to join the dole queue by the end of the year. This government has no plan to tackle this crisis. It's put the country $1 trillion into debt and it has no idea about what to do next. By contrast, the Labor leader, Mr Albanese, articulated a clear vision that will drive long-term economic growth. If Labor were in government right now, we would be investing $500 million in the upgrade and repair of social housing. That was just one element in our budget reply. That would stimulate the trade sector. It would see the employment of apprentices. It would provide much-needed economic stimulus, but it would also improve the lives of people who need it most. It's a no-brainer. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this government is not doing more for public and social housing.
Labor would have scrapped the childcare subsidy cap, ensuring that women could return to work without sacrificing the benefits of earned income. Ninety-seven per cent of families would be up to $2,900 a year better off, with no family in Australia worse off. It would be good for the economy. It would be good for families and good for the economy. Secure jobs would be promoted through Labor's A Future Made in Australia plan, which includes a national rail manufacturing plan, a defence industry development strategy and an Australian skills guarantee. Our Rewiring the Nation initiative would drive down power prices and give the economy a boost of up to $40 billion and create thousands of jobs, particularly in regional areas.
Indeed, the federal Labor leader, Mr Albanese, is a great friend to the regions. When he was minister for regional development during the Rudd and Gillard governments, he took the opportunity to work with regional communities during the global financial crisis. He created good jobs in regional towns and cities as the key to maintaining economic growth and capitalising on the strengths of our regions. In his recent vision statement released last month, 'Tapping the potential of regional Australia', the Labor leader spoke about our regions being the key to emerging more strongly from this crisis in better shape than when we went into it, with no-one held back and no-one left behind.
As a regional MP, I firmly believe that investment in our regions is the key to national recovery. When I say investment in our regions, I don't just mean investment in roads and rail and bridges; I mean investment in people. Too often regional communities have seen good jobs, wealth and opportunity flow back into the capital cities. Around two-thirds of Australia's export earnings come from regional industries, including resources, agriculture, tourism, education and manufacturing. I see regions being rebuilt economically and socially. I want to see regional health hubs keeping people well and neighbourhood housing and community sheds keeping people connected. I want to see government agencies staffed by real people, not computers, not online centres—real people—employed in the regions, offering assistance and advice from regional Australian service centres. I want to see TAFE and training centres working hand in hand with industry.
Indeed, I've made the call for new trade training centres. I don't know why this program was cut by Mr Abbott when he became Prime Minister. John Howard created the trade training centres program. It was a great program. I think it was called something else back then. Labor came in, kept the program and renamed it the trade training centre program. Essentially what it means is that the federal government builds trade training centres, and then the state governments pay to operate them. They work really well. The ones that are there work brilliantly. I've got a few in my electorate. One of them in the south-east, in Sorell, run by Rick Birch, is going gangbusters. The next in line in my electorate was Campbell Town, but unfortunately the Liberals came into government in 2013 and axed the program, and the centre never went ahead. I would love to see this centre reborn. It's a terrific program.
I see towns, schools and sports and service clubs repopulated. I see regions full of workers and families, small businesses and industry—all harnessing the great potential that regional Australia has to offer. In Tasmania we have made a start, building for our state a global brand synonymous with quality, freshness and trust. People instinctively know that if it's Tasmanian it's world's best, whether it's whisky, wine, oysters or berries. But there's much more to do. I see us extending the Tasmanian brand out from agriculture to encompass renewable energy, manufacturing and education. I see Tasmania developing all these sectors and more. People around the globe will know that if it's Tasmanian it's the best you can buy.
Labor's vision for regions includes making more things here in Australia, whether it's rail cars, solar panels or irrigation. Under seven years of Liberal mismanagement there has been a 14 per cent decline in regional manufacturing jobs. I'll say that again: seven years of Liberal mismanagement has resulted in a 14 per cent decline in regional manufacturing jobs. It's going the wrong way under the Liberals. Regional jobs are going the wrong way. Only Labor will put it the right way. Only Labor will grow jobs in the regions.
Manufacturing requires more people with skills and training. Federal Labor will create a jobs and skills Australia agency that puts TAFE back at the centre of a national training system. Under the Liberals, the country has suffered $3 billion in cuts to TAFE and has 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than the country did seven years ago. In seven years of Liberal management we have had 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees. Do the maths. We have a skills shortage and crisis now because we've had seven years of cuts to apprentices and trainees. It's no mystery. You can't make those sorts of cuts and then express surprise when there's a skills shortage. It's a disgraceful legacy.
Labor is determined to repair the damage and provide more young Australians with the pathway to prosperity. This means supporting young people from our regions who want to go to university. The ongoing attacks on the value of higher education by this government are making it more inaccessible for kids from the regions to even contemplate going to university. They're not even thinking about it. '$58,000 degrees? That's not even going to be in my mirror of ideas, I'm not even going to think of going to university if I'm going to be lumbered with a $58,000 degree. I'll stick with something else.' It's going to set up a class system in Australia where the kids from wealthy families, the inner cities, the kids of politicians and lawyers and judges and executives will go to university. They'll get the university degrees that high-level jobs in the corporate and public sectors demand. They'll get those jobs, but kids from the regions won't. They'll be relegated to a different class. It's going back to the bad old days. Labor is determined that university education should be accessible to all. A university education should never depend on your bank balance or your parents' bank balance. It should depend only on your aptitude and your endeavour at schooling.
In conclusion, this budget will rack up a trillion dollars of debt but still doesn't do enough to create jobs. It fails to build for the future and it leaves too many Australians behind. There's no plan for social housing, for cheaper or cleaner energy or to address the crisis in aged care. There's no plan to kickstart the economy, to boost productivity, to increase participation or to lift the speed limit on growth. Decisions taken by the government in this budget mean that the Morrison recession will be deeper and longer than it needs to be. Investment in our regions is the key to our national recovery, and investment in regional people, especially, is just as important as investment in roads.
Before I finish I want to speak very briefly on the integrity commission. We need an integrity commission like never before. Paying $30 million for a $3 million block of land is absolutely outrageous in anyone's language. It's a disgrace and it needs to be investigated properly. Jobs for mates—'MateKeeper'—that's what this minister does. We've got Minister Taylor, Minister Tudge, Minister Robert; we've got the Cartier watches and the ASIC scandal. We need an integrity commission now.
Emil Zatopek once said, 'If you want to win something, run 100 metres. If you want to experience something, run a marathon.' The Czech locomotive knew what he was talking about. In the 1952 Helsinki Olympics he'd won gold in the 5,000 and 10,000 metres, and he decided to enter the marathon. He had never run a marathon before, but he maintained a blistering pace in order to win that race.
There are many of us who enjoy running for the simple pleasure of it, well away from winning. As Dick Telford wrote in his terrific book Running: Through the Looking Glass: 'Running's not just a random something tacked onto each day. It's like eating and sleeping. Psychologically habitual, even addictive.' There is a group of us who have used the Twitter tag #auspolrunners to share our running joys in our local electorates. Among us are the members for Warringah, Gippsland, Brand and Paterson and journalists Shane Wright and Sam Clarke. We're among the many Australians for whom running is just part of living a good life. For me, the running genes go back to my grandfather Keith Leigh, who ran 50 miles on his 50th birthday. He clocked up a string of marathons and passed on to me some genes which have allowed me, thankfully, to keep on running at my current age, and hopefully for many years still to come.
For many Australians, running is synonymous with parkrun, a movement founded by Paul Sinton-Hewitt 15 years ago, which had emerged to the stage where, in the pre-COVID world, it involved more than 2,000 events in 21 countries with more than 350,000 people participating every week. Parkrun has been called 'the most significant public health initiative of the 21st century'. Saturdays at 8 am, and it's free forever. I congratulate Paul Sinton-Hewitt for his recent receipt of the Royal Society of Arts prestigious Albert Medal, and I admire his aspirations for parkrun's 30th birthday, where he aims to be operating in 50 countries, 10,000 locations with 100 million people having participated one billion times.
Parkrun in Australia has been closed down through much of this year, but is, thankfully, now resumed in Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. This weekend, parkruns will resume right here in the ACT. I know many parkrun organisers are eagerly awaiting that, and I thank the health authorities for the way in which they've worked so constructively with parkrun in order to resume events. I think of my friends, such as Dave Robertson and Andrew Dodd and the Wooters of Newcastle, as they look to bring their parkrun back into effect.
Little Athletics will soon be kicking off, with appropriate COVID precautions, and there has been a series of trial events organised here in the ACT to keep us runners going through the shutdown. I'd would like to thank many people for their important work in organising these events, and keeping the community fit and socially engaged. John Harding organised the Mount Majura Two Peaks race, up Mount Majura and Mount Ainslie, with the cooperation of Frank van de Loo, from Mount Majura Vineyard, who presented every runner with a bottle of his delicious wine as we crossed the finishing line. Pam Muston organised the Kowen Trail Run. Reuben Caley and Robbie Costmeyer organised the Weston Creek Athletics Club half-marathon—an event that was delayed less than 24 hours before it was due to start in March, and was finally able to take effect in October. Prachar Stegemann has organised many Sri Chinmoy events here in the ACT, including a recent half-marathon and also the 100-kilometre event circumnavigating the ACT—for which I was a starter, but not a finisher; making it to the 52-kilometre mark before I decided that Prachar's course had bettered me. Mellita Bingley is organising the Stromlo Running Festival, and it's a reflection of her organisational work that the event, due to take place next month, is now completely booked out.
And then there are the many organisers whose events haven't been able to go ahead. The organisers of The Canberra Times Fun Run, the Canberra marathon and the Canberra Triathlon Festival have all, reluctantly, had to pull their events this year. I know how much hard work goes into this events—into organising the volunteers and the refreshment stalls, and ensuring that the courses are right—and the frustration that it brings for many of those organisers when the events aren't able to proceed. I hope it will be possible for those events to go ahead next year.
There is also the Indigenous Marathon Project, located right here in the ACT. I acknowledge its staff: its founder, Rob de Castella; its lead coach, Adrian Dodson-Shaw; and other staff members—Peta MacKinnon, Dilani Abeysuirya, Amanda Dent, Cara Smith, Elsie Seriat, Laura White and Tim Rowe. This year the Indigenous Marathon Project organised its virtual Run, Sweat, Inspire festival, with all runners receiving a uniquely crafted medal. One of the most inspiring of those runs was by Nat Heath, a Noongar and Martujarra man, who ran 100 kilometres, starting and finishing at Nobbys Beach in Newcastle. Nat is an extraordinary triathlete and an inspirational young Indigenous leader. He is somebody who has competed in multiple Port Macquarie Ironman events and even competed in the Hawaiian Ironman itself. Nat has recently set up TriMob, the first Australian triathlon club focused on Indigenous athletes. I acknowledge his extraordinary work as a leader in his community and the work that he did raising money for the Indigenous Marathon Foundation; he set himself a goal of $10,000 and raised $26,000.
This weekend the Indigenous Marathon Project squad will take part in the Moonlight Marathon in Alice Springs. Ordinarily the Indigenous Marathon Project squad would be heading to New York in order to compete in the iconic New York Marathon, but that, needless to say, isn't possible, so they will be running in Alice Springs, with the support of so many Australians who are inspired by the work that the Indigenous Marathon Foundation does and the work that we know they will do in their communities. What I love about the Indigenous Marathon Project is it's neither just an elite program nor just a mass participation program. It builds leadership among Indigenous Australians but also then seeks to have an impact in the communities, assisting IMP graduates with organising their Deadly Fun Runs. The 12 Indigenous men and women who will take place in the Moonlight Marathon this Saturday night—or Sunday, I guess it'll be, by the time they finish—are Cameron Manning, Alex Blanco, Peter Miller-Koncz, Rhett Burraston, Zak Stephenson, Ethan Mulholland, Lena Charles-Loffel, Samara Fernandez, Cassidy Goodwin, Robyn Liddle, Libby Cook-Black and Maiquilla Brown. I wish them all the best with that run.
This year has also been an exciting one for those of us who watch elite sports. Needless to say, the World Marathon Majors have all been cancelled this year, but we have seen instead the creation of bespoke events. We didn't expect to see it, but Eliud Kipchoge, after a seven-year run of winning every single race he started in, finally lost a race—proving that Eliud is in fact human after all. This is the man who has, under controlled conditions, shown it is possible to run a sub-two-hour marathon and who holds the marathon world record, at 2.01, set in Berlin. The London course—not an ideal course, it has to be said; 19 1½-mile loops—proved not to be to Eliud's liking. Due to an ear infection, he lost to Ethiopian Shura Kitata.
We also have soon two extraordinary runs from Joshua Cheptegei, the Ugandan long-distance runner, who has set world records this year in the 5,000 metres and the 10,000 metres. It is important to recognise how extraordinarily blisteringly fast Cheptegei is. His 5,000-metre record time of 12 minutes and 35 seconds would have seen him lap Emil Zatopek, who was the world record holder in the 1950s. His 10,000-metre time, 26 minutes and 11 seconds, would have seen him lap Emil Zatopek twice back in the 1950s. Joshua Cheptegei really is an astonishing athlete.
The sport of running is an egalitarian sport which allows anyone to line up at the start line and it doesn't require a great expenditure and resources. The test in running is not how big your hopes are but how good your training is. As Archilochus once put it, we don't rise to the level of our hopes; we fall to the level of our training. Many of us runners, when we've been undertrained on the start line, have experienced what that's like. The egalitarianism of running is something that I know so many Australians prize. It brings people together in events like parkrun, and running has kept many of us sane through this very trying year. I acknowledge the runners in Victoria, for whom identifying suitable running tracks which took them no further than five kilometres from their house has become particularly challenging.
I look forward to a time of being able to get out and enjoy so many of the great running trails around Australia. When I think of Perth, I think of running the loop across the bridges around the Swan River. When I think of Adelaide, I think of running along the river. You can do a nice long run, starting in the city, touching your feet onto the sand and then coming back to the city, for about 30 kilometres. In Melbourne, there's nothing like running the Tan, a track which is designed for easy training or sprints, if you're feeling good on the day. The Brisbane River stretches as far as you want to go. Seeing the twists and turns of the Brisbane River is one of the great delights when you're in Brissie. Of course, here in the ACT, running the trails around Mount Majura and Mount Ainslie are a real pleasure. Down in Hobart, you can take the trail going up-river and are able to watch the boats easing in and out. And, when you're in Cairns, you're able to take the gentle run along the boardwalk. That is a beautiful run. Suddenly, you turn at the end, the tourists dip away and you're on your own.
I want to conclude, given that I have so much that I'm trying to get to, by seeking leave to have incorporated in the Hansard some further information on running and on the support that's been given to Little Athletics and to other sports by the government.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
Prior to entering parliament, I published research on the political economy of grant allocation in the journal Public Choice. I am strongly committed to having information in the public domain that makes it possible to analyse these issues.
After discussion with the ABC's Andrew Probyn, he has agreed to the tabling a subset of the spreadsheet, stripped of its metadata and some other information, for independent researchers to analyse.
The budget that we've just seen was a missed opportunity. In fewer than 10 days since the budget, we've already, found that many of the big-ticket promises were completely empty—puffed up but, in reality, delivering little. They had all the substance of fairy floss and there's no better example than JobMaker, the wage subsidy for young people. It was touted as delivering 450,000 jobs. In fact, the language was really tricky. It's going to support 450,000 jobs. Everyone was getting the sense that it would be the number of jobs created. In reality, we now know that 45,000 jobs would be directly supported by this program. That is a huge disappointment, like a balloon deflating, for all the hopes of anyone under 35 looking for work. Of course, there was never hope for those over 35 in this budget.
I'm much more interested in looking at what wasn't in this budget than what was. There was a trillion dollars of debt but nothing for unemployed people over 35; a trillion dollars of debt but nothing for child care; a trillion dollars of debt and nothing for aged care. In fact, there was nothing in any part of this budget for women or the work that women do. There was nothing for travel agents. There was nothing for the family-run coach and bus companies hit by COVID. There was nothing to tackle climate change—and this comes at the same time that the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, is calling on Scott Morrison for bold action from Australia on climate change. There is nothing bold in this budget at all. Job creation has been outsourced to the private sector.
By contrast, we can see that there should have been opportunities to, for example, improve social housing and to upgrade and maintain properties. There would be instant jobs there for tradies right across the country, in every town and suburb. Then you could look at building new social housing. That is a massive missed opportunity by this government. There was an opportunity to say, 'Let's make stuff here. Let's build something big. Let's build trains.' The whole country needs them. We import them now and we have to fix them once they are here. No-one knows that better than the Blue Mountains—the tragedy of being told that we're getting new trains but they are not being built in Australia and they don't fit our tunnels, they don't fit our platforms and they don't fit our tracks.
There was also a missed opportunity to give women more of what they have had a taste of during COVID, and that is free child care. That's a game changer for women's participation in the workforce. It allows them to participate, it allows them to take promotions more easily and it removes an extraordinary layer of stress that exists. When you talk to families about their struggles, cost of living is one but the juggling is another. That was another missed opportunity. There was also a missed opportunity to secure our energy into the future by rewiring the energy grid.
The other missed opportunity was for roads in the Hawkesbury. We're not seeing anything to improve the roads of the Hawkesbury. We are not seeing fast-tracking of the key local project, which is the North Richmond Bridge duplication. This is a vitally needed project. I secured funding for the very early stages of this in 2010 and that funding flowed to the New South Wales government the very next year. At the last election, the Morrison government and Labor both committed to building a third crossing. But, as the work since then has shown, not only is the Morrison government's $200 million not going to build a decent bridge; it's only going to build a budget bridge and it is a duplication with very little flood resistance. It is also not going to happen fast. All we have is a promise of a bridge, which the Department of Infrastructure says is expected to start in 2024 and is expected to finish in late 2026.
I had someone e-mail me just this morning about the progress on the construction of this bridge. Well, there is so little to report. It is not starting for four more years. It won't finish until students who are in kindergarten now are about to head on to high school. And, if they're lucky, students who are in year 7 now might be able to drive across it when they finish their HSC. That's the time frame that we are being promised. Like so many other things, the promise falls way short of the delivery. It's a real kick in the teeth for people who have sat in traffic for years waiting to be heard by the Liberals. It is not like this is a new government that is just finding its feet; this is a federal Liberal government that is seven years old. The state Liberals have been in power for nearly a decade and yet they have made no effort to progress this project—and this budget does nothing to speed it up. That is what the Liberals think of people west of the river. They assume they can take you for granted because you won't change your vote—and they have done it again in this budget. As I've shown for 10 years, I stand by my community. I stand with the community and I'm here for you.
There is another missed opportunity in this budget. There are more than 30,000 Australians stranded overseas. Their families are in my electorate, and they have spoken to me about their stories. These people are teachers or nurses. Some are studying at university and they're on gap years or they might have been visiting family, often because a family member is unwell, and some are overseas because they have had a death in the family. They are desperate to come home. The way it was presented early on, that it's their own fault that they're not there, has been crushing to them—being treated like that by this government.
I had an email from Jacqueline, who is a psychologist, works in my area and is an accredited mental health social worker. She said that this year she has had conversations with clients who are stranded overseas, and she talks about one in particular. She has seen this person more isolated than anyone could have imagined, working in the most difficult circumstances, accruing nearly $10,000 of flight credits with seven different companies which she will likely never use, and she now also needs to face the uncertainty about her flight home. Her flight home was changed and then it was cancelled. Now she is in a position to have a flight available for the princely sum of $7,000 but with no certainty that that flight is going to go ahead. It could just end up as another credit with yet another airline. Jacqueline says that she is concerned not only about her financial resources, which are being whittled away, but also the dilemma of the unknown. What Jacqueline says is that clarity and certainty are two things that would be immensely helpful to her, so Jacqueline asked me what clarity and certainty I could provide. The government's done nothing to address this issue in the budget—it hasn't budgeted for additional flights and it hasn't contributed anything that would change the circumstances for people who are stranded overseas. I really think that it's so beyond time for all the words of the government to be turned into action.
There have been small numbers of people come home but nowhere near the 30,000 who are stranded overseas. And those who have come home—I've had conversations with people in quarantine—feel the relief when they know that they're on Australian soil. One of my constituents was able to get a flight to Adelaide, and just being there lifted all her worries even though she is still 14 days away from being home with her family. That's what we need to see. And one of the things that was a missed opportunity in this budget was to provide additional support to the states so that they could expand the quarantine available in order to help people who are coming home.
When I look at what the government has announced, what it promises versus what it delivers, I see a huge gap. There's a massive gap between what we say we're going to do and what we actually do. I don't know if it's a lack of competence. I don't know if they just like to overcook it. Whatever it is, I think it shows an inability to deliver on your promises. It is just as simple as that.
I've talked about JobMaker, the hiring wage subsidy, where only 10 per cent of the promised jobs that we heard about in the budget are actually expected to be delivered, and there are 928,000 people aged over 35 who have been deliberately excluded from that program. These sorts of decisions by the Liberals and Nationals actually mean that this Morrison recession will be deeper than necessary, it will go on longer and the unemployment queues will stay where they are. There's no point shaking your head at me. You're old enough to know how long it takes to get out of recession.
A government member interjecting—
I'm old enough to know how long it takes to get out of recession. I started a business in the recession in the 1990s. I saw family members unemployed. It is hard yards going from recession and transitioning to recovery. And it's not the data that does it; it's the job queues that are the real challenge.
We've seen promises from this government about recycling, the so-called $100 million Recycling Investment Fund, that has not supported a single initiative—not a single dollar has been spent. There's another overpromise, under delivery. The government's announcements on waste and recycling aren't worth the paper they're printed on, and, gee, I hope they were printed on recycled paper.
The national integrity commission: we've heard promises about that but had nothing delivered on it, yet there is all the reason in the world for it to be here now. There is no excuse to be campaigning in Queensland when you can be tackling corruption and integrity issues within your own government.
The COVID-safe app: there were massive promises that this would be the key, and we supported it. We said, 'If you think it's going to work, we're all for making tracing easier.' It's traced 17 unique contacts, which has costed out at $4 million per contact. That's despite seven million people doing what they were asked to do. The app is a total waste of money and another example of overpromising and under-delivering.
On infrastructure, we've had promises of infrastructure spend. They talk about it a lot, but the actual expenditure is much less than promised. The Morrison government on average spend $1.2 billion less on infrastructure than they promise. Last year, it was $1.7 billion less. You can't blame COVID for that. With the Morrison government, there's always the photo opportunity and there's always the big announcement and the headline, but they're never there for the follow-up or the follow-through.
Then there's the manufacturing fund. The Minister for Industry, Science and Technology revealed at the weekend that only $40 million of the $1.5 billion will be spent this financial year. That's too little, too late. It was meant to help us get through the recession. It's half of what was promised in the budget. Within only a couple of weeks of the budget they already knew that they were going to underspend what they promised in the budget. That's just like what they did with the NDIS. They said, 'We're going to spend all of this money,' and they spent significantly less than they promised, and that caused heartache for families struggling just to get a plan to suit their needs.
The HomeBuilder scheme is already too small and is rolling out too slowly. Four months ago we were told it would benefit 27,000 families. I was disappointed that there was no special consideration for bushfire victims. The $25,000 under the HomeBuilder program might have been able to pay for a couple more windows or shutters—all the extra bells and whistles you need in an area hit by fire to rebuild to a higher standard than your original home met because of the newer standards that exist. As it turns out, out of everybody in the whole country who wanted to access this program, just 780 people—that's less than three per cent—have been paid a single cent, and there are only a couple of months to go until applications close. That's another, 'We're going to promise you the world, but we're just going to deliver you a tiny little bit.' It's very disappointing, but it is typical of what we're seeing.
The Emergency Response Fund is another one. We agreed to pass legislation for a $4 billion Emergency Response Fund, taking money away from another important area, because we thought, 'Yes, this stuff absolutely has priority,' but, 18 months on, not a single cent has been spent. That's two bushfire seasons, and no money has been spent. Here we are, and they've done nothing to help protect communities, not just from fires, but from cyclones or floods. In those 18 months, the Morrison government have even failed to call for applications for funding. Yet again, it's just a big promise. They talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk.
The last one I want to mention is arts funding. We learnt this week that the government has admitted that less than $50 million of the $250 million rescue package it promised has been allocated so far. Guy Sebastian is disappointed about that, but not as much as I am. It's an absolute disgrace.
I want to begin by commending the member for Macquarie, with her small-business background, for her passionate advocacy for her community and years of representing her community. I know how powerful that has been and how disappointing the budget has been for her residents and for my residents.
A government member: It'd be nice just to hear some positivity.
I will take the interjection from the member who wants positivity. I'd be delighted to stand here and give some positivity if there was some positive news in the budget.
A government member: Okay Let's start with the military centre of excellence, the military vehicle centre of excellence—
I'll take that interjection as well. I'm glad that the government finally came on board after my calling for an investment in my community for the amazing new facilities for the Redbank and Carole Park areas, the complex built by the Queensland government after heavy investment by the Minister for Manufacturing, the Hon. Cameron Dick. Of course, the community was not included in that, because the Prime Minister excluded the Queensland government in order to prop up the Queensland Leader of the Opposition. So they went to a centre to open it—and didn't include the local federal member, which he's just outlined as me; partisan politics always coming first with this government—and they didn't let the Queensland government know. That put the facility in an embarrassing position. They were upset about it. They were disappointed that they were used as a prop. At the same time, the Prime Minister didn't let the LNP leader in—and she had to stand outside! If you think that is good campaigning, great. If that's the positive news that you want, well, go right ahead.
In my community we know that, when it comes to defence building and when it comes to jobs, there's one side of politics that will deliver, and that is this side. The contract was signed, sealed and delivered by Queensland Labor after the government travelling to Germany to get that contract. We hear a lot about, 'Whatever happened to Team Queensland?' Remember all of that? That's disappeared off the face of the earth—led by the genius member for Fairfax. Remember, he was there front and centre—not any other member of parliament, not any other member from Queensland. The big star of Queensland disappeared without trace.
Which allows me to talk about the 2020 budget. I am so delighted that the member for Fisher, a fellow Queenslander, is here, so I can talk about the impacts of LNP cuts at both a federal level and a state level and what is at stake at this coming Saturday's election. We know that this year has been a difficult year. We know that it has been incredibly hard, and I pay tribute to all Australians who have been left without a job due to the COVID crisis. We know the daily numbers in Victoria, New South Wales and elsewhere and of course in my home state, which has led the nation in terms of its COVID health response and economic response.
We have seen some big numbers from this year's budget: a $213 billion deficit this financial year and $480 billion of deficits over the forward estimates. The budget is in deficit every year for the next decade. Last year we heard how the budget was back in black—and the coffee cups were made, the t-shirts were designed and the posters were all out there—but that wasn't the case at all. The budget was never back in black. Budgets are about more than just raw numbers; they are about priorities—a vision for Australia and, most importantly, a future for all Australians.
That is where this year's budget falls over. There is $1 trillion worth of debt, but millions of Australians are left behind, including 928,000 people aged over 35 on unemployment benefits deliberately excluded from hiring subsidies. There's no plan for child care, no proper plan for aged care—with the extra home-care places in this year's budget being a drop in the ocean compared to the waiting list today; no proper plan for energy, which would drive down costs and provide investment certainty for businesses; and no plan for the future of JobSeeker recipients, leaving nearly 1.4 million recipients with an uncertain future as to whether they will go back to the old $40 a day. For all of their job-something prefixed announcements, the government expects 160,000 Australians to be added to the jobless queues by Christmas. We all saw the wraparounds at Centrelink—the unprecedented long queues and long lines. You could see the hurt and the pain in those Australians, and in my community, as well due to the lack of dignity that comes when you are without a job. Time and time again we have asked the government to take action and yet those people have been ignored as well.
After spending the last decade complaining about Labor's debt and tightening the nation's belt, the government have realised that they have to spend money—and unfortunately it is not going to where it is needed. With all their spending and the $1 trillion worth of debt, we still have no plan for child care, no plan for safe and secure aged care, no plan to drive energy prices down, no plan to support those who have been left unemployed and no plan to deliver for the future.
This leads me to my home state of Queensland. When it comes to investment in our state and when it comes to delivering for my community, we've seen time and time again the LNP falling short. We're seeing the LNP not investing in our people and not investing in our infrastructure. Whether it is the state LNP or the federal LNP, the record is stark. On Saturday the people of Queensland have a very clear choice. We know that the state LNP have $26.2 billion in unfunded promises. They promised no new taxes and they want to recklessly rush to a surplus in four years—they're their words. The Australian Treasurer, when given these voodoo economics, said:
It would … be damaging to the economy and unrealistic to target surpluses over the forward estimates—given what this would require … in terms of significant increases in taxes and large cuts to essential services.
Given the state LNP have ruled out tax increases, the only way to achieve their plans is with cuts. We know that the Queensland LNP will have to cut 31,373 jobs to deliver on their promises. That's around 16,000 jobs in health alone.
I remind the chamber what happened last time the LNP were in government in Queensland. I will tell a story about my own electorate of Wacol. In late January 2014 the then LNP health minister closed the Barrett Adolescent Centre, Queensland's only special-purpose adolescent psychiatric care centre, despite pleas from parents, employees and clinical staff. I'll remind members of the chamber who are here today what the centrepiece of that LNP state government was. It was to cut, sack and sell. It closed nursing homes. It sold off school land. It tried to close a whole range of centres that the community relied on. As I said, budgets and governments are about visions and decisions.
In the three months after, tragically, three former Barrett Adolescent Centre patients took their own lives. This was a centre that provided specialist care. It provided one-on-one support. Thankfully, after the horrific period of the LNP toxic government, the Palaszczuk government was re-elected. One of the first commitments of the Premier was to restore funding and rebuild a specialist adolescent centre. This is not politics; this is about doing the right thing.
I want to talk about a second example in my community when the LNP were last in charge. They closed down the legal aid centre. The South West Brisbane Community Legal Centre, previously known as COILS, was a brilliant community legal service run by the wonderful Sandra Padgett. They dealt with a whole range of people from non-English-speaking backgrounds. They provided resources for people fleeing domestic violence and offered support services. They provided all manner of legal services that the non-English-speaking-background community that I represent need and rely on. It was located in Wirraway Parade in Inala. It was closed. It was defunded. It was relocated to the suburb of Browns Plains. To access this service people would have to catch two buses and walk 45 minutes. In my books that's unfair, unnecessarily and, quite frankly, cruel.
This community legal aid service was made up of local residents and support groups. They tried to provide services. They asked for satellite services. They asked if specialist lawyers could come through. In my time in the council I thought I could open my office and let lawyers come in. I would give them a meeting room or see if the council library could provide services one day a week. All of these things were completely ignored. They were completely shut out by the state government at the time.
The second proud announcement that the Premier and state member for Inala, Annastacia Palaszczuk, made was about the building of a multimillion-dollar community asset that now houses a brilliant legal aid service, near Richlands East State School in my electorate, co-located with Inala Youth Service, a wonderful community centre space, where people come and do craft and learn, with support services and social inclusion, located about 30 metres from Inala Elders and Inala Wangarra, which is a specialist peak body for Indigenous services in my electorate. Just across the road, a little way up the hill, is a learning space for kids who don't fit into mainstream schools. So it is a wonderful asset to the community.
I wanted to highlight to the parliament today exactly what budgets are about. I wanted to highlight how maybe, in the big figures and the big numbers that we talk about in this place, small amounts of funding make incredible amounts of difference. What we've seen is the LNP, when given the opportunity, either at a national level or a state level, not investing in people. I am hoping that people won't return the LNP to government in Queensland on Saturday, because I know what that will mean for my community. I know what that will mean for local residents who need really important services, because we've seen it before. We've seen services ripped out of the community and frontline workers lose their jobs. I just remind the chamber that the state Labor government restored those 14,000 frontline workers. These were not pen-pushers. These were not public servant fat cats or whatever derogatory terms they used at the time. These were paramedics. These were ambos. They were frontline health workers, wardsmen, nurses. And who can forget the war that Campbell Newman had with doctors in the state, not wanting to pay them what they were due? Time and time again that record speaks for itself.
What I'm fearful of is that the state LNP leader will not announce how she will fund her election commitments—$26 billion of unfunded costing. The state Labor government made its announcement on Monday, for the whole electorate, in the last week before the election. I think that is prudent and responsible economic management. We hear a lot from the government saying that the Queensland government hasn't delivered a budget. Well, neither has New South Wales and neither has the state of Victoria, but we don't necessarily hear that. The Berejiklian government hasn't delivered a budget. We don't hear much about that. But nonetheless, when it comes to budgets and budget priorities, this federal budget has been found wanting. It has been found not delivering for or targeting those who need support the most. We're having a debate in the other place at the moment about reforms and cuts to pensions and to services in the community. So today my call to the government is very clear. We've got an economic crisis in this country, a recession that is getting deeper as a result of the decisions of this government. Almost one million Australians are unemployed. Now is not the time to reduce services. Now is the time to support Australians in need, both in Queensland and in Canberra.
It's the understatement of the century that 2020 has been a tough year, as we all know. We've all faced this massive health crisis that's frightening. It's uncertain and unpredictable, and what we have in front of us is the unknown. It's absolutely stopped us in our tracks. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we really do have a once-in-a-generation chance to rebuild our economy and our country for the better, to launch a recovery that delivers a stronger, fairer and more secure future for all Australians. What Australia now needs is leadership and vision to help steer us through this crisis, and that's exactly what is missing from this Morrison government's budget. The budget fails. It's all about short-term politics instead of long-term vision. Let's face it: our economy wasn't doing that well before the coronavirus hit. We know that two-thirds of the debt was racked up prior to the coronavirus. We were already plagued by slow growth, flat wages, declining productivity and unemployment was on its way up. Business investment was slowing, debt was doubling and people were already being left behind, and this budget just makes a bad situation even worse.
The government wants to cut wage subsidies and unemployment benefits at a time when work is harder to come by, it's harder to get, and we can see that through the figures that come out on a quarterly basis. What Australia really needs now is leadership, but this Morrison government wants to rely solely on a business-led recovery. In fact, this budget is an experiment in subsidising businesses to create demand, and that was according to Michael Pascoe reporting in The New Daily.
We all want businesses to succeed of course. We all want our businesses to grow and do better and be able to employ people, and we all understand how vitally important they are for our economy. However, businesses cannot grow without the consumer being able to spend. It cannot succeed if people don't have enough money in their pockets and if they don't have enough to go out and buy products and to invest and to do a whole range of things. And of course, if they haven't got enough after they've paid for their essentials—as I'm being told by many of my pensioner constituents and young couples—then the economy won't grow. It won't grow, because if you give a millionaire an extra couple of hundred dollars it'll sit in that bank account—even if it's $100,000. If you give someone on a pension $10, they will go out and actually spend that $10 on something that they need, that they desperately have been putting off because they couldn't afford it. That money goes straight into the economy. We saw this during the economic stimulus packages that the other side criticised continuously, but the reality is that we put the money where it was needed—to families, where they needed to go out and buy an extra pair of shoes, or to pensioners, who needed a washing machine because their washing machine had broken down and they couldn't afford one—and that money went straight into the economy stimulating the economy. This is what's lacking from this government. They want to get the economy up and running, they want to grow jobs and they want to grow businesses, but you cannot do it without the consumer, without those people that desperately need products and goods to run a household, a family or a house who simply cannot afford it. We have to put money in those people's pockets so they can go out, spend that money and get the economy rolling again. It's not rocket science. Any economist will tell you that is the best way to stimulate the economy and grow jobs. A great example was our Building the Education Revolution in 2009, when the economic crisis was hitting very hard. We were being criticised every single day by the other side about building school halls. The reality is there are thousands of schools in Australia, and each school received a school hall. What did that do for the economy? I asked the question at every opening I went to: how many people did this construction site employ? The answer would come back from 60 or 70 to 200. Multiply that by around 30,000-odd schools around the country, and you can see how money went into the economy and how we actually stimulated the economy, prevented unemployment and, in fact, were the envy of the world during that economic crisis.
We need a plan to get things done and to stimulate the economy and, most importantly, give people certainty, because at the moment that is what's missing—that certainty. People do not know what the future holds for them. Governments are there to put that in place and give them confidence. For example, my constituents living in the western suburbs of my electorate will be facing about another 15 years of uncertainty and delays before the South Road Upgrade is completed. This was a promise by Mr Abbott in 2013 saying it would be completed by 2023. The then Prime Minister Tony Abbott pledged to upgrade the road within a decade, meaning that it would be completed in 2023. Documents leaked by members of the state Liberal Marshall government last week—often beggars belief why they would leak upon themselves!—show that the South Road upgrade may now not be completed until possibly 2035. In other words, they're not even going to look at starting for a number of years. Now is the time to start that infrastructure project. Now is the time to put the money into the economy. It's said that it will employ around 3,000 people from start to finish on that infrastructure project much-needed by my electorate. It is a bottleneck from Port Road through to the end of the Anzac Highway and further up in other electorates. Here we are in an economic crisis. We need to stimulate the economy. We need to put money into infrastructure projects, and here is a government that's holding back for whatever reason, and we won't see that upgrade completed for over a decade longer than originally planned. We need those 3,000 jobs I spoke about now, not in 15 years.
Social housing repair programs: we're losing jobs in construction and trade, and in this budget there is nothing to address this. A massive drop in the construction of new homes due to the COVID-19 crisis has put the jobs of hundreds of thousands of tradespeople at risk. For months now, we have been warning that the housing construction industry is headed towards a cliff, and we've repeatedly called on the Morrison government to put together a comprehensive housing stimulus plan.
A government member interjecting—
Well, that's not what the economists are saying if you read the Fin Review and some other papers.
The government's HomeBuilder scheme is not doing enough. It is doing something, but it is not doing enough, and we have a great opportunity to put money into infrastructure and build the economy. It's too small and it's rolling out too slowly. You need an injection of funds to keep the economy going, otherwise we'll be left behind. But we have suggested a way of doing this that could be immediate; it could start immediately.
We know that 25 per cent of Australia's social housing needs urgent repair and maintenance. That is 100,000 homes, and repairs could start almost immediately. This investment would be a win-win: it would provide work for local tradies and fix social housing and homes that need to be fixed. Yet not one single dollar of this government's budget was allocated for social housing. A social housing repair program would mean work for thousands, especially thousands of tradies, right across the country in almost every town and suburb from the big cities to our regional centres. And this would be an immediate injection that would stimulate the economy. It would be a win-win: it would mean jobs for Australian workers and homes for those that need them most—the needy.
Another area where this budget fails is education. We know that higher education is in crisis. The conservative predictions are that well over 20,000 people will lose their jobs in this sector alone, and what's the government's solution? Let's make students pay more. Let's make it harder for them to go to university. Let's prevent them from going to university is basically what this last education measure has put on the young people of Australia. Because of this government's reforms, over 3½ thousand South Australian year 12 graduates are going to have to pay more than double for their degree. That is only a preventative. It's not assisting people; it's not helping people getting a higher education. It prevents them. And we know that young people are already doing it tough, and the last thing they need is to finish university with even more debt.
Youth unemployment has gone through the roof in this recession. About one in six young people can't find work, and it's the worst situation for youth unemployment that it has been in 20 years. If young people can't earn, they should have the opportunity to learn. And we should be giving them that opportunity to learn, to go onto higher education—tertiary education or TAFE—so that they can perhaps be assisted in finding a job. On top of this, thousands of Australians will miss out on a university education altogether because this government is failing to provide enough places. We've had many experts who've spoken up against the changes, demonstrating that they won't actually get young people into high-priority jobs, as the government claims. They could also deplete entire faculties of students. This would not only result in more job losses in the sector, it would also impoverish our society because people will no longer be able to afford to study languages, the arts, literature or social sciences.
Now, those on the other side may argue that we want engineers and doctors and scientists—and we certainly do, and people who want to study those courses should be given every opportunity—but we want to be a thinking nation as well. We want to be a nation that learns, that knows its place in the world and has generations of thinkers. It is so important to know who we are and what we are, so you can't just dismiss the humanities and the arts. In fact, there is no research or any evidence that shows someone who has done an arts degree is less likely to get a job than someone who has done a science degree. Instead of penalising students for their choices, we will set up Jobs and Skills Australia. This program will match the needs of our economy now with those training opportunities for the future, and we will ensure that one in 10 jobs on government funded projects will be an apprentice, trainee or cadet.
It's not only families with children who need our help. Another area that is lacking in this government's budget is pensioners. People on the aged pension were already struggling to make ends meet before this pandemic. As I'm sure all of us in this place know, because they come and talk to us, many pensioners tell us how electricity prices, dental costs, health care, pharmaceuticals and a whole range of things are going up, and how pensioners are doing it tough. We know that we are yet to experience the full effect of this recession, so I'm really concerned about the impact it will have on pensioners in my electorate if they're not adequately supported.
The budget contains absolutely nothing to help pensioners access cheaper dental services, for example. Now, dental services can be extremely expensive. If you are a pensioner on a payment and you have rotting teeth or you need dentures, sure, you can go to the public dental surgery and wait, perhaps for 12 months or two years, but what happens in the meantime? It affects other parts of your body. It affects your health. I think it's wrong, it is absolutely wrong, that we're not doing enough in dental care for older Australians. I've heard so many stories about people where their health suffers because they can't get the adequate dental health care that they require. It's okay if you are on a couple of hundred thousand a year or $150,000. You can afford to go to a dentist and pay the bill. But, in most cases, pensioners cannot afford to pay their dental care needs and it affects their health and brings on other ailments. It has a massive impact, and it's a massive problem because, as I said, pensioners do not have the money to get their teeth fixed. This often has serious and detrimental effects on other health aspects.
It also appears, for the first time since 1997, that pensioners will not get the automatic increase because inflation has gone backwards. Many self-funded retirees are also finding themselves in an increasingly difficult financial position as a result of COVID-19 and the recession, and it's compounded by disproportionately high deeming rates. Now, by setting the deeming rates at more than double the actual bank interest rate, the government assesses people as having a higher income than they actually receive. This is affecting pensioners entitlements, as well as many— (Time expired)
I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021 and cognate bills, and to speak about the Leader of the Opposition's and Labor's exciting response to the government's disappointing budget, and how Labor's plans will benefit the Hunter region. I also welcome the opportunity to provide an update on events in Shortland during the recent sitting break.
As I normally do when speaking on appropriation bills, I draw to the attention of the House that, unlike the Liberal and National parties, the Labor Party are not constitutional vandals. We support the passage of these bills. It should never be forgotten that it was the conservative parties of this country that disgustingly and recklessly held the country to ransom in 1975 and denied supply to the democratically elected government who enjoyed a majority in the House of Representatives. The current Liberals and Nationals are heirs to these constitutional vandals, these so-called defenders of tradition and the constitutional monarchy. What shocking hypocrisy!
In the budget delivered last year, the Treasurer declared that the budget was back in black. The budget he handed down a few weeks ago then recorded the biggest budget deficit in Australian history, with gross debt of $1.7 trillion. Despite the record spending, there is a total failure with no comprehensive jobs plan—a plan that millions of Australians left behind need. The budget was notable not for who was included but for who missed out. Women missed out. Unemployed people over the age of 35 missed out. Anyone in need of aged care missed out.
One of the key centrepieces of the budget is the JobMaker hiring credit. The catch with this—as there always is with this tricky mob—is you have to be under 35 to access it. This is a shocking slap in the face for the 930,000 Australians over the age of 35 who are looking for work. Another of the very disturbing figures is that unemployment is due to increase by 160,000 by the end of this year. This is on top of the 2½ million Australians who are already out of work or looking for more hours in their current positions.
Back on the JobMaker hiring credit: Labor supports the hiring credit being applied to young people. Young people need assistance to get into jobs. But the Prime Minister has been unable to explain why he has excluded 930,000 Australians over the age of 35 who are unemployed. The single largest cohort on JobSeeker at the moment are women over the age of 45. The jobseeker demographics have really changed in the last 20 years, with those over the age of 35 making up the majority. This JobMaker credit will instantly put those jobseekers at a disadvantage in any interview. If you are a 49-year-old person going for a job interview against someone who is 29, you're at a $200-a-week disadvantage in terms of subsidies. I have huge concerns with the way that the JobMaker hiring credit is being rolled out.
In contrast, Labor's priorities are clear, as espoused by the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply speech: transforming child care; creating jobs now; building things in Australia; and powering our economic and social recovery with clean energy. One of the key parts of the job focus is Labor's National Rail Manufacturing Plan. This will ensure there are more trains built in Australia by local workers and that every dollar of federal funding spent on rail projects boosts local jobs in the industry. This is an exciting announcement for the Hunter region, which has a proud manufacturing history. I was very pleased to welcome the Leader of the Opposition, with my Labor colleagues, to the Hunter the week after the budget to visit workers at Varley, which has been manufacturing in the Hunter Valley for over 100 years. Companies like Varley and their employees, not to mention young women and men who want to learn a trade, would all benefit from this plan.
My first electorate office in Cardiff bordered the Downer train yards—yards that had manufactured trains and rolling stock for decades. Those yards were decimated when successive state governments made decisions to send that work overseas. They managed to hold on to a little bit of work, doing rewelds and corrections of shoddy manufacturing by Korean-trained manufacturers, but that's not the way it should happen. The state government is a disgrace. The state Premier was horribly wrong in saying that Australian workers can't build trains. Australian workers are building trains right now in Maryborough, in Queensland, and in Ballarat, in Victoria, because they are led by progressive Labor governments that back Australian workers. I am so proud that a federal Labor government under Anthony Albanese would do the same. The Leader of the Opposition is a valued friend of the Hunter. When he was the minister for infrastructure he delivered the $1.2 billion Hunter Expressway, which has had a truly amazing impact on improving productivity, slashing the time to travel from the Upper Hunter to the Lower Hunter and Newcastle by hours.
Another major part of the opposition's budget reply was outlining Labor's commitment to $500 million in funding for social housing repair. This has two tremendous social and economic outcomes: it will improve the quality of life for thousands of Australians who need urgent upgrades, as well as stimulating the economy and getting tradies into work.
I was also pleased to welcome Labor's shadow minister for housing and homelessness to Shortland after the budget. Jason Clare and I and Jodie Harrison, the state member for Charlestown, visited Casie Martin at Windale. She was good enough to show us around her home. What we saw is just not good enough in Australia. Casey's home was in need of urgent repair. There was black mould everywhere, and the New South Wales department of housing was refusing to do anything about it. This is a great example of where Labor's $500 million would improve the quality of life of fellow Australians and put people back into work. I thank Casie for allowing Jason and me to meet with her, and I assure her that Labor will continue for fight for better and more social housing.
These two announcements by Labor, compared to the budget, really highlight the stark choice that Australians have. That choice has been reinforced by the cuts being suffered right now by my constituents in Shortland because of the egregious decision by this government to cut JobMaker and JobSeeker. Their cuts to JobKeeper affect 17,000 residents of Shortland and have cut $15 million per fortnight out of the Shortland economy. Their cuts to JobSeeker have put another $6 million out of the Shortland economy per fortnight. That is $21 million of income going into Shortland businesses that has just disappeared because of this government's short-sighted management of the budget. I think that's a really important point to make.
In my remaining time I would like to update the House on the visits and meetings I have had the pleasure of having in Shortland in the last few weeks. I was very pleased to receive a briefing from Dr Andrew Magee from the Centre for Water, Climate and Land at the University of Newcastle and to be briefed on the model they have developed which predicts tropical cyclones in Pacific nations up to four months in advance. This is much more accurate than the current Bureau of Meteorology approach. I approached the minister for the Pacific to see whether they could get assistance. I was discouraged by the initial response from the minister, and I am disappointed that they have turned down the opportunity to improve the accuracy of forecasting of cyclones, not just for the Pacific but for Australia as well. I am certainly very interested in working on how we can advance this project.
I visited Design Anthology at Gateshead and met with Josh, and also Matt from Tecevo, and heard about the collaboration these two fantastic local manufacturing companies are undertaking. I got to catch up with Jack Erby from St Mary's Catholic College and presented him with a copy of The worldly philosophers, an excellent tome on economic history by Robert Heilbroner. I wish Jack all the best for his future studies. I met with retail workers at Lake Macquarie Square's Coles, Big W and Woolworths to thank them for their magnificent efforts this year in dealing with keeping the stores open during the COVID lockdown and ensuring that the people of Lake Macquarie didn't miss out on vital supplies. Thanks to Deb from the SDA for introducing me to these workers. I have to acknowledge Michelle from Woolworths at Lake Macquarie Square, who has helped to make over a thousand masks for local hospitals in her spare time.
The tourism industry has been devastated by COVID-19. I met with Brett Dann from Hunter Travel Group, and I want to thank Kylie Leadbetter for organising a meeting with a group of local travel agents to hear firsthand what they are experiencing. They were clear to me that the cut to JobKeeper will hurt them and that there has to be an industry-specific package for tourism. I was disappointed that that demand was not met in the budget. This is the industry most impacted by the COVID lockdown. This is an industry that employs nearly 50,000 Australians. They desperately need more assistance, and this government is ignoring them.
Much of Shortland is bordered by the largest saltwater lake in the Southern Hemisphere and the magnificent Pacific Ocean. I have met so many times with locals, through advocacy groups such as Save Our Coast and as individuals, to talk about their opposition to oil and gas drilling on our Pacific coast. It was good to get an update from them, and I was so proud that I could announce my opposition to the PEP 11 Project in parliament last week. The PEP 11 Project is bad for the environment, it's bad for our coastal way of life, and it's bad for jobs. It will deliver only, at best, a handful of jobs into our local community, but it will risk the jobs of thousands of locals who are employed in tourism, fishing, both commercial and recreational, and all of the other industries that rely on our beautiful beach life. I was proud to stand with them and say, 'I oppose PEP 11.'
On Friday last week, I attended the Hunter Manufacturing Awards. I'm so proud that Shortland businesses won so many awards. Congratulations to Sirron Holdings Group, Zexa Chemicals and Ampcontrol, who were joint winners of the Manufacturing Pivot Award, which was presented in honour of the late Rod Murphy. Congratulations to Safearth, who won the Collaboration Partnership Award with Ampcontrol and NewieVentures. These are two great examples of local manufacturers responding to the challenges of COVID. Sirron Holdings have moved from making commercial dishwashers to developing disinfectant and surface treatment that kills COVID on kitchen surfaces. This is incredibly important work that I would like to be out there right now selling around the world, but unfortunately a backlog in the TGA lab means that they are unable to get their claims registered until early next year. I'm working with them to advance that time line. Their claims have been validated by HMRI, which is a world-class laboratory. This is really important work that will help defeat COVID and help drive more jobs in the local economy. Congratulations to Safearth, who, with Ampcontrol and NewieVentures, at the start of the COVID crisis, managed to start producing ventilators for the New South Wales public health system in a week. These are companies that had no experience in building ventilators, but, because of their great skilled engineering and research workforce, were able to turn around quickly after an urgent request from New South Wales Health and started to build ventilators. Thankfully, we haven't needed them so far, but it's a really important part of the COVID crisis.
I also got to meet Dr Matt Dun and his team, who are doing important research into DIPG. DIPG is the deadliest childhood cancer. On average, 50 Australian kids have DIPG each year, but it's responsible for half of the childhood cancer deaths per annum in this country. It is an awful disease where the median survival time is 10 months. It's a horrible disease. We urgently need to do more research into it. I was privileged to meet Matt and his research team and I acknowledge their groundbreaking work in raising the profile of this disease, as well as research and treatment options. I thank Matt for sharing his personal story about how his family was directly impacted by DIPG with the passing of his daughter, which is such a sad and tragic event. Quite frankly, I am in awe of the strength of Matt and his family. They faced this tragedy, were able to build on this tragedy and responded to this tragedy by dedicating their lives to researching and fighting this deadly disease. I want to recognise RUN DIPG, which is raising funds for research. I was pleased to take my children on the run along the Fernleigh Track a month ago. I want to say to Matt, his wife, Phoebe, and all associated with the run: you are doing truly inspiring work and I pay tribute to what you are doing on behalf of the 150,000 residents of Shortland. I also met Dr Larry Roddick, who is the national medical director of Rotary Oceania Medical Aid for Children. ROMAC brings sick kids from the Pacific to this country to perform surgeries on them and repair illnesses. I want to thank them for what they do. I want to thank Brad Hazzard, the New South Wales Minister for Health, for coming to the aid and reducing the cost of the procedures in New South Wales hospitals. This was a great outcome which went beyond politics. I want to thank Larry, Rotary and Brad Hazzard for the great work they've done. (Time expired)
Sitting suspended from 13:04 to 16:00
I rise to speak on the appropriation bills before the House today. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: my community is crying out for investment from this government. The Macarthur region is experiencing rapid population growth. My wife was born in the electorate. With my wife, I moved back to the electorate over 40 years ago, and we have seen incredible growth. Our population has been increasing exponentially and is projected to continue to rise as rapidly over the coming years. This rapid growth in population has been by design. Respective state and federal governments have planned for and allowed this growth to occur. I use the word 'planned' very, very loosely. Very little thought has been given by the coalition to the present and future needs of my community, and their recent budget is unfortunately indicative of that.
Our community's rapid expansion in population has been unchecked. Those opposite have been complicit in allowing unchecked urban sprawl to take place and have encouraged overdevelopment. Population growth is not necessarily a bad thing. Macarthur is a wonderful place to live, and I cannot fault people for wanting to call Macarthur home. However, the government is allowing my community, to this very day, to be overdeveloped without providing adequate infrastructure. Development must be adequately planned for. This is the role of government.
Consideration of things such as public health facilities, schools, roads and public transport should be a given—but not when it comes to my community, unfortunately. This government has not considered any of this. We have schools that have over 40 demountable classrooms. All could have been planned for yet was not. Those opposite and their friends in Macquarie Street are allowing the south-west to be turned into the plaything of their developer mates at the expense of the battlers. They are allowing development to occur unchecked and are failing to provide essential infrastructure and services to my community.
Housing is unaffordable, and it has been for some time. However, the answer is not to merely increase the supply of housing in Sydney's market. This ought to be part of the government's plans. The fact that they are forcing south-west to shoulder the majority of this burden without adequate planning is disgraceful. My community is one of the most mortgage stressed in the state. People have been struggling to make ends meet since long before the COVID-19 pandemic and recession. I do not define affordable housing as encouraging developers to charge half a million dollars for a 300 square metre block of land on the outskirts of Sydney with no public transport in a newly developed suburb with no public infrastructure. This government's failure to plan for this rapid growth and its rubberstamping approach to developers are really damaging young people, their young families and their future, and place my community at great risk.
Our communities are presently under-resourced to deal with the growth. Our schools are at capacity, our hospital wards are full, our outpatient clinics are overbooked and under-resourced, our roads are congested and unemployment and underemployment are rife. The government have demonstrated once again in their budget that they have no plans to address this. I have sought to work constructively with all levels of government ever since I came into parliament. I think that some of the best work in this place comes at times when we act in a spirit of bipartisanship and work cooperatively together for the greater good for our population. However, this budget is a slap in the face to Macarthur residents.
The coalition, at the state and federal level, are blatantly engaging in class and ideological warfare. Inequality is on the rise, and the Liberal and National government are determined to continue to ignore the needs of some of our most at risk communities. Those opposite can rationalise their budget any way they want, but I will not stand for the spin and self-congratulatory messages that I'm seeing the government undertake.
I want to break this down very quickly. This budget will deliver $1 trillion of debt for Australia. That's a lot of money. This tired, third-term Liberal-National government is starving my community and stifling economic activity as a result. Young people are leaving school with no jobs to go to. Young people are leaving school and being forced to accrue a huge HECS debt to go to university. They're not being offered apprenticeships and they're not being offered jobs in the new economy.
History tells us that recessions are the time to embark on bold and nation-building initiatives. We're getting nothing of that from this government. Job-creating projects, such as building the Sydney Harbour Bridge and creating Snowy Hydro, have been deliberate initiatives of government in times of economic contraction to create jobs and stir economic activity. They certainly work. This coalition are doing nothing of the sort. Had they really given due consideration to our economic recovery at the very least they would not have planned for continued urban sprawl without infrastructure. They should be funding essential projects in the rapidly growing south-west part of Sydney, which is the most rapidly growing part of Sydney. They are not.
Through the pork-barrelling efforts of those opposite, both before the recession and now, we stand to be left behind. There have been sport rorts, arts rorts and all sorts of rorts, yet south-west Sydney gets nothing. They're more than happy to fund projects that will benefit Liberal-voting communities while at the same time ignoring the needs of Macarthur. One example of this that I really want to talk about is the government's abysmal handling of the Western Sydney Airport. I don't care about the land deals. I don't care about what rorts they've done with the conservative electorates around Sydney and around the country. What I care about is infrastructure for south-west Sydney, and they're giving us nothing.
The so-called city deals have been spectacularly pathetic for Macarthur. We're getting a billabong. That's all we're getting. There's no infrastructure. We are getting a billabong so that the federal members who get delivered to Macarthur for five minutes can have a picture opportunity and leave. But they don't care.
They have committed to half the rail link to the Western Sydney airport—only to the north, not to the south-west. Shockingly, they continue to refuse to commit to providing the necessary rail link to Macarthur to provide not only a commuter link to the Western Sydney airport but for all the suburbs developing to the south of the airport—Gregory Hills, Arcadian Hills and Oran Park. All these new suburbs have no public transport infrastructure. It's an absolute tragedy and a disaster in the making, and every planning expert says so.
There's one rule for Liberal-National Party friends at the top end of town and another rule for the west and south-west. It's a matter of priorities. The coalition can find money to give handouts to subsidise the operations of a billionaire media mogul's empire, award lucrative government contracts to unknown entities, pay the member for Fadden's internet bills, perform publicity stunts on Christmas Island, give grants to lucrative sporting clubs with ties to the Liberal Party, detain and attack a family that has been welcomed with open arms by the community, mismanage irrigation licences, backflip on the NBN, purchase—and this is completely bizarre—medals for Sir Prince Philip and overpay for parcels of land, but they can't provide the infrastructure in south-west Sydney.
The former Speaker spent $5,000 on an 80-kilometre helicopter flight. The member for Farrer went on a taxpayer funded apartment shopping spree. The former Treasurer and Ambassador to the US made taxpayers foot the bill for nannies. The age of entitlement for those opposite never stops. Are we supposed to believe that this is responsible governance and sound economic management? I don't think so. At the same time as allowing all this waste to go on, these are a few things that the coalition has refused to fund for Macarthur. They refused to provide funding to establish a desperately needed Shepherd centre of excellence in Campbelltown, which I've long advocated for, to service children with hearing loss and their families, forcing them to travel many kilometres by public transport into Sydney to get services. Shame! They refused to fund a rail line to the new airport from Leppington, continuing the rail line where the corridor is already preserved, which would both serve our community for commuter transport and also provide a freight link to the new Western Sydney airport and a connection from Western Sydney airport to Kingsford Smith airport. Shame!
They refused to provide funds to upgrade local sporting fields in Macarthur, to provide female change rooms et cetera, including for Eagle Vale St Andrews Junior Rugby League Football Club at Eschol Park and Minto soccer club at Sarah Redfern Oval, yet they are able to fund golf clubs and rowing clubs et cetera in Liberal electorates. Shame! They refused to provide timely upgrades to the often fatal Appin Road. Instead they piggyback off Labor's advocacy, trickling through the funding in paltry quantities and ensuring that the road is never going to be adequate and is going to remain very dangerous. They refused to provide funding to provide a paediatric intensive care unit at Campbelltown Hospital, despite ample demand for such a service.
They failed to come to the table to defend and protect Campbelltown's uniquely disease-free koala colony. They are still allowing development to occur on koala habitat in south-west Sydney, the closest koala colony to the centre of Sydney. It's a healthy koala colony that's able to move to the south, to Wollongong, to the west, to the Southern Highlands, and also to the Georges River, providing healthy koalas that would provide a koala colony for the future, yet their future is at severe risk because of a lack of funding by the Liberal government. The Liberal environment minister won't even come to my electorate despite multiple requests to view our koala colony, our unique habitat and also the Indigenous sites around the soon to be developed Appin area. It's a great shame and a tragedy that this could all be lost thanks to the Liberal Party's lack of care for the south-west of Sydney.
The priorities of this coalition government are twisted. Communities like mine are being left behind as a result of the priorities of the Morrison government. It's time the coalition began governing for all Australians, not just their friends at the big end of town—not just cherrypicking the winners and the losers. This budget was perhaps one of the most significant in living memory. It was a chance to do the right thing by all Australians. It was a chance for the government to show vision. It was a chance for the government to show us all their credentials as a caring and decent government that governs for all and not just for some. However, they've not moved from their chosen path of trickle-down economics and a laissez-faire attitude to those who are really struggling.
This government have amassed a trillion dollars in debt, yet Macarthur is getting very little to show for it. Similarly, the electorates around Macarthur are not getting the infrastructure they need for this rapidly growing population. This is a population of young families with children, who are the future of our society, yet they're not getting treated properly by this government. I note that the New South Wales state government is able to fund over $70 million to turn a quarry into a park for North Shore residents, yet in Macarthur they're not even able to provide decent watering facilities and decent lighting for some of our playing fields where those who will later go on to represent Australia in a whole range of sports are playing.
This government are unable to fund adequate medical facilities in the south-west of Sydney. We have huge waiting lists, and the waiting lists are blowing out day by day. They've been made worse, of course, by the COVID-19 pandemic, but our waiting lists were already longer than the rest of Sydney's anyway. They are not adequately funding services for children and young families in the health system in terms of providing primary care. Breastfeeding rates are low. There are high instances of nutritional problems, such as iron deficiency and obesity in children, yet this government have shown no vision for child health in the areas that are struggling.
This recession will be longer and worse for this government's failure to invest in areas of need, its failure to fairly distribute infrastructure funding and its consistent attempts to create a class divide. That is what is happening. If one looks at life expectancies, they are worse outside our major cities. The further out of metropolitan areas and into rural and regional areas you go, life expectancies are worse than the centre of Sydney—yet the government is happy for this to continue. Gap costs for accessing specialist care have blown out unbelievably in the last six years, so that in many developing areas of Sydney and in rural and regional areas people cannot afford to pay for high-level specialist care. That an out-of-touch government could find money in a recession to give a subsidy to Rupert Murdoch while blatantly refusing to fund early intervention programs for 400 deaf children in Macarthur is an absolute tragedy. They should be ashamed of it, and they should try and do something now to redress the imbalance.
I rise to speak on the appropriation bills. Australia is in the deepest recession in a century. We have very difficult economic conditions at the moment. What most Australians were hoping for in this budget was a long-term plan to get us out of this recession. I think most Australians are feeling pretty nervous and worried at the moment about both the health situation and the future economic situation. When they knew the budget was coming up, many would have hoped there would be a long-term plan to create jobs, to support our economy and to get us out of this crisis. Unfortunately, those who tuned in on budget night that Tuesday were severely disappointed. I know many in my electorate were severely disappointed. As Anthony Albanese, the Leader of the Labor Party, has said, there were too many people left behind and too many people held back in this budget.
When we look at the Liberal Party having amassed $1 trillion worth of debt and 440,000 Australians losing their jobs to date, I can't overemphasise what a serious problem this is. Unfortunately, though, the government has done nothing to provide any long-term economic growth plan. What we have is very-short-termism from this Prime Minister and this government, which will not really lead to an economic growth story that will go over years. We've seen support prematurely cut for JobKeeper when, even in the government's own budget, the peak of unemployment has not been reached yet. Yet we have a government that is cutting JobSeeker and has already cut JobKeeper. This is pretty serious, and for so many people this has come far too early. Even in its own numbers, the government has anticipated that 160,000 more Australians will join the unemployment queue by Christmas. This is a pretty difficult time.
Rather than endless press conferences and photo ops from this Prime Minister and this government, and the different fancy names—JobKeeper, JobMaker, JobSeeker, whatever—let's actually see some action. Let's see them take it seriously. Let's see them have a plan for jobs. One of the obvious areas of investment that would create jobs in the short and medium term is infrastructure investment. Not only will it create jobs in the short and medium term; it will deliver long-term economic productivity, if you pick the right projects. Unfortunately, we have seen no new investment from this government into major infrastructure projects in South Australia; South Australia has been left behind again. It could be a very simple thing that the government could do. I have written to the minister for transport, outlining many particular projects. Some projects would provide medium-term jobs, some could be jobs for the next year and others could be jobs for the next three, four or five years. We've got rail extensions that could be done. We've got roads that could be improved, to make it much easier for people in my electorate to commute.
Unfortunately, the government has not delivered this. It has not delivered what could be a lasting legacy in terms of infrastructure investments. It has been disappointing, as our state continues to shed jobs, that many work opportunities have been lost. You hear rumours that the state government didn't have any projects worked up so the federal government couldn't give them money. Stop making excuses! Get on and do your job.
Other elements that have been missed are around investing in stimulating local communities and local infrastructure. I have written to the minister with many, many projects. Unfortunately, instead of projects being delivered right across this country, we had sports rorts, which meant that areas in my electorate missed out on important funding for local community infrastructure because they weren't deemed to be in a marginal seat. That's pretty disappointing.
There could have been some really good outcomes delivered. One of the good outcomes could have been the opportunity to support social housing. We had the opportunity in this budget to invest in social housing. The number of people that call me—they live in social housing through life circumstances and they've had no opportunity other than to live in public housing—and tell me that they are living with so many problems and difficulties in terms of repair. There are so many problems. This government could have invested and injected money into social housing. That would not only be good for those who live in social housing; importantly, it would have created jobs for tradies. These were job-ready projects that could have been done and would have done so much more in terms of economic stimulation than the failed 'HomeBlunder' scheme that the government has had. Really, it is disappointing that the Morrison government has once again squandered a real opportunity to support our tradies in a variety of different trades and to have more affordable housing and more investment in housing. It is incredibly disappointing, especially considering the very narrow take-up, when it comes to this HomeBlunder scheme. It just hasn't worked. In fact, in September only one person in the entire state of South Australia received a HomeBuilder grant. One person! I could have given a list of houses that could have done with repairs and gone to the public housing stock and actually created real jobs for our tradies and other people involved in the repairs and home-building business.
It's a sharp contrast to the Leader of the Labor Party's plan. He has outlined a real plan to stimulate the economy, to support jobs for tradies and to address the maintenance backlog that has been so difficult. It would be good for our economy. Once again, we see the missed opportunities in the Liberal Party's budget, this short-termism, this lack of leadership in anything meaningful.
Of course—and I've spoken about this a lot in the parliament—the budget also seemed to forget 51 per cent of the population, and that's women. We know that women have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. There is nothing to support and deal with issues that have been there long before COVID but are going to be exacerbated by the Morrison recession: things such as the superannuation gap that women face, gender pay disparities—there are so many issues. Since March more than 200,000 women have lost their jobs and 110,000 women have left the workforce altogether. This is a really difficult time for many women who had to leave the workforce because they lost their jobs or were taking on caring responsibilities. We've seen from this government nothing tangible to support them back into work.
Labor have put out a very clear plan. We don't want women held back from reaching their potential as the recovery from COVID starts. We've announced our Working Family Childcare Boost, which will support many families to deal with the cost of child care. The worst thing out of this pandemic and recession would be if, when the second income earner in a family is offered work, they have to turn that work down because they cannot afford child care. How disappointing would that be? It would not only be disappointing and very difficult for that family but it would be not good for the economy. It is not good for the recovery to have this handbrake on our economic recovery, and that is exactly what the current childcare system is. So we've outlined a very clear alternative.
I think a few people might have thought the government had had a change of heart when it came to early education and care, because they announced free child care. They didn't fund free child care, so they actually required those operators to take the hit during COVID. There was no hit to the government, just a hit to those centres. But of course that was short-lived, and we went straight back to the full fees that were there before the pandemic. The government have dug in now, despite overwhelming criticism that this is not the right time to keep the current system, because it's not working. The government are digging in their heels, and I can only suspect that it is because the Prime Minister himself designed the current childcare settings and is too proud to admit that they are not working.
An honourable member interjecting—
No, no Office for Women. It was revealed in Senate estimates that the Office for Women did have some input, but they weren't listened to when it comes to early education and care.
We are looking at really trying to address the workforce disincentive rate, a term that's come up as a result of how expensive our childcare system is and the way that women are losing money or not making any money because of the cost of child care on the fourth and fifth day. We've put forward an alternative. The response from the government is that the current settings are right, and apparently women should be grateful because this budget builds some roads. Well, they can't be grateful in my electorate, because you're not building roads in my electorate! You're not investing in roads in my electorate, so not only do women have unaffordable child care but they actually don't have any new roads to speak of when it comes to driving. Unfortunately my electorate is missing out again. They don't get any new roads and they don't have affordable child care. This really hasn't been good for women, or men, in my electorate.
What Labor has announced is that we will make child care cheaper for 97 per cent of families. That is our plan for the first three years, and then we are going to look at our very ambitious plan to move to a universal 90 per cent subsidy system, and we'll be tasking the Productivity Commission to do that work.
In addition to this, we know that a lot of young people have been doing it really tough during this Morrison recession. It's been a really difficult time and I think we underestimate the hit that young people have taken and the consequences of that. The consequences from the global financial crisis are still being realised by people that were young and just trying to get into jobs during that global financial crisis. They are still having the impact today. That was highlighted by the Productivity Commission. We know that this recession is so much worse, so much more difficult and that this is going to be very hard. And what we've seen is the government, during a recession, making it more expensive to go to university, more expensive for young people who perhaps are finishing year 12 and are thinking: 'I just can't get a job. I'm going to better myself.' Well, the government has made it more expensive to go to university. While the hiring credit has been very much lauded by the government as the panacea, Treasury officials have confirmed that, once you put the spotlight on these things, it's only expected to create 45,000 jobs—just 10 per cent of what the government said it would do. The government claimed 450,000 jobs, but of course it's only going to deliver 10 per cent of that, if that. We know that the government has a track record of not being able to deliver these types of schemes. We've seen that with mature workers, where take-up has been very poor.
I'll be keeping a close eye on this because I don't think it will deliver even 45,000 jobs. The proof will be in the pudding. You need to watch what the government do, not what they say, because they are so full of spin. They want to turn up at the marketing opportunities, cut the ribbons, puff out their chests and say, 'Aren't we doing well?' The truth of the matter is that they have a problem with delivery and they have blind spots, and this budget does not set Australia up for the long-term.
The more I look at this government's most recent budget the less I see. If you just listened to the words on the night, you might have had hope, but, when you dig down and look anywhere at the detail, you just find spin and no substance whatsoever. When JobKeeper disappears in March, I feel that in my community, and many like it, we will have quite a cliff, because, despite all of the announcements that were made by the Treasurer on budget night, there's very little to it. For example, the tax cuts are hailed as the driver of the economy. A person might receive between $20 and $50 a week in the tax cut. Great! But, at the moment in Parramatta, in my electorate, we have some 8½ thousand businesses that are paying their staff on JobKeeper and the 30,000-odd staff members will fall off the cliff at the end of March. It is replaced with a $20- to $50-a-week tax cut for those who have work. Our unemployment rate has gone up. Last year, it was 4.9 per cent, just before COVID-19, and it has gone up 250 per cent in the last six months, and it is continuing to grow. It is hard to see how taking people off JobKeeper and replacing it with a $20- to $50-a-week tax cut for those who have work will make a difference.
Then we have JobMaker. There is a lot of 'job' this and 'job' that. JobMaker was a huge announcement, with 450,000 jobs for people under the age of 35, except that, when you dig down and ask Treasury, they say, 'No; it won't be 450,000. Most of those will be jobs that already exist. There will only be 45,000 new jobs,' and that's not in one year but over a couple of years. I did the maths. That is 300 jobs per electorate over a couple of years. So they are taking 30,000-odd workers off JobKeeper, they're reducing JobSeeker down to $40 a day in December, and they're replacing it with 300 subsidised jobs for people under the age of 35. That's the reality when you dig through the spin. It's just unimaginable that this strategy would actually work.
This gives me an opportunity today to talk about some other areas where the government claims things that you think might be fabulous, until you look at them and see that they actually don't existent or they're a mere shadow—just an announcement with nothing underneath. I will talk now about women in the budget. We, the Labor opposition, have been very critical that this budget is not for women. Most of the industries that have been supported, because of the way it works, are male dominated industries. For the care economy, aged care, child care—all the places where women work and where you would expect a big investment because they have been shown to be under-resourced—there is nothing. When you criticise the government for it, they wave the announcement of the Women's economic security statement. What a great thing this would be: the Women's economic security statement. I googled the Women's economic security statement 2020. It says:
The 2020 Women's Economic Security Statement is building on initiatives in the Government's overarching JobMaker Plan for an economic recovery that creates jobs—
Then, do yourself a favour and google 'Women's Economic Security Statement 2018' and see what happens. Here it is:
That is why, in 2018, we released the inaugural Women’s Economic Security Statement with a focus on three key pillars—workforce participation, earning potential and economic independence.
Announced in 2018, it's the same thing—and then again in 2019, then again in 2019 and now in 2020. And, two years after it was first announced with great fanfare and a great announcement, they've spent zero. Nothing! It's just an announcement. It was an announcement in 2018 and nothing else—just spin with no substance. It was an announcement in 2019 twice, as spin with no substance, and now it's been announced in 2020 with no detail and we're supposed to believe it. So I would say to everybody out there: You just have to do look underneath the announcement to see whether there's anything there, and in many, many occasions there won't be anything there at all.
Let's look at another one: the NBN. Parramatta CBD, the second CBD in Sydney, is supposed to be this great city, and it actually is a great place to live, will not get the NBN until 2022. So every time the minister gets up and says, 'Woohoo, we finished it,' we, in Parramatta CBD, go, 'Hang on a second, we're not getting it for another two years. Are you kidding me?' Honestly, it is extraordinary.
Then, we hear an announcement that they're going to rebuild the bits that they built with that 50,000 kilometres of copper that they bought. They're going to rebuild that now with fibre because they think fibre is actually better than copper, and we go: 'Okay, are we going to get the old NBN and then get upgraded, or are we just going to get the new NBN? What's going on here?' We're not told; we just keep hearing these announcements.
Then, we had a fabulous announcement about job hubs—business hubs.
What are they?
There's $700 million for several hundred business hubs, which would give businesses in various regions the same kind of speed that they get in the Sydney CBD. And I thought: Wahoo! Maybe we could have one of those. It turns out that we are getting one of those, maybe—when you read the website it says, 'Please phone and check,' but it says that we're probably getting one in Parramatta. They've announced 11 business hubs in greater Sydney, and eight of them can see the harbour or the ocean. Mosman gets one. Neutral Bay gets one. Lane Cove gets one. Lake Haven—Yes, you may well smile!
What do they have in common!
Western Sydney gets one west of Marrickville. It is a bigger economy than South Australia. It is the third largest economy in the country, and we get one!
Maybe!
Maybe! Except we don't it at all, until 2022! So tell me that South Australia's getting one. We are the third largest economy, we have got more employees, more workers, in Western Sydney than in Adelaide. We're slightly under Brisbane. We've got more knowledge workers then virtually any—
Opposition members interjecting—
I know! But we've got one! One west of Marrickville! Not Strathfield, not Penrith, not Campbelltown, not Liverpool, not Ryde, not north west—unbelievable. And I'll just say this to the government: as happy as I am that Parramatta eventually—if it ever actually gets the NBN—will get a business hub—I know, from working in business myself and from running a trade association for many years, that it's the speed of your customers that counts for most modern businesses. If you're actually selling online or you're working online or your staff are working from home, it's not just the speed in the little centre where your office is; it's actually how fast everyone else can engage with you. This is absurd. It's absurd that in 2020 I am standing in—not now, but I do live in—what is the third largest economy in Australia and we're not getting the NBN until 2022, and then with a population of over two million people we're getting one business hub. One. Unbelievable. So again, it's all spin. If you dig underneath it, there's no substance.
I can tell you what's happening with this, and this is a really important point when it comes to the NBN. What we're starting to get with this new strategy is NBN for people who can afford it. They have clearly chosen electorates where businesses can pay higher money to get a faster connection. So we will find a two-tiered NBN—which I know we're going to get anyway with this government, but it will accelerate that. It will hardwire in, literally, the inequity. It will hardwire it in. It is so unacceptable I cannot believe it. I just cannot believe it.
Let's look at another area where there's more spin than substance: the announcement of a $1.5 billion manufacturing fund. This is the government that dared the car industry to leave. This is the government that's done nothing on manufacturing for as far back as you can remember. Including during the Howard years, they did nothing. This is the government that has spruiked that business should go where it's cheaper to run. This is the government that totally failed to understand the changing nature of manufacturing for years and that the advantage of labour is disappearing with advanced manufacturing. They pushed manufacturing offshore at the very time when fragmented supply chains and modern manufacturing techniques were giving us the advantage back. But away it goes! They pushed it away exactly at the time when we should have been building it.
Now they've discovered that manufacturing actually really matters, apparently—like they've discovered that fibre is better than 50,000 kilometres of copper!—and they're going to spend $1.5 billion, so they say. Except—again, it was a nice announcement—look at the detail. Finally, Minister Andrews admitted on Sunday that only $40 million of that will be spent this financial year. This is one of the programs that replaces those 30,000 people that come off JobKeeper in my electorate alone at the end of March. This is it: $40 million this financial year. And then she went on to say that the really big grant program was the $800,000 collaboration stream, and it's only expected to fund 10 projects. I'm kind of speechless. It is all spin. There is nothing here. There's a trillion dollars in debt, a deficit of $100 billion, and there is nothing to show for it here—nothing at all.
Let's look at who else was really left out of the budget: the current people on JobSeeker. Again, in my electorate we currently have 12,053 people relying on JobSeeker or youth allowance, up from 4,900 before COVID-19—large numbers. And that doesn't include, by the way, all the people that the government managed to sneak off into the side: all the people here on skilled visas, all the international students, all the people here on bridging visas, you name it—all the people they managed to pushed off to the side with no support at all. So the actual unemployment rate, the actual number of people in my electorate that are struggling and do not have work, is much greater than this. And, of course, JobKeeper is hiding the true number as well—until the end of March and then we'll see what happens. But there's nothing in this budget for these people that are really, really struggling. In fact, the government has said maybe they'll look at it in the midyear, but they're not making any commitment. They said it would go back to $40 a day, but now they're not quite sure.
I just have to say this: there are over 12,000 people unemployed in my electorate, 8,000 of those became unemployed because of COVID. Even if the government actually believes that people who were on unemployment benefits before COVID are just lazy—I don't believe that for a second because I know many of them—the 8,000 who have joined the queue since then had jobs. How on earth can those people plan how they're going to deal with the reduction in their income if they don't have any certainty at all? What do they do if they have long-term leases? Are they going to continue renting or not? They don't know because they don't know what they're going to be getting after 31 December. If they have a kid in child care at the moment, because one adult is working and one's not, and it's becoming unaffordable, do they take their child out of the childcare place knowing that, if they then get a job, they won't be able to get that place back again? Do they move in with their parents even though their parents don't live in the same school area? How do they get their kids to school if they have to sell the car? They have to make decisions. If they're good money managers and responsible money managers, they need to be able to make those decisions now. You don't wait until two weeks before 31 December and then, in some last minute midyear fiscal thing, announce what people are going to receive in January. You don't do that. It's counterproductive. It's absolutely counterproductive. It makes it harder for people to plan their way through what is the worst crisis of their life. It's harder for people because of the uncertainty that this government is creating by refusing to talk about what they're going to do. It's just not fair.
I really urge the government when they look at my community and the community at large who are currently on JobSeeker, who do not have jobs, to not see the worst characteristics of those people—to not see them as people who are going to say, 'Oh, no, I'm not going to work, because I can get $40 a day. Woohoo; I can stay home and watch television.' That is not who they are. When I look at my community I see people who are doing the best they can possibly do at the moment. I see good in them. Occasionally there is one who is not. Every now again we meet them. Rule breakers break rules, by the way—so new rules won't fix it. But, please, when you look at the Australian community, see the good in them. See what they want to achieve, and see what you can do to help them do that. And $40 a day at the end of December, or a lack of a decision on what you are going to do with them until too late, is not giving people in my community and around Australia the best chance to move through this incredible crisis.
I could talk about a whole range of other things—pensions; you name it—but I've run out of time. But I just want to reiterate to the people who listen to the government: you really have to pay attention to what is underneath it, because, in most cases, all you get is a great announcement with lots of fanfare and a nice press release and then nothing—sometimes zero for years.
That was a very good speech by my colleague. I think she articulated many of the concerns we have. These are, of course, very difficult times for the country and for the globe. We are constantly focused on the domestic situation of our constituents, and that is understandable—because I think all the vulnerabilities of modern life have been highlighted. At the start of this pandemic we had a situation where we'd run out of or come perilously close to running out of personal protective equipment. We had issues around the supply of ventilators. We had a fear that our health systems and hospital systems would be overrun. Normally, it is a bit of a chore to go to the supermarket, but even the supermarket became a place of great anxiety for many Australians at the beginning of the lockdowns when we had these runs on toilet paper—which is pretty essential to modern life.
We saw that pretty essential product that we expect to be there and has always been there suddenly disappear from the supermarket shelves because of panic buying, because of the fragile supply lines that we have. We manufacture toilet paper here in this country. We've manufacture it from pulp down in the south east of the state of South Australia. A great company down there provides the nation. So that was a relatively easy problem to fix. But, of course, when we look at these vulnerabilities, I think they have made it very, very clear that the worst case scenario can happen and, if you don't plan for it or you don't think about or you don't account for it, you can find yourself in great peril.
And then I look at some of the external things that can happen to Australia. In my time in this place—I'm coming up to 12 or 13 years now—I can't count the number of times, for instance, that John Blackburn has come to the foreign affairs committee and given us a submission about fuel security in this country. He constantly came before the committee and warned governments of both persuasions—I'm not trying to make this a partisan thing—that we've got a perilous situation when it comes to our fuel security. Seventy per cent of our fuels come from overseas. Only about 20 per cent are refined here. So it doesn't take you long to realise that, in any sort of external crisis where our sea lanes are blocked, we will have a desperate problem very, very quickly and we will have to ration very, very quickly. That will bring modern life to a halt very quickly. So we need to start dealing with these things in a bipartisan way pretty urgently.
When we think about these things, we should start to think more in terms of self-reliance. What do we absolutely have to know is there? What is the lifeblood of modern life?
We know, for instance, that electricity is a pretty critical part of modern life, and over the years we've seen a number of things happen to our electricity system. We could talk a lot about it, but primarily what we've seen is disaggregation at the state level—that is, we had monopoly systems that have been broken up. In South Australia it was ETSA. ETSA had the transmission lines, it had the poles and wires, and it had the generation. It was one system that operated with engineers running it, and they ran it as a unitary system. We've also had privatisation. In South Australia, in 1994, there was a pretty controversial lease of our power assets at the time. The Labor Party opposed that, and I'm proud that they did.
When you think about that disaggregation and that privatisation, you've also got to think about who ended up controlling these critical bits of infrastructure. In South Australia, it wasn't just that things were broken up into generators, into poles and wires, and into transmission lines; it's also that they were sold to foreign companies. At the time we lived in a more benign world, and Hong Kong was controlled, at that point, by the British. It followed their legal norms, and it was seen to be a jurisdiction particularly friendly to foreign investment and as the gateway to mainland China. So it's not surprising that there was a level of comfort in selling a majority stake in the poles and wires of what's now known as SA Power Networks to CK Infrastructure. It's not surprising that, when the transmission lines were sold—I think this is somewhat more controversial—the State Grid Corporation, which is a state-owned company in China, took a significant stake. It's a minority stake, but it's the largest stake in that company; it's just short of controlling it. They are very pertinent facts.
In 1994, those ownership structures might have been appropriate. As I said before, Labor opposed the privatisation of ETSA, and I think it was sensible to do so at the time. But even those who are enthusiasts for privatisation should now realise that you have to have control of your critical infrastructure. You don't have control if it's owned by a foreign owned company, and you particularly don't have control if it's a foreign owned company where the government can influence anything that company does. And that is certainly the case now, with both of those companies.
We need to think carefully about what happened in 1994 in South Australia to the electricity network, and we need to think about whether we have control, ultimately, of this critical infrastructure. Deputy Speaker Zimmerman, in your home state, when the privatisation of Ausgrid occurred, the then Treasurer, the now Prime Minister Scott Morrison, blocked the sale of that electricity infrastructure to those two companies, to State Grid Corporation and to CK Infrastructure. We've now got a situation where, in New South Wales, these companies were blocked from owning the electricity grid and yet, in South Australia, they've owned it for the better part of a couple of decades. So I think, and I mean this as a humble suggestion from a backbencher, that ownership structure should be reviewed.
As I've said before, when I've spoken out about Darwin port, I think there is some infrastructure a country has to own. In a situation where there might be political sensitivities in it, it's better that the nation's government asserts that control in the first instance. To my mind, if you block the sale in New South Wales, you shouldn't allow this ownership to go on in South Australia. Those portions of ownership by those companies should either be subject to nationalisation or to forced divestments, or some combination of both. There are a couple of reasons for this.
Electricity is the lifeblood of modern society. You cannot have a situation where the government does not have control. We now know that these grids are particularly vulnerable to all sorts of interference and technological sabotage, which cannot be easily remedy if it occurs, so it's critically important that we know that this infrastructure is secure, reliable and can be depended on. In my mind that means you have to have some sort of Australian ownership and control.
We now know interest rates are low and the government's capacity to borrow is high. We also have a vast pool of superannuation funds and other private wealth. We're no longer capital starved, as we may have been in the past. To my mind the solution to this is easy. We have a vulnerability. It has been there for some time. We know that it may get worse over time. It should be remedied. The remedy is relatively easy in the modern context.
I'm not the only politician concerned by this. I know Rex Patrick has spoken out about it, and I think that's sensible. We should have a discussion about critical infrastructure in this country. The Prime Minister and the then Treasurer should be commended for their decision. It is not easy to make a decision to block a sale to foreign companies. It's essential that we control this infrastructure. It's essential that we don't have a benign view of the world we live in. It's essential that we take a pretty rigorous and cynical view. To some extent we need to plan for the worst. If we're doing those things then we should secure critical infrastructure in this country.
With those comments I close my argument, as it were. I humbly submit it for your consideration, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I thank my learned friend.
We had the budget speech and the budget reply speech. I'll make a few comments on the budget first of all. Again the people of my electorate of Bendigo were disappointed. It was another budget that saw us excluded from any significant local community infrastructure funding, despite the fact that we have many projects on our wish list and active lobbying had gone on. One project that our local Bendigo business community really wanted to see funded was the upgrade of the Bendigo Airport terminal. It was also a key project of our local council. It was not funded in this budget.
The government will spend $33 billion on a piece of land for a future runway that may be built in the next couple of decades, but yet it couldn't find the $4.5 billion to match the state Labor government funding to upgrade the Bendigo Airport terminal. This project would have delivered local jobs, particularly for local small businesses involved in construction. It also would have secured the return of the Qantas route between Sydney and Bendigo, which started not that long ago. It was an incredibly successful route that Qantas are keen to restart. We know that we could secure that if we had a terminal upgrade.
Also not funded was the upgrade to the Fogartys Gap interchange. It is the one major intersection on the Calder Freeway that doesn't have proper on and off ramps. Tragically, it has been the place of far too many road accidents, not just in the last 12 months but in the last decade. For those who don't know the intersection, cars coming from Harcourt or Fogartys Gap, which leads to Maldon, have to cross the freeway to turn right to go to Bendigo. Some people don't realise that they have to cross a lane of the freeway to turn right, so we've had a couple of near misses and, unfortunately, a number of deaths. This is critical infrastructure. The Deputy Prime Minister likes to talk about road safety, but when it comes to road safety in my electorate the funding is not there.
I raise these two projects because they are not on the government's priority list, yet significant funding went to the Nicholls electorate in the north, into Shepparton, and significant funding went to other electorates held by coalition members. There is a feeling amongst the people in my electorate that, because we didn't get prioritised in the election, we haven't been prioritised since this government was returned. We feel left out and left behind when it comes to our fair share of funding for our local community. I know that the local council, the new councillors, will continue to campaign for this funding, so the government has not been let off the hook when it comes to either of these projects.
I note that the government had some token money available—and I say 'token money'—for local councils and local community projects through various grant schemes. When you stand in question time and say, 'There's a billion dollars,' it sounds like a really big figure, until you divide it amongst all the councils that we have in Australia. Then it ends up being a couple of hundred thousand. It doesn't go far. It does help, but it doesn't go far. A couple of my local councils have used this funding to upgrade footpaths, which is vital. This is a program that I'd encourage the government to continue. We have Roads to Recovery and Bridges to Recovery. Paths to Recovery is the next step. Even though I am the federal member, people in my community contact me about the need to build the missing links between housing estates, to upgrade broken footpaths, and what role the federal government can play in that. I believe that, if we play a role in helping councils upgrade local roads, we should play a role in upgrading local footpaths. They're good for health. They're good for mums with prams. They're good for older Australians. They provide safe routes and access, connecting schools, shopping strips and communities to each other.
Another area of the budget that bitterly disappointed the people of my electorate was the complete lack of support for the arts. The government said that they've done enough. They announced a big fund, but no money in that fund has been spent. The arts industry was one of the first industries to be shut down, taking all the associated industries with it. When you put on major events, be they concerts or productions, there's AV equipment, there's crowd control and there's catering that go along with it. Groovin the Moo is a major concert that travels around regional Australia. When we lost it in Bendigo, lots of local businesses missed out. That was the beginning of the cancellation of major events because of the COVID-19 crisis. Everybody accepts that these events could not go ahead because of the health crisis. Everybody accepts that it's still not safe for these events to go ahead. What they want in a federal government is leadership and support to help them get through this season, next season and the year after, when we hope it will be safe for them to open. Instead, what our local showgrounds got was a couple of hundred thousand—in fact, less than $200,000—to do a bit of paintwork. It was well short of the funding they require for the major redevelopment project they have.
I flag our showgrounds because I know that lots of regional MPs have showgrounds in their electorates. They're not just for agricultural shows. These are multipurpose facilities. They quite often host the local football teams and netball teams. They also are a place for major concerts and events. They hold equestrian events. If they've got the facilities, they're also where you have local markets, sport meets and so on and so forth. The showgrounds in my electorate tend to be booked out all year round when you add all those events in together. I'd better not forget the cricket season because it will be remembered if I do not remember the importance of our showgrounds when it comes to hosting local cricket competitions as well. Yet they're ageing infrastructure. Again, there's an opportunity for the federal government. If they were genuine about partnering with regional communities, they would help to fund the restoration and building of our showgrounds. These are just a few projects that this government could pick up on.
I know that when Labor was last in government and the Liberal and National parties were in opposition they were incredibly critical of the building schools program, the Building the Education Revolution fund, which was highly successful, despite all of their criticism. To this day, I still go to completely brand-new schools that were built in my electorate through that fund that the former Prime Minister and then education minister created. A school like Lockwood South Primary School, with its old hall, was never going to be rebuilt because it only had about 40 students, but under that program the entire new building that it got was literally a brand-new school. We have about 15 schools like that in my electorate.
I'm not saying that this government, as an economic stimulus project, could replicate that program, but they could do something similar. They could do something for the schools that still need buildings to help build the buildings that they need. They could partner with local and state government to build the infrastructure, such as upgrading our showgrounds, that would give opportunity for regional communities to rebuild post-crisis. But all we tend to get from this government is a little bit of token money, a little bit of money to help with painting or fencing. It is not really enough to deliver the economic support that the communities need.
Another problem that I have with the government's budget is that it tended to focus on the people who were doing okay. The tax cuts, for example, favoured people already in work. They favoured people already on high incomes. They did not provide a genuine narrative or a program or a plan about how they're going to recreate work. This government boasts about the jobs that have been created since the pandemic and since some jobs have started to come on, but they haven't really been clear or honest about what kind of jobs they are. They're insecure jobs, they're casual jobs, they're jobs in sectors which are still being damaged by the recession and are struggling to recover. Having a couple of hours a week in a job, hoping that business will pick up, is not a job you can count on, yet this government counts it as a job created.
I think about the people in my area of Bendigo. We moved out of stage 3 restrictions, now into step 3A, a little sooner than Melbourne, but business is not back to normal, despite being able to take those earlier steps in regional Victoria. People are trying to survive on one shift a week or a couple of shifts a week. We are not back to prepandemic work levels, yet the government has moved to cut JobKeeper and JobSeeker.
Another criticism that I have of this government, and why I support the amendments that have been moved in the lower house, is that in seven weeks time the Coronavirus Supplement for those on JobSeeker will run out. Right before Christmas this government will push thousands of Australians back to the old Newstart rate. They won't tell them whether they are going to keep the current rate with the supplement going or whether they are going to increase the base rate, the old Newstart rate. It is an appalling way to treat Australians, many of whom have recently lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It demonstrates the meanness of this government. It demonstrates their focus on spin and how they go for headlines and not genuine reform.
This is a recession that we have never seen the likes of before in Australia. Previous recessions have really targeted male dominated industries, our blue-collar industries. When you look at the 1990s recession, it was the industries like manufacturing and construction that took a hit. This recession has not impacted those industries yet, and we hope that it won't. In this recession, in construction they haven't missed a day of work in regional Victoria. In manufacturing we've lost a few days and a few shifts in food manufacturing, but the rest of manufacturing has not missed a day. When it comes to the mining industry—we have gold mining in Bendigo—they haven't missed a day. These industries are male dominated industries. These are the higher-paying industries and they're doing well. I am thankful for that because these are the secure jobs in our electorate.
It means that the people who have been hit hardest by this COVID-19 recession are the industries that women predominantly work in: hospitality, retail, service based industries. Yet there is no plan to support them in this budget. They just hope the trickle-down effect will happen, that in a recession people earning money, who will get the tax cuts, will actually spend on services and goods and entertainment. It's a really big wish of this government, and it actually bucks the thinking of what's happened in previous recessions, where data proves that people save in a recession; they don't tend to spend. We also know through research that if you were to increase JobSeeker and maintain JobKeeper, that money would continue to flow through the economy. Every dollar of relief you give to people on low incomes gets spent locally. It is where the government is not quite in touch with what is happening in reality.
The budget that the government delivered was very much a Liberal-National budget. It talked about tax cuts. It talked about programs and spending in the forward estimates, off to the never-never. The classic was the one that was revealed today about the women's economic statement, which was a commitment made back in 2018 and reheated, repeated, in this budget. We may get some money spent on it next year. What a joke! When it comes to their commitment towards women's economic security, they repeat, reheat, announcements and never actually spend any of the money. The budget that the government delivered focused on the top end of town. It focused on those who are fortunate enough to be in secure jobs. It did not focus on the industries or the areas that are most in need of support post COVID-19. It did not focus on our older Australians. There was not a new dollar for aged care, despite the royal commission's interim report and reports talking about neglect. It did not go anywhere near addressing the problems that we have with home-care packages and it isn't going to significantly reduce the waiting list that we have in our country.
These are the issues that people in my region care about. They care about older Australians having access to what they're entitled to. If people have been approved for an aged-care home-care package, they are just in shock that they're on a waiting list, waiting to get access to the support that their loved ones need. The fact that we have people in our country dying before they get access to the program they've been approved for is a national disgrace and something the government should be ashamed of, yet they stand up in question time and boast about how well they're doing. It's another example of how the government are all about spin and marketing—that one hour that they're on the TV, that grab that they get at the end of the night on the evening news. They're not actually committed to the genuine reform that we need. We are going through a very deep recession. It is a time when we need a government of true leaders. I'm disappointed to say that's not what we have.
The Treasurer has described the October budget as the most important since the Second World War. In many ways, he is right, because our country faces challenges greater than at any point since that time, and so the test for this budget is whether it meets the moment. Does it do enough to support the millions of people in Australia who need assistance right now, who need a leg-up right now? And does it properly invest in the country so we bounce back from the pandemic as a more vibrant, more prosperous place, taking us to a new future of bold initiatives, of true opportunities?
As an Independent, when I look at the budget it's not my job to be a cheerleader for the government, nor is it my job to be simply a constant critic. For me, it's to call things as I see them and to be the voice of my community. And so, over recent weeks, I have conducted a survey of constituents to see how the budget affects them and to understand what they think the recovery priorities should be. From the 1,200 responses I received from right across Indi, the message is clear: though the budget contained some positive measures, it did not meet the moment we're in. For regional Australia, this budget is a letdown because it looks backwards, not forwards. It tries to take the country back to the economy we had nine months ago instead of truly finding the window in this disruption, in this once-in-a-generation moment, to take us to a new and better place.
Today in this speech responding to the budget I want to give voice to the people of my electorate, what they need right now and the future that they want to see for their region. To start with, our small businesses are really hurting, not just from the lockdowns but because, for many, the bushfires had already wiped out the summer trade. The measures for business are really the centrepiece of the budget announcement. While most people in Indi support these measures, many feel that more is needed. Of the instant asset write-off and loss carry-back scheme, while 48 per cent of people supported these measures, another 23 per cent said they did not go far enough. Many small businesses told me that the instant asset write-off will not make a difference to them, as they are too cash poor to be making investments of any kind. Many businesses said that these are not the types of supports that they really need. A restaurant owner in Bright told me: 'Our biggest issue is hiring staff for the summer months. The lack of accommodation in the region makes it almost impossible to get quality employees. Spend money on developing affordable housing.' Then there are businesses of which these supports simply do not touch the sides, especially sole traders—people like Chris, at The Bright Table.
Many small businesses are still facing an impossible pathway out of the crisis. I look to the travel agency businesses. Frank and Fiona Stephens own Benalla Travel, a nationally renowned travel agency that has been around for decades and is an absolute community institution in Indi. I met with Frank and Fiona a few weeks ago, and their story is a harsh reminder of the brutality of this pandemic and why we need a response that does not leave people behind. As a travel agency, Frank and Fiona were hit harder than most. They are in a business that is impossible to fully hibernate. With national and state borders closed, their revenue has gone to zero. It will remain at zero until our borders reopen, which, on some estimates, could be as much as nine to 12 months away. But on top of this, Frank and Fiona have spent the last few months refunding trips booked in the year before the pandemic. This means they've lost not only this year's income but last year's as well. Frank and Fiona did the right thing. They kept on all the staff they could, and they've refunded customers that they didn't need to. They did this because of their commitment to the people they look after in the community. Frank told me, 'We're just keeping our heads above water, but we have real fears and concerns post 31 March, when JobKeeper ends, unless we receive additional and ongoing support.'
In our rush to get out of this pandemic, we simply cannot leave behind people like Frank and Fiona. These are the small family owned businesses right across the country that have spent years doing the right thing. They've been investing in our community. They're the businesses that have sponsored community events, that have given a leg-up to so many in their towns. It's their hour of need right now, and we need to give them a leg-up too. We must not abandon the Franks and Fionas of our business world.
In my survey I heard from too many people who missed out on JobKeeper because it had critical design flaws and because the government repeatedly and inexplicably moved to exclude some sectors. One person told me: 'I'm employed at La Trobe University in Wodonga, and I'm disappointed to say I've not been able to access the JobKeeper scheme. My salary has been cut by 10 per cent for up to two years and I'm not able to access any other support or supplement payments. I'm a single person with a mortgage at the serviceability of my pre-COVID salary.' It's truly alarming that, at a time when we need regional jobs and when we need to upskill our young people for the jobs of tomorrow, we deny regional universities the same supports we make available to other working Australians. It beggars belief to me. For those who find themselves out of work, 70 per cent of people in my electorate believe the JobSeeker rate should not drop below the current $815 per fortnight.
To be short, there is genuine concern among some people in Indi that we don't create a system that is a disincentive to work. But I don't believe it's beyond us as a nation to design a system that both encourages people to work and provides a safety net worthy of the fundamental decency of Australian people. Consider some of these stories from Indi. One woman told me: 'I lost two jobs during COVID and my husband has not been able to find work either. Without the JobSeeker support, we would not have been able to pay our bills, especially our winter heating. We would not have been able to buy substantial food or meet our mortgage repayments. We also would not be able to afford the allied health that our child so desperately needs.'
The government cannot condemn millions of Australians to poverty when the JobSeeker rate is set to be cut again at the end of the year. I implore the government not to cut it. I spoke yesterday in parliament about the need for a serious overhaul of the aged-care system. A whopping 83 per cent of people in Indi think the government must do more on this issue. I've spoken many times in this place about the disastrous impact of the government's emergency COVID-19 childcare policy on the childcare providers in Indi. The government's COVID response halved the income of many childcare providers, most of them council-run, at a time when we needed to remove any impediments to people. We needed to make sure that this budget supported our childcare sector, and it simply did not do that in Indi. Quite literally, though, more broadly in this budget, there is nothing for child care.
On mental health, people are telling me loud and clear that, whatever the government is doing now, it's not working. Just 20 per cent of people in Indi think the government is doing enough on mental health. Too often, it is simply impossible, logistically and financially, to access proper mental health care in regional areas. Even with Medicare funded places on a mental health plan, the gap fees are often prohibitive. One person from Kinglake told me that, after being isolated at home for six months, they booked to see a psychologist, only to discover that the gap payment was over $200 per session. They couldn't afford it, so they just didn't go. I've been a champion of the additional Medicare funded places for psychological support, but I draw the attention of the House to this issue: these gap payments are astronomical and are absolutely keeping people away from services. One mother told me, 'To help my anxious child, so far we've needed five years of going to a psychiatrist, at $450 a visit. So the 10 to 12 Medicare funded visits will help a little, but families such as mine will still be out of pocket.' In too many cases, the services simply do not exist because we failed as a country to invest properly in the mental health workforce and, most especially, in the mental health workforce of rural, remote and regional Australia.
One person from Benalla wrote to me saying, 'I've been so appalled by the lack of correct support here. The lack of GPs with experience in mental health is heartbreaking. We need a team of specialists in Benalla. Domestic violence, drug use, PTSD, depression and anxiety are huge problems in Benalla. The proper support and care is not there at all. People do need urgent care here and it simply does not exist. It's heartbreaking and no-one seems to be listening. This is urgent. People are taking their own lives. So many ways to tackle these problems and yet no-one is truly acting on them. Please help. Helen.' Similarly, a psychologist based in Albury-Wodonga told me: 'We desperately need additional mental health nurses, psychologists and psychiatrists in the Albury-Wodonga region. There's extra funding coming up for services in mental health in Albury-Wodonga, but there aren't the mental health nurses just sitting at home waiting for these positions. Staff will be taken out of already understaffed public and private facilities. As a psychologist, I'm sending suicidal clients home rather than have them being triaged at the emergency departments. And, if you're young person in the Albury-Wodonga region and you need admission to a subacute mental health unit, you need to drive to Box Hill, 321 kilometres away, or to Orange, 446 kilometres away. It's not good enough and it needs to change.'
We've heard a lot this year that COVID-19 could spark a renaissance for the regions as some people look more at remote working and as we look to rebuild our manufacturing capabilities, but this budget offers no vision for the future of the regions. Adding $10 billion to infrastructure spending nationally across 10 years is good, but that equates to less than $7 million per electorate per year. In Indi, we have 47 shovel-ready projects the government could fund today worth millions of dollars, and these new infrastructure commitments don't even touch the sides. The budget has an additional $200 million for the Building Better Regions fund, which is great, but that's spread over five years and is just $270,000 per electorate per year. Overall, the budget papers show that just $58 million of the $553 million set aside specifically for regional Australia, about 10 per cent, will be spent this year. That's not going to create jobs here and now.
Recently, the Deputy Prime Minister has championed a new $100 million Regional Recovery Partnerships program to support regions hit by bushfires, COVID-19 and drought, yet, inexplicably, Indi was excluded from this fund. We’ve been at the coalface of each of these three crises—drought, bushfires and months of a highly destructive COVID-19 related border closure—and yet we miss out on the funding.
In this budget, regional Australia needed a serious transformational investment to get us out of the economic rut we are now in and to set up the economy for the next decade, but we didn't get it. The government likes to talk big about the regions but often appears to be more bark than bite. We could be investing in and fixing the glaring problems in our caring sectors—child care, aged care, disability care, mental health care. And we could and should be building the infrastructure that will allow our economies to grow—better rail, better internet, social housing, renewable energy. I fear that this budget has missed too many of these excellent and incredible opportunities that are in front of us. But we have another budget in seven months' time, and in that time I am committed to continue to work with my local community to put forward a positive agenda for Indi so that our region has what it needs, not just to be the region it was before but to be a better region to truly thrive into the future.
I rise today to speak on behalf of my community about the Morrison government's shared mediocrity. This budget that was delivered a little while ago has laid bare what many of us known for some time about this seven-year-old Liberal government: it has no vision for this nation. Despite all of the grandstanding, the bluster and the spin, and despite the big spend on advertising campaigns, this budget has been revealed as an uninspiring document of mere modest ambition. There was a chance for the government to seek to redefine Australia's future at a time when we need it most, during the worst recession in almost a century. Indeed, we're left to dwell on a massive missed opportunity.
Never before in this country has so much money been spent with so little to show for it. The spending is mind-boggling and eye-watering. The same Liberals who described Labor's relatively restrained spending during the GFC as a debt and deficit disaster have now racked up a record $1 trillion in debt and the biggest budget deficit since World War II. Let's think about that: $1 trillion is $1,000 billion or a million million dollars. These are the same Liberals who shamelessly printed 'Back in black' coffee mugs and showed them off after last year's budget only because it forecast an operating surplus, a surplus that was never delivered and never will be by this government. These are the same Liberals who frequently assert that they are superior economic managers but who, even before the pandemic hit, had presided over seven years of stagnant wages and declining living standards in this country. These are the same Liberals who paid $30 million for a block of land valued at $3 million. Yet, the biggest sin of this government on display here is its sheer hypocrisy.
The worst feature of this budget is that it leaves too many Australians behind. Those Australians who've struggled the most and sacrificed the most through this economic crisis have been snubbed. It's unfair, and it's wrong. The budget has no genuine plan for jobs. There is nothing for women, nothing for child care, nothing for aged care, nothing for social housing, nothing for older workers trying to enter the workforce, nothing for education. There is no plan to address the structural and societal issues that are holding this nation back. The government have failed on all of this while cutting JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments earlier than they should have. In this budget we needed a bold vision, a soaring ambition. Instead, we got Liberal short-termism and repeated mediocrity.
There is nothing in this budget for the people of Brand, the people I represent across the cities of Rockingham and Kwinana, but that doesn't surprise me—the Liberal Party has not made a single commitment to the people of Rockingham for the last two federal election campaigns. Families living in Rockingham and Kwinana should be feeling safer and more secure after this budget, but they are not. This budget falls well short of what is needed to create jobs and boost our local economy. It's not a wealthy part of Australia where I'm from and where I live. Many of my constituents are hard workers and do their best to support their families but they don't have much cash left over after they have paid for housing, child care food and other essentials. Many of these families are struggling with the higher cost of living.
The cost of child care for families in Rockingham and Kwinana is continuing to rise much faster than the national average and is well above the rate of inflation. According to the latest data from the federal Department of Education, Skills and Employment, child-care fees in Rockingham rose by 5.8 per cent during the 12 months to March this year, while fees in Kwinana were up 5.4 per cent. Nationally, child-care fees have soared by about 36 per cent since the election of the Liberal government in 2013. Child-care fees in this country are among the highest in the world. The government's child-care subsidy support, which is indexed to the CPI, is failing to keep up with the out-of-control fee increases.
Only Labor can fix this broken child-care system. Anthony Albanese has committed to introducing the 'Working Family Childcare Boost' to cut child-care fees and put more money in the pockets of working families. Under this plan, 97 per cent of all families in the system will save between $600 and $2,900 a year. No family will be worse off. This will allow more women to work full-time or increase their hours. It is an important structural reform that will increase Australia's productivity by ensuring more women can return to the workforce, while also ensuring that more children enjoy early childhood education. This is a double boost to the productivity of this nation. The need for this reform is way overdue.
So there is nothing in this budget to help the people of Rockingham and Kwinana with child care. But there is also another great shame in this budget: it contains no initiatives for infrastructure projects in Brand, including the long-delayed Karnup train station. Karnup has been a priority for more than 10 years but it is still on the drawing board. It has been on the drawing board for a long time because the Liberals have refused to contribute one cent of federal funding to it. Karnup will service the residents of Baldivis, Secret Harbour, Golden Bay and Singleton and would take pressure off parking at Warnbro train station, which has been at capacity for years. But Lakelands is in the federal seat of Canning, and that is why it was given the green light. The Morrison government decided to bankroll Lakelands as a favour to the member for Canning, while other projects have been denied—just another example of the blatant pork-barrelling we see so often from the Liberals. They deserve a gold medal for it. We all remember sports rorts. We know they are experts. Other projects that missed out in Brand include an upgrade to the Thomas Road freight link and the Baldivis Sporting Complex. Both projects would create jobs in a region where the unemployment rate is above the national average. I've continuously and repeatedly asked the government to help fund these projects, and I will continue to advocate for the people of Brand, even if this Liberal government has no plan for them.
The government's failure to provide any support for the people of Brand or even promise to support the people of Brand over the last two elections just proves that, when the Liberals come into government, they don't govern for all the country; they just govern for their own, and they are all too happy to leave people like those in Rockingham and Kwinana, who support a Labor candidate like me, behind in their wake. It's a shame and it should stop. All Liberals in this place should really consider their position on how they should now start to support all people of this country instead of just their mates.
In the days after the budget was released, I had the pleasure of meeting two of my local constituents, Kelly and Campbell. Kelly has three kids and extensive experience in administration and accounts, and Campbell is a Navy veteran with extensive experience in logistics. Like so many others, they are keen to get back into the workforce and are jumping through every hoop in order to do so, despite the many challenges 2020 has thrown their way. But this Liberal government threw another roadblock in their way in the form of the new age-targeted hiring subsidy scheme. Kelly and Campbell's only crime is that they are both over 35 years old, but this budget ignored them. They, along with 928,000 other Australians aged over 35 on unemployment benefits, have been deliberately excluded from this scheme. How can this be fair?
I have often spoken in this place about the need to provide assistance and more opportunities to young people in my electorate and others, particularly in the face of significant university cuts and TAFE cuts by this government. So this new measure, while initially welcomed, has a number of issues of its own. To hand something to one vulnerable group while taking away from another equally as vulnerable group is a disastrous failure of economic and social policy. Only last week ABS data confirmed that young people and older Australians were among the most heavily impacted by this year's downturn, with payroll jobs worked by people aged 70 and over decreasing by 12.1 per cent and those worked by people aged 20 to 29 declining by 6.1 per cent. With a trillion dollar debt, you'd be forgiven for thinking that this government would surely provide ample support to both those older Australians and those people attempting to enter the workforce for the first time. You might think that, but you would be wrong.
This is just symptomatic of the Liberal government's inability to walk and chew gum at the same time—to do two things at once. Throwing a stack of money at one problem and hoping the others just go away is not good governance and it's not good government. Australia must do better. We must do more, and we have to start doing it now. People like Kelly and Campbell depend on it.
We've heard a lot of chat in this place and a lot of good discussion recently about the state of Victoria and its incredible efforts to crush the second wave of COVID-19. In the process, they have proven that it's better for governments and ministers to listen to medical experts than the naysayers and the cranks. As I said yesterday in the main chamber, I think the Victorian people are heroes, yet many of them have emerged from this lockdown feeling let down by the Morrison government. If you can cast your mind back to the beginning of this crisis, the Prime Minister told us we were all in this together and he promised to work cooperatively with all the states. He held out hope of being a national leader, of someone who would be above partisan politics, but how false that has proven to be. In recent weeks we've seen the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and other ministers line up to criticise the Victorian government's response to COVID-19. Yes, we admit that everyone knows mistakes have been made in Victoria, as they have around the country, but the Morrison government should not be throwing stones given its own record.
They've shamefully presided over the deaths of 683 older Australians in Victorian nursing homes. It's a federal government responsibility. You can't point and pretend it's not. They allowed the Ruby Princess to dock in Sydney Harbour, which allowed those passengers to spread COVID-19 across the entire nation. They are even incapable of managing the COVIDSafe app, which we discovered this week has only been used to trace 17 cases that were not otherwise identified by contact tracing. So this government paid $70 million for an app that traced 17 cases. That's $4.1 million per case. Think about that and think about how Australia has had more than 27,000 recorded cases of COVID-19, presumably involving hundreds of thousands of contacts, and yet this government's app has only traced down 17 of those, at $4.1 million each I might add. As the Deputy Prime Minister might say, what a bargain! That's the government's record, and perhaps that's why they are so keen to frequently shift blame to the states.
As a Western Australian, I've seen how the government is prepared to play politics with the pandemic. Back in June, the government sided with Clive Palmer, a dodgy Queensland billionaire who tells lies, in the legal challenge against WA's border restrictions and against the advice of the state's Chief Medical Officer. As we know, the Prime Minister and his Attorney-General later sniffed the political wind and claimed that they had withdrawn from the case but only after proceedings had finished. The damage had already been done. The Commonwealth's evidence remains on the record ready for the High Court to hear Mr Palmer's border challenge next week. Let's wait and see what comes up on Monday.
In recent weeks, senior ministers have again ramped up their attacks on the McGowan government over its border policy. They just can't help themselves and they won't help themselves. It's clear yet again that they would rather smear a state Labor government than listen to the official health advice. But the people of Western Australia know the truth. This Liberal government was fully prepared to put their health at risk to push forward their own ideologies, and Western Australians will never forget that.
I want to finish today with one more glaring example of the scandal and mismanagement that has become a distinguishing feature of this government. Under the Liberals, Australia Post, an institution Australians know and love, has lost its way. In Brand, it has slashed postal services to 18 suburbs, and many of my constituents are angry that the government gave the green light to these cuts. The impact of the cuts on affected suburbs will be to reduce mail delivery from daily to two or three days a week, increase interstate letter delivery time frames to a minimum of seven full days, up from a minimum of three business days, and potentially also delay the delivery of small to medium-sized parcels, as these products were carried by the postal workers whose delivery frequency is now cut in half. This news was galling enough, but Australians were outraged to be told of these cuts to the mail service at the same time as senior Australia Post executives were trying to hand themselves millions of dollars in bonuses. Then last week we found out that Australia Post had spent nearly $20,000 on luxury watches for four of its executives. I think they're called Cartier watches. It is right the CEO has stood aside while an investigation is carried out, but this latest scandal is a symptom of deeper problems at Australia Post. This government has stacked the board with former Liberal politicians, party hacks and mates of the Prime Minister, and it has allowed and in fact encouraged this once-respected institution to run down our postal service. It's crucial that the focus of Australia Post returns squarely to what matters: community services, consumers, its workforce and enabling the broader digital economy. Australia Post belongs to the Australian people and not to the Liberal Party of Australia. People won't stand for this Liberal Party and this Liberal government wrecking the great Australian institution that is Australia Post. People are more fond of those red letterboxes than you might imagine, and they will not forget it when you take them away. We hear about it again and again. Save Australia Post.
During my campaign for the seat of Paterson in 2016, the Turnbull government talked a big game. They tried to show up and tell the newly redistributed areas of Neath, Weston, Abermain, Kurri Kurri, Beresfield, Thornton and Tarro that they mattered and that the coalition would deliver for our region. They suggested that a coalition government would make good on election commitments, building local infrastructure, delivering jobs and growth. That was their slogan. Fortunately the people of the electorate of Paterson, which spans from Neath to Nelson Bay, and which I am proud to represent, know that sometimes salt can look a little bit like sugar. That's why they backed me instead. They backed me to be their local voice in parliament, and I am still to this day completely humbled and proud to do that job for them.
When elected, I made a promise to my community that I would always be a strong local voice for them, that I would fight not just for the communities of my electorate of Paterson but for my home, the Hunter region. Every day, I try to do that here in parliament. My electorate knew that they needed a local to hold the coalition to account. Over the years, like me, they've watched the Turnbull-Morrison government to see if they would make good on their promises. Alas, they have not. As a newly minted MP, I remained optimistic that the Liberals might deliver on some of the vital issues and the infrastructure that my community desperately needed. I even took a bipartisan approach and approached ministers and worked with them to ensure that they understood the needs and the priorities of my electorate. But, sadly, despite my best efforts, the needs of our community seem to be falling on deaf ears.
At every election, the coalition gets out and promises to deliver on local and national issues affecting my community. They said they wouldn't cut the ABC or freeze Medicare rebates, but they did. They claimed they'd create jobs and turn the economy around, but they haven't. Once re-elected, be it Turnbull or Morrison, they fail to deliver anything but a sense of disappointment in my community. We know they've failed to deliver regional jobs. This budget has clearly demonstrated they don't back local projects and they're not the financial masterminds they make out to be. Even when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable members of our community, they turn their backs. Just remember that aged care is a Commonwealth responsibility. That means it is the responsibility of Scott Morrison and this federal coalition government, right now, here today. There is no buck-passing to the states on aged care, but that's what they try and do.
The coalition government betrayed the trust of my region in 2016 and betrayed it again after the 2019 election. They fought hammer and tongs against a reasonable outcome for the residents of Williamtown. They butchered our NBN, and they cut Medicare rebates. Then they changed the modelling to push more GPs out of the regions and into the cities, when we so desperately need them. Do you know that you can't recruit a GP at the moment for Nelson Bay, an area that is going to receive hundreds and thousands of tourists over the coming months? It is just diabolical. This government have underfunded My Aged Care, creating a historic backlog. They've restricted Commonwealth supported places, resulting in fewer people being able to live in their own homes. So much for that the great slogan they had, 'Ageing well at home'! The other component of this is: are they happy to let people's homes fall down around them, while they encourage and assist them to live in those homes, when people can't get decent packages to maintain their homes? It is wrong.
Over the seven years that this government have had control of the treasury purse strings, they've made a terrible mess of the NDIS, they've cut funding to the Auditor-General, the one body that can try and keep track of where the money is going and what they're doing with it, and they've blown out the budget. The government have let power prices rise. National debt has hit staggering new heights. They've delivered us sports rorts and shonky water deals.
In my second term in this place, sadly the Morrison government hasn't made good on the investments for my community or for regional Australia. Last year, during the election, I was proud to commit to 50 new full-time jobs for Centrelink across my electorate. They would have improved service delivery and created many local jobs. They would have helped with the queues we saw as a result of the pandemic and the government being so tardy with its signalling to the Australian people that they were going to get the support that they needed in their darkest hour. It wasn't until we dragged them to Centrelink and said, 'These people are going to need support,' that the government finally came good with its various 'Seeker' and 'Keeper' packages. I also committed $23.6 million in additional funding for all schools across my electorate. Under this government, schools are being left behind, with maintenance backlogs absolutely blowing out. At a time when our children have missed going to school, we should be putting more money into the schools so that we can catch the kids up on what they've missed during COVID and the lockdowns.
A personal project that I've been really proud to advocate for—it's a big one, and I know we need it desperately—is the M1 Pacific Motorway extension to Raymond Terrace. If ever there was a project that needed to be done, it is this one. This government have promised to fund the M1, but they haven't been able to work with their state colleagues in New South Wales to make the project a priority or a reality. They've been dithering around, planning it. They just need to get in and get it done. We've seen delays to the planning. As recently as today, the latest news on the RMS website features an outdated article about the revised concept design from June 2017! We're now almost in November 2020. What is going on? This project is one of the most significant infrastructure projects in the Hunter region, and it just needs to be built. The jobs it would create and the boost it would create for our region are not lost on anyone, yet this government can't work with their own state colleagues to get it done. It's not good enough that the people in my electorate might not see this vital project delivered for, potentially, another 10 years. It might be five years before they even get a shovel in the ground. It is truly outrageous. The Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, needs to pick up the phone to his state colleague and tell them to get on with the job. I just don't understand why he hasn't. He says he's for regions, but I'm not seeing evidence of that.
We know that the M1 extension will deliver jobs, boost industry and provide extensive economic investment for our local Hunter economy. This is the last choke point between Sydney and Brisbane for freight. Many local commuters trying to get to work know the pain and frustration of being stuck at Tarro. Many holiday makers know the frustration of trying to get over the Hexham Bridge. This is such a ridiculous situation that hasn't been fixed. This section of the Pacific Highway is one of the most heavily used road corridors for freight in New South Wales. It's critical to the transport of freight between Sydney and Brisbane, as I've said, and also between the west of our state and the port of Newcastle via the New England Highway.
The road between Black Hill and Raymond Terrace is a vital commuter corridor. An average of 22,000 vehicles utilise it during the morning and afternoon peaks. According to Infrastructure Australia data, peak traffic is expected to increase by 36 per cent in the next 10 years. Much of this road is 60 kilometres an hour, but many commuters sit on 23 kilometres an hour during peak periods, as the road becomes congested. And that is if somebody doesn't have a nose-to-tail accident or there isn't a concertina nose-to-tail accident involving half a dozen vehicles. Then your morning or afternoon is completely shot. You drive up the M1 from Sydney and when you hit a set of traffic lights you turn right, go over an overpass and down around the bend. It's worse than a game of snakes and ladders. Honestly, it should be fixed.
At Christmas 2019 constituents took to my Facebook page. In some cases they reported that they had been delayed for hours. Imagine that you've packed the car, got the kids in finally, grabbed the family pet, got the caravan or trailer hooked up and then there is a traffic nightmare and for over an hour you move only 19.7 kilometres. It's simply laughable. In some cases is actually traumatic for people, particularly when the weather peaks at between 45 and 48 degrees and you are sitting in the car with the kids, the dog and an elderly parent, friend or relative. You think, 'How long are we going to be here for?' Whilst we can make light of it, it is actually a serious concern.
I want the parents and families of my electorate and the holiday makers from Sydney to know that I want a clear run on the M1. They should tell their local member that too. Write to them or give them a ring and say: 'We want a clear run on the M1. Get Hexham fixed.' That's what we all need to be doing. Labor understands your pain.
Labor was happy to welcome the government's commitment to fund the M1 extension. We treated it with bipartisan love. We said: 'They've put the money forward. So will we. We want to get this done.' It always should be bipartisan when it's a piece of vital infrastructure like this. Again the government wants to play politics with bricks and mortar, roads, pools and dams. Cut the politics. Build the road. Let's just get this done. Labor promised $1.6 billion to deliver the M1 extension, and this government just talks about it. The most recent budget was yet another let-down for my electorate and the Hunter region more generally.
The Morrison government failed to deliver the funding necessary to upgrade the Newcastle Airport runway. I have to say that this is a bitter disappointment. The code E civilian runway upgrade will be a game changer for our region. It's expected to generate more than 4,000 jobs. This government talks a big game on this, but it has ignored this critical project. I made representations to the minister, outlining the value of the project.
This is the bit where anyone hearing this will shake their head in disbelief. The runway is actually owned by the Defence Force, so by the taxpayers of Australia. Every 15 years the runway at Newcastle Airport needs to be upgraded and maintained. That's a good thing. We want it to be safe and robust. We have that opportunity next year. They're going to dig up a portion of the runway and fix it. Whilst they're digging it up, they just need to put a bit of extra concrete in—admittedly, it has to be structurally engineered and is not just a bit of extra concrete. It's going to cost $60 million to get it done well, but in the scheme of things it's not a lot of money. Whilst they're digging it up let's make it stronger so that wider-bodied aircraft can land more routinely at Newcastle Airport. It will create 4,000 jobs, it will allow businesses to expand, and it will allow freight to move between Newcastle and South-East Asia.
This is the lowest-hanging fruit of them all, yet this government is too lazy to pick it. I implore the Deputy Prime Minister to get on with this project. The upgrade will directly connect the Hunter and northern New South Wales to the rest of the world. I note that the member for Lyne is in the chair at the moment and I thank him for his support on this project. He knows the value of this project, too. We have been trying to get this through the government's head. They just need to do it. I say to the member for Lyne, we need to crack on with this and make sure that we don't miss the deadline of March next year. If we miss this deadline, if they dig up this runway and do not make it stronger, it will be criminal and it will be on this government's head. It needs to be done. The benefits of the project aren't limited to local geography. It will be of benefit to multiple industries across our region.
The Hunter Region is one of the fastest-growing in the country, with a collective population of more than 1 million people. We have a globally recognised university that currently has over 40,000 students. Our port is the largest coal port in the world and one of the largest export ports in the Southern Hemisphere. Our region boasts a range of vibrant industries: defence, agriculture, fisheries, trade, manufacturing and many more. Because of all of these factors, is it any wonder that the Hunter is so well placed to embrace the next phase of global connectivity? The Newcastle runway is owned and operated by the federal government. We need to get in and get this project done, and this government needs to give the Hunter Region a proper shot at true prosperity.
I rise to speak on the appropriation bills 2020-21 flowing from the Morrison government's recent budget. Margaret Atwood envisaged a scary dystopian world in her novel The handmaid's tale. Her book and subsequent television series presents the commanders of Gilead ruling a society, a North American country, transformed into a male version of traditional values after an ecological and political crisis. The rule of law is subverted by men for men. Thereafter, a select group of commanders make all society's laws and decisions. Women's role is simple: to obey men. In Atwood's fictional world, just like in reality, it is intriguing to explore and understand what motivates those in power. What vision of society are the leaders trying to achieve? Who are they making decisions for and why are they so doing?
Now that Prime Minister Morrison is well into his third year in The Lodge, Australians are justified in asking: what does he truly believe in? What are his core values? What gut instinct does he turn to in a crisis? It's not easy to sift through the marketing spin emanating from the man who holds the highest office in our land. After all, the only jobs Mr Morrison has held are in marketing, advertising and politics.
However, we can more readily examine what the current member for Cook has done and said in the past. Just how morally flexible is the Prime Minister? At a base level, any bloke who grew up in Bronte supporting the Roosters and rugby union but then switches to Cronulla Sutherland because it is politically expedient to do so—switches the team he supports!—anyone that does that I could say is a fake; but maybe I will just give the Prime Minister the benefit of a doubt and say that he is a slippery character.
Before entering the adult advertising world, the Prime Minister's first paid job was as a child actor doing television commercials. Perhaps he has never stopped playing a part. With all respect to the actors out there—they're a sector that's doing it tough at the moment—we know that actors love to hog the limelight and say their lines, but afterward they don't hang around to change lives. We, the audience, must do this ourselves after the curtains have closed.
While it is okay for an actor to merely look for applause, political leadership requires so much more than saying your lines and then leaving the stage. Analysing the actions rather than the scripts of Prime Minister Morrison, we reveal a clear pattern. Close observers of the Member for Cook would not have been surprised by his recent budget's neglect of women. Quite a sinister thread runs through his decisions as social services minister, then Treasurer, and now in The Lodge. His ordinary treatment of women is a linking theme. There is no doubt that policies implemented under the Abbott and Turnbull governments worsened the lived experience for women. These policies were mostly designed by then Social Services Minister Morrison. In 2013 Australia ranked 23rd in the World Economic Forum's Global gender gap report, when measuring the gap between men and women in health, education, work and politics. Last year we slipped back to 44th out of 153 countries. Let's call that strike 1.
Encouraging women into the workforce is good for the economy and is good for women. Being financially independent can mean the difference between being trapped in an abusive relationship and having the financial means to leave. So why does child care in Australia cost between 30 and 40 per cent of the average household income when the average in the OECD is just 11 per cent? Why are Australian women disadvantaged three or four times over? Social Services Minister Morrison was responsible for introducing the current childcare subsidy scheme, making our childcare system one of the most expensive in the world—strike 2. In passing, can I thank the opposition leader for committing the party that he leads to cutting childcare fees and putting more money into the pockets of working families.
I take you back to the Fair Work Commission decision on penalty rates made in 2017. Not only was then Treasurer Morrison missing in action when it came to resisting the Fair Work Commission's penalty rates decision; he voted eight times to support the cuts in penalty rates. Women make up the majority of workers in retail and accommodation, where penalty rates matter most. Cutting penalty rates has made it harder for many women to pay the rent, to put food on the table and to feed their children, and it has exacerbated the gender pay gap—strike 3.
In his last budget as Treasurer, in 2018, Treasurer Morrison didn't provide one extra cent for aged care. At that time there were more than 100,000 Australians waiting for home-care packages—and there still are, except it's worse—many of them with dementia and other high care needs. We know that many more women than men need home-care packages. In 2017, 67 per cent of those receiving home-care packages were, you guessed it, women—strike 4. Treasurer Morrison also slashed thousands of jobs from the human services department, and, you guessed it again, 70 per cent of the human services department workforce are women—strike 5.
Women are much more likely than men to delay seeing their doctor because of financial costs. Treasurer Morrison kept in place the freeze on the indexation of Medicare rebates. It was the GP tax, which forced up the out-of-pocket costs of seeing a doctor, disproportionately impacting the health of women—strike 6.
Now, let's move to Prime Minister Morrison. We know that he has a problem with women. We know that because the Liberals' own report says so, as reported in today's copy of The Australian. Journalist Rosie Lewis says that the Liberals' own internal report finds the Liberal Party will fail to reach their own target of equal representation in parliament by 2025. They're nowhere near that at the moment; women make up barely a quarter of their MPs. When you see the men who are here in parliament because they have more merit than credible Liberal women—well, to paraphrase Amy Remeikis, my eyes almost roll so far back into my head that I can see my own brain. These facts help explain why the Morrison government policies are heavily weighted against the interests of Australian women, who make up more than half of our population.
Let's look at some of the facts. The Morrison cabinet is dominated by men. Worse still, the Morrison government's very important Expenditure Review Committee—the one that oversees all government spending—was made up entirely of men until June this year. Perhaps listeners are starting to see the source of the problem. Australian women need solutions to the systemic problems that have resulted in women over the age of 55 being the fastest-growing homeless group. Forty per cent of older, single, retired women are living in poverty. Instead of a policy that will improve outcomes for women, we are seeing policy half-measures—and I don't mean that glorious one of women being allowed to drive on roads; I mean the one allowing women to raid their superannuation to escape family violence. We know the importance of women being able to safely flee from family violence, but we also know that women already retire with significantly less superannuation than men. This government policy will mean many have no retirement savings, increasing their chances of poverty or homelessness in later years.
And, staying in the general area of family law, instead of implementing many of the multitude of recommendations from recent reports and inquiries, what did the Prime Minister do? The Prime Minister launched his own parliamentary inquiry into the family law system—I'm on that inquiry—and he made the point of installing Senator Pauline Hanson as the deputy chair. Rather than acting on the already completed reports from coalition dominated committees, such as the one chaired by Senator Henderson, which could be protecting women right now, the Prime Minister has launched yet another inquiry and Senator Hanson is paid to sit on it. Senator Hanson has repeatedly said women lie about family violence. Sadly, some witnesses at a family law inquiry public hearing were subject to online abuse through Senator Hanson's social media channels when she live streamed the evidence. This whole inquiry is strike 7.
The recent university funding reforms are supposedly designed to increase enrolments in STEM subjects. I say, up-front, it's a noble aim. But those reforms will mean students wanting to study humanities subjects, predominantly female students, will be paying more than double for their degrees. The reform, which experts say will not achieve its stated purpose, will make it harder and more expensive for students to go to university and will, again, disproportionately affect female students. Strike 8.
The Prime Minister's stimulus response to COVID, to the pandemic, has shown his bias towards helping male dominated sectors rather than any feminised parts of the workforce. Women overwhelmingly are employed as permanent part-time or casual employees in the accommodation and hospitality sectors—the sectors that were first to be impacted in the COVID-19 restrictions. There has been a recent uptick, but, at the height of the crisis, 471,000 women lost their employment—a much higher proportion than men. And yet the JobKeeper package was deliberately designed to exclude casual workers, forcing many women to join the long queues at Centrelink offices. That's strike 9.
Women with children welcomed the Early Childhood Education and Care Relief Package when it was implemented way back in April, which essentially provided free child care to families. That was a good thing. However, under this Morrison government free child care was short lived, and abruptly ended in early July. Just a week later, childcare workers were thrown off the JobKeeper scheme—the first sector to be thrown off the scheme, and, surprisingly, as sector comprising 97 per cent women. Strike 10 to the Prime Minister.
At the same time that free child care ended and childcare workers were thrown off JobKeeper, what did the Morrison government do? Prime Minister Morrison announced a new scheme, HomeBuilder, to assist the residential construction market, where men make up 88 per cent of the workers. The university sector is another area with a disproportionately female workforce that is also—surprise, surprise!—locked out of JobKeeper. Universities have already seen job losses in the thousands, but I expect the final figure to be more like 30,000 across the sector. The majority of these people who will lose their jobs will be women. Strike 11.
Many female workers who have found themselves locked out of JobKeeper have availed themselves of the Morrison government's COVID-19 early release of superannuation scheme, which is effectively private stimulus during a recession. I understand why people would: without government support, there is no other way for their families to eat or for them to pay the rent. This private stimulus has kept businesses ticking over and food on the table for some; however, the reality is that the more than $34.4 billion—that's as at today—that has been taken out of superannuation funds will miss out on compound interest, and that will never be made up. And that will mean many more women are going to be retiring into poverty, and that is strike 12. Twelve strikes are enough. I could go on, but time restricts me.
Women make up more than half of the Australian population, but they earn 14 per cent less than men. They retire with 47 per cent less superannuation than men get to retire on. And women are being killed at the rate of at least one woman a week by their current or former partners. Prime Minister Morrison has not given any indication that he has a plan to fix any of these issues. He rarely even pays lip-service to these complicated problems. Nevertheless, the choices that Prime Minister Morrison has made, the sectors he has chosen to directly assist, those decisions reveal the member for Cook's entrenched bias. Not only has Prime Minister Morrison not addressed any of the issues that make women's lives harder, he has never explained why he has ignored them. When we ask questions about this in parliament, he just denies it. For instance, why do childcare workers, where 97 per cent are female, lose JobKeeper while the construction sector, which was actually doing okay, where 88 per cent are male, receive a $680 million boost through HomeBuilder? Was that a coincidence, is it a bias, is it deliberate or is it part of an agenda? 'Because I said so' is the male approach to governing in Margaret Atwood's fictional Gilead. The all-male commanders are always right. In 2020, how close are we to a version of the fictional Gilead becoming a reality for Australian women? Surely not in a modern, secular, diverse nation!
The Prime Minister can continue to act out the role of the footy-loving, knockabout bloke. We know that he is a skilled actor. In fact, he has the curriculum vitae to prove that he's a great actor, Like all good actors, he knows how to fake things. However, a Prime Minister motivated primarily and fundamentally by an outdated notion of patriarchal power is unable to govern for the good of all Australians, especially Australian women. As Rosie Lewis says in The Australian today, 'The Liberal Party has a problem with women. The Gileadification of our politics can't be ignored and should be called out. It is not fake; it is gradual but it is factual, but it is far from being a fait accompli. Such a direction, such a failing, would not be in the best interests of modern Australia.' I finish with what Margaret Atwood said when she was talking about another dystopian work of fiction, George Orwell's 1994. She said:
'1984' is not a wonder tale. Not only could it happen, but it has happened, but under different names.
In the spirit of the late, great Susan Ryan and so many other Australian women, I say: let's work together to prevent the Prime Minister 's Gileadification of Australian politics. Let's keep Gilead as a work of fiction, not as a political project.
I'm very pleased to make a contribution about Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2020-2021, and cognate bill, particularly around the health appropriations. I would like to comment on some matters in the health budget. The first thing I want to talk about is something very topical in the House. We hear a lot from the government about it, and that is the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS. We hear a lot, but what we hear is not generally factual from the government. It is spin and hyperbole and it's wrong. In relation to the PBS in particular, we heard some things on budget night. The government told us that the budget creates a landmark PBS new medicines funding guarantee. What the health minister said was:
The Budget creates a landmark PBS New Medicines Funding Guarantee. This Guarantee provides new funding for the listing of new medicines
That's what he said. When it comes to a minister saying the budget provides new funding, it helps if it's true, but in Senate estimates this week we heard evidence from the Department of Health that, in fact, there is no funding in the budget for the new medicines guarantee. There is no budgetary allocation at all. There is no fiscal measure with an allocation of money to the so-called 'new medicines guarantee'. The new medicines guarantee is not worth the paper it's not written on. This is an agreement with Medicines Australia for the government to list medicines on the PBS without offset. It is not a formal agreement and it is not in the budget.
But I will tell you what is in the budget. As part of the so-called 'new medicines guarantee', there are cuts to the PBS of $250 million a year. So the minister can find the opportunity to write the cuts in the budget but not the new funding in the budget. This goes to the government's track record on the PBS, and it is a lot different to what the minister for health, government ministers and backbenchers would have us believe. Every time the government lists a new medicine, they say, 'It's only because of our strong economic management that we can afford this medicine and expand the PBS.' Well, if that were the case, you would expect the PBS to be growing. The budget would be growing if they needed a strong economic measure to pay for the new listings. It would be growing, but, in fact, in 2018-19—which are the latest figures we have available because there is no Department of Health annual report yet for this year, which is another matter—the government spent less on the PBS than it did three years earlier, in 2015-16. Interestingly, in real terms, this government is spending less on the PBS than the Labor government did in 2012-13. We know that's the case, because this government's rhetoric has not lived up to the reality of the PBS, because not only are they spending less but they are spending less in part because they are very tardy when it comes to PBS listings.
In fact, the government tells us they list everything recommended by the PBAC. The Prime Minister said that in a tweet this week. He said, 'When the experts recommended, we list it.' But he doesn't; it's just not true. We know the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee has recommended 110 new medicines or expanded listings since July 2019. If the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health were to be taken at their word, if 110 have been recommended that means that 110 should have been listed. In fact, the number that has been listed is 45—45 out of 110. So we know that this government's track record when it comes to listing is nowhere near 110. If we go back further over the life of this government, we find another 25 recommendations that have not been listed in relation to the PBS. That means that there are 70 medicines that have been recommended by the experts to be listed while this government has been in office that remain unlisted on the PBS. That is to this government's shame and it is to this minister's shame. He talks the big talk when it comes to listings but his actions fall far short—70 unlisted medicines.
This has real implications for real people. I'll give you a few examples. I've met with people who have suffered migraine for 25 years—the debilitating condition of chronic migraine. I've also met with people who tell me that, when they have one of the recently invented drugs, Emgality or Ajovy, the migraine disappears.
I've heard the same.
And the member for Cunningham has heard the same. She has met with people in her electorate. They tell me that, in a matter of days, 20 or 25 years worth of migraine is dealt with by the drugs Emgality and Ajovy. That is a wonderful achievement. The trouble is, they are very expensive. In the normal course of events, most people can't afford them. So they know that there's a drug there, that there's this miracle that is sitting there on the shelf, which they can't reach because they can't afford it. If it was on the PBS, as the PBAC has recommended it should be, they would be able to reach that, and 20 or 25 years worth of chronic migraine would go away. This government, just as a matter of fact, hasn't listed Emgality and Ajovy. Emgality was recommended 15 months ago. That's 15 months of agony for some people that was avoidable on this government's watch. And there are other examples as well.
I have met with some people, particularly some delightful young people, who suffer chronic eczema. Some people in the community think of eczema as a rash—something that a bit of cream can make go away. It is not; for many people it is much worse than that. It's a chronic condition which affects their schooling and their mental health, and is no trivial matter. Like with migraine, I've met with people who take the drug Dupixent and find that what was a chronic, unmanageable eczema condition is dealt with. But, again, it's expensive. Again, the government have a recommendation sitting on their desk from the PBAC to list it and they haven't.
I always give the minister some slack. I don't expect him to list a drug days or weeks after it is recommended by the PBAC. I recognise that there are issues to be worked through and discussions to be had with the drug companies. I give the minister six months—I think that's not unreasonable—to list a drug before I start criticising him about it and before I start making a point about it. I think six months is a reasonable amount of time. Dupixent was recommended seven months ago. That's seven months of agony for many Australians, particularly young Australians, with eczema that could have been avoided.
I did say that I give the minister time, and I do, but there is one drug that I am going to raise which is quite recent. I fully recognise that it was only recommended three months ago but I am going to raise it because the company has said that the discussions with the Department of Health have broken down and they are walking away. That is in relation to the drug Faslodex. This is particularly serious because Faslodex extends the life of women suffering breast cancer. This is no trivial matter. The fact is that many women who have breast cancer had a hope created that they might get this drug, Faslodex—those precious months they might have had with Faslodex might extend their life—and it's been taken away. I appeal to the government: don't just play the politics of blaming the drug company; get it sorted; get it fixed. There's a recommendation from the PBAC to list it. It should be listed. Those women should be given some hope that they can get access to the drug Faslodex. The other day I held a press conference with our friend and colleague Peta Murphy, the member for Dunkley. This drug is not relevant for her, but she knows better than anyone what that hope means for so many Australians. She gave a very passionate address to the media as to why Faslodex should be listed, and I was very pleased to be standing next to her as she did so. I echo in this chamber: list Faslodex. Get it done, get it sorted with the company and get on with it.
Whenever you raise the PBS, the minister rabbits on about 2011, which is four prime ministers ago, four health ministers ago, nine years ago. He always wants to talk about 2011. Well, I want to talk about 2020. He should care more about the 70 drugs he hasn't listed in 2020 than the seven drugs that were listed eventually in 2011. You can talk about 2011—I'm happy to debate him about 2011, if he wants to—but I'd rather focus on 2020 and the 70 drugs he hasn't listed, not the seven that were listed in 2011.
In the time remaining, I want to deal with one other matter—that is, the important matter of mental health. There has been an increased focus on mental health in this chamber over recent months and years, and it's very welcome. I fully recognise the bona fides, good intentions and good faith of everybody on all sides of the chamber when it comes to improving the mental health of Australians. Some members opposite have done superbly. I'd single out the member for Berowra for the superb work that he has done. But I'm not going to tell the House that simply talking about a matter and recognising that we should be doing something are a replacement for action. Frankly, were are not seeing enough action. Mental ill health costs us $180 billion a year. We know that because of the interim Productivity Commission report that was released some time ago. But, more important than the costs, it costs people. It costs friends, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters. It costs them grief. It costs children their parents' lives in some cases of mental ill health. That is the real cost of mental ill health in Australia. It's time we had a revolution, not an evolution, when it comes to mental health policy in Australia.
I wasn't in this portfolio at the time, but I very much welcomed the fact that the government asked the Productivity Commission to examine mental health policy in Australia. I've got a lot of respect for the Productivity Commission. I knew that they would do a decent job, and I welcomed that. I welcome the fact that the government was handed the Productivity Commission's final report more than four months ago. But I'll tell you what I don't welcome. I don't welcome the fact that I haven't seen it yet, the fact that no member of parliament, apart from the Minister for Health and the Treasurer, has seen it, the fact that no member of the public has seen it, the fact that it wasn't responded to in this month's budget. I don't welcome that at all. Again, I think we've been reasonable. I didn't go out on the day it was handed to government and demand that it be released and responded to. I didn't go out the next week. I thought it was appropriate that the minister took some time to work through it. It is not appropriate that he takes four months to work through it. It is certainly not appropriate that he takes until the next budget to respond to it. It should have been responded to in this budget, but to respond to it they would have had to have released it first, and they hadn't done that.
I have been concerned about some of the evidence we've seen before Senate estimates this week. I've been concerned and, I don't mind telling the House, perplexed as I've watched this evidence. I'm perplexed to see the evidence from the Department of Health that they got a copy of the report in June but that they are not sure, as we speak, that they have a copy of the final report. We were told that the final report went to the Treasurer but that maybe, depending on its reception, it might not be the formal one that gets given to the department. Now, I'm sorry, but the Productivity Commission final report is the final report. It doesn't get amended by the government. It doesn't get worked through with a pen on reception. They can accept it or reject it. They can amend their response to it. They're the government of the day; they can do whatever they like. But they can't rewrite a Productivity Commission report, so it is entirely unclear whether the Department of Health even have the final report of the Productivity Commission, let alone are working on the response and on the release of it.
The government was very keen to announce this inquiry. Fair enough. They were very keen to say that they're getting on with the job and they referred it to the Productivity Commission—and it's a bipartisan thing, to refer it to the Productivity Commission. As I said, I welcomed it. But I'm not going to welcome it if it sits on the shelf unimplemented. I'm not going to welcome it if it's not released for a full and proper discussion in good time.
The government does have to release it under the law, I think by December. They have to release it under the law, so we know we're going to see it eventually. I say to the minister and to the government: Get on with it. We've cut you slack. We know that the Department of Health has a lot going on at the moment. But, we can't kick this in the long grass. The Minister for Health and I both participated in the Don't Wait Mate campaign, and plenty of honourable members have. It was a message to Australians not to put off their health care during the pandemic. The principle of Don't Wait Mate applies to the minister as well, and to the government. Don't wait to deal with mental health because there's a COVID pandemic as well. Don't wait to respond to the Productivity Commission report because you're still working through it. Don't Wait Mate is my message to the Minister of Health. Get on with the job when it comes to mental health.
If the government releases the mental health report and provides a full and comprehensive response, they will have no bigger supporter than me, and I will go out publicly and welcome it. I want to see the Productivity Commission report. I want to work through it. I want to talk to my colleagues about its recommendations and try and give it bipartisan support if it is a good quality piece of work, as I expect it probably is. That's pretty hard to do when this side of the House is not given it and, more importantly, when the public aren't given it. That's a cop-out and an excuse and an alibi for real action on mental health, and I've had enough of it.
I have on very many occasions spoken in the appropriation debate each year in which a budget has been brought down and I have been the representative of the electorate for Cunningham. But I will say that it has been an extraordinary year, and we have, as a result of the extraordinary events that our nation has faced, a later budget than we would normally have. We of course have been through the terrifying and devastating fires, the damaging floods and now the coronavirus pandemic, which is something that none of us, I think, could have envisaged at this time last year. It's something that we have, as a community, as a nation and as a parliament, had to deal with.
Such an extraordinary time calls for an extraordinary budget. I would say to the chamber that we've certainly seen an extraordinary debt. We're talking a trillion dollars in debt from a government, from the parties of government—the Liberal and National parties—that, despite the global financial crisis, which I was also a member in this parliament for, spent an awful lot of time running a debt and deficit fear campaign. We now see the reality that when extraordinary times call for extraordinary responses by government, that means the government needs to get out there and be an active player in the economy, and it should be spending more and investing in supporting jobs.
My frustration and disappointment with this budget is that I think it misses significant opportunities. One of the cleverest things a government can do when it's dealing with significant debt and significant deficits, and that means significant borrowings—and let's not forget that two-thirds of the debt in this budget was actually there prior to the COVID pandemic—is to get as much bang for your buck as you can. That means that you invest in the things that drive productivity, participation and equity in the community, and ensure that opportunities are there for the longer term—that you are spending money now, supporting jobs and supporting communities. The second bang you get out of that is that you're also investing in the sorts of things that create growth and diversification of our economy into the future. Obviously, the two big areas—and this is not just me saying this; this is a well-argued economic position by international experts in this field—are to invest in your people and invest in your infrastructure.
An opposition member: Exactly! It's not rocket surgery, is it?
No, as the member says, it's not rocket surgery. It's very well-established orthodoxy, and it means that you actually get skilled, educated workers who are prepared for the emerging industries and economies of the future, and you get new infrastructure that supports the facilitation and operation of your communities, backing new industries. Therefore you get that double bang for your buck—not only an immediate hit to support jobs but longer-term investment for growth and diversification. And this budget fails dismally in that space and is very much a budget of missed opportunities.
In my own area, I well remember during the global financial crisis the investment we saw happen into transport infrastructure; into our universities and into our TAFEs, providing opportunities for education and training; into community infrastructure, which is used to this day for tourism and the diversification of our economy. Those investments helped at the time, and they continue to be the basis of economic activity and jobs in my region today. There is not a cent for the Illawarra in this budget—not a cent! It's just so frustrating to see that opportunity missed when transport infrastructure projects such as the Picton Road, the Appin Road and completing the Maldon-Dombarton rail link were all supported not just by Labor's state and federal members in our areas but by Liberal state members and the business chamber. Everybody was on board as a coalition about what a significant change this would make for our region, but there was no interest, not a cent, from this government. It is extremely disappointing.
To be honest, I was quite shocked that the government had missed the opportunity to invest in social housing. Homelessness is not a new issue. So often in this parliament, across both sides of the parliament, you hear people talking about the scourge of homelessness and the importance of addressing it. At a time when we're looking for additional government investment in communities, building new social housing and fixing existing social housing so it's at least habitable for people is low-hanging fruit. It is something that actually allows jobs to be supported and apprenticeships to be created, and it creates an asset that helps us deal with the scourge of homelessness. There are many wonderful social housing providers in my area with projects on the shelf, projects that they have ready to go that, with some funding, could be under construction now. And people could be housed in a very short period of time. There were commentators across the political spectrum saying before the budget that social housing is a clear place for government to go, in the budget, expending money to support jobs and create an asset that's going to help us deal with a very difficult problem, and it was completely absent from the budget. Again, it's a disappointment and something I think was a real missed opportunity.
The next area I want to talk about—and some of my colleagues have spoken about this—is participation in the workforce. We know if we get participation up that improves growth and productivity. And one of the areas we really need to address is women in the workplace. People, including the peaks of business bodies in this country, have been saying to government, have been saying to this whole parliament that getting child care affordable and accessible for families means that you increase participation by women, and that has an economic dividend for the whole community. I was very pleased that Anthony Albanese, the Leader of the Opposition, put this at the centre of his budget reply speech. The reality for so many families in my area, and I know in areas across the country, is that women are being held back from full participation in the workforce because of the cost of child care. It's another missed opportunity to invest in people in a way that supports jobs now and means that you get a dividend into the longer term.
I also want to touch on the fact that the budget really did nowhere near enough on the home-care waiting list. I have spoken about this on many occasions, so I will only take a minute to make the point. The government keeps doing this. Every time they do their classic big announcement and, when you look at the detail, the delivery's not great. With home care they've done it time and time again, as they do with apprenticeships. They do this big announcement as if they're doing something significant, but the reality with the additional home-care places is that they barely cover the new people coming on the list, and you have over 100,000 people waiting. I spoke to my local ABC radio about this this week, and I have already got people ringing my office who I didn't know about at that point, saying, 'I'm 92, I'm looking after my 88-year-old wife, and I still can't get my package delivered.' It's just extraordinary.
In the bit of time left to me I want to talk about an area that I really feel the government need to have another serious look at—and I'm disappointed that they didn't do that in the budget. That is around domestic and family violence. We know that internationally there were warnings and reports about the increase in domestic and family violence that we would see in our communities during the pandemic. Sadly, that has turned out to be the case.
I want to refer to an article by Sally Stevenson in the Illawarra Mercury by a very important service in my area, the Illawarra Women's Health Centre. The Illawarra Women's Health Centre is very well regarded in our area. It is a very high-quality service. They've been funded by governments for decades. Sally made the point, exactly as I've said, that we have seen an increase in domestic and family violence. She says:
In Shellharbour domestic and family violence rates over the last year have increased by 27.3 per cent, according to the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Sexual assault in the Illawarra has increased by 33.7 per cent in the same time period.
She says that these are reported cases, and we know that only 10 per cent of cases are reported, which makes the actual figures horrifying. I just want to read Sally's words, because I don't think I could put it any better than what she says in this article. Sally says:
Our centre is currently experiencing overwhelming demand for our DFV services due to the impact of COVID-19. Our waiting list for counselling and support exceeds three months. To date, we have not received any new funding to meet this highly predictable situation and the projected increasing need for support for women.
Let's take a step back. In March, despite all the global and national evidence that unequivocally predicted that we would experience escalating DFV rates due to COVID, only $150 million of new funding was committed to the sector by the Morrison government. That's $150 million across Australia. Six months later, less than 50 per cent of this has been delivered. No new DFV funding was identified in the federal budget announced on October 6. The National Women's Safety Council announced in August it remains concerned about DFV rates, but made no recommendation or request for additional funds.
This is the reality facing services, where they are seeing increased rates of sexual assault and domestic violence, as outlined in one service in my region. They are in the member for Whitlam's seat, and I know he works very closely with them as well. Quite rightly, we ask: why isn't the government supporting the domestic and family violence sector? These services are there day in day out on the front line, seeing the reality of these impacts. They are a vital service and they really need to be supported, particularly at such a difficult time as this.
Instead what's happening is that, with a small amount of money available, they're competing against each other to get extra funds. Sally goes on to say, 'These are resources that would have otherwise been providing support to women right now.' The point is that they are filling out these forms and things when they could actually be doing frontline services. The maximum amount they could get if they were successful is $150,000 per organisation, which is the equivalent of one counsellor for about 18 months when you have that sort of increased demand for services.
I want to back the Illawarra Women's Health Centre and others on the frontline for domestic and family violence, including our police services and health services, all of whom are seeing the reality of this impact. I say to the government: when you're formulating the next budget in the normal time frames you should have a look at the demands that are there in the domestic and family violence sector. This is critically important for our communities. The government should find additional funding to support these services that do such important work. Clearly, at tough times, sadly, we see increased demand on these services. We need to give them the resources that they require to be able to do that. Our health and police services are intervening in cases and there aren't the follow-up support services there. Women and families are waiting three months. That's not acceptable. I'm pleading with the government as they formulate the next budget to take a serious look in this space.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That consideration in detail of the bill be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:43