I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Siewert is to be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia on 19 February 2021 and is to be reappointed to the committee on 20 February 2021, and that Senator Thorpe is to be appointed a member of the committee on 19 February 2021 and is to be discharged on 20 February 2021.
I rise to speak on this bill, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is a terrific legacy of the Gillard Labor government. The CEFC is known globally as one of the most successful and well-designed clean energy banks and as a world standard in renewable energy investment. The CEFC was established by Labor in 2012 with an initial investment of $10 billion to support renewable technologies and energy efficiency investments. This investment has shown to be sound, and the returns on investments in renewable energy are ever increasing as time goes on. Since this establishment, the CEFC has supported over 18,000 projects, leveraging more than $27 billion in private investment and deploying $6 billion of their own funds into clean energy. This is paying dividends already not only returning $718 million to taxpayers, showing the strong investment model of the CEFC, but also accounting for one million tonnes of CO2 abatement annually. The CEFC has been a resounding success. Their work shows that when a government invests in renewables it sees significant returns, sound economic returns, as well as a reduction in emissions. It is a vital piece of climate change infrastructure necessary to reach our global emissions targets.
But, wait. Of course the Morrison government won't commit to proper targets beyond their pathetic 2030 goal and they're a little bit shifty on the net zero by 2050. Who could be surprised with climate change deniers lining their ranks and an energies and emissions minister who hasn't really overseen proper emissions reduction and who seems more interested in attacking mayors with fraudulent documents than in his own portfolio? Who could be surprised that we now find the CEFC and its great work being put under threat by the Morrison government? This is the same coalition government that introduced legislation to abolish the CEFC once in 2013 and then again in 2014. This is the same coalition government who, under the leadership of Tony Abbott, sought to prevent the CEFC from investing in wind and rooftop solar for Pete's sake! Oh yes, this government has good form in attacking the CEFC and today it's continuing its attacks.
This legislation effectively changes the remit of the CEFC from investing in financially-viable, clean sources of energy to a slush fund for the minister's pet projects. The whole point of the CEFC is to fund emerging technologies that will help reduce emissions and not to fund existing modes of energy production that are not renewable, that are high emitting and that quite frankly don't need taxpayer dollars being diverted to them from clean energy funds. It undermines the integrity of the investment remit of the CEFC, allowing investments in projects which don't stack up economically and don't stack up environmentally, and it allows the scandal-ridden minister Angus Taylor to oversee the investments of the CEFC. Needless to say, we won't be supporting this bill in its current form.
We have, in good faith, proposed amendments, but if the government refuses to accept these amendments, which I note are entirely sensible, we will vote against this bill. Our amendments do what we on this side have always done: they safeguard the CEFC against the attacks of the coalition. The CEFC should not be beholden to a minister known for putting fossil fuels on the taxpayer expense account and who has a litany of scandals involving his business and other dealings, and the CEFC should not have its independence and the integrity of its investments compromised by a government which simply doesn't believe in the value of clean, renewable energy.
The CEFC's role has never been more vital than it is now. We, on this side of the House, understand we are living in a climate emergency. We know that time is running out. To properly address climate change and to avoid the worst of its impacts, we need rapid investment in clean energy. We need to rewire our energy grid to one that can easily distribute maximum levels of renewable-driven power and we need a policy work that encourages private investment. This is what the CEFC does best—it seeks out the projects which will provide the best bang for buck with respect to our emissions and sound economic returns, and it gets on with the job.
The CEFC, of course, has the ability to invest in projects itself and, importantly, it acts on expert advice with science at front of mind. As we find time and time again, when it comes to renewables and energy production more broadly, when you follow the expert advice and when you follow the science, the economic benefits follow. We, on this side of the House, know that investment in renewable energy means job creation and a massive economic boost. We know that Australia, blessed with an abundance of sun and wind and technological know-how, has the potential to become a renewable energy superpower. But, without the political will from successive coalition governments, Australia is running out of time.
We've now seen the election of the Biden administration in the US. President Biden approached the election with a clear plan to shift the American economy to a renewable energy footing. He approached the election with a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 and to recommit America to the Paris Agreement, both of which have now been enshrined in executive orders. Not only is his win in the US a sign that public will is firmly behind climate action but it is also a clear sign that the Morrison government is allowing Australia to fall behind globally. Governments around the world have committed to net zero emissions by 2050. Even big business in Australia have committed to net zero by 2050, because they know it's in everyone's interests and it's in their profitability's interests. Even Woolworths have committed to being carbon positive, and their CEO said categorically that their customers expected it. They have a lot of customers. He also said that goals matter; targets matter.
They on that side scream that Labor has not set a 2030 target. I love how they think that they are somehow the opposition, that they are not actually in government. They are obsessed with Labor and our policies as if we were in government. If it weren't so serious, it would be hilarious. We will have our targets ready to go when we've seen the actual details of the mess they're going to leave behind when we are closer to an election. We know and, more importantly, they know that the public is behind renewable energy, just like those hundreds of thousands of Woolworths customers who undoubtedly influenced that company's decision to go carbon neutral and even aim to be carbon negative.
Australians know that climate change is real, that it is an existential threat and that we need to act now. But this government refuses to accept the science, because of a few dinosaurs sitting on its back benches who, quite frankly, are prepared to throw the workers in threatened industries under a bus, without a plan for diversifying those communities and guaranteeing good, decent, solid jobs. This is because their beloved market forces, affected by the likes of Woolies and BHP are—let's face it—doing the heavy lifting of climate change but have no responsibility to look after any affected workers. This is the government's responsibility, because increasingly, as countries like the US commit to ambitious targets and climate action, agreements and trade will be conducted between countries with like-minded climate ambitions. Countries that are doing their bit to tackle climate change and reduce emissions won't want to trade with countries who aren't pulling their weight, or will apply hefty penalties when they do trade. As the rest of the world commits to this kind of action, the spotlight is slowly being turned directly towards Australia. The Morrison government's failure to commit to real, genuine climate action has become an embarrassment for our country on the world stage.
So I find myself asking the question my community have asked me a million times: what else does the Morrison government need to hear to understand the value of good climate action? We know that investments in renewables are paying dividends to the CEFC, the government and the economy, and that they're creating thousands of good blue collar, white-collar and multicoloured jobs. We know that our country isn't doing our fair share globally and that the election of the Biden administration means Australia is increasingly isolated in refusing to act on climate change. We know that the longer we wait to invest in renewables, the greater the risks with respect to our global standing and trade relations and the greater the risk will be to our health, our economy, our environment, our communities and our jobs. The writing's on the wall, and it has been for years. And still the Morrison government want to take a wrecking ball to the CEFC and the little funding there is, stripping it away from renewables and handing it over to fossil fuel companies. They can't see the writing on the wall about where the future is heading, written there by their buddies in big business and even big global economies.
This government is derelict in its duties, because it will leave workers stranded and communities with little future. The CEFC has a proven track record of sound, reliable investment in renewables, and I don't think anyone can argue that the same can be said for the minister. We need a strong, properly funded, independent CEFC, led by the experts, to invest in the clean energy technologies of the future, ensuring jobs and stability for workers and their communities and setting Australia up to be a world leader, not a deadbeat follower.
I rise to talk in support of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020. This bill amends the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012 to establish the Grid Reliability Fund, which will be a $1 billion fund to expand the role of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and adjust its investment mandate to include, most importantly, the ability to make investments in loss-making infrastructure. It will focus on investing in new electricity storage vehicles, reliable new generation of electricity—including gas and hydro projects—new transmission and distribution systems, and also grid stabilisation infrastructure. It expands the 'low-emission technology' definition, which means that things have to be 50 per cent more efficient than existing energy generation. It will also deliver a fund that will be able to be deployed to deliver the Underwriting New Generation Investments program, or UNGI, that was announced before the last election.
So far, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation has $8.2 billion invested in projects totalling $27.8 billion, and these investments have delivered an abatement of 220 metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent gases. So that listeners can understand what I'm talking about, I just want to mention a few definitions. First of all, the 'energy grid' is the term which makes up the transmission and distribution networks; they are the poles and wires, from the giant-looking massive transmission grids that you see in paddocks, which look like huge robots out in the middle of a paddock, through to the distribution networks, which are the poles and wires going down your street. The transmission networks send things at an incredibly high voltage, above 300,000 volts of alternating current. There are 13 distribution networks fed by five transmission networks in Australia; most of them are in Queensland, New South Wales, ACT, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. That cluster of networks is the National Electricity Market. There are cross-border interconnectors like giant extension cords. In the Northern Territory they have three separate grids that are not connected: the Darwin to Katherine, the Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. Western Australia has two grids, the South West Interconnected System and the North West Interconnected System.
There has been huge investment in renewable energy generators. It's mind boggling, in fact. Last year, 6.3 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity was added to the grid, and in 2018 it was 5.1 gigawatts of energy—$30 billion in all since 2017. This is 10 times faster than Europe, China, Japan or the US, yet we get criticised because we're not investing enough. It is an absolute fallacy that is repeated ad nauseam by the members on the other side. We are doing more than Europe, China, or the US, at a 10-times-faster rate. It sounds great, I agree. People want us to invest in renewable energy, but it's installed capacity that you are quoting when you mention these figures. The grid and the electricity system that comes out of your power points isn't necessarily the installed capacity. What is available for the grid is the installed capacity multiplied by what is called the capacity factor—that is, what the actual generator, on average, can supply over a year.
In Australia we have some of the best renewable assets, namely wind and plenty of sun. We have hot, long summers. But, even allowing for that, renewable generators are still limited by nature: by night and day, twilight, dusk, overcast days and rainy days. Between December and January, in my neck of the woods, on the North Coast of New South Wales, we had about 500 millimetres of rain. It rained day after day after day. There's the wet season in the tropics. There are months of the year when the wind doesn't blow nearly as much. Often during hot summer periods there is very little wind. So the wind energy generators might have installed capacities that sound absolutely massive, but it's the capacity factor that defines what is available. As a rough measure, the capacity factor for wind is 30 per cent. For solar it is 20 to 22 per cent because we have such good sunny periods. When you have a power station—whether it is nuclear, gas or coal fired—you get 95 per cent capacity. So when you say that we have 5.1 or 6.3 gigawatts of renewable capacity, we don't necessarily get that day in, day out. Renewables investment, by its very nature, is variable and intermittent. It requires expensive investments to integrate with the existing system the variable surges of electricity that are generated.
Any electricity system, including Australia's, has to run at a very finely tuned voltage and frequency. And because that's coming from synchronous generators in the power stations, that establishes what's called inertia. When you have power running in on a sunny day or a windy day, and all the turbines fire up, the voltage in the frequency can break the system; you can blow a fuse. Take what happened in the South Australian blackout. The electricity generated in that storm was so great that basically the fuse blew and they had a blackout. And they had no black-start capability or any underlying baseload energy generator. The interconnector was down. Other areas of the distribution network also blew down, it was such a big storm. That is something we need to remind ourselves of with all these investments.
The Grid Reliability Fund will allow us to invest in grid-scale batteries and other expensive bits of equipment called synchronous condensers, which try to mimic that inertia and that synchronous signal that is coming through when you have electricity coming out from the central generating source. It also looks to support investment in new transmission grids. There is one between New South Wales and South Australia, the Hume link. There is the Queensland-New South Wales interconnector. It also looks to invest in new pumped hydro facilities, at Baroota in South Australia, at Armidale in New South Wales and at similar sites in Queensland.
Where the Underwriting New Generation Investments program identified baseload generators, it recommended a couple of gas-fired power stations because the benefit of gas-fired power stations is that they can be ramped up quickly. There was also underwriting of the Vales Point upgrade, which is an old generator that was getting additional efficiencies added. But unfortunately, due to announcements from the New South Wales government, that's no longer feasible. I would just like to explain in a bit more detail the issue of installed capacity versus what actually becomes available to consumers, whether it is industry or individuals. In the last couple of years four gigawatts of baseload power, or power coming from power stations, has been retired from the grid. We've heard of those massive new installations—5.1 and 6.3 gigawatts—but that doesn't mean we're in net positive territory; if you multiply those capacity factors, you come up way short. One has to understand that, in periods when the weather is not favourable, the renewable generators might only produce four per cent or even less.
So there is a glaring deficiency in the way people are thinking about this transition. I have great concerns that people think that an investment in a wind farm or a massive solar farm is going to be exactly the same; it's just that it's coming from a clean source. Unless we have a replacement for our retiring baseload power stations, it won't just be when there's not enough at the peak that we get the shortages and the blackouts or brownouts that we've had over hot summers; we'll be getting them every day, because there won't be the stuff at the bottom. That's the really important take-home message. Even our Snowy 2.0, which will deliver 2,000 megawatt hours of dispatchable electricity, will only do so for 175 hours. It can store the equivalent of 3½ gigawatt hours of storage, but, given the capacity factor is only 17 per cent, it isn't going to deliver everything that we think it will. In fact, the gas power plants that are mooted to be built would be peaking power plants that come on when there's a shortage at the end. But we need to have the baseload. If you make the cake analogy, in New South Wales we have a cake of energy that is never less than about 7,000 megawatts of power pumping through the wires. We have peaks above that that go up to 12,000 or maybe 13,000 megawatt hours when demand is high. But, if you don't have that baseload energy available and ready to fire, you will have a major deficiency.
We have had great trouble building dams in Australia. A lot of these plans revolve around building new dams and using pumped hydro. But, when you look at the physics of it, the amount of energy generated from the water running down is less than the amount of energy required to pump the water back up so it can run down. With gas peaking plants and Snowy Hydro, there is an arbitrage in their economic model. They can turn a profit because they provide energy when there's a shortage. They play in that market when they might be getting $216 for their unit of energy, as opposed to the $30, $40 or $50 that is frequently the case.
Because we're in the situation we are in, where we've had these energy market rules, there has been a transition happening and we do need to put new things in place; otherwise we will have shortages more quickly than expected. But I just caution everyone: do not think that the transition is going to be an equivalent transition. It will be much more expensive and much more unreliable—hence the need to invest in all these extra grid integration technologies. I might add that the big inverters that convert the direct current electricity that comes out of a solar generator, either on your house or on a mega solar farm, consume energy, and then inverting it at the other end also consumes energy.
We have this fund to invest in batteries. There are massive grid-size batteries which are essentially like the Hornsdale one in South Australia. I have looked on the net, and it's the biggest grid style battery that I can find in the world. It's been upgraded above its initial 200 megawatts to something like 240 megawatts, and it has a critical role to play when you're switching from a solar farm or a wind farm to a gas- or coal-fired power station to keep that frequency and voltage at a very fine level so that the fuses don't blow and the whole system doesn't black out. But people shouldn't think that it will be able to supply energy overnight when there is no solar power and wind blowing, because in South Australia, if they had another blackout, the new Hornsdale bank of batteries could run the grid in South Australia for only four minutes. In my electorate, I have hundreds of people who work at the Tomago aluminium smelter. If that same battery at Hornsdale were hooked up to Tomago, it would run it for 12 minutes. So we need to keep it in perspective. (Time expired)
It's pretty clear that sensible debate in this chamber, outside this chamber, in the US and around the rest of the world has moved beyond whether or not we should be increasing investment in renewable energy. It's moved on to how we best support the continuing evolution of low-emissions technologies for energy generation. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020 could have been a real opportunity to finesse what the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is already doing really well, but it isn't an opportunity to do that. Unless there are amendments to this bill, we will not be supporting it.
I want to take you back about a decade, when the shockingly sensible idea of finding a way to reduce the cost of capital for important investments that benefit the country led to Labor establishing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in 2012. The CEFC provided $10 billion of funding to support new and emerging renewable technologies and projects designed to reduce emissions. The projects it invested in have also, over those years, created jobs. It wasn't done with true bipartisanship then or now, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation has been attacked on multiple occasions by this government. Along with attempts to abolish it, there have been continued attacks to undermine its role and dilute its purpose. We will not support legislation that continues to do that. We established the CEFC, and on this side we have consistently protected the integrity of it as a renewable energy financing body.
The CEFC has a proven track record of leveraging private investment. It isn't just doling out taxpayer funds; it works together with private funds and has helped drive more than $27 billion in additional private sector investments and return more than $718 million to taxpayers since its creation. By that measure, it's been an enormous success. Even the Prime Minister, in 2019, was quoted in The Australian as saying the CEFC is 'the world's most successful green bank'. I don't think there's any dispute about that. However, government has consistently tried to take the CEFC away from its original purpose. Prime Minister Tony Abbott, in 2015, said it was no secret he wanted the finance corporation to be abolished. There was the attempt to stop the corporation from investing in wind or rooftop solar. Now they're trying to expand it into areas that it shouldn't be investing in. Those opposite have also tried to limit the ability of the CEFC to support new technology deployment.
This bill continues the attempt to weaken the brief for the corporation. That's been criticised by energy experts who say it needs to be an independent body, it needs to have a low-emissions remit, it needs to be able to support economically viable projects and it needs to avoid investing in fossil fuels. We support those principles. They make sense. Our amendments make sure that those principles are maintained. Whether this bill will pass with our support is in the government's hands. They can accept our amendments or not.
There are some things we do support in this legislation, and one of those is giving the CEFC an expanded role to upgrade the electricity network so it better copes with renewables. In fact, anyone listening to opposition leader Anthony Albanese's budget reply last year will recall our 'rewiring the nation' policy to drag the electricity grid into the 21st century with greater connectivity for renewably sourced energy. We agree with the need to invest in transmission, storage and reliability assets of the network. These are small steps contained in this bill towards our own policy to invest $20 billion to rebuild and modernise the antiquated electricity transmission system.
Before I move to the concerns we have with this bill, I want to share the findings of a UK study, released this week, that highlights the importance of continuing and encouraging investment in wind and solar projects. The study shows what one of Australia's best bets is, when it comes to reducing emissions, and is from research by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It shows that the UK has seen a massive 66 per cent drop in emissions between 1990 and 2019 but an eight per cent drop in emissions between 2018 and 19. This was just from the energy sector. It shows that with our existing technologies and the sensible rollout of them you can make a significant difference. Those time periods directly correlate with the uptake of solar and renewable wind projects in the UK, and the volume of emissions is set to fall even further as they move forward. I think what's so significant for us is the bounty we have in wind and solar, and those sorts of renewable projects continue to provide us with huge opportunities. They are some of the many things, in terms of renewable energy, that we would like to continue to see the CEFC invest in.
I move now to the things we object to in this bill. It is an attempt to make some of the biggest changes to the CEFC since its establishment. One of the key ones is to undermine the independence of the corporation, and this legislation gives unprecedented powers to the minister. We designed a body that had independence from government in its decision-making, to be at arm's length, so it didn't make short-term, politically motivated decisions about where investments went. I am stunned that those opposite wouldn't support that principle of good investments based on the best advice and from an investment perspective rather than a political perspective. It staggers me that they want to see additional political interference in something like this fund. The changes being put forward today allow the minister to determine whether an investment is eligible for Clean Energy Finance Corporation support or not. The change doesn't appear to be driven by a problem; it creates a problem. I want to say, very clearly, I would have a problem with this change to the legislation no matter who was in government, no matter who the minister of the day was. It's a completely unnecessary change. But I have an even greater issue with this government and this particular minister giving himself these additional powers.
This government has not committed to zero emissions by 2050. This minister has stated he has a lack of enthusiasm for wind and solar and renewables. More than that, as a direct result of the Morrison government's chaotic and continuing energy policy failures under this minister, investment in new large-scale renewable energy has collapsed. Yet here's a minister who wants us to give him more power to control where investments are made. New figures from the Clean Energy Council show that just three new projects have reached financial close in the last quarter. That's the lowest quarterly investment, in dollar terms, since the index was started in 2017. Investment's more than 50 per cent below the quarterly average for the 2019 calendar year. Investment and jobs in renewable energy should be soaring in Australia, not only to bring power prices down but to grow the jobs in energy intensive manufacturing and other sectors. We have an opportunity there. Instead, UTS and the Clean Energy Council project 11,000 renewable energy jobs will be lost in the next two years under this government's energy policy vacuum. That's just when our focus should be on creating jobs.
So, no, I don't trust the minister with powers to override the CEFC decisions, and that's not even touching on the Clover Moore letter and subsequent investigation nor grasslands nor watergate affairs that the minister's failed to be accountable for. There are senior business people on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation board, and they don't need ministerial direction from any minister. We will try and amend that change that government wants to make.
The second issue we have is around the attempt to define 'low-emissions technology' to include gas. Right now there is no prohibition on the corporation funding projects related to gas, but gas simply doesn't meet the emissions standards that are required. You cannot call gas a low-emissions technology. That doesn't mean it isn't important to the Australian economy, as part of the mix. It will have a role for years to come in firming up the grid, particularly the small, quick, fire-up units that help stabilise supply in times of high demand. These are the so-called peaking plants, which are quick to fire up and quick to turn off. There is no question that gas has a really important role, but the question is: should the CEFC be providing a public subsidy for it? We say no. We say that, if gas were a low-emissions technology, the government wouldn't need to put this amendment in and gas would pass the existing test for CEFC investments. It doesn't meet the test of being low-emissions technology, just because it isn't. We think the CEFC should remain as it was intended to be: a renewables and decarbonisation funding tool. That's its purpose.
The third concern that we have about this bill is around the removal of the requirement that the investments made by the corporation make, or set out to make, a positive return. This is another one I'm just staggered by. Those opposite pride themselves on being the good economic managers—and hasn't that come into question!—and all the things they claim they stand for, yet they're happy to change legislation so that an investment using taxpayer money does not need to deliver a return. I'm just staggered that that is being considered. You wonder why they would do that. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister himself has referred to the CEFC as the world's most successful green bank. That is due not only to the jobs it's created and the investments it's leveraged from the private sector but also to its return to government. The returns it's made to government help make it one of the best decisions that this parliament has made. The question that has not been answered by anyone opposite is whether they want the CEFC to make investments that don't provide a positive return. Is that the purpose of this—to specifically set out to do that? If so, my question to them is: why would that be a purpose?
As I have said, there is no question that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation has played a really big role already. In spite of the attacks by Liberal governments to abolish it, undermine it and divert it from its course, it has still helped this country with investment in renewables. It needs to be allowed to continue to help Australia, and it needs to be there so that we can leverage investment from the private sector and make the most of the opportunity we are given—the opportunity of sun, wind and open spaces. We have an opportunity to be a world leader in renewable energy, rather than just sitting back, watching the rest of the world gallop on ahead of us and going, 'Maybe we should have done that.' Our opportunity is now. We are fast running out of time, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation provides a terrific vehicle for us to invest. Rather than the bill we have before us today, it would have been good to see those opposite amending a piece of legislation that is already creating jobs, allowing it to create even more jobs, jobs that will last into the future.
Before I start my comments on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020, I'd like to comment on some of the member for Macquarie's comparisons with the UK. And it is good that the member for Macquarie considers what is happening in other countries and compares herself with them. However, if you want to compare us with the UK, they are a nation that get 20 per cent of their electricity from nuclear power. If the member for Macquarie wants to stand up and praise the UK's electricity policy, is she in favour of nuclear power? Is she in favour, and are those on the other side of the chamber in favour, of having something like 20 per cent of our electricity in this nation generated from nuclear power like it is in the UK? Unless you are going to stand up and say that is what you want, any comparison with the United Kingdom is irrelevant.
You also need to understand that the United Kingdom have an undersea cable across the channel to France's nuclear power. So when the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow and the Thames freezes over, as it did last week for the first time in 60 years, you have no intermittent generation from those renewable sources. England has an extension cord to the French nuclear power stations—something that we don't have.
Getting back to my comments on this particular bill, it's called the grid reliability fund bill. The problem: why do we need extra dollars for grid reliability? Over a decade ago we had one of the lowest cost and most reliable grids of anywhere in the world. We used that beautiful black coal seam that runs down our eastern seaboard, close to our population centres, to generate the majority of our electricity. We had the Snowy Hydro project to come in during peak periods with hydroelectricity. We had our gas peakers. That gave our eastern seaboard the most efficient, most reliable and some of the lowest cost electricity anywhere in the world, but then people knew better. All the experts knew better. We could bring in all this intermittent generation, and it wouldn't cause any problem they told us.
We see the confusion in this policy debate by a recent statement by the member for McMahon who, I understand, has been punted from the health portfolio after being punted as the shadow Treasurer before the last election. Now, after failing in all those other portfolios, he's been given the energy portfolio. He recently said, 'Renewable energy can create thousands of jobs.' He's partly correct, because we're creating thousands of jobs in China. Our subsidies for the year ending June 2019—and Dr Alan Moran has detailed them—are: the large-scale renewable energy target was $1.4 billion; the small-scale energy target, which is the rooftop scheme, was $1.68 billion; $951 million for state regulatory support; federal fiscal support was another $2.4 billion as well as state fiscal support. The total of subsidies for the year ending June 2019 was $6.913 billion.
Who has been the biggest beneficiary of this job creation? It has been the workers of China. If we go through the data, we have something like imports from China in solar panels alone approaching $2 billion a year. So we pack up shipping containers of cash and send them off to China which we exchange for solar panels. The data from 2019: 80 per cent of the imported solar panels into this country came from China. Over the last six years, it is something like $10 billion that has been sent out of this country to buy solar panels from China. These people talk about creating jobs. I'm sure, in Guangzhou province, they are very happy about all the jobs that we're creating for them because of these policies.
Also there is great confusion on the other side of this chamber. Our electricity sector, our electricity generation, is not a job creation scheme. The entire purpose of our electricity generation is to do it as efficiently and at the lowest cost as you possibly can, so industry can take that low-cost electricity and have a competitive advantage to actually produce real wealth for this nation.
That is how you create jobs. You create jobs by lowering the cost of electricity to consumers so they have more money to spend in other sectors of the economy.
The idea that you would use your electricity sector as a job creation scheme would head us towards an economic disaster in this country. We've got to have real jobs that are internationally competitive, and that is where industries need low-cost energy. I hear from some that, 'Wind and solar are cheaper than coal, so the more wind and solar we put into the grid the cheaper electricity becomes.' They will argue that. But to make a comment comparing the cost of intermittent generation with base-load generation is like comparing apples with oranges. You are not comparing like-for-like products. They are not 100 per cent being substituted one for the other. If you are going to do that, you've got to build in the costs of your intermittent generation, your wind and solar. Firstly, there are the additional transmission costs. Billions of dollars in additional transmission lines need to be built and you've got to include that cost. Secondly, you've got to include the cost to back it up, and that's not just for five minutes or 10 minutes. You've got to include the cost to back up your intermittent, weather-dependent generation in the worst possible circumstances and the worst possible weather events that you can have. You may have several days in a row of overcast weather where your solar panels are working at very low capacity and, of course, with nothing at night. You may have several days where your wind gets very low capacity, in the single digits. That is what you have to back it up for.
I'll give you some idea of what sorts of numbers you would need. It was good to hear Dr Gillespie, the member for Lyne, talk about the need for big batteries. If we just replaced the Liddell coal-fired power station with some intermittent stuff and some big batteries, let's just do some numbers on that. We have the world's largest big battery over there in South Australia. It's about 120 megawatt hours. So it dribbles—and 'dribbles' is the right word—about 30 megawatts into the grid per hour. But it can only do that for four hours and then it goes flat. Then you have to have excess generation of electricity to recharge it again. How many of these world's biggest batteries would you need to replace the Liddell coal-fired power station for just one 24-hour period? Let's do the sums. Liddell's actually a 2,000-megawatt power station, but with its age it is rated down to 1,680 megawatts. Over a day, running at full steam for 24 hours, that is 40,320-megawatt hours. Again I ask members on the other side to try and learn the difference between megawatts and megawatt hours so they're not confusing and misleading the Australian public. We know the world's largest battery can do 30 megawatts for four hours, so it would need 56 of the world's largest batteries just to replace Liddell for four hours only. To replace it for 24 hours, you would need 336 of the world's largest batteries that they have over there in South Australia. That's just for 24 hours. That is not enough for the worst circumstances of weather. Anyone that stands up in any parliament and says we can replace our coal-fired generators with big batteries should go and do the maths, because they have no idea what they are talking about.
The other issue that we have when we come to this debate is that every single thing we seem to do in this policy space gives an advantage to the Communist Party of China. I said that about $10 billion of wealth has been transferred out of this country to import solar panels from China over the last five to six years. You've even got what I consider to be misleading and deceptive conduct. There's a group out there called Canadian Solar. If I went and bought solar panels from a company called Canadian Solar I think it would be fair enough to expect that they might just be made in Canada. But, on their own website, this company says, 'Canadian Solar is a producer of tier 1 panels.' Despite their name, any panels you may buy from them in Australia will not be made in Canada. Canadian Solar panels, those from outside North America, will most likely be made in—you guessed it—China. With everything we do in this space, we're transferring billions of dollars of our wealth to China. We are putting our own Australian industries at a competitive disadvantage compared to China. When we talk about going down the track of net zero emissions, of making the cost of air travel greater, who are we harming? Our Pacific neighbours. We are damaging the economies of our Pacific neighbours by making the cost of air travel higher when we go down this net zero track. Again, who gets the advantage out of that? If our Pacific regional neighbours are weaker economically, they are more exposed to influence from China.
We go to see what's happening in China today. Here we have it. A report from Reuters, only two weeks ago, says, 'China put 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020.' Hang on a minute. Liddell, at full capacity, is two megawatts. The new capacity that China has added in 2020 alone is 38.4 gigawatts of electricity. People say, 'Oh, yes, but they're closing other power stations down.' The net increase last year in China's coal-fired power stations was 29.8 gigawatts. That's more coal-fired power stations than we have almost in our entire nation. And that's their increase in just one year!
The article goes on. It says, 'China approved the construction of a further 36.9 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity last year, three times more than a year earlier, bringing the total under construction to 88.1 gigawatts.' That's the equivalent of 40 new replacement Liddells. It goes on: 'It now has 247 gigawatts of coal power under development.' Two hundred and forty-seven! That's more than 100 Liddell power stations at their full capacity. And here we are wanting to close down our coal-fired power stations! We want to ship our own Australian coal off to China for the Chinese to use to create wealth and prosperity and jobs in that country. Yet we have so many members of parliament here who are prepared to sell our nation out, to sell our nation's sovereignty out, and say, 'We can't use that same coal.' It's okay to ship it to China and let China use it, but we can't use it here. That is a betrayal of our nation. That is a betrayal of your constituents. It is going to destroy jobs and transfer wealth out of this nation to the Communist Party of China. I for one am not going to sit here in this parliament and just allow that to happen without using my voice to say how absurd and how ridiculous and how anti-Australian this policy is—just to chase a few green votes. Shame on you all! Shame on the lot of you! We need to put our nation's interests first.
When it comes to these nonsense net zero emissions policies, are we going to exempt our military from them? We heard talk in the paper the other day about wanting to develop solar-panelled tanks. Battle tanks are there to protect the nation, to protect the Western alliance. They are not there as part of some green scheme to try and reach net zero. I will leave my comments there, but I call on all members of this parliament to put the interests of this nation first. Don't sell out to the interests of the Greens and the Communist Party of China.
I will just remind the member for Hughes that when he says 'you' he is directing his comments to the chair.
This is an important and overdue piece of legislation. The Grid Reliability Fund is a $1 billion investment in new energy generation, storage and transmission infrastructure, designed to improve the reliability of the electricity grid. I believe it's important that we pass this legislation, because this government has, for too long, presided over a deterioration of our electricity grid—the poles and wires that bring electrons from where they're generated to where they're used.
Chronic underinvestment in critical infrastructure in regional Australia is holding up investment in new electricity projects, costing regional jobs and driving up power prices. Few Australians will have heard of the West Murray Zone, but this triangle of land in the Riverina, bordered by Ballarat, Broken Hill and Dederang in my electorate of Indi, is ground zero of the government's failure to secure our electricity supply. The West Murray Zone is a region that has attracted significant investment in renewables, but it has not had the corresponding investment in the electricity grid to support those renewables. As a result, last year the Australian Energy Market Operator declared that the region's grid was so unstable that it forced five new renewable power stations across regional Victoria and New South Wales to cut their production by 50 per cent. This was done simply to stabilise the grid, not because renewables are the problem but because the government failed to plan for their integration. For those five regional communities, that means half the revenue and half the profits, and it went on for seven months. Just imagine you set up a cafe—you made all the investments, hired the staff, brought in the food and set up refrigerators—and then the day you were going to open the government told you that you couldn't because the footpath out the front hadn't been fixed yet. It's this kind of thing that regional communities face.
The crisis in the electricity grid is directly affecting my electorate of Indi, because there are several renewable power stations in Indi that have been delayed for years because of weaknesses in the grid. For instance, the new Goorambat East Solar Farm, which would power 105,000 homes once it's built, is shovel-ready but can't proceed because the grid issues need to be fixed. It's one of several projects that would create hundreds of jobs in construction and dozens in ongoing maintenance and operations and would generate new income for the local people, but it can't proceed because the government has spent years failing to fix the issues in the grid.
It's well overdue now that the government looks Australia right in the eye, is honest about the fundamental transition that we're facing in our energy system and plans properly to ensure that it happens smoothly. I'm sorry to say that the National Party's big vision to solve our energy problems in regional Australia at present is to build more coal-fired power stations. We know that the National Party has been around for 101 years, and I really wish they'd get some new ideas on this. The places where renewables will boom are places like the Mallee, New England, the Riverina and my electorate. They're all held by regional MPs and, with the exception of Indi, those on that list are all held by the National Party. Instead of fighting back the tide, I encourage my colleagues in the National Party to make this renewable energy boom really deliver for their constituents. I think they should be the biggest advocates of renewables in the country, because it's their constituents who stand to gain the most, if we plan this transition properly. This legislation is one way of helping to plan this transition.
Standing up for the regions means putting money into the transmission network, which is actually costing regional jobs and supporting regional communities to tap into this unstoppable renewable energy boom. But these facts are not my views; they're straight from the government's own engineers who run the electricity system. A report from AEMO in September into the five-year forecast of electricity reliability said that delays in the commissioning of over 1,900 megawatts of variable renewable energy is reducing reliability in Victoria—that is, we would have more reliability if we could bring those renewables online faster. It is the engineers running the grid saying this. The reason I'm going into these technical details is simply to make the point that this bill is so important precisely because it is a rare example of the government dealing with the actual problems in the energy system. Rather than mucking around or playing with the politics of climate, we need to get right back to the issues at hand.
But there's another component of this bill that I want to comment on. The Grid Reliability Fund is finally putting into action the government's Underwriting New Generation Investment scheme. The UNGI scheme was announced over two years ago. At the time, the government said we were facing an urgent lack of dispatchable power—that is, energy that can be generated whenever we want, like hydro or batteries. The UNGI scheme was designed to incentivise new investment in dispatchable energy by underwriting new private investments. The government would partner with private companies to take on part of the risk of these new projects.
This idea, in principle, could make sense. If there is a market failure, if private companies aren't building certain types of energy projects that benefit our society, then there is a clear rationale for government stepping in. But I've got some real concerns about the way the government has undertaken the UNGI scheme. To start with, it's been incredibly slow. It was first announced in 2018. They took expressions of interest in January 2019, over two years ago, and shortlisted 12 projects in March of that year. In the two years since, the only thing that has happened is that they've shortlisted two gas projects for consideration. No projects have been funded and nothing has actually been done.
As the grid has fallen under increased strain and jobs have been lost to renewables in regional Australia, what real action has been done? It was just last week that one of the shortlisted companies from two years ago pulled its project from the list, saying this has gone on for too long and their project was no longer viable. Secondly, a scheme that was framed as being about dispatchable energy seems that it could indeed turn out to be a mechanism to drive taxpayer money into fossil fuels.
The bill before us expands the rules to allow the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to more easily invest in gas projects; and because these projects are unlikely to be economic without this investment, it also changes the rules to allow the CEFC to invest in loss-making projects. Just think about that for a minute. The CEFC is a bank owned by the taxpayer that so far has invested billions of our dollars into clean energy projects that have made money. And the government is trying to change the rules to allow investments in fossil fuels that lose money—that lose all our money.
The government says 'there's nothing to see here' because the CEFC can already invest in gas. But this is a red herring. Let me explain why. Right now, the CEFC is able to invest in gas power under extremely restrictive circumstances—specifically, if the gas station would have less than 50 per cent of the emissions of the grid as a whole. And the CEFC has to make sure that, at any time, at least half of their investments are directly in renewables. This fund has none of those safeguards. According to the rules, all of this $1 billion could be invested in gas power—even if it was emissions intensive, as all gas power is. The government is quite literally changing the definition of 'low emissions' to mean 'any emissions'. It's right there in the explanatory memorandum written by the government to explain the bill. It says in black and white that item 33 expands the scope of low-emission technology and that certain types of gas-fired electricity generation will now fall under this new definition.
Again, if you ask AEMO what Australia needs to achieve to get cheap, clean and reliable power, they are crystal clear: it's more renewables, more storage and more transmission, not new gas. AEMO's analysis shows that the optimum pathway to meet our energy needs over the next two decades would be to build the equivalent of 16,000 new wind turbines and five new Snowy Hydro schemes and put rooftop solar on another 10 million households. This is the pathway we're on, and we in this place need to be clear. If we plan this right, this will be fantastic news for regional Australia. Indi is one of several dozen regions identified across Australia as the best places to build renewables. We have enough hydro power potential in the hills and mountains of the Victorian high country to meet Australia's total energy storage needs 13 times over. Let's invest here. The member for Mallee's electorate is another one with huge solar potential around Mildura and the west. Let's invest there. The electorates of Parkes, Calare and New England sit on top of massive new renewable energy zones in New South Wales. Let's invest there. Let's make sure that this massive investment actually creates lasting prosperity in the regions by creating well-paying, long-lasting local jobs and by creating new sources of income that actually flow back into regional Australia. If the government is willing to underwrite new energy investments, let's make them locally owned investments that are driven by the local community so, instead of profits going elsewhere, the profits stay right where they are made.
Last year, I had the pleasure of opening Australia's largest community owned solar farm right here in the ACT. The Majura Community Solar Farm was built from small investments by 600 members of the local community who now collectively own it and will earn dividends from their investment. Every regional community in Australia could be developing these projects. If the government were willing to come in and underwrite a wave of investment in these projects, we could unlock billions in private capital, building a string of these renewable power stations right across the regions, lowering power bills and building energy security.
Despite my serious reservations, this bill makes long-overdue investments in the grid that will unlock new investments in the regions and new jobs in Indi. But it needs to be amended. I will support the amendments from the members for Warringah and Melbourne which would maintain the ban on the government investing in uneconomic gas projects, projects that won't deliver benefits to Indi or benefits to regional Australia, and I'll be moving my own amendment to make sure that the Grid Reliability Fund can only invest in projects that demonstrate they are delivering significant benefits to the local community through local jobs, procurement and decision-making, because $1 billion of new investment in regional Australia should be done with and for us, not to us.
Next week, I'll be tabling a bill to establish a new sister agency to the CEFC. My proposed agency, the Australian Local Power Agency, would drive investment in community owned renewables and would make sure that renewable energy is benefited from in the local communities where the investments are being made. These regional communities need to see the profits that are available to them. I'm all for renewables. That's pretty clear. But it has to be done in a way that actually benefits regional Australia: local jobs, local procurement, local investment and local benefits. That's what's missing from the government's policy agenda, and that's what I'll be bringing to parliament next week.
Not only will the $1 billion Grid Reliability Fund ensure that our nation's world-leading deployment of renewables is integrated and backed up, but this legislation, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020, is a vote for jobs, for Australian workers, for lower emissions, for a more reliable and secure energy market, and for lower prices for consumers. Tasmania is, of course, no stranger to reliable renewable power, and the Marinus Link and Battery of the Nation renewable pumped hydro projects are perfect examples of what the $1 billion GRF could support while providing an opportunity for the rest of Australia.
Marinus Link will provide a second Bass interconnector between Tasmania and Victoria that will increase energy exchange throughout the National Electricity Market as Australia continues to transition to cleaner energy. The project has also been assessed to be commercially viable and could deliver a $1 billion boost to Tasmania's economy through construction and operation. What an incredible opportunity for our state as we look to invest in technologies to create a cleaner, sustainable energy market which will also benefit mainland energy users!
Battery of the Nation is a Hydro Tasmania project that's investing in and building our island's capacity as a hydro battery. It's about making better use of existing hydro power and power stations while enhancing our ability to support the National Electricity Market with new infrastructure like pumped hydro power stations. This will ensure a safe, reliable, low-cost energy supply for all Tasmanians and thousands of megawatts of clean power to the mainland for a sustainable future we can all enjoy.
In December, I was thrilled to welcome the Prime Minister and the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, to Launceston at the site of the Trevallyn Power Station to sign a memorandum of understanding between the state and federal governments for these projects. Under the signing of this bilateral energy and emissions reduction agreement, both governments have committed to further support to progress Battery of the Nation and Marinus.
The MOU also delivered a jointly owned special purpose vehicle being established by 1 July 2021 to deliver the remainder of the design and approvals phase for project Marinus. The SPV will provide the governance and oversight to guide the project to a final investment decision in 2023-24. As TasNetworks CEO, Lance Balcombe, said on the day:
The MOU announcement further confirms the value of Project Marinus as critical to supporting a rapidly transforming National Electricity Market … by delivering low-cost, reliable and clean energy to electricity customers.
Indeed, as Australia recovers from COVID-19, affordable, reliable power will be critical to growing the economy and creating new jobs, and it's important to note that, when new technologies become economically competitive, households and businesses will readily adopt them, which is what we're seeing firsthand with renewables currently.
Some facts that are worth considering: on an energy-only basis, costs have fallen rapidly, and we've seen $30 billion invested in renewable energy since 2017. Australia is now deploying new wind and solar 10 times faster per person than the global average and four times faster per person than Europe, China, Japan or the US. About two million, or nearly one in four, Australian households now have solar power. In 2019, the share of wind and solar in Australia's electricity grids was more than double the global average and projected to rise rapidly in coming years. Of course, with these positive changes come new challenges, and, while there is no shortage of investment in clean energy, the government has identified a lack of investment in the dispatchable generation needed to support the increase of intermittent generation. We need more flexible back-up generation and storage, gas, pumped hydro and batteries to balance and integrate high shares of renewable energy, which is why our technology focused approach and the GRF are so practical. Importantly, our practical approach won't undermine energy affordability or reliability as we recover from COVID-19.
Beyond the GRF, the government has also been laying down the groundwork to develop a leading hydrogen industry in Australia. Part of this commitment to hydrogen includes the establishment of a regional hydrogen export hub supported by $70 million in Commonwealth funding. I'm extremely pleased that Bell Bay, just 20 minutes from my home, has been identified as a possible hub. Additionally, four major energy companies are currently investigating the region for large-scale green hydrogen production facilities, a step which has been significantly helped due to federal and state government funding for research into making the Australian production process more cost competitive.
The investment and focus on green hydrogen are also widely supported by our region's business community, which I saw firsthand when I attended an event hosted by the Launceston Chamber of Commerce towards the end of last year. This sold-out event was attended by a significant number of industry and business leaders who overwhelmingly support the proposal to establish Bell Bay as a regional hydrogen hub. The process for selection as a hub is very competitive, but I have no doubt our region will have what it takes.
I was also thrilled to learn recently that the Bell Bay Advanced Manufacturing Zone, a local industry group committed to ensuring that the region, as Tasmania's premier centre of manufacturing and export, can remain globally competitive, received a $100,000 grant from the national Energy Resources of Australia for research into the latest green hydrogen technology. This funding was matched by the Tasmanian government, who also recognised the importance of investing in this emergent industry. BBAMZ was one of 13 clusters to share in this funding as part of the National Hydrogen Strategy and the only one in Tasmania. As CEO, Susie Bower, said: 'At the moment it's $7 per kilogram for hydrogen, but, if we want to be competitive, we have to get it around $1 to $2 a kilo. The only way to do that is through improved technology, so getting this funding and starting a technology cluster is the first step in bringing all of our smart people together to look at what advances in technology there are to bring that cost of production down.' The government is committed to paving the way for a stronger, cheaper, cleaner and more competitive energy market, a plan which should be supported by all sides.
Well, haven't this government made a meal of developing a mechanism to reduce carbon emissions in our economy? There's no plan at all to transition our economy away from polluting fossil fuels towards more renewable energy and create jobs in the process, to provide investment certainty for the private sector. They have this Luddite view of new technology, and it's a handbrake on Australia's economic development.
In other developed nations, they view the challenge of climate change as an economic opportunity, a chance to catch the wave of technological change and create new industries, new businesses and new jobs in clean energy; in modern farming techniques; in new mining of new resources around rare earths; in research and development of new projects and new technology; in education, around driving that research and development; in the financing of projects and in the accounting and legal aspects of new projects; and, of course, in skills development for workers throughout our country.
The Morrison government view the challenge of climate change in ideological terms purely. They see it as a political weapon, an opportunity to hang on to power—and to hell with the rest of Australia, our economic future and the creation of jobs. They see this issue, and issues such as this, purely as a wedge opportunity, an opportunity to try and drive a wedge between certain sections of the population and the Australian Labor Party on this particular issue—and to hell with the consequences for our environment or job development in the future.
This is no more evident than in the way that they've handled the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and what they are attempting to do to it with this bill, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020. The CEFC was established by Labor in 2013 to support the creation of job-generating clean energy products. The CEFC was established as a government corporate entity with an independent board, and it makes investment decisions based on rigorous commercial assessments and an investment mandate that's based on helping to mobilise investments in renewable energy, in lower emissions technology and energy efficiency products, and in manufacturing businesses that promote and produce the inputs into achieving those aims I mentioned earlier.
The CEFC was established on 1 July in 2013, and it's been extremely successful. It's helped drive $27.3 billion worth of private sector investment in renewables projects and technology to reduce carbon emissions in our economy. It's returned $718 million to the Australian taxpayer during its life. And, importantly, it's driven 20 million tonnes of abatement or reduction in carbon pollution in Australia. So it's been a wonderful success story, in generating a return to the Australian taxpayer and driving down emissions in our economy. Despite that, have a guess who wants to close it. Have a guess who's tried to shut it down. None other than the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments. What other country in the world would try and shut down a body that's been successful in reducing carbon emissions and returning $718 million to taxpayers in Australia? Only one political party would do that, and that's the LNP. And they've been at it since they got to government.
Thankfully, the Australian people have seen through their charade and—through the parliament, through their elected representatives—have been able to stop this government shutting down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. They've all been doing this. The Liberals have been wanting to shut this body down because you've got a small number of Liberal and National MPs who—let's face it—do not believe in climate change, who think that it's all a hoax, who are climate sceptics and who are holding this government to ransom and trying to shut down bodies like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation because they don't fit with their ideological obsession with not reducing carbon emissions in our economy. They've tried to shut down this body that's been very successful, but, thankfully, the parliament stopped them. Thankfully, on the numerous occasions that they've tried to shut it down, the Senate has been successful in stopping that legislation.
So the government said: 'Well, if we can't shut it down, then we'll simply try and change it. We'll neuter it. We'll change its investment mandate so it can invest in projects that—guess what—actually increase carbon pollution in Australia.' Yes, that's right. They want to change the investment mandate of a body that's been successful in reducing carbon pollution and returning dollars to the taxpayer, so that it can now invest in projects that will increase carbon pollution in Australia. And get this: those projects don't produce a positive return to the Australian taxpayer. Can you believe it? It is unbelievable, but that is what this mob are trying to argue with this particular bill. Once again, it's almost like we're in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Let's make the Clean Energy Finance Corporation the 'Anti Clean Energy Finance Corporation' under the Morrison government; that's exactly what they're trying to do through this bill.
The explanatory memorandum for this bill says that this bill's aim is to expand the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's remit to better support the modernisation of the electricity grid through investment in transmission, storage and other firming and reliability assets, and to support the implementation of the government's Underwriting New Generation Investment program. On the face of it, that looks pretty positive, but when you read the fine print with a lot of these things—again going back to this Orwellian language that they use—there's a much more sinister plan by this government. It's about undermining the investment mandate to invest in projects that reduce carbon emissions and are involved in ensuring that we're promoting technology that reduces those emissions. They want to shut down a body that's working. They want to shut down a body that's making a return to taxpayers and making the environment cleaner for our kids by changing the investment mandate so that it can invest in projects that actually increase carbon emissions in our economy and not return a positive return to the Australian taxpayer. That is unbelievable. That is why Labor is opposed to many aspects of this bill, and if the opposition's amendments aren't accepted, we'll vote against the bill.
What they'll do through this bill will be the most significant change in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation since it was established. It makes it the 'Anti Clean Energy Finance Corporation'. In that part of the bill about the Underwriting New Generation Investment program, when you read what some of those programs are, you see what this government is all about. Some of them are gas projects in Victoria and South Australia and Port Kembla. One of them is an upgrade to a coal-fired power station in New South Wales. They're projects that will increase carbon pollution. That's right. They want the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's investment mandate to be changed so they can increase carbon pollution in our economy and make it harder to meet the international commitments, which Australia has signed up to, to reduce carbon emissions—not to mention destroying our kids' future by increasing carbon emissions. Yes, that's what they want the CEFC to be able to do. They want the parliament to say that the CEFC should be able to invest in projects that increase carbon pollution in our economy, sneakily trying to undermine the investment mandate for which this body was established. Why? To placate a small rump of mainly backbench MPs on that side of the parliament that don't believe in climate change: 'Let's hold our kids' future to ransom for the sake of five or six MPs in the Liberal Party and the National Party in Australia that don't believe in climate change.' It is unbelievable.
The CEFC is supposed to invest in emerging technology, in technology that's on the margin about whether or not it would be able to gain capital and access to finance in investment markets. We all know that gas is a well-established technology that doesn't face the barriers to entry that other emerging technologies—like some solar, wind or battery projects and carbon farming initiatives—face at the moment. The only barrier that gas projects face in capital markets, not only in Australia but throughout the world at the moment, is that capital is moving away from projects like that because they increase carbon pollution. That is the only barrier they face.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
This government voted against the establishment of the Hayne royal commission 26 times. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have now sat on Commissioner Hayne's report for two years and only implemented one-third of its recommendations. Instead, this Treasurer and PM are planning to ignore the first recommendation and destroy responsible lending laws.
There is no evidence that these laws are adversely impacting loan growth or the cost of household borrowing. Credit has never been more available. In fact, the RBA just announced that the value of new loan commitments for Australian housing has reached a record high, rising 8.6 per cent to $26 billion in December 2020. A raft of experts has lined up against watering down these protections. Choice, CALC and many other consumer advocates have said that Australians need more income, not more debt and fewer consumer and regulatory protections. APRA and ASIC weren't properly consulted on these proposals. Shayne Elliott has said: 'I don't think there's a fundamental issue with the law as it stands.' The Australian Treasury has said: 'Responsible lending laws are providing stability for the financial system overall.' And I could go on and on, with so many other experts and academics.
The government's proposed changes to responsible lending will hurt the people of Fraser. Brimbank Melton Community Legal Centre has told me about harrowing examples of Fraser residents who have been financially exploited. Financial exploitation and disadvantage are strongly correlated with instances of family violence and relationship breakdown, and they hurt vulnerable people more generally. This is an atrocious and destructive answer to a problem that doesn't exist.
It was fantastic to be part of the official opening recently of the women's changing rooms and facility upgrades at James Browne Oval at Woy Woy. These improvements are, in part, thanks to a contribution of more than $480,000 by the Morrison government, and they include new changing rooms for female players, a redeveloped canteen and upgrades to the clubhouse. Additional contributions from organisations, including the Ettalong Diggers and Raybal Constructions, also helped ensure these improvements became a reality.
James Browne Oval is a hub for many sporting clubs on the peninsula, including the Southern & Ettalong United Football Club, which has over 700 members. The club president, Glen Balneaves, said that the investment will help to boost morale among players and assist with the future growth and development of the women's, youth and senior programs. The women at the club also told me how important the new change rooms were in providing a private space for their teams to gather before a game, as well as equal standing with the men at the club.
Sporting facilities like James Browne Oval are so much more than spaces to be active; they create a pride of place and a sense of belonging for players and spectators alike. That's why the Morrison government is committed to delivering improved infrastructure to assist in building stronger, more vibrant local communities. This funding is in addition to the $120,000 federal government investment to help improve and upgrade irrigation and drainage facilities at the oval. I congratulate the football club for their work in applying for this grant, and a special thankyou to Kylie Brown for her tireless effort in support of the peninsula sporting community. (Time expired)
It is time for the Morrison government to do the right thing and bring the saga of the Biloela family to an end. To be honest, the right time was almost three years ago, when this government took the family into detention—a family who were embraced by their community of Biloela in rural Queensland. At any point during this saga, the immigration minister could have intervened and used his ministerial discretion to allow the family to return home, but he chose not to. The Prime Minister and his team chose to keep this family locked up and isolated on Christmas Island for almost two years. That's despite the long and passionate campaign by the community to bring the family home to Bilo. Over the past three years, the legal costs and detention bill have cost the taxpayer $6 million. Yes, that's $6 million to remove a family from a community that has repeatedly said they wanted them to stay. It's ironic that this government, who repeatedly spruik the need for immigration and skilled migration to our regions, would deny this family that very right.
Prejudice and a lack of compassion have the capacity to make our country ugly. If we do not do something, the prejudice and lack of compassion of this government will take the Biloela family as its victim, because no family should be put through what the Biloela family has faced and is facing. Mr Hawke should use his discretion today and let this family come home.
I rise to celebrate the legacy of a true gentleman and farmer from my electorate of O'Connor who continues to give back to his community, even after his passing. Last Friday I opened Korrinup House, which houses the St Luke's Family Practice in Kojonup. This building has been a labour of love for the entire Kojonup community. Local farmer George Church passed away in 2015, bequeathing $530,000 to his community, with a view to building a medical centre in honour of his beloved wife, Tricia, a long-serving nurse in the town. A generation before, George's mother, Emily, had been a founder of the Kojonup District Hospital, and both George and his sister, Gwen, had served on the hospital board.
In keeping with their hands-on involvement, the Kojonup community vowed that their new medical centre would be community owned and operated. More than 250 community members turned out in force to celebrate the opening of George's legacy, Korrinup House, aptly named after his farm, which he bequeathed in part to the local district high school. The community dug into their own pockets, providing donations that added to the $140,000 contribution from the Kojonup shire and $750,000 from the Commonwealth. The George Church Community Medical Centre board now owns the $1.62 million facility, and I applaud them and their chair, former shire president Rob Sexton, for persevering to deliver such a fitting legacy to local legends George and Tricia Church.
Like the Prime Minister, I have a daughter, but that is completely irrelevant to understanding that violence against women is never acceptable, that rape is never acceptable. I'm honestly gobsmacked at the Prime Minister's comments this morning and at the government's appalling, callous handling of this crime. Brittany Higgins deserves respect, support and dignity, not only because she is someone's daughter but because she is somebody. Daughters and wives do not exist to teach men to respect women and have empathy. If the Prime Minister did not instantly understand how appalling this crime is, no wonder the government hires empathy consultants. When the Australia Post CEO was caught handing out Cartier watches, there was instant rage and visible anger in here from the Prime Minister. But with a crime this serious there was no instant outrage and no immediate response. How lucky we are, I suppose, that the Prime Minister has daughters not sons!
What else could the Prime Minister learn from empathising with his daughters? I wonder how he would feel if the Federal Court had found that his daughter had been denied procedural fairness yet was still imprisoned by his government on Christmas Island? This is the situation that Tharunicaa, aged three, faces with her sister and her parents. His government has wasted more than $6 million trying to deport this one family. This cruel farce must end. Send them back to Biloela and let them stay.
The first weeks of 2021 have been a roller-coaster ride for those Australians who are overseas and seeking to return to our shores. We have seen caps reduced and then increased again, and the confusion caused by the decisions of individual airlines. Australians from my electorate living overseas have frequently asked for my help. Often there is real desperation as people find that normally secure jobs and circumstances come suddenly to an end. The effort to get Australians back home has been considerable. I want to thank the government and DFAT for all that they have done and are doing. In fact, 462,000 Australians have been able to return since the pandemic started, 91,000 of those since September last year. Many have done so on government facilitated flights. So many, however, remain in limbo.
Yet in the past week, as caps were meant to increase again—and have done in most states—we have seen the Premier of Victoria raise the prospect of tightening restrictions, which would make the task of getting our citizens home harder. The hotel quarantine system put in place by the national cabinet has, with some notable but relatively few exceptions, been a success. It's not risk free, as we know, and ways to improve its safety and capacity must be considered. But my plea to Premier Andrews and to all governments is to provide the certainty and numbers in quarantine that we need for those still stuck overseas. Australians must be supported to get home, which is surely the right of citizenship of our great country.
On 19 January this year, Cowan and the broader WA community lost a treasure and a long-time community advocate in Mr Eshtref Abduramanoski. Eshtref was born on 23 August 1938, and sadly passed away at the age of 82. He migrated to Australia from Macedonia in the late 1960s with his wife, Zera, as part of the third wave of Roma people to arrive from all parts of Europe who were brought in to address labour shortages in Australia. I was honoured to be asked by the family to attend and speak at his funeral, held at the Swan Valley Mosque and Pinnaroo Valley cemetery.
It is often said that those of us who achieve success in life stand on the shoulders of giants. Eshtref Abduramanoski was a giant. I first met him around two decades ago, working in the multicultural community sector. I remember his broad smile, his sense of humour and his absolute and unwavering dedication to advocating for the Roma community. He was a vocal advocate and served on the International Romani Union as well. I will remember him as the man who reminded me a bit of my own dad and who was always ready with a smart quip and a stern word of advice. I learned a lot from him and I am truly grateful. To Eshtref's family—his wife, Zera, and the many who live in Cowan—I share my condolences. May he rest in peace.
Today I am putting out a plea for Aussies to step in where the Pacific Labour Scheme and Seasonal Worker Program is falling down because states continue to have restrictions on how many people can quarantine and come into this country to pick fruit. I have got fruit pickers and fruit growers in my area who are desperate for workers. I met with OzHarvest the other day. They have a thousand jobs to start on 1 March and they have seven people ready to go. There are 993 jobs for good, healthy Aussie people to fill. We don't need overseas workers. We need Aussies to stand up and fill this gap urgently. We can't have this fruit dying and rotting on the ground like it is going to do and like it did in the last season. It's time for Australians to stand up and fill this void. I have strawberry farmers who have to order runners for next year now, and they don't want to do it. This is a multimillion-dollar industry that is going down the toilet simply because we cannot get Australians to pick fruit. Let's get off our backsides and get out there and have a crack.
The independent cinemas of Australia need our help. Our local theatres—mine is the Orpheum in Cremorne—provide a cultural hub, a place of entertainment, community and engagement. It is where we tell our stories. Independent cinemas are strong supporters of the Australian film industry. They are usually family owned, they employ over 13,000 people across the nation and they contribute $250 million to our economy every year. They are drivers for local restaurants, pubs, wine bars and shopping centres and support local communities, particularly in regional areas. Yet this sector is falling through the cracks and needs our help.
Since the pandemic, independent cinemas have reported a 70 per cent reduction in revenue due to a combination of mandated closures, constraints on capacity and loss of supply as distributors withhold the release of new films. Yesterday, Minister Fletcher stood in this place and rattled off the long list of international productions being filmed here in Australia. He described it as 'a cornucopia of global productions' but, sadly, we did not hear him boasting about measures to save Australian independent cinemas or our domestic film and arts industries. I call on the Morrison government to listen to the independent cinemas industry and their desperate call for targeted support before it's too late and these beloved community spaces are lost forever.
Fifty kilometres to the north-west of Shepparton is a little town called Tongala. With a population of around 2,000 people, it is a small town but it has always punched well above its weight. Given recent planning developments, the town's manufacturing and agriculture sectors appear to be in for a very bright future.
In recent weeks it has emerged that New South Wales company Manning Valley Fresh is in negotiations with Nestle to purchase its Tongala factory with a view to manufacturing baby formula in the future. Manning Valley Fresh's Steven Elvidge hopes to finalise the purchase soon and hopes the investment will see an increase in employee numbers.
There has also been a recent expansion of Sunrice's Coprice business. Coprice operates a stock feed manufacturing facility at Tongala, and a recent acquisition by a parent company will result in production being ramped up at that site as well.
Just last week I had the opportunity to visit HW Greenham & Sons to learn more about their $55 million expansion plan. Greenham's been operating a meat-processing plant at Tongala since 1993 and now plans to significantly modernise that site. The upgrade would secure an additional 200 jobs, and that will put them in a very good place for the next 20 or 30 years.
I look forward to working with all three companies, and I'm confident that Tongala will play a huge role in helping the federal government reach its aim of agriculture being a $100 billion industry by 2030.
Three years, more than 1,000 days—that's how long Priya, Nades and their two Australian-born daughters, Kopika, now five, and Tharunicaa, now three, have been in immigration detention. That's how long they've been away from their home, the place they belong, Biloela, having been so cruelly ripped away from there in the dead of night. I respect the decision made today by the full Federal Court, and it's now time for decency and common sense to prevail. It's time for the new Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to do the right thing: to let Priya, Nades and their children go home to Bilo, where they are wanted and where they are loved. Recently, the Minister for Home Affairs spoke of cost in explaining why medevac refugees had been released into community detention. Well, members opposite, what about the cost of this—those millions of dollars spent detaining these people out of sight, but not out of Australians' minds, on Christmas Island? What is the cost to us as a nation, to our soul, of this senseless and shameful cruelty? What, most fundamentally, is the cost to these four precious lives? Minister Hawke, you can end this now. So I say to you—it's my plea—do the right thing. It is time for this family to go home to Bilo.
All of us in this place understand that parliament is a high-stress, high-pressure and often unconventional workplace. Unfortunately, this results in behaviours no-one should tolerate or find acceptable. The bottom line is that we need to do better at keeping everyone in this workplace safe. Both sides of the aisle want to attract the best and brightest from across Australia to work here at the heart of our democracy and ensure a broad representation of personalities and views. We want the women and men of parliament to be proud of the way in which they serve their country. This can only be achieved by ensuring a safe and professional workplace that matches the best practices of any other workplace in Australia.
That is why I call for more formal occupational health and safety training for parliamentarians and their staff. Simply learning on the job is not good enough when it comes to recognising and addressing complex issues like mental health or sexual assault. We cannot expect everyone to have a perfect skill set when they arrive in this place, but we can expect that they will be provided with a proper opportunity to learn. We expect every Australian workplace to be safe and professional. Parliament must hold itself to the same standard. Australians deserve no less.
It's pretty obvious to all of us that we are not yet through this pandemic. Whilst it is still raging overseas, whilst we still have Australians returning to Australia infected with the virus, we are still very much in an emergency and fighting a pandemic.
That is why the government's plan to end JobKeeper in March is wrong. It is too soon. We are not yet through the emergency, and there are many businesses in my electorate and in electorates all over Australia that still need that support, particularly in sectors like the arts and entertainment industries. This includes small AV businesses that usually thrive at this time of the year because of the festivals we have. They have not one booking. In fact, they have had not one booking for 12 months. These are businesses that rely upon JobKeeper to keep their doors open and see them get through to the other side. Also affected are small businesses in our tourism sector, particularly travel agents. Again, borders are closed for a reason: we're in a global pandemic. It is what we are doing to keep ourselves safe. So let's do the right thing by these businesses and help them out. We talk a lot in this place about how we help the farmers out when it doesn't rain. We should do the same for sectors like the travel industry, the events industry, the arts industry and the aviation industry when they're in this situation. It is not raining in these sectors. These are tough times. We should extend JobKeeper to keep these people connected in jobs and keep these businesses alive.
I rise today to commend the Stronger Communities Program to the various voluntary, charitable, social, sporting, cultural and school organisations in my electorate of Menzies. This is a program that can provide funding of between $2½ thousand and $20,000 for worthwhile projects and equipment for such organisations.
To give an example, organisations that received funding in the last round are: the Kevin Heinze Garden Centre, for the installation of a disabled toilet; the Wonga Park Wizards, for lighting, the Alpha Men's Shed, for an air-filtering system; the Greythorn Bowling Club, for a cooling system; the Doncaster Lutheran Church, for a kitchen upgrade; Doncare, the major welfare organisation in Menzies, for IT equipment; Doncaster RSL, for an upgrade to their entry and for repairs; the Kangaroo Ground CFA, for an outdoor area; the St Kevin's Tennis Club, for tree-root removal and the installation of a pergola; the Bulleen Templestowe Cricket Club, for a roller door and tables; the Eltham North Adventure Playground, for a shelter and BBQ; the Eltham Pony Club, for an all-weather area; and storage for the Eltham neighbourhood centre.
They are all very worthwhile projects. I commend this program, and ask other organisations to make applications through my electorate office.
Unlike those opposite, the McGowan WA Labor government has kept WA safe and strong as they have maintained a hard WA border, when required, and now as they open up to the rest of the nation. This stood in stark contrast with the Morrison Liberal government and it's Attorney-General siding with Clive Palmer to bring down WA's border when it was unsafe to do so. The strong approach by Mark McGowan and his team, always following the health advice, has kept WA's resources and construction industries powering along, supporting not only Western Australia but the nation's economy. This has resulted in WA having the lowest unemployment rate in the country and the highest participation rate. There are more people employed in WA now than there were this time last year. This prudent management has enabled a commitment to flattening public transport fares, capping them at just two zones, saving working families thousands of dollars a year.
The WA Labor team in my community has been working hard. Terry Healy in Southern River announced a $2 million commitment for a youth plaza. Chris Tallentire in Thornlie announced hundreds of thousands of dollars to restore the Canning River and upgrades to the Gosnells men's shed and Gosnells City Football Club clubrooms. Yaz Mubarakai in Jandakot announced $10 million towards the Canning Vale Regional Sporting Complex and upgrades and support for the Sikh temple in Canning Vale. Tony Buti in Armadale has announced new traffic lights for Armadale and Eighth Road, and Hugh Jones in Darling Range committed millions of dollars for road upgrades in Byford and a new $14 million fire station.
It's a pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to the most recognisable face in Northern Tasmania, Police Commander Brett Smith, who wrapped up almost 40 years of distinguished frontline service with Tasmania Police last month. Having joined as a fresh-faced 18-year-old, he held positions in the criminal and investigation drug squad units as well as search and rescue, counterterrorism and country positions. Having managed a number of crises in his long career, from floods to bushfires and COVID-19, it's perhaps his position as radio-room supervisor on Sunday 28 April 1996 that has proved to be one of the most significant and traumatic days he has faced.
On this day, then Sergeant Smith was responsible for organising the police response to the Port Arthur tragedy, while also fielding triple zero calls that were flooding in. Appointed the northern commander role in 2014, Smith said that it was his strong sense of community in the Northern Tasmania region that kept him in frontline services. His involvement in the police force has earned him the Australian Police Medal, the National Police Service Medal, a national medal for 35 years and the Commissioner's Medal for 30 years of service.
Having spent almost two decades in mentoring and staff development, Commander Smith will continue building on this passion by undertaking a secondment to the Australian Institute of Police Management in Sydney. Thank you, Brett, for your dedication to Tasmania Police and the communities you served across the state for so long, particularly the Northern Tasmania community.
The Prime Minister recently visited my electorate of Paterson but, sadly, he didn't make time to speak with some locals. I want to make it clear to the Prime Minister that I understand politics is politics and he said he wants to start targeting Hunter seats. To that I say, 'Good on you Prime Minister; it's about time the Libs started to finally take some notice of the Hunter.'
At the end of the day, it is time that this Prime Minister met with people who have been so terribly impacted by PFAS in my community. If he did, he would also learn about GP shortages, NBN failures, aged care and pensioners, and generally the cost-of-living challenges that my region faces. But, sadly, the Prime Minister only found precious time to attend a $10,000-per-head Liberal Party fundraiser. Talk about 'pimp your PM'—seriously!
Today I want to repeat my invitation to the Prime Minister to come and meet with me and the families of Williamtown and to meet with community leaders who have had to spend years dragging their own government to court to seek some semblance, some scintilla, of justice. It is important he understands that people are upset, they are angry and they have been neglected. They deserve a Prime Minister who will act. They deserve a Prime Minister who won't hide, who won't cower and who will look them in the eye. Don't be scared, Prime Minister; do what you should.
Last week, at my invitation, the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment visited Moncrieff to listen to stakeholders from the tourism and events industries. My colleagues the member for McPherson and the member for Fadden also attended. They are always strong advocates for Gold Coast industries. I say thank you to all the stakeholders, too numerous to mention in the short time I have, for sharing your insights and to the staff for hosting this event. A big thank you goes to Geoff Hogg at The Star.
Listening at the roundtable, I found that one of the clear messages from stakeholders was on the damage done by state government border closures. The uncertainty continues to interrupt holidays and business trips and, worse still, sees cancellations or virtually no bookings, eroding that all-important business confidence. The difference between the states in how they manage outbreaks is quite stark.
The minister understands that for Gold Coast business and tourism operators the best support comes from measures that get tourists back through the door. The $50 million Business Events Grants Program is exactly that type of measure because of the flow-on effects to small business. There are 22 Gold Coast business events in 2021 already listed as approved for the grant. Event attendees can apply through the government's program to help cover their out-of-pocket costs. To business operators around the country I say: event here this year and, especially, event on the Gold Coast.
I am updating the House on the government's continued attacks on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Many members will be aware that the agency, the NDIA, has begun so-called independent reviews of participants' plans. Let there be no mistake: this is an attempt to cut funding to participants. I've already been contacted by distressed constituents who have been contacted out of the blue by a friendly employee of the agency who has asked them if they would like to have their plan reviewed. In the matters that have come to me, these plans have been downgraded and funding has been cut. The most recent example is a constituent who was initially assessed as being suitable for a single apartment costing about $75,000. Then, after the review, this was changed to shared living with three others, which cost $43,000. As you would imagine, this has caused very significant distress for my constituent.
This is part of the Liberals' sick ideological attack on the NDIS, a scheme that is there to support the most vulnerable Australians. When Labor designed the scheme, the aim was to give participants choice and control over their lives and their plans. The coalition changed this to funding in terms of what is 'reasonable' and 'necessary', and they are now conducting reviews that are not goal driven but funding driven. This is not on. I assure my constituents I will continue to hold this rotten government to account for its continuing attacks on the NDIS.
Jack Vinall OAM was a born leader, a man for his time in a different time, a time not as complicated as the times we have today are. Three times mayor of Morwell, he was an exemplary sportsman in cricket, a football player, an encourager and a coach. Family was first and community was all. As a councillor for those many years, he was a visionary for Latrobe Valley. He took them through a time of change. He was a person of strength in a time when men were men. He was a prankster as well. He was prominent in Young Farmers and the National Party. He was passionate about sitting with his friends around the campfire, with beer cooling in the Morwell River and beautiful freshwater crayfish to cook on the pot. When I walked out of the memorial service with Graeme Middlemiss, I said that was a different time. His family beautifully described a different era of fun and pleasure and good times.
I know across this country, there are Jack Vinalls everywhere. Vale, Jack Vinall, an amazing contribution to life and family.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister agree to establish an external review of the workplace culture at Parliament House conducted by an eminent Australian with appropriate experience and distance from government, such as a former Sex Discrimination Commissioner? Will he ensure that review is conducted in an independent manner and informed by the experience of current and former staff across all parties?
I welcome the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition, and I noted his statement just before coming in here today. The government is very happy to sit down with the Leader of the Opposition and other leaders of the parties, both in this place and in the other place, to pursue a path like the one that the Leader of the Opposition has outlined. I'm very happy to do that, and I thank him for that suggestion and the spirit in which it's been put forward. I'm sure all of us agree that in the important work we all do here, whether it's members of this place, senators in the other place or our staff, we all come here because we want to make a contribution to our country and we should be able to do that in a safe environment for everyone who is here. So I welcome that suggestion.
The government, of course, will continue on with the things I've outlined today. I'm keen to get that moving, and we will. That is about addressing the issues amongst government members', senators' and ministers' officers, so we will continue with that process. That is important.
The work that I've asked the member for Curtin to do is very much work that is being done within the party room, consulting with colleagues on our side. I would encourage the Leader of the Opposition to pursue a similar exercise amongst his colleagues. We could swap notes at the end, and I think that that would be very, very worthwhile and I would encourage that process as well. However, the suggestion is a positive one and I take it in that spirit and am happy to work with the opposition and other parties within the parliament, both here and in the Senate, to that end. Thank you.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's rollout of safe, effective and free vaccines will aid our continued recovery from the COVID pandemic and build further confidence—confidence for businesses and workers to create and get more jobs?
Thank you to the member for Chisholm and, again, thank you for your great leadership in your community over this past year. It was at this time last year that I was with the member for Chisholm in her electorate down in Box Hill when the first returning Australians from China had arrived in Australia. The great discipline that was shown by the Australian community of Chinese heritage, particularly in her electorate, was extraordinary and provided great protection in the early phases of this pandemic. I commend the member for Chisholm.
Today we've taken another big step with the Therapeutic Goods Administration giving the final full safety approval for the AstraZeneca vaccine produced offshore. That has been provided after exhaustive work undertaken by Professor Skerritt and the Therapeutic Goods Administration. It means that it is approved for individuals over 18 years for the prevention of disease caused by COVID-19.
We of course, I would say, have the gold standard when it comes to therapeutic goods administrations around the world. As we've said on many occasions, when we take our children along to be vaccinated, we do so in the confidence of the work of the Therapeutic Goods Administration and we can have that same confidence when it comes to vaccinating ourselves, our family members and our community because of the great work that they have done.
An important part of this rollout is that the people who need the protection most will get the vaccine first—that is, of course, our elderly population and our frontline workers, who are working in quarantine and aged-care facilities and other work of that nature. The Minister for Health has released the vaccine implementation plan for residential aged care, which means that, in the coming weeks, more than 2,600 residential aged-care facilities and more than 183,000 residents and 339,000 staff the aged-care sector will be reached in. Vaccination for home and community aged-care recipients and staff will occur in the community, and these people will receive information relevant to that vaccination and situation shortly. The vaccination plan, which is on track and being rolled out, has been done with safety as the first principle, to ensure that Australians can have confidence. It's an important part of the confidence in our economic recovery. I note that the Australian Bureau of Statistics said today, according to their weekly payroll data, that payroll jobs are now around the same level as last year. That is an extraordinary achievement for the Australian economy. I want to thank all of those businesses that kept Australians in work. We, as a government, were pleased to provide the support necessary to ensure that they could do just that.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Brittany Higgins says that the Prime Minister's principal secretary was aware that she had been sexually assaulted in the defence minister's office soon after the reported assault in March 2019. When and how did the Prime Minister first become aware of the reported sexual assault of Brittany Higgins?
As I said this morning, I became aware of the alleged sexual assault at about 8.30 yesterday morning. That is true. That is when I became aware of it. The first time that my office became aware of an alleged sexual assault, I'm advised, was on 5 April of this year. Sorry, I misread that—apologies. It was 12 February 2021. That's when my office first became aware, I'm advised, of an alleged sexual assault.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is creating jobs and driving regional Australia's economic recovery through the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond?
I thank the member for Flynn for his question and acknowledge his great representation of his electorate. It's a diverse electorate. It's an electorate which relies on agriculture. It's an electorate which heavily relies on resources. It's an electorate which has a wonderful port in Gladstone, a deep port, which is doing so much good for Queensland. When you talk about agriculture, when you talk about resources, you talk about the COVID economic recovery, because those two sectors are leading the way through the COVID recovery. The resources sector, as the minister, the member for Hinkler, advised us yesterday, is going from strength to strength. In Queensland, where both the member for Hinkler and the member for Flynn reside, there's been a 17.9 per cent growth in the resources sector over the past 12 months. The vaccines have arrived in Australia, and frontline workers and vulnerable people will be getting vaccinated starting next week, as the Prime Minister has just indicated.
The government has been dealing with COVID both on the health front, of course, and in terms of the economic situation, providing $251 billion in direct economic support to individuals, families, businesses and industry. One of the support packages, the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, has provided that much-needed and vital support, as far as infrastructure is concerned, right across 537 councils—eight of them in Flynn. That has been so well received. But there is also the economic support to small businesses. I know—and the member for Flynn knows—a fellow in Emerald, in Flynn: Ross Drayton.
Name him!
Yes, I just did name him—Ross Drayton. Thank you, Member for McMahon. I'm sure you'll be interested to hear that he runs the Central Bike Centre. He said, 'With the government's support, our business has been able to employ three female apprentices.' That's fantastic! He continued: 'These apprentices are able to develop their skills while helping to grow our business. Without the support of the government, we would not have been able to take them on. It's a win-win.'
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
Shadow minister, I would have thought you would have liked the fact that we have three female apprentices getting employed. You are rubbishing everything. You are so negative. But this is about real support, in a really good community, getting to the ground. And that's what we're providing right across Australia—$1½ billion to 537 local councils. From Cumberland Council in Sydney, represented by Labor members, right through to Carnarvon, which is well represented by the member for Durack, it is getting support on the ground. It is getting money in the pockets of those hardworking people. These are local contractors, local suppliers and local small businesses providing local workers as we get out of COVID-19—the recession that, unfortunately, we had to have. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in his previous answer, contradicted Brittany Higgins' recollection that the Prime Minister's principal private secretary knew about the reported assault in 2019 by saying his office learned about this only in the last few weeks. The Prime Minister also claimed in his press conference that Ms Higgins's statements were confused. Previously the Prime Minister has said victims of sexual assault should be believed. Why doesn't that apply in this case? (Time expired)
I can only inform the House of the information I have been advised of. The information I have been advised of is that my office became aware of the allegations of a sexual assault on 12 February 2021. That is my information. That is what I know to be the information as it has been provided to me based on what has occurred over these last 24 hours. I can only tell you what I know to be the case based on that information presented to me. I can't provide another set of information.
I note the statement that has been issued today by Brittany Higgins, and I welcome that statement. That statement I think recognises the steps the government is taking, and I welcome the additional suggestions made today. I note that it concludes with this:
I ask for my privacy to now be respected as I begin to emotionally recover from this difficult period and wish to make no further comment.
I will be complying with that request, and we will be seeking to pursue this matter through the mechanisms that I've already announced today and also potentially through the other mechanisms that have been suggested.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr John Haslem, a former member of this House for the electoral division of Canberra and the current national president of the Association of Former Members of the Parliament of Australia. On behalf of the House, a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. On 30 November last year, I asked a question in the House calling for sufficient funding for rail precincts in the Indi towns affected by the Inland Rail project. Since then, the government has announced an additional $5.5 billion to the Inland Rail project. This is more than 50 per cent of the initial budget. How much of this will be spent on increasing the budget in the Inland Rail upgrades in Wangaratta, Glenrowan, Benalla and Euroa to deliver outcomes that meet community expectations?
In my previous answer, I talked about the COVID recession. If there's one project in the infrastructure space that's helping us build out of the COVID recession, it is the Inland Rail. I know it is important for the member in her seat in Victoria, and I will get to the specifics of her question in a short while. For the Narromine-to-Parkes section, the first section of the Inland Rail, 99 businesses have benefited to the tune of $110 million. That's delivery. I know the member is particularly interested in the fact that we've allocated more money to the rollout of Inland Rail. That was necessary because it's gone from, in many parts, a desktop analysis and the design work right through to actual delivery where there's more connection with roadways and there's more necessity to provide those separations. The initial outlay for Inland Rail has been increased. That's because we've seen the additional scope required and, as a good government, we've sensibly budgeted for it. That's what you'd expect a good government to do, of course, and we've done that with full engagement of the local communities.
In the member's state, the Inland Rail is going to deliver an expected $8 billion boost to Victoria's gross state product—
I'll just ask the minister to pause for a second. I'm conscious he's almost halfway through his allotted time and the question was very specific about how much would be spent on certain locations to meet community expectations. I'd just ask him to be relevant to the question or, if he doesn't have the material at hand, perhaps provide it in another way.
I've directed ARTC to work with local communities, including those local communities within the member for Indi's electorate. In response to local interest, community working groups were established in Euroa and Benalla—I appreciate she mentioned Wangaratta too—to collaborate on the detailed design for station precincts and to consult on the engineering solution to raise or relocate existing infrastructure to accommodate double-stacked trains.
We will, of course, continue to engage the ARTC with local communities. I'm very happy to pass on your concerns to the ARTC. They're working collaboratively and consultatively with those local communities. Constructive engagement with the working group in Euroa has enabled the ARTC to incorporate the aspirations of the local council and community, including what's called a 'creating a civic precinct' document, into the requirements for early contractor involvement. ARTC will continue to engage local communities and, most importantly, establish those groups and shopfronts where people can acquire a job and where local businesses can acquire procurement. That's what Inland Rail is all about. Whilst I appreciate there are local stations which the member would like to see upgraded, that's also a matter for the state government in Victoria.
My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Morrison government's strong and decisive economic leadership continuing to support jobs and livelihoods while ensuring the fundamentals of our economy continue to recover strongly from the effects of the COVID-19 recession?
I acknowledge the member for Ryan's service as a member of the Brisbane City Council for a number of years and his support for policies that have delivered tax cuts to 74,000 people in the electorate of Ryan.
Today, the Australian economy got another piece of positive economic data about the strengthening labour market. Payroll jobs are up by 1.3 per cent for the fortnight across all states and territories—that is, back to the level they were a year ago. It follows the data yesterday from the ATO which showed that 2.1 million Australians have graduated off JobKeeper and 520,000 Australian businesses have graduated off JobKeeper in the December quarter, compared to the previous period. We saw a 70 per cent fall in the number of people in Western Australia on JobKeeper. We saw a 64 per cent fall in the number of people in Queensland on JobKeeper. We saw a 60 per cent fall in New South Wales of the number of people in JobKeeper. We've seen the unemployment rate come down to 6.6 per cent. We've seen 320,000 jobs created in the last three months. We've seen 90 per cent of the 1.3 million Australians who either lost their jobs or saw their working hours reduced to zero at the start of this crisis now back at work.
In the RBA minutes released today, it pointed to the economic recovery across the Australian economy occurring earlier and being stronger than first expected. And then, when it comes to the unemployment forecasts, they've been upgraded. When it comes to the unemployment numbers today, they say they've even beaten the most optimistic scenarios as recently as November last year. This is occurring. This recovery is underway because the Australian people have worked so hard to help suppress the virus but also because of the unprecedented level of economic support from the Morrison government—$251 billion has been committed and more than $140 billion is out the door. That $251 billion is equivalent to 13 per cent of GDP. The JobKeeper program, the cashflow boost, the coronavirus supplement, the $750 payments to millions of pensioners, carers, veterans and others on income support: they have helped deliver the results.
Businesses and their workers are graduating off JobKeeper—like JAX Tyres in Mitchelton, where Dean has said: 'The support was excellent. At a time when the world was in lockdown, the transition period was well communicated and allowed us to prepare. The JobKeeper program helped us stay on our feet.' He's been able to keep his workers employed, like we've seen right across the country, because of the strong support from the Morrison government.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Brittany Higgins was, reportedly, sexually assaulted in the defence minister's office almost two years ago. The Prime Minister said just here that his office was not informed about this until just weeks ago. Is it acceptable that the defence minister was aware that a reported serious crime had been committed in her office but did not inform the Prime Minister or his office?
It is not, and it shouldn't happen again.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is backing small businesses to help them transition from JobKeeper and to grow and create jobs for our recovery from the COVID-19 recession and beyond?
I thank the member for his question, and I know that he's a tireless advocate for small businesses in his electorate of Herbert in north Queensland. The Morrison government has always backed small businesses and their workers. Of course, through our very targeted and swift economic response to this pandemic, we gave Australian businesses the confidence that they needed to keep going, to keep their doors open, as they worked their way through this very uncertain and challenging time.
Now we're backing them to create more jobs and to create those jobs not just now but also for the future. There's plenty of evidence that our JobMaker plan is working. We've seen a return of almost 90 per cent of the jobs that were lost during the pandemic, and more than half a million businesses employing over two million Australians have graduated off JobKeeper as at the end of December. One of those businesses in the member for Herbert's electorate is Access Therapy Services. They are an occupational therapy business, and the owner, Joanna, has said that without JobKeeper her business would not be here today. The payment was a lifeline, but now they've graduated from JobKeeper, they're back on track and they're very optimistic about their future.
There are stories like this right across Australia—of the recovery that is happening—particularly across our small businesses. But we don't just support businesses in times of crisis; we've supported these businesses throughout the years, and one of the ways we do that is through our Entrepreneurs' Program. That provides services and grants to small businesses. In particular, the business Growth Grant is aimed at supporting businesses to make sure they become more competitive. The results of this program absolutely speak for themselves. On average, a business that is supported through the Entrepreneurs' Program creates 4.4 new jobs and generates over $1.5 million in increased turnover within 12 months. It's practical programs like this that continue to give our small businesses confidence, and, as they come through this pandemic, it's the confidence that they need—confidence in the future, confidence that they will be able to support their workers, confidence that they will be able to sustain their business and confidence that they will be able to grow their business. This government will always support small businesses. We recognise that they are the key to our economic recovery.
My question is again to the Prime Minister, and I ask: does the Prime Minister have confidence in his defence minister?
Yes, I do. The defence minister, having looked into this matter over the last day and a half and in my discussions with her, was seeking to provide support to Brittany in those circumstances and to exercise judgement in relation to protecting her privacy. Now that judgement on that, of course, is being called into question, and that issue, I think, will carry with it some important lessons. I think the many processes that are now getting underway—and, indeed, the others that have already been discussed here today—can address those issues.
This is a shattering incident, as I've said. It is very serious and we have been taking it very, very seriously, from the moment I became aware, in the actions that we are taking. We can do this together or we can do it in another way. I'm keen to do this together and address this as a parliament. I don't think this should be a matter of politics. It should be a matter of keeping people safe in this building.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister please update the House on the latest developments in the COVID-19 vaccine TGA approval and how all Australians can be confident in the Morrison government's vaccine rollout?
I want to thank the member for Mackellar, particularly for his support of the community during the lockdown of the Northern Beaches in encouraging them to come out and be tested in, I think, pretty much record numbers. That has helped keep them safe.
The next step in keeping Australians safe is the rollout of the vaccine, and today we had the Therapeutic Goods Administration approve the AstraZeneca vaccine. That's important. It follows the European Medicines Agency. It follows the advice overnight of the World Health Organization in endorsing and providing their own approval. These are very important steps for the safety of Australians, for the protection of Australians, for the confidence of Australians and, therefore, for the uptake of the vaccine.
In particular, what's especially important is the protection that is made available from the AstraZeneca vaccine. An article published in the esteemed Lancet journal on 3 February was reported as saying:
COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca confirms 100% protection against severe disease, hospitalisation and death in the primary analysis of Phase III trials.
The World Health Organization said overnight that the AstraZeneca vaccine was 'shown in clinical trials to be safe and effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, with no severe cases and no hospitalisations more than 14 days after the second dose'. As a world, we're learning more about these vaccines. One of the things we are learning is the degree of success and prevention against serious illness, hospitalisation and loss of life.
This comes with the announcement yesterday that the Pfizer vaccine has now landed on Australian shores, is being assessed in terms of its quality and its integrity and is due for rollout next Monday to Australians. The importance of that is that we will begin, as the Prime Minister said, with over 240 aged-care facilities expected to be inoculated in the first week. That means that, at the same time, we'll be supporting our quarantine and border workers and assisting those who are supporting Australians in our hospitals—our frontline health and medical workers. All of these people either are at risk of contracting and retransmitting the disease or are our most vulnerable Australians, and they will be those to whom we turn first to give them the support and the vaccine. But today is another important day in saving lives and protecting lives.
My question is again to the Prime Minister. How can the defence minister maintain the Prime Minister's confidence when the Prime Minister agrees that the defence minister was aware for two years of a reported serious offence occurring just down the corridor from the Prime Minister's own office which potentially attracts a custodial sentence and did not inform the Prime Minister or his office, according to his own statements?
My understanding is that the minister acted in good faith towards Brittany and sought to support Brittany. Brittany, I understand, chose not to make a statement to police about this matter, but the minister, I understand, encouraged her to make a statement to the police about this matter. The agency of individuals—Brittany, in this case, or anyone else who find themselves in this case—and the power to make the decision about how they wish to proceed is something we have to respect. This is a very difficult situation and I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition would agree that, in terms of the safety of the people who work in this building, no party has a mortgage on this type of behaviour. So let us address it together.
My question is to the Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communication and Local Government. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison-McCormack government plans to protect regional, rural and remote communities from the COVID-19 pandemic through a safe and effective rollout of vaccines?
I'd like to thank the member for Mallee for the question and acknowledge her lifelong commitment to the health of the people of the Mallee long before she came to this place and became a member of this House. Following on from the health minister's answer just now, I want to reassure the people of regional Australia that the vaccine rollout will be nationwide and that there is no discrimination in the timing between the larger capital cities and the regions. The health minister just mentioned that next week the rollout starts, protecting aged-care residents and workers and frontline health workers. That is across the entire continent; it is not just in the capital cities.
Regional Australia has done very, very well through this pandemic. The communities have managed to keep themselves safe. Probably some of the safest places on this planet have been in regional Australia. But that's not a fluke. That's because the communities of regional Australia have taken COVID-19 seriously. They've reacted accordingly. They've done that because, despite their success, some of these communities are some of the most vulnerable communities health wise we have in this country.
That's why we have the logistics. The Deputy Prime Minister and I saw on the weekend the capacity of DHL to deliver these vaccines to the four corners of this country in the same condition as if they were going a short distance. Linfox will be involved with the AstraZeneca rollout as well in some states. When the rollout happens, it will be done in a number of ways. The expressions of interest have closed for general practices. They're being assessed at the moment. There are discussions happening at the moment with state governments as to how their facilities are going to chime in for this. Also, not long behind that, we'll be making arrangements with the pharmacies that have shown a lot of interest as well as Aboriginal controlled medical centres and, in some cases, maybe flying squads will come in.
Regional Australia has not only been probably the safest place on earth over the last 12 months; it has also played its part in keeping the economy of this country running. Regional Australia has underpinned the economy of Australia over the pandemic, which has enabled this government to do what it's needed to do to protect Australians. So it's important that the people of regional Australia are protected so they continue in that vital role of keeping this country moving.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that the government has this morning ditched a section of its industrial relations legislation which allows for pay cuts, which the Prime Minister repeatedly said did not exist. Will the Prime Minister now admit he was trying to use COVID as cover to cut workers' pay?
Of course we won't admit that, because that's not true. It's not even close to being true. There was a part of the bill which would have extended a provision that was inserted into the Fair Work Act by Labor. It would have extended it, in our view, in a very modest way. We will remove that from the bill. Why are we doing that? Because we take a practical, pragmatic approach. We want to see as much of this bill as possible find passage through the parliament, because the bill contains a range of measures that will grow jobs, put upward pressure on wages and help businesses survive through COVID.
I might say also that removing this small, modest part of the bill does have another upside: it removes the smokescreen that Labor have created as to why it might be that Labor would not support tougher penalties to stamp out wage theft. Why would Labor not support the first-ever Commonwealth criminal penalty for wage theft?
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Member for Kingston!
Why would members opposite not support a new small-claims stream for the recovery of wage underpayments?
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The member for Kingston is warned.
Why would they not support that? Why would they not support proper civil penalties for wage underpayments? Why would they not support the first-ever criminal offence for wage theft? Why would they not support increased penalties for sham contracting? Those become very, very interesting questions in the context of the member for Watson recently saying this: 'Vulnerable workers getting their money back quickly has to be the highest priority.'
No-one here can find a single valid reason for why you wouldn't support the first-ever criminal penalty for wage theft, why you wouldn't support civil penalties to stamp out underpayment or why you wouldn't do something as practical and pragmatic as having a small-claims stream for wage underpayment. Yet members opposite now say they'll oppose all of those things but are without a reason for opposing them—other than the fact that, as part of their political strategy, they are willing to have those workers end up as, in their own words, 'collateral damage'.
My question is for the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the Australian Border Force and the Department of Home Affairs are providing logistical support in the delivery of COVID-19 vaccines?
I thank the honourable member for his question, for his advocacy and for his great work in his home state of Tasmania. The Morrison government obviously has taken many decisions over the course of the last 12 months or so in dealing with COVID. The first decision that we took was to close the border, initially with China and then with the rest of the world, and that has stood us in good stead. In the United Kingdom, for example, people have been holidaying in Europe and then coming back to the United Kingdom, and that makes it very difficult to contain the virus. Here, we have worked day and night to keep Australians safe.
The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the government have provided significant support, through a number of mechanisms, to Australian families, to workers and to Australian small businesses. The phase that we move into now is not just about protecting Australians from the virus coming into our country from offshore but also about making sure we can roll out the vaccine to protect, in particular, vulnerable Australians—older Australians, people in aged-care nursing homes, people in Indigenous communities, frontline health workers, police, Border Force staff et cetera.
The work of the Australian Border Force really deserves credit, and they deserve great recognition for the way in which they've been able to work with our airlines and, in particular, with our freight carriers. As we know, over the 12-month period up to 1 February this year, total air arrivals into Australia decreased by a staggering 97.4 per cent. The Department of Home Affairs, along with Border Force, have worked to make sure that the vaccine rollout can take place in our country. They have worked very closely with the federal Department of Health and with their state counterparts. I know that, since November of last year, the ABF have used their working relationship with the supply chain partners to make sure that they can facilitate the clearance of 240 vaccine reagent samples in support of the TGA certification process. The TGA is recognised around the world as being the most competent body to assess whether or not it is safe to have one of these vaccines. The work that it has done is quite remarkable and it should be relied upon by all Australians. Yesterday, the Australian Border Force worked very closely to pre-clear 23,790 phials of Pfizer approved COVID-19 vaccines that will provide the dose to 142,000 individuals in our country.
We should all be proud of the effort of our country. People have made sacrifices from one end of this country to the other, and we'll continue to do everything we can to keep Australians safe during the course of the vaccine rollout and to make sure that we can recover in the best possible way.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister dump the other provisions of his industrial relations bill that also allow cuts to workers' pay?
That is not what the government's bill does. It's not what it does. Labor can say it. They can assert it. They can do all of this. They can engage in the overreach that they are engaged in. But I think Australians know, whether they're employers or employees, that the measures we have put forward in this area are modest measures. They're measures that have resulted from a series of good-faith discussions between unions, employers and others to arrive at a set of practical measures that are simply designed to get more people into work as we come out of the COVID-19 recession.
We got more dialogue and engagement from the union movement than we got from the opposition here, and they have lived up to their name when it comes to this. The opposition were supposed to be about working together. They've just been about no. That is the leader of the 'no opposition' that we see over there.
We will engage with parties who are interested in engaging us in good faith to get Australians back to work. We have done that with One Nation in the Senate and we're keen to that with other parties in the Senate to ensure that we can progress these bills to ensure that we can get more Australians back into jobs after the terrible impacts of the COVID-19 recession. That's what we're doing. The opposition is just engaged in overreach, negative politics.
My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is building export opportunities and creating jobs, which are of critical importance as we continue our recovery from the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question and also for her hospitality last week when I went to the Gold Coast and attended various forums with her and Minister Andrews and Minister Robert and got some very good feedback not only about our tourism sector but also about what great exporters there are on the Gold Coast. One of the things which really stayed with me was that sense of community that's still there on the Gold Coast and how everyone's working together to deal with the pandemic and to come out of the pandemic.
We are working day and night to make sure we are creating opportunities for our exporters. Since we came to government, eight free trade agreements have been finalised, including with Japan, South Korea and China. The reason we're doing this is that trade creates jobs. One in five jobs in Australia is as a result of trade and one in four are in regional Australia. We will keep creating opportunities. That's why we're pursuing free trade agreements with the United Kingdom and with the European Union. Already, through what we've done through our free trade agreements, we now have preferential access to 2.7 billion consumers. That means our exporters are getting an advantage when they're trading with all those consumers. If we can finalise agreements with the UK and with the EU, that will create preferential access to another 515 million consumers, leading to more businesses, more jobs and more exports.
But we're not just resting on our laurels there. We've also announced that we are going to be undertaking scoping studies to Israel and also to a group of countries called EFTA—Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. The scoping studies will be completed by the middle of the year. If we finalise what we are doing with the EU and the UK, we will be able to move onto those countries. Why will that be important? Israel is a key destination for many of our exports. When it comes to the EFTA countries, financial services in particular is a huge opportunity.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Others might scoff, but if you look at our track record compared to yours, Leader of the Opposition, ours is second to none when it comes to concluding and finalising free trade agreements on your side. We're about protecting and creating jobs on this side— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, under his industrial relations legislation, section 193 of the Fair Work Act is amended so that workers, instead of receiving cash for their overtime and allowances, can be paid in kind?
Honourable members interjecting—
I haven't even called the minister yet. Members will cease interjecting, particularly those I mention regularly who then seem astounded when they are ejected under 94(a). The minister has the call.
The ability of the Fair Work Commission to take into account non-monetary benefits in making a determination about enterprise agreements was placed in the Fair Work Act by the Labor Party.
My question is to the. Will the minister update the House about how the Morrison government's gas-fired recovery will ensure Australians have access to the affordable and reliable energy we rely on, while at the same time creating jobs?
I thank the member for Reid for her question. Like all of us on this side of the place, she is committed to affordable, reliable energy as we bring down our emissions and support new jobs and support a strong economy. I recently had the chance to visit the Concord Golf Club in her electorate, where we saw them using a combination of old and new technologies to drive down their energy costs and drive down emissions at the same time, including solar pumps, which are used by farmers across this great land.
We on this side of the place know that, as we recover from the pandemic, businesses need affordable, reliable energy, and central to that is our gas-fired recovery. We want to see Australian gas working for all Australians—in our electricity grids, across industry for critical products like fertiliser, and across households. The report on the ACCC's gas inquiry, out today, highlights the good news on gas pricing for Australian businesses and the Australian economy more generally. The report has found that prices offered in 2021 have fallen by as much as 50 per cent—from $8 to $14 a gigajoule in 2019 to $6 to $8 a gigajoule midway through last year. This is good news, but we know we need to do more to make sure Australians lock in those internationally competitive prices over the long term, and that includes more supply.
The minister for resources is doing an enormous amount of the work in this area. He knows that more supply will flow on to lower gas prices and, importantly, to lower electricity prices, because gas generation is integral to our electricity system. You only have to look at a few events that have happened in recent times to see this. On December 17, as renewables struggled in New South Wales following a partial outage of Liddell, we saw electricity prices go to $10,000 per megawatt hour. The gas came on, and they were immediately down by 75 per cent. That's what gas does: flexible, fast-start, dispatchable generation, bringing down electricity prices and keeping the lights on.
I note that there is growing support for a gas-fired recovery not just on this side of the House but among the more enlightened members of the other side of the chamber. Meanwhile, everyone on this side of the House is absolutely committed to the affordable, reliable energy that all Australians deserve.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, when his government made its fuel security announcement last September, there were four operational refineries in Australia and now there are just two, and those two are under immense pressure?
That is, indeed, correct. There is enormous pressure on those refineries in Australia, because of the significant changes that are going on regarding refinery capabilities all around the world and the competitiveness of that and the margins that are in those sectors, and that's why the government has taken a series of initiatives to address those very pressures. The government will continue to pursue those measures as we are dealing with those great challenges, and I will ask the minister for energy to add further to that.
Of course, we are very disappointed by ExxonMobil's recent decision to close the Altona refinery, and we are very conscious of the impact it will have on workers and their families. We'll work with Exxon and the Victorian government to ensure they get the support they need. But, as ExxonMobil has noted, this decision was not a reflection of local policy settings. And, as the Prime Minister has said, we've put in place a comprehensive package to ensure that we have the fuel security in this country that Australians deserve. That includes a mandatory minimum stockholding—an increase of 40 per cent in the diesel that will need to be held by importers, wholesalers, into the fuel market.
On top of that, we have committed to a production payment for the refineries. As ExxonMobil and BP have both pointed out, their decisions were made completely independent of those local policy settings. We can ensure Australians that fuel security is foremost in the focus of this government and was central to the package announced by the government last year.
My question is to the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts. Will the minister please update the House on the progress of Western Sydney airport and how this project will benefit people in Western Sydney, including creating critical jobs as we continue our economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic?
I thank the member for Lindsay, who is absolutely committed to delivering economic opportunities for the people of Western Sydney, based upon our very comprehensive rollout of infrastructure for Western Sydney and leveraging the economic opportunities that come with that, working closely with the Berejiklian government in New South Wales.
Western Sydney airport, a $5.3 billion investment—do you know, there needs to be 25 million cubic metres of earth moved? I was at the site just the week before last. They've already moved 10 million cubic metres, and it's on track to be completed by 2022. So the airport is on track to open by 2026 to take 10 million passengers a year. Some 28,000 jobs, direct and indirect, will be generated within five years of the airport opening. Of course, that's on top of the jobs created during the construction process, and we're hard at work with tenders out for the airside works and pavements. The tenders for the terminal have already closed.
This is part of a much bigger plan. The Commonwealth and New South Wales governments are again working together on the metro, which is the rail connection to the airport, with a $5.25 billion Commonwealth commitment. There's the M12 motorway, which will connect to the airport. There's the Northern Road, which is a $1.6 billion project. It's 35 kilometres long, and there are six stages, three of which are complete. In fact, on my visit to the airport, I was struck by the fact that Luddenham has changed significantly with that part of the Northern Road now completed so that it no longer crosses the Western Sydney airport site. And, of course, there is the Western Sydney City Deal—three levels of government working together to leverage this massive piece of infrastructure. It's an integrated plan. It's job-generating infrastructure. It's about integrated urban planning. It's about business and investment attraction. It's about governance through the Western Parkland City Authority. It's three levels of government working together to deliver jobs and deliver economic opportunity. We're not just building an airport, we're not just building a rail line, and we're not just building roads. What we are doing is transforming Western Sydney in a project that will deliver jobs and prosperity for Western Sydney, for the nation and for all of us who will benefit from this extraordinary project, which is on track. And 2026 is going to come very soon.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister tell the House yesterday that the Safer Communities Fund guidelines had been followed when in fact the Minister for Home Affairs announced two grants during the Braddon by-election before the guidelines had even been written? How on earth can the Prime Minister claim guidelines were being followed when they didn't yet exist?
The guidelines and the processes for undertaking the grants that the minister did engage in were followed. That's how I can say that. That's exactly as it's done in relation to the grants that related to those particular funding announcements. That's how we can say that.
I say to the member for Kennedy that the call alternates, so I'm calling the member for Higgins.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is providing greater care and support to Australian women living with ovarian cancer and their families? Will the minister outline how the government is also acting to increase research so we can defeat this illness?
I thank the member for Higgins for her question and her interest in this important policy area. February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. This is an important opportunity to educate Australians on ovarian cancer and to raise awareness by sharing stories of women and their families affected by the disease. Sadly, four Australian women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each day, and it is estimated that more than 1,000 died from the disease last year.
Research remains our best hope of defeating ovarian cancer and of developing more effective diagnostic tools and treatments to prevent or control the disease. Over the last 10 years, successive governments have provided over $71 million for ovarian cancer research through the National Health and Medical Research Council. Additionally, $16.9 million from the Medical Research Future Fund has been invested in groundbreaking ovarian cancer projects. Our government also provides funding for a range of other measures to support women with ovarian cancer and their families, including the listing of life-saving and life-changing medications on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This includes the recent extension of the PBS listing of Lynparza, meaning an additional 300 Australian women with ovarian cancer each year will have access to a medicine that would otherwise cost $140,000 per course of treatment.
This morning in Parliament House, members had the privilege of hearing from an inspirational woman fighting ovarian cancer, Caitlin Delaney. Caitlin is in her early 40s, a mother of two daughters and an IVF scientist who was first diagnosed four years ago. The conviction and passion in her personal story spoke for all women suffering this cruel disease. She said, 'I have two beautiful daughters: Lilith, eight, and Willow, six. Neither of them can remember a time when they weren't being stalked by this frightening, invisible monster that sometimes makes their mummy so sick she can't move. My beloved husband, Kevin, has had to take a step back from the job he loves to care for me, to lift me when I can't stand, to comfort me when I wake up screaming in the night, to nurse my grief for what's lost.' Caitlin also told us the word 'impossible' has never meant less. She said, 'In the last year, a scary, strange year, I saw our country come together to achieve impossible things. It give me that ever-elusive hope. It told me that we can change the story of ovarian cancer.' It is for women like Caitlin that we continue to fund support services and research to eventually find the cure to something that once seemed impossible.
on indulgence—It was indeed my great honour to be there this morning as well with the Prime Minister and members of the government and from across the House. Caitlin Delaney, I am very proud to say, is one of my constituents. Her beautiful young girls from Stanwell Park Public School were there with their brave, courageous, magnificent mother, who gave quite an extraordinary speech. It was quite a moment in this House. I think it's available for people here and outside in the general public to look at. Ovarian cancer is something that hasn't got the same attention, perhaps, as breast cancer or prostate cancer. It is a debilitating disease. On both sides of parliament, we are all committed to taking action on it. I thank the minister for her response.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister tell the House yesterday that 'the guidelines have been followed' for this program when the Minister for Home Affairs approved the two grants he announced during the Braddon by-election despite advice from his department that the projects were—and I quote from the department's advice—unsuitable and ineligible?
The guidelines that relate to such grants require that, where a decision is made by a minister, which a minister is empowered to do, they give a statement of reasons for that purpose, which the minister did. That is what the requirement is.
My question is to the Minister for the NDIS and Minister for Government Services. Can the minister update the House on how service delivery has improved under Services Australia during COVID-19 and more broadly? How does this compare to previous service delivery approaches?
Let me thank the member for his question and his great interest in service delivery in his part of the world. We all recognise many Australians have had a difficult time as a result of COVID-19, and many—over a million—have sought assistance from government for the first time. In the face of enormous challenges, service delivery has been of primary concern for the Morrison government.
Right the way through the pandemic, all 327 Centrelinks have been open. Every Centrelink in Victoria is open today. Can I thank the various state police services who have helpfully visited 220 times to check that all regulations are being followed, as they are. I welcome them to continue to visit. Our digital channels have been operating, and 300,000 concurrent users is the current capacity. It's being upgraded to 500,000 concurrent users as we prepare for the COVID-19 vaccination rollout. In terms of daily myGov and digital channel sign-ins, 12 months ago an average of 570,000 Australians signed in, but at close of business yesterday there were 2.8 million individual log-ins as Australians embrace the use of digital to receive services from government. As a note of interest, in July last year was our busiest day, with four million individual log-ins seamlessly. As an authenticated platform, myGov now has the largest capacity of any platform in the country. It has been modernised. You can go now to myGov and see where government is taking this, as a world-leading platform.
In terms of customer reference numbers, there's no need for Australians to go into a shopfront. It can all be done online. Last week we crossed over to two million digital identities now being created by Australians. All this has meant we've been able to provide services to Australians quicker and faster.
Right now there is only seven days, in terms of the majority of processing for social services and welfare. In terms of claims on hand, social services and welfare has five days worth. Health processing is three days. Child support is eight days. We're routinely answering over 110,000 calls a day. The average speed of answer is circa five minutes. I hear those on the other side mocking, but 10 years ago those opposite hung up on 40 million Australians in the 2010-11 financial year. Unfortunately, our number is 469 for this financial year. Our average speed of answer is circa five minutes. In 2013, when this nation put this government across the other side, finally, to the sword, it was a 90-minute wait. That was the legacy those opposite left. This government is getting on with service delivery.
Prime Minister, China's view of the Drew Pavlou incident revealed an insinuation into our teaching institutions. The revelation of strategic intrusion at Daru, Yam Island and Cape York's tip and the extraordinary Darwin Port stage 2 and 3 development decisions threaten territorial occupation. Prime Minister, it's understood you intervened to terminate China's Global Switch as the Defence information system's contractor. Surely, immediately terminating the extraordinary renewal of Global Switch's contract would be applauded by every Australian?
I'm pleased that the member for Kennedy is still quick on the draw and his athleticism knows no bounds. In response to the member's question, I'm advised that Defence has migrated its most sensitive data to a purpose-built data centre. Consistent with the whole-of-government hosting strategy, Defence data migrations of sensitive ICT data and assets was completed ahead of schedule and under budget prior to the expiration of the original Global Switch Ultimo lease in September 2020. Defence is now progressing work consistent with the strategy to migrate less sensitive and unclassified data assets to an alternative data centre.
I'm further advised that Defence has and will continue to retain full operation and control of its data holes. Within the Ultimo data centre, Defence has in place strict security arrangements, including 24/7 Defence security presence, remote CCTV monitoring and regular security audits.
The Foreign Investment Review Board, when I was Treasurer, at the time, put in place strict foreign investment conditions on operations and security since the initial transaction. Now this is important because, in addition to the mitigations that were put in place, this government announced and legislated the most comprehensive reforms of Australia's foreign framework that we've seen. Critical to those is the national securities test requiring mandatory notification for investments in sensitive national security land and businesses but also a last resort power giving the Treasurer further opportunity to review actions for which approvals have been given, if exceptional circumstances arise.
There are also stronger enforcement powers to increase penalties. The protections that were put in place as a condition of that approval means, if they are not adhered to, the Treasurer has the power to act in the national interest and intervene. These are powers that we've put in place to continually strengthen our Foreign Investment Review Board scheme. This is a world-leading scheme. It's designed to protect Australia's interests. We have had the most significant changes to this regime under this government, and we have maintained the confidence of foreign investment in this country at the same time, including through a pandemic. I can assure the member we take these issues extremely seriously. No government has acted more to strengthen our foreign investment rules to protect our sovereignty than this one.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Today marks the 79th anniversary of the Bangka Island massacre. Will the minister please outline to the House how we are commemorating those Australians killed in this tragic event and how the Morrison government is acting to support our women veterans and Defence personnel?
I thank the member for Robertson for her question and her interest in our serving men and women and our veteran community. Among the most tragic stories of World War II was the sinking of the SS Vyner Brooke. Sixty-five nurses sailed from Singapore on the Vyner Brooke on 12 February 1942, bound for Australia; they were heading home. Half an hour from Sumatra, the Vyner Brooke was bombed by the Japanese and sunk. Twelve of the nurses were drowned or killed in the water, and the rest struggled to reach the shore of Bangka Island, with some having spent more than 60 hours in the water. Tragically, one group of 22 nurses and one civilian woman were found and ordered to march into the sea and then they were fired upon by their captors.
Vivian Bullwinkel was hit in the left side by machine gun fire, and the force of the blow pushed her underwater. She feigned her own death until it was safe enough to struggle to shore. Although she crawled through the jungle, she was made a prisoner of war and joined some of the other survivors from the Vyner Brookewho were also prisoners. They were imprisoned on Sumatra, where they remained until the war's end more than three years later. It is one of the most tragic but inspirational stories of survival. Sister Bullwinkel retired from the Army in 1947 and went on to become the Director of Nursing at Melbourne's Fairfield Hospital. She devoted herself to the nursing profession and to honouring those nurses who were killed on Bangka Island. She raised funds for a memorial. She served on numerous committees, including at the Australian War Memorial, and was later president of the Australian College of Nursing. The Bangka Island massacre will be remembered tonight at the last post ceremony at the Australian War Memorial through the story of Sister Rosetta Joan Wight from Fish Creek in Victoria, in my neighbouring electorate of Monash.
A lot has changed in the 79 years since the Bangka Island massacre, but it's stories of courage and determination like that of Vivian Bullwinkel that inspire the current and future generations of Australian servicewomen. I'm proud that today there is no role in the Australian Defence Force that women can't undertake, and that diversity ensures we have increased capability within our Defence Force. More than 15,000 women serve in the Australian Defence Force today, protecting our nation, serving our communities and doing invaluable work to keep us safe. Recently, more than 2,000 women have served on Operation Bushfire Assist, Operation COVID-19 Assist and Operation Fiji Assist, a system of recovery efforts at home and abroad.
We have also seen many great examples of these inspiring women going on and making a huge impact in their civilian lives when they leave the Australian Defence Force. There are many outstanding stories of female veterans who have gone on to be leaders in both the public and private sectors. We have them here in this place as members of parliament; we have advocates for supporting the needs of veterans in the community; and we have others in corporate life. In fact, I note the presence today of retired Wing Commander Sharon Bown, who is in the gallery. Coincidentally, Sharon is here today, and she will be at the last post ceremony this evening as well.
To all of those women who have served, we simply say: thank you for your service. To those we commemorate on the 79th anniversary of the Bangka Island massacre, may we simply say: lest we forget.
on indulgence—I thank the minister for his comments and associate the opposition with paying tribute to the women who've served in our armed forces in the past and those who continue to serve today. I also thank the minister for the courtesy of a heads-up that this response would be given on this important day. The Bangka Island massacre is indeed one of the darkest days in our history, but the bravery of Sister Bullwinkel and others who have served serves as an inspiration, and we are all very humbled. Those of us who get to serve in this parliament are humbled by those who serve in our uniform each and every day.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Shortland proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The government's prioritisation of its own political interests ahead of the interests of Australian communities in safety and crime prevention.
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—
This MPI today is about safety and crime prevention. I'm going to begin by asking people to imagine a young police detective, maybe on a drug squad in a big city. Let's say, for argument's sake, that it's Brisbane. He spends every day making the community safer. He's making a drug—
A government member interjecting—
I'll get to you. He makes a drug bust. When he makes a drug bust, the assets are confiscated—the vile assets derived from the misery inflicted on victims and their families. The assets that are confiscated are then used for law enforcement, drug treatment and crime prevention. These funds are designed to prevent further misery being inflicted on families and to prevent more families being destroyed. If you're this young police detective, maybe from Brisbane, how would you feel if you heard about a minister in Canberra cutting funding to deserving projects and using those cuts to fund projects that his own independent experts score at less than 50 per cent? His own independent experts say aren't eligible for funding. Maybe you would ask why this minister was making the community less safe than it could be. I do wonder what a young Detective Dutton would think about a disgraced Minister Dutton of Home Affairs.
That's what we're debating today. There's a lot of heat and light in this debate, so let's go to some facts. This is a $17.9 million dollar program to make communities safer. The department and independent crime experts ranked the applications and recommended the top 70 be approved. What happened? The minister rejected those recommendations and slashed $5.6 million from the best projects to fund an additional 55 projects. Where were the applications cut? Three-quarters of the projects that were cut were in Labor seats or safe coalition seats. I do wonder how the members opposite feel about the inflicting of these cuts—the member for New England, for example, who saw a halving of the program funding for Inverell. That is the state of these cuts.
Who were the beneficiaries of the minister's remarkable intervention? There were two projects worth $200,000 announced during the Braddon by-election. These two projects, which we heard about during question time, were announced before the guidelines were even written and before applications were open. Imagine being one of the lucky councils down in Braddon, being given money they hadn't even applied for! That's a good trick. I'd love someone to teach it to me. These are two projects that the department subsequently made clear to the minister were unsuitable and ineligible. Unsuitable and ineligible! The two projects did not meet the guideline requirements of having scored above 50 per cent in all three merit criteria. The guidelines make it very clear that, if a project fails the 50 per cent test, it is ineligible for funding. Again, the Prime Minister was being very murky today when he claimed that the guidelines were being followed, because the guidelines are very clear: if a project scores below 50 per cent it is ineligible.
That's what the Minister for Home Affairs did. The minister who prides himself on being Mr Law-and-Order breached the program guidelines and funded two ineligible projects he announced before the program began, in a vain effort to win the by-election. To rub salt into the wounds of taxpayers, the minister spent $36,000 on a VIP RAAF jet to make the announcement. The official explanation from the minister's office is that he travelled down to Wynyard for a citizenship ceremony. What lucky new citizens they are to get the minister's message from the minister himself! If I were being mean, I'd say they might reconsider being Australian citizens if that was their first impression of Australian citizenship.
So the story goes from the minister's office: he was down for the citizenship ceremony. He spent 36 grand of taxpayers' money to do it, and he had an hour to spare in Wynyard. A normal person might say: 'I've got an hour between functions. I might go and have a coffee. I might inject $5 into the local Wynyard economy.' But not this minister. This minister decided to inject $200,000 into the local economy through two grants that are clearly in breach of the guidelines. What's worse is that the $36,000 RAAF VIP jet flight is equivalent to 20 per cent of the actual worth of the grants. So maybe, if he'd jumped on a Virgin or Qantas flight, he could have given a bit more money to Braddon.
Who were the other beneficiaries of the minister's cuts to the best and most meritorious projects? There were 53 other projects much lower ranked, and, coincidentally, over 50 per cent of the funding went to marginal seats and three-quarters of the funding went to coalition seats despite the coalition holding less than 50 per cent of the seats in parliament at that time. Now the minister, in a vain and very belated attempt to defend his actions, claims he simply cut funding from the 19 projects to spread the money across other deserving projects. That's his public reasoning. That would make some sense and have some semblance of truth to it if he'd just picked the next 53 projects in the rankings from the department. But, no, he didn't do that. He picked and chose all through the list of 210 projects, including literally the last ranked project, No. 210. This minister—let's be very clear—chose much lower ranked projects for pure political advantage. This minister chose lesser projects, projects less worthy, projects that would contribute less to community safety, for petty political advantage. He put his political advantage ahead of community safety, and that's a shameful, shameful act.
The second chapter in this affair is his grant to the National Retail Association, which happened to make a $6,500 donation to the minister. 'Deidre Chambers—what a coincidence!' What does the minister do in the same year he receives a $6,500 donation from the National Retail Association? He instructs his department to design a program specifically to deliver not 100 grants, not 10 grants, but one grant—one grant, coincidentally, to the National Retail Association for almost $1 million. It's a great ROI. I would love that. I would love a grant program that delivered to one person, being me. To layer another level of coincidence on this, one week after the National Retail Association pays $1,500 to have lunch with the minister—and what a lucky lunch that must have been!—the minister then instructs his department to expedite the grant design. There is a dinner where $1,500 is handed over, and a week later, coincidentally, the minister instructs his department to get a hurry on in designing the program. If there was ever a poster child for the need for a national integrity commission, this sorry saga is it. Again, the Prime Minister, first of all, didn't even know what this rort was. He used lines from another rort to try and defend the minister's actions and couldn't answer any questions about whether the ministerial code of conduct was breached.
Just four numbers go to the heart of this entire saga: 80, 71, 50 and 100. Eighty per cent of cuts to the best projects were in safe coalition or Labor seats, 71 per cent of the new lower ranked projects that received funding were in coalition seats, over 50 per cent of the funding went to marginal seats, and 100 per cent of the ineligible projects that were funded were in marginal seats.
We've seen from this government rort after rort after rort. We saw sports rorts, with $500,000 going to Mosman Rowers. We've seen the community development grants, where 75 per cent of funding went to coalition seats. We saw the $150 million Female Facilities and Water Safety Stream, which was designed to spend money in the regions but where only 10 per cent of the money went to the regions and the biggest project was $10 million to the North Sydney pool.
Some people listening out there might say: 'This is what all governments do. There's nothing to see here. These are standard operating procedures.' Let's be very clear here: the minister used money derived from human misery—drugs, murder, armed robbery—confiscated by our brave police men and women that was supposed to prevent further crime. He used that money to win votes in marginal seats, and this is the standard this government is setting. As General David Morrison said, 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept,' and the standard that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs have set is using money derived from the human misery of drugs, crime and prostitution to win votes in marginal seats. This is what this debate is about. They'll try and spin it and say no law was broken, but what about ethics? What about morality? That's what was broken under the program.
I thank you for your service in the Queensland Police Force and for everything you've done. I also note the member for Shortland gave a hypothetical story about detectives. Guess what? I was a detective. Guess who else was? The home affairs minister was a detective, and he was a great detective.
Opposition members interjecting—
The assistant minister will pause for a moment. Members will not argue across the table. The members on my left will cease interjecting and the assistant minister will direct his comments through the chair.
First of all, when it comes to service to the police force, wherever you've served, especially as a police officer and a detective, you have actually been on the front line. You have seen the worst of society. In a time of need when a victim needs you, you are there to support them. You are there to hold their hand. You are there to guide them through the courts. You are there to protect them from bad people. It's as simple as that.
When it comes to the home affairs minister, he was the minister who established the home affairs department in December 2017. Being part of that department and seeing the Australian Border Force work so effectively, it is a great credit to the home affairs minister for everything he has done for this country. When it comes to pushing through laws on cybersecurity and making Australia a much safer place, he's the one who's been leading the charge on this.
When it comes to community safety programs, as I've said before, the home affairs minister and all coalition members take the safety of Australians seriously. That's something we'll always do. When it comes to organisations the home affairs minister has approved, the Royal Flying Doctor Service, men's sheds, the Scouts association—and I can say what's so important about the Scouts Association, and I've seen this firsthand. It's the early intervention to make sure young people don't go down the wrong path. This government is very proud of ensuring young people don't go down the wrong path. There's also the Salvation Army trust, St Vincent de Paul and numerous multicultural communities. After we had the awful terrorist attacks in Christchurch, our Prime Minister directed that the Safer Communities Fund needed to support those who could potentially be targeted by faith based extremists.
The Safer Communities Fund provides funding to address crime and antisocial behaviour and, as I said, even goes to the extent of making places of worship much safer places to be. When it comes to grants, I'm very surprised the member for Shortland raised this matter of public importance. I thought he would have been congratulating the coalition on this program because you've been awarded, for example—I notice the member for Macnamara has left the chamber; I don't blame him. I think he's received over 20 safer communities grants.
Opposition members interjecting—
He has; his community has. I will also make this point: his community deserves them. Whether it be a Jewish or an Islamic community, they've been the highest beneficiaries of these grants, especially after the awful attacks in Christchurch, and deservedly so.
Can I mention the member for Spence? He funded six closed-circuit TV cameras and monitors to provide safety for staff and young people at the Salvation Army youth homeless shelter in Salisbury Downs, a very worthy project. The member for Ballarat funded installation of four fixed or mobile CCTV cameras and 10 security lights to boost the efforts of local councils and community organisations to address street crime and antisocial behaviour, again a very worthwhile project. Here in Canberra, we funded the installation of 21 closed-circuit TV cameras and 12 security lights to address incidents of vandalism, antisocial behaviour and anti-Semitic incidents at the Northern Canberra Synagogue and Jewish Community Centre. In Victoria, the member for McEwen's electorate received funding for five wide-angle cameras and two narrow-angle cameras to enhance community safety, improve security and reduce street crime and violence. The member for Moreton's electorate received funding for a grant around Annerley Baptist Church to increase community resilience and wellbeing by addressing crime, antisocial behaviour and other security risks.
I had the great pleasure, with the member for Calwell, of personally going to the Buddhist temple in her electorate, where we heard firsthand the concerns and fear of the Buddhist monks living on site, how they were concerned for their safety and how the congregation was in fear of the Buddhist monks being attacked at night, because they sleep over there. It is the same for the member for Bruce, in whose electorate is the Victorian Tamil Association of Dandenong. He also supplied a letter of support—and I congratulate him for that—for the St Thomas Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. Again, that had been the target of numerous cases of vandalism. Also in the member for Bruce's electorate, I had the great privilege of going to the Victorian Tamil Association and meeting the President there, Param, who received a government grant from the Safer Communities Fund to make the place a safer place for those who worship there.
Again, when it comes to the member for Isaacs, St Thomas Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, with Father Fredy—and I've visited there personally—was in desperate need of funding because of the sheer weight of vandalism occurring at that place of worship. Then we have the member for Lalor, with the SMVS Hindu temple. This temple has been firebombed three times. I was invited out there by the local Hindu community to visit the temple and see firsthand what is going on there. The good people of Lalor who go to this Hindu temple were living in fear of what could happen next. I'm very proud that the coalition government awarded funding to this community.
Then we have the Islamic Museum of Australia, in Thornbury. Again, I visited that. That is in Cooper, a Labor-held seat. When I met Mariam and the others who took me around—sadly, this was not long after the awful terrorist attack in New Zealand—their community was very concerned about what was occurring, and school visits had been cancelled. I'm very proud to say, again, that the coalition government awarded funding to the Islamic Museum of Australia.
Then we have the Newport mosque in the seat of Gellibrand, another seat in the west of Melbourne. In my role as assistant minister for multicultural affairs, I visited the Newport mosque, which I believe is the largest mosque in the Southern Hemisphere. Sadly, people—especially young people—were not turning up to go to the mosque, because of fear of potential attacks. I congratulate them: they made the mosque open to the wider community to see how their place of worship operates. Sadly, that ended up being to their detriment and they needed to install security fences and cameras.
Since 2016, the coalition government has committed $180 million to local councils, places of worship and not-for-profit organisations to address, in particular, youth at risk, and I couldn't be prouder of what our home affairs minister has achieved in this portfolio to make Australia safer. On this side, we always put our national security first.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Giving coalition members a lecture about what it is like being a police officer and a detective—I don't think the member for Shortland would know one if he fell over one—is absolutely disgraceful. I served 18 years in the Victorian police force. It is disgraceful to question me or to question the home affairs minister, who always puts community safety first. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I'm incredibly proud to be a parliamentarian. I'm incredibly proud to represent my community of Dunkley. Every moment I spend in this chamber I genuinely consider a privilege. It's been hard over the last few days and the last few weeks, and perhaps even over the last few years, to always feel proud about how politics is played out in this place. The minister's contribution to this debate just then can be summed up in the phrase: 'In our view, the end justifies the means.' Most of us were taught early on that the end doesn't always justify the means. Actually, if you want to be a real leader, if you want to be part of a government that leads the country, that has the country's trust and that people can look at and say, 'Everything they do, whether I agree with it or not, is done with the best intentions, with integrity, with morals and ethics,' then the means matter as much as the end.
No-one is saying that a program that delivers funding to help communities be safer is a bad idea. The member for Shortland wasn't saying that grants legitimately given, having gone through a proper process with integrity, that help communities to feel safer and be safer, shouldn't occur. What we're saying is that the way in which those programs are administered matters. That's the point of this debate. That's what people speaking on the government side should be trying to grapple with. That's why the Auditor-General is so important. That's why we should have an integrity commission in our national politics. That's why we have processes in this parliament that are supposed to be about scrutiny and debate, because it's not just the end that matters; it's the means, particularly when we're talking about taxpayers' money and getting elected to run a country. It matters.
It's why, before COVID hit, there'd been decades of serious decline in Australians' trust in government and their belief in, of all things, the democratic process. Twenty-six per cent of Australians had trust in their politicians before COVID. At the height of the bushfires, about one-quarter of Australians had trust in this federal government. Over the last year, there was some recovery in trust because of the way in which people in this parliament conducted themselves during COVID. There was an extraordinary increase in the trust in government—to about 70 per cent at the state level and 60 per cent at the federal level—by November last year. But what we have seen from recent ANU research is that it has gone back down again, extraordinarily quickly, to the low 50s. Exercises like the one that the minister for homeland security or whatever his correct title is—I apologise—engaged in with this community safety fund are part of the reason for this decrease. It's not the first time. As the member for Dunkley, I had to help three environmental groups to put in new applications for funding because they had had funding announced from a grants program that didn't exist at the time. This is why this is important. (Time expired)
Thank you, Member for Dunkley, for your contribution. What is the point of government? Why are we here in this place? We all have our priorities, but, at the very lowest common denominator, surely we can all agree that the most important reason for being here is to keep Australians safe. This has to be our No. 1 priority, and the implication that we are putting Australians' safety behind anything else is, frankly, not true. We are keeping Australia safe at our borders. We are keeping Australia safe on our streets. We are keeping Australians safe by rolling out vaccines for COVID. The latest of these vaccines has just been approved today, and, of course, Bennelong's own AstraZeneca vaccine is there at the forefront. While it's tangential to this debate, I hope you won't mind me thanking them for their hard work to keep us all safe and healthy. But I digress.
We are proud of the programs to help keep Australians safe. One such program is the Safer Communities Fund. This provides funding to address crime and antisocial behaviour through the implementation of crime prevention and security initiatives such as CCTV. It helps communities reduce violence and improve safety. Importantly, this fund joins with groups across the community, making us all partners in keeping Australians safe. It has worked and supported organisations such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service, men's sheds, the Scouts association, the Salvation Army Trust and St Vincent de Paul. Since 2016, the government has committed over $180 million to local councils, places of worship, not-for-profit organisations and organisations working with at-risk young people, leading to greater community reliance and wellbeing.
We have benefited from some of this money in Bennelong. Following a number of attacks in a park in Eastwood, the local police and the chamber of commerce joined together to arrange for this fund to provide CCTV in the area, and crimes there have diminished significantly. I've subsequently held community events in this park, and the turnaround into a pleasant area is quite noticeable. The Safer Communities Fund helps reduce violence and, in turn, helps keep our community safer. This program has been the centre point of speeches opposite but is just one way the government is committed to keeping Australians safe and providing our security and law enforcement agencies with the resources they need.
As we move into the 21st century, our crime prevention focus needs to grow from just the physical to include the digital. Our businesses have moved there, our services are moving there and COVID-19 has even sent our social lives into the joy that is Zoom. We have all become dependent on the internet, and we cannot afford for these systems to fail. Keeping us safe online requires all of our community working together, from government to telcos to business and everyone across the community.
The government will invest a further $1.67 billion over the next 10 years to help us work together. We'll be focusing much of this money on keeping Australians safe online. We'll be ensuring our agencies have the power and capabilities they need to combat cybercrime and keep Australians, particularly children, safe, including 100 additional dedicated cyberinvestigators. We're finding new ways to investigate and disrupt cybercrime, including on the dark web. We're also helping small businesses stay safe and providing targeted advice and tools for SMEs to increase their cyber-resilience. We'll be launching 24/7 cybersecurity advice hotlines for SMEs and families, and we'll be working overtime to ensure that our responses to this highly agile sector are up to pace with the challenges.
Finally, I'd like to touch on something mentioned by the Minister for Home Affairs at question time. Like all of us, Border Force has been adaptive in responding to the COVID crisis. Not only have they helped our borders but also they have been instrumental in bringing in vaccines through customs by helping to clear the phials as they come in. Ultimately, they will also be helping to provide the logistics to roll them out across the country. In 2021, is there a better way to keep Australia safe than by facilitating the end to this terrible disease?
There is something strange that goes on in the minds of the members of the Morrison government when they think about and make decisions about how they spend the taxpayer funds that they are the custodians of. They see a bottomless bucket of largesse that they can share around wherever it's going to win them votes or save them seats. For a bunch who rabbit on about merit and being good economic managers and who talk about their integrity, their words simply don't match their actions. They ignore proper processes, they deny impropriety and that is not what our communities deserve.
Let's look at the record. We had sports rorts, where a minister redirected funding for community sporting facilities simply to support the Morrison government's political campaigning in marginal electorates like mine. Then there was the Community Development Grants Program last year, where 75 per cent of the funds went to coalition-held seats. Now we have bushfire grants, where we see the failure of this government to stop the New South Wales government from directing combined federal and New South Wales money—bushfire economic recovery funds—to Liberal and National seats. Of the $177 million of the first round of fast-tracked funding, just $2 million, or 1.1 per cent, went to state Labor seats and no money went to state Greens seats. But this government, just as it did during the fires when it took a hands-off approach, has taken a hands-off approach to bushfire recovery and allowed New South Wales to carry on its merry way. And we had the environmental grants that were announced by government members in 2019, before the program was even opened.
That brings us to the very latest: another day, another rort—the Safer Communities Fund, where the Minister for Home Affairs deliberately took money from projects recommended after scrutiny by the department, in safe and Labor seats, and redirected it to Liberal-National and marginal seats during the 2019 election campaign. Minister Dutton cut $5.6 million in funding for 19 community safety projects. These are the projects his own department had highlighted as the top ones, measuring highly on the criteria that were set. Today, the Prime Minister couldn't even explain how the minister had followed the guidelines when he announced two projects in the earlier Tasmanian by-election, before the guidelines even existed. Apparently that's not a problem that deserves an answer in this place.
I think we deserve more. I think every member who cares about their community deserves more accountability than that. Instead of these projects being assessed and then awarded funds on their merit, nearly $6 million was redirected to 53 lower ranked projects in coalition-held and marginal seats. This wasn't an election fund they were spending. This wasn't an election promise. This was allocated grants funding that was effectively being used to buy votes rather than meet the stated purpose of the program. The Morrison government is treating this money as if it's a personal slush fund. They know it's wrong. Then they try and hide and duck and weave when they're found out.
We all know that there is always a greater demand for funds than grants programs can meet. But Minister Dutton used the funds he cut from the highest ranked applications to approve projects that the department said did not rank highly enough to be funded. To approve two projects that had been deemed unsuitable and ineligible because they'd failed to achieve even 50 per cent of the score on each of the criteria is an extraordinary feat.
There is only one reason to behave in this way. It is a deliberate strategy by these ministers and this government. They do not do what's best for the community. It's purely about doing what is best for them.
Two of these areas that were cut were parts of Western Sydney in the seats of Chifley and Greenway, my neighbours. These were areas where the councils had gone to the effort of seeking funding. Maybe, rather than bothering putting in an application in future, councils should just ask themselves or ask the government: 'Is this round of funding for safe or marginal seats?' And then they'd know if it was worth their while. (Time expired)
As a psychologist and a proud member of the Morrison government, I am committed to making Australian communities safer places to live and work. In fact, the safety of Australians is at the centre of my decision-making, whether that means supporting local community organisations in my electorate of Reid or strengthening national strategies to protect all Australians.
I know that families living in my electorate of Reid sleep better at night knowing that our government has put in place significant protections against child exploitation. In 2018, the government officially opened the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. This has meant that Australia has a single entity driving a coordinated national response to counter the sexual exploitation of children. An initial $68.6 million over four years was invested in this initiative. Our work in this area is exceptionally strong, as it needs to be. Our greatest duty is the protection of our youngest and most vulnerable Australians.
Despite decades of efforts by law enforcement, child sexual exploitation and abuse is a growing global epidemic. Law enforcement here in Australia is seeing an alarming increase in reports of child exploitation committed by Australians within our country and of Australians increasingly travelling offshore to offend. That's why our government passed world-leading legislation allowing us to cancel the passports of known child sex offenders, preventing them from going offshore to commit child sex offences. We cancelled or refused the passports of more than 3,700 offenders. We have revoked a record number of Australian citizenships of child sex offenders.
To protect young Australians from sexual exploitation, we have also strengthened protections in place for the online world. As a psychologist, I am especially concerned with the vulnerable position children are in when navigating the internet. Young people are particularly vulnerable because their brains are still developing, which increases their risk of being exploited through posting personal information and images online. They are also less likely to identify predatory or grooming behaviours.
The Morrison government has taken unprecedented steps to protect children from the risks posed by the online environment. We have invested more than $100 million to arm parents and children with the tools that they need to navigate safely through the digital world and to help people who fall victim to online harm. In a world first, the Morrison government introduced Australia's eSafety Commissioner, and I want to commend the work of the eSafety Commissioner, who has done amazing work to produce resources and practical advice for children, teenagers, carers, parents and older Australians. The eSafety Commissioner has the power to order platforms to remove a range of harmful materials, including cyberbullying directed at children, image based abuse or the unauthorised distribution of intimate images and some categories of illegal and harmful online content if hosted in Australia.
Our need to protect the most vulnerable members of our community extends beyond the digital world. The Morrison government's Safer Communities Fund is a great example of how we have achieved this. I know this grant program has practical and positive impacts across the local communities because my electorate of Reid is a prime example. Since I was elected, this program has provided more than $667,000 worth of security upgrades for schools and places of worship in my area.
In my electorate we have the most diverse range of people, belonging from very different faiths, so it's important that these places of worship are protected and that people feel safe and secure. These places are community hubs where people connect, where families, young people and the elderly come together. In Reid, both St Mary and St Merkorious Coptic Orthodox Church, in Rhodes, and the Sri Karphaga Vinayakar Temple, in Homebush West, have benefited from this very program. Their new CCTV and security infrastructure has meant that people feel safe attending worship services, undertaking charitable work or conducting youth programs in these buildings.
After seven long years, the only noteworthy change in public administration this government can point to is the mandating of multicoloured spreadsheets in the administration of public grants. It's an appalling track record. I commend the member for Shortland for bringing this very important issue to this chamber, because this is not just a debate today about the administration—or, should I say, the maladministration?—of one particular grants program. For me, this goes very much to the heart of why it is we're here. This goes very much to the question of what good government is. Good government, when it's assessed by international agencies around the world, when it's assessed by experts in what it is that governments can do for the benefit of people, particularly the most vulnerable, I would say, generally points to two things: probity and effectiveness.
When we think about probity we think about things like transparency, rule of law and effective checks on corruption. As the member for Dunkley so eloquently pointed out, it's all of these good practices that underpin trust in government, something that is so critically important, particularly in democracies. The member for Shortland has pointed to many practices in the administration of this grants process that profoundly undermine what could be described as best-practice probity, like a minister rejecting expert advice from the department or a minister rejecting independent advice on the worth of projects. But we've seen this time and time again. As members on this side have pointed out, we've seen it in sports rorts. We've seen it at the height of the bushfires when this government was floundering—announcements being made and then members of the public being directed to websites to make political donations. We've seen it recently. The minister for health, in a very dubious way, pointed to an announcement using a Liberal Party logo. This undermining of good practice leads to an incremental lack of trust in government by our community.
This debate today is about so much more than this particular grants process, as important as that is, and it is something that members of the government who have come in here today to speak to this motion have failed to address. It's also about the effectiveness of outcomes. The minister, in defending the administration of this grants process, gave a rather meandering speech in which he listed benefits from various programs that have been funded around the country—completely missing the point. We are not here to say that particular projects aren't providing benefits to the community; rather, we have to look at the way the scheme is being administered.
I want to turn to the definition of the social science of economics, something which perhaps wouldn't be the first thing to occur to most people in this place, when it comes to this motion. Lionel Robbins defined economics as 'the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses'. The reason I raise this is that at the heart of economics is opportunity cost, and this remains true for the century preceding Lionel Robbins' definition. Every time you spend resources on one thing, you can't spend it on others. That is why it is not enough to come in here and randomly pick out areas of government expenditure and say it produced this or that benefit. Good government requires that you can explain the projects that missed out to the people who missed out—those voiceless people whose funding was denied because of choices and interventions made by the minister. That opportunity cost has to be defended by those opposite. It's not enough for them to come in here and pick out random projects. They have to explain and defend why other projects, projects that ranked above the projects that got funded, missed out.
My electorate is an example of that opportunity cost. As has been pointed out, $10 million was allocated to the North Sydney pool, not exactly a regional pool, while a major pool in my electorate has had no funding from the government to date. This pool is a facility which services a highly multicultural community. It's a community with high socioeconomic disadvantage and very poor outcomes—in fact, it has the second-highest rate of diabetes in Australia. The point is that you can look at the benefits of projects but you also have to look at the opportunity cost of the projects which miss out. It's the maladministration of these grants projects which causes so much harm on that front.
Antisocial behaviour and crime affect many communities across Australia. It's almost universal, across demographics and in different socioeconomic areas. The Morrison government has been proactive in introducing crime prevention measures. I have listened to some of the unfounded assertions of members opposite that the program has somehow been inequitable. To the contrary, the Morrison government and the Minister for Home Affairs have been extremely proactive in protecting the interests of communities across Australia in the areas of law and order, public safety and crime prevention. Since the establishment of the Safer Communities Fund program, in 2016, the funding split between coalition versus Labor and Independent seats has been 51.4 per cent to 48.6 per cent, a fairly equitable distribution.
My own electorate of Moore has benefited from both rounds of the Safer Communities Fund program funding, through the installation of brighter lighting and closed-circuit television monitoring systems within the city of Joondalup. This investment in law enforcement technology complements the resources of the Joondalup district police station and the City of Joondalup rangers and security officers. As part of the first round of funding, the City of Joondalup received $327,700 for five CCTV cameras and upgraded lighting at five locations in the city centre. Round 2 delivered a $675,000 grant. Since 2016, the government has committed over $180 million to local projects.
This investment has deterred criminal and suspicious activity as well as antisocial behaviour, providing a safer environment within the city's major entertainment and business district. The streets are much brighter because of the new LED lighting, and families are returning to the Joondalup area during evenings, despite the impact of the COVID pandemic dampening business activity. The lighting upgrade has contributed towards reducing the fear of crime and increasing the feeling of safety within the Joondalup city centre for community members and visitors. The funding has enabled greater cooperation and information exchange between the City of Joondalup and the WA police, resulting in a safer community and greater community resilience.
I'm a regular patron at the restaurants and cafes located in the precinct around my electorate office, centred on Davidson Terrace, Reid Promenade and Boas Avenue, during evenings. The dim street lighting is not conducive to patrons walking between hospitality venues and returning to their parked cars. Many residents once avoided the area in favour of suburban venues. The Joondalup Business Association lobbied for many years, on behalf of its members, to improve the security of the city centre and revitalise the evening trade. As a result of the investment families will feel more comfortable, with brighter lighting, which will improve the ambience of the area. The use of CCTV and law enforcement technology is highly effective in deterring crime and antisocial behaviour. The Joondalup's CBD needs to become more vibrant both during and after business hours. Better lighting and better security are key ingredients in activating the city's hospitality and night-life venues, thus promoting jobs and local economic development.
The Safer Communities Fund has delivered on the coalition's ongoing commitment to keep Australians safe and secure the right access across the nation regardless of their postcode or electorate. As I said earlier, antisocial behaviour and crime affects communities across Australia almost universally, across demographics and in different socioeconomic areas. Only safe communities can be strong and economically prosperous, and the best way to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour is to prevent them from happening. The Morrison government has been extremely proactive in protecting the interests of communities across Australia in the areas of public safety and crime prevention. My electorate of Moore is one of the many electorates that have benefited from the government's commitment to law and order and public safety.
Last year, Transparency International released a report which concluded that Australia is perceived as a nation where corruption has worsened significantly over the past eight years. Who has been in government over most of the last eight years? It's the Liberal-National coalition, and it's therefore little wonder that this government still has not appointed a Commonwealth integrity commissioner and it's little wonder that last year it cut funds to the Australian National Audit Office. This is a government that doesn't like to be scrutinised. This is a government that wants to bury or hide its real activities away from the people who would otherwise expose it for what it is doing. And, if it does appoint an integrity commissioner, I have no doubt that it will do so in a way that limits the person's ability to properly investigate the government's own behaviour, because it has much to hide.
Over the years the government have been in office we have seen a litany of rorting, whether it's to do with infrastructure rorts, whether it's to do with sports funding or whether it's to do with, in more recent times, board and government agency appointments, which the member for Isaacs, who's here in the chamber, has made public statements about on more than one occasion. With respect to the sports rorts funding, I say this on a project on the border of my electorate and the electorate of Spence. The City of Salisbury missed out on a $500,000 grant for a $6 million project for a new athletics centre simply because there were no votes in it for the government. They knew that putting money into that project would not give them any return. For organisations that make submissions for these grants, it takes a lot of time and effort. It is not a simple process, and then to be treated so shabbily by this government who don't even follow their own guidelines is, quite frankly, something that no government should do and something they should be highly criticised for.
We then saw it with board appointments—in particular, the most recent one, the interim Inspector General of Water Compliance. This appointment has been criticised not only by people in my own state but by people from the government's own side of politics. A lot of these appointments are critical in decision-making across the country. We then come to the Community Crime Prevention Program, and the facts with respect to that are absolutely clear: 70 highly ranked projects were cut and 53 hand-picked projects were then funded to the tune of $5.6 million. Why? Because this government was trying to shore up its votes in some of the seats that it needed to win.
Only today there was a joint media release from the Law Council of Australia, the Community Legal Centres Australia, the Women's Legal Services Australia and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services. It was headed 'Family Court merger opposed by 155 stakeholders'. That statement goes straight to the heart of safety, and I'll quote just one part of the statement from the Women's Legal Services spokesman Angela Lynch, AM, who said:
Our opposition to the proposed merger of the family courts is centred on ensuring the safety and best interests of the child and the safety of adult victim-survivors of family violence in family law proceedings. Safety must come first in family law.
That statement says it all. If this was a government that was concerned about community safety, it wouldn't be merging the two courts and it would be listening to the voices of the people who know. But instead it doesn't do that. What it does is continually look for how it can make political gain from using public funds for its own electioneering. It treats public funds as nothing more than a slush fund for the government to use come election time. We saw that very clearly with respect to the funding relating to this motion.
I go back to what I said earlier. Applications for all of these projects are not only time-consuming but go to the heart of the integrity of government, because guidelines are set and people think that if they follow the guidelines they might be eligible for the funding. To have their funds rejected by a minister who then just makes up his own rules is shameful, and, quite frankly, the government ought to stand to account for doing that. (Time expired)
I have to say the coalition's record on matters of safety and crime prevention speaks for itself through a number of grant and funding streams, commitments to the community and targeted financial assistance to those most vulnerable, all while ensuring the right fund mix is spread across our communities in Australia. Safety and crime prevention are a priority for this government. We have consistently worked towards our goal of ensuring that all our communities are safe, that there is downward pressure on crime and that we provide opportunities to every individual to develop the skills necessary to make good life choices.
As was mentioned yesterday in this place by the Minister for Home Affairs, under the Safer Communities Fund program we've committed over $180 million to local councils, places of worship, not-for-profit organisations and organisations working with at-risk young people, leading to greater resilience and wellbeing in our communities. Deputy Speaker O'Brien, you as a former police officer would well know that the role of police and investigators, whether they are state and territory or federal, is very difficult. It's an extremely difficult job, and it's hard to be at the coalface day in and day out. So we should recognise the work that police officers, and former police officers as well, across our nation do and thank them for their contribution to our communities.
Law enforcement and the justice system cannot do it alone. I have said many times in this place that it must start at home. It has to start with education and good respect for authority. But sometimes we understand that it can't start at home, because those support systems aren't there. So it is up to us, as a government and as communities, to provide that support infrastructure for those who are less fortunate, for those who do not have the parental guidance that most of us have had as we have grown up.
One unbelievable example of that is in Kempsey, in my electorate. The Macleay Vocational College received $500,000 back in 2016. This college provides a safety net for children who have fallen out of the mainstream, for those children who are cast aside for various reasons by the standard social infrastructure. A fellow by the name of Mark Morrison, who is the principal of that school, was awarded an Order of Australia for services to his community. I cannot think of anyone more deserving. He is running this school, and I have seen the results, with these young people who were given no hope now graduating with their high school certificates, trade certificates and skills, making them attractive to potential employers in the future. This was a government grant. This money is going to the right place so that we do not allow those who slip through the cracks to fall by the wayside.
Additionally, in the electorate of Cowper, there have been a number of grants secured over the past five years. In the past five years, the Kempsey Shire Council received $300,000 for CCTV; the Coffs Harbour City Council received $590,000 for security upgrades on the Park Beach Reserve; Nambucca Shire Council received $20,000 for fencing to minimise crime; Port Macquarie Rotary Lodge received $13,500. I could go on and on with these great grants. But I should note that, contrary to Labor's popular belief, marginal seats don't always get the funding. In fact, my electorate didn't receive any funding in round 4 or round 5. I note the statistics as to the allocation of these funds being 51 to 49 or thereabouts.
This government is providing the resources and the fair allocation of moneys to make sure that our communities are safe.
The discussion has concluded.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report entitled An Australian Standard for the training and use of privately contracted security and detection dogs.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I thank my fellow committee member the member for Cowper for pushing this and bringing this inquiry to the committee's attention. My interest in it began many years ago, when I was standing in line at one of the nightclubs in the Sutherland Shire. A friend of mine who was standing with me was actually bitten by a rather large white husky dog that was supposedly a security dog but obviously hadn't had the adequate training. We spent most of that Saturday night, rather than getting up to mischief inside the nightclub, lined up in a queue at Sutherland Hospital for him to get many stitches in the back of his calf.
The intent of the inquiry was not to advocate for the introduction of a standard that would undermine or replace the existing standards of police or other government organisations for the use of security or detection dogs. The inquiry sought to understand the ways in which these were the base standard of the private security industry and might be enhanced to improve public confidence in these services. The committee considered a range of domestic and international standards and how a national standard might be structured and enforced. The committee acknowledges concerns regarding the private operation of explosive and drug detection dogs; however, it considers there is a need for government to assist the industry to improve existing standards and thus the safety of services.
The committee found that the lack of a national standard has resulted in the differing of minimum requirements being used by providers. Introduction of a national standard for privately operated canine detection and security services could facilitate a number of improvements. These include: increasing reliability, safety and consistency of services; enhancing Australia's competitive advantage in the international market; and potential streamlining insurance processes.
At the time of the inquiry's establishment, the committee was not aware of any plans to develop a national standard for private security and detection dogs. Since the inquiry began, Standards Australia has commenced work to develop a voluntary standard. The committee welcomes this development and looks forward to seeing the draft standard when it becomes available.
The committee is of the view that law enforcement should be well represented on the technical advisory committee responsible for the development of the standard. This will ensure that only the relevant methodology is incorporated and that controls in the use of methodology are robust. The committee is pleased that the AFP is lending its expertise to the development of the proposed private sector standard. The AFP does not privately contract these types of services itself; it maintains an in-house capability. The committee is assured it has a robust integrity framework in place.
The committee has made two recommendations in its report. The committee heard the concerns of the conservation sector and agrees that the proposed standards should carve out conservation detection dogs from its content. The proposed standards should also clearly define the term 'biosecurity' to mitigate the private security standard inadvertently capturing the work of conservation dogs.
The committee thanks all those who contributed to this inquiry and encourages stakeholders to provide feedback on the draft standard when it is available for public consultation in 2020. I'd also like to note that I was very surprised and pleased to learn how productive these dogs are. When you hear about what is being done with these detection dogs, you see how effective and efficient they are and how they add enormous value to our economy. I thank all those people involved in the industry. I thank them for their support in the inquiry. I'd also like to thank all the other committee members, our law enforcement committee, and the deputy chair, the member for Cowan. I'd like to again thank her for her cooperation. I think it's a good indication of how this parliament can work with both sides of politics working together for the betterment of the nation. I thank the House.
by leave—I was very pleased to bring the issue of an Australian standard for the training and use of privately contracted security and detection dogs to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. The issue was brought to me by Mick Goodwin, a former superintendent of the New South Wales Police Dog Squad and now operator of Dog Force Australia, in late 2019. Alarmingly, at that time, despite previous attempts, there was no agreed national standard for private security canine detection service providers regarding the minimum levels of training, performance, welfare, assessment, operation and administration to carry out the role effectively and with integrity. Additionally, there were no standards for security or protection, meaning canine providers were able to operate without being required to meet any competency based standards.
I would like to thank the committee and, in particular, the chair, the member for Hughes, and the deputy chair, the member for Cowan, for their bipartisan approach and efforts. In addition, I thank the numerous agencies who gave evidence over a number of days.
Along with the recommendations made in this report, it is extremely pleasing to see that Standards Australia have commenced work to develop a voluntary national standard for private sector patrol and detection dogs. Once completed and implemented, this will provide certainty to consumers of a minimum standard of quality of work; certainty as to the proper and humane treatment and training of the dogs; and it will bring Australia in line with other leading countries.
The committee welcomes Standards Australia's decision to develop a voluntary national standard, and I believe that it's this committee's work that has been instrumental in this step being taken. This report provides a clear, concise direction for a national standard, and I commend it to the House.
The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
I wish to make a final point in respect of this bill on financial integrity. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation's investment mandate is to engage in investments that generate a positive return to the government, and that's common sense. You would expect that if taxpayers' dollars are being invested in private projects that there would reasonably be a return to the taxpayer for that investment. But this government want to change that investment mandate such that the government and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation could invest in projects that do not generate positive returns to the government. How stupid would it be for the government to actively put dollars into a project that it knows is going to fail? But those opposite want us to amend this bill exactly so that can happen.
What sorts of projects would they be that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation would have its investment mandate changed to invest in?
Let me guess. Could it be a coal-fired power station? The private sector is certainly not going to invest in a coal-fired power station. They know that that's nuts, that that is crazy. But those opposite expect this parliament to agree to amending the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's investment mandate so that taxpayers' dollars, Australian workers' hard-earned money, can be thrown up against a wall in an investment in a coal-fired power station. Why? To placate the six or seven nut jobs on that side of the parliament who don't believe in climate change. That is why this government is asking this parliament to do that.
And get this: they want to use taxpayers' funds, Australian workers' hard-earned money, to invest in projects that they know will not generate a positive return to the government, that will potentially increase carbon emissions in Australia, and that they know will lose money—and they have the hide to say they're better at managing government finances. Can you believe it? It is unbelievable. But that is exactly what this government expects this parliament to agree to through this change to the Grid Reliability Fund. And they say they are better at managing money. What a joke!
This government has done immeasurable damage to Australia's reputation when it comes to taking stronger action on climate change—not to mention the higher electricity prices that have resulted from their inaction on climate change; the investments that have gone overseas because there is no certainty here in Australia for businesses to invest in clean energy projects because of this government's lack of a road map; the jobs that have been lost in new technologies, in research and development and in renewable energy projects because of this government's scepticism about climate change; and, worse still, the increases in emissions that have occurred in Australia because that mob got rid of an emissions trading scheme and tried to get rid of commonsense objectives like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. It paints a very bleak future for our children. Unless the government agrees with the sensible amendment that has been moved by the member for McMahon, we will vote this bill down because it is not in Australia's interest for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to be investing in projects that increase carbon emissions in this economy and don't return anything to the Australian taxpayer. I urge members of this parliament to vote that amendment up or vote this bill down if the amendment is not successful.
I would say to those opposite, to the member for Kingsford Smith and to the Australian public that this government is taking action on climate change and continues to meet and beat our international targets as we move forward. Businesses and families on the Gold Coast expect our government to deliver results—practical outcomes that make their lives better. That is exactly what the Morrison government has done and continues to do—delivering record support for the economy through jobs so families can cope with this pandemic; ensuring we have a reliable supply of vaccines, which arrived yesterday and are being approved today, to protect Australians; and delivering new joint strike fighters for our sovereignty now and in the decades ahead.
We on the Gold Coast understand that our energy and emissions challenges also need practical outcomes. Our energy mix must be reliable and affordable and must reduce emissions. The good people of Moncrieff expect the government to deliver realistic energy policy and execute well for demonstrable positive outcomes. The Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction is doing just that—delivering results, just as the government is doing across all portfolios.
Former prime ministers Paul Keating and John Howard both believed that, if you change the government, you change the country. Of course, whether a particular change of government was in the national interest is something they most certainly would have differed on. There is great wisdom in the warnings of our former prime ministers that the choices we make at the ballot box matter. After all, living in a well-functioning democracy like Australia, it's easy to give in to the notion that there's a certain inevitable momentum in our national direction—indeed, that our prosperity is inevitable.
The shock of the impact of the pandemic globally has reminded us all that there is no confident autopilot for government. Despite our highly competent and dedicated public servants, good political leadership matters. To paraphrase Menzies on the art and science of politics: expertise is insufficient in any area of government responsibility, just as confident but ill-informed leadership will also fall short. The pandemic has reminded us that both scientific expertise and artful political leadership are, indeed, vital. If the majority of Australians expect outcomes from the government that make their lives better, as we in Moncrieff certainly do, and if we accept that the parties of government change the trajectory of our nation and our lives, then Australians must choose the party of practical solutions. Otherwise, we are led down a very dark road paved by the good intentions of either scientists or politicians.
Mostly, Australians know that reliable, affordable energy has underwritten our national prosperity. Mostly, they also take climate change very seriously. Meeting our energy needs whilst addressing the emissions challenge of our time creates an imperative for practical solutions. One of the things that I like about the member for Hume is that he understands that his ministerial title, Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, encompasses both the essence of what Australians expect him to deliver and the combination of outcomes that Labor refuses to deliver and that the Greens are incapable of delivering—that is, to be for energy and for emissions reduction. Some Greens are so enamoured by the science of climate change that they forget about the science of human energy needs. Other Greens are so absorbed in left-wing politics that their virtue signalling ways are, at best, pointless and, at their worst, lacking in compassion for the very diverse circumstances of Australians. The zealotry of the Greens makes them incapable of delivering any practical solutions.
Labor is capable of delivering sensible reform and practical solutions. The case in point is those reforms of the Hawke-Keating government that were supported by John Howard in opposition. But it seems that, currently, Labor refuses to move to the sensible centre on energy and emissions, despite the best efforts of the member for Hunter. Of course, some in Labor have been infected by the same thinking as the Greens. Others just lack the political leadership to move past either the fear of losing preference that prop up many, many Labor members or the fear of losing inner city seats directly to the Greens. Labor refuses to contribute to the sensible policy in the centre that working Australians prefer because, as the member for Hunter has revealed, the Labor Party has abandoned its traditional base of workers in order to chase green ideology for political expediency.
By contrast, the Morrison government is listening to experts and leading with practical solutions that are pro energy for our economy and that lower emissions for our environment. The approach is very clear. We're investing in technology to create the future that we seek—not trying to tax our way out of incumbent technologies of the past. Those incumbent technologies are, in fact, required for energy to manufacture the hardware for renewables. The government's Technology Investment Roadmap will contribute enormously to Australia's transformation to a low-emissions economy. Sadly, Labor's high-taxing instincts, unimaginative policy doldrums and the political problems I described earlier mean that a big fat carbon tax on Australian families and businesses would be implemented if Labor were trusted to govern. We know from recent history that you can't trust what Labor says about its carbon tax. So let's talk about practical policy solutions and their delivery.
This amendment relates to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, or the CEFC. For those not familiar with the CEFC, consider the CEFC's own description of its role:
The CEFC has a unique role to increase investment in Australia's transition to lower emissions. With the backing of the Australian Government, we invest to lead the market, operating with commercial rigour to address some of Australia's toughest emissions challenges – in agriculture, energy generation and storage, infrastructure, property, transport and waste. We're also proud to back Australia's cleantech entrepreneurs through the Clean Energy Innovation Fund, and invest in the development of Australia's hydrogen potential through the Advancing Hydrogen Fund.
That description makes obvious the connection between the CEFC and the government's Technology Investment Roadmap. I will delve into this point further. It is important not only for understanding this bill but because those opposite face a choice between virtue-signalling rhetoric and substantive action.
This bill supports the government's long-term emissions reduction strategy by contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Technology Investment Roadmap. The road map is about driving down the cost of energy, not the Labor-Greens approach of raising energy prices to drive industries and jobs out of existence. It's pro energy, pro emissions reduction and pro jobs. Investment is a key action to drive the achievement of the road map objectives. Ideologues and the naive will back a narrow range of technologies, but more balance is required to lower emissions whilst creating jobs and driving investment.
The CEFC will be pivotal in leveraging private sector investment in priority technologies identified in the road map and the forthcoming low emissions technology statements. The Morrison government is investing in technology to maintain Australia's energy security as we achieve our emissions-reduction targets. That is what the good people of Moncrieff rightly expect. They don't want extra taxes on their businesses and families, and they certainly can't afford it right now. The members opposite, therefore, face a very real test. If they really support jobs for Australian workers then they should support this bill. If they really support lower emissions then they should support this bill. If they support a more reliable and secure energy market then they should support this bill. If they support lower energy prices for Australian families then they should support this bill. The Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction is delivering what the nation needs and what Moncrieff needs. I urge all members to focus on the needs of their constituents, uncontaminated by green ideology. Hopefully, they will then decide that, like me, they are for energy, for emissions reductions and for this bill.
To reassure Australians and those in my electorate, allow me to outline more about this pro-energy, pro-emissions-reduction and pro-jobs bill. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020 will deliver on these key points. It will support more renewable energy by improving our electricity network via the $1 billion Grid Reliability Fund, the GRF. It will improve reliability. It's not enough to just talk about solar panels and wind farms. You have to make the electricity grid reliable and ready for the significant increase in the level of renewables we are already progressing to. The hair dryer has to turn on. The electric toothbrush has to work. Our world-leading deployment of renewable energy sources in Australia needs to be integrated and backed up.
I would like to ask why the opposition leader still prefers policy influence from the member for Melbourne rather than the member for Hunter. It's no mystery why Queenslanders don't want federal Labor in power. If this bill is passed, real climate change action will be powered through the GRF. The CEFC has identified a pipeline of seven projects that could be supported through the GRF. Given the CEFC model, the value of the project pipeline is estimated at up to $4.5 billion and would create at least 1,075 jobs, mainly in construction. One thousand and seventy-five jobs! That's significant. The GRF will support private investment in storage and transmission infrastructure as well as new reliable energy generation, including gas and pumped hydro.
In Moncrieff, business leaders tell me that affordable, reliable power will be critical to our recovery from the pandemic, to grow the economy and create new jobs. Manufacturing on the Gold Coast is worth about $7 billion and 14,000 direct jobs. Those manufacturers need to keep the lights on and the machinery going. Whether you're powering those manufacturers, theme parks, event venues or hotels, energy costs matter to the bottom line for business and to their ability to employ Gold Coasters. Australia has a tendency to rapidly adopt new technologies. We're a world leader, in fact. We're a country full of early adopters. GRF investment can accelerate new technologies to reach the point where they become economically competitive, as households and businesses rapidly adopt them.
That fast adoption trend and its benefits are observable, right now, in the adoption of renewables. On an energy-only basis, costs have fallen rapidly and we have seen $30 billion invested in renewable energy since 2017. Australia is now deploying new wind and solar 10 times faster per person than the global average and four times faster per person than Europe, China, Japan or the US. Just like we were the quickest adopters of video, CD and now streaming technologies, we are too of renewables. About two million, or nearly one in four, Australian households now have solar panels. It wasn't that long ago that it was only 20 per cent. Now it's 25 per cent.
In 2019, the share of wind and solar in Australia's electricity grids was more than double the global average and projected to rise rapidly in coming years. But there's no autopilot for the situation. If you believe in free-market principles, as I do and those on this side of the chamber do, you recognise that there could be market failures. The pollution that leads to climate change is a market failure. Proponents of an emissions trading scheme, an ETS, will sometimes claim that a commitment to free market principles requires you to support a market mechanism like an ETS. In other policy areas, like defence, health and education, governments often do and should reach for a range of options to address market failures. Energy and emissions reduction policies should be selected for their efficacy.
Currently, there's no shortage of investment in clean energy, but the government has identified a lack of investment in the dispatchable generation needed to support the increase of intermittent generation. To balance and integrate high shares of renewable energy, we need more flexible backup generation and storage, gas, pumped hydro and batteries. Again, the importance of technology investment becomes crystal clear. Driving down the cost of new technologies won't raise the cost of incumbent technologies, like coal and gas, that continue to play an important role in our energy mix. Raising the cost of incumbent technologies through an ETS or Labor's carbon tax could be disastrous.
Practical solutions of the Morrison government won't risk our recovery from the pandemic. We will not risk our recovery from the pandemic! We must have affordability and reliability. The GRF will complement the government's Technology Investment Roadmap to ensure affordable, reliable energy for Moncrieff, the Gold Coast and all Australians, reducing emissions at the same time. GRF eligible investments will include energy storage projects, including pumped hydro and batteries, transmission and distribution infrastructure, grid-stabilising technologies and eligible projects identified in the government's Underwriting New Generation Investments, UNGI, program.
To understand the GRF, it helps to put it in the context of projects that it could support. Some examples in Queensland are new transition projects, like CopperString 2.0, dispatchable generation, like— (Time expired)
Grid reliability is a big issue. We know that. In fact, Labor went to the last election with a $5 billion energy security and modernisation fund, based on the CEFC model, to support network investment and to complement the continued growth of renewable energy, including investing in transmission, storage, firming and reliability assets, such as synchronous condensers. Labor has known it for a while. The industry has known it for a while. The government is now acting, in part—in part, they're acting. Some parts of this bill, the extra billion dollars for grid reliability, are not a bad thing in its pure form. But, as usual with this government, it's the detail. It's what they sneak in behind the announcement that you have to worry about.
Labor's concern—and my concern—is the way this bill changes the nature of one of our incredibly successful institutions and the way the government have inserted their ideological fixation with gas into a Renewable Energy Agency. Secondly, it's the way they've managed to take away the independence of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and give far more power to the minister to decide how the money is spent. We know what happens when ministers in this government make decisions. We've been seeing it for months, the rorting, when ministers get control of how money is spent.
The third part of it is the basic change to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation from a government institution that invests and generates a return for the Australian taxpayer to one that will effectively be allowed, with ministerial intervention, to fund projects that run at a loss. This is a profound change for the organisation—and a change in its skill base as well. This is an organisation built, designed, to invest for a return. It is not an expert at all in the provision of grants. And they are two completely separate things. I have actually worked in both fields, and they are completely different. The expertise that you have around you to make the decisions are different in both those kinds of organisations.
Let's start with a bit of background about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in the first place, because it is an extraordinary achievement. It was set up by the Gillard government, many years ago now. The corporation seeks to mobilise capital investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency and low emissions technologies, where low emissions are defined by the independent board guidelines. The Gillard government did not define what the guidelines were; an expert board did, because this is an incredibly complex area that is changing every day. There are a small number of people in the world who can actually project where the future of this industry will go. Ministers do not have that expertise. Ministerial departments do not necessarily have that expertise. So we set up an expert board, independent of government, and they set the guidelines. They made contract investments of $900 million in the CEFC's first year. It's a very significant success. It is viewed around the world as the world's best practice green bank. Even Prime Minister Morrison called it, in 2019, 'the world's most successful green bank'. It is very successful. It has leveraged $27.3 billion in private investment. It has deployed $6 billion of CEFC funds to achieve that. It has helped finance around 18,000 small-scale projects and is responsible for around one million tonnes of CO2 abatement annually. This is a success story.
You don't see a lot of ministers or local members running around announcing CEFC grants, but, when you actually look at what's funded—everything from electric scooters to low emissions fertiliser production—it's incredibly broad and it's scattered all around the country. But it happens the way grants should happen: expert people set the guidelines; expert people make the decisions; expert people announce them. Politics is essentially not in this institution at the moment. And this bill will change that.
The member for Moncrieff belled the cat on that, by the way, when she said that the CEFC, through this new fund, will drive investment in the government's priorities in the new technology road map—'in the government's priorities'. The government, not the experts, will set the priorities for this fund. The government—the minister, for that matter—will set the priorities. And I guess those will change from one minister to the next.
Again, one of the greatest advantages of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation for Australia is that it has consistent guidelines that can drive investment. Consistency and certainty matter if you are talking about investment. We've all read the stories and we've all heard the economists talk about—we have heard even the Reserve Bank of Australia talk about—the lack of certainty in energy policy in Australia which has driven investment out the door. Major investments do not take place when policy certainty does not exist. Yet once again we've got a government taking something that does provide certainty and applying to it all of its strange ideas about climate change and its focus on the past. Now here we are again, having all of that uncertainty inserted into one of our great institutions which has been a real success story. It's really quite worrying.
The government has history in this. If you listen to both sides here—if anyone out there is actually listening, and you're listening to both sides, to the government position and the opposition position—we're saying: 'Don't trust the government on this,' and the government are saying: 'No, no; this is really great; we're going to do a great job,' I just want you to focus for a minute on what the government has tried to do to this institution over the years. If the government had been supporting this institution, working with it, really trying to grow it and talking about how fabulous it is for the last seven years, maybe we'd listen with a more open mind. But consider what they've done.
In 2013, Prime Minister Abbott introduced legislation to abolish the carbon pricing mechanism, the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—abolish them. That was in November 2013. They didn't get it done, by the way. In 2014, the Liberal government made two more attempts to abolish it as part of the package to abolish the carbon pricing mechanism. Both were blocked by the Senate. So in 2013 and 2014 they tried three times. In 2015, the next year, Prime Minister Abbott tried to limit the CEFC's remit to support renewable energy by issuing a draft directive to prevent them from investing in wind and rooftop solar. So, despite all this bragging we've heard today from the government backbenchers about how great Australia's performance in rooftop solar is, Prime Minister Abbott tried to remove it from the investment stream. Treasurer Joe Hockey and finance minister Mathias Cormann wrote to the CEFC stating that, in addition to wind farms, household and small-scale solar should be excluded from the fund in future. An updated investment mandate added four to five per cent to the required yearly average bond rate. In other words, they required at that stage that the CEFC increase its return. Now they're saying it doesn't have to have a return and that it can actually invest in projects which they don't believe will generate a return at all. They've changed their minds on that, but back then that's where they were. In 2016, they decreased the required portfolio benchmark return to the five-year average bond rate, where it has remained since, so there's been a bit of backwards and forwards. Between February 2017 and 2020, they sought to amend the legislation to enable the corporation to invest in carbon capture and storage, and that legislation lapsed. Other federal government announcements have had the effect of reallocating large sections of the total $10 billion funding to specific technology focused funds.
So they have a history of interfering—first attempting to abolish it altogether and then interfering. This is not a government that has been behind this great institution since the beginning. When you look at what they're trying to do today—to move its focus to include gas, which is not a renewable; to change its focus from renewables altogether; and to take away the certainty that investors have by allowing the minister to decide that certain things should be funded or not and by no longer requiring that projects actually make a profit—you can see that they are substantially acting to reduce the effectiveness of this extraordinary institution.
The Clean Energy Council shows that, because of the lack of certainty for renewables in the investment market, just three new projects reached financial closure in the last quarter. That's the lowest quarterly investment in dollar terms since the index started in 2017. Investment is down more than 50 per cent below the quarterly average for the 2019 calendar year. So again we're hearing members of the government talk about how fabulously everything is going but, when you look at the actual figures, investment is down more than 50 per cent below the quarterly average for the 2019 calendar year. That is entirely about a lack of certainty.
I'm going to say it again, and I've said it a couple of times now already: you will not get commercial investment in renewables while the government keeps changing its policy from one thing to another. We know how many policies they've had: direct action in 2013, the EIS in 2016, the CET in 2017—they all have acronyms—the NEG on 15 August 2018, NEG version 2 on 17 August 2018 and NEG version 3 on 20 August 2018. Then there was no policy, as the minister said it wasn't the government's job, a few days later. Then there was a default price and then a big stick version 1, big stick version 2, coal underwriting et cetera. Every month it seems there's another policy. Without that certainty, you do not get investment, and once again they are taking the certainty in this great institution away with this bill. So we cannot support that.
Let's look at some of the detail here. If this bill goes through, it will expand the remit of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to support the implementation of the government's Underwriting New Generation Investments fund, known as the UNGI program. So it's going to expand the remit to include the UNGI. Let's look at what was funded under the UNGI. So far: Alinta Energy, gas; Australian Industrial Energy, gas; Sunset Power, pumped hydro; Rise Renewables, pumped hydro; UPC Renewables, pumped hydro; BE Power, pumped hydro; Hydro Tasmania, pumped hydro; ZEN Energy, pumped hydro; and Delta, coal. Pumped hydro—good—gas and coal are what have been funded under UNGI. Now, if this bill goes through, the remit of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will expand to support the government's Underwriting New Generation Investments program, which has been gas and coal up until now. Again, it reflects the member for Moncrieff's statement that the CEFC will drive investment in the priorities in the government's new technology road map. The government's priorities—not the board of experts' priorities but the government's priorities. It creates a new category of investment which is funded from the GRF account, and it will include the kinds of things that are currently funded by UNGI. This is causing quite a bit of concern out there.
Another thing that's causing a lot of concern is the ministerial power. The bill includes a provision which will allow the minister to directly determine an investment is eligible for CEFC support through a non-disallowable regulation—really quite unusual. The new power will allow the minister unprecedented powers in shaping CEFC investments, including on an ad hoc basis. You can imagine the extra workload for an organisation that says, 'No, that's not in our guidelines.' It will be if the minister says it can be. Just imagine that. Just imagine the chaos that will come. Imagine people walking into the minister's office for their investment rather than going directly to the CEFC. That's what will happen. I come from business, and I can tell you right now that, if there's a loophole that says the minister can do whatever he damn well wants, businesses will go to the minister. They won't go to the CEFC; they will go to the minister. We will have a person with no real expertise in the future—he seems to have some expertise in past methods of generating power, but not the future ones—as the person that people go to.
It's quite extraordinary. We have this extraordinary institution, the world's best practice green bank, and in a minute it's going to be the minister's bank. It's going to be exactly the same story as with the sports rorts and what we heard today about the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It will be the minister with this massive fund at his discretion, with all of his mates wandering into his office and asking, 'Can we have some money for this?' Just watch it. The history of this government, when you give a minister the authority to actually spend money, is appalling. That's what we're going to see. There's some good stuff in this bill—more money for grid reliability is good—but the detail is a disaster.
It's my pleasure to rise to support the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020. I feel as a South Australian that I'm particularly qualified to talk about grid reliability and grid sustainability, frankly, given the unbelievable circumstance that unfolded in South Australia back in September 2016, where, in a First World nation like Australia, an entire state's electricity system literally collapsed. That's exactly what happened in September 2016. A weather event that put significant pressure on wind farms in the mid-north saw them exit the grid. The subsequent impact of that was, of course, a dramatic collapse in the load; the natural requirement of the Victorian interconnector to shut off from South Australia; and therefore the state blacking out for four hours—absolutely disgraceful. How did we get into that position? Because we didn't have reliability in South Australia. We saw the Northern Power Station close months earlier. We had an enormous amount of intermittent, unreliable generation in South Australia, and when that came offline the entire state collapsed.
That's been discredited.
Order, Member for Isaacs!
Subsequent to that, in 2017, we saw a repeat of that, where 90,000 homes—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs is warned.
had to be dropped out of the system, again because there was no reliability in the system. What was the state Labor government's response to that? They went out and purchased 300 megawatts of diesel generation to install in South Australia—that's right, dirty diesel was purchased by Labor to patch up the disastrous circumstance that they had created in the South Australian electricity grid. Labor were proud of the fact that they were putting gas generation into the South Australian grid. Gas generation in South Australia was the proud policy that Labor took to the 2018 state election. Diesel and gas were invested in by the taxpayer in South Australia because it had been Labor's policy and Labor's position that diesel and gas were required to support the intermittent wind and solar generation installed in South Australia. I'm a supporter of wind, I'm a supporter of solar and I'm a supporter of transitioning away from fossil fuels. We need to have a plan to transition. If we don't have a plan, what happened in South Australia in 2016 and 2017 will happen in all the other electricity markets across this country. That's what underpins the policy principle of what we are achieving through the bill that is before us right now.
We have an enormous amount of intermittent electricity in South Australia, and we have had to rely very regularly on importing electricity from Victoria. We have plans to build an interconnector into New South Wales to almost double the capacity of energy that can be imported and, hopefully in the future—more importantly—also exported. Interconnectors have the ability to do both. But the reason we needed to pursue the policy of a New South Wales interconnector was to ensure that we never again got into the situation we were in five years ago in South Australia. This allows us to chart a sensible, safe, stable, reliable pathway to emissions reduction in this country, not just in my home state of South Australia but everywhere across the country. As we expand our installed intermittent renewable technology, it needs to be firmed up. We need reliability. In the future that will absolutely come through zero-emissions base-load technologies, and we have some of them already operating in this country—pumped hydro, other hydroelectric sources and so on and so forth. But it's simply not possible to embrace renewable intermittent generation, as we should, without having the ability to firm it up. No Australian would accept putting anywhere else in the nation in the same position that South Australia was in in 2016 and 2017.
There are a few excellent things that the CEFC has been doing in South Australia that I'm really proud of. One is the Home Battery Scheme, which is a partnership between the Morrison government and the Marshall government. This is allowing us to support households to purchase and install batteries, where they have household solar. In fact, if they don't yet have household solar, they can install both the solar panel system and the battery system. That obviously creates the ability for households to generate electricity and use electricity at different times. With solar, much like wind, this is absolutely vital. There's no point generating electricity that can't be used, while the sun is shining and we're not at home. Equally, it's a waste if we're not able to access any of that unstored energy in the evening, when we turn on the television, the oven, the dishwasher and the washing machine. Home-scale battery storage means that you can generate electricity, store it and use it when you need it. In fact, in an even more sophisticated way than that, you can actually sell it back into the grid, if you want to, or you can use it to charge your electric vehicle overnight while it's sitting in your garage. This partnership between the CEFC and the South Australian government is allowing so many people to reduce their electricity bills and reduce their emissions. That's probably the perfect example of exactly what a partnership between something like the CEFC and consumers can achieve. We want to see a lot more of that, but it is absolutely vital that we are remembering that, whilst renewable energy technologies are being embraced and invested in—and the private sector is leading that—in South Australia there are times now where we consume the entirety of our electricity demand from renewable energy, and that's a really good thing. We have the installed capacity across wind, in particular, but wind and solar together provide for the electricity needs of South Australian consumption on a regular basis. But of course that is completely underpinned and supported by the peaking gas generation that we have available to us in South Australia and the ability to bring energy in from Victoria and in the future, hopefully, New South Wales. So, although we can generate all the electricity requirements from renewables at times, there are equally other times when we can't generate any at all. It's not the position of the average South Australian that they're happy to have no electricity if the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. That's patently ridiculous.
As other technologies are developed into the future, particularly from a storage point of view, and storage technology expands, we, of course, hope to be able to store a lot more of that intermittent energy not just at the household level, as I outlined before with programs like the home battery one. Of course we've got the Tesla facility at Hornsdale in South Australia. That's the biggest battery in the world and yet it doesn't have the capacity to provide significant grid contribution. It's excellent for frequency support and it's good to have as part of the mix; however, the technology needs to develop much more than currently exists from batteries of that type to be able to have a significant capacity to store and inject into the market the type of voltage and wattage that could possibly replace something such as peaking gas capability.
In South Australia, gas has replaced coal. We don't have any coal generation in South Australia anymore, and people can argue as to whether the way in which we transitioned away from sovereign coal generation capability in South Australia could have been managed better—and I alluded to the worst example of the mismanagement of that. I am quite comfortable with the fact that we don't have coal generation in South Australia anymore, and I wouldn't support in any way proposals to build any new coal generation in South Australia. But what has replaced that coal generation has been a combination of renewable energy, particularly from wind farms, as I've said, which at times can provide almost the entirety of South Australia's consumption needs. However, it is supported by peaking gas capability that is effectively key start and can be turned on when needed to fill gaps that might occur because, for example, weather patterns might change and the wind that was providing the fuel source to the turbines that are generating that wind electricity is no longer available. In South Australia we have this from natural gas. I hope that the interconnector that will be built between South Australia and New South Wales can change that dynamic significantly. It will mean that we won't need as much peaking gas capability in South Australia if we can potentially import, when needed, an extra 750 megawatts of electricity from the New South Wales market much like we can bring in around 800 or up to 850 megawatts from the Victorian market through that interconnection. That will allow us in South Australia to export much more renewable energy than we can simply consume to use domestically in South Australia.
Until 25 years ago, South Australia was always a net exporter of electricity generated in South Australia to other states. We want to get back to being an energy exporter, and in South Australia we can because there's enormous capability for more installed renewable energy capacity across the state in wind and solar. There are other technologies, obviously, that we are developing and we equally hope in South Australia to be a major producer and exporter of green hydrogen. We hope to produce and export green steel from the Whyalla plant steelworks. All these opportunities will only come if we have a transition in place.
If we thought in South Australia we could switch off all of our gas capability and operate off only intermittent renewable energy sources like wind and solar at the moment whilst technologies are still developing then those industries and those opportunities would collapse and there wouldn't be the investment appetite whatsoever for people to do what I know they will do if we have a proper plan to transition, which is invest more in wind, in grid-scale solar and in other grid-scale renewable zero emissions technologies, with the opportunity not just to sell in South Australia but to export into other states and through the National Energy Market. But that is only going to be possible if we've got stability and reliability in the grid.
That's exactly what this bill will deliver. It will give us the ability to bring industry certainty and investment certainty to the energy market across the country. That is going to benefit not just my home state of South Australia but all the participants in the National Energy Market and, of course, the others that are not in that grid in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. That investment certainty extends to industries that obviously must rely on reliable electricity. In my home state of South Australia, we have three major smelters—the steelworks at Whyalla, the lead smelter at Port Pirie and up at Olympic Dam the copper uranium mine has a significant smelter as well. They all need reliable electricity and they need a reliable grid without the risk of what happened in South Australia significantly in 2016 but also more regularly with load-shedding events because we didn't have that firmness underpinning that intermittent generation.
This is what the Morrison government is delivering through this legislation. This is giving the CEFC the ability to make sure that, whilst they're supporting clean energy projects in this country, they're also supporting the transition so that we don't have unintended consequences from an overinstallation of intermittent renewable energy that drives base-load providers out of the market because they can't compete against renewable energy at certain points in time and are selling into the market at nothing or negative and therefore get driven out of the market and, when we need them, because the reliability isn't there through intermittent energy they're not there because there was no transition in place to make sure that intermittent electricity was underpinned by the stability that you get from base-load generation. That obviously needs to include technologies beyond renewable technologies.
It would be great if we could do everything with pumped hydro. That's just not possible. No credible person suggests that that can be done. We need to do it through the sorts of technologies that this legislation is going to support. And, of course, the great thing about having a clear plan for transition is that that is going to drive more investment in renewables. If we know we've got a stable and reliable grid then we're going to have more investment in renewable technology because they are going to know that the market is going to be strong and protected from the risks that occur if you don't have stability and reliability. So it is the place for the government to be doing exactly this, and I commend the bill to the House.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is a great Labor achievement. Established by the Gillard government, it seeks to mobilise capital investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency and low-emissions technologies where low-emissions technologies are defined by an independent board and guidelines. In its first year it made nearly a billion dollars of investments and, to date, has deployed $6 billion of Clean Energy Finance Corporation funds and leveraged $27 billion in private investment. It's helped finance around 18,000 small-scale projects and every year is responsible for about a million tonnes of carbon abatement. Since it began, it has returned to the Australian taxpayer some $718 million. It's an extraordinary record. It's an organisation which has improved energy technologies in Australia, which has boosted investment and created jobs in Australia, which has contributed to carbon abatement and which has returned money to the budget.
Who could be against that? The answer is the Liberal and National parties. In November 2013, Tony Abbott introduced legislation to abolish the carbon pricing mechanism, the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. In 2014, the Liberals made two attempts to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Both attempts were blocked by the Senate. Then, after they couldn't kill it, they decided they'd try and kneecap it. Tony Abbott tried to limit the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's remit to support renewable energy, by issuing a draft directive to prevent it from investing in wind and rooftop solar—because why would you invest in wind and rooftop solar if you're about climate change? The coalition then changed its investment mandate, increasing its benchmark, which limited the degree to which the Clean Energy Finance Corporation could support new technology development. The coalition has sought to amend the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's legislation to enable the corporation to invest in carbon capture and storage technologies, changes which lapsed in the Senate.
So it has been a great success—and it has been greatly opposed by those opposite, who tried to kill it and, when they couldn't kill it, did their best to try and limit its mandate. Why is that? Because fundamentally there are some on the coalition back bench who either don't believe in climate change or don't believe Australia should do anything about it.
Australia is now in the extraordinary situation of potentially facing European carbon tariffs. In the discussions that Australia has had with Europe, it's quite clear that, if we do nothing about climate change, we could face what RepuTex has referred to in a research note as a 'carbon border adjustment mechanism' as early as 2023. That would require Australian exporters to pay a cost equivalent to the carbon price in the European carbon market, which is currently trading at around $60 per tonne of CO2. That EU price could rise, and Australian exporters could be subject to it. That is a direct potential impact of this government's failure to act on dangerous climate change. They could well be exposing Australian exporters to carbon tariffs.
Yet it's very clear that, if we did act on climate change, it would benefit our economy. A Deloitte report suggests that adopting net zero emissions by 2050 and taking decisive climate action would create almost a million new jobs and add some $3 trillion to GDP. Failing to do so could cost 880,000 jobs and slash some $3.4 trillion from GDP by 2070. Acting on net zero, according to the Deloitte report, would create 250,000 new jobs and deliver an additional $680 billion in GDP by 2070. Deloitte warns that the Morrison government's approach of not adopting net zero emissions could cost the mining, manufacturing, services, trade and tourism sectors. There would be an impact right across Australia—particularly on the Queensland economy, which relies heavily on tourism.
So you'd think that moving Australia to net zero emissions by 2050 would be the smart approach, and that's of course why our largest bank, our largest miner, our largest airline and every state and territory have signed up to it. It's why more than 60 per cent of our trade is now with countries that have adopted a target of net zero by 2050. The Biden administration has locked in that target, with an earlier target for the US electricity sector. And China has said that they are aiming for net zero by 2060. Every state and territory in Australia has signed on to a target of net zero emissions by 2050. It is only the federal government that's a hold-out.
You can get a sense as to why they're holding out when you listen to the cavorting from the tin hat brigade that sit on the coalition back benches. The Prime Minister hasn't committed to net zero, but when he began kicking tyres or musing or market testing, as the ad man in charge so enjoys doing, there were outraged cries from the National Party. There was a call that agriculture should be omitted. I'll quote a terrific piece by Katharine Murphy in The Guardian:
This begs obvious questions. Agriculture should be exempted from … what exactly? Exempted from the technology roadmap the Nationals welcomed? Exempted from a nominal, highly caveated, possible mid-century target that Morrison hasn't committed to adopting, and hasn't even begun to talk about legislating?
She says people are talking about crossing the floor against net zero and as she notes, that would be the first time in which people were crossing the floor against a 'prime ministerial feeling'.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has done extraordinarily important work. At the last election, Labor sought to build on its successful model, taking a $5 billion energy security and modernisation fund to the people in the 2019 election which was aimed at complimenting the continued growth of renewable energy by investing in transmission, storage, firming and reliability assets such as synchronous condensers. I commend to the House the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech in which he talked about the importance of investing in modernising the grid in order to support the growth of renewables.
The coalition, however, is seeking to create a faux debate over gas. It is quite clear that gas is not a clean energy. There are carbon equivalent emissions associated with gas and it therefore doesn't meet the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's 'low-emission power generation' definition of being an emissions intensity which is less than half the emissions intensity of the relevant energy system. Gas also is a well-established electricity generation technology that doesn't face financial or technological barriers to investment that need to be addressed by public financial support. There aren't big decisions being made around the investment in major gas projects and there aren't long gas lines in Australia which are facing approval processes. And for those who are touting gas as being the great solution to Australia's woes, it is worth noting that the gas price has approximately halved over recent years, yet many of the benefits that were forecast to flow from a lower gas price don't appear to have materialised. So this idea that Australia's salvation lies in gas is belied by the evidence that we see from the recent significant fall in the Australian gas price. It's a bit like people saying it would transform transport if the petrol price at the pump were to go from $1.20 down to 60c. Then a year later the price is at 60c and people are still talking about the great benefits of doing it. We've had that experience of a lower gas price and it doesn't appear to have had the transformative impact that the gas boosters would have you believe.
The bill also includes a provision which allows the minister to directly determine an investment is eligible for support from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation through a non-disallowable regulation. Former Clean Energy Finance Corporation CEO Oliver Yates has warned that that power fundamentally undermines the integrity and independence of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. A letter from former CEFC and ARENA board members says:
We do not support changes to the CEFC's legislation that undermine its independence, low emissions remit, commitment to profitability, or its avoidance of fossil fuels as part of a clear commitment to assist in the reduction of Australia's climate emissions.
You particularly wouldn't trust the current minister with additional latitude. This is, after all, the minister who was embroiled in the grasslands scandal where he failed to declare a private interest in a company being investigated by his own department and admitted on radio that he was advocating for his own interests, not the public interests. The minister was also behind the 'Clovergate' scandal in which he used doctored figures in official ministerial correspondence to attack the Sydney lord mayor, Clover Moore, and then failed to ever admit that he had done the doctoring. He's the man behind the 'watergate' scandal in which the company, Eastern Australia Agriculture, of which the minister used to be a director and which was a Liberal Party donor, was allowed to undertake a water transaction valued at $80 million, which appears to have been a significant overvaluation.
Under the coalition, we have had renewable energy investment smashed. New figures from the Clean Energy Council show that just three new projects reached financial closure in the last quarter—the lowest quarterly investment in dollar terms since the index started in 2017. Investments were down more than 50 per cent below the quarterly average for 2019. We should be seeing investment and jobs in renewable energy soaring at the moment. But, as a result of the chaos and the many energy policies that have been pursued under the coalition, we don't have those jobs and we don't have that investment. There are fewer jobs in clean energy today as a result of the coalition's hopeless mismanagement of the climate and energy portfolios.
Australian emissions are too high. The government has no plans to reach their inadequate emissions reduction targets. They are relying on low targets and dodgy tricks in order to even have a hope of getting to those targets. Yet they're soon going to have to face up to the world. They are soon going to be in a position in which they will have to account for Australia's appalling record on climate policy.
It doesn't have to be this way. If you look to Britain or New Zealand, you can see Conservatives that have accepted that they need to do something about climate change. They've accepted the science, they've accepted the good economics and they've gotten on and done it. Those countries will not be facing carbon tariffs from their trading partners. But, as a result of the coalition's bungling of this policy and as a result of the fact that they are in the thrall of people like the member for Hughes—who, when he's not peddling misinformation on vaccines is peddling misinformation on climate change—there are still those in the coalition backbench who think that the Bureau of Meteorology is engaged in some sort of conspiracy or cover-up over climate change. There are still those on the coalition backbench who would like to see taxpayer dollars funding new coal-fired power stations that the market won't touch. These people on the other side want to say that they are the party of the market, but, when it comes to coal investments, they want public dollars to go where the market isn't willing to invest: in new coal-fired power stations.
I commend the previous speaker from the coalition for saying that he didn't think that taxpayer dollars should go behind new coal-fired power stations. I look forward to such statements from every coalition member on the other side.
One of the most common issues raised by my constituents in Reid is the need to secure affordable and reliable energy while addressing climate change. Time and time again, these two issues are raised in community surveys, mobile offices and, simply, when locals in my area pick up the phone to call my office. These two issues are not in competition with one another. In fact, securing affordable energy and lowering emissions go hand in hand. Our government recognises this. Our policies on energy and emissions reduction work hand in hand, driven by innovation and new technologies.
The Morrison government is improving Australia's electricity network to support more renewable energy through the $1 billion Grid Reliability Fund. The Grid Reliability Fund will ensure that Australia's world-leading deployment of renewables is integrated and backed up. The fund will support private investment in storage and transmission infrastructure, and new reliable energy generation, including gas and pumped hydro. It's not enough to simply back renewables; we need to ensure that they are a supported and sustainable source of energy as we transition away from fossil fuels. This is what the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020 will achieve.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has already identified a pipeline of seven projects that could be supported through the fund once the legislation has passed through the parliament. The investment value of the project pipeline is estimated at up to $4.5 billion and would create at least 1,075 jobs, mainly in construction. This is a huge win for Australia, especially right now as Australia recovers from COVID-19. Affordable, reliable power will be critical to grow the economy and create new jobs.
Australia's experience has been that, when new energy technologies become economically competitive, households and businesses adopt them. We're seeing that firsthand with renewables right now. On an energy-only basis, costs have fallen rapidly, and we've seen a $30 billion investment in renewable energy since 2017. Australia is now deploying new wind and solar 10 times faster per person than the global average and four times faster per person than Europe, China, Japan or the United States. About two million, or nearly one in four, Australian households now have solar panels. In fact, in my electorate of Reid, the Morrison government has delivered over $81,000 for solar panels to be installed in local schools, childcare services and community groups. It's meant that schools like Strathfield North Public School or childcare centres like Abbotsford Long Day Care Centre can cut their emissions, cut their electricity costs and support greater awareness of environmental responsibility for the whole community.
While the uptake of renewable energy is promising, it brings challenges as well. While there is no shortage of investment in clean energy, the government has identified a lack of investment in the dispatchable generation needed to balance intermittent generation. In other words, we need sources of reliable energy stored or ready to dispatch to balance our supply-and-demand needs. Wind and solar power are great renewable sources, but they rely on unpredictable factors—namely, our weather—to produce the energy, and this is why we are investing in flexible backup generation and storage, gas, pumped hydro, and batteries to balance and integrate high shares of renewable energies. That's why our technology focused approach is so practical. By focusing on getting the costs of new technologies down, we won't raise the cost of the incumbent technologies like coal and gas that continue to play an important role in our energy mix as we transition to a low-emissions economy.
If passed, this bill will help drive our transition to a low-emissions economy, it will secure reliable energy and it will create jobs for Australians. Through the Grid Reliability Fund, the government will invest in the new energy generation, storage and transmission infrastructure that's necessary to ensure the future reliability of our electricity systems. By pursuing a technology-not-taxes approach, we will achieve our emissions reduction targets cost-effectively whilst maintaining our energy security. But Labor have said they will oppose this bill. They will oppose affordable, reliable power. They will oppose new jobs across the sectors. They will oppose our transition to a low-emissions economy. The modern Labor Party is so busy fighting over its green ideology that it cannot agree on any practical solutions for Australia's energy needs. Labor's position on the bill will show whether it is on the side of technologies or on the side of taxes. Right now, Australians do not want further taxes. They do not want to be burdened by higher electricity costs. What Australia needs right now is support for a diversified energy sector, greater job creation and a technology-led transition to a low-emissions economy. The sustainability of our energy grid and our environment relies on what this bill will deliver: a practical, technology-led plan for affordable energy and emissions reduction.
I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020. Labor established Australia's CEFC, the nation's first clean energy bank, in 2012 to facilitate increased finance into the clean energy sector. Under Labor, the CEFC sought to drive capital investment into renewable energy, energy efficiency and low-emissions technologies. But, as we know, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has a track record of attempting to undermine the CEFC and ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, whilst claiming credit for these agencies at the same time. My constituents and all those who care about our environment and renewable energy know better. They fear, and Labor fears, this legislation will open the back door to secretly shovelling cash onto the balance sheets of the government's big polluter mates. So Labor will not support this bill. We will not support a Grid Reliability Fund which is a means of funding fossil fuel projects via the public purse.
The people of Corangamite care deeply about their local and our global environment. The health of our planet and getting well-paid, secure jobs for Corangamite are two of the most important priorities for my constituents. They will not stand for the misuse of the CEFC to undermine the health of our region or the planet, or the many clean energy jobs that will be created as a result of this clean energy investment.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is a bank, led by clever finance experts who, under the Gillard government, were given $10 billion to invest. If they weren't working for the CEFC, lots of these employees would be working for places like Macquarie Bank, Lloyds, Westpac or UBS; however, they do work for the CEFC. They work for the CEFC in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth, and every day these clever employees ensure that these taxpayer funded investments into renewable energy projects are performing well. They also look for opportunities to invest more and better. The employees of the CEFC are exceptionally good at what they do. Even the Prime Minister has recognised their leading practice, calling the CEFC the world's most successful green bank.
Here are some of the facts that have been mentioned already in this debate but are worthy of repeating: the CEFC has returned $718 million to Australian government coffers since its formation in 2012; it has deployed $8.2 billion and leveraged private sector investment of $27.8 billion over the same period; and it has fully or partly funded around 18,000 projects. These projects have a lifetime reduction impact equivalent to 220 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide.
The difference between what these people do now and what they would do if they worked at any other financial institution is very simple. It is about our nation making a valuable contribution to the reduction of global emissions, to taking on climate change, to taking our net zero emissions target to 2050 and to reducing our impact on biodiversity loss, on the decimation of native species, on coastal erosion and on sea level rise. The work of the CEFC creates new, secure jobs. So that's it: that's the fundamental difference between the way the Commonwealth clean energy bank behaves and the way commercial banks behave. Finance is complex. The energy sector is complex. But the principle behind the CEFC is not rocket science. It's in the name: the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
While the CEFC has performed very well over the last seven years, it is despite the fact that the Morrison government has had 21 failed energy policies in that time, soon to be 22. The kind of uncertainty the Morrison government trades in for its own political gain has crippled the market and decimated trust. In 2013 the coalition government tried to abolish the CEFC. In 2014 the government tried to abolish the CEFC twice. In 2015 the government tried to exclude wind and rooftop solar from the CEFC's permitted investments and, from 2017 to 2020, the government expended considerable effort on failing to transfer the CEFC's focus to capture renewable technologies.
The Morrison government has no plan to reach their emissions reduction targets. They are playing accounting games and have played dodgy tricks with carryover credits. Official projections from the government show Australia will fall well short of targets that were too low to begin with. Did you know that new figures from the Clean Energy Council show that just three new projects have reached financial closure in the last quarter? Now we're told they are looking to strengthen the CEFC and improve the bank's capacity to enhance reliability of the grid. To those opposite I say: 'I don't believe you. The members on my side don't believe you. The people I proudly represent don't believe you.' This is the issue before this House today.
The Morrison government wants to change the way the CEFC works, but can it be trusted? Its track record shows otherwise. It doesn't want to change the way the CEFC works because it says there's something wrong with how the CEFC works or because it says the CEFC needs to be able to do something it can't. The good in this bill doesn't require this bill. If the government wants to put another billion dollars into the CEFC, let's do it. If the government wants the CEFC to be able to invest in grid reliability projects, then—good news—it already can. Those are the reasons we've been given, but they simply don't make sense, which is why we have an illustrious group of former senior executive and board members from both the CEFC and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency writing to reject the government's changes. This letter simply states that none of the amendments in this bill would improve the CEFC's clean energy outcomes, contribution to grid reliability, commercial success or contribution to emissions reduction, and they see no compelling reason to support the bill. Instead, we're left to speculate about what this government actually wants. Here's one possibility: the government is changing the CEFC because it wants to use financial complexity to conceal a time-honoured Liberal-National practice of investing taxpayer money into fossil fuels. That seems very possible, given this government's history and the fact that the explanatory memorandum notes certain types of gas-fired electricity generation will now fall under this new definition. This is the concern of my constituents and this is the concern I bring to this House. If the government wants to spend taxpayer money to pad the balance sheets of its commercial polluter mates then, at the absolute least, one would hope they would have the guts to look the Australian people in the eye when they do it.
Because the Morrison government has given us reason to be suspicious, Labor will not support this legislation. We will not support it until it has the kind of restrictions in place that ensure the CEFC only invests in commercially viable renewable energy projects—restrictions that ensure the CEFC isn't used to redirect money to projects that exclusively benefit the Liberal Party and its donors and restrictions that demand that the CEFC isn't used to invest in fossil fuels. Getting this right is important. It's important because of the invaluable work the CEFC does in reducing our carbon footprint, reducing our impact on climate change, reducing our impact on the environment and creating new and rewarding jobs.
People in my community are proud of our environment. They're proud of our magnificent coastline, our waterways and our iconic surf beaches. They want to look after our environment, and, like me, they are passionate about preserving Australia's environment for future generations. They also want to see well-paying green-collar jobs driving prosperity in Geelong, in Leopold, across the Bellarine, in the Golden Plains and down to the Surf Coast. There is frustration at the current energy crisis, frustration with a federal government that has been dragged kicking and screaming to act and frustration with the many missed opportunities we've had over the past seven years—seven years of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's failure to turn our green energy demand into good jobs and good opportunities for regions like mine. Embracing renewable investment makes absolute sense. A well-funded and well-functioning CEFC makes absolute sense. It's good for jobs, it's good for our economy and it's good for our environment.
We support net zero emissions by 2050, and so does every state and territory across Australia. It is only the federal government that will not make this commitment. The Labor Party won't stand by and watch as this government undermines the institution that Labor created and what it stands for: reducing our emissions. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation stands for clean energy. Let's ensure that we keep it that way and that the CEFC continues to do its job: supporting industries that support renewable energy and the reduction of our emissions. Our future generations depend on it.
I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020. The bill will assist in improving Australia's electricity network so it can support more renewable energy through the $1 billion Grid Reliability Fund. This fund is part of the Morrison government's plan for a technology approach—not a taxes approach—to the energy market, ensuring Australian households and businesses can access affordable, reliable energy. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has already identified that the fund could support seven projects with an investment value of up to $4.5 billion and the ability to create over a thousand jobs.
As Australia emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic, these jobs will be crucial in growing the economy and assisting in our nation's recovery. The fund could support investments in energy storage projects such as pumped hydro and batteries, transmission and distribution infrastructure, and grid-stabilising technologies. In New South Wales, the Grid Reliability Fund could support projects such as the creation of renewable energy zones and dispatchable generation projects. Importantly, the new fund will not divert the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's existing $10 billion allocation away from clean energy projects, and the bill has no impact on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's ability to use this existing allocation. The bill also has no impact on the independence of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or the capacity of its board to independently determine which investments it should make.
Australia's experience has been that, when new technologies become economically competitive, households and businesses rapidly adopt them. We've got a record that all Australians can be proud of. One in four Australian homes now have solar on their roof. That's the highest uptake of household solar in the world. And last year, Australia invested $7.7 billion, or $299 per person, in renewable energy. On a per-person basis, this places us ahead of countries like Canada, Germany, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and the United States.
This creates opportunities but also several challenges, including the need for more flexible backup generation and storage to balance and integrate high levels of renewable energy. We need to ensure that the lights stay on when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. That's exactly the type of investment that this bill is designed to support. It's also why the Morrison government has a technology-centric approach, focused on bringing the cost of new technologies down rather than raising the cost of traditional sources such as coal and gas, which continue to play such an important role in our energy mix. It's an approach focused on delivering affordable, reliable energy that Australians rely on, whilst also reducing emissions.
There are many innovative renewable energy projects across Australia, and I'd like to briefly touch on three important projects in my own electorate and across the Central Coast. One such example is Star Scientific. It's a hydrogen research and development company in Berkeley Vale—north of my electorate—dedicated to creating safe, reliable and affordable energy with zero emissions. Matthew Hingerty, the company's chief of communications, said that he was proud of the innovative technologies developed by the company. These include a unique catalyst called HERO that instantly converts hydrogen into heat without combustion—an example of the world-leading research being conducted into energy generation right here in Australia.
ReCarbon is a multinational company with operations on the Central Coast. The company is committed to developing manufacturing and marketing systems using microwave energy to re-form greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane into hydrogen and other products. Philip Sohn, the head of global business development at ReCarbon, said the business had established a first-of-its-kind biohydrogen technology cluster. He said the project aims to take organic waste and convert it into biogas, which is then placed into the carbon system to make hydrogen. This is another example of an initiative helping to reduce waste and generate clean energy at the same time.
Licella and its pilot plant in Somersby use catalytic hydrothermal reactors to rapidly and economically transform biomass, waste plastic and residues into a synthetic oil or biocrude to produce more sustainable fuels, chemicals, waxes and plastics. Licella's co-founder and CEO, Dr Len Humphreys, said the business was 'a great example of Australian innovation tackling one of the world's major issues'. These are just some of the exceptional businesses across my local region that are dedicated to delivering a cleaner, more sustainable future.
The Morrison government also has a strong focus on the cost of energy, and it continues to deliver cheaper power. There have been consistent CPI reductions in retail prices for seven consecutive quarters, and wholesale electricity prices have fallen for 16 months in a row. They are now at their lowest level in six years. This bill will further assist in supporting energy projects to drive cost reductions. It will also support the objectives of the Technology Investment Roadmap as part of the Morrison government's emissions reduction strategy. The key to our plan is to balance the technologies that will bring down emissions, whilst also creating jobs and driving investment. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will play a key role in leveraging private sector investment in priority technologies identified in the road map. Through a 'technology not taxes' approach, we'll achieve our emissions reduction targets cost-effectively while maintaining our energy security. The Morrison government will continue to work very hard to deliver affordable, reliable energy for hardworking households and businesses across Australia. This is an issue that is very important to my electorate of Robertson, on the New South Wales Central Coast. I commend the bill to the house.
Labor, of course, established the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and we're very proud of it. We did it to drive private investment in clean energy, and the fact is that it's been a huge success. The idea of creating something must sound alien to a government whose repertoire mainly alternates between undoing things and, most of the time, doing nothing at all. I say to those opposite that it is worth the effort and they should give it a crack some time. Try and create something. Try and make a positive difference rather than just tearing things down. As the shadow climate change and energy minister said in here yesterday, the CEFC has become one of the world's leading green banks. Even the Prime Minister, from time to time, has described it in those terms.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is independent, it funds low-emissions technology and it must make a positive return. It has succeeded in all three. The CEFC has a proven record of leveraging private investment. It has helped drive more than $27 billion in additional private sector investments and returned more than $718 million to taxpayers since its creation. Here you have a vehicle doing exactly what Labor said it would do when we created it. It's created jobs, stimulated private sector investment and produced a return to taxpayers. Good policy! It has helped 18,000 projects, and those 18,000 projects have all created jobs. It is responsible for reducing emissions by around one million tonnes of CO2 a year. But what's the Liberals' response to this? They opposed it from the beginning and they tried to attack it since they came to power in 2013. They have repeatedly tried to abolish it and they have continued to undermine its focus on clean and renewable energy. They've changed leaders a few times but what hasn't changed is the hostility towards the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We will protect the financial integrity of the CEFC to retain the strict safeguards that ensure it only invests in economically viable projects that continue to provide a return to taxpayers.
But the government's bill undermines that. This bill would undermine the independence of the CEFC. It would hand unprecedented powers to the minister and allow him to undermine the financial integrity of the CEFC's investment decisions. This would be bad for any minister, if you chose them at random, but when that minister is the member for Hume the alarm bells are really ringing. This is a minister who failed to declare a private interest in a company being investigated by his own department. This is a minister who admitted on radio to advocating for his own interests rather than the public interest. This is the minister who used doctored figures in his bizarre war against the Sydney lord mayor, Clover Moore. This is the minister caught up in his own Watergate. As energy minister, he habitually misleads and fails. He says that the country is on target to meet its commitments that they made under the Paris accord. We know that that isn't true. This is the minister who stands in this chamber and tries to take credit for the reductions that we saw in emissions during the period of the Rudd and Gillard governments and, indeed, tried to use the Kyoto credits in order to disguise this government's failure since it came to office. This is a minister who thinks it's a good idea to use taxpayer money for the proponent of a new coal-fired power station in North Queensland—to give them money to do a study on whether their project is going to stack up—and then has the hide to speak about taxpayer funds not being used and how it's 'all about technology'. This is a minister obsessed by slogans and lacking in substance. This is a minister who, frankly, we don't trust with public funds. It is that simple. The record shows that that is very wise indeed.
But this bill allows the minister to choose investments and also removes the requirement for those investments to make a return. Think about this. The party of markets—they would have you believe—wants to remove the criteria in this legislation which requires a positive return for investments. Marry that up with their rhetoric! In his written submission, the former CEO of the CEFC, Oliver Yates, stated, 'The fundamental concern with this bill is that it will threaten the CEFC's successful business model by undermining its commerciality, independence, culture, staffing and highly specialised skills'—an extraordinary indictment.
Labor supports the expansion of the CEFC to help deliver a modern electricity grid, but not for gas generation investments that are neither new technology nor meet the definition of low-emissions technology. Gas power is a well-established technology that does not face financial or technological barriers to investment, which can be addressed by public financial support. Where they have stacked up, environmentally, Labor has been supportive of new gas projects. That's on the basis that it is then a commercial decision, once environmental protections are put in place, over whether they proceed or not. But we know that the largest barriers to further generation are the energy policy uncertainty created by this government and the issue of carbon risk that is being factored in. Grid-firming energy sources, like gas, certainly have a role to play in our energy mix. There's no question that's the case. But that doesn't mean we should pretend it's something that it's not—that it's eligible for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation processes.
The CEFC has demonstrated how successful we can be in leveraging private investment to modernise our energy systems and, in doing so, our economy. It has shown us how we can succeed in the future, but this bill takes us back to the past. It will hold us back from what our future should be as a renewable energy superpower, a renewable energy superpower that is creating jobs, that's creating sustainable jobs and that's exporting renewable energy, such as the project, in the Northern Territory, to export renewable energy to the Northern Territory. There are enormous prospects. There are people, like Mike Cannon-Brookes, who have adopted a vision about our potential to export energy to our north, in particular, to the growing middle class that we see in Indonesia and other countries to our north. We have this enormous potential. But we don't achieve it by this constant undermining.
We don't achieve it either by the sort of energy vision they have of oil and gas exploration off the coast of the member for Robertson's electorate—I note the member for Robertson has just spoken—or the member for Dobell's electorate. I was up at Terrigal Beach with local constituents and community organisations opposing this proposal. The member for Robertson said she's opposed to it. Indeed, the members for Mackellar and other seats on the north side of Sydney say they're opposed to it too. But the government doesn't say that. The government, led by Minister Pitt, think, 'Let it rip!' They think it's a good idea to have potential drilling just five kilometres off the coast—off Manly, off Narrabeen, off Terrigal, off the beautiful beaches right up to Newcastle and Port Stephens. Whenever this government goes anywhere near energy policy, they get it wrong.
There are some aspects of the bill that Labor does support. They are those parts that allow for the CEFC to more easily invest in storage and transmission assets, to support the continued decarbonisation of the electricity sector. The expanded remit to modernise the electricity grid is a step towards Labor's own policy that I announced, in the budget reply, last year to rewire the nation. What we said in October was that we would invest $20 billion to rebuild and modernise the grid, in line with a blueprint that's already completed. The blueprint's there. It's not a blueprint from the Labor Party or the Liberal Party; it's a blueprint from the Australian Energy Market Operator, signed off by all governments, Labor and coalition, throughout the country.
Modernising the grid will provide thousands of new construction jobs for Australians, with many of those in our regions. Importantly, it will revitalise traditional industries, including steel and aluminium, and allow growth in new sectors, like hydrogen and battery production. Fixing transmission allows the market to drive least cost, reliable, new energy production. It is technology neutral in the truest sense. This should be something that is supported by those opposite. Well, we doubt whether they'll do anything more than they've done in the last seven years, which is fumble about, held back by the ball and chain that is the member for Dawson, the member for New England and others, including the minister there.
By establishing the Rewiring the Nation Corporation and keeping it in public hands as a government owned entity, Labor will ensure the grid is rebuilt at the best possible price. The Rewiring the Nation Corporation will partner with industry and provide low-cost finance to build the Integrated System Plan. The result will be cheaper electricity prices for homes, cheaper electricity prices for manufacturing, cheaper electricity prices for businesses and more reliability. Labor will ensure Australia's modern energy grid will be built by Australian workers using Australian suppliers by mandating local supply and local labour, with local apprentices being trained at the same time. We will build an electricity network designed for this century—one which accounts for the rise of renewables as the cheapest new energy source and links them up to the grid. Cheap, clean energy will be our competitive advantage as a nation. That should be our future. Our amendments to this bill are a step towards that future.
I'm pleased to rise today to speak on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020. I'm glad of the opportunity for a number of reasons. I think there is a misconception among some circles of the government that regional Australia does not want to see the types of projects the Clean Energy Finance Corporation funds, but nothing could be further from the truth. I want to talk a bit about the various ways small businesses and community organisations in my electorate are taking the lead on renewables, filling the space the Morrison government has clearly vacated. Firstly, though, I just want to touch on some aspects of this bill which spark my interest.
Labor is the one that created the Clean Energy Finance Corporation under the Gillard government. It was a great time for investment in this emerging industry under the previous Labor government because Labor saw and understood the opportunities that it could create. Not only that but Labor actively worked to encourage and support growth in this industry. That's because we understood that this could lead to more jobs—something my electorate, which has traditionally had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, could do with. Labor understood that encouraging private investment in renewables could pay dividends to the taxpayer, and it did, not only through returns to the green bank but to everyday Australians' hip pockets through lowered power bills. Again, in my electorate, where the average income is low, this is critical. There is flow-on benefit to flow-on benefit. That is without even looking at the environmental benefits from investing in and growing the renewable energy sector. To put it plainly, this just made sense, and it still does.
Unfortunately this bill is just another attempt by the Liberal-National government to undermine the key functions of the CEFC and continue to plunge the renewable energy sector into uncertainty. There are some parts of this bill that I do support because certain aspects will make it easier for the CEFC to achieve the goals that Labor originally had in mind. Some aspects of this bill will modernise the electricity grid, which will support the further uptake of renewable generation. That is absolutely something we want to see. We want to make it easier to decarbonise the electricity sector, and Labor supports moves to do so. In short, we support the parts of this bill that stay true to the original purpose Labor gave to the CEFC. If it's consistent with that view and helps make that goal easier to achieve, we support it. What I won't support, however, is any move to undermine those goals and to fundamentally change the CEFC's purpose to support renewable energy generation.
Sadly, that is largely what this bill is seeking to do and why Labor is proposing such substantial amendments. The bill is seeking to use a fund designed to encourage renewable energy projects to pay for gas generation projects. Gas generation is not a new technology and pretty clearly does not meet the definition of a low-emissions technology. Not only this but the bill wants to give the minister, Angus Taylor, the power to decide what would be an eligible investment and it removes the requirement that CEFC investments make a positive return. So it takes a highly successful, world-renowned green bank and turns it into support for fossil fuel projects the minister wants to progress, with no guaranteed financial benefit for the taxpayer. Why? It makes absolutely no sense at all. Not only that but it completely contradicts what the CEFC was created to do and it is completely and utterly unnecessary. That is why Labor are moving the amendments we are today—to make sure that the CEFC can maintain its remit.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has been a roaring success. It is now viewed as the world's best-practice green bank, the most well designed and successful of its kind. It has a proven record of leveraging private investment, helping to drive more than $27 billion in additional private sector investments. This in turn has seen more than $718 million returned to taxpayers. That is no small feat. It is truly remarkable. Even more remarkable, it has done so under a Liberal-National government that has continually sought to undermine and even abolish it. Imagine what we could have achieved if this industry had continued to receive certainty, encouragement, investment and support under a Labor government. We have proven that that is exactly what we would have provided.
At the last election, I was proud to announce that a Shorten Labor government would establish a community power hub on the New South Wales South Coast, a hub that would have helped renters and social housing residents benefit from cheaper and cleaner renewable energy. It would have supported local projects and local jobs. It would have helped us reach our Renewable Energy Target, because Labor has always been the leader when it comes to cheaper, cleaner renewable energy. You know what I hear when we talk about renewables? Jobs, jobs, jobs. The New South Wales South Coast needs job creation, but the Morrison government is leaving us behind. If the government is trying to say there is no demand for renewable energy projects to be funded under the CEFC then I invite the Prime Minister to visit the South Coast to learn a thing or two about this.
The Morrison government's complete misunderstanding—let's call it that—of what people in regional areas like ours want when it comes to action on climate change was perhaps proven only last week when the Deputy Prime Minister tried to 'rescue' the agricultural sector from clean energy targets. The agricultural sector in my electorate don't want to be rescued; they want to be part of it, and many of them already are. The group Farmers for Climate Action, which I know sports members from my electorate, was quick to call this out. Even the National Farmers Federation couldn't let that one go. The reality is that, in the gaping black hole that has been this government's energy policy, local industry, including farmers, and the community sector have been working to fill the space.
I want to spend some time talking about some of the evidence from my electorate which I think supports this and demonstrates why we simply do not need to be opening up the CEFC to fossil fuels—apart from the obvious, of course. Let's just explore where the government can and should be investing. I want to start with one new, exciting project set to get off the ground in Nowra which I am pleased to say has received support under the government's microgrid energy initiative. It's definitely a positive step to see a grant going towards this great project, but I think it truly highlights what innovation is out there just waiting for some investment because this project is being driven by local dairy farmers and by industry. A new large-scale renewable energy biogas power generation plant is being built in Nowra and will receive manure from a small group of local dairy farms. The methane will be extracted and used to produce clean green energy which in turn will be given back to 18 local dairy farms. Why? Because these farmers want to be a part of the renewable energy future. They can see the value; they can see the difference this will make to their businesses and to the environment and they don't want to be left behind. A far cry from what the Deputy Prime Minister is saying and a far cry from what this bill is trying to do by shifting to fossil fuels. That's just one example, but there are many more.
Repower Shoalhaven is a community-run organisation that helps to deliver community solar projects for businesses and individuals. It has a strong volunteer base and wants to help locals be a part of the clean energy future. Repower Shoalhaven has worked with Flow Power to co-develop a solar farm in Nowra. It's a community initiated scheme and it will sell solar power to businesses near and far. Even the City of Sydney council wants in, committing to buy its electricity from Repower Shoalhaven along with two other regional renewable energy farms. Again, what do I hear when we talk about a project like this? Jobs, jobs, jobs. Local jobs for local people to help reduce power bills for people across New South Wales. It is truly remarkable and it is all being driven by our local community.
Just last week I met with the Jervis Bay and Districts Meals on Wheels, a fantastic local organisation working to support elderly people and those with a disability in our community. What was one of the things they wanted to talk with me about? Their dream of putting solar on their roof to help lower their power bills. Community organisations all across the South Coast could be benefiting from this. In the grants programs I have run since being elected, I have had so many requests for funding to support renewable energy projects. The Yulunga Public Hall in Manyana, the Durras Community Association, Bay & Basin Community Resources and the All Saints Anglican Church have all told me that they want solar power to help them. Broulee Surfers Surf Life Saving Club also wants to purchase Tesla batteries to help it prepare for future emergencies. We know community organisations run off the smell of an oily rag and solar could make all the difference if only they could afford to fund it.
Under the last round of the Stronger Communities Program, I was delighted to help the Southcoast Health and Sustainability Alliance, or SHASA as it is known locally, install a solar system with backup batteries at the Red Door Hall. This is a Moruya institution which provides a weekly free meal to people feeling isolated or financially disadvantaged, and SHASA is one of the many local organisations that are driving support for renewables in the Eurobodalla. Under that same funding program, SHASA was looking for funding for two electric vehicle charging points which, unfortunately, I was unable to fund. Still they are looking for innovative ways of driving investment. They are also partnering with Micro Energy Systems Australia and the Australian National University to conduct a feasibility study into eight microgrids across the Eurobodalla. The three-year study will work with the community to make sure that the microgrids will meet the needs of locals with the aim of making sure people don't lose power in an emergency, something many of us unfortunately experienced during the bushfires, and something we all want to avoid happening again.
It is clear that local people want to make our electricity network more reliable and more resilient. Our councils are also driving this. Shoalhaven City Council adopted a sustainable energy policy in May 2019 to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The Eurobodalla Shire Council has an emissions reduction plan which aims to source 100 per cent of the council's electricity from renewable energy by 2030. We also have a range of community and business funded electric vehicle charging stations across the South Coast that aim to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. I could go on and on, but I think the point is clear: people in my electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales South Coast want to see investment in renewables. We want to engage in the opportunities that renewables provide and we want to be a part of the renewable energy future. Without government investment and support, we will get there but it will be slower and it will cost more.
If the government were serious about meeting our obligations under the Paris climate change agreement and about achieving net zero emissions by 2050, then it simply would not be putting up bills like this one. We would be investing in these types of projects as an absolute priority. We would be helping our farmers do what they can to reduce emissions because they are the ones at the forefront, bearing the brunt of this government's inaction. Drought, bushfires, flood—they don't happen in isolation; they are happening for a reason. And farmers want something done to reduce the impact of climate related disasters before it's too late.
Bills like this hurt the job creation market. Because of the Morrison government's chaotic and abysmal policies, we have seen a collapse in new large-scale renewable energy projects. Investment and jobs in renewables should be taking off. Place like the South Coast should be reaping the rewards that this industry has to offer. Instead, the University of Technology Sydney and the Clean Energy Council have projected that 11,000 renewable energy jobs will be lost in the next two years because of this government's policy failures.
The people of the South Coast cannot afford to see those jobs lost. We need a government that is focused on grabbing the opportunities that renewables can provide. That's what I want to do and that's what I will continue to push for as the member for Gilmore. So I support the amendments Labor has proposed today and I hope the government will see sense and allow the CEFC to continue doing what it was created to do: support and encourage renewables.
As I begin, I should take the opportunity to inform the member for Gilmore that it was no less than Greg Combet, the minister, that introduced the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in 2012. In his second reading speech he said 'conventional gas … may technically be eligible for funding as a low-emissions technology'. The CEFC can already invest in gas projects meeting the existing definition and the investments were approved under the previous Labor government, so it's not monumental news. The member for Gilmore says it should do what it was intended to do, and it's quite clear from Greg Combet's comments that it was intended to target low-emissions generation.
There a number of things about this bill that make sense. There's the billion dollars supporting the government's push to keep moving down the path of renewable energy. I come from South Australia. I see the member for Hindmarsh sitting there, and he will be aware that South Australia is more than 50 per cent powered now in our electricity grid by renewable energy. And it's an interesting thing. It has put downward pressure on our prices. We were in a world of pain three or four years ago with a wholesale price that was tipping over $100 a megawatt on a regular basis. We've now come down to roughly half that, and those savings are trickling through to the consumer and, as the old contracts expire, I expect those consumer costs to come down lower.
The reason that has happened is that we've had a major extra build of renewable energy in South Australia and it comes at a time when the LRET has expired for new projects. If you're putting in a new solar or wind project at the moment, you cannot expect any taxpayer subsidy. So, it's interesting that, despite what the member for Gilmore said, projects are under construction in my electorate at the moment. There are another 700 megawatts actually under construction and probably that much again which has already been approved. It's showing that the market has decided that this is the way to generate electricity.
But of course when renewable energy is built, there is an enabler, and the enablement to go to renewable energy is that you have continuity of supply, that you can provide backup, that you can confirm that generation. That can come from a number of sources. In the eastern states a lot of it comes from coal-fired power stations. In South Australia, that inertia and ability to back up comes from gas. But the further we go along the slide of producing more renewable energy, more intermittent energy—let's say, predominantly from wind and solar—the more you need the capacity to provide electricity when they are not generating.
There's been some investment in batteries. There's going to be an expansion of the Hornsdale battery, which was supported by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. But those who understand electricity know that batteries are excellent when it comes to frequency modulation but completely unviable if you want to store a whole bus load of energy, when you need to run a power grid for five, six or eight hours because your generators are not working. They're probably 10 times the competitive price. We are looking at pumped hydro projects in South Australia. There were three proposals. The one that I think probably has the inside running at the moment is at the Beetaloo reservoir, up near Port Pirie. But the most important thing we have at the moment to backfill those dead spots is gas.
There are two types of gas-fired power stations. There is combined cycle. That is the most efficient, but it takes a while to crank up. Then there are peaking stations. Basically they're jet motors, and you can flick them on in about a minute. If you are to build more renewable energy you need more of something to fill the gaps, and at this stage in Australia the most obvious thing to fill those gaps is gas. It can sit there as long as necessary, until it's needed, and then be switched on almost instantly. As for those people who think that somehow we're going to magically move to a 100 per cent renewable world, unless they've got some amazing, cheap storage technology tucked in their portfolio that they're not telling the whole world about, gas is going to play that part for a long, long time into the future. And if we are to expand wind generation and solar generation then gas will play an even more important part. It may not consume more gas overall, but there will need to be more plants built to provide that bolt of electricity when it is needed.
In South Australia we now have over 2,000 megawatts of wind energy nameplate capacity—that probably produces energy at about 35 per cent efficiency—and 1,681 megawatts of that is in Grey. I make the point just to demonstrate the facts that I've been giving to you about the ability to back up. AEMO regulates South Australian wind energy to a maximum of 1,200 megawatts. There's 2,038 megawatts installed, but it is regulated to a maximum of 1,200 megawatts. At an emergency level, the companies can request to go to 1,300. So when we get a windy day I can drive around my electorate and see wind generators that are actually turned off. The reason AEMO stipulate that is that they know that, after that point, the grid lacks inertia and it becomes unstable. That is why you need the gas backup—to firm up that renewable energy. As I said, it could be pumped hydro or it could be a number of things, but it is interesting that AEMO have already recognised the problem. In an economical sense, it surprises me a little that the generation building continues in South Australia. I can only assume it's on the back of a South Australian government commitment to build a new interconnector through to New South Wales and they anticipate selling energy into that market in the not-too-distant future.
Much is made of Australia's commitment to lowering the CO2 levels in the world—to climate change, if you like. I grow very weary of the criticism, because it doesn't stack up. In the year to March 2020, a total of 528 megatonnes of CO2 was emitted in Australia. That's down 1.4 per cent on the previous year, or 7.7 million tonnes. That is a decline that has continued over some years. It's primarily coming from renewable electricity, as I've been talking about—7.6 million tonnes—and four million tonnes comes from agriculture. Interestingly enough, there is a rise in the amount of CO2 emissions which are attributed to Australia through our energy export industries.
That is something that I wish to get on to now, but, just before I do, I will make this point. Per capita, we in Australia are now down by 42.9 per cent on our 1990 levels, and in emissions intensity we are down 64.2 per cent on our 1990 levels. I raise that point with interest because, as I read only the other day, when China says, 'Our emissions intensity is down by a considerable amount,' the world applauds. But, when we are down by 64.2 per cent, those on the other side of the chamber say that we're not doing anything! It's a preposterous argument.
Having said that, I really want to get on to the international accounting mechanisms that apply to carbon emissions. I make the point here that, in my electorate of Grey, I have the biggest uranium mine in the world. When we mine uranium—when BHP mines uranium and converts it into yellowcake and sends it to other countries in the world, because of course we don't use it for electrical generation—those emissions incurred in extracting and refining it are actually sitting on Australia's debit sheet. So, when we burn diesel or use electricity to mine and create yellowcake and send it to Japan or to India—well, let's hope more to India—or to other countries around the world to use for generation, they get perfectly clean, no-CO2-emissions energy out of that deal and we wear the CO2 cost.
Likewise, with gas, it's even more interesting. We are the world's biggest gas exporter. But when we turn natural gas into LNG it requires us to use 30 per cent of the energy of the gas to do so, and that 30 per cent of energy that we use is an Australian debit when it comes to CO2 emissions. But the country that receives it is actually given great credit, because they are reducing their CO2 emissions because they're no longer burning coal.
That is an accounting mechanism which is clearly not honest. If an accounting mechanism were to be properly honest, it would work as the GST works. The CO2 emissions would be embedded in the product to the point where it comes to the consumer. This is a very important point. As long as Australia is a major energy exporter and wears the emissions for other countries, it is distorting policy right around the world. It is the kind of policy that will encourage other countries to keep using gas and keep using coal because the emissions are partially hidden—they're hidden on Australia's balance sheet. It is a complete error. If we were to wash out those emissions emitted on other people's behalf, Australia would not be in that top echelon of emissions per capita. And that's quite an important point.
I say, about this accounting mechanism, that it was designed by Europeans for Europeans. It's dishonest. They have used it to export their manufacturing industry to China and to hide their emissions under that mechanism. It is completely dishonest. It is nothing like sophisticated. It is penalising countries around the world that provide energy for others. And there can be nothing more obvious on that than the uranium industry, where we get absolutely no benefit in terms of energy but we wear the debit side, or the gas industry, where we get no benefit out of that gas we export in terms of energy. We get a financial benefit, but we get no benefit in terms of energy. But we wear the debits on behalf of the other countries. Until that is fixed, we are not likely to get sensible policy around the world, as these other countries hide their emissions on other people's balance sheets. Much of it, at the moment, is hidden in China, where of course they don't recognise the fact that they will meet global emissions; they are talking about intensity. I told you about intensity before. Our intensity levels dropped by 64 per cent, but no-one pats us on the back; they just say we're sitters. It's a crazy place. It needs reform.
But this bill that we are speaking about today is an obvious step for Australia. It will increase the amount of clean energy available to Australia. It's right that it should expand and include those enabling technologies that will enable us to get to an even higher rate of renewable energy.
I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020. The CEFC is a statutory body administering a fund dedicated to investing in clean energy, and it has been so vitally important to date in the small amount of reductions we have managed to achieve.
I can't commence today without being a little astounded by some of the allegations that are made in this chamber, and it does reinforce for me the need for a fact check body on allegations that get made, especially in terms of statistics. There are very clear facts about where our emissions are going, and they are not going sufficiently in the right direction.
The CEFC is very important in supporting the objectives and supporting our emissions reduction and our transition to clean energy—in particular the Renewable Energy Target, which sadly has not been updated or renewed. It has driven a huge amount of the investment we've seen in renewables in Australia. The CEFC has been helpful in catalysing and leveraging investment in commercialisation and deployment of renewable energy and the low-emissions and energy-efficiency technologies necessary for Australia to transition to a low-carbon economy. The CEFC has been incredibly successful in its mission. It has leveraged over $27.3 billion in private capital, financed over 18,000 small-scale projects and abated emissions by almost 260 megatonnes of carbon dioxide.
Project developers in Warringah have been supported by the CEFC. Manly's Solar Beach is a collective of renewable energy developers based in Manly, in Warringah. Solar Choice, Edify Energy and Wirsol were in a consortium that variously originated, financed and developed the 57-megawatt Whitsunday Solar Farm, north of Collinsville; the 57-megawatt Hamilton Solar Farm, also north of Collinsville; and the Gannawarra Solar Farm, in Victoria. All three received finance from the CEFC, totalling $77 million, and the CEFC committed to a debt facility to support the projects.
It is such an important body and must be maintained and not impacted by this legislation. I support the CEFC. It will continue to play an essential role in our transition to net zero by 2050, if we are going to achieve net zero—and we absolutely must achieve it; the alternative doesn't bear considering. We heard in Senate inquiries that the BOM, the Bureau of Meteorology, has us on track for over 3.4 degrees of warming in the world and up to 4.3 in Australia. That should be the element of concern to members of this place: what their legacy will be and what environment their children and grandchildren will live in. Most members of this place are of an age that means they won't have to bear the consequences. If we are going to reduce emissions, we need to make sure bodies like the CEFC have the full capacity to do so. So I support the injection of more funds into the CEFC.
However, there are very clear concerns about the provisions in this bill. This bill amends the CEFC Act to establish the Grid Reliability Fund. The fund will be administered by the CEFC to support investments in new energy generation, storage and transmission infrastructure, including eligible projects short-listed under the Underwriting New Generation Investments, or UNGI, program. I note that UNGI is currently under audit by the Auditor-General. This bill establishes the Grid Reliability Fund Special Account. It appropriates about $1 billion and allows for appropriations to be increased through regulation. The GRF will enable the CEFC to invest in additional energy generation, storage, transmission and distribution infrastructure and grid-stabilising technologies where it has had limited ability to do so in the past. So the government stresses that the GRF, the Grid Reliability Fund, is separate from the existing funding of the CEFC and that this new fund is needed because of the current CEFC funding; the corporation cannot invest in supporting infrastructure such as transmission or condensers. In general, there would be sense behind this, except that there is clearly an attempt to dilute the focus on clean energy and expand the mandate of the CEFC through this Grid Reliability Fund to support gas and fossil fuels. There are serious issues when it comes to expanding the mandate of the CEFC—transmission and synchronous condensers are one thing, but then there's clearly the extension of gas.
The GRF is purportedly to fund the Underwriting New Generation Investments, or the UNGI, program. Many will say, 'What exactly is that?' According to the government, the UNGI was established to support firm generation capacity and increase competition. We know six renewable pumped hydro projects, five gas projects and one coal upgrade project have been short listed under the UNGI. In December 2019, the government announced that key initial support terms had been agreed to underwrite two projects: APA Group's proposal for a 220-megawatt gas generator in Dandenong, Victoria; and Quinbrook's proposed 132-megawatt gas generator in Gatton, Queensland—noting I'm only hearing of gas projects.
The UNGI program has had problems from the beginning. It has no guidelines—it had none and still doesn't—and no criteria for assessment of support. The program's development and implementation followed no clear process and had a flawed selection process. Despite these issues, the government short-listed projects, made initial agreements, advanced detailed negotiations with proponents and entered into memorandums of understanding with the New South Wales government to support projects under the UNGI, all whilst there was no actual clear underlying legislation. In June, I wrote to the Auditor-General on these issues, and it was accepted for an audit in this year's work program. In the current structure of this bill, it is unclear how exactly the UNGI will be supported by the CEFC.
Under the CEFC Act the minister can set a broad investment mandate in the regulations but cannot tell the CEFC's board to invest in this suite of projects. It's important to emphasise that the CEFC board is independent of the minister. So how will the projects be funded? Will the minister provide the short list of projects to the board? This is not in line with the section of the CEFC Act which states that the responsible minister must not give a direction 'that has the purpose or has or is likely to have the effect of directly or indirectly requiring the board to or not to make a particular investment'. So there are really big questions here as to what exactly the government and the minister are seeking to do through this Grid Reliability Fund, in particular in relation to the UNGI program.
But there are greater problems with this bill. By changing the definition of low emissions, the government is unnecessarily changing the CEFC's original mandate to allow for investment in gas generation. Gas features heavily in the explanatory memorandum, and I've only had to sit in this place to listen to the members of the government all talk about the purpose being gas. Why? The Morrison government is pressing on with its fiction that more gas is needed, despite the urgent need for Australia and the world to transition away from fossil fuels. There is no reason for this. We do not need more gas or new gas. The Australian Energy Market Operator, the forecaster and planner of the grid, the actual expert in the field, was clear in this year's integrated system plan—and I hope all members in this place have read the integrated system plan—that only existing gas generation would be required this decade and that any new storage required would be met by batteries and hydrogen. It does beg the question: what is the evidence being relied upon to support this idea that vast amounts of new gas are required?
Even the Petroleum Economist publication has come out against an expansion in the use of gas, saying that new gas-fired generation is unlikely to be economically viable compared with alternative options such as battery storage and pumped hydro, further stating that: 'Increasing Australia's gas consumption may create future import dependence in the east of the country. Renewable power projects offer the clearest route to elevating the risk of greater exposure to international gas market volatility.' So new gas is also not consistent with Australia's commitment to limiting warming, and we should be very clear that gas is a fossil fuel and rebuff any assertions by this government that it has a place in this transition or is somehow playing a part in meeting our obligation to reduce emissions to ensure we arrest the global warming that is happening.
I am concerned that the government is choosing ad hoc interventions over a cohesive national climate and energy framework. The bill is just an extension of the government's fragmented approach to climate and energy policy. It was made clear in the inquiry into the climate change bills that the desire from all sectors—from the private sector, the Business Council, industry, manufacturers, health, planners, builders, architects, the unions—is a cohesive framework that spans all sectors of Australian society and addresses all the gaps we have in the system. Interventions like the one-gigawatt gas generator to replace Liddell, or the threat of it, or the six gas projects listed for funding under UNGI are not warranted and will do nothing but disrupt the market. There will be no shortfall of generation; the only shortfall could possibly be caused by this government's anti-market rhetoric.
If we set the rules through a national climate and energy policy, the market will drive any new generation required. Whilst this government is talking about a gas fired recovery, states like New South Wales have passed legislation enacting an energy transition framework to move from coal to renewables and pumped hydro. They are attracting millions in capital hungry for a jurisdiction with a sensible policy. The inquiry into the climate change bills has made it very clear: we risk losing billions in investment if we continue down this path.
Just a couple of weeks ago, a $2.4 billion, 1,200-megawatt battery was announced by CEP Energy for Kurri Kurri, in the Hunter Valley. This would be the world's largest—and conspicuously close to the proposed one-gigawatt gas fired generation Liddell replacement the government talks of. The proponent said the New South Wales clean energy road map that passed the state's parliament last year had given the market confidence—I repeat that: had given the market confidence—because it was legislated in the New South Wales government to invest in renewable generation supported by large battery storage, without subsidies. New South Wales is getting on with the transition with sensible policy frameworks. It is long past time that the Commonwealth government did so too.
Really, what this government should be doing is providing investment certainty with a national climate and energy policy rather than interfering with these ad hoc policy-on-the-run interventions. It needs to set the rules, and the market will drive any new generation required. I urge the government to remain consistent with their free-market principles and actually apply them.
One final point: Australia's heading for a carbon crunch, whether we like it or not. It's time to get serious. Seventy per cent of our two-way trade is now under net zero goals. The European Union and the UK are both putting emissions at the centre of their free trade agreement negotiations; even the United States is contemplating carbon border tariffs on recalcitrant nations. If we are to avoid the worst of these trade penalties, we need to get serious about reducing emissions—no more incrementalising and no more delays.
The government must sign up to net zero with no qualifiers or carve-outs. In that light, the government must commit to no further expansion in fossil fuel generation and make serious attempts to decarbonise not just the energy sector but transport, industry and agriculture. My support for this bill—well, I have many issues, as I've outlined, but there are amendments that I intend to make which will remove the prohibition in this bill against the CEFC making payments to ARENA. This will also make the Grid Reliability Fund consistent with the rest of the portfolio. Of course we need to ensure that any investment is made consistent with the overall goal of reaching net zero as fast as possible—the Prime Minister's own words—and I would say no later than 2050. If the government is serious about getting there as soon as possible, then the actions of the government agencies—including the CEFC—must be concentrated on that goal.
I'm all for increasing funding to the CEFC, provided these are not changes to facilitate investments in fossil fuels. If the government needs to seriously think about where it is heading with this policy, let's be very clear: we have to get to net zero as soon as possible. The consequences don't bear thinking about. We need to pull all available levers to reduce emissions, and that means we cannot be supporting the expansion of fossil fuels.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020 and to listen to my colleagues and their contributions. I rise today in support of the $1 billion Grid Reliability Fund. I've often spoken in this place about the importance of lowering electricity prices for Australians. In that regard, it was a long time ago that I indicated that my attitude was one of complete technological agnosticism. It's not the nature of the technology I'm worried about but the outcome, measured in price. Lower priced electricity should be the goal for everyone in this place, no matter what side of politics they represent: affordable, reliable electricity.
Lower energy prices not only lower the cost of living for everyday Australians but make a range of industries that are poised for growth competitive. Our government understands that the benefits of lower electricity prices are shared across the whole economy. For individual homeowners, lower prices allow them to purchase more goods and services. For businesses, they decrease the cost of doing business. That encourages investment, investment encourages expansion, and expansion leads to more Australians in employment.
Whether it's irrigators in the Riverland, winemakers in the Barossa, timber millers in the south-east or anyone working at the myriad of abattoirs throughout my electorate, low energy prices are good for them, good for their bosses and good for our communities. This bill is about employees and employers and making sure that all of them can keep more of the money they earn to improve the standards of living they enjoy. To do this, the $1 billion Grid Reliability Fund provides funding to support private investment in storage and transmission infrastructure to ensure that the large deployment of renewable energy is integrated and backed up.
Since 2017, $30 billion has been invested in renewable energy, with new wind and solar being deployed 10 times faster per person than the global average and four times faster per person than in Europe, China, Japan and the US. It's worth repeating: 10 times faster per person than the global average and four times faster per person than in comparable economies in Europe, China, Japan and the US. With one in four Australian households utilising solar panels to meet part of their energy needs, it's apparent there's no shortage of renewable investment, and it is tipped to only continue in the future, with Australia's share of wind and solar in electricity grids being double the global average. These high levels of renewable energy sources need to be supported by investment in dispatchable energy generation to support the increased intermittent generation.
I need to emphasise that this Grid Reliability Fund does not hinder renewables or other intermittent power sources but supports flexible backup generation and storage—including gas, pumped hydro and batteries—to stabilise the grid. Eligible investments include energy storage such as pumped hydro, batteries, transmission and distribution infrastructure, grid-stabilising technologies and many other projects identified in the government's Underwriting New Generation Investments program.
In South Australia, this could help fund projects to improve transmission of renewables, such as the SA to New South Wales interconnector. This project would save South Australians around $100 a year, not to mention the hundreds of Australian jobs that will be supported during its creation. This interconnector will help to prevent the blackouts that previously plagued South Australia's ability to operate. Our government has already had much success. It has a proven track record in reducing energy prices, with seven consecutive quarters of energy price reductions—seven successive quarters! The wholesale electricity price has fallen for 13 months now and is at its lowest level in six years. The wholesale price makes up a third of residential electricity bills, and, with this grid, we expect prices to drop further.
Our practical approach to reducing emissions and energy prices will support our economic recovery from COVID-19. It will work in conjunction with other government programs, such as the government's Technology Investment Roadmap. The Technology Investment Roadmap is about reducing emissions and the cost of energy through investment, not taxes. It's about creating more industries, not destroying the ones we have, as some opposite might suggest. Our plan will achieve emissions and price reductions, and, with the benefit of the Grid Reliability Fund, it will shore up energy security.
Energy prices affect almost every enterprise in our country. Manufacturing is one industry that is particularly affected by price increases. In my electorate of Barker we have a proud history of value-adding to our already exceptional produce. Instead of outsourcing our premium produce, we keep much of the process local, particularly fruit processing. This includes the many wineries in the Barossa, Coonawarra and the Riverland regions; the dairy producers in the south-east; and the meat processors—which I've mentioned already—including the Thomas Foods facility at Murray Bridge, which suffered catastrophic loss some three years ago, JBS at Bordertown and, of course, Teys in Naracoorte. This value-adding must be supported, and one key factor in that is reliable and affordable energy prices. Manufacturers can't sustain blackouts or internationally uncompetitive energy price spikes, which can see a weakening of our domestic economy and more fragility around jobs. In a time when we're recovering from COVID-19, that simply can't be the case. That's why we're investing in our Manufacturing Modernisation Fund. Combined with lower energy costs and improved stability, this will allow the scaling up of successful manufacturing operations to support our ability to build on our way out of this pandemic.
All too often people bemoan the loss of manufacturing jobs. I'm here to indicate that Barker enjoys the title of the food manufacturing capital of Australia. In terms of food and grocery FTEs, there are more per capita in the electorate of Barker than in any other division in this place. As we enter into free trade agreements with other nations around the world and as more nations around the world look to our clean and green premium products, we can only see that accelerate. It's something I'd certainly like to see.
Having spoken about the positives, let me talk about one of the negatives we've experienced in South Australia. As a South Australian, I experienced firsthand the effects of the blackout. On Wednesday 28 September 2016, I was one of 1.7 million South Australians who were thrust into darkness. I happened to be at the Murray Bridge Hotel, sitting at the front bar and talking to a constituent after a day on the hustings. We just laughed and continued to drink our beer, thinking that it was a short-term blackout. But then I began getting the rolling news via Facebook and other places. Who knew that we were looking at a blackout that would run for more than 24 hours? I received countless calls from constituents who were upset and angry. It then moved to fear and real concern. I remember thinking about all of the consequences I hadn't thought about, in terms of electricity reliability. It was a fair way into the blackout—it might have been 18 hours or so—when I got a phone call from a dairy farmer who said, 'Tony, we've got an animal health crisis on our hands.' I hadn't thought about dairy farmers up to that point, but of course they had a crisis! They had to milk their cows, and, if they couldn't, there would have been an animal health issue. They scrambled as quickly as they could to get generators. But I've got dairy farms in my electorate that milk 4,000 cows three times a day. That's a pretty big genset. That was incredibly difficult.
I just provide that anecdotal example of one of the challenges when you're up against the uncertainty of an unreliable electricity grid. Those opposite say it was a storm. I've heard that claim a number of times. Anyone would think that was the first storm we've ever had in this nation. We're a broad continent, a nation with a long history. We have transmission lines that traverse this continent of ours. Those opposite would have you believe this was the very first storm ever to occur, because this was the very first blackout of this nature. That's not true. Yes, there was an issue with extreme weather, no doubt. But the grid was so fragile it didn't have the ability to reboot, because it was overly reliant on intermittent energy. The member for Hindmarsh is leaving the chamber. I was hoping he would stay. I wanted to congratulate him on his time as shadow minister in this portfolio and wish him well with his future one, but I haven't been given that opportunity.
The blackouts affected everyone—businesses big and small. We have dealt with crises much more significant since then, but, at the time, I remember thinking it was about as bad as it can get. How can we lose power for 24 hours? How can I have constituents ringing me scared because they were driving through Adelaide in unfamiliar suburbs and the state had been plunged into darkness?
The Grid Reliability Fund will support our continued efforts to improve the reliability of the electricity market. It's about ensuring that not only do we not experience those blackouts again but businesses can plan for the future without it being an active consideration in their risk profile. I was speaking to executives at BHP after that blackout experience. They were discussing the likelihood of further blackouts, the measures they'd need to take and the cost of those blackouts. To be honest, it was affecting the forward projections of investment decisions. People were saying, 'Why would you invest in South Australia when it has the least reliable electricity grid in the country?'
In the time I've got left I want to give a shout-out to my good friend and colleague the federal minister for energy, Angus Taylor, who's done an exceptional job at taking this debate where it needs to go—practical, sensible solutions for a future where, inevitably, we will live in a low-carbon environment but in which we need affordable and reliable energy that doesn't see us effectively throw the jobs of Australian workers on the altar of ideology. We understand what's required from the basic utilities that power our nation—affordable, reliable energy.
I've said a bit about South Australia. I'm a proud South Australian. Of course, we experienced that horrible blackout caused by the fragility of the energy grid in South Australia and the overly heavy reliance on intermittent energy generators. But I want to reflect finally on the longest-serving South Australian Premier, Sir Thomas Playford. Sir Thomas was a man of great stature. He held the premiership for a very long time, aided, I think we can concede, by a gerrymander. He not only wired up regional South Australia; he built an economy on affordable—in that case, cheap—electricity. It turned communities like Millicent, in the south-east, from rural towns into rural cities, attracting investment on the back of that. I mention it only for this reason: if Sir Thomas Playford, in the forties and fifties, knew the importance of affordable electricity and if he could build a state on the back of it then my message to everyone in this place is: please don't throw that away. Don't dismiss how important that is. Affordable electricity is one of our competitive advantages; never give it up. (Time expired)
It's a pleasure to follow the member for Barker and reflect on his contribution and his generous farewell to the member for Hindmarsh's portfolio. I'll just concentrate on a point that is well known: the member for Barker told his preselectors in 2013 he'd be a minister within a year. So far I think he's still on the back bench. So for him—
I ask the member for Shortland to come back to the bill.
I will. I note you didn't ask that of the member for Barker when he talked about the member for Hindmarsh, but I'll move to the substance of the bill.
The substance of the bill is the coalition yet again trying to make the Clean Energy Finance Corporation a political tool for their political effort and their ideological wars. Let's reflect: for the first three years of the government their official policy was to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Through their first Prime Minister and a half, their goal was to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. So the hide of the coalition government now to claim credit for the achievements of the CEFC and claim they are improving it through this bill is remarkable. It shows the utter hypocrisy of the government. They've lost that battle because they've realised they don't have the political support in the parliament or, quite frankly, the public support to abolish a very important national institution. They are now trying to play wedge politics with it. They're trying to play wedge politics with the CEFC through many of the amendments that this bill seeks to make.
I'll first touch on the amendments that we support and the endeavours that are worthy in this bill. We support expanding the ability of the CEFC to invest in storage. We support the increase in the ability of the CEFC to invest in transmission. Both of those initiatives are worthy and necessary as we modernise the grid, a grid that so far is stuck in the 20th century. We support them because they're our policy. I know the Leader of the Opposition, in his remarks, talked about our visionary $20 billion Rewiring the Nation initiative, announced in the budget response last year. This is an initiative that will modernise the grid, increase reliability and allow further investment in low-emissions technology in this country. It will also lower power prices and increase demand for Australian exports like steel, and it will mandate the use of Australian workers. So it's a worthy initiative that is really important.
However, the element of this amendment legislation that we can't support is the opening up of the CEFC to investment in gas-fired generation. Firstly, the minister is wrong. The minister is being misleading when he claims that the current mandate for the CEFC allows investment in gas. My response is twofold. If it allows investment in gas, why did he put out media releases saying this amendment will allow for investment in gas? So the minister has contradicted himself, firstly. Secondly, the facts are these. The investment mandate of the CEFC says it can only support investment in new generation that is at an emissions intensity of no more than 50 per cent of the grid. The emissions intensity of the National Electricity Market at the moment is 0.72—that is, for every megawatt of power, 720 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent are produced. The emissions intensity of combined cycle gas is about 0.4—so 400 kilos of CO2 per megawatt hours—and for open cycle, at best, it's 600 kilos of CO2. Clearly for anyone who has any mathematical ability, which doesn't include the minister for energy, half of 0.72 is 0.36. So no conventional gas technology is eligible for investment under the CEFC right now.
This amendment that they're proposing, which would have the effect of removing that 50 per cent mandate and saying that the CEFC can invest in new generation that underpins grid reliability and low emissions, is clearly opening up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to support gas-fired power. I'll talk about the role of gas in a minute; it does have an important role. But the implications of this amendment are that, for example, the minister could direct the CEFC to invest in a new gas-fired power station that has the emissions intensity of, say, the Hallett Power Station in South Australia, which has an emissions intensity of 1.17, meaning that it emits 1,200 kilograms of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, or the Dry Creek gas turbine station in South Australia, which emits 1,342 kilograms of CO2 per megawatt hour. I should note that the emissions intensity of the Dry Creek gas turbine station is actually greater than that of the most emissions-intensive brown coal power station in this country, which is Yallourn Power Station. Let me repeat that. If this amendment by the government to open up gas in the way they've configured it is successful, we could have the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, whose goal is to support the deployment of new clean energy technologies, supporting a gas-fired power station that emits more carbon dioxide per megawatt hour than Yallourn Power Station. Is that really the point of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation? Is that really what we should be aspiring to?
The truth is that this bill is all about wedge politics by the government. They've failed on their wedge politics about coal, and I'll return to that in anticipation of the contribution of the member for New England, who will speak after me. They've moved on from coal because they've got huge divisions in their party room between the dinosaurs in the National Party and people like the member for Hughes versus the so-called modern Liberals or moderate Liberals. I forget what they're called. I think the member for Brisbane might be associated with them in a loose way. They've got huge divisions there, and they know that they're on a loser because the vast majority of Australian people support investment in clean energy. So they've moved from wedge politics on coal to wedge politics on gas.
Gas has a huge role in the current NEM. Gas plays a vital role in firming the grid. I'm proud that, in my electorate, I've got Colongra Power Station, the largest gas-fired power station in New South Wales. It plays a vital role as a peaker. It plays a vital role in firming the grid when it's under stress because some of our ageing coal-fired power stations have gone out due to heat or other mechanical breakdowns or when renewable energy is intermittent. But, last year, Colongra Power Station operated for 54 hours all year. It was a critical 54 hours. It was an essential 54 hours, but it operated for 54 hours. And gas generation in the NEM last year constituted seven per cent of total NEM output, so it plays a vital role in firming, and it will play that role for the foreseeable future, complemented by other firming technologies, whether that's pumped hydro—Snowy Hydro 2.0 or the other forms—or batteries which are coming in and becoming more competitive. And ignore all this rubbish that says the Hornsdale battery can only power Tomago Power Station for 12 minutes. Batteries are getting larger, and they're complementing pumped hydro for short-term firming, and they're coming down in price significantly. For example, the Australian Energy Market Operator has said that, in the near future, for gas-fired peakers to be competitive with batteries, we would need a gas price in this country of $4 a gigajoule. It's at $10 a gigajoule at the moment, and I'm not seeing anyone suggesting we'll get back to $4. So gas can't compete with batteries for firming. Batteries are increasing in capacity, so they will be able to run longer to plug the gaps, supported by pumped hydro.
So this comes back to the Prime Minister's ultimate wedge politics. He went up to Kurri in my neck of the woods and announced that the government would support a 1,000 megawatt gas-fired power station. This was, I think, energy policy No. 24 or 25 of this government—and that's 24 or 25 over seven years—but things changed very quickly. We got the next energy policy within, I think, two days. It then became clear that it wasn't going to be a 1,000 megawatt gas-fired power station; it was going to be a 200 megawatt gas-fired power station. Meanwhile, all of these interventions were actually turning off private sector investors who were actually making investment plans. AGL has a plan for a new gas-fired power station at Tomago which they obviously put on hold when they saw the 25th energy policy announcement by the Prime Minister. This is just wedge politics that is actually destabilising energy policy in this country, because what we need is a plan. We need a plan because renewable energy is coming more and more into the grid; we need a plan around transmission; we need a plan around storage and we need a plan around generation, not just ad hoc announcements by a government addicted to wedge politics.
That brings me to the master of wedge politics in this place, the member for New England, and his new announcement. The thing I love about the member for New England is: as often as he loves to wedge Labor, he likes to wedge his own side; he's an equal opportunity wedger. I'm very confident that he's going to give me a free character assessment after my contribution, and that's fine, but I'll just say this. I'm grounded in reality. I face my electors every day and I talk to them about what's true. I don't live in an alternative reality—'Joyceland' or whatever it's called—which is a return to the 1950s and which is not grounded in economics at all.
Let's refer to the member for New England's amendment to allow so-called 'high-efficiency low-emissions coal-fired power' into the grid. The problem with his amendment—and there are multiple problems—is that it's just completely impractical. It argues that we should support HELE in this country if it has an emissions intensity of 80 per cent or lower of NEM intensity. The problem with that is that the least emissions-intensive HELE plant in the world runs at 670 kilograms of CO2 per megawatt hour. To hit his 80 per cent goal, he would need to find a HELE plant at 576 kilograms of CO2 per megawatt hour. His amendment is already contradicted by the physical reality of the NEM. We might talk about carbon capture and storage accompanying the HELE, and that's the way of the future, but the truth is: this government cut funding for CCS. This government abolished the CCS flagship fund that Labor put in place that was there to develop the technology of CCS which is still a long way off and is still not economical. So for this party or the coalition to talk about CCS as the future when they abolished a CCS flagship is utter hypocrisy.
The truth is: they'll talk about power prices and the need to lower power prices—and we do need to do that in this country because this government has presided over record power price increases—but what they're arguing for is a recipe for higher power prices. The market has spoken and the truth is: the cheapest form of new power in this country is renewable energy—wind and solar made completely reliable, 100 per cent reliable, through a combination of pumped hydro and batteries. The price of that combination, which firms up renewable energy, is around $75 a megawatt hour—completely reliable at $75 a megawatt hour. New coal at best will cost $120 to $150 a megawatt hour. New coal with CCS, if it actually exists, is north of $300 a megawatt hour. If the member for New England's bizarre fifties utopia were ever to be adopted in this country, he would be responsible for doubling power prices—not reducing but doubling power prices.
In my last two minutes I'm going to reflect on my view about coal, because I'm guessing it's going to get touched on very shortly. I'm proud to represent a coalmining region. I'm proud to represent a region that was built on the wealth of coal—the coal that industrialised this country, the coal that's still being dug up by miners who fight every day against companies intent on slashing their wages. They're miners who need reform to labour hire to give them decent wages—something the member for New England goes missing about. When it's talking about the beauty of coal, he's there; when it's talking about improving the wages of coalminers, he's nowhere to be seen. I've never heard him talk about the return of black lung to the industry—no, of course not, because he doesn't care about workers; he cares about headlines and being mates with Yancoal and Whitehaven.
The truth is: coal-fired power generation in this country has lost the economic race. It's not about the environment; it has lost the economic race. We should keep exporting it while there's demand. My strong view is that the last tonne of coal consumed in this world should be Australian coal, and we should continue to export it as long as there's global demand for it.
I'm proud of the industry. I'm proud of the contribution miners make every day in my area. My neighbour's a coalminer. My kids go to school with coalminers' kids. I go to the footy with coalminers. I'm proud of their contribution. I want the last tonne of coal mined on this planet to be Australian coal. And, while that's being mined, I will defend the industrial rights of workers. I will argue for equal wages for equal work. I will argue for better health and safety to make sure that we abolish black lung. But I won't argue for higher power prices in this country, which is what the member for New England and the government are arguing for, through their ideological obsession with coal-fired generation and gas-fired generation. I stand with coalminers. I stand with the export industry. I stand for a strong future for them. But I also stand with my consumers, my households, who want lower power prices and cleaning up of the grid.
I will stand by to enjoy the normal incoherence from the member for New England, but I can guarantee you it won't be grounded in economic reality.
You heard it, didn't you, in Shortland? Your member talked about the last part of coal because he's talking about the last part of your jobs. So I say to the people of Warners Bay: the member for Shortland is a fake. I say to the people of Valentine: the member for Shortland is a fake. I say to the people of Cardiff: the member for Shortland wants to put you out of a job. And they know that too. That's why there was a 10 per cent swing against him and that's why the most recent polling says he's gone. It's all over for him. He doesn't even support Newcastle; he supports Parramatta. He's not even from the area. He was transported to the area.
What we are doing on behalf of the people of Shortland is showing, in this amendment, that we are unambiguous about their jobs, that we stand up for coalminers, that we stand up for coal-fired power, that we are willing to put our name to the paper and stand behind their jobs and their future, because the biggest issue for our nation—I hate to say it, but it's not climate change—is the pre-eminence of China as a growing superpower and our need to make this nation as strong as it possibly can be. Our biggest issue is to understand that, in the future, if we get a slide of American influence out from our region we have to make this nation as strong as it can possibly be.
We have to be very mindful of our situation compared to the situation in Europe or the situation in the Americas, because we live in a different part of the world. Anything we can do to make this nation stronger, to bring back its manufacturing, to bring back its capacity to be resilient enough to stand with the problems that may eventuate—if the course of events in the past is to be any sort of guide—means that we must have the capacity to have the cheapest and most reliable power we can possibly get. Australia had the cheapest power when it was coal-fired power, and now we have the dearest power in the OECD. I acknowledge that some of my colleagues will take umbrage at what I do, but the difference is, Member for Shortland, I'm prepared to do it. You're not. That is the precise difference. People out there want to see you stand behind their jobs.
We've got to make sure that we are prepared to sell this product to the rest of the world—and we are. Our nation's largest export is fossil fuels. It is not computers. It is not motor cars. It is not kitchen renovations. It is not agriculture. Our biggest export is fossil fuels. If we are going to say that we believe it is right and just export this to the rest of the world—as I do—surely it is logical that you would also produce the best and most efficient technology to use it and stand behind that product by saying: 'We will build it in Australia. We will show you how to use it best.' If it's not the advent of China's expanding power and pre-eminence, it's our debt. And we've got to have a strong economy to be able to repay it. We've got to make sure that we take every advantage we possibly can.
Look at what's happening now in our nation. The Altona fuel refinery's closing down. That leaves us with about two fuel refineries. Vales Point is no longer going into expansion. That is an issue. Liddell is closing down. We've had blackouts in Manly. We've had blackouts in Hunters Hill. Our power system is at an edge, and we have to break away from this quasi-religion that has possessed the place where you are not even allowed to talk. You're not even allowed to mention the word 'coal' in many instances. I have to say the member for Shortland's fallen into that trap, and his own people know it. Why do they know it? Because they have to live with the experience of power prices that are driven in many instances by a section of the community which has a lot more spare cash than the people in Kurri do, which has a lot more spare cash than the people in so many areas of the member for Shortland's electorate. They probably have a lot more spare cash than the people of Caves Beach.
These people want to make sure that we do the right thing by them, which is cheap and affordable power. In the past they had it, and now they don't. If we keep driving this agenda where we can't even discuss high-intensity low-emission coal-fired power but in the same breath out of the other side of your mouth say, 'But I believe in the coal industry', it looks like complete and utter hypocrisy. It looks like you're completely and utterly dodgy, and you're not philosophically correct. You can't say you support the coal industry but you don't support the usage of coal.
And when they say, 'Oh, well, other parts of the world aren't using it,' might I remind you that in the so-called transition by Japan, they're not transitioning out of coal; they're transitioning from old coal-fired power stations into high-intensity low-emission new coal-fired power stations as part of their plan in 30 years to transition. Even in China, where we export coal to, they're building right now in excess of 160 new coal-fired power stations.
We had a German delegation in our office. We're always told the Germans don't use it anymore. I asked the question—it's in the Hansardare you using coal-fired power? They said, 'We are refurbishing our brown coal-fired power stations.' So there are a lot of facts that are lost, and to comply with the tenets of a religion but to absolve yourself of the facts we have got to make sure that in a path to cleaner energy—which I have no problem with; it's logical—we put all the opportunities that are before us and we represent that in the bills that we vote for. I will be moving an amendment for high-intensity low-emission coal-fired power.
An opposition member interjecting—
And to take the interjection about the market: if the market decides they don't want to build one, well, they don't want to build one. That's their choice. If the market decides they don't want to build one they don't want to build one, but they've got to have that opportunity. And the member for Shortland is saying within this bill they can't. So that is the issue and it is still good to be able to stand at the very back of the chamber, like I did at the front, and stir these people up. The reason you get under your skin is because they know full well that it hurts at their home base. The people in their hometowns are saying, 'Why are you not standing behind my industry? Why are you not standing behind my house payments? Why are you not standing behind my job? Why are you not standing behind the cost of putting my kids through school? Why are you not standing behind my capacity to have the boat, the car, of my choice? Why are you forcing me into a lower paid job? Why is your religion driven by the inner suburbs of the major capitals when you used to be the labour party? When you lost the 'u', you lost me.' You no longer believe in the people who put you there, in the reason your party was created. You have stepped away from it.
Might I say that, of the more wily politicians who exist in this place, there is one who has smelt the breeze and he sits over there now. He used to sit down there. The member for Hunter. And the member for Hunter went home and realised that he probably wouldn't have a job unless he changed what he was saying. I'll say to you, Member for Shortland: you're going to lose your job. You're gone. We've done the polling on you. You're dead. You're gone. You're finished.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Yes, we have. And I'll tell you: it's your own people. They don't want to vote against you but they feel they have to vote against you.
I'll be around long after you, mate.
Mate, you won't be. And that's the trouble, because, you see, you're a leftie with a Greens policy in a Labor seat.
Debate interrupted.
Independent cinemas aren't known for talking about themselves, and that's because they're often family-run businesses and they're too busy getting on with the business of sourcing movies, selling tickets and delighting their customers with the special touches that, in the case of the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury, their historic or character-filled properties offer. So you have to realise that things are pretty desperate when independent cinemas reach out and ask for help.
The visits I've had with the operators of the Glenbrook Cinema and Richmond Twin tell me clearly that they need help to survive COVID. Put yourself in their shoes. These cinemas rely on the steady attendance that they've built up over years of loyal followers who regularly come to the movies. They know that some movies will attract bigger crowds than others and some nights will be bigger than others, but that older people especially will enjoy a weekday outing to the movies on a quieter day—except of course that for the last year they haven't. People haven't been willing to. Understandably, they've had a reluctance to sit in an enclosed environment for long periods of time. As Ben Curran from Glenbrook Cinema told me, in school holidays—normally another really busy time for movies—grandparents have been much less likely to take their grandkids to the movies. My local independent cinema is the first place that I took my kids to see a movie. I want to make sure it stays around so that they can take their kids to the movies.
Other things have made it difficult for independent cinemas. The different rules on masks and social distancing have been confusing, leading to some stressful conversations, I'm told, about why you need to wear a mask in the foyer but not in the cinema itself, or why there are not 1.5 metres space around your seat, because the different circumstances mean there are different guidelines that kick in, and that QR-code signing-in hasn't won the favour of every patron—again, creating a stressful and staff-intensive environment. But I saw three movies at my local cinema over the summer, and, each time, my husband and my mum could see the effort that went into making this venue COVID-safe.
The other issue these independent cinemas are facing is that the big blockbuster movies—the ones that John Levy at Richmond knows will pull a crowd because they come with big national advertising campaigns that make people want to race to the cinema as soon as they hit the Hawkesbury—have all been delayed by months if not years. So, while there are beautiful and engaging movies about, you have to go looking to find out about them.
The same constraints apply to the historic Mount Vic Flicks in my electorate and the larger but still independent Edge cinema in Katoomba. These independent cinemas know that it's only a matter of time before people will head back to them in numbers, and they want to be there when it happens.
JobKeeper has helped them keep their heads above water, as we knew it would. So losing JobKeeper next month will be a really cruel blow. I urge the government: please, don't bring down the curtain on independent cinemas in March. Help them keep the screens going in our local towns.
Peta Pearson, who works at Helloworld Travel in Richmond Marketplace, has wanted to be a travel agent ever since she was a teenager. She and Claudia Laming love their jobs, helping match holidays to travellers. When I met them recently, they still managed a smile and a joke. Travel agents surely have had one of the psychologically toughest experiences during COVID, with the borders closed and no immediate support for the businesses they worked in. And, while they watched their owners try and find a way to keep them employed in the time before JobKeeper was introduced, they had to start the cancellation and refund process for angry and distressed travellers whose trips were off. Then, even after JobKeeper threw them a lifeline, they had stranded customers overseas, frantically trying to find a way home. The government wasn't able to get stranded Aussies home, but, my goodness, I saw travel agents do it. So now, with no sign of international borders opening, these workers and their employers are completely uncertain about their future, with JobKeeper ending in March. This is exactly the sort of business that needs JobKeeper to continue. The government tell us how much they've done for travel agents, but the assistance they've provided to business owners has, in the case of many businesses I've spoken to, only covered the rent for an extra couple of months. Losing JobKeeper means no-one is covering salaries. I know owners who dipped into their own savings and their superannuation to keep their staff on for the hours they needed to pay their own bills. The sector suffered terribly. Domestic travel bookings and commissions can't replace international travel; they need JobKeeper.
A strong Australia is not handed down by big government in Canberra; it's built from individuals who form families as a foundation for community and a strong nation. Each Australia Day, we honour and celebrate those Australians who've taken responsibility for the wellbeing of our communities and our country.
Goldstein is excited to have 15 local residents recognised in this year's Australia Day Awards, including Emeritus Professor Andrew Markus AO, for his distinguished service to tertiary education, particularly in the study of Jewish civilisation, and to multiculturalism; Mr Brian Davis AM, for his significant service to the community through philanthropic support for various community based organisations; Professor Daniel Lubman AM, for his significant service to medical education, research, treatment and policy in the field of addiction; and Mr Daryl Williams AM, for his significant service to the legal profession and to cancer research. Daryl and his wonderful wife, Margaret, are very close friends, and it brought enormous joy to Ryan and me to see him honoured this year—of course, with all others, but sometimes it means something more when it's somebody close to you.
Other award recipients include the late Mr Rex Brown OAM, for his service to tourism and to the community of Wye River; Dr Peter Davis OAM, for his service to the Jewish community of Melbourne; Dr Susan English Donkers OAM, for her service to the youth of Timor-Leste, to women and to medicine; and Mr Geoffrey Goode OAM, for his advocacy for electoral reform. Geoffrey, I did get your email. I did have a read, I'm not totally convinced; however, it's good that you're there arguing the case for our democracy and how we make sure that every vote is counted and heard in our democracy
The remaining award recipients are Mrs Irma Hanner OAM, for her service to the community, particularly through the Jewish Holocaust Centre; Mrs Frances Nicholls MBE OAM, for her service to the community through a range of community based organisations and roles; Dr Hilary Rubinstein OAM, for her service to community history; Mr George Voyage OAM, for his service to amateur Australian rules football and cricket; Mr Peter Wicking OAM, for his service to education and to youth mental health; Mr Ian John Ireson PSM, for his outstanding service to the land titles process and product innovation in the great state of Victoria; and Lieutenant Colonel Sharon Coates CSC, for her outstanding achievement as a joint task group commanding officer in Operation Bushfire Assist in 2019-20. Congratulations to you all.
As we begin a year, it's important to reflect on the sacrifices made by Australians every day for the betterment of our community and our country. They do so without pomp, without ceremony; they do it for what is right. While bureaucrats in Canberra will of course focus on spreadsheets, voluntary interactions between Australians and our local communities are what truly enrich and enhance our social fabric. It's the first stitch in the foundations of a great country. Individuals create a stronger society through their charity by voluntarily applying their labour and effort and innovation to the improvement of their neighbours' lives, and that is what we honour and acknowledge in these awards on Australia Day and the Queen's Birthday and, of course, through many other significant events, such as the recently held Bayside Citizen of the Year ceremony—and I know we have one for Glen Eira coming up. Nominations are still open, if you want to nominate.
Individuals create a stronger society through their enterprise by creating new solutions for modern problems. We've seen how the competitive application of medical expertise has stimulated the fastest development of a vaccine in human history. Individuals create a stronger society by accepting responsibility for their own lives and for the lives of their community rather than delegating their responsibility to others. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this spirit of common responsibility and sacrifice has been so critically important. Despite the profound economic and social pain, Victorians have persisted through months in lockdown in order to protect the health of their older neighbours. We are back, sadly, at that time again, and may it be the last time.
We have also seen the success of spontaneous community initiatives in providing essential practical and emotional support to vulnerable Australians, particularly the recently unemployed and the elderly who need mental health assistance and support. If you need resources just to go to Facebook.com/Tim WilsonMP and we have resources there as well. In 2021, let's harness and renew the spirit of responsibility as we build a more resilient Australia. (Time expired)
At around 4 pm on 24 January a series of fires broke out at Cherry Gardens, Scotts Bottom, Mount Bold and surrounding areas. Conditions were hot and windy, and the fires were burning in a heavily vegetated and populated area of the Adelaide Hills. My heart sank when the alerts began. It's only been a year since the Black Summer fires, and I'm sure I wasn't the only one experiencing an 'Oh, no, not this again!' feeling. Overnight the blazes burnt more than 2,700 hectares and destroyed two homes, 19 outbuildings and two vehicles. The next day, Adelaide experienced its wettest January day in nearly 50 years. The deluge contained the blaze. We were extremely fortunate.
At community fire meetings the perennial issues of congested evacuation routes, power outages and accurate messaging were raised. This fire didn't reach the damage threshold of a declared disaster and trigger support from government agencies, and this raised other questions. For community leaders, it highlighted once again that community expectations about the response from the three levels of government vary significantly and the message around bushfire action plans isn't reaching everyone.
This messaging problem is not new but it's exacerbated in my electorate because of population migration. A third of the 39,000 people who live in the Adelaide Hills Council area are new to the area every census period. The Mount Barker District Council area is a high-growth area. Its population is around 33,000 and is forecast to reach 55,000 by 2036. Most of the newcomers are young families. They move up from the southern suburbs of Adelaide seeking a tree change or relatively affordable housing on what was once farmland. This means they may have had no experience of the Ash Wednesday bushfires or any subsequent fires. They are not cognisant of the risks and are unsure how to prepare.
In response to the bushfire royal commission, the federal government has pledged to do more about strategic leadership and resource-sharing in times of natural disaster. However, it is the states and territories that continue to be responsible for the protection of life and property and recovery services. I'm concerned that too much is expected from our volunteer firefighters given the financial resources actually allocated to them. If they are expected to not only fight the fires but educate the community as well, there needs to be more funding. I also maintain that, if individual landowners are being warned not to expect a CFS truck to be stationed outside their property, they should be prepared if they decide to stay and defend and they should have some support to obtain firefighting equipment. In my community it has been the farm firefighting units who have been the last line of defence in many of our country communities.
In January this year the government set aside $2 billion for the National Bushfire Recovery fund, more than two-thirds of which has already been used on emergency response and recovery programs. One aspect of this fund that is missing, I believe, is funding for truly local projects. I understand there is a community and wellbeing grants component to the fund, and that works on mental health and resilience at a local level. However, I don't believe this has the scope for practical, community led projects. I would like to see the government introduce a grant scheme similar perhaps to the Stronger Communities Program, which, as we all know, allocates $150,000 per electorate for up to 20 small capital projects—a local disaster resilience program allocating perhaps a similar sum to share in any electorate that has experienced natural disaster in the past five years, whether that is fire, flood or cyclone. This program would provide aid to build community capacity and encourage communities to engage with each other and take responsibility at a local level for their preparedness. For example, in my electorate the Scott Creek community used their own fundraising and grants to set up a community recovery trailer, with a generator, lights and food, to help out in the event of a bushfire or extended power outage. Everyone has a role to play in building community resilience. The best thing government can do is empower communities to help themselves. I believe setting up a local disaster resilience program will encourage local initiatives. I call on the government to consider setting aside funds in this federal budget for this valuable program to build our community capacity for the coming bushfires, the coming disasters, that we know will happen in Australia.
Late in 2020, we saw a major milestone reached on the Pacific Highway upgrade. Motorists can now travel between Sydney and Brisbane on a four-lane divided highway. Since 1996, the Commonwealth and the New South Wales government have worked together to undertake the largest civil infrastructure project in the country, transforming and upgrading the Pacific Highway from Hexham up to the Queensland border. The last 155 kilometre stretch of the puzzle from Ballina to Woolgoolga is now open. It's saving at least 25 minutes—$4.9 billion of spend has gone into that.
In my first term representing the Lyne electorate, we had the Oxley Highway to Kempsey upgrade. That was virtually another billion dollars, with multiple crossings. But this last piece of the puzzle means we've completed the duplication to the Queensland highway. Since 1996, fatalities have dropped, particularly in this last 7½ years. In 1996 there were 40 fatal crashes. In 2019 there were only 20. All the major towns have been bypassed now. We have budget allocations for the bypass of Coffs Harbour, but, whilst it's not bypassed, it's duplicated and dual lane the whole way. With these projects now completed and the other bypass of Coffs Harbour on the agenda and funding set aside, we need to move onto the next phase: a specific program that goes back to completing all the intersectional upgrades along the Pacific Highway—that is, a specific program that gets these intersections that are incredibly dangerous and a source of huge logjams on weekends and at peak times. Across the Hunter we have $1½ billion on the table. New South Wales are doing the planning to bypass from Black Hill to Raymond Terrace and join again, beyond Tomago, at Heatherbrae. That will be a great boon.
The big ones that are causing the fatalities are: the Medowie Road intersection with the Pacific Highway, which links the Newcastle airport and Williamtown Air Force base; the Bucketts Way intersection that feeds the traffic down from the Gloucester and Barrington Tops; the Myall Way intersection at Tea Gardens and Hawks Nest; the Failford Road intersection with the Pacific Highway feeding into Forster-Tuncurry at Nabiac; the Harrington Road crossing that should be linking Coopernook and Harrington—it's an incredibly dangerous intersection at Harrington Road—and lastly the Houston Mitchell Drive at Lake Cathie and Bonny Hills. It's only time before we have a multiple car, truck or bus crash in that place. We all realise that of these intersections are a cause for great concern. They are all important, and I urge the New South Wales government to get on and start the detailed planning.
The Commonwealth government has a longstanding agreement with the state government, an 80 per cent to 20 per cent mix, on the Pacific Highway. We have delivered our promise since 2013: $5.3 billion in the biggest civil infrastructure program. Back in the nineties, when they were planning it, they didn't have the flyovers, so 110-kilometre-per-hour traffic has to slow down to cross traffic lanes. Speed reduction is necessary because of the fatalities on the Medowie Road. Two of the directors of one of the local clubs were killed. There was a fatality at the Bucketts Way intersection. Trucks with big long trailers trying to cross a four-lane highway is just a recipe for a major disaster.
The sooner we get that commitment, the sooner we can plan here at the federal level. I urge all those people in the planning in New South Wales. They have done a lot of the concept designs. It's very advanced. We just need a rock-solid commitment so that we can move onto the next phase of the Pacific Highway upgrade, and that is ironing out all these dangerous intersections, with no more logjams for seven or eight kilometres on long weekends, reducing fatalities, increasing safety, increasing productivity and having an intersection-free way into the Tomago industrial area and into the Newcastle Airport. It's a no-brainer. We just have to get on and complete it.
In New South Wales, under the Berejiklian Liberal government, big developers can bypass local councils and have their massive projects approved, even if local residents object and the local council has said no. This is despite the New South Wales Liberal Party having previously promised to return local planning powers to local communities through their councils. How did we end up with unelected planning panels overriding local councils and local communities with overdevelopment and overcrowding? It's wrong and it needs to change.
Our community in Little Bay continues to fight the big developer Meriton and their disgraceful plans to impose high-rise towers on the local area. Their plan ignores the already approved master plan for the site which permits lower density, low-rise residential development. Instead, Meriton want to increase the allowable building heights by four times what's in the master plan. Their plan translates to nearly 2,000 more units in blocks of up to 22 storeys, along with the addition of a hotel. But the Randwick Local Planning Panel unanimously rejected the Meriton proposal. The planning panel handed down clear advice to Randwick City Council. They recommended the planning proposal should be rejected.
The case against this reckless plan is clear. Randwick council's own planners previously released their assessment report of Meriton's plans. The planners recommended that the Randwick Local Planning Panel not support the planning proposal and that it not proceed as it fails to meet both the strategic merits test and the site-specific test. The panel said that the approved master plan should not be changed saying, 'There are no changed circumstances which warrant changes to the existing planning controls for the site.' Of course the existing master plan was put in place when Meriton bought that land back in 2017. They knew what they were buying. Yet they still want to push the limits with this Liberal government to increase the heights by four times. Meriton want to double the population in an area that is already struggling with traffic congestion and poor public transport. The developer is now ignoring the council decision and, instead, calling for the New South Wales planning department to greenlight the development. Why is the New South Wales Liberal government allowing a back door for developers to override local communities, councils and even their own planning panels? It's just not right. That is why over 10,000 locals have already signed a petition against this outrageous case of overdevelopment. I will continue to fight on behalf of our community to stop Meriton's outrageous overdevelopment at Little Bay.
We have already seen Meriton lodge a development application for the second stage of its sprawling $3 billion residential development at Eastgardens, with towers up to 17 storeys high. The completed project will see more than 4,000 units over a 16½-hectare site. They already have congested roads in that area and inadequate public transport. How much of this overdevelopment can our community take? Enough is enough.
Opal packaging and SUEZ recycling are planning to build a massive incinerator in Matraville in our community. Port Botany is already one of the most polluted areas in Australia and we don't need a massive incinerator in Matraville spewing even more damaging emissions over our community. That's why I am proud to be part of the community campaign to stop the Matraville incinerator. The proposal for the incinerator at the site on the corner of Bunnerong Road and Botany Road will involve the construction of a facility that will burn 165,000 tonnes of non-organic, non-recyclable waste, including wood, textiles and plastics.
In November, I and community representatives met with SUEZ and expressed the community's opposition to this proposal and asked them to dump the ridiculous proposal. But they indicated that they're proceeding. The hypocrisy in their argument is they can't even tell us what is going to be emitted from the 60-metre stack that they're planning on the site. They couldn't tell us what the emissions would be. That stack is just 130 metres from homes in our community and will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The plan will also result in an estimated additional 54 trucks and 100 car movements per day. I'm strongly opposed to the Matraville incinerator, and I fear that they will use the planning panel and bypass the council, just as Meriton has done, to have this project approved under this Liberal government's planning laws. Enough is enough! Our community has had enough of unelected planning panels overriding local councils and local residents with overdevelopment. I will fight the Matraville incinerator, as will members of our community.
It was on 13 February last year that I rose to provide an update to the House on the Manning Road on-ramp project in my electorate of Swan, and I'm pleased to report that, after a decade of advocacy and fighting to get funding for the Manning Road on-ramp, the on-ramp is now open. I, along with the state minister for transport, opened the on-ramp on 13 July 2020. It was fabulous to have present the local MLA, John McGrath, who'd fought for years for this on-ramp, and my wife, Cheryle, who is one of the local councillors. Both played a role in getting this project going.
There has been enormous gratitude to the Morrison government since the opening of the Manning Road on-ramp, and many constituents have emailed me and families have written to me or called my office to thank me for delivering this major infrastructure upgrade. I know this has been a key issue for years for residents along the Manning Road corridor, and I'd like to thank the many residents and community groups who gave me support along the way to deliver the funding. Residents in the electorate of Swan have been calling for this upgrade since Main Roads originally drew up the plans in the 1980s. Despite the overwhelming community support for this on-ramp, we faced resistance from Labor senators, who made speeches in their chamber opposing this project. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, you'll find that hard to believe! This project has been over 20 years in the making, and it's fabulous to see such a great outcome for the residents of Swan and all those who'll use this road and get home safer and sooner.
I originally raised this issue in parliament in 2009 and started my campaign for funding. In 2016 the federal Liberal government committed $28 million towards the $35 million project as part of an investment package in job-creating, congestion-busting road and rail infrastructure works. Works for this on-ramp commenced in 2019 and were completed in July 2020—delivered on time and on budget—and supported 100 jobs during construction. More than 7,000 vehicles will use the new on-ramp daily, reducing traffic on Canning Highway and improving travel times from five to 14 minutes, as told to me by locals, particularly during the peak hours. Previously motorists have had to deviate approximately 1.4 kilometres, including going through two single intersections at the heavily congested Canning Bridge.
This is the first new freeway entry built in Perth onto an existing freeway in over 40 years. The single-lane southbound on-ramp will enhance connectivity for residents and road users in Como, Manning, Salter Point, Waterford and beyond, and it will also service Curtin University. The design makes future provision to increase capacity for the on-ramp to be two lanes when traffic demands require it.
The Manning Road on-ramp will improve safety and congestion at the Canning Bridge and Kwinana Freeway interchange as cars will no longer need to use local roads, travelling past local parks and schools, as they will now have direct access to the south. Previous crash statistics indicate a high occurrence of total crashes—82 per cent from rear-end crashes and side-swipe crashes—among the Canning Bridge detour route. This has generally contributed to frequent lane changing and high traffic volumes and levels of congestion, which will be minimised by the completion of this southbound on-ramp. Through a series of widening works, smart freeways and intelligent transport systems in the existing area, everyday road users will experience a significant reduction in travel times. There will also be improved safety through the separation of traffic and new access routes to areas of growing development in Swan.
I'll continue to deliver congestion-busting infrastructure for the residents of Swan and am proud to be part of a government that has committed a total of over $1.64 billion towards infrastructure projects across the electorate of Swan. This includes $232 million for the Tonkin Highway gap, $207.5 million for the Oats Street and Welshpool Road level crossing removal, $75 million for the Canning Bridge bus interchange and $25 million for the causeway bridge, to name just a few. As we come out of COVID, the jobs that these projects create are crucial to WA, and at the same time the funding needed for these projects will boost the local economy. This is another fine example of the Morrison government delivering infrastructure for Swan and for projects all over Australia.
House adjourned at 20:00
I rise to acknowledge Cowan constituent Mr Ian Murray, who lives in my suburb. He was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in the 2021 Australia Day honours. It is an absolute acknowledgment of his tireless work in researching and documenting the history of Western Australia.
Mr Murray has worked to strengthen our understanding of Western Australia, its unique natural environment and its history since the 1960s. He was a founding member of the Western Australian Explorers Diaries Project. Currently he's working on the location and residents of business and residential areas across all of the WA Goldfields surveyed by the mines department. Those stories have been lost through the old systems, and he is rediscovering and redocumenting them for the benefit of all Western Australians.
As an honorary fauna warden, Mr Murray collected natural history specimens, especially butterflies and cicadae—which, I'm told, is the plural of cicada—for the National Museum of Victoria. He has volunteered for Landgate and produced a two-volume book, West Australian Gold Towns and Settlements, which includes original surveys, town maps and names of early Goldfields inhabitants—such an invaluable treasure in documenting the history of Western Australia.
Over half a century of service has seen Mr Murray author, co-author or jointly compile 12 publications on Western Australian history. They include stories about Aboriginal corporations, communities and outstations—books called Bulla Bulling, Incident at Afghan Rocks, The Overlanders: Crossing the Nullarbor 1870s-1970s, All Gold: The Death of Stephen Grace, The Connelly Story, For Those Who Remember Bob True, John Dunn and the Wealth of Nations, Where on the Coast is That? and Araluen to Zanthus: AGazetteer of Perth Suburbs and Western Australian Towns.
I'm not a very good student of history—I didn't do too well in history at school; I think it was one of my weaker subjects—so I for one am particularly grateful and thankful that we have people like Mr Murray who do that work, who undertake that extensive research to collect information and preserve the past of Western Australia and its rich history, and document it in word for all to share for generations to come. Mr Murray, congratulations—a very well deserved recognition of your hard work and dedication to the state.
As our nation recovers from the global pandemic, spending on infrastructure is going to be key. That is why the Australian government has a $110 billion rolling plan for transport infrastructure alone. We know what this means to the growth of not just metro but regional and rural areas across the country. Yes, it creates jobs, but, I suggest to you, it's far more strategic than that. We need to ensure that we are investing in infrastructure to keep ahead of the population curve.
If you take my region of the Sunshine Coast as an example, the Sunshine Coast as a region will have a population of over half a million people 20 years from now. It's therefore incumbent on all tiers of government to do their bit to invest in infrastructure to keep ahead of that population curve. We are doing that with a $181 million concessional loan at the airport, over $3.2 billion on the Bruce Highway between Pine River and Gympie and a $390 million contribution to the North Coast rail line.
Let me touch on that rail line. The rail service between Brisbane and Nambour is woeful. That's why we as a government have contributed $390 million for upgrades between Beerburrum and Nambour. It's the first time a federal government has made such a contribution to that stretch of rail, which is owned and operated by the state government. I'm proud of that, because sometimes you need teamwork to get stuff done. With stage 1 of those works soon to get underway, I believe it's teamwork that we need again to redesign stage 2. Instead of the current plan, which is to upgrade stations and look at passing loops north of Landsborough, what we need now is full duplication of the rail line all the way through to Nambour—ideally, designed in a way that will accommodate the possibility of faster rail when the time comes.
What we need for this is unity. What we need for this is a team effort. We need all three tiers of government—federal, state and local—and we need the business sector and the community at large working together. Only with a team effort can we ensure that Nambour and its surrounding district gets what it deserves, which is full duplication and accommodation for fast rail in the future. Get onboard.
Since September last year, Zaki Haidari has been running to raise money for refugees in need of legal support. To date he has run over 770 kilometres, and over $26,000 has been raised. Zaki knows from experience the value legal support can offer refugees. An ethnic Hazara man from Afghanistan, he was forced to flee after receiving threats from the Taliban and his father and his brother went missing. He arrived in Australia in 2012 at the age of 17. He has since been granted refugee status, spending almost five years on a temporary protection visa. In this time, Zaki has proved his value to the Australian community. He was awarded International Student of the Year for his studies in Sydney and was recognised by the Human Rights Commission for his refugee advocacy work. He recently worked at the Australian National University, and I've received letters from his colleagues in praise of his work and the value of his friendship.
However, his visa will run out in September this year, and he fears he will be sent back to Afghanistan. No-one on his type of visa has ever become a permanent resident. Temporary protection visas should be abolished, and eligible refugees in Australia should be transitioned onto permanent arrangements. Otherwise, people like Zaki are in an ongoing state of uncertainty and prevented from meaningful settlement, creating unnecessary hardship and denying Australia the benefit of their contribution.
While many Australians did it tough in 2020, I want to speak on the efforts of the Legal Aid Commission in the ACT and offer them my gratitude. Legal Aid's mission statement is to promote a just society in the ACT. Legal Aid remained open year-round in 2020, through the bushfires and COVID-19, to serve their community. There was no respite through the year, as demand remained on them to provide their grants of legal assistance, duty appointments and information services as well as their community outreach. Legal Aid provides a drop-in service at public colleges throughout the territory, including in the Bean electorate. Admirably, in conjunction with the efforts of the ACT government, Legal Aid kept this service going. This program involves solicitors visiting public colleges and providing confidential legal services and information to students who are grappling with legal issues and who may not have the means to otherwise access legal services. The legal issues facing these young people range from their precarious work status in the gig economy to traffic matters to, in some circumstances, sadly, family violence. I call on the federal government to ensure that vital community services like Legal Aid are funded adequately across the country and that their contribution is appropriately acknowledged.
The biggest issue confronting our nation in the coming years will be our relationship to China and how it will work with a superpower that is not a democracy like the United States of America. As we've seen through the regime that runs China, with its dealings with the Uyghur people and its issues with regard to the incursion into Indian territory, in the South China Sea, this is going to be absolutely implicit, and it has to be absolutely extolled that we have to give to our children the strongest nation we possibly can. If the United States of America basically loses influence and goes on a slide, we are going to be here in our section of the world basically on our lonesome. What is part of doing that? How do we do that? I think Australia has tied itself too much in benevolent regulatory tape that actually impedes our capacity to grow as a nation. We are doing it in a range of forms, including some of our climate policies. We are marching down a road that might be applicable to Europe and the issues that are facing Europe or facing other nations, but they're not the biggest issues facing our nation.
We do it in other areas as well. We do it in everything from water policy to where we try to construct a dam, and all the time we are butting our heads against people whose only goal is to try and stop it. They try and stop us from increasing our capacity to assist our biggest export, which is fossil fuels. They stop it when we try to construct a dam. We are now going to a position in our nation where Altona has closed down. We're going back to two refineries. Vales Point is no longer upgrading. Our power capacity is reducing. Our capacity to build dams by reason of our own green legislation is impeded. And this is not going to assist us. There has to be an epiphany in our nation where we understand: what is our real challenge going forward? We must immerse ourselves in the real challenge that is before us. I don't know what will happen in 2050, in the future. What I'm very aware of is what's happening right now, and when we hear about a major city in a place such as Daru, off our coast, we should really wake up as to exactly what our challenge is now.
This government has been derelict in its No. 1 duty: keeping Australians safe. As Victorians today face their fourth day of their latest lockdown, it's clear the Prime Minister has provided little support and has washed his hands of his federal responsibilities. This is a Prime Minister who neglects Victorians and now has left them to deal with the spread of the virus emanating from quarantine—a federal responsibility pursuant to 51(ix) of the Constitution. We are a year into this pandemic and the Prime Minister still has no national plan for safe quarantine of incoming passengers. Instead, the Prime Minister has abrogated his responsibility for quarantine, relying upon the states to do his work. It's fair to say the Victorian government has done a remarkable job in keeping this virulent strain of the virus under control. The need for the current lockdown and the previous lockdown Victorians endured last year has been abundantly clear. One only needs to look at the death tolls in countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, France and many other European states, and South America. Wherever you look across the globe, there are tragedies as a result of the failure to respond to this very, very virulent pandemic. Beyond keeping Australians safe, we need a national border security quarantine plan so that 40,000 Australians who are still stranded overseas can return to their home. But this is a Prime Minister who takes no responsibility, shows no leadership and just leaves the states to do the hard work.
Throughout this pandemic, the areas under the federal government's control have delivered blunder after blunder. Just think of the aged-care system and what happened in Victoria in relation to that. If you look at the situation there, mistakes were made and there was a failure to respond to those. Even the minister responsible could not identify how many people had died in that sector. It's interesting to note that there were no deaths in the state-run aged-care centres of Victoria, and yet well over 600 tragic deaths were in the federally run aged-care centres of Victoria.
We only have to look at the COVID tracing app, which has been an abject failure. Millions of taxpayers' dollars were spent contracting a COVID app and it has been a failure. In fact, a supermarket loyalty card is more effective in tracing these people than the so-called COVID app.
Now, of course, we await the rollout of the vaccine. Let's hope that the federal government rollout this vaccine in a much better way than they've dealt with other health responses. The fact is there are more than 90 countries that are already well underway in vaccinating, yet Australia is left in their wake. We need to see better from Scott Morrison and this government.
) ( ): Australia is facing increasing pressure from international counterparts to jump on the zero emission bandwagon. What does this really mean for the electorate of Flynn? According to a report into the employment impacts of a net zero emission target for Australia, conducted by the Institute of Public Affairs, my electorate of Flynn will be hit the hardest of all. The IPA report states that over 650,000 direct jobs would be directly at risk from a net zero emission target. This is not to mention the thousands of indirect jobs that will be lost. Central Queensland is set to bear the brunt of the unemployment. The top three most affected electorates will be Flynn, Maranoa and Capricornia. The Australian agriculture sector will be hit hardest and is set to lose up to 300,000 jobs, that's 46 per cent of the potential job losses. Coalmining closely follows with an additional 62,000 jobs across Australia. Flynn is set to be the most impacted of the 20 electorates with a 10 per cent share of the job risk across the board.
Chris Bowen has openly come out and claimed, 'Coal is under threat, regardless of what domestic climate change policy Australia adopts'. Adopting this attitude and introducing a net zero emission target will come at a great expense to Flynn. With the current pandemic, adopting such a policy will be devastating for Australian workers. It would seem that Labor is comfortable with that. A party originally formed for the workers of Australia are willing to sell them down the drain.
The Liberal-National government are on track to beat our 2030 targets. We've already beaten our 2020 targets. Our emissions have fallen faster than many other countries and significantly faster than the OECD and G20 countries. With agriculture being so hard hit with droughts, floods and fire over the last three years this could be the last straw that breaks the proverbial cow's back. Our cost of living will soar, our quality of fresh fruit and vegetables will decline and our standard of living will drop.
I rise today to acknowledge the residents and organisations honoured at this year's Blacktown City Council Australia Day awards. While 2020 was incredibly difficult for so many in our community, the awards were a cause for great celebration and optimism. They were a reminder that the great people of Blacktown city can overcome any challenges when we work together and respect one another.
In the time I have, please forgive me for acknowledging only two recipients out of many worthy finalists. The first is Ms Lea Simic who is this year's Young Citizen of the Year. A Blacktown resident, Lea serves on the youth advisory committee for both the Blacktown City Council and the Western Sydney branch of headspace. Lea is a strong advocate for young people, especially when it comes to the provision of adequately resourced mental health services within our community. I had the great privilege of spending time with Lea on Australia Day and I was blown away by her conviction to create a more supportive and inclusive community in Blacktown city. In Lea's words:
This award gives me the opportunity to shine the light on the needs of young people in Blacktown City. It is really important that youth have a voice in our City and I'm honoured that council has chosen me to be one of those voices.
Congratulations, Lea, on this outstanding achievement. I look forward to working with you to promote the views and needs of young people in our community. You're an inspiration to us all.
I also acknowledge the team at the Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre, who were awarded Community Event of the Year for their NAIDOC Week celebrations. I've acknowledged the centre several times in this place. I have great admiration for its CEO, Angela Van Dyke and her team, who, with the limited resources they have, continue to go above and beyond to serve some of the most socially isolated people in our community. They really are the beating heart of Riverstone. That's why I make a concerted effort to bring my colleagues to the centre when they visit Greenway, including the Labor leader.
The centre's NAIDOC Week celebration is a must-attend event in Riverstone. The pandemic meant the centre needed to shift the event online, but they were innovative and collated NAIDOC Week packs to allow members of the community to participate remotely. Congratulations to the Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre on this outstanding accolade. I look forward to visiting you again in the near future.
On a final note, I acknowledge the many new Australians who were conferred citizenship on Australia Day. It was truly an honour to join the Australia Day citizenship ceremony at Stanhope Gardens, expertly conducted, as always, by Blacktown City Council. I congratulate you all on choosing Australian as your new nationality and the City of Blacktown as your new home.
[via video link] Australia has a Prime Minister who is all smirk, all shirk and no work. The pandemic has taught us many lessons. It has redefined what we think of as essential work. It has highlighted the need for secure jobs with leave entitlements to ensure the safety of all in a pandemic. It has demonstrated clearly that a JobSeeker payment of $40 a day is too low. And it has taught us how important it is that Australia has the capacity to make things and to refine things, to ensure our safety.
It has shown us too that at every turn the Prime Minister will shirk his responsibility. We've seen him handball his constitutional responsibilities for quarantine—this continues 12 months into a pandemic. He gave a hospital handball to the states and territories to support childcare workers, local government employees and university sector workers at the height of the pandemic. And he has neglected the arts and the hospitality industry. He ran straight past sole traders and left them holding the ball. We even read over the weekend that he handballed responsibility to be accountable and answer questions in the parliament. That's 200 handballs right here since his election to the prime ministership.
Not since the Western Bulldogs champion Scott West has someone used the skill of handballing so incessantly. And we've seen it more and more the longer the pandemic goes on. Remember how we were apparently at the front of the queue to get the vaccine? If only media conferences, sound bites, media releases and photo ops were actual injections! Everyone in the nation would have had a jab, but not one person has got it. And what happened when he was under pressure last week on this matter? In his typical marketing fashion, he went for a photo op at a vaccine manufacturer. He is all photo op and no follow-up.
It's funny, because last year I read that the Prime Minister said he enjoys jigsaw puzzles. I can imagine that. I'm betting that he's the sort of bloke who turns up at the end and puts in the last piece. 'There,' he would say, 'I did it!' There would be no mention of the 999 other bits of work that went before him. He's nowhere to be seen when people are doing the hard and unrewarding work of sorting through hundreds of different bits of sky. The real puzzle for me is: does the Prime Minister think we didn't notice? My community has noticed. The thousands of locals in my community who went onto JobSeeker due to the pandemic know that he's not on their side. Local sole traders know that this Prime Minister is not on their side. And local government employees know that he's not on their side.
It's clear that the Prime Minister and this Liberal government aren't on the side of the people who I represent in 'this place. But people in my community know that too. They know that only a Labor government will be on their side.
I rise today to bring awareness to an issue that is close to my heart and which affects approximately one child born in Australia each week: mitochondrial disease. This genetic disorder passed directly from a mother to her child is caused by mutations in an individual's nuclear, or mitochondrial, DNA. It is a devastating condition. Common symptoms include developmental delays; seizures; weakness and fatigue; muscle pain; vision and hearing loss; and multiple organ failure and heart problems, leading to mobility problems. Severe cases cause premature death.
With no known cure, and very few treatment options available, parents are often told by doctors that there is nothing that can be done. They must watch their child suffer a cruel and slow death. It is every parent's worst nightmare and the grief must be unimaginable.
One local constituent in Concord, Ms Toni Catton, has given me personal insight into the mito community. Toni is the general manager of the Mito Foundation, and she has played a vital role in advocating for greater awareness, research and treatment for mitochondrial disease. Like many people working for the organisation, Toni's passion to find a cure comes from personal tragedy. Her beautiful daughter Alana was diagnosed with mitochondrial disease when she was only three years old. I met Alana shortly after I was elected as the member for Reid, and I will never forget the bright, bubbly young girl who approached me with her mum while I was at a mobile office. She tragically passed away from the disease last year, only three years after being diagnosed.
Toni has ensured that Alana's legacy will live on by continuing her daughter's fight against the disease that took her life too soon—and that fight has not been in vain. There is an opportunity now for us to legalise mitochondrial donation here in Australia. This assisted reproductive technology can help stop a mother from transmitting mitochondrial DNA to her child. In 2015 regulations were passed in the UK, approving mitochondrial donation to be used for human reproductive purposes to prevent mitochondrial disease. In the coming months, there will be a conscience vote when legislation to legalise the treatment is put to parliament. For those who have seen the suffering of this condition, mitochondrial donation is nothing short of a miracle. I want to assure Toni and other members of the mito community that I will be supporting the bill. It's the least I can do to support the fight against mito and honour the memory of beautiful little Alana.
Last week I travelled to the northern parts of my electorate, namely to Mackay, Sarina and Walkerston. In Mackay I visited the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal, located at the port of Hay Point, 38 kilometres south of Mackay in Central Queensland. The terminal is a key player in the world's global coal export market and it's critical to the economic prosperity of Queensland and Australia. The terminal operates every day of the year, exporting thermal and met coal from Central Queensland's Bowen Basin mines to more than 25 countries around the world. While the terminal's primary purpose is to export coal, the operators are also focused on creating a sustainable environmental future and to enrich the local area. Seeing firsthand their level of dedication to the local community and to the environment was staggering. The Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal also spends significant time and effort in supporting local community groups, organisations and clubs. I want to thank CEO Steve Rae and Kel Lockyer for taking the time to show me around the terminal.
In Sarina I visited Ultra Coral, a world renowned supplier of sustainable, rare and exotic coral colonies. They are passionate about ensuring the long-term health of the Great Barrier Reef and corals all over the world. Ultra Coral was successful in applying for a grant from the federal government's Energy Efficient Communities Program. They received $20,000 to upgrade their LED lights, which are essential to the growing of coral. Their facility houses one of the largest selections of coral varieties in Australia. They are moving into new premises just outside of Sarina to expand their operations and for better access to the southern islands and reefs. I wish them the best of luck in their move. I also want to thank Ivy and Barbara for giving me a fantastic tour and I can't wait to get back there.
I also paid a visit to Kingsley, from the West Tigers Leagues Club in Walkerston. The club was a victim of a vicious ram-raid in the early hours of Wednesday 6 January this year. Early estimates of the damage ranges in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The raid damaged doors, walls and ceilings and it destroyed the reception area. Last year, 2020, was a challenging year for the Wests Tigers Leagues Club—and, indeed, challenging for every club, restaurant and pub in Australia—during the pandemic. For all the damage, the robbers left with nothing. This heartless attack could not have come at a worse time. But Kingsley and his team worked extremely hard to get the club to a safe state for customers to come back to. They were back open in a couple of days to serve the locals. The community responded by returning to the club in massive numbers to offer their support and ongoing patronage. Local clubs play an important part in our community, and the Wests Tigers Leagues Club are no exception. I wish Kingsley and his team the best of luck in the future. I have no doubt I'll be back soon to support the club as well.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
The last time I had merely started and have had to stay in abeyance until this point in time. In starting again, to Margot, to Dugald, to Jane and to Larry, and to Doug Anthony's grandchildren, I'd like to first and foremost offer my condolences, but condolences in a spirit that reflects the great life of Doug Anthony and what a great person he was not just for his family but for his nation.
There is an unverified but I believe very true story that really epitomises the character of Doug Anthony. When they were going to get rid of the single deck in its first iteration, Doug Anthony saw the then prime minister Billy McMahon and he said to him, 'Prime Minister, you're not going to do this.' And the Prime Minister said, 'Well, yes, I am.' And he pulled from his pocket the resignation papers for the coalition and said, 'The government falls at six o'clock tonight.' They kept a single desk! The reason it is unverified is that it happened, obviously, in the room. It was kept within the room. But it shows that Doug Anthony was fair dinkum. When he said something he meant it. And that's the reason that in politics—I imagine Billy McMahon didn't really like him, but I bet you he respected him.
Of course, there are other ones too—this one is on the record. Coming back jaundiced, Doug Anthony had to deal with the fact that they were going to have one vote, one value, and this, of course, was going to decimate many regional areas, many regional centres, because we have the geographic weight in our area, but we don't have the demographic weight. And we don't have the demographic weight because we can't get the services that will bring the people in because we don't have the population. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. We did have a weighting of the vote, but that was being removed. And Doug Anthony said: 'This is not fair. You will have all the power. All the democratic power will then reside in the capitals. That's where everything will happen and that's where all the investment will be, too.' He said he wasn't going to accept it. Then, when they pursued it, he said, 'Well, then we must have more seats in the parliament so that regional areas have a chance to basically have a local federal politician.' The joint party room went off their mind about it—were basically openly hostile. Remember that he was sitting in the Deputy Prime Minister's seat. They were openly hostile. They were taunting him. But he just took it. He wore it, and he continued to fight so that we did get more seats. It's yet another example of his character and why he is held in that sort of pantheon of the gods for the National Party, which is the second-longest existing party in Australia. It is not the easy road; it's the hard road that is the one that is remembered by the history books. It's not the jolly, good times; it's the tougher times that they actually write the chapters about.
The Anthony family themselves are like the Kennedys of Australia—three generations of ministers, three generations of people who have served in the highest offices of this country. In meeting the grandchildren at the public service for the Rt Hon. Doug Anthony, I would say that there's a strong possibility that others may follow in their father's, their grandfather's and their great-grandfather's footsteps.
Doug Anthony was a child of the Northern Rivers, that very particular and beautiful part of the state of New South Wales and our nation. Doug Anthony had to deal with the transition of more people and people with different views to what would have been Country Party views moving into his area. One of those classic towns was the former very strong dairy town—a place called Nimbin. You might have heard of it. One of the stories that was relayed to me was of Doug Anthony having to go to the festival of Aquarius, I think it was, and dealing with a sea of naked people smoking marijuana and asking them if he could get their vote. But he turned up! He said: 'These people are here. We've got to acknowledge it, and we've got to reach out to them and work out what's the connection; how do we make this work?'
So, in closing, I would say this: of all the things that Doug Anthony achieved, the fact—I think he retired at 54 years old. Many people start their political career there. He was the longest-serving Deputy Prime Minister and he retired from politics at 54! But his greatest success was this: despite his stature and the political grandeur that he inevitably had by reason of his career, he never let the shade from that mighty tree shade out his family and leave them in a poorer light. He made sure that the centre of his life was his family. And the discussion and the photos that we saw in the service were of his family. His family was the centre part of his life. I think that is possibly the most pertinent lesson that we can take back to this place—that ultimately, when you leave here, there will be no politicians waiting for you at home, but what there will be are the ones who are closest and dearest to you. For Doug Anthony, that was his family.
I, too, rise today to pay tribute to one of the true titans of Australian politics and the National Party, the Rt Hon. John Douglas Anthony.
Doug Anthony served our nation with passion and distinction, whether from his famous caravan at New Brighton or within the corridors of Old Parliament House. Born in Murwillumbah in New South Wales on 31 December 1929, Doug grew up living and breathing politics with his father, Hubert Lawrence Anthony, serving as a minister in the Fadden and Menzies governments. He was elected to the House of Representatives following the sudden and extraordinarily sad passing of his father in 1957. By 1964 he'd entered the ministry, and was also elected the deputy leader of the Country Party. He took over the party leadership in 1971, following another great titan and legend of Australian politics Black Jack McEwen.
As Deputy Prime Minister in the Fraser government, he held the vitally important role of Minister for Trade and Resources, amongst others. He understood the importance of country Australia in generating jobs and the wealth of our nation. He understood that the regions were part of Australia's strength in growing and advancing our national economic and social welfare, and also our future.
In doing so, he forged new bilateral trade agreements that have had long-lasting economic benefits for all Australians. In particular, he's remembered for championing the establishment of stronger trade ties between Australia and Japan, as he believed this relationship was critical to Australia's future—not the easiest thing to do back in that postwar era. He also opened up critical new markets in the Middle East, as well as with our close ally and friend New Zealand. Doug was the driving figure in forging the Closer Economic Relations agreement with our friends across the ditch in New Zealand.
In April 1979 Doug visited New Zealand for the annual ministerial review of the New Zealand-Australia free trade agreement, to broach the subject of a closer economic association between the two countries. Cablegrams at the time record that at an informal discussion at a dinner given by then Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, Doug expressed the desire to open up thinking about a new, expanded and more rewarding form of economic cooperation. In his proposition to the New Zealanders, Doug made the case that both nations should look at establishing a stronger association that was based on mutual benefit. He also put to Prime Minister Muldoon that any association should achieve greater strength in dealing with the rest of the world.
Following Doug's proposal that evening, the New Zealand Prime Minister agreed that it was time for Australia and New Zealand to give serious thought to a closer economic association against the background of new global circumstances. I don't think at that time he could have imagined that his work would have resulted in the development of such a close and strategic relationship that now exists between our two countries. Doug also oversaw the transition of the Country Party to the National Party, which today is Australia's second-oldest political force, where we celebrated 100 years just last year.
At the time of his retirement from parliament, at just 54, Doug had been Deputy Prime Minister for almost 10 years and leader of the Nationals for 12 years and was recognised as 'Father of the House'. It was an honour to attend the state funeral for Doug at Tweed Heads recently. Many eloquent tributes were made by Doug's family—his son Larry—and of course former Prime Minister John Howard. Doug's daughter, Jane, delivered a beautiful recollection of her father's love and affection for his family. Jane recounted him giving each of his grandchildren a specially minted coin and a letter. Doug told all his grandchildren to hold the coin in their hands when they had moments of self-doubt and to draw upon the magic of the coin. He said to each of them, 'This is your confidence coin.' Doug encouraged all of them to be optimistic, to have confidence, to try different things and to seize opportunities along the way.
I think there's much we can learn from Doug's approach to life. All of us in this place should remain optimistic about the future and about Australia's place in the world. All Australians should be confident and try different things, and seize the many opportunities our great country delivers. And all of us in this place could learn from Doug's approach to politics. As this House has heard, when Doug had to be tough, he was tough. But he also approached politics with a great decency and a great humanity. All of us in this parliament should take a leaf out of Doug's book, as should future generations of politicians. He was an extraordinarily decent man and was held in enormous respect and regard by both sides of the aisle of parliament.
In closing, I would like to pass on my heartfelt condolences to Margot, Dugald, Jane, Larry and the entire Anthony family and to thank them for sharing Doug with us and supporting him in making such an enormous contribution to country Australia and to the entire nation. Farewell, Doug Anthony, and thank you for your remarkable contribution to the life of this nation.
It's a great honour to stand in this place to speak on the condolence motion for a great Australian. Doug Anthony was part of the National Party family, and it is a great loss to our party and to our community. We all are privileged to stand in this place, but very few of us leave this parliament with the ability to say we have left a legacy. Doug Anthony was a titan, and not just of the National Party; he was a titan of this parliament, because of the dignity and respect that he held, not only from our side of the aisle but also from those opposite. That was because of the way he thought about his country and acted for his country, in a dignified manner, whether on the beach in the caravan in the summer or governing our country in a uniquely Australian way. Nowhere else in the world would a leader be able to do that, except here in Australia.
So, Doug Anthony was unique for his times but was not unique to our country. He personified what it was to be an Australian. Doug Anthony was probably always destined to come to this place. His father was a member of parliament. In fact, he grew up just down the road, in Old Parliament House. From a young age he got a very good grounding in what it was to be in federal parliament. And he was thrust into it at a young age, in the tragic circumstances of the loss of his father.
As a 27-year-old, to come into federal parliament, in the era of 'Black Jack' McEwen and all the other names that adorn this place—Menzies and all the names that Australia fondly looks back on as the titans of Australian politics—and to hold his principles, to hold his values true, all the way, and to rise to Deputy Prime Minister of this country, is a testament not just to Doug Anthony but to our country: that a young man from the bush can ascend like anyone else. And Doug Anthony did that. But he also made sure he took advantage of that opportunity. He wasn't intimidated by the fact that he came from a small country town. He wasn't intimidated when he came to Canberra, and he wasn't intimidated when he went on the world stage, because he believed in the people he represented. He believed in the values and principles of them and the values and principles of this nation.
That is why he has left a legacy that still lasts today—and not just for the National Party, not just in setting the values and principles that we sill live by today, but also a legacy of change in terms of trade. When you think of the National Party, there are many who say that we're a protectionist party. Well, it was the National Party that in fact forged new trade agreements, particularly with Japan, post the Second World War. We can think back to that era and understand the emotion across this country after the Second World War and understand the pain and hurt that came out of that. Under the leadership of Doug Anthony, we forged those relationships—thinking ahead, not just in a commercial sense but about how our place in the global community should stand. For a young bloke from northern New South Wales to lead his country in that is testament to our nation and testament to this great man.
We are forever grateful to Doug Anthony and his family and need to understand what he and his family have sacrificed for this nation, coming into this place and enduring the rigours of not only being a member of parliament but also being the Deputy Prime Minister. There were those rigours on his family. He was then able to retire on his own terms. He was able to decide when he wanted to go, when it was right. In fact, just after Doug Anthony announced his retirement, his wife, Margot, was meant to address a National Party branch meeting in Warwick, in my electorate of Maranoa. Doug had announced it. He rang the chairman of the local branch and asked if he was allowed to come along to this meeting with Margot. The whole town turned up to see Doug Anthony in Warwick. This great Australian who achieved so much and was no longer the Deputy Prime Minister decided to support his wife, who had supported him for so many years and had let him support the Australian people and achieved so much for us. For him to go along and be the sidekick in Warwick was something that people in Warwick still talk about today. Doug Anthony is still a legend, not just in Warwick but across the country.
This is the type of character that only comes along once in a while in a nation's history. It's important that we don't just celebrate his life but understand and make sure that his legacy isn't forgotten, not just in what he'd done but also in how we act and in how we represent the people who send us here, and, more broadly, how we represent the Australian people. That is the legacy that should last from Doug Anthony for each and every one of us. From a National Party perspective, that's the legacy when we sit in that sacred room that is ours. Those are the principles that guide us. It's our responsibility now as custodians to continue with that legacy and respect the great work and the legacy of one of the greatest Australians we have seen. He had respect from both sides of the aisle because of the way he interacted and because of the passion and commitment he had for his people and his nation.
As members of parliament, we have a privileged position. To be able to stand here and talk, trying to aspire to somebody like Doug Anthony, is something that I think every member of parliament should reflect on and understand. If we are guided by those values and principles that Doug Anthony took to this place and took to our nation, then we'll be a greater nation for it. He has given us the building blocks, not just from the National Party perspective but as a nation, because of all that he achieved for our nation. To him and his family, for all their commitment and sacrifice, I say: it was worth it. On behalf of a grateful nation, I say thank you and God bless.
Today, I wish to acknowledge the contribution and the legacy of former Deputy Prime Minister Doug Anthony, whom we remembered at a state memorial recently. Without Doug Anthony, the economic fabric of regional Australia would not be as strong as it is today. What he achieved as leader of the Country Party and as trade minister 41 years ago for Australia is virtually unheard of now. There were visiting nations, and they had never welcomed an Australian cabinet minister on their soil to forge new trade partnerships. He brought back to his constituents something that modern politicians too often forget: opportunity. He gave landholders, growers, producers and small businesses the chance to sell their food and fibre to new populations. Today, our farmers feed more than 60 million people outside the borders of our nation. That would not be possible without the work of Doug Anthony four decades ago.
Doug Anthony worked to make those in the bush the breadwinners of the country: agriculture, energy and minerals. He knew his constituents hated to rely on government handouts. They knew the value of what they had and wanted to trade to bring prosperity back to regional Australia. He pinpointed responsibility and outward-looking trade policies as the way for Australia to take full advantage of its potential and to develop both natural and primary resources. He knew that many countries blessed with abundant resources had failed to take advantage of them. Mr Anthony laid the crucial ground work to open up new markets for Australian growers, farmers and businesses across Asia, Europe and the Middle East. He worked to secure better access to the existing agricultural markets of the world, to create conditions for the opening up of new markets and to set up a code of behaviour on agricultural export that established fairer and more equitable conditions for trade.
Operating in a delicate diplomatic environment in the latter half of the 1970s, he flew around the world to open and to expand trade with the Soviet Union and Japan respectively, opening Australia's first trade fair in the Soviet Union and signing a new trade agreement with Japan in 1979 worth $180 million back then. That was a deal which, adjusted for inflation, would be worth $880 million today. He negotiated what would become Australia's first free trade agreement with New Zealand and he sought to increase agricultural and mining exports to the European Economic Community, which had shut its doors to Australian markets.
When he wasn't focused on growing regional economies he was protecting them—so much so, that when the Liberals sought to revalue the dollar to the detriment of the Australian agricultural sector he threatened to break the coalition. The policy was dumped three days later. Doug Anthony's legacy is what we gain when regional people hold the reigns of senior ministries. Our regional economies are no different today; they don't want handouts, they want opportunities.
I extend my condolences to his wife, Margot, to his children, Dugald, Jane and Larry, and to the rest of the extended family. Vale Doug Anthony.
John Doug Anthony was born in Murwillumbah, New South Wales, on 31 December 1929. Having attended school locally, he finished his education at The King's School in Sydney and Gatton College in Queensland. His father, Larry Anthony Sr, was the member for Richmond and a minister in the Menzies government. Despite his father's political interests, the path of politics did not originally call to him. It wasn't until his father's death that, despite his self-described reluctance, Doug entered the political theatre.
Although he may have been a reluctant politician, that did not stop Doug leaving an impressive legacy. Entering parliament at the young age of 27, leaving a full-time job managing his farm, 1957 marked the beginning of a long and successful political career. By 1964, Doug had been appointed Minister for the Interior and three years later he became Minister for Primary Industry.
When portrayed by some in the media as a bit of a country bumpkin, Doug said, 'I loved it; that was me.' He was an approachable, relatively relaxed politician, but he was also a sharp political operator who fought hard for his electorate, region and rural Australia. Doug's parliamentary career spanned more than 26 years, 16 of which involved service as a government minister. Doug held a variety of portfolios during this time, including trade and industry, energy, resources and, of course, Deputy Prime Minister. At 41 years of age, Doug was the youngest-ever leader of the National Party, formerly the Country Party, elected as leader in 1971 to 1984. He served as Deputy Prime Minister to Malcolm Fraser throughout the years of the coalition government, from 1975 to 1983.
Doug was renowned for fighting hard for his party and constituents and for never taking a back seat as the junior coalition partner. He flexed his political muscle in the early 1970s, when former Prime Minister Billy McMahon was pushing to increase the value of the Australian dollar. Fearing the plan would hurt rural exports, they stormed out of cabinet three times and even considered leaving the coalition. He tackled the big farming issues of wool and wheat and publicly lambasted Britain in the early 1970s when it left Australian farmers high and dry by joining the common market.
Doug retired from federal parliament in January 1984 and subsequently served on the Old Parliament House Governing Council. He campaigned for an Australian republic at the 1999 constitutional referendum and for a time even advocated for a formal merger between the Liberal and National parties. Doug is survived by his wife, Margot, whom he married the same year he was elected, in 1957. The have three children and nine grandchildren. Doug's son, Larry, carried on the family tradition by serving in the seat of Richmond for three terms in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Although in the humble Anthony fashion, Larry never liked to refer to it as a dynasty—or 'dynasty' if you were in Texas—but as a responsibility. Doug's legacy will forever live on in this place and across the country.
I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the Federation Chamber.
I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
I rise today to speak in favour of and to endorse the report, Growing Australia: Inquiry into growing Australian agriculture to $100 billion by 2030. In doing so, I would also like to recognise the good work of a fellow committee member, the member for Lyons, who is in the chamber today. This was an extensive inquiry conducted over many months and involved visits to all parts of the country. From my own background as a farmer from north-western Tasmania, I recognised similarities and problems that came up from time to time as we travelled around Australia listening to those people who took the time to invest in our agricultural future and made submissions and sought counsel with us face to face around the country. Further, I would like to thank the efforts of the chair, Mr Rick Wilson, the member for O'Connor. I would also like to recognise the great work and the professionalism of the secretariat, in Tim Brennan and Jenny Adams. I thank you sincerely for your great work.
The committee received 113 submissions from 67 organisations and attended almost 70 public hearings. To all of those around the country who made submissions and took the time, I say, 'Thank you; we learnt a lot from you, and you have contributed to your industry's future.' As we went around the various parts of the country, a lot of the issues that farmers and growers raised were consistent with the issues faced by farmers and growers in my own state.
I'll speak for my own state just for a moment. The great state of Tasmania is only one per cent, in geographical size, of our nation, however, we receive approximately 9½ per cent of Australia's rainfall. We have more than 26 per cent of Australia's freshwater in 54 dams and 30 power stations right across our state. That water is in turn used by irrigators to grow food and agricultural produce in the rich soils of the north-west coast of Tasmania. It's in this investment of more than $100 million that we've seen the tranche 2 and 3 irrigation projects in Tasmania come to full fruition. That agricultural produce has seen an exponential growth in exports—achieving records this year. It was a growing frustration as we moved around the country that the inquiry didn't cover irrigation or irrigation infrastructure. It was a common concern for all farmers that attended inquiries and I'd like to raise that today.
One of the other similarities that I have seen around the country is the access and increased diversity that we require in an ever increasingly turbulent global commodity market. It behoves government, as a result of this report, to do more work when it comes to giving out market indicators earlier so that farmers don't see their headers in the paddock when the bottom falls out of the grain price. Logistics too will play a great part in the growing of Australian agriculture because if we can't get this food to market it is absolutely no good for anybody. In Australia we grow approximately three times the amount of food that we actually need. It's important that we get this as quickly as possible to various parts of the country and we diversify that market so that we've got a stable platform for our markets moving forward.
As I sat there on one side of the table and I listened to the farmers, I listened to the growers and I listened to the young people, I couldn't help but feel the amount of emotion and the investment that they have in their chosen field. I couldn't help but notice the amount of corporate knowledge that exists within our agricultural sector. I couldn't help but notice how generations of farmers have produced people who are at the absolute pinnacle of agricultural production. I think this is the key to unlocking our future. I think if we can't recognise and unlock that corporate knowledge, if we can't transfer that knowledge to a future generation of farmers, if we can't introduce technology in smart farming and if we can't introduce training adequately and we can't inculcate that information then we can't grow as an industry and we can't grow as a nation.
In closing, I'd like to fully endorse the findings and the 13 recommendations contained within the report. I'd like to thank my colleagues. I'd like to thank all those involved. I would like to recommend Growing Australia: inquiry into growing Australian agriculture to $100 billion by 2030 as recommended reading to all those who want a future in agriculture or food production.
I'm also very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the report. A previous speaker did acknowledge the Chair, Mr Rick Wilson, and the Deputy Chair—this outstanding individual here with us today, the member for Lyons—Brian Mitchell. I'd like to thank the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources and all my committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but I particularly want to thank the secretariat for their work. There were many valuable contributions that were made in the last sitting by the chair and the deputy chair.
We had the last remote public hearing of the inquiry in Darwin, in my electorate of Solomon. This was back in March, before COVID-19 shut everything down and changed our lives in ways that we could have only imagined back then, and, indeed, in ways that we never thought would ever happen. But there we were, right in the middle of a visit to Darwin. It's great that the committee visited Darwin. I'm glad that we were able to hear from some stakeholders whilst we were there, because, in my opinion, as you well know Mr Deputy Speaker Falinski, Darwin, and the Northern Territory, is the best place in Australia—I do love Tassie and the South Coast of New South Wales as well! But there's huge potential for agriculture in northern Australia and huge potential for increasing the ag output, and, after all, that's what this inquiry was about. So, thanks to the chair for agreeing to come up to Darwin. I appreciate that very much, and I'm sure he and the other members who joined us in Darwin got a lot out of it.
I want to thank all our witnesses from the Territory and everyone who put in the effort to make a submission to this inquiry. The hearing up in Darwin was a great opportunity to hear about the possibilities and opportunities that exist and some of the considerations that may impact the expansion of those industries. We heard at that hearing from key players in the industry, such as the NT Farmers, NT Cattlemen's Association and Tiwi forestry.
The chief executive officer of NT Farmers, Paul Burke, told us about their $270 million farmgate turnover, which they believe can double to $600 million by 2030. This is from the Territory's principle crops of mangoes, melons and an emerging cotton industry, but also from other emerging industries like peanuts. They told us that over the next 10 years cotton could become a $300 million industry in the north. They also told us about a growth in exports focused on mango trees and melons, with the opportunity to create more markets into Asia, most predominantly into South Korea, Japan and China. Two weeks ago it was announced that overseas seasonal workers can now quarantine on farms in the Northern Territory. This will help to ease the burden on those growers in the Territory who have been doing it tough, like growers around the country, and who continue to face significant labour shortages. They're struggling to find workers who want to pick and are also trying to navigate those international travel restrictions, which are impacting their ability to bring a labour force into Australia. NT Farmers also mentioned some of the challenges that exist with access to land in northern Australia, as much of it is locked up in the pastoral state. It doesn't really need to be said that access to water is a major issue.
The Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association spoke about its beef industry, which is worth $1.2 billion to the economy. For a population of under a quarter of a million people in the Northern Territory and a herd size of 2.2 million, it's a pretty impressive figure. The NT Cattlemen's Association spoke about how, with investment in infrastructure, water security and roads, as well as more secure land tenure, they could contribute 15 times more than what they're currently projected to make between now and 2030. That will increase their output to $15 billion. Obviously that goes a long way when we're trying to increase our national agricultural output from $60 billion to $100 billion. That will go a long way towards helping us get to that goal. I'm sure you'd agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that's a colossal level of growth—the Territory punching above its weight once again. The NT Cattlemen's Association spoke about live exports as well and how they send 400,000 head of cattle to Indonesia alone, representing 40 per cent of all Australia's live exports.
We also heard testimony from Mark Ashley, the general manager of the Tiwi Plantation Corporation. He spoke about how the plantation is exporting 16 shiploads of timber to global markets, including China and Japan, as well as exploring interest from Indonesia. He spoke about the significance of forestry as a major economic generator on the Tiwi Islands and how they're generating employment for local people through their harvesting operations. Last year forestry paid approximately $6.8 million in wages, including $2.3 million to Tiwi and other Indigenous employees, making it a major commercial employer on the Tiwi Islands. Indeed, there has been a recommendation made that the government commit to the establishment of a forestry hub for the Top End of the Northern Territory. This would allow Indigenous and private land owners alike to make the most of forestry investment in the Northern Territory, and it would enable the NT to contribute to that national goal of planting one billion trees.
At the hearing we also heard from the Humpty Doo barramundi farm. It's a great success story in the NT. They spoke about the fact that they anticipate the farm gate value of their existing business to be around $200 million per year by 2030. That's about a third of the size of the existing Tasmanian salmon industry, so it's big. They want to extend their lead as a leading global technology barramundi farmer, worldwide.
We were going to go to Tipperary station for a visit but we had to delay. That was unfortunate, because members would have really enjoyed that visit down to what is a very famous cattle station in the Northern Territory. I'm hoping that the committee has the opportunity to go there again. It is not only a cattle station; it is famous for experimenting and research and development. The potential of cotton there, as I mentioned, is fantastic. I hope we can try and get there some time down the track once the pandemic is hopefully under control. We're doing exceedingly well in the Northern Territory, but obviously if we can get some of those vaccines out around the country we'll be able to travel again.
My thanks to all the witnesses from the Northern Territory and everyone else who put in submissions to this inquiry. In closing, a big shout out to Frank Miller. Frank Miller is a champion bloke up in my electorate from the Forest Industry Association of the Northern Territory. It's great that we have an industry association now. I also want to thank Will Evans from the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association and thank them for all the work they do for Territory farmers and getting our fantastic product to market. And of course I thank the NT Farmers CEO, Paul Burke, who has been a fantastic support to industry, not just during this very difficult year, but before that as well.
They all do excellent, tireless work promoting our Northern Territory agricultural industries, because we all have that common goal of wanting to see Australian agriculture get to the value of $100 billion by 2030. We can do it with the right investments. The Northern Territory offers a huge potential to support and achieve that aim. So thanks again to all the committee members, my colleagues, for a good report.
I too would like to thank all the committee members on this inquiry. It's been a very interesting journey. I'd like to thank the secretariat for all your work. I think with COVID we have seen every type of hearing: phone hearings, in-person hearings and travel and, as Mr Gosling said, some interruptions with COVID. But nevertheless we got there.
I'm always delighted to have the opportunity to talk about farmers in my electorate and growing Australian agriculture. I come from a dairy farming family. Agriculture is very close to my heart. It's very close to who I am. The desire to fight for a fair go for our farmers, in particular our local dairy farmers, is one of the things that drove me into politics here in the first place.
It's absolutely clear we need to support our farmers to grow our agriculture industry. We need a national plan. Our farmers have been doing it tough for far too long, and, frankly, they deserve better. This government has failed our agriculture industry over and over again. It has no plan to address the real crises our farmers are dealing with every day. This report is, sadly, more proof of that—another opportunity lost.
Before I get to that, I want to acknowledge and thank all our local farmers for their incredible strength and resilience over the last several years, particularly in the face of the challenges the last 12 months or so have brought. Farmers on the South Coast have been suffering under a relentless drought for years. Then came the bushfires, then the floods, then finally a pandemic, which has made every day on farms even more challenging. Farmers don't like to ask for help; it isn't in their nature. But there is only so much anyone can take.
In the immediate aftermath of the bushfires, I heard so many harrowing stories from farmers about how they survived—farmers like Rob and Vince, who stayed on their farms and tried to protect their stock. Farmer Rob lost 150 of his dairy cows in devastating circumstances. Farmer Vince lost hundreds of bees, and even more were at risk in the days and weeks that followed with no food and no help. Farmer Greg, from Sassafras, who had been drought impacted for so long, was denied help because he hadn't been earning enough from his agriculture business in the lead-up to the fires. Why? Because of the drought.
I have rallied against this cruel decision to deny Greg financial support because his on-farm income was deemed too low under the government's arbitrary criteria. We thought we had a win, and Greg thought he was finally catching a break: in July the government announced they had changed the off-farm requirements, in recognition of the drought. But, once again, the sting in the tail was to come. The New South Wales government continued to deny Greg's application for the special disaster grant for primary producers. So I wrote to Minister Littleproud to ask him to again reconsider. I want to quote from the minister's response now: 'The Rural Assistance Authority have advised that the grant application was refused, as Greg could not demonstrate that he earns or would earn at least 50 per cent income from primary production. The RAA also confirmed the eligibility changes announced in July were taken into account when considering Greg's application.'
This response is complete dumbfounding. It was more than devastating for Greg, who has told me that he feels abandoned and traumatised not only by the bushfires but now by the government. Greg can't meet the 50 per cent threshold, because the drought has meant he has had to find more off-farm income. The drought meant it wasn't possible to earn enough on the farm. He was told to reduce his stock, and he followed that advice. Now he is being punished, again, for doing what he had to do. I know I have repeated this already, and have said it many times in this chamber before, but it still beggars belief to me.
This is the drought that, over and over again, the Morrison government denied farmers in my electorate were experiencing. Clearly, they still think that—another case of announcement not matching delivery. Farmers like Daniel tried and tried again to access drought loans only to be told no, because they were not in drought according to the government. Farmer Daniel and other farmers like him told a very different story. Perhaps if the minister spent any time visiting with local farmers, he might actually see what that reality is on the ground.
The government loves to make flashy announcements, but all too often they are shown to be just that. Take, for example, the crisis that is unfolding across the country because there are not enough farm workers. It is no secret that our harvest is heavily reliant on backpackers, and we knew very early on that COVID-19 meant that backpackers were few and far between. But what did the Morrison government do? They waited until the industry was at breaking point. In mid-December the National Farmers Federation launched the National Lost Crop Register. By 8 January, 55 farmers from five different states and territories had anonymously registered losses of more than $38 million. The federation said this was just the tip of the iceberg. The government's attempts to address this have been weak and piecemeal. It's our farmers who are suffering. We urgently need a national quarantine plan that will help to address some of these issues, but once again they have no plan.
Yet another critical issue in our farming sector is an ageing workforce. We are simply not doing enough to encourage young people to stay on family farms or to consider a career in farming. Dairy Connect is one organisation trying to do its bit to rectify this. The Young Dairy Network helps young people working on dairy farms to meet, connect and learn from each other. They participate in workshops on-farm field days, professional and personal development opportunities, study tours, leadership programs and more.
It is fantastic to see, but more needs to be done. There is a real risk that we will end up losing sections of our agriculture industry simply because we are not doing enough to encourage the next generation of agriculture workers. As Labor noted in our dissenting report, we need to look at the possibility of a HECS system for agriculture. We need workforce development officers. We need a national plan. I feel a theme emerging here. Labor has made some further recommendations about that in our dissenting report.
I could talk about our agriculture industry all day. I am passionate about helping our farmers, and I'm dismayed if not disgusted with what I have seen from this government when it comes to support of farmers. They try so hard to pitch themselves as the friend of the farmer, but nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that farmers in my electorate want real action on climate change. Many people think this doesn't fit with agriculture, but that's not the case. Farmers have seen firsthand the climate changing. Once again the government is all talk and no action in this space. Take for example the chair's foreword in this report. It has no mention of climate change. As Labor noted in our dissenting report, this simply fails to recognise the gravity of the threat that climate change poses to Australian agriculture.
Several witnesses, including the National Farmers' Federation, spoke about climate change representing one of the most significant threats to Australian agriculture reaching the goal of $100 billion by 2030. There is also no recommendation in the government's report about how we will deal with this threat. This speaks volumes about the Morrison government's real agenda.
Farmers are doing what they can instead. I was absolutely thrilled to hear that an exciting new project in Nowra is getting off the ground. A large-scale renewable energy biogas power generation plant is in the works. The unit will receive manure from dairy farms in Terara, Numbaa, Pyree and Brundee from an underground pipe and will extract the methane gas to produce clean, green energy. This will then be shared by 18 local dairy farmers who are supporting this great initiative. While the project might be being assisted by a Commonwealth grant, it is being driven by the private sector and by local farmers. Because the government does not have a broader climate change policy, they are still mincing their words about how they will reach net zero by maybe, hopefully, possibly 2050. That isn't enough. Once again, we need a national plan.
One other issue which I simply don't have time to explore here, but which is so important to note, is that the government has no national disaster plan. My electorate has seen the consequences of this. We need to ensure that that is taken into consideration.
Debate adjourned.
Today, Australian citizens are being tried in a court in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. These include a number of my constituents and two of my friends. They've been charged with fake, trumped-up charges, criminal charges, for things like incitement and fermenting social disorder—or at least that's what we think they've been charged with. We don't actually know, because the only reports have come second and third hand of these charges and the only notification appears to be a piece of paper that was nailed on the office of a banned political party in Cambodia. I do know, through a series of pressures and adventures now in the last couple of months, that the Australian ambassador has spoken directly with the minister for justice in Cambodia about these charges. But they won't give details of what these charges are because, apparently, they say you have to appoint a lawyer to go to the court—which has other issues that I will get to. These people of course are not actually in Cambodia. They're safe here in Australia and, in most cases, they haven't been to Cambodia for years or decades. It includes Hong Lim, who served for 20 years as a Victorian state member of parliament and retired at the last election, Hemara In and others I know—and others around Australia whom I haven't met but have heard of.
Why is this happening? It's an authoritarian tactic by authoritarian governments to try and silence dissent and criticism of their regimes and human rights abuses overseas. In this case, it's being perpetrated by Hun Sen's gangster regime. It's not unique, DFAT told me. I asked them that. I thought, 'Oh, well, maybe there are authoritarian conferences where dictators go and have workshops and give PowerPoint presentations to each other and swap tactics and techniques.' We wouldn't be invited of course. But it's now happening. Hun Sen's doing this little trick to hundreds of people across the world—in America, Europe, across the world; anywhere where people speak up for human rights and democracy. They're targeting people just for speaking up in support of those values, to try and shut down criticism in the diaspora communities. It's part of a deliberate strategy of foreign interference, which I'll get to.
In a sense, it's ridiculous. It's a kangaroo court. It's silly. It's a foregone conclusion what will happen. They'll be found guilty and sentenced to jail and have ridiculous fines imposed on them which they'll never pay. But there are serious consequences for the people affected, because, if that sticks, they will need to declare a criminal record when they travel to places, which will complicate their ability to travel to the United States and other places. More importantly perhaps, if these fake crimes stick, it will restrict the ability of Australian citizens to travel to many places in South-East Asia that might have extradition treaties with Cambodia. Australia, I think, only has a treaty around sex crimes and so on. It doesn't cover these sorts of ridiculous offences that are not recognised in Australian law.
This is a political issue. It's not a legal issue; it's a political issue. I expect, and these Australian citizens expect, the elected government of Australia—Labor, Liberal or whatever they want to call themselves—to actually do their job and speak out and push back. This is foreign interference. It's an attempt to silence dissent and to restrict the ability of Australian citizens to speak up here in Australia in support of democracy and human rights—values which I think everyone in this place shares. It's political; not legal. As the member for Maribyrnong said yesterday, though, what we have in this government is a backbench of lions led by donkeys on the frontbench. The foreign minister has said nothing. We've written, we've raised it with DFAT and I've met with her office—to their credit, we had a good briefing with DFAT, though I won't talk about what happened in that briefing—but there's still nothing. There's silence.
I will use the words of Hong Lim. He was given a list of lawyers by the government and he's taken advice and he's concluded, I think rightly, that to get a lawyer is 'tantamount to accepting Phnom Penh court's jurisdiction and legality' over this case. He went on: 'This is very much a political show trial that needs a political response in kind by the Australian government. With or without my lawyer's presence'—as happened in the case on 10 February; another case—'this kangaroo court will appoint a lawyer' on his behalf and 'the lawyer then will plead guilty and beg the court for leniency and the court will sentence me to a number of years in jail and impose a heavy fine of around US$500,000.'
It's not good enough from the Australian government and the disappearing foreign minister. I say 'disappearing' because she was last seen, I think, in the seat of Gilmore, and, when the Labor MP turned up to the announcement at the infrastructure, the foreign minister literally ran away. She got in her car and drove back to Sydney and went: 'Well, that's not happening.' It's not good enough. I thought, 'Well, that's the last we'll hear from the foreign minister for the next three months.' She does not speak up. It's a good thing the Australian ambassador has taken this up, but this is a political issue. The government not only must just speak up but also needs to push back and work with like-minded countries. This is happening to other countries around the world. Why are we not coordinating with other countries where this is happening to their citizens?
The US congress, the US government, have spoken up. We should at the very least expect our embassy to be at every trial. They can't represent people in foreign countries, but they should be at every trial. They should be making statements publicly. We expect more. We should also be talking to all the countries in the world who have extradition treaties with Cambodia, getting agreements that they will not pay any attention to these fake charges, so that our citizens can still travel freely and can speak their mind. We always hear from the backbench when there's foreign interference and so on in other matters, from other countries. Where are their voices on Cambodia?
But this latest tactic sits in a distinct context. We've seen for the past five years a concerted strategy, which was exposed in a fantastic article released overnight, by Jack Davies, an investigative journalist from Radio Free Asia. It is little listened to in Australia, but often in South-East Asian countries and many places it is the only voice for democracy that gets through to people through the senses. It's a terrific article that exposes shocking statistics about the extent of foreign interference by Hun Sen's CPP in the regime in Australia—tens of millions of dollars worth of property being purchased in the capital cities. As Kem Monovithya, the daughter of the jailed opposition leader, says, 'Australia is the number one destination for Cambodia's thugs.' We have to question where the dollars are coming from, but it's pretty clear to everyone observing this that tens of millions of dollars gained from corruption and serious human rights abuses are being used to buy property and find safe haven in Western countries. That's not on.
The article quite aptly describes Hun Sen's regime—I've previously called it a gangster regime—as 'Hun Inc': Hun Manet, Hun To, all the family, all the crony connections, raping and pillaging money out of the Cambodian people. And it's shameful that this stuff is being used to buy luxury apartments and businesses, not only in my electorate but also in Sydney. In 2016 the son of the land management minister, Chea Sophara, purchased an $11 million house in Sydney, in one of the most exclusive suburbs. Where did the money come from? Clearly, if you trace this back, it's from human rights abuses and corruption. It's been well documented.
The government needs to speak out and do something about this. I hope the parliament will soon introduce laws around Magnitsky sanctions. That was signed off in a bipartisan way by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. It should allow targeted sanctions of people. But there are anti-money-laundering laws now. I put some questions on notice to ministers last year. We got a response last week—a nonanswer. They picked on a word in my question, like childish schoolchildren, to avoid answering it. They can't even bring themselves to say: 'Yes, we're aware of these concerns. We will refer them to Austrac. We will refer them to ASIC. We will get the responsible agencies to look at them.' They're like a bunch of children, not a government. This is a serious issue. It's affecting Australian citizens. They're about to be charged or jailed in absentia in foreign countries, and the foreign minister has said nothing.
Of course, if it were a different country, a larger country that started with C, you can imagine the queue of government backbenchers out there to beat their chests and bleat, to carry on about foreign interference and freedom of speech—often quite rightly so. Where's the government when it's a small country but it still affects Australians? It's just not good enough—the running-away foreign minister.
In the last minute or so that I have, I want to put on the record and call out the Morrison government's failings in managing quarantine. Right now seven million Victorians, my fellow state citizens, are in lockdown. In the past three months every one of Australia's five biggest cities has had an outbreak from hotel quarantine. If you look in the Constitution, quarantine is a Commonwealth responsibility. The Commonwealth has always managed quarantine for people coming over the borders—always. You wouldn't find a politician in this place who's banged on more than the Prime Minister about managing the borders—'We're going to turn back the boats,' he said, on the borders. He's tough on borders.
Well, when it comes to 41,000 stranded Australians, he turns his back on them. He won't take responsibility. He wants to blame the state premiers for everything that goes on. He won't take responsibility. For months he's had on his desk a report that says 'National Standards', 'National Workforce Quarantine', 'National Standards for PPE', 'Training.' It's way past time that he actually acted. The health and the economy of Australia depend on it. You can't just blame the state premiers. You need to take responsibility for what is rightly yours in the Constitution—quarantine. (Time expired)
I raised an issue in the party room a couple of weeks ago about a doctor distribution problem that we have in Australia. We don't have a shortage of doctors, we have a doctor distribution problem.
This was raised by a good article in The Weekend Australian Magazine here, I think about three weeks ago. They highlighted the fact that governments have collectively spent about $2 billion on this issue. It's not that finding doctors for rural areas is unrecognised but, try as we might and try as the various schemes do to bring about some kind of parity to entice people into the country, it is just not working. We're just not recruiting enough doctors into rural practice.
Incidentally, at the moment we are no longer recruiting enough doctors into general practice, full stop. The positions open for general practice at the end of last year were 15 per cent undersubscribed. It seems to be the aim of the modern person drawn to medicine that they wish to be specialists—that's where the big bucks are. I think that's an inherent problem in our medical system. Gone seem to be the days when your GP actually was a general practitioner. More and more they are becoming referral services.
That leads to another issue: when doctors become referral services it leads to churn in the system. It provides jobs for people but no better outcomes. The practitioner may not be getting enough work so he says: 'Mrs Jones, I think you'd better go down the street to see my friend the pathologist and we'll run some tests on you. Then, once you get those tests back, you come back in next week and we'll review your medication. Next week we'll just change it a little bit and then I want you to come back in the week after that. Then you can go off and have another test.'
If you think that's not happening, I know it can be exposed. I've spoken to the health minister about this. This kind of information—the number of Medicare items that are being accessed by a person on average—is obtainable. The latest information that I've seen is that Medicare items are being accessed in the city at double the rate they're being accessed in the country. I live in the country and I can tell you that we need more doctors, and that we need them desperately, but I don't think we need double the number we have now. I don't think we need to double our medical access. It proves the point that we're now seeing gross overservicing in the cities.
I've been around this topic of providing health care for people who live in the country for most of my adult life. I was chairman of a hospital board by the time I was 26. One of our jobs at the time was looking for doctors. I remember that in the 1990s governments and universities, in their wisdom, wound back the number of GP placements—of medical students coming into the system as undergraduates. That was because we had overservicing in Australia. The foot was kept on the neck of the throttle, if you like, for too long and it wasn't opened up quickly enough—and back in those days we still didn't have enough doctors in the country—but the oversupply was solved. Then, to meet that undersupply issue we started importing trained doctors from overseas. Let me tell you, they have saved many, many lives. But it seems ludicrous that in a nation like Australia we can't train enough doctors for ourselves. The great thing about the overseas trained doctors is that they come, by dint of their immigration arrangements, and serve in a locality. But, of course, once they've done their five years or so then they too seem to want to run off and live in the cities.
For some time, I have proposed that we should be looking at a system of postcode-specific Medicare provider numbers. I've been touting that idea in parliament for some years now and I guess I've got to admit defeat. I'm not going to win on that game for one reason or another. It would be difficult to implement, but let me tell you that we have a serious problem here. What I'm proposing now, though, is that we should have graduated payments for medical service through the Medicare system, depending on where you provide those services and where they sit on the Modified Monash Model. For instance, if you were working in the country and you were at Monash model 8, which is right up there, you would receive a Medicare item with maybe a 30 per cent loading. And bear in mind that the places which have these shortages are the places that have the least ability to pay a gap, so we gift higher pay where there's a shortage.
I think we should attack the other end of the model as well. Where we've got clear overservicing, we should clip the rate. You don't get 100 per cent, you get 90 per cent or 80 per cent because there are too many services of this type in this region. It's pretty hard to go round saying this. We can't tell singular medical practitioners that they are overservicing Mrs Jones. We need to keep out of that space—these are their decisions—but we can send a financial signal that there is general overservicing in this area. That is the only way I can see that we will get doctors to start looking around and saying: 'Actually, it's too hard to make a living here. I need to go where my services are required.'
There are other factors at play here. I have met with the vice-chancellor of the University of Adelaide and with the dean of medical science there. I suggested they should alter their UMAT—that is, their entrance examination, I suppose. It sort of categorises medical students as to whether they would be suitable. I think there are probably too many people that come in now that are more interested, particularly given those things I've told you about the specialisation of the service, in financial reward and prestige than they are in giving a service to humanity, if you like. There were many doctors of the old school who were absolutely driven by vocation. I reflect that I don't think I see many nurses that are driven into the service of nursing by either prestige or the prospect of outrageous reward. Maybe we would be better off selecting our undergraduate doctors from the nursing stream! But I made the point with the university that they should actually be trying to fashion a workforce fit for the task at hand as, at this stage, we clearly do not have a workforce that is fit for the task at hand, because roughly 30 per cent of Australia is completely underserviced. It's a pressing issue.
I commend the government on the moves they made in the formation of the Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network, for instance. At the moment I'm working on trying to get a proposal up between the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Adelaide university, the Rural Doctors Workforce Agency and the Indigenous Doctors Association that would see specified training in centres around Australia for people to go into remote medicine. All of those are good things, but what I seem to say repeatedly when these schemes are announced is: 'It's a good idea. We should give it a go, but I don't reckon it will be enough.' The longer I'm here the more I think it won't be enough and we're going to have to do something else about this issue.
I want to pass on a message about how difficult this is becoming. I had the minister for regional health, Mark Coulton, in my electorate last week. We met with a number of doctors, mayors and local governments, and this really is the No. 1 issue for them. We came across a situation where practices are withdrawing their services from hospitals so that they don't have to be on call and all the other things that go with it, because they are basically burned out. So when one practice withdraws its services from the local hospital, it's then left to the remaining two practices, let's say. That puts a bigger load on those two practices, and eventually another one of them drops off. And then finally the final practice withdraws its service from the local hospital. The state government needs to keep the hospital going, so what it has been doing—it hasn't got much choice really—is going into the locum market to make sure that the hospital is staffed. One doctor told us that one week he was servicing this particular hospital, and then his practice decided that they would no longer do that service. The next week SA Health rang him up and said: 'Can you come back in and do a locum service to look after the hospital's needs? It's the same job you were doing last week.' They offered him four times as much money as he was being paid the week before. In some places we're even seeing doctors moving out of their practice and offering locum services elsewhere because of the money. We've got a problem. The minister is listening and I will keep working on it.
On this occasion of the lunar new year, the Chinese new year, it's worth reflecting a little bit on our relationship with China, which undoubtedly has become a more difficult one to manage over the last year or two. I sometimes find some of the criticism of Australia's management of that relationship a little frustrating. It tends to fall into one of two categories. The first category suggests that we should just turn back the clock and that if we were able to easily manage the relationship in the 1990s and 2000s then there's no reason that we shouldn't be able to do it now. The other common chorus, if you like, is for Australia to bite its tongue, not only in terms of the criticism we might offer the People's Republic of China, but also in terms of standing up for the values that we consider to be universal, be they human rights, political liberty or our own sovereignty and freedoms. Both of these criticisms are ill-founded because they neglect a few fundamental structural shifts in the relationship. The most important of those is that the People's Republic of China has changed. It has changed quite considerably.
In the year 2000, China as an economy was about four per cent of global GDP. Currently, it's about 18 per cent of global GDP. So, during that time, China's economy has become a much bigger actor in the global economy. China has also become a much more powerful actor. It has, increasingly, a bluewater navy capability. It has a space program. It has capabilities like anti-ship ballistic missiles. It is spreading its culture and values through institutes like the Confucius Institute but also through other active cultural diplomacy programs. It is also expanding its trade and networks of economic integration through the Belt and Road Initiative, the Chinese development banks and things like that. So, in real terms, China's power as an international actor has increased.
But what has also changed is its doctrine—that is, its intent. We've gone from the strategic concept of Deng Xiaoping, which was 'to hide your strength and to bide your time', for China to focus on its internal developmental challenges and to largely keep the world at bay and not pick fights unnecessarily, to, under Hu Jintao, a concept of a harmonious world and a peaceful rise, which reassured many nations, including Australia, that China intended to become a fully paid-up member of the international order and a stakeholder in that order, to what Xi Jinping now characterises as the 'Chinese dream'. I think we can date a lot of the shift in China's doctrine to Xi's assumption of the leadership of China in 2012. We've gone from what has been historically, at least since Deng's passing, a model of collective leadership to not only a one-party state but a one-man state, where decision-making is much more centralised, in what was already a centralised political system, where political rivals are purged, or dealt with in other ways, and where decision-making resides within one individual.
If you take all of these things together, we have a much more powerful China, we have a much more assertive China and we have a China that's much more ambitious about staking its own place in the international order. We shouldn't find it surprising that we are finding this a more difficult relationship to manage. Of course, we are not alone in that fact. There is a tendency in Australia to think that we are the only country that's having relationship difficulties with China. Of course, the United States—not only under the Trump administration; it will be under the Biden administration too—and countries that we generally speaking consider to be friendly and well-disposed countries, like Canada, Norway, Sweden, France and Germany, have all had quite difficult relationships with China over the past few years.
It's important when we consider this that we resist the two extremes of the debate here. The first is straight appeasement, accepting that China is the largest actor in our neighbourhood and just finding a way to get along with it. I don't think any Australian would sign up to such a policy and I don't think any elected government could get away with such a policy. But we should also not necessarily swing the other way and say that we need to institute a new cold war with China. China is a fact of life—certainly within our neighbourhood it's a fact of life—and overwhelmingly China's development and rise has been a positive for Australians and has helped raise our living standards. It has been a positive for the world. It has helped lift several hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in China itself. So, generally speaking, China's development and rise has been a good thing for the world. We need to recognise that. But we also need to recognise that China is much more deeply integrated into our global economy than the Soviet Union and its allies were at any time during the Cold War. So I think decoupling is a completely unrealistic scenario, but so is anything that really smacks of containment. China is too big an actor to be contained, and China, as a large power, as a great power, deserves a place in the international order and deserves a say in how the world is constructed and the principles by which it runs. The challenge for us is not to deny China that role but to help define that role.
Australia is a particular focus of China's diplomacy right now. There are a number of reasons for that. We are probably the most economically integrated with China of any Western country. China, it's no secret here, is our largest export market and is a source of considerable wealth and prosperity. But we also have a significant Chinese Australian community, not only those who have made their homes here but also those who are residents or students residing here.
Our assertiveness in standing up for our own interests—be it pushing for an independent investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic at the World Health Assembly, be it passing our foreign interference act, be it clamping down on cyberactivities and cyberespionage in particular—has irritated the People's Republic of China, quite frankly, and there is a sense of them wanting to make an example of us and ensuring that other nations don't follow our path. That's why it's particularly important that, whilst not being gratuitous, not seeking to pick fights unnecessarily and not being offensive or personal, we make sure we continue to show resolve in standing up for fundamental Australian interests—be it our own political system and taking steps to ensure that our political system is free from foreign interference or foreign coercion, be it speaking up for values abroad, be it the people of Hong Kong or the people of Taiwan, be it the Uighurs in the Western provinces of China—and in speaking up for values that we consider to be universal, such as human rights.
It's important that we continue to do this. We saw the 14 demands of the Chinese embassy here that were leaked to Fairfax Media a number of months ago. In my view, the demands they make certainly go much more beyond optics and language; they really go to the heart of Australia's character as a liberal democracy and the nature of the role that we've played historically in the world. It's important that we continue to speak out for that.
In doing so, though, we need to be frank with the Australian public about some of the challenges that are in this relationship. I've been encouraged by the level of sophistication of the conversation that we are now having in Australia, avoiding some sort of binary alternatives or approaches or cheap criticism, about how we can handle this relationship. The truth is that there is no simple reset on offer in this relationship. There is certainly a way ahead, but we shouldn't sell false promises of a simple reset or the idea that if we change one piece of legislation or apologise over one particular act things will be back to normal.
Importantly—and I think this is critical—as I touched on at the start, when I spoke about the lunar new year, we need to make sure that we see our Chinese communities as assets. That means not only do we need to protect them from allegations that might go to the heart of their own patriotism or loyalty and make sure we stand up for them against such criticisms; we also need to harness them and make sure that they can help us play a role in navigating this new order. I have been troubled to hear a number of very talented Chinese Australians have had a hard time getting security clearances within our security agencies or getting them renewed, particularly native Mandarin and Cantonese speakers. We need these people working for our government. We need them helping us to understand the challenges ahead.
We need to start building new coalitions in defence of the liberal world order. I've been pleased that what started off as a G7-plus-three configuration, where Australia has now been invited to a number of G7 meetings, now seems to be becoming institutionalised. We're doing more with the Quad—that's the countries of the United States, Japan, India and Australia. We're doing more with Europe in defence of shared values, and countries like Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Canada are increasingly recognising that we need to stand up and defend the liberal world order if we wish to preserve it.
Finally—and I think this is important—we need to show patience and resolve. This relationship is too important to be allowed to fail, but it does need to reach a new equilibrium and we need to make sure it does so on the basis of some realities and fundamental interests of ours that are not negotiable.
In this grievance debate, where we get the opportunity to raise issues of ongoing frustration to our local constituents, I have a number of issues I'd like to put before the chamber tonight. The first is a more general problem, which has been developing since the election of the Abbott government. It's the fact that people in our communities are seeing an ongoing stagnation of their wages, an ongoing level of unemployment and underemployment, and an ongoing level of increasing cost of living. This is putting pressure on individuals, on young couples trying to make a start in life, and on families in general.
In particular, in my region in recent times, I think about the impact of the rising cost of housing and the lack of rental availability. What is available is expensive. The cost of housing has an impact not only on the budgets of people who are on government support payments but also on people who are working and often earning reasonably good wages. They are feeling very squeezed.
If you imagine many of the young families in my electorate, and I'm sure in colleagues' electorates across the country, where both of the couple are working, over the last seven years they've seen no real increase in their wage. In fact the national figures tell us that real wages have gone backwards—so it's not just stagnant; they've gone backwards. They're not seeing an increase in the income coming into the household, yet they've seen increases in their child-care fees, health-care costs and housing costs.
It seems to me that the government has absolutely no plan for supporting young families and young couples to manage this situation. Too many young couples now tell me they've given up on the idea of ever owning a home, and many of them are also now saying, 'We can't even contemplate starting a family.' These are real economic pressures on individuals in our communities that I think should be on the mind of the government. Certainly I'm on the record already as being critical of the government's proposed industrial relations changes, because they'll do quite the opposite: they'll put downward pressure on wages and cause cuts.
There are other areas where the government needs to look and not only act, but be effective in acting on the costs of living for people. Child care is a great example. The government made child-care reforms with the promise and hope that it would bring down child-care costs, but it has actually done exactly the opposite. So, particularly on behalf of young couples and young families in my electorate, I would very much like to put on record to the government that they need to look far more seriously at the realities of household economies in communities. People are struggling more and more each year as these issues are not addressed.
The second issue I want to raise in the grievance debate on behalf of constituents is that if you do have to interact with government agencies these days across support payments, whether that's older people on pensions, whether it's people who become unemployed, whether it's people relying on disability payments—there's a wide range of payments that we make—if you have to engage with a government department, I'm getting—and I can only assume most officers are—more and more frustration from people about how long it's taking to get their matters dealt with. We've seen waiting times increase year after year. I'm regularly getting people contacting me who are waiting for their age pension to be processed. This was something that never happened when I was first elected. I'm not being party political—under the Howard government I didn't see much of that sort of thing being raised. But it happens now quite regularly, and it has been for a while.
I would say to the government, 'Have a look at the staffing levels and expertise in government departments.' I think this is sometimes feeding into, in the worst cases, people getting wrong information, which can have quite serious implications for them. There is the blowout in the waiting times to have things processed. The immigration department is another example where you're seeing long waiting times. Someone puts in an application for a partner visa or a parent visa—those sorts of things—and they say, 'It's been 12 months and I haven't heard anything.' In the meantime, on the website it says the time to process them is now 24 months. These are people's lives. If you're waiting for a partner visa, you might not want to start a family until you actually know you've got the visa situation sorted out. This is affecting people's lives. In my office, day in and day out, across a number of government departments we are seeing people expressing great frustration. The other one we get regularly is about citizenship. Wonderfully, somebody has decided they want to be an Australian citizen. They're enthusiastic and go through the whole process and they wait a year or 18 months to get citizenship sorted out. These are the sorts of issues, day in and day out, that my local constituents are coming to my office about.
I think this is something the government needs to consider. I'm absolutely convinced that the people who work in these departments are dedicated individuals doing the best they can and working very hard. It's no reflection on them. But, when you've got those sorts of waiting times happening, you have to ask yourself: why is this occurring? As a government, one would think you're responsible for this and you need to think about what you need to do to address it. I suspect a great deal of it comes back to staffing cuts, outsourcing and the sorts of policies that are not ensuring that the constituents of our electorates across the country get the service that they actually need in a timely and efficient manner. On behalf of all of those constituents, whether they're waiting for pensions, waiting for youth allowance payments, waiting for citizenship applications, waiting for partner applications, and all the different types of services, it is now a consistent message across all of the government departments that people are getting frustrated because of the blowouts in waiting times whenever they're dealing with government.
The final point I want to make as a grievance on behalf of my constituents is about the aged-care sector. I have spoken about this before. In my office, we took a bit of time off over Christmas and New Year, as I'm sure everyone did. The first phone message that my office replied to when we came back was from a gentleman who couldn't get his aged-care package. He needed his home-care package and hadn't been able to get it. This is an ongoing and consistent issue. I'm sure it's not just in Labor or Independent offices; I'm sure it's across the country. If an older person is assessed as needing help to maintain themselves in their home, one would think that, once that box is ticked, it would come pretty quickly. They've already been identified as being vulnerable. It's taking many months, if not a year or more, for people to get the package they've been assessed as needing. What are the implications of that? There are their families. Women have said to me that they've given up work because they couldn't sustain a job and look after an elderly parent, even though they'd been assessed as being eligible for support. The pressure on families increases and there is the vulnerability of the older person, who may end up in residential care when they could have stayed in their home for much longer. All of these implications have serious costs for the family, for the community and for government, all because the government has not bitten the bullet and found a resolution. Dripping out an extra 10,000 places every time there's a complaint about it is not good enough. The royal commission said it needed urgent attention and that waiting lists had to be knocked down, because all we're doing is putting on 10,000 extra places and another 10,000 to 20,000 people are coming in. I've spoken about it regularly on behalf of my constituents, but the aged-care sector needs urgent and serious attention from the government.
When I stood before the people of the Ryan electorate at the 2019 election, I promised them that I would help fix local roads and get them home to their families sooner and safer. I was very humbled that the good people of Ryan elected me to fight for them and our community. I work each and every day, as a member of the Morrison government, to deliver on these commitments. For far too long residents in our community, my community of Ryan, have sat in dangerous and congested traffic travelling to and from work, robbing them of precious time that they could otherwise be spending with their families. Indooroopilly roundabout is one such congestion point on Brisbane's busy Moggill Road. There has long been need of a modern upgrade to facilitate the growing amount of traffic that it absorbs.
As part of the 2019 election, I secured $50 million in federal funding in partnership with the Brisbane City Council to develop the roundabout. As soon as I was elected I got straight work, working with the Brisbane City Council and Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner, and public consultation on the options began. Following this community consultation process, locals in my electorate chose option B, which was to construct an overpass at the roundabout to defer traffic travelling on Coonan Street away from Moggill Road. Construction to upgrade the Indooroopilly roundabout is due to commence very, very shortly. I look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with Brisbane City Council to ensure the project continues on time and on budget. In fact, residents will have started to see surveyors and early works onsite already. This is a particularly significant and long-awaited upgrade for my local community.
In contrast, one of the other choke points on Moggill Road is the Kenmore roundabout. I have significant grievance, to use a phrase of this debate, around how this has failed to progress. Again, as part of the 2019 election, I fought hard for funds to fix this roundabout, which is a dangerous and very heavily congested bottleneck. I secured $12.5 million in federal funding as part of the upgrade and then it was matched by the state government. Since then, I, along with the state member for Moggill, Dr Christan Rowan, have constantly appealed to the state Labor government—given that they have the funding now in place, thanks to the federal government—to just get on with the project and get it underway. As opposed to the Brisbane City Council, which moved very quickly and swiftly into community consultation and now works, this, a smaller project relying on the Labor state government, has failed to progress as quickly as we wanted.
There have been press releases from the Labor state government. That's what they've managed to do: further announce their funding over and over again. Yet, any progress on the design, any progress on works, any progress on consultation has simply failed to materialise. There have been plenty of promises—promising mid last year, then the end of last year, then in a few weeks' time—and every time the Labor state government has failed to meet their own deadlines of releasing designs for community consultation. Both Dr Christian Rowan and I have written to the Queensland Minister for Transport and Main Roads repeatedly, again and again, to get this crucial project underway. We rarely get a response. When we are lucky enough to get a response from the Labor minister it's with a time line that he then misses. Despite a lack of commitment from the Labor government, Dr Christian Rowan and I are continuing to appeal for this upgrade to get underway. The funding will remain. The funding is committed there from the Morrison government. The community knows that the LNP federal government is there, ready and willing with the funds to get this work underway, if the Labor government and the Minister for Transport and Main Roads, Mark Bailey, would simply get on and do it.
In addition to delivering on my election commitments with the Indooroopilly and Kenmore roundabouts, I've ensured the local roads in my electorate that've required overdue upgrades have been addressed. As part of the Morrison government's National Road Safety Strategy, the Black Spot Program has highlighted dangerous intersections in the electorate of Ryan. We've wasted no time in providing the financial backing to fix them. In late 2019 I stood onsite with the Deputy Prime Minister and the local councillor to announce nearly $1.5 million worth of federal funding to improve the Sir Fred Schonell Drive and Coldridge Street intersection in St Lucia. Unlike the Labor state government, again, we have wasted no time in getting this project underway, with preliminary works already commenced.
The Morrison government's Black Spot Program has also made significant improvements to some of the Ryan electorate's most popular local tourism destinations. The Enoggera Reservoir attracts countless local citizens and tourists for recreation and the Black Spot Program has committed just under $2 million to improve road safety at a number of sites throughout the Enoggera Reservoir.
Mount Coot-tha, located in the Ryan electorate, is another incredible natural attraction which also attracts tourists from all over the country and all over Brisbane to enjoy its beautiful views. The Black Spot Program has committed nearly $2 million to improve what was a dangerous roundabout which caused regular accidents there. Just last week I was on another site with Councillor Toomey from The Gap, where a local road project was underway—the Gresham Street bridge. Again, this is a long-awaited upgrade. The bridge was first established in the 1930s and the residents of St John's Wood and The Gap have waited a long time for it to be upgraded. Because of the Morrison government's commitment to local roads, and my commitment to local roads, we secured $700,000 to fix this bridge. We have the work underway and the new Gresham Street bridge, which is being built now, will increase vehicle weight limits, improve flood resistance and provide a wider footpath for pedestrian safety. That is so important, given that it's on a route to the local school for many local families. The project will also upgrade the traffic lights at the Gresham Street and Waterworks Road intersection to improve safety for all road users. In Ryan we're all about fixing local roads, creating jobs and getting our local economy firing. That's why I'm so proud to be part of this government, which is getting on with the job.
We also have community organisations that play a tremendous role in the Ryan electorate by serving us locally. It's a pleasure to support them as well. Among the most notable organisations are the men's sheds, which accommodate men of all ages and backgrounds. They help significantly with community mental health. The Ryan electorate is home to five men's sheds which stretch to all parts of the local area. Late last year, I was delighted to announce yet another successful 2019 election commitment to provide $50,000 to the Ashgrove-The Gap Men's Shed, enabling them to upgrade their shed and install CCTV. They have completed that project. I was also able to announce $1.5 million worth of community funding which will help to upgrade the community centre at Kenmore, including their shed as well. That is progressing.
I have delivered grants to some outstanding community groups. I won't name them all—I won't bore the chamber—but I will name a few. The Bardon Bowls Club has refurbished their club and upgraded their outdoor area. The Kenmore Cricket Club has installed new pitches, thanks to our support. The Ferny Districts Cricket Club is going to construct its new pitch. The Taringa Rovers will upgrade their equipment and Kenmore Little Athletics will get new shade awnings. The Bardon Girl Guides will upgrade their wooden floors. The Moggill Pony Club will get a new roof and the Ashgrove Meals On Wheels will upgrade its kitchen. Rotary Ashgrove will get a new storage shed and St John's Wood Scouts will replace the roof of their scout den, which was over 45 years old and in desperate need of repair. It's an absolute privilege to be in this place and part of the Morrison government, able to deliver for these fantastic community groups that are serving the families of the Ryan electorate.
We're also home, of course, to many proud veterans. They are proud of their service and we are very proud of them in turn. I have the privilege of meeting many of them in person. It is vital that we support our local Australian military veterans as they leave the forces and transition to work and life in our community. We're doing that through a lot of peer recognition and grants. The Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera is placed at the heart of the Ryan electorate. We have a prominent veteran community that I engage with, particularly through the Morrison government's Saluting Their Service initiative and the Veteran and Community Grants Program. We have delivered funding opportunities to a number of local RSLs and veterans' groups within the electorate, including a $100,000 grant which I was very pleased to deliver as part of the last budget for a brand-new cadet unit at Brookfield, the first such cadet unit to be established in the Ryan electorate in a long, long time and the first one to service that very large and growing western corridor.
The cadet unit will enable young men and women from the electorate of Ryan to engage with Australian military veterans and to serve their local community and their country while gaining incredibly valuable skills. We've also got some fantastic heritage listed landmarks, such as the Witton Barracks. I fought to bring this into public ownership and into council ownership and to keep it there. It was built in 1889. It's a fantastic historic site, and I have just secured $850,000 for the Witton Barracks to upgrade the facility and restore it to its historic glory. Together we're delivering so much for the Ryan electorate and for the families of Ryan.
This is a grievance motion. My grievance is there's no action in the state of Queensland. The previous speaker talks about extra facilities and a better lifestyle. But we as a government—we were there for 40-odd years in Queensland—we saw government in terms of doing, making the cake bigger. There was plenty of money to spend on highways and everything else if you concentrated on making the economy bigger. When the Country Party came into government from the Labor Party, in the last 20 years of the Bjelke-Petersen government we laid 300 kilometres of railway line to open up mines every single year for 20 years. We laid down 1,000 kilometres of bitumen on dirt roads every single year. We built a new mining town every single year, and we built a billion-dollar tourist resort every year.
To my knowledge, in the 30 years since, under the lily pad leftie governments—and there are plenty of lily pad lefties in the Liberal Party, I can tell you; I can describe them in the same way, in all honesty—there has been not a single inch of railway track laid. There has not been a single thousand kilometres of dirt road converted to bitumen. There hasn't been a single mining town established and there hasn't been a billion-dollar tourist resort built. Every year we were doing that. But you stop completely at a dead wall.
I don't want to criticise the previous speaker. He's talking about spending government money. I'm talking about creating government money. I'm not talking about asking the government for money. I'm talking about convincing the government that this is money-creating investment for the government. If you built a railway line into the Galilee, half Australia's coal is in the Galilee. Coal is earning a quarter of our total income. In fact, with iron ore, more than half of our entire income from overseas comes from those two items. I'm talking about hard rock mining. I represent the biggest hard rock mining area in Australia, the north-west mineral province, Mt Isa and the fertiliser plant being prominent amongst those figures. But if you want to open up the Galilee, you've got to build a railway line and a port, and they've got to be multi-user.
Everyone is clapping and cheering on Adani, the Liberal Party being the major clappers and cheerers when they're with their constituency. When they're with the people, they believe by 2050 no coal. But we're singing a different tune here, and so did Mr Shorten in the last election. One of the reasons the Liberal Party failed so miserably in Queensland in the last election was because they told one story in Brisbane and another story in North Queensland where they needed to win the seats. So we're preaching an anti-coal agenda in Brisbane and a pro-coal agenda in North Queensland. Do you think we're all a bunch of mugs up there in North Queensland, that we don't see that? So they thought, you may as well keep voting for the dumb socialists, right.
An honourable member interjecting—
I'm just telling you what happened in Queensland. I don't think anyone in Queensland would deny that they were preaching one story on coal in Brisbane and another story on coal up there.
But we don't preach the story. We say build the railway line into the Galilee, as did every Queensland government for 45 years in Queensland. As did the sort of governments you had in Western Australia, the Charles Court type government, building infrastructure. We will shortly disclose the Liberal concept for the Bradfield Scheme, which produces no jobs, no development—nothing. It's a greenie's paradise, the Bradfield Scheme. We'll produce the Labor Party's Bradfield Scheme, and it's another greenie's paradise. There's not a single job created by it. But, if you build the revised Bradfield Scheme, as announced by the Bjelke-Petersen government and by the Malcolm Fraser government, then you will produce $30 billion a year of income. It more than duplicates, along with other water developments in North Queensland—I won't go into all the detail here—the Murray-Darling. The Murray-Darling is one river. In North Queensland, we have one river that's bigger than the Murray-Darling: the Mitchell River. We have the third-biggest river in Australia, after the Murray-Darling: the Burdekin River. The fourth-biggest river in Australia is the Gilbert River in North Queensland. The sixth-biggest river in Australia is the Flinders River. All of Australia's water is in North Queensland. If we were a separate country, we would be the most water-rich country on earth, but unfortunately it comes in three months. So, unless you build a little receptacle to hold a bit of it back, you will get no benefit. You can't build a single farm on the basis of having a water supply for a month or so. It doesn't work. You've got to have a receptacle to hold it back.
My government built the last dam in Australia, on the Burdekin River, the third-biggest river in Australia. It's a very big dam and it resulted in about $3 million or $4 million of extra production, basically in the sugar industry and the fruit and vegetable industry in the Greater Ayr region. We have a project—and God bless the Prime Minister—in Hughenden. I just hope he can stay the course. The Hughenden project is a model. That's all it is. It's a prototype. Once you build the Hughenden project, you can then build another 15 Hughenden projects in North Queensland, very easily and much more cheaply. Unfortunately for people in Hughenden, it's at the top of the river. All the others are downstream, in the great rivers of North Queensland. But we can build at least 10, 15 or maybe 20 of those schemes.
We have a fifth of Australia's cattle population, or whatever it is. We have five million head of cattle. We should be running eight million head of cattle. We turn off one ox for every six oxen we have. We only turn off one, and the rest of Australia is turning off one in three. That's because we have no fattening capacity in North Queensland. We have to ship the cattle 2,000 kilometres down to South-East Queensland, to the lot feeders, and then they're processed out and shipped back 2,000 kilometres to where we send all our beef to Northern Hemisphere destinations. If you do these schemes, just as a side benefit you get an extra $6 billion a year, because then the cattle industry is running eight million head of cattle and is turning off one in three, the same as the rest of Australia. It's an ancillary benefit.
I've talked about the Galilee, which brings in $30 billion a year at the very least. It's the first stage of development proposed by four of the 12 major people present at the Galilee Basin. Do you think that Mr Adani—the biggest infrastructure magnate on earth and a personal friend of the Prime Minister of India—will let other people use his railway line to compete against him? If you do, I would ask you to have a little yarn with Twiggy Forrest, because, for all of his good points, Charlie Court would not build a railway line. He said, 'BHP would force them to be a multi-user.' Well, according to Andrew Forrest, 'For 23 years, I was stupid enough, and Rio Tinto was stupid enough, to believe that we could enforce the law against BHP.' He said, 'What a joke. You don't enforce the law against a big corporation.' If you enforced the law against Adani, who would make people look like pygmies, then you'd believe in the tooth fairy!
If you think you're not going to send coal to India, read Scientific American, the fourth-last Scientific American. It says that two-thirds of the homes in India are still energised by burning cow dung and firewood. Think about the CO2 that's going up into the atmosphere from that! But if you think you're going to tell India that they can't have any coal, you'd believe in the tooth fairy. You seriously believe that you're going to tell what will soon be the biggest country on earth, one of the most powerful, that you're not going to send them any coal? Well, I'll quote von Clausewitz, from the best book ever written on warfare: if goods don't cross borders, guns will. If you look at history, that's very much a truism.
We have silicon deposits. One alone will produce $5,000 million a year if it's processed in Australia. But I can assure you that there is no intention by Labor or the Liberal Party to have anything at all processed in Australia. The great Sir Leo Hielscher—two of the four biggest bridges in Australia are named after Sir Leo Hielscher—when they came in and said they wanted to export bauxite, he burst out laughing. Well, of course the biggest mine proposed for our deposits of bauxite—it's not going to be exported as bauxite. The reason he was laughing is that you don't export bauxite from Queensland. Under this government, you export aluminium. So, if we export the silicon we'll get maybe $60 million a year, and of course if we export high-tech silicon we'll get $23,000 a year. So, of course we're exporting it at $20 million or $30 million a year. But we can give you $90 billion a year, and $30 billion in taxes a year, and that is just doing what we did as a government for 20 years— (Time expired)
The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:27