I present the 22nd report of the Petitions Committee for the 46th Parliament, comprising two petitions and 44 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. Due to the cycle of the petitioning process there are no e-petitions to be presented today. The two petitions I present are paper petitions, each containing signatures that have been collected by hand through face-to-face engagement in each petitioner's community. While this method of petitioning has become more difficult during the times of COVID-19, paper petitions continue to be received by the committee. For centuries, this has been the only form of petitioning. Nowadays, with the introduction of e-petitioning, support for petitioning is usually gained through online communities via social media, emails, blogs and subscriptions. This method has become the preferred way to petition the parliament and, in today's environment, it's also COVID-friendly.
Regardless of the way the signatures are collected, petitions remain a popular way for people to engage directly with parliament. The committee takes pride in its role of facilitating the petitioning process, regardless of what format the petitions are submitted in, and it's pleased to be able to support this longstanding parliamentary tradition.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I look forward to further updating the House on the work of the committee.
The report read as follows—
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PETITIONS COMMITTEE
REPORT No. 22
Petitions and Ministerial Responses
22 February 2021
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Chair Mr Ken O'Dowd MP
Deputy Chair Hon Justine Elliot MP
Mrs Bridget Archer MP
Ms Lisa Chesters MP
Ms Gladys Liu MP
Mr Julian Simmonds MP
Mr James Stevens MP
Ms Susan Templeman MP
Report summarising the petitions and Ministerial responses being presented.
The committee met in private session on 17 February 2021
1. The committee resolved to present the following petitions in accordance with standing order 207:
From 534 petitioners – requesting the preservation of current medical services at Mount Compass (PN0498)
From 36 petitioners – requesting for action to be taken regarding the persecution and organ harvesting of Falun Gong in China (PN0499)
The following ministerial responses to petitions were received:
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs – to a petition regarding Australia's engagement with the United Nations (EN1174)
From the Attorney-General – to a petition requesting support for Ms Pamela Anne Douglas (EN1239)
From the Assistant Treasurer – to a petition requesting the introduction of right to repair legislation (EN1367)
From the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment – to a petition requesting stringent restrictions on land rights and locally produced resources for foreign interests (EN1455)
From the Minister for Home Affairs – to a petition requesting the rejection of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020(EN1575)
From the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment – to a petition regarding specialised support for travel agents (EN1734)
From the Minister for Health – to a petition requesting the removal of restrictions for prescribing hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (EN1745)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs – to a petition regarding Kurdish independence (EN1760)
From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs – to a petition regarding the processing of temporary visas for the partners of temporary Australian visa holders who are residing abroad (EN1775)
From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs – to a petition regarding prospective marriage (subclass 300) visa applications during COVID-19 (EN1781)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs – to a petition requesting a formal agreement between Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK to promote cooperation in defence, trade and citizenship (EN1811)
From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs – to a petition regarding updates to the Migration Amendment (Hong Kong Passport Holders) Regulations 2020(EN1822)
From the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts – to a petition requesting the Australian Broadcasting Corporation withdraw programs that misrepresent Falun Gong (EN1854)
From the Minister for Home Affairs – to a petition requesting an exemption from Australia's travel restrictions for New Zealand citizens (EN1860)
From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs – to a petition regarding temporary residents who have remained in Australia during COVID-19 (EN1874)
From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs – to a petition regarding recommencing partner visa processing for onshore and offshore applicants (EN1875)
From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs – to a petition regarding prospective marriage visas (EN1885)
From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs – to a petition regarding releasing the Australian skilled visa grants lodged before COVID-19 (EN1886)
From the Minister for Home Affairs – to a petition regarding a revision of the criteria for granting an exemption from Australia's travel restrictions to include individuals who fall outside of direct family relationships (EN1892)
From the Minister for Home Affairs – to a petition regarding the approval of travel exemptions for temporary visa holders who are unable to return to Australia due to the travel restrictions (EN1893)
From the Minister for Home Affairs – to a petition regarding the easing of travel restrictions to allow overseas partners to visit Australia (EN1896)
From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs – to a petition regarding international students and travel restrictions (EN1903)
From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs – to a petition regarding prospective marriage visas (EN1904)
From the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts – to a petition regarding banning social media for Australians under the age of 18 (EN1913)
From the Attorney-General – to a petition regarding the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Act 2020(EN1915)
From the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts – to a petition requesting the establishment of a Royal Commission to ensure the strength and diversity of Australian news media (EN1938)
From the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts – to a petition regarding banning omegle.com (EN1943)
From the Minister for Home Affairs – to a petition regarding approval of travel exemption for temporary visa holders who are unable to return to Australia due to the travel restrictions (EN1944)
From the Minister for Veterans' Affairs – to a petition requesting amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986(EN1946)
From the Minister for Home Affairs – to a petition requesting inclusion of parents and siblings of Australian citizens and permanent residents as immediate family members for the purpose of exemption from Australia's travel restrictions (EN1964)
From the Minister for Education and Youth – to a petition requesting full subsidised child care for all Australians (EN1967)
From the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs – to a petition regarding a pathway to permanent residency for temporary residents who have been unable to return to Australia during the COVID-19 (EN1994)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs – to a petition regarding increased international development assistance for access to family planning (EN1996)
From the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts – to a petition regarding in-game purchases and the application of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001(EN1997)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs – to a petition regarding human rights in Thailand (EN2005)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs – to a petition regarding the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners, organ harvesting and trafficking in China (EN2020)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs – to a petition regarding the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners, organ harvesting and trafficking in China (PN0421)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs – to a petition regarding the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners, organ harvesting and trafficking in China (PN0428)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs – to a petition requesting action in response to the report of the China Tribunal Judgement released by the Independent Tribunal into Forced Organ Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China(PN0431)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs – to a petition requesting action in response to the report of the China Tribunal Judgement released by the Independent Tribunal into Forced Organ Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China(PN0433)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs – to a petition requesting action in response to the report of the China Tribunal Judgement released by the Independent Tribunal into Forced Organ Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China(PN0439)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs – to a petition requesting action in response to the report of the China Tribunal Judgement released by the Independent Tribunal into Forced Organ Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China(PN0440)
From the Minister for Families and Social Services – to a petition regarding single and couple rates of Age Pension (PN0487)
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs – to a petition regarding the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners, organ harvesting and trafficking in China (PN0490)
Mr Ken O'Dowd
Chair – Petitions Committee
I present the following ministerial responses to petitions previously presented:
( I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I am tabling the Australian Local Power Agency Bill 2021. It would place everyday regional Australians at the centre of the renewable energy transition that is already underway across our nation. The bill before the House would establish the Australian Local Power Agency, ALPA. The idea behind ALPA is simple: regional Australia should be home to the world's best renewable energy industry, and we should harness the power of that industry to deliver a generation of prosperity for everyday regional Australians.
Like the gold rush before it, renewable energy could drive an economic boom in the regions. But this time we're not sitting on a goldmine; we're sitting under a goldmine, with our famous blue skies raining an endless supply of energy upon us. Like the wool boom, renewable energy could deliver dizzying wealth to rural communities, build up great regional cities and train a generation of young people to work in well-paid, long-lasting jobs. But this time our path to prosperity is not riding the sheep's back but sailing the prevailing winds and capturing the sun's rays. This bill is about capturing this enormous potential of renewables and making them work for regional Australia.
Right now, renewables are being developed at a lightning pace right across our continent. Last year Australia installed seven gigawatts of renewable energy—a record year. That's enough to replace the Hazelwood power station more than four times, enough to power 3.1 million homes. And almost all of this was built in the regions. That trend will continue. In 20 years we could easily hit 80 per cent renewables, up from 25 per cent today. This could be fantastic news for the regions. But it is true that right now regional communities too often fail to realise the full economic potential of renewables. Renewables are creating jobs in the regions, but we could do so much more to train up young people and build solar panels and batteries locally, and to construct, operate and maintain renewable projects. Renewables are driving investment in small business, but we could do so much more to build up an industry of small businesses in the regions, supplying and supporting renewable energy projects. As billions of dollars are being invested in regional renewables, we need to capture that investment boom and transform it into a jobs boom, into a skills boom and into a lasting income opportunity for everyday regional Australians.
The government has two agencies dedicated to accelerating investment and deployment of renewables, but it has no policies in place to make sure that the investment boom that's already crashing around us actually stands to benefit the communities in which renewables are built. As a result, the renewable opportunity risks simply slipping through our fingers. I don't want that to happen. With the bill before us, the Australian Local Power Agency will fill that gap and seize this opportunity.
ALPA would do three things to lift up regional Australia. First, it would provide funding and technical support for everyday communities to develop their own small-scale renewable projects. I can't tell you how many people contact my office—residential aged-care facilities, sporting clubs, schools, fire stations, councils—all asking for advice on how they can put solar on their rooftop or add a battery out the back. They're looking to save money or make sure they can keep the lights on in a crisis—a crisis like a bushfire. Right now, there is nowhere I can point them to. Existing grant schemes are piecemeal, and there is never enough to go around. These grassroots community organisations often lack the technical expertise to even know where to start.
ALPA would set up hubs in regional cities across Australia so that there will always be someone to turn to to lend a hand. This is not about subsidising one type of energy; this is about supporting community organisations. In my electorate it's organisations like the Bonnie Doon Recreation Reserve, or the Walwa Bush Nursing Centre, or Corryong College—all of whom have installed solar and batteries in the last six months. There should be no rural school or health centre in Australia that can't do the same thing. That's what ALPA will do.
Secondly, ALPA would extend the government's energy underwriting scheme so that it supports locally owned renewable energy projects. Increasingly in the regions we are seeing communities developing their own solar and wind farms—towns like Denmark in Western Australia, Majura in the ACT or Manilla in New South Wales. In each of these places, a few hundred locals get together to invest in a mid-sized solar or wind farm. In Denmark, on the south coast of Western Australia, the locals got together and built two wind turbines that provide half the town's energy. What's more, it's the local investors who earn money from that wind farm. Instead of sending money out of the region every time you pay your power bill, that money stays local. But, right now, these projects are incredibly hard to get off the ground. The government has shown that it's very happy to underwrite investments in energy, but, currently, it's only the big energy companies that get to access public underwriting. This bill would extend that same principle to renewable projects that are driven by, and owned by, the local community. If people in towns like Wangaratta and Benalla want to come together and invest in their own local solar farm, then I think they should get the same support that the government is giving to big energy companies.
Finally, ALPA would implement a new requirement that any large renewable energy project in Australia offers the local community a chance to co-invest in that project. If a company is building a massive solar or wind farm near Albury-Wodonga, then, under this bill, the residents of Albury-Wodonga would have a chance to come in on that investment and say how it's done. In Germany, farmers own 10 per cent of all renewable energy and everyday people own an additional 30 per cent. Just imagine! If we had a system like that in Australia, that would mean billions of dollars flowing straight into the pockets of people in regional Australia every year. Imagine what that would mean for farmers in a drought—having a substantial income stream that pays off year after year. That's what this bill is about. It's about saying that every electron generated in the regions should be money coming back into the pockets of everyday regional Australians. Every spin of a wind turbine and every drop of sunlight should be generating income that stays in our communities. ALPA would sit alongside its sister agencies, ARENA and the CEFC, elevating regional Australia to the top tier of policymaking. The three agencies would work as a trinity not only to drive investment in a renewable future but also to make sure it leaves a lasting economic legacy for our communities.
Importantly, this bill is not just for regional Australia; it's from regional Australia. There are a hundred communities right across our community who are already developing their own renewable energy projects. Of those groups, 13 are in my electorate of Indi. A year ago, I invited some of those local experts to join me in a collaborative process to co-design what a national policy for community energy would look like. The result of that was the Local Power Plan, a plan which recommended the creation of this new agency and its dedicated remit of locally owned renewables. Today, I'm honoured to be joined by three of those people, who are in the gallery: Juliette Milbank, Matt Charles-Jones and Andrew Webb. To you, to the entire local power plant expert panel, to the hundreds of people across Indi and the many thousands across Australia working, often quietly, to drive a renewable future for regional Australia: this is your bill. To every person out there in regional Australia who has looked at our national debate about climate change and renewables over the last decade and has despaired at the lost opportunities and yearned for a greater vision for the regions: this is your bill, too.
The renewable energy boom is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to revitalise the economy of regional Australia. We must plan it right. So many regional Australians ask: 'How can we build an economy in regional Australia?' If we can harness renewable energy properly, then it could herald a new golden era from Esperance to Carpentaria and everywhere in between. It's time we in the regions stopped being passive recipients of the energy system and started being active owners of it, with agency over our own power supply, power costs and, importantly, the profits to be made. That's what this bill is about. That's what the Australian Local Power Agency will do.
I urge my colleagues in this House from regional Australia to get behind this, and I urge the government to get behind this. I commend this bill to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the bill and reserve my right to speak.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian Local Power Agency (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 makes a suite of amendments to existing clean energy legislation to enable ALPA to function effectively. In sum, it establishes ALPA as a sister agency to ARENA and the CEFC, allowing them to work as a trinity not only to drive investment in renewable energy but also to make sure that regional communities truly benefit from that investment. I commend the bill to the House and give my remaining time to the member for Warringah.
I second the bill and thank the member for Indi for these important bills, and I wholeheartedly welcome the opportunity to speak on them. We are in the middle of an unprecedented energy transition. Over 15 gigawatts of coal-fired power is retiring in the next two decades. The market has made it clear that the cheapest replacement is renewables and storage; it is not gas. This could be wind or solar, with pumped hydro, solar arrays on roofs and virtual powerpoints. As a result, distributed energy generation is flooding the national electricity market, opening up opportunities for new entrants.
But more can be done to ensure that the benefits and opportunities of this transition are spread to everyday Australians in towns throughout our regions. These bills will make sure that communities are at the heart of the energy transition, and it is so important. I know this because it is very much a focus in Warringah as well—not as regional an area as that of the member for Indi, but we still have a common focus. Community energy projects are energy projects that are initiated, developed, owned and operated by community members. In Warringah we've had the benefit of these kinds of projects. ClearSky Solar Investments are an award winning not-for-profit. They established an unlisted structure allowing private investors to finance solar installations across schools and businesses. ClearSky partnered with another not-for-profit, Pingala, to complete a community finance installation of rooftop solar for 4 Pines Brewing. They invited 4 Pines employees, friends and Northern Beaches locals to participate and make up an inclusive investor portfolio. They had so much interest that they had to draw names. The way it works is that 4 Pines pays for electricity consumed, with the proceeds returned to shareholders by a power purchase agreement of Smart Commercial Solar for a return of up to eight per cent on their investment.
In Warringah we're also supporting community energy projects in the regions. Solar Choice, a renewable energy developer based in Warringah, secured planning approval for a one-megawatt community solar farm in the Majura Valley in the ACT. This is in fact the largest community owned solar farm in Australia. It will have over 5,000 solar modules, will power approximately 250 homes and will abate 1,600 tonnes of CO2 every year. The benefits are obvious.
So, how do we get more of these projects going? We need to look overseas. Some jurisdictions are far ahead of us. We can see a community energy renewables boom occurring. We know it's possible with the right policy settings. We only have to look at examples like Denmark and Germany to see it working in practice in the field. Denmark has promoted community energy since the 1970s. As a result, 70 to 80 per cent of wind turbines are owned by the community. Since 2009 the Danish Renewable Energy Act has required new wind projects to be owned at least 20 per cent by local people. We could emulate that here with these bills. In Germany, 50 per cent of renewable energy generation is community owned. This is supported by generous feed-in tariffs, connection enablers and rules. They're remarkable figures and a testament to what is possible, and it is disappointing to see where Australia is at after 10 years of dysfunction and lack of real coherent policy around energy.
The Australian Local Power Agency Bill 2021 will establish a new Commonwealth agency dedicated to these kinds of community energy projects in regional Australia. It will build on the successful model of ARENA, and people in the regions will be assured that the current renewables boom will deliver to them. This bill is key to regional development which aims to encourage economically disadvantaged communities to improve their economic, social, cultural and environmental wellbeing. ALPA, the Australian Local Power Agency, will provide technical and financial resources to communities through local community energy hubs, 50 of which will be established around Australia. Large concessional and underwriting schemes will also be available for eligible mid-scale projects, bringing down the cost of projects and the risks. So there are clear benefits. Unfortunately, in Australia, with traditional energy projects there's been a lack of emphasis on local jobs and procurement. The profits of renewable developments have been going to energy companies and not always enough to the communities. So we need to change that and ensure there is local skill development, and these proposals go to the heart of this problem.
The policy costs just $50 million to the budget bottom line per annum, but that figure does not reflect the huge economic benefits that will spread through the regions. In Victoria, we've seen similar projects deliver a 13-fold return on investment. The local jobs, energy independence, financial security through lower power bills, and engineering ingenuity are an opportunity multiplier in these communities. On jobs in particular—and we hear a lot of that in this place—we know that, for every $1.5 million invested in renewables, almost eight jobs are created, compared to only 2.6 jobs in old energy production like coal or gas. There is no doubt that the future for these communities is in renewables.
The beauty of these kinds of projects is that the business model can be tailored to suit the needs of the community. Multiple types of models can be implemented. For example, a community investment model, a co-investment model and a philanthropic model all are possible. The community could decide that they would like a portion of the profits to go towards a local charitable cause or provide power to a homeless shelter for free. The opportunities are endless. The community could, alternatively, choose to provide important grid-balancing services like frequency and voltage control and system inertia to the grid. It is entirely flexible.
I presented the climate change bills to the parliament last November, and they've been widely endorsed across all sectors of our society. The bills seek to make regional development a core consideration of any emissions reductions and adaptation plans prepared by the government, and that will ensure the regions are included in any transition. I see the climate change bills working harmoniously with the Australian Local Power Agency in developing the regions. I see the agency enacting core parts of the plans required by the climate change bills. Alongside the CEFC and ARENA, ALPA will finance the future of our regional communities.
These bills put community at the heart of energy transition. They contain important provisions that will bring energy security and low-emissions, job-rich energy projects to the regions. The member for Indi and her community have shown remarkable vision and community spiritedness in bringing these bills to this place, and that's the note I would like to finish on. We hear many in this place talk about delivering opportunities for their communities, especially members of parliament who represent regional communities. But, if one really looks at it, there's always little that can really be said that actually gets delivered to the communities. Private members' bills like this show how it can be done. These are the solutions the government needs to pay attention to and enact into legislation. We have the solutions. We have the know-how. We now need the political will to be about putting in place solutions. I think the time for personal ambition is over when it comes to using energy policy, and a dysfunctional debate about the need to reduce emissions, for personal gain as opposed to focusing on the absolute national good of needing to embrace this transition. We need to be at the forefront and not behind it. It is happening. There is no debate over the fact that the world is transitioning to renewable energy, and there is a big question that must be asked of the Morrison government: are you going to be at the forefront of it and make sure that you are taking the opportunity and that Australians benefit and prosper for years and generations to come, or will we be playing catch-up because for too long personal ambition has stood in the way of good legislation? I commend these bills to the House.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention Bill 2021 would abolish unlawful mandatory detention of asylum seekers, refugees and noncitizens and would have the effect of ending offshore detention. It provides that community alternatives to immigration detention will always be preferred to detention, wherever possible. The bill ensures that those in alternatives to immigration detention have full access to housing and financial support and have the right to work and to access education, health care and other government services, as required under international law.
The bill includes specific conditions on how and why a person can be detained. It disallows long-term and arbitrary detention by setting limited time frames to ensure that an individual's detention period is as short as possible. The bill removes the abhorrent and torturous conditions that detainees currently experience, by ensuring access to information and services. Importantly, every decision under this bill is subject to independent oversight and prompt review. I acknowledge at this early stage that the bill has been prepared with the wonderful assistance of the lawyers at the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, in Melbourne.
This bill is urgently needed, because the indefinite and arbitrary immigration detention regime in this country is immoral and illegal. It is immoral in that we have a moral obligation to give people protection, to hear their claims and to give them refuge if their claims are accurate. It is illegal because it's in contravention of numerous international agreements—for example, the Refugee Convention; the Refugee Protocol; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and, of course, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It is beyond doubt that Australia's regime of indefinite and arbitrary immigration detection is immoral and illegal, and this bill would remedy that.
The scale of Australia's official misconduct remains alarming. I think a lot of members of the community might think that the issue is one of the past, but let's not forget that, as at the end of last year, there were 1,513 people in immigration detention facilities, including 1,276 in immigration detention on the mainland and 237 people in immigration detention on Christmas Island. There are also 137 people effectively in detention on Nauru and another 145 people effectively in detention on Manus Island and PNG. The cost of all this is absolutely breathtaking. It costs approximately $346,000 to hold someone in immigration detention in Australia for one year. I will say that again: it costs approximately $346,000 per year to hold someone in immigration detention in Australia. But I will also tell the House that it costs only about $10,221 for a refugee or an asylum seeker to live in the community. In fact, the budget for our offshore detention is still running at about $1 billion per year. I'll say that again: the bill for offshore detention is still running in the order of $1,000 million per year. These figures are breathtaking and almost unbelievable.
To highlight this point, I would refer members of this House to the case of the Tamil family who were taken from regional Queensland and the town of Biloela and put into detention, initially in Melbourne. They've been in detention more than 1,000 days. They were moved to Christmas Island in August 2019, where the family remains in legal limbo. The cost of detention for the Biloela family is now estimated to have reached $6 million. This is just absurd. You couldn't make this stuff up. Surely, even if the government doesn't care about people, at least they care about the budget bottom line and will stop throwing good money after bad with the cost of detention. It must end.
It must end, and this country must be put on a more effective pathway to dealing with the global humanitarian crisis that is displaced people. The problem hasn't gone away, and it's not going to go away any time soon. In fact, the UNHCR's latest figures are that there were 79.5 million forcibly displaced people worldwide at the end of 2019. That's one per cent of the world's population. Of that near on 80 million displaced people, about 40 per cent are children. This country needs an effective response to that humanitarian crisis. These people aren't a border security problem. People coming by boat aren't illegals. But this is a global humanitarian crisis, and one of the first steps in Australia responding effectively, morally and legally to that global humanitarian challenge is to end indefinite and arbitrary immigration detention. Only then will we fall into line with the community of nations and finally be seen as a humane and law-abiding country.
I commend the bill to the House. I do note that the current policy of mandatory detention has bipartisan support, but I would reach out to both sides of the chamber to look anew at your policy. I would say to the alternative government: when you go to the next election, if you want to be an alternative government, you need an alternative policy. A good alternative policy would be to end mandatory detention, end offshore processing and end boat towbacks, and start acting with a bit of moral fibre and in accordance with international law.
Deputy Speaker, I now invite the member for Warringah, who will second this bill, to offer a few additional comments.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I thank the member for Clark for introducing the Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention Bill 2021, and I wholeheartedly welcome this opportunity to speak on this very important topic. We need to end indefinite and arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and refugees. As lawmakers in this place, it should be galling to all of us that this policy is, in fact, illegal under international law. So I strongly support both the end to the practice of indefinite detention and the Game Over campaign led by Craig Foster.
Over December and January we saw the release of 65 of the medevac refugees from hotel immigration detention, including two women; however, 120 medevac refugees, including eight women, remain in detention in Australian hotels. There are still around 230 refugees detained on Nauru and in PNG, and they have been there for more than seven years. It's impossible to fully comprehend that. Think back to where you were more than seven years ago, and think about how you would be coping with the idea that your life has been indefinitely in limbo—that there is no real avenue, that there is no change, that there is no movement—and you are stuck with no opportunity to live a life, to have a hope of being safe or being part of a community.
This bill puts an end to indefinite detention by imposing a maximum term that immigration detainees can be held without a court order, so it's an important safeguard for people coming to Australia searching for safety for them and their families. The Biloela family were embraced by their community, only to be torn away and thrown into indefinite detention on Christmas Island at huge costs. I call on the government to implement this legislation to end this torturous program and complete waste of money of indefinite detention immediately.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that 27 January 2021 marked International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a day where we remember the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime and its collaborators, and reaffirm our promise to 'never forget' the 6 million Jews and 11 million others including Roma, homosexuals, people with intellectual disabilities, political prisoners, Poles, Serbs and Soviet citizens who were exterminated during the Holocaust;
(2) acknowledges the importance of International Holocaust Remembrance Day in honouring the memory of all Holocaust victims, and the ongoing efforts of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance to advance and promote Holocaust education to ensure the history and stories of its victims are passed on to successive generations; and
(3) further notes that:
(a) during the 1940s, tens of thousands of European Jews emigrated to Australia, and Australia has the largest per-capita Holocaust survivor population outside Israel; and
(b) the Government is committed to supporting Holocaust Museums in each state and territory in Australia, with the most recent museum announced in the ACT on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, 27 January 2021.
The 27th of January marked 76 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. As each year passes, as fewer survivors remain, it's even more important to remember the atrocities of Nazi Germany and the suffering of the survivors, and recommit ourselves to the vow 'never again'.
On a per capita basis, Australia is home to more Holocaust survivors than any other nation, from businessmen like Frank Lowy to artists like Judy Cassab. They and thousands of other people picked up their lives and took the opportunity to live in and serve this country. They changed the face of Australia.
While my generation has had the privilege of meeting the survivors, by the time children born in a few years are old enough to understand what happened in the Holocaust, those survivors will be gone. For a coming generation without the survivors, the danger is that the Holocaust will seem as long ago as the pogroms, the crusades and slavery in Egypt. And then it will be up to us to tell the next generation our memory of the survivors and their stories, to help turn our memories into the memories of the next generation. The importance of this task should not be underestimated.
Sadly, we are witnessing a growth in Holocaust denial around the world in two forms. In the Muslim world, as a way of playing into an anti-Jewish message that bolsters an anti-Israel message; in the West, fuelled by social media and a regression to what I've termed the 'pre-enlightenment age', people seem incapable of reasoning and assessing sources of information with the ability to tell fact from fiction. The prescient American General Dwight Eisenhower saw the potential for denial in April 1945. He wrote about Ohrdruf, a subcamp of Buchenwald he'd just visited, saying:
The things I saw beggar description. … The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering … I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations … to propaganda.
Eisenhower organised delegations of politicians, journalists and filmmakers to view firsthand what happened in the death camps in order to bear witness to a sceptical public. One journalist was asked if the scenes in the camp were as bad as they were described in the newspapers. He responded: 'No. They were worse.' But as fewer of the remaining survivors are with us, it becomes much easier for people to say these horrific events never happened. What we can do is to educate the next generation, so they view the Holocaust not as the experience of Jews, Roma, homosexuals or people with intellectual disabilities but rather as a human experience where the most civilised and enlightened society on the planet can quickly turn to monstrous barbarism and engage in murder on an industrial scale.
I want to commend the Morrison government for its focus on Holocaust education, with $3 million for the Anti-Defamation Commission to create a Holocaust education platform and giving Australians a chance to visit Holocaust museums, with more than $23 million in announcements and funding committed to building and extending Holocaust museums in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and Canberra. Whenever I visit a Holocaust museum what moves me most are the sections dedicated to the righteous amongst the nations—those non-Jews who risked their lives and those of their families to help save Jews, even when they were strangers. Their sense of morality caused them to act. Their example is the fundamental lesson of the Holocaust—that it's never good enough to be a bystander, that we must confront evil and that we must play our own part in correcting racial prejudice and keeping it at bay.
It's difficult to say something original about the Shoah, but last year Australian Holocaust survivor Eddie Jaku did. I have the privilege of knowing Eddie's family. At 100 years of age he wrote the international bestseller The Happiest Man on Earth. Eddie had so many chances to escape the suffering he experienced. He was given a false identity to study, but returned to his hometown on Kristallnacht to see his neighbours turn on him and his family. He ended up on the beach at Dunkirk as it was being evacuated but couldn't get a place on a boat. He was hidden by a family in Belgium. He escaped from Buchenwald, Auschwitz, where his parents were murdered, but each time was recaptured. He ultimately escaped from the Auschwitz death march to be rescued by American soldiers. What sustained him was his useful mastery of machines and his friendship with Kurt Hirschfeld.
What makes this epic tale so special is the humanity and wisdom of someone who has every right to be angry at the world but who has, through reflection on his long life, been grateful for family, friendship and the kindness of strangers. His victory over Hitler is to live a happy life and to give happiness to others. His philosophy is powerful: 'You must remember you're lucky to be alive. Every breath is a gift. Life is beautiful if you let it be. Happiness is in your hands.' Eddie Jaku's life is witness to the truth that we must never forget our own humanity and the humanity of others. That is the ultimate lesson of the Holocaust.
Is the motion seconded?
I'm happy to second the motion moved by the member for Berowra. International Holocaust Remembrance Day on 27 January this year was significant for me personally. I want to take this moment to acknowledge the Treasurer, who reached out to me and asked if I'd be willing to pen a joint op-ed for the Fairfax papers on the significance of International Holocaust Remembrance Day. We did, and I'm very grateful that that was published. I take this opportunity to thank him for his generous approach, and, of course, the member for Berowra for putting forward this important motion. I will always stand with anyone on any side of this place—and I know those opposite have a similar view that it is not a matter of partisanship but a matter of what it is to be an Australian—to recognise the history, to recognise the fouls that happened and to commit ourselves to it never happening again.
I also take a moment to acknowledge the significant investment that the government has made recently in Holocaust education, not just in Melbourne and Sydney but in the ACT, Queensland and other parts of the country. I believe the ambition is to have some form of Holocaust education centre in every major capital city. I think that is a wonderful initiative, and we on this side of the House absolutely support that. It's so important because Australia has always stood in direct contrast to what happened in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. Australia and Melbourne, my home town, actually had some of the highest populations of Holocaust survivors in the world. People had fled persecution and found safety and security in the wonderful multicultural community that is Australia.
My grandmother was one of those people. She left Germany in October 1938, one week before the Kristallnacht. She eventually, via a very long boat trip via Canada, made her way to Melbourne, Australia—as far away as possible, on the other side of the planet, from the world she left behind. Unfortunately, the family that she left in Germany didn't escape. They were some of the first sent to Auschwitz in 1941. I am eternally grateful to this nation and this country for being a refuge, for being a safe place, for my grandmother and for the family she, like so many other survivors, was able to establish here in Australia.
I also take this opportunity to say that not only was there a contrast in Australia welcoming survivors but in the week after the Kristallnacht we had one of the only private protests against the treatment of Jewish people in 1938 by an Indigenous man, William Cooper, who the seat of Cooper is named after. Despite not even having the right to vote in Australia, he marched from Footscray to the German consulate to deliver a letter to the German government, protesting against the treatment of Jewish people on the other side of the world. It was a truly remarkable and selfless act, one that showed his commitment to human rights not just for his people but for all people around the world. That's what International Holocaust Remembrance Day is all about. It is not exclusively to mark the atrocities against the Jewish people. Crimes were committed based on people's religion, race, gender, sexuality and political views. The Nazi regime persecuted people based on things that people had no control over, things that people were born into. That, again, is in contrast to what we have in Australia.
The final point I would make on this debate in this place is to reaffirm Australia's commitment to the lessons of the Holocaust and to the lessons against persecution. Over summer, we saw in the Grampians, in my home state of Victoria, what I would describe as a display of confidence by Neo-Nazi figures in Victoria. They were so confident that they were able to show their true signs and their true colours, hypocritically waving the Australian flag while doing the sieg heil in the Grampians. I say to the House that there is nothing less Australian than pro-Neo-Nazi symbols and gatherings. Australians fought and died fighting the Nazi regime. We remain committed to learning the lessons of the Holocaust to make sure it never happens again.
It's a privilege to be able to speak on the motion moved by my good friend the member for Berowra. I want to congratulate him on his speech, and I also congratulate the member for Macnamara, despite our partisan differences. This is one of the issues that bring the whole chamber together. International Holocaust Remembrance Day is a day that should bring people together so that, to echo the sentiments of the previous speakers, we never forget and we never allow the repeat of history. I start that by acknowledging that you and I, Deputy Speaker Zimmerman, went to the memorial to the genocide in Armenia only a couple of years ago. It was because that genocide was forgotten and never got its full acknowledgement that crimes were able to be perpetuated throughout the 20th century. International Holocaust Remembrance Day is about reaffirming our commitment to never forgetting the crimes committed against the Jewish people and the many other minorities who were victims of the atrocities committed by the Nazi Party.
This is so critical for the electorate of Goldstein and the bordering electorate of Macnamara in particular. We share the majority of Melbourne's Jewish community. There are many Holocaust survivors in Macnamara, but much of the Jewish community sits in Goldstein as well. Whether directly or indirectly, people are touched by the legacy of the Holocaust. In fact, the Jewish Holocaust Centre, a Holocaust museum in Victoria, sits on our border, and I'm very proud that the Morrison government has contributed a significant amount of money—$10 million—to its ongoing development. A critical part of addressing the legacy of the Holocaust and keeping the memory of it alive, so that we never allow it to happen again, is making sure that young Australians are fully aware of the events that occurred—not just the human toll but the events that led up to it and the enculturation of bigotry and anti-Semitism that led to one of the greatest atrocities if human history. We can only ensure that it is never repeated if we keep the spirit of the people and their stories alive, because it was not a single act, though there were very important single acts in the process; it was a matter of what was tolerated. We can never allow such bigotry to find its home on our shores or anywhere else in the world. That's why we all carry a sense of responsibility to call it out—because, when we allow and tolerate such bigotry and we turn a blind eye to it, particularly in times of crisis or certain events, it can lead to it becoming a groundswell.
I've spoken in this chamber many times, along with other members, about the rise of anti-Semitism not just in Australia but around the world and how we cannot tolerate this. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry regularly produces reports highlighting the disturbing rise of anti-Semitism, including acts of violence, both verbal and physical, against schoolchildren in parts of our country, where rabbis or those of Orthodox Jewish faith face harassment unjustly within the community, sometimes when they are simply driving their car down the street, or the graffiti of school buses. But the role of standing up and making sure we remember International Holocaust Remembrance Day is also a burden and responsibility that we all share.
I was very proud just this year that Mrs Irma Hanner was provided an OAM for her service to the community, particularly through the Jewish Holocaust Centre in the Goldstein electorate. People like Irma are instrumental in ensuring the memory of the victims of the Holocaust lives on and highlight the importance of holocaust funding and education. I would hope we would celebrate with a bipartisan spirit, because it's when people's lives and stories are told that Australians get an idea of the lived experience and the legacy that occurred. It's only when we remember those stories vividly and with discussion that we can honour the memory of those lives lost. In the words of Holocaust survivor and author Elie Wiesel, 'To forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time.' That's why we say: never again.
Humanity 'could never fully understand the world of a survivor'—that's what Jewish Holocaust survivor Olga Horak told SBS News when she reflected on Nazi Germany's regime of persecution. She was imprisoned at Auschwitz and liberated 76 years ago. On this anniversary this year and here in this parliament Australia at this time marks International Holocaust Remembrance Day. I thank the previous speakers for their contribution and, in particular, the mover and seconder of the motion for bringing the parliament together for this important issue.
Even though we might live across the globe from where the atrocities took place, when we hear stories like Olga's they hit very close to home for all of us. There are holocaust survivors here in Australia and across the globe who every day must do battle with the horrors they have experienced, horrors that are terrible, unimaginable and uncomfortable for us who have never known that kind of suffering to hear about—but they must be heard. Six million Jews, along with other minorities, were killed during the murderous Nazi regime. At Auschwitz alone, more than a million people died. Mrs Horak describes the camp as 'the bottom of hell'. She says, 'It was easier to die than to live.'
More than seven decades after the atrocities committed against the Jewish community, we must do more to remember. I want to commend the federal, state and local governments in my home state of Queensland for committing crucial funds to establish the Queensland Holocaust Museum and Education Centre, announced by the minister, Stirling Hinchliffe, and supported by the Premier and Treasurer, Annastacia Palaszczuk and Cameron Dick, to ensure that the voices will be heard and the stories from this dark moment in history will be preserved. I thank the member for Macnamara for playing a constructive role in ensuring that this has become a reality in my home state. I want to recognise my great friend Jason Steinberg, the Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies vice-president, who has played a key role in ensuring that this project will go ahead.
We must have more uncomfortable conversations. We need to discuss and comprehend the horrors that those in our communities, their family members and their friends have gone through. Keeping those terrible memories alive is key to creating a more just and tolerant society and it is the best way for us to do justice and pay respect to those who went through such senseless suffering simply because of the way they chose to worship.
It's never been more imperative to mourn and mark the Holocaust. We're living through some unprecedented times and troubling moments in history, when anti-Semitic sentiments are, sadly, on the rise. Many of us caught glimpses of the disturbing anti-Semitic imagery displayed right across the world on clothing and flags in the 6 January riot in the US Capitol. Sadly, as we've heard today, this is not an isolated incident. Anti-Semitism is on the rise across the globe, and here in Australia we are not immune to the disturbing trend of dangerous and harmful historical revisionism. Anti-Semitic acts are occurring on our own soil, in our schools, universities, places of worship, businesses and in the dark recesses of the internet, where dangerous, false ideas can be shared and reinforced as facts. Sometimes it occurs in full public view, as we've heard from the member for Macnamara of his home state of Victoria, where a group of men were making Nazi salutes and shouting 'white power'.
This is the face of evil showing itself here in our backyard, and it's up to all of us to decide whether or not we will allow it. This is not free speech. This is not an argument that we have. This is abhorrent. We must condemn hatred in all its forms in the strongest possible terms. There is no responsible or acceptable reason to display a swastika. There is no acceptable reason to deny the Holocaust occurred. There is no acceptable reason to discriminate against a group of people based on their religious beliefs. We must take ownership of this and defend our country's tolerant and kind reputation.
Seventy-six years on from the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp, Australia remembers humanity's darkest hour. We will still stand with the Jewish community and we will continue to speak about the unspeakable so we will always remember the devastating consequences of ignorance and hate. We will never forget.
I wanted to begin by thanking the member for Berowra for moving this motion and thanking those opposite, including the members for Macnamara and Oxley, for speaking so passionately in support of it. This is indeed, as the member for Goldstein said, an issue that, thankfully, unites both sides of this chamber in shared abhorrence and repulsion not only of the events of the Holocaust but of some of its modern-day anti-Semitic manifestations.
International Holocaust Remembrance Day is the day that commemorates the liberation of Auschwitz in the closing stages of the Second World War. This year in January we commemorated the 76th anniversary of that. There are really two purposes to Holocaust Remembrance Day. One is the act of remembrance itself to honour the memory of the six million Jews and many millions of others who were systematically exterminated in an act of state sponsored genocide, whose lives were cut short and whose deaths continue to reverberate today. In absences in family trees, in lost relatives, in stories of migration their presence is still felt. The other purpose is a reaffirmation, firstly of the horror that took place in modern times, within the lifetimes and memories of people still with us today, but also to make sure that we never forget that and that we remain vigilant about combating the forces that gave rise to that awful atrocity and learn from it.
And this day does still echo with us. There are Holocaust survivors, of course, still with us here in Australia. I'm sure many of us have met them from time to time. They are remarkable individuals who obviously went through incredible trauma in their early lives but have nonetheless found an emotional centredness and a will to go on that has allowed them to park some of those memories they went through and lead purposeful lives. Many, of course, are helping contribute to educating people today about what the Holocaust was like and what they went through. But it also echoes with us because, unfortunately, we see alive and well today some of the bigotry, intolerance, extremism and dehumanisation that was really at the heart of the Holocaust. We see it around the world and I think, unfortunately, we do see it in Australia, whether it was the exhibition of far Right, anti-Semitic nationalists camping in the Grampians over the summer, as the member for Macnamara mentioned, whether it's the casual use of the swastika that we've seen in our electorates—I know the member for Berowra has seen that, and I've also seen it in my own electorate—or whether it's the language that's used at times to talk about other people and other faiths and to stereotype, castigate and dehumanise. Unfortunately, I think we still see that far too prevalent in our world today.
Australia, of course, took a large number of Holocaust survivors at the end of the Second World War. Our Jewish population effectively almost doubled, and I think on a per capita basis we took the most Holocaust survivors of anywhere in the world other than Israel. I recall from my time in Israel as the ambassador that something everyone there knew very well was our generosity and hospitality that was shown at that time. Jewish people had a very difficult time leaving Europe and finding a home elsewhere in the years before the war, and Australia has a chequered record there, but in the years afterwards Australia, thankfully, opened its doors and allowed people to resettle here. These Holocaust survivors have built some amazing things in Australia. They've built businesses. They've built family empires. They've risen to the highest offices in the land. Many of them are still with us. Many of them live in my electorate They built families and, often quite purposefully, had a large number of children in what can only be described, I think, as a response to those who tried to kill them and wipe them out. They've taken joy in the number of children and grandchildren they have and now, increasingly, in the number of great-grandchildren.
But I think these people, unfortunately, will soon no longer be with us, and this is why education is so important. I've been very pleased to see the money that has been put towards the Jewish and Holocaust museums announced recently in Queensland, in the ACT and in South Australia. Just a few weeks ago, I was able to visit the Sydney Jewish Museum, where they're doing a project to help remember for eternity some of these survivors by taking 3D footage of them. I will end with the words of Elie Wiesel:
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.
I thank the member for Berowra for moving this important motion, and I join him and other speakers in acknowledging the important of International Holocaust Remembrance Day and honouring the memory of all Holocaust victims and the survivors. 27 January was designated International Holocaust Remembrance Day by the UN because it was on this date in 1945 that Auschwitz-Birkenau was liberated by the Red Army. Located in German occupied Poland, Auschwitz was the largest Nazi concentration and death camp. I commend the ongoing efforts of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance to advance and promote Holocaust education and to ensure the history and the stories of its victims are passed on to successive generations. The alliance consists of 34 member countries, including Australia, which recognise that international political coordination is imperative to combating the growing scourge and threat of Holocaust denial.
Its work seems particularly important right now in the face of a concerning rise of far Right extremist sentiment in Australia and ongoing attempts by modern Nazis to deny the truth of the Holocaust. Late last year, ASIO told the parliament that far Right violent extremism constitutes up to 40 per cent of its counterterrorism case load. That is a threefold to fourfold increase on 2016. ASIO also warned that COVID-19 has created a greater opportunity for far Right extremists to recruit online, exploiting the pandemic to drive vicious antigovernment messages at those who resent lockdowns and measures such as orders to wear masks and socially distance. As we have seen from some of the protests at these measures, these people can organise quickly, and many are not the brutish skinheads that we have previously associated with such extremism but ordinary-looking Aussies, radicalised, angry and receptive to disinformation. ASIO's 2019-20 annual report noted that extreme right-wing groups in Australia remain an enduring threat.
Over the Australia Day long weekend, as previous speakers have mentioned—in particular the member for Macnamara—we learned of disturbing reports of a large group of self-described white supremacists camping in the Grampians National Park. They're proud of it. They're proud of being called white supremacists. Witnesses reported that the men could be heard chanting white power slogans when in town and that they were displaying signs that read 'Australia for the white man'. I can only imagine how it would have felt for Australians of Asian, Jewish or Muslim heritage to have been in the vicinity of such naked hatred in 21st-century Australia. The extremism is real, and it is a threat to both community safety and national security. It is not enough to remember the Holocaust and be horrified by it. We must learn from it. We must especially learn from the conditions that gave rise to it, in order to ensure that it never happens again.
Last year Labor proposed a parliamentary inquiry into far Right extremism in Australia. The government agreed to our proposal and referred an inquiry to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. A key focus of the committee's inquiry will be to examine the nature and extent of the threat posed by right-wing extremists in Australia, with a focus on their motivations, objectives and capacity for violence. The committee will also consider changes that can be made to Australia's counterterrorism strategy in relation to preventing radicalisation to extremist views, including further steps that the federal government could take to disrupt and deter hate speech, as well as the role of social media, encrypted communications platforms and the dark web in allowing extremists to communicate and organise. The work of the committee will be crucial.
The Holocaust did not suddenly appear out of nowhere. It was the end result of years of chipping away at a sophisticated cosmopolitan country's social fabric, and it took less than 20 years. This period saw newspaper cartoons and politicians directing derision towards particular segments of the community, and apathy among the general population and political class to the emerging threat. It saw the growth of armed militias, the political class dismissing extreme rhetoric as political theatre, and the destruction of property. It saw voters rationalise that, while they didn't agree with the racism, the Nazis deserved support because they would bring order and discipline. It saw the changing of laws to codify discrimination and the forced movement of people into enclaves and ghettos, and at the end, after humanity and identity had been stripped away, it saw the bureaucratic and deliberate murder of millions. I urge all members to follow @AuschwitzMuseum on Twitter. Every day you will receive a tweet telling you a short story about a human being who entered the gate, the vast majority of whom never left. We must never forget—never again.
I want to begin by thanking the member for Berowra for moving this motion, and I thank all members on both sides who have spoken today in marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which was on 27 January this year. While World War II ended more than 75 years ago, the deep trauma of the Holocaust continues to ripple through the generations that have followed. It is essential that we never forget what occurred during the Holocaust. We must pause to remember the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. What occurred during this regime reflects the very worst of human nature. It reminds us how easy it is to sow seeds of division and discrimination, and what these seeds can grow into. We must reaffirm our promise to never forget the six million Jews and 11 million others, including people with intellectual disabilities, political prisoners, Serbs, Poles and Soviet citizens, who were killed during the Holocaust. International Holocaust Remembrance Day compels us to keep the memory of those who were persecuted under the Nazi regime, but it also moves us to reflect on the darkness still around us today. It is not enough to just remember the victims. We as a government must take action to ensure the protection of human rights and the security of citizens, no matter their race, religion, disability or sexual orientation. We must continue to combat extremist ideologies which threaten harm to others. We must ensure that the rhetoric and beliefs that fuel genocide are stamped out.
Altogether, more than 31,000 Holocaust survivors rebuilt their devastated lives in Australia. My children's grandfather, Dr Frank Martin, is a Holocaust survivor who came to this country as a young child. It was in this country that Frank Martin made significant strides for his family and his community, becoming a father, a grandfather, a world-renowned paediatric ophthalmologist and outstanding citizen. It is not surprising that Australia welcomed one of the largest numbers of Holocaust victims. In fact, Australia has the largest per-capita Holocaust survivor population outside of Israel. It was here that survivors carved out a place of safety and healing, contributing much to our nation's understanding of the Holocaust but also contributing to a powerful social movement of unity and cohesion. It is the examples of their lives as migrants in our communities that remind us of the strength we have when we focus on what unites us, not what divides us.
The Morrison government is committed to supporting Holocaust museums in each state and territory in Australia, with the most recent museum announced in the ACT on International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Our government has pledged $750,000 towards the establishment of this new Holocaust museum. It is important that our nation's capital houses a place that promotes tolerance and understanding while combatting racism and anti-Semitism. As there are fewer survivors to give testimony about their experiences, it is all the more important that these records and stories are recorded and shared. We must ensure that the voices of victims and survivors remain alive so that these stories can start conversations and inspire change for the future. Our Holocaust museums play an integral part in preserving these stories. I can speak highly of the Sydney Jewish Museum in my own state, which continues to educate future generations and give a voice to victims and survivors. The museum carries a mission to challenge visitors' perceptions of morality, social justice, democracy and human rights. These are the values that we, as a government, strive to protect and uphold as well. In remembering those who suffered during the Holocaust and by supporting these institutions of remembrance, we reaffirm the need to protect morality, social justice, democracy and human rights going forward so that these atrocities are never repeated again.
I, too, would like to commend the member for Berowra for moving this motion, and the member for Macnamara for seconding it, calling for this remembrance to be acknowledged here in the parliament. It was one of the most atrocious periods in history, and we must learn from the past. Commemorating and ensuring that we recognise 27 January, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, is so important, especially in today's political climate. It's just as important today as it was at the end of World War II. When we look around the world we see the rise of right-wing extremism taking place in many parts of the world—the rise of anti-Semitism, racism and hate speech—and we don't have to look too far. Just look at what took place on 6 January in the US. It's a reminder that days like International Holocaust Remembrance Day are more important than ever.
Last year, it was my pleasure to speak in this place about the official opening of the Adelaide Holocaust Museum and Andrew Steiner Education Centre in my own electorate. I couldn't attend, because we were sitting here in the parliament, as it fell on a sitting week, but I felt compelled to talk about the important new institution in the electorate. I've also heard of many others around the country. I'd like to again commend Andrew Steiner and the entire South Australian Jewish community and its supporters for working so hard to make this dream a reality. The museum will serve as a reminder of the atrocities of the Nazi regime. It will remind people that we have a role to play in ensuring that it never happens again.
Today I'm also reminded of the history of the Jewish population in my parent's homeland, in Greece. Before World War II, the city of Salonika had the largest Jewish community in Greece, with over 50,000 people. It was one of the biggest communities. They lived in harmony, side by side, with different religions and different communities. At the time of the German occupation—within a week of that occupation—the Germans arrested the Jewish leadership and evicted hundreds of Jewish families from their homes. Over 45,000 were deported from Salonica to Auschwitz. Most never returned—the majority did not return. Some of the survivors ended up here in Australia, like my good friend Philip Dalidakis, who was a minister in the Victorian government. He is a descendant of those people and still has a close tie to Salonica. We've visited Greece together on a number of occasions. I remind people in this place that those events during World War II were just one example of the many atrocities that took place around Europe at the time and of the suffering that occurred.
I also want to remind people about the rise to prominence of Neo-Nazi parties across the world. In Greece there was a party called Golden Dawn—it was nothing other than a Nazi party. Their leader said that the Holocaust was nothing but a conspiracy theory, yet these people, in the economic crisis that took place in 2010, found fertile ground for the rise in popularity of that particular party. In the election in 2009, they had fewer than 20,000 votes across the country; the following election, they picked up seven per cent of the vote and 18 members of parliament. This is a Neo-Nazi party in the centre of Europe, in a country that felt the full atrocities of the Nazis between 1939 and 1945. It shows how easily, if we let this go, these right-wing movements can take place. I'm very pleased that the courts of Athens found them to be a criminal organisation not that long ago and disbanded them, but the worrying thing is that they have a branch here in Australia, which is still operating. I've asked the Attorney-General to have a look at it.
But, if parties like Golden Dawn can make such inroads—as I said—in a country that suffered under Nazism, it reminds us that anti-Semitism and racial and religious hatred should not be tolerated and that we must call them out and stamp them out immediately.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (11:17): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that 8 March 2021 is International Women's Day and acknowledges the immense contribution Australian women have made during the COVID-19 pandemic, as frontline workers, as parents, and as community members;
(2) expresses concern that the decisions the Government has taken are making things worse for hardworking Australian women and have set too many women on a path to poverty by:
(a) using the pandemic as cover to give businesses more power to cut the pay of Australian workers;
(b) abandoning women in insecure and casual work; and
(c) robbing women of a comfortable retirement by making people eat into their superannuation savings to get by;
(3) further notes that this is no way to thank the women whose commitment at home, in the community, and at work has got us through the pandemic; and
(4) calls on the Government to deliver a COVID-19 response and economic plan that benefits all Australians.
This motion notes that we are approaching 8 March, International Women's Day. It's a day where we celebrate the social, economic and cultural contribution of women around the world. This year, after all we've experienced, that contribution feels particularly significant.
When 15,000 women marched in New York in 1908—considered the beginning of International Women's Day—they were demanding voting rights, as well as shorter hours and better pay. From that march grew an international movement that continues to demand equality for women: economic equality, political equality and social equality. Indeed, this this year's theme is 'Achieving an Equal Future in a COVID-19 World'. It's about honouring:
… the tremendous efforts by women and girls around the world in shaping a more equal … recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
It's a vision that we share in the Labor Party, but greater equality is not inevitable; it must be fought for.
The past 12 months have been confronting for everyone, but women have shouldered an enormous burden during this pandemic. Much of the frontline work has been done by women. Women have lost jobs at a greater rate than men, and women have lost more hours of work than men. We've had women in caring professions putting their health and their safety on the line, in the front line, for other Australians. We've had women in schools shifting their practice overnight and making sure our kids kept learning as the rest of their lives were tipped on their heads. We've had women cleaning the nation's offices, hospitals, schools, shopping centres, public transport and other public places, fighting the pandemic on low pay and in insecure work. We've had women in tourism, hospitality and retail—sectors hit so hard by the lockdowns. We've had women in our homes, guiding their families through the disruption of a lifetime. Both men and women have increased their hours of domestic labour during the lockdown, but women, of course, have increased their hours much more. It's been a massive, often risky, often heroic contribution, and we in the Labor party honour it. Women will be critical to the recovery too. This is where our choices will make our society and economy more, or less, equal as we begin the road to recovery.
This is where the government is going wrong: with an industrial relations bill that cuts pay and makes it easier to sack people, particularly low paid and vulnerable workers. We know that women, when they rely on award payments, have been very severely affected by changes to the industrial relations regime under those opposite. We see a broken promise on superannuation when we already know that women are retiring with about half of the superannuation savings of men, as the shadow minister continues to point out. This is particularly bad as we know that older single women are the fastest-growing group of people going into homelessness. Just last week we saw the abolition of the Family Court because of a shameful deal done with One Nation. We know that specialist services that are informed by people who are expert in dealing with domestic violence are absolutely critical for families at these very difficult times. So that's the Liberals' promise: lower wages, less security and less safety through our legal system.
Labor has a different agenda for the economic recovery. It is one that recognises that, until wages start rising again, people won't be confident to spend to create jobs for others. It is one that identifies the growing epidemic of job insecurity and has a plan to create good, permanent work. It is one that makes child care affordable for working families and one that invests in dignified aged care and provides better retirement incomes. That's how we honour women's contribution, that's how we drive our recovery and that's how we build a better, fairer country for all Australians.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I rise to speak to this motion and highlight some inspiring women in my electorate of Mallee ahead of International Women's Day. There have been inspirational stories of women in leadership from all over Australia throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. There are some outstanding ones in Mallee.
Di Thornton is a nurse practitioner from Murrayville who owns and operates Mallee Border Health Centre in Pinnaroo, South Australia. She was forced to close her clinic in South Australia when border restrictions first began last year, resulting in her and her staff being unable to go to work in South Australia from their border town in Victoria. After finally receiving an exemption to continue her essential service, Di was able to reopen her clinic in Pinnaroo. Since then, Di has worked tirelessly to provide thousands of COVID tests to members of her cross-border community who have been dealt blow after blow due to ongoing restrictions and border closures.
When border closures were in full effect, cross-border community members were required to be COVID tested every seven days for almost 20 weeks. The mammoth effort of health practitioners such Di and her team has been vital to supporting the needs of our rural communities along the border.
I've also been working with Paula Gust from Apsley. When South Australia closed their border to Victoria, Paula saw firsthand the terrible outcomes these restrictions were causing in her community. She started a Facebook page called 'Cross Border Call Out' to highlight the effect these restrictions were having on families, businesses and communities. Paula saw the need for clear and concise communication for cross-border community members. There was so much information coming from both sides of the border, but 'Cross Border Call Out' stayed on top of every message and passed them on to their followers. The page now has over 5,000 likes and continues to grow.
The Morrison-McCormack government understands women's issues and has provided several means to support women throughout the pandemic. The JobKeeper payment has supported countless women to continue operating their businesses and to remain employed. Tara Ridley owns and operates The Office wine bar in Mildura. As with many other hospitality businesses, she was forced to close her doors when restrictions were first introduced in country Victoria. Tara told me that JobKeeper saved her business. She was able to retain full-time employees, who didn't need to look elsewhere for employment during the restrictions and many of whom are also women. Tania Hovenden from Swan Hill has a similar story. Tania told me her business, Tan's Tuckerbox, would be closed without JobKeeper. She's been able to retain two of her staff and is confident in her ability to trade out of this downturn.
When the pandemic first hit, this government acted swiftly and decisively to provide additional support for domestic and family violence services. In 2020 we delivered a $150 million domestic violence response package. This was in addition to the $340 million investment in the fourth action plan. Also, $30 million was provided to the Victorian government to assist in their response to the COVID pandemic. This was to provide targeted support for family and domestic violence and to provide frontline services which were topped up through the pandemic. The government continued supporting women in the 2021 Commonwealth budget with the Women's Economic Security Statement. This is a $240 million commitment over five years. It aims to repair and rebuild women's workforce participation and, further, to close the gender pay gaps. It will also provide greater choice and flexibilities for families to manage work and care, support women as leaders and role models, respond to the diverse needs of women and support women to be safe at work and at home.
Women and families will be supported further through this government's ongoing commitment to affordable child care. In 2021 the government will pay approximately $9 billion in childcare subsidy payments. We know that access to child care is a key element of women's workforce participation. Our childcare package supported families during all-time-high women's workforce participation—61.5 per cent—in January 2020. The Commonwealth government is delivering a COVID-19 response and economic plan that is benefiting not just women but all Australians.
Child care, aged care, teaching, nursing and retail: these are all sectors most severely impacted by COVID. Sadly, these industries are dominated by women. And I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised, because one thing we have learnt through COVID is that this virus has a way of exposing flaws in our system and ratcheting up tensions. I'm not surprised, because we've always known that the Australian economy and the Morrison government undervalue female dominated professions in the care economy, in teaching and in frontline retail. So this House should not be surprised that, through COVID, it is women who have been asked to do more and expect less through the most critical national challenge.
I rise to fiercely support this private member's motion and thank the shadow minister for women for bringing this motion on. I regularly door-knock in my electorate of Corangamite to ensure I'm connected with the concerns and needs of my community. As I knock on doors, many people share their challenging stories with me. Perhaps one of the most challenging was from Sarah, who I interrupted while she was on the phone to a local charity. Sarah had lost her job while raising three children on her own and was facing forced rehousing or perhaps homelessness. Her plight, exacerbated by COVID, reveals just how damaging our system can be for women who are vulnerable or just need support to get ahead, raise their children and have hope for the future.
Many of my female constituents have spoken to me about our childcare system and how it doesn't work for them. One of them was Pawandeep, a mother of two who expressed her frustration that, because child care was so expensive, it didn't make sense for her to work extra days in aged care through the pandemic. Through coronavirus, Pawandeep was trying to get more time on the front line to play a vital role in caring for our elderly and most vulnerable. Instead, due to this government's prohibitively expensive childcare system, Pawandeep could not afford to step up. Her story is not an isolated one. Women regularly encounter these obstacles in their working lives. They undertake greater caring responsibilities while working and are often expected to take time out of their careers to care for children and parents.
Women also suffer from a real and sustained pay gap. As a result the average retirement balance is about $280,000 for men and about $160,000 for women. If current settings are extended to maturity, the median balance on retirement will be about $630,000 for men and about only $310,000 for women. This stark contrast reveals just how many women are vulnerable in retirement. And why? Because they care for others.
The government's plan to rectify this is to change the rules so that people are likely to end up with lower super balance in retirement. Even worse, this government is unable or unwilling to address the pay gap or superannuation during maternity leave. But wait, there's more; the government also wants Australians to take a pay cut so that the Liberal Party's donor mates can take home a bigger share of what we make. It will be women in retail and caring industries who continue to carry the unfair burden.
Last International Women's Day the Minister for Women observed:
When women and girls feel safe and valued, they are free to pursue their potential.
Nothing could be more true. But the problem with the Morrison government is that it is doing nothing to empower and support women. The government has sung the praises of women's contributions across the past 12 months, but, as always, the government's talk doesn't match its actions. It's all spin, no substance.
The government say they believe in people having a go to get a go. But they hold women back from working by pricing them out of child care. They refuse to address the pay gap when women are at work. They do nothing to address the disparity in retirement super between men and women. The government say they believe in equity, but they don't fight for it. They certainly do not have a plan. Instead, women who contact my office often feel vulnerable and unsupported. The shadow minister for women has made herself a workhorse for advancing women's status and wellbeing in this country. The Morrison government must do better or step aside and put in a government who will.
I rise today to acknowledge the women of Australia's contribution during COVID as frontline workers and parents, as a mark of respect for International Women's Day on 8 March. It is no secret that women have been hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Australian women made up the majority of those who lost their jobs through this crisis, largely as a consequence of women still dominating industries such as accommodation, food services and retail. These were the sectors most hard hit because of social-distancing measures and lockdowns, particularly in Victoria. Women have also borne the brunt of caring and schooling for their children through lockdown. It really has been an extraordinary juggle. As the health restrictions have eased, these jobs have started to come back with relish. Of the 458,000 jobs created since May, 60 per cent are now filled by women. Challenges do remain. The Morrison government is determined to see female workforce participation reach its pre-COVID-19 record high.
I'm proud to have advocated for the 2020 budget Women's Economic Security Statement, the second presentation of this statement, with $240 million in measures and programs to support a number of issues: new cadetships and apprenticeships for women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics; job creation and entrepreneurialism; and women's safety at home and at work. We've also provided record support for child care through the COVID pandemic and onwards. The 2020 Women's Economic Security Statement will create more opportunities and choices for women not just for the recovery but for generations to come.
The Morrison government is guided by the belief that a robust economy is grounded in an education system that develops job-ready graduates, with free enterprise enabling individuals to realise their aspirations. Already we've seen evidence of this. I held an inaugural Women in Business forum in Higgins, with both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, with amazing women kicking business goals.
The Morrison government's JobKeeper program and other strong economic support measures have kept women in jobs, businesses in business and families afloat. But it's about more than support through the COVID crisis; it's about a plan for the future. One key element of the COVID recovery will be modern manufacturing. We've seen how critical manufacturing is to the modern Australian economy. It plays a key role in almost every supply chain and adds significant value to all sectors. These are jobs women can embrace with enthusiasm. We are not talking about old manufacturing, with men in blue overalls bending metal; we're talking about more complex, high-value-add manufacturing such as research and development, design, logistics and services. We're talking about industries such as food and beverage, medical products, recycling and clean energy, defence and space. These are sectors that women are embracing with enthusiasm.
Amongst other things, this will rely heavily on the use of science and technology—think artificial intelligence, blockchain and cybersecurity—to improve practices and processes for manufacturers. These are jobs where women can enjoy pay parity with men. I'm particularly keen to see women leading this modern manufacturing revolution, and so too is the Morrison government, with sizeable investments targeted at women in STEM. This includes $25 million for the Women in STEM Cadetships and Advanced Apprenticeships Program to create STEM career pathways for up to 500 women through industry sponsored advanced apprenticeship-style courses.
There are more women in the construction and engineering sectors than ever before. More than 14,000 female apprentices and women have already benefited from the Morrison government's $2.8 billion supporting apprenticeships and trainees wage subsidy. The $1.2 billion commitment to the new boosting apprenticeship commencements wage subsidy, which subsidises employers to take on new apprentices, will also greatly benefit women. Likewise, we're supporting greater participation and outcomes for women in vocational education and training through the $585 million Delivering Skills for Today and Tomorrow package.
The member for Sydney clearly subscribes to an outdated view of women in the workforce. As we re-imagine the Australian economy as part of our post-COVID pandemic recovery, we should also re-imagine the role of women in our workforce. We on this side understand that, when we help women we do well, their families do well, our economy does well and Australia prospers.
The member for Higgins just suggested that the member for Sydney subscribes to an outdated concept of women in the workforce. If standing up and fighting for women to have equal pay and equal rights in the workforce is old-fashioned, then I'm pretty happy to be old-fashioned as well. What the member for Sydney said in her contribution was that equality can't be taken for granted; it must be fought for. I represent an electorate named after a woman called Louisa Dunkley, who, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, subscribed to exactly that belief: equality can't be taken for granted; it must be fought for. She fought for equal pay for women in the post and telegraph office, and she achieved it. Sadly, 120 years after she achieved that equal pay, there is still so much more to be fought for.
COVID-19 has left women not just in Australia but around the world in a position where many of those gains that have been so hard fought for are in real danger of being lost. Countries around the world know this. The United Nations knows this. We're in real danger of being led by a government who not only doesn't know this but won't do anything about it when it's pointed out to them. Australian women could be facing a future which is worse than the past, not just in the short term but in the long term.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, recently said, 'COVID-19 could reverse the limited progress that has been made on gender equality and women's rights', and therefore launched a report recommending 'ways to put women's leadership and contributions at the heart of resilience and recovery'. Some of the really disturbing events in Australian politics and this parliament of the last week have shone a spotlight yet again on the lack of women's leadership in Australian politics and the dangerous culture that that allows to exist.
Australia's global ranking for the proportion of women in the lower house of the national parliament fell from a high of 32nd place in January 2010, under Labor, to 48th place in 2019—32nd place isn't good enough for a country like Australia, but 48th place in the world is just embarrassing. The OECD data shows that Australia fell in the global rankings for the proportion of women serving as ministers from 22nd in 2012 to 33rd in 2019. Following the 2019 election, when I was so proud to be elected, along with a number of other strong Labor women, only 23 per cent of the entire coalition party room are women—and that's good for the coalition—whereas in Labor we're at half, and it makes a difference. Women's leadership makes a difference.
One of the reasons, I suggest, that the Morrison government's response to COVID has almost ignored the impact of COVID on women is that they don't have enough women's voices around the table. It's not good enough to just have people who see women as their mothers, their sisters and their daughters. We need actual women around decision-making tables so that our voices can be heard.
Gender Equity Victoria recently released a report and submissions for the Victorian budget which noted that in Victoria, as in the rest of the country, because of COVID-19 women have experienced higher unemployment rates. They've had less access to JobKeeper, greater responsibility for caring and unpaid work, and poorer mental health outcomes. But, as Per Capita noted last year, this federal government's stimulus responses concentrated on industries with high concentrations of men, particularly the construction industry, and ignored the caring economy, where women are predominantly employed. This government can't keep on representing half of the community and forgetting the other half of the community any time, particularly when that other half of the community, women, are the ones who are hurt the most.
In March every year we mark International Women's Day, the day to celebrate women. It's a day to acknowledge the immense contribution women make to our economy, our society and our lives. It's a day to recognise how far we've come. Once women couldn't vote, and now we're leading countries. We once faced restrictions on where we worked, and now we're running corporations. We have rights our grandmothers could only have dreamed about, yet we still don't have complete equality. Whilst it's important to recognise how far we've come, it's clear to see how far we still must go.
This has been particularly evident over the past week as we've looked around this place and listened to the stories of women and their experiences here—stories like that of Brittany Higgins. I want to say to Brittany: you have shown enormous courage over the past week and, indeed, over the past few years. What happened to you shouldn't have happened; it's as simple as that. Your bravery will give other women courage and make this a safer workplace for all, and you are leading change for the better so that every woman can feel safe in their workplace. This is every woman's right inside these four walls and outside of this place.
We must do better because our lives depend on it. The World Economic Forum's 2020 global gender index ranks Australia 44th out of 153 countries. Australia has dropped five places in the last two years alone. If we look back at 2006, Australia was ranked 15th. The statistics are sobering—87,000 women are killed every year just because they are women. Of those, 50,000 are killed by their male partners or family members. And these are only the deaths we know about. In 111 countries there are no repercussions when husbands rape their wives and 2.7 billion women are legally restricted from having the same choice of jobs as men. Fourteen per cent is the size of Australia's gender pay gap. As of May 2020, a woman's average weekly ordinary full-time earnings across all industries and occupations was $1,558.40 compared to men's average weekly ordinary full-time earnings of $1,812. Forty-five countries do not have specific laws against domestic violence and 35 per cent of women globally have experienced sexual or physical violence.
As I said, we must do better because our lives depend on it. It's incumbent upon us as leaders of this nation to lead that change and to call out gender bias and inequality where and when we see it. As the first ever female member for Eden-Monaro, this is something I am incredibly committed to doing. I know that I'm backed up by my sisters across the electorate, who are working every single day to lead this change. They are strong women, like Chris Walters and Danielle Murphy at the Cobargo Bushfire Relief Centre, who have been working tirelessly, serving their community as it recovers from the Black Summer bushfires. They are strong women, like Christine Welsh from the Sapphire Community Pantry, who dedicates her life to helping others in community with their basic needs—like food. They are strong women, like Tarni Evans, GWS AFLW player. She has played for both the Tathra Sea Eagles and the Queanbeyan Tigers, leading the field in her chosen sport and changing attitudes along the way. They are strong women, like Queanbeyan's Justine Brown, a proud Ngunnawal woman, an Aboriginal health worker with Grand Pacific Health and the business brain and passion behind Mulleun Dreaming. They are people like Zoe Joseph from the Bombala Chamber of Commerce, a dynamo of change for her community and the business brains behind S.H.E Change, a female empowerment program. And they are business leaders, like Jane Cay from Birdnest in Cooma, who runs one of the most successful retail businesses in this country.
These women are out in our communities and leading the way every day of the year, not just on International Women's Day. They did this important work before the pandemic and they'll continue to do it post pandemic. But it's important to recognise the heavy burden women are carrying in relation to COVID-19. As frontline workers, as parents and as community members, more women have lost their jobs, more women have lost their hours, more women have been exposed to the virus and women have an increased risk of family and domestic violence. I know that the Labor Party, a party of equal representation, will continue to call on the government to deliver a COVID-19 response and economic plan that benefits all Australians.
It's with great pleasure that I rise to contribute to this debate today on the private member's motion from the member for Sydney recognising International Women's Day. Of course, it will be on 8 March whilst this parliament is not in session, regretfully, but it is important that this House acknowledges the immense contribution that Australian women have made during COVID-19, particularly as frontline workers but also as parents and community members.
When each of us reflects on the lessons learned from COVID-19, one of those lessons indeed was just how vulnerable women in terribly insecure work are, even though they were in the most important jobs that this nation relied on during the COVID-19 pandemic. I'm thinking of those women who were working in our early childhood education sector, for example. They felt the brunt of this pandemic immediately. These are women who we rely on entirely to educate the next generation of Australian kids and yet they were the very first group to lose support from this government. Let's not forget that fact: when JobSeeker and JobKeeper first started getting pulled it was women in insecure jobs in early education who got dudded first.
Let's also not forget that early reports have indicated there were shocking increases in domestic violence for women who found themselves in lockdown with their perpetrators 24/7. For a long time we had no line of sight of what was happening for those women and families, but all of the early reports, particularly those coming out of Victoria, have shocking indications of not just what has happened during COVID but the terrible increase in the number of women reporting domestic and family violence for the first time ever. The long-term implications of that are yet to be felt by the nation, but we know that, whenever you have women and children in an unsafe situation, it has long-lasting physical and mental health implications. Time and time again this government fails to grapple with this.
We know there's going to need to be some renewed focus to ensure that there is better support for women and children in domestic and family violence and for those trying to flee those situations and to ensure that they are given every opportunity to not just join the ranks of other insecure casual workers when they're seeking to earn their livelihood to support their children. If they choose to leave at this time, they are looking at the JobSeeker rate being cut again at the end of this month. We've already heard women demonstrate clearly the need for an increase in the JobSeeker rate in order to provide a safe and decent place for their kids to live when they are fleeing violence. The supplement has made an extraordinary difference. Many of the women I have spoken to in the last few months who are looking down the barrel of losing the additional $150 supplement are very worried about what's going to happen.
I am deeply concerned for all of the young women who have cleaned out their superannuation accounts. They took $10,000 last financial year and $10,000 this financial year and they have zero dollars. We know that that will cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars when it comes to their retirement. In this nation, in terms of retirement income, women are already woefully behind Australian men, but this government, by enabling the clean-out of those superannuation accounts, has chosen to put those women further behind, and they have no hope in hell of ever catching up.
I thank the member for Sydney for bringing before the House this motion on women and COVID-19. I thank all members of the House—mostly Labor members of the House—who have spoken on this matter for their contribution to this important debate.
Issues of economic security and personal safety have been very much in the public discussion over the last week. The behaviour of those of us who work in this place has been placed under scrutiny. Often we come to this House somewhat in the manner of people who are lecturing to the rest of the country about how they should organise their workplaces, how they should organise their business and perhaps how they should organise their personal life. I think the events of the last fortnight have made it very clear that, if we're to have any credibility on what we're saying to the rest of Australia, we have to start with our own selves and our own behaviour. I know I speak on behalf of an overwhelming number of people in this place when I say that we have to do better. Yes, we have to improve the culture of this place, but we also have to make substantial improvements in substance, particularly in the way that we're legislating, in terms of the impact on the way that women live their lives.
A number of contributors to this debate touched on the issue of superannuation, a matter close to my heart. Superannuation, of course, is how we save a little bit of money each week to ensure that as Australians we can retire with a greater sense of economic security and with a greater sense of dignity. As the member for Hunter and the member for Sydney have pointed out in their contributions, women are falling further and further and further behind. As of today, the average Australian woman retires with $120,000 in her retirement savings. The average male retires with $183,000 in his superannuation account. Just to put that into context, let's deal with the average female worker. A hundred and twenty thousand dollars is less than the Prime Minister will accrue in two years. Let me say that again: the Prime Minister will accrue more superannuation in two years than the average Australian woman will retire with after her entire working life. We've got a job of work to do. How can we as parliamentarians say 9½ per cent is enough for the women of Australia when we know that, over a term of parliament, we will accrue more superannuation than most women are retiring with? So, yes, we have to work on the culture, but we also have to work on so many of the bills that we put before this place that have a direct impact on the economic livelihoods of the women of this country.
The member for Hunter has also pointed out the alarming statistic about the growing number of Australian women who are retiring in poverty. There's a silent crisis going on in this country. One in five Australians over the age of 55 are jobless. I'll say that again: one in five Australians over the age of 55 are jobless—unemployed, on the carers benefit or on a disability support pension. They're invisible. We don't talk about them. We certainly don't deal with their issues when it comes to the legislation that comes before this House—not in superannuation, not in job support and getting them back into the workplace, and certainly not with a proposition that says, 'If you're jobless, in a few weeks time we're going to cut your income support down to $40 a day.'
We've got a lot more that needs to be done if we're going to create greater equality for this group of women. One in three women over the age of 55 are living in poverty—one in three. But we're not talking about it. The motion that the member for Sydney brings before the House today deals with International Women's Day, but it is something that we should be considering each and every day as legislators. Yes, of course we've got to improve the culture in this place. Yes, of course we've got to ensure that this workplace stands out as a beacon to every other workplace in the country, as a place where women can feel confident, comfortable and safe in their workplace. But we need to do much more than that as well. We need to ensure that women retire with dignity and that throughout their working lives they're not discriminated against in their pay or how they're treated within their workplace. Unless we can do this, no nation on International Women's Day is going to elevate women to the level of equality that they so deserve.
Thank you to the member for Sydney for this very important motion, and thanks to everyone for their contributions today. With the one minute remaining in this session, I just want to acknowledge that, while all the contributions have been fabulous, a number of them have focused on domestic violence. I think I can speak on behalf of all members of this House in saying that violence in any way, shape or form is not acceptable when it comes to women and families, but in the home it must be incredibly upsetting, and it's incredibly challenging. At Christmas time, I don't send Christmas cards. The money that I save by not sending Christmas cards I donate to those centres that are supporting women in that terrible time of the year at Christmas. Sometimes we call them pamper packs. Sometimes it's as much as going out and buying 200 pairs of underwear in all shapes and sizes, as you can imagine. With the time remaining, I just want to thank those people who are out there looking after the most vulnerable in our community. You do an outstanding job, and we thank you.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I'm pleased to rise again to finish my contribution on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. As has been already said by members, including the member for Watson, we have grave concerns with this bill. I will come back to them in a second. I want to make the point that we start this new sitting week again with debate on this fair work amendment bill. We start again and resume debate just as we finished last week. I tell you what bill we're not debating, though—the Clean Energy Finance Corporation bill. The member for New England brought in an amendment to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation bill that was meant to be on last week's schedule. That then forced the government to pull that bill, which forced them to then bring this bill back onto the schedule. We should have been debating the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill, but we're not, because the wreckers in the National Party put forward their amendment which clearly the government doesn't want to debate. Clearly the government doesn't want to talk about—
Order! Under the standing orders, you have to restrict your issues to the bill before the House.
I understand. I appreciate that. Because of those reasons, we are now coming back to the fair work amendment bill. I remember at the start of the pandemic we had a conciliatory federal government. We had a federal government that set up national processes, like the national cabinet, to work with the state and territory governments. That was, of course, before the federal government started issuing snarky press statements about the restrictions enacted and decisions made by the Victorian government during the pandemic—but I digress. We had a federal government that was collaborative with other governments and even collaborative with the union movement. We were promised by this Attorney-General that we were going to see a modern-day, accords-style collaboration with businesses and unions, bringing them all together because the times demanded it, because COVID demanded that business, government and the unions work together.
What did this Attorney-General do? He brought everyone into the same room. He brought business into the same room. He sent some text messages to the ACTU. But of course he ignored all of the suggestions that the ACTU put on the table. This Attorney-General has nothing on the accords of the eighties. This Attorney-General is not bringing businesses and unions together and finding common ground. This Attorney-General is doing everything based on appearances and then ignoring the very concerns and requests of working Australians.
What do we see as a result? We see this bill. We see this fair work amendment bill that is going to weaken bargaining agreements, cut wages and force workers to be in a weaker negotiating position when bargaining their enterprise agreements. The other thing it's going to do is override already strong wage theft laws that exist in specific jurisdictions, including Victoria and Queensland. This bill is going to override the wage theft laws that currently exist in those states after those state governments introduced and passed hard-fought-for legislation to help make sure that businesses couldn't rob workers of the entitlements they are due. This bill is going to override those pieces of legislation and introduce a weakened framework.
We on this side of the House say no. We're not about making it harder for workers to negotiate, to be protected in the workplace and to be protected at the bargaining table. We on this side of the House believe that those workers who have been in casual and insecure work throughout this pandemic, forced to go back to work even in risky circumstances, have been the heroes of this pandemic. It doesn't matter whether they're stacking supermarket shelves, driving food or working in one of our care and services industries; these people are Australian heroes. They are doing good and noble work. We want an industrial framework to keep up with the evolution of the Australian economy. We want to make sure Australian workers are protected by strong industrial relations frameworks in their workplaces that are going to make sure they have a seat at the table, good bargaining power and a right to negotiate to protect themselves against the wage theft we've seen from some big corporations and big public figures.
We on this side of the House understand that your job and your job security are crucial, but we've seen stagnating wages, we've seen a rise in casualisation, we've seen a rise in insecure work, and under this government's watch we've seen exactly what has been replicated by these accords: a lot of marketing, a lot of spin, a lot of 'bringing people to the table' and then a lot of ignoring the requests of working Australians, working families in our economy. We say on this side of the House: don't just remove the better off overall test; remove the bill. Remove the bill and actually, in good faith, return to the negotiating table with unions, with business. Take inspiration from the accords of Bob Hawke. Take inspiration from bringing together the shared ambitions of Australian workers and Australian businesses to live in a prosperous and successful Australian economy, and don't present the antiworker, anti-secure-job legislation that is currently before the House.
Here we go again. Here is another chapter in our political history where the current government, a conservative Liberal government, has nothing else to offer the Australian public but to water down workers' rights. If you look at this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, it does nothing but reinforce what I and many others on this side have been saying for a very long time. The Liberal government, cannot help themselves. They cannot help themselves, because it's within their DNA to water down workers' rights, to diminish workers' ability to bargain, to diminish the ability to engage in workplace agreements. This is what they are pushing for. As I said, it's in their DNA to water down workers' rights that have been hard fought for and hard won over generations to make us one of the best places in the world. They can't help it.
When I say it's in their DNA, there is a long history of this. If you look at the history of our nation and industrial relations in this place, we know that the conservative Liberal Party or conservative LNP or whatever they decide to call themselves every few years—the Country Party, a whole range of things—were formed on that side of the political sphere to combat labour. When I say 'labour', I mean labour with an 'our'. That was their foundation. That's why they got together to combat the labour forces that were getting together, had created a political party, were winning workers' rights and were making sure that this nation was on the right projection of equality for workers—one of the best in the world. Of course, the Liberal government and the history of Liberal governments show that they did not like this. That is a vast comparison, a very different reason for being a government. You have one side that was formed, and it has always been in their DNA, to water down workers' rights and to combat labour. Not the Labor Party, which they also do, but labour with an 'our'. They're continuing it today, after 200 years in this nation. They just can't help themselves.
The question we must ask ourselves over and over during this industrial relations debate is: will this bill create secure jobs with decent pay for Australians? That is the one question. When you look into this bill, and you do the research and you understand it, the answer is a resounding, no, it will not create secure jobs with decent pay for Australian working families and working people. But even without this, the bill represents a fundamental attack on the rights of workers that we haven't seen since John Howard's Work Choices. This is no different. This looks at diminishing the rights, the ability to bargain and a whole range of other things. The government's proposed changes to Australia's industrial relations laws will leave working people in this nation worse off. It will leave people with lower pay, fewer hours and a whole range of things, in a casualised workforce. It's going to result in cuts to take-home pay and conditions, fewer rights and far less job security for workers in Australia. What's being proposed is going to make it much easier to casualise jobs that would have otherwise been permanent, and it makes bargaining for better pay and conditions—something that we've enjoyed for many years here—more difficult than it already is. Worst of all, it will allow for wage cuts. How can this leave Australian workers better off? It takes rights off tradies on big projects, for example, and it weakens wage theft punishments in jurisdictions where wage theft was already deemed a criminal act.
It's already self-defeating when you look at all the ins and outs of this particular bill. Without measures to create more secure jobs with the prospect of wage rises, workers will have less capacity and confidence to spend. This is typical of this government. They've always had this attitude of the trickle-down formula—in other words, 'We can cut, we can trickle down whatever's left over and that should help the economy.' Well, that's wrong. It's totally wrong. The increased wages mean people have more money in their pockets and are more likely to go out and spend, and they're more likely to spend it on essentials and things that they need immediately—and that's what this government should be looking at: putting money into the economy. This bill will do nothing but take money out of the economy, because many workers will have lower wages, will have less money to spend, will be spending less in their local businesses et cetera.
Let's have a look at the other issue: wage theft. We know it's a growing problem. We've seen multinational chains in the news on a regular basis. It's a growing problem that recently made the news again in my own electorate of Adelaide, with a shocking incident which was on social media. It showed a cafe worker being physically abused because she allegedly asked to be paid the wages that she was entitled to under our laws. This specific matter is still under investigation, but it highlights how widespread wage theft is in this nation. But, instead of making it easier for the victims of wage theft to get justice, we have a bill before this House that will make it harder for people who have been duped by wage theft to get justice, just like this woman in my electorate a couple of weeks ago. The bill inserts a definition of 'dishonest' which includes two tests to prove whether the employer's been dishonest:
(a) dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people; and
(b) known by the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people.
What does that mean? Does it mean that, if you conduct wage theft, you say: 'I was unaware of it. I didn't know it was illegal. I wasn't aware of my paperwork. I wasn't up to date with the laws'? You could use a million excuses to get away under that second definition. That second point sets the bar very high for someone to get justice, because trying to prove a level of intent is going to be extremely difficult for the victims of wage theft.
What this government should be doing is making it easier for those victims to get justice. Victorian legislation, for example, only includes the first of those two points I made. But, because this bill overrides existing state and territory laws for the national system, it weakens employee protections in some states. It does so by removing a very important avenue to recover the costs involved in taking an employer to court. All of the items in this bill make it harder for workers.
In Australia, the casualisation of work is another growing issue. Casual jobs account for about 60 per cent of all wage jobs created since May, according to the Centre for Future Work. In fact, this research found that, between May and November 2020, casual employment grew by 400,000, by far the biggest expansion of casual employment in Australia. That's fine for people that want casual employment, but the majority of those people want full-time, secure jobs. By having a full-time, secure job, you can go to a bank and tell them your job is secure and it is full-time, and you can access a loan. If you're a casual employee, most banks are going to say 'No, we don't know what your future holds'. If you want to take out a personal loan when you're a casual employee, again, the banks and the financial institutions will give you the same answer. Even simple things like accessing a credit card become difficult when you're in the casualised workforce. This bill does nothing but diminish workers' abilities and workers' rights to have secure, well-paid jobs.
Part-time work also grew strongly during the past year. Given the COVID crisis and future uncertainty, this is understandable. For some people casual and part-time work fits their choice of lifestyle, but I'm really worried about the underemployment of Australian workers, about those people who want permanent work and can't find it. I speak to people regularly who are juggling two or three part-time jobs, have no job security and have no ability to take out a loan. The impact of the measures in this bill relating to part-time work and simplified additional hours, as they call it, will allow employers to reduce part-time work to a 16-hour weekly minimum with future hours on a casual basis, effectively making these jobs casual. In addition, the permanent addition of flexible work directions is proof that diluting workers' rights is in this government's DNA; it is actually proof. It sounds a bit like Work Choices, but it doesn't only sound like Work Choices; it is Work Choices mark 2. These changes to the Fair Work Act were originally introduced as temporary as part of the JobKeeper program and were limited to employers receiving the wage subsidy. However, since then, it's continued and expanded its application well beyond its original intent.
As with the rest of this bill, the danger is in the detail—for example, the changes to the enterprise agreements. Taken as a whole these changes mean less obligation on employers and less scrutiny. This will also deliver wage cuts. The government should be looking at productivity and increases in wages. We've seen one of the lowest wage growths in this nation under this government, productivity is down and a whole range of other things are down. Yet they find it in their time, with everything that's taking place in Australia at the moment—with the uncertainty of our future, with the downturn in the economy and with COVID—that the most important thing to do is to water down workers' rights. They think this will be the panacea for them. It's wrong. It's totally wrong. We should be strengthening these laws. We should be ensuring that we put laws in place that give us good productivity and good wage growth so there's more money in the economy for workers to spend in the economy and get us out of the economic crisis that we find ourselves in at the moment due to the unforeseen times.
I'd like to say that Labor is on the side of working families as we always were from the very foundations of the Labor party, which was formed by trade unions to protect workers' rights, to enhance workers' rights and to ensure they had justice and equality at the workplace, unlike the Liberal government and the conservative side of politics, which was formed to combat labour. And I say labour with the o-u-r. That's why I say it's still in their DNA, and proof of it is what we see continuously in the bills that they are producing. The history of the conservative side of politics in this country has had at its forefront and as its focus the diminishing of workers' rights, unlike Labor governments. Look at the Hawke-Keating era and the accord, where then Prime Minister Bob Hawke sat down with all the unions and industry and mapped out a vision for Australian industrial relations. That era saw one of the biggest periods of economic prosperity, through the laying of the foundations of the accord. This government looks at one thing only: the ideology of cutting wages. They think that some sort of trickle-down effect will take place and people will be better off. That's wrong, and they know that working people will be worse off under this bill.
As I said, Labor is on the side of working families. We're committed to coming out of this pandemic with a plan that's focused on good, secure jobs and decent pay for workers. Only this side of the House will fight for good, secure jobs with fair pay and conditions. Only we will ensure that we start to make things right again in this country and support local jobs. We will also ensure that no-one is held back and no-one is left behind—unlike what this bill proposes to do to workers in Australia and to our nation.
Next week marks 25 years since the election of the Howard government. While some Liberals may celebrate this milestone, others will be reminded of the Work Choices debacle and how it led to the demise of an increasingly arrogant and out-of-touch Howard government. Regrettably, the bill before us today, the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, shows us that those opposite have learnt nothing in the intervening years. A quarter of a century after the Liberals suffered a humiliating rejection by the Australian people, which saw the government dumped and the leader lose his own seat after going after workers' pay and conditions, they're at it again.
Many of us had hoped that the experience of COVID had led the Morrison government to have an epiphany and finally turn their backs on their core business of attacking working Australians. Indeed, there was great optimism last year when the Prime Minister yielded to Labor's calls for wage subsidies to protect jobs and to keep money flowing through to local economies. The creation of JobKeeper even led some to think that the Liberals had finally kicked their longstanding habit of responding to every economic challenge by going after workers' pay and conditions. Some even dared to hope that a fundamental truth may have dawned on the Liberal Party—that when working Australians are doing well, the whole country benefits. The optimism grew when the government announced that it was going to lay down its weapons and work in genuine partnership with employers and unions to come together with an industrial relations reform agenda that would actually benefit workers. Well, I never! What a radical idea!
Labor approached the legislation with an open mind. The legislation just had to answer one question: would it create secure jobs with decent pay for Australian workers? Sadly, in this case, the answer was a resounding no. Indeed, the legislation was going to deliver a pay cut for people on every single award in Australia. Under this legislation, employers would be permitted to violate the better off overall test, a critical safeguard which, as the name implies, protects workers by prohibiting agreements that would leave them worse off. This cruel plan would allow new agreements to get rid of any penalty rates or shift penalties, costing workers as much as $11,000 a year. Employers could take advantage of this option if they were affected by COVID-19, but, under the government's definition, it would be hard to find an employer that would not fall into this category. While the government argued that it was a temporary measure, the reality is that it runs for at least two years for the making of agreements that will then last for years themselves. In the firing line were some of the lowest paid people in the workforce. These include cleaners, supermarket workers, cooks, truck drivers, childcare workers and aged-care staff—indeed, the very people who have already sacrificed so much during this global pandemic. This is shameful. After a terrible pandemic year—indeed, using COVID-19 as a cover—the government quickly returned to form, trying to slash the pay and conditions of some of the lowest paid workers in Australia. To think that only a few months ago, the Prime Minister was insisting that we were 'all in this together'! It is unbelievable.
Thankfully, but unsurprisingly, the crossbench senators agreed with Labor and refused to sign up to this unconscionable attack on workers, so we now know that the government will be forced to pass amendments to dump the suspension of the better off overall test. This is good, but don't be fooled. It doesn't make this bill good—not by a long shot. It failed Labor's test of creating the conditions for secure jobs with decent pay in December, and it won't deliver secure jobs with decent pay today. In some cases, it directly levies pay cuts. It also changes the bargaining rules, which will make it harder for workers to negotiate, and it removes other measures that are designed to protect workers.
We know there is a massive problem in Australia with permanent, ongoing jobs being billed as casual jobs to deny workers the security and leave protections that they deserve. Indeed, the percentage of casual workers had grown from 23.5 per cent to 25.1 per cent of the workforce before COVID took hold in 2020, and casual jobs comprise a massive 60 per cent of all wage jobs created since May of last year. This rampant problem was recently put to the test in the courts when the CFMEU challenged the 'permanent casual' rort. This was a landmark case which found that work that is regular, ongoing and permanent in nature cannot be defined as casual. This bill essentially overrules that Federal Court decision. It endorses the shameful rorting that has been going on for years, denying workers the security and entitlements that permanent work offers.
The government argues that everything's fine because there's a casual loading. Well, we know from a recent Griffith University report by Professor Peetz that more than half of Australia's casual workers actually don't get any casual loading at all. For these workers, being casual doesn't equal flexibility. It means fewer rights, no sick pay, no holiday pay, no ability to get a home loan and no casual loading to help compensate for the lack of benefits that are enjoyed by permanent employees. What we're looking at now is a unilateral move to nullify the rights of workers who find themselves in this situation. This is yet another unconscionable attack on job security.
Next I'd like to talk about the changes that the bill makes to enterprise bargaining—changes that are permanent and almost always in favour of the employer. Take this, for example: employers can now go through the bargaining process for four weeks before they even tell workers that bargaining has started and that they have the right to be represented. Similarly, unions are no longer able to scrutinise non-union agreements if they fall short of the standards. And Fair Work will be limited in what it can consider when determining if workers are indeed better off through an agreement. There is also a change which actually allows illegal clauses in agreements—clauses that don't comply with the National Employment Standards. This undermining of the National Employment Standards is appalling and will make it nearly impossible for workers to get a fair deal.
The government has consistently used the excuse of COVID-19 as a cover to justify attacking workers' rights, to argue that the system is skewed and that more flexibility is needed. Of course, we know that flexibility, when used by the Morrison Liberal government, is in fact code for removing industrial protections from Australian workers. The government is right; there is an imbalance in industrial relations. But it's certainly not in favour of the workers. We only need to look at how the workers' share of the national pie is declining. In Australia the total share of income paid to workers through wages and salaries has been declining since the 1970s. At the same time there has been an accompanying growth in the share of national income that is going to capital owners in terms of profit. This isn't good. It is not proportionate and it's not fair.
We can also see this imbalance demonstrated starkly through our wage growth statistics. Indeed, in the most recent quarterly wage price index, which was released in November last year, wages grew by just 0.1 per cent for the private sector and 0.2 per cent for the public sector. This is the lowest quarterly rise since records began 23 years ago. The annual growth rate fell from its previous record low of 1.8 per cent in the year to the June quarter to just 1.4 per cent. Record low wage growth is the Liberals' legacy for working Australians. Let's never forget that shameful fact. This bill shows us that the Morrison government is not yet finished.
Let's be clear: the Morrison government has dumped its changes to the better off overall test not because it has realised how egregious they were but so it can still have a chance to progress through the Senate other parts of the bill that attack workers' pay and conditions. This means one thing: the Morrison Liberal government has learnt nothing from its past mistakes, it hasn't seen the evil of its ways and it will try again at the first opportunity. This is why Labor has launched a national campaign to put pressure on the Morrison government to dump this toxic bill in full, in its entirety. The last thing our nation needs right now is a war on workers' pay and conditions. It's not a war we would ever want to see in this nation. At a time when we are seeking to recover from an economic crisis in the wake of a global pandemic, this is a shameless and reckless plan for our nation.
This bill is nothing short of economic vandalism. Frankly, government members should feel deeply ashamed to be part of this ongoing attack on the millions of people they have been elected to represent. The Morrison Liberal government members might like to tell themselves that it is somehow for the greater good for workers to take a hit, because businesses and the economy will flourish. But the sad reality that the Liberals have never seemed to wrap their heads around is: when workers suffer, business suffers too. By attacking workers, this bill attacks the Australian economy and, indeed, our nation as a whole. This bill will only serve to further reduce people's disposable income, ripping precious dollars out of workers' pockets and, indeed, our local communities—communities like Newcastle—at the worst possible time. If workers don't have any money, business is bad. If business is bad, jobs aren't created. It is really that simple. Just as the Prime Minister's decision to slash penalty rates for millions of Australians did not create a single job, this legislation will do nothing but make it harder for working Australians to make a decent living.
It is gravely disappointing to see the Morrison government return to the Liberals' old strategy of attacking workers again and again. Have they learnt nothing from the pandemic or the past? Surely it's now time to acknowledge that slashing wages and conditions isn't going to help anybody. Let's not hinder our economic recovery, Mr Morrison, with a stubborn adherence to Liberal Party ideology and time-worn strategies of going after workers at every opportunity.
Abandoning plans to scrap the better off overall test is a good start, but it sure as hell is not enough. The industrial relations imbalance between workers and business remains very skewed in this nation. We recognise the power imbalance in that relationship and the need for government to continuously seek to redress that imbalance. It's time for the government to dump this toxic bill in full and to focus instead on ensuring that workers get their fair share of the national pie. That's why Labor's message to all working Australian men and women is that we're on your side. We're here to ensure you get a fair deal and we'll be holding this government to account every single day.
I too rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. This bill really highlights the massive difference between those in the Morrison government and those of us in Labor. Over there, we have the Liberals and Nationals. They're cutting JobKeeper, cutting JobSeeker, cutting superannuation and now cutting wages and conditions. When this industrial relations bill was introduced, Labor set a really simple test. We made it clear we would oppose it if it cut workers' pay and cut job security. That's exactly what this bill does.
The government might have removed the most extreme part of the bill regarding the better off overall test, but they did that under much pressure, of course. But even without it, the bill still represents a fundamental attack on the rights of workers, an attack that we have not seen since Work Choices. We see them dropping these changes to the better off overall test, but the fact is that they still want to pursue changes like that. We know it and all Australians know it. Even with it taken out, this still makes workers worse off. This legislation still makes it easier for businesses to employ people as casuals, even when they work just the same as permanent workers. The fact is that no-one believes this government when it comes to pay and working conditions. People won't forget this government's attempts to cut their pay again. Particularly people in regional and rural Australia won't forget. As I often say, National Party choices hurt, and they really hurt people in the regions. Here they are yet again trying to cut the pay and conditions of those hardworking people in regional Australia.
The government said the better off overall test provisions detracted from the rest of the bill, so now we can focus on the rest of the bill. Let's do that. It's still bad. It's still very, very bad. The bill will still make jobs more insecure and lead to pay cuts. Let's have a look at the summary of the bill. First of all, it makes it easier for employers to casualise jobs that would otherwise have been permanent. It makes bargaining for better pay and conditions more difficult than it already is. It allows wage cuts. It takes rights off blue-collar workers on big projects. It weakens wage theft punishments in jurisdictions where it was already deemed a criminal act.
We all remember when this government last cut penalty rates for retail, fast food, pharmacy and hospitality workers. At the time the government very falsely claimed it would create new jobs. Well, it created none—not a single extra job. Even business groups now admit that. Now the government expects us to believe that cutting penalties rates more, cutting overtime, cutting shift loading and cutting allowances will actually create jobs. They're spinning the same story again. We don't believe them. That's why we will always keep fighting against cuts to workers' conditions. We will do that because this bill leaves Australian workers much worse off by cutting the wages, conditions and rights of Australian workers. Make no mistake about what the agenda of this government is.
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the growth in insecure work and wage stagnation were major issues for Australian workers and for our economy. The pandemic exposed the fact that too many people in this country are in low-paid insecure employment. Casuals, contractors, freelancers, labour hire workers and gig workers—these vulnerable workers, the ones who can least afford it—were hit first and hit the very hardest by the impacts of the pandemic. The fact is that working people either have been the essential workers supporting the country during the pandemic or have suffered the most from the economic impacts of the pandemic, and now the government is punishing these very hardworking Australians. The bill still includes changes to part-time work that will effectively end up casualising it. Australian workers know they cannot trust a Liberal-National government with their wages and conditions. In its current form, the bill represents a failure to protect the interests of those essential workers who really carried us through the pandemic. As I've said, this bill will lead to a reduction in workers' rights across the country, and its impacts will be greatly felt, particularly in regional areas like my electorate on the New South Wales North Coast. As we look to an economic recovery from the pandemic, these cuts in workers' rights and pay represent a present and real danger to our very fragile economic recovery.
The fact is that workers, those whom we've really relied on to keep us safe during the pandemic, need the protection of good workplace laws. The working people of our country have already sacrificed the most and have paid the highest price: almost a million people unemployed and 1.25 million underemployed. And, of course many workers have already used their sick leave, annual leave and long service leave. When the pandemic hit we saw such a huge economic impact, of course—over two million Australians now either out of work or looking for more work. We know that casualisation is at record highs. Nearly a third of Australian workers are in insecure work. There are also four million workers who are engaged as casuals, on short-term contracts, through labour hire or as independent contractors. It is wrong that two workers doing the same job are being paid different rates. That's just not fair. As I've told the House before, when this pandemic hit, the effects upon regions like mine were very extreme, and I continue to see many locals and businesses in my community under extreme pressure. Some businesses have been forced to close permanently for extended periods due to the economic impacts of the pandemic. Many of our frontline essential workers who put themselves at risk just by showing up for work in the pandemic are still doing this today, and I thank them.
Of course, other workers have managed to get by with the help of JobKeeper, a wage subsidy that Labor called for very early on in the pandemic. As we know, at the end of March JobKeeper stops and the JobSeeker subsidy will be slashed. This will have severe economic impacts. We've always said that any support in the economy should be tailored and responsive to what's actually happening in those local economies, and I've consistently called for specific assistance for regions like mine. We know that some parts of the Australian economy are recovering, but many communities and many industries are still struggling and shouldn't be left behind when the government cuts JobKeeper and also cuts the JobSeeker subsidy in March. The government should be looking at and considering options to provide targeted support beyond March for the workers, small businesses, industries and communities which are still doing it tough. Indeed some of the hardest-hit industries are those that were disproportionately excluded from JobKeeper, with many casuals in retail, hospitality and tourism.
On the New South Wales North Coast, we were one of the hardest-hit areas, with massive increases in the number of recipients receiving income support payments such as JobSeeker and youth allowance. Locally in my area, we know that the entertainment, music and creative industries, the tourism sector and university staff from Southern Cross were all unable to access JobKeeper and the vital support that they needed. They were all left behind, especially those casuals in so many industries. Figures from last December show that in my electorate there were approximately 9,000 local businesses and organisations that were accessing JobKeeper support. That is a massive number.
In response to all this, what do we see? Now we see the Morrison government, rather than extending JobKeeper subsidies for suffering businesses, actually introduce legislation that will make workers worse off. It's really hard to believe that in the middle of a pandemic, when workers are struggling to make ends meet, the government would actually move to cut people's pay and conditions. It is consistent though with the Morrison government's approach to workers in general. Eight years of flatlining wages growth is directly linked to eight years of this Liberal-National government. Now, in the toughest of times, they're looking to cut pay and conditions.
These proposed cuts are unfair. They are not only detrimental for workers but also bad for the economy now, especially regional economies. For the regions to recover we need people earning decent wages and spending that money in our regional economies. When wages are cut, our local economies suffer and our regional economies suffer. But this government wants to make work less secure and wants to cut the take-home pay of Australians. As I said, last year was a very tough year for so many people in our regions with the COVID-19 crisis. With the job losses and the overall economic situation we're now in I will continue to call for that necessary targeted assistance for our regional economies.
The pandemic has exposed the risks to workers and to the national economy of insecure work. When the pandemic began, casuals, who account for about a quarter of the workforce, lost their jobs eight times faster than those in more secure forms of employment. One million casual workers were excluded from JobKeeper, forcing so many of them onto Centrelink queues. When you add all those other forms of insecure work, so many people were impacted. We know too that, if you're a woman, young or from a migrant background, you're more likely to be employed in insecure work. Here we have this government, just like with Work Choices before, pushing so hard to lessen job security.
In contrast to the Morrison government's harsh laws that will weaken job security and cut pay, under Labor's workplace policies more workers will be able to plan for their futures with so much more certainty. Under a Labor government, Australian workers will benefit from more job security, better pay and a fairer industrial relations system. Being in secure work is so incredibly important. It means people can access a bank loan to buy a home or start a business. It means they can take leave when they're sick or look after their loved ones without putting their jobs at risk. It means they can have the confidence to spend money in our local regional economies, which boosts growth and creates more local jobs. Under Labor's workplace policies, more workers will be able to plan for their future with certainty. People in regions like mine continually tell me that they cannot plan because their work is insecure. They need that certainty. Labor's plan for more secure jobs with better pay does stand in very stark contrast to the Morrison government's changes, which would just make it a lot worse for workers.
I also take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank our incredible frontline workers, particularly our healthcare workers, aged-care workers and disability-care workers, who have been working so hard to protect our communities through these challenging times through the pandemic. We are all incredibly appreciative of the great work you've done supporting some of the most vulnerable in our community. I also especially thank our police and emergency service workers for continuing to protect us all in these incredibly difficult times.
I say to all those workers: 'Labor are on your side. We stand with you and we thank you for your incredible work during the pandemic in these immensely challenging times. Labor will, as we always have, continue to fight for your rights at work—for fair conditions and for a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.' It's what we did in fighting the Howard government's Work Choices. Here we are yet again seeing similar circumstances. We are fighting yet again on behalf of the community and on behalf of workers. This is something that we will always fight for, because we understand how important it is for individuals to have access to decent pay and conditions, for their families, for our communities and for our economies, particularly our regional economies.
As I said, it's so important to have people earning a decent wage so that they can then spend in those regional economies. When we see any cuts or any threats to wages, whether it be penalty rates or cuts to base wages, it means that in the regions we just don't see people spending in our economies and we see the impact straightaway. The harsh policies the Liberals and Nationals put forward not only impact an individual's capacity to earn money and provide for themselves and their families but also are really detrimental to those regional economies.
As I've said many times before, in the regions we blame the National Party for these cuts. National Party choices really do hurt. At the core of this, it's hurting those regional communities by cutting pay and cutting the economic activity in our regional economies. People in regional and rural Australia know that it's the National Party that is not on their side; it is Labor that is on their side in the regions and in rural Australia. A long time ago, the National Party walked away from rural Australia, and I think that this bill really highlights that. Fancy them coming here and defending cutting the pay of workers in our country and regional areas—people who depend on that pay and who need to have decent working conditions. It's shameful that the National Party continues to line up here and talk about cutting the pay of those really important workers.
Whether it's in rural or regional Australia, in our cities or, indeed, right across the country, Labor is on people's side. We're standing up for their rights at work, for decent pay and conditions, for having a fairer system and for ensuring that more people can get into permanent work. It is always Labor who is on the side of the workers and we know that it's the Liberals and Nationals who are not on the side of hardworking Australians. We in Labor will champion in particular all of our workers. As I said, to those in regional Australia: Labor is on your side and we will always fight for better pay and better conditions for you and your family.
I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020.
When I think about the Liberals and the principles which lie beneath their approach to workers' pay and conditions, I think about what I saw when Work Choices came in. One of the most powerful examples that remains with me is the contract my then 16-year-old daughter was asked to sign as part of a before-ballet-school job, working for a couple of hours on a couple of mornings a week at a food retailer with an outdoor store. Not only was it pitiful pay but also she was required to wear a uniform, which she paid for, including a woollen jumper. She had to pay for that uniform out of a very small pay packet, or pay for it up-front, and she was then required to agree to return that woollen jumper to the business when she left, even though she had paid for it.
This was just a tiny example of a whole raft of conditions that were put on employees. I certainly heard stories of what I considered to be absolute exploitation of young workers in their very first jobs. These are the jobs where the power relationship which they felt and experienced was one where they had absolutely no power. These kids wanted to get into the workforce—they wanted to get up at sparrows' start, head in and do a few hours work before going and doing a full eight-hour day at ballet school. It was a physically demanding day. They wanted to work, yet they were taken advantage of.
There were many situations that were just so much more profound in terms of the impact that they had on families during that Work Choices regime, which, obviously, was ultimately the downfall of the Howard government. I saw Work Choices undermine work that I'd seen happen decades earlier by the Hawke government. As a journalist reporting on that government, I saw changes that seemed to be much more about strengthening the relationships between employers and employees—working together, making it a more respectful relationship—and where agreements could be reached which worked for both parties. We saw a government wanting to have a hand in making that happen. Bob Hawke chose the path of consensus. The Prices and Incomes Accord saw unions agree to restrict wage demands in return for a government pledge to minimise inflation and implement social services. This was a three-way pact and it had the effect of lifting this country up and not pushing people down.
That, and the other industrial relations policies of the Hawke and Keating governments, involved award restructuring and the introduction of enterprise bargaining. These, and all the other reforms, led to a much more genuine partnership and good outcomes for workers and bosses, which was really part of setting up this nation for nearly 30 years of consecutive growth. What I saw the Howard government do, with Work Choices, was break that trust between employees and employers. Young workers' first experience of the workforce was of an us-and-them mentality, and that went right through the whole system of employment. It's hard to rebuild trust when it wasn't there in the first place, and that's where this legislation is coming from for people in their 30s, whose first experience of the workforce was under Work Choices. I say all of this because the mentality that drove Work Choices to its extraordinary heights, as I see it, underpins everything that we've seen the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government do when it comes to workers. It reveals who they really are.
The latest example that we see of this, outside this legislation, is buried not too far below the surface of the JobMaker program. It's one that we on this side warned of. The government ignored our warnings, but it turns out that Treasury also warned that one of the things embedded in JobMaker was that employers could sack a full-time worker on $75,000 a year and replace him or her with three part-time staff on wages between $22,500 and $30,000 a year while still remaining in front, financially, thanks to the JobMaker hiring credit. It would lead to figures looking good for the government, as they could claim jobs growth. It would work for the employer because they would get three subsidies for those workers. It might even work for some of the part-time employees, but it doesn't deliver long-term, secure, full-time jobs. I don't have any qualms about wanting that as a goal for this nation. Secure work with enough hours to pay the bills that an individual or a family has is an absolute necessity for a productive, healthy and hopeful society.
Too many part-timers and casuals tell me that they need more hours. They're grateful for what they've got, but it isn't enough to relieve the stress of trying to cover their living costs. With COVID, we've seen that exacerbated with the reductions in JobKeeper: as JobKeeper has come down, so have the hours. The good employers really want to keep their workers on, and workers have agreed to the reduction in hours as a temporary measure, but the danger is that it becomes permanent. When JobKeeper ends, as it does in a little over 30 days, the real danger is that the staff who've hung in there for their workplace will lose their jobs. It is obvious to me, as the daughter of a small-business owner and having run by own business for 25 years, and having talked to my local businesses, that many people are more likely to spend money when they've got a secure income, when they know the amount that's going to come in the door in the next month or even the next week. They feel much more free to spend money in shops, salons and cafes. Without measures to create more secure jobs with a prospect of wage rises, workers have less capacity and less confidence to spend, which will in turn dull demand and continue to hurt our domestic economy. We were already seeing this before COVID. We were already seeing an incredibly lacklustre economy. We saw it in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury. There were no wage rises and no pressure for wage rises, and there was not a lot of confidence.
As I mention JobKeeper, I should also add that, as we move into a different COVID phase, the problem is not just the failure of this government to support workers in the arts and entertainment sectors by allowing them to access JobKeeper. They made it so hard for those workers, and I've spoken to many actors and musicians who, because of the unusual sorts of contracts and arrangements they have, just couldn't access JobKeeper. University workers were also left out, and my electorate has many university workers. They missed out completely. But those who did get JobKeeper and are still relying on it are all the travel agents. Every single travel agent who sees no prospect of the borders opening in time for their businesses to kick back in in fewer than 30 days needs JobKeeper to continue. For tourism operators and those reliant on international tourism, like the Upper Blue Mountains in particular in my electorate, right across the top of the mountains going over to Bells Line of Road, international visitors are key. And then there are performers and workers in the arts sector. They all need JobKeeper to continue. That's outside what this legislation is trying to do.
I should add on the warnings by Treasury about the JobMaker program that there would be more part-time, not full-time, work generated that it took freedom-of-information requests by the ABC to even get that Treasury advice revealed and made public. As it does so often, this government chose to bury that and keep it buried and hidden. We've seen again that same pattern this morning in the revelations that the government knew that a fibre NBN rollout would be $15 billion cheaper than it said publicly. I think what people deserve is transparency about employment matters, about the spending of this government and about the basis on which it makes decisions.
On this legislation, workers are already telling me that they feel like they have a minimal voice in speaking out about unfair practices in their workplaces. Under the cover of COVID, a whole lot of things have happened and employees feel vulnerable. As I say, they say to me that they are grateful that are still working even if it isn't enough hours to pay the bills. But this legislation would weaken those voices even further. Our test for this legislation was whether it would create secure jobs with decent pay or not. From what I've said, it's little wonder that I have little trust and confidence in this government to lift a finger to help create good, secure jobs. This legislation certainly doesn't go anywhere near doing that. Even with removal by the government of the most extreme part of the bill, the suspension of the two-year better off overall test, known as the BOOT test, this bill is a fundamental attack on the rights of workers unlike anything we've seen since Work Choices. It will make work less secure and it will lead to pay cuts.
Even though the BOOT test change has been removed, I want to make really clear why it's been removed. The Attorney-General in his statement made it very clear they're not ditching their plan to scrap the better off overall test because they don't think it's the right thing to have in there. It's very clear they still think that the change to the better off overall test should be in this legislation. The only reason it's not there is that they've conceded that they cannot get it through the parliament. It's not because they recognise it's unfair. In his actual statement, Mr Porter said he still believes the change which basically removes any safety net for workers and gives employers vastly expanded power to cut pay is a sensible and proportionate clause to have in this legislation. So the retreat is purely because of politics. It's purely because they can see we will fight it, as we will so many aspects of this bill. This entire legislation is about reducing the security of work, allowing for pay cuts and taking away the safety net. It's pretty clear that, if they're given the chance, if they're given an opportunity, they will bring this change in. There's no doubt that this is what they'd like to do. At this point, they just realise that they can't get it through in this piece of legislation. But even without the BOOT change this is still a bad piece of legislation.
I want to talk about the key reasons for us being opposed to this bill and making amendments to it. One is that it makes it easy for employers to casualise jobs that would otherwise have been permanent. I've just talked through why permanent work—permanent full time and permanent part time—is so important not just for workers but for local economies like mine in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury.
This bill also makes bargaining for better pay and conditions much more difficult than it already is. When you have workers already feeling that their voice isn't able to be heard than the last thing they need is to feel they have no power and that they're unable to access support from unions and delegates to help them to argue their case for a pay rise. I just think it's an absolute joke when those on the other side say, 'Oh well, people can just go and ask for a pay rise.' I was doorknocking in Bligh Park the other day and I spoke to a worker who is pretty sure that he is being dudded—that he and a whole lot of other people are being dudded on their award. But they are too fearful of losing jobs to want to make a fuss because they know that the first people to be let go will be the people who have stood up for themselves. To have a system which further entrenches that is absolutely shameful.
This bill allows wage cuts. It takes rights from blue-collar workers on big projects. And when an employer does do something that is illegal this bill actually weakens the wage-theft punishments, even in jurisdictions where it's already deemed a criminal act. As it's in their DNA for the Liberals to want to push workers down, to make sure that they get less and that they have less voice, that's what we're seeing in this piece of legislation.
The Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, before us today, demonstrates how the Prime Minister and his government want to use the current pandemic situation as a cover to allow employers to cut the pay of Australian workers—workers who got us through, and who continue to get us through, this pandemic. These are workers doing insecure but very honourable work: stacking supermarket shelves; deep cleaning, something that's never been more important than it is now; our essential truckies, moving things across the nation and getting through the important controls which have also been keeping us safe; our childcare workers; and our teachers. It's about so many different workers in so many different areas, like our aged-care workers. So many of them are some of the lowest paid in the nation and so many of them are already in vulnerable employment situations. Far from thanking them and far from giving them that which they deserve, this legislation would actually leave them worse off.
The bill before us today is no way to thank these people for the hard work that they have undertaken for all of us. But I'm not just going to stand here and sprout thanks for the work that they've done. I'm going to stand here to fight against this legislation which this government is proposing and which is about undercutting the employment conditions of these people who we should be thanking. It's not about tokens of gratitude; this is about standing up for their rights, for their employment and for their capacity and ability to look after their families and to put food on the table for them.
Labor is on the side of working families. We know that the way to achieve national reconstruction after a pandemic like this is to focus on jobs. That's not just the raw number of jobs, but good, secure jobs—jobs that have fair pay and conditions, and jobs that make sure people are able to do what they want to do, which is to look after their families. We're on the side of the delivery drivers, the shelf stackers, the cleaners, the aged-care workers, the early childhood workers and all those people working in our hospitals. We know how important all of them are and they will not be forgotten for the work that they have done for our nation. We know how important it is to support local jobs. That means enabling business to employ people and to support those employees to have stability—to know that they have a good job to go to and an income that will put food on the table.
Australians deserve a government that is on their side, and we here are on the side of the underdog against this government. The Morrison government doesn't care, clearly, about these ordinary working Australians. On their watch, we've heard countless broken promises, from sports rorts, dodgy deals and a dud NBN to trillions of dollars of debt. It's on their watch that we have seen wages stagnate and, under this legislation, wages cut and, of course, economic supports which have been needed so desperately, and are still needed, being withdrawn. At the end of March, this Morrison government will leave hundreds of thousands of Australians behind by ending wage subsidies. Currently 1.3 million Australians rely on those wage subsidies. The Treasury department of this government says that 100,000 of those people will lose their jobs as soon as the JobKeeper subsidy is withdrawn.
If the legislation before us passes, as the government wishes it to, there will be no security for the work of these hundreds of thousands—indeed, millions—of Australians. Entire sectors, including tourism and hospitality, will be denied essential support, and job losses will be inevitable. That's why it's important that we talk about the concept of job security and that we understand how important it is. It's why Labor wants to make sure that we have employment legislation that provides security to workers in their workplace and that we're able to ensure that we see wage growth happen in this country, as opposed to the stagnation that we have seen under the government's approach—an official policy of this government, I might add, to suppress wages in this country. But it's not just about the pay cheque; it's about what that enables. It's about helping people to be able to buy their first home or maybe to buy that upgraded home, so that they can fit their expanding family, and so they can put food on the table, provide security and make the decisions that their family need—an opportunity which they don't get when placed in insecure work. It's about providing the confidence to Australian families to spend their hard-earned income which will create growth in our economy, because this government's policy of wage suppression is actively undermining the economic recovery which we all so desperately need and which this government likes to talk about but is not doing anything practical to deliver.
The Minister for Industrial Relations likes to say that the legislation before us is a result of the consultation and broad discussions that were held with the business community and with the union movement. It might be true that this legislation comes after those conversations were held, but it is very clear that this legislation is not a result of any agreement reached or consensus position coming out of those consultations that the government arranged. It is clearly not the case that this legislation is some sort of mutual understanding for economic benefit for all Australians and Australian workers to benefit business and workers. That is not what we have here, as much as the government may try to gild the lily to make it look that way. The most obvious part of that and the most obvious way in which that is demonstrated was the government's decision to include in the legislation, as it was presented to parliament, its changes to the better off overall test.
The better off overall test, or the BOOT, as people like to call it, is a fundamentally essential part of our industrial relations system because it is what enables the flexibility that exists in the system, while making sure that people don't go backwards in providing that flexibility. It's part of what really underlines the idea of enterprise bargaining. You should be able to bargain. We should be able to find true flexibility in our employment relations between workers and employers, to make sure we can deliver the best, most productive outcomes for those businesses and for those workers, but you can't do that if there's a risk that your working rights can be undermined, and that is the purpose of the better off overall test. Yet the government wanted to extend the undermining of this better off overall test for two years through this legislation, once again showing how it is all about undermining wage growth and undermining workers' conditions. The government has said, 'We're going to give the BOOT changes the boot.' They're going to withdraw that component of the bill. And of course that is welcome, but it's still pretty telling. It's still something that all Australian workers should be fundamentally concerned about with this government.
John Howard tried 40 times to remove the unfair dismissal protections from Australian law, and eventually he did it. The government is telegraphing something to Australians in the way they introduce this legislation. They're making it pretty clear. They don't want to talk about it. They try to hide it, but what they're saying here is that this government is more than happy for the term and the concept of 'flexibility in employment' to include undermining fundamental rights of Australians working here. It is completely ridiculous to think that the system will work if you take away those fundamental protections. That's why we are happy that the government has withdrawn it, but we are ever vigilant about what this government is trying to do. It's important that we're vigilant. Look at the rest of this bill and what it is trying to do. They say they're trying to create better protections for casual workers and for bosses by making it clearer what a casual worker is. But, when we look at what they're making clear, they're not making the current law clear. They're not making clear what is and what is not a casual worker, as it is clearly understood in Australia law. No, they're not clarifying. They are fundamentally and substantially changing the definition of 'casual worker' here, making it at the whim of the employer, with no relationship necessarily to how the work is conducted or how rostering is performed. It is a fundamental shift in what it means to be a casual employee that the government is proposing in this legislation. That is something to be guarded against.
What we are seeing, as we have seen throughout the term of this government and indeed before, is the increasing casualisation of our workforce. Employers are not putting on permanent full-time or permanent part-time workers; instead, they are putting on more and more casual workers. The thing is that it's so counterproductive, when we look at it as a whole. Henry Ford understood one fundamental thing in his business proposition: the idea that his own workers should be able to afford to buy the car that they made. The point is that, if you undermine people's working conditions, take away their job security and make them casual instead of permanent part-time, their capacity to spend is reduced. Their capacity to buy not only the fruits of their labour but the product of the employers is less. Economic growth is less. The capacity for our economy to be strong is fundamentally undermined when we make people less secure in their work, and that is what this bill is proposing to do.
The bill has also produced some changes to the way in which bargaining occurs on large greenfield projects. There is certainly something to be said for the concept of providing greater security and certainty to the proponents of these large-scale projects, which can extend for a medium-term length of time, in terms of how their cost structures are going to be affected over the length of an agreement. There is an argument to be made for that, and there is certainly discussion and engagement to be had with the union movement and Australian workers about how we can de-risk those projects. But this legislation does not do that. The idea of having a nominal increase in wages over the length of a long-term agreement, an agreement that could be negotiated with a handful of workers and leave an entire industry's workers undercut and undermined, is not the way to go about doing this. Again, it highlights how this legislation, which the government likes to talk about as being fair, is not about fairness at all.
Then we have wage theft. The government likes to harp on about this. The government likes to say: 'Oh, this legislation is fantastic! You, the Labor Party, should be supporting this legislation because it deals with wage theft.' Well, news for you, government: the wage theft provisions in this bill actively undermine the existing wage theft provisions in some of the states. Yes, it's important to have a national regime, but if you were serious about actually protecting against wage theft then you wouldn't set about doing it in a way that undermines existing protections against wage theft. That's fundamentally important. We have lots of other criminal laws in this country that coexist at a federal and state level. This is not some new invention; we've been doing it for over 100 years. There's no reason we can't get this right. Instead the government has found a way of overriding existing protections in state law by introducing a lower level of protection in the federal law.
It's pretty clear that none of the things that the government is looking to do in this legislation are going to protect Australian workers, provide more secure employment or lead to growth in wages or growth in our economy. That demonstrates the fact that this legislation that the government is putting through is a ruse. The Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations likes to say: 'This is about working better with working Australians. We've come to a great deal after discussing it with the unions. This is about protecting workers.' He might say that in his answers in question time, but, when you look at the content—and I know detail is a bit of a problem for the Minister for Industrial Relations—and at what he's proposed and the way in which he's gone about doing it, he's not delivering on these very important outcomes. That has to be taken in the broader context.
This government likes to walk around and say, 'Oh, but it's going to make it easier to create more jobs.' More jobs that don't afford any additional security to people don't do the job that is needed to be done here. Yes, we need to get more people back into work; that is absolutely the case. There are many people who have been left unemployed because of the pandemic we face. Yet, when we unpick what the government have done, as I mentioned at the beginning of my comments here, they're also proposing to pull the JobKeeper rug out from under Australian small business and the 1.3 million Australians who rely on it to keep their jobs. Treasury says 100,000 people are going to lose their jobs at the end of March because this government is going to remove JobKeeper.
The government like to throw a few breadcrumbs to Australians and say: 'Oh, we're looking at it. We might have something that comes after March.' Well, who for? How does a small business in Australia plan if they don't know whether or not they are going to be eligible for what the government may or may not produce to come in at the end of March? How does a small business plan? Lots of small businesses are planning to have to put their employees on the scrap heap, to wind up their businesses, to let go of staff. How does that help the economy grow? This government owes small business and those 1.3 million workers a better answer than this legislation or removing JobKeeper. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. From the beginning of this pandemic Labor has tried to be constructive, to work cooperatively and in a bipartisan way with the government both on the health elements of the pandemic and on the economic reconstruction that will be required as we come out of this recession. We haven't opposed legislation just for the sake of it. We've suggested things in good faith, and some of those have actually been criticised by the government and later adopted by the government. But we haven't said, 'That was our idea; you can't have it.' We have tried to be constructive the whole way through. Like every Australian, we want this country to emerge from the pandemic both healthy and prosperous. We need to get the health response right and we need to make sure that our economy is in a strong position to grow, that we have jobs and prosperity on the other side of this recession.
When it comes to industrial relations, there was absolute goodwill on this side to work constructively with the government. We said that if legislation improved job security and made it possible for Australians to get a pay rise then we would be all for it. The only thing we said we wouldn't be up for was pay cuts and increased insecurity. Sadly, what we see with this legislation is a government determined to go back to its old song sheet when it comes to industrial relations.
We've got before us a bill that would make our recovery slower and more painful than it needs to be. This is something that Labor can never support, because we will always oppose pay cuts and we will always oppose measures to make work less secure in this country. The problem with those opposite is that their plan for after the pandemic is exactly the same as their plan for before the pandemic—lower pay, less job security and less money in retirement. If you were a cynic, you might think that the Prime Minister is using COVID as cover to do all the things he's always wanted to do, as if the pandemic was an excuse to push through the Liberal Party's dream agenda. Look at what's actually been presented here: allowing businesses to sign new enterprise agreements which leave workers worse off than they were before. Of course the government said, 'Okay, we tried to slide that one through but we've been pinged on that, so we're up for negotiation on this one.' Hang on a minute! So we've got a proposal where the government was trying to argue that we should back legislation in this parliament that allowed workers, after negotiating with their employers, to be actually worse off or no better off after signing their new agreement. It is extraordinary to even think that they tried to get away with the proposal that would get rid of the better off overall test in legislation.
Basically, those opposite have one prescription when it comes to industrial relations. It's always the same answer, and that's wage cuts. That is a disaster for the people who are actually subject to those wage cuts. It's terrible. If you're being asked to work longer hours for the same money, if you're being asked to give up penalty rates, if you're being asked to negotiate a new contract that doesn't leave you better off, that's a disaster for you and for your family. Family budgets, we know, are already under a great deal of pressure. People are struggling. People have been struggling for years to make ends meet at a time of historic low wages growth that is impacting every family budget around Australia.
Don't forget: the very people who would be worst impacted by this are the people the Prime Minister last year was calling heroes. They're the transport workers, the shelf stackers, the hospital cleaners, the people who've been on the frontline of this pandemic. Their reward, according to those opposite, is likely to be a pay cut. They're the ones who kept our economy running and our society safe, and those opposite propose that we reward that heroism with a pay cut. This legislation will make their lives more stressful and their bills that much harder to pay.
This bill is bad for families, but it's also bad for our economy as a whole. We know that while wages are stagnant our whole economy suffers. Unless people have a few dollars in their pocket, they're not going to buy a cup of coffee on the way to work and they're not going to take the kids out for pizza on the weekend. They're not going to create work for other Australians while they are uncertain about their income and uncertain that they'll have a job next week or next month or next year. They're going to keep that money in their pocket. That's bad for demand and confidence in our economy. They're less likely to spend money in their local businesses. They're less likely to spend the money that will mean those local businesses put on more staff and create jobs for other people.
The Liberal Party has this basic notion that if we cut wages enough then eventually employers will put on more people. The problem is that there's no actual evidence that it works this way. Every time those opposite have been responsible for pay cuts for Australians, they've said it will create more work and create more jobs. It just hasn't happened in practice. They've been trying this strategy for years, and for eight years we've seen stagnant wages. When those opposite allowed the cuts to penalty rates in 2017, they said that that would create more jobs, but no-one can point to those jobs having been created. There's no reason to think that this time would be any different.
This is where we have the most fundamental disagreement between us and those opposite. We think that a strong economy depends on good wages and confidence. Those opposite think if you cut wages enough, if you make work as insecure as possible, that will drive economic growth. They ignore the impact of confidence, particularly consumer confidence, on the economy. Good, strong wages are the precondition for economic growth. They are the precondition for confidence. They're not a distant end result of trickle-down economics, as those opposite believe.
I notice that we are very close to having to pause debate on this legislation until after question time. I seek leave to continue my remarks after that time.
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.
It was a very special day on 6 February 2021 for Yeronga State School. It was the day Yeronga celebrated its 150th anniversary with a foundation day assembly. Boggo Primary School was opened on 6 February 1861 with 63 foundation pupils; 15 years later, in 1886, it was renamed Yeronga State School. Since then more than 25,000 children and their families have, in some way, been touched by Yeronga State School. I include my own family in that group as my youngest son, Leo, graduated from there last year. In 1893 the school offered relief to families who had lost their homes in the great Brisbane flood, an act repeated in 2011 when, once again, the school became a refuge for local families affected by floodwaters.
The foundation assembly, led by the current school leaders and the new principal, Mrs Eunice Webb, included an array of dignitaries and speakers who reflected on the 150 years of the school. The guest speaker, sculptor Rhyl Hinwood AM, attended the school from 1945 to 1954. She is a renowned artist who created the magnificent ceramic Australian coat of arms perched high above us in this chamber—up there. After the assembly, Len, the senior alumnus, guided the junior, Stella, as they cut the ribbon at the historic school gates to cheers and claps. I look forward to attending more Yeronga State School 150th anniversary celebrations. Yeronga is a mighty school devoted to caring and to high academic results.
The vaccine rollout has begun and, representing an electorate with one of the oldest populations in the country, I'm delighted, especially given there are around five vaccine hubs on the Sunshine Coast. Two of these, Buderim and Woombye, are in my electorate, so locals in my patch will be among the first to be vaccinated.
We know this crisis is not just a health one, it's also an economic one, and I think we should acknowledge that credit-rating agency Fitch has this morning reaffirmed Australia's AAA credit rating. This is terrific news, and it comes on the back of last week's news about the unemployment rate going down to 6.4 per cent. So the economic recovery has also begun.
There will, however, be bumps in the road ahead. We know that, and we all have a role to play to ensure that we are supporting businesses and individuals. To that end, I want to pay tribute to the Sunshine Coast Chamber Alliance, who only last Friday ran a business breakfast focusing on the importance of solvency and what to do if your business is at risk of becoming insolvent, based on the new insolvency regime this government has introduced. Everybody has a role to play to support each other. We should be building confidence and making sure we're helping all other businesses.
As with their federal counterpart, rarely does a week go by without another scandal engulfing the New South Wales coalition government—a new day, a new rort.
I've spoken in this House many times about the need for a lift at Macquarie Fields railway station. Despite living mere metres from the station, my constituents are forced to catch taxis to other stations due to the lack of accessibility. Earlier this month, on the other side of Sydney, the state member for Hornsby, Matt Kean, had the pleasure of opening a new lift at Hawkesbury River station. Patron numbers there are 2,900 passengers a week. At Macquarie Fields, it's 10,600—almost four times as many people. The government's own report prioritised Macquarie Fields four spots above the Hawkesbury River, and it has a higher cost-benefit ratio. Despite this, no date and not a single dollar has been provided for a lift at Macquarie Fields. We've seen sports rorts, bushfire rorts, council merger rorts and now we have lift rorts. Once again the coalition were caught out propping up their own seats at the expense of those most in need. When asked about the pork-barrelling, the Premier took a perverse pride in it. Admittedly, she thinks it's part of the political process. Well, Premier, you can't shed your way out of this one. South-west Sydney deserves its fair share.
On 18 January, I had the honour of presenting William Herbert John Ives, commonly known as Bill, with a National Medal for his services to Volunteer Marine Rescue Gladstone. The National Medal recognises long and diligent service by members of voluntary organisations recognised by the government. These men and women give their time, and sometimes risk their lives, to protect and assist the community in times of emergencies and national disasters. They work 24/7, around the clock.
Bill has been a member of the VMR for over 20 years. He was a deckhand on charter boats and an underwater welder—a very specialised field, I might add. He would go to the VMR daily, always checking equipment. He had a great eye for detail and, if anything was out of place, he would soon tell his comrades of the fact. Unfortunately, Bill has been diagnosed with cancer, which continues to spread throughout his body. Although his health is rapidly deteriorating, he still manages to put on a brave face every day. He is being taken care of full time by his daughter, Maureen. I would like to thank Bill for his years and years of service, and we will keep him and his family in our thoughts and prayers.
If you listen to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in question time, you would be forgiven for thinking that this pandemic is all over. The Prime Minister has had his vaccine and he's signalling V for victory. They're patting themselves on the back and, despite hundreds of vaccine rollout announcements, they have only, finally, got a few vaccines actually being rolled out. They have plenty of slogans: snapbacks, fightbacks and comebacks. But, if they stopped congratulating themselves for one second and actually listened to the hardworking Australians, they would know that this pandemic is not over.
Many businesses and working families are doing it tough. Some sectors have recovered, but many have not. We've seen leaks of the virus in Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne and the Northern Beaches of Sydney. The vaccine rollout will take time. There's much more to be done and many more mutations and other realities of the vaccine to be dealt with. There are still sectors who are doing it tough. What does this government want to do? Now that the Prime Minister has had his vaccine, he's going to rip JobKeeper and rip away the support from hardworking Australian businesses and hardworking Australians in the arts sector, the events sector, higher education and the tourism sector, including travel agents. Many on this side of the House have been meeting with our travel agents, who are hardworking Australians. We on this side of the House support small businesses and the businesses who have been relying on JobKeeper. Those on that side of the House are all marketing and spin and they are ripping support away, which is going to hurt Australian jobs.
Today I rise to thank the Governor of South Australia, His Excellency the Hon. Hieu Van Le, and Mrs Lan Le for their visit on the weekend to the communities of Naracoorte and Lucindale in my electorate. I've spoken in this place a number of times regarding the recent Blackford-Avenue Range and Lucindale fires. The recent fires were the reason the Governor attended those communities and why the visit was so gratefully received.
His Excellency's first stop was at the opening of the children's exhibit at the Sheep's Back Museum, which will provide children with interactive learning experiences and enable them to explore the history of their local area. Next, we lunched at Yakka Park with a myriad of extraordinary volunteers, including those volunteering with the CFS, BlazeAid and the Lucindale Lions Club. It was great for the Governor to hear firsthand accounts of the fire and how it could have been so much worse but for the actions of those paid and unpaid professionals and, of course, to hear about the progress of the recovery.
In the evening, the Governor opened the Naracoorte office of the Australian Migrant Resource Centre and launched the Limestone Coast Multicultural Network. The successful settlement of humanitarian arrivals is an issue close to the Governor's heart, with his own personal experience serving as a shining example to all of us. Finally, His Excellency opened the Pearl Continental Restaurant, operated by Hafeezullah, himself a humanitarian refugee. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Governor and Mrs Le for their visit. They're great South Australians and inspirational in every context.
The events that this parliament has had to live through, let alone what Ms Higgins has had to live through, in the last week and a half have left so many good Australians incandescent with rage and depressed with frustration. I promised my electorate of Dunkley that, if I could come to this place and have the privilege of representing them, I would work towards making politics better and parliament a safer and more positive place for people to work, and one of the ways that we have to do that is by returning to the good old-fashioned principles of ministerial responsibility.
Under this Morrison government and in the Liberal government's previous terms, we have seen a walking away from ministerial responsibility. How many times do we have to see ministers saying, 'It wasn't me; it was my staff,' or, 'I didn't know what my staff were doing, so I don't have to take responsibility'? From the Prime Minister's reactions last week—let alone when his media officers were apparently lying about whether or not he was in Hawaii during the bushfires—to the minister for emissions blaming his staff for false numbers in the City of Sydney report that he falsely used, to the minister for employment and the minister responsible for the AFP blaming their staff for leaks about the AWU raids, to the environment minister blaming her staff for not taking a phone call about the destruction of Juukan Gorge, to the Minister for Sport blaming an unnamed staffer for the famous Excel spreadsheet in the sports rorts—she had to take responsibility because she was the only female minister in the lot— (Time expired)
Providing local opportunities in education and training right across the north-west, the west coast and King Island is something I'm passionate about. Our region has so much untapped potential, and education and training are key to unlocking it. That's why the Morrison government's Destination Australia program, being offered through the Burnie campus of the University of Tasmania, is so important. It's a great partnership. UTAS is providing high-quality locally based education opportunities, and the Morrison government is providing financial support to make students' higher education dreams a reality. It's a partnership that's working. Enrolments at the UTAS Cradle Coast campus for 2021 have seen an increase of 58 per cent for year 12 students alone. No longer do students have to move away from the coast in order to study or pursue an exciting career. UTAS are committed to ensuring that courses offered throughout the coast continue to match the employment needs of our region. Destination Australia scholarships are specifically targeted towards students studying in regional or rural areas like my own area of Burnie. They provide up to $15,000 worth of support to local students to cater for extra costs of studying in a region. Scholarships also encourage students from right across Australia to come to Burnie to study, and that's important for the great state of Tasmania and the economy.
Today I'm presenting a petition from the Peoples Climate Assembly calling on the government to abandon its dangerous and short-sighted plan for a gas led recovery from the recent economic downturn. If it weren't so tragic, it would be laughable, because science tells us that no developed country has more to lose from climate change fuelled extreme weather than Australia, but nonetheless our government continues to press on with its archaic plan to expand gas production across the country at the taxpayers' expense, even though gas is obviously a fossil fuel and resorting to it will lock in emissions for decades, with catastrophic consequences Already we've seen bushfires, heatwaves and floods destroying homes and livelihoods, and all the while the government squabbles internally over a 2050 net zero thought bubble and the delusion of low-emissions coal. Frankly, the opposition isn't much better, with the community being left to ask of Labor, 'So what's your plan?' But it doesn't have to be like this, because we could accept the inevitable shift to renewable energy, support our transitioning industries, create green jobs, lead the way in community owned energy and storage and take advantage of Australia's abundant renewable resources. In closing, I table the petition, which has been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:
We are deeply concerned that the Government's plan for a gas-led recovery will cause immense damage to our climate and our economy. Australia is very vulnerable to the effects of climate change. We have not forgotten the bushfires of last summer. A majority of Australians support strong and immediate action to reduce our carbon emissions, with three quarters supporting a target of net zero emissions by 2030. The recent commitment to net zero emissions by the three largest importers of Australian coal and gas (China, Japan and South Korea), as well as the likelihood of carbon tariffs being imposed by the EU, the US and others on goods from 'climate laggard' countries like Australia, are clear signals that our economic future does not lie in fossil fuels. Reports published this year by Climate Works, the Grattan Institute, Beyond Zero Emissions and the Climate Council outline strategies to stimulate short and long term jobs growth and cut carbon emissions in energy, transport, buildings, industry and land use. Spending to fast track Australia's economic recovery from the Covid pandemic provides us with a unique opportunity to reset our economy to make it fit for the twenty first century and to safeguard our future.
We therefore ask the House to reject the spending of public money on a 'gas-led recovery' and instead, develop a Covid recovery package that stimulates green jobs growth by immediately accelerating the transition to a net zero carbon economy.
from 4027 citizens (Petition No. EN2239)
Petition received.
One of the privileges of the position I hold is that I am the co-chair, along with the member for Solomon, of the Parliamentary Friends of the Philippines. Last week I had the great pleasure of hosting the ambassador, Hellen De La Vega, for a quiet meeting in the house. Unfortunately, the member for Solomon couldn't join us at the time. We were discussing the approaching 75th anniversary of the diplomatic relationship between our two countries—since 1946, in fact. That will occur on 22 May, and it may well be that I'll take the opportunity on that day to raise this issue again. I made the point to the ambassador that the Filipino diaspora play such an important part in Australia's modern make-up. There are over 294,000 Filipinos living in Australia. As I said to the ambassador, Filipinos make great Australians. They make great Australians because we have such a shared cultural and moral base. They come here with high levels of English-speaking capability, and that is a great advantage if you come to Australia to live and work. By and large, they come from a Christian country. They value family highly, and they have a respect for civil law and order. So I look forward to this day coming up in May, and I look forward to working with the ambassador and marking it in an appropriate manner at that time.
Yesterday marked International Mother Language Day, a day to celebrate linguistic diversity around the world and to celebrate how it enriches our multicultural society here in Australia.
In recognising the valuable contribution that a wide range of languages makes to my local community from around the world, I also want to note that intrinsic link between first language and identity. I want to note and call out the abhorrent practice of oppressing native languages in our own history and in other nations' histories. In doing so I want to acknowledge the range of languages spoken by local First Nations people and how they enrich Australia, including the local languages: the Wathaurong, the Woiwurrung and the Boonwurrung—languages spoken by the traditional owners of the land which I represent in this parliament.
Unfortunately, our annual celebration, planned for yesterday, has been postponed due to the Melbourne lockdowns. But I have been assured by our local event organisers, the Victorian Bangladeshi Community Foundation, and my friends Nurul Khan and Nusrat Borsha, that it will take place in March. I look forward to joining them and our wonderful, vibrant Victorian Bangladeshi community in Melbourne's west. I also want to acknowledge their Shaheed Day, a day to remember those who fought for Bengali culture and language. I look forward to celebrating with them all next month.
I want to commend Australia for signing on last week to the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. What is this? This is the use by states of arbitrary arrest and detention of foreign nationals to compel action or to exercise leverage over a foreign government—what is known in shorthand as 'hostage diplomacy'.
We've seen a lot of this in recent years, unfortunately, and it seems to be a growing trend. But it's contrary to international law—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly article 9, and also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It has a chilling effect on foreign nationals who are living and working abroad, including the roughly one million Australians who are living and working overseas in normal times. But, more importantly, it's antithetical to our values and contrary to how civilised states are operating, and it's going to lead to a race to the bottom. Iran, unfortunately, is one of the most accomplished practitioners of this, and Australia has had firsthand experience with this with the arrest and detention of Kylie Moore-Gilbert, who we were able to release only recently. But even in Myanmar today we have concerns over an Australian academic, Sean Turnell, whom members in the House here would be aware of.
Fifty-five countries signed on to this declaration and I'm pleased that Australia was amongst them. The declaration calls on states to respect their obligations, including for things like consular access, and to put an end to harsh conditions in detention, denial of access to legal counsel and to torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. I urge other states to study this declaration and to sign on.
One-hundred and eighty-nine: that's the number of times it's been reported that the Prime Minister has avoided giving answers in question time since taking office. That's 189 times he has referred questions directed to him—
A flick pass!
A flick pass, as the member for Lalor said, to ministers in his cabinet. That means 189 times he has avoided giving direct answers to the Australian people.
Hansard has shown another 62 times when the Prime Minister gave only a part answer before passing the buck to someone else. And we wonder why Australians are fed up with question time! The bipartisan review with the Standing Committee on Procedure surveyed 3,465 members of the public and more than 95 per cent of them said that the lack of respect and relevance they witnessed during question time is causing them to lose faith in politics. They want question time to change, and that starts at the top. It starts with the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, answering the questions that are directed to him, giving Australians the answers they deserve from their leader.
This review, approved by Labor and by members opposite, presents several changes to question time that need to be made. None is more important than the one obligating the Prime Minister to stop avoiding questions. The Prime Minister needs to fess up, front up and start answering the questions. After the events of last week, more than ever, the Prime Minister of Australia has serious questions to answer.
I rise today to strongly support the start of the COVID-19 vaccination program. It was great to see World War II survivor Jane be the first to get the jab, alongside the Prime Minister, in Sydney yesterday. It's an exciting time for Australia as we follow the first vaccinations being rolled out across our states and territories. Our rollout is starting with those who are most at risk and in need of protection. Under our vaccination rollout plan, quarantine and border workers and aged-care residents are on track to be vaccinated by April this year. I can assure you that, as soon as my age group comes up as part of the rollout, I will be rolling up my sleeve to get the vaccine, and I encourage all Ryan residents to do the same.
These vaccines have been through a full and thorough assessment by the TGA, one of the best regulatory agencies in the world, and the vaccines are safe for us to take up. Delivering the vaccine is a key part of Australia's road to recovery and will enable us to move forward with our economic recovery knowing that we are protected and safe. When the vast majority of Australians are vaccinated, we'll be able to get back to a better level of normality. In particular, being a Queenslander, I want to see the end of the border lockdowns. These snap lockdowns have been devastating for Queensland families who have been stopped from seeing friends and family and particularly for businesses that have seen their trade thrown into disarray at a moment's notice. We've all sacrificed so much during this pandemic. Now let's take the final important step and get the jab together.
The live music industry has pleaded with the government to extend support to musicians and people in the music business, with 3,500 managers, booking agents, stage crew and musicians—all the names you'd know—asking for JobKeeper or a similar scheme to continue. As APRA says, the industry remains out of work and in crisis. Not one national tour has been completed in the last year and not one festival has operated at full capacity, and that touring is the industry's major source of revenue. Efforts are being made to restart the industry locally in the Blue Mountains, but, at a moment's notice, gigs can be cancelled with a COVID outbreak, as was the pre-Christmas gig I was heading to with Richard Ortega's Kuban Firez in Katoomba.
The 'I lost my gig' survey has found that 55 per cent of respondents are thinking of leaving the sector. More than half of business owners said they'd need to close if there were no JobKeeper extension. The National Association for the Visual Arts is also appealing for support, describing reductions to JobKeeper and JobSeeker as premature and warning that it will lead to further devastating long-term job losses. The need extends to people involved in the wider entertainment sector, where organisers, suppliers of audiovisual, lighting and stage equipment, and catering producers are all missing out. The arts sector contributes $15 billion a year. The government can't abandon it. These people create our memories and tell our stories, and we need them now more than ever. (Time expired)
Australia's success comes from citizens and communities taking responsibility for the foundation of our great nation. That's why we celebrate three Goldstein locals who received a Westfield Local Heroes award last year. Matthew Donovan has been recognised for his trailblazing work in establishing the Food for Change foundation. Food for Change grows meals and rescues unwanted food to ensure that no-one in our community goes hungry. Robbie Hendry has been acknowledged for his pilot project with the TaskForce Community Agency—a body I've visited on a number of occasions. His 12-month traineeship helps young people who have left school early or who have disengaged from the community to find employment. Yvonne Hong has been recognised for creating Pets of the Homeless Australia, a charity which helps over 1,000 homeless Australians care for their pets each month. Matthew, Robbie and Yvonne have each been awarded a $10,000 grant to fund more great work at their affiliated organisations.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Goldstein's strong charitable ethos has helped build wellbeing and resilience within our community. It's the bond that brings us together. Many people have been able to rely on Food for Change for groceries and on services like Robbie's to find new work. It's no wonder that this year's awards saw a 38 per cent increase in nominations and a 30 per cent increase in votes. Congratulations, Matthew, Robbie and Yvonne on your incredible achievements!
I was very pleased to see Professor Rhonda Stuart become the first Victorian to receive a COVID-19 vaccine today. The success of this vaccine rollout is the most important endeavour confronting the nation at the moment, so it's important that we're all on 'team Australia' in this effort. But, when politicians don't listen to the government's expert medical advisers, they expose themselves to the risk of being gulled by foreign disinformation campaigns seeking to undermine our national fight against COVID-19. In the age of social media and at a time when the government's failure to land a workable media bargaining code has left Facebook bereft of authoritative news content, there has never been a better time to be a useful idiot. Sharing sensationalist disinformation is great for your Facebook reach, and there's no shortage of foreign governments fuelling the fire.
Indeed, a review of the member for Hughes's Facebook page since the start of the pandemic shows dozens of posts based on false narratives that the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has identified as being amplified by foreign disinformation campaigns, mostly backed by Russia. Most concerning are the narratives the member for Hughes has been sharing about 'the great reset' and the role that Bill Gates has in a global cabal to roll out mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations, including the extraordinary claim that Bill Gates says everyone has to get his vaccination even though the vast majority of the world already has immunity from COVID-19. This is rubbish. The member for Hughes does this because Facebook's algorithms encourage him to and because the Prime Minister enables him to do it. It's time we all got on team Australia, stopped sharing Russian disinformation about COVID-19 and got the vaccination. (Time expired)
One in seven students at Townsville high schools don't eat breakfast. That is a figure that Paula and Demelza, two locals, are trying to reduce to zero. Their charity, Fuel for Schools, is doing an amazing job collecting donations of food for local students and putting on breakfast programs to make sure they have brain food to get them through a tough day of learning. No child should be sitting at a desk in a classroom, first thing in the morning, with an empty stomach. Apart from being uncomfortable, research has shown that skipping breakfast can affect concentration, mental performance, mood and memory—all things that are critical for an effective day of education. A proper breakfast can provide those things as well as helping students maintain a healthy weight and providing energy and essential nutrients, like vitamins, iron and fibre.
It was great to catch up with Paula and Demelza just before the start of the school term as they were stocking up for another year. The amount of food they need each week to supply each of the state schools in Townsville is staggering. On average, they need 70 loaves of bread, 36 litres of milk, eight kilos of jam, two kilos of vegemite, two kilos of peanut butter, two litres of honey, two kilos of cream cheese, seven kilos of milo, eight kilos of margarine, 10 kilos of canned spaghetti, one kilo of baked beans and multiple cartons of cornflakes and Weet-Bix. It's a huge need, and I would encourage anyone in our community who can help out to get in touch to make sure our students start the day in the best way: with a full stomach.
Friday was the anniversary of the horrific murders of Hannah Clarke and her three children in my electorate. Hannah's parents, Lloyd and Sue, and her family and friends have shown great strength throughout the year that followed the murders, and I pay tribute to them. One of their first acts was to establish Small Steps 4 Hannah to help others. They've also issued a clear call for reform to address coercive control. Researchers found up to 80 per cent of women who seek help for domestic abuse have experienced coercive control. Coercive control can include isolating someone from friends and family, controlling their finances, sexual coercion and other forms of control. According to a New South Wales coroner's review of intimate partner homicides, before murdering their partners, 99 per cent of perpetrators displayed coercive and controlling behaviours towards the victim. I'm grateful to the Palaszczuk government in Queensland for setting up a task force on coercive control. When Labor was in government federally, we updated the Family Law Act to include coercive control, but more needs to be done. As my colleague said on Friday, Australia needs a consistent national definition of family and domestic violence. I encourage all jurisdictions to work together to make that happen.
I'd like to acknowledge the life and contribution of Moya McKeon, who sadly passed away last week. Moya and her family came to Beenleigh in 1953. Through that time she was very involved in a range of aspects across our community, in particular the Catholic parish, and she described the very fond memories she had of St Patrick's at Beenleigh. Moya's life was defined by her service and kindness to others, and in 2007 she was awarded the Order of Australia for her service. Moya was a founding member of Quota Beenleigh, an international organisation empowering women, children, the deaf and people with speech difficulties, and she was involved with Quota for close to 48 years. In 1986 she established the Quota Beenleigh City of Logan Eisteddfod. At that time, there were very limited opportunities for young people to compete in dance, music and performance in front of trained judges. Today the eisteddfod is the largest performing arts event in the city of Logan.
I'll always remember the way Moya lit up a room whenever we went to Quota events. Her friendship and warmth touched me, my family, members of my staff and many others in our community. Her friends said that Moya was an inspiration for many, both though Quota and more widely. It was wonderful to see her and the legacy she has left our community. May she rest in peace. She will not be forgotten. Her legacy will live on for the many whose lives she so richly graced and benefited.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is for the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that, under the hiring credit scheme, an employer can sack a full-time worker aged over 35 and replace them with multiple younger part-time workers to gain extra hours of labour at no extra cost?
The member for Rankin has been set up again, because he rushed out with the member for Corio to put out a press release based on an FOI to Treasury. I want to read to the member for Rankin and to this House what the FOI from Treasury said. These are the exact words.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
He's a bit chirpy because he doesn't want to hear what the Treasury's FOI says.
The Treasurer will answer the question.
The Treasury FOI says, 'The hiring credit does not create an incentive for an employer to replace an older worker with several new part-time workers.' The FOI goes on to say, 'The only situation in which the employer is better off is one which is unaffected by the availability of the hiring credit.' It's very clear that the hiring credit has a two-tier test: it's only for additional employees, and the payroll has to be above that which was previously paid by that particular employer.
The member for Rankin has form for falling flat on his face. He really does. He contradicted the head of the RBA by saying that the RBA was saying that the government has not done enough in the budget.
The member for Rankin on a point of order?
Yes, thank you, Speaker: relevance. The question was about whether an older worker can be sacked and replaced with younger workers to get more hours at no extra cost.
The Treasurer has the call. I'm listening carefully to the Treasurer.
I repeat: the FOI makes it very clear. It does not create an incentive for an employer to replace an older worker with several new part-time workers. The member for Rankin has been contradicted by the RBA, the ATO and now the Treasury.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House about how the Morrison government's rollout of vaccines and plans for economic recovery are charting an Australian way out of the COVID-19 pandemic?
I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. He—like all the other members of this chamber, I'm sure—is thrilled that a new chapter has begun in our fight against the COVID-19 pandemic with the commencement of the rollout of the Pfizer vaccine all around the country from today. Every day gets better from here in our fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, because every single day more and more Australians are receiving the vaccine, which is critical to, firstly, protecting them from serious illness and potentially something even worse than that. That was our most serious concern at the outset of this pandemic—that the vaccination does this.
Equally, the vaccination program begins with those who are most vulnerable in our community and those who are on the front line of our community, including the wonderful Jane Malysiak, an 84-year-old from Marayong, who came to this country when she was just 13 years old, after the Second World War, having survived something absolutely horrible in Poland and coming to this country. Here she took part as the first person to receive that vaccine.
In some 240 aged-care facilities across the country and 16 major public hospitals, 60,000 Australians living and working in aged care and disabilities care will receive that COVID-19 vaccine first along with frontline workers. This is a new era of confidence for Australians in our fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. I want to thank all of the medical experts who have done such extraordinary work, those from our departments of health and those who work in the health system, at the federal level and at the state level, as right across the country today they continue to roll it out. Zoe Park is a COVID nurse at the Gold Coast University Hospital, Gayathry is a COVID environmental social services supervisor at RPA Hospital in Sydney, Professor Rhonda Stuart's team cared for many COVID patients at Monash health centre in Melbourne, Maddy Williams is a COVID nurse at Canberra Hospital, Antonia Garza and Keita Winks are COVID vaccine nurses at a Perth COVID vaccination centre and of course there's the Premier of South Australia—these Australians are putting their shoulder to the jab, like 60,000 other Australians will put their shoulder to the jab.
I would only encourage people to follow the advice of Jane Malysiak, 84, of Sydney. Jane put it simply today: 'Everybody, go and get it so you will be safe.' That's Jane's advice to the country. As more and more Australians take up this vaccine, we invite them to join that group which will grow each and every day and which will continue to bolster confidence and ensure that the comeback from the COVID-19 pandemic continues.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, in this House, the government voted down an amendment to his JobMaker legislation that was designed to stop workers over 35 being sacked in favour of younger workers? Does he acknowledge that workers over 35 are not just being left out and left behind but singled out and sacrificed?
Our economic recovery program from the COVID-19 pandemic is working. More than 59,000 full-time jobs were created in January. On this side of the House, we support the measures that are getting Australians back into work. The Labor Party is having an each-way bet on pandemic politics. They play it each and every day. They oppose it as much as they support it. They oppose the measures that are getting Australians back to work just as much as they support them. They cannot be relied upon to support the Australian people at their time of greatest need. Instead, they come into this place and spread mistruths about what the government is doing.
The reality of what the government is doing is it's getting Australians back into work. The reality of what this government is doing is ensuring that the health needs of Australians are being addressed in a way that few countries anywhere around the world can speak of. That is why Australians are growing in confidence. So the Labor Party can come in here and make all sorts of false claims and seek to spook people in the middle of a pandemic, but those are the irresponsible actions of a Labor Party that have no clue and take an each-way bet on everything.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain to the House how the Morrison government's vaccination rollout will help chart our Australian way out of the COVID-19 recession through aiding our economic confidence and ensuring our recovery continues to gain momentum?
I thank the member for Groom for his question and acknowledge his extensive experience before coming to this place as an engineer on rail projects, water projects, infrastructure projects, including airport terminals, and mining projects and his strong support for the Inland Rail project.
Today the Australian economy got more good news. Fitch, the credit rating agency, has reaffirmed Australia's AAA credit rating. We are one of nine countries to have a AAA credit rating from the three leading credit rating agencies.
I say to the Treasurer: you weren't asked about this; you were asked about the vaccination program.
Honourable members interjecting—
No. The question was: could he explain how the vaccine rollout will chart our way out of recession? So if he wants to answer a question—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
I want to make it very clear that in Fitch's statement today about the AAA credit rating they said that the vaccine rollout will 'support the domestic sentiment' and 'help ease risks'. That is what Fitch said today when they were talking about our AAA credit rating. When Fitch were talking about our AAA credit rating and how the vaccine will help ease the risks and help support the sentiment, they said that it will continue Australia's economic momentum—economic momentum that has seen the labour market recover. Unemployment has fallen to 6.4 per cent and there are, as the Prime Minister just said, 59,000 new jobs. We've seen 94 per cent of the 1.3 million Australians who either lost their jobs or saw their working hours reduced to zero now back at work. We have seen business and consumer confidence get back to their pre-pandemic levels. We've seen our housing market prove to be remarkably resilient, with prices getting back up to where they were, as well as strong starts from new homebuyers.
This will all be supported as the vaccine is rolled out across the economy. It's going to give those Australians, whether they are businesses or households, an incentive to spend the $240 billion that has accumulated on their balance sheets since the start of the crisis. We have seen the savings ratio go up. We have seen Australians, because of the health restrictions, unable to spend their money and we've seen Australians overall be very cautious. But, as a result of the vaccine rollout, which has started, we are now starting to see that confidence return across the economy as well. Yesterday, when Jane, an 84-year-old Second World War veteran, got a shot in the arm, the Australian economy got a shot in the arm as well.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week the United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers are not independent contractors. Why won't the Australian government extend the role of the Fair Work Commission so that it can set minimum standards and entitlements for gig workers in Australia?
The changes we are making to our industrial relations laws in this country have one specific purpose, and that is to ensure that Australians can get more work—they can get back into work, they can access more hours and as a result can earn more and can get into jobs that are covered by enterprise agreements, which are covered by higher wages. That is what we are seeking to do. I'll ask the industrial relations minister to add further to the answer.
Of course, the United Kingdom decision is something that we have read closely. One thing the Leader of the Opposition is likely to be aware of is that the term 'worker' is a UK specific legal classification, so the bearing of that decision to workplace law in Australia is of minimal effect and does not compare well. The broader situation that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about is with respect to contract workers. Independent contractors have been consistently about eight to nine per cent of the Australian economy over the last 10 years and independent contractors are an enormously large range of workers, from creatives to those in the gig economy and transport, particularly in the trucking industry.
An honourable member interjecting—
And, yes, of course delivery drivers with online platforms. The opposition suggest that, with respect to that eight to nine per cent of the economy, the independent contractors, it is completely desirable across the board or a very simple thing to have one body—and in this case they have nominated the Fair Work Commission—determine how those independent contractors would be remunerated. Of course, independent contractors at the moment are remunerated according to their independent contract.
People in this House might remember the last time that the Labor Party decided it would be a very simple thing to determine what the remuneration of independent contractors would be. That was under the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Members might recall how that worked out—very, very poorly. We did abolish it, and the reason we abolished it is it wasn't working; it was costing the economy an enormous amount of money—$2.3 billion! Luke Sheridan was quoted at the time; he was a 44-year-old owner driver who operated on the east coast. He said the tribunal had made it more difficult to conduct business, and warned the new mandatory pay regime would prevent him from giving accurate—
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
The question went to Uber drivers. It went to minimum wage rates, which truck drivers do get. It went to those people who are currently working for bugger all and risking their lives every day. Five of them lost their lives last year. Maybe the minister can give a serious answer.
Mr Falinski interjecting—
The minister has the call. The member for Mackellar will cease interjecting.
The Leader of the Opposition's question went to and used the precise words 'independent contractors'. What Labor wants to pretend in this House is that it is somehow a matter of some simplicity or ease or wisdom to go across and make a decision to set remuneration standards for the eight to nine per cent of the economy that are independent contractors. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. My question is regarding the alleged rapist of Brittany Higgins and at least two other women. Has the alleged rapist of Ms Higgins held a lobbyist pass, been on the lobbyist register or had lobbyist meetings or communications with ministers, their staff or departmental officials at any time since the rape occurred? Has he visited Parliament House or any other Commonwealth ministerial office since that time? If you are unaware, will you make inquiries and report back to the House?
I thank the member for his question. No, I cannot confirm those matters. I would be very happy to confirm those matters for you, and I will have it attended to as quickly as possible.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is rolling out COVID-19 related health services in regional Australia, including in my electorate of Dawson, and how this helps chart our Australian way out of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen will cease interjecting.
I thank the member for Dawson for his question and acknowledge his advocacy for that electorate. The rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine has commenced—a tremendous step forward in the next phase in reaching a new normal. It's something we all want. Yesterday we saw the first Australian to receive the vaccine, 84-year-old Jane Malysiak, being vaccinated in Castle Hill. Australians will be safer once they have been vaccinated. I implore everyone: get vaccinated, protect yourself, protect the loved ones around you, protect somebody you may not even know who you may come in contact with on a bus or a train or wherever it might be, and protect your community. Do it for yourself. Do it for Australia. As Jane Malysiak said, 'Everybody take the vaccine.'
In regional Australia 134 centres will begin to roll out the vaccine. I want to pay special tribute to the Minister for Regional Health, the member for Parkes, in making sure regional communities know not just about the importance of the vaccine but the fact they will be getting it at the same time as metropolitan centres. That is so important. About 44 per cent of the week 1 locations are in regional Australia. In the member for Dawson's electorate, Mackay, North Mackay and West Mackay will be operating as vaccine centres. Every state and territory will be included in the first tranche of the vaccine rollout.
From Orange to Alice Springs and Victor Harbor, from Bowen in the member's electorate to Burnie in Tassie, from Morwell in Victoria to Bunbury in WA, it doesn't matter where you are; we will be making sure the vaccine comes there. Make no mistake; the vaccination program in Australia will save and protect lives, and will certainly protect livelihoods as well.
The transport industry will be front and centre in the distribution of the vaccine to every corner of this country. Yesterday we communicated with Saul Resnick about the very first day. He is the CEO of DHL in Western Sydney. The member for Parkes and I saw firsthand how the vaccine will be distributed. DHL and Linfox will have a hand in the logistics of the storing and the transportation of the vaccine around Australia. This is one of the largest logistical exercises in our nation's history.
The transport industry has been vital in background support right through the global COVID-19 pandemic, from ensuring that supermarket shelves were stocked to making sure that face masks and respiratory devices and the like were delivered, particularly to regional centres. I want to thank truckies for keeping our nation moving. I want to thank them because they do it every night and every day. When we're at home in bed with the doona pulled up over our heads, the truckies are out there. They're doing a great job for Australia. They are delivering. They will continue to do so as we get the vaccines out as part of the COVID-19 recovery.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why isn't the Prime Minister willing to stand up to tech giants like Uber and Deliveroo to stop Australian workers from being paid less than the minimum wage?
The only party that is represented in this chamber that is proposing a pay cut for workers is the Labor Party. They're the only ones.
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on both sides!
With the proposals that the Labor party outlined, through the Leader of the Opposition, for mandatory leave applied across all casuals—
Honourable members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will pause. Members will cease interjecting. The members for Goldstein and Mackellar will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.
From not thinking their policies through, when the Leader of the Opposition got up to try to explain the Labor party policy—they just don't think it through. The consequence of what the Labor Party is suggesting is a pay cut for people working in these jobs.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.
I was going to pull out the weirdness point of order, Mr Speaker.
Well, that one doesn't exist, so I don't know where you were going to find it.
I know, but nor does the policy that he's talking about.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
He wasn't asked about some fantasy that he's made up—
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
I simply say again: the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the implications of his own policies. Labor were like this in government, and they've gotten worse in opposition under this Leader of the Opposition.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister please outline how the Morrison government is guaranteeing the delivery of COVID-19 vaccines to all Australians and how this approach will help chart an Australian way out of the pandemic?
I want to thank the member for Reid not just for her question but also for her service in supporting Australians with mental health challenges. One of the most significant things during the course of the difficult year that Australia has had, the year of the global pandemic, has been our continued work on containment in Australia. I'm pleased to be able to inform the House that Australia has now had a fifth day, out of the last six, with zero cases of community transmission. That's a collaborative partnership, a national achievement, of the people, the jurisdictions, the Australian government and the medical profession. But we know we won't be fully safe until the world is safe, and that's why a vaccine is so important.
Yesterday I had the privilege of joining the Prime Minister as Jane Malysiak became the first Australian to be given the vaccine. This morning I was privileged to join the ACT, showing the partnership between the Commonwealth and the territories and states. I was with the ACT health minister, Rachel Stephen-Smith, when Maddy, a nurse, was given the vaccine. Tomorrow, I understand, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Greens will put their shoulders to the cause, and I want to thank them for their contribution and their part. They've been playing an important role. This reaches across all parties. It reaches across all circumstances. I want to thank everybody for being involved.
What we've seen is that Australians are stepping up to the cause, and they will step up to the cause. We had people such as Mila, a disability support worker who started life in the Philippines, who was there yesterday, who said it was one of the great honours of her life to be saying to the Australian people that she was contributing. She supports our disability patients as a carer and she was putting herself forward to be part of this great Australian project. This Australian project, involving people from all corners of the land, begins this week with our elderly Australians in aged care and those in disability care, with their carers and our frontline health workers, and with our border and quarantine workers. We had the privilege of meeting some of those yesterday, some who had been working in the program throughout so much of the last year. All of these people have helped to keep us safe so far. But now it's our turn to help keep them safe, and that's what this vaccination program is about: it's about keeping Australians safe.
My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. When asked whether gig workers should be paid at least the minimum wage, the Minister for Industrial Relations said, 'It's complicated'. Luigi from Sydney worked as a full-time food delivery rider for Deliveroo for five years, earning well below the minimum wage. He had to cover all his own costs and expenses. What is complicated about making sure that workers like Luigi earn no less than the minimum wage when they're working in Australia?
The difficulty that many governments have come into in trying to determine what an independent contractor should be paid outside the contract that they make with their employer is that that effort often ends in disaster, as it did for you with the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal.
In that instance, you determined, in your wisdom, that you would tell independent contracting truck drivers how they would get paid. That was subject to two findings which produced damning reviews into the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. They both recommended that the system that Labor introduced in 2012 be abolished. They demolished the arguments for its retention in finding no clear link between remuneration and the safety of drivers. The mandatory pay rates—many of you will remember the protests that occurred at this stage—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order on my left! The member for Whitlam! The minister will pause for a second. He has been asked a question and he's entitled to compare and contrast, but that can't be the entirety of his answer. He has been going for a minute. The minister needs to direct himself to the question that's been asked.
There are eight to nine per cent of people in the Australian economy who are independent contractors. They include a very wide variety of individuals who contract directly with their employers. That is the system that existed under Labor, under the Fair Work Act, and that is the system which has been preserved with this government. We believe that those people who are subject to awards should be paid according to the award rates, and that those who receive enterprise agreement rates should be paid along those lines. Independent contracts are a valid method of paying individuals in our economy; that has been the case under Labor, and it is the case under this government.
As the Prime Minister noted, the only side of politics in Australia which suggests there should be a pay cut is the members opposite. What they propose should occur—
The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
On direct relevance. The question goes specifically to those members who the government might define as independent contractors who are being paid less than the minimum wage. It doesn't refer to any other category of worker.
Yes, I do have to say that even though it was quite a long question, with a long preamble, the question essentially was why the minimum wage can't be paid. The minister does need to confine himself to that and be relevant to the question.
What the government does not propose to do is to take any money off any of those independent contractors, which is precisely what the Labor opposition proposes to do. What they propose to do is to provide entitlements to those individuals—
No, no. I say to the minister that the question wasn't about what anyone else was trying to do, apart from the government.
That eight or nine per cent of the economy are a very specific class and they operate in exactly the same way under this government as they did under Labor, pursuant to the Fair Work Act.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister update the House on the Morrison government's vaccine rollout, which commenced today? Who will be receiving the vaccine as part of the first phase of this Australian approach?
I want to thank the member for Moncrieff not just for her question but for her support for COVID measures and the vaccination program and also the potential that that brings to give greater freedom to Australians: the ability to manage cases as we deal with the impact of the vaccine in reducing the risk of serious illness, of hospitalisation, of loss of life and therefore the ability to maintain the openness of our internal borders and support communities such as hers. In doing this, we've taken the advice of the medical experts and the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, which has helped us identify five phases for the rollout. This first phase, 1a, has been focused on three particular groups: the frontline border and quarantine workers, which will represent approximately 70,000 Australians; our frontline health workers such as Maddie, whom I mentioned earlier, of which there are approximately 100,000; and then the balance of the over 670,000 Australians who will be in this phase 1a group will be our aged-care residents, our disability care residents and the heroic staff that have been taking care of them. It will provide that care and protection for them.
Then we'll move to phase 1b. In common with much of the world because the nature of COVID is such that it is a greater risk to those that are older, we begin with the over-80s, the over-70s and the immunocompromised. We deal with those in this group that include Indigenous Australians over the age of 55 and then critical emergency service workers.
We then move to phase 2. Phase 2 also has at its heart an age based allocation, to the over-60s, the over-50s, other critical workers and Indigenous Australians under 55 years of age.
Then we move to the balance of the adult population and also allow for the fact that we recognise that there will be Australians who are seeking to catch up, who may not have been in a position to have had the vaccination earlier or who may have changed their views and developed more confidence. We urge all Australians to have confidence in the safety of the vaccines and their efficacy as set out by the World Health Organization, as set out in The Lancet journal, as set out by the Therapeutic Goods Administration and as seen in real-world examples across the globe.
Finally, if clinical trials represent it, we would move to children.
But all of this is about making sure that, at the end of the day, every Australian has the opportunity to be vaccinated.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Alex is a delivery driver for Uber and Deliveroo. He worked through the pandemic, providing food to Australians in isolation. Alex earns well below the national minimum wage. What's complicated about making sure Alex earns no less than the minimum wage?
I thank the member for his question. Members opposite think that it would be a very simple thing to determine precisely how an independent contractor should be paid. It's simply not. The issue with respect to delivery drivers is first and foremost one of safety. Those drivers are, of course, to be covered in precisely the same way in health and safety laws as other employees, and that is one thing that has to be driven home at all levels of government, particularly in the states and territories that are responsible for those laws. But the idea that, somehow, all the independent contractors in this economy can be cherry-picked and that any one person or a government can precisely tell you how they should be remunerated above and beyond the independent contracts that they work out with their employers?
One thing you can absolutely do to protect the position of a person such as the one who was the subject of the question is make absolutely sure that, when they are an independent contractor, that is exactly what they are and they're not being placed in the position of an independent contractor when they are in another type of employment. That is what is known as sham contracting. One of the things that the government bill before the House does is double the fines for sham contracting. We ensure that you cannot have a mischaracterisation of an employee, like that just mentioned. If they are an independent contractor then they can be engaged as such, but if they are something other than that then they need to be engaged in that way. To protect workers of exactly that type, to ensure they are getting the contracts they deserve and that they are being categorised properly, we have before the parliament an increase in the amount of fines applicable to sham contracting, from $9,980 for an individual and up to $99,900 for a body corporate—a doubling of the fines for sham contracting.
The minister will pause for a second. The minister has certainly given some context, but this was a very specific question about the minimum wage. He really needs to address that in his answer to be relevant to the question.
This side of government is doing things, practical things, in its bill to ensure that contractors are protected, including from sham contracts. The members opposite are intending to vote against that.
My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services. Will the minister please inform the House about what the Morrison government is doing to ensure the systems supporting our Australian vaccine rollout are ready?
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The member for Lalor will cease interjecting. She didn't interject at all last week. That's because she wasn't here. We don't want her to let everyone know she's back in that fashion. The minister has the call.
Let me thank the member for Robertson for her question and all the hard work she's doing with the Central Coast to prepare them for the vaccination rollout. As the House is aware, the Australian Immunisation Register will be the basis of record for Australians receiving the COVID vaccine. Services Australia has been working hard to ensure that it's well prepared to handle the increase in vaccination providers that will be accessing the register. The register has undergone substantial upgrades in preparation for the vaccine rollout. It already allows you to see your recorded immunisations in the immunisation history statement through myGov or the Express Plus Medicare app. We'll be monitoring the performance of that very closely. In fact, 5.6 million immunisation history statements were securely accessed by individuals last financial year. I'm sure the member for McMahon would like to hear that, as most parents in the House would. As we're required to provide records of immunisation histories for our schoolkids when they go on camps or other excursions, this is where so many millions of Australian parents have gone.
The register will be the unifying national system used to monitor immunisation coverage and the immunisation status for vaccines. Services Australia will play a critical role in the program by ensuring that healthcare providers can record the vaccinations on the register and individuals can access that immunisation history as proof of their vaccine. All vaccines recorded on the register will appear on a citizen's immunisation history statement, which citizens can print out or send digitally by email or SMS. Indeed, individuals like Jane, who was the first Australian to receive the vaccine, can access their immunisation history statement through a variety of means. They can get it through their vaccination provider, they can get it by contacting Services Australia and they can log into the Express Plus Medicare app or myGov. Those are four different pathways to ensure all Australians can have access to their immunisation history.
Australians can take action right now, digitally. They can link their myGov and their Medicare digital accounts. This will help them get ready for the vaccination. If they've already linked Medicare to myGov, I'd ask Australians to please ensure that their details are up to date. Already, 19.7 million Australians have an active myGov account, and 9.9 million Australians have linked this to Medicare. It's a great time for those Australians who have not yet created a myGov account to do that, and to link Medicare and other services, to be as prepared for the vaccine rollout as possible.
My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is someone who delivers food on a bike through an app like Deliveroo a worker? Should Australian workers be paid at least the minimum wage? If not, why have one?
Well, there are three essential types of workers in Australia. They are independent contractors, they are people on awards and they are people on enterprise agreements. And all of them, of course, work and are workers. The definition of 'worker' in the United Kingdom context is completely different from that in Australia.
But what the Leader of the Opposition essentially would try and have people believe in public, which is why he gives speeches about these things and then changes them overnight, is that it is somehow a simple thing, a thing without economic consequences, to move an entire group of people who are presently independent contractors into the award system, onto a minimum wage, with all the benefits that flow from being on an award, such as sick leave benefits and so forth. That's what the Leader of the Opposition would try and have people believe.
The minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, the question was very specific—
On relevance?
on relevance—and went to one item: the minimum wage. Should Australian workers be paid at least the minimum wage?
That was one of two questions.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
No, there's another one then, which is whether they're a worker.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
That's right, but it enables him to deal with the subject in the way he has so far, and he's on the right side of the line—just. The minister has the call.
The Leader of the Opposition's question was: should all people who work in the Australian economy receive the minimum wage? Now, the sensible response to that is that all workers receive the minimum wage. What the Leader of the Opposition did was go out and give a speech, obviously meant to attract as much support as he possibly could during a desperate time, and this is what his speech said:
"[In a] a Labor government that I lead [I] will work with state and territory governments, unions and industry to develop portable entitlements for annual leave, sick leave and long service leave for Australians in insecure work."
What he was saying was that all workers in the Australian economy who don't presently get the minimum wage, all those benefits, will move on to those benefits. What we said is that would cost the Australian economy $20 billion, and that would manifest in a tax on business. And then, overnight, the speech mysteriously changed.
Opposition members interjecting—
The minister will pause for a second. The questions were very specific. They weren't about any speech anyone had given. It was a question about government policy, and the minister needs to be relevant to the question.
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked: should Australian workers be paid at least the minimum wage? If not, why have one? The answer to that question is that if you change the remuneration structure from what it has traditionally been in Australia for 30 years, and all Australian workers received the types of benefits that the Leader of the Opposition is saying publicly that he would provide to them, the cost to business of that is $20 billion. If you move workers from the present system of remuneration to a new system of remuneration, the cost of that is $20 billion. So when the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Watson asks, 'Why is it complicated?' it's because a massive cost attaches to it. And when that cost was pointed out to members opposite, the promise changed overnight. The promise didn't even survive a single 24-hour period, because what they do is pretend to people that something that is complicated is simple.
He's only got a couple of seconds left, but I just say to the minister that the question didn't ask about alternatives. It asked about why the government was taking a certain stance. The minister has the call for the remaining few seconds.
The way in which the structure of the Australian workplace has existed would exist again under us. What they are proposing is radical and costly. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister inform the House about how the Morrison government is backing our manufacturers to boost our sovereign capability and create jobs, including through the manufacture of medical products such as the COVID-19 vaccines?
I thank the member for her question. Our government is always looking to work with industry and our researchers to make sure that we are in the best possible position to futureproof our nation. Today, as we start the vaccine rollout, it is really important that we acknowledge the work that has been done by researchers and industry right across Australia to support the COVID-19 response—because, quite frankly, it has been an absolutely outstanding result from so many Australians, whether it's our researchers, through CSIRO, through the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness, or at the University of Queensland, or whether it's industry that's stepped up to make sure that we are producing the surgical masks we need, such as Med-Con and ResMed, who did a lot of work with our ventilators, along with Grey Innovation. And of course there is CSL, which is on track to produce 50 million doses of the vaccine, which is more than sufficient for our population.
That work has been a concerted effort by so many Australian researchers and by so many of our leading businesses right across Australia. CSL is a great success story, but there are many other businesses here in Australia that are manufacturing medical products that are also great success stories. Many of us here would be very familiar with the Cochlear story and the work they have been doing with their hearing technology solutions. I've already mentioned ResMed and what they did with ventilators. But there are so many fledgling companies that are producing medical products right across Australia. We as Australians should be so proud of them and the work they are doing. They are great examples.
One business, a Melbourne based business, is Navi Medical Technologies. Last year this government backed them with a grant of $400,000 to help them commercialise their new catheter technology for seriously ill babies. Even during COVID, faced with enormous challenges, they expanded their business. They employed an extra six people. They set up an Aussie-owned office in the United States, and they significantly progressed their clinical research.
This is the work that Australians are so good at. That's why, when this government established our manufacturing road maps, we actually looked at making sure there was a place for medical product manufacturing, because we have the capability here in Australia. What we will focus on now is building our capacity.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In the first question of this sitting fortnight I asked the Prime Minister whether his government had provided an appropriate duty of care for Brittany Higgins. Given public revelations, including ones that involved the Prime Minister's office, about text messages, calls and written advice relating to the reported sexual assault in the defence minister's office, does the Prime Minister still say that his government provided Ms Higgins with necessary support and offers of assistance?
This is a very serious issue, and the government has always addressed it as a very serious issue, and the matters that have been raised are now the subject of a set of processes. I anticipate that later this week the Special Minister of State, the Minister for Finance, will have concluded his consultations with all parties, in both this chamber and the other, to finalise the terms of reference and the independent process that will be followed in relation to these matters as a parliament. There are also other processes that are all underway.
As we've consistently said and as the now Minister for Defence and then Minister for Defence Industry indicated in the other place, at all times they sought to provide the right support. They followed the advice on the support to provide and the advice to respect in particular the privacy of Brittany through these matters. What I acknowledge, and what I have consistently acknowledged, is that as a result, some two years later, Brittany did not feel that that support had been there for her. That is what I have apologised for, that is what I believe our processes must address, and that is what we are seeking to do.
My question is to the Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison-McCormack government plans to protect regional, rural and remote communities from COVID-19 with a safe and effective vaccine rollout and how this approach will help chart an Australian way out of the pandemic?
I would like to thank the member for Cowper for his question. He would be aware that today, in Port Macquarie, in the electorate of Cowper, the rollout of the vaccine into the aged-care sector has commenced. It is one of many centres right across Australia in the first week of phase 1a. This will go for six weeks. I want to reassure the people of regional Australia that if their town is not listed in the first week it will be covered over the next six weeks. People will not be bussed to different areas to get the vaccine; the vaccine will come to them, particularly in aged-care facilities.
Also this week, frontline health workers are being vaccinated. In the member for Cowper's electorate, one of those hubs that the New South Wales government has set up is at Coffs Harbour. It also does not mean that everyone on the North Coast goes to Coffs Harbour; it is a hub from which that vaccine will be distributed. As we roll past 1a and go to other phases where different sections of the community will be done, there will be GP clinics, pharmacies, respiratory clinics and Aboriginal community controlled health workers, but in some areas there will be a surge workforce that will probably go into some of those smaller, more remote communities.
The member for Cowper asked how this will see regional Australia's way out into the future. One of the things that has happened over the last 12 months is that a lot of Australians have discovered regional Australia as a place to visit. What's also happened is that regional Australia has been one of the safest places on the planet to be. There is a bit of a feeling that COVID is not really affecting them, but those communities largely have high levels of chronic health issues, so it is important that those people who have lived in areas that up until now have been COVID-free still get the vaccination. They are still vulnerable and they still have those high levels of chronic health issues.
So the message is that the vaccine is safe, it's free, and it is coming to a community where you live, regardless of where you are around Australia. If I could call out to all the members in this place, this is a large logistical exercise, and all of us in this place and our electorate offices have a role to play to inform our communities when the rollout comes to them.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Eleven days after her reported rape in March 2019, Brittany Higgins received a text message from a government staffer which read:
Spoke to PMO. He was mortified to hear about it and how things have been handled. He's going to discuss with COS -- no one else. I flagged need for councillor …
Isn't it beyond belief that the Prime Minister's office didn't know until this year, when two years ago a member of the Prime Minister's office was mortified and discussed the need for a counsellor for Brittany Higgins?
I thank the member for her question. I have advised the House about when I am advised my office first knew about these matters. That is the information that is available to me. I note the report that you make reference to, and that is a matter that is within the scope of the process that the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is looking at right now. That is in the scope of those processes, and I will await the secretary of the department to provide that report to me.
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's approach to ensuring that families and businesses have access to affordable and reliable energy is helping to chart an Australian way out of the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for Longman for his question, and I pay tribute to his two decades working in small businesses before he came into this place. That means he's superbly well qualified to represent 16,000 small businesses in his electorate. Those 16,000 small businesses are the backbone of the economy in his electorate, and he knows better than most that affordable, reliable energy is central to their success and prosperity in the years to come, and, importantly, it's central to the comeback from the COVID-19 recession for businesses like those.
Report after report is now telling us that our plan for affordable, reliable energy is working. We've now seen 17 months in a row of wholesale price reductions, with the lowest wholesale prices for many, many years, and they're being passed through to consumers. We've seen over the last two years eight consecutive quarters of year-on-year CPI price reductions, with retail electricity prices down 9.2 per cent in the last year alone. That's a 9.2 per cent reduction in just one year, and that means now is a superb time to be shopping around. We encourage electricity consumers to get onto the Energy Made Easy website and upload their historical usage. You'll find a plan that is suited to you to get your prices down.
Not everyone is in a position to do that, and that's why we established the default market offer. That's a price cap for those who aren't in a position to be able to negotiate a better deal, and that default market offer is seeing very significant savings for small businesses and families across Australia, including in the member's electorate. In the electorate of Longman, a hairdresser in Caboolture would see, under the default market offer, $4,100 in savings for typical usages; a family in Morayfield could be up to $794 per year better off on typical usage; a cafe in Burpengary could be $6,200 a year better off; and a bakery on Bribie Island could be $4,400 a year better off. Lower electricity prices mean more money in the pockets of Australian households and businesses. Those businesses will then be in a position to invest and employ as we come out of the COVID-19 recession. We're getting on with the job of securing affordable, reliable energy for all hardworking Australians.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm a member of his staff knew about the reported rape two years ago, another member of his staff said it would be raised with his chief of staff two years ago, his principal private secretary checked in with Brittany Higgins after the Four Corners show last year, his office dealt with journalists on 12 February, and the Prime Minister had no idea about anything until the story broke last Monday?
As I've already advised the House—I thank the member for her question—I first became aware of these matters on 15 February, and I'm advised my staff first became aware of these matters of the sexual assault on 12 February. The other matters that have been raised are the subject of the processes that I've already outlined to the House.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government and their Ag2030 plan is supporting the agricultural sector to help lead the way in our nation's economic recovery?
I thank the member for Braddon for his question, and I can assure you the federal government is committed to supporting agriculture's ambitious goal of reaching $100 billion by 2030. We've done this through our seven-pillar Ag2030 plan, and we've backed it with cold, hard cash. We did that in this year's budget. The primary pillars among those seven are our export markets and our biosecurity—protecting brand Australia. We've announced over $300 million for modernising and digitising our trading platforms to simplify for exporters, get out of their lives and let them get their products around the world as quickly as they can. We're going from issuing over 200 export certificates to digitising—giving initial certificates online. We're also working to make sure that the export trading platform supports those exporters, with the applications reducing from 20 down to one.
But we're also investing in boots on the ground. We've taken from 16 to 22 the number of agricultural counsellors around the world. The job of these men and women is to get market access for new commodities as well as get rid of technical barriers. We're having great success with that already. You only have to look at what's happened with trying to support the barley industry in its diversification. With our counsellors working with industry, we'll be sending our first shipment to Mexico, to go into their Heineken beer. We've also been able to secure an extra 700,000 tonnes to go into Saudi Arabia, and we've been able to secure improved arrangements into India for our barley. It's reducing their cost. We're making sure that we're competitive and our product is getting around the world.
But it's also important that we protect brand Australia. That's why the federal government in this year's budget announced $878 million worth of support for biosecurity, making sure that we're also investing in the technology that will protect brand Australia. That's about investing in underwater drones that will go underneath boats looking for hitchhikers. It's about putting scanners inside containers to understand whether there are any pests inside them. It's also about working to get an understanding of where those containers have been, not just the last place the shipment came from but the places before that, because those hitchhikers can emerge some time afterwards.
We're also supporting our biosecurity with increased penalties. We've increased those penalties for people who do not declare at our ports. We are lifting that penalty from $444 to $2,664, and we have cancelled the visas of at least 13 people who have tried to flout our biosecurity laws. And last week we introduced new legislation for those importers that also decide that they want to flout our biosecurity laws. We are lifting the penalties from $444,000 to over $1.1 million, plus there is the possibility of imprisonment for up to 10 years. The Australian government is putting the environment around our agriculture industry in helping it achieve its 2030 plan.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. What steps has the Prime Minister taken to ensure that in future he would be informed immediately about a serious crime reported in Parliament House?
I've instructed my staff that I would expect to be advised of such matters. That's what you'd expect me to do, and that's what I have done. And I would expect that these matters now are going to be taken up by the police again, and I look forward to the police progressing this matter and any other matters that may be related to this in terms of any other alleged offences in relation to this individual. I note these other reports and I look forward to the police taking these matters up. It has always been the ministers who had knowledge of those things at the time who encouraged these matters to be taken forward to the police, and I'm very pleased that they are going to be progressed by the police.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government's plan for a stronger defence industry is creating jobs and opening new opportunities for Australian businesses as we recover from the COVID-19 recession?
I thank the member for Curtin for her question and thank her for her support for Australia's defence industry, particularly in our home state of Western Australia. Earlier today it was my great pleasure to visit leading-edge Australian advanced radar and communications company CEA Technologies here in Canberra, just down the road in Fyshwick. CEA are a crown jewel in our defence industry. They are supplying critical sovereign industrial capability to our ADF and they are employing hundreds of Australians in Canberra and right across the country, and I had the great pleasure of meeting a number of them this morning.
It was there this morning that I announced a new support guide to bolster the security of Australian businesses so that we can get many more Australian businesses defence-ready. This is important so that we can have more Australian companies enjoying the great investment of $270 billion in our defence capability over the next decade. This is yet another enabler for our Australian SMEs in our defence industry. And we must work even harder to make sure that we understand what the barriers are and what the enablers are to getting more SMEs in our defence industry.
Alarmingly, about 40 per cent of businesses that apply to win defence work have insufficient cybersecurity measures to meet defence standards. As I said, I think this is rather alarming, so it was a great honour today to launch Working securely with defence, a constructive and very comprehensive guide that defence has completed in partnership with the Australian Industry Group. In essence, this is a very important guide for SMEs which was created by industry for industry. By getting more Australian businesses defence-ready we will get more of them involved in defence industry and we will create more Australian jobs. As a matter of priority, I will be engaging with businesses of all sizes this year to understand what we must do further to bolster the security of our defence industry.
The defence industry has been a terrific success story, particularly over COVID. It has overcome many challenges relating to equipment supply and resources, but we must do everything we can to ensure it's much stronger as we come out the other side of COVID. The Morrison government is committed to removing barriers and creating more enablers so that we can get more Australian SMEs into our defence industry and create more Australian jobs.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answers. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the report by the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and his former chief of staff, Phil Gaetjens, will be made public as soon as it is received? Will he guarantee that Mr Gaetjens will interview him and anyone in the Prime Minister's office who may have had contact related to the reported sexual assault?
The secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is undertaking his inquiries. He is undertaking those with the relevant members of my office. I'm looking forward to receiving his report—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left! I'm trying to hear the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has the call.
I'm looking forward to receiving his report, as I am also looking forward to receiving the recommendations that will come from the deputy secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I look forward to reporting further on those matters at that time.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is backing our national security agencies and personnel with the funding and resources they need to keep Australians safe?
I thank the honourable member for his question. The Morrison government are absolutely committed to keeping Australians safe at all times, including during the time of this global crisis. We have demonstrated that to the public, and indeed the world, over the course of the last 12 months or so. I really want to praise the work of our border officers who have implemented the emergency measures. We have had Border Force officers working around the clock dealing in a compassionate way in compelling circumstances with people who may have lost a loved one and with people who have to travel for different reasons, including those who needed to come to Australia. The department and Australian Border Force have now approved 37,000 inbound requests and more than 120,000 outbound requests.
The department has also assisted with the virus response efforts directly, including with the ACIC through collaboration with Dutch authorities, CSIRO and UQ. ACIC, with their particular expertise, were able to pivot their investigative technologies to detect fragments of the virus in wastewater, which to this very day has provided assistance to state and territory authorities to identify where in the community the virus may be present.
The ABF has also during this pandemic continued to work hard day and night to stop dangerous drugs, including ice, from ending up in the Australian community. We know the scourge of ice in our capital cities and in particular in our regional areas. I know this is of particular concern to the member and his community on the Sunshine Coast. We continue that work with our international counterparts.
In the budget we bolstered support to the Australian Federal Police by some $300 million over four years. As we've reported to the House on a number of occasions, we have worked very hard to deal with the surge in online child exploitation as people spend more time than ever online. I want to highlight the work of a company associated with the University of the Sunshine Coast which does amazing work, and I know the member for Fisher is very proud of it—the work of IDCARE. Through the Australian Cyber Security Strategy 2020, our government has provided $6.1 million to bolster services available through IDCARE to victims of identity insider crime. As we know, many of those people who would otherwise have been conducting their criminal activities on the streets in our cities have gone online to target vulnerable Australians—in particular, older Australians.
The work of the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation continues with Operation Molto. They have arrested 65 offenders and charged them with 525 offences. Most importantly, 18 children have been removed from harm. I want to really congratulate those officers for the work which they continue to do in our name.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I want to add to an earlier answer in relation to the member for Melbourne's question.
The Prime Minister may proceed.
I will note that I've been advised in relation to passholders and access to Parliament House that, as the Speaker is aware, the Presiding Officers and the Department of Parliamentary Services manage that pass system, including access by third parties such as lobbyists. Obviously, we'll liaise with the Presiding Officers in relation to those matters which relate to the Presiding Officers by way of reporting back to the member for Melbourne.
(): I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 29 of 2020-21, entitled Management of the national collections—follow-on: National Library of Australia: National Film and Sound Archive of Australia and Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications.
Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
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.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, No. 1 of 2021 relating to a referral made in April 2020.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—This report contains and considers one proposal: the Australian War Memorial development project. The total value of this project was $498.7 million.
The Australian War Memorial plays a central role in the remembrance of Australia's war dead, as well as those Australians who have served in conflicts. It is both a memorial and a museum, and is unique in the world in serving these two functions. The memorial is an institution of international standing—one of the most significant memorials of its type—and the Australian community clearly holds it as one of the country's premier cultural institutions.
As with all projects examined by the committee, the committee took its role in scrutinising this project very seriously. The proposal outlines a major development at the Australian War Memorial's Campbell site, the location of one of the most iconic buildings in Australia. The War Memorial identified that the need for these works arose largely due to a lack of space to commemorate modern conflicts. In order to address this, the War Memorial proposed a significant expansion of the display space available at the current site. This proposal was referred to the committee in April 2020 and this inquiry was just one of several approval processes for the proposed works.
Since its referral, the committee has received a larger-than-usual number of submissions responding to the project: 77 original submissions, with many submitters adding their comments. The committee took this as a clear indication of the depth of public interest in the proposal before the committee. The committee held a public hearing on the project, hearing from historians, architects, the medical profession, museum experts, former Australian War Memorial directors, heritage experts and the Australian War Memorial itself. The evidence received from every group and individual was invaluable, and the committee sincerely thanks all of those who gave either written or oral evidence to this inquiry. The passion of many Australians who gave evidence was clear, and the committee has been left in no doubt that Australians consider the War Memorial a highly significant cultural site.
In terms of the project before the committee, the report recommends that it is expedient that works be carried out. The committee sincerely thanks all who engaged in this inquiry, including the former member for Groom, the Hon. Dr John McVeigh, who provided a steady hand as chair of the committee through the early part of this inquiry. I'd also like to thank my fellow committee members for their thoughtful consideration of this project, including visiting War Memorial facilities and engaging with the evidence, and their collegiate approach to the committee's work on this inquiry. I commend this report to the House.
by leave—I thank the House for allowing me to make some brief remarks, and I speak for myself and the member for Bean in respect to the dissenting report. Let me state from the very outset and make it absolutely clear that the member for Bean and I support, in principle, the refurbishment of the Australian War Memorial. We accept the need for doing so as outlined by the Australian War Memorial.
The Australian War Memorial is indeed an iconic national institution which attracts 1.1 million visitors each year, and it serves as a monument, a museum and an archive for Australian military history. It honours the lives of men and women who have served in Australia's armed forces. We are conscious that not all military engagements are presently adequately recognised in the Australian War Memorial. We also note that what is proposed, at a cost of half a billion dollars, will be the most significant redevelopment of the Australian War Memorial since its opening in 1941 and will very likely remain in the design form selected for decades to come. It is therefore critical that we get it right and that the refurbishment respect the views of all of the people who have a deep interest in the memorial.
The Australian War Memorial advised that four redevelopment options were considered after an extensive redesign process was undertaken. I also note that the Australian War Memorial's preferred redevelopment option has attracted considerable public and media interest. It has been controversial. Not surprisingly, therefore, there were numerous submissions made to the Public Works Committee from individuals and professional organisations representing dozens of people, with recognised experience, expertise, knowledge and credibility, that raised concerns about the redevelopment options chosen by the Australian War Memorial. In particular, there was strong opposition to the replacement of the award-winning Anzac Hall, built only 18 years ago at a cost of $11.9 million. Labor members of the Public Works Committee are not satisfied that those concerns have been adequately considered or responded to. All but one of the submissions made to the committee are public documents and therefore are there for all to read. Labor members therefore recommend that the Australian War Memorial consult further with representors who made submissions questioning the benefits of replacing the existing Anzac Hall, in an endeavour to reach a consensus on the way forward. Preserving Anzac Hall may also result in a lower-cost redevelopment option for the Australian War Memorial that still achieves the objectives being sought.
The Australian War Memorial redevelopment proposal has also attracted concerns about heritage matters and the EPBC approval process, which ultimately came with a long list of conditions. As to whether those conditions are able to be met or not, I guess time will tell.
It has been a difficult inquiry. In fact, it's been the most controversial inquiry in my time on the committee, which now spans several years. There were changes made to the committee membership in the course of the inquiry as well. I therefore thank the committee secretariat for their valuable work and assistance in supporting the Public Works Committee and in the preparation of our dissenting report.
The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
I am in continuation. I was speaking before question time today about this industrial relations legislation, the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, and I wanted to tell the House, of course, that Labor agrees that there are significant issues with our industrial relations environment, significant problems that need fixing and significant wrongs that need righting. But the problem is not that working people have too much power, that wages are too high, that wages are growing too quickly or that work is too secure. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. We see wage stagnation, wage theft and widespread job insecurity. Our Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, spoke about this last week in Brisbane.
Even before this bill was announced, our system was riddled with insecurities and injustices, such as two people who could be doing the same job in the same workplace, perhaps in the same mine, with one paid 20 per cent less than the person they're working right next to because they're employed by a labour hire firm. It's not right in modern Australia that such inequity should exist, or that a person being hit by a car door while they're on their delivery bike should then have to go back to work before they're fully healed, while they're still injured, because they don't have any sick leave, or that a worker who's injured while doing delivery riding work and then returns to work because they have to, because they have no sick leave, should then be sacked because they're not able to deliver food quickly enough. These things happen every day, and they're legal under the arrangements as they exist at the moment.
Wage theft is, of course, illegal but is so widespread. We have heard example after example of millions of dollars being taken from working people—sometimes perhaps inadvertently, with poor calculations or poor record keeping, but in some cases absolutely blatantly where workers are paid a wage, it goes into their bank account and then they're told to go and withdraw the cash and give it back to the boss if they want to keep their jobs.
If the Prime Minister were really serious about reforming the industrial relations system, if he really cared about job security and wage growth, he would start with a very different set of questions to the ones that are driving the industrial relations laws that are before us at the moment—simple questions like: Should two people doing the same job get the same pay?
Should every Australian worker receive at least the minimum wage? Should people be paid penalty rates when they are giving up time with their families to work on the weekend? Should they receive penalty rates for that or for public holidays? As I said, these questions reflect some really fundamental differences between how we approach this and how the government is approaching this.
We choose to build an economy that provides security and decent wages for all Australians. Former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard talked about Australians being relaxed and comfortable. Despite the fact that I agree with former Prime Minister Howard on very little in the industrial relations world, this idea of Australians—after the horror year they experienced with the pandemic, after all the sacrifices they made—having the right to be perhaps not relaxed and comfortable but relaxed and confident is something worth fighting for. People should be confident that if they work hard and do the right thing at work they'll have a job next week, next month and next year. They should be confident that if they work hard they will get paid at least the minimum wage. They should be confident that if they work hard and their company is doing well they will see some of that benefit in terms of higher wages. They should be confident that there will be a job, a skilled job, a secure job, for their kids and their grandkids. They should be confident that Australia will continue to pay a decent day's pay for a decent day's work.
We have led the world in so many ways over the years. We can lead the world in the recovery from the pandemic as well by making sure that all Australians are confident that if they work hard their job is safe and they will receive decent pay. They should be confident, too, that we can withstand the next shock and that if they fall on hard times they will be helped back onto their feet.
Australians have sacrificed so much this year. These sacrifices were necessary but very painful, and they should mean something in terms of a better future. They should produce something worthwhile and good. Australians deserve a government with a genuine commitment to full employment, where job security is within the reach of everyone. They deserve a government that recognises that decent pay and job security create the confidence and demand that keeps more Australians in work. The last thing they deserve is a pay cut.
I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. At a time when Australians have experienced the highest levels of unemployment for many, many years; at a time when in many places—my home state of Victoria, for example—women's unemployment is still greater than eight per cent; at a time when our economy has suffered a recession, the largest shock in a generation; and at a time when we are seriously asking ourselves, 'Does the fractured and fissured labour market deliver for people as much as it delivers for businesses?' it is extraordinary that the government bowls up a piece of fair work legislation where its main intention is to allow employers to cut the wages of many of the same workers that we have lauded as the heroes of the pandemic. Problems in the industrial relations sphere in the labour market didn't start with the pandemic, but, boy, have they been highlighted.
We think about what happened in Victoria in our aged-care system and the tragedy of the lives that were lost during the COVID pandemic not only because of failures of this government to have any sort of plan in place for infection control but also because aged care is one of the labour markets where, bit by bit, employment has gone from secure—people work for one employer; they know where they're going to work and when they're going to work; they know what their hours are; they know the people they are going to care for; they know the people who are going to be their employer—to predominantly a model where aged-care workers are effectively, if not literally, independent contractors sent from workplace to workplace to workplace, not necessarily knowing where they're going to go, not necessarily knowing who they're going to care for and subjected to whatever standards are in place in that workplace with little capacity to change things that are wrong because they're not there long enough to have the sort of buy-in that many employees have in a workplace.
Successful workplaces are ones where the staff and the bosses—the owners of the business and the people doing the day-to-day work—are able to work with each other as well as deliver for the customers and are able to identify workplace problems, work them through and solve them, and where workers feel, either individually or through their representatives—their unions—that they're able to communicate with their bosses about their personal issues in their workplace or their systemic issues in their workplace. Contrast that with workplaces where there's no security of employment, where there's no relationship build-up between the worker and the boss, and where unions are often not allowed in and struggle to be able to represent the people they should be representing. We get workplaces where there's no one person who doesn't want it to work properly and there's no one aged-care facility that didn't have people in there who wanted to look after the residents but where there are systematic failures.
Dealing with these fractured and fissured workplaces and this fractured and fissured labour market that we saw in Australia even before the pandemic should be a top-shelf issue for this government, because it's bad for workers. On the face of it, some businesses think it's good for them because it costs them less money, but, actually, it's bad for businesses and it's bad for the economy. Jurisdictions and institutions around the world have been talking about this and working on how to fix it for years and years and years. The UK equivalent of our Reserve Bank have been talking about the fissured workplace and why zero-hour contracts and insecurity at work are serious social and economic problems to be dealt with. The OECD has put out report after report talking about problems in countries around the world where enterprise bargaining is dropping, which means people aren't getting paid properly and they're not getting good conditions, and productivity is suffering. It's a person problem and it's an economic problem, and we have a government that cannot get past its ideological bent about the free market when it comes to industrial relations in order to resolve it. It's a disservice to the workers and the businesses that members of the government say over and over again they're here to represent.
There are a lot of problems with this legislation, but one of the other issues that really needs to be addressed is the fact that this bill that we are now debating is what the government sees as a result of months and months of roundtable discussions last year between unions, business representatives and, apparently, government about where to go to deal with problems in our workplaces. If this bill represents this government's view of what you do after you've consulted with people, then I suspect every single stakeholder group in this country is wondering: what is the point of engaging in consultation with this government ever again? This is not consensus legislation.
Most people can recall this: remember when the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister announced all of these roundtables and working groups and had the temerity to compare themselves to the Hawke and Keating years and to suggest that they would come up with something that would resemble the Accord agreements? This is as far from an accord agreement as anyone could ever come up with. Is it any surprise that a government led by men who have displayed a 'don't ask, don't tell' attitude towards their responsibilities as employers, and who want to distance themselves from what happens in the workplaces they're responsible for, are also refusing to take responsibility for what's happening in Australian workplaces? When you have a Prime Minister who, from an answer he gave in question time last week, appears not to understand the difference between casual employment and the fake independent contracting employment that Uber drivers are subjected to, you should have real doubts about this government's ability to bring in any genuine reforms to the industrial relations legislation and our labour market.
I also want to raise two other points that occurred to me when I was listening to the answers of the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations in question time. I refer to both the answers he gave today and those he gave last week. He has a bit of a riff: 'Oh, the Fair Work Act is Labor's legislation. Labor brought it in. It's Labor's fault. Labor did this. It's Labor's bill.' It seems to imply that, once one party brings in a piece of legislation, that is somehow then set in stone for that party and they can never say: 'You know what? When times change, some of those provision have to change.'
The Fair Work Act was brought in over a decade ago and, over that decade, we have seen an acceleration in the changes in the labour market that were only on the horizon at the time. We've seen an acceleration in artificial intelligence and in the use of information technology. We've seen an acceleration in fractured and fissured workplaces. We've seen an acceleration in the use of labour hire, subcontracting and independent contracting—ways of trying to set up the legal relationship between the employer or the business and the worker other than simply a straight engagement where the worker's pay is worked out either by an award or by negotiation through an enterprise agreement or, predominantly for higher-income workers, through an employment contract. We've seen the casualisation of the workplace through—for example, in the university and education sector—short-term rolling contracts over and over again. We've seen casualisation of the workplace through people being told that they have to have an ABN because they're a small business although, in every other aspect of their relationship with their employer—being told their hours of work, being told what they're going to be paid and being told how they must behave at the workplace—they are actually a direct employee. We've seen all of these things accelerate over the last 10 years.
So this argument that seems to be being run by the Attorney-General that the Labor opposition can't propose changes to the Fair Work Act to deal with the changing nature of the labour market, because we were in government when we introduced the Fair Work Act, is just patently ridiculous. If the position of this government is that you shouldn't be changing this legislation, what are they here for?
The other argument that seems to be being run—and it was mentioned today by the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations—is: 'Well, this is traditionally the way that this has worked for the last 30 years. You know, this is the way it works with independent contractors. So why would you say you'd change it?' If that's the argument, I guess we should go back to the days when children were sent up chimneys to clean them or down mines to mine; when men lined up outside factories to find out whether or not they could get any work that day and, if they couldn't, they were sent home; and when women predominantly worked in sweathouses sewing and, again, they were lining up and waiting to see if they could get some work and, if they couldn't, they were sent home. That's traditionally the way it was done. Why would we change it?
We have to change it because the labour market today is not providing security, decent pay or decent conditions for people, from the first day they start employment right up until the end of their working life. Australians deserve better.
Studies from around the world make it abundantly clear that higher levels of enterprise bargaining across workplaces and industries lead to higher productivity, better economic outcomes for the countries, better wages for the workers and better profits for the businesses. If they benefit everyone then that's what needs to be done. The changes made to enterprise bargaining in this bill won't do that. They are based on recommendations from one side of the bargaining table only, and it's not the side that represents workers. The changes in this bill to deal with casual employment deserve to be viewed sceptically. Remember that this is the same government that said, when it put a regulation into the Senate to deal with casualisation and double dipping, that the regulation would solve everything. Now, apparently, we also need legislation.
This bill won't solve the problems that exist in industries such as disability services. Last week, I had a Zoom roundtable with disability service providers across my electorate. In addition to all of the other problems that currently exist with the NDIS—not the least of which is the minister trying to ram through terrible changes under the cover of COVID—what NDIS providers are struggling with is the 'Uberisation' of disability care, with internet platforms that are basically the Airbnb of disability care. On these platforms, people who aren't registered disability workers are able to go out and tender for the work that the registered and experienced disability providers, who are not-for-profits, would have delivered. People who have NDIS packages and their families are often tricked into thinking they're getting the same service for less money. They're not. The motive of these platforms is not to provide great care. The motive of these platforms is to take over a section of the industry so that in ten years time, when they list themselves on the stock exchange, their shares are worth a lot of money and they make a big profit. It doesn't matter if they undercut all the other providers over those ten years. In fact, that's what they're trying to do. These are the problems in the labour market that this government should be looking to fix—a Labor government would.
This is a bill for less secure jobs and cuts to pay. It's a shocker. It's no exaggeration to say that this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, will leave working people worse off. If ever there was any doubt, this government is for pay cuts and Labor is for secure jobs. If passed—if it gets through the Senate—this bill will lead to cuts to take-home pay and conditions. The bill allows agreements to be made below the safety net. It allows agreements to be made that cut wages from where they are now, and it introduces unfair competition between workers and their employers.
Under this bill, employers get more bargaining power when wages are being negotiated. The biggest losers of all will be the many Australians, the millions of Australians, who no longer belong to a union, because unions are increasingly being locked out of the bargaining process. It's not well known in Australia, but even the workers who don't pay up and join the union benefit from their work. It's the unions that sit there, day in, day out, arguing at the commission, policing the awards, looking at the agreements and doing the hard work to make sure that people's pay is not cut and that the laws are applied. This bill strips away more of their role and more of their responsibilities and rights.
But it's also fundamentally dishonest. In bringing this bill to the House, the government is hiding behind COVID: 'Oh, it's a crisis, it's a crisis.' It's disgraceful. Remember we had that pretend love-in with the Prime Minister at the height of the economic crisis? It was a good thing to do, and we backed it. It was a good thing that the Prime Minister got employers and working representatives—unions and industry bodies—to sit down together in all these working groups and try and come up with some consensus recommendations. We said: 'We'll back what they come up with. If everyone signs off on it and they bring laws in, we will back it.' Well, they've reverted to type. This stuff was not agreed to by workers, by unions or by working representatives.
We get to choose the kind of society we want. We don't have to choose this kind of legislation. We don't have to choose to cut workers' pay. We don't have to choose to cut people's job security. That's a choice that the government is making. That's the choice that the Morrison government make when they bring legislation like this into the House. It's their choice.
It also shows that the Liberals have learnt nothing from COVID. That's the dishonesty in bringing this bill forward. They say it's all about COVID and responding to COVID. It's not. It's the same kind of industrial relations deregulation agenda that they were pushing before COVID. It's the same kind of stuff they'd introduced. They've just dressed it up differently. They have learnt nothing from COVID, because the Liberals' bill means that more jobs will be casualised. If there's one thing in industrial relations that this country should have learnt from COVID, it's that casualisation has gone too far. We saw, as the pandemic and the recession took hold, millions of Australians turfed out of work literally overnight because they had no job security. We had millions of Australians who had no sick leave revealed. Who knew? Sick leave in this country has a purpose. The pandemic hit, and the weaknesses in our society were revealed. Job security is important. People need predictable hours to survive. The government's response, though, is to hide behind COVID and make it easier for employers to casualise jobs that should otherwise be permanent. The minister knows the casual conversion provisions in this bill are meaningless. They're just window-dressing. They're full of loopholes. There's no obligation on employers to make anyone permanent. If you go and ask under this bill, if it is passed, there are a million reasons they can give for why they're not going to make someone permanent. This bill, if passed, would allow employers to call a worker casual even if their job is not casual. It strips workers of sick leave.
I really wonder: does the government have any idea what it's actually like to exist with no job security? I represent the most socioeconomically disadvantaged part of the city of Melbourne, a city of over five million people. The city of Greater Dandenong is, on the indications, the most disadvantaged area of Melbourne. Tens of thousands of people in my electorate don't have secure work. They exist from shift to shift, roster to roster, week to week, wondering if the boss will give them a few more hours. Even if they've been there for years and years doing the same job and working the same number of hours, they're casuals in the Morrison government's world. They can't get a home loan. Even if they earn decent money, they can't go to the bank, because they have no job security. They can't get a home loan. They can't plan for their families. Then overnight a crisis happens, someone gets sick and they're turfed out of their job with no sick leave and no rights. The government says, 'Oh, well, some people like working casually.' Sure, some people like working casually, but there are millions of Australians who want permanent, secure jobs. They don't want to be stuck in the casual workforce when they're doing the same job year after year after year. Quite simply, the pendulum in this country has swung way too far towards casualisation.
We hear these words. The minister bandies them around: 'deregulation' and 'simplification'. 'These are simplified awards. These are modern awards.' When you hear these words coming from Liberals, you should be suspicious. If you are a casual worker, you should be afraid, because what this means is age-old. The Greens political party love to get their meme every week to try and pretend that the two major parties are the same. The Labor and Liberal parties are not the same. The age-old truth still underlies these debates. There's labour with a u, people who work and small businesses—that's the overwhelming majority of people in this country—and there's capital and big business, the people who already have wealth. The Liberal Party's core purpose is always to protect the people who have wealth. In every industrial relations debate, as surely as night follows day, they will be trying to push the pendulum up to advantage employers and big business and the people who have wealth. Every time they bring a jobs or industrial relations bill into this place, that's what happens. That's because the Liberal Party exist to protect people who have wealth. That's who funds them. That's who donates to them. We have a choice, as I said. The government says we can't afford decent working conditions. Well, we can. We choose what kind of society we want to be.
The minister's been playing games with this bill. He put an extreme provision in there to abolish the better off overall test—an extreme pay cut mechanism. He backed down on it last week, in the face of community outrage, media outrage, outrage from workers and an indication that even the most right-wing of senators were not going to vote for this nonsense. He was gaslighting workers. He was like the schoolyard bully, running around for the past couple of months saying, 'I'm going to take your lunch, I'm going to take your lunch, you're going to starve, I'll take your lunch,' and then in the end he says, 'No, I'm only going to take your sandwich, your Big M, the Saladas, the Vegemite and the Kit-Kat, and I'll let you have the limp celery sticks.'
The government confirmed, though—we need to be clear on this—that it still wants to cut pay. The bill will still do this; it will just do it more sneakily. They're only ditching their plan to scrap the BOOT because they can't get it through the parliament, not because they admitted it was wrong. They didn't stand up there last week and say, 'Okay, we've listened; that was wrong, that was unfair.' They still believe that their proposal to remove the safety net to give employers these extreme powers is 'sensible and proportionate'. I'd hate to see what they think is unfair or, God forbid, extreme. They've only backed down for political reasons right now. But people should be very clear: that's still what they want to do. That's still where they want to push the pendulum and advantage employers over workers. They still want to do this, and if they win the next election that's exactly what they'll try, yet again.
I just want to make a few remarks on what they put under the heading 'award simplification'. There are a whole lot of provisions there that in substance mean they're going to casualise part-time work. These provisions allow an employer and a part-time employee to agree that the employee will work extra hours at ordinary hourly rates with no overtime. Many awards already have these provisions. They apply to part-time employees who work a minimum of 16 hours a week. Many of the awards that this bill covers already have these provisions, and there's some of the agreements; I think Woolworths is an example of one that has this provision. Fair enough, if that's been negotiated. It sounds neat. But the risk is that if you roll this out widely in the way the government proposes then the practical impact—not the minister's spin, but the practical impact—may be to normalise a 16-hour commitment, with extra hours when needed.
So, if you're someone who for years has worked three or four days a week, as many working mums choose to do, for 10 or 15 years or more, then under this bill, as things roll on, it's highly likely that you'll be pushed down to 16 hours a week. That's all you can bank on. The rest will be at the whim, at the gift, of your employer, with no overtime, no security. This is exactly the same situation that faces large swathes of the aged-care workforce. Late last year I met with workers from the aged-care sector whom the United Workers Unions brought to meet with us, on Zoom. Their stories were tragic. These are people who are committed to aged care. They're passionate about aged care. They come in every age—people in their 20s who want to make a career in aged care through to people who've been working in it for decades. One of the common threads in their experience was that they get only 16 hours of work guaranteed a week because of the way these awards are structured, and the rest is up to their employer. Usually they get more, but they can't bank on it. They can't get a home loan based on it. They can't plan to pick their kids up from school and have a normal family life with it. And they're forced to work between two and sometimes three aged-care homes because of these kinds of awards.
That's the kind of world the government wants to roll out to the rest of Australian society, all in the name of flexibility, choice, deregulation and modernisation—all these buzzwords. But what they really mean, when you strip their language back, is that employers can choose whatever they want and the workers have to cop it. Well, we do have a choice as to what kind of society we want to be. We don't have to chase the American path, where workers live off tips, if they're lucky, and have no job security. We can choose another direction.
The bill does another bunch of obnoxious, unreasonable things. It entrenches unreasonable flexible work directions. Now, these were emergency measures—surprise, surprise! They were emergency measures, negotiated for employees who were in receipt of JobKeeper, whereby for a limited period of time, given the recession and the pandemic, employers had extra powers to direct workers where they had to work and the kind of work they had to do. In those circumstances, that was a reasonable thing. The government of course then couldn't help itself. It extended it to employers who are no longer in receipt of JobKeeper but used to be in receipt of JobKeeper. So they're kind of widening it. Now they want to extend it to all of these awards, to millions of workers. They don't have any protections, though, like the JobKeeper rules had—the turnover test—and they're stripping the Fair Work Commission of the power to arbitrate. It just continues to give employers more power.
Workers are not slaves. If you say, 'You're going to work for an employer, you've got a job description, that's the job you apply for and it's going to be done at this site,' employers have never had unfettered power just to order you on no notice, saying: 'You no longer work in Geelong. You're now working in Melbourne. You're going to turn up at 6 am and you're doing a completely different job.' That's the kind of power that this government thinks is reasonable to give to more and more employers. How can anyone plan a family life?
The other thing the bill does is cut bargaining rights and protections for workers whose pay and conditions are covered by agreements. This has nothing to do with COVID. This is just the same old right-wing industrial relations deregulation agenda. 'We'll just roll out a bit more of it and we'll dress it up as COVID.' Enterprise agreements are supposed to be a way for workers to share productivity, to invest with the boss, with the employer, in how we can get more out of the business, how we can contribute more, how we can create more wealth and give a bit back to the workers for that by increasing wages. It's supposed to be a deal, a bargain. Instead, this government wants to pervert the system so EBAs become a way for employers to escape the safety net and reduce employment rights, pay and entitlement. Workers, if this law passes, won't be able to trust the EBA process. There are fewer obligations. You don't have to tell people you've started bargaining for at least a month. They're fiddling the voting rules and changing the process. There will be less scrutiny by unions, reduction in unions' capacity even to scrutinise agreements and intervene when they're cutting wages below the safety net and restrictions on the Fair Work Commission when considering amendments. And they would strip workers of the right—this affects numerous people in my electorate—simply to receive a proper explanation of the agreement they're being asked to vote on. That particularly impacts people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds who might not have great written English. They're no longer entitled to a proper, simple, plain English explanation. For young people, non-unionised workers, there's no guarantee of an explanation.
And there's a particular impact in my home state of Victoria. The bill will override the strong wage theft laws in Victoria and Queensland—laws that the Andrews government introduced, and they should be so proud of their work there. They're taking rights and protections off these workers in these states. The bill would make it harder for unions and individuals to take employers who underpay their workers to court by removing an important avenue to recover the costs involved. If this bill passes, in conciliation talks the Fair Work Commission would be prevented from making a recommendation that could guide people to a fast and effective outcome.
In summary, Labor opposes this bill and we're right to oppose it. It would mean less secure work and more casualisation of work across the economy at the very time we should be looking for more secure work, as Labor proposes, in a lesson from the pandemic. We want more secure work, not more casualisation. It will casualise part-time work. It will allow cuts to pay and weaken protections against wage theft, but fundamentally it's dishonest. It has nothing to do with COVID. It's the same old, same old, tired, right-wing industrial relations agenda that workers have rightly had enough of.
Once again the conservative parties in this country reveal the ideological rift between those on this side and those on that side. It's always been thus from the days of the fusion with the Protectionists and the Free Traders back in the early 20th century, when conservative forces and liberal forces combined. One thing united them. One thing united those two disparate groups, and that was to oppose Labor and the trade union movement, which represented the workers of this country. Ever since that fusion, the conservative and liberal forces in this country have, if given the opportunity, passed legislation to make work more insecure and to cut wages. It has always been thus.
What I really can't understand about the National Party here is that they represent some of the poorest parts of this country: places like Rockhampton, Gladstone, Wide Bay and other places like that. They do it tough. If you look at the facts, you see that only my electorate in Queensland rivals those electorates of Wide Bay, Capricornia and Flynn in terms of poverty and disadvantage. Yet National Party people come into this place and vote for this legislation. It's almost like the right-wing ideologues in the Liberal Party, the IPA types, have got some sort of political stranglehold over the National Party such that they will put aside their constituents and the best interests of their constituents and vote for this type of legislation. I can never understand it. I've represented areas where there have been state MPs in Queensland who are National Party people. It's not like they're not decent and honourable people, but they vote for this type of legislation. Given an opportunity like John Howard had in 2004 to bring in Work Choices, they'll take it. The National Party will toggle along, just following the Liberals along to pass this type of legislation against the interests of their constituents. I can't understand it. It's not about security of employment. It's not about better pay and conditions and a decent IR system in this country. It's about the opposite. They link funding organisations, for example, in the higher education sector to the industrial relations schemes that they think up all the time.
Our position has always been that Labor are on the side of security of employment and decent pay and conditions. But this government has used COVID as a cover. They've used COVID as a cover to take an opportunity to bring in their ideological obsessions and their reactionary, conservative obsessions on industrial relations. This bill even fails the government's own test. It leaves workers worse off.
Let's have a look at what the bill is proposing. It is going to make it easier for employers to casualise jobs that otherwise would have been permanent and allow employers to pay workers less than the award safety net. Think about the aged-care sector. Think about that. In the next few decades, we'll need to treble its workforce in this country. Why? Because we will go up from 15 or 16 per cent population being over the age of 65 to about 25 per cent or more. At the moment, in residential aged care, about one in two people are living with dementia. We need more workers in the sector. At a time when migration, which has fuelled the provision of workforce in the sector, has been cut because of what's happening with the coronavirus in international situations and the transport and migration of people, what is this government doing? In the very sector where we've seen the most deaths in this country this government is making it easier for employers—for-profits and not-for-profit organisations—to sack people, cut their wages and casualise their employment.
I can remember when I was a boy my grandmother was the matron of Colthup home in Ipswich. There were people there as I was growing up who were in employment in the workforce in Colthup home and elsewhere across Ipswich in aged-care facilities who were as proud of their jobs as people are today but had security of employment. I used to always tell people when I was a younger fellow—and I often tell people this even now—that, with the age of our population, we were going to need more and more people in the workforce. Whether it's architects, accountants, personal carers, nurses, physiotherapists, OTs or people who work in clerical capacities, we are going to need them. How are we going to encourage them to take up employment if we're going to undertake legislation brought into this chamber that's going to casualise their employment, cut their wages, reduce their bargaining capacities and reduce their safety net? How will that entice people to get into the aged care-workforce?
So it's dumb politics. If you're in favour of employers, as the conservative side of politics always is, how is it that you think that it is good for employers in this sector if they can't get the kind of workforce they need? It makes no sense. Senator Cormann belled the cat when he said that it was a deliberate design feature of this government's industrial relations policies to keep wage growth low. This legislation isn't about wages growth at all; this is about cuts to wages.
One of the reasons that we haven't seen pension rises or growth in employment and one of the reasons that we haven't seen the expenditure that we need in terms of economic vitality in this country is that wages have been too low. Even the Reserve Bank governor has said that wages growth is holding us back in our economic recovery. But what does this government do? It puts aside the advice of the Reserve Bank governor. It puts aside common sense and economic rationality and decides: 'We're going to cut wages. We're going to casualise employment. We're going to make it harder to fill the workforce that we need in the sectors which really need it. We're going to ignore the demographic challenges we have in this country. We're going to do that.' It's all because they've got this ideological affliction which prevents them from thinking logically and rationally when it comes to economics. And they claim they're the party of economic rationalism! The Liberal Party are not.
They're taking security from blue-collar workers, for example, on greenfield sites and big projects. They want economic development; they want to talk about the mining sector and economic development, but they're going to make it more insecure for workers to work there. They're going to make it harder for workers to bargain for better pay and conditions. It's already challenging; we already know how challenging enterprise bargaining is in this country.
In my state of Queensland and in Victoria as well, this legislation will weaken—not strengthen, weaken, believe it or not—wage theft punishments. Those are already deemed a criminal act in my home state of Queensland and also in Victoria, so the legislation is self-defeating. It's not about creating secure employment and it's not about the wage rises which are necessary in this country to stimulate the economy; it's about workers having less capacity and confidence to spend. So I don't understand the thinking of this government, except that it's their conservative ideology that keeps them doing this sort of thing.
We have the situation where about a quarter of our casual workforce has lost jobs. They lost them eight times more quickly than anyone else. We have a million casuals who were totally excluded—totally excluded!—from the security of JobKeeper. There wouldn't be a member in this place who hasn't had someone contact them about that. I agree with what the ACTU has said: this legislation is exactly the opposite of what the country needs. It's at precisely the time when we should be appreciating and thanking those people who work in the retail sector, in logistics, in transport and in aged care, and the people who work for councils, in child care and in the university sector. There were so many people who helped us through this pandemic, but instead of stimulating the economy and engaging in recovery by supporting those people we get platitudinous statements from the Prime Minister and those opposite, and they don't cut it.
Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of this legislation show what they really think about those people. It's not what they've said about them but what they really, really think and what they think the prospects of their future ought to be. If you throw in everything like the gig economy, contractors, freelancers et cetera then close to one in two of our workforce is in that insecure-type of employment. How can they get a mortgage? How can they guarantee the school fees for their kids? How can they guarantee their economic future?
What this government is undertaking is a charade. The idea that somehow they got rid of the most egregious parts of the bill—the BOOT with the suspension of the better off overall test—that little part, and therefore the rest of it's great doesn't cut it. The way they'll go around cutting wages, reducing the capacity to bargain and affecting workers rights in the workplace will be more sneaky. It'll be more surreptitious and more covert. They should not get a pat on the back for this, because they can't go to the crossbench or to us and say, 'Hang on a sec, you should support all this stuff,' when the legislation has a deliberate design feature to cut wages and conditions. That retreat by the minister is simply nonsense.
But do you know what? It's not just that. Can I just say: if this government is supposed to be about helping wages and conditions of workers and being a good employer, look at what it's doing to the Public Service in this country. You have a situation where, for example, 42 per cent of the Department of Veterans' Affairs is labour hired, outsourced or privatised. They're casualising the Public Service. That's an ideological thing. They're not a model employer. They're not a good employer. The government show what they're doing in the Public Service as a model for what they want in the private sector. This government's IR policy is not about helping workers. What they have done to the Public Service is a disgrace. Casualisation, contracting, outsourcing and the use of fixed-term contracts are all becoming entrenched inside government. That's what they want for the private sector as well.
A DVA labour hire worker recently told their union this: 'I have been a casual for five years and now I have to reapply for my job because the company that employs me has lost its contract with DVA. If I don't get employed, I will have no redundancy pay or any leave paid out. If the new contractor employs me, it just shows I'm not a casual. This sort of thing is happening to more of us all the time. We are doing permanent work and should have secure jobs.' Amen to that, brother; you should. He's absolutely right. Combined with the cuts we've seen inflicted by a staffing cap across the public sector, we've seen an explosion of labour hire employment in government departments, including the DVA.
Waiting times for processing applications for entitlements and compensation have been blowing out to enormous amounts. Let me give an illustration: veterans in my electorate have told me it often takes six months or longer to have their cases looked at. That's their waiting time. Sometimes it's nine to 12 months for payments. It's an absolute disgrace. What a great model employer, this conservative government! People are fed up with this. Veterans and ex-services organisations are fed up with the Public Service being cut. They're fed up with the delays, the denial and the dysfunction at DVA. They feel taken for granted. That's what the government expects will happen in the private sector with this legislation.
This is not about improving our prospects as a country and recovering from the pandemic. The government's decision to cut permanent jobs in the public sector has been a deliberate decision by an arbitrary staffing cap. When the government announced these changes, we set, as the member for Watson said, a very simple test: we'd support it if it delivered secure jobs and decent pay. The amendment by the member for Watson is all about the fact that the government has failed those tests. This legislation is not in the best interests of the economic development of this country, not in the best interests of workers and not in the best interests of the Public Service. This government has failed with this legislation and has shown its obsession once again.
I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. In 2020, the workers of this nation—cleaners, nurses, aged-care and disability workers, retail assistants, truck drivers—kept us going through the depths of the recession and the pandemic. Whilst praising these workers' efforts and sacrifices in speeches, government members have behind the scenes been developing laws that threaten their pay and their job security. The bill before the House represents a gross and bitter betrayal of the men and women who have done so much to keep Australia safe. We saw the unedifying spectacle in question time today of the industrial relations minister being asked whether he would support minimum wage for Uber drivers and what he calls independent contractors, and he wouldn't do it. He wouldn't do it. He would not support the concept of a minimum wage for people who literally put their lives on the line in order to deliver food. At the conclusion of the 2020 parliamentary year, I stood in this chamber and said that we needed to work harder to put Australians first. It is beyond disappointing to be confronted, eight weeks later, with a bill that does the exact opposite.
In a nutshell, this bill will make it easier to casualise jobs that would otherwise be permanent. It makes it harder to bargain for better pay and conditions. It allows for wages cuts. It strips basic rights from high-vis workers on big projects. It weakens wage theft punishments in jurisdictions where wage theft is already deemed a criminal act. This bill should not be considered in isolation of the Liberal Party's wider agenda. It is simply the latest salvo in a long-running war between the forces that drive the Liberal Party and the forces that drive the Labor Party. The Liberals have always sought to depress wages and conditions, and Labor has always sought to elevate them.
My mum was a hospital cleaner. When I was a boy she told me, 'Brian, it's Labor for the workers and the Liberals for the rich.' That was 40 years ago, and it's as true today as it was then. Those opposite are convinced and have always been convinced that keeping wages low and keeping workers powerless drives economic growth. They believe down to their guts that paying people less means employers will invest more and that this in turn will keep the economic wheels turning. It's not that they hate workers; it's just that they believe workers are a means to an end, a cost item, a line on a balance sheet. For the Liberals it's all about the employers and lowering employers' costs. If that means lower wages, so be it; workers should simply be grateful they've got a job in the first place, no matter how little it pays or how bad or unsafe the working conditions. Five dead delivery drivers, and the minister could not bring himself to back minimum wages for gig workers.
It is Labor that says there's a better way. That is why we support minimum wage laws and why we support mandatory safety conditions for the workplace, annual leave provisions, eight-hour days, the concept of a weekend and job security. All have at some stage been opposed by the Liberal Party and its antecedents. It is not that we do not understand that business must be efficient in order to compete and that businesses need to be profitable in order to continue to employ people and, hopefully, grow and employ more people; it is simply that we believe business must adhere to a set of standards that protects the people who generate the profits in the first place—that is, their workforce.
The model that those opposite are wedded to, the one where low pay and low corporate taxation supposedly lead to more investment and therefore greater opportunities for employment, has been tried and it has failed. It's a formula that has been rolled out in America since the 1980s, under Reagan, and it has been a dismal failure economically and socially. The practice has not matched the theory. Workers' wages and conditions and job security have plummeted in the US over the past 40 years. Many workers work two or even three low-paid jobs to survive. People are living in their cars. But the billionaires? Well, their wealth has absolutely skyrocketed. If it is the government's job to make rich people even richer then the Liberals' economic theories can be described as a stunning success. But if it is the government's job, to paraphrase Ben Chifley, to spread greater wealth amongst the mass of the people then the Liberals' policies and broader ideology can only be described as a failure, and this bill represents that failure.
It is a fact that over the past 40 years the once-great American middle class has been crushed. The time when a man working a low-skilled job in a factory, perhaps as a janitor, could provide for his family is gone. He might work full-time hours, but these days he's casualised or contracted out, and one job won't pay the bills. At the same time, public infrastructure in the US has crumbled. Railways, schools, roads and public health clinics are barely distinguishable from the Third World due to a lack of investment. Billionaires and millionaires have never had it better. Those wealthy enough to afford private schools and health care, who go home to gated and locked communities patrolled by armed private security, live in bubbles of affluence. But the vast majority of Americans, the ordinary workers—teachers, drivers, cleaners, shop assistants and streetsweepers—are doing it very hard. Yet this is the dystopian landscape the Liberals are importing into Australia—an Australia of low wages, less job protection, less equality, less social mobility and less fairness. They call it flexibility, but their flexibility only ever runs one way.
Labor did give the government plenty of flexibility at the height of the pandemic. Extraordinary times called for extraordinary measures, and we played our part. The workers of Australia played theirs, too. Australian workers were prepared to accept that employers did need more flexibility during the pandemic. But, now that the worst of the pandemic is behind us and with the government boasting that the economy is rocketing ahead, the government wants to keep those extraordinary measures permanently. It is a kick in the teeth. Australian workers offered goodwill and cooperation by temporarily suspending their hard-won rights, and the Liberals have cried, 'Come in spinner' and are now exploiting that generosity to make the changes permanent. In Tasmania, Jess Munday, the secretary of Unions Tasmania, told The Examiner:
For workers who have already experienced job losses, stand downs, and reduced work hours, this bill is exactly what they don't need right now.
Ms Munday says workers in casual jobs are 'crying out for more job security, but this bill will make jobs and incomes more precarious'.
For casuals, this bill provides little to no job security. It gives employers the right to deny workers a transfer to part-time or full-time employment regardless of their work pattern, and it costs workers money because, if a court determines that a casual worker is, in fact, a permanent worker, then any casual loading they had received would simply be offset against any permanent entitlements that they are owed. The government's own figures—as unreliable as they are—show that this will strip at least $18 billion in back pay that would otherwise be owed to workers. And let's not think that a casualised workforce is confined to fast food, bar work and young people. As the member for Blair said, 42 per cent of the workforce of the Department of Veterans' Affairs is casualised or contracted out. I know the former Department of Human Services, which is the Department of Social Services now—they've stripped 'human' out of it—does the same. They privatise their workforce.
Casual workers are trying to raise, and provide for, families in this country. They're not just kids. Fifty-one per cent of the University of Tasmania's workforce is casualised or on fixed-term contracts. With university workers locked out of JobKeeper and their employer suffering the loss of international students, you can imagine the distress that many university workers were in, only to be now confronted with a bill that strips their rights even further. Tasmania's 1,300 teacher aides receive 10 permanent hours a fortnight but often work more and regular hours. Under this bill, construction workers could be locked into pay and conditions for eight years without ever having agreed to the terms and without any access to arbitration. This is a government that has put into law compulsory arbitration for massive media companies when dealing with international companies like Facebook but says it's complicated or too hard to put into law protections for independent contractors so they can receive the minimum wage. It's clear whose side this government is on, and it's not on the side of workers.
Also in the government's sights are the rights of Australian workers to decent overtime pay. With the creation of 'simplified additional hours', many workers will be denied penalty rates when working more than their usual hours. There is a very real risk that that provision may normalise a standard 16 ordinary-time hours commitment, with simplified additional hours being used to top up on an as-needed basis. This reduces job security and, effectively, casualises part-time work. In Lyons, the casualisation rate is upwards of 36.8 per cent, and this is a common figure across many regional and rural areas. If we want to rebuild our regions, we need more job security, not less, and workers in regional areas need higher pay, not less. This bill is bad for workers and bad for our regions. It does not drive economic growth. It stifles it. If workers have less money in their pocket, they have less money to spend at the shops or at the car yard. If workers have less job security, they are less likely to make the big financial commitments and they are more likely to save for a rainy day, taking money out of the economy when it needs it most.
Labor is offering Australian workers a better deal. To improve job security, a Labor government will make job security an object of the Fair Work Act 2009 so it becomes a core focus for the Fair Work Commission's decisions. Labor will extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include employee-like forms of work, allowing it to better protect people in new forms of work, like act based gig work, from exploitation and dangerous working conditions. We are not going to give up, like this minister, and say, 'It's complicated.' We're going to deal with this. Labor will legislate a fair, objective test to determine when a worker can be classified as a casual, so people have a clearer pathway to permanent work. Labor will limit the number of consecutive fixed-term contracts that an employer can offer for the same role, with an overall cap of 24 months. Labor will ensure that we are a model government and a model employer by creating more secure employment in the Australian Public Service, where temporary forms of work are being used inappropriately and being overused. Labor will use government procurement powers to ensure that taxpayers' money is used to support secure employment. To deliver better pay, Labor will work with state and territory governments and with unions and industry to develop portable entitlement schemes for annual leave, sick leave and long service leave for Australians in insecure work. Labor will ensure that workers employed through labour hire companies receive no less than workers employed directly.
This bill, as I said at the beginning, is an absolute betrayal of the workers of this country, particularly those who have worked so hard over the past year to keep this country safe. It does nothing for job security. It does nothing to provide casuals a permanent pathway—because job security really is what it's all about. You can't get a mortgage, you can't get a loan for the things you need to provide for your family, if you don't have job security. Try going to a bank, if you're a casual, and saying, 'I need a substantial loan to provide for my family.' They'll laugh you out of the bank. It won't happen. This bill does nothing to provide workers the job security they need. It's not good enough to say that the economy is recovering. We need an economy that is recovering for the workers of this country, the people of this country. It's no good just looking at the broad economic figures, at GDP. You've got to look at how workers are better off and how families are better off. Families and workers are only better off if they have job security and better wages.
Over the last few weeks we've seen the government's crocodile tears about insecure work and casual workers, but this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, shows that they are not backing it up with substantive change. They talk about their concerns and about how important this bill is when it comes to wage theft and a pathway for casuals, but you've always got to look at the detail rather than the spin from this government. Not only does this bill have ineffectual clauses; it doesn't pass the test of, 'Will this deliver secure jobs and decent pay?'
There might be people surprised that the government's been saying one thing and doing another, but I've known for a long time that this government—and, indeed, governments before it of the Liberal-National persuasion—have no interest in improving workers' rights. In fact, their mission in this place—and it's one of the things that often hold them together—is to reduce the wages and conditions of workers in this country. I know this more than most, having been elected in 2007, in that Work Choices campaign, in which at least the government then was honest: 'We are going to cut your pay, we are going to cut your conditions, we are going to make collective bargaining harder and we are going to destroy the award system.' One of the things that we hear from this government about the award system—I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the House—is that there would be no award system in this country if we'd seen the full fruition of Work Choices. By 2010, we would have had no awards in this country. There would be no safety net except the national standards, and that is something I will never forget and I know many in my electorate will never forget.
But let's talk about insecure work. We've got over two million Australians employed casually. That's one in every four workers. Of course, for some of these casual workers, this works for them. There is absolutely a place for casual workers. But I hear in my electorate too often that there are Australians in what are effectively permanent positions that are deemed casual. They are forced to take casual or gig jobs, cobbling together different jobs here and there, trying to make it work to ensure that they have enough ongoing income. I regularly speak with casuals and I hear the same all the time. 'I've been in a job for five years.' 'I am a casual, but I can't get a home loan.' 'I've got to work two or three jobs just to get by.' 'I live in constant fear that the work will dry up and I won't have an income.' These workers have no leave. They have no annual leave. They have no sick leave. Many of them have worked for years in the same place of employment with regular hours comparable to part-time or full-time work, yet they're denied access to the rights of permanent workers.
Then there's the insecurity of their pay. Of course, casual workers do get a loading, and we hear that a lot from the government. In the pandemic we heard: 'Why don't they put their 20 per cent away? That can pay for their 14 days isolation.' That's what we heard from this government, which said, 'They can just pay for it because they get a loading,' with no real understanding of what it's like for those casual workers week by week, with hours going up and hours going down, not sure what the next week holds. Of course, for most casuals, penalty rates or the casual loading are not put away for a rainy day but cover the absolute essentials: grocery bills and other important things such as, often, child care, because that's expensive. And so it is really difficult. Today in question time Labor asked a lot of questions about workers in the gig economy and the insecurity there. Once again we really had a government that dismissed it and had no answer.
Of course, we know it's not only the day-to-day difficulty for these employees; we know that they were hit hardest by the pandemic. Workers in casual jobs lost their employment eight times faster than those in permanent jobs. Nearly one million casual workers were left behind when the Morrison government kept them off JobKeeper. Not only did we have them in precarious employment; this government decided to deliberately target them because they were casual workers. They were not afforded the same protection as their permanent counterparts. Of course, as I mentioned, often they were asked to stay home—stay home to isolate, stay home to keep others safe—and they did so without paid sick leave. It was belatedly that this government was dragged kicking and screaming to actually look at a paid pandemic scheme. It was really disappointing. It had got to the point where they had no choice. That is how difficult this government is.
The government, in response to this, has provided this interesting pathway to casuals. They say this legislation is really important because it gives someone the option to ask to be made permanent after 12 months—the option just to ask. And, of course, under these laws, if a worker agrees to be employed as a casual at the start of their employment, they remain casual regardless of their actual work pattern. As long as the employer employs them on that basis, they make no firm advance commitment to continuing in indefinite work according to the agreed pattern of work. This is very difficult for many casual workers. This bill also says, sure, as part of the national employment standards an employer must make a written offer of conversion to permanent employment to a casual after 12 months. But the really difficult bit here is that the employer does not have to make them an offer if there are reasonable grounds.
What are the options for that employee? It's to go to the Federal Court. The government seems quite fine and sure that this is the option that a lot of casuals would take. They seem absolutely unable to understand the huge power imbalance between casual employees and their employer. You don't pick a fight with your employer if you're a casual worker. I know that from firsthand experience.
As a 19-year-old, I saw the advertisements. John Howard told me I could go and negotiate my AWA with my large retail employer. I did. I went in and said: 'I have some concerns with this. I've seen the ads. I'm here to negotiate.' They laughed me out of the room. It was a take-it-or-leave-it contract. Then, a few months later, supposedly coincidentally, I received a letter in the mail, saying: 'Dear fill-in-the-name, your services are no longer required. You were a Christmas casual.' I had worked at that employer for five years since I was a 14-year-old. I had worked consistently, a shift every week, at that employer and they sacked me. I was lucky. I had the resources of a union. I also went to the Industrial Relations Commission. The commissioner was very nice. He told them to give that poor girl her job back. But that shows the power imbalance that is there. That shows the difficulty. Without the ability for arbitration in the now Fair Work Commission, this really is a mockery. It makes a mockery of this very provision in this piece of legislation.
In addition to this, we know that the government did try and get rid of the better off overall test that was there in the 1998 legislation and was removed in the 2007 legislation. I know that the Liberal Party has been desperately wanting to get rid of the better off overall test or the no-disadvantage test—it's been called many things—and this was a pretty sneaky way to get rid of it. We know what the better off overall test does. The better off overall test makes sure you can't go below the award. It actually ensures that there is a safety net in this country. We now know that the government's backtracked on it. But the fact it was in there at all shows what the intentions really were. It shows what the government wanted to do: get rid of the safety net.
We know they have also allowed for a two-year extension of the flexible work directions brought in with JobKeeper. The original directions to accompany JobKeeper were introduced on the basis that they would be temporary and only connected to employers receiving JobKeeper. These flexible directives allow employers to direct duties and locations of work. But as so often happens with this government it's now using what was originally a short-term measure to try to permanently water down the rights of individuals by stealth. This is what it's doing. It is once again not surprising that this means for workplaces covered by specific awards that special flexibility will be available to every employer, even those that never qualified for JobKeeper.
We worked very hard to work with the government when it came to this pandemic. We worked very hard. We called for JobKeeper and we supported JobKeeper. But what we now see as we come out of this pandemic is that the government is using it as cover. It's using it as cover to actually extend some of these provisions to ensure that they actually apply to all employers, even if those employers were booming over this crisis. We know that some businesses did very well. Even they will be able to avail themselves of this. They will not have to satisfy any turnover test. The employer just needs to believe it was necessary to give a directive to assist with the revival of their enterprise.
The government have also in this legislation removed, like I said, its better off overall test, but they're also cutting bargaining rights and protections for workers whose pay and conditions are covered by agreement. Taken as a whole, these changes to enterprise agreements amount to fewer obligations on employers, less scrutiny and a reduction in the union's capacity to participate in the approval process. The government think that watering down the role of unions is a good thing. They think, 'This is great.' But what they don't understand is that there are many people that rely on their union for a voice. If power is just one way, it will never end well for employees. But the government have a one-eyed view. As I said at the beginning, they shed crocodile tears when it comes to workers and their rights and conditions, but then they do another thing when people are not looking. Through the pressure that many ordinary Australian workers have put on the government, they have backed down when it comes to the BOOT, but this bill still allows for making agreements that are below the safety net, cutting wages and creating unfair situations.
Of course there are a lot of problems in this bill, but I want to go to the last issue, about wage theft. I have to say that for the Attorney-General to get up and say that somehow Labor's for wage theft and the Liberal Party coalition is not is absolutely hypocritical. We have a government that has shown no interest in dealing with the issue of wage theft, and on this side of the House we regularly raise it. I and others have regularly raised it in many forums as a serious issue in this country. Of course, what this bill actually does—once again, you've got to look at what it does—could override the strong wage theft laws in Victoria and Queensland, giving workers in those states fewer rights and protections. You'd think that, when you're looking at best practice, you'd rise to the highest level around the country and pick the best laws when it comes to wage theft, but instead we have a government that is now putting in some sort of provision that could actually make workers in those two jurisdictions worse off, with fewer rights.
All in all, when it comes to this bill, I do recognise that the government finally backed down on abolishing the better off overall test, but I would say to workers in this country: keep an eye out, because this government and the Liberal and National Party governments before it have always looked at ways to water down wages and conditions in this country. It is in their DNA. Watering down wages and conditions is the thing that unites them. They'll look at it every way. The only reason we don't see the abolition of the BOOT in this piece of legislation is that they're scared of the Australian people. That's the only reason, because it's in their DNA to pursue this. They've done it time and time again, and my message to Australian workers is: be on guard. This is a government that wants to water down your wages and conditions.
The COVID pandemic has shone a bright light on the dark underbelly of job insecurity and the increasing casualisation of our workforce not only in my electorate of Corangamite but across our nation. It's exposed the flaws of an industrial relations system that, under this government, has forced many workers in our aged-care sector, in hospitality and retail, in teaching, in health, in the NDIS, in the gig economy and in security services to take multiple jobs just to pay the bills. Did you know there are currently two million Australians employed casually? With this increasing casualisation comes increasing anxiety, stress and uncertainty, with millions of Australian workers receiving no superannuation, no sick leave and no maternity leave. They have no safety net and little ability to plan and save for their future and the future of their families. This is the story of struggle I hear from many, many people as I move through my electorate—stories of casual workers in hospitality who arrive at work only to be told to go home; workers who, due to COVID, have been asked to take a pay cut and told that otherwise they may lose their job; workers who struggle to get a loan or pay down their mortgage because their pay packets are erratic and insecure; and workers in the gig economy who are forced to bid for work at the lowest rate of pay, below the minimum wage, just to get a few hours of work.
But, instead of recognising the plight of these workers and acting to ensure better and fairer outcomes, the Morrison government have decided to introduce this bill. They call it the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, but this bill is not fair and it certainly will do little to help workers and stimulate the economy, because at its heart the bill is designed to cut wages, reduce workers' conditions and undermine workers' ability to negotiate a fair and decent rate of pay and security of work.
We have just heard that the Morrison government has flagged that it will dump its plan to remove the better off overall test. Essentially, the BOOT ensures that agreements meet or exceed the minimum legal standards of employment in the sector. Without it, minimum legal standards such as the minimum wage could be ignored. So it is the right decision to retain the better off overall test, to give casuals some basic rights and respect. But it should be noted that the government did this not because they saw the light or because they care about workers' ability to live decent, hopeful productive lives but because they knew that without the better off overall test they wouldn't get the bill passed in the Senate. So, it's politics before people for the Morrison government—certainly not a motto to be proud of but a motto that clearly signals their intentions when it comes to workers and industrial relations.
We now know what they want to do. We know they want to cut workers' take-home pay, and if they get another chance they'll try again. Well, Labor will not stand by and allow that to happen. We stand with workers and with all those families who deserve better. We will oppose this bill, because it is absolutely flawed. It would strip the Fair Work Commission of its power to properly examine whether workers are better off. It would reduce the commission's role to a tick-and-flick approach that is unreasonably short in the time frames. It would remove requirements for employers to properly explain new agreements, and where a worker agrees, when they first start a job, to sign up as a casual they will remain a casual despite their hours of work. The only way for a casual to further question the decision would be to lawyer up and go to the Federal Court. On a casual wage, this is near impossible. Then there is the removal of rights from blue-collar workers and the fact that this legislation would weaken wage-theft laws and penalties in the states of Victoria and Queensland. If it sounds unfair, that's because it is.
This bill was first introduced in the House on the second-last day of parliamentary sittings in 2020, with only a short window for submissions—such an important industrial relations bill, proposing wholesale change to how our employers meet and negotiate with employees, changes to the rules that dictate wages and conditions and changes to the definition of casual work, yet they've allowed only a limited time for submissions. If it sounds dodgy, that's because it is.
The Morrison government is proud of the initial consultation. They say it involved months of roundtables with employee groups, with unions and with business. But instead of transparency and open deliberations these meetings were highly secretive, with all participants having to sign a confidentiality agreement and being told that they would be removed from the process should they breach the rules. Those roundtables covered the general themes of award simplification, enterprise agreements, casual work, compliance and enforcement, and greenfields agreements with new enterprises. But after about 150 hours of meetings and hundreds more hours of additional consultation, this government drafted a mean-spirited and economically weak plan to give one side of the negotiating table everything it was asking for while ignoring the advice of those advocating for workers..
It is worth noting that one of the biggest shifts this bill proposed was the suspension of rules that prevented enterprise agreements from undercutting minimum award standards. And while nobody at the roundtable discussions raised this as an option, the government included it anyway. Luckily they have been shamed into retaining the BOOT. But their actions show a willingness to sacrifice workers' wages and conditions if it helps their mates in big business. Ultimately this bill is not about worker flexibility as those opposite have said. It will reduce work security. It will drive down wages. And it will fundamentally damage the Australian economy. Why? Because wage cuts mean less money in the economy, less spending in the economy and less stimulus in the economy—and in this time of COVID, with so much hardship, not only for workers but also for small-business owners, including all those tourism operators along the Great Ocean Road, the Surf Coast and The Bellarine. This is mean-spirited and short-sighted. It shows no understanding of what the people in my electorate are experiencing.
Labor has suggested supporting JobKeeper, but it is very disappointing that the government wants to continue to water down wages and conditions. Well, Labor has a different plan—a plan that will make the economy stronger by strengthening wages, increasing spending power and creating a resilient economy that will grow as confidence and jobs grow. At the heart of our plan is the welfare, job security and opportunities that all working people deserve. To achieve this, we will arm the Fair Work Act and the Fair Work Commission with the tools to ensure that there is scrutiny, fairness and equity. Labor will do this, and we will do this because we're on the worker's side. Labor will make job security an objective of the Fair Work Act 2009 so that the focus for any decision will be fairness and job security as the centre point of the Fair Work Commission.
Labor will extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission to include employee-like forms of employment. That's to ensure that whether you're casual, part-time or permanent you are treated with fairness and opportunity. It will also mean better protection for people in new forms of work from exploitation and dangerous working conditions. This will be important for those who work in the gig economy today, but it will also be important for those who work in the next frontier of workplace relations tomorrow.
Labor will legislate a fair and objective test to define when a worker is casual and when a worker is permanent; basic rights will not be stripped from workers because they can't afford to stick up for themselves. We will limit the number of consecutive fixed-term contracts an employer can offer for the same role, with an overall cap of 24 months. Labor will make the government a model employer and will use taxpayer procurement dollars to promote secure employment.
Good jobs matter to my community. Well-paying jobs are how the mums and dads in Corangamite look after their families. Secure jobs are how mums and dads stay confident about the future. And when mums and dads are confident in the future they spend in the economy and help small and medium-sized businesses in Corangamite and across our nation to thrive. With a confident customer base, businesses in the Bellarine and the Surf Coast, Queenscliff, the Golden Plains and the Otways will grow and innovate, making our community stronger again. But this is all dependent on the families in my community and across Australia having strong incomes—decent wages—and it is Labor which has a plan to make that happen.
In closing, tax breaks for big business and industrial relations deregulation are at the heart of this mean-spirited and ill-conceived bill. The Morrison government is spinning the line that it will lift Australia out of the coronavirus induced economic black hole. But what the Prime Minister and his Treasurer are failing to say is that this bill will target frontline workers, women and families. It will be Australia's frontline workers, women and families who bear the burden of this government's proposed wage cuts and poor working conditions. Instead, the Labor Party has a vision to increase the strength of the Australian economy and to increase the size of Australia's pay packets. Labor will do better because Labor believes that, when you support and create opportunities for families, women, small business and our vulnerable, the community thrives—we all thrive. Labor says no to this unfair bill. We stand with you and we're on your side.
It is quite a simple question that we need to ask ourselves when we look at this Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020: will it give Australians stable work and fair pay? It's a very simple question and, unfortunately, the answer is no, it doesn't. Right now, in 2021, a year into a global pandemic and in a recession with almost two million Australians on JobKeeper—that is, until it gets cut next month—this simple question is more important than ever. Will it give Australians stable work with fair pay?
The answer is no. Make no mistake: the bill represents the most egregious fundamental attack on the rights of workers that we have seen in this place for many years, and it is as tone deaf and unnecessary as the Work Choices laws brought in by the Howard government. The reality is there is no pressing need or economic justification for these changes. Our economy will not recover more quickly because we legislate to cut the pay of workers. We will not help create a single job by making employment less secure for workers. It comes as an attack on workers when they are most vulnerable and when they look to their government for support. Australia's working people have sacrificed the most and paid the highest price as a result of the pandemic. Over 900,000 are unemployed and 1.1 million are underemployed. Many have exhausted their sick leave, their annual leave and their long service leave. Three point three million people have raided their super accounts, with thousands of young people reducing their balances to zero. This has happened while corporate profits have continued to grow and Australia's richest people have become even richer.
Before I reflect on why this legislation has been introduced, let's consider why this is a remarkably bad bill. It attacks the basic foundations of our industrial relations system. I don't propose to offer a comprehensive rebuttal of the bill. My colleagues have made outstanding contributions to this debate already, and I'll not repeat them here. I will, however, highlight a few specific things which are wrong with this bill. The bill proposes to prevent the Fair Work Commission from making recommendations in conciliation that would guide parties to a fast and effective outcome. Conciliation is one of the most effective tools the commission has. It works, as an effort by the commission, to bring parties in disputation together to try and find a solution. If applied properly, conciliation can prevent further issues such as industrial action or legal proceedings, saving money, trouble and wasted energy for all concerned. The cornerstone of conciliation is guidance by the commission to each party to find an outcome. This bill will take that right away. This is just one proposed attack on the commission and its ability to do its job.
Australia has long experienced a crisis in job casualisation. The bill does not address Australia's most pressing labour market problem—the extent to which jobs are casual and insecure. Over half a million casuals lost their jobs at the outset of this pandemic, and 60 per cent of new jobs created since May 2020 have been casual. The government's changes will not help solve this problem. It will make it easier for employers to casualise permanent jobs and pay workers less than the award safety net. The bill shifts more power to employers, which will exacerbate inequality, low wage growth and job insecurity. The current laws have overseen record low wage growth and record high job insecurity. Instead of remedying them to rebalance the system, the bill will make these three serious issues much worse.
In debates on industrial relations like this one, those opposite like to talk about the need for flexibility. The 2020 COVID responses prove that the current system is extremely flexible, flexible enough to make rapid changes where they are necessary as well as fair. Australian workers and their unions worked rapidly with employers to make temporary changes to awards across whole industries to cope with shutdowns, social distancing rules, reduced hours and working from home. Debating proposed legislation can often seem abstract, but this bill will hurt workers across Australia, nowhere more than in my electorate. The proposal in the bill for additional hours agreements will cause great pain to workers in Darwin and Palmerston. An adult part-time worker in one of our shopping centres, such as Casuarina Square, Gateway or the Palmerston Shopping Centre, may lose out on the payments they were once entitled to. A retail worker on a 16-hour part-time contract who works four hours of overtime a month may lose around $650 in overtime wages under this bill. That's less money for their families and for the basic necessities of life. Similarly, a student at Charles Darwin University who works at one of the pubs on Mitchell Street to make ends meet will also lose out. If they pick up three hours of overtime a month, they might find themselves losing around $500. Casualisation and insecure work are among the biggest problems that workers in the Territory face today. You can't heal our economy by hurting these workers, by cutting their pay or making their work more insecure. For the last decade the government has been beating its chest and making many noises about developing the Territory and unleashing the potential of northern Australia. But, without the simple guarantee of secure employment, how can such a lofty goal ever be realised?
Let's also not forget that this bill originally contained the outrageous proposition of suspension of the better off overall test, the BOOT, for two years. That's right. This government wanted to remove the very thing that ensured that no Australian worker was left worse off under a new negotiated EBA. Getting rid of the BOOT was so utterly outrageous that the government have excised it from this bill. But the fact that it was included at all gives us a real insight into the intent and the thinking behind this bad bill. Of course, it's the actions that we should be looking at, not the words, particularly when it comes to those opposite and industrial relations.
Two questions must be asked: Why this legislation? And why this legislation now? The answer to the first question is simple. They have chosen this legislation because it reflects exactly what they believe in. Labour market deregulation is the ideological Holy Grail of those opposite, and at the end of the day that is what this is all about. It's about ideology. The living standards of Australian families are being slashed, all because of an ideological obsession. The answer to the second question is equally simple. They have chosen this moment to move the legislation because they believe that the timing suits them. 'Scotty from Marketing' is on the job. Political expediency and political circumstances have had a greater role in shaping their approach to this than the state of the economy or the living conditions of Australian workers.
Can I just make a point of order in terms of using the correct titles of members in this place.
Was that in relation to 'Scotty from Marketing'?
Yes, the correct title.
That is why the Prime Minister has sought to make these changes now—the political expediency. But, in short, what we are seeing here is nothing more than a cynical attempt by those opposite, by the Morrison government, to achieve a long-held ideological goal. All of this has come in the wake of what at first appeared to be an open process by this government to work with the union movement to respond to the COVID crisis.
I well remember when, midway through last year, the government announced the formation of five industrial relations working groups. These groups, each consisting of 10 full-time members, brought together representatives of unions and employer groups. At the time it was portrayed as an act of cooperation to help guide the Australian economy out of a crisis. An accord, of sorts, for our day. The Attorney-General, the member for Pearce, was quoted in a press release at the time saying:
On top of those who've lost their jobs, there are millions more who have seen their work hours and pay-packets reduced due to COVID-19, and we owe it to them to work cooperatively through this process to deliver solutions that will get our country working again.
They're fine words, fine sentiments, but how did that all work out? Well, we are here today debating legislation, opposed by the union movement, which will fundamentally change what it means to have a job in this country. That is how the working groups process worked out. Those opposite, particularly when it comes to IR, should be judged on their actions, not on their words.
If you want more evidence of the ideological obsession of this government trampling on the needs of the Australian people, look no further than the looming cut to JobKeeper. The idea behind JobKeeper of wage subsidisation originated on this side of the House and in the labour movement. It was a great plan, helping businesses stay open and keeping Australians in work and connected to their employers. Let's be clear: for entering into JobKeeper, those opposite deserve some recognition. It has worked. But cutting JobKeeper prematurely, as those opposite plan to do next month, is incredibly dangerous. I'm in regular contact with businesses back home in Darwin and Palmerston, and they are telling me that there is a massive lack of confidence about what comes next when JobKeeper is cut for those businesses that are exposed particularly to a drop in tourism. Particularly in the tourism industry, which is very important to the Top End, there's a great deal of concern. A survey of members of Tourism NT and Tourism Top End revealed deep anxieties. Thirty-five per cent of respondents have said that the JobKeeper cut would mean they would likely have to stand down, or make redundant, many of their employees. That will make it so much harder for the employees to come back and for their businesses to bounce back, particularly as we're not in the peak tourism season.
The challenge for businesses gets worse when you think about the rollout of vaccines and a return to something resembling normality in the not-too-distant future. Australians may resume domestic travel with a passion, and hopefully a lot of them come up to the north. But the tourism industry has already lost a lot of its capacity to meet this demand, and, thanks to a looming cut to JobKeeper, it will find it incredibly difficult. So let me be clear: it is too soon to be cutting JobKeeper. Businesses and workers are depending on it, and I will do everything I can to fight this change. My message to businesses and workers in Darwin and Palmerston is: I am on your side, and Labor is on your side. This is not the time to be tinkering with a fundamental basis of work and living standards in Australia. This is not the time for this government to launch an attack driven by its ideological agenda. This is a time for the government to stand with and lift up the Australian people, to protect workers and to protect businesses. It is not a time to cut JobKeeper.
I will make a couple of final reflections. I think it's only fair to share one particular note of caution with those opposite. Every time a sitting prime minister has tried to mess with the living standards and the working standards of working Australian people, it has not ended well. Those opposite often respond to only one thing, and that is self-interest. So my advice to you is: connect with your inner self-interest, as you find it easy to do, and do not support this legislation. Support Australian workers instead. In my final reflection, I echo what the member for Blair said in his contribution a little while ago: the casualisation of the Australian Public Service is a very, very dangerous thing because the services that it provides to the public are vital. One example he gave was the Department of Veterans' Affairs, where 42 per cent of staffing is outsourced, with casualisation and the use of labour hire and contracting. It's blowing out the waiting times of Australian veterans who need support. That is one example of the way that this government operates. You should judge those opposite by their actions, not their words.
Not for the first time and not for the last time, I agree with the wise words of the member for Solomon, so elegantly and eloquently expressed on behalf of the people of Darwin and Palmerston, who are so well represented in this place by our friend the member for Solomon. The test for the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, as we've said from the beginning, is exactly the same as the test for this parliament. It's exactly the same as the test for this nation as we emerge from the deepest, most damaging recession in almost a century. The test is this: can we work together to create good well-paid jobs with fair conditions? Can we make job security the defining feature of the recovery in ways that it was not the defining feature of the economy that existed before COVID-19 hit a year or so ago? That is the test for this legislation, it's the test for the parliament and it's the test for the country. How do we get those secure, well-paid jobs with fair conditions so that people who work hard in this country can get ahead and provide for their loved ones? That is the test.
We've said from the very beginning, since this legislation was first put before us, as we worked our way through all of the details, as we consulted widely around the country, that, if this bill creates secure jobs with decent pay, we'll be for it. If it doesn't do that or if it acts against those interests then obviously we will be against it. It's disappointing but not especially surprising that, as we've worked our way through the bill, we've realised that what's happening here is those opposite are using this pandemic as an excuse to come after job security, to cut people's pay and to make people's conditions even less fair. That's why we don't support it.
Those opposite started to come under fire for the obvious ways that this bill was designed to cut people's pay, attack job security and make conditions less fair. So the government over there, on that side of the House, decided that they would drop one element of the bill: the one element which talked about the better off overall test. What those opposite hoped was that all the workers of this country, represented in this place for over a century by this side of the House, the Australian Labor Party, would think, 'Okay, with that part of the legislation gone, the rest of it must be okay.' But what we all know is that even with the junking of that particular part of this legislation—at five minutes to midnight, before it was brought into this place for the debate that we're participating in now; even with that aspect of it removed—there are still some very dangerous parts of this legislation for the workers of this country. That's why, despite the repeated opportunities that the member for Watson, the member for Grayndler and others have given the government to give a guarantee to the workers of Australia that there's no part of this bill that will make them worse off, those opposite have been unable to give that guarantee. That's for the very simple reason that the legislation is designed to make people worse off even with the better off overall test part of the legislation removed. The bill still makes it easier for employers to casualise jobs that would have otherwise been permanent. It still makes bargaining for better pay more difficult than it is now. It still allows people's pay to be cut. It still takes rights off blue-collar workers on big projects. And it still weakens wage theft punishments in jurisdictions where it was already deemed a criminal act. So even with the better off overall test part removed there are a lot of dangerous elements for Australian workers.
This is so important to us and it's so important to the nation. Why this matters so much and why we've been so vocal in opposing the attempts of those opposite to use this pandemic as an excuse to come after workers once again is that, as the dust settles and we emerge from what was the deepest part of the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s, it's now for us to decide—us as in Australians, us as in this parliament, and us as in the political parties which make up this parliament—what kind of recovery we want from that recession. The type of recovery that we have from the recession will be more or less determined by the kinds of jobs that we create in that recovery. On this side on the parliament, we're on the side of good, secure jobs with fair pay and decent conditions. That's what we've been on about since our inception, and that's what we're on about here. We want to create jobs in the care economy. We've made announcements in child care. We want to get cleaner and cheaper energy into the system. We've made announcements on energy transmission. We want to get more Australian apprentices into big government projects, and we've made announcements there as well. These are the sorts of jobs that we want to see created in the recovery from our first recession in almost three decades.
What those opposite would like to see instead is even more casualisation, declining living standards, precarious work—all those issues which more or less defined the economy pre-COVID. They would like to see all that insecurity, all that underemployment, for all those people who just can't find enough hours of work to provide for their loved ones, their families. Those opposite are proposing to go back to that, but worse—to all those issues which were such a contributing factor to the weak growth and the stagnant wages that we had before COVID-19. The member for Fenner is well qualified to understand just how weak the economy was for much of the seven or eight years leading up to COVID. All these issues around stagnant wages, underemployment, precarious work—this bill would be a recipe to go back to that, only worse. We know the consequences of that for ordinary working people in this country and their economy more broadly.
I think what makes people angry about these attempts by those opposite in this legislation is that in all the spin, all the announcements and all the photo ops about the heroes of the pandemic—the workers on the front lines, who are not especially well paid to begin with—the government says to the heroes of the pandemic, 'We think you should be paid less in more precarious ways and have fewer fair conditions.' I think it is disgraceful for those opposite to use this pandemic as an excuse to go after those workers, their wages and their superannuation, and to say to the workers of Australia, 'We don't have enough money or a blank cheque to support employment in this country, but we do have a blank cheque when it comes to doling out airport rorts, sport rorts'—and taxpayer funded executive bonuses, as the member for Fenner has been reminding us.
When it comes to those things, there's a blank cheque. But when it comes to supporting workers and supporting employment in this economy, those opposite talk about the heroes of the pandemic but deliberately go after them with legislation like that which we are debating today. Those opposite can't simultaneously say, 'The economy is going so well that we have to withdraw JobKeeper and other support from the economy,' and, 'The economy is actually going so badly that concessions for business and arrangements in industrial relations need to stay.' They need to choose which of those arguments they are going to make. They can't make both simultaneously, but that's what we've seen them try to do.
As we go towards an election, Australians will have a pretty clear choice. They can choose the more secure work, better pay and fairer conditions that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Watson and all of us on this side are proposing, with our steps to make work more secure and employment more fair—they can support that or they can support the wage cuts, the super cuts and the budget riddled with rorts being proposed by those opposite. I think all of us understand that when those opposite, as they have before, go after the working conditions and living standards of ordinary Australian people, the workers have the capacity to speak with one voice and to say, 'This recovery can be a good one, can be strong and can be inclusive, but only if we put secure work with fair pay at its core.' Those opposite are incapable of doing that, but we will do it.
I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. Despite the government's rhetoric, Labor had a simple test for this bill: Will it create secure jobs and decent pay? Will workers be better off? Whilst we welcome the government's decision to drop its changes to the better off overall test, this bill is still a bad bill. It will still leave many workers trapped in insecure work. It will in fact potentially put many workers who may currently have a full-time job in a casual job, and potentially make many workers who have a secure part-time job flexible part time/casuals.
The answer to the question Labor asked—will this bill create secure jobs and decent pay?—is no. It's not just us saying it; economists are saying it, academics are saying it, unions are saying it and workers are saying it. Overwhelmingly, most Australians engaged in this issue are saying that this bill will not only make workers worse off but that it will also make workplaces harder and more inflexible. Giving the boss too much power will create not a safety net but a race to the bottom, as if we could sink any further.
I sat here today, in question time, shocked at either the lack of understanding the industrial relations minister has about the gig economy and independent contractors or the fact that he just doesn't care. He doesn't care to know the circumstances that they're in. What he has suggested in this bill doesn't actually deliver. It's more rhetoric; it's more spin. This bill will make it easier for employers to casualise jobs that otherwise would have been permanent. In a year when job security is one of the No. 1 issues, after health, and in a year when we've seen so many people miss out on JobKeeper payments and end up on JobSeeker because their employment wasn't secure enough to lock in that payment, we have the government wanting to make more jobs casual—more jobs with less job security.
This bill makes bargaining harder. Yes, they've dropped the changes to the better off overall test, but it still makes it easier for greenfields agreements on big projects and it still makes it harder for workers to get a fair outcome when it comes to bargaining. This bill takes away the rights of blue-collar workers; it makes sure that things become harder for them when it comes to bargaining. It weakens wage theft punishments in jurisdictions where we already have deemed wage theft a criminal act—you don't hear the government being honest about that one. Not liking what's happened in Victoria, where the state government has moved to strengthen wage theft laws, and not liking what's happened in Queensland, where, again, the state government has moved to introduce tough penalties on serial offenders of wage theft, this government's provisions will weaken those state laws—and that is something we cannot stand for.
But the fact that the government tries to spin it as other is, I think, what most Australian workers are disappointed with. Be honest, for once, about your plans for IR. Be honest with Australian workers about what you're trying to do. Don't dress it up with language and spin. The devil with this government, and with IR, is always in the detail. Yes, I acknowledge that the Fair Work Act is not perfect and does need some reform. Labor has announced a plan to help ensure that we have a Fair Work Act that really does help to secure jobs and to increase pay. None of those provisions are in this bill. None of what we see before us today will help make jobs in this country more secure and help ensure that workers in Australia are better off.
Take what they're trying to do with awards. Some awards, for historical reasons, do have what we call 'flexible part time'. It was agreed—back in the old days of the Industrial Relations Commission—between unions and employers in industries like the cleaning industry in Victoria that they would introduce flexible part time. But there was a trade off: it was at a higher rate. It was something workers wanted: if there was an extra shift available or if somebody went on leave, they could put their hand up for it first. The point is that they were able, at the commission, to bargain for a better outcome, an agreeable situation. What the government is proposing to do in this bill is to take that agency away from workers, to get this parliament to decide that all workers who are part time will be flexible, that they'll all be casualised, that they won't have set hours above a certain point. It puts enormous pressure on these workers to accept extra hours, with little notice and no overtime. There's a reason why that provision doesn't exist in every award today. Some workers didn't want it. Some said, 'No, if we get called in at late notice, we want the overtime.' Industries like security still have overtime; if they get called in they get paid the overtime rate, not a flexible part-time rate.
This bill particularly disadvantages workers with responsibilities, who need predictable hours and secure hours. It targets the retail industry, an industry which is predominantly made up of women—older women, younger women. We talked to women working in retail and asked them why they chose retail. They often say it's because they have secure part-time jobs and they know when they're working. I know it to be the case for many of the workers in retail in my part of the world. Many of them have worked in retail for decades. Whilst they accept the industry may not be as highly paid as others, it's the regular roster that they care about. This bill takes away that job security. One of the target industries is retail. They haven't bargained, they haven't sought changes. This government will, through this bill, decide that those workers are now more flexible. That is what is so disappointing when the government turns around and tries to stand in this place and say that workers won't have their pay cut. Well, that is one example. There's no bargaining; it's just a straight pay cut. It's just like what they did to hospo workers when it came to penalty rates. There was no bargaining about trading off for this or that; it was a straight pay cut that Fair Work and this government failed to stand up to.
Another area where this bill is really disappointing is the fact that it tries to overturn an outcome of the courts in relation to casual workers. Workers took a case through the courts to determine that some workers who had worked, in this case, for WorkPac, in the mining industry, had been wrongly employed as casuals by their employer and not paid their correct entitlements. The government has ignored years of common law to overturn a recent Federal Court decision on what it means to be a casual. That's what they're trying to do in this bill. What's happening specifically in the Queensland mining industry is an outrage. It's a mining rort. For decades workers have bargained collectively and built up a good, solid foundation of wages and conditions, only to be undercut by a labour hire firm. This isn't the traditional version of labour hire, where a worker comes in as a surge workforce. This is a worker employed on the same contract, with the same hours, week in, week out, month in month out, continually. They even wear uniforms that have things like 'full-time equivalent' embroidered on their shirts. They do the work, they wear the same uniform and they have the same reporting structures, but their pay is being paid by someone else.
What the court found is that these workers were in fact permanent. They then said that the casual loading that they received would be offset against any of the permanent entitlements they erode. So there is no double-dipping, like the government is claiming. The mining companies and companies like WorkPac are so upset because the casual rate they were paying these workers was far lower than what they would have paid if they were permanent. So there is a cost to business. There is a cost to WorkPac and labour hire companies like this. The court is saying: 'These people weren't casuals and you must pay them their proper entitlements. We will take from that the casual loading, but you still must pay them the proper entitlements.' So what the government is trying to do in this bill is override that decision. It will affect not just a couple of WorkPac employees but every other worker who's been trapped in this situation. Nurses in private aged-care have been trapped in this situation. People who work in various industries are trapped in labour hire, wanting a job, turning up and wearing the same uniform but being paid less than the person who works next to them. That's why Labor's announced the 'same job, same pay' deal: you can't work for less than a person doing the same job as you.
We also want to make sure that job security becomes an object under the Fair Work Act and is considered as a focus of Fair Work Commission decisions. A lot has changed in our employment landscape since the creation of the Fair Work Act in 2009. We now know the full impact of the gig economy. We know not just the impact that it is having on food delivery drivers or on ride share drivers but the impact that it is having on other services that are being delivered: services in home care, whether it be disability or aged care; and services in your home or in a business or even at schools, such as with Airtasker. We've virtually gone back to the days when we were standing in a queue, putting our hand up and hoping to get picked for the jobs—those scenes where we used to have workers lining up at the docks hoping today would be the day they'd get picked for some hours of work. It doesn't happen physically now, with all of us standing together on the docks, but it is happening virtually. Through the gig economy and the development of these platforms, we've lost, almost overnight, the concept of what it means to be a worker and to have that secure contract with a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
That is why Labor has put forward a series of proposals around job security and making sure that the Fair Work Commission can include employee-like forms of work when we're talking about better protections for people in this app based gig economy work. That is why we're talking about limiting consecutive fixed-term contracts so an employer must offer a job to a person after the person has been doing the same job for 24 months. This used to just be the way it was. This is what employers used to do: when they got a good worker who had done the contract and finished another contract, they said, 'Let's bring them on full time.' But somewhere along the way a group of employers in industry backed out of the compact and started to introduce these horrible rolling-over contracts, with terms like 'full-time equivalent', and labour hire—ways in which to cut wages, cut corners and cut conditions.
Labor's also said that in government we'll be a model employer. One of the things the government also won't tell you is that the federal government is one of the worst offenders when it comes to labour hire. Just under 50 per cent of the Department of Veterans' Affairs workforce is now labour hire. When you ring Services Australia, you could be talking to somebody who's labour hire and who doesn't have the same training, the same skills and the same pay as other employees. No wonder the government want to try and push this bill through. No wonder they want to make sure that every business can do what they do.
This is a bad bill and, whilst the government have dropped some parts of the bad bill in trying to win over crossbench support, they haven't dropped enough of the bad. They've got to drop their changes to the award and their changes to the casuals. It's not casual conversion if it's not a genuine option; it's just window-dressing and more spin from a government who really doesn't care about jobs or job security for Australian workers.
It's a real pleasure to follow the member for Bendigo, a fellow regional MP from the great state of Victoria and someone who knows firsthand what's been happening in the world of work for many people in regional communities over a long period of time. After a year that saw almost a million Australians out of work, queues outside Centrelink offices and our first recession in three decades, now more than ever the government needs to dedicate itself to creating good, secure jobs that drive the economy. One of the key phrases there is 'secure jobs'. If COVID-19 taught us anything—if there is any long-term lesson, as an economy and as a public health response, that we should have learnt from COVID-19—it is that security of work is not only important for the economy, for individuals, for families and for communities but also critical for public health. It was because of insecure work that we saw people having to work two jobs across quarantine—often across the gig economy—and that saw the spread of this virus. It was because of insecure work that we saw people having to make choices about whether to go to work unwell or whether to stay at home because they did not have the secure income to be able to make those decisions. If there is anything we should have learned from coronavirus it's that secure work is absolutely critical.
We have seen a couple of things in Australia over the course of the past decade that have really changed that nature of work in this country—it's happening globally as well. They have really changed the nature of work in this country, and it's been a race to the bottom. We have seen, increasingly, work that used to be permanent and which used to be part of a company being outsourced and casualised—sent to labour hire firms. We've also seen the tendering out of contracts for that work, which has seen more and more players enter the market. Yes, sure—great—that's competition, but it's also meant a race to the bottom for wages, conditions and security of work.
We're seeing that in industry after industry after industry. Aviation, which I have responsibility for as shadow, is absolutely seeing that at the moment. We're seeing it with the outsourcing of baggage handling and security. It's getting to the point where if you go to a workplace or industry then the jobs that used to be done by, say, Qantas, Virgin or Rex, to some extent, or by the airport, or in any industry you look at, they're no longer done by employees of that particular employer. They're not Qantas or Virgin employees. If you go to any of the major department stores then the staff aren't employed by Myer or David Jones or those iconic employers that many of our parents and grandparents worked for; they're employed by a labour hire company or a contracted company. Whilst they might work under the banner of that company, they're not employed by them.
That's the problem in what's been happening with the nature of work in this country. It's meant less security for workers, lower wages and lower conditions. And that has suited employers; it has suited the profits of large-scale companies. Unfortunately, that's the decision that this government has taken, that that's where its support is going to lie. That's the problem right at the heart of this bill: it doesn't address the problems of insecure work; it actually makes them worse. That's why Labor is defending this so fiercely. Of course the government's decision to create greater insecurity in work through attacking the better off overall test attests that the government had to be forced to put that in place. That was because after Work Choices it realised it had a massive political problem on its hands because it had completely and utterly wrecked this country's workplace-bargaining system. The fact that it has now backed away from that is not because it actually believes very firmly that it went a little bit too far or that it was a step too far. It's because it can't get it through the parliament, and that says everything about this government's agenda when it comes to industrial relations.
The test for Labor when it comes to this bill, as it should be for all of our industrial relations measures, is: does the bill create secure jobs with decent pay and with fair conditions for workers? That should be the test. The government, on the other hand, has decided that the test for any bill is: does it create any job—any job at all? It doesn't matter if the job is insecure and it doesn't matter if the job doesn't pay well. In fact, it doesn't matter if the job is dangerous because of its insecurity. It doesn't actually matter about that. The only test is that somehow or other businesses will get more money, more profits, and therefore that will all trickle down to employ more Australians. We know from the government's attempts to get rid of penalty rates that that is just not true. It simply doesn't work that way. It is old economics and not something we should be supporting in this place.
We know that with this bill the government is trying to create less secure work and to create better circumstances for businesses to be able to casualise more, to pay less and to have fewer conditions. We say no to this bill. We say no because it makes it easier for employers to casualise jobs that would otherwise be permanent. We say no to this bill because it makes bargaining for better pay and conditions even more difficult than it already is. We say no to this bill because it takes rights off workers on big infrastructure and construction projects. We say no to this bill that undermines wage theft punishments in states and territories, like my own, where it is already a criminal offence. This bill seeks to weaken those offences. We say no to this bill that allows wage cuts and will see workers face greater wage cuts.
This bill from the Morrison government could deliver the workers who got us through COVID—the heroes of the pandemic: the nurses, the aged-care workers, the cleaners and the delivery drivers—more insecure work and less pay. The government may have reluctantly removed their attack on the better off overall test, but this is still a bad bill that represents a huge attack on the working rights of Australians. It's bad for workers and bad for the economy. If it is passed, it could actively undermine our recovery from COVID. To recover we need workers to be confident in their future prospects, to feel confident to take a bit of money out of their bank accounts and to spend. If you have been casualised and are facing a pay cut or if your work is becoming even more insecure then you're not going to spend. Without spending, there is no recovery. With this bill, workers will only go backwards.
This bill will take workers backwards in a number of ways. The first is by further undermining enterprise bargaining. Under this bill, agreements can cut pay and employers are given significantly more bargaining power. Under the bill, workers will have a right to be represented only a month after bargaining starts, putting workers behind the eight ball from the start. These workers are then stripped of the right to a comprehensive explanation of an agreement that they are being asked to vote on. Workers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, young employees or workers who are not represented in bargaining will no longer be guaranteed an appropriate explanation of a proposed agreement. The Fair Work Commission will have less time and power to ensure an agreement is genuinely agreed to and that it leaves workers better off. Agreements that exclude or misrepresent the National Employment Standards can be approved.
These changes aren't making or creating more secure jobs; they're about making it easier for employees to be ripped off. At a time when workers need more rights, they are being taken away. At a time when workers need secure jobs, the Morrison government is cutting the pathway out of casual work. The casual conversion provisions of the bill are essentially meaningless. An employer is not bound to offer a regular casual a permanent job if they do not think it would be reasonable to do so, and the same employer can veto a worker's right to have the Fair Work Commission consider if the decision was fair. The bill allows employers to call a worker casual even if the job is not casual, stripping them retrospectively of entitlements such as sick leave. This bill strips misclassified casuals of their right to leave entitlements.
At the same time as cutting the road out of casual work, this bill will casualise part-time work. The bill will effectively turn part-time workers into casuals, putting enormous pressure on them to accept extra hours with little notice and no overtime. The bill will in particular disadvantage workers with family responsibilities who need predictable and secure hours. If you have got kids or if you have caring responsibilities for a parent, under this bill that is simply your bad luck. You're on your own. You either take more shifts at short notice or lose out. No part-time workers are safe. These cuts can be imposed on any part-time worker without any award by regulation.
For the next two years workers' rights will be even further reduced with the extension of the JobKeeper style flexible work directions for duties and locations of work without JobKeeper payments and without the key protections that came with JobKeeper, as were supported by the parliament in 2020. Unlike with JobKeeper, the employer will not need to satisfy a turnover test. Instead, they'll simply need to believe it's necessary to give a directive to assist in the revival of an enterprise. When this occurs workers will have no rights to act against unreasonable directions because the government has taken away the arbitration powers of the Fair Work Commission. Workers can see their job change without warning and with no right of appeal. It is nothing short of a disgrace. This bill isn't about helping regrow the economy; it's about attacking workers.
I'm proud to come from a state with strong wage theft laws introduced by a strong, progressive Labor government. These laws protect workers from unscrupulous bosses and from the theft of their wages. That is what it is—it is theft. Instead of applying similar laws nationwide, this bill will override those strong wage theft laws, taking rights and protections off workers in states like my own of Victoria. It does this by inserting a new definition into the law that, to be guilty of wage theft, an action must not only be dishonest but also be known by the defendant to be dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people. This is a very high bar to meet, and it's been deliberately made so by this government. It is hard to prove someone's intent. That is why that definition was not included in Victoria's wage theft laws, because a boss ripping off their employees isn't going to be making it obvious that they knew what they were doing was wrong. This is a deliberate decision to make it easier for wages to be stolen and harder for workers to find justice. So when we hear the Attorney-General up here trying to claim that he's doing this great thing on wage theft, it is simply not true. He is simply watering down the provisions in those states that have strong Labor governments that have enacted wage theft legislation. It undermines good laws in states to the detriment of Australian workers.
So far I've covered how this bill cuts pay and conditions for casuals, part-time workers and victims of wage theft and, indeed, undercuts the rights of every working Australian. But the bill goes even further than that. It attacks the rights of workers on major construction projects. It does this by doubling the nominal expiry date of greenfields agreements to eight years or specifying no minimum annual increase in the base rate of pay. A worker could spend eight years working on a project receiving a pay increase of 0.01 per cent each year. That's a pay cut. Depending on the rate of inflation over those eight years that could be a really big pay cut. The new provision will apply to projects with a construction cost of $500 million or more; however, if the responsible minister declares a project to be a major project and it has a construction value between $250 million and $500 million then it can be included under this provision. As the shadow minister for infrastructure, I'm well aware that $250 million is not a particularly large infrastructure project. A lot of workers will end up being locked into bad deals and locked into years and years of pay cuts.
This government is not about improving conditions for workers. It is not about improving the security of work in this country. As I said at the start of this contribution, a government that had really learnt the lessons of COVID, had learnt that for an economic and public health response you need secure work, would not be introducing this bill and the measure that it has introduced to increase casualisation and to make work less secure in this country.
I'm pleased to rise to join in the debate with my colleagues in opposition to the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 and in support of the second amendment by the shadow minister, the member for Watson. This bill needs to be seen for exactly what it is: both a deeply cynical exercise and a profoundly ideological one. Despite its title, it will do nothing to support Australian jobs or economic recovery. I think we need to focus on both of these things. The cynicism, both in the process leading to the bill coming before the place and in its substance—and these are things that the member for Ballarat touched upon very effectively a moment ago—but also the underlying ideological fixation that animates members opposite. The Prime Minister likes to market himself as a pragmatic decision-maker, but time and time again we see that for what it is. It's a mask, and this bill demonstrates that quite clearly.
When it comes to industrial relations, this government has a long line of form—cutting wages through penalty rates changes and attacking job security. Indeed, we all remember the former finance minister describing low wages as a deliberate design feature of the architecture. In this bill, despite the process, despite the ostensible justification and, most importantly, despite what we've learnt through the pandemic about the danger that insecure work poses not just to individual workers but to our entire community, we see this government's determination to entrench casualised, insecure forms of work and the gig economy as permanent design features of the workplace relations architecture. On this side of the House, we stand squarely against that.
We've heard a lot from the Minister for Industrial Relations, also the Attorney-General, on these issues in question time over the last week. One thing that really strikes me is that he's very fond of referring back to provisions that were inserted into this act in 2009. As with almost everything he says at the dispatch box—this is a Leader of the House who I'm not sure has ever make a point of order successfully, which is why his only successful speeches are the short ones, bringing matters to a close—he talks about this as if it's a winning argument that provisions here resemble those by the former Labor government in 2009. What's striking is that he hasn't noticed some profound changes in the world of work in the last decade and a bit. An enormous increase in casualisation is something that has been noted by pretty much every observer but seems unremarkable to him, and there's the explosion in the gig economy, which he seems to treat as a matter that's beneath him.
In this place today, we've heard a number of quite extraordinary exchanges, exchanges which he seems quite pleased with but which really bell the cat on this issue. The minister says, in response to his characterisation of positions expressed by the Labor Party, that it's complicated—as if that's an excuse, as if the complicated nature of the world of work today means that government can't effectively regulate it. I think that is appalling and embarrassing in equal measure. Of course changes in the world of work change the regulatory task, but this is something that a government should be up for, particularly a government that committed to a deep process of consultation. Again, this betrays the cynicism that lies at the heart of this government. The working groups that were established, which we took a close interest in, failed to deliver a product that had consensus. Again, I think we see here the process as being a mask for an ideological agenda. Never has so much consultation achieved so little for the vast majority of those who were the subject of the consultation. And, at the end of it, this bill before the House—noting that some of the more egregious elements of changes to the better off overall test have been withdrawn—is still a recipe for cutting wages, for shifting the power balance in Australian workplaces away from those who do the work and towards those who benefit from the work and for deepening the incidence of insecure forms of work, whether it's through employment or otherwise.
I guess it makes us wonder exactly what problem this bill is designed to solve, from government members' point of view. What is it intended to do? It's no pathway to the secure jobs that are going to sustain a good society. It's no pathway to introducing a greater capacity for lower paid workers to consume and get the economy up and running in that regard. It's no way to increase the wage share of the economy, which is at a record low. It's no way to address the scourge that is insecure work, in all its manifestations. That may be a complicated challenge, but it's a challenge that we on this side of the House are up for, because we regard it as fundamental to building a good society and a functioning economy. We're not alone in saying that. Pretty much every economist agrees with us, not only those who are traditionally inclined towards the left side of politics. Perhaps, as the member for Ballarat so effectively set out in her contribution, that is because the wider consequences have been exposed—the wider consequences and also, I think, the morality. Through the pandemic, Australians have seen a large number of people's work for what it has always been. They've seen the value in work that has been undervalued economically, because it has kept our society going. We in our communities have been forced to confront that, even if, like some members opposite, it wasn't something we were inclined to do. Surely now, in this place, it's time to treat these people as the heroes that government ministers often describe them as being and to really value the work they do by supporting their capacity to be fairly rewarded for it. Surely it's time to recognise the power imbalances that so often characterise these vital forms of work, whether it is in retail, in logistics or in aspects of the caring economy. Yet these are the workers who will be pushed further behind should this bad bill be enacted into law.
We're putting before Australians a very stark choice when it comes to work: this road to nowhere, this race to the bottom that members opposite seem so keen on accelerating us towards, or the plan that the Leader of the Labor Party has started to articulate. It's a plan that puts secure work once again at the centre of the Australian settlement, at the centre of a new social compact that recognises the dignity of work and the threat it's under. It recognises how central work is to all of us and how we need to reinforce that. It also recognises, as I would hope that some thinking members opposite would, that there is a wider economic imperative here to build cooperative workplaces, to recognise that boosting cooperation in our workplaces is the key to productivity growth and to sustained and sustainable economic growth. But there seems to be no interest in that from members opposite. It's just the same old ideological fixation with taking power away from workers and those who represent them at so many levels through this, with no heed for the wider consequences—the individual moral consequences, which animate those of us on this side, but also the wider economic and social consequences, which should be a concern to anyone who has the privilege to have a voice and a vote in this place. These are concerns that I would hope members opposite would have regard to.
The process of establishing these working groups has really only delivered a wish list to some employers. It's a wish list to continue down the road to workplaces characterised by flexibility only on the terms of the employer and to workplaces which are increasingly uncertain. Of course, there are major issues we have to confront with the system of enterprise bargaining, too, none of which are being addressed. We acknowledge that, in the face of sustained criticism from the Labor team in this place, from the trade union movement and from so many ordinary Australians, the awful changes to the better off overall test have been taken out of this bill. But problems remain, and there's no inclination from members opposite to fix them. Going back to some of those workers who have sustained our entire society through the last year, I think it is particularly concerning that some of their interests are going to be the most affected here. The ability of unions to effectively engage in the bargaining process on behalf of groups of workers, particularly younger workers and workers who aren't from English-speaking backgrounds, is something that I am particularly concerned about. The provisions relating to greenfield sites, touched upon by the shadow minister for infrastructure, are also a great concern.
We've also heard a lot about the provisions around casual workers and casual conversion in recent days. Briefly, I want to put on the record some concerns I have. First, I note that the government that fought casual conversion so aggressively in the courts seeks congratulation for very modest and, frankly, unworkable provisions, in terms of enforcement mechanisms that once again don't understand the realities of power in workplaces or, worse—going back to the cynicism I've been speaking of—mechanisms that do understand it but seek again to put forward something that looks, on the face of it, like an improvement but is of no practical significance to low-paid workers who don't have the capacity, in this case, to seek to enforce a right on paper through the Federal Court. I don't think you need to have thought about this too deeply in order to know how impractical that is for the vast majority of workers. And of course the retrospective application of the broader provisions here come at a great cost to too many workers, as has been highlighted by many of my colleagues.
The provisions around award simplification are also of concern, because here we have another proposal that could well lead to very significant cuts in remuneration. If this is an unintended consequence of the drafting that's been put forward then of course we will see this exposed as we explore it through the Senate committee process. But we see here no interest, no engagement from the minister or his colleagues as to whether these issues can be explored through any process. All the consultation that has taken place today appears to have been a complete sham. The only thing the government will listen to in this—because it is so cynical, so driven by its ideological fixations—is the force of public opinion against changes that are unwarranted and unnecessary and will drag Australians back, in workplaces and across our entire society.
The provisions around wage theft also demonstrate the cynicism of this minister and the government. We see a provision that won't be pulled out from the rest of the bill—a 'take it or leave it' proposal—that is the opposite of the sort of cooperative approach one would imagine that a government intent on an economic recovery that's all about secure jobs would engage in. More fundamentally, the manner in which the provision has been drafted—which is very different from similar provisions in other states, including our own state of Victoria—would make the capacity of individuals who've been the subject of wage theft to make their claims. This is lessening a right when, again, we should be trying to raise the bar.
We have an opportunity here to put in place a different vision of Australian workplaces, a fair vision that's founded on job security, fairness at work and a government recognising the need and the obligation to address those power imbalances that are at the heart of so many employment relationships, as well as those relationships that have not been regarded as employment relationships but that we need to think harder about in terms of their impact on our society. In that regard it was very disappointing to see how dismissive the minister was of the implications of the very recent decision of the UK Supreme Court regarding drivers associated with the Uber platform. These are things that require very serious consideration by any government that's on the side of the Australian people and on the side of Australian working people.
In conclusion, this bill demonstrates that the government has not been listening to Australians through the pandemic—that they have not paid the slightest attention to what has been revealed in our workplaces and how the functioning of those workplaces shapes our society. We need a government that has a different approach to work in Australia and that will focus on secure work, not a cut and race to the bottom.
I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. If ever there were an Orwellian name for a bill, this would be it. It seems that many members of the government are living in an alternate universe.
This bill, as we know, was introduced into the House of Representatives on 9 December, the penultimate sitting day for 2020. As we've heard from the member for Scullin and other speakers on this side of the chamber—the long list of Labor members of parliament raising concerns on behalf of their constituents—if, after months and months of consultations with employer groups, businesses and unions through their so-called working group process, this is the best IR reform package the Morrison government could come up with, they really need to go back to the drawing board and actually start listening to what the impacts of this bill will be.
I've gone through the bill and I've read some of the submissions, which I'll focus on tonight in my remarks to the chamber. From the outset, I want to make it clear on behalf of the residents I've consulted with and the businesses and unions I've been hearing from that this bill makes work less secure, cuts pay and goes against the government's own pledge to rebuild the Australian economy. It's without measures to create secure jobs with the prospect of wage rises, and this means that, ultimately, workers will have less capacity to spend and less confidence to spend. That has a huge impact in terms of local economies not just in my electorate of Oxley, which I proudly represent in this chamber—the south-west suburbs of Brisbane and parts of Ipswich; this has a huge impact on many regional and local economies.
From the beginning, our IR team, led by the member for Watson and the Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, have said that if this bill left workers worse off we would not support it. The working group process identified five areas to reform: casual and fixed-term employees; award simplification; enterprise agreement-making; compliance and enforcement; and greenfields agreements for new enterprises. The bill attacks job security and, I believe, attacks our economy as we try to recover from COVID-19. Each of those areas of priority, each of those areas identified for reform, I believe, will be worse off under the bill. I want to spend a little bit of time explaining each of those, and I want to ask members of the government and the minister why this bill seems to look out more for big business and those bosses not wanting to do the right thing than it does for regular workers.
I want to focus a little bit on casual workers, and, in particular, what this bill means for my electorate of Oxley and for some of the casual employees who I have been in contact with and who the bill will have a major impact on if it proceeds. The government's efforts to define casual work in the bill are disturbing, underhanded and detrimental. It's ignored the law and has overturned the recent Federal Court decisions on what it actually means to be a casual. Under the government's laws, if a worker agrees to be employed casually at the start of their employment they remain a casual, regardless of their work pattern:
… the employer makes no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work …
If an employee wants to challenge that, the only way they can do it is in the Federal Court. If they did this, they'd lose their job—not to mention the fact that most people in insecure work simply wouldn't have the resources to go through this process. This is before we get into the issue of workers from non-English-speaking backgrounds who may have limited access to information. Should the government get its way, if a court does find that a casual worker is in fact permanent any casual loading they receive will be offset against any permanent entitlements they are owed. What does this mean? This means the potential to rip away between $18 billion and $39 billion owed to casuals across Australia and put it right back into the pockets of the employers.
The week before last, I was able to visit Cairns with the Leader of the Opposition to launch Labor's post-recovery jobs industry taskforce. The Leader of the Opposition was able to meet with a number of industry leaders and I was privileged to be briefed by the marine manufacturing industry in Cairns, which is an important industry for the local community. Being on the ground and listening to workers and management alongside Senator Nita Green, the duty senator for the seat of Leichardt and secretary of the task force, we learned that Cairns, in my home state of Queensland, is the postcode with more people on JobKeeper than any other electorate in Queensland. It has the highest number of casual workers in Queensland. More than a quarter of the town's entire workforce is made up of casual workers.
They were the first ones to be hard-hit by the pandemic. The government, as we know, failed to come to their aid when they were vulnerable then, and I believe they're now failing them again. Cairns is an important part of the local economy in Far North Queensland. It has been devastatingly hit by the international border closures—70 per cent of tourism dollars come from international tourists. The same day that I was in Cairns with the Labor leader, the minister for tourism was in town and, of course, came with absolutely nothing to offer the people of Cairns.
Once again, I say to the government, it's bad enough that the economy is crippled in tourism centres like Cairns; they need some certainty and they particularly need to know what the future around JobKeeper will mean for some of those industries. When we were in the city, we heard from a number of operators that would normally have tourist boats out on the water and only a handful were operating in Cairns. The businesses are struggling and the government's only response is to say that it's somehow the Premier of Queensland's fault or Gladys Berejiklian's fault because of state borders. That has nothing to do with the local economy when you're relying on international tourism.
You've got the double whammy in regional centres like Cairns, which was hard-hit by the tourism downturn and which has the complicated issue around the casualisation of the workforce, and this bill will make it worse. Already the most vulnerable members of the workforce are in those centres and towns like Cairns, where the economy is already crippled. We'll see a lack of support for regional businesses when JobKeeper comes to an end in a matter of weeks. Quite frankly, regional businesses are going to be decimated by these laws.
This is another hit for a number of regional centres. In my own electorate of Oxley—where casualisation is a huge issue—for more than 20,000 people working work part-time, the only choice they have is a choice between getting overtime and losing the hours they need to make ends meet. This bill allows an employer and part-time employee to agree to an employee working additional hours at their ordinary rate without paying overtime. This applies to part-time employees working a minimum of 16 hours a week. Under this bill, the financial stability of more than 20,000 people in the electorate of Oxley alone will be under threat, thanks to the normalising of a standard 16-hour commitment with 'simplified additional hours' being used to top up work on an as-needed basis. This does the opposite of what the government claims the bill is all about. It casualises part-time work, reducing job security. If there were ever a time in Australia where we need more job security, it is off the back of the pandemic, when the economy is in freefall and we are seeing alarming figures almost on a daily basis about what is happening in our economy.
As I said in my remarks, I want to talk about some of the feedback and submissions that we've seen regarding the Fair Work Amendment Bill. I refer to Catholic Religious Australia:
Catholic Religious Australia (CRA) has urged the government to consider revisions to the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 (the Bill) in a submission pointing out elements of the proposed Bill which leave certain workers vulnerable, compromising workers' rights and the common good of the Australian society.
In the submission, CRA calls upon the government to work collaboratively with business, not-for-profit organisations such as CRA, unions and the broad Australian community to ensure that the nation's industrial relations system supports the full employment of Australians, while rewarding employers who provide secure employment.
CRA recognises that the global COVID-19 pandemic has posed an immense national economic and societal challenge, and it has exposed and exacerbated pre-existing weaknesses in the Australian economy. One such weakness is the increasing casualisation of the workforce, which will only further escalate if the proposed changes remain in the Bill, leaving many Australians in an unstable financial position, resulting in greater vulnerability to exploitation, and violating human rights.
CRA President, Peter Carroll FMS said "The increasing vulnerability, instability and stress caused by the casualisation of workers impacts on individuals but also on society as a whole. It's detrimental to the quality of family life and impacts mental health. It reduces consumer confidence, spending and borrowing because of the lack of security in work and income, which in turn affects the economy."
… … …
Anne Walker, CRA National Executive Director said, "Safe, secure, and fulfilling work is a right to which each person is entitled, allowing them to earn a reasonable living, support family, contribute to and participate in Australian society, forge relationships, express their skills and talents and securely enjoy leisure time."
"Legislation should never reduce the function of work to a simple economic contract between employer and employee, or have the sole purpose of increasing capital," she added.
"Any initiatives to rebuild the Australian economy following the global pandemic, any future economic shock and more generally, should always respect and enhance the human rights and the dignity of all Australians, allowing for their full participation in our society".
I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments. I thank Catholic Religious Australia for their submission, and I thank the countless others who have raised their voices and raised the alarm around this bill.
We saw last week the government try to pull the wool over our eyes about fixing the problems with the bill by removing the better off overall test for two years, but that's only one problem. There are permanent changes that hurt workers. Employers will no longer have to explain an agreement to employees. Think about that for a second: employers will no longer have to explain an agreement to employees. Employers will not have to give an employee a copy of the whole agreement. Employers don't have to tell workers they have started bargaining for a month. The Fair Work Commission is stripped of powers to ensure workers are better off. Unions will not be allowed to assist the Fair Work Commission assessing non-union agreements, and the Fair Work Commission will be forced to tick and flick, with time limits and limitations. This essentially means a reduction in power structures in the workplace. This essentially means fewer rights for those people who need more rights.
The government has yet to explain the benefits of this bill. The Minister for Industrial Relations continually avoids and ducks and weaves on these critical, key agreements. I'm hopeful that the crossbench, members of the Senate and we here in this chamber are clear on what the government is intending to do. We on this side of the chamber have a positive plan. I was delighted to see the Labor leaders' announcements on industrial relations, the key plank in Labor's industrial relations platforms: extending the powers of the Fair Work Commission; ensuring a limited number of consecutive fixed-term contracts an employer can offer for the same role, with an overall cap of 24 months; and legislating a fair, objective test to determine when a worker can be classified as casual so people have a clearer pathway to permanent work.
As we have seen time and again, when it comes to industrial relations and when it comes to the protection of workers, this government simply cannot be trusted. We saw it with Work Choices, the issue the Howard lost the election on. The government got drunk on power in terms of what they tried to do the workforce in Australia and they paid the ultimate consequences at the ballot boxes. Coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic, now is not the time for the Morrison government to water down provisions and to further casualise the workforce in this nation.
I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. As with all omnibus bills, there are good and bad elements. With contentious policy areas such as industrial relations, there is often a polarisation of views, depending on which side of the ideological fence you are on. For example, with respect to this bill, the Labor Party and the unions would have you believe that the world will end if the bill proceeds. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, would have you believe that the world will end if it doesn't proceed. Having looked at the bill and listened to representatives from the ACTU, individual unions, local businesses and industry bodies, there appear to be elements that have merit and some that I believe must be addressed and/or rejected outright.
One element of merit is the introduction of a definition for the term 'casual employee'. Currently the Fair Work Act does not define the term. Instead the meaning is applied from common law. Until recent court decisions, 'casual employee', among other criteria, was loosely defined as employees who were engaged as casuals without expectations of ongoing work and without fixed hours of employment. The Skene and Rossato cases have now created uncertainty for employers, as employees engaged as casuals may now be deemed as other than casuals and at some point in time become entitled to payment of annual and other leave entitlements, even though they have received casual loading. This has left industry with a potential $39 billion in exposure.
Unions have raised concerns that the introduction of a definition of 'casual employment' will deny employees the right to recover entitlements if, during their employment period, the employee was not casual. I don't believe this to be technically true. The bill in this instance takes a common-sense approach, I believe, requiring employees to be entitled to receive in total an amount not less than the casual loading amount. This set-off provision ensures employees receive their legal entitlement and protects employers from paying entitlements twice. Naturally in the Senate, should this bill proceed, there may be amendments with respect to how we create casual employment, but I think that both employers and employees and deserve to have clarity on their roles and responsibilities.
In relation to the compliance and enforcement provision, increasing the cap from $20,000 to $50,000 for small claims wage recovery is an important step, and I think it is admirable. It's insisting employees recover their hard-earned wages in instances where employers have not paid them appropriately. Similarly, the introduction of a criminal offence for wage theft and increasing maximum civil penalties for underpayment contraventions will send the right signal to the small minority of employers that do the wrong thing.
The part-time flexibility amendments may seem sensible. While they reflect the conditions contained in many union negotiated enterprise agreements, I can understand that some unions are worried this has the potential to expect too much flexibility from their employees. They could have 16 hours one week and 32 hours the next. But, of course, when they go to get a bank loan it's only ever the 16 hours that's recognised. As I mentioned, there are union negotiated enterprise agreements, especially in the retail sector, that provide part-time employees that work additional hours without a range. Without a range, as in some agreements, this section simply encourages, I believe, employers to treat part-time workers like casual workers without the casual loading. The government says the employee can choose not to accept, but I don't think that that view recognises the power imbalance between workers and employers. The government's defence that any additional hours must be by agreement I just don't believe is correct. While I believe this provision potentially has a sensible intent, it does not provide appropriate protection for workers and may likely result in a newer form of lower flexible worker. I cannot support this provision in its current form.
We need to recognise in this place that this bill will affect the lowest-paid workers in Australia more than anyone else. During my discussions with unions and industry, the most contentious element of the bill resoundingly centred around the better off overall test changes. I'm pleased the government has abandoned these changes, but I'm deeply concerned that they were there in the first place. While the government seeks to reform and address obvious areas of deficiency, such as the definition of 'casuals' and wage theft, the bill as a whole does not satisfy the fairness test or satisfactorily address the areas of deficiency.
Given the many elements of the bill that I think are fair and reasonable, I think this government should pull apart this bill in this chamber. If the government is not willing to approach the bill in this way, I simply cannot support it and I will need to leave it to the Senate to hopefully ensure that those provisions for the protection of workers continue, particularly around the area of wage theft. The best thing the government can do, I think, is pause this bill, go back to the table, sit down with unions and sit down with employer groups. Let's actually get a bill that does the right thing by workers and by small businesses.
As with so much of the Morrison government's legislation, the title of this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, does not at all reflect the intent. The legislation neither supports Australian jobs nor helps with the economic recovery, and I'll talk a little more about that in just a moment.
Put simply, this legislation leaves people worse off. It cuts take-home pay and conditions, and it leaves workers with fewer rights and with less job security. And that's after the government has already removed the two-year suspension of the better off overall test. If the Morrison government had had its way, as was in the original bill, the better off overall test would have been suspended for two years, all under the guise of economic recovery after COVID-19. We know full well that in two years time it is unlikely—particularly if this government is still in office—that we would have reverted to anything other than what is now proposed in this bill. It would then have become part of the norm and continued to be the way business operated.
It's also interesting that for all the government's claims about how this legislation will make it easier for workers to get work, to get more work and to take home more pay, the Prime Minister still refuses to guarantee that no worker will be worse off. The Prime Minister refuses to make that guarantee because he knows he can't. He knows that this legislation will indeed make workers worse off, and that if they do take home more pay it's probably because they'll be working much longer hours in order to do so. It has nothing to do with this bill giving them more pay for the same work they're currently doing.
As we all know, the Liberal Party was literally formed from the business community, the landowners and the business people across this country, and that the Labor Party arose from the working people of this country. It is Liberal Party ideology, and always has been, to have what they refer to as 'trickle-down' economics. That means if business profits go up then there will be a flow-on effect down to the working people of this country. The reality is that it simply does not happen. The facts about wealth distribution, both here in Australia and around the world, are very, very clear: as they increase their wealth, fewer and fewer entities or people pass that on to others. We have seen the stats which show that much more of the wealth around the world today is owned by fewer people, and that will continue to be the case unless changes are made.
Over recent years, there have been numerous cases exposed here in Australia of worker exploitation, worker abuse and worker underpayment. Frequently, those who have offended are businesses which are household names here in Australia—businesses which are well-known to all of us. I accept that in some cases there might have been some genuine misunderstandings or errors made. But, in most cases, I believe that the underpayments were known and were very intentional. Even worse, I believe that what has been exposed is only the tip of the iceberg, and that there is exploitation still occurring each and every day right across the country.
Particularly over recent years, much of Australia's labour force has been made up of vulnerable new arrivals from relatively poor countries, or workers who come from overseas on, perhaps, temporary visas. Those include temporary work visas, where they apply to come here; student visas; or tourist visas, which are provided to backpackers and the like. It is very unlikely that any of those visa holders would even question an employer about their work conditions or payments. They wouldn't do so, either because they originate from a country or culture where workers' rights are simply non-existent or for fear of losing their visa, or perhaps because they are so desperate and need the money that they won't risk the few hours of work and the payment they are receiving. I'm well aware of people that fall into those categories. Perhaps they know that they are being underpaid, but they certainly won't risk whatever little income they've got by raising it with authorities.
It is also very much in the interests of employers to employ vulnerable workers, because it forces Australians competing for the same jobs, and who perhaps know what their entitlements are, to accept lower wages. It's a very direct way of bringing wages and conditions down, because you can say to employees or people that apply for the job: 'Well, if you want the job, these are the terms and conditions. If not, there is someone else that is prepared to work under those terms and conditions and take the job.' I have no doubt that that is also happening and is part of the strategy of employing workers that either are here on a temporary basis or have come in from overseas. It becomes a downward spiral of wages and conditions, and we are seeing that year after year. This legislation will go further in terms of doing exactly that.
We have seen wages stagnate under the Morrison government. Not content with that, the Morrison government now wants to drive down wages even more and make jobs more insecure. The foolishness of that ideology, however, is that when working people earn less they spend less, and when jobs are insecure or paying less people can't borrow money for their homes or for any other matter that they need to borrow money for, and so, in effect, there is less money circulating around the economy. When people have insecure work, it also raises issues of mental health problems and the like.
It actually makes sense to have workers on good incomes, because they spend their money and that in turn has a flow-on effect on the rest of the economy. Indeed, the whole purpose of JobKeeper and JobSeeker, introduced by the Morrison government, wasn't simply to support the workers; the government knew that by increasing the money that workers had in their hands it would prop up the businesses of this country that might otherwise have failed if working people didn't have money to spend. It wasn't just about helping them pay their wages; it was also about creating more money to circulate in the economy so that businesses could also profit from it and survive. Quite frankly, that is a realistic argument to put—and it worked during the COVID crisis. The same argument applies even when we don't have a crisis: if workers have more money in their hands, everybody benefits and profits from it. I really don't understand the logic of the government in continuously trying to push down wages.
A McKell Institute Queensland discussion paper on insecure work, released not long ago, highlights the shifting trend in recent years away from secure permanent work to less secure casual, part-time or contract work. In respect of contract work in particular, it too has been used frequently to circumvent conditions and entitlements of employees who sign those contracts and effectively trade away their rights that would otherwise exist. That's also a trend that is of concern, because with many of those contracts—I'm not just talking about the small contracts, where people become self-employed, as we might describe them, and then enter into a contract with an employer to provide services employees would have provided in the past; I'm also talking about those contracts that might go for three, four or five years, as many of the contracts in the service industry now go for. At the end of the four or five years there is no security for that person, and they hope they might have their contract renewed. But, even worse, within that four or five years they might also have to give away some of the terms and conditions that might have otherwise applied had they been permanent employees of the particular entity.
I understand that in today's workforce of around 12½ million people, less than half of all workers have permanent full-time paid jobs with all entitlements included—less than half. I also understand that 32 per cent of workers—this is according to that McKell Institute discussion paper—work less than 38 hours a week. It's interesting that in 1996, just over two decades ago, the figure was 11.3 per cent. In other words, in the last two decades the number of people who work less than 38 hours a week has trebled—and we'll see that figure rise much higher if this legislation goes through. Twenty-five per cent of workers are casuals.
I accept that for some people working casually or working part time suits their requirements and they are happy to do it. I don't have a problem with that, because I think in some cases it is appropriate. But frankly, for those people who would like to work more hours, and we know that there are about two million people who would, it is not always appropriate. For them, they only do it because they have no alternative. They are locked into an environment, a society at the moment where there is no other choice. There's an interesting correlation in all of this, and that is this: as trade union membership numbers have declined over the years, so too have the rights and entitlements of workers. A very similar trend: as trade union membership has fallen in Australia, so have workers' conditions and entitlements.
I will speak very briefly about the greenfields agreements. In the past, these contracts would have locked you in for four years. Other members have made the point that those agreements will be extended to eight years. Again, who is the loser in all of that? It will be the workers, because if you are locked into a contract for eight years, you are fixed to the terms and conditions applied at the time of signing. At least with four-year contracts you might be able to review them at the end of that contract. Then we have the provision whereby those greenfields contracts apply to entities or to contracts and projects of $500 million or more. We know that under this legislation the minister can intervene and declare a project of anywhere between $250 million and $500 million as a major project and have it included in a greenfields agreement. That declaration is not even disallowable; it doesn't have to come to this parliament! Again, this is a government that doesn't like scrutiny and doesn't like to be held to account in any way, shape or form.
Another matter I will briefly comment on is the issue of wage theft and the provisions in this legislation which actually weaken the protection for workers in Queensland and Victoria, because in Queensland and Victoria the governments have already introduced legislation to do exactly that. So we have legislation in two of the states that provides much better protection than what the federal government is proposing here. If you lower the bar for entities to be able to get away with wage theft, then it's very likely that more of them will still take the chance, and continue to do so.
The last issue I will talk about in the minute or so I have left is the issue of power imbalance. Again, speakers on this side in this debate have made it absolutely clear. Imagine a new arrival who perhaps barely knows the language, who certainly doesn't know all the laws in this country, or a young person or perhaps a person who's struggling with their mortgage repayments and needs whatever work they can get. How can we expect them to challenge their employer about the wages and conditions they get? They will never do that, and certainly they won't do it if they don't have the support of the unions, who have also been sidelined in all of this. So we know full well that whilst the government says people can take matters to the Fair Work Commission and the courts and the like, the reality is it doesn't happen already and it won't happen under this legislation. We know that most employers, and certainly the big employers, already have well-resourced HR departments who know how to manage the situation much better than the poor employees. These employees might be very good at the job that they are doing, but they are not HR managers or lawyers and, therefore, the power imbalance is totally unacceptable with respect to this legislation. We know this from past coalition governments. We've had the waterfront debacle, Work Choices and superannuation freezes. Now, under this coalition government, we see another attack on workers, and it is simply another way that this government and all coalition governments continually try to erode the rights of working people in this country.
To Australians who are listening to this debate as they're driving somewhere, perhaps, or as they're making the dinner, what we're debating is the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020—the Morrison government's proposal to change the laws which go to conditions in the workplace.
My background is that I'm a very proud member of a union, and I've spent my adult life representing people to try and get fair conditions in the workplace, but always endeavouring to be a moderate union official—trying to get a win-win and trying to ensure that people have agency over their work, that they're fairly remunerated and that they feel that their interests are aligned with those of their employer. The creation of harmony in the workplace is something that, to me, should be taken very seriously. A lot of people don't realise that the federal government can have a direct impact, in the laws it makes, upon the wages and conditions which people receive and the productivity which companies enjoy—the fairness at work. Australia's always had a very proud tradition of going a third way. We've eschewed the excesses of pure capitalism and, of course, we turned our back on the excesses of extreme socialism and communism a hundred years ago. This third way of a safety net underpinning productivity and underpinning wages growth is what I think has kept a middle class intact in this country. At least, it has for many decades.
I think if you look at the difference between the United States and Australia and the circumstances of people who go to work there as opposed to in Australia—for example, you can work in the United States and still be under the poverty line—there's a lot to be said for sensible industrial relations reform. Having said that I believe very much in a fair go for all, I think this legislation is absolutely not serious. When I say that it's not serious, I think that, if it were to be passed, it would be very serious and would be of great harm to Australian workers and, therefore, to the Australian economy and Australian enterprises. But I think this is a government that didn't think they would be elected in May 2019, because they certainly didn't offer anything in industrial relations policy, but now, to keep the conservative base happy—a bit of red meat—they've decided to take a tried-and-true uniter of many aspects of the current coalition: cutting people's wages and conditions and deregulating the workplace. Tonight my remarks will be in several parts. When I look at this legislation, I cannot help but draw the conclusion—and I'll endeavour to do so for people listening in the next 10 or 12 minutes—that this Prime Minister doesn't actually care. He's wasting the nation's time. He'd be happy if he could get these laws through—and a lot of other people such as the workers of Australia would be unhappy—but, in fact, they're not even serious about it. They don't believe in trying to improve productivity in the Australian workplace.
We've gone through COVID. COVID has been a dreadful experience, and it still is a dreadful experience. Obviously, the greatest suffering is that of the families of those who've passed. But many people have lost their jobs and their livelihoods—small businesses and people in certain sectors of the economy—and, of course, workers have lost shifts and literally millions of hours of work. My view is that the Australian people just want life to go back to normal, such as it can after COVID, and I think that there is a responsibility on all of us who are privileged to serve in the Parliament of Australia to help Australians get back to normal, whatever that will look like. This law actually flies in the face of that, and that's my first objection. COVID has been a torrid time for millions of Australians and their families, so why on earth is the government delaying our return to normal by trying it on with the agenda to cut people's wages? I think this is exactly the wrong time. Even if you believe in the coalition's approach of leaving it to the marketplace and weakening the safety net of minimum conditions in Australia—which I surely don't—surely, given the terrible experience that COVID-19 has been and the battering that sectors like tourism, travel agents, live events and international education are taking, this is exactly the wrong time. Even if you believe in deregulating workplace relations—and this is a move towards greater deregulation—this is exactly the wrong time for it.
Not only is it the wrong time; this legislation is bad for the people, bad for the Australian economy and bad for business. In a moment I'll go through some of the specifics as to why this is very poor legislation. It doesn't do anything to assist productivity. It is on this basis that I encourage the Senate and members of parliament to vote this legislation down. It's not what we need in workplace relations, either now or in the future. It's bad for the people, bad for the economy and bad for business.
Some of the specifics in the legislation are so poorly drafted that it beggars belief that this dog's breakfast is even offered up in legislation. I understand the Attorney-General has taken his metaphorical shears to parts of the bill since it was first raised, but we should still say no to this legislation. The bill is still ugly, is still an eyesore and does nothing for Australian workplaces. The Attorney-General has endeavoured to give this otherwise unloved legislation a makeover—a short back and sides—but he hasn't done a very good job. He has done half a job. He has created the legislative equivalent of the mullet. Indeed, that's probably unfair on the mullet. It is less than a mullet. It is a con. It is a try-on. It is a dare. It is half this and half that. It is a mismatched bill. I will go to those specific points in a moment.
It is a thankless piece of legislation. It is thankless for the Australian people who have got us through COVID and just want to go back to normal. There was nothing flagged at the last election about this legislation. It actually undermines enterprise bargaining. This is the classic stereotype where the Liberals and some of their allies in business—and I don't believe all in business want this legislation—declare to the workforce of Australia: 'This is enterprise bargaining. We're the enterprise and you're the bargain.' That's why this legislation should be rejected.
In particular let's look at the job market for people under the age of 30. If you ask them how the job landscape looks, they would say it's pretty grim. If you ask them if they are getting the hours of work they want and if it is easy to find a job, they would say that it's pretty hard. If you ask them if they will ever be able to afford to buy a house, have a family and settle down on the hours of work they're getting, they would say that that's very unlikely. If you ask them if there is job security available for them, they would say, 'No, there is not.' Then if you ask them if they think that the labour market is too deregulated or not deregulated enough, they would most resoundingly say that it's too deregulated.
This bill, even without its BOOT ban, makes it easier for employers to casualise jobs that would otherwise be permanent—that's bad. It makes bargaining for better pay and conditions more difficult than it already is—that's not good. It will allow wage cuts—that's a poor idea. It takes the rights off workers on big projects by effectively eliminating unions out of negotiating greenfield project arrangements. This might well be red meat for some who are critical of the government for lacking any agenda whatsoever. This Prime Minister is better at tearing things down than building things. Take the electric car shemozzle that this government conducted before the election. Now it's going to have to crab walk back to supporting those cars. This government is not very good at building things, and this is not a recipe to build productivity or cooperation in the workplace. It is most certainly bad economics.
Someone famously said, 'It's the economy, Stupid.' I'd like to vary that and say, 'Actually, it's the workers, Stupid.' We need to make sure that workers are getting proper wage rises. Stagnant wages growth diminishes consumer confidence. Stagnant wages growth diminishes the ability of people in the working class to get into the middle class and those in the middle class to stay in the middle class. Stagnant wages growth damages business because the very customers that businesses need to be coming through their doors, shopping and spending money can't do that, because they're simply not making enough to make ends meet.
This bill does not represent the finest traditions of industrial relations reform in this country, which were achieved by consensus. This government has specifically turned its back on a consensus approach and instead is favouring one set of arguments put forward by some employers and their advocates over the interests of others, including the trade union movement and workers. This law is very poorly drafted. Not only was the BOOT test change that the government proposed stupid—and they've dropped that—but the measures it is proposing to help casuals become permanents are an overworked solution to what is a very simple problem. You could always put in the National Employment Standards the opportunity for casuals to become permanent. I'll tell you what I believe has happened here. The government doesn't really understand workplace relations and an employer group—perhaps the Ai Group—has pushed it into an elaborate method of turning casuals into permanents. It's going to create a shemozzle for employers.
The other thing here is that, when the government wanted to amend specific awards for a specific time to allow for COVID measures, they included the opportunity for arbitration. What this now means under the law that they're proposing is that part-timers could be required to work extra hours. Even though they might be permanently on 16 or 20 hours a week and that's in their contract, that could be amended without the agreement of the worker to have them work up to 38 hours with no penalty rates. The weakness is that there's no arbitration. The reality is that this government, when COVID first hit, argued that it wanted flexibility for employers to be able to amend awards, but the safeguard was that there could be arbitration if people didn't agree on the proposal by employers, and quite often people would come to an agreement. But now they've got rid of the arbitration protection, which means that there is no chance for people to speak up if they disagree with what's proposed.
To show how this government doesn't understand the fire it's playing with, I note that the arbitration protection which was put in place initially when COVID started was used only five per cent of the time. Ninety-five per cent of the time, people, unions and the employers could work it out, but five per cent of the time there were disputes notified which were arbitrated. But the government doesn't like it when, even five per cent of the time, there could be notified disputes and there could be arbitration to check the balance of what might be seen to be an unreasonable proposal from an employer, so it's decided that, even at five per cent dispute notification, that's too much, so it will just get rid of it altogether. This is a government that has gone further than it needs to.
We understand the importance of helping businesses through COVID, and there are plenty of sensible ideas to help businesses get through COVID. You could extend JobKeeper in the travel industry and the live event industry. You could extend JobKeeper for businesses that are affected by the closure of international borders. Perhaps you could run a work value case in aged care. Perhaps you could tackle gender inequality in the wages system. Perhaps you could look at gender inequality in TAFE and degree qualified award classifications. Perhaps you could do more for early-year educators. Perhaps you could expand the National Employment Standards. Perhaps there could be greenfields agreements for project life with unions, not without unions in a way that encourages employers into a wages race to the bottom. Perhaps you could look at exploitation in the horticulture industry, with the treatment of international workers coming to Australia. Perhaps you could look at paid domestic violence leave. You could look at how we can rehabilitate injured workers.
As I said at the outset, there is a fertile and productive area of workplace relations which can increase productivity. But has the government looked at any of that? Not at all. It has, in what I think is a fairly slipshod, not-really-that-interested approach, just picked up a few of the chocolates from the right-wing employer lobby and said, 'This is what we're going to do legislatively.' How does that help people? It simply doesn't.
What we need to conclude when we have a look at this legislation is that the real reason why it should be rejected is that the Prime Minister himself doesn't really believe in it. I'd make a sporting bet with any coalition member that by mid-March, if this has all got too hard, ScoMo is going to drop the reforms anyway. This is just a means for the coalition to paper over its divisions and unite its members in an attack on unions and wages and a war cry of deregulating the workplace even further, even though it's already far too deregulated as it is. There's nothing here for productivity. There's nothing here that guarantees wage improvements. It's a hotchpotch. It's a collection of mismatched ideas, none of which are in the interests of working people.
I suspect that deep down the Prime Minister doesn't even care. Oh, he'd love to get it through; let me be clear about that. He'd love to cut the wages of people. But he is, indeed, wasting the time of this nation, and I suspect that by the time of the budget he won't even be talking about workplace relations, because he knows that the people of Australia aren't going to buy into an 'us versus them' set of rhetoric from this government. He knows that, having gone through COVID, people just want to return to normal, and anything which delays a return to normal will not be met with approval by the people of Australia. The Prime Minister assumes that he can talk about the political benefit of being the incumbent leader during COVID, but at the end of the day people will mark this government down if it persists in resisting their return to normal. People who've lost hours of work, companies who've lost income, businesses who've lost customers, young people who can't get a job in the market and older people who are being displaced by the dodgy labour market schemes of this government don't want this legislation. I'm afraid that, at practically the two-year mark of this government, it's missed an opportunity to do something by consensus. Instead, those opposite have just resorted to their deregulatory, let-the-market-rip approach to workplace relations. That's why this legislation should be rejected. It is not in the interests of Australians, it doesn't let us get back to normal and it puts this nation back when we should be moving forward.
The government has introduced a bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, which permits employers to cut wages and reduce rights. Of course, the Prime Minister is not the first prime minister to do that. The last Liberal prime minister that introduced a bill to enable employers to cut wages and reduce workers' rights was John Howard, and, as a direct consequence of that bill, the Work Choices bill, he lost not only government but his seat. John Howard wasn't the first Liberal prime minister who would lose his seat and his government by introducing a law which enabled employers to cut wages and reduce rights. There was another gentleman, by the name of Stanley Melbourne Bruce, who lost his seat and his government in exactly the same circumstances. We firmly predict that if this Prime Minister continues on this course then he will be the third Liberal prime minister who loses his government because he has introduced a bill, in the midst of an economic crisis, which enables employers and the government to reduce wages and conditions.
The government has introduced a bill on industrial relations in the midst of an economic crisis. This is an opportunity for the government to make a statement about the future, to set out its vision for the future of Australian workplaces and for good, secure jobs. It's an opportunity to make a statement about what workplaces will look once the crisis has receded. The government has not taken this opportunity. There is not a word about what a workplace will look like in the future. In fact, if you look at this legislation, it's a pretty bleak vision of the future indeed. This bill does none of it. It's an opportunity to take the big economic challenge head on and do something to fix it. It is not in the nature of this Prime Minister to take responsibility for a challenge that the country is confronted with on his watch. It is in the nature of this Prime Minister to do the opposite: 'It's not my responsibility. I don't hold a hose. I wasn't there. I saw nothing. There's nothing to see here.' If this government wants to be taken seriously then it has to confront the biggest challenges that workers and our economy will be dealing with over the next decade: high unemployment, low wages growth, low worker participation, high underemployment and high casualisation.
I want to address the big challenges. Let me deal first with low wages. If we were to go back through every budget paper since this mob formed government in 2013, we would see heroic assumptions about how wages were going to grow. They have not hit a single target. They are not alone; the Reserve Bank has been in exactly the same position. They have not hit a single wage prediction. What we have seen over the last decade is stagnating wages. We have seen wages go backwards. The government predicts they're going to go up, but they don't. The government hopes they're going to go up, but they don't. The government makes statements about more jobs and better pay, but we see neither. We are seeing wages stagnating and we are seeing the workers' share of national income declining year on year on year. How are we going to fix it? This is the biggest elephant in the smallest room. It's not like we haven't confronted this problem in the past.
We invented something called unions—workers getting together, bargaining collectively and increasing their wages and conditions. If the government were truly committed to ensuring that workers wages increase then they would have introduced a bill into this parliament which would have included provisions to enable workers to bargain collectively and to do it more effectively to increase their wages and conditions. Instead of introducing laws which enhance workers' abilities to join a union, to bargain collectively and to have more power in the workplace to increase their wages and conditions, every single instinct of this government is to do exactly the opposite—to water down a union's ability to represent their members and to make it harder for union members to participate in their union. And yet they come in here, year after year and budget after budget, saying: 'What can we do? Wages just won't grow.'
Wages don't grow magically! They grow because workers have the capacity to bargain collectively. The evidence is in: it is absolutely clear. If you look at the difference for workers who have increases based on collective agreement-making the figures are very, very clear. The government's own figures show that between 2016 and 2019 wage agreements subject to collective-bargaining won wage rises of 2.7 per cent as opposed to 1.9 per cent for the rest of the workforce. It's clear: collective bargaining works. So if the government want to do anything about seeing wages increase they will enhance the capacity of workers to bargain collectively. That, and only that, is going to see wages moving in our economy.
It's in the interests of every workplace and every business and in the economy as a whole to see wages growing. Before the recession the Reserve Bank governor said that he wanted to see wage agreements with a three in front of them, and yet a few weeks ago he conceded that we weren't going to see any wage growth at all in the next 12 months. We know the fuel that is going to get economic growth going again is more money in workers' pockets so that they can spend more money in their local economy and get the economy moving again. So if the government wanted to do something about the biggest problem confronting the workforce they would introduce bills which do the very opposite of what this legislation does. They would introduce legislation which enhances workers' ability to join their union, to bargain collectively and to get, effectively, a better slice of the national income.
The government would use their rhetorical power too. We would see the Prime Minister standing at the dispatch box and saying the words that we will never hear a Liberal Prime Minister utter: 'I think unions are good. I think unions play an important role in our workplace. I think unions play an important role in our economy. I think the solution to low wages growth is allowing unions to bargain effectively.' What an impact that would have on legislation, with the Prime Minister using the authority of his position to say, 'We've got to do this differently.' It is the biggest elephant in the smallest room: to get unions working in the national interest and moving workers' wages up, not down. This bill does the very opposite.
I'll say something about casualisation, or, more accurately, let's call it insecure work—casualisation and insecure work. Whether you're an employee or somebody working in employment-like circumstances, at least one in four Australian workers today are in insecure work. For the worker, it means they don't know from one day to the next what their pay packet is going to look like—whether they'll have a few hours work, a whole day's work or no work at all. They can't plan their week, let alone their lives. They can't get access to credit, at least not at an affordable rate, so a big bill can be an economic catastrophe for their household. They certainly cannot hope to get a home loan; no bank would loan to them, because they don't have the income or work history.
One in four Australian workers are facing this situation. Members of the government are claiming that we have a crisis in home ownership in this country, yet on their very watch we see casualisation going up, and the solutions to casualisation are nowhere to be seen. We used to see that this was just a problem for the individual—insecure work, the inability to plan their lives. But throughout the pandemic we've realised that it was not only a problem for the individual worker but also a problem for society at large. Insecure work means that a worker has to work one, two, three and sometimes even four jobs, presenting a health risk to everyone. It's not their fault, but it has a societal impact.
We all have a stake in ensuring that we do more to reduce the rate of casualisation and insecure work. I know that some on the other side say: 'Well, this is the new world. Get excited about it. We've got new app-based work.' A kid on a bike delivering a pizza at the beck and call of an app on his or her phone is not a future to get excited about. Surely Australia can do better than that. Surely Australians who have suffered so much through this pandemic can look forward to much more than that at the other end of it.
I want to say something about older workers, because this is something that this government has completely and utterly ignored. If somebody were to stand here and say that the 13 per cent youth unemployment rate in this country is a national crisis and that we must all lean into it and do something about it, they'd get stern nods from every member in this House, saying: 'Yes, 13 per cent youth unemployment is a tragedy. We must fix it.' If I were to tell you that the jobless rate for workers over the age of 65 is 20 per cent, you wouldn't believe me. But that is the fact. One in five Australians over the age of 55 and under the age of 65 is jobless. Nobody's talking about it. It's a silent crisis.
This mob over here went to the last election saying they were going to stick up for older Australians. They dropped them like a hot mouldy potato as soon as the election was in. That is one in five Australian workers discriminated against in the workplace. They take twice as long to find a job, if they're able to get an interview. If you listen to the stories of older workers, they will tell you: 'I apply for 10, 15, 20 jobs each and every week and don't even get a reply back. They see my age and they assume that my time in the workforce is done—too inflexible, too old, got no skills, not suitable.' Well, I say you're wrong. I say older workers have skills and capacity that we will be relying on, that we absolutely need.
A government member interjecting—
I hear the government minister at the bench saying he agrees. Well, I want more than your words; I want your actions, because the policies that you have introduced in this House not only don't help older workers but make the situation harder for older workers in the workplace. Let's talk, for instance, about your JobMaker plan, which provides subsidies for younger workers but discriminates against older workers. You make it a contest. You've done nothing.
A government member interjecting—
Would you like to know another policy? He's got a lot to say but not much to do. Let's make it quite clear. Stand up when my time's done and tell us exactly what you're doing for older workers, because I'll tell you what you're not doing. Older workers take twice as long to get another job, if they can find one. But the ministers over here refer to them as lounge lizards.
A government member interjecting—
He said it. Your Minister for Human Services said those very words: 'They're lounge lizards and bludgers.' They can't get a job in the workplace, and your plan to fix this is to bounce them back to $40 a day. That's your plan: twice as long on the unemployment benefit. 'They can afford to live on $40 a day, because they're only going to be unemployed for a short period of time.' Unemployment is north of six per cent. For older workers, one in five—20 per cent—are jobless. And all the government can come up with are hopeless interventions.
Well, we've got a crisis in this country, and it's about time this mob did something about it. It's a silent crisis, involving older workers, and they've got no answers for it. When they do introduce policies they make it worse. They introduce bills into this House which miss the obvious solution to the problems that we have, the big problems—low wages, high casualisation and older workers facing discrimination in a crisis—and the best they can come up with is a Prime Minister that doesn't hold a hose, hopeless policies that make things worse and IR policies which hark back to the last century and don't even solve the problems of this century. If this is the best that this mob can do, then this Prime Minister over here will face the same fate as John Howard and Stanley Melbourne Bruce. Bring it on.
What an enlivening contribution we just heard. It woke up the government. I can't imagine what else would wake up the government.
An opposition member interjecting—
You should listen, comrade.
In question time today, I was astounded to hear the way in which the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations dealt with the issue of Uber delivery drivers and the need to guarantee them a minimum wage. I know it's not within the DNA of that minister to understand and address the need of all Australians to have a minimum wage—and to be guaranteed that minimum wage—but I was absolutely astounded today. It demonstrated again the arrogance of the coalition, the don't-care attitude of the Morrison government, in particular, and their total disregard for Australian working people. To try in some way to insinuate that the plight of an Uber delivery driver was something akin to the conditions of an interstate truckie, which is what the minister attempted to do, is just an indictment.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the amendments to the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020 which have been put by the opposition. There are two points to our amendment which need to be articulated to give a sense of where this has all come from, which I will try to do. The amendment reads:
… "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that for this legislation to pass it should meet the test of providing secure jobs and better pay; and—
you'd think that should be a simple test to pass, but it's not. It's something this bill fails at—
(2) further notes that the bill will make jobs less secure and result in pay cuts".
And that is what it will do.
I'm reminded, as I watch these debates, of what's gone on over the time I've been in this parliament, from the time of the Hawke and Keating governments to our current day. In the period of time that I've observed debates in this place, I have never seen the coalition—whether in opposition or in government—support improving the rights of Australian workers. Never. I've seen them introduce Work Choices and get flogged for it. I've seen them oppose mandatory superannuation. At every turn, they've done everything they possibly could to undermine and weaken the rights of Australian working people and their pay and conditions. This bill is no different.
I think it's probably a measure of the support for this bill and the embarrassment of the government that there have been six contributions, aside from the minister's, from the coalition in this debate—six. If you include the Independents' participation in this debate, the contribution from Labor has been in excess of 30. So 30 members of the Labor Party are committed to protecting and defending the rights of Australian working people, and six members of the government are prepared to come and commit themselves to undermining the rights of working people. I can only assume that the rest either nod sagely and say, 'We agree with them,' or are too embarrassed to stand up, front this parliament and support the government legislation openly, because they know—as you do, Mr Deputy Speaker—that the message to the Australian community is that you cannot trust them. You cannot trust them, because what they will do is everything they possibly can to weaken or take away the rights of Australian working people and diminish their wages.
I don't know how we can possibly accept the propositions that somehow or other this bill will improve the lot of Australian working people, because it simply will not. I've heard the contributions of many of those who have participated in this debate from the Labor side, and I have to say I concur with every one of them, oddly. We don't always agree. Well, that's not true; we always agree once we get in here! But it is true, and I want to applaud all of those Labor members who have made a contribution. It just reinforces the view that we've got a government stuck in an ideological time warp, which is yet again demonstrated by this piece of legislation.
As we know from the contributions of others, this bill makes it easier for employers to casualise jobs that would have otherwise been permanent; it makes bargaining for better pay and conditions more difficult than it already is; it allows wage cuts; it takes rights off blue-collar workers on big projects; and, sadly, it weakens the punishments for wage theft in jurisdictions where it is already deemed a criminal act. Why is it that we can put legislation into this parliament here, now, this year—having experienced the last 12 months of COVID and the sacrifices that Australian working people have made, built on the back of the work which has been done by some of the lowest-paid workers in the country, including Uber drivers, to keep the place afloat—that makes work less secure and cuts pay? Why is it that we don't have measures that create more secure jobs with a prospect of wage rises? I think it must be beyond the wit and wisdom of the government to work it out.
I want to refer if I may to the briefing note that the ACTU have prepared in relation to this legislation, in which they say:
The Bill fails the Government's own test: workers will be worse off … The Government's changes will make jobs less secure; they will make it easier for employers to casualise permanent jobs and allow employers to pay workers less than the award safety net. This is the opposite of what the country needs.
I can absolutely say, 'Hear, hear!' to that. Of course, the bill, as the ACTU has clearly demonstrated, does not represent the consensus outcome from the working group process, which was trumpeted by the government during the last 12 months and which involved the ACTU and employers, around a reasonable way to address the need to change industrial relations—not at all. The government have undermined any prospect of consensus by putting this bill to the parliament.
There are so many elements of this bill that are dreadful, but I won't go through them all. I know others have done it. But I will just make a couple of final observations, noting the time. Secure, well-paid jobs must be the priority of this government during this ongoing and unpredictable pandemic. This bill does entirely the opposite—casualisation, weakening the standards of employment, not guaranteeing minimum wage, not improving productivity and not helping the economy in any measurable way. What we're seeing here is this government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in concert with the Minister for Industrial Relations, using this pandemic as an excuse to lower wages and attack super.
I pay tribute to the words of and thank the member for Lingiari for his contribution today in relation to this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020. The member has been in this House for a number of years and he's seen some terrible things come and go and some terrible people come and go, as he's attested to himself, but this is some pretty awful legislation that seeks only to cut the conditions, cut the pay and cut the super of workers, all led by this ideologically driven Liberal-National coalition.
I speak against the government's fair work amendment bill today and in support of the amendment moved by the member for Watson. This is without doubt the biggest attack on Australian workers since Prime Minister John Howard's infamous Work Choices a number of years ago. This bill would make work less secure and cut the pay packets of hardworking Australians workers who are already under pressure from the pandemic recession. Without measures to create more secure jobs, without a prospect of wage rises, workers will have less capacity and confidence to spend, which will in turn suppress demand and hurt the domestic economy. So, therefore, what is the point of this legislation?
Our sisters and brothers in the union movement have sat down at the bargaining table with the government and employer groups in good faith. It was meant to be heralded as the next accord, the process of these working groups—or it was according to the government. But this bill does not in any way represent a consensus from the working group process. It's just another broken promise from a tired government clinging to the ideology of Howard's Work Choices.
Labor has stated time and time again that measures which reflected agreements from working groups would most likely be supported, but this has manifestly not occurred. The government has turned instead to its habit of ideological dogma, more interested in bowing to unreasonable demands from some employer groups and simply using the COVID crisis as leverage for garnering the support of these groups rather than seeking genuine consensus across the community.
The permanent addition of flexible work directions is proof that changes to the Fair Work Act introduced as temporary by the Liberal-National coalition were never that. This measure was originally introduced as part of the JobKeeper program and limited to employers receiving the wage subsidy. However, since then, it has continued and expanded its application well beyond the original intent.
The government say they support Australian jobs, but we know it's not true. They say it in the title of this bill—'Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia's Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill'. They try to convince you through the name of this bill that they will support Australian jobs. But where is the support for the 650 workers at the BP refinery in my electorate? That's 650 jobs lost in Kwinana during this pandemic. I note the member for Gellibrand sitting near me today has also lost jobs in his electorate with the announced closure of the Altona refinery. That's about 1,000 jobs all up. They said they were going to save 1,000 jobs. They said they support Australian jobs.
This government brought in a fuel security plan. Of the four refineries that it was supposed to be aimed at, only one took up the offer. It was such a poorly planned, badly implemented fuel security package that no-one wanted anything to do with it. It was that bad and that inadequate and had no care for the 650 workers that I represent and the more than 300 workers at Altona that the member for Gellibrand represents. Supporting Australian jobs?
There's no evidence to support the claim. In fact, I think it's in a mere two weeks that the BP refinery will close down. I'm going to go on one of the final tours. I'm not going to enjoy it—I can't. I used to go there as a kid, and I remember it. My dad was one of the first workers. I think this is a community asset, a national asset, one that is in our national interest to provide fuel security for the people of Western Australia, for the farmers of Western Australia and for the countless mining and resources industries that need the diesel fuel that's refined—or will be for about a fortnight to come—at the BP Kwinana refinery since 1956.
This government does not care about Australian jobs. They won't support the 1,000 workers now in an increasingly likely-to-be-lost industrial capacity in this country. What a legacy this government is overseeing from this pandemic! It has failed to introduce a fuel security package that will keep a refining capacity in this country, and it will watch 1,000 people lose their jobs and therefore 1,000 families be affected, along with countless small and larger businesses, including supply chain connections throughout Gellibrand and the Kwinana industrial area: chemical manufacturers, fertiliser manufacturers and shipping contractors—you name it. It's unbelievable. A printing company in my electorate is threatened with closure because BP was its biggest client. These are the ramifications of failing to help what should be a treasured national capacity but has been left to rot. Now off go BP and off go the operators from the refinery at Altona. Fuel security, which this government has touted, is just another one of those announcements it makes with absolutely no follow-up. There is a package that is yet to be used, and in the meantime we've seen 1,000 jobs lost in a quick five or six months since that announcement.
I will turn more directly to the bill at hand. We've heard from a lot of members here, and I note the lack of participation from the government. Clearly, they don't want to support the bill; they certainly won't put their names to it. It's funny what they speak on in this House. I notice the freedom of speech bill that will shut down some freedom of speech on university campuses. They'll muck around with that. They're all too happy to come in and show their ideological dogma on that, but, when it comes to actually saving casual workers and providing people in the gig economy with a minimum wage—something I note the Prime Minister wasn't really willing to support today in question time—they duck for cover. I really wonder why they bother coming. What do you do here? You won't speak on bills. You won't speak to represent workers in your electorates. I guess there must be something going on to keep you here.
I will briefly reflect on the provisions that this government, in this bill, has proposed to introduce for enterprise agreements in long-term projects. This is wage stagnation baked into legislation for eight years in a greenfields agreement, a declaration that's not disallowable in the parliament .In infrastructure terms, the projects it will allow to make such agreements are not particularly large: $250 to $500 million. These provisions will bake pay rises of about 0.01 per cent per annum into eight-year agreements, representing a very real pay cut of an unknown quantity, depending on the CPI over time. As Michele O'Neil, the ACTU president, has warned the tradespeople right across the country, 'You will have fewer rights than any other worker in Australia.' To all the tradies in Australia: you will have fewer rights than any other tradie in Australia if you are in the unfortunate position of this government's bill getting through and projects you happened to get a job on being locked into eight-year agreements. What eight-year construction projects are there? There are not that many. Snowy Hydro might be an example, and Western Sydney airport will be another one. These already have funding commitments. We already know what they are going to cost. We know the wage costs in these projects. So what's the point?
What's the point of seeking to constrain workers' wages to 0.01 per cent per annum? This is a ridiculous government that doesn't care for workers. You're choosing to bake in wage cuts in legislation for eight years to workers building the biggest and most important projects in this country. Good employers, good project managers, the people that run these infrastructure projects—
Debate interrupted.
Tonight, I wish to speak about a visit I made to a school in my electorate: Sydney Technical High. It's a boys school. I was honoured to be invited to attend, on Friday 12 February, the annual presentation day for Sydney Technical High School in Hurstville. Fortunately, New South Wales Health eased restrictions, permitting the annual presentation to proceed, but, in accordance with current COVID-19 restrictions, no parents could attend the presentation, nor were there any of the celebratory refreshments that usually follow the event. Steven So, the principal, who is an outstanding man, rose to the challenge of the COVID-19 restrictions and arranged for the proud parents to join in the annual presentation live online, and also provided a complimentary CD of the presentation for the students' families in the graduation bag. The school ought to be congratulated for ensuring that families did not miss out on these key milestones.
The Sydney Technical High School is one of the few public schools with a hall of fame celebrating ex-students so that current students can realise the diversity of talent of those who have gone before them. The idea was from the past deputy principal, Sam Dando. He named the Hall of Fame recipients for this year. As you walk along the corridor and read the stories, you will notice inventors, surgeons, medical specialists, musicians, artists, dancers, architects, academic administrators, economists, businessmen, educators, media broadcasters, sportsmen, and military, Navy and Air Force commanders. They are all leaders in their field. They are gentlemen who have made a difference, many of whom have been awarded decorations in the Order of Australia. These men in the Hall of Fame at Sydney Technical High had vision, drive and passion, like the vast majority of Sydney Technical High students today. They were quiet achievers who did not seek glory or fame, fanfare or recognition.
I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the student award recipients for the year 2020. I give a special mention to Daniel Nemani, the school captain, and Ambrose Konstanidis, the school vice-captain, both of whom did an outstanding job at being master of ceremonies of the presentation day program. I'd also like to recognise the multicultural school band conducted by Shane Gamage and the talented Wesley Yiu, alumnus of 2020, who gave a beautiful piano performance of a Chopin piece. I had the pleasure of awarding the Barton Award for High Achievers for year 12 for the year 2020 to Shaun Thach. The highlight was presenting the award to the school Dux of the Year for 2020, Sagar Pathania. I felt so proud to be there. I'd like to read into the Hansard the names of the other people who achieved the dux award. There was Ghassan Adra from year 9; Dean Tripathi from year 10; Huy Nguyen from year 11; and, as I said, Sagar Pathania from year 12. I'd also like to thank the school for taking the time to make an acknowledgement of country. I thought this was very good, given the very important points that have been made around that. The vice-captain, Ambrose Konstanidis, made the acknowledgement of country.
I really am very proud to be the member for Barton, and I'm very proud of the excellence shown by Sydney Technical High School. It is an outstanding school, and I'm very glad that they were able to go ahead and hold their presentation day despite the COVID restrictions.
Today I rise to report on an issue members of my community raise with me. I know people want Australia to do more on climate change—it's a message I've taken back to Canberra—and tonight I want to report on some of the things our government are doing to address it. Because we believe climate change is real and serious, our government are committed to taking action to address climate change. Our approach has two limbs: mitigation through emissions reduction and practical action on climate resilience and adaptation. We remain committed to achieving our Paris emissions reduction target of 26 per cent by 2030, which will see our emissions per capita fall by half. Emissions are lower than when the coalition came to government and are currently at their lowest level since 1998. Australian emissions are now nearly 17 per cent below 2005 levels, while the OECD average is nine per cent below and New Zealand and Canada are around one per cent below. In 2020 Australia beat its emission reductions targets by 459 million tonnes. Our target is comparable to countries like Canada and Japan and higher than every major economy in Asia. We're focused on achieving our targets through practical, technology driven means. We're establishing bilateral agreements on energy and emissions reduction with each state and territory, and New South Wales and Tasmania have signed up already.
Australia has been described as a world leader in renewables. Our per capita investment in renewables is greater than the United States, Japan and the UK and three times that of Germany or France. More than 2.2 million Australians have rooftop solar panels, which is the highest uptake in the world. New solar and wind technologies are deployed in Australia at a rate which is 10 times faster than the global average. A record 6.3 gigawatts of renewable capacity was installed in 2019, which was a 24 per cent increase on the previous year. Electricity generated by renewables will expand a record 26 per cent in the coming year. Additionally, wind and solar generation in the National Electricity Market is projected to increase by 250 per cent between 2019 and 2022. This is the central reason why the latest official projections indicate that the National Energy Market will be 26 per cent below 2005 emissions levels by 2022, which is eight years ahead of its target.
Our government's Clean Energy Finance Corporation has invested $10 billion to drive down the cost of renewables, and we've developed investment in battery and pumped hydro energy storage through the $1 billion Grid Reliability Fund. We're investing $1.42 billion in supporting the expansion of the Snowy hydro scheme and the development of the technology needed to realise Tasmania's Battery of the Nation vision. This is in addition to our $500 million hydrogen strategy, which will position Australia as a key player in the emerging hydrogen market. We also recognise that accessing domestic gas supplies is an essential component in developing a credible energy transition plan for Australia. Gas will help us bridge the transition gap, while other investments can be scaled to an affordable and available level.
The government's technology investment road map will help guide government and private sector investment in renewable energy going forward so that renewable alternatives can be scaled to a level that makes them economically and environmentally viable. We've always said that the pathway for reducing Australia's emissions needs to be based on technology, not taxes. Climate resilience and adaptation is also an important component of our response. Climate resilience and adaptation must involve serious attention to hazard reduction, which has a direct impact on the safety of Australians living in bush environments, such as the Berowra electorate. Our government is pursuing greater national transparency and accountability around those measures. The $5 billion Future Drought Fund will play an essential role in supporting practical, resilience-building measures. These measures include small-scale water infrastructure, improved information on local climate variability, sustainable stock management, and soil and water generation.
The new Emergency Response Fund will be directing part of its annual $200 million funding towards preparedness for and recovery from future disaster events. The National Water Grid Authority will also provide national leadership on guiding investment in water security and generating a comprehensive, integrated plan to help drought-proof our water supply. The Reef 2050 plan is receiving $1.19 billion in Commonwealth funding to support the ongoing resilience of the Great Barrier Reef. We're also supporting our Pacific family in their climate resilience measures. The CSIRO and the Chief Scientist have been tasked with presenting recommendations on further practical resilience and mitigation measures going forward. This, in tandem with our waste and recycling policies, which will see an increase in waste reduction and an increase in recycling, shows that Australia is on the right track. We're taking action on climate change and protecting the environment for future generations.
I rise tonight to address a few matters which I really wish I didn't have to. I rise tonight to address matters and behaviours of this government which I really don't want to but which I feel I have to. I feel that this place, this chamber, is the appropriate place to do so because this place and this chamber should stand as the place to defend things in this country that we hold dear and the things in this country that are crucial to our multicultural and multifaith Australia.
I do this in the context that we see a rise in far-Right extremism around the world. We see extreme examples of this. Of course, we saw the Christchurch terrorist, whom I will not name, who murdered 51 New Zealanders in two mosques. He was an Australian, and the New Zealand royal commission report showed that his own manifesto was radicalised by right-wing extremism in this country. Phillip Galea, a man active in right-wing extremism groups, including the True Blue Crew and Reclaim Australia, was arrested in Melbourne and sentenced to 12 years jail for plotting to commit an act of terrorism against Muslims and lefties. And there was the 18-year-old in Albury in New South Wales who was active in the far Right online. He was arrested in December, having spread not just vile anti-Semitic and racist paraphernalia but also bomb-making instructions. We could go through more of the extreme examples, but the ones that I want to talk about and list are the ones who dance close to them: the ones who flirt with them and the ones who go a little bit too close to the core. Unfortunately, they happen to be ones who are members of this government.
Throughout this pandemic, the member for Hughes has compared Victoria and the Victorian health response to Nazi Germany, a completely false and wrong comparison. He refused to apologise. Only last week, in a radio interview, the member for Hughes colloquially stereotyped a Jewish beard as a response in order to clarify his understanding of a particular issue. The member for Dawson thought it was clever to rewrite Martin Niemoller's First they came, a poem that was about speaking out and standing against indifference in the Holocaust. The member for Dawson thought it was intelligent to rewrite it about figures like Donald Trump.
The member for Hughes and the member for Dawson have both appeared on podcasts like Unshackled, a far-Right extremist media network that has among its hosts and guests a wide range of convicted and arrested criminals, thugs and neo-Nazis. I'm not going to give them the honour of naming them in this place. Even more recently, the member for Hughes recorded a podcast with Pete Evans, a man who spent the summer sharing neo-Nazi imagery on his social media platform and who only last week shared on his personal page a promotion of the agenda of the so-called 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion', which, as I'm sure many in this place know, is one of the most vile, dark and oldest forms of anti-Semitism. And that is the person the member for Hughes is choosing to record podcasts with. There is also Senator Antic, who last week delivered a speech in the Senate decrying cultural Marxism, an extremist conspiracy theory that holds that Jewish intellectuals leave Germany to destroy Western institutions and cultures. It's not good enough to say, 'I didn't mean it.' It's not good enough to say of the member for Hughes or of the member for Dawson that it's just them; they're members of this government.
Leadership matters. There are moments in history where leadership is needed and relied upon to ensure that it's not just fringe examples like the member for Hughes, the member for Dawson, Senator Antic or anyone else doing this. When Fraser Anning stood in the other place and made his awful 'final solution' speech, it was a source of pride to see the Australian parliament respond in the way it did, which culminated in a handshake over those two dispatch boxes. We need more leadership in this country and less of the sort of behaviour that flirts with the right-wing extremism that has no place in a modern Australia.
Yesterday marked the beginning of a huge win for Australia. 21 February 2021 was a truly historic day as the first COVID-19 vaccinations were rolled out in Australia. Last year the Prime Minister said that Australia would make its own way through the pandemic, and so it has. From acting early to close our international borders to hotspot regions around the globe to doing the responsible thing and waiting for our Therapeutic Goods Administration to approve vaccines before rolling them out, we have acted based on the evidence and we have done it our way—the Australian way. Despite the political opportunism and sniping from the other side of the House, when you look around the world the proof is there that our Australian response has been one of the most effective of any country.
The COVID-19 vaccine rollout is one of the biggest logistical exercises in Australia's history. It is being managed in a highly strategic, safe and effective way based on expert medical advice. The Australian government has secured more than 150 million COVID-19 vaccine doses. Over 50 million of these will be manufactured in Melbourne, thanks to our sovereign vaccine manufacturing capacity through CSL. We are getting on with the job of getting a safe, effective and free vaccine to as many Australians as we can, starting with those who need it most. The first people to receive a vaccine will be priority groups who are at higher risk of COVID-19. They include quarantine and border workers, frontline healthcare workers, and aged and disability care residents and staff.
Yesterday 84-year-old World War II survivor Jane Malysiak was the first Aussie. This morning at about 7.30 Professor Rhonda Stuart, Monash Health medical director for infection prevention, became the first Victorian recipient of the vaccine. Professor Stuart and her team at Monash Health treated the first Australian case of COVID-19. After all their incredible work over the past 12 months it's fitting that these amazing people were among the first to be vaccinated. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Stuart and her team at Monash Health on behalf of the people of Chisholm. When the virus hit last year residents of Chisholm were among the first to raise the alarm. In acting to implement measures to slow the spread they were likely critical to Australia's success in combating COVID-19. I look forward with confidence to seeing Chisholm people coming forward to protect themselves and our community by getting the vaccine. I can't wait to see Chisholm's streets and shops return to their former glory when we have finally beaten this virus for good.
The TGA approved COVID vaccines are safe, are effective and will help protect you and your loved ones. As the Prime Minister demonstrated yesterday by getting the vaccine himself, he is not asking anyone to do anything that he is not prepared to do himself. The world's scientists have delivered the miracle of a vaccine, and our frontline health workers have worked incredibly hard, sacrificing so much to help slow the spread. Now, to protect ourselves and our loved ones, it's our responsibility to get vaccinated.
As we approach March 2021, we look forward to a brighter and more optimistic economic and social future than seemed possible as this pandemic was ramping up to its early stages almost 12 months ago. The first vaccinations in Australia have commenced and, of course, in other countries they've been rolling out now for well over a month. COVID-19 is being labelled a once-in-a-century pandemic, and we all certainly hope that that is the case.
The pandemic was a shock that reverberated around the world, causing severe strain to the economic wellbeing and social fabric of countries across the globe. The responses to the pandemic worldwide were varied to say the least. The Lowy Institute recently evaluated the worldwide response to the pandemic. Australia rated a very creditable eighth in the world. Our near neighbours New Zealand came on top. Australia had the fortunate benefit of seeing what slow action—or in some countries no action—looked like. Death and economic devastation ravaged European and North and South American countries. As a nation we moved fast. Lockdowns, social distancing and improved hygiene measures were implemented swiftly. To the credit of the Australian population, we embraced those measures with little or no complaint, putting trust in our state and federal leaders and, importantly, public health experts to do the right thing for the community as a whole.
Stimulus packages commenced in March 2020 and were refined, updated and added to through March and April. The packages included two lump sum payments, the introduction of JobKeeper and a $550-per-fortnight supplement to what is known as JobSeeker. My own electorate of Hindmarsh had some 5,500 recipients of JobKeeper, the wage subsidy program. In February 2020, before COVID, Hindmarsh had 5,800 JobSeeker recipients. By June of that same year, that number had grown to an alarming 11,000, with a further 1,090 receiving youth allowance. In December 2020, the numbers remained disturbingly higher than pre COVID, with almost 10,000 receiving JobSeeker and 995 receiving youth allowance. JobKeeper is slated to end on 28 March, in just a few weeks, with the JobSeeker supplement, which is being wound down already, to cease altogether on 31 March. I have very grave concerns for the vulnerable constituents in my electorate who will be severely impacted by the proposed cessation of both of these payments.
The Morrison Liberal government is, unfortunately, not on the side of working families. Under a Morrison government, wages will be cut, JobKeeper support will be axed and childcare costs will stay far too high. The first vaccines have only just begun to puncture the arms of our frontline healthcare workers today, yet this government is all too ready to puncture the rate of JobSeeker. It's simply too early to be reducing the rate of the COVID supplement, which is helping families keep their heads above water. The Prime Minister needs to stop leaving working families behind. Australians need a government that will commit to permanently increasing unemployment benefits. They need a government that is on their side.
The Labor Party is committed to ensuring that the COVID recovery is focused on jobs. To that end, a Labor government will legislate job security as a key objective of the Fair Work Act to help fight the ongoing uncertainty that comes with systemic casual work. Some of this particular job insecurity is of very recent origin, with the advent particularly of the gig economy. The response by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industrial Relation to the plight of gig economy workers who are earning so much less than the minimum wage, with no leave entitlements and no protections for workplace health and safety, should be condemned.
Earlier this month, workers in Gouger Street in my city of Adelaide rallied against wage theft, which has become a recurring theme for young workers. These workers need a strong Labor government to have their back. To those workers who have been underpaid, have felt insecure about their job security or have felt like they have been left behind by their government, I say: Labor is on your side. Labor wants an Australia that supports local jobs with fair pay and decent conditions. Under Labor, no-one will be held back and no-one will be left behind.
I rise today to speak on the important work that the Select Committee on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention will be undertaking in coming months. I am proud that the Prime Minister has named me as the chair of the committee, and I will be working alongside a number of esteemed colleagues in addressing the need for significant reform in our mental health system.
One in five Australians aged 16 to 85 experiences a mental illness in any year, and, sadly, suicide is the leading cause of death for young Australians, accounting for over one-third of deaths among people aged 15 to 24. When I joined the Morrison government in 2019, I was joining a government that, for the first time, had made the mental health and wellbeing of Australians a national priority. The timing of this was imperative. Who could have predicted that last summer's bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic would worsen the epidemic of poor mental health in our nation?
As a mental health professional I felt compelled to run for public office, because I felt I had significant contributions to make in this space. In my first speech, I stated my intention to bring my 20 years of experience to my role as a parliamentarian, in the hope that I could address the evidence-policy gap. I am pleased that my views have been echoed in the findings of the Productivity Commission inquiry report into mental health. The focus of the report is on evidence based solutions and on prevention and early intervention. In my first speech, I also highlighted the need to place a strong emphasis on prevention and early intervention to address a range of mental health conditions.
The Productivity Commission report identified that a preventative approach must take place early in life and early in the course of an illness. This means focusing on the mental health of children and families, particularly by using schools and tertiary education and employment as places that can better support emotional wellbeing and psychological safety. This way, a person will have mental health support available throughout their entire life and will learn the skills for self-care, emotion regulation and help-seeking behaviour from a young age.
Since I was elected I have advocated for schools to play an important role in implementing mental health programs to address concerns or aggressive behaviours from a young age. This will play a significant role in reducing poor mental health among young people as well as preventing other concerning societal factors. For instance, these same mental health programs can play a part in breaking intergenerational cycles of domestic violence. We know that children who witness or experience domestic violence are more likely to become victims or perpetrators of domestic violence in their adult years. Utilising well established evidence based approaches such as cognitive behavioural therapy can help to reduce the underlying psychological symptoms associated with those who go on to engage in controlling behaviours, especially where these behaviours have been learned at home from a young age.
The mental health of parents has a strong influence on the wellbeing of their young children. Last year the Morrison government invested $550,000 over two years to support children and young people who have a parent or guardian with a mental illness. This has allowed the Satellite Foundation, in partnership with Emerging Minds, to support children of parents with mental illness through targeted programs and an expanded peer-support network. It is important that we recognise this.
Our mental health is shaped by nature and nurture. Supporting the mental health of parents means supporting the mental health of their children as well. I have been vocal in this place about the need for greater support for mental health in the perinatal period. The Productivity Commission's report reflected this, identifying a need to better support children and families, particularly in a major life transition such as pregnancy or in the perinatal period. One in five women experiences anxiety in the perinatal period, and one in 10 new fathers or partners experiences perinatal depression or anxiety. The solution may mean engaging maternal and child health services online, as well as screening and outreach services to detect problems and improve mental health.
There is clearly much work to be done, but I am eager to begin. I will ensure, through my role as the committee chair, that the focus will be driven by emerging evidence based approaches to early detection, diagnosis, treatment and recovery through an improved mental health system.
House adjourned at 20:00
As some of you may know, I, along with Senator Perin Davey, am the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Spirits. In the first sitting week of the year, we here at Parliament House celebrated Spirits of Australia Week. Stu Gregor, President of the Australian Distillers Association; Greg Holland, Chief Executive of Spirits & Cocktails Australia; and their teams spent a very busy week here at Parliament House. We celebrated the launch of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Spirits with a fantastic event on the Queen's Terrace. The sun was shining, the speeches were short, and our member distillers had some very delicious samples on offer for members and staff. A big thank you to all the producers who provided their valuable products for the launch and especially to those who made the trip to Canberra: Granddad Jack's; The Gin Boutique; Drinks Network; Manly Spirits; Larrikin Gin; Spring Bay Distillery, from Tasmania; Killara Distillery, also from Tasmania; Bellarine Distillery; CAVU; Lark Distillery, from Tasmania; Bundaberg; and Stephen Parry—also from Tasmania, and a former President of the Senate—from Pattex, the makers of Section 44 gin. We won't go into the origins of the name! Of course, it wasn't all gin and whiskey. The ADA and Spirits & Cocktails Australia were here to make their case for reform to the spirits excise-tax regime.
Australia has the third-highest spirits tax in the world, and excise on alcohol is increased twice a year automatically. The industry is asking the government to align the spirits tax rate to the brandy rate and freeze spirits and brandy CPI indexation for three years. It's a revenue-positive $1.4 billion impact over the forward estimates, and we would all welcome budget revenue measures. For parity with the local wine industry, the industry is asking for a rebate on its first $350,000 of excise paid—a very worthwhile measure. Reducing tax and allowing spirits manufacturers to retain a greater margin to reinvest will provide an incentive to expand operations, employ more people and support more local businesses throughout the supply chain and, for local distillers, market abroad and consider their export potential. It's a big opportunity for the regions in particular. I have written to the Treasurer to urge him to implement these reforms in the May budget. We need to support our spirits producers so they can continue to grow their contribution to Australia's agriculture, tourism, manufacturing and export industries.
I'd just like to briefly mention Adams Distillery, an award-winning distillery located in Perth in the northern part of my electorate. Two weeks ago, there was a fire in the distillery. It caused almost $2 million worth of damage and left one of their employees, Greg Longmore, with serious injuries. All the best to Greg and his family as he continues through his recovery. There's been a massive fundraising drive for Greg, with nearly $100,000 raised so far. All the best to the entire team for the future.
I just wanted to talk a little bit about Deception Bay, one of the suburbs in my electorate. It is a great suburb. Recently the Morrison government announced a new grant for them, which has come through and which has been successful, for the Deception Bay Little Athletics. It's a $1.65 million grant to build a Little Athletics track at the club in Deception Bay. That includes GST. That came through from the Community Development Grants Programme. This will be the first tartan running track that's been built, as far as public tracks go, pretty well since the Commonwealth Games that were held in 1982. There have been other tracks, like Nudgee College down at Boondall and other private tracks, but there hasn't really been a community track. The Morrison government is pumping $1.65 million into that.
I want to particularly thank David Armitage, who is the club the president. He and his team have helped drive this project. I also want to thank Adam White, the former president, who has been very influential in putting this together. I also want to acknowledge the state government and the member for Bancroft, who have put $1 million into this project—or will put it in at some stage—and the mayor and the council, who are putting $700,000 towards a new upgraded car park and lighting and will help make sure that council planning goes through quickly so we can get the track started this financial year. It really will be great for Deception Bay residents and families that will benefit. This is just another example of delivering on commitments for Deception Bay.
There have been other projects that we have put into Deception Bay as well. The Morrison government's putting in 80 per cent of the funding for the Deception Bay overpass and Deception Bay Road, which is currently under construction. The state government has also put 20 per cent into that project. For Deception Bay residents, that new overpass will look very similar to the upgrade we did at the Boundary Road overpass, just a little south on the highway. We've also put nearly half a million dollars into the Deception Bay Police Citizens Youth Club to upgrade their gym and to air condition it, and make sure that the Police Citizens Youth Club have an income-producing asset to help them. We've put new war memorials down on the waterfront, opposite Mermaids By the Bay cafe. We've upgraded the Deception Bay Soccer Club and put solar panels on their roof. Kim Dean and her husband do a great job down at that club. We have also put funding into the Deception Bay Gem Club, to help them with new cutting machines and so forth for their stones. There's also an environment wildlife crossing that's about to go into Deception Bay and there will be an upgrade to the Deception Bay Community Hall, which will be a joint project with the Morrison government and the Moreton Bay Regional Council. We will continue to invest in Deception Bay. It's a great suburb, and I'm really pleased for that community.
Time and time again we come into this place and we discuss what the government are doing to screw over the working class. Are they making it easier for employers to fire their employees? Are they making it easier for employers to casualise the workforce? Are they making it easier for employers to cut pay? The answer is yes to all three of those questions. The new omnibus legislation is shocking for working people—and we know why. When the government first said they were making changes to industrial relations, Labor set out a very simple test you'd think even they could get: Would workers be better off? The answer is no. In fact, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General made it clear that they are now going to ditch the better off overall test, because they can't get it through the parliament—not because it's wrong, but because they can't get it through the parliament; for political expediency. Everyone else here knows it and the government won't accept it.
In the midst of all this, the Prime Minister is snatching away JobKeeper from people who need it the most. There are 1.3 million people employed in businesses receiving JobKeeper and there are only 34 days before it's cut. We're going to see huge job losses and financial stress on families who can least afford it. We will see more people who can't get by day to day. These people are already struggling with insecure work and bad pay—and the government are making it harder for them to make ends meet. The government blame those people, the victims, for the situation they are in—it's their fault that we have people in insecure work. People are working two, three or four jobs just to try to make enough money to pay the bills and put food on the table, and the government blame them—because they value people on the worth of their dollar, not the worth of the person.
We have seen that time and time again through the pandemic, where people who work in service industries—for example, truck drivers—who go out and do a hard days work, get belittled by this government because they're not making millions of dollars. This victim blaming is becoming a hallmark of this government. This situation didn't just arrive yesterday. Insecure work has increased massively since 2013, and we now see people working in the gig economy—Uber drivers, freelance workers and all these people—suffering, and the government are letting them go. The government do not care about them.
I also want to put on record my sincere condolences to the Gregson family. Vietnam veteran Ross Gregson passed away recently. I couldn't get to his funeral, and I am absolutely shattered that I couldn't. This was a man that we should all aspire to be like. Both him and his lovely wife Denise, who was deceased before him, committed their entire lives to our communities of Seymour and surrounding areas and also to Vietnam veterans. He was instrumental in building the Vietnam Veterans Commemorative Walk, which has been something that apart from this federal government every other level of government on both sides has been involved in to support Vietnam veterans. To Ross and Denise: you're great mates, and I dearly love you. I'm so sorry that they're gone.
In my most recent tour of the wonderful Lyne electorate, I visited communities in the upper valleys of the Hastings and Manning. Both these communities were severely affected by the bushfires over a year and a half ago, and they are still recovering. But they're a resilient mob.
I would like to congratulate members of the MidCoast Council's Bushfire Recovery Team, including Janine, Jenny, Gemma and Chris, who have been working with affected towns and villages. I'd also like to thank Peter Brown from the New South Wales Department Of Primary Industries, who's been providing practical and personal support.
What we all know in country Australia is that regional societies get together in local community halls. Whether it's the school of arts or just the community hall, they are often the hub for these local communities. The Bushfire Community Recovery and Resilience Fund, which is funded by the federal government as well as the state government, has been busy supporting these community halls. During the tour, we announced many cash grants, including $40,000 for Bulga Soldiers Memorial Hall in Elands; $30,000 for the Little Plain Recreation and Public Hall, also nearby in Elands; $35,000 for Killabakh Community Hall; $7,500 for Upper Lansdowne Memorial Hall; $35,000 for Lansdowne Community Hall; $50,000 for Burrell Creek Hall; $7,500 for Krambach School Of Arts Hall; $40,000 for Marlee Hall; $60,000 for Bobin School of Arts Hall; and $65,000 for Wherrol Flat Hall.
On this tour, I was also happy to have with me Michael Marom and Josh Fulwood, both senior administrators in regional Telstra communications. They came with me to several of these halls and heard firsthand the residual and ongoing problems with difficulty of mobile phone access and difficulty of getting longer term supply out of the exchanges. Telstra was kind enough to donate a Cel-Fi GO repeater for the Burrell Creek Hall and for the Rural Fire Service following my representations. The message was loud and clear: these villages in rural and regional Australia won't be left behind. They can't be left behind by telcos. They have a community service obligation. The message has got through to the middle and upper levels of management in Telstra now. It's really important that the villages don't get substandard service.
This Friday the government will receive the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Many Australians will remember that this was the royal commission the government only called back in 2018 because the government was shamed by a Four Corners media scandal. This inquiry, the most in-depth and thorough examination of Australia's aged-care system according to the counsel assisting, Peter Rozen QC, has heard from 641 witnesses, held almost 100 days of hearings and accepted more than 10,500 public submissions. The result? A shocking tale of neglect.
The interim report released in October 2019 found the aged-care system failed in its duty to support older Australians. It found:
It does not deliver uniformly safe and quality care for older people. It is unkind and uncaring towards them. In too many instances, it simply neglects them.
This government has had almost eight years to look after older Australians properly. It's had nearly 18 months to act on the urgent recommendations of the interim report. This crisis is the government's doing.
The Prime Minister was Treasurer when the government cut $1.7 billion from aged care. Now there are close to 100,000 older Australians waiting for a home-care package during a global pandemic when many people are afraid of entering residential care, with those needing more support level 4 packages waiting for more than a year for the help they desperately need. Over the past two years, 28,000 older Australians have died while waiting for a homecare package. It's a national disgrace.
In my community on the Central Coast of New South Wales there are 1,109 people waiting for a homecare package—people like Enid, who at 96 was told she would have to wait 12 months for a level 4 homecare package. It's not good enough. It's not easy growing old. As the report observed, we avoid thinking and talking about it, leading to an apparent indifference where, 'left out of sight and out of mind, these important services are left floundering'.
I know of people, some living with dementia, who've ended up in residential care after a fall or a hospital stay, and of families and carers burnt out and frustrated while trying to keep them safely at home. I was with my dad when, after an exhausting battery of tests over many years, he was finally diagnosed with younger-onset Alzheimer's dementia. He said to me, 'You will never leave me dribbling in a nursing home', and I am determined to keep my promise to my mum, Barbie, that it will be better for other families. But kind words and good intentions won't help people like my dad's friend Steve, who was admitted to residential aged care during COVID, and it won't help the dedicated staff I've met with—like Leanne, Jenny, Cathy, Nicole, Bec, Julie, Bronwyn, Adam, Ron, Kevin, George, Peter and James—who are frustrated and exhausted, trying to care for people in a system that is broken. It has to be better; it must be. To the many people who've written to me about aged care, and those just in the past week—like Steve, Cecily, Liz, Joan, and Vicki—the government must act now. There's no time to waste.
On Friday we paused to remember the loss of three innocent souls through one of the most callous and devastating acts of domestic violence Australian had ever seen. The murder of Hannah Clarke and her three children, Aaliyah, Laianah, and Trey, by her estranged husband was a day when we all hugged our children a little tighter. Our community was in shock. A beautiful family lost their daughter and their grandchildren. A school community lost three beautiful students and friends. On Friday we lit a candle as the sun went down to remember that in darkness there is always light. Twelve months on, that light is shone brightly by Hannah's parents, Sue and Lloyd Clarke, who have honoured their loved ones by working to put an end to the incidence and severity of domestic and family violence in Australia.
Today I want to honour their legacy and the Small Steps 4 Hannah foundation. I want to honour Hannah's bravery for walking away and for fighting for her children. Through Small Steps 4 Hannah, Lloyd, Sue and Nat Clarke have started a movement for change, and I'm very pleased to see that their words have turned into actions. Last week the Queensland Premier announced she would appoint a task force to investigate how they can legislate against coercive control. I would like to commend the premier for taking up the cause and agreeing to work with domestic and family violence services and frontline workers to better protect victims of non-physical and physical domestic violence. I believe this is a tremendous credit to the Small Steps 4 Hannah foundation, and I encourage all our other states and territories to pick up the momentum to help protect domestic violence victims. No family should endure this pain again.
Through the Small Steps 4 Hannah foundation, Lloyd and Sue have started the HALT movement. HALT exists to halt the cycle of domestic violence so that everyone can feel respected, informed and confident to act and to be safe. They are doing this through fundraising, events and partnership to bring the community with them on this journey. Their key focus is around education and advocacy and around funding projects and supporting people in the community who are living with domestic and family violence. I've been very privileged to get to know Carolyn Robinson from Beyond DV, who runs Lillian's Place, a safe space to help women who have left a domestic violence situation and to work to get their lives back, from understanding and managing their finances to job interviews and workshops on self-worth and self-esteem. I have seen firsthand the amazing work that can be achieved when the community comes together.
I first visited the centre last year, and it is growing in leaps and bounds. We cannot change the world in one day. It is done one step at a time—a mantra that I believe Small Steps 4 Hannah embodies. With one small step at a time, we can put an end to domestic and family violence. One step at a time we are giving victims the confidence to walk away knowing that they will be safe and that the laws are in place to protect them. One step at a time we will make sure that no family will endure this pain again. (Time expired)
Senior members of this government like to come into this place and claim that jobs are being created and then unfurl the mission-accomplished banner behind themselves, as though the job were done, but that kind of triumphalism, I argue, is missing some fundamental characteristics of the labour market. I'm going to look at two of them today. The first of them is population growth. If we look at the population of the labour market between March 2020 and December 2020, we see the civilian population aged 15 and over has increased by 76,000 people, and this needs to be factored into the government's analysis of the labour market. It's not enough to simply say that jobs are being created; the government need to set a benchmark for themselves which reflects the fact that the labour market is growing. To even get to where we were pre COVID is going to require far more jobs growth than they are admitting. For example, given the population growth, in order to hold the employment rate at 62.4 per cent would have required an additional 47,420 people to have been employed. Moreover, in order to hold monthly hours per capita constant, given population growth, would have required an extra 6½ million hours worked. So, what we see is that, in order to go back to where we were pre COVID, and that shouldn't be our ambition, when factoring in population growth the government need to achieve a full one-third of a percentage point growth more in the labour force than they are currently reflecting in their numbers.
The second thing I want to talk about is the age structure of our labour force and the fact that it's the youngest who are being hardest hit by this recession and it's the youngest who are actually the slowest to come out of it. If we look at employment growth between March 2020 and December 2020, even adjusting for changes in age structure, for those aged 15 to 24 we see a minus 2.9 per cent change in employment, and for those aged 25 to 64 we see a minus 0.7 per cent change—a marked difference. There is almost four times the drop in employment growth for those in our society who are just at the start of their working lives and most vulnerable. And, for those over the age of 65, we've seen growth in hours of employment, often because people are so terrified of retiring and have to go into any jobs they can. When we look at electorates like mine, Fraser, in the outer western suburbs of Melbourne—and this is reflected so often in the outer suburbs of our cities around Australia—we see the rate of those not in education, employment or training far higher, on average, than around the rest of Australia, and this was even before COVID. What we see is a labour market that is creating some jobs, but this government is setting itself benchmarks far too low. It needs to achieve far more in the labour market to reflect population growth and reflect the needs of our young people. (Time expired)
I rise today to acknowledge an incredible individual in Narrabeen who is living an eventful century. Mr Richard Burgess, being one of seven children, was born in 1920 and turned 100 last year. What a year to turn 100! Being one of the renowned Rats of Tobruk, Mr Burgess has an incredible history with a lot of unbelievable memories when talking about his life. Born in Pambula, on the far south New South Wales Coast, Mr Burgess attended a local primary school until, at the age of 14, he joined his father's butcher business. When World War II broke out, Mr Burgess joined the Australian Army's 2/17th infantry battalion, and in late 1940 travelled on the Queen Mary to the Middle East. He explained that, in the 6½ months he was in Tobruk, he had a few close calls and scary moments and admitted it was not an experience he wanted to go through again. In late 1942, at the Second Battle of El Alamein, Mr Burgess was left to die as a piece of shrapnel had penetrated through his skull. Fortunately, he was picked up and found himself at the 15th—Scottish—General Hospital in Cairo. In 1943, after constantly badgering the matron, Mr Burgess was shipped back to Australia.
For the next 40 years, he worked in postal services, with the Postmaster-General's Department, which became Australia Post. Through night school and TAFE, Mr Burgess improved his education and was moved into administration. Always being an enthusiastic person, Mr Burgess joined the NSW Cricket Umpires and Scorers Association, where he became a first-class umpire at the SCG. When the association celebrated its century in 2013, he was one of the first inductees into the Hall of Fame.
Mr Burgess met his wife in 1943. He explained that having been hit on the head was the best thing that ever happened to him, as, if he hadn't been injured, he would have gone back to being a butcher and wouldn't have got into the PMG'S department, got married, had two beautiful daughters and made a lot of friends.
I'd like to commend Mr Burgess as he makes all the Northern Beaches community tremendously proud today. Today, let us look to Mr Burgess's incredibly eventful century of endless determination and enthusiasm. It is because of people like him that we live in both a free and fair country. We thank you for your sacrifice.
I rise with an update on the COVID-19 vaccine rollout for frontline healthcare workers in the mighty Eden-Monaro. Last week I was contacted by doctors and nurses in the Bega valley, who were facing an 11-hour drive, two days away, from patients and loved ones in order to receive the Pfizer vaccine in the phase 1A rollout. Initially staff were directed to Liverpool hospital in south-west Sydney. The time away from the South East Regional Hospital and local GP clinics would have had flow-on impacts. I raised these issues in the media and also met with the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, to express our concerns. And now we've seen a commonsense local solution emerge. I'm pleased to report that, during the early weeks of this vaccine rollout, Liverpool Hospital vaccinators will travel to Bega hospital to vaccinate health staff as part of the phase 1A rollout—a commonsense solution for Bega valley healthcare staff, who have carried the weight of bushfires and the pandemic for over 12 months. Thank you to the healthcare professionals who raised their concerns. I also thank them for the follow-up that will now be of benefit to our community. By working together, we have seen a local solution emerge. I'm told that further outreach clinics will reach the southern health district in the future. The rollout of the vaccine will help us resolve and bolster our dedication to see this through and to continue to build a strong economy.
We all know that sport plays a significant role in the life and spirit of country communities. In the early phases of the pandemic, the loss of local footy, netball, other sports and community activities hit us hard, not to mention the loss of our national codes for some time—all of which come with the ritual of watching our favourite teams run around the paddock or court, depending on which sport you watch. This Saturday, NRL fans at Queanbeyan will gather to cheer on their beloved 'Green Machine', with the Canberra Raiders returning to their spiritual home of Seiffert Oval to play the Sydney Roosters ahead of the first round of the NRL on 14 March. Ricky Stuart and the Raiders have a bond with the Queanbeyan community that draws people together. People of all backgrounds and beliefs gather to cheer from the sidelines, united by their passion for the Raiders. Ricky and his team take their community spirit and involvement beyond the paddocks into schools and grassroots clubs with community programs like ASPIRE, which I had the opportunity to witness firsthand at Michelago Public School. Thank you to Alan Tongue and his foundation for the work that they do with regard to programs on respect, mental health and domestic violence. These people are aware that the power they carry as role models should go out to our community. Good luck for Saturday, Raiders. Make sure you don your Viking helmets and your best Raiders jersey for the weekend, guys. 2020 was difficult, but I reckon we can go a step better this year. Go the Raiders!
Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, you know, I know, we all know that Casino is the true beef capital of Australia. After it was cancelled last year, we're all very much looking forward to beef week 2021. There are pretenders to being the beef week capital of Australia beyond Casino, but what none of them have is Brenda Armfield. Brenda has been a volunteer at beef week in Casino for nearly 35 years and holds the honorary role as the town crier for the event. Each year Brenda dresses up both herself and her car to fit with the theme and is a feature of the annual parade. She says she loves beef week because it brings people together—Casino residents and many visitors alike.
2021 will be the 39th year of beef week. It will be held from 22 May to 1 June. I'd like to acknowledge this year's executive—Frank McKey, Grant Shedden, Brody Lisha, Raelene Bodsworth, Murgha Mack and Sandra Humphreys. Also, the planned theme for Beef Week 2020, which has been rolled over to 2021, is Local Heroes. So, on top of our firefighters, police, volunteers, the SES and the RFS, we are now also celebrating the great work of our nurses, teachers, aged-care workers and business owners throughout the community who changed how their businesses operated to support the community through COVID. So, bring on Beef Week 2021.
I would like to acknowledge a wonderful lady in my community, Jean Vickery, from the Coffs coast northern beaches, who's made the top 30 in the finalists for the New South Wales Woman of the Year—a remarkable achievement. Jean moved to Emerald Beach 13 years ago. Jean and her husband, Victor, had had a farm there, where they'd raised their three children, Debbie, Julie and Tony. Since moving to the northern beaches, Jean has been involved with Meals on Wheels, Link to Life, the Westpac helicopter, the Red Cross and the Woolgoolga Lions Club, just to name a few. In fact, when Jean arrived at the Lions Club, she was the first woman to join the club and there are now 14.
A highlight for Jean was one day when she stopped at Uralla for a bottle of water and a lady in front of her saw the Woolgoolga Lions Club shirt that Jean was wearing and volunteered to buy her anything that she wanted at the shop because she knew the wonderful work that that group had been doing.
Last year Jean was also awarded the Coffs Harbour Citizen of the Year award. She's a humble lady, so much so that Jean says of all these awards that she gets, 'There's too much song and dance at times and it takes up time when you should be doing more in the community.' Isn't that said like a true community champion? Jean, thank you so much for what you do in our community and congratulations on making the top 30 finalists for this award.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Perth Freight Link, announced by then Treasurer the Hon Joe Hockey in 2014, was comprehensively rejected by the people of Western Australia at the state election in March 2017, when it was the most prominent point of difference in terms of transport infrastructure policy between Liberal and Labor;
(b) in addition to a lack of any credible evidence to suggest it would improve road connectivity, the project which included the road reserves for Roe Highway Stage 8 and 9, did not actually reach the port of Fremantle, had no detailed planning or cost benefit analysis, was to be operated as a private toll road, and was designed to facilitate the privatisation of Fremantle Port;
(c) encouraged by federal Liberals, the Western Australian Government of the then Premier Barnett, ignored the advice of Main Roads Western Australia and in the shadow of an election wasted $20 million of taxpayers' funds in the pointless and bloody-minded smashing down of more than 100 hectares of fragile habitat, including hundred year-old heritage trees, in the Beeliar Wetlands;
(d) after the election, at the behest of the current Western Australian Government of Premier McGowan, $1.2 billion in federal funding that had been put aside for the so-called Perth Freight Link was redirected to a number of sensible and well-designed road, rail and public transport projects in the south-metro region, including the widening of the Kwinana Freeway and other freeway works, the new Armadale Road-North Lake Road bridge, the High Street Upgrade, and the Thomlie-Cockburn Metronet rail link; and
(e) the Commonwealth Government has since 2017, allocated a further $1.2 billion to fund what it describes as Roe 8/9, a project that no longer exists, while denying the people of Western Australia the much-needed funds to deliver properly planned transport infrastructure; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) respect the wishes of the Western Australian public and the mandate of the Western Australian Government as clearly expressed at the election in March 2017;
(b) stop holding the people of Western Australia to ransom for a dead and discredited project; and
(c) work with the McGowan Labor Government if re-elected on 13 March 2021 to support jobs, business activity, transport infrastructure, and economic recovery as Western Australia seeks to emerge from the pandemic.
This motion is very simple. It's about fairness for Western Australia. It's about ensuring that WA is properly supported by the Morrison government as it seeks to emerge from the heavy impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It's totally unacceptable that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government continues to hold $1.2 billion of federal funding over the heads and out of the reach of the people of Western Australia for the sake of playing a silly political game. They've done that for four years, which is bad enough, and to continue holding WA to ransom for their own political vanity in future is simply ridiculous. To continue denying the people of WA the sensible use of those funds is the very definition of senselessness and selfishness.
In 2014 the Abbott government pledged $1.6 billion to the Perth Freight Link project, a road that didn't reach Fremantle port, had no cost benefit analysis, was to be operated as a private toll road and was designed to facilitate the privatisation of Fremantle port. When the money was announced, it took the Barnett government completely by surprise. Unfortunately, they've always been prepared to be pushed around by their federal liberal colleagues. They made it the centrepiece of their 2017 state election campaign, and, scandalously, against the advice of Main Roads Western Australia, in the shadow of that election the Barnett government wasted $20 million of taxpayers' funds and knocked over 100 hectares of the fragile Beeliar Wetlands. Not surprisingly, that kind of arrogance was repaid at the ballot box, and the people of Western Australia chose a different future: a future in which, thanks to the McGowan Labor government, port operations remain a public asset rather than being sold off; and a future in which rail, road and public transport projects are being delivered across the south metro region, the region I represent, after nine years in which the Barnett government delivered nothing.
That future is now being realised. We've already seen the widening of the freeway northbound from Russell Road. We've already seen a significant jump in freight rail, with a corresponding decrease in truck freight. We're now seeing the new Armidale Road-North Lake Road Bridge project well underway, which will improve connectivity and address congestion for my constituents in the City of Cockburn and for my colleague's, the member for Burt, constituents. We're seeing the long-awaited upgrade of High Street in Freemantle.
Sadly, the crystal clear choice made by the people of WA has fallen on deaf ears when it comes to the west Australian Liberals, because since 2018 this federal Liberal government has put aside another $1.2 billion for what they call 'Roe 8' and 'Roe 9'. That means that WA continues to be short-changed. It means that WA Liberals, sadly, keep dancing to the tune of their federal masters. Four years in the wilderness and they still put the interests of WA behind their blind loyalty to whatever they're told from Canberra.
Will they ever have the bottle to speak up about submarine maintenance and defence shipbuilding in Western Australia? Will they ever have the courage to call out the fact that WA has been lumped with the largest share of the worst NBN technology? Who knows. But, four years later, we are still waiting. Instead of speaking up and instead of having the courage to pressure the Morrison government, they're now doubling-down on a piece of madness that died four years ago. Nothing demonstrates the deep uselessness and irrelevance of the WA Liberals better than the fact that, after four years, in which you'd think they might have done some policy work and considered some new ideas, the self-described centrepiece of their 2021 campaign is, wait for it: Roe 8 and Roe 9.
I know the member for Tangney and his colleagues enjoy political games and stunts, and that's their choice. But they've also made a big song and dance in the past about the importance of respecting a political mandate. The people of Western Australia made a decisive choice in March 2017 that hasn't been respected by WA Liberals, state or federal. They continue to ignore the needs of Western Australians. They continue to put their vanity above the projects, services and jobs that WA needs to emerge from this health and economic crisis.
In three weeks time, we'll be on the other side of another Western Australian state election. If the people of Western Australia again reject the pointless, wasteful and harmful Roe 8 project, it will be utterly unacceptable for WA to be denied the opportunity to benefit from budgeted federal funds—$1.2 billion in federal funds. That funding should be applied to projects that support our community's needs and help Western Australia recover from the pandemic. That funding should not be held to ransom in the name of a political game—a silly set of political stunts that answer to the vanity and the selfishness of federal Liberals who continue to take Western Australia for granted.
Is the motion seconded?
The motion is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak.
I thank the member for Fremantle for bringing the motion today and enabling all of us to talk about our wonderful state of Western Australia. I'm sure those opposite—I have some Western Australian colleagues—would acknowledge all Western Australians and the incredibly hard work they've done during our, thankfully, very short lockdown. Whilst we haven't done it as difficult as some other states—and certainly not as difficult as some other countries in the world—we know that this COVID pandemic is disrupting homes, families, businesses and organisations right around the country. We've had a recent taste of that, so congratulations to all Western Australians and also, of course, to emergency services, police, health workers, aged-care workers and all those who are on the front line. It's particularly pleasing, of course, that, as of today, the formal commencement of the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine is occurring in our home state of Western Australia and around the country.
To come to the motion today, it also provides an opportunity for me to talk about the Morrison government's commitment to infrastructure projects both in WA and around the country. We should consider, firstly: why is this government investing in infrastructure? Fundamentally, we know that good, well-planned infrastructure can only be built with, often, assistance from federal government and, typically, in partnership with states as well. There are a few things I'll touch on where those partnerships are in place and are certainly delivering for our local community.
It's also part of the reason why the Morrison government has expanded and brought forward a lot of the expenditure related to that $100 billion Infrastructure Investment Program over the period of 10 years. However, this sort of investment is not new. In fact, since coming to government in 2013, this government has actually invested a figure of $15½ billion in infrastructure in Western Australia. And now, in the most recent 2020-21 budget, the Australian government announced $1.1 billion to infrastructure projects in WA. This includes, also, $45 million towards the Stirling bus interchange, with construction due to start in late 2021. The Stirling bus interchange, in my electorate of Stirling, is a great example of cooperation between the state and the federal government, working collaboratively for the benefit of our local community. The project will upgrade the Stirling bus interchange, which is on the Joondalup line, as well as the associated interchange infrastructure. The federal government is spending $45 million of the required $90 million for this project. This will inject tens of millions of dollars into the local community and will, of course, also support a great range of jobs. It will benefit all of those people who use our public transport network to travel daily, whether that be for work, for visiting others in the community or for leisure as well.
Another major project in my electorate of Stirling—and it also borders on Curtin as well—is the Stephenson Avenue extension. The involves an extension of Stephenson Avenue from Scarborough Beach Road through to the Sarich Court intersection. The Morrison government has allocated $82.5 million towards the overall cost of $165 million—with, again, the state partnering for the remainder. This project commenced in August 2020 and is due for completion by the mid to end of 2023. So there are just a couple of examples in Stirling where we have seen the federal government's infrastructure investment really making a difference on the ground.
I also want to talk about the Perth City Deal. A deal was signed on 20 September last year, and it includes $1.5 billion over 10 years, in partnership with the state government, to deliver economic stimulus, jobs and liveability outcomes throughout the Perth CBD. This will create jobs and it will support further private investment. We are investing $414 million in that Perth City Deal to make transformative investments in the joint vision agreed between all three tiers of government.
In summary, whether it has been from an economic, health or any other standpoint, our government's resolve continues to be that we support the Australian public and that we grow our economy through this pandemic recovery period.
Unlike those opposite, the McGowan WA Labor government have 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 stands in stark contrast to the Morrison Liberal government and its Attorney-General siding with Clive Palmer to bring down WA's border when it was unsafe to do so. This 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 the Western Australian economy but also our nation's economy.
The WA Labor Mark McGowan government get WA. They know what WA wants. The Western Australian people rejected the Perth freight link proposal announced by the then Treasurer, Joe Hockey, in 2014, convincingly ruling it out with the way that they voted in the 2017 state election—a project that was previously knocked on the head nearly two decades earlier. The project lacked any credible evidence to support the idea that it would improve road connectivity. In fact, it didn't even reach the port that it was supposed to be helping. It was literally a road to nowhere. Encouraged, though, by the federal Liberals, the WA government then under Premier Barnett powered along, wasting $20 billion of taxpayers' funds, pointlessly and bloody-mindedly smashing down 100 hectares of fragile black cockatoo habitat through the Beeliar Wetlands. There was $1.2 billion in federal funding set aside for that freight link.
The WA Labor government understand what people actually want. Both the member for Fremantle and I have been fighting since before we were in parliament to got funding for the Armadale Road to North Lake Bridge project. That $1.2 billion previously set aside for the redundant freight link project has been able to assist with building that new bridge over the freeway as well as the Thornlie to Cockburn METRONET rail link, which will connect the eastern side of my community to the west. Ridiculously, the Morrison government has now set aside another $1.2 billion as contingent expenditure in the budget to fund this redundant freight link project. This project is completely dead in the water. But tell that to the member for Tangney, who should be more focused on what his community actually want—resolving congestion by duplicating the Shelley Bridge.
We are calling on the federal government to respect the wishes of the people of Western Australia—there's a first time for everything, I guess—who so convincingly ruled out the Roe 8/9 project in the 2017 state election. The federal government must work with the soon-to-be re-elected Mark McGowan Labor government in WA to support jobs, business activity, transport infrastructure and our economy and communities by instead allocating these currently misallocated funds to projects that we do need and want in our community. Such projects include a regional sporting complex in Armadale; upgrades to the Sutherlands Park regional sporting complex in Southern River; sinking the rail line through Armadale and Gosnells; sinking Albany Highway through Cannington; flyovers for Tonkin Highway at Armadale Road and Ranford Road; extending Garden Street from Harpenden Street down to Holmes Road; duplicating the Shelley Bridge on Leach Highway; light rail down Armadale Road to Cockburn Central and up Ranford Road to the Murdoch station; and joining the airport rail link from High Wycombe through to the Thornlie Line with a new station at Wattle Grove. All these projects would contribute to building a better Burt and building better lives for Perth's south-east suburb communities.
But these are just the projects in and around Burt. I know that each of my Western Australian colleagues in this place will have projects in their own areas that will go a long way to improving their communities, too. We've heard from the member for Stirling. Where's the member for Tangney, the great proponent of this failed Perth freight link project? Not one other Liberal member from Western Australia is here to defend that project. I think that's quite telling, isn't it? They don't have any better idea or suggestion of how to defend that project, which is a waste of money, and they can't defend it against the much better projects in all of our local communities. There are so many great projects that can and should be undertaken in Western Australia. So, Prime Minister, I say to you: please stop holding us to ransom for your white elephant project.
I have to start by reiterating the observation there by the member for Burt, that the WA federal Liberal members had an opportunity to come out here and talk about the infrastructure needs for each of their electorates and each one of them, bar the member for Stirling, absolutely failed to take that opportunity. Sometimes it's the things you don't say that speak more about your values and what you care about than the things you do say. So, I really want this observation on record: that they had an opportunity to come here, they had an opportunity to stand up for their electorates, to talk about the infrastructure needs in their electorates and to stand up for the people they are charged to represent, and they absolutely failed to do that.
I'd like to also take the opportunity to thank the member for Fremantle for bringing this motion on the Perth freight link project to the House, because it is a very important motion. What the member's motion really speaks to is the legacy of the previous, Liberal Barnett government in WA, who squandered taxpayer money on a range of vanity projects without actually delivering much-needed infrastructure to Western Australians. I'm pleased to see that the McGowan Labor government has since picked up a lot on that. You only need to drive through WA to see the massive amount of expenditure the WA government has put into developing much-needed infrastructure throughout the various electorates.
I want to talk a little bit about the northern suburbs and the needs for infrastructure in those suburbs. In particular, the thing that lands on my desk time and time again, the thing that people keep calling up about, is none other than the infrastructure needed for the internet and the NBN. In the years since I was elected, since 2016, NBN infrastructure has been the one constant throughout that whole time. Issues come and go, and campaigns come and go, and people change the things that are priorities to them. But the one constant has been the lack of NBN in suburbs like Greenwood and Gnangara in my electorate. Just yesterday I got an email from the Peacheys, who live in Gnangara and who still don't have NBN. They still don't have any internet in Gnangara, which is actually not a very residential suburb; it's actually an industrial area of my electorate. Now, if you can't even deliver NBN to businesses, how do you expect to get the economy back on track after COVID? How do you expect people to have jobs? How do you expect businesses to thrive if they don't even have access to the internet?
But it's not just on the NBN. The federal Liberal government has failed to deliver to people in the northern suburbs of Perth on a grand scale.
We've been very fortunate. My colleagues have spoken a lot about the successes of the Mark McGowan government in Western Australia, and we do have an election coming up in a couple of weeks time, but one of the things that you can observe is that the McGowan government has actually picked up the slack on a lot of the broken promises and failures of delivery on things the federal government is supposed to have achieved as they had promised.
This federal government had promised the people of Cowan a training hub in Wanneroo—that's what they'd promised. I note that they'd also promised one in the member for Burt's electorate. I wrote to Minister Cash, asking for an explanation about where this training hub was, because it's critical infrastructure that would provide not just training services but a number of jobs for people in the northern suburbs. I was told that it would be all done by January. Well, January has come and gone; we're now heading into March—and still nothing.
Meanwhile, the McGowan government has come to the party. They've filled in that gap. They've delivered a whole range of reforms to training to make it easier for students and for people over the age of 21 to get into vocational education and training.
So, in closing, I reiterate the calls from my colleagues the member for Fremantle and the member for Burt for this government to stop ignoring Western Australians and for the Western Australian members, many of whom are senior, to stand up for their state.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) leads the world's efforts to end polio, bringing together Rotary International, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and many others including in the private sector with a common objective to eradicate polio once and for all;
(b) when GPEI commenced, more than 350,000 cases of polio paralysed and killed children in 125 countries annually;
(c) in 2020, polio was 99 per cent eradicated and wild polio remains in only two countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan, with the entire African continent certified as polio-free on 25 August 2020;
(d) since the onset of COVID-19, the GPEI's extensive resources and infrastructure used to fight polio has been adapted to ensure that COVID-19 does not spread out of control in the developing world;
(e) the work of the Australian Polio Advocacy and Communications Team provides important support for eradication efforts by bringing together Australian advocates including Rotary International Australia, UNICEF Australia, Global Citizen and RESULTS Australia; and
(f) polio eradication efforts have slowed, and the progress made so far is now at risk; and
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) investment in completing polio eradication will benefit future generations of children who will be free of this devastating disease, and other health programs and initiatives will benefit from the knowledge and experience gained through polio eradication;
(b) efforts to eradicate polio have been extremely successful and demonstrate the effectiveness of widely available vaccination programs;
(c) the GPEI's COVID-19 response has been instrumental in ensuring that COVID-19 does not spread out of control in much of the developing world, including in the Pacific;
(d) Australia is a long-term champion of polio eradication along with many other Commonwealth nations including the United Kingdom and Canada; and
(e) the current parliaments of Australia and other countries have the opportunity to be recognised as the elected representatives who ensured that polio was completely eradicated.
I rise in this chamber to note the important work done to date in pursuit of eradicating polio worldwide—a noble goal indeed—and to acknowledge the contributions to this body of work by the Australian Polio Advocacy and Communications Team group and advocates right across Australia, including Rotary International Australia, UNICEF Australia, Global Citizen and Results Australia, as part of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. First and foremost, I thank them for their contributions and commitment to further progressing this field of medicine. Their ongoing work is invaluable in the fight against polio.
As a paediatrician and doctor, I'm passionate about promoting preventive health measures. As the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of UNICEF group, I'm equally passionate about being a voice for all matters affecting children.
In 2019, I visited Papua New Guinea with Save the Children, as part of a parliamentary tour. Quite frankly, it was shocking to see some of the health events that are occurring in PNG—including outbreaks of polio.
There's so much more work to be done, and we need to work together in a collaborative manner to ensure that children have a good and healthy start to life. Immunisation programs, such as the polio program, are absolutely essential to that. As a young paediatrician, I visited Fairfield Hospital and saw people who had been in iron lungs for 40 years. This is a disease that has been deadly, but, more than that, it's also devastating. Importantly, polio is an easily preventable but life-changing and life-threatening virus causing severe disability. One in 200 polio infections lead to irreversible paralysis, with many more leading to lifelong disability and considerable pain. When I saw brave men and women in iron lungs, unable to move for so many decades, it was heart-rending. Among those paralysed, five to 10 per cent die when their breathing muscles become immobilised. Worse still, polio mainly affects young children under five years of age. For centuries, it was the scourge of young children until a polio vaccine became available.
The Global Polio Eradication Initiative is a global effort to eradicate polio. When it commenced in 1988, more than 350,000 cases of polio paralysed and killed children in 125 countries annually. Now polio is 99 per cent eradicated and remains in only two countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan, with the entire African continent certified as polio free on 25 August 2020, last year. That is a massive achievement and is to do with the good work of the men and women who support these sorts of initiatives globally.
The reintroduction of increased polio infections in Pakistan and Afghanistan occurred due to low community immunisation rates. That's what happens when immunisation rates fall—so does herd community, and then everyone in the community is at risk. The government recognise the COVID-19 pandemic has had far-reaching impacts on the polio vaccination program, but thankfully not here in Australia. We have very high and good immunisation rates, but, due to the pandemic, polio eradication efforts have slowed and the progress made so far is now at risk. With this in mind, we support the GPEI and its partners to re-establish momentum on polio immunisation in the remaining endemic countries.
The rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine provides an opportunity to accelerate and progress multiple health outcomes on a global scale. The widespread success of the polio program demonstrates the extreme effectiveness of a widely available vaccination program, and today is the first day that the COVID vaccine is being rolled out here in Australia. As Australians, on both sides of the parliament, we should all be very proud of this momentous day.
The polio program, to the credit of health organisations, has proven the benefits a million times over. I'm very proud our federal government has committed funding and support to the global eradication of polio. The Morrison government has pledged $69 million in funding to the GPEI to support eradication and manage the risk of polio. Respective polio champion and polio gender champion—the Minister for Health and the Minister for Women, Greg Hunt and Marise Payne—continue to support the GPEI both within Australia and internationally through a range of measures. We should congratulate the work that is being done by Australia to support this program.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
I give the call to the member for Wills.
I support the member for Higgins's motion on the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. We're co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of UNICEF group and as such are very committed advocates of the GPEI. We are very, very lucky to live in a country where polio has been eradicated. But it's been a bit more than luck; it's been a lot of hard work by Australia and the international community.
Australia was declared polio free in 2000, and there have been no local transmissions of polio in Australia since 1972, before I was born. It is hard to believe for some of us who are a bit younger—there might be some who might remember; sorry, member for Bennelong, but I didn't mean to point you out!—that just 70 years ago polio was widespread across Australia and the globe and that now in 2021 it is 99 per cent eradicated. That's a remarkable achievement. There is still wild polio, though, in two countries, in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The entire African continent was certified as polio free just last year, on 25 August 2020. That is an incredible achievement, and it speaks volumes to what can be achieved when the international community works constructively together. Much of it is thanks to the GPEI, which led the world's efforts to end polio, bringing together many stakeholders—the World Health Organization, UNICEF and others—who had a core objective to end polio once and for all.
In 1988, when the GPEI began, there were more than 350,000 cases of polio that had paralysed and killed children worldwide. I was old enough to remember that; it wasn't just others. We remember when it was a still a big problem globally. If it weren't for the efforts of the GPEI, we could have seen much larger numbers across the globe. While we have already consigned polio to history in Europe, the Americas, Africa and India, there is only one more push to finish the job, and that is in, as I mentioned, the two countries that still have wild poliovirus.
Of course, we all know that a new challenge exists—the one that we're facing right now: a new virus, COVID-19. As Mark Twain is said to have said, 'History does not repeat itself but it often rhymes.' Two epidemics, 104 years apart, see cities shut down, movie cinemas shut down, public schools closed, strictly enforced social distancing rules, and mothers keeping their children away from others. Some things remain the same, even after many generations. We can hope that what ended the polio epidemic will end this one: the development of a vaccine.
It's fitting that I'm speaking today about this, as our nation began the rollout of the COVID vaccine yesterday. In Victoria, we saw the first vaccine given to the head of infection control at Monash Health. It's a historic moment in the fight against COVID-19. We're on the offensive now in tackling this virus. We're no longer on the back foot, but we still have a long way to go, not only in Australia but across the globe. But, with these first vaccinations, I think we're all very hopeful. These vaccinations will allow us to be safe and to protect our families, friends, community and the nation. I hope to see Australia play a role in protecting our region by helping roll out vaccinations to our neighbours across the Pacific region. We must not forget that, even though we can't travel right now, we're still part of that international community—the international community that did so well to eradicate polio. The GPEI is an example of the world working together towards a common goal. We can do it again with respect to COVID-19 and the rollout of the vaccinations. The GPEI has also played a role in the fight against COVID-19. Many of their resources and infrastructure that were used to help fight polio are now being used to ensure that COVID-19 does not spread out of control in the developing nations. Setting COVID aside, our fight against polio is still not over. There's still work to be done, and much of the eradication effort has slowed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The progress that we have made so far is at some risk. So, although we are in a great battle against COVID-19, Australia must not forget the fight alongside the global community to continue the eradication of polio for good, wherever it exists.
I'm very pleased to stand here and speak on the private member's motion brought by the member for Higgins. I'd also like to commend the contribution from the member for Wills. I acknowledge the important and ongoing work led by the World Health Organization to eradicate polio worldwide. There is not only that organisation; there are many other organisations as well. Polio is a fatal infectious disease and there is no cure, but, with a safe and effective vaccine, it can be prevented. For the eradication of polio, the strategy is to provide immunisation to almost every child until transmission stops and to make the world polio free. I note the Australian government is firmly committed to the global eradication of wild poliovirus and the circulating vaccine-derived polio virus. The global initiatives to eradicate polio have been very successful. Since 1988, polio cases have reduced by some 99.9 per cent. For more than three years, the only countries with wild poliovirus are Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted on the polio program and the immunisation efforts have slowed.
Importantly, I want to focus a little bit on the importance of the eradication of polio, and, through that, acknowledge the efforts of Rotary International. Specifically, I want to take the opportunity to mention the Rotary Clubs of Beenleigh, Loganholme and Logan for their efforts. As we know, Rotary is an international organisation that takes on some of the world's toughest challenges. As a founding partner of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, Rotary has been working to eradicate polio for more than 35 years. Rotary's PolioPlus program was the first initiative to tackle global polio eradication by vaccinating children on a massive scale. Since their first project in 1979, vaccinating children in the Philippines, Rotary and their partners have helped immunise more than 2.5 billion children against polio in 122 countries. The program is one of their longest-standing and most significant efforts to eradicate polio. They focus on advocacy, fundraising, volunteer recruitment and awareness building.
World Polio Day, held on 24 October, is one of Rotary's initiatives to draw attention to polio. Every year the members of Beenleigh, Loganholme and Logan Rotary clubs raise funds and awareness to end polio. Many members have joined the End Polio Walk to support the continued campaign to rid the world of this disease. Rotary International established World Polio Day over a decade ago to commemorate the birth of Jonas Salk, who led the first team to the develop the vaccine against polio. The use of the inactivated vaccine for polio virus and the subsequent widespread use of the oral polio virus vaccine was developed by Albert Sabin, which led to the establishment of the initiative in 1988 with Rotary and its founding partners.
There were 350,000 cases of polio in 125 countries every year. Today, thanks to the work of Rotary and the members of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, nearly 19 million people who would have otherwise been paralysed are walking, and more than 1.5 million people who would have died are alive today. The infrastructure that Rotary helped build to end polio is also being used to treat and prevent other diseases, including COVID-19. With more than one million Rotary members being part of the program, they have contributed more than $2.1 billion and countless volunteer hours to protect 2.5 billion children in 122 countries from this disease.
This government's commitment to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative is also to be noted, with $69 million of funding from the Morrison government towards the Global Polio Eradication Initiative supporting the eradication of polio and managing the risk of polio re-emerging.
I want to thank everyone at the Loganholme, Beenleigh, and Logan Rotary clubs for the enormous amount of work they are doing each and every day to contribute to the eradication of polio globally. To everybody involved in this very worthwhile project: thank you for your efforts and I wish you continued success in the future.
I rise to support the motion from the member for Higgins on this important topic, and I commend the previous speakers on both sides of this place for their thoughtful contributions on this important issue. It is timely we debate and recognise polio eradication efforts, because, again, we face similar challenges with the coronavirus here in Australia and around the world.
I'm going to start at home, in my electorate of Macnamara. I'm going to start with the very person who my electorate was named after, Dame Jean Macnamara. She was a scientist. She was a doctor. She was formidable. She was one of the first female doctors at the Royal Children's Hospital. She was a doctor at the Royal Children's Hospital when there weren't even facilities for female doctors to use during their breaks. She broke through many glass ceilings.
She was a fine doctor and a fine medical mind in Australia, and one of the things that was famous about Dame Jean Macnamara was her commitment to treating polio—specifically, kids with polio. Despite Dame Jean being an academic giant and a real pioneer in the treatment of polio, she was also very well known for her bedside manner. As we know, polio was a crippling disease that, comparatively, affected children at a very high rate. It was extremely debilitating for children. If you're a young person crippled with polio, it can be a really confronting and devastating time. But Dame Jean, so I'm told, had a way to comfort and had a way to make her young patients feel at ease and feel like there was a pathway forward for them, which is, I think, a remarkable thing, and one that's worth recognising in this place.
I'm very proud to be the member in the seat names in her honour. We actually created the Dame Jean Macnamara award last year. The award is available for young female students in year 6, for excellence in science, technology, engineering and maths. It is an award that I was pleased to present to a number of year 6 female students for their excellence in science and technology, just like Dame Jean Macnamara.
We come together today to debate this motion because we are faced with a similar challenge, a challenge where, just like the member for Wills mentioned before, our world has been put to a stop and we have been forced to take public health measures that no-one wants to take. These measures have been devastating for our society and for businesses, but we've done it in order to protect and prevent infection of this really awful coronavirus disease. But, just as with history, we can turn to the past for some of the answers. Dame Jean Macnamara was one of the pioneers of an immune serum for patients, which is said to have helped pave the way for the eventual Salk vaccine. It was the sort of technology that evolved and developed. Just like many other vaccines, it doesn't start with just that particular illness. With the trials, the technology, the science and the data accumulated over years of research, you're able to make discoveries with the speed with which we have.
The other person that Dame Jean Macnamara worked alongside was a classmate of hers, Macfarlane Burnet. The Burnet Institute is in my electorate—although I am sad to say that it may be moving premises eventually—and Professor Brendan Crabb occupies some space in Macnamara. I'm always amazed at the work that goes on in the Burnet Institute. Together with Macnamara, some of their efforts on polio were key to unravelling the pathway to eventually eradicate polio. But the way in which it was eradicated was through a vaccine—a safe vaccine that took years of scientific discovery and the dedication of brilliant minds like Macnamara and Burnet, but one that also required the participation of Australians and people right around the world.
If we can learn anything from the eradication of polio, it is that it is not over until it's over everywhere. Right now Pakistan and Afghanistan are still facing polio, and we must commit ourselves to eradicating it there. Likewise, with coronavirus, it's not over until it's eradicated everywhere, and we commit ourselves to vaccines and to eradicating this new virus.
Let me start by commending the member for Higgins for her motion. I share her passion for the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. I was thinking about this motion this morning and casting my mind back to any way that polio may have touched me personally during my life, and the only memory that I could conjure up was actually having the vaccination when I was a kid and then later on in adult life when I had a booster vaccination—the serum on the tongue, no side effects, and the only lasting effect being that no-one in my immediate family or social circle, or anyone that I can remember, actually, during my life as a generation X, actually having had polio. I think this serves as a timely reminder that Australians are great vaccinators and that we need to continue through with the coronavirus vaccination across our great nation so that we don't have a situation like we've seen in the United States, with more than half a million deaths due to coronavirus. So I think Australians are fantastic vaccinators, and the polio vaccination was indeed an example of that.
The GPEI is a global effort to eradicate the poliovirus. It has been tremendously successful and is now very close to achieving global eradication of the poliovirus. This important initiative enjoys the support of the WHO and many nations, including ours here in Australia. The Morrison government is firmly committed to the global eradication of wild poliovirus and the global eradication of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus.
Key ministers provide that vital support. The Minister for Health and Aged Care, as a Polio Champion, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as a Polio Gender Champion, are leading our nation's support for this initiative in a number of ways in Australia and internationally, including vaccination programs, surveillance, and polio virus containment initiatives. This includes $69 million in funding to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative to support eradication and manage the risk of polio re-emerging in our region, which is a very real risk. The initiative has suffered setbacks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. That's why this motion is so important now, to help restore the momentum of polio immunisations in areas of the globe where it remains common. The progress of the global rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines presents opportunities to utilise that important work to also progress the polio vaccine delivery.
I'd like to acknowledge the contribution that a number of organisations are making in the fight against polio, including the Australian Polio Advocacy and Communications Team group and Rotary International, which is an organisation very close to my heart, as a former Rotary exchange student. Rotary International is doing a fantastic job in this space. I also want to acknowledge my district on the Gold Coast, district 9640, for the work they're doing on vaccinations at Griffith University in my electorate of Moncrieff. Also, UNICEF Australia, Global Citizen, and Results Australia are all doing great work in this space.
Australia's local success in fighting polio means that many younger Australians may not be aware of polio's impacts, especially gen Ys. Also, generally improving awareness of the prevalence of polio globally can contribute to awareness that leads to support for those organisations that are fighting polio. Consider these facts. Poliomyelitis affects mainly children under five years of age. Australia was declared polio free in 2000, and it remains in our strategic health security interest to ensure that any potential risk of an outbreak remains very low. Polio infection causes irreversible paralysis in one in 200 cases. And five to 10 per cent of paralysis cases die when their breathing muscles become immobilised.
While polio persists in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as the previous speaker mentioned, disruption of the surveillance activities in both those countries, caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, may mean that the current figures underrepresent the scale of the problem—figures that show an increase in vaccine-derived polio and Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2020. This is probably a result of decreased vaccination coverage following the cessation of the GPEI polio vaccination program from late March to July 2020. In closing, can I say: let's continue to support the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, to drive it just those last few miles to make sure we eradicate polio across the globe.
The near-total eradication of polio is testament to what can be achieved through effective vaccine development, robust public health settings and strong community partnerships. While we're only at the beginning of that journey as an international community, with the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, we can be guided by the success of the polio vaccine. Polio, or poliomyelitis, is a paralysing and potentially deadly infectious disease that most commonly affects children under the age of five. The virus spreads from person to person, typically through contaminated water. It can then attack the nervous system and lead to devastating degenerative impacts.
When I was a nurse, way back in the 1980s, in Melbourne, the most seriously polio-affected, ventilator-dependent people had to live at the Fairfield hospital. They lived there until 1996 and then lived at the Austin hospital's Bowen Centre until four new purpose-built houses were provided for them Thornbury in April 2007. Like many people my age, I can remember people in my community wearing painful callipers all their lives—and they were the ones who got off a little more easily than those people in Fairfield. And of course I also remember lining up for my Sabin, when I was a small girl, in my rural school in Eurack in south-west Victoria.
I want to pay particular tribute to the role of Rotary International and the countless local Rotary districts and clubs across Australia. They have worked tirelessly with global partners to eradicate polio for more than 35 years. As a founding member of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, Rotary has been instrumental to the global reduction of polio cases by 99.9 per cent since its first project to vaccinate children in the Philippines in 1979—what an extraordinary thing. Rotarians have contributed more than $2.1 billion and countless volunteer hours to protect nearly three billion children in 122 countries from this paralysing disease. Rotary's advocacy efforts have played a role in decisions by governments to contribute more than $10 billion to the effort.
While the Rotary campaign to eradicate polio is a global one, the efforts and hard work are truly local. There are countless members of Rotary clubs in district 9790, which spans my electorate of Indi, who have devoted decades of service to the polio eradication campaign, fundraising in their local communities to sponsor polio surveillance initiatives in high-risk areas, the vaccine rollout in hard-to-reach geographies and populations and effective public health awareness campaigns across South-East Asia and the Pacific to take away misinformation and stigmas associated with vaccination.
Recently I was invited to speak at the Rotary Club of Alexandra, and I was pleased to hear from the many Rotarians about their contributions to the polio and malaria eradication campaigns and their commitment to apply lessons learned to the COVID-19 vaccination program in Australia and abroad. I look forward to reaching out and speaking out with many other Rotary clubs across district 9790 in future to hear their insights and to learn from their wisdom on this important challenge too.
Rotarians worldwide know that effective vaccine rollout requires deep community engagement and respect for the views and natural hesitations of some. As I've said before in this place, if you're confused about whether to have the COVID-19 vaccine—if it works and what the side effects are—and if you're feeling anxious, that's okay; it's not wrong to have questions or to feel anxious. These are perfectly reasonable questions, and they're questions for your medical practitioner to answer for you. I really encourage you: speak to an expert, a medical practitioner.
Before I was a public health researcher, I spent 30-odd years as a nurse and a midwife, and I know that nobody refuses a vaccine because they're trying to harm themselves or other people; they do it because they honestly believe it's the best choice for their family. We must remember this now more than ever and design effective vaccine awareness campaigns that inform, not alienate or patronise, and Rotary can really help us with that.
As the motion cautions, polio eradication efforts have slowed and the incredible progress made so far is now at risk. There's work for us as a parliament to do to ensure that polio is completely eradicated. While wild polio only remains in two countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan, there's every chance that polio could re-emerge if we don't finish what we started. The first major outbreak of polio was in 1894, and, while public health interventions and vaccine coordination have improved dramatically since then, it's humbling to see the long road ahead of us with the COVID-19 vaccines. It is the experiences of Rotarians, who work so hard for us, that can truly help us in the mission to deliver vaccine awareness campaigns in the community. (Time expired)
It's a great pleasure to contribute on this motion on polio. It's not been enjoyable, but it's been lovely to see everyone on all sides of politics come together over an issue like this. We often spend a lot of time in this Chamber and others arguing with each other, but obviously this is a topic that we've got complete unity and bipartisanship over.
I start by commending my good friend and colleague the member for Higgins for bringing this issue forward for debate. We are really lucky to have people like the member for Higgins with a background in a particular area like hers, in paediatric gastroenterology, now sitting in this parliament representing her community but also representing the vocation that she comes from, having spent decades dedicated to public health both as a doctor and a medical researcher. I thank her very much for bringing this forward.
It was an honour to have her a few weeks ago in my electorate in Adelaide. We went to the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute to do a tour of that building and look at the sorts of things that they're working on there and what they will be doing in the proton therapy unit next door, which is currently under construction. It is hopefully going to be up and running in two years time, which will create a capacity in this country that we don't currently have—to undertake small localised radiation treatment, nuclear medicine on tumours. This will be particularly helpful for young children, as polio of course is a disease that affects young children. I just wanted to reflect on that and the value of having her there.
There's never been a more important time to talk about vaccination. A lot of the speakers have talked about coronavirus, and I will make a few brief remarks about that in a moment. With the success of vaccines almost wiping out polio and other diseases, there's never been a more important time to talk about this. We need to remind people how important and sensible it is to be vaccinated. The member for Moncrieff talked about the excellent record that we have in this country of people embracing vaccines. It's disappointing, to be frank, to see some people seeking attention—even over the last week—from an antivaccination point of view, but hopefully if we all work together as a united parliament we can give people confidence in being vaccinated, particularly against the coronavirus.
It amazes me that my father was born at a time when the polio vaccine wasn't available. It's something that you tend to take for granted. He grew up at a time when he was at a high risk of potentially contracting polio. We're so lucky that we live in an era now where that's just not the case. It's even more impressive that, in parts of the world like Africa, which has so many public health challenges, organisations that have been reflected on, like Rotary in particular, who are just sensational, in the work they do—and we all have Rotary clubs in our electorates. They're the most selfless, dedicated volunteers. The fact that they, with so many other organisations under the WHO's leadership, have contributed towards the eradication of polio in Africa is a testament to the work that they do and the fact that when you put your mind to something, when you're committed and dedicated to it, and when you've got the strength of numbers behind you, you can achieve these kinds of outcomes. There are two countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan, where we haven't finished the job. I am very proud of the contribution that our government is making towards that objective, of complete eradication, and very hopeful that that can be achieved in those final two countries as quickly as possible. The fact that we've been able to eradicate it everywhere else shows that it's definitely achievable.
Finally on vaccinations, the coronavirus vaccination program commences today. What a perfect time it is to be talking about this in this chamber. I am certainly taking the opportunity as a member of parliament—and as I'm sure my colleagues are—to make sure we're spreading the word in our communities about the importance of people participating in this vaccination program. I had the opportunity to speak to one of my RSLs on Friday. It was a group of older people. It's not just about us all getting vaccinated; it's about telling everyone we know that they have to do it too. We can't risk younger people in particular not taking it as seriously as they need to. For the protection of all of our loved ones, I urge every Australian to participate in the coronavirus vaccination program over the coming months.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
The tourism sector has been hit the hardest by the COVID-19 pandemic induced economic downturn, as borders have closed, non-essential activities have been discouraged and international tourism has dried up within the blink of an eye. The 40,000-odd travel agents across the country have copped the brunt of this downturn. The business model for travel agents is unique, many of whom are small businesses, and they have complex cashflow strategies. When booking and organising trips, they take their cut off the top, but it also means that when those trips are cancelled, as they have been during this pandemic, it's up to them to stump up the cash for the refund in the first instance before that refund can then be claimed by the holiday operator, tour company, airline or hotel. In usual times, this isn't a huge concern, as cash flow is enabled by further future bookings, but in this instance, of COVID, where no-one is travelling and no-one is planning to travel any time soon, that cash flow has completely dried up.
Early in this crisis, travel agents were under the pump, cancelling trips. They were also bleeding money, as more and more refunds were issued, leaving them with less and less cash for themselves or to pay their staff. Now even that work has dried up and many travel agents across the country have had to close altogether. The situation for travel agents is absolutely dire, and, until the global circumstances surrounding COVID stabilise, they have no hope of getting anywhere near back to normal. Their work is completely stalled, and through no fault of their own. They were the first to be hit by the pandemic, in many respects, and indeed they will be the last to recover.
And now the lifeline that they had been relying on in order to try and survive, JobKeeper, is about to be withdrawn by the Morrison government too. Travel agents need support—and I'm not talking about the grants package already introduced by the Morrison government that is, shamefully, not fit for purpose. We must provide an urgent lifeline to travel agents on the brink of collapse, instead of that inadequate loss-carryback scheme for which the vast majority of travel agents appear to be completely ineligible anyway. Travel agents and other industries are still suffering. They need tailored economic supports that will keep their heads above water.
Treasury expects that 1.3 million Australians will be on JobKeeper by the time that measure is withdrawn at the end of March, in 34 days time. That's about 10 per cent of the nation's workforce. On top of that, Treasury's own figures expect that around 100,000 of those people who have a job today will lose that job upon JobKeeper being withdrawn at the end of March.
There is so much growing anxiety and uncertainty about JobKeeper being cut, from the tourism sector and much more broadly across the nation. Yet we still haven't seen a good plan for secure, well-paid jobs to replace it. This withdrawal of support is coming far too early. Workers, small businesses and entire communities—like those up in Cairns who rely so much on international tourism to keep afloat—are hurting badly. We can't afford to lose our tourism sector and the travel agents who are such great ambassadors for it and a necessary part of enabling it.
Surely this must be starting to get personal for the Prime Minister. How else is he going to get his next beachside international holiday during a crisis if he can't get access to travel agents! We know how good some travel agencies have had it under some of the ministers of this government. Surely it's time for this government to start repaying travel agents a favour!
The vaccine rollout has now slowly—and albeit delayed—begun, and that is a good thing. But that doesn't mean that the crisis is, by any means, close to being over. Travel agents, the live events industry, tourism, cinemas, hospitality and accommodation are all struggling, and will be until we can get our borders open, get vaccination throughout our community and make sure that our economic recovery is affecting not just some parts of our community but all of our community.
Many of these sectors and many others still require JobKeeper. It is too early to withdraw such necessary financial support—financial support that is not just for business but for the employees who rely on those businesses. We need to continue to support those sectors, to make sure that the support continues, before it's too late—before those small businesses, come the end of March, get thrown into a wall by this government. The government is leading them along with breadcrumbs of hope coming to the end of March, but with no firm plan—no clarity around who will get supported or who won't get supported after March. Will anyone in the small business sector actually end up getting support after March? We don't know. Small business doesn't know. Those 1.3 million people relying on JobKeeper to hold their job don't know. And the government must fix it.
I also rise to acknowledge the dire financial situation facing many in the travel and tourism industries as a result of closures of international borders, unpredictable domestic travel arrangements and, of course, the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many members here, I expect, I have a number of travel agents in my own electorate who've been doing it incredibly tough these last nine months. Not only have they been not doing any new business themselves, but most of their time has been spent having to process refunds for previous bookings and businesses for which they've also needed to return the commissions. So, for many of them, if it were not for JobKeeper and other government programs of assistance they'd be cash-flow negative. Nonetheless, devoted as they are to their clients—and many of them have been in the industry for a few decades or more—they've kept their doors open. They've, by and large, kept their staff on. They've kept helping their clients—including people who've been seeking to return home to Australia and have had a hard time getting on flights—and doing their best, basically, to stay optimistic and stay positive.
We have, of course, provided support to the travel industry. We've had a large amount of money go to the travel and tourism sector under JobKeeper. I know from my own constituents that they've been very grateful for the support that JobKeeper has provided in allowing them to keep on their own employees. I'm conscious, as many are, that there is a degree of anxiety amongst that sector about the ending of JobKeeper at the end of March and what's in front of them. I know, having had discussions with the executive about this, that there is a recognition that this is one of the sectors that is going to have a hard time recovering after COVID-19 and will be slower coming back. Thought is being given to how we can assist this sector. I'd encourage those internal conversations to continue.
I do want to, of course, mention the consumer travel support program that was announced on 1 December, which provides grants from $1,500 to $100,000 to help travel agents continue to operate and process refunds for consumers. Under that program, which has been a $128 million program, already $60 million has been paid. As at 1 February, 1,541 travel agents have received payments and another 1,033 are being processed. I've been contacted by a number of travel agents, as I'm sure many here have been, about the revenue test that's being used for eligibility for that and whether it's total transaction revenue or the item you put at B1 on your BAS. I believe those issues are being worked through now, and I wanted to assure travel agents who might be watching that those concerns have been heard.
I am conscious, though, that this is still going to be an industry and a sector that will be very slow to recover. International tourism will take some time to be restored, and a large part depends upon how the vaccination program proceeds, not only in Australia but also globally. I've been encouraged by the vaccination results in Israel—where almost 60 per cent of the population has now been vaccinated and it's seeming to have a significant impact not only on hospitalisation but also on transmission—but also in the UK and the US, where the vaccination program is being rolled out at speed, and, of course, in Australia, where the first vaccinations were given yesterday and we are now rolling out vaccines for some time.
Equally disruptive, though, have been the domestic border closures—these are the state border closures—because, as many people would know, a lot of people had their domestic travel plans interrupted over the summer and earlier. If they were intending to travel to Queensland from my own state of New South Wales or Tasmania, border closures which were not always, frankly speaking, driven by the evidence or the best health advice have had a dramatic impact on the tourism sector and have also had a chastening effect on consumers who've been, as a result—once bitten, twice shy—unwilling to make further arrangements.
I was contacted recently by Sue Francis. She's the Director of the Travel Industry Club, a travel agent in Paddington, and happens to live on my street in Paddington. She's been in her current business for 25 years and in the industry for 40 years. She explained that, like many local travel agents, she's worked to pivot her business to domestic sales but this has been very hard, given the state border closures adding to the uncertainty, the stress and the financial strain of the travel and tourism business. I've also heard from many others—including Wentworth Travel, in my own electorate—who've got staff who've worked in the industry for their entire lives in many respects. They'd like to keep their jobs and they'd like to keep their industry, but they're concerned about what the future holds.
So I do want to speak in favour of the industry, urge them to keep their heads up and let them know that help is on its way.
I rise in support of the motion from the member for Adelaide. Before COVID, Australians travelled across Australia and around the world. The Central Coast, home to my electorate, is known for its beaches, waterways, valleys, mountains and coastal communities. People come to the Central Coast to enjoy our way of life. In 2019, before the onset of the pandemic, the Central Coast welcomed 1.94 million visitors. These visitors added over $692 million to the local economy.
But the pandemic has hit regional coastal communities like mine hard. Those driven by retail, hospitality and tourism have shouldered the burden of the economic impact of COVID-19. People in the travel industry are facing, as many have said, an uphill battle, as tourism was one of the first industries to be hit and will likely be one of the last to recover. This includes people like Lee-Anne Talbot from Travel Managers Australia. Lee-Anne has been in the travel industry for over 30 years and has owned and operated her own travel business for the past 10 years on the coast. In 2018, Lee-Anne rebranded her business, investing $15,000 on repositioning a new website and changing her travel offering to a budget list of luxury holiday markets. Given this investment, Lee-Anne's income dropped in 2018-19, but in the 2019-20 financial year Lee-Anne's hard work and investment was starting to pay off and her sales figures tripled. Then COVID hit. I spoke to Lee-Anne on Friday and she said that everything that she'd worked for had been annihilated.
When the government announced its COVID-19 Consumer Travel Support Program, Lee-Anne was optimistic. She worked with her accountant to apply and got together the necessary application paperwork, but on Monday last week she was told her claim was declined because she was assessed on the 2018-19 financial year instead of the 2019 calendar year, as stated in the government's own policy. This meant Lee-Anne was assessed on her earnings based on her 2018-19 BAS report and, when the GST was removed, those earnings fell below the threshold to be eligible for a grant. Lee-Anne has asked repeatedly to be assessed on statements prepared by her accountant or on an average of the 2018-19 and 2019-20 BAS returns, which showed the increase in her earnings after rebranding. This was declined. Lee-Anne has been told she can appeal, but she has to wait until she receives the formal letter from Services Australia declining her claim, which, when I spoke to her on Friday, hadn't arrived. This is the part that really hit me: Lee-Anne told me that she received no empathy from the department during any of this process. It's easy to see why she feels this way. Lee-Anne is receiving JobKeeper, but, when the government stops the payment at the end of March, what will this mean to Lee-Anne and to people like her?
Like Lee-Anne, Michelle Thomas of Norah Head contacted me. She's been a successful sole trader travel agent for over 10 years—a business that she built from scratch. With the onset of COVID-19, Michelle had to take a second job to be able to pay her mortgage. Michelle now has to work through credit and client refunds, like many travel agents are doing, for free while dealing with the unpredictable nature of border closures. This is time-consuming due to the different rules and regulations that Michelle has to go through, and she does this willingly on behalf of her clients for free, absorbing the costs. She can't leave the business because she still has clients with outstanding credit and is hoping to rebook their holidays.
The tourism industry faces enormous challenges if the government follows through with the cuts to JobKeeper in March. Tourism will not be back on its feet in the next five weeks. As I said, it was one of the first industries hit by this health and economic crisis and it's likely to be one of the last to recover, whether that's for domestic tourism in communities like mine on the Central Coast or international tourism, as others have spoken about. We know that, despite the vaccine rollout starting today, the Secretary of the Department of Health, Dr Brendan Murphy, has suggested that international travel is unlikely to begin this year, even if the majority of Australians have received the vaccination. He said:
I think that we'll go most of this year with still substantial border restrictions, even if we have a lot of the population vaccinated.
International tourism, particularly inbound tourism, is the lifeblood of tourism in Australia, and, for travel agents, international tourism fuels their business. Tourism and Transport Forum CEO Margy Osmond summed it up when she said:
Make no mistake, while international borders remain closed, we have no hope of recovery.
Travel agents like Lee-Anne and Michelle, who are hardworking people in my community, and those in communities across Australia, particularly regional communities, deserve better support from the government. In my community at the peak of COVID, there were 4,902 businesses supported through JobKeeper, keeping 18,734 employees connected to work in their industry. That is now at risk. Travel agents like Lee-Anne and Michelle deserve better. People in my community deserve better from this government.
I believe that everyone in this chamber understands and will be well aware that the tourism industry in this country, and indeed across Moncrieff, has suffered significant damage due to the pandemic. Job losses and business losses from that impact have been severe. It means that many families have been impacted and they've been less prosperous. Morrison government support has been required, through JobKeeper 1 and JobKeeper 2 help, and it's much appreciated on the Gold Coast. Pre-pandemic in 2019, tourism provided one in six jobs on the Gold Coast, so it's a key economic pillar for us, particularly in Moncrieff. The impact was immediate. I'll reel off some numbers for you. Total visitor numbers in the three months to March 2019 slumped by 34 per cent. In the three months to September 2020, compared with the same period the year before, we saw a 56 per cent reduction in total overnight-visitor numbers for my region. Total visitor nights were down 76 per cent. Total overnight-visitor spend dropped 68 per cent. That means there were lots and lots of lights off in those hotels on the Glitter Strip, as it's known—Surfers Paradise, the Gold Coast. It's been absolutely decimated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Morrison government has rightly provided significant support to the industry with JobKeeper, the cash flow boost and investment in lending incentives, and tourism has been one of the greatest beneficiaries of the $1 billion COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Fund. It includes $308 million worth of assistance for regional airlines, which impact the Gold Coast, and $100 million for tourism related infrastructure through the Building Better Regions Fund. There were some tourism-specific measures from the Morrison government, apart from the $128 million extra that went to travel agents—I must say, I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister around that and was primary in delivering that for travel agents, particularly in Moncrieff. In my electorate, I have many of them who are hurting. There was also $94.6 million supporting Australia's exhibiting zoos and aquariums, and $5.7 million of that went to Gold Coast zoos and aquariums. In my electorate, that includes Sea World, which actually received $3 million to help feed their dolphins. As I've said before in this place, it's $1,000 a week to feed one animal at Sea World, which is very, very expensive, and the Morrison government continues to support them.
The $50 million Business Events Grant program is actually still open until 30 March 2021. The program has already had 190 approved events, including 22 Gold Coast based events. Tourism Australia's new domestic business events campaign, which is called 'Event Here This Year' will dovetail into the Business Events Grant program. That campaign complements the Holiday Here This Year—or Holiday There This Year, on the Gold Coast please!—a campaign from Tourism Australia in which the Gold Coast features heavily.
The Gold Coast has been allocated $10 million under the $50 million Recovery for Regional Tourism grant program as well, so that will help us on the Gold Coast to recover. That's more support from the Morrison government, of course. Tourism event industries are grateful for the support they have received. The scale of the problems are such that the difficulties do continue.
Earlier this month, the federal Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment visited my electorate of Moncrieff, hearing directly from stakeholders in the tourism and event industries, along with local Gold Coast ministers the member for McPherson and the member for Fadden, at a round table meeting that I organised at The Star. The Star is one of the Gold Coast's largest employers and of course bleeds across into tourism significantly. The roundtable focused on what's now needed to adapt to the current circumstances. There were a plethora of stakeholders there, including the Gold Coast Airport, Study Gold Coast, the three universities on the coast, RDA, Village Roadshow, Ardent Leisure, Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary, Major Events Gold Coast, Sports Gold Coast, small business operators and the city were all there at the table putting their case forward to the minister. Those participants made it clear that the state border closures have actually had a massive impact on Gold Coast tourism. Locking out the Victorian market to us on the Gold Coast damaged us and our confidence greatly, and that's what we need the most: confidence. State governments need to put in place best-management practice for outbreaks—can I say New South Wales is the gold standard, as it's received four times the travellers into quarantine than Victoria with only a quarter of the COVID-19 cases—and that means the states should be able to deliver that with the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
I am very pleased to support my good friend the member for Adelaide in his motion calling on the government to acknowledge the dire situation in our tourism sector, especially around travel agents, and to call on the government to do more. Most specifically, the No. 1 call for the government is to continue with JobKeeper.
Let's go back a second. We started this pandemic urging the government to support wage subsidies for Australian workers, and of course the government, including the Prime Minister, shut that down. Obviously, he realised that he needed to do it and then reversed his position and created the scheme called JobKeeper. Fast-forward just over a year. We now find ourselves in the situation where businesses, through no fault of their own, are going to be forced to let people go and forced to close their doors, because this government is refusing to support them throughout this pandemic. We started this pandemic with a simple principle: if you as a business are required to make sacrifices in order to help manage this pandemic, then the government is going to support you with wage subsidies. If you're forced to close your doors, if your revenue is down, the government will support you and support the jobs to make sure that they're there at the end of this pandemic.
But this government has completely forgotten about this principle. They are completely forgetting about the businesses that still rely on JobKeeper—businesses that are not affected by the restrictions of state governments but by the restrictions of this federal government. It is a federal government decision to shut the international borders—which I support; it is unsafe to have international visitors right now in Australia. But what this government is choosing to do to businesses who are affected by the government's decisions, businesses who prior to this pandemic had good and sustainable business models, means that those businesses are now going to be forced to lay off jobs and lose people throughout this pandemic.
The travel agents are the perfect example. These businesses make their money from international travel. They make it from the packages, the flights, the hotels—all of the big international products that they have to offer. And they've worked hard. But, throughout this pandemic, with all of the international travel being cancelled, the work hasn't stopped for our Australian travel agents; they've had to continue to work to support those people who are already engaging in their businesses. They've had to work for refunds. They've had to work try to corral money from airlines, hotels and a range of different stakeholders. Travel agents do not get paid until you've gone on your holiday. If you're an Australian and you go to one of your travel agents, and they organise a wonderful trip for you, it's not until you get on the plane that that money then flows into our local small businesses.
As you can imagine, these businesses have been around for decades. They are great Australian, hardworking businesses. They're local businesses, small businesses and businesses in my electorate, like FBI Travel, Travelcall, Goldman Travel, Albert Park Travel, Aurora, TravelManagers, G.E.T Educational Tours, Leisure Options, Magellan Travel and many, many more. These are great local businesses. These are businesses who I've met with. From the way in which they talk about their staff and their industry—they love it. They love the fact that they're able to organise and be a part of people's travels and holidays and adventures. It's a source of pride. It's also a source of pride that many have had staff with them for 10 or 20 years. People come into these industries and they are part of a good, functioning Australian economy.
What are they faced with now? They're faced with a federal government who have made decisions affecting the way in which they can do business and are walking away from supporting them, so that their businesses may not exist at the end of this pandemic. If you want to know the mindset of this federal government, when asked about pulling JobKeeper, they say: 'Well, the total number of jobs are going be moving up anyway. Don't worry about these businesses, because we're going to have more businesses and more jobs arising in the economy.' Well, tell that to a local travel agent in my electorate. Own up to the fact that you're happy as a federal government to see businesses shut their doors.
On this side of the House, in the federal Labor Party, we are not. We are going to stand with these small businesses and fight for their survival.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The resumption of the debate will remain for the next day of sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) extends its condolences to the Field and Leadbetter families for their tragic loss in Alexandra Hills on 26 January 2021;
(2) supports the trial of earlier detection, drug-testing and intervention in crystal methamphetamine addiction for new recipients of Youth Allowance and Jobseeker who are not meeting their activity requirements by identifying those with substance abuse issues and supporting them to gain employment;
(3) places on record its support for Income Management for Youth Allowance (Other) recipients who fail to adhere to activity requirements or face court for drug and related offences, and supports ear-marked and fully funded rehabilitation for anyone who fails a drug test;
(4) further supports deferral of payments where drug tests are refused, to ensure service providers are engaged; and
(5) explores enhanced information sharing between Services Australia, employment services providers and authorised officers in respective police, corrections, social services and child protection agencies, in dealing with these high addiction-risk cohorts who evade mandatory activity requirements.
This morning's important debate about youth crime transcends levels of government and goes from the east to the west and the north to the south of Australia. Each state struggles with it, but, particularly, my state of Queensland, where theft per 100,000 and vehicle theft per 100,000 is not only the highest in the nation but two and three times higher than the mainland state average. So, in Queensland we regard ourselves as being somewhat in the eye of this storm, and it's a storm where we have failed to create the parenting conditions that can control crime in the second decade of life. Data can be cut in different ways to show that it's increasing or decreasing, and we don't want to enter into that debate. Nor is this a Trojan Horse to advance the interests of one particular side of politics or an attempt to scapegoat individual demographics. This is fundamentally about how early we can identify the pathway to crime and how early we can intervene in a positive way that fundamentally saves taxpayer money because we do it where and when it is most effective.
Before we start, I want to recognise the Queensland government and the Labor Premier of my state, who last week made six very important law reform interventions, all of which I wholeheartedly support. They are reversing the presumption of bail in serious indictable offenses, the calls for a wider inquiry, the trialling of GPS bracelets and tracking, the use of metal detectors, more responsibility for parents, and the owner onus reversal so that if offences are carried out in a vehicle it is up to the registered owner to at least sign a stat dec and say who operated that vehicle if they didn't. There is no disagreement there.
Today is our opportunity to admit that we are a stakeholder in this debate as well. The federal government is the payer. The federal government so often is the ATM for about 10,000 Australians between the ages of 16 and about 21 or 22 who aren't engaged in the workforce and, we know, are four times as likely to be addicted and way more likely to not be benefiting from the gains that are accrued by being engaged in the workforce—and we all know what they are. It is up to every society to make sure every household can engage. We know that Australia, along with Ireland and the UK, has the highest proportion of all households under whose roof no-one has any form of connection to the workforce—completely unemployed, cyclically poverty-affected households.
We need to break that nexus. The Commonwealth has that one entry, at the age of 16, where welfare begins to flow and that one opportunity to say, 'If you do the right thing and recognise and respect the privilege of income replacement, we will potentially give you that amount of money but, if you don't, you could have it quarantined back onto a card.' This is not about expanding, by stealth, the use of CDC like a sheep dip. Rather, it's about identifying those who are most at risk, most likely to be addicted, because, sadly, the state system doesn't even see drug addiction when an offender walks into a court. They may well drug test someone who was found in possession, dealing, distributing or operating a motor vehicle. But, apart from that, you can't mention it.
That has to change. We live in the ice age, but our youth justice reforms were mostly written before ice even existed. For that reason, we need to be more assiduous in identifying those children—because that's what they are—at their first interaction with ice. What we know about ice is that 40 per cent of users use it less than twice a month. They're not addicted and getting two hits a day. That's when you've lost the battle. I'm talking about finding the 40 per cent of ice users who are doing it twice a month or less and identifying by hair or urine test the fact that they are addicted. They're appearing at court addicted. We're not even wrapping around the supports when we have that opportunity. And you wonder why your law system is a torn parachute and they just keep going through the revolving door.
We're asking the wrong questions. The federal government has an opportunity here to step in and identify addiction, particularly where individuals are not turning up to their mandatory activity requirements and particularly when they're ending up in court. That data sharing should enable the Commonwealth to be an active player in that space. This motion is asking the question, is there a policy role for the more expansive use of CDC when one first enters the welfare system? You can do it how you want to. You can make it after one, two, three or five failures to adhere. But ultimately it's about recognising that welfare is a privilege. It's a privilege that has some mutual obligation. Part of that is staying away from the courts and turning up to suitable jobs and giving it a crack.
In closing, I want to thank my LDAT. I want to thank Linda Grieve and the Cage Youth Foundation, who, in the shadow of tragedy of Australia Day in my city, came together and produced a white paper. It is still in draft form, still being developed, but by this Friday it is to be circulated to all three levels of government. And I thank my colleagues here today for engaging in this discussion, because what we do at the age of 16 or 17 can make a huge difference to the future.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I want to thank the member for Bowman for moving this motion and start by saying that I accept that he has a genuine concern for young people, not just in his electorate but around the country, and for youth crime. This is absolutely an issue that we should be discussing and debating at the federal level. As I have said before. far too often for too many families, the end of a child's schooling career is the start of their career in the criminal justice system, and we have to break that link. But I don't agree with the proposals that are in the motion that take a punitive approach.
Whilst I understand why the member for Bowman has proposed what he has, evidence from around the world, let alone from Australia, is absolutely clear that the way to stop that cycle of offending and the way to help young people and communities to have positive lives is to invest early in the community and the young people—not to take a punitive approach. If a young person who is 16 or 17 is already in receipt of youth allowance and is already in the child protection or the social security system, they are already in a really difficult position in their lives, and punitive approaches aren't the way to help them get out of it.
I would urge the member for Bowman and other members in this House to look at programs such as the Justice Reinvestment program in Bourke, which has been supported by the New South Wales Liberal government. It is a bottom-up community driven program which has not only had significant success in keeping young people, particularly First Nations young people, out of criminal activity, but also brought economic dividends and social dividends to the town. The reason that programs such as Justice Reinvestment work is that they are community driven. They're bottom-up. They have sitting around the table people who are living the problem coming up with the solutions, rather than governments and bureaucrats imposing solutions from on high.
I urge the member for Bowman and other members of the parliament from my side and the other side of the chamber to reflect on why it is that the current federal government is funding the Local Drug Action Team Program that is being delivered in collaboration with the Alcohol and Drug Foundation. It's because of exactly what I have just said: the understanding that the evidence shows the benefits of community led programs where sporting clubs, community groups, schools and experts in rehabilitation, counselling and support come together to design programs and activities that work for their particular community.
We know that the protective factors for alcohol, drug and crime are social connection, education, safe and secure housing, and a sense of belonging to community. They're the things that successful programs to reduce youth offending address, because the risk factors, not surprisingly, are high availability of drugs, low levels of social cohesion, unstable housing and socioeconomic disadvantage that exist at the community level. As the Alcohol and Drug Foundation, which is running the LDAT program on behalf of the member for Bowman's government, says, these risk factors are mostly found at the community level. So the target for change to help not just individuals but also communities must be at the community level.
In my electorate of Dunkley, the Frankston & District Basketball Association has made a supreme effort, particularly over COVID, to engage with headspace and other professionals to help the young people in their association who have been disengaged from their sport to get through this time and be safe and not go down a path that is dangerous. We have local drug action teams, which include the netball association, local footy clubs, headspace, and the THRIVE program from the Elisabeth Murdoch College and local Langwarrin schools. That's what needs to be supported to help young people not to get further into trouble—not to take a solely punitive approach.
Firstly, let me thank the member for Bowman for bringing this motion forward. I think it's very important and quite proper that we discuss this issue in this place. I thank the member for Dunkley for her comments as well, but I must take issue with her view that the proposals here are punitive. Ceduna is on my patch. It's where the cashless debit card was first trialled, and it is simply not punitive. It doesn't take away $1 from the recipients; it provides some parameters about how that money can be spent to try and limit the amount of money that is spent on alcohol, drugs and gambling. I stand by the card most passionately.
The other half of the suggestion of this motion is that not only would people go on the cashless debit card as a form of income management but also they would undertake counselling and treatment for their problem. The issue is that, at the moment, there is a whole group of people out there who we don't know are on drugs. The system doesn't know they're on drugs. Their families might, but, by and large, the system is not responding or measuring the impact that this is having on their lives.
The first part of this motion extends its condolences to the Field and Leadbetter families, sadly mowed down by a 17-year-old who has been charged by a string of offences, including driving while being affected by intoxicating substances. The other charges would suggest that it's not the first time.
Repeatedly employers tell me they do job interviews with people, not only young people, but then they don't roll up for their first day of work because they know they won't pass the drug test. Others tell me that they put people through training, and then they can't pass or refuse the drug test. If you've got people in that situation and they're on drugs already, it's really important that government agencies know that we can adapt policy, that we can start to deliver services to try to break this nexus that sits in their life.
It's so sad and confronting to me as a member of parliament that young people, in particular, are limiting their horizons in life. I say to people that it's like taking a job—if you leave school and you've got five years on your CV where you have not been gainfully employed, there's a fair chance that every prospective employer in your future will pick up that piece and paper and say, 'What were you doing for five years?' You've missed the opportunity, and that's why it's so important we get to the stage of early intervention.
I'm reminded of a meeting I went to in Whyalla with a group of parents and young people who were dealing with ice. A woman turned to me said: 'My daughter's trying to get off ice, but every one of the people in her peer group uses drugs. She hasn't got a role model in the group of people she hangs out with that do not use drugs.' How difficult is it for that person to break out of that system? If the system actually recognises why that kid failed a drug test then we could actually get some services in place. It is just so important. Identification by job-service providers like Centrelink of people who can't pass a drug test, people who refuse a drug test and people who are a no-show at work after accepting a job or are a no-show for JobSeeker interviews is so important. This should be an average day's work for governments to make sure that we identify the people that are struggling in this area and do something about it to help them, the sooner the better.
The legislation to enable this move was passed through the House of Representatives not quite 18 months ago, on 17 October. It's not been debated in the Senate yet. I understand it's been pushed back because of COVID and other things, but it was probably largely pushed back because we don't feel as though we've got the support throughout the Senate to get the legislation through. I hope that changes. Anyone who would deny this reform is denying kids an opportunity, denying them a chance to access the tools that they need to face modern society, and we should be out there helping them in every way we possibly can.
It's with some sadness, actually, that I rise to support this motion, because I know that the tragedy that occurred in the member for Bowman's electorate was something that was felt very much by him and by those across his community and across the rest of the nation. Firstly, through you, Deputy Speaker, to the member for Bowman and to his community, I want to express my condolences to the family—and I do say 'family', because there was an unborn child that was killed in these tragic, tragic circumstances.
But the member for Bowman has hit the root cause of this problem, and the problem is juvenile crime but the problem is also the system that's actually enabling it. I've got to tell you that we have an immense problem in North Queensland as well in this regard. As the member for Kennedy would know too well, day after day, night after night, in Townsville, we hear of problems that are occurring in the field of juvenile crime. It is now out of control. The system is completely and utterly broken. I know the member for Herbert has been pushing very, very strongly for measures that would rectify this at the state level. And it certainly needs it. The system is broken. I believe, at the state level, what needs to happen is the reintroduction of boot camps, which were never ever fully tested and tried, as a way to instil some discipline and have behavioural change, because that is the only thing that is going to actually lessen crime and juvenile crime. We have this growing problem in Mackay as well. Many, many constituents have reported to me that their homes have been burgled or their cars stolen. It is also something that is getting quite out of control in Mackay.
But the member for Bowman, in the motion that he has put before us, has talked about how the federal government, sadly, through the welfare system, is partly enabling this process. You see, we have young people who are not earning and not learning; they're not at school, at university or at TAFE; they're not in a job.
Mr Laming interjecting—
And they're completely lost in the system, as the member for Bowman interjects. But what is happening is: they are getting paid welfare, through youth allowance, that basically enables them just to drift on in life, without aim. There's not too much in the way of mutual obligation for those people. There certainly is no drug testing regime. And there certainly is no accountability as to how that money is spent.
I know that Mackay has an immense problem with ice—with crystal methamphetamine. It is destroying young people. We now have young people in their teens who are homeless; they are homeless because places don't want to take them in because they are high, a lot of the time, on crystal methamphetamine, and they get violent—they get really violent. It takes several adults to control a young person who's doped up and high on ice. Mackay has such a problem that, anecdotally, I hear that, in the legal fraternity, it's called 'the North Pole'. That is very, very sad.
One way that we can stamp this out—along with tackling the dealers, which I know our police do a great job in; our Australian Federal Police do a great job in trying to destroy the supply lines—is to destroy the demand by putting these young people, who are not earning or learning and unfortunately are just drifting, on income management. We can put income management on the welfare that the Australian taxpayer provides to them. Income management will ensure that that money is not going on illegal substances and not being spent on drugs that destroy their lives and lead to out-of-control juvenile crime. That is what we need. I've been a big supporter of drug testing for the dole and I will be a big supporter of drug testing for these young people and of ensuring that, if they are found to have been taking drugs, something is done with them.
But that comes back to the state government. We've got a system where these young people can just go and do whatever they like—they're known to be drug takers; they're known to be violent—but nothing happens. Well, there needs to be a point where intervention occurs and these young people are grabbed and forcibly put in some sort of regime that actually means they're going to change and going to be rehabilitated. Until governments get the willpower to do this, this problem is never ever going to be fixed, and it should be. So I commend the member for Bowman for this motion. Well done.
Thank you to the member for Bowman for bringing up this important matter and putting it forward. I too would like to extend my deepest condolences to the friends and the families of Matt Field and Kate Leadbetter, a young couple who had their lives suddenly and tragically cut short. When I first heard about the shocking incident that led to their deaths and the death of their unborn child, I was disgusted but also heartbroken. Here were two young people, fellow Queenslanders, innocently going about their day in Alexandra Hills when they were knocked down and killed. I wish to acknowledge the efforts of those who tried to help the couple at the scene as well as the first responders who attended. The driver of the allegedly stolen vehicle that was involved in the crash is facing a string of charges, including the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle while adversely affected by intoxicating substances. That's just a fancy way of saying 'driving recklessly while high on drugs'. As the court process takes place, I agree with the member for Bowman that the Australian government has a responsibility to examine how we can play our part to ensure something like this doesn't happen again.
Substance abuse is an incredibly complex issue, and I won't stand here and pretend I have all the answers. I also won't stand here and say that drug use is an excuse for any type of criminal behaviour. It is not. This motion today puts forward some important criteria for anyone who wants to or is receiving a government payment like youth allowance or JobSeeker. I support the proposal to quarantine welfare payments for those who fail a drug test. Most importantly—at least in my opinion—this motion's purpose is to identify substance abuse issues in new recipients of youth allowance or JobSeeker and support them to gain employment. This is not about punishment; it's about supporting these people to seek treatment and kick their addiction. I've always been of the belief that we should be doing everything in our power to support young people who are at risk of heading down that spiral of drug use and criminal behaviour and setting them down a pathway to employment.
I grew up in the battler suburb of Kallangur, Moreton Bay, just north of Brisbane. My electorate of Longman contains some of the lowest socioeconomic suburbs in Queensland. I know that some people in these areas are doing it tough. But I also know that getting off government payments and starting a new job can change your life for the better. There is a sense of pride and satisfaction that comes with having a job. Reaching into your pockets and pulling out money that your hard work has earned is a great feeling. You also come to realise that you actually hold your destiny in your own hands. Yes, sometimes it may feel like the whole world is against you and that you have no choices and no opportunities in life. Let me tell you that once you're on the path to employment a whole new world of opportunities can open up. Who would have thought that a kid from Kallangur would be walking the corridors of Parliament House in Canberra, standing here today and speaking to you from the Federation Chamber? Sometimes all it takes is guidance from someone who believes in you and believes you can go on and achieve success in your life. I was fortunate enough to have people in my life like that growing up, and I hope to be one of those people for the youth in my community today. If these kids don't have that support from members of their own family, which is quite often the case, then we need to ensure that they get it from government services, social services, employment services or other agencies and individuals. And, yes, I understand that it's easier said than done.
There are many social agencies in my electorate of Longman who do a fantastic job in supporting young people to achieve their goals. Lewis at Lutheran Services intersect hub in Caboolture can link young people to a range of programs like Reconnect, Asha, Transitions, YJET and more. Headspace in Caboolture recently received federal funding to implement the Individual Placement and Support Program. This important program helps young people struggling with mental health issues to find work or finish their schooling. These are just the tip of the iceberg. Meanwhile, the federal government is still working hard to create new job opportunities and reduce the unemployment rate across Australia.
Local businesses like My Berries run by the McGruddy family are always on the lookout for young workers from all backgrounds to join their team and pick some fruit. There are also literally hundreds of jobs in Longman for fruit pickers just waiting to be filled. It is my belief that all levels of government should be doing everything possible to get these young people off government support and into the workforce, because the data tells us that when employment rates rise drug use and crime rates drop. By doing so, we can reduce the likelihood of future tragedies like the deaths of Matt Field and Kate Leadbetter in Alexandra Hills.
There being no further speakers the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) calls on the Government to:
(a) immediately terminate all contracts with foreign owned external data storage centres, in particular, the Chinese owned facility, Global Switch; and
(b) immediately and securely transfer all externally stored government data to Australian owned data centres;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) the recent contract extension between the Department of Defence and the Chinese-owned data centre, Global Switch, threatens our national security; and
(b) this continued relationship was formed without due process or public tender;
(3) condemns the Government and the Department of Defence for seemingly placing cost savings above national security; and
(4) further acknowledges that having any government data stored by Global Switch is a national security risk.
I served in the Defence Force. I joined up voluntarily as we were going to war with Indonesia, which of course we did. My battalion was on 24-hour call to go overseas. I did a sigs course somewhere along the way. We had no mobile telephones and no computers in those days—none of those things. We used two-way radios and we used a code, which today is the equivalent of a fire wall. The codes were so easy to break. My instructor told me they were farcical, but you still used them anyway. Similarly today, the firewall is farcical, particularly against a sophisticated nation like China—arguably the most sophisticated nation on earth these days. A firewall is not going to stop them. To the people of Australia it is unbelievable that our information system inside the defence department is contracted out to a Chinese company.
There's possibly not a person on the planet who doesn't know about the aggressive nature of the Chinese government—not the Chinese people; I must separate that. It is a dictatorship. It is an expansionist, imperialistic dictatorship. There's not the slightest whiff of communism in that whatsoever. We know what is going on with the Uyghurs in the western province. Everybody on earth knows that there's a million people missing from the province. They're moving Han people in and concentration camps are being set up. If the world takes the same cowardly approach it did to Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong and Stalin, the same appeasement attitude that was taken in those days, it will lead to the same outcomes. It is now a matter of public record that 48 million people died under Mao Zedong, 28 million died under Stalin, and about 50 million died in the Second World War as a result of Hitler, because we didn't have the courage to stand up. Not only are we not standing up; we are grovelling on the floor. There is a full-scale foreign affairs inquiry into what happened at the University of Queensland, which is obviously run by the Chinese consulate. And we had Simon Birmingham, a minister in the government, greeting Mr Hoj, who was the vice-chancellor responsible for the decisions at the University of Queensland.
To show you how incredibly out-of-touch some of the people in Canberra are, we got a letter back from the defence department saying:
The safeguarding of Defence's data is of the utmost priority for my Department.
'Utmost priority'? You put a most aggressive foreign power in charge of it. Further, it said:
Defence has comprehensive security controls in place at the Global Switch Ultimo data centre ...
No-one can get in, except China, which is already in there and owns the system. They're keeping people out. Well, who are they keeping out? Australians? It goes on:
... to protect against compromise by a foreign power—
A foreign power owns it! They're saying 'to protect against compromise by a foreign power'. Mate, a foreign power owns it—
or other malicious actor.
They are the malicious actors! If there's anyone naughty on this planet—their aggression in the South Pacific is well known by every well-informed person on the planet, and they're making no secret about their aggression. Further, it says:
All of the most sensitive data was removed from this facility—
and they were stupid enough to put this in—
in May 2020.
Scott Morrison ordered them out in 2017. The man who is now Prime Minister of this country interfered in another portfolio because he was so distressed by what was going on in there, and, being in the very powerful position of Treasurer, he was able to do that. That was in 2017, he decided. But they inform us—they're stupid enough to inform us—that they didn't remove this information until May 2020. But they're inside the system, Madam Deputy Speaker Owens. [inaudible] to multiply physical security and cybersecurity control. To keep who out? Sylvester the cat? He hunts and runs at the canary cage. You put him in there, you're keeping him there and you're defying the Prime Minister—because, whilst the Prime Minister is defending his minister, by the same token—I'm sorry, Mr Scott Morrison—you're on record; you made the decision to kick them out, and it was a good decision, and you showed a lot of courage and leadership. We need you to show that again now. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I would add that you can't make this stuff up. You just can't make this stuff up. In summary, the data storage firm Global Switch—
Member for Clark, do you reserve your right to speak?
I was going to speak right now. I reserve my right to speak.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
I rise as a government backbencher to support items (1), (2), and (4) out of the member for Kennedy's motion. I too am concerned about Global Switch and its parent company, and the issue that this poses to our national security.
Firstly, can I say that, while a lot of brickbats have been thrown in this place against News Corp, my congratulations, actually, go to Charles Miranda and News Corp for running this story, because this is important information that needs to see the light of day. With that out of the way, the good news, which the member for Kennedy will hopefully acknowledge, is that the Prime Minister has given an assurance that Defence's secure data remains safe. He has cited a statement issued by the Secretary of Defence that 'Defence has comprehensive security controls in place to protect against compromise by a foreign power or other malicious actor', and that 'Defence has migrated its most sensitive data to a purpose-built data centre'. I'll say that again: Defence has migrated its most sensitive data to a purpose-built data centre. They went on today, 'Defence is now progressing work consistent with the strategy to migrate less sensitive and unclassified data assets to an alternate data centre.'
Nevertheless, there is a concern that any defence data may still be in the hands of Global Switch, and that was a concern recognised by this government and also the Department of Defence a few years ago, when Global Switch transferred from being a parent company that was based in the UK to come under the ownership of a Chinese consortium. That Chinese consortium is called Elegant Jubilee. It is made up of mainly two outfits, the Jiangsu Shagang Group, which is indeed a private firm that's basically run by a fellow called Shen Wenrong. Shen Wenrong has been a deputy for the congress of the Chinese Communist Party. It is without doubt that this company, Jiangsu Shagang, is in bed with the CCP. More than that, one of the subsidiaries or the owners of Elegant Jubilee is an outfit called AVIC Trust. AVIC Trust is partly a state owned Chinese corporation—that is, partly owned by the CCP.
This is something that we can't tolerate in this country. We can't tolerate it. I've got to say I've been incredibly concerned about what seems to me—and I could be wrong; I'm happy to be corrected by defence officials—to be this blase attitude towards Chinese companies, particularly state owned corporations and companies with very sensitive links to the Chinese Communist party and the Chinese military, by defence officials. Others in the national security apparatus seem to get it. I've been concerned about this since the port of Darwin was ticked off by the Department of Defence, to go to a company, Landbridge, that had sensitive links, key links, with the People's Liberation Army of China.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute released a paper in the last week. In that paper, they say this:
Beijing's strategy of using commercial investments in critical infrastructure to support its military expansionism is most evident in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
… China's state-owned enterprises (SOEs) play a key role in implementing the BRI. Ostensibly commercial operations, they operate in a hybrid style, fulfilling CCP objectives and in return receiving strong government support … Each Chinese SOE is required to have a CCP committee and numerous subordinate party branches, ensuring that commercial strategies are aligned with party directives.
Chinese SOEs designated 'important backbone state-owned enterprises' are uniquely beholden to the CCP.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has said to this government, my government:
Australia should build its research and analytical capacity to better understand the nexus between the CCP and SOEs.
Very much we should—because the port of Darwin affair, with a company with strategic links to the Chinese military and, in this case, a company that has, if you look down the food chain, links with the CCP, is very, very problematic. We need to have it fixed, and this needs to be done across the board, in all areas of Australian government. (Time expired)
I haven't changed my view in the last five minutes. I'm still firmly of the view that you can't make this stuff up. The facts of the matter are really quite simple, and those are that the company Global Switch stores defence data, Global Switch is Chinese controlled and Global Switch have the contract until 2025. They are the facts of the matter, and they are alarming on so many levels.
The obvious level is security. Surely, in 2021, we should be acutely aware that information is every bit as valuable to this country as land and infrastructure. It's the beachhead of World War II. It is vitally important that we do everything in our power to protect it. There's also the issue of our sovereignty. We're almost abandoning our sovereignty by allowing a Chinese-controlled company to store our defence data. Surely we should be asserting our sovereignty and showing the world, particularly countries like China, that we will always assert our sovereignty and we will always do everything in our power to protect it.
There's also the issue of the government honouring its promises. Four years ago, the now Prime Minister, then Treasurer, said that this matter would be remedied. He made a promise. It's a promise that has not been delivered on. That should concern us all. There are also the perils of us trying to do national security on the cheap. I'm the first to say that we shouldn't waste money on defence and that we should spend that money that might be saved elsewhere, but that doesn't mean we do anything to compromise our national security, and certainly not national security on the cheap. When I was in the Army, we had an old joke: 'You'd better watch out; your rifle was made by the lowest bidder.' I think we've got a case of that here. We look for any company from anywhere in the world and controlled by anywhere in the world, so long as it's cheap. And you can't do defence on the cheap.
There's the issue of supporting Australian businesses. Now more than ever, government should be doing everything they can to promote Australian businesses and support Australian businesses. Now more than ever, when we're acutely aware of the importance of self-sufficiency, this is exactly the time that we should be fast-tracking changing this contract, getting our data away from a foreign-controlled company, giving it to an Australian company, promoting Australian jobs, promoting profits in Australia and helping shareholders in this country. That's what we should be doing.
This is not about any one country. I know my honourable colleagues have spoken about China, and it's understandable that we're very focused on China at the moment. But we should be having this conversation about any country other than Australia that is being given excessive influence in this country. For heaven's sake, that dreadful COVIDSafe app is a complete waste of money and a complete dud. I never downloaded it, and I said I wouldn't download it at the time. The data from that, for what it's worth, is stored by Amazon, an American-controlled company. So I'm not seeking favourites here or picking on any one country; I'm saying that, when it comes to government data—particularly sensitive data and particularly defence data—it must not be stored by any foreign-controlled company.
Let's wrap a bit of context around this. It ain't like this is the first thing that's come along that should worry us. The member for Dawson has spoken about the Port of Darwin. You only have to go to the Port of Darwin website to see that it says that it's a defence port, yet it's leased by a foreign-controlled company for the next 99 years. What about all the broadacre prime agricultural land that we have allowed to be sold off to foreign-controlled companies? What about the natural gas distribution network on the mainland, which is owned by a foreign-controlled company? It is just not good enough.
I do acknowledge that the Treasurer, on account of the coronavirus pandemic, has cracked down on the security vetting of foreign investors. But pandemics come and pandemics go, and I am worried that we will go back to the old ways. The Treasurer, the Prime Minister, the government and the next government must ensure that in future all foreign acquisitions are carefully scrutinised from a security point of view. And, if there is even a whiff of threat to our national security—including our economic security when it comes to investing in agricultural land and other assets like the Van Diemen's Land Company, Australia's biggest dairy-producing company—and our military security, the government must say no. That is what the community expects the government to do. That is what we need to do in the future—and they can start by getting this contract off this company storing our defence data.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Sitting suspended from 13:06 to 16:00
On 6 March, the Tasmanian duck hunting season begins. Over the three-month season, it's estimated that almost 50,000 ducks will be shot. Some will be killed outright, but as many as 13,000 will be wounded and left to suffer a slow and painful death. Shockingly, a survey of licensed duck hunters in Victoria just last year found that 80 per cent of hunters could not reliably tell the difference between permitted and non-target species and only one in 10 had any idea of how to humanely kill wounded birds. According to Jan Davis of the RSPCA in Tasmania, there's simply no reason to believe that the situation would be any better in Tasmania. The fact is: there is simply no way to hunt ducks humanely because there will always be a significant margin of error, which means there will always be wounded creatures dying in agony and there will always be the risk of hunters hitting the wrong bird.
I join with a great many Tasmanians in calling on the Tasmanian government to make this year's duck hunting season the state's last. Victoria has shortened its seasons, while New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia banned the barbaric slaughter years ago. It's cruel, it's unnecessary and it should be outlawed in Tasmania as well.
People in the veteran and defence space should not have to pay money to have their voices heard by the national commissioner into ADF and veteran suicide, but, sadly, that is the case. Next month, the office of the national commissioner is holding a two-day symposium called 'Defence and Veteran Suicide: Prevention through Understanding'. Registrations can be made online at a cost of $100 per person per day. Many of the people who got this invitation are, like friends of mine, on pensions from their service, or were wounded overseas or are family members of people who have passed away. They should not have to pay $100 to have their voices heard. The national commissioner says the inside stories and understanding offered by families and others closely affected by the loss of a defence member's or a veteran's suicide will be of crucial importance to the national commissioner's work. Then why should they be paying?
I've written to the national commissioner, insisting that they remove this fee and also letting the national commissioner know that we need to be breaking down barriers, not putting more up in the form of charging our veteran community, our wounded, injured and ill, and the family members of the fallen $100 to attend a meeting to inform them of what they should be doing. This needs to be changed.
Today, the people of Armstrong Creek and I are feeling vindicated. We have stood firm and robustly demanded a post office for the rapidly growing community of Armstrong Creek. Since 2014, the community has only ever had one post box but no post office. Those in this community have been forced to drive to Grovedale or Geelong and stand in long queues to get their parcels and mail. This has been made significantly worse during COVID. This community has grown from around 5,000 to almost 15,000 in the past four years. They deserve their own post office.
Over recent months, more than 1,700 residents have signed our petition—a petition that has urged Australia Post to deliver a post office for their town. That's about one in every nine residents.
Today, it's my great pleasure to inform you that Australia Post committed, just this very morning, to opening a post office in Armstrong Creek. The post office will be located at the Armstrong Creek Town Centre and is set to open in July this year. It will provide a full range of postal services to the growing Armstrong Creek community, including mail and parcel services, identity services and over-the-counter financial services including a bank. So, while the decision is belated, I certainly congratulate Australia Post for its decision on this service. More importantly, I want to thank and congratulate the people of this amazing community. This is democracy at work.
It's been my honour over recent weeks to take part in leadership induction ceremonies at Loganlea and Windaroo Valley state high schools. It's always inspiring to witness these impressive young people being recognised for their willingness to step up to positions of responsibility and leadership. Loganlea State High School Principal Mr Brenton Farleigh invoked the school's motto, 'Respect, Integrity and Resilience', in his address to the school, and he reminded the students to show and receive respect through actions and words. Windaroo Valley State High School Principal Mrs Tracey Hopper said to students: 'Don't underestimate your capacity to influence others.'
Being a positive role model isn't limited to those in leadership, and I want to pay tribute to the students who are part of the Loganlea State High School's Signature Academic Excellence program. This program was set up by Kirri Griffiths to encourage students with academic potential to stick to their studies and back themselves. Many of these students face considerable hardship. The goal of the program is to encourage them to stay at school. At the end of last year, these remarkable kids put together an e-cookbook called Cooking for kindness, which contains the recipes of all their favourite meals. All proceeds raised, nearly $2,000 in total, was donated to Hummingbird House, Queensland's only children's hospice. Their generous acts of service to others deserve to be widely commended, and I commend all the student leaders for their forthcoming year.
I'm proud to represent an electorate that is one of the most multicultural in this country. There are 60,000 people who live in the Oxley electorate who were born overseas, and we have one of the highest number of people with Vietnamese heritage anywhere in Queensland or Australia. The very best of cultures from every corner of the globe come together to make our community great.
Yesterday was International Mother Language Day, a day to highlight the importance of cultural and linguistic diversity and to remember the role that they play in building sustainable societies. Across my electorate, we celebrate many languages: Chinese, Vietnamese and Hindi, just to name a few. By preserving their mother languages, the people in my community are fostering peace and respect and passing down their proud and rich family histories to their children. We are creating a society where differences in culture and language are celebrated as an important part of the fabric of Australian life. I want to thank members of the community who are doing important work to keep diversity alive, our language schools right across the electorate of Oxley and also the Bangladesh community members, including my great friend Dr Jishu Das Gupta, who is working hard to raise awareness about the loss of mother languages. I'm proud that in my electorate members of my community tell the Australian story in diverse languages, celebrating where they've come from to become part of this country's bright future.
I'd like to thank my colleague the Assistant Minister for Environmental Management for joining me at the port of Brisbane to catch up with the volunteers from the Central Moreton Bay OzFish Chapter. Last year, our government supported this great organisation with a $20,000 grant to purchase an oyster shell washing plant. The sad fact is that Moreton Bay has lost thousands of hectares of fish habitat, such as seagrass and saltmarsh. However, by far the biggest loss has been its shellfish reefs.
The Central Moreton Bay OzFish Chapter has more than 400 volunteers, with an ambitious goal to restore 100 hectares of shellfish reefs in Moreton Bay over the next 10 years and beyond. As a result, they collect used oyster shells from local restaurants and pubs and then clean and sterilise the shells and return them to the bay. While this process was previously done by hand, this purchase of the shell washer, courtesy of the Morrison government, has vastly improved the speed and efficiency of this process.
OzFish project officer Robbie Porter explained how restoring these shellfish reefs was not only important for improving oyster stocks, but that oysters and muscles played a vital role in cleaning the water, increasing fish stocks and improving marine diversity in our bay. These recycled oyster shells, once earmarked for landfill, are now playing a vital role in reef restoration, creating new homes for baby oysters and providing habitat and food for many other marine species. Thank you to all the OzFish volunteers for your hard work and commitment to the restoration of Moreton Bay's shellfish reefs and protecting Bonner's natural environment for many years to come.
It's almost a year since O-week celebrations were cancelled, semester 1 was postponed and classes moved online for university students across the country, but for many students it's also marked a year since they have been stuck overseas and had to continue their learning from overseas. There are hundreds of thousands of students who are overseas right now, unable to come back into the country and are still paying their fees and studying their degrees offshore, online. Our onshore education sector contributed $37 billion and supported over 247,000 Australian jobs in 2018-19. It is our fourth-largest export sector, right behind iron ore, coal and gas, yet, despite this, the government has paid little attention or, arguably, has ignored international students.
In October 2019, almost 51,000 new and returning international students arrived in Australia. In October 2020, this figure had fallen by 99.7 per cent to just 130 students. The government has failed to bring back Aussies stuck overseas, due to quarantine systems or not setting up federal quarantine. This failure means we can't even get on the job of welcoming others back safely to Australia, like international students. That's had a devastating impact on our university sector. We're looking at $19 billion worth of losses by 2023. That means uni job losses and it means subject cuts. The government knows this, but still thousands of students studying remotely are an afterthought for his government.
Facebook's ban on publishing Australian news content is an attack on our democracy. This is an attempt by a multinational corporation to bring the Australian government and its people to heel, but we must not stand for it. The Morrison government is acting to ensure that the professional journalists in this country, who work hard to gather and disseminate the accurate information that we all need, are paid a fair price for their efforts. A functional and independent media is a cornerstone of our democracy. We're already facing a global struggle against fake news, but now, as the government begins rolling out COVID-19 vaccines across Australia, it's more important than ever that we get accurate information out to all Australians. The stories written by traditional news media are among the most important sources for that information. If multinational corporations like Facebook deny Australians access to the accurate and trusted information that they need, they will leave a vacuum, and that vacuum will be filled by what? By misinformation. On Saturday, I called on all Australians to say no to Facebook and log off for 24 hours. I'm grateful to everyone who joined me in standing up to this multinational's corporate bullying. Facebook now need to stop acting like a spoiled child, grow up, do the right thing, come back to the bargaining table and not let Australians down.
I want to pay tribute to three long-serving local councillors who retired at the recent Hume City Council elections. I want to begin with Councillor Drew Jessop, who served for 23 years. He was first elected in 1997. Drew is the first Labor councillor to represent the residents of Craigieburn and Mickleham—two suburbs in my electorate that have seen massive growth and expansion in the last two decades. As a ward councillor, Drew made sure that amenities and services kept up with the pace of growth, especially in the areas of recreation, sporting facilities and parks. I give many thanks to Councillor Geoff Porter, who has proudly served the community of Broadmeadows, Campbellfield and Jacana for many years. Geoff had a very strong association with our local basketball community and has overseen the establishment of many sporting and cultural facilities. As a very popular councillor, he has a long tradition of volunteering. In his day job as a teacher at our local Catholic primary school, Holy Child, Geoff has overseen and assisted in the settlement process of the very large refugee community that came from Iraq and Syria and settled in Calwell. I have worked very closely with him on the issues of settlement and I am very grateful for his contribution and his help. Finally, Councillor Ann Potter, our longest-serving female councillor, is a champion for the community of Sunbury. This is a uniquely placed community and Ann leaves a wonderful legacy. I thank you all very much. We will miss you greatly.
I am passionate about healthcare delivery in regional and rural towns and cities. In Mallee, we have one of the poorest ratios of GPs to patients. Last week, I visited a particular service in Ouyen called Mallee Track Health and Community Service, run by Lois O'Callaghan. Lois and the chair, Joy Lynch, were both at the meeting and took me around their facility one more time. It's a multipurpose service and totally appropriate for Ouyen. Ouyen is around 1,000 people, with many small outlying towns. The only way they can service that community with GPs is by actually having locums come in. You can imagine the toll on the financial bottom line of pulling in locums to deliver GP services. This is a tragedy in regional and rural Victoria and particularly in my electorate of Mallee. They are aware of the pilot that is taking place now in south-west New South Wales, and I am keen to see that that particular pilot comes to Mallee next. I've been speaking with the minister about that. The model aims to increase community preparedness, bolster workforce training and capacity, and expand the use of flexible telehealth services. Lois, Joy and I all want to see funding for these trials extended to Mallee and particularly our remote areas, where the greatest challenges exist when it comes to health care. (Time expired)
I want to pay tribute and express our community's love and appreciation to two living treasures of the city of greater Dandenong, so awarded on Australia Day: my dear friends Youhorn Chea and Roz Blades AM. They've lived their lives for other people. Roz was mayor four times. She served on the council from 1997 to 2019 and, before that, for the City of Springvale from 1987 to 1994. She arrived in 1969, with Terry, from the UK—young ratbag advocates and activists—and she's ever since lived in the same house in Noble Park, sticking up for the most vulnerable in the community and fighting for the rights of others. She's been on the school council, on the kindy committee and on the hospital board. She set up the south-east polio network when polio was coming back. She's just a wonderful human being.
To Youhorn Chea—a triumphant Australian story. Youhorn arrived as a refugee from Cambodia. He lived in refugee camps; he brought his four kids; he fled the Pol Pot genocidal regime. He came speaking Khmer and French, taught himself English, worked in the community, was the first Cambodian Australian elected to local government and then served as mayor four times. He's still President of the Cambodian Association of Victoria. He fights for refugee causes. He's the most humble, gentle man, given what more I know of his life story. But most importantly, he's led the whole community. He's done the whole community proud. To both of these two, their status as living treasures—a very special thing in our community—is well deserved. We offer all our love and appreciation for your years of service.
Just last Monday, 142,000 doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine arrived at Sydney airport. Today, priority groups will begin receiving their first COVID-19 vaccinations. This includes aged-care and disability-care workers and residents, frontline healthcare workers, and quarantine and border workers. I really am pleased to see how quickly this next step is being taken to ensure that the vaccine is available to those in our community who are the most vulnerable to COVID-19. Vaccination locations include more than 240 residential aged-care facilities, located across 190 towns and suburbs, as well as 16 Pfizer hubs across Australia. I am pleased to say that there are four locations on the Central Coast where the vaccine will be prioritised for residential aged-care and disability-care residents and staff. These include: West Gosford, Point Clare, Woy Woy and Umina Beach. This vaccine is a safe, effective, voluntary and, of course, free vaccine. Residents from across the Robertson electorate can be assured that Australia has secured more than enough doses for all who choose to have the vaccine. The government has a comprehensive plan to offer these vaccines to all Australians by the end of October, and more information on priority groups and who will receive the first doses of the vaccine can be found at the Department of Health's website: health.gov.au. I'd encourage as many locals as possible to come forward and play their part in helping to protect themselves, their families and their community. (Time expired)
When Western Sydney airport's EIS was approved by the then minister, Josh Frydenberg, in 2016, it required a huge environmental offsets package to give this project any hope of being accepted. There are vulnerable grey-headed flying fox in the habitat. There's Cumberland Plain habitat. It's home to the critically endangered swift parrot. There was a sizeable amount of money put aside—around $180 million. That sounds great in theory, but, in practice, there is no land that can be used to offset the environmental impacts of this airport. What we know now is that, once extensive across Western Sydney, there's only six per cent of woodland left, dominated by grey box eucalypts, forest red gums and grassy understory, and everyone wants it. There is not enough to offset. So what's the government done? It's decided to double dip, or, as someone describes it, regift the Orchard Hills defence site. This is the same amount of land that was promised 20 years ago to be kept in perpetuity, and now it's been promised again. This is an absolute disgrace. What it shows is the lack of respect this government has for the people of Western Sydney. They deserve proper environmental protection, and they're not getting it. This government will have a lot to answer for when this airport is built.
I rise today to recognise an extraordinary man, Dr James Bowie, who's dedicated most of his professional life to keeping people in Australia's south-west healthy and happy.
In this age of multi-GP medical centres, Dr Bowie's small practice was for decades the face of family practice in and around Manjimup. While practising in the north-west of Australia in 1967, Dr Bowie travelled south, to Perth, with the Royal Flying Doctor Service. As thousands of tourists do today, he hired a car for a trip down south. He fell in love with Bridgetown, buying his first property there the following year. He also fell in love with a Bridgetown girl, Elizabeth Goyder, whom he married in 1970. In 1975 he established the Warren District Family Medical Practice in Manjimup, 30 kilometres to the south.
Being a farmer and a doctor, Dr Bowie had a great rapport with his patients, many of whom he had delivered in the local hospital. For his service to medicine, Dr Bowie, now 87, was one of 34 Western Australians recognised in this year's Australia Day Awards. As Dr Bowie himself points out, he appears to be the only WA farmer on the honours list. Dr Bowie epitomises the type of GP we need to see more of in regional Australia—those who are prepared to live in the regions, find love in the regions and dedicate their service to our regional communities.
Today I rise to acknowledge the extraordinary generosity of my local community. Christmas, while it seems a little way away now, was always a difficult time for vulnerable Australians. Household budgets are stretched, and to try and put food on the table, particularly the Christmas table, along with gifts under the tree can be often very difficult. In 2020 it was harder for many. The pandemic and recession saw more families struggling to afford life's necessities, let alone the extra spending needed for the festive season.
Each year I run a local Christmas appeal to make the festive season a little bit easier for vulnerable people in our community, and once again this year I was overwhelmed by the generosity of so many. Many who didn't have a lot gave to this appeal. When so many were doing it tough, our families and communities rallied to help others in need.
I'd like to also take this opportunity to thank not only the individuals and the organisations that donated food and clothing but also the huge number of organisations who during the pandemic kept providing food and goods to vulnerable families. I had many touching stories, but I'll quickly mention one. We received a beautiful set of handmade toys which were able to be donated to children spending Christmas in crisis accommodation. Thank you to everyone who donated—every organisation and every group out there working hard to ensure our community is stronger.
I welcome the commencement of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout as the tremendously important milestone that it is for our nation. The Gold Coast University Hospital, in my central Gold Coast electorate of Moncrieff, is one of 16 national vaccination hubs with logistics capabilities necessary for the Pfizer vaccine. They're starting off with about 300 vaccinations a day—that's quite a lot—and will ramp up their activities from there.
The first priority group includes, of course, the frontline workers in health and quarantine who have a greater risk of exposure while they do their important work that cares for so many people and keeps our wider community safer. Thank you to all those at the front line for the way that you serve our community. Thank you to all those who are contributing to the vaccine rollout who might be preparing a vaccination hub or a venue right now to roll out the vaccine. I thank you all for the extra time, effort and work that you're putting into that. Accurate information about vaccination and other COVID-19 measures is, of course, very important, and I urge everyone to use only trusted sources. For example, you can go to health.gov.au, you can visit your GP or you can even go to my website, which will direct you to the Health website.
Australians have a record of being sensibly pro-vaccination, and that will be on display during this rollout. This twin health and economic advance is a result of international cooperation, sound preparations locally and the efforts of a large number of individuals, and I congratulate the Minister for Health for the way he's handled this.
On Saturday I was rapt to be down at Victoria Quay with my fellow Freo representative, Simone McGurk, for the announcement by Premier Mark McGowan and arts minister David Templeman of a game-changing $100 million commitment to long-awaited film studio infrastructure. This will supercharge what is already a strong and distinctive WA screen industry. It will sustain new jobs and new enterprises and finally allow WA to have a really serious piece of Australia's screen action, which is not just television, feature films and streamed video on demand but also gaming and emerging video functionality in areas like education, health and tourism.
I want to take a moment to reflect on Simone McGurk's efforts as Freo's WA parliamentary representative. People in the west know and respect Simone's ministerial work in critical areas like child protection and the prevention of family and domestic violence, but she has also fought hard to champion some key pieces in the revitalisation of Freo, including the Kings Square project, the new $80 million police station, $20 million for upgrades to John Curtin College of the Arts and now this incredible film studio project.
Australia's creative industry should be the foundation stone of our recovery from the pandemic, but, more than that, it should be one of the strongest and brightest sectors of our future productivity, economic activity and jobs and our storytelling and engagement with the world. The McGowan government is supporting that potential and acting on that vision; if only the Morrison government would do the same.
Today I'd like to take this opportunity to set the record straight over my stance on nuclear power. There's an ongoing debate regarding a move to lift the ban on nuclear energy as a fuel source in Australia. This is an important decision to make, though I believe all energy sources should be on the table for discussion. This is in fact what I told a reporter at The Australian last week. The reporter surveyed dozens of government MPs, including me, asking if we supported lifting the ban on nuclear energy. My written response to this reporter was this: that I think all energy options should be on the table for discussion, including nuclear. Then, in an article published in the Australian newspaper on February 18 titled 'Coalition MPs in drive for nuclear energy', the reporter stated that I backed lifting the ban on nuclear energy. That is not what I said.
I believe that we need to have an open discussion on all future energy sources using credible and unbiased data, which is proving a challenge. Only then will we be able to form an opinion based on the science, costs and environmental impacts, rather than having the debate hijacked by political idealism. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the media being able to do whatever they like with zero consequences, and this needs to change. They need to be held to account for their actions like the rest of us.
Last March, retail billionaire Gerry Harvey told 60 Minutes that COVID was 'pretty much nothing to get scared of'. He went on to boast that sales of his freezers were up 300 per cent. Since then, more than two million people have lost their lives, and Harvey Norman has experienced a once-in-a-lifetime retail bonanza. Its dividends last year totalled $300 million, more than $100 million of which went to Mr Harvey. This Friday it's expected to announce a six-month profit of around half a billion dollar.
Yet Harvey Norman head office and its franchisees have benefited from millions of dollars of taxpayer support through the JobKeeper program. It's not the only profitable firm to do so. Recently, Crown Perth, Empired, Janison, MaxiTRANS, hedge fund K2 and investment bank Moelis have announced JobKeeper-fuelled profits. Some profitable firms have repaid. CIMIC's recent announcement takes the total repayment past $100 million. These ethical farms realised that JobKeeper was designed to keep battlers in work, not to help billionaires buy their next racehorse.
Gerry Harvey once said that donating to charity was 'helping a whole heap of no-hopers to survive for no good reason'. He then claimed he had changed. Well, Friday is his chance to prove it. Mr Harvey says his sales have been 'going crazy', so it's crazy to think he needs a taxpayer funded handout. Pay it back, Gerry.
Well, imagine telling anyone in December 2019 that they would be spending the following 12 months in their pyjamas working from home. Imagine telling anyone in December 2019 that terms like isolation, social distancing and toilet paper wars would dominate our social media feeds, or that we would end 2020 wearing surgical masks in public. The year 2020 was truly one no-one expected, one that we will never forget—as much as we would like to—and, certainly, one that we hope will never be repeated.
It's therefore hard to express the happiness I felt watching 84-year-old World War II survivor Jane Malysiak receive the first COVID-19 vaccine in Australia. Today is a truly historic day, as the first round of COVID vaccinations commence for at-risk and priority groups in society, followed over the next seven months by the rest of the Australian population. I encourage all Australians to participate not only for your own health but for the sake of those you love, your friends and those in your community. The vaccine is safe, effective and free. It has been rigorously tested by our own regulators, and we have seen how well it has been working in other parts of the world, particularly in nations like Israel and the United Kingdom. We know it will save lives and will be the most important step in returning our own country to some sense of normalcy. The COVID vaccination program will be one of the largest public health campaigns in our nation's history. Let's repeat our success over the last 12 months in keeping the coronavirus at bay and participate in the vaccination program. (Time expired)
I, along with many Moreton constituents, will be listening intently to the aged-care royal commission's final report, due to be handed down this Friday. I guarantee that we'll all be listening even more intently to the government's response to the report's recommendations. I'm sure my office is not the only electorate office in Australia that receives calls on a daily basis from senior Australians who are distressed and frustrated as they find they can't access the aged-care services they're eligible for.
We know that the government hasn't adequately funded services. Many seniors in my electorate are told by service providers to call back at the start of the new financial year, as the providers may receive extra funds then. That doesn't work for someone like Margaret, who lives in Acacia Ridge and is in her 90s. Not one of the 10 aged-care providers in Moreton could mow Margaret's lawn. As she couldn't afford a private mowing service, Margaret, in her 90s, got down on her hands and knees and started to trim the grass herself. Seniors like Margaret are very frustrated. They are relieved when they are deemed eligible for a much-needed funded service—things that keep them in their home et cetera—but then they're bewildered when they find there is no actual service. This is the cruel mirage of Morrison's version of aged care. Margaret, like me, just wants aged care to be properly funded. She notes that the royal commission's interim report was called Neglect. Let's see the Morris government lift its game.
I would like to join the pile-on against Facebook. Facebook's decision to ban news is lamentable, and, hopefully, it will be sorted out in the coming days or weeks, as they walk back from this brink that they have taken themselves to. Facebook's decision to ban local charities and public services is abhorrent, scandalous and unconscionable. Whether it was by agency or accident, the sites that were denied access were among those of critical importance to our society. The Bureau of Meteorology is not a news site, and yet it was banned at a time when fires and floods were hitting parts of our country. Local health networks that are currently rolling out critical information about the vaccine were banned just at the time that getting this information out is most critical. Even the Humans of Eastwood page, everyone's favourite purveyor of the highest quality local memes, found itself blocked, depriving people of the zebra-crossing content they needed to survive! But, seriously, the types of pages that were banned go to the heart of our civil society.
Last year, 2020, not only forced us online like never before but it has brought us together in online communities that, for so many, have been our only connection to the outside world. Stripping this from us has the potential to severely disrupt the provision of services so vitally important for health information. I'm pleased to see that many services have been returned— (Time expired)
On Friday I had the opportunity to attend a very special opening here in Canberra—special because it is first time that a Bendigo Art Gallery exhibition has been on display in one of our national institutions, the Australian National Museum. Pinpii: a contemporary Indigenous fashion exhibition, designed and created in Bendigo, is on display and it is truly remarkable. Shonae Hobson, who is our First Nations curator at the Bendigo Art Gallery, is the brains behind the project.
Pinpii contemporary Indigenous fashion brings together selected garments and textiles by First Nations designers and artists from around Australia. It is also the first major survey of contemporary Indigenous fashion to be undertaken in this country, making my town and our Bendigo Art Gallery incredibly proud to have the foresight to bring this forward. To have a First Nations curator with the passion and drive of Shonae is truly a blessing for us but is also a great opportunity. I encourage all to check out the exhibition. Whilst it is not as grand as it was in Bendigo—the space is not quite as large—it is still a true testament to the talent of our First Nations people.
Ni Hao Xinnian Kuaile! Happy Lunar New Year. I wish to extend my best wishes to all those celebrating the Lunar New Year across my electorate of Higgins, Melbourne and of course across Australia. Celebrations have had to be very different compared to years past, with most celebrations having to be moved online. I personally want to thank organisations who adapted to these changes and made it possible for our communities to celebrate in a COVID-safe way, including the Chinese Precinct Chamber of Commerce. We have an immensely diverse migrant community in Australia and 2020 has taught us that there has never been a more important time to come together not only to support each other but also to celebrate together.
Last year was a tough year for everyone as we faced a global pandemic together. Given this, how appropriate it is that this year is the Year of the Ox. In fact, it is the iron ox. The ox is known for its diligence and dependability and, just as importantly, for its strength and determination. Let's all look to the spirit of the ox to guide us through 2021 to ensure that we navigate these uncertain times together strong and united. May the Year of the Ox be everything you hope it will be. Here's to 2021 bringing you good health, happiness and prosperity. And could I please ask the community to not hesitate to vaccinate when it's your turn when it comes to COVID. XieXie and Xinnian Kuaile!
One of the best things about being a member of parliament is having the opportunity to hear directly from local people about what matters to them. On Friday last week, I was absolutely delighted to visit the year 11 legal studies class at St John the Evangelist Catholic School in Nowra. After a week of parliament it was refreshing to hear the thoughts and interests of a group of young locals on politics and lawmaking. The class is looking at law reform in Australia, and I was happy to provide them with small books on our Constitution.
The class wanted to know what I thought was one of the most important law reform issues facing our nation. I could think of nothing better than recognition for our Indigenous peoples under the Constitution—absolutely critical and something I think all young people should know about. We talked about why we need to have diverse voices in our nation's parliament, which means there is no one right path to get here. The class had some head-scratches for me too, like what was the weirdest thing I had experienced in the parliament, and what did I really think about the Prime Minister? The curious minds of the young always come out with things you don't expect. I would like to thank all the students and their teacher for an engaging morning and for taking an interest in what we do here every day. I am sure that I will see these young people leading our community before too long.
I rise today to congratulate for his award of a Member of the Order of Australia John Francis Gosling. Mr Gosling would be known indirectly to members of this place because he is the father of the member for Solomon. When Mr Gosling returned from Vietnam some 50 years ago he began working to train guide dogs and has been doing that continuously since. He is now in his seventies. His award was for significant service to people who are blind or have low vision.
For 12 years he was a board member of the International Guide Dogs Federation. He was chair of the development committee, a former member of the accreditation and development committee, an assessor for six years between 1982 and 1998, and the recipient of the prestigious Ken Lord Award in 2018. Mr Gosling served Guide Dogs Victoria—formerly the Royal Guide Dogs Association of Australia. He was an adviser for some 10 years, from 2008 to 2018, a manager of the guide dog services from 1985 to 2008, a chief guide dog and orientation mobility instructor, a recipient of the independence award and he also assisted with the establishment of Integra Service Dogs Australia in 2015. This is a very well-deserved award for somebody who has given five decades of his life to the blind and to guide dogs in Australia.
Chuc mung nam moi and happy new year—happy Year of the Buffalo—to all of the members of the Vietnamese-Australian community in Fraser and throughout Australia. I was delighted to join a special Lunar New Year event hosted by the Indochinese Elderly Refugees Association last week. Ordinarily, of course, we would have gathered in person, but this year the event took place via Zoom.
I want to thank the IERA for their work in promoting Vietnamese culture and traditions and representing the interests of many older Vietnamese Australians. The IERA and many other Vietnamese community organisations do so much to contribute to the strength and wellbeing of the Fraser community. Many of these organisations over recent years have raised millions of dollars for the Joan Kirner Women's and Children's Hospital. In addition, throughout this last very difficult year, these organisations were at the frontline to ensure that children, families and vulnerable members of the Fraser community were looked after during COVID.
Fraser is a welcoming community and incredibly diverse. Over 30,000 Vietnamese Australians call Fraser home. These are proud Australians, but they've also never forgotten their cultural and religious traditions. Fraser's Vietnamese-Australian community is a shining example of Australian multiculturalism at its best. I look forward to attending the IERA's next function in person, but, in the meantime, I wish everybody happy Year of the Buffalo.
I rise today to commend the work of the Rotary Club of Strathfield. Our local Rotarians create opportunities for genuine connection and community service, and this is more important now than ever in a time where COVID-19 has kept us socially isolated. As a teenager, I completed RYLA courses, and so, recently, I was very proud to be made an honorary member of the Rotary Club of Strathfield, a position that will last the duration of my service as the member for Reid. I would like to particularly thank the president, Dr Usha Garg, for a great honour. Through my work as the federal member for Reid, I hope to uphold the same values that guide our local Rotarians: service, integrity and community focused leadership.
Whether it is removing graffiti in Homebush, raising funds for the Chalmers Road School or holding events like the Pride of Workmanship Awards, the Strathfield Rotary Club goes above and beyond in their community work. I would also like to congratulate the outgoing committee, as well as the president elect, Thaya Ponniah, and the 2021 committee. I am confident that they will bring the same energy and dedication to the work of the Strathfield Rotary Club in the year to come.
I'm sick and tired of Liberal governments at a federal and state level making infrastructure decisions prioritising their political need above community demand. What has triggered my comments is seeing, last week in the newspapers, Matt Kean, a Liberal minister in New South Wales, at the opening of an accessibility upgrade, worth $10 million, to the Hawkesbury River Station—a station in a Liberal electorate, with less than 3,000 patrons a week.
In my electorate, Doonside station has nearly 10 times that patronage. We have pleaded, begged, campaigned and petitioned to get an upgrade so that elderly and disabled people in our area get a lift at their local railway station, and we've been denied that. We've had to take the step of lodging the biggest application to the Australian Human Rights Commission, basically saying that the way that the Liberal state government had made decisions was discriminating against people in our electorate, because they'd had sheets that had ranked the station on the basis of need and they'd continually prioritised stations in Liberal marginal seats to get those upgrades. It is simply unacceptable for disabled people in my area to be denied this upgrade because they're not Liberal voters. This is the wrong way to make decisions, and we will continue to fight to make sure that upgrade, a lift, is given effect in our area.
Last year, Victorians endured a long lockdown associated with COVID-19, and of course it was one of those times where strong community bonds came to the fore, as did people's commitment to support each other to get things done. But, even though the state was in lockdown, it didn't mean that time was wasted.
The Sandringham Bowls Club is a proud institution connecting Goldstein residents, fostering friendship and encouraging mutual interest in the betterment of our community through sport. They used that time to invest in upgrading their infrastructure by building a new terrace. It was a pleasure to join the club's president, Rob Elliot, to officially open their new outdoor terrace only a couple of weeks ago. Construction of the new terrace was assisted by a $10,000 grant from the Morrison government's Stronger Communities Program. Before the setback of Victoria's latest lockdown, the bowls club was buzzing with locals eager to make use of these new facilities.
Community organisations like bowls clubs have helped build a powerful sense of mutuality in Goldstein that underpins the emotional and practical support that residents of Goldstein provide to each other and makes us very proud. Investing in local organisations to build resilient communities and infrastructure to support them is a critical part of what this Morrison government is about. It's not about trying to decide what is best for the country from Canberra but how to empower citizens and communities from the bottom up.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
notes:
(a) the actions of the Myanmar military is a direct assault on Myanmar's transition to democracy and the rule of law; and
(b) Australia is a great friend of Myanmar and is deeply concerned for the welfare and wellbeing of the people of Myanmar;
(2) condemns the Myanmar military for:
(a) seizing control of Myanmar; and
(b) the detention of numerous political and civil society leaders in Myanmar; and
(3) calls on the:
(a) Myanmar military to immediately relinquish the power they have seized and release the activists and officials they have detained; and
(b) Government to review Australia's defence cooperation program with Myanmar in light of the Myanmar military's seizure of power and consider additional targeted sanctions as appropriate.
The actions in Myanmar have shocked all of us. We can only do one thing as parliamentarians and as civil leaders, and that is to condemn the actions of the Myanmar military. In my opening statements I would like to note on the record again parts of this motion. It says:
That this House:
notes:
the actions of the Myanmar military is a direct assault on Myanmar's transition to democracy and the rule of law—
It goes on:
condemns the Myanmar military for:
(a) seizing control of Myanmar; and
(b) the detention of numerous political and civil society leaders—
in the country. It then:
calls on the:
Myanmar military to immediately relinquish the power they have seized and release the activists and officials they have detained—
I note government members will be speaking on this motion, and I welcome them to join Labor and other members of this place in this motion. I know that many others wanted to speak today, but with the time allotted for this debate we couldn't have as many speakers as we would like.
Australia is a great friend of Myanmar and is deeply concerned for its welfare and wellbeing. Since announcing and tabling this motion, I've had many people reach out to me. The transition to democracy has not been smooth—granted—but it has been extensive. We can be very proud in this place in the role that Australia and Australian parliamentarians have played and the way in which Myanmar has come along that path.
In 2011 they held their first elections in many years—not a full election. In 2015, it was their first full and free election for many decades. I had the great privilege of being there on that day as one of the international observers selected by this parliament to represent our role in that transition.
Many may forget that the Australian Electoral Commission was involved in helping Myanmar establish their own electoral commission. They attended our 2013 election and worked out very quickly what they did not want to see what happen in Myanmar in 2015. But, as Senator Dean Smith and Senator Scott Ludlam and myself witnessed, so much of what happened on that day mimicked and reflected what happened in Australia. Voting occurred in school halls and in faith based institutions. The school principal or head mistress tended to be the head of the polling division. There were scrutineers involved at all stages. I can remember getting there at six o'clock in the morning and thinking that there is no Australian I would know who would be there at six o'clock ready to vote when polling opened. But, on this day in 2015, they did. There were queues. People were so excited to be able to cast a vote for the first time in decades, and they did. After that time, we saw the transition—a government, a parliament.
I also had the opportunity to visit their parliament in 2019, and I witnessed their parliament in action. Their question time—I have to be frank—is a lot more constructive than our own: MPs, including government MPs, asked their own ministers questions and had slideshow presentations, and their questions would quite often go for a couple of minutes. They asked about issues that mattered to their community. These are just two examples of how far this country has come—how they, as a people, have embraced democracy. I acknowledge the role that civil society has played in Myanmar throughout the decades, particularly in the last three weeks, since the military coup.
Like many Australians, I am concerned about the violence. I am concerned about the detention and I am concerned about the deaths that have occurred. I join many other parliamentarians in this place and parliamentarians all over the world calling for the military to give up the power that they have seized and hand it back to the democratically elected people.
Australia has a role to play. We have done it in the past, and we can do it again today. This motion is one step on that journey. I hope that this is the first of many motions and many opportunities for parliamentarians to come together in this place, and an opportunity for the Australian government to again be a world leader when it comes to Myanmar. Let us join the steps of the United States, of the UK and of Canada and place sanctions on a military who refuse to give back power to the democratically elected people. The people are on the path to democracy, and we should stand with them.
Is the motion seconded.
I second the motion and reserve my right.
The Australian sense of a fair-go for our neighbours extends to compassion for the plight of many people around the world. This is often demonstrated through Australian government aid, through private charities and through the work of Australian volunteers and NGOs abroad. Australia is, typically, measured in its approach to foreign affairs and sensitive to the complexities of different nations. We speak up for our values and respect the rights of others to shape their own values. We have a strong record of international cooperation, and stand for the rules based order.
We know that the people of Myanmar have faced significant difficulties for many years. I don't intend to delve into the complexities right now, only to make a few comments in support of peaceful resolution of the current situation in a manner that has regard for the human rights of everybody in Myanmar. Myanmar has more than one-third of its population living in extreme poverty. It is one of the poorest countries in South East Asia, and democracy is its best pathway to prosperity.
I do support the spirit of this motion, though not the exact text of it. There are risks in managing this matter that I believe the foreign minister is handling with appropriate care. Since 2017, Akhaya Women in Myanmar and Australia's International Women's Development Agency, the IWDA, has delivered a unique Women Supporting Women mentoring program. Supported by DFAT, I myself have been participating in the program to mentor a newly elected MP over the last 12 months. One practical measure that we can take is to make the most of our direct networks to encourage and support them. In parallel, speaking in this place does serve to send a public message to Myanmar that Australia is watching and that we want the best for its people.
In early 2019 on a parliamentary delegation to Bangladesh, hosted by Save the Children and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, I saw firsthand Australian aid assisting approximately 850,000 Rohingya refugees and the surrounding Bangladeshi host communities of 400,000 locals at Cox's Bazar. I've spoken previously in this place about the human rights violations that were targeted at the Rohingya in Rakhine State. Without revisiting the detail of that now, I wish to simply make the observation that it underscores the seriousness of the situation in Myanmar.
I share the broad bipartisan concerns in this place regarding reports of the actions of the Myanmar military and the detention of State Councillor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and President U Win Myint. We are definitely deeply concerned about the developments that have occurred in Myanmar over the past weeks, including the detention of eminent Australian economist Professor Sean Turnell. We call for the immediate release of Professor Turnell and Myanmar's elected leaders and others who have been arbitrarily detained since 1 February. We are extremely concerned about reports of an increased military presence on the streets of Yangon, Mandalay and the capital, Nay Pyi Taw, and we're deeply saddened by reports of the deaths of three civilian protesters in the last few days. The use of deadly force or violence against civilians is simply unacceptable. We continue to strongly urge the Myanmar security forces to exercise restraint and refrain from violence in response to peaceful protests.
Australia has been a longstanding supporter of Myanmar and its democratic transition and it's hard for all of us to see so much progress reversed. I am very concerned that Myanmar's fragile decade-long democratic transition has faltered. The military should respect the rule of law and resolve disputes through lawful mechanisms. The immediate release of all civilians leaders and others who have been unlawfully detained is the urgent first step necessary to begin the restoration of the democratic transition. A peaceful reconvening of the national assembly, consistent with the results of the November 2020 general election, should urgently follow. The people of Myanmar deserve peace and economic development out of widespread poverty, which, indeed, only democracy can afford them.
We, here in Australia—the Australian government, the foreign minister and, indeed, the Prime Minister—are aware of all of the media reports coming out of Myanmar. We are monitoring the situation in the press very, very closely. I thank members opposite for they have delivered here today in the chamber and for their contribution to this very sensitive issue around the conflict in Myanmar.
I rise to second the motion moved by the member for Bendigo. I'd like to thank her for raising this issue in parliament and I would like to acknowledge the many communities here in Australia who have come from Myanmar and made Australia their home, many of whom I know live in the member for Bendigo's electorate, and I thank her for her fierce advocacy.
In November 2020, a nation-wide election was held for the national, state and regional parliaments in Myanmar. The National League for Democracy, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, had an overwhelming win—a win that all domestic and international observers agreed was free and fair. Myanmar's commander-in-chief chose not to honour the outcome of the election, where the military party had a dismal showing. On 1 February 2021, the very day the new parliament was to have its inaugural session and select a new President, the general staged a coup d'etat, arresting the State Counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi, and President Win Myint, and many other leading figures. Also detained were MPs, ministers, senior civil servants, some prominent intellectuals, including writers, musicians and artists, as well the Australian economics and banking adviser, Dr Sean Turnell. Many of the detainees, including Dr Turnell, are incommunicado and their whereabouts are unknown, although I understand there has been one Zoom contact with the doctor recently.
To say the coup is a setback for the fledgling democracy, which is emerging from over 50 years of army rule, is a gross understatement. It is a dangerous and deadly infringement on the rights of Myanmar's people. The people of Myanmar, especially the youth, have been bravely demonstrating against the military coup and, tragically, this has resulted in several people being killed. It doesn't bode well. The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, has condemned the use of deadly violence and called for all parties to respect the election result and for the return to civilian rule. The Inter-Parliamentary Union's Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians has strongly condemned the coup, calling on the military to abide by the democratic will of the people and the rule of law. Members of the NLD themselves, who have not been detained but are having to stealthily avoid arrest, have bravely declared that they will try to perform the duties given to them by the people and do any tasks necessary for the release of their President, State Counsellor and other detained individuals. They have called on the international community for support.
I am lucky enough to have visited Myanmar and, indeed, to have met Aung San Suu Kyi, actually having tea in her house. She had been newly elected in 2015 and had only recently been released from house arrest. It was a great time of hope and celebration, even though the generals retained substantial power under the constitution. We all believed it was a move towards a true democracy for that country. The modernisation process they were about to undertake was enormous, from establishing a central banking system to legislating for workers' rights and building a representative human rights council.
Australia lifted sanctions and we involved ourselves, along with others, in playing a small albeit important role in assisting the transition. Many of us were disappointed in the new Myanmar government's role in the forced displacement and genocide of the Rohingya people in 2017. In fact, in 2018, I went to Bangladesh and visited Cox's Bazaar, where nearly a million Rohingya refugees were living. It was, to say, a mind-blowing experience—a crisis of huge proportions right on our doorstep, yet to be resolved in any meaningful way. And so the new democracy is not perfect, but the international community knew that any hope of changing the discriminatory citizens law, which was designed to racially exclude Rohingyas and other ethnic minorities, lay with a democratic elected government and not the military. That is the view that many people from the Myanmar ethnic minority communities here in Australia have expressed to me.
The brave people of Myanmar are protesting the coup. The international community must do so as well. Many MPs in Australia have condemned the actions of the military. The IPU are calling on MPs from all over the world to include their names on a global list supporting the newly elected MPs in Myanmar, who have bravely declared they will stay active during this time, at great risk to themselves. If any MPs in this House would like to do so, please contact my office, and we can facilitate that. I ask that this House supports this motion and calls on the military to immediately relinquish the power they have seized and to release the activists and officials they have detained and for the Australian government to review Australia's defence cooperation with Myanmar in light of the military seizure of power.
I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion and talk about the significant and serious situation in Myanmar. That country, as many here would know, has had a troubled history. The truth is that its default form of government, for most of its postcolonial history, has been a military dictatorship. Many of us were hopeful about the transition that occurred over the last several years to a quasi elected democracy—not a full democracy, by any stretch—and a somewhat more liberal and free society. But unfortunately, the generals in Myanmar seem to have turned the clock back 30 years. What we seem to be witnessing in Myanmar today has echoes of the events of 1988, 1989 and 1990, when the previous set of free and fair elections were held. The military chose to ignore the results and instituted a state of emergency for one year, which then became, really, 21 years or thereabouts of continued military rule.
The trend in our region—and, indeed, around the world in recent decades—has been towards more democratic and pluralistic forms of government. We saw in the 1990s and 2000s the transition of our largest northern neighbour, Indonesia, from a military dictatorship to a democracy. There was the Philippines as well, of course, and Myanmar was one of the few holdouts in this area. I think the fact that they've gone backwards is enormously alarming, not only because I can't see a way out for them but because the form of democracy that they had enshrined there actually provided a highly privileged position for the military. Members here would be aware that the military had 25 per cent of the seats in the parliament. They were able to appoint the ministers of defence and national security. This effectively meant that they had a veto over any constitutional changes in Myanmar and they had the control on the instruments of power that were the most important to them. But, even with that level of control they were able to exercise, it seems it was insufficient, and they've taken action.
I think it's very important in this instance that we follow the lead of regional countries, particularly ASEAN, the 10 member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. It was ASEAN that did play a critical role in Myanmar's previous transition to democracy. Particularly, we would look to the democratic champions within ASEAN—most particularly Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia—to take a strong stand and help guide that country forward. As members here would be aware, the generals have said this is going to be initially a one-year state of emergency, if you like, but we've heard that promise before. Obviously, unless we are able to make sure that they make more steadfast commitments than those, we have good cause to be worried about whether that one-year time frame will be honoured.
We have a particular angle, of course, with the detention of Sean Turnell, the Australian academic. As far as I'm aware, he is the only foreign national being detained in Myanmar. Members here would be aware that just last week Australia signed on to a Canadian declaration about the use of arbitrary detention and imprisonment as a tool of statecraft. It would seem that Sean Turnell has fallen victim to this sort of hostage diplomacy. He hasn't been charged with anything. We have had very limited consular access to him. The reasons for his detention completely elude us here in Australia. I know the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been taking a close interest in this. A number of us discussed this issue with her this morning. Australia has been not only looking after the welfare of Sean Turnell but also speaking to a number of other regional countries, including Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei, I believe, to see how we might be able to encourage their efforts to resolve this situation. It was also a feature of the virtual meeting of quadrilateral foreign ministers last week—the US Secretary of State, the Japanese foreign minister, the Indian foreign minister and our own.
I think it's incredibly important that the international community continues to pay close attention to this issue, because, without outside scrutiny and pressure and outside interest in this case, the generals will simply go back to their default method of being, which is to govern the country and control the country. I've been very encouraged, as I'm sure many have been here, by the civil society protests and outpouring, at considerable cost and risk to themselves, of those people in Myanmar who, although only relatively recently versed in democracy and the freedoms that come with it, have proven to be so brave in seeking to defend and hold on to those freedoms themselves. They deserve our strong support and encouragement to ensure that they are able to continue to exercise their right to peaceful protest. I'll continue to take a close interest in this issue.
I thank the member for Bendigo for raising this important motion before the House. Clearly, the recent developments in Myanmar are a concern for all of us. The military coup has seen the armed services effectively seize control of the country and detain many of the political and social leaders of Myanmar. The military coup represents an assault on Myanmar's transition to democracy, and certainly an assault on the rule of law, with the military overthrowing a legitimate government, ousting the state counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi, and placing her under house arrest and detention.
The military coup ends a decade-old, fragile democracy. The people of Myanmar are certainly experiencing mass disruption and protests across the nation, which are now being met by the armed forces with violence and aggression. Only recently—as a matter of fact, only yesterday—I learnt of two people being killed and 20-odd being hospitalised as a result of military action taken against protesters. Australia has always been a good friend to Myanmar. We've wished it well in terms of developing its own democracy, and therefore the welfare of the people of Myanmar has always been central to our country as well.
For many, the military coup has revived memories of the bloody outbreaks of the opposition almost 30 years ago, where the armed forces, again, led a fearful campaign in Myanmar. As one local resident put it to the BBC:
Waking up to learn your world has been completely turned upside down overnight was not a new feeling, but a feeling that I thought that we had moved on from, and one that I never thought we'd be forced to feel again.
These are the feelings of apprehension, anger and disappointment engulfing the people of Myanmar as they come to terms with the military's betrayal and their loss of a hard-fought battle to establish a democracy.
Furthermore, the military coup in Myanmar raises significant concerns not only for the remaining Rohingya population but also for the many ethnic groups that live in the country, as Dan Sullivan from Refugees International highlights, noting that another mass expulsion remains a real possibility. This puts further strains on an already overburdened humanitarian response resulting from the displacement of over 700,000 Rohingya seeking refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh. We must remember that this is the same military that committed the genocide and mass atrocities against the Rohingya that has perpetrated this coup in Myanmar.
Evidence from a number of investigations by Human Rights Watch has documented extrajudicial killings, torture, destruction, takeover of villages, endemic rape and sexual violence, and these have all been laid at the feet of the Myanmar military. Given Aung San Suu Kyi, who I and many supported in marches years back, turned what can only be considered an apparent blind eye to the genocides occurring under her watch and given her failure to acknowledge any of these atrocities, even seeking the assistance of the international community at the time, she must bear some responsibility for the current state of affairs.
The situation in Myanmar is a collective international failure, with the Myanmar military clearly being emboldened by the distinct lack of action taken by the global community when it came to its campaign of ethnic cleansing. In light of the escalating crisis in Myanmar, I join with many of the humanitarian organisations, including Amnesty International, and call on the Australian government to review its defence cooperation with Myanmar and to suspend its military aid to that country. Clearly this is a case that warrants targeted sanctions against the senior members of the military responsible for the coup and also those responsible for the atrocities against the Rohingya and other minorities. It's also clear to me this is an example of why Australia should effectively legislate Magnitsky-style legislation. We should never be timid when it comes to calling out human rights violations.
Order! The honourable member's time has expired. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the economic and personal impact of state government international arrival caps, including;
(a) economic costs of skilled visa workers and international students; and
(b) personal and mental health costs for stranded Australian citizens; and
(2) urges state governments to review their caps on a weekly basis and initiate training of quarantine staff, so that industry-led, large-scale quarantine arrangements can be in place before the next calendar year.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
This important motion was actually drafted nearly six months ago, recognising the failure of a nation that shut down its international borders early only to see so much of that early intervention unravelled by very, very slow, tardy hotel quarantine that has cost us most of our international student sector, those on skilled visas and, of course, almost all of our inbound tourism. Before we get the guns out—and this is particularly a message to my friend the member for Bruce—this is not a partisan motion. This looks purely at the activities of all levels of government, state and federal, and all jurisdictions.
Back in March, I noted publicly on Twitter that we as a state could get the first wave of coronavirus under control within three to four weeks, and I was a couple of days out. At that point, on 25 April last year, we should have been well on the way to developing an industrialised level of hotel quarantine that could get our economy back on track. It's so tragic that 12 months on that still hasn't happened—hence today's motion looking at the massive economic costs, the loss of skilled workers that we so badly need not only on our farms but in our industries, the annihilation of our inbound international education and, finally, the fact that we just need to get real and understand that hotel quarantine and international movement is inevitably going to have to come back while we manage COVID, and we have to be skilled enough to be able to do it.
I note the current microscopic levels of hotel quarantine in the major states and New South Wales bearing almost 50 per cent of the burden. Before I get too partisan, I don't care who runs that state; having 3,000 inbound per week is an amazing effort. Victoria is at 1,100; they've got some making up to do, and they're not doing it. There are 1,000 in Queensland, having come up from 800. South Australia is at 530. WA has a Premier seeking re-election. I say to the Premier of WA: what a pea hearted effort that your state has done nothing to pick up the slack for a Labor colleague who fell over in Victoria. You are taking in just 512 people per week. It's unbelievably pea hearted in both courage and compassion to be making such an invidiously simple effort at letting people back in. That is simply not enough to run any kind of economy. Cruising on your mineral wealth is one thing; not standing up as part of a national cabinet is another.
Let's turn to Queensland. In the Hotel Grand Chancellor outbreak, we had a couple of infections that came from two hotel rooms on opposite sides of a non-CCTV-monitored corridor, and then an outbreak from one of that hotel's workers. People were talking about the fruitcake possibility of it moving through the air conditioning, as if it goes from one room, across the corridor, and into that room and nowhere else. Of course, after a month's police investigation in Queensland, that was ruled out. It was dirty hands and gloves, and touching handles. It raises the question: are we paying our workers sufficiently to be properly infection controlled and trained? And the answer is we haven't seen any form of increase in infection-control training in the states where we need it most. It shows a general lack of political will to increase hotel quarantine. Once it's under control and there's no community spread, of course you need to be increasing your hotel quarantine numbers week by week, nudging those up to meet the global demand—because those people, 300,000 of them, eventually citizens, want to come home.
I'll criticise my own government. We haven't been clear enough in identifying those who need to come back on compassionate grounds, we've left too much to self-assessment and we've left too many people with genuine grounds stuck overseas, while others who are pulling the passport out from under the mattress after 12 months and want to come back and see family make up their story and get in. That's not good enough either. This is an all-of-party, all-of-government criticism.
But, I tell you what, when we review our performance, one year and five years from today, we'll look back at these brain-fades—like setting up a Toowoomba hotel quarantine system in the middle of nowhere, simply because one of your workers had dirty gloves and suddenly you're forcing it on Toowoomba. The Premier of Queensland genuinely let down the public, particularly the people of Toowoomba, by not coming up with a clear, detailed proposition for how they do it. You don't need to be spooked by hotel quarantine; you're only using, what, 20 hotels out of the 1,900 hotels there are in Queensland. We've got 30 million to 50 million hotel nights a year up there in Queensland. We can do so much better as a state. We can run our economy so much better.
The Mint can't print enough money to make up for this economic damage from states of all colours. And I do want to congratulate the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. There's a Labor leader who's actually got some guts and is showing some heart and some ticker with Howard Springs. So, other states, lift your game! South Australia tried; they got knocked down unfairly because of international students. Every state can do better, starting this week.
Isn't this fantastic—a motion about quarantine and borders, and it's all about the states! Ten out of 10 for the creative nonsense and blame-shifting that this motion is. It continues the Morrison government's slippery slope to blame-shift everything onto the states.
In case anyone read the Australian Constitution and thought the Commonwealth was actually responsible for quarantine, borders and international arrivals, the motion tells us it's the states' fault that there are 41,000 stranded Australians. It's not the Commonwealth government's fault; it's the states' fault. It's the states' fault that tens of thousands of partners, husbands, wives and children of Australians are stuck overseas. It's the states' fault that international students aren't allowed to come to Australia and we're literally destroying—annihilating, to use your words, Member for Bowman—the international education industry. I was left wondering, wishing, 'If only we had a national government that was actually responsible for the stuff they're responsible for if you read the Constitution!' Seriously. This motion is no, no, no, no. The fact is that the Morrison government is responsible for quarantine and borders.
In the last three months, every one of Australia's biggest five cities has had outbreaks from quarantine, and—I agree with the member opposite—the social and the economic disruption that this has caused is profound. Australians are losing patience. But to keep blaming the states, playing the blame game, is not the answer. Let's be clear, the Commonwealth government are responsible for quarantine. It's in the Constitution. The Commonwealth has always had responsibility for quarantine and international borders. If you're an animal, a dog or a cat or a horse, you go from the airport to the Commonwealth quarantine facility. But, if you're a person, apparently it's the states' problem.
When it really matters, the Prime Minister runs away—not literally to Hawaii this time; he's running away from responsibility. You wouldn't find a politician in this parliament, not one, that has banged on more about how he's in control of the borders. He's going to keep us safe. He's going to manage the borders and keep all those nasties out. He turned away the boats, but he's turned his back on 41,000 Australians who are desperate to come home. They were going to be home by Christmas, weren't they? How did that go? That was an untruth if ever there was one. It was just a line in a press conference; just an announcement that we did not deliver. But it's not his fault of course. He's just an impotent, poor little man. He's not in charge of anything. He just wanders out with all the flags behind him and announces whatever the premiers agree to. That's not leadership.
The previous speaker went on about for the need for training and infection control and workforce. I agree. All of these things are in the report that has been on the Prime Minister's desk—the report from Jane Halton that he commissioned himself. It's called the National Review of Hotel Quarantine. It says that national standards, a workforce plan for quarantine, consistent standards for PPE and infection control training are needed. It's fun to bash the states and Dan in Victoria and all your favourite little enemies, but it is way past time to act. The report has not been responded to. It's sitting on the Prime Minister's desk, saying to do all this stuff. They haven't done anything. They just wander out and blame the states. The health of the Australians and the economy depend on the government acting on it.
I agree with the previous speaker that we are still going to need hotel quarantine in the coming months—maybe for a couple of years; we don't know—because no-one is safe from this virus until everyone in the world is safe. That's the truth of it. That's what we get told by the international development experts and by the health experts: that the whole world needs to be vaccinated so we don't have reservoirs of this virus mutating into more infectious strains. So we are going to need these facilities. But it's way past time that we look at dedicated national facilities outside capital cities and national standards for PPE.
The final thing I want to acknowledge and call out is that it's the height of hypocrisy for any government member to profess care and concern for international students, when they're led by a man who told students to literally go home—he made people feel so unwelcome in this country—and has done nothing for the international education sector, which is our fourth-biggest export sector. Tourism got $240 million of support in the budget. What did international education get? Zero dollars; literally nothing. It's all very funny for the government to say. 'Oh, we're not going to help universities. Ha, ha, ha; they'll lose jobs. Silly universities. We don't like universities,' but what about the reputable private businesses that are literally facing the cliff in July? They are literally going to go broke—and this government does nothing. It's not good enough to blame the states. You've got to take responsibility.
Well, this is the second time I've stood in this place to hear the opposition effectively say that quarantine is the responsibility of the federal government, when we know that, when Ruby Princess had the enormous implications it had, which was a disaster for New South Wales, it was then identified very, very clearly that the states were taking over the control of the health orders and that, once the health orders were in place, they took over controls around those health orders, which entailed taking over responsibility of quarantine. This has been proven beyond any doubt.
It's quite comical and childlike that we have politicians from the Labor Party come into this place and try to say that, because it's in the Constitution, it is so. But the states have all taken full responsibility over the health orders that are applied to quarantining arrangements. They have taken over full control. That has been proven again by the fact that, when Queensland needed fruit pickers, the Queensland government were able to put in place a fruit-picking regime. They went and sourced the people from the Pacific Island nations to pick the fruit. They brought them out and they made them quarantine on farm. All these arrangements were put in place by the Queensland government. The federal government was there to stamp any visa, to agree with any part of the arrangement that needed to be put in place. The federal government was helpful. When the Northern Territory government needed mango pickers, again, they went and sourced the workers, to come in and pick the fruit. They had them quarantine at Howard Springs. Again, the federal government was there with them all the way to facilitate each and every action that was needed.
For the opposition to make the claim that the fact that we don't have another 15,000 or 20,000 fruit pickers in Victoria or New South Wales is somehow or other due to the inaction of the federal government is ridiculous. We have done everything we possibly can to assist these state governments, and these state governments are more or less saying, 'It's the fault of the federal government because you haven't been able to encourage the Australians to come and pick the fruit.' We've been telling these state governments for the last 10 months that the Australians wouldn't do it. You can put in place every incentive in the world—the Australians will not get off the couch and come and pick the fruit. If you want to save the hundreds of millions of dollars of fruit, of produce, that is going to be wasted, you, as the Victorian government, are going to have to get off your backside and go and source a labour force. And that labour force exists in the Pacific island nations, which are free of the virus.
We can go into countries where the virus is rife and bring in tennis players and those tennis players' entourage, knowing that that carries a real risk of bringing the virus back into Australia. But we can't possibly go and get fruit pickers from Pacific island nations that are free of the virus!
One of the most horrific failures of any government was what the Dan Andrews government didn't do in relation to this fruit season. We are still seeing the damage and the absolute disaster from the inaction of the Victorian government. This has cost literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Plus, there are now thousands of tonnes of fruit sitting in the orchards, and that is going to be a real disaster when it comes to trying to prevent Queensland fruit fly. Queensland fruit flies will make their nests and lay their eggs in that fruit and then they will get the biggest kickstart they've ever had, because we simply have so much rotting fruit lying on the ground.
So it is again quite comical that the member here has put this motion up simply to put it on the record that, when we had this second lockdown, when we had the most dramatic quarantine failure by the Dan Andrews government, we went for months not bring anybody back into Australia—we couldn't bring anybody back in, unless they flew in via Sydney—and yet we still had the worst record in the nation. Then we had the third lockdown because of more quarantine failures. Now we've gone to zero, so we're happy in Victoria.
Dan Andrews is happy for everybody else to do the heavy lifting when it comes to bringing Australians back, but he won't bring the fruit-pickers in and he won't bring in returning travellers, who are going through a horrible time in these other countries and are just desperate to try to get back to Australia. Thanks for nothing!
What a bizarre motion this is! And what a bizarre performance from speakers opposite, for them to come in here and have the audacity to lay the blame at the state government's feet for conditions which are worsening day by day because of their inaction—their inaction in response to reports which they themselves have commissioned!
This motion would have made a lot more sense before 1 January 1901. But in the intervening period a small thing happened: the nation of Australia was formed. I want to refer to a particular document that is relevant to the creation of that nation. It's a document called the Constitution. Those opposite keep referring to this document as a 'technicality'—it's a 'technicality' that certain things are referred to in the Constitution—but in fact it lays the bedrock of how different governments assume responsibilities for different actions within this country.
Let's talk about one section in that document: section 51. I want to quote three words that are referred to specifically—three heads of power: one is 'quarantine'; another is 'immigration' and another is 'emigration'. There's another section of the Constitution, section 109, and what section 109 says is that there are some parts of legislative responsibility for which both the Commonwealth and the states can have joint responsibility, but, where there is a conflict, it's the Commonwealth's legislation and the Commonwealth's actions which take precedence, particularly where the Commonwealth covers the field.
This is an area where, if you went into the street and you said to most people, pre-COVID: 'We are going to be subject to one of the worst pandemics in history and facing the challenge of trying to safely bring back tens of thousands of Australians,' I suspect their initial reaction would not have been that the response should be put down to state governments having to manage this in ad hoc arrangements through a whole range of inner city hotels. They would have said: 'I would much prefer, and expect, this to be dealt with through a national response,' and that is indeed what we see recommended in the Halton report. Section 109 specifically says that if the Commonwealth had stepped in its response would have taken precedence over whatever the states had done. If we had have had national leadership, it would have taken precedence and would have been given effect to. But, instead, because the Commonwealth rather than filling the field had left the field before the game even started, we've had to have states do all the heavy lifting. Then this crowd comes in, and all they can do in response to the states having done the best that they could is to criticise them. In fact, what the Commonwealth should have done first is manage all the various risks in an appropriate and coordinated way in relation to the many thousands of Australians who had to come home. These risks included the wellbeing of the people coming back and the fact that they were going to have to go through quarantine. Their physical and mental health wellbeing were risks which should have been managed in a nationally coordinated way.
Then, of course, there was the risk to the broader community, which, again, should have been coordinated in a national manner. Instead, what we had from those opposite was to push all the responsibility onto the states and then for the Prime Minister to blithely make promises he didn't keep and probably never intended to keep—that 'all Australians would be home by Christmas', something which he hoped the news caravan would move on from. He got nowhere close to that; tens of thousands of Australians are still overseas, many of whom live in my electorate—many of whom would like to be living in my electorate!—but are stuck overseas—
And what was Dan's response? Did they say 'Lock them out'? That is a despicable attack!
Order!
It's interesting that those opposite can't control their emotions because they feel guilty at the inaction of this government and how so much more could and should have been done. It was a failure to act by this government. Let's look at their actions compared to the recommendations of the Halton report. Rather than putting a petty motion forward like this, what you should be doing is coming here and explaining what you have done in relation to recommendation 4 of the Halton report, which said, 'Options for new models of quarantine should be developed …' What have you done?
And, in relation to recommendation 6:
The Australian Government should consider the establishment a national facility for quarantine to be used for emergency situations, emergency evacuations or urgent scalability—
what have you done? Rather than a pathetic petty motion blaming other levels of government, come in here and explain what you've done for the benefit of tens of thousands of Australians stuck overseas because of your inaction.
Opposition members: Hear, hear!
Do my ears deceive me? I just heard a long rant from the member for Fraser, and all he talked about was the incompetence of the Victorian state government on their management of hotel quarantine. As a former member of that state government, I don't want to disabuse him of that notion but it's very rare we come into this chamber and we have such honesty from the member for Fraser, who used to sit in the Victorian parliament egged on and applauded on by Dan Andrews' chief adviser, the Premier of Victoria's chief adviser, the member now for McNamara. So I welcome their contribution to this debate in saying the state government of Victoria has failed.
I can tell you, Deputy Speaker, the people know the state government of Victoria has failed, not just failed but failed the people and their abilities through the lockdowns that have followed through from their incompetence and mismanagement of the hotel quarantine scheme. So this admission of honesty is welcome; it's a well spring of ideas and generosity. But, frankly, it comes with a tinge of sadness, because we all accept that there are Australians overseas and we desperately want to get them home. This has been one of the key focuses of the Morrison government: we've provided surge capacity and had repatriation flights—that is, surge capacity around facilitating quarantine where we can in places like Howard Springs—entirely consistent with the recommendations of independent reviews but we've also turned and worked with the states in a cooperative way to say, 'You have to be part of this solution, because we don't have all these facilities, we don't have the workforce and we need to utilise it.'
There is one state that has consistently stood out in letting Team Australia down. As the member for Fraser correctly points out, with the support of the member for Macnamara, it has been the great state of Victoria. New South Wales has accepted four times the number of people who have gone through the hotel quarantine scheme. We take our hat off to the people of New South Wales and the state government of New South Wales because they showed it was possible, working with the Commonwealth to get the right outcomes for Australians.
Is it really a surprise that there are still, sadly, Australians overseas? We work with them every day in the Goldstein office, and I know the member for Chisholm would do the same, as would the members for Moncrieff, Bowman and everywhere else—and maybe even some on the other side of the chamber too. Australians are still stuck over there because Melbourne Airport, the second-busiest airport in the country, was shut down for so long last year. But, even more egregious than that, even more outrageous than that—let's go right to it: even more despicable than that, the recent intervention by the Premier of Victoria was to say to Australians living overseas, 'Go and get stuffed,' giving them the one-finger salute and saying that they are not allowed—
Order! The member for Goldstein will withdraw that comment.
I will withdraw. But there is the despicable behaviour that has occurred, where he said, 'We've got to keep open the option of shutting down access to our country,' denying Australian citizens the right to return to their own nation. The member for Fraser and the member for Macnamara applauded it every step of the way because they don't care about returning Australians, which is why they run interference. It is disgraceful for an Australian politician to even discuss the option of denying citizens their right of return—their right to enter their own country. It is one of the most despicable political acts I have ever heard of. It is completely contrary to what this government has been focussed on doing. What we've seen is more and more Australians trying to get home, and the response from the Victorian Premier is to tell them that they are not welcome in their own country.
We make no apology for standing up and making the case for making sure Australians can come home. We make no apology for saying that we have to be part of the solution, working with the states. But we will not be lectured to by the opposition—including members who used to be part of the government that is betraying the people of Australia—saying they are not welcome in their own country. The member for Macnamara should know better because he's a former adviser to the Premier, calling him out and saying his conduct is disgraceful. We're on the side of Australians, we're on the side of them coming home, and we're going to keep doing that so that Australians can enter their country.
There are moments in this place when hypocrisy knows no bounds, and this motion is one of those moments. Let me take you back to when we were in the middle of stage 4 lockdown in Victoria. Things were pretty rough. Families were distressed and there were a lot of COVID cases. The contact tracers were struggling to keep up with demand, and eventually we saw the Victorian case numbers come down. What did we get from the federal government? We got a press release from the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health saying that Victoria should be acting more like New South Wales and that they don't support the measures of the Victorian government—essentially, that Victorians were on their own and that Victorian tracing wasn't up to their standards. The most astounding thing, other than the diminishing role of the federal government, was that their answer, their excuse and their attempt at contact tracing was the $70 million contact tracing app. We all remember that app, don't we? That was a massive help during this pandemic! That was sold by the Prime Minister as our ticket out of lockdown, our ticket to freedom—by the marketing Prime Minister. We remember that. Of course, that turned out to be a complete dud, and it reflects the contribution of the federal government.
We want to talk about Australians being stuck overseas. We came to the table with a constructive suggestion, as we have throughout the entire pandemic. What was the suggestion by the federal Labor Party? It was: 'You have a fleet of government jets, the RAAF jets. Remember those jets that you've got that you sometimes fly around the country on? Why don't we send those jets overseas and bring Australians back?' Of course, they didn't send a single jet—not one single jet—to go and get Australians back.
But they did use the jets. The jets were occupied. They obviously thought there was a better reason to use those jets. What were those RAAF jets doing over the coronavirus lockdown, member for Bowman? The first thing one was doing was flying the Minister for Home Affairs to launch his grants that hadn't actually been approved by the guidelines for the Safer Communities Fund. He was taking an RAAF jet to announce grants for things that weren't even approved in guidelines. The other thing that they happened to use an RAAF jet for was Mathias Cormann's job interview in the OECD. The hypocrisy is ridiculous. They'll use government planes to get Mathias Cormann a job but now they're complaining that they didn't bring Australians back from overseas. What nonsense! What rubbish! You literally have more government resources at your disposal than all of the other forms and layers of government combined—and what do you do with it? You send your mates to Europe to try get them a job.
Let's just hope that the incompetency and unwillingness to take responsibility doesn't extend to the vaccine. Hopefully, with the help of our health authorities and our incredible health workers across the country, we actually get that right. But, if you look at the other ways in which they've contributed to this pandemic, it has been shambolic. It has been void of responsibility. They had JobKeeper, which they are now pulling from businesses when businesses are still relying on it—not to mention the $70 billion that they happened to lose on a spreadsheet; let's park that ridiculous accounting error to the side.
When it comes to quarantining, this is clearly a federal government responsibly. Of course the federal government could set up their own quarantining arrangements. Of course the federal government could do as the states have done and set up quarantining arrangements outside our capital cities. Of course the federal government could spend money on quarantining. They do it all the time. They do it in so many different circumstances. The fact that the Prime Minister organised a review into quarantine and got handed a report—this isn't our review; this isn't the state governments' review; this is the Prime Minister's review. The report said that there should be national standards and that there should be national quarantining. What's the response? They walk away from responsibility, they walk away from actually doing anything and they blame the Labor states. Victorians and all of the other people around the country are absolutely sick of it.
I am proud of the Morrison government for working with the state governments that are willing to work with the federal government to bring Australians home. Australia has gone through thick and thin over the course of COVID-19. I know this period hasn't been easy on any Australians. It is a blessing that it looks like we have almost made it through to the other side of this difficult period. I believe that part of our ability to overcome this virus as a people has been our ability to unite. We look out for each other in Australia; it's what allows us to go through some of the toughest times and emerge stronger and more resilient than before. I'm sad to say that some Australians have not been afforded the luxury of support from their fellow citizens, and still aren't. There are still a number of vulnerable Australians stuck overseas.
As I say this, the Australian government continues to work tirelessly with jurisdictions to bring these people back home. Some jurisdictions have been much more helpful than others in helping to bring fellow Australians home. On this note, I want to give a special shout-out to both the Northern Territory and Tasmania, who have consistently and productively worked with the Australian government to repatriate Australians returning from overseas. The Morrison government entered into bilateral agreements with both the Northern Territory and Tasmania. The Northern Territory agreement supports the return of 850 Australians per fortnight and will remain in place until 31 December 2021. This means that more Australians can return home. They can return home to their friends and family, who, I'm sure, have sorely missed them. They can return home to a nation that has the rare luxury of remaining almost entirely COVID-19 free. I feel the plight of these Australians and remain thankful for the Northern Territory's contributions in helping this to happen, and thankful to the Morrison government for contributing an estimated $243 million.
In addition, the Morrison government is working with the Northern Territory on options to further safely expand the capacity at Howard Springs, the quarantine facility dubbed as the gold standard of quarantine facilities. It's important to note that, while hotel quarantine arrangements are predominantly a matter for state and territory governments—as each jurisdiction is responsible for managing their COVID-19 response under its public health legislation—the Morrison government is committed to supporting these programs as best it can.
As I said, though, the Northern Territory is not the only state endeavouring to bring Australians home. Under the Tasmanian government, the state will support the return of up to 450 Australians over three flights, with financial support from the Morrison government estimated to be up to $7 million. Let's not forget the important role New South Wales has taken in bringing Australians home as well. One of the benefits of maintaining the world gold standard of COVID-19 contact tracing means that they can comfortably accept those returning home, without putting their state at risk.
Supporting all Australians in this time of need is imperative. I'm thankful to the states and territories, as well as our federal government, for doing all they can to support these Australians coming in from overseas. It is my wish that those states who haven't worked with the federal government to reach a meaningful solution on returning citizens are able to bring their facilities up to gold standard and start supporting their fellow citizens desperate to return.
This motion is an absolutely unmitigated and unqualified absurdity. It attempts to blame the states, particularly the Labor states, for a responsibility that lies squarely with the federal government: responsibility for quarantine. Section 51 of part V of the Australian Constitution enshrines this responsibility, making the Morrison government exclusively responsible for quarantine. This motion criticises the states for not doing enough, and it is the federal government that is not doing enough. The Morrison government should be taking a leadership role, creating overarching quarantine arrangements—their own review recommends this—and supporting the states, rather than coming to this House and placing blame. Thousands of Australians have spent far too long stranded overseas because this government is not doing its job during a deadly pandemic. On 18 September the Prime Minister said he understood the problem. On 18 September the Prime Minister promised to fix it. But there are still Australians overseas, crashing on couches, extremely financially stressed, and people who need medical care who have lost thousands of dollars in cancelled flights.
I've heard many tragic personal stories from constituents of my electorate who are stuck overseas. Those who have made it back have made it back because the state government has acted when the federal government has not. A humanitarian worker from Anglesea, on the Great Ocean Road, spent the past year selflessly giving of himself to limit the destructive impact of COVID-19 in Africa. Ian Dawes had been stuck in the Middle East with no return date. He and his wife were growing increasingly anxious as their visa expiry date neared. Ian was in South Sudan and Iraq doing humanitarian work before becoming blocked from returning home from Duhok. Ian asked my office a very sensible question: 'A major concern is that, if I cannot go home, where am I expected to travel after Iraq? Why does the government assume other countries would allow me entry when my own country won't?' Ian is just one of many, many constituents that have called, emailed, written and Zoomed my office to seek support where this government has failed in its duty. Ian is home now because he was quarantined by the state government in Adelaide, no thanks the federal government.
Labor has a suggestion: the federal government must step up and do all it can to safely get Australians home. There are several different models of air mobility craft in the Royal Air Force. There is a built-for-purpose COVID field hospital only eight kilometres from here in the ACT that the territory government constructed in 37 days. There are spacious and sweeping areas with no standing population across this great country. The task is challenging, to be sure, but it is the federal government's job. If the Morrison government wanted to solve this problem, they would have already solved it, but they don't want to. The priority of the government is playing politics and blaming others instead of helping those who need it. So let's not play politics. Let's put the safety, the health of people and the return of citizens from overseas first. Let's see this leadership from our federal government. It is their job.
I thank my good friend the member for Bowman for putting forward this motion. It's a topic that I have spoken about time and time again up until now. Our priority is of course to get Australians home. To do this, we must have all states working together towards being able to successfully quarantine as many international arrivals as possible.
Since March last year, we have seen over 211,000 Australians return home, but there are still many Australians and their families separated and hurting. The last 12 months dealing with the COVID pandemic have been difficult for all of us. But, as I know many members in this Chamber would know, some of the most difficult calls we have had to make and listen through have been from constituents whose family members have been stranded overseas, constantly searching for new flights to open up only to have them booked out or cancelled, having flights stopped or changed due to changing quarantine conditions from their country of origin. Whether it be a mum, a dad, a son, a daughter or a friend, it's incredibly stressful. It's impacting many families across our community as they struggle to be reunited.
We know many made the decision, when the pandemic first started, to stay where they were. We respect this decision. But of course it's been over 12 months now. Lives change and elements of your family and your situation change, and that has led many to try to come back. While there are many elements we cannot control—like overseas airlines putting in place restrictions about transiting through other countries—we can help Aussies get home by having sensible and effective quarantine arrangements in place in all states.
We have seen it can be done. This is not beyond our ability. New South Wales has been a standout during this process and has done the heavy lifting when it has come to international arrivals. They still do. Those on the other side of the Chamber, the Labor MPs, are having a little giggle to themselves, but these are the numbers, plain and simple. You can hear them for yourselves. New South Wales takes in 430 passengers per day, compared to my home state of Queensland, which takes in just 1,000 a week. That's 1,000 a week versus 430 per day. WA takes in just 512 a week. WA is hardly taking more in a whole week than New South Wales is taking in a day. That's not to make a political point.
An opposition member interjecting—
I don't say which side of politics either of those premiers who run those states are on. If the Labor MPs opposite are feeling a bit worried about it, it's because they have noticed the trend that these are all Labor premiers. This need not be a political issue. The success of New South Wales, with their gold standard contact tracing, has shown how it can be done. Having a contact-tracing system in place that works has meant New South Wales can continue to take more international arrivals, because they have faith in their capacity to deal with any issues that may arise.
Let's contrast this to my home state of Queensland, where we are still taking far fewer than New South Wales. In Queensland we had a case where a hotel quarantine worker contracted the virus. Within just six hours notice, Brisbane city was put into a lockdown and masks were made mandatory. So tough were these restrictions that people were told to wear masks in their car when travelling alone. The reason for this snap lockdown was that the Queensland government had so little faith in their contact tracing that we were told there were no other options but to lock down the city while the government scrambled to identify close contacts. The impacts of this snap lockdown were significant. They shouldn't be mocked by the Labor MPs opposite. There were businesses who had ordered all their fresh produce and had to tip it in the bin, restaurants who had to cancel a long weekend's full of bookings and tourism operators, like those in the member for Moncrieff's area, who lost another long weekend of takings.
Of course, the broader implications speak to confidence. The businesses that rely on domestic tourism and this confidence face yet more difficulties. After this lockdown, the Queensland Premier spoke about looking at a regional facility to facilitate quarantine. But like a lot of announcements the Queensland Premier's made, it just came short on detail. It wasn't much more than a thought bubble and a few dot points written down. As we progress into the future we must look at increasing international arrivals overall. It's time for the Queensland state government and other state governments to look at the New South Wales example. For us all to work together, we have a gold standard there that we can point to. If we work together, we can help lift these caps and get more Aussies home.
I support part of the intent of what the member for Bowman is attempting to achieve here in advocating for the repatriation of Australian citizens and residents who are stranded overseas. I want to acknowledge all those from both sides who have acknowledged the role that the Northern Territory has played during the pandemic to get Australians home.
Like most Australians, I know that this crisis has caused a lot of disruption to Australian families. Too many Australians are still stuck overseas looking for that rare but often very expensive opportunity to get home. Our Australian citizens are stuck, still. I thought they were meant to be getting home by Christmas, but they're still stuck. Our economy is also missing people, whether they be skilled visa workers or international students. There's a not a single member of this place that hasn't heard from a constituent that's trapped overseas or from their loved ones that are worried sick. So obviously it's a very difficult situation.
I've been encouraging the federal government to increase the capacity at Howard Springs in Darwin from the start. This was months and months ago. It was very slow to occur. Some expansion has happened now, which is a good thing, but the member for Bowman refers to the impact of state governments in international arrival caps and urges state governments to review their caps. But I think, if I can be bipartisan for a second, the problem here is not state governments, Liberal or Labor. They've simply filled a vacuum that's been made by a lack of leadership by those opposite, by the federal government. The ultimate responsibility for entry and exit into this country and for quarantine lies exclusively with the federal government. I know this because I've taken the time to read a book. The book is called the Australian Constitution. It's a cracking read, and I wholeheartedly recommend it to those opposite. If I can—not to use it as a prop—quote from part 5 section 51, 'legislative powers of the parliament', it includes 'quarantine' as a federal responsibility. It goes further in subsection (xxvii) to include 'immigration and emigration'. Immigration and emigration are a federal responsibility. That's from the Australian Constitution right there. It's pretty unambiguous. My message is simply this: the Commonwealth government has full responsibility for who may enter or exit our nation. The quarantining of people is entirely an issue for the federal government, obviously to work with the states and territories. In normal circumstances, when you fly into Darwin, whether it be from Dili, Singapore or Denpasar, it is Commonwealth public servants who are there monitoring the comings and goings of our nation, obviously. Quarantine is also done by federal public servants, because, as I just said, the constitution sets out that it is a federal responsibility.
State and territory governments have been left to arrange quarantine and international arrival caps just because of the political opportunism from the Prime Minister and from those opposite. They saw an opportunity to have fights with the states and territories when they wanted to. Thankfully, in the case of the Northern Territory, there was a higher purpose—that of getting as many people back to Australia as possible. But I am really disappointed that the federal government has shirked its responsibilities. I am glad it is working constructively with the NT government. I just want to say about the NT government that they have done an excellent job, working cooperatively with the federal government and maximising the numbers of Australians that we could get back. There's more that they could do in Darwin; there are more facilities there that could be used to get more Australians back.
So leadership in a crisis is important, and good leadership makes all the difference between either surviving a crisis or succumbing to it. I think, overall, we've seen pretty good leadership from state and territory governments, but they've had to step up and assume matters for which they are not normally responsible. The Commonwealth government, unfortunately, has not shown leadership. I know that that will be the judgement of history: that the federal government failed to step up. And I encourage them to do so, because there are still more Aussies stranded overseas.
There being no further speakers on this particular debate, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by Mr Anthony Albanese, the Leader of the Opposition, that acknowledged that, on 13 February, back in 2008, the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, made a national apology to the stolen generations on behalf of the parliament and the nation. That motion also recognised the importance of closing the gap and reaffirmed Labor's and indeed this parliament's commitment to closing the gap.
I have risen in this House to speak on closing the gap every year since I was elected back in 2013, and I can't begin to tell you how frustrating it is that we've continuously failed to reach the targets that were set for us in this parliament. There were targets covering many areas of life and experience for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia in order to close the gap in life expectancy that existed. Yet we have only ever made inroads on two of those seven targets. Only two of those seven targets were on track: the one around meeting the targets for early childhood education, and that is a very hopeful target to meet because you're obviously reaching young boys and girls, the next generation of First Nations people; and the target around year 12 attainment, which, again, is incredibly important, as we know that education is a life-changing experience for many of us. But none of the other targets—the ones around child mortality; literacy, and the reading, writing and numeracy targets; the school attendance targets; the employment targets; the life expectancy targets—were on track. That of course is an utter failure of this parliament. It is completely contrary to the spirit of the national apology and what was said on that day, where we were making a commitment—and it was not a Labor commitment; it was a parliamentary commitment, on behalf of all of the parties in this place—to make good on closing the gap. But we have utterly failed First Nations people in this regard.
We learnt recently that there is now a new negotiation underway, a brand new deal—a brand new day, perhaps—for closing the gap. Although we haven't really seen an evaluation of what happened beforehand, we understand that we now have refreshed targets and some new deadlines that are yet even further away. We didn't have a report to this parliament in line with the anniversary of the national apology this year, and I am gravely worried that this pushing deadlines down the track and setting new targets not be allowed to be some kind of bureaucratic sleight of hand, letting this parliament off the hook again, for yet another decade. I know there will be many colleagues in this place who would be worried if that were to happen. So we will be watching that very closely. We understand that there may be a report coming in August this year on the refreshed targets and the new deadlines, and we'll all be waiting for that moment.
In 2017, the Uluru Statement from the Heart delivered this nation—and indeed this parliament—a serious challenge. It very clearly articulated the need for a First Nations voice, treaty, and truth-telling process in this nation—a constitutionally enshrined voice to this parliament, not some legislative fix, which we know doesn't have the kind of permanency that First Nations people are seeking. I hope that the parliament will be looking very closely at honouring those commitments, that we ensure that we don't let people down again and that we look to a constitutional enshrined voice and institute a treaty and truth-telling process in Australia.
I'm pleased to rise to speak on this motion on closing the gap. Whilst I hear the comments from the other side and acknowledge that there is much to do it, I would like to address one recommendation in particular that I'm lending my support to. I think it's important that we show the positive movements in our electorates in closing the gap. The final recommendation in Closing the gap is:
By 2031, there is a sustained increase in number and strength of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages being spoken.
In that regard, I'd like to thank all the First Nations people, particularly those who give us those most beautiful welcomes to country. Deputy Speaker Gillespie, you would have heard the welcome to country from Uncle Bill in Port Macquarie. It gives you a tiny insight into the connection that our First Nations people have with the land. For those who don't know him, Uncle Bill takes you on a journey that you can see in your mind's eye. It is so important with this Closing the gap recommendation that there is that continued education and, in particular, the continuation and the strengthening of Torres Strait Islander languages.
Earlier this month I had the great pleasure of meeting with Clark Webb, who is the CEO of—and excuse my pronunciation—Bularri Muurlay Nyanggan, which, if said properly, means 'two path strong'. I also met with the language officer, Kaleesha Morris, and the corporate services manager, Christian Lugnan, to discuss not only their achievements but also their goals to ensure our First Nations Goori youth and community are strong in both culture and education. During the meeting it was explained to me that the BMNAC was established in 2010 and that it automatically introduced two schools of Goori Learning Centres. Since then, they have built an organisation, including three learning centres and a cultural revitalisation program. In 2016, they opened two social enterprises, the first one being the Giingan Gumbaynggirr Cultural Experience, which was set up to create a long-term, sustainable financial income stream. All the profits from this go straight back into the programs. The programs are about educating both Indigenous and non-Indigenous about the Gumbaynggirr language and the Gumbaynggirr culture. The second social enterprise—and I've been to this; it's a great place to go, so, if you're in Coffs Harbour, go along to it—is the Nyanggan Gapi Cafe. It's located at the Sealy Lookout in Coffs Harbour. This offers guests the opportunity to sample and see traditional ingredients with a new-age twist, and, again, 100 per cent of the proceeds from catering go back into the corporation to help run core programs, including after-school learning centres and language courses.
Remarkably, regarding the courses that are provided, last year alone 12 students achieved novice status in the mastery of skillsets, and that's 300 or more phrases in Gumbaynggirr. Nine of the students progressed further to a mastered skillset, which allows them to tell stories completely in Gumbaynggirr. Forty-five students have mastered a skillset, and 36 have completed their skillset and are aiming to be fully fluent in 2022. Language acquisition is one of their most important goals, including to have 50 fluent Gumbaynggirr teachers by the end of this year and the launch of a combined immersion school in 2022. As I said to Clark Webb on the day, I'm fully behind this. I think it's so important. It's part of us closing the gap, as per our government incentive.
In recent weeks, I've had the privilege to spend some time with this year's Senior Australian of the Year, Miriam-Rose Ungunmerr Baumann. Miriam-Rose hails from the Nauiyu community, also known as Daly River. It's a couple of hours south of Darwin, at the Top End. She's an amazing woman. When Miriam-Rose was a child, her two-year-old sister Pilawuk White was snatched from her mother's lap—another victim of the stolen generation. Miriam-Rose didn't see her sister for another 14 years. In that time, Pilawuk was sent to a mission on the Tiwi Islands before being taken to Adelaide and adopted by a non-Aboriginal family. Miriam-Rose said:
Through people talking around the community, I learned that Pilawuk was taken for having a white father and was put with a white family to have a better life. Did she?
I guess only Pilawuk herself can answer that. But we do know that taking children from their families and trying to assimilate them was a failed and cruel policy. Taking children away from their mums was not a good thing to do. In many cases, the amputation of those children from their mothers, families, culture and country did immeasurable damage that is still being felt today. The recurring intergenerational trauma has been felt by the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren of the members of the stolen generation. We know that, though decades have passed since that policy ended, we still have so far to go to close the gap. An Apology to the Stolen Generations came late, even in 2008. It was a simple and deeply necessary first step along the long road to healing. But, 13 years later, we haven't got too much further down that road.
It's been 16 years since the Social Justice Report called on Australia to rise up to the challenge of closing that gap. But last year only two of the seven targets were on track. Life expectancy for First Nations Australians still hasn't caught up to that of their non-Indigenous counterparts. Labor support the new approach to closing the gap, and the new targets, but we shouldn't be just renewing targets with deadlines that are even further down the road. There's too much kicking the can down the road. We need to maintain the commitment and do the work today, because, in another 10 years, an entire generation will have passed since we set ourselves this task.
It's been more than three years since the Uluru Statement from the Heart called for a First Nations Voice to Parliament to be enshrined, a treaty to be progressed and truth-telling to occur. Labor is committed to all three of these. First Nations people have told us time and time again, for decades, that, if we want to see real, meaningful, lasting change, then they must be at the centre of decision-making. We won't be able to close the gap and truly right the wrongs of the past until we take that to heart and put it into action, and we could do this before the next election if there was a will from the federal government to do so.
So much has been lost since Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave that apology on behalf of our nation. Last week, I caught up with him; he visited this place—he visited parliament. It was great to see him, but it was also a reminder of how much we have lost, particularly under those opposite, since he gave that apology.
Next month, there is an opportunity for those opposite and for all parliamentarians to contribute to listening to the voices of First Nations people. Next month, ChangeFest is coming to Canberra, so we will all have that opportunity. ChangeFest has a simple goal: for Australia to be a country where all its communities thrive and where children have a safe home, are healthy and educated, and have a strong sense of identity and belonging. I hope all members here will consider listening to what the participants have to say. It will lead to good steps down that long road towards closing the gap. I really want to acknowledge one of my constituents, Catherine Phillips, for the role she's playing in bringing ChangeFest to the hill, bringing ChangeFest and those voices to Parliament House. I encourage all parliamentarians to participate.
In the recent opinion piece by the Hon. Ken Wyatt AM, member for Hasluck and Minister for Indigenous Australians, he wrote:
Wiradjuri Elder Isabel Reid was born in Wagga Wagga in 1932.
One afternoon, she was walking home from school with her brother and sister when she was taken from her family by the government. Her parents did not know what happened to their children.
Aunty Isabel was to become a domestic servant, sent to the Cootamundra Domestic Training Home, where wages for her work were paid to the NSW government.
She was denied the opportunity of a good education, denied a bond to her family, community and country, and was targeted for no other reason than the fact she was Aboriginal.
Today Aunty Isabel is one of the oldest living survivors of the Stolen Generation—
and last month Ken was able to meet and talk with her in Canberra, as she was honoured as the New South Wales Senior Australian of the Year and nominated for Senior Australian of the Year. He wrote:
She reflected on her own journey, "My life is pretty simple, what I do, I do for my community and for all the children out there that need the helping hand that I didn't get way back then."
She was one of thousands. It's unimaginable for us that our children could disappear off the street and we wouldn't know where they'd gone.
I've lived my whole time as a parliamentarian through all the processes of denial and obfuscation, of saying that they were doing the right thing at the time, of people saying, 'But they were good people, trying to do the right thing.' No, they were mistakes. When the apology came, from Kevin Rudd—and I was there that day—in that moment, I really thought, 'This is the day when the world changes for Indigenous people.' I really believed that.
I read an article today from Ross Gittins that talked about Philip Lowe's management of the economy and how the management is not to make it any worse than it already is, not to make the difficulties we're facing any worse than they already are. What has management done in Indigenous affairs since the apology? I think all we've achieved, if anything, is not to make it worse than it was. All the indicators tell you we haven't made it better, we haven't broken through the barrier and we haven't changed things for so many people.
My support for the Uluru Statement from the Heart caused some controversy. I have no idea why, because it seems to me a no-brainer that we give a voice. We talk about treaty, and we talk about truth telling. The truth is: we've got it wrong all the way through. We haven't allowed the Indigenous community to partake in the decision-making of the nation, from Murray-Darling water to the management of the forests to understanding how Australia needs to be farmed in the way they farmed before the British and other nations arrived here. They have been so resilient, still standing today as the oldest culture in the world. They're knocked about. They're not in good nick. Their children are not getting the education they should be getting. Their adults are not getting the opportunities they should be receiving from this nation.
It's not about money; it's about recognition of the past and bravely facing the present and the future. These things are not hard, but they are difficult. They're difficult for us to achieve in a community that desperately needs our statement from our hearts back to them. The Statement from the Heart to us was a generous offer of reconciliation. It's up to us, as this parliament, to resolve our issues and offer them our hearts for a changed world for the future.
There being no further speakers the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
This week we started rolling out the COVID-19 vaccine to aged-care residents and frontline health workers. This is an important milestone for Australia as we continue our economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. It was also pleasing to hear this week that Australia's AAA credit rating has been reaffirmed by Fitch. Australia is just one of nine countries to hold a AAA credit rating from all three major credit rating agencies. But, despite these positive milestones, it's still vital that we continue to back our local producers and manufacturers and support Australian jobs.
Australian made products are synonymous with high quality, safe and ethical goods that support local jobs. I've seen firsthand when visiting manufacturers in my electorate of Longman like Factory Direct 4x4 Exhausts and Roy Gripske & Sons, both in Narangba, how important businesses like these are to the local economy. They create jobs locally as well as further afield through the various supply chains. In fact, manufacturing employs almost 5,000 people in my electorate. To put that in context, the number of people employed in manufacturing in Longman makes up 7.4 per cent of all people employed in local industry jobs. This puts Longman amongst the top tier of electorates in Queensland that are providing manufacturing employment opportunities.
It's not just manufacturers. Longman is also home to some wonderful producers and innovators like Little White Goat Cheese in Wamuran. Little White Goat Cheese owner Karen Lindsay started a few years ago with two goats on a farm. She now has about 100 goats and produces anything from soap to ice cream and custard. She has created the world's first freeze dried goat's feta cheese, which can keep in a pantry for up to a year without spoiling. I've tried this amazing product and can testify: it is delicious. This innovative product is now being sold to a number of high-end restaurants as well IGA supermarkets.
The COVID pandemic also inspired Karen to invent a product called Luv Handles—not the type that I developed over Christmas!—which prevent shoppers from coming into direct contact with the handles on shopping baskets and trolleys. There's no doubt that COVID-19 has presented us with challenges, but it has also presented enormous opportunities for Australian manufacturers and producers. There is no finer example of this than Karen, who has rightly been recognised as a great local businesswoman and innovator. Yet, despite these successes, Australia is still reliant on other countries for many products that could be produced locally.
Nine out of 10 Australians have said that they believe that Australia should produce more products locally. In fact, there has been a groundswell of interest in Australian made products since the start of the pandemic. As the vaccine rolls out, it's vital that we keep Australian products at the forefront of our thinking.
Since the virus hit, 52 per cent of Australians have shown a high preference for Australian made products, and almost half of Australians are more likely to buy more Australian made products. A recent KPMG study found that, if households spent an extra $50 a week buying Australian made goods, it would deliver a $30 billion boost to the nation's COVID-19 recovery and create tens of thousands of jobs. One of my main aspirations in government is to help create more jobs in Longman and reduce the unemployment rate.
This government understands the importance of local manufacturing and has a plan to help local businesses grow, become more resilient and boost global competitiveness. We have committed $5 million over the next four years to promote Australian made products overseas. The Australian Made logo is used by more than 2,800 businesses and is universally recognised by Australian consumers. It has a proven 34-year track record in promoting quality products, and we want to increase the impact of this trusted symbol overseas so our exporters can grow and employ more Australians.
The federal government's $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy will also help to harness Australian manufacturing capability and drive our economic recovery and future resilience. Manufacturing is critical to a modern Australian economy and a vital part of our plan as we emerge from the global COVID-19 pandemic. It is key to almost every supply chain and adds value across all sectors. This strategy recognises that we must play to our strengths and target sectors that allow us to achieve scale and generate future growth. Investments by the Morrison government to support Australian made products and manufacturers will place Australia as a world leader. Our support of the Go Local First campaign is also a positive investment into our local businesses.
Local businesses are the backbone of our communities. When they are going strong, the whole economy and community benefit. As Australia comes through this global pandemic, it's more important than ever to continue supporting Australian made products and our local businesses.
I too rise to recognise the longevity and success of the worldwide renowned Australian Made, Australian Grown logo. Without a doubt, it's Australia's most trusted, most recognised and most widely used country-of-origin symbol. Today it is used to brand not only Australian made products but also Australian produce, seafood and many other things. It's used by more than 2,600 businesses on over 16,000 products that are sold in Australia and exported to markets around the world. It almost has a 100 per cent consumer recognition rate. That is a true mark of success.
What breaks my heart is the fact that we are making fewer and fewer things here in Australia. In the 1950s, manufacturing accounted for 29 per cent of Australia's GDP, more than a quarter. Forty years on, reduced by global economic changes and government policies, manufacturing accounts for less than 10 per cent of Australian GDP, the lowest level since the early colonial times. In a great blow to our country and our workers, in 2017, car manufacturing ceased in Australia with the closure of the Adelaide Holden plant and other plants around the country. These capabilities and skills, once lost, are very difficult to rebuild.
As the Leader of the Opposition stated in his budget reply speech:
Australia is at a crossroad. It's not of our choosing, but the choices we make could change everything. This is an opportunity to reset and renew.
… I want a country that makes things and that creates wealth and shares it.
We want a future made in Australia, with a focus on building local manufacturing and local products, value-adding to our products and selling to the world. We are still in the middle of the worst health and economic crisis that we've ever witnessed in our lifetimes. This will give us the chance to reset. It will be a waste of what Australia has to offer if we remain the last link in a worldwide supply chain.
We have all the ingredients—the skills, the smarts, the people and the industry—to make things right here, sell them on a global market and create jobs, local jobs, for people here in Australia. But the ingredient that is missing is the will from governments to grow our manufacturing industry. We need a government that's willing to mobilise resources, we need a strong job-creation strategy and we need to produce more products with that stamp and that label, which is an approval for most Australians, who are more likely to buy a product with the Australian Made logo on it. That's because it offers security—it offers a product where you know that it's been made here, that the money that's spent on it remains in the country—and it produces jobs, one of the most important things that we as legislators can do to benefit the economy of this nation. So we need a good strong job-creation strategy, and we need to train and skill our population so we can be at the cutting edge of making things.
With many of the products that you see on the supermarket shelves—food products, for example—when you see that logo, it gives you the confidence that that product has come under the standards of our country, standards which are very high, compared to many other nations, and it gives people the confidence to buy that product and confidently know what products have been used in it. It is a great logo; it's a logo that we don't want to lose. We just want to see more products getting that stamp of approval as an Australian-made product.
I would go a step further and actually introduce a logo for perhaps a service in Australia as well. We have different service industries that are offshoring a lot of their service work. For example, banks, insurance companies and even accountants are sending their auditing work overseas to places like Hong Kong, Singapore, China and a whole range of places. Why not have a logo as well for 'serviced in Australia', so people, when they're signing their contract with their insurance company, their bank or another service industry, know that the work that will be done on their product they've just purchased will be done here in Australia? They'll have the confidence, just as we have the confidence when we buy a product and we know exactly what's in it.
So I support this motion. I think all of us should be doing absolutely everything we can to get more products with this logo on it.
It hasn't been an easy 12 months for many of us living across the north-west, the West Coast and King Island. Our region has been challenged like never before. This has been the first time for many of us in experiencing a global crisis on this scale. Right across Australia, governments are managing both a health pandemic and an economic challenge, and I want to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the Tasmanian government for working with the Morrison government to keep Tasmanians safe and to minimise the financial impacts on families and businesses.
There is a lot, of course, to be done. It's easy to feel that, as an individual, we can't do much to help the nation rebound. Well, my message today is that there definitely is something we can do. No matter where you live in the electorate of Braddon—whether it's in the local government area of Burnie, Central Coast, Circular Head, Devonport, Latrobe, Waratah-Wynyard or West Coast—what we do, day in day out, has a huge impact on the speed in which we will recover and return to our treasured way of life.
With regard to the health crisis, it's about sticking to a plan, because the plan is working. People living in Braddon know as well as anybody what it means to be locked down. In fact, in April, we experienced the nation's first community lockdown, and I couldn't have been prouder of how our region responded. The rest of the nation looked on at how our government and our wonderful communities dealt with the crisis, and what that did for people in the region was incredible.
With regards to building our economy, it is about doing what we do best, and that is supporting locals and supporting local businesses. Why should we? Well, the North West, the West Coast and King Island produce pretty much everything you could ever want to buy. I read an interesting article the other day that said that, if every household spent $50 a week buying Australian made goods rather than buying the equivalent item produced overseas, this would mean an extra $30 billion to boost our economy. What's more, if everyone spent just $50 a week buying local items, thousands of jobs would be created right across regions like my own. Another study found that, if every Australian committed to spend $100 just once-off, a one-off purchase, and bought something that was locally made, this would create up to 3,000 jobs.
At a time when many Australians feel the economic recovery is out of their control, it is an incredibly powerful reminder of the importance of buying local. What is also exciting is the fact that you don't need to spend more. I know that many across the region still are doing it tough and that money is tight. All we need to do is to keep a look out for locally produced products, something that's grown in our region—or in the state of Tasmania in my case. If you can't find that, look for an Australian-grown product and, if it's comparable, then think about buying that instead of an overseas manufactured good. That's where the Australian Made, Australian Grown logo is important. This logo is Australia's only registered country-of-origin certification trademark. If you see it, you know it's 100 per cent Australian and you're buying authentic, premium quality Australian products that originate in our clean, green environment and meet the very strict Australian standards. So keep a look out for that symbol.
During the last year, many people, more than ever, moved to the top line of shopping. For years, online shopping meant that buying items from overseas was probably the norm; however, that is no longer the case. There are now dozens of online stores that are selling locally grown produce that's conveniently delivered to your door, including Tasmanian Shop, Shop Tasmania, Product of Tasmania, Tasmanian Gourmet Online, Buy Something Tasmanian, Buy from Tasmania—and the list goes on. Tasmania has become the first state in Australia to launch a dedicated Tasmanian-brand store on amazon.com.au. This will provide yet another way for our local producers to expand their businesses and their sales on the mainland and will enable more Tasmanian companies to enter the online retail trail.
So keep up the great work, everybody, and shop local. We all know that Tasmania is the envy of Australia when it comes to producing food. So keep it up and keep it local. I congratulate the Buy Local Campaign, a terrific campaign that's having results on the ground.
In my electorate of Paterson we're proud of our local manufacturing industry and our Australian made products. Indeed, manufacturing is in our very DNA. But, like all industries, manufacturing must be nurtured and supported. It must be protected by government having good policy surrounding it if it is to continue to deliver its Australian made stamp. Australian products are so critical to our economy. That's not been more obvious than in this time of pandemic that we've endured. We must ensure that manufacturing jobs are secure for now and into the future. We should continue to enjoy the pride of having Australian made products available to us.
I want to share a little bit about my home town. It is a cautionary tale regarding local manufacturing loss. Kurri Kurri, where I was born and live, once housed the mighty Kurri Kurri Alcan aluminium smelter that later became Hydro. At its peak, the smelter employed 892 people and injected over $25 million in wages in our region each year. The Kurri Kurri smelter, over its life, would go on to expand its production capacity to 180,000 tonnes of primary aluminium per year. The product was in high demand for years and, sadly, in 2012 we lost the smelter when Norsk Hydro announced its intention to close it, citing an uncertain economic outlook. I raise the example of the Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter because it serves as the perfect case study for the value and the strength of regional manufacturing and the consequences to an economy and a town when the jobs are lost. The Kurri community is still, to this day, feeling the impacts of its closure. They were a small town with a successful product. I know because we celebrated the life and passing of my Uncle Paul Innes last Friday, who worked there for many years after he finished being a vegetable farmer because of flooding and difficulties on the land. He and his sons went to work at that smelter, and many of my relatives and friends worked at that smelter until its closure. I know their stories all too well.
That is why it is so important that governments support manufacturing jobs, because they are so vital, not just to small towns but to all towns and all economies. Under this government's watch we've lost Holden—an iconic Australian brand that produced a fantastic product. Those opposite have failed to realise that, when companies like Holden disappear, they take more than just jobs with them. What we lose is a highly skilled workforce with corporate knowledge of an industry and its products. Once these manufacturers fall, we lose the quality of Australian-made products. Most importantly, we can't afford these skills, knowledge and potential to be lost forever. We can't afford to lose local products.
Australians have lost more than just Holden cars. Many manufacturers have taken their products overseas or off our shelves entirely. We've lost companies like Ansell, Goodyear tyres and even the Pacific Brands clothing, famous for such brands as Bonds—Chesty Bonds, no less—Volley shoes, Hard Yakka, Sheridan, and many more. We've even lost some of our international heavyweights in manufacturing, like Bridgestone tyres, Sidchrome tools, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, Toyota and Electrolux ovens and refrigerators. Once proud Australian-made products are gone forever. The seat of Paterson produces many excellent Australian products from each end of the spectrum. We make wine, milk, chocolate and cheese. We produce aluminium, hand sanitiser and cleaning products. We even build machinery for mining, transport and construction. We have some amazing manufacturers, like Mortels, who make the famous Ugg boots and many more products. We have Jurox, Ampcontrol, WesTrac Caterpillar—just to name a few. Last year, I worked closely with the Whiteley Corporation, who make many important cleaning products. Thank you, Whitely Corporation—you kept the hospitals clean in Australia during our most serious pandemic.
I rise to support Australian industry, particularly locally-made and locally-owned goods. Of course, I'm not a protectionist and I believe Australian goods must compete internationally. Indeed, it is the weight of competition that, when lifted repeatedly, grows strength in our products and expands our capacity as a producing nation. However, as a nation we should encourage consumers and businesses alike to look first at products made locally and, if they meet their requirements, then consider strongly the Australian-made tag as an important criteria for their purchase decision. This is an easy decision to make as Australian-made goods invariably position favourably on issues of quality and reliability. There has never been a better time in our history to buy local, and the Australian Made and Australian Grown logos have endured the test of 30 years. The message is timeless and, in these challenging times, it becomes even more important as our economy recovers from the COVID pandemic and the Australian people have rediscovered a desire to be more self-reliant. As a nation, we've come together on this issue as we seek to support our fellow Australians.
In my electorate of Groom, which is covered by the Toowoomba region, we have some tremendous businesses producing world-class products. These range from cottage industries through to a business selling construction equipment to mining companies around the whole world.
On the micro side, the Buy from the Bush Queensland initiative started in mid-2018 as a Facebook page for women doing it tough on the land and has since blossomed into an online community of bush businesses, creatives and a broad array of family-run side-hustles across the rural regions of Queensland. Kerri Brennan, a Darling Downs cattle producer based an hour south of Toowoomba, saw the need to support the family farm. Little did she know how much she would be supporting so many others just like her. And I join the long queue of those who wish to express their thanks.
During the toughest years of the drought this site began, and it now links over 1,000 small businesses with 20,000 Facebook followers. That is 1,000 locally-owned businesses, ranging from the Bonny Little Babes from Pittsworth, producing fabrics and children's clothing, through to Chain of Hearts of Highfields, who produce creative, custom-made invitations, wedding stationery, framed artwork and prints. These Australian made products can be accessed through their innovative and thoughtful social media platform, and Buy from the Bush Queensland are looking for support. If you are looking to support rural businesses, as we all have been during this tough time, please visit their website. I encourage you to do so.
We, as a government, are committed to supporting business growth, job creation and sovereign manufacturing, through the Morrison government's $1.3 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy. This initiative is all about backing our manufacturers to improve their competitiveness and scale them up to compete on the world stage while growing jobs for Australians here at home. This is great news for the many manufacturers in the Toowoomba region. The Toowoomba region has a proud manufacturing and technology-hub background, and this initiative has the power to advance even further our local manufacturing sector.
With the help of the Australian government, through an Accelerating Commercialisation grant, a locally owned Toowoomba region business is now, for the first time, tendering for the manufacture of drilling equipment for Santos. Accelerating Commercialisation provides small and medium businesses, entrepreneurs and researchers with access to expert advice and the funding to help them to get a novel product, process or service to market. In this case, the grant allowed Obadare to move their drilling equipment designs from concept to production-ready. In this tender, they will be competing only with overseas companies because they are now the only Australian based company that holds an American Petroleum Institute 4F licence. Obadare are taking the Australian made and Australian owned message to the world, and I certainly wish them well.
Sovereign manufacturing is a key element of the Morrison government's road map to economic recovery, and, whilst it is clear from the evidence around us that the recovery is underway and the comeback is on, there is still much work to do. I strongly endorse the entrance of a locally owned Australian business into the advanced manufacturing market of drilling equipment. I'm also heartened that, as a government, we support this locally owned Australian company in its endeavours and commend them for their drive, vision and ambition. From the smallest Australian made products to the largest, I'm proud to be a part of a government that is supporting Australian manufacturing jobs. Australian made and Australia owned mean more jobs and investment right here where we need them.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) it is now more than a year since the Prime Minister announced a National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention;
(b) many veterans and families believe the Prime Minister's national commissioner will not be 'better than a Royal Commission' and risks making things worse; and
(c) the Government was forced to withdraw the enabling legislation for the national commissioner at the end of 2020 after failing to get the necessary support in the Senate;
(2) recognises that suicide by current and former defence personnel continues to claim at least one life a week, and nothing less than an independent, open and transparent investigation is required to address this crisis; and
(3) calls on the Government to establish a Royal Commission into defence and veteran suicides as a matter of urgency.
It's now more than a year since the Prime Minister announced a National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention with much fanfare. The more Labor looked at it, the more we realised that it was just a cynical exercise, designed to placate mothers like Julie-Ann Finney and Karen Bird, who tragically lost their sons to suicide, and avoid any proper investigation into these needless deaths.
The overwhelming feedback from veterans' families and partners, veterans' advocates, military lawyers and mental health experts is that the national commissioner simply won't have the independence, powers or resources to ask the really hard questions that only a fully empowered royal commission with broad terms of reference can. This message came through loud and clear in the Senate inquiry into the legislation last year, when a majority of witnesses at the public hearings emphatically said it would not be better than a royal commission, whilst some feared it would in fact make things worse.
That's why Labor and a majority of crossbenchers lined up to oppose the national commissioner legislation in December last year and forced the government to withdraw it. Prior to this humiliating defeat, inexplicably the government actually appointed Dr Bernadette Boss as interim national commissioner in October without the enabling legislation in place. Many in the defence and veterans community simply don't trust the interim national commissioner and feel she's not independent enough given the fact she's a former senior army officer recommended by her friend of 20 years, defence minister Senator Linda Reynolds, to investigate the minister's own department. She's a glorified federal coroner doing desktop reviews at best!
Since the failure of the government's legislation, the interim national commissioner has been stung into action and has been running around the countryside doing closed-door meetings with select veterans groups in a desperate bid to justify the role. The problem is the meetings have been so secret the government's own members have not been told about it, such as the member for Herbert when she was up in Townsville. And just today we hear the interim national commissioner has invited veterans and families to a symposium in March but is asking them to pay $100 for the privilege. It is a disgrace. Not surprisingly, it's caused massive outrage amongst the veterans and defence communities. Fancy asking someone who's lost a loved one to fork out $100 to meet the interim national commissioner? I continued to speak with veterans and families in recent months, and the feedback is they want a royal commission instead.
Last week I was honoured to present silver Australia Day awards to two longstanding veteran advocates in the Ipswich RSL Sub Branch, Michael Blaine and Ross Wadsworth. I also met with Korean veteran Matt Rennie OAM, who is involved in a project to name a number of unmarked graves of First World War servicemen in Ipswich, many of whom died with so-called shell shock in a mental asylum. I can tell you, these veterans and advocates, young and old, are deeply concerned about mental health and wellbeing, and they're saying we need to do more.
Meanwhile, the problems seem to get worse with reports of one defence or veteran suicide a week and a spike in recent months. Anecdotally, many in the various communities believe the actual figures are much higher and the problem is exacerbating not abating. It's clear we need a fully independent, open, transparent investigation into defence and veteran's suicide to shine a light on the issue and deliver justice for veterans and their families.
I note that the government plans to bring back its national commissioner legislation to the Senate this week. Nothing's changed, and the Labor and the crossbench senators remain solidly opposed. The Prime Minister needs to swallow his pride and do the right thing: abandon his flawed and failed national commissioner legislation and establish a royal commission as a matter of urgency. This is a government that seems to love announcements but never delivers. I can assure all defence personnel and veterans and their families that Labor support a royal commission. We will do this in office. The government needs to do the right thing. They need to be on the side of the veteran and defence communities. I say to the veteran and defence communities: Labor's on your side. If elected, an Albanese Labor government will call a royal commission.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
What's really sad about this is that veterans' affairs are too important to be playing silly political games, and that is exactly what you are doing.
That is exactly what you are doing!
Members on my left!
It is exactly what the Labor Party is doing. It is absolutely disgraceful. Do you know what the hypocrisy of this is? Those members opposite come into the chamber and talk about wanting an integrity commission that goes on and on and on as opposed to having piecemeal commissions or royal commissions. This is exactly on point, because this commission has all the powers of a standing royal commission. Name me one thing in this commission that the royal commission does not have!
Mr Gosling interjecting—
They don't know. This party, the Labor Party, is playing absolutely base political games with veterans, which is an absolute disgrace. There have been 400 members of the ADF or veterans that have died. Recently 10—
You can't even get the number right—it's over 500!
The member for Solomon will take a seat. The member will withdraw.
I withdraw it.
I'm going to give a general warning: if the level of interjections keeps up, I'll be forced to remove people under section 187 of the standing orders.
Forty-one members of the ADF died in Afghanistan, and we've had 10 times that many die by suicide. So we have a problem here. We are trying to resolve or assist this problem by the establishment of this commission. It would be well funded, with $42.7 million. It will go back to 2001. It will look at all of the suicides. It will work with all of the states' coroners. What is important about this is that is ongoing and it has all the powers of a royal commission. So when I hear those opposite say things, it doesn't point me to one aspect of it that it does not have the powers of a standing royal commission.
Look at things like the CCC, which is where the member for Blair comes from. The CCC has all the powers of a standing royal commission. Members opposite come in here and say that they want an ICAC at a federal level because it is an ongoing arrangement, and yet for veterans it's somehow not good enough. It is simply untrue when those members opposite say that the vast majority of ADF veterans do not want this commission but they want a royal commission. That is untrue.
There are 15,000 veterans on the Sunshine Coast, one of the largest veteran populations in the country. I'm very involved with all of my RSLs and all of my ESOs in my electorate. I can say hand on heart that the vast majority of veterans that I talk to don't want a royal commission. They don't want something that starts here and finishes here. They want something that will address this in perpetuity with all the powers of a standing royal commission. On that we agree that we need to be doing more, Member for Blair. We do not want to see one more needless death, but I plead with those members opposite to work with us. This is too important. The member for Solomon has passion for this issue. I plead with those members opposite to work with us and put aside the politics. Let's work with this so that we don't have any more needless deaths. I know that's what you want. That's what we want. But it's how we get there. A commission with all the powers of a standing royal commission is what will address this and how we will deal with this in the best possible way. I want to invite the member for Solomon in his speech to point to one thing that this commission does not have but— (Time expired)
I am very proud to second this motion, and I won't stop championing a royal commission for defence and veteran suicide no matter how much spin those in the federal government throw out there. I need to make it really clear, though, that more needs to be done now. That much we can all agree on. More needs to be done now, and we must commit the resources to doing what we need to do to keep our people safe and well. That all has to happen now.
What has really disappointed me recently, when I asked members of the federal government why they weren't supporting a royal commission into veteran suicide, is when they said, 'On our side of politics, we don't want one because it will cost too much.' Let me ask: at what cost are our veterans and our service people are dying? What is the cost to overall a system that is clearly broken?
Are those opposite really going to sit there and say that $100 million—which is what the Minister for Veterans' Affairs says a royal commission into veterans' suicide will cost—is too much? Are they really going to say that that is too much to stop those who have served our country dying by suicide? It's shameful.
Those opposite don't want to stand up for a royal commission into veterans' suicide. I understand that some are totally silent because of the shame that they feel in not standing up and representing the defence and veterans' community. I understand that shame. Some wanted a royal commission, but are being told to pull their heads in and fall back into line, because the Liberal Party doesn't want a royal commission into veteran suicide. Are they going to say that that's not money well spent? How can you put a price tag on getting the best recommendations from the most open, transparent and independent process that we can possibly have? How can you put a price on that?
The member who spoke before me, the member for Fisher, said that we've had 400 deaths since 2001. Official records say 500—just 100 off. What's a hundred veterans? What's a hundred patriots? But there have also been many suggestions from the veteran community that that figure is grossly understated. I know from talking to the veteran community that that figure doesn't tell the whole picture. What also doesn't tell the whole picture are the attempted the many attempted suicides—people who have impaired themselves for the rest of their life in an attempt to stop the pain. How many have been permanently impaired? How many families have suffered over the years? How many families continue to suffer?
Australia hasn't had a royal commission into veterans' suicide for a century. The very first royal commission held by Australia was over what happened to one soldier's welfare after the war—one soldier. We've got 500, 600 or maybe 700 veterans' suicides, and those opposite, the federal government, won't act, and I don't know why. It's pretty clear that a permanent commissioner would become a very important recommendation of a royal commission, but there'll be so many other recommendations that come out of a royal commission. Yes, it'll be a good thing to have the permanent commissioner continue, but let's have that position informed by a full royal commission that's open and transparent and at arm's length from those that run the current system that people say is broken—not just me but also veterans and families. ESOs aren't able to coordinate their support as well as they should because the system is broken. The acts don't support our veterans in the way they should. There needs to be a royal commission, and that's why I support it has my support. The epidemic of veteran suicide is a stain on our nation—it really is—and we have the ability to fix it.
I spoke last week in parliament a couple of times calling on those opposite who have military experience to stand up—and I double down on that call today. They know that the system is broken. They know that a royal commission should be enacted to stop veteran and family suicides, but they're failing to stand up. So I ask again that they show some leadership and some solidarity with those that they have served with who are calling for a royal commission into veterans' suicide. (Time expired)
I'm very pleased to speak on this motion and to correct some misleading claims from the member for Solomon regarding the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention. This is not a cost issue for the Morrison government. It is not about cost. It is about providing the best outcome and support for our veterans. I think the member for Solomon knows this. He was very quick to try and quote from private conversations without naming names and without giving people the opportunity to defend themselves. But I challenge him to name the name of anybody on this side of the chamber who doesn't want as much money as it takes spent on helping our veterans find peace and support within their community. That is what we are trying to achieve with the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention.
First of all, I want to take a moment to recognise all Australian veterans, both current and fallen, as well as their families, for the sacrifices that they have made and for their distinguished and selfless service to our nation. The dedication of these upstanding members of our community to defending Australia's sovereignty is something that we are all, and we all should be, thankful for and proud of. Our veterans know better than anyone how important it is to fight for the freedoms we enjoy every day in this country, and Australia would simply not be the place it is without them.
My electorate of Ryan has an immensely strong presence of current and former members of the ADF. In the heart of the Ryan electorate sits the Gallipoli Barracks, comprised of 200 hectares of major operational sites and home to three brigades. Currently serving ADF members live in the electorate, and, following their service, many veterans continue to reside in the Ryan electorate to live and raise their families. Due to the strong presence of ADF members, I've spoken to many of them, many veterans and many support organisations in my electorate about the design of the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention, across five sub-branches, as well as the Australian Army Aviation Association, the Veterans Support and Advocacy Service Australia, track to health, the Royal Australian Regiment Foundation, and 42 for 42, among others. Being in contact with these groups regularly, I know not only the distinguished service of our veterans but also the burden that they and their families bear.
We do have an unacceptable rate of veterans' and ADF members' suicide in our nation that we have to address. It's incumbent upon us as legislators and leaders in this place to make sure that the necessary levels of support are provided—that is, actually providing the support they need. It's not about virtual-signalling, it's not about calling for a royal commission because that's simply the thing to go to in these times, because the point that the member for Fisher quite eloquently made previously and that the member for Solomon failed to point out is the significant difference between the powers of a royal commission and what we are proposing—
A government member interjecting—
But there is one significant difference, Member for Fisher, and that is that what we are proposing will go on; it will continue far beyond the scope of a short-term royal commission. It will continue long term and it will be able to not only make recommendations but see those recommendations implemented, which at the end of the day is what we should all want for veterans, because those recommendations are what's going to provide the support that they need.
It's why the Morrison government has invested over $42 million to implement this national commissioner—to provide a targeted and streamlined version of what a royal commission could be to these veterans but to do it in a way that not only provides the recommendations but sees those recommendations delivered, and then can monitor the implementation of those recommendations by looking at future suicides down the track—though we hope there are none. The national commissioner is a critical reform that addresses this unacceptably high rate of suicide among ADF members and veterans. It is important that this investment reflects this priority, and that's what we've done. Each year the Morrison government invests more than $230 million to assess mental health treatment, which comprises more than $11.5 billion in overall funding to support veterans and their families. Following the May budget last year, the coalition provided over $100 million to improve the care agencies for veterans struggling with mental health and to train more psychiatrists in mental health.
It's a big task and we can't do it alone, which is why we're engaging many stakeholders. That includes Mental Health Australia, Suicide Prevention Australia, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists and the Defence Force Welfare Association, just to name a few.
I encourage those on the Labor side to get behind this national commissioner, help us implement something that will help Australian veterans today but also in an ongoing way into the future, to see those recommendations implemented so we stop seeing the rate of veterans suicides that we see currently.
'I was only 19,' was the response, with tears in his eyes, when I asked a survivor of the HMAS Voyager disaster how old he was at the time of the tragedy. He was one of the last off the ship. 'I was 20,' said another. Yet another survivor was only 17 years old.
It was the evening of 10 February 2021, 57 years since the HMAS Voyager collided with the HMAS Melbourne off the coast of Huskisson on the New South Wales coast, the worst peacetime disaster in Australian maritime history. Organised by the HMAS Voyager Survivors Association, survivors and their families joined together at Voyager Park, Huskisson, for a commemoration service at 8.45 pm. The survivors lost 82 of their shipmates that night. They come together each year to remember their mates. The bow section of the ship sank in only 10 minutes that night. It all happened so quickly. But for these men and for the families of everyone on board, its impact has lasted a lifetime.
I would like to pay tribute to the families who lost loved ones and to the survivors and their families. Thank you also to the HMAS Voyager Survivors Association that works hard to help survivors. At the survivors get-together lunch the next day, I asked, 'What happened after the disaster?' I was told that survivors were dispersed to work on different ships, separated from those who understood what they had been through. Beyond a week's leave, there was no counselling or support for the emotional damage the tragedy inflicted. The emotional scars are still evident, because something like that doesn't leave you. That's the key message.
I have been contacted by many veterans and their family members who are calling for a royal commission into defence and veteran suicide. John, a survivor from that HMAS Voyager disaster, has also called for a royal commission into veteran suicide. John says, 'As a returned veteran who has had many dealings with the Department of Veterans' Affairs, I can understand the frustrations and disappointments suffered by veterans.' John also says, 'Despite all the wonderful speeches made by politicians when deploying us, it is an entirely different scene when we return from active service with difficulties, either physical or mental.' That is why it is so critical we get this issue right. These servicemen and women sacrifice so much for us, for our freedoms. They deserve for us to have their back when they have finished.
Yesterday I attended a Quilts of Valour award ceremony at Greenwell Point. Quilts of Valour Australia is a not-for-profit organisation providing quilts of valour to our veterans. The quilt is a powerful gift of love. The top of the quilt, with its many colours, shapes and fabrics, represents the communities the many individual veterans are in. The wadding, or the filler, is the centre of the quilt, providing warmth. The quilt represents hope that it will bring warmth, comfort, peace and healing to the recipient. The backing is the strength that supports the communities and our nation. Each stitch that holds the layers together represents love, gratitude and sometimes the tears of the maker.
Yesterday at the Greenwell Point Bowling and Sports Club, two much-loved local veterans were surprised with receiving their quilts of valour. 102-year-old Joyce Ferguson, Q142408, entered the Australian Army on 5 July 1942. Joyce, a corporal, worked in signals, before discharging on 6 July 1945. Gary Hastings, 2149002, a private in the Australian Army, was also surprised with a quilt of valour. Gary is a Vietnam veteran from the Royal Australian Infantry Corps 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. Both Joyce and Gary were surrounded by family and friends, including children and grandchildren, which was lovely to see in a very special ceremony. It was incredibly humbling to witness and shows the value we as a community can show to our veterans.
I would like to thank Quilts of Valour, in particular Stan, the New South Wales coordinator, and his wife, Sue, who volunteer and take the time in New South Wales to coordinate and present these beautiful quilts of healing to our veterans. Thank you to all the quilters and supporters. Thank you to Douglas Clarke, the wonderful emcee on the day.
Each and every one of these veterans deserve for our government to take the issue of veteran suicide seriously. Only a royal commission can do that. It's what veterans and their families want, and we owe them that much.
The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
The Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020 makes amendments to the Family Law Act, with the purpose of making our legal system safer for women and their children. It implements recommendations from a series of reports into family violence, the 2009 report by the Family Law Council, a 2017 report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and a 2019 report by the Australian Law Reform Commission. These reports offered a collective 106 recommendations. Based on their advice, this bill repeals section 61DA of the act to kill the misconception that equal shared parental responsibility means that children automatically spend equal time with each parent. This is a false expectation and can lead to parents accepting shared custody in unsafe situations because they think they have no other choice. The bill also repeals section 65 DAA of the act, which requires the court to consider, in certain circumstances, the possibility of the child spending equal time or substantial time with each parent.
Obviously, wherever it is possible, children benefit from close and loving relationships with both parents. As parents we know that. In most situations, even after a family has separated, the vast majority of families sort that out amongst themselves. They sort out when the children will be spending time with each parent and they sort out arrangements around child support. In most situations, I think most parents go out of their way to try to resolve these issues collaboratively and in the best interests of children.
But we know, that where domestic violence has already been present in the relationship, this is a period where that violence can intensify, and the family law system can often be weaponised during such times. So that assumption that children will automatically spend equal time with each parent has to be challenged if one parent is violent either to the other parent or to the children in the family. The misconception that children should, by default, spend equal time with both parents dramatically increases the risk of continuing violence where this has been a feature in relationships.
As the member for Moreton said when he introduced this very important bill, these changes won't fix everything wrong in the family law system but they will offer a step in the right direction. This bill was first introduced after the horrific murder of Hannah Clarke and her beautiful children. That terrible anniversary was a year ago just last week. Hannah and her three children, Aaliyah, Laianah and Trey, were killed by her estranged partner in an act of unspeakable violence. The truth is that, for Hannah Clarke, the warning signs were there for years. The abuse of Hannah Clarke was insidious. She said to her friends and her family more than once that, while her husband was not usually physically violent towards her, he controlled every element of her life. He listened to her phone calls, he read her messages and he stalked her on social media.
The culmination of this terror shook us all, but it's terribly sad to say that it has not created lasting change in many respects. It did not produce any of the reforms that were promised it would produce. I don't doubt the sincerity of the words that have been spoken or the outpouring of grief, but, to be really blunt, we don't need words and we don't need grief. What we need is action. This is what frustrates so many of us about domestic violence. We hear these horrific stories of victims of domestic violence, like Hannah Clarke and her three children, like Luke Batty, like Olga Edwards and her two children or the killing of the Davidson family in 2016, or the killing of Tara Costigan here in Canberra in 2015. I would run out of time if I even began to mention all of these horrific murders. They are horrendous and the list is too, too long. We hear these stories again and again and we have a vigil at the front of parliament but, when we are given the chance to make life safer for the victims of this sort of domestic terrorism, we fail them again and again or, worse, we make life less safe by doing something as shameful and destructive as abolishing the Family Court.
The reports and the enquiries are sitting there. There are three cited in this bill. There is also the Victorian royal commission into family violence and Quentin Bryce's task force in Queensland. The work has being done. We just need the will to implement it. This is a good-faith attempt to do so.
I rise to speak in support of this bill. I commend the member for Morton for bringing this forward, because it is designed to make the system safer for children and safer for women. If there were ever a time that this parliament should be acting on it, it is now, and it is in this parliament, right here, right now. When people separate, it's one of the most difficult things that many people go through in their lives. When you separate and you have children, that is additionally so. We have developed in this country a system of laws that are based around, or should be based around, a central principle: in that situation, when there is a separation and you have to decide who is going to look after the child and in what way, you do what's in the best interests of the child. That is what comes first. You make the decisions on the basis of where they're going to be safest and also what's going to promote their welfare the best. That is as it should be. The arrangements that are going to be made will be different for each group of people involved, and that's why we should leave it up to a specialist Family Court, the likes of which the government shamefully abolished during the course of last week. We should leave it up to judges who know this area and have expertise in it to make the decisions, taking into account the situation of the child.
But what has happened in this country is that, after amendments were made to our laws, presumptions have crept in, sometimes wrongly by judges, I would say, but certainly by some parts of the community. From the provisions in the act that talk about a presumption of equal shared responsibility, people end up thinking that means a presumption of equal time and that, if there is a split, the child's time is going to be split 50-50. The problem is that, if you start from that presumption and say, 'This should be the presumption'—and you can bring in factors to rebut it, but that should be the presumption—firstly, you don't get what's in the best interests of the child, because, all of a sudden, that totally becomes a secondary consideration.
It's not only what happens when there has been a split in a family; it also works backwards from there, because, if women are in a relationship where they fear for their safety and they think that one of the consequences of leaving that relationship is that the child is potentially going to end up, by law, spending 50 per cent of the time with someone that they think is an abusive parent, then they're less inclined to leave the relationship and are more inclined to stay in an abusive situation.
In this sitting fortnight, of all sitting fortnights, as we mark the tragic anniversary of the murder of Hannah Clarke, we need to understand that, when women are in situations where they fear for their and their children's safety, the job of the system, including the family law system, should be to facilitate the passage to make their kids safe. They should not have to think, as is often the case, 'If I leave, I might have to go through a family law system. I've heard that the words "equal presumption of shared responsibility" mean 50-50 time. Therefore, I won't be able to have time to look after my kid.' That is what goes through the minds of many women at the moment. That is why the Law Reform Commission, amongst others, have said that this presumption needs to be removed, because it does more harm than good and we need to leave it up to judges who can decide what is in the best interests of the child in every individual situation. It is sometimes said, 'That will result in fathers not having access to their kids,' but the stats don't bear that out. The stats show that the courts, when they are looking at every individual situation, still, in the overwhelming majority of situations, continue to grant access. I commend the member for Morton for bringing this forward, because this bill will make women and children safer.
The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made the order of the day for the next sitting.
Dad's deserve meaningful relationships with their children, and with that cheeky interjection, I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Is the motion seconded?
I am happy to second the motion, but, if the Member for Dawson would like to speak to my motion, I'm happy to extend by five minutes. I would be hate to be accused of gagging the Member for Dawson, free spirit that he is. But that said, I second the motion.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:25