I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Sydney from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Member for Bowman has failed to stand down as Chair of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, despite pledging he would;
(b) for more than two months the Prime Minister has failed to do anything about that;
(c) the Prime Minister's failure to act on this matter tells you everything about how much this Prime Minister really listens to women; and
(d) the Member for Bowman's continued presence in this chamber and as Chair of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training is a blight on the Prime Minister's record; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to discharge the Member for Bowman from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training immediately.
This Prime Minister is running a perv protection racket. What does it take to get the sack in this guy's government?
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Sydney be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded?
Seconded. Three months ago, the Prime Minister labelled the conduct of the member for Bowman as—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no further heard.
I am a member of this committee, I believe the second-longest running member after the member for Bowman. I'm deeply concerned as a member of this committee. Just this week the committee meeting was cancelled with absolutely no notice and no communication to the other members of the committee as to why. I inquired with the secretariat, to find that the chair cancelled the meeting simply because he was awaiting a new inquiry from the relevant minister.
We are in the middle of an inquiry. I find that this committee is becoming dysfunctional, and I would urge the member for Bowman to consider the needs of the parliament and the needs of the committee over his own personal needs. I would ask him to stand aside as chair, and I would ask the Prime Minister to please consider the position of a number of members of the committee. We must do good work on this committee, and it has not been done for much of this year. Thank you.
The question is the motion moved by the member for Sydney be disagreed to.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1)notes:
(a)the Federal Government continues to turn its back on farmers and regional communities impacted by the horrific mouse plague;
(b)the mouse plague is now impacting across multiple states and the Federal Government still has no national response plan for this unfolding disaster;
(c)the Minister for Agriculture is silent about how the Federal Government can assist; and
(d)Australian famers and their rural communities deserve better than this; and
(2)therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to attend the Chamber and explain how he will take responsibility to help farmers and regional communities deal with the impact of the devastating mouse plague.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Franklin from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the House:
(1)notes:
(a)the Federal Government continues to turn its back on farmers and regional communities impacted by the horrific mouse plague;
(b)the mouse plague is now impacting across multiple states and the Federal Government still has no national response plan for this unfolding disaster;
(c)the Minister for Agriculture is silent about how the Federal Government can assist; and
(d)Australian famers and their rural communities deserve better than this; and
(2)therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to attend the Chamber and explain how he will take responsibility to help farmers and regional communities deal with the impact of the devastating mouse plague.
This government continues to abandon farmers and regional communities. They will not stand up for farmers in this mouse plague. They are doing absolutely nothing about this mouse plague. They're not assisting the—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is the member for Franklin be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded?
Seconded. The Morrison government doesn't give a rats about farmers and regional –
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The question before the House now is that the motion moved by the member for Franklin be disagreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, known as the NDIS Act, provides a foundation for measures to support and protect NDIS participants. This bill makes essential amendments to the NDIS Act to improve the support and protections provided to NDIS participants who may be at risk of harm.
The bill also includes a number of minor amendments to strengthen existing measures and ensure the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (the NDIS commission) has clear legal authority to pursue providers or workers who infringe or fail to uphold the rights of people with disability.
Following recent cases of abuse, neglect and exploitation of NDIS participants, the government has considered a number of inquiries into the effectiveness of NDIS safeguards in these cases, in addition to the Hon. Alan Robertson SC Independent review of the adequacy of the regulation of the supports and services provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith, an NDIS participant, who died on 6 April 2020, known as the Robertson review, commissioned by the NDIS commissioner. These cases are a source of deep distress and concern to people with disability and to all Australians. Like many Australians, I continue to be deeply shocked and saddened by the death of Ms Smith. This bill introduced today recognises the tragic circumstances of Ms Smith's death and provides comfort and assurance to participants, their family and friends, that this government is taking action to better protect them and to reduce the risk that such distressing events occur again.
The Robertson review made 10 recommendations to the commissioner, some of which required legislative amendments to support implementation. The changes in this bill build on the operational changes already made by the NDIS commission and the National Disability Insurance Agency to better support at-risk people with disability including better outreach and working with providers to ensure a participant is not cared for unsupervised by a single worker.
The NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework, known as the framework, was released in February 2017, with the NDIS commission beginning to operate in July 2018 in New South Wales and South Australia and gradually expanded to cover the other states and territories. From 1 December 2020, the NDIS commission assumed responsibility for the national oversight of the NDIS quality and safeguards arrangements for the first time.
As a responsive regulator, the NDIS commission continues to review and refine its approach based on experience and provider engagement. It is important we learn from implementation and, where necessary, amend legislation to strengthen the protection of NDIS participants. This bill makes such amendments and is a part of the government's commitment to continuously improve the quality and safeguards in place to protect participants under the framework.
Importantly, the Robertson review did not identify significant failings in the way that the NDIS commission performed its functions. It recognised the harm that has occurred and the importance of taking action not just against those responsible, but to ensure that it cannot happen again. This government cannot state more wholeheartedly the commitment to taking the required action to implement change to better protect participants, especially those at most risk of harm.
The NDIS commission and the NDIA have already taken available action to improve information sharing, including agreeing to a memorandum of understanding and a set of operational protocols to govern information exchange.
This bill supports improved information sharing arrangements between these two agencies. It amends the information sharing powers in the NDIS Act to ensure the NDIS commission and the NDIA have clear legal authority to release protected information to one another, for the purposes of carrying out the core legislated functions of both agencies under the NDIS Act and ensure the protection of NDIS participants.
Present clauses in the NDIS Act establish a high threshold for sharing information. They establish the disclosure can only be made if it is 'necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to an individual's life, health or safety'. The Robertson review recommends, and this bill enacts, a broadening of the conditions on which information can be shared.
It removes qualifiers like 'serious' and 'necessary' to ensure any threat to life, health or safety is sufficient grounds for the recording, use or disclosure of protected information between the NDIS commission and the NDIA. This will better protect NDIS participants.
The bill also amends provisions for disclosing information more broadly, including to ensure the NDIS commission is able to disclose information to worker screening units and other agencies for quality and safeguards purposes and can also publish and maintain information about historical compliance and enforcement action on its provider register.
Importantly, these changes to information sharing do not undermine or reduce the significant protections for personal information under the NDIS Act. Personal information held by the NDIA or the NDIS commission will continue to be considered protected information.
Personal information will still be handled in accordance with the limitations on use and disclosure established by the NDIS Act, the Privacy Act 1988, and any other applicable Commonwealth, state or territory legislation.
Information will only be shared where reasonably necessary for the fulfilment of the commissioner's lawful and legitimate functions and the protection of people with disability.
The bill also improves the reportable incidents function of the NDIS commission. Registered NDIS providers are required to notify the NDIS commission of serious incidents such as death and serious injury (including alleged incidents) that occur in connection with the services and supports they provide.
The Robertson review recommended reportable incidents be broadened and the NDIS commission support the need to clarify incidents that may not have a direct causal link to the provision of services may also be reportable incidents. The bill provides the NDIS commission the scope to further define the circumstances surrounding reportable incidents and clarify reporting requirements, in the NDIS commission's reportable incidents rules. By enabling definition via the rules, the commission will have the flexibility to respond quickly to arising circumstances and continue to protect participants. An exposure draft of these rules has been tabled alongside the bill to assist in its consideration.
Another core function of the NDIS commission is the registration of NDIS providers. Quality assurance of registered NDIS providers is undertaken by approved quality auditors who are engaged by providers directly.
The market for quality auditors includes a wide range of experience levels and knowledge of the sector. The bill will allow the commissioner to place conditions on the approval of quality auditors and makes explicit the commissioner's power to vary or revoke their approval. In line with best administrative practice, these decisions will be reviewable decisions.
This will ensure the efficient operation of the auditor market and that approved quality auditors are suitable to assess the NDIS providers that engage them.
Finally, the bill makes a range of technical changes to support the effective operation of the NDIS commission in relation to its powers. These include:
In summary, the bill will strengthen the protections for NDIS participants, including those who are at greater risk of harm, and will strengthen the operational effectiveness of the NDIS commission.
The government will continue to remember the tragic circumstance of each NDIS participant who has suffered abuse, neglect and exploitation and take action to ensure the safety of participants at risk of harm. The government is committed to ensuring the NDIS quality and safeguards arrangements are efficient and effective and the NDIS commission has the legislative powers it needs to operate as a responsive regulator. The measures in this bill are an essential part of this commitment and will better protect NDIS participants from harm, as well as support them in accessing quality and safe services under the NDIS.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in order to further facilitate the work of the Federation Chamber in considering the appropriation bills:
(1) on Tuesday, 15 June the Federation Chamber to meet for government business from 4 pm to 7.30 pm, and there to be no constituency statements or grievance debate;
(2) on Wednesday, 16 June the Federation Chamber to meet at 10 am and consider the following business:
(a) Members' three minute constituency statements until 10.30 am;
(b) government business from 10.30 am to 1 pm;
(c) government business from 4 pm to 5 pm;
(d) Members' three minute constituency statements from 5 pm to 6 pm;
(e) grievance debate from 6 pm to 7 pm; and
(f) adjournment debate from 7 pm to 7.30pm;
(3) on Thursday, 17 June the Federation Chamber to meet for government business from 10 am to 1 pm, adjourn without debate, and there to be no constituency statements; and
(4) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Construction of National Collections Building, Black Mountain Science and Innovation Park, ACT.
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is proposing to construct a new national collections building as well as minor alterations to the existing herbarium building at its Black Mountain science and innovation park site in Canberra.
These works will enable CSIRO to develop a collections precinct that will accommodate 13 million specimens comprising Australia's national research collections. These collections represent a significant research infrastructure and underpin research in a range of fields, including agriculture, biosecurity, biodiversity and climate change. The works will provide fit-for-purpose specimen storage vaults, research laboratories, curation facilities and office workspace. The estimated cost of these works is $70 million, excluding GST. The works must be referred to, considered by and reported on to both houses of parliament by the Public Works Committee before work may commence. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction activity is expected to commence in January 2022, with completion expected in August 2023. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Special Recreational Vessel Amendment Bill 2021 will extend the sunset date of the Special Recreational Vessels Act 2019 (the SRV Act). This act allows foreign special recreational vessels (also known as superyachts) to apply for a special recreational vessel temporary licence to operate on the Australian coast, if they choose to opt into the coastal trading regulatory regime. This allows these vessels to be offered for hire or charter.
The proposed amendment means these vessels can continue to operate under temporary licences, bringing overseas dollars into regional communities around Australia. Encouraging special recreational vessels to come to Australia to charter is important, particularly for COVID recovery.
Special recreational vessels bring a range of economic benefits—Australian producers and services industries all stand to benefit from the continuation of superyacht charters. The opportunity to supply food and beverages to the vessels as well as the onshore demand for tourism, accommodation and cafes and restaurants will provide much-needed business.
Extending the repeal date of the SRV Act for two years will allow more time to consult stakeholders on a longer-term solution for special recreational vessel regulation. Earlier consultation was paused because of the COVID-19 pandemic and will not be completed prior to the SRV Act sunsetting.
In the interim, the SRV industry needs certainty to continue to operate in Australia.
The Australian government is committed to ensuring Australia's regulatory framework for our maritime industries remains fit for purpose, meets community expectations and supports Australian businesses.
The superyacht industry will no doubt make an important contribution to our post COVID-19 recovery as we look to reopen the economy and permit more leisure activities in Australia.
Conclusion
The Australian government recognises the economic opportunities that superyachts afford Australian business, as well as regional and urban communities.
This bill permits special recreational vessels to continue to charter in Australia and have these opportunities realised.
I rise to speak on the Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2021. As the minister has said, this amends the Special Recreational Vessels Act to extend the repeal date to 30 June 2023. The current act is currently due to be repealed on 30 June this year. The bill allows for special recreational vessels known as superyachts to opt into the coastal trading act and operate charters along the Australian coastline. Allowing superyachts to operate charters in Australian waters is expected to provide additional tourism activity and income and opportunities for local coastal businesses to provide goods and services to the yachts, their crews and passengers. Facilitating superyacht activity may also broaden the range of high-end tourism jobs and activities in locations like Cairns, which we all know has been seriously impacted through the COVID pandemic. However, improved access for superyachts must not be at the expense of Australian tourism cruise operators and must not facilitate the further eroding of pay and conditions and job prospects of Australian seafarers. Because the impact on other local tourism and cruise operators were unknown, Labor successfully sought the government's agreement to insert a review clause into the original legislation. This review and sunset clause were inserted into the legislation to ensure that any potential impacts on local tourism and maritime operators are fully assessed. It is that sunset clause which this amendment is now seeking to extend.
Of course the COVID-19 pandemic has meant that not only has the expected arrival of the superyachts been delayed but the department has not been able to commence work on any review. The superyachts haven't come yet, so we don't know how they will impact on our local cruise shipping jobs. We do say to the government, however, that they need to take this consultation process very seriously. When these yachts do arrive we need to be certain that Australian jobs are not impacted. Just because the consultation is delayed does not mean it can be avoided.
Two years ago when this bill was first introduced there were concerns among some operators of Australian owned tourism vessels that temporary licences could be a backdoor mechanism to allow foreign flagged superyachts to spend considerable time in Australia, thereby undermining the businesses of Australian owned and operated tourism vessels. That concern is still there and has only grown stronger throughout this pandemic. Like so much of our tourism industry, Australian cruise shipping and yacht charters are on their knees. It's an industry that will be unable to even begin to fully recover until vaccines complete their slow progress through the community and we begin the job of reopening our borders. It's a recovery that won't be easy. It won't happen overnight and it won't be smooth for all operators. In this context it is more important than ever that the government is very, very careful that this bill does not cut the local recovery short. If foreign superyachts do flood our shores it will hurt Australian operators, Australian communities and Australian workers.
In reading back over what was said when this bill was initially passed in 2019, it is striking how much the world has changed. In 2019 the government was talking up the potential of superyachts ahead of the 2020 Olympics and America's Cup. Without the amendments made it was argued that the superyachts would sail past Australia to New Zealand, Tahiti and Fiji and that we'd miss the associated economic benefits. That is why we supported it, because we wanted in particular Cairns, Townsville and other areas to benefit from this. But we also want to make sure that we don't undermine the current operators who employ people in those local communities. But, of course, we know what happened next. The 2020 Olympics didn't happen and now, maybe, neither the 2021 Olympics, and the America's Cup took place in a tourist-free New Zealand. In 2018 it was predicted that over 15,000 Queenslanders would work across the superyacht industry by 2021, contributing $2 billion to gross state product. But the foreign yachts didn't come, and tourism is experiencing a very slow recovery, particularly in Cairns.
Labor is clear in our position that these changes are to ensure that superyachts do not bypass our waters in favour of foreign shores. We want them to come. We want people to spend money here. We want to make sure that local economies do actually benefit. It is so that superyachts will stop in Cairns rather than skipping past en route to Fiji or to New Zealand. It is to bring more money into communities that might otherwise flow overseas. It isn't to allow foreign operators to set up shop in Australia and outcompete Australian businesses and strangle that aspect of Australia's economic tourism recovery.
Pre COVID it was with Australian jobs in mind that Labor successfully advocated for the insertion of clauses ensuring that people employed on the superyachts had necessary employment protections and that visiting superyachts are prohibited from carrying commercial cargo up and down our coast. We determined that it was responsible to trial the changes over two years to assess the success of the Olympic Games and the America's Cup and to ensure that there were no unintended consequences across the broader industry. Labor successfully pushed for the inclusion of a sunset clause and a review into the original bill because we did not want to see Australian jobs lost. Without these clauses we would not have given the bill our support then and we would not be giving it our support now.
Post COVID it is more important than ever that Australian workers are put at the forefront of government considerations. We want to ensure that, when this bill once more comes up for review in 2023, all parties look very closely at the impact it has had on an important Australian industry. If in two years time we find that it has cost jobs, that we have lost businesses in that area and that it has not brought the benefits it has promised, we need to look more carefully at this permission.
We are wary of the government's actions in this space because, frankly, they've got form. We've had too many jobs in our maritime industry that have already been lost on this government's watch. Over recent years Australian shipping jobs have collapsed. Over the past 30 years the number of Australian flagged vessels has shrunk from 100 to barely 10. While other maritime nations support their shipping industries, the Morrison government has on its watch basically seen it decimated. Norway has 519 vessels carrying the Norwegian flag. The United Kingdom has 1,157 flagged vessels and China has 4,608 Chinese flagged vessels. If other nations can maintain a merchant fleet, so can we.
All the time the government continues to open Australia up to foreign flagged and crewed ships without thinking of the importance of our own capability not only to import our vital supply of fuels and other essentials but also to move goods around this country. They twice sought to rip up the reforms made by the Labor government aimed at protecting Australian shipping under the guise of reducing costs. The parliament twice rejected the government's so-called reforms calling out the legislation then as bad for Australian passengers and freight, bad for Australian workers and bad for Australian national security. All the while, each and every coalition transport minister over the past eight long years has undermined the policy settings put in place by the former Labor government that sought to enhance and rebuild the Australian shipping industry. In particular, the repeated misuse of temporary licences by this government has enabled foreign flagships with foreign crews to trade on our coastline—work that can and should be done by Australian maritime workers paid Australian wages at Australian conditions.
Australia relies on shipping to move 99 per cent of our imports and exports, including fuel. It is critical that we maintain the sovereign capacity to import these supplies and transport them around the country. Whether it be conflict, natural disaster or pandemic, history has shown us that we cannot always rely on other nations to carry our essential goods on their flagged ships. And, unlike those opposite, Labor believes in a strong and vibrant maritime industry and will always support Australian seafarers, maritime workers and Australian flagged ships as well as those Australian workers who maintain and build our merchant and recreational fleet.
While this bill will do far less than is needed for jobs in Australian shipping, we will support it under these circumstances. That being said, and the second reading amendment having been circulated in my name, I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes this Government's record of undermining the Australian shipping industry;
(2) reaffirms that Australia's tourism industry, marine and coastal environment, and national security interests are best served by a viable and competitive shipping industry; and
(3) commits to a thorough review of the Act at the revised sunset date of 30 June 2023".
Labor does have a proud history of supporting the vital role of Australian maritime industries that we play in securing our economic, environmental and national security interests. We remain committed to revitalising the industry and supporting all workers and small businesses engaged in our maritime sector.
I reiterate that, while we won't oppose the passage of the bill, we will be carefully watching its impact on Australian businesses and Australian workers. We want it to grow jobs, we want it to see thriving economies in Cairns and Townsville and all the way through Queensland. But we must make sure, and I think all of the members here would want to make sure, that it isn't at the expense of the small business operators who've been operating along that coast, around a fantastic part of our country, and that it actually benefits workers in that sector.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
I thank the honourable member for Rankin. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting with other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
I'm very pleased to speak on the Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2021, but, before I do talk about the bill, I just point out that what we have just heard from the Labor member opposite, the member for Ballarat, is that the Labor Party supports the bill but the Labor Party is wary of the bill. The Labor Party wants to ensure the passage of the bill so that we don't lose superyacht business in tourism places in Queensland, while at the same time warning, falsely—falsely—that there would be some negative impact on local businesses and local jobs. I've got to say that that is exactly the kind of stuff we've come to expect from the Labor Party. The member for Ballarat, following in her leader's footsteps, is having a bid each way and then, after having a bid each way, simply going to the wharfie or MUA talking points and getting in a bit of cheap politics. That's what it is—nothing but a bid each way and then a bit of cheap politics. It's what we've come to expect from Labor.
It also shows a fundamental lack of understanding of tourism, and that's why the Queensland tourism industry communities are covered by representation from Liberal National Party members—me with the Whitsundays and the Mackay region; the member for Forde, over there, representing part of the Gold Coast, which is covered wall to wall by LNP members; up in Townsville, the member for Herbert; up further, in Cairns, the member for Leichhardt; down on the Capricorn Coast, the member for Capricornia; and the member for Fraser, the member for Hinkler and the member for Wide Bay covering all of that beautiful area. All of the tourism areas in Queensland are covered by Liberal National Party members. You yourself, Deputy Speaker Vasta, as the member for Bonner, represent a very well known tourism hotspot there, with the beautiful beaches you have in your Brisbane electorate.
It just shows a lack of understanding about tourism to suggest that superyachts are going to somehow cost local businesses, such as local cruises that go out overnight, and cost local jobs. Have you never been on board a superyacht? Have you never seen one? Have you never been on board a local cruise ship? The domestic market caters to backpackers. The domestic market caters to local families—actually, it's not the domestic market; the cruise ship market, which is mostly international, covers families and retirees. So it's a particular market. Superyachts are limited to about a dozen passengers and cater to the uber-rich, the uberwealthy, who do not go on cruise vessels and do not go aboard the backpacker vessels. So to suggest there is going to be some competition here and a loss of jobs is insane.
What in fact happened until this government acted, with the original bill, was that we lost all of the potential that superyachts bring with their multimillionaire and billionaire passengers. We lost it to New Zealand. We lost it to Noumea. We had virtually none coming into the country because of stupid regulations that this government's gotten rid of that, actually, the Labor Party here today has flagged they could revisit and go back to. That is a warning to tourism towns. And why is it a warning to tourism towns? Far from costing jobs, far from costing local businesses, these superyachts drop, in any community they dock in, between 50 and 60 grand a week. That's 50 to 60 grand a week in local purchases. Whether it be the local florist—I'm told they do a bit of a trade while superyachts are in town—or the local food supply outlets or the local bottle-os, they do a roaring trade when these superyachts hit town, and that equates to local jobs.
Over in Noumea, which I mentioned, my understanding is that, pre pandemic, the number of vessels they had docking equated to 200 weeks a year—200 weeks. That's at least four vessels in dock every week. Think of that. Do the math: 50 to 60 grand times 52 weeks times four. You are talking big bucks. That money flowing through local economies equates to more local jobs in hospitality, retail, the food industry and the tourism industry itself. That's what's at stake here. That is why the government is moving to push the sunset date of the act out a further couple of years. Sadly, what has happened is that these changes have taken place at a time when the superyacht market was ripe for the picking so we could nab some of that 50 grand to 60 grand a week that these people drop in the places that they dock. The pandemic has knocked that catch completely out of the water.
We need to push the sunset clause down the road so that we can have those vessels coming here post-pandemic and enjoying the beautiful spots that are right up and down the Queensland coast. I'm going to tell you again—I'm going to be very, very parochial here; sorry to other members—again, to the member for Ballarat, it seems that the Labor Party always refers to Cairns when it comes to tourism. Cairns is very beautiful, but the Whitsundays are the sailing capital of Australia, and everyone knows it. We have the most marine tourism out of all the spots in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park area. It is a beautiful spot. You can go out there and get on the overnight adventure boats, the backpacker boats. After I think four to eight hours worth of training you can jump on a catamaran with the family and go sailing throughout the beautiful Whitsundays and all those islands. I encourage the member over there to bring his family up and we'll go sailing. It is just so beautiful. On top of all of those—
An honourable member interjecting—
I will take the interjection and just say I think we'd run rings around the south coast with the spectacular views we have up there and with Whitehaven Beach, which is consistently voted one of the best beaches in the world. You've got to see it to believe it. We're going to get into a breach competition here, so I'm going to move quickly away from this and get back to the bill. The proof is in the pudding. Come and have a look at Whitehaven Beach; it is absolutely beautiful.
Now on top of all the markets that we capture in the Whitsundays simply from their natural beauty, and also the hard work, dedication and professionalism of local tourism providers, we are going to have an extremely high end market coming into that area and spending their money supporting local business and local jobs. A lot of work was done by a lot of members to ensure that the original version of this bill was put together, put to this place and passed. I was one of those members, but I don't want to pat myself on the back. I want to pat on the back the people in the superyacht support industry who were instrumental by coming to this place and lobbying. I was assisting them. One of those people is a local business owner in my electorate. He owns the Coral Sea Marina Resort. His name is Paul Darrouzet. Paul Darrouzet spoke to numerous environment ministers about changing settings in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park area that would allow superyachts to traverse areas in the Great Barrier Reef. Those changes in settings did absolutely nothing to negatively affect the reef and its environments, but it did enable these vessels and that major wealth to come into areas like the Whitsundays, drop their coin locally and create more local business and more local jobs. On top of that, we lobbied the Treasury, the Assistant Treasurer, the Minister for Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister and all the rest of them about getting rid of GST implications on these vessels. Previously, when one of these vessels came into Australia, they were charged essentially 10 per cent of the cost of the hull. That was a major imposition that nowhere else in the world was doing, so they would simply bypass Australia. If you can't come in without being stung a motza, if you can't come in and traverse to the places that you want to come to, the beautiful places like those in the Whitsunday, then you just don't come. You go to Noumea, you go to New Zealand, you go and see the sights over there, and then you leave without spending a single cent or dollar in Australia. That's what was happening.
We changed that. This government changed that with the support of the tourism sector. It's a very, very good thing that we did because it is going to enable a lot of businesses to create a lot of jobs. I noticed at the time when we did change it that it again showed the whole each-way thing of those opposite. Today they're having a bet each way: 'This bill, we're going to support it, but we're wary of it. This bill we're supporting because we could otherwise lose the business that comes from it, but we also warn that it could harm local business and could harm local jobs.' That's a false equation, by the way, but that's what was said. At the time we were talking about removing the GST implications from these superyachts coming into the country, and I've got to tell you, in terms of the taxpayer, there were no GST implications because they just didn't come and 10 per cent of zero is zero. We were receiving nothing, no benefit whatsoever, no taxation benefit and no direct investment benefit, so we got rid of that. At the point we got rid of that, we had some member over on the other side jumping up to talk about GST on tampons and equating that to the removal of GST on superyachts that didn't even visit the country.
It just again showed cheap politics being put in the way of jobs, being put in the way of business opportunities for Australians. I couldn't believe it when I heard that because again it shows talking out of both sides of their mouths. Those opposite were saying to the superyacht support sector, 'Yes, yes, we're going to back you.' Then they'd come into the parliament and issue cheap shots like that.
An opposition member interjecting—
The member opposite might not think it's a cheap shot, but it cost jobs so it was a cheap shot. You essentially opposing the removal of GST on superyachts with silly, cheap comments like that cost jobs.
An opposition member interjecting—
Order! The member for Dawson has the call.
I would say to the Labor Party, please do not undermine this sector. Please do not undermine the opportunities that will come into this country from these superyachts. We need the money, the 50 to 60 grand a week dropped in communities and economies where these vessels are docked. It is very, very important that we get a slice of that pie, that we don't lose it to the Pacific Islands and we don't just simply lose it to New Zealand. I again say: boats are docking for 200 weeks a year, with pretty much four vessels docking every week in Noumea. Times that by $50,000 to $60,000 and you see the benefit to that region. You see the benefit to that very, very small island. Imagine what we could get in Australia, superyachts up and down the coast with those millionaires, multimillionaires and billionaires spending their large wealth. That's going to create a lot of jobs. That's going to create a lot of business. That's why I back it. That's why this Liberal-National government is supporting it.
We support tourism. We support regional economies. The proof's in the pudding. That's why tourism communities and tourism economies support good members like the member Forde, all those members on the Gold Coast, all those members up and down regional Queensland—in Cairns, Townsville and indeed in the Whitsundays, in the electorate of Dawson. They know that the Liberal and National parties will consistently back tourism. We will back tourism businesses, we will back tourism workers and we will back tourism jobs. We will continue to do so and we will do so with really, really sound legislation and ideas like this that will pay dividends into the future. Thank you.
It is with great pleasure that I speak on the Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2021 and to follow on from my good friend and colleague the member for Dawson and his comments. He spoke at length about the value of superyachts to local communities up and down the Queensland coast. I would add that I am sure across the north of Australia and down the west coast they would equally love visits by superyachts. He also spoke about the impact on local businesses as a result of those yachts docking and spending time there and investing in our local communities $50,000 or $60,000 a week.
I would like to take a slightly different tack, Deputy Speaker Vasta, because, as you well know in your wonderful electorate of Bonner and in my electorate of Forde and just across the highway in the electorate of Fadden, we have two of the most modern superyacht refit facilities in Australia, with both looking to invest significant amounts as a result of the legislation we passed in 2019. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, the member for Dawson and others in this place, myself included, spent a lot of time in 2019 to get to this point. We know from the discussions that we've had with people like Rivergate Marine on the Brisbane River and Tony Longhurst of the Boat Works down at Coomera the value of the initial legislation we passed in 2019. This bill seeks to extend that sunset clause from 30 June 2021 to 30 June 2023. I think that's a terrific decision given the impact of COVID right across our economy but also on the superyacht industry.
The reason I support this legislation and support the original legislation is the investment that this is going to bring to our communities. Whilst Rivergate and the Boat Works are not physically in my electorate, I know from my discussions with the owners of both of those superyacht facilities the number of people who work in those facilities who live and work in my electorate of Forde. So it's not just what happens on the precinct at the marina; it's what happens crossed South East Queensland and also, by extension—as the member for Dawson has very well articulated—what happens right across Queensland and our broader economy. Whether it is the beautiful Southern Moreton Bay Islands on the Gold Coast or Moreton Bay, in the member for Bonner's electorate, Hervey Bay, the Whitsundays, Cairns and further afield, it is a tremendous opportunity for us as a nation.
I will first look at the Boat Works. Over the past couple of years, they've spent nearly $100 million in upgrading their facilities to build a 25-acre superyacht facility. But, now, given the interest that has occurred—and I know that there are many, many Australians now buying their own superyachts and bringing them back to Australia, which is generating an awful lot of business as well—Tony Longhurst, the owner of Boat Works, is talking about bringing forward the development of stage 4, which would allow the construction of five new supersheds to accommodate 40 metre-plus vessels. They expect to have $300 million worth of boats there and over a thousand people on site on any one day. The 2019 legislation that we are now amending has resulted in creating the opportunity for people like Tony Longhurst and others to invest very, very significant amounts of money in our economy, creating jobs and economic opportunity.
In addition, I would like to touch on Rivergate, which I know is in your electorate, Deputy Speaker Vasta. They are proposing to spend $200 million on the redevelopment of that marina and facilities to build the largest superyacht refit and maintenance hub in the Asia-Pacific. Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, you and I have visited there a number of times. Currently they have 21 tenants, 320 contractors across 20 trades and a 105-berth marina. But what they are planning to do with this $200 million investment will more than double that. I know from the last time we were there visiting some of those small businesses that many of those tenants and contractors are in their own right small-business owners, and they do a fabulous job each and every day servicing our marine industry.
The other part of this which we haven't touched on yet—and I know from the discussions that we've had with Rivergate and also with the Boat Works—is when these superyachts are in town to be refitted the crew has to be housed and accommodated. So our hotels in Brisbane and on the Gold Coast are benefiting from these refit facilities because the crews from those boats are accommodated in our hotels. They go out shopping, go to our restaurants, have some entertainment, go on tours and take up the fabulous tourism opportunities that we have around the south-east of Queensland. All of those flow-on benefits reflect in our economy. Some of those crews might be there for three to six months depending on the size of the refit of the particular superyacht. These are business opportunities that, prior to this legislation in 2019, very rarely existed. It was mainly Australian superyachts that were serviced at Rivergate, and certainly the Boat Works didn't have those facilities back then.
We can see a simple change in legislation by this government in 2019 is now being extended through these amendments. I hope, in all honesty, it's made permanent so we don't have to revisit this every few years, because, as the member for Dawson well articulated, I think the strictures that were put on this by those opposite don't stand up to the realities of what actually goes on in this industry in the cold, hard light of day. But that's not unusual for those opposite, because they don't understand business in the first place. I'm proud to say that it is this government that is leading now through the legislation we have passed, which is now leading to multimillion-dollar investments in our economy.
If we look at the build of these superyacht and refit facilities, it's not just now the shipwrights, the upholsterers, the sandblasters and all the tradesmen that operate in those facilities that benefit; it's also all of the contractors that have to build these new facilities—the concreters, the people that make the sheds, the sparkys, the carpenters. All of these tradespeople as well as all of those employed to work on maintaining these boats live in all of our electorates across the south-east. Right across South-East Queensland, across all of our electorates, everybody benefits.
As I spoke about last night on a separate subject, defence procurement, the supply chain across this industry is enormous. Many of the raw materials and products that are required to refit these boats are sourced locally across South-East Queensland and are not available more generally in Australia. So our Australian economy benefits right across the board, whether it is, as the member for Dawson has outlined, that they are in port in the Whitsundays, going and visiting local tourist attractions, restocking their pantries, restocking their cellars, filling up with fuel and all of those sorts of things—that specific spend in those communities where they actually stop to do the tours—or in communities like ours, where they're actually stopping for the boats to be refitted and upgraded. Right across the board, as a direct result of the decisions this government made back in 2019, we are seeing hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on upgrading facilities to service these yachts because of the opportunities this government has created. We're seeing hundreds of jobs created and we're seeing wealth created in this country. I commend this bill in its original form to the House. It's just another example of this government continuing to deliver for our local communities and for Australia.
It gives me great pleasure to rise on the Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2021. This is an industry that is so important on the Gold Coast, and it is one that has been going through the COVID-19 pandemic.
This bill will amend the Special Recreational Vessels Act 2019. 'Special recreational vessels' is the term that the Commonwealth legislation uses to refer to, simply, superyachts. In Australia, the relevant peak industry bodies are the Australian International Marine Export Group, AIMEX, and Superyacht Australia. The industry considers superyachts to be vessels more than 24 metres long with a capacity of less than 12 overnight passengers, excluding crew.
The act reflects the industry definition:
special recreational vessel means a vessel that:
(a) is designed to be used wholly or primarily for recreational or sporting activities; and
(b) is over 24 metres in length; and
(c) is not used wholly or primarily for carrying cargo.
These are, clearly, recreational vessels. The bill will simply extend the operation of the act. Section 17 of the act will be amended by omitting '30 June 2021' and substituting '30 June 2023'. These are the technicalities of the act, but I will speak later about my community and, if I might say so, my beloved Gold Coast. The act currently permits superyachts to opt into the coastal trading regulatory regime. This permits vessels to be offered for hire or for charter in Australian waters. Prior to the passage of the Special Recreational Vessels Act, vessels were not permitted to obtain temporary licenses under the coastal trading act of 2012. This created a major disincentive for superyachts to visit Australia, because the vessels were subject to importation duty and taxes under the Customs Act. There are significant economic benefits of superyacht activity in Australia, particularly at a time when, as a nation we are working towards sustainable recovery. I agree with the sentiments of my colleague, the member for Forde, on superyachts and their benefits to the local economy, which I'll speak about more in a moment. The government recognises that longer term regulatory arrangements are necessary for all stakeholders. To ensure we achieve the right regulatory settings, industry consultation will also be required. In the meantime, this bill will ensure that the benefits of superyachts will continue to flow to the economy.
The Gold Coast is one of the locations benefiting from this industry with a very bright future. The Australian International Marine Export Group uses various metrics to assess the economic benefits of superyachts. I will just outline a few of those metrics. In terms of metres and days, it takes into account the length of yachts and the time they stay in Australia. On that basis, the current annual growth is a staggering 58 per cent, thanks to the Morrison government and this legislation. Superyachts are conservatively valued at about $1 million per metre, and spent 10 per cent of that value per year. So a 60 metre yacht is probably valued in excess of $60 million and delivers at least $600,000 per annum in economic value to the local economy, if staying for 365 days. And a lot of people on superyachts would like to stay on the Gold Coast for 365 days, I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker! Southport Yacht Club is there, and with the beautiful sunshine on the flat water it is terribly and stunningly attractive. But of course the economic activity generated goes well beyond the direct spending by the crew and the passengers, as outlined by the member for Forde.
The current act has delivered a dramatic increase in superyacht activity for Australia. In calendar years, it went from around $40 million in 2018 to $100 million 2020. That additional 150 per cent in economic benefit has been despite the pandemic. It's been, of course, more difficult for crew and passengers of yachts to travel to Australia, although they had been staying longer once here. AIMEX estimates that once they've had 12 months of operation clear of the pandemic impacts, they would expect the current arrangements that the bill extends to produce a 300 per cent increase on 2018 levels, which is quite staggering.
I have supported the good work by the previous Minister for Home Affairs to deliver a Border Force clearing station in Moncrieff to support the utilisation of Southport by superyachts. This is good news for the local economy. Moncrieff is a significant beneficiary of this industry and, certainly, this bill. The Southport Yacht Club has embarked on a project to build a 136-metre superyacht berth to increase the length and number of vessels able to berth on the coast. The new berth could accommodate a yacht the full size of the berth or two 60-metre yachts, which is something very special to see at Southport Yacht Club. Of course, there must be seaway access also, and Marine Safety Queensland is currently assessing the seaway access, potentially giving access to vessels up to 100 metres in length. They certainly are a sight to see in the seaway. The new berth construction has faced a few minor delays, with some bad weather earlier this year on the Gold Coast—unusual for the Gold Coast's usually sunny, clear skies. It's likely to be completed by August this year, which is good news. The Southport Yacht Club is doing very well in general, with record numbers through its restaurant and excellent membership numbers. I'll give a shout-out to Brett James, the general manager there, and the commodore, Ken, who's a fantastic fellow and always in good spirits.
For every superyacht that berths on the Gold Coast, there are significant benefits to the local economy, including the purchase of fuel; food and drink supplies; tourist activities, which are so important to the Gold Coast; and other services. But the economic benefits for the Gold Coast of a vibrant superyacht industry go well beyond berthing vessels and purchases by passengers and crew. The Gold Coast is also home to the construction and servicing of a great range of marine vessels. All aspects of the superyacht industry contribute to the marketing position of the Gold Coast as both a world-class international destination and a world-class marine business investment opportunity, and we welcome that.
In Coomera, a short distance up the road from Moncrief, employing many of my constituents are a great number of marine businesses of various sizes, adding to the Gold Coast economy. A good example is Riviera, a very successful luxury motor yacht builder. Allow me to share a few details about Riviera that will allow those listening to understand the importance of the marine industry, now and into the future. Riviera has been operating for 41 years. They have the largest luxury yacht building facility in the Southern Hemisphere, on a 16.8 hectare site at Coomera, in the member for Fadden's electorate. They employ a team of 800. They have built over 5,700 luxury motor yachts, and they export about 55 per cent of their annual yacht production. Their yachts range in length from 39 to 78 feet, which is quite significant.
Another business at the marine precinct at Coomera employing many people from my electorate is the Boat Works, which the member for Forde also spoke about. It's home to an impressive array of marine trades, through the many businesses that operate out of that facility. About 2,000 people are employed. That's 2,000 people, from just one business, who are employed and looked after thanks to the marine industry on the Gold Coast, which is such an incredible contributor to our local economy. The Boat Works invested $100 million in 2019 to upgrade their facilities and a further $20 million this year to meet the significant demand that they are facing now, in such a rapid growth trajectory. They have the facilities to store boats of up to 60 metres, and they have 300-, 100- and 70-tonne marine lifts to handle boats of up to 50 metres in length and 32 feet beam—that's width, for those that aren't familiar with the term. They also have a unique 45-tonne hydraulic submersible sea lift. It's quite a sight.
Next door is another great facility. The Gold Coast City Marina & Shipyard is another great Gold Coast business success story with a global reputation. Recently announced as a finalist for the Best Superyacht Refit Yard Award at the 2021 ACREW Superyacht Business Awards, voted on by 15,000 captains and crew. It's a very special award. The GCCM is no stranger to accolades, having received many other awards in the past.
All of these businesses and the many other marine businesses on the Gold Coast are providing thousands of local jobs and training apprentices for their careers. Industry and governments agree on the importance of regulatory reform for the industry. However, the complexities of foreign superyachts operating in Australia are not immediately obvious. When you delve further, the issues include the application import of duty and GST that need to be looked at as well. Expecting operators to pay 10 per cent of the value of a vessel is, of course, a significant disincentive to operate in Australia.
This bill is the Morrison government backing the marine industry through and beyond the pandemic and is very, very good policy. To finish, I know that the member for Forde and the member for Fadden will agree that the amendment to this 2019 legislation has created the important opportunity for local businesses, like those of the Longhurst brothers, to invest in local industry with certainty to create economic security for jobs for South-East Queenslanders and, most importantly, to create those jobs for those constituents who live in Moncrieff and across the wider Gold Coast. I commend the amendment in this bill to the House.
I acknowledge all those who have made a contribution to this debate on the Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2021. I join with the former speaker, the member for Forde, who acknowledged the member for Dawson. It's rightfully so that the contributions made in this debate come from our more coastal seats in Queensland. Superyachts are always welcomed in the great state of Queensland. I also acknowledge the member for Moncrieff's contribution. In particular, superyachts are a common sight on the waterways of the Gold Coast, where they are part of the landscape. Thank you for your nautical oversight and terminology to assist the House.
The Special Recreational Vessels Act 2019 is simply due to sunset on 30 June 2021. As such, an extension of the repeal date is necessary to enable these vessels to come to Australian waters and simply offer charters. The bill will support these charters on the Australian coast until a longer term regulatory solution can be achieved.
Prior to the introduction of the Special Recreational Vessels Act 2019, the special recreational vessels visited our Pacific neighbours but chose to bypass Australia simply because of the red tape. So what we've done is try to address that. The Australian government put the act in place to allow special recreational vessels, also known as superyachts, to charter in Australian waters and to realise the opportunity they bring for our hospitality, tourism operators, suppliers and, particularly, regional communities, which were outlined by the member for Moncrieff.
Providing new possibilities for businesses and communities is even more important as we rebuild our economy immediately after COVID. The bill provides greater opportunities and certainties for businesses, particularly in regional coastal communities, to benefit from the special recreational vessels that charter there, helping Australians to take advantage of an existing and growing industry. With that, I commend this bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question before the House is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak in relation to the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. In so doing, I also move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Coalition Government have bungled the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and have all but abandoned its targets, leaving basin communities behind and risking our future water resources".
This is an important piece of legislation. Of course, as the minister said in his second reading speech, water is essential for the health and wellbeing of the basin's 2.2 million people and it's essential to support our national economy. The basin contributes $24 billion in agricultural earnings and $8 billion in tourism dollars in a normal, non-COVID, pre-COVID year. Water is of course also essential for the natural environment in the basin, including the 16 internationally significant wetlands and all of the endangered species that inhabit the basin.
Water is incredibly important to everybody who needs it to survive, but the water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin are important to all of the basin jurisdictions. That's why it is so important that people living and working in the Murry-Darling Basin and people across Australia can have confidence that water resources are being used properly and fairly. That's why this bill is so important, because report after report, study after study, has found that there is a growing lack of confidence and lack of trust amongst people living and working in the basin and amongst people who have an interest in the Murray-Darling Basin water resources.
This particular bill would amend the Water Act 2007 to effectively split the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to create a new agency with responsibility for the compliance function. That new agency would be headed by the new Inspector-General of Water Compliance, which is being established by this bill. This bill establishes that role, and that role will monitor and provide independent oversight of water compliance. The bill also proposes new offences and civil penalty provisions for unlawful conduct relating to contraventions of the Basin Plan; taking water when not permitted, as a basic provision, and there's an aggravated provision; and also water-trading issues akin to insider trading.
It's important to note that the government has sought to secure agreement on this new position and agency from the other basin jurisdictions. It's also important to note that, because conduct relating to taking water would also be the subject of the basin states' laws, this bill would actually require the new inspector-general to notify the appropriate agency of the state before taking certain compliance action, and, if a state says that they're dealing with the matter, provide them with an opportunity to do so before this new agency itself takes enforcement action. The intention is obviously for the Commonwealth to have the ability to take action but only after giving the basin state the opportunity to do so first, as the primary, frontline compliance body.
Compliance has been an issue of concern and has been considered in various reports and agreements, including the 2017 Murray-Darling Basin Water Compliance Review conducted by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and an independent panel; and the Murray-Darling Basin Compliance Compact jointly agreed to by COAG in December 2018. But it's important to note, in particular, that the Productivity Commission has been sounding the alarm for some time about the problems that arise, the potential for conflict that arises, when the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has multiple different functions that, as I said, can come into conflict.
In its five-year review of the Basin Plan that was published in 2018, the Productivity Commission raised concerns that the conflicting roles that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority had, such as supporting the other jurisdictions to implement the plan, and plan evaluation and compliance, could create conflicts and lead to the Murray-Darling Basin—as the Productivity Commission described it—'marking its own homework'. The Productivity Commission, in that report, recommended that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority be split into two separate institutions: the Murry-Darling Basin agency and the Basin Plan regulator. That, as I said, was a recommendation that was published in the Productivity Commission's 2018 report. But it isn't until now, until today, 2021, that the government has actually taken steps to give effect to that recommendation—this step of splitting out the compliance function and creating a new agency, and it has been a long and winding road, frankly, to get to this point that we are now at.
In 2016, there was a Northern Basin Review, and that Northern Basin Review proposed that the water recovery target be reduced by 70 gigalitres per year in the northern basin, provided that the jurisdictions committed to what were described as Northern Basin Toolkit measures. After that review, there was a new role established, and that was called the Northern Basin Commissioner. That was a non-statutory role, and it was intended to be funded for three years, and that role arose from the Basin Plan commitments package in May 2018, which was a collection of commitments agreed between various jurisdictions, in respect of which we were also consulted. Former AFP commissioner Mick Keelty was appointed as that Northern Basin Commissioner in August 2018. So it was meant to be a three-year role, but only a year later, in August 2019, the Liberal-National government decided to scrap that role and create a new role, an Inspector-General for the Murray-Darling Basin. They said at the time—this was in August 2019—that that new role of inspector-general for the basin would have the powers needed to ensure integrity and delivery of the Basin Plan, that it would be a statutory position and that it would be able to refer issues to the Commonwealth Integrity Commission once it was established.
So in 2018 the Northern Basin Commissioner is created. In 2019 a Murray-Darling Basin inspector-general is announced. That new inspector-general is supposedly going to be a statutory role and is supposedly going to be able to refer matters to the new Commonwealth Integrity Commission. What happened was that Mr Keelty was appointed to the new position. His appointment was for a year, and that came and went without a statute being enacted, without a bill even being tabled, and obviously, as everyone in this place knows, without a Commonwealth integrity commission even being established, let alone his being given the capacity to refer to it. Then we had a period where there was no Murray-Darling Basin inspector-general whatsoever. So, there was a gap between Mr Keelty's appointment and his successor's appointment. But, at the same time, not only did his position come and go without being established as a statutory position, without being given any powers, without having a Commonwealth integrity commission to refer matters to, which were all breaches of the commitment made the year before by this government—yet another example of this government being all about the photo-op but never about the follow-up and all about the announcement but never about the delivery—they announced all of these things, they committed all of these things, Mr Keelty was in the position for a year, and his appointment came and went without any of those things ever actually happening.
Then there was a period of no inspector-general, and then, in September 2020, last September, the Commonwealth announced yet another new arrangement. They'd had the Northern Basin Commissioner and scrapped it. They'd had the Murray-Darling Basin inspector-general. They've now announced that they are scrapping that. They announced that there would be a new position which is Inspector-General of Water Compliance. They announced it in September. They announced the establishment of a statutory Inspector-General of Water Compliance position, and it was at that time, a bit more than a couple of years after the Productivity Commission had recommended it, that they finally announced that the compliance functions would be moved out of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.
As I said, it has been a long and winding road to get to this bill. I'm pleased that we're now in a position where we are debating this proposed legislation, because this is something that should have been done years ago. The major difference, I should say, between that September 2020 announcement and the announcement that the government made more than a year before in August 2019, was that the announcement at the end of last year provided, as I said, not just for the creation of yet another new inspector-general but also for the splitting of those compliance functions from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. So, after a couple of months of just no inspector-general whatsoever, no cop on the beat in the Murry-Darling Basin, even though the government had been talking about a cop on the beat for a very long time, the government finally appointed, in December 2020, the Hon. Troy Grant to the newly created role of Interim Inspector-General of Water Compliance for the Murray-Darling Basin.
So, we had the Northern Basin Commissioner, the interim inspector-general of the Murray-Darling Basin, no permanent inspector-general of the Murray-Darling Basin, then a gap, and now an Interim Inspector-General of Water Compliance. Hopefully, now that this bill is finally before the House, we will finally get a permanent, statutory, independent Inspector-General of Water Compliance and that person will be able to rely on actual powers, not just moral suasion, to do their job to restore confidence, to restore trust, to restore the sense that people are all playing by the rules and that everyone is playing by the same rules—that everyone is getting a fair go and that no-one's being taken for a mug. That's the importance of this really significant role. I'm looking forward to the inspector-general having the statutory basis, independence and budget that he needs in order to undertake this work. But the passage of this bill is not enough by itself to make that happen, because if you read the bill you can see that it doesn't commence until after the state jurisdictions, the basin jurisdictions, have all approved the referred provisions.
As I said, we had the 2016 review, we had the 2018 announcement of the position, we had the 2019 announcement of the new position, we had the interim inspector-general, we had the gap where there was no inspector-general, we've now got another interim inspector-general and we're now finally seeing this bill. But what we're not going to have is a statutory inspector-general until all of the basin jurisdictions have approved the amendments to the referred provisions. I just want to encourage our friends in other jurisdictions to make sure that they do move swiftly to undertake the necessary work to ensure that this legislation can commence as rapidly as possible. I wish the minister very great luck in securing those referrals, those approvals, so that this legislation can finally kick in and we can have the inspector-general empowered, independent and really doing the work that's necessary to restore that confidence in the basin.
It's important to note that this inspector-general would be appointed by the Governor-General and he would be conferred—and I say 'he', because we assume that it will continue to be Mr Grant, though I can be corrected if I am wrong—with the existing compliance functions and the powers of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. He would also replace the existing non-statutory interim inspector-general role. The functions of the new statutory role would include monitoring and providing independent oversight of Commonwealth agencies in the performance of their functions and exercise of their powers under the act, the regulations, the Basin Plan and water resource plans; monitoring and overseeing basin state agencies in relation to their obligations in the management of basin water resources; monitoring the implementation of water restrictions of various agreements that are specified in the bill relating to the basin and the Basin Plan; community engagement; and exercising the proposed new enforcement provisions, which, as I said at the outset, include both civil penalty provisions and offences. These functions would be supported by new inquiry powers and the power to issue guidelines and standards. The power to undertake audits would be transferred from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the inspector-general.
It's also important to note that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority will obviously continue and that this new position, the inspector-general role, to ensure that it is able to undertake its work, will have a significant degree of independence, will be making its own decisions, as I'm advised, in respect of the work plan and will have budget allocations. It will also be able to appoint other people to assist in the performance of the roles and, where those people are not directly employed and subject to Australian Public Service obligations, they will be subject to a fit and proper person test.
I'm grateful to the minister for the collegiate way in which he has worked with us in respect of the establishment of this new role, and I also thank him for consulting with us as to the proposed provision of this legislation and listening to us with matters that we have raised. I also want to say to all Australians who have an interest in the Murray-Darling Basin, which is really all Australians, that we recognise the importance of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and of making sure that we continue to insist that there be Commonwealth leadership in relation to this plan.
This plan is really one of the most crucial instruments of the Commonwealth because it does go to the management of those water resources—as I said at the outset, agricultural use, tourism use, environmental use and community use. It's also important to acknowledge the very significant cultural use of water by traditional owners. There are tens of Aboriginal nations in the Murray-Darling Basin to whom these water resources have a great spiritual and cultural significance as well as environmental and economic significance and, for that matter, their significance for the sustenance of human life.
It is important that as a nation we do better when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It has been, I think, really regrettable to see some of the delays and concerns about the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. For example, there's a great deal of concern in our community about the environmental outcomes that are intended to be delivered, that would be equivalent to 605 gigalitres per year of water, and whether those outcomes will actually be delivered given the delays and failures of implementation in respect of the projects that are meant to give rise to those outcomes.
There is also, I think, a great deal of concern about the very significant underperformance in respect of the 450 gigalitres per year of additional water that's meant to be delivered through efficiency measures. This 450 gigalitres per year secured South Australia's participation in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Yet here we are, only a few years before the deadline for that 450 gigalitres, and we've had the Water for the Environment Special Account report last year saying that only 1.9 gigalitres of that 450 gigalitres has been delivered to date. That report said that the water is just not going to be delivered. In September last year, at the same time as the government announced the creation of this new inspector-general role and the splitting of the compliance functions from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, they were also making clear that they—the government with responsibility for national leadership for the implementation of this plan—were almost fatalistic about their capacity to deliver that 450 gigalitres per year. The minister announced that there would a shift from all other forms of efficiency measures to exclusively looking to off-farm efficiency measures to deliver the 450 gigalitres. We've now seen, in recent days, the release of a report from the Australia Institute and the South Australian Conservation Council that says that, for those off-farm efficiency measures, so far the only proposals listed by the government are proposals for irrigation infrastructure in New South Wales, and a number of them—almost all of them—don't specify the amount of water that would be recovered through those proposed irrigation infrastructure measures.
The government is really running out of time to explain to the Australian people how they're going to deliver that 450 gigalitres of water per year. If it's not delivered, that's a significant problem. As I said, it was that 450 gigalitres that really secured South Australia's participation in the plan. I think South Australians would be entitled to be deeply concerned about the future not just of the basin more broadly but of, for example, Ramsar listed wetlands in South Australia if that water is not delivered, if that commitment is not met. I think South Australians would also be looking to their own government and asking questions about whether their own government has done enough to secure that additional 450 gigalitres.
We know that as a nation we have to protect this crucial water resource for all of those reasons that we have talked about—the agricultural benefit; the tourism benefit; the sustenance of farmers, farming communities, local communities; the cultural use of water; and the environmental use of water. The government really needs to explain to the Australian people how they're going to make sure that the spirit of the plan and the letter of the plan are met and delivered. They need to explain to the Australian people how we're going to, in the face of declining inflows—that was the finding from the previous interim inspector-general when he did his report—in the face of climate change, in the face of growing demands on the water resources that we have, make sure that those water resources are managed as well as possible and that they're managed in a way that maximises the best possible use of the water, not in a narrow sense but in the sense of all of those different uses of water that I've talked about.
This bill excludes the ACCC from its purview, but it is worth noting that the ACCC has been doing some complementary work that would assist with the restoration of confidence in the basin, and that is to look at water market rules within the basin. I really want to encourage the government to step up its game in considering the recommendations from that ACCC report. They've done an excellent piece of work in looking at all of the different issues in water markets, whether it's information asymmetry, whether it's the lack of real oversight and the lack of things like market surveillance, whether it's the special nature of water markets because of the physical nature of the water and things like the loss that you have from the conveyance of water when water rights are traded. There are a range of issues that have been considered through that ACCC report. I know the government have set up a committee to consider the report. The report was produced by the ACCC, the expert competition regulator. Setting up the committee is one thing, but actually implementing the tough changes that need to be implemented arising from the recommendations that have been received is quite another. So I encourage the government to really step up and take action to make sure that the water markets are as fair as they can be and function as well as they can because these things go to trust, to confidence and, frankly, to water security and ensuring that the water is going to its best possible uses in the Murray-Darling Basin.
I should also mention that Australians are looking to the government for leadership as to the future of the plan. Certainly, as I said, there's a range of concerns from people about the role of climate change and the effect that that is having on the amount of water that is available in the basin. I've had concerns flagged with me about how well or otherwise the issue of floodplain harvesting is being considered within the plan. These matters are all about making sure that the government continues to take a science informed approach to adapting to changes that occur over time, and making sure that it shows that national leadership when it comes to managing this incredibly precious natural resource that we have that sustains our environment, our lives, our agriculture, our tourism, our cultural life, our spiritual life, all of the different uses that this water is put to across many different communities and by many different peoples and, as I said, by many different Aboriginal nations as well.
This is an important bill. It's a bill that needs to be passed. It is also important that the approval of the other basin jurisdictions be secured as rapidly as possible, so that this bill can actually commence operating. It has been a bit of a winding road to get here, but we're here now. Let's see the new Murray-Darling Basin Inspector-General of Water Compliance empowered, independent and able to actually undertake that work to help to restore some of that confidence and that trust in and amongst basin communities. It's absolutely fundamental, and I ask that the government take every step that it can to continue to improve the circumstances for the people who rely on the water resources and the environment that relies on the water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin. Thank you.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and I reserve my right to speak.
I rise to speak on the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021, which gives me a great opportunity to touch on an important issue that is absolutely critical to my electorate of Nicholls. There would be nobody in the Goulburn Valley that hasn't heard of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and a considerable number of people in the Goulburn Valley are very much across the detail of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. But this form is now over 14 years old and has been implemented by all sides of government. What has to be said is that we rely not just on our agriculture but on our towns and on our people, and I think it's fair to suggest that at the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan we had very healthy communities and we probably had some reasonably sick rivers. Now what we've got is very, very unhealthy communities, unhealthy people being forced off their land and too much water running down the rivers, to the extent that we have to worry about the degradation of those river systems and we've got to pass regulation to pull up some of these flows that take place and cause damage.
Today we welcome the opportunity to reform and to establish a statutory position of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance. This role will combine the compliance and enforcement powers that are currently held by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. This is currently under the interim inspector-general's role. We've listened to the community saying that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority cannot mark its own homework. This is a very strong aspect. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has been proven not to be a source of single truth. That's the damning indictment that's been put on the Murray-Darling Basin Authority by the Interim Inspector-General, Mick Keelty, when he did his report and said: 'Having worked with the authority for over six months, the most important thing that we need is a single source of truth,' effectively saying the authority is not that. That's a damning assessment of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. It's been out of that inquiry that we've seen the need to break compliance away from the other roles that they have. We need stronger compliance and greater accountability, which are going to be important steps to improving the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
We must not stop here with our improvements. The community has been calling out for reforms, and it's important that as a government we listen and we act. The original plan was set out to recover 2,750 gigalitres of water for the environment. A political deal at the time was also struck with South Australia to see an additional 450 gigalitres of water delivered to the environment if and only if there are no socio-economic impacts on the community. This is very, very important, because the amendment that the member for Griffith has put forward is effectively going against the communities within the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This is where the Labor Party is in a horrible position trying to say that they support basin communities, but the legislation and their policy are absolutely damning towards the impacts that they will have on Murray-Darling Basin communities.
It's been proven now, over many years, that every time you take water out of the Murray-Darling Basin from agriculture that you actually cause damage to those communities. Every time you take any policy that's going to force the price of water up, you are damaging the communities and you are having a negative impact on the communities. It's been proven, time and time again. The Murry-Darling Basin Plan now states—thanks to all of the states coming on board in late 2018 to accept and acknowledge—that for buybacks and water efficiency plans where half the savings are taken out of agriculture and put into the environment you have a damaging impact on the communities every time that takes place. Yet the Labor Party still have this as their primary policy towards water recovery within the Murry-Darling Basin and Murray-Darling Basin Plan. So the Labor Party are more or less saying with their policy and their amendments that: 'We don't care about the impacts that we have on communities. We don't care what the Murray-Darling Basin Plan says. We want to keep going after water, and we want to keep going after it until we recover another 450 gigalitres.' They have to be called out on this.
We have to start protecting our people, and we have to start being proud of agriculture. We have to start acknowledging that during the COVID pandemic the one thing we haven't had to worry about was agricultural product finding its way to the supermarket shelves. For many other countries around the world, that's their primary problem—is there going to be food on the shelves tomorrow? In Australia, our agricultural sector has been able to keep our supermarkets full of everything that we've needed. We need to protect this. We need to honour this. We need to be very, very proud of the fact that communities such as mine are continuing to deliver the agricultural produce so that we can, in fact, worry about our health problems through COVID. And, as we worry about sovereignty and our ability to operate as a nation, we need to look at water policy to ensure that we give our agricultural sector the opportunity that they need.
Effectively, what we need to do is wipe out this idea that there's another 450 gigalitres that we can somehow or other take out of agriculture without causing social and economic damage or without having social and economic impacts. The 450 has run its race, and we simply cannot take more water out of the system—this has been proven—without causing a whole range of social and economic damage. That's just simply the facts.
In this government, I'm very proud of what the minister has done in relation to ruling out buybacks. Buybacks are simply where the government finds a desperate farmer somewhere who needs to repay his debts and simply says to him, 'We'll buy your water off you, and we'll pay you a premium over and above what it's worth, simply to take water off your farm put it into the environment.' Buybacks totally decimate communities. They totally isolate the stranded assets that an irrigator might have because four of his farming neighbours have effectively sold their water under a buyback scheme. This might be all right for the farmers who sell their water and recover their water and recover the money they need to pay their debts, but it is decimating to the area and the community around those farms that have lost their water.
Our minister has effectively ruled out buybacks, as has the Victorian government. The Victorian government—the Victorian Labor Party—could teach the federal Labor Party a thing or two about water policy. Maybe they're a little bit closer to it. Maybe they understand it a little better. The idea that our minister has ruled out buybacks is incredibly encouraging for our farmers, but we need to legislate this, because we know that as soon as the Labor Party get their opportunity to sit on this side of the chamber in government—this is their policy at the moment—they will start buying back water from desperate farmers, with no regard whatsoever for the communities that they decimate. We all understand the importance of water in our regions. We need somehow to get the Labor Party in the federal sphere to come on board with supporting some of our communities. Reading the words of their own amendments, they don't want to leave basin communities behind, but their policies do exactly that. We are always prepared to work with them if they have the people of our areas as their No. 1 priority.
It's also been touched on in relation to the 605-gigalitre targets that some of them are not stacking up very well. These are projects that have been put forward by the states where we can achieve certain environmental objectives without using water—instead, being able to use engineering works and pumping processes but not having to flood with gigantic amounts of water. These projects have been struggling to come forward, especially from New South Wales. I'm suggesting that we need flexibility within these projects that are legislated and written in as gospel. Maybe if these projects are not able to proceed—I think again the minister is right on the ball here. Let's get on to the states to get on with it. Let's do what we can. Let's not talk about what we can't do. Let's not talk about the projects that can't be done. Let's go and complete the projects that can be done so that then we are looking at a smaller amount. Let's just see then if we can create some flexibility in the projects that are going to give us those 605 gigalitres of additional savings of the plan.
Once we build in that flexibility—we need to understand that, with climate change, we are going to have less water flowing into our river systems in the future. If that's going to be the case then we need to protect agriculture first. We need to protect our people first. That's where South Australia has some very serious questions to answer in relation to the science that was put around the history of the lower lakes. That science was doctored, so we have built on incorrect science about what the history of the lower lakes was for tens and hundreds of thousands of years. We need to look at that and at whether we need to have all this fresh water flowing into Lake Alexandrina. Do we need to have fresh water, trying to freshen the Coorong from the bottom of the mouth? The policies we have in place for South Australia at the moment are just absurd. All of this water comes out of communities further upstream. I can understand South Australia being concerned, because their system is more or less run through piping and sprinklers. Their system is contained. Their system has no losses and no leakages, whereas in Victoria you have the open channel system in concert with the centre pivots.
What we need more than anything is an understanding that the plan has been and continues to be incredibly damaging. The member for Griffith spoke about various reports and reviews that have been done. Well, we've done reviews looking into the Goulburn Valley, and $500 million per year in productivity is lost from the Goulburn Valley alone. But no-one wants to take that seriously. No-one wants to make any changes. The Labor Party continues to have some of the most damaging policies associated with water retrieval, policies that make it even worse for the communities that live and exist within the Murray-Darling Basin.
When the droughts come and the water starts to tighten, the prices go up and the farmers walk off their land. If the Labor Party think this is okay, then they can stick with their current policies, because that's the impact they will have. If the Labor Party wanted to, we could get together tomorrow and change the Water Act; we could change the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We could work our way through this together. We could take no more water off the agricultural sector. We could say enough is enough. It has been proven that the 450 gigalitres cannot be delivered without serious social and economic pain and detriment to those communities, with damaging impacts. That has been proven. Yet the Labor Party's policy is still that if the 450 gigalitres is not returned then they're going to go back in and buy the water off desperate farmers. That is their policy, and it's disgraceful.
What we need to do is look at what our people have been telling us. We need to honour our agricultural sector. We need to look at the damaging impacts. Do we want to have New Zealand dairy products on our shelves, outcompeting our own? Do we want to have a thriving and prosperous dairy sector? Do we want to have a fruit sector that is up and vibrant and again competing on the world markets? Do we want to give our farmers an opportunity to compete on the world markets, or do we want to hamstring them completely? We've already taken so much water out of the Goulburn Valley, out of the Riverina and out of the Sunraysia. What we've taken out of those communities will never be able to be put back. We've already seen so much erosion and damage done to our river system because of catchment management authorities running so much water down the rivers at the wrong time of the year, causing all of this erosion. We've got to look at the damage we're doing to our environmental system, on top of the damage we're doing to the agricultural sector.
This bill is a fantastic start, bringing in the Inspector-General of Water Compliance, but we have to do a lot more work to achieve the outcomes that we want. (Time expired)
The Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 establishes the Office of the Inspector-General of Water Compliance. It's a role that initially commenced with the Northern Basin Commissioner being appointed and was gradually expanded to the whole of the Murry-Darling Basin. Labor will of course support this legislation because compliance with water extraction allocations and ensuring the integrity of the water market are important objectives. However, the legislation is also an admission that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has failed in its oversight of the basin waters.
Whilst the legislation does have merit, water compliance alone will not resolve the underlying problems within the basin or the disputes between the basin states, which have been going on for over 100 years now. It was hoped they would be resolved when the 2012 Murray-Darling Basin Plan was agreed to. Regrettably, that agreement never sat comfortably with the eastern states or, indeed, with coalition members, as we just heard from the member for Nicholls. They have constantly sought to discredit and undermine it. In particular, there has been constant resentment about the additional 450 gigalitres of environmental water that was sought by South Australia and the volume of water that goes into South Australia's Lower Lakes. The member for Nicholls talked about both of those matters in his comments. As Labor's shadow minister pointed out in her response to this legislation, of the 450 gigalitres only 1.9 gigalitres has been delivered in almost a decade. That's because coalition governments that have been in office for most of that time have simply not been interested in trying to deliver that water.
The reality is that there were many experts at the time who argued that the amount of water that should have been returned to the system should not have only been the 2,750 gigalitres plus the additional 450 gigalitres that was contingent on other factors but that it should have been much higher. That was the advice of many of the experts. To reach a compromise that could be agreed on by all of the states at the time, the figure was settled on an initial 2,750 plus 450 that could be returned back to the system as a result of efficiency measures that could be put in place over the ensuing years, because the parliament at the time knew that it would take time to get those projects in place.
But there were projects. Indeed, when the committee of this parliament, chaired by the member for New England, looked at all of the different measures that could be put in place to return more of that water to the system, my recollection is that we identified about 30 different projects at the time that could be looked at to do just that. But that hasn't happened. Indeed, when we do look at the projects that this government has looked at to try and return water to the system, of the 34 that have been funded, I understand that only three can nominate an amount of water that's been returned to the system at all. So you wonder what the other 31 projects were funded for and on what basis they were funded if they couldn't provide a detailed figure as to how much water would be returned to the system.
The states' disputes about water rights existed prior to Federation, and it is somewhat regrettable that, the talks about our Constitution in the late 1890s, didn't result in an agreement between all of the states as to how this would all be resolved and agreed upon. Had it been clearly written into the Constitution at the time, we may not be having the debates here today. The fact that we are still having the debates and the fact that both the federal government and the states now have some responsibility towards the management of the waters in the Murray-Darling Basin simply complicates the arrangement even further.
What I've noticed over the years is that any state that is aggrieved by any of the conditions relating to the agreement that was reached both in, I think, the 2006 Water Act that the Howard government brought in and subsequently the Murray-Darling Basin Plan can simply, I guess, exploit loopholes in the agreement and not play ball in accordance with what was expected of them. We have seen threats by some of the states since that time to withdraw entirely from the agreement, which simply highlights what can ultimately happen when you've got so many parties that are part of an agreement and the agreement itself is not watertight.
The reality is that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has, since it was established, not only struggled to ensure that the plan, as agreed to in 2012, was delivered but also, in doing so, failed to ensure stability and certainty for the growers. When you add to that climate change, drought and changing weather patterns, the situation for those growers has become even more uncertain. Indeed, between the year 1900 and the year 2000—for almost all of the last hundred years of the 20th century—inflows into the basin averaged 9,407 gigalitres per year. Since that time—that is, in the last two decades—inflows have fallen to around half of that, to 4,820 gigalitres. So we have had a situation over the last two decades where we have had nearly half as much water but probably twice as much agricultural area that we have been trying to ensure survives. That is the real problem, and I'll come back to that a bit later on. But what it highlights is that where you have a system with a reduction in inflows and an increase in water coming out it will undoubtedly be put under strain, and when that strain occurs it not only pits states against states; it pits growers against growers in different parts of the basin. We have seen arguments between the cotton growers and the rice growers and between the rice growers and the horticulturalists and so on all claiming that the others are exploiting the system or taking an unfair amount of water. Indeed, when you get desperate or when growers become desperate then I guess they will resort to whatever they can to ensure their survival.
Regrettably and sadly we have seen cases of water being illegally taken from the basin, as was exposed by the Four Corners program in 2017. I understand that there have been several cases where prosecutions have been launched. I don't know what the outcome of those cases was, nor does it really matter. But what they highlight is that the Four Corners program was absolutely correct: water was illegally being taken and nothing was being done about it until those prosecutions were launched. Again, that was before we had a commissioner of any sort. Indeed, the responsibility for who was to be managing the water extractions is also a grey area, with the states having a role in all of that. Quite clearly, however, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's oversight, investigations and prosecutions of those illegal takings were inadequate. Then we also have cases of water metre tampering and the like. Indeed, I suspect that the findings to date with respect to illegal takings of water is really only the tip of the iceberg, because I have no doubt that across the basin there are many other examples of where water was being improperly taken.
The fact that we even have water as a tradeable commodity hasn't helped either. It has added to the problems and it has driven up water prices, which in some cases has put the price of water out of reach to some growers. I have spoken to growers who simply couldn't afford to buy the water at the price it was selling on the market and therefore couldn't keep their farms going. We've also had more than one account—in fact, we have had several accounts—of speculators who have profited from the water market, speculators who have no interest in agriculture in this country but are simply buying into the water market just like they would buy into the share market with respect to any other product, speculators who are often are domiciled overseas, as we have also seen. In my view, and this is my view, available water should be allocated by an independent statutory body at a set, affordable price on a priority needs basis. That is the system we should have and that is the system that was in place in South Australia in the Northern Adelaide Plains, where underground water was managed in the same way several decades ago. The government decided who could get access to it, but it did so on a priority needs basis and at a fair cost to the growers, rather than allowing the market to determine it. As I say, the market allows those with money to buy the water, and those who cannot afford it miss out.
I want to turn briefly to the water buyback issue. We know that between 2016 and 2019 there was $190 million worth of water buybacks under a particular program, which saw about 80 billion litres of water bought back. That buyback included the controversial buyback of $80 million worth of water—that is, 28.7 megalitres—from Eastern Australia Agriculture, whose parent company was domiciled in the Cayman Islands. It is understood that they made a $52 million profit from that sale. Again, that is an example that highlights how the market has been exploited at the expense of struggling growers. In many cases, these are small, family owned farms that have been passed on from one generation to another. They can't compete with the big multinational or corporate funds that have been established across the basin.
The reality is that the Murray-Darling Basin, as other speakers have quite rightly pointed out, is an important national asset. It is home to 2.6 million Australians; some 9,200 agricultural farms exist within it; it accounts for, I believe, around 40 per cent of Australia's irrigated agricultural land with a total annual production value of around $24 billion; and it contains 16 Ramsar listed wetlands. You couldn't think of a more important part of Australia than the Murray-Darling Basin, in terms of its economic and environmental importance to the nation. And it sustains hundreds and hundreds of towns throughout it, and, obviously thousands of farmers and other small businesses within the basin area.
The problem with it is simply this: it goes to the case where, over recent decades, we have allowed an expansion of farming within the area, farming that requires water, whilst at the same time water inflows into the basin have reduced. The system, under those circumstances, is not sustainable. Given that climate change is likely to see further reductions in water inflows, it will become an even greater problem into the future. Most of the expansion, with respect to the big corporate farms, has occurred in the eastern states. How the state governments have allowed that to happen, when they know that over the last two decades there has been a shortage of water, is beyond me. Indeed, between December 2018 and January 2019 of we saw hundreds of thousands of fish dying in the lower Darling just outside of Menindee, again as a result of the water inflows falling.
It is time we started taking the issue much more seriously than it has been. Having the fights between the states is not the answer. In my view, the answer lies in the recommendations of the royal commission into the Murray-Darling Basin that was launched by South Australia. It was a royal commission that had 111 findings and 44 recommendations. I have pretty much read the whole of that royal commission report, and I can say it is the most accurate summary of what is happening in the basin. Yet the findings and the recommendations of that commission sit on a shelf, ignored by both the South Australian state government and the federal government. Perhaps, if we want a solution to a future sustainable Murray-Darling Basin, look to the findings of that commission. It was thorough, it was widespread and, quite frankly, it was accurate to the point that it reflects the true situation and provides workable solutions.
Firstly, I would like to thank the members who have contributed to the debate on the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. The Murray-Darling Basin is Australia's food bowl. It's home to 2.2 million Australians, internationally significant wetlands and First Nations people. Basin communities have asked for and deserve strong leadership, and they need confidence in the compliance and enforcement institutions that are in operation within the Murray-Darling Basin. This is what the government is delivering with this legislation.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Griffith has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question before the chamber is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
The call was given to the minister for the right of reply when there were still people seeking the call. The debate had not yet concluded. As I understand from the minister, that was inadvertent and wasn't intended. If that's the case, I seek leave for the remaining two speeches from the opposition to be able to be given, at which point we'd then have the division following that. I seek leave for that to be able to occur, because I think it would be contrary to standing orders otherwise.
The debate hasn't been closed on the second reading, so, if there is no objection to leave, I think that will be the quickest course of action. We won't lock the doors. We'll call the division off. That will save everyone time.
Leave granted.
I rise today to speak on the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021. It's been two years since the Morrison government announced the establishment of a tough cop on the beat for the Murray-Darling Basin, two years of this Morrison Liberal government kicking the can down the road again and again. What we are seeing in the Murray-Darling Basin is an unfolding ecological, cultural and social disaster. It's been over two years now since people around Australia saw images of fish in Menindee choking for air in that water, and they were shocked by it. Just over a year ago one of the last events that I went to before COVID hit was to speak at a FanForce screening of the documentary When the River Runs Dry. I had the opportunity to meet Rory McLeod and Peter Yates, who are the makers of that incredible documentary. I would urge anyone who has an opportunity to see it to do so because it really brings home the scale of the disaster that we are seeing.
To put it in perspective, the Murray-Darling Basin covers more than one million square kilometres of the Australian mainland, or 14 per cent of the total surface area of this country. The Barwon-Darling river system is over 2,700 kilometres long. The mighty Murray-Darling river system that begins in Queensland and run through New South Wales and Victoria before emptying into the Southern Ocean near Adelaide has been the lifeblood of this continent, particularly in times of drought. But what we're seeing at the moment is the mismanagement of this critically important river system. The When the River Runs Dry documentary is so important because it really shows the scale of this ecological and cultural disaster that we are seeing unfolding. Importantly, the filmmakers talk with the Barkindji people, the traditional owners of the land there, about the importance of that river to them culturally and the full extent of the environmental degradation we are seeing as part of this mismanagement.
The documentary has several key messages: first of all, just how important water is globally to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples; that water trading can lead to perverse outcomes if economic values trump social values; and that First Nations people should have rights to water and should be directly involved in water management decisions on their river systems. The documentary explores how not only the rights but also the knowledge and environmental practices of First Nations people have been ignored for too long in terms of water management. Australia needs to be honest about what is happening in this centrally important river system. The management of Australia's rivers needs to be consistent with the Water Act. The documentary also calls for a federal royal commission, which is needed to restore confidence. The Murry-Darling Basin Plan needs to be reviewed. The documentary makes the point that a river system is a system and it must be managed as a whole for the good of all.
Labor will support this bill because we understand that the basin communities have been crying out for reform for years. We support this bill, because supporting farmers and supporting the regions is incredibly important. Labor don't just talk about supporting the reasons; we actually stand up and do it, which is more than can be said for the National Party at the moment, and I'll speak more about this later.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Water Act to effectively split the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and create a new agency with responsibility for its compliance functions, headed by a new inspector-general of water compliance who will monitor and provide independent oversight of water compliance. The bill will also implement new offences and penalties for unlawful conduct, including fines of up to $1.1 million for individuals and $11 million for companies who engage in water theft. The inspector-general would be appointed by the Governor-General and confer with the existing compliance functions and powers of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The inspector-general would also replace the existing non-statutory interim Inspector-General of Murray-Darling Basin Water Resources, which in turn had replaced an earlier interim inspector-general, which had replaced the Northern Basin Commissioner. So here's hoping the fourth time is the charm.
The inspector-general's functions would include monitoring and providing independent oversight of Commonwealth agencies in the performance of their functions and exercise of their powers under the act; regulations of the Basin Plan and water resource plans; monitoring and overseeing basin state agencies in relation to their obligations in the management of basin water resources; monitoring the implementation by all jurisdictions of various specified agreements related to the basin and Basin Plan; community engagement; and exercising the proposed new enforcement provisions, which include both civil penalty provisions and offences. These functions would be supported by new inquiry powers and the power to issue guidelines and standards. The power to undertake audits would also be transferred from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to the inspector-general.
Labor has been able to secure some positive changes to this bill from the first exposure drafts. Labor argued for assurances that the position of inspector-general would be independent from the department. We also argued for a fit-and-proper person test to apply to authorised compliance officers not covered by public sector employment arrangements, and I'm glad to say that the government has accepted these changes. However, unfortunately this bill won't commence immediately after the parliament passes it; the act will only commence after all basin states have approved its provisions. So, in that vein, I urge basin states to immediately approve the provisions so that the inspector-general can get to work.
The changes this bill makes to the current scheme are undoubtedly a good thing. For far too long, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has not had the power it needs in ensuring the stakeholders complied with the law. In its five-year review published in 2018, the Productivity Commission raised concerns that the authority's conflicting roles would 'create conflicts' and potentially lead to it 'marking its own homework'. In that report the commission recommended that the authority be split into two separate institutions, an agency and a plan regulator. Labor accepted these recommendations and committed to restoring integrity to the plan as part of our 2019 election commitments. As part of those commitments we pledged to move the compliance arm of the authority to a dedicated environmental protection agency, an agency which I note Professor Graeme Samuel recommended to be established in his review of the EPBC Act, which the Liberal government has so far refused to accept. So it is about time this bill was introduced. It's about time that the Morrison government actually did what they promised in 2019.
Since 2019 the Morrison government have appointed two inspector-generals, who without legislation to empower them were toothless. This isn't the first time such a role has been established. In August 2018 the government appointed the Northern Basin Commissioner. The Northern Basin Commissioner had no statutory powers and was supposed to be funded for three years, yet only a year later the government decided to scrap this role to establish the inspector-general. In the meantime they set up those interim positions with no statutory powers and no authority to refer matters onwards. You might have thought that the government would act with some degree of urgency to ensure this new role would have some powers—apparently not, because the interim inspector-general's term ended last year. They actually appointed someone and waited for their term to expire before they even had actual powers conferred on them.
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a $13 billion plan. It is of absolute vital importance to farmers, regional communities and consumers all around the country. It is key to Australia's ongoing agricultural success, and it is absolutely appalling that, after eight long years of this tired Liberal government, they're only now getting to these important reforms. But that's typical of this government, isn't it, Deputy Speaker? This is the government that, after countless corruption and integrity scandals, promised a federal ICAC. Yet 2½ years later we find out in its budget that not a single cent, not a single person, has been allocated to establishing this long-overdue reform—just another case of Scott Morrison kicking the can down the road, another case of this government being all about the announcement and never about the follow-up. The great irony is that the inspector-general that we're voting on today was promised the power to refer matters to the Commonwealth Integrity Commission—which doesn't exist yet. So how on earth is it supposed to do that, when we have not even had this government take the necessary steps to establish that commission?
The truth is that this government is terrified of accountability. It is terrified of the Australian people becoming aware of the dodgy things that it does. A prime example of that is in the Senate estimates going on right now, where ministers are failing to answer the difficult questions asked by Labor and the crossbench. It's been four years since Four Corners exposed the corruption, the greed and the protection racket that has been going on in the basin. Australia watched the program with horror as we witnessed industrial-scale cotton farmers rorting the system, stealing precious water that belonged to the communities and the environment and sending huge profits to offshore tax havens. We saw downstream communities struggling to survive, wondering whether they would have enough water to brush their teeth. As I said earlier, we then saw the environment suffer with the mass fish kills in Menindee Lakes, a true—and preventable—ecological disaster.
Since then we've seen a South Australian royal commission which slammed the federal government. The commission found that the Commonwealth committed gross maladministration, negligence and unlawful actions. It found that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan all but ignored the catastrophic risks of climate change to the river system. That's like making a car and forgetting the minor step of adding an engine. We've seen clearly in recent years the problems that ignoring climate change mean for the plan. From 1996 to 2010 this country suffered through the horrendous millennium drought, and from 2017 to 2019 our regions were decimated yet again by another historic drought. New South Wales was declared to be 100 per cent in drought in 2018, remaining at 98.6 per cent through 2019. The Bureau of Meteorology found that, for the Murray-Darling Basin, this drought was the worst ever recorded.
Despite what the climate deniers in the government's ranks would tell us, we know that climate change is causing and exacerbating these disasters. We know this. We know that climate change directly contributed to the latest drought. We know it contributed to the devastation we saw in the Black Summer bushfires. And we know that, without urgent action, these disasters will only get worse. Farmers know this better than anyone else. Farmers know that their livelihoods, their businesses, their animals, will continue to be impacted by rising global temperatures. Farmers understand that we need to take urgent action. They understand that they will have a role to play and that their business practices will have to change. The National Farmers Federation have matched Labor's commitment to get to net zero emissions by 2050, but this government fails to do so. The National Party, for all their talk of sticking up for the regions, are abandoning them on this pivotal issue impacting the industries that power those communities. Labor will never abandon the regions and we will never abandon farmers. And we will never shirk the responsibility to fight for all Australians and our planet by taking serious action on climate change.
The government doesn't just abandon farmers when it comes to climate change. Right now farmers across New South Wales, Victoria and southern Queensland are experiencing one of the worst mouse plagues that this country has ever seen. Millions of mice are currently ravaging farmers' crops, some of the first good harvests these people have had since the drought ended. These mice are destroying the hope that had only just returned to these farmers. They are destroying livelihoods. What is the response of the Liberal-National government? Crickets. Just today the Morrison government shut down debate on the member for Franklin's motion calling for an urgent federal response. How is that even controversial—helping our suffering farmers and families through something that this government refuses to even talk about?
It is time that this government actually did something to fix this mess and to restore confidence in the Murray-Darling Basin. It's about time that this government took its blindfold off and realised that some leadership is required on this issue. Labor has been calling on the government to do something for years. We have put forward positive, practical solutions which have fallen on deaf ears. I am glad that they have finally acted but, seriously, what has taken so long? This government has had eight years to fix this issue. The government committed to these reforms two years ago and it is only now that we are seeing this bill introduced.
It simply should not be taking so long for a government to follow through on its promise and to address clearly urgent issues that we are seeing in the Murray-Darling Basin. It is an ecological disaster as well as a social and cultural one that this government is turning a blind eye to and belatedly bringing in this bill. We support this bill, but it could have happened so much sooner and with more urgency. It is just another example where this government does just enough to say that it is doing something but not to address the critical issues facing Australians every day, facing our environment and facing our world—which will be destroyed by climate change, as the government will not even commit to net zero by 2050.
I want to commend the Water Legislation Amendment (Inspector-General of Water Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2021 to the parliament, give some of the context behind the bill itself and also deal with some of the issues that were raised in earlier presentations, in particular from the member for Nicholls, and some of mythology that is there around the plan, because there is a reason why we got to the point where, ultimately, I, as the water minister at the time, signed off on the document with the support of all the various state water ministers and there is a reason why it is the interests of everyone in this chamber for to it be properly implemented.
First of all, if there was a single core misunderstanding that we could say was present at the time that the Basin Plan was brought into place, across both sides of the chamber, it was the fact that we took the water market as a given and we presumed that the integrity of water trading would function as a market. When we saw that Four Corners story a few years ago now and we saw the cases of water theft occurring, we realised that the foundations that underpinned everything about the plan needed to be far more secure than they were.
The government and the minister at the time—now the minister for agriculture but then the minister for water—worked closely with the opposition to establish the position of the Northern Basin Commissioner. The role was a compliance role, and we supported the appointment of Mick Keelty, because it was important to have somebody with a law enforcement background doing that job. I must say that, while the government didn't in fact legislate to give him any extra powers, at that point there was good work that Mick Keelty was able to do simply because of his background as being in one of the most senior police positions that exists in this country.
We presume that Troy Grant will end up as the Inspector-General of Water Compliance after this legislation is carried—and I genuinely hope it works. There has been some scepticism and concern around the place. With every appointment, the fact that someone has a political background doesn't necessarily mean it can't work. But we need it to work, because the integrity of the water trading system is essential. This is not simply for the plan to work or simply for the environment to not be ripped off; it's also for every honest irrigator to not be ripped off either. There is a lot at stake in making sure that this role has the powers that it needs and that it is able to perform properly.
The original theory that the role would be able to make referrals to the National Integrity Commission seems to have fallen prey to the fact that the National Integrity Commission that we were told was on its way appears to has got lost on its way. But, even with the integrity of water compliance, we have a problem with the plan now, because, effectively, even though we had bipartisanship when the plan was arrived at—and I'll always remember the vote in this parliament where, for the money to go to the 450 gigalitres, we had a division, and on the side of the chamber that voted no we had the representative from the Greens party, we had Bob Katter and we had the person who is now Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, and we had pretty much everybody else in the chamber voting yes, to go ahead with all the parts of the plan—what we have now is not what anyone started with at the table.
The act didn't allow us to compromise on the minimum environmental conditions that we needed to get to, but it did allow us to compromise on how we would get there, and some of those compromises worked in favour of industry and some of them worked in favour of the environment, but in each case there was a protection. For those that work in favour of industry—and this is what we call the down water, the 605 gigalitres down—instead of having to get the 2,750 gigalitres as total held water, if you can achieve the same environmental outcomes through other works, then less is acquired. That principle of achieving the same environmental outcomes goes directly to minimum standards that are contained within the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. But the flip side is that you can acquire more water if it's done in a way that minimises the impact on communities, with a specific part of the plan that says 'the participation of consumptive water users in projects that recover water through works to improve irrigation water use efficiency on their farm'. It specifically says there that, if you do it through on-farm irrigation, it is taken as not having a negative impact on the community—for a pretty obvious reason. If a farmer gets Commonwealth money to improve the quality of the infrastructure on their farm and, as a result, they don't need to use as much water, you're getting the same production from the farm, you're getting the same production from the enterprise, but you're getting a better outcome for the environment, and that means that it costs the taxpayer more than it would if we were just in a world of buybacks. That's what it means. And we made the decision that we were willing as taxpayers to put that extra investment directly into the farmers and irrigators of the Murray-Darling Basin.
Now, of that money that was put aside that almost everybody voted for to acquire 450 gigalitres, we find that, of the 450 gigalitres, 2.1 gigalitres has been acquired. That doesn't just mean there's less water for the environment than there was meant to be; it also means farmers and irrigators who were meant to get Commonwealth money to improve the quality of the infrastructure on their land haven't been given a cent—that the government would rather leave those irrigators without improved infrastructure than allow the basin to be healthier. Of all the things that we predicted and worked through when we were putting the plan together, it actually never occurred to anyone that there would be a government so determined to have a culture war about water that they would deny irrigators and farmers improved infrastructure in order to make sure there wasn't additional water for the environment.
I don't know who they think they're doing a favour. Maybe they think it means they can rally around in a town hall meeting in the country and pretend to people that they're fighting for them. But the only outcome is that the irrigators end up with older infrastructure than they would otherwise have, that the government subsidy that was available to them never reaches them and, from an environmental perspective, that the extra water is never acquired.
There are no jobs on a dead river. There are no communities on dead rivers. What happens with the Murray-Darling Basin, particularly on the Darling part of it, is it will always be a situation that, through periods of drought, part of the natural cycle is for there to be a drying cycle. But the combination of overextraction and climate change means that those dry years now are much more than would ever be the case naturally. The concept of held water is that once those dry years start you've got some held water to effectively be able to provide some sort of palliative care to stop the system from breaking down altogether.
There's a lot of mythology, particularly in the Darling system, about where water would flow, and because the land is so flat sometimes people will take a particular irrigation property and say, 'If they weren't allowed to have so much water then that would fix the entire Darling system,' which is not how the system works. It's an incredibly flat system and it is meant to go through a drought cycle, but overextraction kills the river. The way to resolve a whole lot of these issues is to make sure that you have water held for environmental purposes through a combination of methods, some of it through buyback and some of it through infrastructure projects.
I predicted what would happen when the government first put the cap on buyback. We didn't have a cap on buyback in the plan, for a very clear reason. If you wanted the states to come forward with projects that, in time, they would implement for the 605 gigalitres of down water, then you had to give them an incentive to do that. If they knew that if they didn't do the projects then buyback was what would occur, they would come forward with the projects and they would make sure that they worked. But when the government foolishly, for the sake of a political slogan, got rid of the cap on buyback they created an impossible situation for basin communities. The states now don't have an incentive to go ahead with their projects and—surprise, surprise!—we're now starting to hear the states aren't going to be able to meet the deadlines on their projects. Of course they can't. Of course they won't, because the incentive to make them do it was taken off the table.
So now we have a world where, for the plan, the government says, 'The states might not do it and we won't buy back either.' Under the plan as a legal document, the water has to be acquired. Every day the government allow this farce to continue they make the situation that's coming down the line for basin communities more and more perilous. Part of the reason that the plan had a staged gradual accumulation of water for the environment at the same time that money was going through to communities and farm businesses was to make sure that you could do this slowly, to make sure that at a gradual pace you could help communities with the transition and help make sure that the irrigators themselves were becoming more efficient, so as to make sure that the jobs that were then available in the communities weren't disappearing on the way through. But what the government has done is create a situation of brinkmanship where we are heading down to deadlines, they have hardly acquired any water, the states are not coming through with their projects and the irrigators are not getting the improved infrastructure. Yet the targets need to be met. If there was ever a triumph of messaging over reality in regional communities, it's what members of the government have done here.
Let's not pretend that the only victims here are people at the end of the system. There is no doubt rivers die from the end of the river all the way back up, and the worst and most immediate impacts are in the state of South Australia. I am always astonished at the hypocrisy of people when they say, 'You need to remove the barrages. You need to remove the interventions at the bottom of the system but keep every other intervention further up the system.' If you believe it should be a completely natural system, argue that, but don't argue that it should only be true in South Australia. But then don't pretend that South Australia is the only place that is going to be let down by the way the government is holding back on the implementation of the plan, because, right through New South Wales and Victoria and all the way up to Queensland, communities are getting closer and closer to a situation where tough decisions have to be made and those decisions will be much worse because of the inactivity year after year from this government. There are programs that were meant to happen over a decade—the process of acquiring 450 gigalitres and they're at 2.1, and projects to get the 605 gigalitres of down water are now looking like major ones not going ahead, and with no incentive to deliver on it.
What this government has done is think you can take a document that brought people together and only take the bits that are the easiest to sell, only take the bits that are easiest to message into your local papers. Communities and the health of the rivers are all at stake here, and negligence from this government continues to put them at risk.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I present an exposure draft of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Incident Management and Reportable Incidents) Amendment Rules 2021.
The question now before the House is the second reading amendment moved by the member for Rankin. I now put the question that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that consideration in detail of the bill be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I declare the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
I would like to also make a contribution to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Future, Your Super) Bill 2021. Superannuation is pretty significant to our side. It was born out of the labour movement and supported by the trade union movement, all because it supports workers. As I say, superannuation is a legacy of Labor and something we will always defend. I understand, from the second reading speech from the minister, that this is what this bill is all about. If that were the case, we would be fully supporting the bill. Any opportunity to strengthen, improve and make more efficient the management of superannuation funds would always be something that would be supported on this side of politics. But, regrettably, that's not what this bill is all about.
There are a couple of very significant aspects to the bill. For instance, schedule 1 introduces a new system of stapling members to a single superannuation account, replacing the existing delineation based on an industry-determined superannuation default fund system. Regrettably, that could actually see people being stapled to underperforming superannuation funds, but these things I will return to.
Schedule 2 is a new performance management measure that is being introduced, which will see certain superannuation funds benchmarked against matters determined by regulation. You'll see throughout this particular bill that time and time again it refers to regulations—by the way, regulations which have not been finalised yet, have not been set, and not even an exposure draft has been delivered as yet. Who knows what's going to be included in these regulations? I know the member for New England touched upon a very significant aspect that is in schedule 3 of this bill, which requires the trustees to act in the best financial interests of members. This replaces the requirement of acting in the best interests of members. There are some aspects of that which I'd also like to deal with throughout my contribution. But can I just say that this is a classic example of where those opposite return to type.
I know you haven't been here that long, Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie, but you've been here long enough to know that those on that side have never come out and supported superannuation. They haven't supported increases to superannuation and they didn't support industry superannuation right from the start. Right from the start, this has been opposed. But they have a view—and the member for Goldstein actually reasserts it—that people should be in charge of their own money and spend it as they like, not on making provision for their retirement, because that's a matter for everyone's personal consideration. We on this side primarily want to protect the interests of working Australians. We have an interest in seeing that superannuation provides for a decent and a fundamental retirement income for people. As I say, those opposite are returning to type. They have an ideological obsession. They have never supported universal superannuation, always opposed it, and this is just another step in trying to tie the tail industry superannuation because, as the member for Goldstein made very clear in his contribution, it has been so successful.
Only last week APRA released certain details about the performance of superannuation funds since 2018 in this country. Very interestingly, since 2018 the assets of retail funds have grown by 3.2 per cent, so people have made a decision in terms of retail funds. APRA also showed that over the same period industry fund assets have grown by 30 per cent, so clearly workers are actually voting not so much with their feet but with their hip pocket on where they're going to place their money and who they trust to manage the money on their behalf. It's pretty significant to see what is occurring here. When you look at their ideological attack on industry super, there is no doubt—not even the member for Goldstein doubted this—that industry funds are outperforming retail funds by an extraordinary amount. As a matter of fact, I recall that those on the other side voted 27 times to oppose a royal commission into banking and financial institutions. They were forced kicking and screaming into having this royal commission. What that royal commission found when they looked at superannuation is pretty significant, noting that superannuation should be protected by this parliament. But they found mismanagement, they found abuse of fees, they found underperformance, they found an abuse of insurance aspects of funds. This abuse was not just by a couple of funds charging a couple of dollars but by funds charging billions of dollars. That was a pretty damning and scathing aspect of the royal commission's finding on superannuation. What I didn't say is that that was a finding in respect of retail funds. The fact is that not one of the industry funds was actually called to appear before the royal commission.
There was criticism of one fund. One of the industry funds had a dozen tickets to the tennis, the Australian Open. Despite the mismanagement, the underperformance and the abuse of fees and insurance that occurred in the retail funds, they were criticised for handing out those tickets—tickets to a tennis match compared to the billions of dollars of mismanagement that was found by the royal commission. That shows you why people have decided that industry funds are in their best interests.
When you look at funds such as those administered by AMP or Zurich, over that whole period they were making zero to two per cent. That wasn't working to enable Australian workers and their families to retire with dignity. That's what superannuation has always been about. But the reason the government dislike industry funds so much is that they are supported by that perennial group that always seems to agitate those opposite: the trade unions. It should actually come as no surprise that trade unions don't exist because of the Australian Constitution, that they don't exist because of some predetermined right. They exist to fulfil a need, and that need is to look after workers. The unions are right—and, by the way, I think over probably the last 50 years or so one of the standouts of what trade unions have delivered in this country has been superannuation.
When I started work—no doubt, Deputy Speaker Gillespie, at a similar time that you might have started—superannuation was for public servants. It would have been for police officers and others in the public sector, but it certainly wasn't for blue-collar workers. What we now have is universal superannuation that's available to everybody. I think one of the standout contributions of the trade union movement and the labour movement was to fully embrace the universal aspects of superannuation.
In terms of the issues of power and balance, as I said at the start, most of the regulatory aspects of this are not before this parliament. They're not contained in primary legislation. They're all going to be in some form of regulation yet to be developed. An example of that is schedule 3, which includes the power to allow the Treasurer to determine any particular type of payment that is not in the best financial interests of members. Ordinarily, people would probably say, 'That's fair enough.' But, like others in this place, I've had some discussions about it with a few people who have a very clear idea about what is in the best interests of people. One of those was Gerard Dwyer. He is the general secretary of the SDA, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association. He noted that this bill could cost his members pretty dearly in terms of their retirement balances, and he went on to say that it could damage local economies. The point he made to me was this: members of his union predominantly reside outside the capital cities; they're mainly outside urban areas, in regional towns and rural communities. In talking about his own members in those communities, he said that the things that were in the best interests of people there were roads, rail lines and access to airports. He points to investment in agricultural enterprise, because his members are largely involved in retail, fast food and other areas which rely on the agricultural industry. Not being able to invest in a product like an agricultural enterprise, because it might not have the biggest turnover in the next 12 months, would have a detrimental impact on not only his members and their interests and their families' interests, but the local economy, because things such as airports or agricultural enterprises or rail lines et cetera—they are unlisted assets. It would be more permissible under this arrangement, in the best financial interests, to invest in overseas assets—not assets in this country but overseas assets; not benefiting local communities—because that might give you a better return in 12 months than over five years. So this is where the trustees really do need to look at what's in the best interests of members and not confine it to the short-term best financial interests, which do not have any time aspect or any aspect in terms of community.
There is no doubt that what this piece of legislation is seeking to do is put unprecedented powers with the Treasurer. This is the mob, over there, of sports rorts. It's the same people who delivered the rorts around the safer communities program. We saw the amount of pork-barrelling that went on in terms of their targeted marginal seats. And this is the mob that says, 'Trust us.' You can't trust a trustee of one of these industry funds, because they're not elected by a whole community, but 'Trust the Treasurer; he'll do it for you.' These are the people who delivered rorts on such a scale that we do need to have the oversight of an integrity commission, and they're saying to us, 'You can trust us with your financial future.' They want not simply access to direct superannuation; they want to be able to direct the investments of superannuation accounts and to be able to indicate where superannuation moneys can be invested and where they can not.
This is a last-ditch effort by this government really to constrain industry superannuation investment by directing and diverting investments to asset classes or projects as it sees fit. This is something that they would criticise if it were happening in some foreign jurisdiction that we have a free trade agreement with—that doesn't particularly like us at the moment—because, they'd say, it's a Communist country. But the government want totalitarian aspects in this legislation so they can ride roughshod over billions of dollars of investment which solely goes to the benefit of workers and their families.
If this were genuinely a piece of legislation to improve superannuation, Labor would be all-out supporting it and advocating it—we will always stand up for improvements in legislation—but this is one where we cannot. The member for Cowper, who is arriving in the chamber—and I do pay respect to his former occupation as a police officer—would know that one of the aspects of some of our superannuation funds is to make superannuation appropriate and affordable, consistent with and appropriate to the industry that people work in. Being a police officer, as the member for Dickson and the member for La Trobe also know, is a very dangerous occupation. Try and get private insurance in those areas; it would be absolutely prohibitive—similarly, in areas such as transport and construction. But these are aspects that actually flow from being able to have a superannuation fund that can make decisions in the best interests of its members and not just confine itself to their best financial interests.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Future, Your Super) Bill 2021. I think we in this place all know that superannuation is the most important legislative instrument available to working Australians to secure their financial independence in retirement. We all want our friends and family to live comfortably in retirement, and any changes that seek to increase the funds available to retirees should be viewed positively. This bill, on balance, addresses many of the deficiencies in the current legislation that have a concerning effect on retirement incomes. However, I think it's really important to say that it's not perfect, and I believe consideration should be given to sensible amendments that would maintain the intent of the government's proposed reform.
Minimising the number of superannuation accounts held by an individual is necessary, and the proposed stapling provision will no doubt bring about a reduction in the number of funds held. My concern with this provision is that many employees may end up with a poor-performing stapled fund. This concern has been raised by many entities and has been the subject of many submissions that called for sequencing to eliminate poor-performing funds before the stapling scheme commences. Such a change is simple and strengthens the provision without any consequence for fund members. I think that that is an issue that should be considered very carefully in the other place. It's really about provision of time. I think that, while this chamber does much good work, we all need to acknowledge that it's the other place that really does peel the onion of bills and takes the time to go through them step by step. So I would really urge the government to look to the Senate to address that particular issue.
The annual performance test will find great levels of support by fund members, who reasonably expect their funds to hold up to scrutiny, and that may help them in comparing their fund's performance against other funds. What I don't understand, however, is why the government has chosen to restrict the performance test to the MySuper segment. All superannuation products should be the subject of an annual performance test. When I met with the minister, I spoke to the minister about this. I think there is a reasonable expectation in this place that we should have one rule that covers everyone. According to some in this place, one or more contentious components of the bill relate to the best financial interest provisions. I strongly believe that superannuation funds must be accountable and that the decisions of the funds should always be made in the best financial interests of members.
Third-party payments for ideological or political purposes—or any other purpose, for that matter—that are not in the best financial interests of members shouldn't be occurring. It's disappointing that we have a need to legislate in this place to protect members' funds from inappropriate payments. I can't understand why a super fund would think it appropriate to make political donations, advertise at a sporting event or hire a corporate box, particularly when we are talking about a compulsory payment. We're not talking about some kind of discretionary spend; we're talking about something compulsory. So I don't think any of those expenses actually benefit the members.
My concern with the bill is that having a unilateral approach without a financial threshold will impose unnecessary administration costs on the fund which ultimately may reduce financial returns for members. I think it's fair that we would expect the operations of a super fund to have expenses, such as their employees and just the day-to-day running of an office. But I think, when we're looking at those extravagant advertising deals and when we're looking at those extravagant purchases—as I said, around corporate boxes and the like—they should be curtailed. Certainly not a dollar from any superannuation company should be going into this place by way of political donations to any party. Effectively it is the desire to improve fund expenditure. The total cost may potentially be greater than the payments the legislation seeks to mitigate.
All too often in this place we see an ideological divide on superannuation legislation and, consequently, an unpreparedness to assess on merit. I think this is certainly the case with this legislation and is compounded by the vested interests of superannuation funds. I'm pleased that the government has removed the directions power which would otherwise have given any government of the day the ability to dictate what investments a superannuation fund may or may not invest in. This was an overreach, and its removal was appropriate. It was my most concerning aspect with respect to this proposed legislation.
In determining my position on the bill, I have sought advice from the government and the opposition. They've found what I think to be the most helpful of advice, that being the independent analysis by groups such as Choice undertaken through partnership with Super Consumers Australia. I think it's really important for people who are following the Hansard that I've read out a quote from Super Consumers Australia. They said:
Holistically, this package will benefit superannuation consumers and it is important its measures are considered as a whole and not in isolation. A number of industry submissions have embarked on self-preservation, hiding behind the veil of alleged widespread consumer harm. Much of this analysis fails to recognise the intersecting impact of each of the measures and the failures of the current superannuation system.
I think that is a big problem in this place, in particular around superannuation. Every single time we debate just the tiniest of bills, it is highly contentious—and it really shouldn't be. What I do as a crossbencher is try and find sources where we know that there isn't a vested interest in providing advice.
We should all seek to improve the financial returns of the superannuation funds for the millions of hardworking Australians. So I give my qualified support for this bill, with the assurance that amendments will be made in the other place to improve this bill and address the concerns that I have raised today.
I want to thank all of the members who have contributed to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Future, Your Super) Bill 2021. The Morrison government's Your Future, Your Super package, as has been very well outlined, will implement a number of key recommendations from the Productivity Commission review into superannuation and the royal commission into misconduct in the banking, super and financial services industry, which has also been referred to.
Your Future, Your Super makes the superannuation system better in a range of ways, a number of which have been outlined here today. There are four key ways that it will do so. These changes will prevent the creation of unintended multiple superannuation accounts; empower members by making it easier for them to choose a well-performing product that meets their needs; hold funds to account for underperformance, protecting Australians from poor outcomes and encouraging funds to lower costs and fees to boost Australians' retirement incomes; increase transparency and accountability for our superannuation funds in how they use their members' savings; and, importantly, will save Australians nearly $18 billion over 10 years—saving more of their contributions and ensuring that those contributions are able to be put to use in their retirement, which is what the entire system is for.
This is our next step in what has been a really important process of modernising and improving Australia's superannuation system to make sure it's working harder for the people for whom it has been put in place. There is no doubt, as has been highlighted, that any changes to superannuation are highly contested and highly contentious. But the Morrison government has as our guiding light in this respect the aim of ensuring that members' contributions are absolutely put to the best use for those members and ensuring that the men and women who are entrusted with those funds have as their only key obligation how they can maximise the returns for those Australians. So in that respect it is unusual, in my view, that sensible reforms like this are so highly contested. Contesting changes that will assist everyday Australians—Australians who, in many cases are on low incomes and who have the aspiration of getting to their retirement without having to rely on the government and are therefore relying on their superannuation—to put their savings to work and that place obligations on funds to do is unusual.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
It might be a cold, rainy winter's day in Canberra, but the surf conditions on the coast are a clean two to three foot with a south-easterly swell, and the water temperature a comfortable 20 degrees. Why am I giving you a local surfing report today? Because I'm pleased to get behind the Norah Head National Surfing Reserve. The Central Coast of New South Wales is home to more than 40 beaches, stretching along almost 90 kilometres of stunning coastline. I can still remember how alive I felt going for morning surfs at Soldiers Beach before school with my dad and my brothers, with the sun slowly rising, cool sand under our feet and crashing waves around us. We'd jump on our boards and plunge headfirst into the surf. This unique ribbon of coastline includes nine beach breaks, three bomboras and two reef breaks. It has nurtured state and national champions on both short and long boards and it's home to women's surfing pioneer and 14-time Australian champion Sandra English. So I'm delighted to join the Norah Head Surfing Fraternity, Soldiers Beach Surf Life Saving Club, the Norah Head Lighthouse Reserve and locals in their efforts to recognise this iconic surf break as the coast's first national surfing reserve. My special thanks to Debbie McGuigan and Jill Secomb for their hard work and dedication to this effort on behalf of all of our community. In the words of Debbie's late husband, Barry 'Magoo' McGuigan, who returned to competitive surfing at age 58:
I can sum it up in a few words: ever-changing, pleasant, addictive and exciting. It's pleasant when there's a small wave and you can try your moves. It's exciting when it's big and you've got to survive.
It's been a little over two years since I first came to this place, and in that time my electorate has faced severe drought, then bushfires, then floods, then the pandemic, which we're still dealing with, in addition to, most recently, further floods. On each occasion, the residents of my electorate have turned to my office for help. Today I would like to recognise the hard work, professionalism and true heart of all my staff and thank them for it. For weeks and months on end they have been at the coalface, solving problems and speaking to constituents, some of whom are frustrated or angry or emotionally distressed and quite often simply want to take it out on the person at the end of the line or behind the screen. Any electorate officer's job is a difficult one, one that requires the patience of a saint, the skills of a surgeon and, sometimes, the brawn of a front rower. They are people we quite often in this place take for granted. So thank you to all my colleagues—Liz Newberry, Matt Field, Jodi Blackmore, Peter Daniels, Jennifer Johnstone and Sam Woodward—for your hard work, for going above and beyond, for being there to support me and for being there to support all of our residents. Thank you.
A few weeks ago, a passionate constituent of mine in the electorate of Wills, Louisa Allan, presented me and the Parliamentary Friends of the Bring Julian Assange Home Group, which includes MPs and senators from all parties and crossbenchers, with a petition on Julian Assange's case. I have followed his case closely as a member of that group. I want to acknowledge the member for Clark, who is here, and the member for Dawson for all their hard work in this space. They actually visited the UK last year, in January, and on their return they briefed many MPs and senators on the vagaries of Julian's case but also on his mental and physical health. No matter your view of Julian Assange or his case, he is an Australian citizen. This means he has a right to Australian consular assistance and to avail himself fully of his legal rights, whether in the UK or elsewhere. Throughout Assange's extradition trial, federal Labor has urged the Australian government to request that the UK government ensure Assange receive appropriate medical care as well as that consular assistance that he is entitled to. With respect to the UK court's decision this year, federal Labor welcomed the decision not to extradite Assange to the United States, giving priority to his health and welfare. Labor's shadow Attorney-General has also called on the Morrison government to do all it can to draw a line under this matter and encourage the US government to bring this matter to a close.
The Hastings and Camden Haven are benefiting from the government's Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. The $2.8 million funding boost has brought forward key projects across the regions, towns and villages. Mayor Peta Pinson, Kaine Faddi and Karl Herb were thrilled that the Laurieton Sports Complex would benefit from $455,000 for their master plan upgrades, including improved change rooms, storage and the multipurpose sports court. Wendy Hudson and the 470 members of the Kendall Tennis Club are cheering they will receive $150,000 for a new tennis court and will their pickle ball competition. Comboyne has received new shared pathways connecting the local school. I'm pleased to announce Pioneer Park is set for a $100,000 upgrade. The town of Beechwood is booming with new homes and families, like James and Thaleia Prussing and their children, Myah, Marley and Rylan, who will benefit from $480,000 for shared pathways and pedestrian refuges, providing improved connectivity and a safer journey for students. Lake Cathie Community Centre members Vern Warner, Leesa-Rae Harrison and Stewart Cooper were thrilled that they will receive a new three-by-three basketball court alongside their community garden. Along with a $280,000 investment for the Lake Cathie foreshore reserve, works include an accessible walkway, new picnic facilities an outdoor shower and shade over the playground. These are small projects that make a huge difference.
Late is better than never. Something is better than nothing. But why does it always take this Prime Minister so long to do so little? He's just announced a payment for people who can't work—people like Gina in my community whose cafe has been shut down and who is paying her staff out of her own pocket, even though they can't work because of the COVID lockdown. As a Victorian, I say thank you to all of my colleagues who have fought so hard to bring the Prime Minister to this place. As a member of the Labor Party, I say thank you so much to all of my colleagues outside of Victoria who have fought so hard to bring the Prime Minister to this place. I say thank you to the Victorian government that has fought so hard to bring the Prime Minister to this place. And, most importantly, I stand here to say thank you so much to my community who are strong and are proud and are looking after each other, and who have raised their voices to bring the Prime Minister to this place. The Prime Minister said we shouldn't be fearing this virus. I've got a message for you, Prime Minister: until you roll out the vaccine properly and you have fit-for-purpose quarantine facilities in this country, people do need to fear this virus, and you need to do better.
I recently visited an amazing tourism attraction in my electorate, Hartley's Crocodile Adventures, where I was told I would be having the honour of naming two radiated tortoises, which originate from Madagascar. Little did I know that it was simply a ruse. Hartley's owners, Angela and Peter Freeman, had other ideas. The real reason for the visit was to have a baby common or bare-nosed wombat named after yours truly. To say I was shocked and humbled would be an understatement. Warren the wombat is now 10 months old and weighs around 4.5 kilos and, like his namesake, he's very cute and cuddly. He was born at Hartley's during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic to Nulla, a six-year-female, and Tonka, a 15-year-old male wombat. Unfortunately, Nulla was unable to look him and he started to be hand reared by the magnificent keepers in late February this year. Warren the wombat is very active. He loves to run around and play games with the keepers before bunking down for a little snooze. He will continue to come home each night with the keepers until he reaches 12 to 14 months old, in which time he will be old enough to stay at Hartley's overnight so he won't need a late-night bottle. If you're visiting Cairns in Far North Queensland, make sure you drive a little further north to Wangetti, drop in at Hartley's Crocodile Adventures and say, 'Hi' to Warren the wombat. For the record, the radiated tortoises were named Pebbles and Gypsy Radiata.
The Brisbane Firehawks, based in Cooper in my electorate, have launched a bold bid to become the NRL's 17th franchise. If the Australian Rugby League Commission agrees to extend the competition, the Brisbane Firehawks are hoping to become the fourth Queensland team from 2023. Southsiders and all Australians will have an exciting new team to support. A firehawk is a raptor that spreads wildfires by carrying smouldering branches to unburnt areas.
The Brisbane Firehawks have a fantastic logo and colours that reflect the Easts Tigers' heritage and the colours of their hometown and ours, Brisbane. Easts has a 105 year history in Brisbane, and, at the same time, the club has a completely modern approach. They've got a really strong balance sheet. I'm also looking forward to seeing the construction of the club's $7½ million community centre of excellence.
I want to commend Brian Torpy, the CEO of the club; the chairman, Stephen Bullow; and the bid consultants, Shane and Brent Richardson, for all of their work to launch this important bid. I also want to thank every single member of the club and every Tiger supporter who is wholeheartedly supporting this bid for the Firehawks to join the NRL. I think every member in this chamber can look into their hearts and, if they really search their souls, they will have to admit that the Firehawks have the strongest and best bid to join the NRL! I know my friend Joe Kelly MP, the state member for Greenslopes, is behind the bid all the way, and so am I. I can't wait to be in the crowd supporting the Firehawks in 2023.
The day's arrived when I've now heard the member for Griffith argue in favour of strong balance sheets! I rise today to acknowledge the extraordinary work done by Fighting Chance, a remarkable not-for-profit group on the northern beaches. Fighting Chance, which opened its doors in 2011, designs and establishes social enterprises that ask, 'What if?' In doing so, they support Australians with disabilities by breaking barriers in society.
Laura and Jordan O'Reilly were inspired in 2000 by their brother, Shane O'Reilly, who lived with cerebral palsy. They set out on a mission to create a new and better future for people with disabilities. Shane's passion for IT and computer work was not being realised within the traditional day programs for those with severe disabilities, so Laura and Jordan created Fighting Chance, a place in which people with disabilities were encouraged to thrive by acknowledging their own passions and developing their vocational skills.
The two enterprises Fighting Chance empowers are Jigsaw and Avenue. Jigsaw offers transitional training to build a future in which all people with disability in Australia are included within the workforce. Avenue is a day program that provides a greater level of support for people with disability by creating opportunities to complete work tasks, develop their individual skills and socialise.
Fighting Chance now operates right across Sydney and is changing the lives of hundreds of people living with a disability. I commend Laura and Jordan O'Reilly and the entire team at Fighting Chance for their fine ongoing work. It continues to provide a better future through wider opportunities and support for people with a disability and their families in our community.
I rise in the House today to celebrate an Indi family business which has grown from strength to strength since its humble beginnings in 1936. Alpine Breads started as Bertalli's Bakery in Benalla when its founder, Dick Bertalli, began baking fresh bread for his family and friends. Since then it's grown into a successful Australian bread manufacturer selling to major supermarkets all over Australia. They've pioneered hemp bread and led the globe in creating one of the first FODMAP-friendly breads. To top it all off, third-generation baker Andrew Bertalli is also a qualified pastry chef who won the top vanilla slice award at the Victorian Baking Show in 2014.
I had the pleasure of meeting Andrew recently and found him to be a modest but proud man. Andrew recognises the benefits of building a local business, hiring local people and nourishing their families. Alpine Breads is a much loved institution in Benalla, though recent pandemic challenges have made it difficult for the business to find and retain staff. When I entered parliament I was adamant that one of my roles would be to promote the good things happening in my electorate. Alpine Breads is a good thing. It is a delicious thing, and I'm proud to celebrate this enduring family business.
From young players who love the game and older players who have their eyes on the big leagues to the parents who enjoy cheering their kids on from the sidelines at home games, sport has a way of bringing Australian communities together. The electorate of Longman is home to many sporting clubs and groups who love nothing better than getting out there and playing the game they love. I used to play a bit of footy myself when I was younger, so I understand the drive and passion.
I was delighted to be involved in discussions about the redevelopment of the clubhouse at Petersen Road at Morayfield last year, and I know very well the dual role the clubhouse plays in servicing Caboolture Rugby Union Club and its northern fields and Caboolture Touch Association with its southern fields. This also allows for regular sharing of the fields when there are big events on. There are currently more than 1,650 members playing Rugby or touch at the Petersen Road facility.
Through the federal government's Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, we have provided $1.5 million in federal funding towards making this exciting project possible. The project includes the demolition of the existing clubhouse and construction of stage 1 of the shared clubhouse, comprising four multipurpose changing rooms, public amenities, offices, a kitchen and a multipurpose clubroom with elevated viewing decks—on which I shall be having a beer and watching the footy—and tiered seating looking over the northern and southern fields. The other great news is that 60 jobs will be created during its construction. I am looking forward to watching the game there next year.
Nick Agocs, a long-time member of the Australian Labor Party, passed away on Thursday, 29 April 2021. I want to pass on the condolences of everyone on this side of the House to Nick's wife, Barbara, to his daughters, Andrea, Danielle and Carolyn, and to his granddaughter, Bianca.
Nick was a true believer and would often come to my office to give me advice on what he thought we were doing right and, as was his style, also on what he thought we were doing wrong in the Labor Party, on a regular basis. He had been active in the Labor Party for many, many years.
Born Miklos Szaszak in Hungary in 1938, he was a child of the Second World War. His father passed away when he was young, leaving Nick and his mother to flee across continents to safety. As refugees, they had the choice of where to migrate to, and they chose Australia. Australia is so fortunate for the contribution he then made to this nation.
He was a founding chair of the multicultural community safety committee. He was a secretary and a former president of the Ethnic Communities Council of Western Australia and a former management committee member of the North Perth Migrant Resource Centre and spent three decades of his life contributing to federal, state and local policy for migrant communities.
His daughter Andrea told me and my team that one of his last wishes was to make a donation to the Labor Party to see it help us win the 2021-22 election. I'm very pleased that he made that $100 donation to the federal Perth campaign. Thank you.
Fans of Australian Rules will know that we are currently in the midst of the AFL's Sir Doug Nicholls Round, which coincides with National Reconciliation Week. Held annually, the Sir Doug Nicholls Round celebrates the culture and contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander players of our great game. I have a special affinity with this round—not only because I love footy, but because the Nicholls electorate that I represent in northern Victoria is named after Sir Doug Nicholls and his wife, Gladys.
Born in 1906, Sir Doug, a Yorta Yorta man, played football for Tongala before heading to the city. He was short in stature but lightning quick. He played 54 games for Fitzroy in the VFL and was the first Aboriginal player to play for Victoria—something he did four times.
After football, Sir Doug became a pastor and a pioneer for reconciliation in Australia. In 1972, Sir Doug and Lady Gladys travelled to London, where he was the first Aboriginal Australian to be knighted. He was appointed Governor of South Australia in 1976, becoming the first Indigenous person to hold that post.
I'd personally like to pay tribute to the work that Sir Doug and Lady Gladys did. In many ways, they laid the groundwork for the great work that Adam Goodes and Michael O'Loughlin are doing at the moment with their GO Foundation and Troy Cook is doing through the Wirrpanda Foundation. I wish I'd had a chance to meet Sir Doug and Lady Gladys, but I'm sure that, if they were alive today, they'd be just as proud of those great young Indigenous men as I am.
Hotels were build for tourists, not quarantine. My heart goes out to the people of Melbourne, who now face the economic and social impacts of another week of lockdown.
Responsibility for this lockdown lies squarely at the feet of Prime Minister Scott Morrison. This government has had more than a year to establish a purpose-built quarantine system and has failed to deliver. Queensland has seen outbreaks of COVID-19 from hotel quarantine but, thanks to the leadership of the Palaszczuk government and the hard work of Queenslanders, they've been contained.
But it is an undeniable fact that hotel quarantine is not fit for purpose. We know that more outbreaks are possible and that, as long as Scott Morrison continues to ignore the expert advice, the reality is: this bungled vaccine rollout with messy quarantine is costing our economy. Our economic recovery and the hard work of Australians is being put at risk as long as the Prime Minister refuses to seriously consider the viable alternatives to hotel quarantine.
The Palaszczuk government has put forward a thoughtful and worthy proposal for a dedicated facility to be built on the grounds of Wellcamp Airport on the outskirts of Toowoomba, west of Brisbane. Rather than engaging constructively with this proposal, the Prime Minister saw it as a chance to score political points and undermine the Queensland government. Prime Minister: start listening to premiere Annastacia Palaszczuk and Queenslanders who support a regional quarantine. It's not good enough. Until Scott Morrison decides to do his job and fix quarantine, our economic recovery is at risk. (Time expired)
Exporters have been responsible for the strength of the national economic recovery from the global pandemic. Australia had a trade surplus of $77.4 billion last financial year, the largest financial year trade surplus ever. Australia's exports have grown from $306 billion dollars in 2012- 2013 to $476.6 billion in 2019-2020.
Australia is geographically located within the Indo-Pacific region, which has been the focus of geopolitical tensions and risk in recent times. Strategically, our future advantage, security and economic prosperity lies in the diversification of our trading and investment relationships with a wider range of nations in order that Australia does not become overly reliant on a single market and that our international trade routes and supply chains remain open. Through improved diplomatic outreach, trade delegations, international exchanges and foreign aid, Australia can develop closer relationships with neighbouring regional economic blocks, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Our government is fostering more opportunities for Australian exporters through free trade agreements with China, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Indonesia and Peru, as well as the 11 nations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations. (Time expired)
The government's independent assessments are continuing to ruin the lives of my constituents who are participating in the NDIS. The new minister's so-called pause on these ridiculous assessments is not much comfort to the single mother of a son who has a rare genetic disorder. His core support package has recently been cut from 35 hours a week to just three hours. This is a reduction from $100,000 a year to just $8,000. If this is not exhibit A that these assessments are about cost-cutting and nothing else, I don't know what is. The reason given to this young man's mother for the reduction, by the service who did the assessment, was that he was at school full-time, and this amounts to respite for his mother. This explanation was given verbally and, obviously, not in writing—given the nature of it. This is beyond ridiculous. In fact, it's insulting. In what world do these people live—assuming that parents have respite when children are at school? This does not take into account that this mother is actually doing her best to work as a casual teacher. The government should carefully consider what is happening here. It is not moral to be attacking our society's vulnerable in this way. There are really no words to describe my anger. Fancy that: cutting the NDIS package of a child with a rare disorder from $100,000 to $8,000. Shame on this government. I call on the minister to intervene. I call on everyone to reconsider these offensive and ridiculous assessments.
Recently I've had the pleasure of attending one of the best community fundraisers I have ever been to, the 2021 Darling Downs LifeFlight Gala Ball. It was sponsored this year by the International Association of Drilling Contractors. After not being able to hold a fundraiser last year, this year we saw a record crowd, and thanks to the incredible work of the LifeFlight team they raised the record amount of $420,000 on the night in the room. A fantastic result.
A survivor of a terrible farm machinery action, Mr Tim Smith, spoke very movingly of his gratitude to LifeFlight. Their timely intervention no doubt saved his life. I'm sure it must have been at this stage that the cooks started cutting onions, because a few of us started to get a bit of a tear in our eyes.
In 2006 a group of local people got together to bring this service to Toowoomba. Today, it is the busiest base in Queensland and one of the busiest in Australia, having flown 650 critical missions in 2020. Clive Berghofer and the LifeFlight centre crews are ready to respond 24/7, 365 days a year, making us all safe—not just in the Toowoomba region but right across the Darling Downs and so much of south-western Queensland. Clive's been a major sponsor of LifeFlight since the establishment of the Toowoomba base in 2006 and, in 2017, donated $2 million to match the funds provided by this federal government to build the new LifeFlight base at Toowoomba airport.
My congratulations go to the chairman, Rob Borbidge, and to all of his LifeFlight team for the excellent evening they put on, and, of course, thanks to all the donors who support this fantastic charity.
We've seen vaccine hesitancy because of the Morrison government's failed communication, we've seen quarantine facility construction hesitancy from them and, for the past week, we've had lockdown support hesitancy. They've been hesitant to take responsibility for the financial effects of the lockdown that their policies were responsible for. That sets alarm bells ringing for every small business and for every worker in every single state, including in the electorate of Macquarie that I so proudly represent. We shouldn't need lockdowns, but the government's failure with the vaccine rollout, failing to urgently reach a critical mass, and failure to create a more secure quarantine process has led to it.
As always, workers, small business and the self-employed pay the heaviest price. Yet this government was at first unwilling and then reluctant and now begrudging in stepping up. But they're doing as little as they can to support workers who have lost shifts and as little as they can to support self-employed people, and even that is only because they've been shamed into it. The delay and hesitation causes anxiety and adds to the psychological burden that people are carrying right now in Victoria, but it could be anywhere. I say to the government: you can ease the burden for everyone if you stop hesitating and stop begrudging, and you can alleviate the fear that we all have by getting the vaccine and quarantine programs right. (Time expired)
The royal commission into aged care revealed some horrendous stories of the mistreatment, neglect and abuse which some older Australians in care had suffered. That we need to take steps to prevent this is beyond any question whatsoever. However, our awareness and understanding of the extent and scope of elder abuse more generally in society is still not as strong as it should be, and it is for this reason that 15 June every year is designated World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Elder abuse can take various forms, ranging from physical and sexual assault to neglect and psychological and financial mistreatment, and it is estimated to affect one in 20 older people in Western Australia. Sadly, the reality is that elder abuse is not solely perpetrated by strangers. It can be done by those closest. And, when it takes the form of financial or emotional abuse, it can be insidious and not always easily identifiable.
In 2019, all Australian governments endorsed the National Plan to Respond to the Abuse of Older Australians, and this government fully supports and is driving the work which is being done to implement this report. But stopping elder abuse is only going to happen when we all accept responsibility for it—responsibility for understanding it, for recognising it and for taking appropriate steps to stop it. So, this 15 June, let's renew our commitment to ensuring that all Australians can live their lives to the fullest. (Time expired)
Prime Minister, you do not understand my Victoria, so let me explain what I mean. You see your Victoria and your political dilemma. I have my Victoria and its amazing people and community. Your Victoria is a political calculation; you see it as COVID and political risk management. I see a Victoria where people are stressed; funerals are missed; parties, reunions and weddings are cancelled; events have been delayed; customers have vanished; shops and roads and schools are empty. My fellow Victorians are resigned, angry, depressed and anxious, but my fellow Victorians are also very strong and they are kind in each other's troubles. They know this COVID-19 time will pass. But my Victoria should not have been put in harm's way by you, Prime Minister.
There is a sickness in the government—a pathology of negligence at the heart of the Morrison government which is jeopardising my fellow Victorians. Mr Morrison, in your Victoria, a special quarantine facility has not been built. The vaccine rollout in your Victoria has been dangerously slow, too slow—too slow for the vulnerable, too slow for frontline workers. The federal public health messaging has been at best confusing, at worst negligent. In tough times and times of crisis, my Victorians want the first question a leader asks to be 'How can I help,' not a Prime Minister who only ever asks, 'Who can I blame?' My Victoria will get through this, I have no doubt, but my Victoria will remember who stood with them when they needed it most.
Because I only have about 20 seconds, I'd better start with the end of my speech! The Morrison government committed $46.5 million to the Welshpool Road and Leach Highway intersection in my electorate of Swan. The Morrison government continues to secure our economic recovery through projects like this in WA, in my electorate of Swan and right across Australia.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. For more than a week thousands of Victorian businesses and workers have lived with no income and no hope of federal support. Last week a senior minister told them to go to Centrelink, even though there was no help available. Today the Prime Minister has finally announced some support. Prime Minister, what took you so long?
The announcement I made prior to question time today is a standard arrangement, as I learnt when I was in New Zealand earlier this week. In New Zealand, which has also been a very successful country in dealing with lockdowns, support payments commence after seven days for post-seven-day lockdowns. In our government, we have taken a similar approach. In the first seven days, if a state chooses to put their state into lockdown then, as was the case in Western Australia and as was the case in Queensland, when neither of those states made any request of the Commonwealth, they knew and understood that they had the resources to support those short-term arrangements—and they proved to be short-term arrangements in Western Australia and Queensland. What we have decided as a government is that where a lockdown extends beyond seven days then the Commonwealth will put in place a temporary COVID disaster payment. That payment is $500 a week for those who would normally work more than 20 hours and $325 if they would normally work less than 20 hours.
That support payment is not unlike the types of payments that we make in relation to other disasters, whether it be bushfires or floods or cyclones or the many other areas where the Commonwealth government provides that disaster relief. I see this very much as disaster relief for the people of Victoria. This is not something that they have control over, and, with the lockdown persisting beyond seven days, we believe that it is a responsible thing to do—to provide a support payment to those in lockdowns that go beyond seven days.
But the much better outcome, I've got to tell you, is that lockdowns do not go on beyond seven days. The much better outcome is that students can go back to school, that people can go back to work and that they can do that safely. As a result—
Honourable members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I don't know what it is about the capacity of members to forget what I said only the day before, but I'll now issue a general warning. It will make the running of the House far more efficient and it will save you listening to me for long periods of time. The Prime Minister has the call.
So, that is the better outcome. The better outcome is that everywhere we possibly can we avoid these lockdowns, because they impose such hardship on families, on businesses and on others. I welcome the decision that in regional Victoria those restrictions will be lifted. Even still, those restrictions are in place in towns and communities across regional Victoria which hadn't seen a case in a very, very, very long time.
Mr Burns interjecting—
The member for Macnamara can leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Macnamara then left the chamber.
Those Victorians in regional areas I know were denied the opportunity to travel to other states where they were seeking to be with loved ones. So, lockdowns are not the objective. Where they're in place, the Commonwealth continues to provide the support that Australians need and rely on.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government's economic plan is driving our recovery from the health and economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including through the extension of additional support in my home state of Victoria?
I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. I also thank the member for Chisholm not only for the work that she does in her community in Chisholm but also—and I was with her recently—for the excellent work she is doing with the Chinese-Australian community, as so many others are doing—the member for Banks, the member for Bennelong and so many others—not just in the Chinese-Australian community but also in other communities. The member for La Trobe, for example, is doing great work with those in the Indian community, and so many others are doing great work with other ethnic communities around Australia, particularly working alongside community leaders to highlight and support the pandemic efforts that have been put in place by the Commonwealth and state governments.
Australia has indeed been coming through this pandemic better than almost every other advanced country in the world. The national accounts have demonstrated that again. We have an economy in Australia that is bigger today than it was before the pandemic hit. There are more Australians in work today than before the pandemic hit. That is an Australians' led recovery, whether that's Australians deciding to take on the support provided by HomeBuilder to build their first home—as we've seen with dwelling investment statistics; whether that's employers who have invested in new equipment through the instant asset write-off and the instant expensing initiative that has seen business investment surge and power this economic recovery—and securing that recovery was set out in the budget this year; or whether it is the consumption of Australian households, going out there everyday—supported by getting back into work, and having that money in their pockets, and by lower taxes—driving that economy forward. That is what has occurred in this country—something that has not occurred in so many other countries around the world.
We cannot take it for granted and we cannot think that it will always be there. That is why the plan handed down by the Treasurer in this year's budget to secure Australia's recovery is there to support Australians through this pandemic. Indeed, there was some $41 billion in the second pandemic budget to ensure that Australians all around the country can come through this pandemic. But, specifically in relation to the latest lockdown in Victoria, as I've just responded to the Leader of the Opposition, we are introducing—it will be available from next week—a temporary COVID disaster payment. It is available to those who work or live in areas that are defined as a Commonwealth-affected area by the Chief Medical Officer. Those payments will be made to them on a weekly basis. That payment will be paid swiftly. It is there to help them get through this temporary period.
We want to see these lockdowns come to an end as soon as possible. We want to see kids back in school. We want to see people back at work. We want to see students back at universities. We want to see Australians in Victoria going about their normal lives again, as has been experienced by Australians around the rest of the country. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister take responsibility for the 21 failures in quarantine which have led to statewide lockdowns, severe health impacts and widespread economic disruption?
I take responsibility for the decision that we took as a nation in March of last year, as the pandemic struck and as we brought together the leaders of governments around this country in the space of days, where we had to surge quarantine capacity in this country to deal with the pandemic. That was achieved, and I thank the states and territories for coming together in this way to ensure that, in this country, there is a 99.99 per cent effectiveness rate in relation to hotel quarantine. Our effectiveness rate in this country even exceeds that in New Zealand, which also uses hotel quarantine. It even exceeds that in New Zealand, who have done an amazing job as well.
So I indeed take responsibility for putting in place a situation that has seen over 300,000 people go through quarantine in this country. Yes, there have been some 20 outbreaks that have occurred. That is the first ring of steel that is put in place when people come through and then there is the contract tracing that extends beyond that to ensure that we further protect Australians. What has been the outcome of this arrangement? In this country, sadly, we have lost 910 people—fatalities of COVID. Had we experienced the same fatality rate of OECD countries around the globe on average, that number would be over 30,000.
Mr Gosling interjecting—
The member for Solomon will leave under 94(a).
The member for Solomon then left the chamber.
So it is true. I am happy to say, as the chair of the national cabinet and the Prime Minister, that is an outcome that we have achieved together. If you want someone who wants to just take strips off people and fight and get narky on every issue and oppose the government to fix this crisis—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Prime Minister had been completely relevant to the question until that very last bit. Was it the last bit? We might go to the next question. The member for Dawson.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the McCormack-Morrison government's budget investment is supporting business in regional Australia as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic?
An honourable member interjecting—
Yes. It is the Morrison-McCormack government, and I call the Deputy Prime Minister. It's either that or rule it out of order.
Indeed it is, and long may that be the case! I do wish the opposition leader well, and I wish him long service leave in that position. I want to thank the 'Voice of the North', the 'Member for Regional Queensland', the member for Dawson. He is a fighter for his electorate. He knows that on 11 May, when the Treasurer stood in this spot and delivered the budget, he delivered a plan—a blueprint for the future—for our economic recovery out of COVID-19. It has been a challenging time. It has been a difficult time for North Queensland. It has been a difficult time for Queensland and, indeed, for our nation and the entire world.
The member for Dawson knows that we have the policies in place. He knows we have the plan and we're putting it into operation. He also knows that regional Queensland—indeed, regional Australia—is one of the big deliverers as we fight our way through and recover from COVID-19, through infrastructure, through construction, through $110 billion of infrastructure across this nation, supporting 100,000 workers. He knows that agriculture has grown to $66 billion, up $6 billion, on the back of drought, fires, floods, cyclones and indeed the virus, the global pandemic. He knows that the resources industry has been its best self, having grown quarter on quarter. Of course, the national accounts figures yesterday were very encouraging. They are showing the signs of a great future. Our economy has rebounded—into recession through COVID—back out of recession because of the policies and the plan that we have put into place. There are still plenty of jobs in regional Australia. Encouragingly, there are more people in work right now than there were pre COVID. The unemployment rate is lower than when we came into government, in 2013. They are positive signs for the economy.
The instant asset write-off has been such a boon for small businesses around the country. But don't take my word for it. Dion Loader is a painter from Mackay, in the member for Dawson's electorate. He has a painting and maintenance business. He took advantage of the instant asset write-off and purchased a new work vehicle—a Mitsubishi Triton, no less. He said of the instant asset write-off: 'Obviously this meant I had to pay less tax, which helped with my cash-flow situation, which had decreased dramatically. It was good to have that little bit of extra help to supplement my JobKeeper payments.' He's paying less tax. He's got more incentive. He's got the risk-taking ability that all small business has. It's the private sector that's helping us through this. It's not government; it's the private sector. They're the risk-takers. They're the ones that are supporting the economy. They're the ones that are going to build us through the recovery period and out of COVID-19. (Time expired)
I am reminding people again. I've issued a general warning, particularly to the member—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Leader of the Opposition, it's not a never-ending conversation.
He's very friendly.
Well, as you've probably gathered, I'm not as friendly. The Deputy Manager of Opposition Business.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister take responsibility for the failure to fully vaccinate aged-care workers, putting frail and vulnerable aged-care residents at risk?
The vaccination program in relation to aged-care workers was further reviewed at the national cabinet some six weeks ago. Additional points of availability for aged-care workers to be able to get the vaccination were put in place, and, again, I thank the states and territories for the work that they were doing to support the broader national effort that was put in place.
Of course the national vaccination program, which includes the vaccination of all Australians, is the responsibility of the federal government. I'm the Prime Minister, and as a result I take responsibility for that national vaccination program—of course I do. That's why I take matters to work with the states and territories together to get this job done. We're working with GPs and we'll ultimately be working with pharmacists as well. I can tell you today that in the last 10 days there have been a million doses delivered and well over 700,000 in the last seven days. We've delivered 4½ million doses. We've gone from a time when we had around 320,000 a week after we had the impact of the TGA assessment of AstraZeneca—
The Prime Minister has resumed his seat. The Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
Yes, on relevance. The question was particularly confined to aged-care workers, not the general vaccine program. If he's got some data on aged-care workers, it might be useful.
I remind all members just simply to state the point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a very specific question. I think he's answered it in a way that was very relevant to the question. He's now obviously giving some context, but it's not unrelated context. I don't think the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business can insist that he answer it in another way at this point. As I said, I think the Prime Minister on the specific question that he was asked about taking responsibility has been very relevant to that point. Provided he stays on the general policy topic, I think that's fine.
In making reference to lifting the weekly rate of vaccination from 320,000 to now well over 700,000 a week, one of the decisions that was part of that was further enlisting the states in the support of vaccination and providing points of contact for aged-care workers. At this stage the AHPPC—the medical expert panel—have not recommended that aged-care worker vaccinations be made mandatory. They have not made that recommendation. They have not made it previously, and my advice is that it is unlikely to be made mandatory on their recommendation either. It is a matter that will be further considered by the national cabinet tomorrow. I think this is an important issue for us to consider.
I note that the Western Australian Premier, when they were faced with challenges in getting quarantine workers vaccinated, introduced public health orders to ensure that they could increase the rate of vaccination amongst quarantine workers. I think that was a good decision by the Western Australian Premier. Those opposite might find it puzzling that public health orders can play a role in increasing the rate of vaccination in essential occupations. That's certainly what happens in terms of flu vaccinations in relation to workers in aged care. I note that is not a mandatory requirement in Victoria, but what I simply say is there are many methods we can continue to employ to lift the level of vaccination in these occupations. We have increased the points of contact where they can have those vaccinations. We are doing that in partnership with the states and territories. But, once again, the Labor Party continues to undermine the national effort to get Australia vaccinated.
Opposition members interjecting—
The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.
My question is to the Minister for Health. People with disability in the regions are among those who need the vaccine the most. Yesterday I spoke to a highly distressed mother from my electorate whose young adult son has multiple disabilities and a very serious lung condition. Her son cannot access the Pfizer vaccine in his town and could not get an appointment at the vaccine hub 80 kilometres away. Why is he still waiting, Minister, and what are you doing right now to fix this dangerous situation?
I thank the member for Indi. In relation to in-reach as well as the outreach opportunities for Australian disability residents, so far we have had in-reach to over 530 facilities around the country. In particular, we note that in relation to Victoria, with regard to vaccines for disability residents, there is a total dosage of 2,878 which has been provided to disability residents, covering over 2,099 people—that is, 1,320 who have had one dose and 779 who have had two doses. In addition to that, we are working to ensure that there is a plan for each resident, as developed with their provider. There are five different options, depending on the needs of the home and the resident.
With regard to the particular individual, I'd be very happy to receive the details. If they are in a group that is immobile, so either themselves or others in the home are not mobile, then they will receive in-reach in one of two ways, either from general practices or from the specific clinics provided by the providers who are reaching into the homes, of which there have been over 530 nationwide already. If they are mobile then we're in a position to ensure that they have access to the 30 general practices, primary healthcare sites, within the member's electorate and the Commonwealth vaccination clinic. In addition to that, there is access to the state clinics that are specifically set up and taking those with disability, as the Prime Minister referred to in his previous answer to the 22 April decision of the national cabinet to ensure that residents and workers in the disability sector are able to attend state clinics. I would invite the member subsequent to question time to send us the details, so that we can correlate and understand whether or not an in-reach visit has been scheduled or whether the person is able to travel to an outreach site. Either way we will make sure that their needs are met and that they are vaccinated.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House how the Morrison government's ongoing commitment to continually support all Australian families and businesses is strengthening our economic recovery from COVID-19?
I thank the member for Moore for his question and acknowledge his experience in local government as well as in the private sector. Today more than six million of my fellow Victorians are doing it very tough. They are enduring their fourth lockdown with kids that are not in school, families that are apart, businesses that have been closed. It's a painful reminder that the pandemic is not over, but neither is the Morrison government's economic support. More than $45 billion has already been delivered to Victorian families and businesses by the Morrison government, around three times the amount that's been delivered by the state government, and today we announced a new COVID payment to support those in need who have been in lockdown. In the budget just over two weeks ago we anticipated that there would be further outbreaks across the country, and this is why we put in the budget an extra $41 billion of COVID related economic support, including tax relief for more than 10 million Australians, an expansion of the immediate expensing to boost investment across the economy, infrastructure programs, skills programs—all intended to create more jobs and to boost economic activity.
The budget measures, together with what has been previously announced, come to $291 billion in direct economic support provided by this government to help Australians to get to the other side of this virus. This $291 billion and the measures that we have announced are helping to create jobs. Yesterday we saw the product of the hard work of more than 25 million Australians and the direct economic support from this government, with the national account numbers showing that the economy in the March quarter grew by 1.8 per cent. While the economies of France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom all contracted in the March quarter, the Australian economy expanded, and the Australian economy today is bigger than it was going into the pandemic. There are more Australians in work today than at the start of the pandemic. We have done this ahead of any major advanced economy around the world. So we will continue to support Victorians, we will continue to support Australians, we will continue to create jobs, we will continue to lower taxes, and we will continue to drive the Australian economy forward.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister take responsibility for bungling the aged-care vaccine rollout so badly that at one facility in my electorate half the residents have been fully vaccinated and half have not even received their first dose?
I will ask the Minister for Health and Aged Care to add further to my answer, but I don't accept the characterisation put forward by the member. Once again, I'm not surprised: the Labor Party comes into this place each and every day seeking to undermine the government's efforts to fight this virus. We will keep fighting the virus and the Labor Party will keep fighting us. I know where Australians want us to focus our attention. They want us to focus our attention on them, not on fighting the Labor Party.
Without knowing the facility—we will have to seek the details from the member, though they could have been provided but, obviously, there was a decision not to provide those details—99.9 per cent of facilities around Australia have now received first doses. In addition to that, 80 per cent of facilities around Australia have received second doses. Around the country, of 185,000 residential aged-care facility residents, there are 156,000, or over 84.1 per cent, that have received a first dose—all up, an average rate of 85 per cent of those facilities which have been visited—and 126,000 have received a second dose.
In relation to an individual facility, it does strike me that, if a facility has been fully vaccinated, they have received two visits. If they have received two visits, then all residents have been offered the opportunity to be vaccinated. It would be a very unusual situation if, having had two visits, those residents had not been offered the opportunity to be vaccinated. Around the country we do know that there are some who, because of their circumstances or because of their families, have not consented. Without knowing the details of this facility, we would have to find out.
But we have made sure that there is the opportunity for every resident in every facility to be vaccinated, and we will continue to do that. If there are individual residents who, after having had either a first visit or a second visit, have chosen not to or not been able for some reason to be vaccinated, we would want to know those reasons. We have an in-reach program. For example, in Victoria, we have 50 mobile residential clinics which are being delivered during the course of this week. That's assisting both workers and residents around the country. We are going through a program of visits over and above the first and second dose visits. So I'd invite the member to provide the details. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is continuing to support Australians during the global coronavirus pandemic, including in my home state of Victoria?
I thank the member for Higgins. We know that yesterday Australia had 141,000 vaccinations, another record day. Australians have come forward in record numbers to be vaccinated, and we have now passed over 4.64 million Australian vaccinations. So what this means, of course, is that we are seeing an acceleration of the program; we are seeing cooperation between the Commonwealth and the state; and we are seeing that vaccination program growing and expanding around the country. The last two days have each been record days. There have been approximately 280,000 vaccinations for Australians over the course of those two days alone. That is well north of a quarter of a million in just two days, in addition to the other figures which the Prime Minister mentioned.
In Victoria we've provided over 787,000 vaccines to the state government and over 900,000 vaccines to our primary carers. Both are doing a very solid job. We know that the Victorian government has approximately 200,000 vaccines in inventory. During the course of this week, we're delivering another 71,000 Pfizer vaccines and over 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccines to the Victorian government, with 90,000 vaccines going to primary carers in Victoria. That is part of a broader increase of 130,000 vaccines which we've provided. I've indicated to the Victorian minister that, even though they have significant inventory, if more is needed more will be provided.
I would also note that one of the very important things is the provision of mental health services to Victorians. This is a difficult and challenging time. Any lockdown is very hard, but Victoria has experienced vastly more in terms of lockdown than any other state or territory in Australia, and this is a hard time for the people of Victoria. On that front, we have—and I would commend—the 15 HeadtoHelp clinics which are available to Victorians, whether they wish to call or visit in person, having made an appointment. That help is available. Those HeadtoHelp clinics were set up very quickly with the assistance of Professor Ruth Vine, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer. We also have telehealth, which is an immensely important support, both for mental health, where we've seen over 15 million telehealth consultations so far, and in relation to broader health needs. In addition to that, there is support through the Beyond Blue coronavirus helpline as well as Lifeline. All of these supports are available to help Victorians during what is a deeply challenging time. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister take responsibility for the failure to have any idea how many aged-care workers have been fully vaccinated?
The total number of workers who have received two doses is 35,084. The total who have received one dose is 41,506.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline how the agriculture industry's strong growth has helped lead the economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession and how the Morrison-McCormack government's Ag2030 plan will assist this growth into the future?
I thank the member for Lyne for his question and acknowledge the rich and proud agricultural region that he represents, which is playing a big part in agriculture's stellar recovery, despite the fact that we've gone through drought, fire and flood. In fact, this week's national accounts figures show that we've increased our production by 34 per cent. That is a dividend back to the Australian taxpayer for the support that they've provided through that drought, fire and flood—nearly $11 billion worth of drought support; $3.3 billion worth of support during the floods, particularly for north-west Queensland, where we lost half a million head in 24 hours; and over $2 billion worth of support for the bushfire victims.
This builds on agriculture's foundations to reach the ambitious goal of $100 billion by 2030. But we're also backing it with our Ag2030 plan, with cold hard cash, making sure that our seven pillars that support this Ag2030 plan help them to do that, including through diversifying international markets. That's about digitising our platforms to make it easier to export around the world but it's also about putting boots on the ground. We're putting men and women on the ground in embassies and high commissions—22 agricultural counsellors whose job is to get market access, commodity by commodity. In the last six months, we've had extraordinary success, with our first shipment of barley to Mexico, to go into their beer. We've also secured 750,000 tonnes of barley to go into Saudi Arabia, as well as the Saudis giving us longer shelf life for our meat in their supermarkets. And last week, from Sri Lanka, we secured better fumigation in transit for our grain industry. Also, the Indians are providing us with better fumigation access for our grain.
This week I had the pleasure of meeting digitally with my Indian counterpart, Minister Tomar, where we made a commitment to one another to continue to enrich the relationship that we have in getting market access for us around grains and wool and also for them around pomegranates. So we're taking practical steps and taking advantage of those trade agreements we put in place. But it's also making sure that we're going further in supporting biosecurity—over $400 million in this budget on top of $888 million put in the October budget. That's over $1.2 billion put towards biosecurity in our last two budgets, whether it's infrastructure; whether it's the innovation, giving our farmers the tools of the 21st century to continue to produce the best food and fibre in the world; or whether it's in the supply chains, making sure that we understand the vulnerabilities of our inputs but are going further and reaching deeper through our supply chains to value-add to our product. But it's also about our people: investing in the next generation of young people to bring them home to agriculture and to bring them home to regional and rural Australia. We're driving down university courses in agriculture to entice them back to the new jobs of agriculture and of science and technology. So our investment in agriculture is one that is putting the foundations around it continuing to be the bedrock of this nation's economy.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister take responsibility for the failure of the $70 million COVIDSafe app to assist contact tracers?
I thank the member for his question whilst clearly rejecting the premise of it and the number for it. As at 27 May COVIDSafe had 7.4 million registrations. With the addition of the Herald protocol, it now makes it the most effective contact-tracing app of its kind in the world. The app was designed to work in concert with states' and territories' contact tracing and to be used accordingly for that. For example, in the current Victorian outbreak, the app was accessed by Victorian officials on Saturday 29 May to gain a number of uploads. So it's being used right now by the Victorian government as part of their response. As we've made the point previously—
Opposition members interjecting—
The minister will pause.
They're a noisy bunch, Mr Speaker.
Members will cease interjecting.
The app was used extensively by New South Wales on 23 July and 25 July. There were 544 connections on 31 July and, of course, 567 contacts in total since 1 August. So the app is as a part of a suite measures and is actually being effectively deployed by states and territories with the contact tracing that they're using. I would continue to urge Australians to follow all health advice during the pandemic, I'd continue to urge Australians continue to use QR codes in terms of contact tracing at venues to allow contact tracers to access and find out who's been where, and I'd continue to urge Australians to use the COVIDSafe app and ensure the COVIDSafe app is open so state and territory contact tracers can use it as they incorporate it into their contact-tracing measures.
The Manager of Opposition Business?
Can we get the document he was reading from tabled, please? That claim is extraordinary.
No, you can't put it like that. I just asked the minister whether he was quoting from a confidential document.
I was.
My question is to the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia. Will the minister outline to the House how the resource sector is contributing to Australia's economy and how the Morrison government's support is delivering jobs and prosperity for all Australians?
I thank the honourable member for his question. The member for Herbert generally has a smile on his dial. There are a number of reasons for that, but there are two in particular. One is the outstanding performance of the resources sector and the jobs that it drives up there in Townsville and North Queensland, and the second one is the success of Townsville in scoring the state of origin game next week.
On the resources piece, it's Minerals Week this week. Even the superstars are turning out for Minerals Week. We had Tina Arena last night at the dinner, a fabulous performance by a wonderful Australian. The Minerals Council has released a report about the economic contribution of the resources and the METS sector to our economy—$242 billion; 1,131,450 full-time direct and indirect jobs, which is almost 11 per cent of the jobs in this country. That is an incredible contribution.
But there's more to do. There are more opportunities and more growth. I'm very pleased to report to the House that the price of thermal coal is up over US$123. That is the highest price since 2011. It is up 150 per cent in nine months. Met coal, steel-making coal, is also up. It is up to $161 per tonne. Iron ore is at record prices this year. It is an incredible contribution to our economy. This is how we pay for the essential services—schools, hospitals and roads—that Australians rely on, whether it's through royalties, taxes or the other things that all those individuals out there who are working hard are doing.
Mr Speaker, I'm not asked about alternatives; I'm asked about jobs. I'm asked about jobs for individuals. I've met a number of those hardworking men and women in the resources sector over the last year. Atania Newman, an electrical apprentice over there in the west, is working hard at Mount Whaleback. Conor at Moranbah is a fourth-generation miner. He is a third-year diesel fitter employed at Caval Ridge. He is the fourth generation of his family to work in the mining sector. That is a phenomenal contribution not only to the sector but to those regions and to driving our economy. Congratulations to Conor. We want more Australians to have that opportunity. We want more generations of Australians to be employed in mining. We want more of them to be trained in the mining and resources sector. I spoke about that this morning at the Minerals Week breakfast and about what that industry can do for Australian individuals, for Australia's youth and for Australia's young adults in giving them the training and skills they need into the future.
Fiona Hick is the plant manager for North West Shelf LNG. She is an incredible individual. She works incredibly hard, is well skilled and is very impressive, I have to say. It's people like these three who are helping to drive our economy, providing opportunities for our people and our country. We intend to support them, and we'll continue to support them into the future so there are hundreds of thousands more Australians employed.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister take responsibility for the failure to manufacture mRNA vaccines in Australia?
In this year's budget and the work that is being done by the minister for industry we are establishing the capability, together with other states and territories, who are working to the same end, to establish an mRNA vaccine manufacturing capability in Australia. It is important not just for the COVID pandemic, which we anticipate will extend for some considerable period of time—not for six months but for some time to come. What has also been demonstrated through the COVID pandemic is the efficacy of mRNA vaccines, which 18 months ago was unthinkable. Now they have proven through the course of the pandemic to be an essential part of the future of vaccines in this country.
The Australian government took the decision to support the manufacture of the AstraZeneca vaccine here in Australia in August of last year. That has been a vital decision that has ensured that vaccinations have been available, particularly over the course of these early months of the vaccine rollout. More than 4.6 million doses have now been administered to Australians around the country, a million doses in the last 10 days. That would not have been possible were it not for the government taking the decision to support the manufacture of AstraZeneca vaccines here in this country. There would not have been a vaccination program in the last several months were it not for that decision taken last August. Similarly, in that context, we have moved forward on the issue of mRNA manufacturing. I'll pass over to the minister for industry to comment further.
I thank the Prime Minister and I thank the member for his question. It was about two weeks ago that the government announced its approach to market for the submission of fully costed proposals to establish an end-to-end onshore population-scale mRNA capability. What we will be requiring from those proponents is the demonstrated access to the relevant IP for manufacturing processes for technology transfer and production at scale, the capacity to make products available to the Australian government as required and in priority over every other purchaser and secure supply of population-scale mRNA vaccines for all reasonably foreseeable health emergencies. It has to have breadth, so the technology is not just for vaccines but also for therapeutics, for cancer treatments and for cardiovascular treatments. All of these things have to be on a sustainable footing for a facility that will have the ability to produce over 10 years, and an undertaking from the proponents to maintain the capability of that productive capacity onshore on an ongoing basis and also demonstrate the ability to have exports under that model. The member's question talked about a failure. There won't be a failure here. Australia will be one of the first in line to manufacture because of this process.
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on progress the Morrison government has made on our 'technology, not taxes' approach to reducing emissions and how this approach also creates jobs and supports industry?
I thank the member for Curtin for her question. As a former vice-chancellor and researcher she knows how important clean technology is to reducing emissions. She also understands how important it is to understand Australia's performance in this area—to talk Australia up, not down, as others enjoy doing. Of course our track record is an enviable one. Our emissions are down 20.1 per cent since 2005, the lowest level of emissions since 1990. We've met and beaten our 2020 target and we're on track to meet and beat our 2030 target. Our electricity emissions are lower than they have been since records began, 5.6 per cent down in the last year alone thanks in part at least to Australia's world-beating deployment of renewables. We have the highest level of household solar in the world, with one in four houses having solar on their roofs, 15,000 households in the member for Curtin's electorate alone. We have more solar and wind deployment per person than any country in the world outside of Europe. This is because, when technologies make economic sense, Australians deploy them fast. We're seeing that every day. The IEA director, Fatih Birol, has pointed out that the global challenge to reduce emissions 'calls for massive leaps in innovation. Innovation across batteries, hydrogen, synthetic fuels, carbon capture and many other technologies.' That's why our technology investment road map is focused on doing exactly that—technologies like hydrogen, carbon capture and storage and of course healthy soils.
We've re-funded ARENA with an extra $1.6 billion to invest in all clean technologies, not just a select few. The new funding mandate has been welcomed by ARENA and many other organisations—21 businesses, industry groups and peak bodies—and through that technology investment road map we as a country will invest $80 billion in clean energy technologies in the coming decade, creating 160,000 jobs focused on R & D and Australian innovation. This technology-first approach will see us meet and beat our emissions targets whilst continuing to grow our export industries and jobs. We won't sacrifice industries and jobs in order to bring down emissions. We are getting on with the job.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister take responsibility for not delivering on his commitment that he would fully vaccinate aged-care and disability-care residents and workers who care for them by Easter and that this has left vulnerable Australians at risk?
At this point, 99.7 per cent of aged-care facilities around Australia have had a first vaccination and 80.3 per cent of aged-care facilities around Australia have had a second vaccination. That means that 156,436 residents have received a first dose and, of those, 126,046 have received a second dose. The importance of these vaccinations has been shown at Arcare, in Maidstone, where two residents have been infected. Both had been vaccinated, one with a first dose and the other with both doses. At this stage, both residents have been placed in hospital for observation, but not for the symptoms or circumstances that they face. They've been placed there for observation. They've been placed there to ensure that other residents are safe.
The figure of 99.7 per cent is the national achievement to date, with the remaining facilities—due to their own particular circumstances, such as gastro or otherwise—to be done in the coming days. It is a massive challenge, and yet it's an extraordinary national achievement, to have seen the in-reach, right across the country, to all of these facilities. We have done that to ensure that we are providing protection across the country. That's our task and that's what we've achieved.
My question goes to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is protecting our iconic marine environment and also the Australian jobs that go with it?
Dr Freelander interjecting—
The member for Macarthur will leave under 94(a).
The member for Macarthur then left the chamber.
It ought to be obvious, but I just remind members that general warnings don't have an expiry date during the day. The minister for the environment.
I thank the member for Fairfax for his question and for his passion for addressing the threats on our environment from feral animals. Our oceans are part of our national identity. They are critical to the daily lives of millions of Australians. Around 85 per cent of our population lives within 50 kilometres of the coast, so every Australian understands the vital role that our oceans play. They help underpin our economy, supporting more than 400,000 Australian jobs.
Through the last budget, Australia's position as a global leader on ocean and marine management will be further strengthened with an additional $100 million for a new Oceans Leadership Package, supporting not just our environment but so many diverse jobs all along our coastline in industries such as tourism, recreational fishing, trades and training, national park management and so on. The Oceans Leadership Package includes an expansion of our marine park network into the Indian Ocean Territories. It will cover up to 740,000 square kilometres, increasing the level of protected Australian waters to 45 per cent, up from 37 per cent. This is possibly the largest network of marine parks in the world. Our package includes funding for two additional rounds of the successful Our Marine Parks grants program, creating more opportunities for industry, communities and Indigenous communities. Funding from a previous round supported the tuna industry to help achieve the blue fish tick for sustainable fishing, adding to the value of their catch.
We will find ways to invest in new technology to prevent marine bycatch. The sight of turtles and dugongs caught up in discarded fishing nets truly enhances our determination to do that. We want to eradicate invasive species, such as foxes and cats, from our islands. Some of the work we're already doing includes our Nest to Ocean Turtle Protection Program in the member's home state. It protects turtle nests from feral pigs, and so far it has protected 1.3 million hatchlings, which have now made their way into the ocean and overseas.
This work builds on our previous work in oceans, in our last budget, establishing oyster reefs—so important for coastal communities wherever we find them. We're delivering cleaner beaches. We're increasing fish stocks. We're protecting turtles and seabirds. We're supporting our coastal and Indigenous communities and we're supporting those that rely on the oceans for their livelihood. This package continues that work.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister take responsibility for the words that came out of his own mouth—that the vaccine rollout is 'not a race'?
I addressed this matter earlier this week and I stood by the comments as they were made at the time and I concur with the statements made by Professor Brendan Murphy at that time and since, in Senate estimates.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Bruce will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.
I note that these are similar to comments that were made by Queensland Health. I notice there are similar comments that were made by Dr Khorshid, the head of the AMA. If the opposition leader believes this is a matter that he wishes to continue to pursue, I'm happy to continue answering. Yes, I said that.
It's imperative that we move forward as quickly as possible in relation to the vaccination program, and that's why I'm pleased that 141,000 doses were delivered in the last 24 hours. I'm very pleased that in the last week there have been over 720,000 doses, I think, delivered—over 700,000 doses in seven days. I'm very pleased that we saw two million doses delivered in the last month, when it took us over two months to do the first two million doses. I'm very pleased that the vaccination program continues to gather pace.
I'm very appreciative of the role that is being played by state and territory governments and GPs around the country. We're all—the Australian government, the states and territories, the GPs—getting on with the job, and, indeed, pharmacists will become part of this. I'm very appreciative of the role of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, going out and supporting 80,000 Australians. We're all getting on with that job. The Leader of the Opposition is just engaged in one job: undermine the government.
My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister inform the House of how the Morrison government is investing in defence and working with our strategic partners to secure our region? And is the minister aware of any threats to the confidence of our regional partners?
I thank the honourable member for her question and I want to commend the work of the Australian Defence Force in keeping our country safe and secure. This government is investing $270 billion into capability over this decade alone. When Labor were in government, they ripped $18 billion out of defence, and it was a very significant blow to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force and they haven't forgotten it.
We are at the moment, as all Australians know, dealing with the reality of coercive statecraft, which is becoming an increasingly serious regional concern. Economic coercion, foreign interference and cyberattacks have all escalated in recent times. Australia is investing, as I say, in defence and in working with our allies and partners to counter the use of coercion in the Indo-Pacific. Our government is making sure that we are putting support into improved situational awareness, into cyber, into special forces, into electronic warfare and information operation capabilities to make sure that we protect our sovereignty and to respond to these and other so-called grey-zone activities.
So it is absolutely essential that we work hand in glove with those partners in the region, and they expect our country to have a united face in response to this threat. So imagine their alarm—imagine our alarm—when you read the article by Phil Coorey in this week's Australian Financial Review, where he spoke about a speech given by the Leader of the Opposition and a stance taken by Senator Wong in relation to these important issues. In Mr Coorey's article, he says:
Senator Wong's comments raised concerns among regional allies about a fracturing of the bipartisanship towards China.
That's what Mr Coorey had to say. It details the Leader of the Opposition's speech where he seeks to undermine our national position in relation to these important matters.
Australians understand that this Leader of the Opposition flip-flops on issues. They understand that the Labor Party has a policy which is not consistent, even in relation to the vaccine rollout. The Leader of the Opposition tells one audience one thing and tells the next audience the opposite. That's what you expect from this Leader of the Opposition. But we would have expected more from the Labor Party in relation to this issue of national importance. The fact is he has failed at the first hurdle.
Mr Khalil interjecting—
The member for Wills will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Wills then left the chamber.
The Labor Party when they were in government ripped money out of defence. They do not have the capacity to hold a consistent policy position which is in our national interest, and Australians are seeing through them.
I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes the:
(a) Prime Minister's refusal to take responsibility for his failures in quarantine which have led to city-wide lockdowns, state-wide lockdowns, and severe health impacts;
(b) Prime Minister's refusal to take responsibility for his failure to vaccinate aged care workers which has put frail and vulnerable aged care residents at risk;
(c) Prime Minister's refusal to take responsibility for his failure to vaccinate disability care workers which has put disability care residents at risk;
(d) Prime Minister's refusal to take responsibility for the failure of his COVIDSafe app to assist contact tracers;
(e) Prime Minister's refusal to take responsibility for the impact of him saying the vaccine rollout is not a race;
(f) Prime Minister's refusal to take responsibility for the failure of his vaccine communications;
(g) Prime Minister's refusal to take responsibility for his failure to secure sufficient doses of vaccines to vaccinate all Australians by October;
(h) Prime Minister's refusal to take responsibility for his failure to manufacture mNRA vaccines in Australia; and
(i) Prime Minister always takes responsibility for the successes of others, but not failures of his own; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to take responsibility for his failures and fix them instead of blaming everything and everyone else.
Earlier today the Prime Minister said we shouldn't be scared of this virus.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be no further heard.
Is the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition seconded? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Seconded. Nothing is more certain than this Prime Minister passing the buck. He takes responsibility for nothing—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has the call.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be no further heard.
The question now is that the motion moved by the honourable Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please inform the House of the significance surrounding Australia's invitation to participate in next week's G7 summit and how the Morrison government will be using this opportunity to advance our national interest?
I thank the member for Sturt for his question. Indeed, at the end of next week I will be at the G7-plus summit in the United Kingdom. I'm very pleased that Australia has received that invitation from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It follows the invitations in the preceding two years. This has proved to be a very important forum for Australia to gather together with like-minded liberal democracies around the world, similarly advanced economies, to address the many challenges that liberal democracies around the world face, be it in the economic arena, the security arena, the health arena or the environmental arena. I'm looking forward to having the opportunity to discuss all of these issues further with the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the President of France and, in particular, the Prime Minister of Japan. On the way to the G7-plus summit, I'll be taking the opportunity to meet with one of Australia's most important ASEAN partners, Singapore, and Prime Minister Lee.
Australia's engagement with these multilateral organisations, and particularly those smaller multilateral groups, whether it be in ASEAN or the G7-plus—or the government's success in promoting the campaign of the former finance minister here Mathias Cormann to the secretary-generalship of the OECD—has demonstrated Australia's agency in these forums, which helps keep Australians safe, helps keep Australia's economy heading in the right direction and ensures that our defence forces are well supported and integrated with the many other important partners that we have operating in this region to preserve a free and open Indo-Pacific but also to favour a world order that favours freedom. That has been our purpose in engaging with so many of the countries of the world and the G7 agenda. Whether it's on the pandemic, the issues regarding free trade—which I'll be discussing with the UK Prime Minister—or the many other issues that relate to climate change and global action more broadly in multilateral fora, particularly in the World Trade Organization, these engagements are incredibly important to Australia's future.
It is with some pride that I can say, particularly in relation to defence and the actions that we're taking on defence, that while Australia looks often to allies like the United States and other partners, we never leave our defence to other countries. We never leave it to them. We look to them, but we never leave it to them. Australia is a respected partner in these fora because of the engagement that we participate in but also the capability, the investment, the self-sufficiency we seek to establish, which gives us this presence at those international fora. So I look forward to those meetings and for Australia to continue playing its part in a world order that favours freedom. On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Before we move to a couple of things, I have a couple of very brief remarks. Obviously in the course of the last week I've enforced the standing orders vigorously. I intend to keep doing that, and the reason for that was to get an improvement in parliamentary standards. The feedback I've got and certainly my observation is that's been the case. It has certainly been quieter. That's for two reasons: those making the noise don't stay in the chamber very long and the vast majority of members have understood the need for an improvement in standards. I want to thank those members on both sides of the House who've privately made that point to me as well as people outside the House. I thought it was important to make that point as we finish up the sitting week.
I move:
That leave of absence from the determination of this sitting until 22 November 2021 be given to the honourable member for Hotham for parental leave purposes.
Just briefly, Clare has of course been participating in parliament remotely this week. Clare is here, listening to this leave motion be moved. Clare will go on parental leave from the House rise today and return for the last two sitting weeks of this year. I congratulate Clare and Brendan on the impending arrival of their third child to join their two boys, Elvis and Louis. The third baby is due in July, and I'm sure on behalf of the House we all wish Clare the best and we hope for a very safe arrival of their third child, which will be a wonderful thing. She will join the baby boom on this side of the House! It's quite a group, and it says something about this parliament becoming more representative by having more women present, particularly on this side of the House, and more women giving birth on this side of the House as well will make us more family friendly in the future. I wish Clare all the best.
Honourable members: Here, here!
Question agreed to.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 41 of 2020-21 entitled Management of the manufacture and supply of domestic fractionated blood plasma products.
Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to have a plan for the nation.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Imagine if Neil Armstrong had gone all the way to the moon but had never got out of the ship—had never taken that small step, let alone the great leap for mankind—and said: 'It's okay; we're comfortable here. We've arrived at our destination. The eagle has landed.' That is what this government is like. They've achieved government, and they think that is the end in itself. They've no vision for the nation and no capacity to use the power of government to make a difference to people's lives. It's just: 'End of story. Job done! We're in government. Let's just applaud us.'
After three terms in office, they have no legacy there to be proud of. And that's why, in question time, day after day, they just bag the Labor Party. That's why they're unprepared to debate their own record on any issue and why they shut down debate. A minister who's on the front page of the paper today speaking about freedom of speech comes into parliament and shuts down debate all day.
The fact is that this coalition government will be remembered just as the Fraser government is: what was the point? They changed some things back—the Fraser government got rid of Medibank—but what was the point of them after eight years? Well, the government have been in office for eight years, just occupying the space.
Labor is different. We seek the power of government to improve people's lives; to make a difference; to build a stronger economy; to imagine and then create a better and a fairer society; to spread opportunity; to invest in new industries, such as through our national reconstruction fund. We're not satisfied to say, 'We want to go back to the way things were before the pandemic.' We want to build back stronger. As I indicated to those at Minerals Week this week: we don't want to just export our resources; we want to value-add and manufacture things here, creating jobs and value here.
Those opposite have a view that you just export resources, things get made somewhere else and then we import them back at greater cost. We don't benefit from the innovation and ingenuity that Australian scientists have brought to so many of the world's innovations.
We, on this side, want to champion equality for women. We want to add universal, affordable child care to Labor's great legacies of universal health care and universal superannuation. We want to fix aged care. We want to emerge as a renewable energy superpower. We'd use government to improve people's lives.
Those opposite just want to be in government for its own sake—to stop us. They're defined by what they're against—and defined, as we saw today, by never accepting responsibility. This government had two big jobs this year: to roll out the vaccine and to fix national quarantine, and they have failed on both. And there are major consequences for it.
The Prime Minister, rather extraordinarily, today began his press conference by saying: 'We don't fear the virus.' Well, tell that to people with loved ones in aged care. Tell that to people with loved ones in disability care. He says that people shouldn't fear COVID. Well, I'll tell you what people fear. People fear this government's complacency; they fear this government's hubris, because there are real consequences behind this government's arrogance and its complacency. On repeated occasions, this Prime Minister has said has said the rollout is not a race. He was good at rolling out the red carpet for himself, but the vaccine rollout has been an absolute debacle. This is a government that's been all about the spin and the imagery, never about the substance and the delivery.
An honourable member interjecting—
They do, unlike previous prime ministers and Defence ministers, get Defence to roll out the red carpet when the Prime Minister's arriving. They crank out the Top Gun soundtrack when he sits in the cockpit, but, of course, the plane doesn't go anywhere. It's all just about the still—the image—not about actually doing the deal.
Today we saw it again: no responsibility. We have a health minister who, essentially, signalled: 'Wait for the next vaccine. Don't worry. Another one's coming if you don't like this one.' And they wonder why the vaccine rollout numbers have been so bad. We're not in the top 100 of countries, and this government said that we were at the front of the queue. We could have been. If we were prepared to do deals with companies producing mRNA vaccines, we could have not only had them; we could have been making them here. But, again, they were so complacent—too busy patting themselves on the back to worry about delivery.
Then, today, to top it all off—I think this was the highlight of Question Time today—was Stuey. He actually said that they were the best in the world with the COVIDSafe app. This COVIDSafe app which has been an absolute debacle in its rollout.
An opposition member: $70 million.
$70 million, and does anyone know anyone who's used this COVIDSafe app? We have systems throughout the country, because state governments had to step up to fill the void that was left by federal government failure. But, remember, they did run a public info campaign for it. They haven't run one that's effective for the vaccine, they haven't run one that's effective or done anything serious about national quarantine, but they did run one for the app. So, to them, the success of the app is that it's on a phone. Not that it's used, not that it's traced anyone and not that it's been of any effect. That says it all about this government.
This is a government that used to have targets. Everyone in category 1a would be fixed—in aged care and disability care—by Easter. We know that hasn't been delivered, even now. They were going to have 4 million people vaccinated fully by the end of March. They missed that by 3.4 million. Perhaps it's no accident that the day after March is 1 April. They said there'd be 13 pop-up clinics for aged-care workers by May. There are only three, even now, and they're all in Sydney. What was their solution? They abandoned having any targets. Now no-one knows when the vaccination of Australians will be finished, because they've given up setting a target.
This is a government that is defined by inaction until there's an absolute crisis. We saw it today when—finally, belatedly—they announced some assistance for Victoria. We saw it when it comes to vaccination. We've seen it when it comes to a national quarantine system. We saw it with wage subsidies, which they only brought in when the queues lapped around the blocks of Centrelink offices. We saw it when it came to bushfires, when he said, 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' We saw it when it came to women's issues, where a reported sexual assault didn't even result in any action from this government; it took the March4Justice to jolt them out of their complacency. They're not even responsible for their own office. The Prime Minister has had two inquiries into what his office knew. Why doesn't he just ask them and then tell the Australian people?
This is a Prime Minister who won't even accept responsibility for his own words. He does 180-degree turns and hopes his audience are like goldfish and just don't remember. His only concept of a race is the speed in which he runs from his responsibilities. It's not good enough, and Australia deserves better.
I can only imagine how disheartening it must be to be in opposition, to never be able to see the positive in anything. We're talking about the plan that the government has had for Australia. When we've talked about almost anything today, I've wanted to take us back to last February-March, because that's when the world changed. The world literally changed last February-March. The world was hit by a global pandemic. So, what have we done as a government since then in terms of a plan for Australia? We had a plan that covered two very distinct issues. We had a plan to keep Australians safe. You would think, if you listened to the opposition, that we are in dire straits with the pandemic as far as the health and safety of Australians are concerned. Well, that isn't the case. You would also believe, if you listened solely to the opposition, that we have great economic problems combined with the pandemic. That again is not the case.
I want to take you back to last February-March when the global pandemic was declared. I want to take you back to when we, as a government, formed a national cabinet with the state premiers and the territory leaders about how we were going to combat this and what we needed to do, as both state and federal governments, to keep Australians safe and to keep their job security as solid as we could. What happened? The Treasury back then, way back at the start of this, said that their projections were for a 15 per cent unemployment rate, for two million extra Australians to be unemployed and for our economy to contract by 20 per cent. They were the Treasury's projections if we, as a government and state governments together, didn't do anything. So, we had a plan. We implemented a plan. We also—
Ms Murphy interjecting—
I'll take the interjection. It was a very cunning plan and it's worked! It was a great plan!
Ms Murphy interjecting—
The member for Dunkley is warned.
So, instead of having an extra two million unemployed, instead of having a 15 per cent—
The minister will pause for a moment. Member for Dunkley, if you think it's humorous when I give you a warning under 94(a), you'll be leaving the chamber.
Ms Murphy interjecting—
The minister has the call.
Humorous! I'm glad that the member opposite thinks that it's funny that we've done so well. That's great! The projections of the Treasury were that there'd be two million extra unemployed, that the economy would contract by 20 per cent and that there would be a 15 per cent unemployment rate. Together we had a plan to resolve that, and we did—and I'm glad the member opposite is so amused by that.
We had a mantra as well at the time that it was very important that we—as did every country—had to flatten the curve. Remember that? We had to flatten the curve. That was the pre-eminent thing that the people of every nation wanted. Well, we did. We did flatten the curve. We did better than most countries in flattening the curve. In fact, this virus is still sweeping the globe, through developing nations and other countries, which are having third and fourth waves. We can't ever eliminate a virus. We still have the odd outbreak, which obviously is unfortunate, but comparatively as a country we have done very well. As a comparison, if our health stats had been a lot like other countries, 30,000 additional Australians would have passed away. So, we have done exceptionally well.
Unfortunately you hear nothing positive from the opposition. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that no-one over there is ever in a happy place on anything. While Labor MPs may not be able to say anything positive, I have Labor voters in my electorate who compliment us and say: 'We might not vote for you, Kevin. We might not think that you're our first port of call when we go to vote, but we think you and the government have done a great job.' I hear that from Labor voters. You never hear anything like that from anyone opposite, but you certainly hear it from Labor voters and people out in the community.
Because we have done so well to date—and that hasn't stopped—on the health front, economically we are absolutely blitzing it. We are absolutely doing exceptionally well. We are the Ferrari on the track as far as the economics of the world go. So, rather than have 15 per cent unemployment, the unemployment rate peaked at 7½ per cent. It's 5½ per cent now and forecast to go below five per cent. Isn't that exciting? I see the smiles opposite, joyous about the fact that unemployment rates are falling. Join in the celebration of that, members opposite! Join in the—
The member will direct his comments through the—
celebration of that! Crack a smile about that!
The assistant minister will direct his comments through the chair.
Deputy Speaker, crack a smile about that. The fact that the unemployment rate has fallen from 7½ per cent to 5.5 per cent and is going to fall to below five per cent by the Treasury projections is great news.
Also, there are the national accounts throughout this week. The Australian economy is the first economy out of any G7 nation to be bigger than what it was pre-pandemic. Our economy is now bigger than what it was before the pandemic broke out and everyone went into a COVID led recession. We have more jobs in our economy than what we had pre-pandemic before the global recession hit. We are up by 0.8 per cent, so our economy is 0.8 per cent bigger. Here are some relative international statistics: the US is down by 0.9 per cent, Canada is down by 1.7 per cent, Japan down by 2.3 per cent, France is down by 4.7 per cent, Germany is down by five per cent, Italy is down by 6.4 per cent and the UK is down by 8.7 per cent. The whole of Australia celebrates that except for those opposite. They don't talk about it and they don't mention it, because nothing of a celebration or good news can come out of their mouths.
Because the economy's doing so well, we've also seen business confidence and consumer confidence up. Why have we done really well economically? One of the reasons—and God bless the Australian people in adhering to social hygiene, social distancing and all the health restrictions that were put on them—is that we as a government know that eight out of ten jobs are in the private sector, so we needed and we wanted the private sector to do well and to get to the other side of this pandemic as best it could. JobKeeper has been very well documented. JobKeeper was a very important economic stimulus that took us through a whole 12-month period when businesses had to close down or were restricted in what they did. That was a very important part of it. It kept the relationship between an employee and employer together and obviously when the economy took off again that relationship was still there. We're providing tax relief to over 10 million Australians. A tax cut is the same as a wage increase, so, effectively, the Australian people have had a wage increase.
Someone from our side of politics would mention this every day this chamber sits, and that's the instant tax write-off. I know the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about it in question time today. This is that scheme where businesses are investing in capital in their business—if you're a cafe, you go out and invest in a new freezer, and, if you're a tradie, you go out and buy a new ute. We've extended it to big business and some of the big capital programs that they have. You could instantly write that off. Anecdotally, if any of us walk around the small-business communities in our own regions, you would not have a small business who doesn't mention that one to you and know the importance of that. We had the carry-loss-forward provisions as well, which were really important to improving both small and large businesses' cash flows. Cash flow is exceptionally important through this period, which is why our unemployment rate has fallen and why we economically are doing very well.
We also have on the other side of the ledger realised, besides JobKeeper, the importance of government spending in a whole array of areas. In the budget we saw some really big commitments to some really important areas of our economy, which is the plan that we have and the plan that is working. There was the increased commitment to aged care. We saw in the royal commission that there were some vacuums in our aged-care system that needed to be filled and some shortcomings that we needed to help them fix. The investment in that is there. We talked about, as well, the $110 billion dollar infrastructure project that we have planned over the next 10 years—really important on a whole array of fronts. If I had time I would go through a whole array of them in just my own region. There are lots of others, but I am going to run out of time. There's increased funding for mental health; increased funding for apprenticeships and traineeships; increased funding for clean energy projects; increased funding for the NDIS; and increased funding for child care. So there's lots of spending going on there.
We have seen also the vaccine rollout. There were disruptions to supply at the start of that from Europe, but we see the numbers are back and we are now hitting record numbers as hundreds of thousands of Australians are getting vaccinated every week. I believe there is no better place in the world to be right now on the health and economic fronts than Australia. (Time expired)
The has just told us all to crack a smile and to celebrate. But in these times I'd like to start by acknowledging every Australian who has made enormous sacrifices to keep us safe during the global pandemic, especially Victorians facing their fourth lockdown and the many who are carrying the burden of this government's failures on quarantine and the vaccine rollout.
The Prime Minister tells us the COVID-19 vaccine is not a race, but it is. It's a race to beat this virus and the dangerous mutations leading to outbreaks across the world and close to home. The Prime Minister tells us not to fear the virus, but Australians, especially the most vulnerable, are paying the price for a Prime Minister who refuses to take responsibility, who refuses to do his job. Try telling frail, older Australians living in residential aged care that it's not a race or the workers trying to keep them safe who have been left behind and exposed when it comes to vaccination, or aged-care workers on the Central Coast of New South Wales, in the electorate I represent, who have been told they have to travel to Sydney or Newcastle to get their vaccine.
Try telling people living with a disability, who have been left exposed and vulnerable, and those who love and care for them that it's not a race—people like John Buckley, who contacted me concerned that his brother Terry, who lives with a severe disability, has not yet received the AstraZeneca vaccine and he understands that the home that he lives in Casuarina Grove, in my electorate, has not yet been allocated any vaccines. John said:
I am both appalled and astounded to discover that my brother and all the other seriously disabled residents of this facility are still waiting for appropriate intervention by the relevant government and non- government bodies.
As a pharmacist, a trained vaccinator and a local MP, I am increasingly concerned about vulnerable Australians who are exposed and at risk—and this risk is largely avoidable.
Last week, the government received 1.4 million vaccine doses but administered just over 500,000. We were told aged-care residents would be fully vaccinated by Easter under phase 1A. That was two months ago. It is now June—winter; the most dangerous season—and older Australians are still waiting and at risk. We were told four million Australians would be vaccinated by 1 April. The government missed their own target by 3.4 million. They told us back in February that there would be 13 pop-up vaccination clinics for aged-care workers ready by May. It is now June and there are only three and they are all in Sydney. That is where aged-care workers in my community and other regional areas are having to travel to be covered, to be safe and to keep other people safe.
This government has let down aged-care workers, frontline workers Australia is depending on to get us through the pandemic—many aged-care workers who have no choice but to work on more than one site just to get by to make a living. In the wake of the tragic COVID-19 deaths of 655 aged-care residents in Victoria, the government withdrew rules on single-site working in aged-care homes and only reinstated them last week. Aged-care workers are as much the victim of this government's botched vaccine rollout as the people they are trying to keep safe. While they are looking after the most vulnerable, frail older Australians who is looking out for them? Not this government.
Every time there is an outbreak from hotel quarantine, it is a direct result of Scott Morrison's failure to set up safe, purpose-built quarantine facilities.
I will just remind the member to use the Prime Minister's appropriate title; thanks.
Yes; the Prime Minister. Every time there is an outbreak from hotel quarantine it costs workers wages and businesses lost income. Hotels are built for tourism, not for medical quarantine. This is a Prime Minister who never takes responsibility for anything—who doesn't take responsibility for quarantine and who hasn't taken responsibility for the debacle of the vaccine rollout.
In my community, one in five people are aged over 65. In my community there are 26 aged-care facilities. In communities like mine across Australia, vulnerable Australians are at risk, and that is because of the failure of this government. This is a prime minister who doesn't even take responsibility for the words that he says about the vaccine rollout, saying that the vaccine rollout is not a race, saying that we shouldn't fear this virus. This is the largest public health effort in living memory. As a pharmacist, as a local MP, as trained vaccinator, I know how important this is. I know that Australians are relying on us. I know that the most-vulnerable Australians are feeling at risk and exposed, and the government must take responsibility. They must get it right. It's too important.
What Australians are looking for at this point in time is political leadership from across the spectrum. They are looking for some form of unity from the members of the opposition, but what they're seeing is simply divisive politics.
A government member interjecting—
That is absolutely right. It is so very unfortunate to see that the members opposite are continuously being negative. Look at where Australia is right now and compare us to just about any other country in the world. Where would you rather be? Member for Fairfax, where would you rather be? I know I would rather be here in Australia than in just about any other country. So many people, so many of my constituents tell me: 'Thank God for Scott Morrison. Thank God for the Treasurer.' They don't usually say, 'Thank God for the PM,' although they sometimes do. I'm just using it as a quote. They say, 'Thank God for the Prime Minister. Thank God for the Treasurer.' It's true. I can't quite remember anyone ever having said to me: 'Thank God for the Leader of the Opposition.' Some people do. Some people think he's our best asset, but I'll leave that one alone. He probably is our best asset.
On this side of the House, we believe that a rising tide lifts all boats. On that side of the House, they believe that the only way that you can lift an Australian up is by tearing someone else down. We don't believe in that. We believe that Australia is the greatest country in the world, and we want to give people the opportunity to be the best that they can be. Those members opposite have absolutely and categorically lost their way. They believe that they can ignore, in fact they believe they can trash, what used to be their traditional constituency—that is, the worker. The Labor Party is no longer the party of the worker. We on this side of the House support workers more than those opposite ever will. Even the member for Hunter—
Opposition members interjecting—
The member will pause for a moment. The level of interjections from members on my left is too high, and I would tell the two people at the table—the member for Aston and the member for Chifley—to stop the conversation that's going on or at least lower the level of the conversation.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Hunter understands this, and those members opposite ignore his cries at their peril.
The main thing I want to talk about today is that this government continuously walks and whistles at the same time. Not only are we great at protecting our economy and not only are we great at leading the way from a health perspective, but we are leading the way on things like age verification for online porn. Maybe those members opposite didn't hear what I said. This government is leading the way on age verification for online porn. Maybe they don't think that's important, I don't know. The government released its response to a report by the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs on Tuesday, in which it accepted the committee's recommendations to prevent young people being able to access pornography online. We know that there's a direct correlation between pornography and domestic violence. They say, 'What's this got to do with our having a plan for the future?' They are our future. The kids are our future. We believe, on this side of the House, that young people grow up to be adults, and we want to protect the age of innocence. We want to protect young people from the scourge that is being pushed on them on the internet, which is ultimately impacting on relationships as they get older. You may not see that. We certainly do. (Time expired)
The coalition government has rightly been labelled one of announcements and no delivery. It thrives on spin and PR. Unconcerned with the consequences of incompetence, they appear to thrive on cruelty and neglect. After eight years of cutting services and wages, they have no plan for the future. The recent budget, like the last, is a missed opportunity—$100 billion in spending and a record $1 trillion in debt. There is no plan to help struggling families and small business tackle the jobs crisis or build for the future. With no plan, I fear this will leave us well behind our global peers over the coming decades, with Australia on the edge of the global stage and our younger generation worse off.
This government has mishandled JobKeeper, aged care, the NDIS, national quarantine and the vaccine rollout. Fifteen to 20 billion dollars of JobKeeper money intended to go to struggling businesses became corporate welfare. JobKeeper was supposed to support those who were suffering. It was never meant to go to the profits of those who were rising, in stark contrast to the way this government hounded our most vulnerable with incorrect and illegal robodebt.
While the government has done a great job handing out corporate welfare, it failed in the two most important jobs it had during the pandemic: vaccinating the population and ensuring safe quarantine. The Prime Minister claimed the vaccine rollout isn't a race. Well, if it wasn't a race, why did he boast about being at the front of the queue? But we're not even in the top 100 countries in total vaccinations. The Prime Minister failed to secure enough vaccines for us. There was no planning for the complications or delivery issues. The Prime Minister promised that four million people would be vaccinated by the end of March. That didn't happen.
These failures have real consequences for Australians, especially our most vulnerable. We've heard horror stories and we've seen the reports. The aged-care sector has been neglected, leaving private companies to profit from our elderly and vulnerable. The government was given warning after warning—22 reports, in fact. These are the words of researcher Sarah Russell regarding the vaccinations in aged care:
Despite these vacuous announcements, the vaccination rollout has been an unmitigated disaster … about 30% of aged care homes have not received their second dose.
Finally, today in question time we learned how many aged care workers had been vaccinated. But I'm concerned, because, if you didn't know the numbers until today, how can you plan and ensure that both the workers and the people who are in aged care are safe? The one fail-safe, requiring workers to work in only one facility, was removed, only being reinstated last Friday.
It's the same story for those with a disability and those working in the disability sector. People with disabilities seem to have no priority in this vaccine rollout. But it doesn't end there. The NDIS has been undermined and mismanaged under successive coalition governments, with self-confessed cost-cutting leaving some of our most vulnerable Australians without the support they need.
The failure continues on quarantine. Quarantine is a Commonwealth responsibility. Australians should have a national quarantine system, and it should have been implemented last year. If that had happened, Victoria would not be in lockdown now. Instead, the federal government has left the responsibility to the states, with no guidance—only liability and contempt—while tens of thousands of our citizens have been abandoned overseas. The stories from places like India are heartbreaking. Australians are living in constant fear of contracting COVID-19 in nations overwhelmed and with collapsing health systems. We've already had needless deaths of Australians stuck in India.
Australians need good government. It changes lives and it makes all the difference. It opens the doors to education, employment, housing, proper health care and a better life. Unlike this government, Labor has a plan: building affordable housing, protecting workers, investing in skills and apprenticeships and helping young Australians. To say I'm disappointed in our current government is an understatement. I know I'm part of the opposition party and anything I say will give the impression that I'm happy they are failing. But that is far from the truth. I am not. As an Australian I want my government to be better and govern for every single one of us. I want a government that is on our side.
I was a little perplexed today when I read about this MPI. I was wracking my brain thinking, why would it be that the Labor Party would be casting such spurious and inaccurate assertions? Then it came to me, and I've finally figured it out. I've figured out why they would be accusing us of not having a plan. It's because those opposite do not have a plan. They are also clearly disappointed that we in the coalition have a plan and that plan is working. I'm very pleased to point this out, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to point out some aspects of this plan which are absolutely working. I'll get to some of the detail about the plan in a moment, but I will say first of all what sits behind this plan, the things which we in the coalition believe. We believe that Australian people have a great deal of personal initiative. We want to set free the aspirations that we know Australians hold. We deal with them back in our electorates and we back them 100 per cent. We've seen that initiative displayed time and time again. We don't want to hold them back. We don't want to tax them to the hilt, like we saw proposed by Labor at the last election campaign. They proposed the introduction of $387 billion in new taxes. No, in fact we are cutting taxes. We also believe in families. We want families to be spending more time with each other once they've had a hard day at work, and that's why we're investing in infrastructure so heavily as well.
I turn now to some of the specifics of this plan. This plan will help us to recover our economy, to cement that recovery and create jobs, to guarantee essential services and to protect and secure our interests in a vastly changing world. We're delivering outcomes. For example, in terms of vaccinations, there was certainly some complexity to be managed early in the piece, and for the first million doses there was a period of 47 days for those doses to be administered. I'm very pleased, as the Prime Minister announced just today, that our fourth lot of one million doses has been delivered in just 10 days. We are cementing our economic recovery to create jobs. We're providing tax cuts. In my electorate of Stirling, we are seeing 62,105 residents receiving tax cuts worth up to $2,500. We're enabling 21,000 businesses in my electorate to write off the full value of any eligible asset they purchase.
We are also building the infrastructure for the future. Again, I'll give a couple of examples from the wonderful electorate of Stirling. One of the great problem intersections is at Erindale Road and Reid Highway. We're devoting $2 million to a business case to look at what methods can be used to free up that traffic flow. For the residents who live in that area—and I know this because I hear from them regularly—that intersection is a bit of a nightmare. Another great initiative is one the previous Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure, Minister Tudge, very kindly and thoughtfully oversaw, via his department, with the allocation of $2 million, which is a commitment for a business case for trackless tram. I hear people say, 'Trackless tram, what's that about?' I can give a bit of an overview. This is essentially the size of a tram, it fits about 200 passengers on board, but it doesn't require the heavy infrastructure—the rail tracks, the overhead lines. It runs on a dedicated line and frees up traffic flow greatly. It's also a much greener solution than having all of those cars on the road. That's the sort of thing that this government is doing. It's getting behind projects that help Australians spend less time in traffic and more time with their families. It gets cars off the road, reduces pollution, and alleviates parking in those key areas that people want to be, like Scarborough Beach.
And we're continuing to deliver the essential services we all rely on—for example, $17.7 billion in additional funding to aged care; and the listing on the PBS of new products like Oripro, which is manufactured in my electorate, in Belcatta, to help prevent premature births. What a fantastic outcome. So there are many ways, including in defence, where we're spending $270 billion, whereas Labor actually ripped $18 billion out of defence. We're doing this all for the future of all Australians.
Honestly! The past two speakers from the government, in a debate in the nation's parliament about the government's plan for our future, have offered up a new intersection and cracking down on kiddie porn! You would not read it in Betoota. It's not credible. They would not believe it. And yet here we are, apparently on muck-up day—the last day of these parliamentary sittings—and that's what we have by way of a plan. A new intersection and cracking down on child porn: that's the plan for the future. No wonder, if you are a young person in Australia and you are hearing our Prime Minister say, 'If you have a go, you will get a go,' you don't believe him. Young people in Australia know that life is not that simple—nor, in this Morrison Australia, is it that reliably benevolent for young people, because we know 40 per cent of people under 35 in Australia have never had a permanent full-time job. Forty per cent of young people have never had a permanent full-time job because of the structural, the systemic, the complacent attitude that this government has towards young people and their future.
This Morrison government has cut millions from TAFE. We have 150,000 fewer apprentices than we did when Labor was last in power. University fees for young people will double under this Morrison government. And, if you are lucky enough to get a job out of university, you'll be saddled with decades of crippling debt as your reward. This is the Morrison government that hands out tax incentives to wealthy investors like they're Smarties. These are the same wealthy investors that then poach the market from first home buyers who cannot get their foot in the door because those wealthy investors hike up the cost of property so much that first home buying is now an out-of-reach dream for most young Australians. This is the Morrison government that patronises us when we talk about a need for real action on climate change because we are the people who will be around in 50 years time, mopping up your messes. We are the people who will be dealing with the consequences of the choices that you make or do not make. There is no planet B, and the whole plan you are offering up to us this afternoon is a new intersection and cracking down on child porn. You would not read it in Betoota. Why on earth should young people trust this Morrison government with their future?
Given it's muck-up afternoon, let's play a little game: is this a Betoota headline or is this a real Morrison government announcement? Treasurer tells young first home buyers being crushed by an investor driven housing market of his own making to get a better job?
An opposition member: Betoota.
Treasurer. 'Government asks youth to use their retirement savings to prop up hyper-inflated property market'?
An opposition member: Betoota.
Treasurer. Deputy Prime Minister, who earns nine grand a week, tells casual baristas who earn $20 an hour that going a week without pay 'is not a long time'?
An opposition member: Oh, that's Betoota!
That's the DPM. 'Millennial can't afford home after spending all their money bailing out Gerry Harvey'? Betoota. That's Betoota.
The young people of Queensland's mighty Channel Country deserve a whole lot better than that. The sons and daughters of the proud, sovereign Shire of Diamantina deserve a whole lot better than that. That is why a Labor government, if we were given the trust of young people to govern, would provide an actual youth engagement model—so that real people could actually have some trust in this government. We would have a dedicated office for youth. We would promise and commit to a new minister for youth.
This Morrison government says that young people are disengaged, but they're only disengaged because this Morrison government has cut them loose. At this point, I honestly don't know what it will take to make this Morrison government wake up, listen to what is wrong, listen to what young people want from them, and actually take some action. Maybe, if we let the Prime Minister wear high-vis and a hardhat, he might actually talk to the young people who are aged-care workers, who are early educators, who are baristas, who are glassies, who are people working in hospitality, who are the frontline workers that we have to thank for our response to COVID. Maybe, if we let the Prime Minister bring some red carpet and a military escort and Top Gun soundtrack, he might actually build fit-for-purpose quarantine so that we could bring 45,000 Australians home.
This is an absolutely fantastic topic for us, because the Morrison government has a plan for Australia, and I certainly have a plan for Lindsay. The Leader of the Opposition is again showing that he has a plan to rehash old Labor plans, just like he announced in the budget. Today he has announced he has a plan to rehash Morrison government plans, when he decided he would build a stronger economy. But the Australian people know that there is only one side of the House that can be trusted with the economy—that's us—and to secure Australia's future. Our plan is to keep Australians safe and to support them through the challenges of the pandemic, and to emerge stronger on the other side, and to be—as we are—in a better position than anywhere else in the world.
While other nations with advanced economies continue to be hit hard by coronavirus, Australia's economy is growing. The national accounts show that Australia's economy is now larger than it was before going into the coronavirus pandemic. In just over a year, Australia's economy has recovered to what it lost as a result of the pandemic. But we know it's not over. Globally, there are around half a million cases a day, and other countries are back in recession. And the situation in Victoria, as we know, is stark. It's a reminder that the virus is still with us, and we must stick to our plan that has enabled us to be in the position we are in today.
We have a plan for Australia, and I have a plan for Lindsay, and my plan is to make sure that we have more jobs, and that is exactly what we're doing: rewarding hardworking families, getting more young people into work through traineeships, and backing our local small businesses. That's exactly what my community of Lindsay sees we're doing, and that is exactly what we're doing right across our country.
The budget handed down by the Treasurer outlines our plan to continue jobs creation, continue backing our local businesses to do what they do best, and to secure Australia's future. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to talk about manufacturing, but this just highlighted exactly how much Labor has abandoned Australian workers. What we're doing is backing local manufacturers to create more local jobs. That's what we're certainly doing in Western Sydney. We have an amazing number, over 600, of Australian manufacturers in my electorate of Lindsay—from Plustec, who make Aussie made windows, to Defence industry manufacturers, to SpanSet, who make safety harnesses. There is such an array of Aussie manufacturers that we are backing and supporting to create Aussie made products to support Aussie made businesses.
Something that these manufacturers are telling me is that, because we're backing them and we have a plan to back them, they are bringing on more apprentices. This is absolutely fantastic. We already have over 2,200 apprentices in Lindsay, and local manufacturers are taking up our budget response and bringing on more apprentices. This means that this will only grow, supporting more young people into jobs, supporting Western Sydney and supporting our Australian economy.
Businesses need to be able to transport their products, and not only do local people in my electorate of Lindsay tell me that we need a plan to make our local roads better; so do small businesses. That's why I fought for $127 million for a full upgrade to Dunheved Road in my community. It wasn't just me doing this; it wasn't just my plan. It was our community's plan—working together to get the job done. It's amazing what we can achieve when we work together. These are families who use this road every day, to and from work and school. It's small businesses transporting their products. It's actually small business owners who have told me they have suffered so much on this road for so long; it's been such a big safety issue with accidents and traffic. I'm so pleased that this funding has been delivered, and now it's up to Penrith City Council to deliver this important project for us.
Right across New South Wales we're investing $3.8 billion for projects that will ease congestion and provide safer roads for our community. Upgrades to Dunheved Road, upgrades to the Northern Road and upgrades to Mulgoa Road—this is part of our plan to make my community of Lindsay absolutely safe and to make it an even better place to live, work and stay. Across the board, people in Lindsay have worked so incredibly hard to get us in the position we are in now, and the Morrison government, with our plan, is backing them all the way.
Victorians are doing it really tough under this lockdown. I and many of my Victorian colleagues are heading back to Melbourne tonight. I'll be kicking the footy with the kids, taking very long walks, playing board games and doing all the things that Victorians are going to do to get through this lockdown. But we all know there is a huge mental health impact on all Victorians as we go through this lockdown.
I want to say in this place that Victorians are Australians, too. Victorians need a Prime Minister that doesn't have to be forced, pushed and cajoled into providing support, whose first instinct is not to abandon Victorians but to come immediately to their assistance. Victorians need a Prime Minister who will take responsibility willingly, not shirk responsibility shamefully. Victorians need a Treasurer who is not mean-spiritedly refusing, initially, to provide any emergency funding for small businesses and workers in Victoria. As I'm sure my colleagues do, I welcome the announcement of support made just now by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, but why did it take them a week? Why did it take the state government, the federal Labor opposition and the people arguing and begging for them to step up to push them into a position they should have taken immediately of their own accord? If Team Australia means anything to them, surely it means providing support to fellow Australians in Victoria, not arguing against it for an entire week.
But we don't have such leadership. We have a Prime Minister whose first instinct is to pick a fight, to play politics, to see where the politics takes him, to wander wherever the political winds blow and then, and only then, be forced into the right position—not because he cares but because he realises he has to cover his political tracks. Those opposite have to spend taxpayer dollars to patch over their political problems, not because it's an investment in the economy or the future of this nation or that it's the right thing to do. Nowhere is this clearer than when you look at the government's two fundamental responsibilities, which they continue to shirk: federal quarantine and the vaccine rollout.
On quarantine: it's actually in section 51 of our Constitution. It's their responsibility. From the beginning of this crisis, there was an expectation that the federal government would come up with the resources, the planning and the policy to set up federal quarantine facilities that are fit for purpose. They have not done so. This goes beyond shirking responsibility. This is an egregious abdication of responsibility to the nation. The federal government could have set up safer quarantine facilities like Howard Springs in the Northern Territory. Look at the stats: Howard Springs—zero outbreaks; hotel quarantine—21.
On vaccines: I said last year—and I wasn't alone—we need to have contingencies in place. Buy six or seven vaccines. Get the supply right. Sign the contracts. If they all work, that's great, fantastic; we've got a surplus. We can help our Pacific neighbours with a surplus. We can be leaders in the region. But it was pretty clear-cut that not all of them would work. We knew that. When those opposite did start to take responsibility for the rollout, they just stuffed it up. I can only describe it as incompetence. They told us four million Australians would be vaccinated by 1 April. They missed their target by 3.4 million.
This MPI says that the government have no plan for the nation. But it's so much more than that. They have no vision. They have no care. They have no commitment beyond saving their own political skins. That's all they care about. When they do spend and make commitments, like they did today, it's to cover up a political problem. Australians deserve better than this mob. A federal Labor government will build dedicated quarantine facilities in every state and territory, fix the vaccine rollout, invest in manufacturing mRNA vaccines like Pfizer in Australia, and start a mass public information campaign, because we actually care for the people that we represent. Australians deserve better than this mob.
The Leader of the Opposition led the charge this afternoon in this debating topic, and he did so in a way that affirmed the difference between him and the Prime Minister. The difference is the same between the Labor Party and the Liberal-National coalition. While the Liberal Party is positive, as is the Prime Minister, the Labor Party is negative. While the Prime Minister seeks to unite, the opposition leader seeks to divide. While the Prime Minister has a clear, positive vision for the future, the Leader of the Opposition is constantly negative and can only talk about the past. The Prime Minister backs Australians in. The opposition leader refuses to back Australians and will only back the Labor Party in. The Prime Minister wants to unleash the innovative genius of Australians and back enterprise. The Labor Party just wants to tax them. We have heard that through what has been a painful hour on the ear from those opposite—a very difficult hour to listen to. The strange thing is: those opposite have come forward today with a debating topic talking about a plan for the future, yet not one of their speakers has articulated any plan for the future whatsoever. They can only talk about the past, and they do so so woefully poorly.
There are two key priorities for our nation as we look forward. One is the security of our nation, and the second is the prosperity of our nation.
Opposition members interjecting—
Isn't it extraordinary that those opposite decide to heckle and oppose and scoff when I talk about the importance of the security of our nation. Let's take ourselves through what the opposition stands for. One of the real challenges we face at the moment as a nation is the coercive economic measures being undertaken by the Chinese Communist Party on Australian businesses. There have been two opportunities for the opposition over the last week to join the government in pushing back and standing up for Australian businesses. Their foreign affairs spokesperson chose not to do so. And this very week the Leader of the Opposition chose not to do so. Those opposite are refusing to support the Australian government and the Australian people on something that has traditionally been bipartisan in this country. I personally believe there is no larger challenge of our time than trying to resolve the China question. Those opposite have broken a long-term bipartisan tradition, and they have done so at the compromise of our nation.
It was Vladimir Lenin, that Russian revolutionary, who coined the phrase 'a useful idiot', a useful idiot being one who unwittingly, out of ignorance, propagates the cause of another, and the leaders of that other get excited and let the useful idiot talk. I'm sorry to say that the Leader of the Opposition and the foreign affairs spokesperson for the opposition are proving to be useful idiots in this regard, because they have very clearly said that they do not support the Australian government in its attempts to push back on Communist China's coercive measures.
I ask the member for Fairfax to withdraw the term 'idiot' as it's referenced to members opposite.
I am happy to withdraw reference of 'idiot' to those opposite.
An opposition member: No; just say 'I withdraw'.
The member for Fairfax—
I withdraw, Deputy Speaker.
Thank you.
It is the same when it comes to economic prosperity. Those opposite's main complaint about the government is that the debt is too high, and their only solution is to spend more. Can you understand the economic illogical approach that is—debt too high therefore spend more? This is the problem we have with those opposite. It's why they cannot present a case today.
Order! The discussion has concluded.
Before question time I was thanking all members for their contributions and reiterating that the government is making these changes to deliver $17.9 billion of savings that will ultimately benefit Australians in their retirement. I therefore commend the bill to the House.
The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill.
I thank the Minister. The question is that the bill be agreed to.
By leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2) together:
(1) Schedule 3, item 4, page 29 (lines 11 and 12), omit the item.
(2) Schedule 3, items 18 and 19, page 32 (lines 6 to 24), omit the items.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
This is a bill that was half-baked when it was announced, it was half-baked when it went through their party room and it was half-baked when it entered this parliament today. Let me just go through some of the issues. A bill that was supposed to have the effect of reducing the fees that members paid on their superannuation account, because of their incompetence, actually did the opposite! They had to be browbeaten into including administration fees to the benchmarks. A bill that was supposed to strengthen superannuation and their investments did the opposite, because it actually created a disincentive for Australian workers' money to be invested in Australian infrastructure and Australian agricultural investments. They had to be browbeaten into changing this. We thought after two embarrassing backflips they would've got the message and listened to the sensible suggestions that were being made by Labor. This bill, in the form that it was brought into the House, was so bad that even members on their backbench weren't going to vote for it.
This is the royal commission. We weren't surprised that a government that voted against this royal commission document 27 times wasn't going to implement all of its recommendations, but this is Das Kapital. We were absolutely flabbergasted that a government that calls themselves conservatives and liberals would introduce a bill with a power that is more inspired by Karl Marx than Ken Hayne. But that's exactly what they've done, and that's why we are here today—because they have introduced a bill into the House more inspired by Karl Marx and more befitting of Soviet-era Russia than modern Australia. Never again will the Treasurer be able to lecture Labor on economic responsibility. We will remind Australians that the Treasurer and the government that can't balance their own budget wants to take over the savings of ordinary Australians. We will remind them every day until the next election.
I want to congratulate those members of the government backbench who, having originally voted for it when it went through their party room, woke up to the enormous threat that it presents to Australians and their savings. They have raised their concerns with me, with members of the Labor opposition, with members of the crossbench and eventually with members of the government. I want to congratulate those members of the backbench of the coalition parties for doing the right thing. Many of them have raised their concerns in this place, and I want to congratulate them for doing the right thing.
As bad as the directions power is, it is not the only problem with this bill. Labor wants to foreshadow that we have a range of amendments. If this amendment fails, we have an amendment which covers the field. We have a range of other amendments that we propose to move in the House today. I'll go through the issues that they cover off.
Firstly, this government has said the purpose of this bill is to ensure that members have funds that are performing for them, and, to give effect to that, they want to introduce a performance measure so that we can weed out the underperforming funds. Members of this House, Labor wholly supports that objective. We want to see that happen. But why on earth would a government that says that what it wants to do is weed out underperforming funds introduce a bill in the House which actually staples members to underperforming funds? There aren't a small number of them. According to the Treasury, three million Australians are going to be stapled to underperforming funds because of the legislation that you are foreshadowing that you will vote for. So, we encourage you to contemplate that fact. Are you going to be on the side of the three million Australians who, if you let this bill through, are going to be stapled to an underperforming fund, or are you going to support this sensible amendment?
I call on the crossbench to contemplate that fact. You were so confident in the advice that you were given by the government and by the Treasurer that they had this bill right. You were so confident the government had this right. I say the same thing to members on the coalition backbench as well. A couple of weeks ago the government said they had this bill right— (Time expired)
Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I call the member for Whitlam.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. A few weeks ago the Treasurer stood in your party room and said, 'This bill is ready to go.' But today they have been forced into an embarrassing admission that the bill was anything but ready to go. How can you have faith in what they are telling you now, when it has been pointed out to you that three million Australians are about to be stapled to dud funds? You can have no faith in what the government is telling you. You can have no faith in what your Treasurer is telling you. I ask the crossbench to consider this as well.
Another factor that our amendment goes to is the timing of this bill, because in four weeks time this bill will become effective in every Australian workplace. The tax office isn't ready to implement it. Small-, medium- and large-sized businesses aren't ready to implement it. Australian workers know next to nothing about it—and certainly the superannuation funds will not be able to implement this bill either. So the timing needs to be considered. Our sensible amendment is on the side of small and medium-sized businesses in this country. It will push back the implementation of this bill as amended and as proposed to be amended by Labor.
One of the excellent speeches that was made in the second reading contribution on this debate was the speech given by the member for Warringah, a former barrister, a law officer, of New South Wales, who pointed out that the reverse onus included in schedule 3 of this bill turns the law on its head. Normally a reverse onus in law is something that is only confined to the most egregious of criminal offences. We don't, for example, apply a reverse onus for heinous sex crimes. We don't apply a reverse onus for heinous drug crimes. But apparently not having your books in order is a worse offence than a serious sex offence. Apparently, not having your books in order is a worse offence than importing drugs into this country. This government has got their priorities all wrong. It is a simple amendment, a sensible amendment, and I ask all members of the House to support it.
We want this bill to work. We support performance management. We support the amendment that has been moved by the government in removing this heinous power—more appropriate to this book here, Das Kapital, than a modern Australian economy. So, if these amendments fail, we ask all members of the House to support the amendments that Labor has foreshadowed and I have just spoken to.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
(1) Section 2 (Commencement), where the Bill specifies "the day this Act receives Royal Assent" or "1 July 2021", replace with "1 July 2022"
Note: The intent of amendment 1 is to delay the start of all elements of the legislation until 1 July 2022.
This is very significant legislation that requires an enormous amount of change for the superannuation industry—and much of it justified. However, we are now in June. To have a start date for this legislation of 1 July when it is yet to even go to the Senate is, I believe, rush and haste. When you rush and you do things in haste, you make mistakes. I believe it would be far more prudent and wise of this House if we moved the start date for this legislation to 1 July 2022 rather than 2021. I believe that, if we are doing our job, that would give time for all the vested stakeholders to go through all the detail, and it would be far more prudent for our economy to get the best outcomes, which is what we all require.
The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
by leave—I move amendments (2) and (3), as circulated in my name, together:
(2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 9 (after line 22), after section 32R, insert:
32S Excluded occupations
(1) This section applies in relation to an employer and an employee if the employee is employed in an occupation where the rate of death in the workplace is more than one in 100,000 per year, averaged over a five-year period, as determined by the Australian Government Actuary.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, the most recent notification to the employer:
(a) by the Commissioner; and
(b) relating to a request by the employer (or by the employer's agent) for the Commissioner to identify any stapled fund for the employee;
is taken to be that the Commissioner is satisfied that there is no stapled fund for the employee.
(3) On 1 July each year, the Australian Government Actuary must publish a list of occupations where the rate of death in the workplace is more than one in 100,000 per year, averaged over a five-year period.
(4) An employee in an occupation identified by this section is considered not to have a stapled fund.
Note: The intent of amendment 2 is to ensure that the stapling provisions do not apply to workers employed in dangerous occupations.
(3) Schedule 3, items 18 and 19, page 32 (lines 6 to 24), after section 117A, insert:
117B Excluded occupations
(1) Regulations made for the purposes of section 117A may not prescribe any investment or type of investment, under any circumstances, in any of the following industries:
a. mining;
b. agriculture;
c. energy production;
d. oil or gas extraction;
e. oil or gas refining;
f. steel or mineral refining;
g. cement or concrete products;
h. salt mining and refining;
i. defence industries;
j. shipbuilding;
k. firearms and ammunition production;
l. hunting and the export of kangaroo meat;
m. manufacturing;
n. horticulture;
o. aquaculture;
p. grain handling;
q. sugar industries;
r. timber and paper products;
s. pet food manufacturing;
t. rubber, plastic and cable-making industries;
u. hair and beauty;
v. dredging and port authorities;
w. fisheries;
x. retail;
y. textiles;
z. telecommunications;
aa. information technology;
bb. pharmaceuticals and health products;
cc. construction services;
dd. science, education, and universities;
ee. Australian cultural productions;
ff. dams and weirs;
gg. deep sea fishing;
hh. live cattle, sheep, and other animal exports;
ii. train manufacturing;
jj. electric vehicle manufacturing;
kk. tourism;
ll. accommodation;
mm. healthcare;
nn. childcare;
oo. infrastructure;
pp. road or rail transport; or
qq. air or sea transport.
Note: The intent of amendment 3 is to prevent the use of the regulation-making power prohibiting an investment in any of the specified industries.
When I was 14 years of age, my family moved out of my family home. I could no longer go to my old school. But one of the guys that was working for my father at the time, a gentleman called Paul, was about three years older than me. He came and picked us up every day and drove me to school and drove me home. He was like a bit of an elder brother. A year later, he was involved in a car accident while doing a delivery to Newcastle. He lost his arm and lost part of the sight in his right eye. I've seen, over my career before I came to this place, many terrible accidents in the workplace. When I look at this legislation, there is a risk—and I acknowledge it's a small risk, but it only has to be one person—that, when we staple someone's funds, we will also staple their insurance policy. And there is a risk that, when someone moves from a job in an office—where the risk could be a paper cut or the photocopier lid closing down hard on their arm—to a dangerous occupation, they could suffer an injury and they might be underinsured. My conscience will not allow me to vote for any legislation that allows that risk, even if it is for one person. I hope I have support from the entire House on that.
On amendment (3), I agree that we should be very careful in government about giving powers to ourselves to make decisions that override the private economy. I appreciate there are many decisions that we see from the large union-controlled super funds that are not necessarily in the best interests. Rather than get rid of that whole section, I have suggested that we have a list of special industries that are excluded from this provision. They would include mining; oil and gas extraction; oil and gas refining; cement and concrete products; hunting and the export of kangaroo meat; rubber, plastic and cable making industries; dredging and port authorities; dams and weirs; live cattle, sheep and other animal exports; and, of course, health and beauty. There is a longer list which everyone can read. I commend those amendments to the House.
The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (14), as circulated in my name, together:
(1) Schedule 3, heading, page 29 (line 1), omit "Best financial interests duty", substitute "Duties of trustees".
(2) Schedule 3, item 9, page 30 (lines 21 and 22), omit the item.
(3) Schedule 3, item 11, page 31 (line 1), omit "financial".
(4) Schedule 3, item 13, page 31 (lines 14 and 15), omit the item.
(5) Schedule 3, item 15, page 31 (line 21), omit "financial".
(6) Schedule 3, item 16, page 31 (lines 26 and 27), omit the item.
(7) Schedule 3, item 17, page 32 (line 1), omit "financial".
(8) Schedule 3, item 20, page 32 (line 28), omit "financial".
(9) Schedule 3, item 20, page 33 (line 1), omit "financial".
(10) Schedule 3, item 20, page 33 (line 10), omit "financial".
(11) Schedule 3, item 21, page 33 (line 14), omit "financial".
(12) Schedule 3, item 21, page 33 (line 18), omit "9, 11, 16", substitute "11".
(13) Schedule 3, item 21, page 33 (line 23), omit "amendments made by items 13 and 15 of this Schedule apply", substitute "amendment made by item 15 of this Schedule applies".
(14) Schedule 3, item 22, page 34 (line 16), omit "financial".
These amendments are in respect of the change that is identified in relation to the definition of 'best financial interests' duty. Item 9 of the amendment bill omits 'best interests' and replaces it with 'best financial interests' in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. The government states that it wishes to increase the accountability of trustees in their day-to-day operations and investing members' money. Whilst this may, at first blush, appear sensible, it has significant potential consequences for the interests and wellbeing of super members and is in fact not founded on any recommendation or proper basis. This is because, when considering whether something is in best financial interests alone, we also capture a large number of activities and investments that exist in a grey area and that may in fact be beneficial to members of super funds but are potentially now going to be excluded as a result of this amendment. For example, an ethical super fund purchasing carbon offsets or spending money planting trees to reduce emissions to achieve an overarching goal of reaching a net zero emissions goal around their investment portfolio—something which the member would arguably want—could now be prohibited under the best financial interests covenant, unless we have a major change from this government, in accepting putting a price on carbon or in actually ensuring that there is proper financial recognition of the impact of our emissions.
I don't think the change that is proposed in this bill by the government is necessary. Commissioner Hayne was clear that he saw the existing best interests covenant as adequate. The common-law definition was also upheld by Justice Jagot in APRA v Kelaher. Therefore, amendments (1) to (14) seek to omit any reference to 'financial' in the best interests covenant. This will amend schedule 3 of the bill and remove that reference to 'financial'. The government has refused to clarify that social corporate programs will not be excluded or targeted. In fact, they are likely to be targeted by this amendment. This raises serious questions as to the motivation and the true intent of the government with this amendment, and therefore I commend my amendments to the House.
I wish to make a short statement about the detailed amendments from the member for Warringah. Last night I set out my criticisms of schedule 3 of this bill. While I'm pleased to see the government capitulate on the absurd directions power that section 117A would have given to the Treasurer, there are still serious deficiencies in schedule 3. The Hayne royal commission explicitly opposed a revision of the best interests covenant. The Superannuation Committee of the Law Council of Australia have also done the same, and they've done so for good reason, because there's no clear rationale for the wholesale revision of the best interests test. Schedule 3, as amended, would wipe out years of jurisprudence overnight and create needless uncertainty, and the last thing our super savings need is needless uncertainty.
Limiting the best interests test to pure financial interests misunderstands people's relationship with their super. There are good reasons to use a stick to focus the minds of superannuation trustees to ensure that they're acting in their members' best interests, especially when it comes to political advertising or lobbying. But, if you have to use a sharp stick, do that, not a blunt rock like this. If the government wanted a sharp stick, it could have refined the existing covenants set out in section 52 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act. That would have allowed the government to weed out excessive spend on political advertising and lobbying without punishing ethical investments that are good for bank accounts and for our environment. If that's not what the government is intending then it should say so right now explicitly in this bill, not in regulations.
There are also many other parts of this bill outside of schedule 3 that could be improved with good amendments, including the sequencing issue, stapling in high-risk industries and the selective performance testing of some funds but not others. I'm committed to working with my crossbench colleagues in the Senate to continue to improve this bill, and I'll reserve my final judgement when it comes back to this House, amended, for final consideration.
The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Warringah be disagreed to.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (15), (17) to (19) and (23), as circulated in my name:
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4, after line 5, insert:
emergency services worker has the same meaning as in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.
front -line health worker: see subsection 32S(3).
health professional means a person who, under a law of a State or Territory, is registered or licensed as a member of any health profession.
(2) Schedule 1, item 17, page 8 (line 14), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "1 July 2022".
(3) Schedule 1, item 17, page 8 (line 15), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "1 July 2022".
(4) Schedule 1, item 18, page 8 (lines 19 to 22), repeal section 32Q, substitute:
32Q What is the stapled fund for an employee
A fund is the stapled fund, for an employee at a particular time in a financial year, if all of the following requirements are met at that time:
(a) APRA has made a determination under section 60C of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 in relation to the previous financial year for each Part 6A product (within the meaning of that Act) that, at that time, is:
(i) offered by the fund; and
(ii) held by the employee;
(b) the determination is that the requirements of subsection 60D(1) of that Act are met in relation to that previous financial year for each of those products;
(c) any requirements prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section are met in relation to the fund.
(5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 9 (after line 22), at the end of section 32R, add:
(4) Without limiting subsection (3), the Commissioner must, under that subsection, change an earlier notification given in relation to the employee if:
(a) the earlier notification was that the Commissioner was satisfied that there was a stapled fund for the employee; and
(b) because of a notification given to the Commissioner by APRA under section 60CA of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, the Commissioner is no longer satisfied that the fund is a stapled fund for the employee.
(6) Schedule 1, item 18, page 9 (after line 22), after section 32R, insert:
32S Excluded occupations
(1) This section applies in relation to an employer and an employee if the employee is employed:
(a) in an occupation that a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia has certified:
(i) based on rates of death, or death and total and permanent disability; and
(ii) using information from the most recent 5 years in relation to Australian occupations;
is in the riskiest quintile of Australian occupations; or
(b) as an emergency services worker; or
(c) as a front-line health worker.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, the most recent notification to the employer:
(a) by the Commissioner; and
(b) relating to a request by the employer (or by the employer's agent) for the Commissioner to identify any stapled fund for the employee;
is taken to be that the Commissioner is satisfied that there is no stapled fund for the employee.
Meaning of front -line health worker
(3) A person is employed as a front-line health worker if:
(a) the person is employed as health professional; or
(b) the person is employed for the purposes of providing supports or services to people with disability under the National Disability Insurance Scheme; or
(c) the person's principal place of work is:
(i) a hospital; or
(ii) a surgery; or
(iii) a health clinic; or
(iv) a residential aged care facility; or
(v) the place of business of another business that provides health or disability services.
(7) Schedule 1, item 24, page 10 (line 26), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "1 July 2022".
(8) Schedule 2, item 5, page 15, after line 2, insert:
defined benefit interest has the meaning given by the regulations.
(9) Schedule 2, item 9, page 16 (line 30) to page 17 (line 4), omit section 60B, substitute:
60B Meaning of Part 6A product
A Part6A product is any class of beneficial interest in a regulated superannuation fund, other than a defined benefit interest.
(10) Schedule 2, item 9, page 17 (after line 23), after section 60C, insert:
60CA APRA to notify Commissioner of Taxation of fail assessment
(1) This section applies if:
(a) APRA gives the trustee or trustees of an entity a notification of a determination under subsection 60C(2); and
(b) the determination is that the requirement in subsection 60D(1) has not been met, for a Part 6A product offered by the entity, in relation to a financial year.
(2) APRA must notify the Commissioner of Taxation in writing of the fact mentioned in paragraph (1) (b) of this section.
(11) Schedule 2, item 9, page 17 (line 25) to page 18 (line 3), omit subsection 60D(1), substitute:
Meeting requirements specified in regulations
(1) The requirement in this subsection is met for a Part 6A product in relation to a financial year if:
(a) the regulations specify requirements, for the purposes of this subsection, in relation to a class of Part 6A products that include that Part 6A product; and
(b) those requirements are met for that Part 6A product in relation to the financial year.
(12) Schedule 2, item 9, page 18 (line 11), omit "fees and/or".
(13) Schedule 2, item 9, page 20 (after line 12), at the end of section 60D, add:
Fees
(14) Before the Governor-General makes regulations for the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister must have regard to the impact of fees on Part 6A products.
(15) The investment returns mentioned in paragraph (2) (a) must be net of fees.
(14) Schedule 2, item 9, page 26 (after line 16), after subsection 60J(3), insert:
(3A) Methods under paragraph (1) (a) must include methods for ranking Part 6A products according to long-term investment returns.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), long-term means 10 years or longer.
(15) Schedule 2, item 10, page 27 (lines 6 to 8), omit "identified by regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 60B(b) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993".
(17) Schedule 3, item 5, page 29 (lines 13 to 17), omit the item.
(18) Schedule 3, item 6, page 30 (after line 6), after subsection 34(2A), insert:
(2AA) Subsection (2A) does not apply to the extent that the standards relate to keeping or retaining records in relation to a non-material matter.
(2AB) For the purposes of subsection (2AA), a non-material matter includes a payment or investment made:
(a) by or on behalf of the superannuation entity; and
(b) that a reasonable person would not expect to impact materially the financial interests of the beneficiaries of the entity.
(19) Schedule 3, item 6, page 30 (line 7), omit subsection 34(2B).
(23) Schedule 3, item 20, page 32 (line 25) to page 33 (line 13), omit the item.
The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Whitlam be disagreed to.
The question now is that this bill, as amended, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The question is that this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 17 : 14
Victorians understand the pain and challenges of lockdown all too well. We also understand the latest restrictions in Victoria are a direct result of failures in hotel quarantine. We have now seen 21 outbreaks in our country. We know that hotels are not the answer to quarantining against this fast-mutating virus. The cost of lockdowns continues to mount. There are economic costs, massive losses of revenue to businesses, and huge losses of wages and workers' livelihoods. Then there's the cost to health and wellbeing. People are understandably frustrated, anxious and fearful, particularly in Victoria, where we have seen our fourth lockdown. In my electorate of Corangamite, we've just been labelled as a place that has had exposure sites, in Anglesea, and I really feel for those people. We must stand together on this. We must get people vaccinated.
The Morrison government had two jobs: quarantine and the vaccine rollout. They have failed on both. As a consequence, people are suffering. Veterans have struggled to recognise Anzac Day. Communities and families are torn apart. This week in my electorate, netball and soccer matches were put off, pubs and restaurants were shut, family barbecues were cancelled, birthday celebrations and weddings fell by the wayside, and families couldn't visit loved ones in aged-care facilities. Australians in lockdown cannot do what we love most.
It's just so obvious—hotels are not designed to be used for quarantine. You do not need an advanced degree in epidemiology to recognise that close living in hotels, shared airflow and being in populated, dense areas make hotels poor venues to isolate and quarantine. If the government needed a report to tell them, it was lucky to have a former secretary of the Department of Health, Jane Halton, provide the insight over seven months ago. The solution is simple: we need built-for-purpose quarantine facilities. One potential location would be the well-isolated and well-positioned Avalon Airport. The Australian Capital Territory built a field hospital in 37 days. These are spacious places, in sweeping areas with no standing population. We must build these quarantine centres now. It is challenging, but it is the federal government's job. The priority of this government is to play politics and blame others rather than do its job. Let's get the act together, please, Prime Minister. Let's make sure that we keep people safe.
The Higgins Medal is an annual tradition that dates back to 2011, when my predecessor, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer, created an award that recognises the efforts of leading students in my electorate who excel in their studies, extracurricular activities and espoused school values. Over the past 10 years, 209 students have received this award, and it was fitting that Kelly O'Dwyer was the inaugural guest speaker at our very first Higgins Medal alumni event. It was fantastic to hear firsthand the stories of over 100 Higgins Medal winners—to hear about their goals and aspirations in life and what they've achieved since winning the award.
They are the stories of young leaders, such as Naomi Rubenstein, from the King David School, a young woman who received the award in 2014 following a gruelling hip reconstruction which required significant rehabilitation. She persisted with her studies and commenced a bachelor of science degree. Her hip reconstruction and studies didn't stop her from devoting countless hours volunteering and working for Friendship Circle Australia, which aims to provide every individual with special needs the support, friendship and inclusion they deserve. Naomi has also gone on to a masters in diagnostic radiography so that she can care for patients with acute needs.
Another young woman who shared her inspiring journey is Maya Wimalasundera, a recipient of the award in 2019 from Murrumbeena Primary School. Maya is now studying at Kilvington Grammar School after receiving a scholarship and, along with her family, helps prepare meals as part of the Kilvington Cares meals program. Even though COVID presented challenges to this program, Maya was innovative, delivering support in the form of handmade gifts, cards and baked goods to friends and neighbours during lockdown to help cheer them up, particularly on their birthdays.
Another inspiring student was Sarah Marriott. In fact, Sarah, from St Catherine's School, addressed the event as the inaugural keynote speaker along with Kelly O'Dwyer. Sarah is a dedicated rower, and her amazing efforts, breaking many records for her age, has led to several universities in the US, including Harvard and Stanford, advising her of their rowing programs in the hope that she studies abroad. She has also recently been chosen for a national team. But, more than that, Sarah told us about her struggles with living with type 1 diabetes alongside her love for rowing. She was able to manage the difficulty of having to deal with blood glucose levels and incorporating a significant and elite health and fitness regime in her daily schedule. Sarah shared how she managed her achievements through adversity. I think every student in the room was on the edge of their chair, listening to her story of courage and determination.
I'm so proud of Sarah and all 209 students who are now Higgins Medal alumni and I look forward to the continuing friendship, camaraderie and networking that this significant event will provide to the leaders of Higgins.
I rise in the Australian parliament today to honour the life of a most remarkable woman: Vera Deacon. Today the people of Newcastle are mourning the loss of one of our most treasured citizens. As a published writer, feminist, historian, environmentalist, philanthropist and committed humanitarian. Vera Deacon's legacy is immense.
I first met Vera through our respective involvement with the Newcastle Aboriginal support group. Her knowledge and unswerving commitment to facing squarely the truth of our nation's history was inspiring. Vera became a trusted friend and mentor. She was a woman of strength and integrity, grounded by her social justice values, and Vera's support meant a lot to me, especially when I decided to run for public office. Vera was an advocate for so many causes in our community, but she was especially devoted to the preservation and promotion of the natural environment and local history.
Born in Mayfield in 1926, Vera was raised on Dempsey and Mosquito islands in the Hunter River estuary before they gave way to heavy industry and submerged into what is now one big island known as Kooragang. Vera loved the Hunter River, and she worked tirelessly on the rehabilitation of those islands where she grew up, volunteering as part of the Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project since its very inception. For more than 20 years she helped plant more than 200,000 seedlings of native plants across about 100 different native species, from memory, including the red cedar and the ash tree of Ash Island.
Vera also worked closely with the Stockton Historical Society to research and compile the history of these islands and their surrounds, helping to preserve Newcastle's unique heritage. This important work led to Vera making regular and substantial donations to the University of Newcastle's cultural collections. In recognition of her generous contributions, the university set up the Vera Deacon Regional History Fund to support and encourage regional histories. It was to build on Vera's generosity with donations to help collect, document and digitise our regional history archives.
Not one to show off or big-note herself, Vera lived her life with purpose, determined to make a difference, and she did. A memorial service to celebrate Vera's life is being held in Newcastle today, Thursday 3 June. This date also marks the anniversary of the High Court's Mabo decision, something that I know Vera would be very pleased with. My heartfelt condolences go to Vera's family, friends and loved ones. Vale, Vera Deacon. You have lived a full life without regret, and I for one will miss you terribly.
This year's federal budget continues to deliver for the people of the Myall Coast. Through a range of new programs and initiatives, our government has been investing millions of dollars across the Myall region on infrastructure and services. Already, $1.6 billion in federal funding is on the table to deliver the M1 Pacific Motorway extension to Raymond Terrace, as we await the final planning and design process to be completed by the New South Wales government. Several months ago I wrote to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister seeking support for a further phase of the Pacific Highway upgrade—namely, to complete the critical overpasses, including Italia and Medowie roads, The Bucketts Way and Myall Way. Our government is in discussion with the New South Wales government about these projects, and I would once again encourage Transport for NSW to complete the design and planning of these critical upgrades so that our federal government can invest in them.
I've been delighted to announce federal funding for important projects across the Myall region in recent times, and some of these have included a major upgrade to the Tea Gardens pool and the Hawks Nest community hall. We've also announced federal funding in Tea Gardens-Hawks Nest for the golf club, for the progress association, for Myall Coast Radio 87.8, for Meals on Wheels, to upgrade Providence Park, for the Tea Gardens-Hawks Nest Men's Shed and for the Hawks Nest community hall. And, of course, the Tea Gardens-Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club redevelopment is now complete, and how fantastic is that?
In Karuah, federal funding has been secured for several important local projects, including the local Landcare, the Longworth Park upgrade, the Karuah Roos, the Karuah Rural Fire Brigade, the Karuah Public School, the Karuah Local History Group and the RSL sub-branch. In Bulahdelah, funding has been secured for the School of Arts hall; the CWA, the Country Women's Association; the Bulahdelah Show Society, the Rural Fire Brigade, the Bulahdelah War Memorial reserve and the Bulahdelah Lions Park upgrade. Next week I will be so proud to be opening the new skate park. Funding has also been made available for the upgrade of community halls in Nerong, Wootton and North Arm Cove.
One of the most significant investments in the region, however, will come as a result of the $66 million in federal funding to upgrade Newcastle Airport. This upgrade not only will be important to the operations of the Royal Australian Air Force but will deliver the capacity Newcastle Airport requires to a broader range of aircraft. Opening the Hunter and the North Coast regions to long-distance international flights will deliver a massive economic boost for a whole range of industries that rely on international tourism and international trade.
We've got a housing crisis in Australia at the moment; that's the truth of it. It's harder to buy a house today than ever before. It's also harder to rent a place than ever before. One of the parts of the country where this is most severe is Tasmania. Hobart is the rental stress capital of the country. According to the latest Rental Affordability Index, it's harder to rent in Hobart than anywhere else in Australia, and the rest of Tasmania is not much better off. In Launceston, rents have shot up by more than 40 per cent in the last few years, and it's also getting harder to buy a home in Tasmania. In the last 12 months house prices in regional Tasmania have shot up by about 18 per cent. Just to put it in perspective, that's almost twice as much as house prices have rocketed up in Sydney, our hometown. That's why anything the government does to make it easier for people to buy a home has got to work in Tasmania.
Now, here's the thing: in the budget the government announced a scheme to help single parents buy a home. It's a pretty small scheme—it'll help about 2½ thousand single-parent families a year. But we support it; it'll help. There's a problem with it though. In Launceston there are about 5,000 single-parent families, and if they want to access the scheme they have to buy a home for less than $300,000. How many three-bedroom homes do you think there are for sale under $300,000 in Launceston at the moment for a single parent with two kids? The answer is three, and here's one of them: this place that's for sale at the moment in Launceston is advertised as 'renovate or detonate'. This is a place that, to be honest, you can't move into right now. It doesn't even have walls. And that's the flaw in this scheme.
I raised this issue in the House of Representatives last week, and the member for Bowman's response in the debate was: if you can't find a place in Launceston, then just get in the car and drive until you find someplace. Really? The solution to this is simple. It's not moving away from your family or your job; it's raising the price cap on this scheme. That's why, in estimates last night, we asked Minister Hume: will you raise the price cap on this scheme for Launceston? And she refused. This is the marginal seat of Bass, one of the most marginal seats in the country, and we've got the government in here refusing to fix this policy to make it work there. Obviously, this government doesn't think that Launceston and single parents who live in Launceston are that important.
The Morrison government is taking measures to reduce emissions in a cost-effective way which does not constrain Australia's competitiveness or limit our economic development. Greenhouse emissions in Australia at the end of 2020 were 19 per cent lower than they were in 2005 and are now at their lowest level since 1995. Since 2019, Australia has deployed renewable energy 10 times faster than the global average and four times faster per capita than Europe or the United States. One in four houses in Australia has rooftop solar, more than anywhere else in the world.
Moore is an electorate with 17 kilometres of pristine coastline and beaches. As our suburbs are located near a maritime shipping route, the port of Fremantle, our health is impacted by unregulated shipping emissions. Western Australian ports are visited by 8,000 ships per year. Shipping accounts for three per cent of global emissions, 14 per cent of world sulphur dioxide pollution, nitrous oxide and extensive particulate matter. It is estimated that 60,000 deaths per year have pollutants as a causing factor globally.
We have a great opportunity to utilise Australian liquefied natural gas to power the maritime vessels exporting our resources, thus creating the world's cleanest commodity exports. In using LNG, we can reduce shipping carbon dioxide emissions by 13 per cent, cause 100 per cent reduction in nitrous and sulphur dioxide and particulates, which means no black clouds of soot, reducing the environmental health risk to our population.
According to BE&R Consulting, each large carrier ship that has transitioned from heavy fuel oil to LNG will take the equivalent of 6,000 cars off the road. If all of the 8,000 ships operating out of WA are converted, that equates to 58 million cars taken off the road—25 times more cars than are in our entire state. I am advocating for sustainable energy solutions for our country through the implementation of an emissions control area around Australia in which shipping will be regulated and required to utilise clean marine fuel, saving the environment and creating new jobs through the growth of a new maritime LNG industry. Currently, according to the Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel, there are 199 LNG fuelled ships in operation around the world, with a further 298 LNG fuelled ships on order and 93 ports around the globe supplying LNG fuel. The infrastructure we build today can be future-proofed to be able to utilise zero-carbon fuels. (Time expired)
Victorians are a parochial bunch. We love where we live and we are proud of it. Almost all Melburnians know how many times in a row we've been voted the most liveable city in the world. I say to the Sydney chair, that is seven years in a row. I'm sure we're all proud of today's testing and vaccination numbers. But, while we are proud of where we live and the people who live there with us, others have sung a different tune. Teddy Whitten famously told the Vics to 'stick it right up them'. Well, today the Morrison government has stuck it right to us.
Yesterday the Treasurer, who's from Victoria but not for Victoria, gloated about new figures in the economy. These figures are built on the back of Victorian businesses and workers, but in that same press conference he said Victorian workers and businesses were on their own, the same Victorian workers who had built the figures he was gloating about. In case anyone needed any more evidence the Morrison government is not on our side, they've said we are on our own. It's interesting because they are turning their backs on the people they are supposedly representing here in this place.
Let's look at this colour coded spreadsheet. They love these things. I should have included the margins each member has in their seat and then maybe the Prime Minister would do something! But let's look at it. The member for Higgins had 4,500 businesses and nearly 14,000 workers in her seat on JobKeeper in March this year. They've been abandoned. There were similar numbers in the Treasurer's seat. In the member for Chisholm's seat—this is a real kicker given how contested this seat will be—over 4,000 businesses and 13,500 workers have been abandoned by her. Perhaps the member for Goldstein, busy yesterday screeching about his plans to destroy superannuation, was too busy to fight for the over 4,000 businesses in his electorate who were on JobKeeper in March. There were nearly 12,000 in the health minister's seat. The Assistant Treasurer is not on the side of the 3,500 businesses in Deakin. The education minister neglected 3,500 businesses in Aston. The member for Latrobe has abandoned 10,000 workers in his community.
A former member for Kooyong, when not selling iron to the country looking to build ships to fight us in the war on the sea, spoke a lot about the 'forgotten people'. His successor is forgetting 6.6 million people, his fellow Victorians. The party of Menzies, Holt, Fraser and Peacock has been reduced to treating Victorians like this, not providing us support in our hour of need. They are nothing more than a government from Sydney and for Sydney. Victoria, a proud state, was once the jewel in the Liberal Party crown. Now they treat us like the dirt under their feet.
Yesterday's national accounts confirm the Australian economy continues its strong recovery. The outcomes for the Australian economy continue to compare favourably to international peers. It is because of the sacrifices Australians have made that the economy is in the strong position it is today. The Morrison government's economic plan is working. The national accounts announced by the Treasurer yesterday confirm Australia is leading the global economic recovery. In the Treasurer's press conference, we heard that in the March quarter employment surpassed prepandemic levels, a feat no other major advanced economy has yet achieved. He also confirmed the Australian economy is even bigger than it was going into the pandemic. Real GDP increased by 1.8 per cent in the quarter, to be 0.8 per cent higher than its prepandemic level. So in just over a year the economy has recovered faster than from any major downturn in recent history and nine months earlier than previously forecast. Coming out of the COVID-19 induced recession, GDP has grown by 8.7 per cent over the last three quarters. This is the strongest period of growth since 1968—that is, the strongest growth in more than half a century.
The Treasurer went on to advise that the strength of our economic recovery is an achievement all Australians have contributed to and all Australians can be proud of. In other economies we saw a contraction in the March quarter, whereas Australia grew by 1.8 per cent. At home there are still sectors and regions that are doing it tough, but our economic support will continue, and yesterday's national accounts confirmed that a strong, broad based recovery is underway.
Most encouragingly, the economic recovery is increasingly being driven by the private sector, with economic support more than halving over the quarter. Household consumption, dwelling investment and business investment all contributed strongly to the growth in the March quarter. The recovery has been driven by household spending supported by income support and tax relief. These measures have ensured that, despite the economic shock, household disposable income has remained above prepandemic levels. Household consumption grew by 1.2 per cent in the quarter and is now 14 per cent higher than in the June quarter 2020—the strongest period of growth on record. Consumption is up in 10 of the 17 categories, driven by higher levels of spending on consumer services as the economy continues to open up, with the largest spending increases in hotels, cafes and restaurants, and transport. Importantly, we are seeing the positive impacts flowing from our unprecedented investment incentives.
Our economic plan is working. The job is not yet done, but you wouldn't want to be in any other country but Australia. Investments are broad based across mining and non-mining industries, creating an economic recovery for the rest of Australia.
When I look back on the past eight years of this government, what stands out the most is the missed opportunity for the people of my community of Dobell, the electorate I represent on the north of the Central Coast. There has been a missed opportunity to improve our local roads, build new infrastructure help people get around, unlock investment and support local businesses. There has been a missed opportunity to give young people the best start in life with the skills, training and education they need to get a decent job and have a steady career. And there has been a missed opportunity, and a risk, with the failure to deliver, in the middle of a global pandemic, a headspace in Wyong.
Just last month, locals heard the Morrison government spruik $3.3 billion in the budget for priority roads projects across the country, but not a single dollar landed in Wyong, Tuggerah or Lake Haven. Meanwhile, $52.8 million found its way just to the south, on intersections along Manns Road in Gosford. Unfortunately, this is nothing new for my community. This government is spending $2.8 million under the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Fund supposedly to support jobs and economic growth in Dobell, and earlier in May the government said getting shovels in the ground on local construction projects was important for maintaining jobs and economic growth in Dobell. Closer inspection reveals that not one of the four projects identified is actually in Dobell. I've got news for this government: Malinya Road, Davistown is not in Dobell.
But this is nothing new for this government. Previously, $86.5 million was allocated to the so-called Central Coast roads package. A breakdown of the funding revealed that one street in Saratoga, in the Robertson electorate, received more funding than the 14 road projects in the electorate I represent on the north of the coast. And there are no Central Coast projects on Infrastructure Australia's priority list. The last major infrastructure project delivered in the electorate was the M1 upgrade, kickstarted by the member for Grayndler, Anthony Albanese, when he was infrastructure minister.
I'll now go to skills and training. This government's commitment to young people is all bluff and bluster. Over the past eight years the number of registered apprentices and trainees in the northern part of the coast has dropped by 25 per cent, from 2,041 to 1,799. Since 2019 this government has trumpeted two programs to encourage young people to upskill and secure a job. The first is the $82 million Commonwealth Scholarships Program for Young Australians, which provides $13,000 for young Australians from select regions to undertake their qualifications. The government chose to offer this program to residents of the former Gosford city but excluded most young people living in the former Wyong shire in the electorate I represent. A local group training provider observed that this program is essentially running a knife down the middle of the coast and that escapes logic. Then the government announced $50.6 million to trial 10 industry training hubs to create more jobs for young people. Once again, the government selected Gosford for one of the hubs. It just does not make sense. A young person on the coast must ask: does the government care about them? Why are they continuing to leave them behind?
I rise today to speak of the sad passing of a much loved constituent of my electorate, Gloria Arrow. In her life Gloria gave over 60 years service to the Cook family and the Greenmount Homestead where she lived and worked. Growing up in Homebush, Gloria was diagnosed with polio and as a young girl it left her with a slight limp, the lasting effects of which were more evident in her later years. Despite the effects of polio Gloria was a dedicated volunteer. She was extremely generous when training volunteers as well as sharing the history of Greenmount Homestead and the Pioneer Valley with the local schoolchildren over many generations. Gloria worked as the live-in housemaid for the Cook family, Tom and Dorothy, but she became so much more than that over the years. Gloria became a friend, confidante and carer to Tom and Dorothy Cook, as well as Dorothy's mother, Hannah, in her final years.
Gloria always took the time to remember a face. Sometimes as far back as remembering a child that had first visited when they were at school and were now returning to Greenmount with their own children. Gloria had the ability to silence a room or a meeting by simply raising her hand and saying, 'Can I just tell you something?' then proceeding to recall in detail events from over 40 years ago. Over the years Gloria had served a Russian princess, a British high commissioner to Australia; the Governor of Queensland, Sir Henry Abel Smith; Lady May Abel Smith and Lady Cilento.
I'm told that once during a dinner held at Greenmount Homestead, to celebrate a visit of the Governor of Queensland, Mrs Dorothy Cook instructed Gloria to serve the lady on her right wearing pink first. Although Sir Henry was Governor of Queensland and his wife Lady May Smith was the great granddaughter of Queen Victoria and a niece of Queen Mary, she had seniority at the table. As dinner was being served, Gloria entered the dining room to find that there was a woman in a bright pink dress sitting at the table beside Mrs Cook. As ordered Gloria served her first and upon looking at Mrs Cook's reaction she realised something wasn't right. Mrs Cook promptly asked Gloria to serve the lady on the opposite side of the table. After the dinner Mrs Cook informed Gloria that she had served a Mrs Leggett first and not Lady May. As usual Gloria did exactly what she was told. It was Mrs Cook who had messed up. Thanks to Gloria, for a brief moment in time, Mrs Leggett, the local doctor's wife from Sarina, was treated like a princess.
There are now many books, sketches and photos of Greenmount Homestead that tell its story through the eyes of Gloria, its much loved resident. Gloria Arrow will always have a special place in the history of our region. I bless her life and send my condolences to her family. Gloria Arrow was one of a kind and will never be forgotten.
Recently I had the pleasure of joining the Jindalee Girl Guides in celebrating their 50th anniversary. The Guides have been an invaluable part of our local community, empowering local girls of all ages to develop their skills and talents, discover new interests and create lasting friendships. As the federal member for Oxley, I have been a big supporter of Guides that have been nurturing and shaping girls to become confident community leaders. They are our country's leaders of tomorrow. It has been fantastic to see the impact that the Jindalee Girl Guides has had in helping so many young achievers reach their full potential.
I want to give a special thank you and congratulate the Jindalee district manager, Judi Noble, who this year celebrates an incredible 50 years of service. Judi, your continuing dedication to women's adventure, community service and achievement is an inspiration. Congratulations also to Michelle Price. Michelle, a leader, this year has achieved 20 years of service. She is another outstanding representative of our local community and a great role model for today's Girl Guides. I also would like to commend the leader in charge, Catherine, and all the mentors for their dedication to carrying on the legacy of girl-led personal development and exploration. Congratulations to all the Jindalee Girl Guides and mentors who have worked so hard to build this organisation into an important part of the fabric of our community. I was delighted to join with members of our community, our local state member, Ms Jess Pugh, and our local councillor, Sarah Hutton, to wish the Jindalee Girl Guides a very happy 50th birthday.
Another important milestone has been celebrated in our community recently, and that was the 25th birthday of the Springfield Christian Family. This church was established 25 years ago as part of Australian Christian Churches. Over a quarter of a century, they have made an enormous contribution to the Springfield community, particularly through their non-profit arm, Westside Community Care. Through Westside Community Care, this organisation offers programs and services to help some of the most vulnerable people in our local community. They aim to reach out to help struggling families and individuals in the Greater Springfield region and surrounds, offering emergency relief to those who need it most. It is this community-minded attitude and willingness to give back that makes this church so valuable in my electorate. Thank you to Pastor Phil Cutcliffe and his wife, Julianne, for hosting such a beautiful morning filled with laughs and reflection on a massive milestone for the church. It was also great to hear from special guest Pastor Gary Swenson, the State Ministries Director for Australian Christian Churches. And I particularly want to thank Deb and John Van Bennekom. I was able to worship with them in the morning and pay my respects for all the work that they've done. I wish the Springfield Christian Family church all the best for the next 50 years.
Order! I was meant to do this at 10.30, but I'll do it now. I understand it would suit the Federation Chamber if constituency statements were to continue for a further 30 minutes or thereabouts.
The big banks like to advertise what good friends they are to everyday people, but the sad reality is that these words are not always backed up by deeds and actions. That is why today I rise to express the outrage of the citizens of Molong and Blayney about the decision of the Commonwealth Bank to close local branches in those towns. The decision by the Commonwealth Bank also includes the ATM services which are located on those sites in Molong and Blayney.
These banks have been built upon the loyalty of customers, in particular regional customers who, in many cases, have been banking with the Commonwealth and the other big banks for generations. These branches provide essential services to our regional businesses, farmers and also our elderly, vulnerable people who can't easily access the digital alternatives that are being offered. Under the cloak of COVID-19, the banks have closed, or plan to close, almost 300 branches since the pandemic began, many of them in regional areas. These are thriving regional communities, and they are still profit centres for the banks. Last year, there was a net gain of 43,000 people from the cities to the regions. The year before, the net gain was 19,000. People are moving from the cities to the regions in numbers that we have never seen before—even greater numbers than in the days of the gold rush. There is no reason to close these branches other than to line the pockets of shareholders and bank executives.
There is widespread outrage on the ground in Molong and Blayney about these closures. Local citizens Aaron Pearson and Michelle Fogarty have been gathering hundreds of signatures on petitions, which have been forwarded to the Commonwealth Bank. The Mayor of Cabonne, Kevin Beatty, and the Mayor of Blayney, Scott Ferguson have been working tirelessly to find a way to keep these branches open. Local advocates such as Councillor Peter Batten and Molong advocate Marj Bollinger have been very vocal in expressing their concern and outrage about these decisions. We had a meeting with the Commonwealth Bank CEO and also senior executives recently, and their answer was to put information officers in Molong and Blayney, presumably to tell people that the banks and the branches have closed.
This is happening tomorrow. It's not good enough from the Commonwealth Bank, and there is an increasing case for minimum service requirements to be placed on these big banks so that they stop betraying country communities and loyal country customers. This is an outrage, and I would like that outrage registered in this parliament today.
According to the charity impact, last year 56 women, 20 children and 18 men died at the hands of a family member in Australia. On average, that is one every four days. Every four days in this country, somebody is killed by somebody who is meant to protect them, care for them and love them. Every four days, this happens, and occasionally it gets some media attention. Occasionally here in the chamber we speak about how outrageous it is. Occasionally some money is thrown at the issue, and consistently we move along, the conversation changes and we wait until the next tragedy. We wait the 94 hours, statistically, until someone else is murdered. How, as a nation, have we seemingly accepted this as a statistic? How, as a people, are we not in the streets every day calling for change? How, as a parliament, are we not working day and night to ensure that we don't see one more act of violence in this country? We have to do better.
The number of deaths in this country is outrageous, but it alone does little to represent the broader impact of domestic violence in our communities. These figures fail to show the number of victims that we don't see. We don't see those that are still in abusive relationships, we don't see the families that are sleeping rough to stay safe from an aggressive parent, we don't see the children who have to grow up in violent households, we don't see the struggle of traumatised single parents trying to support their traumatised children, and we don't see the betrayal felt by victims and the difficulty survivors have in trusting again. There are no signs of this crisis slowing down. All of us in this place, all of us who are elected to help, need to say, 'Enough is enough.' We must do better to support victims and prevent violence in our homes.
I've been in contact with services available in my electorate. Women's domestic violence court advocacy services in my region are under the auspices of the Women's Resource Centre in Bega. Ninety-nine per cent of their referrals come from police after they're called to a domestic violence incident. During the lockdown, they didn't see an increase in requests for help. Once lockdown lifted, they had a 72 per cent increase in referrals since the start of COVID and, most worryingly, a 332 per cent increase in serious threats, where police are called and they have to ask 25 mandatory questions. If you answer yes to 12 of those, you are deemed to be under serious threat of being killed. The Hume-Monaro services had a 62 per cent increase on their services in the last two years alone.
I know that there are many amazing organisations out there working to end domestic violence in this country, but we still have a long way to go. You need to call 1800RESPECT if you need help and call 000 in the case of an emergency. We have to do better. Enough is enough.
This morning I'd like to acknowledge the life of Lucio Saverio Felice, most commonly known and loved in our community as Farmer Lou. He sadly passed away this week. Lou was the founder and the face of Farmer Lou's fruit and veg in South Grafton. He was one of Grafton's best-known and best-loved faces. Whether it was the first time or the thousandth time you walked into the store, you were always greeted with Lou's big smile and wonderful personality. His children describe him as a man with a great heart of gold, always putting others before himself. I extend my thoughts and prayers, and, indeed, our community's, to his wife, Lucia, to his children and their families—Paul and Chelsea, and Ernestina and Nathan; his other child, Maria, sadly predeceased him—and to his grandchildren, James, Nicholas, Leonardo and Matteo. Lou was a true gentleman and a wonderful human being and will be missed greatly by our community. May he rest in peace.
The Living School is a new, innovative school in Lismore. It's the vision of John Stewart, a Lismore local with over 30 years of experience teaching in many educational systems—public, Catholic and independent. His passion for education has driven him to create single-handedly his own new teaching philosophy. John says, 'If the purpose of a school is to improve the community, it has to be in the community.'
John and his wife, Sophie, have created the school in John's old home in Conway Street. The building was originally his father's medical practice, with a house adjoined at the back. John's father, Dr Peter Stewart, a much-loved doctor in our community—my father-in-law still talks very fondly of Dr Stewart—ran his surgery there with his wife, Ruth, for over 35 years. John has completely redesigned the building and also installed an old Red Rattler train as a classroom in the backyard. He's developed a new framework that emphasises the character traits of successful contributors to communities. He calls his framework VAST, which stands for values, attitudes, skills and teachings. With good values students develop the right attitude, and with the right attitude they gain the skills needed to succeed. Rather than the traditional 10-week, four-term year, the Living School has six six-week teaching blocks to maximise student engagement. They also take the students offsite regularly to libraries, sporting fields, regional galleries, museums, gardens and farms. John has also now purchased a large retail space in the heart of Lismore's CBD with the intention of expanding the school. This will also bring a much-needed boost to our CBD. John, congratulations on your vision, not only for education and our children but for our community.
Can I start by commending the member for Eden-Monaro on continuing the conversation about domestic violence in this Chamber. I think she gave a wonderful speech just then, outlining just how dire the situation is. I also rise to speak about the dire situation for Cowan constituents. Many of them are single mothers or mothers escaping domestic violence who have found themselves homeless as we see soaring rents and a lack of housing availability and housing affordability throughout Western Australia.
I particularly want to speak about the case of Mrs X, who has four children—one with a disability. She fled an abusive relationship. She and her children were previously put up by a not-for-profit organisation that provided housing to women fleeing abusive relationships, but this organisation was so overstretched that they had to evict her and her four children. The children are now temporarily back with the abusive ex-partner, which of course is not ideal, but what is even worse is that he tells her that she is not allowed to care for the children in the home. So she spends the day with the children in the home, and then at night he forces her to go and sleep in the park. So this mother of four, who has a child with a disability and who fled an abusive partner, is sleeping in the park at night because she has nowhere to go. The charities in Cowan, who do a wonderful job, have provided her with a sleeping bag, a light mattress, some food and toiletries, but of course none are waterproof and none are warm enough to keep her safe at night. She's been allowed to shower in recreation centres, which are about 20 minutes away. The not-for-profit that is helping her now has no relief money to put her up anywhere.
This is just one story. There are many other stories like this, sadly, throughout Western Australia and within my own electorate of Cowan. I pay heed to the charities that are doing their best but simply can't hope. I really want to take this opportunity to urge the government to consider the plight of people, families, women and children who find themselves in this situation and really put their minds to investing in social housing so that these women have someplace to go. Like the member for Eden-Monaro said, enough is enough. It's not just about stopping the violence. That's the start, but we also have to look after those who are fleeing violence and need somewhere to go.
I rise to pay tribute to Norm Eaton, a very courageous World War II veteran and a constituent of mine who passed away recently. Norm was 101 years old. He was born in 1919 in Goomalling in WA. He worked as a farmworker, and in the 1930s he moved to Perth. He served in the Citizen Military Forces before enlisting in the Army on Remembrance Day, 11 November 1939. He served in campaigns with the 2/11th Western Australian battalion in the Middle East and in North Africa, from Bardia to Benghazi, during World War II. He became a dispatch rider with a mortar platoon. Then there was the ill-fated campaign in Greece, and many, many casualties in a fight they were not equipped to fight. Norm is quoted as saying many years later, 'We should never have gone. We had .303 rifles with which to try to stop Panzer tanks.'
During the evacuation, they were strafed and bombed as they drove along rough and cratered roads to the evacuation points. He was then sent to defend the island of Crete from invasion, and here they faced heavy attack from Hitler's paratroopers. Norm was severely wounded by an enemy sniper on the first day of battle. He was taken prisoner with his battalion's outpost when it was overrun. He spent four years in POW camps across Europe.
He returned to Australia on Anzac Day in 1945 and maintained a wonderful relationship with the Greek community in WA as a result. He joined the Bunbury RSL and was a member for almost 75 years. He was a president for five years, had life membership and was always happy, positive, energetic and encouraging of our veterans. John Gelmi, the president of Bunbury RSL, paid great tribute to Norm and, at his funeral, Brett Corkery, who is a master, came and played the haunting and evocative 'Last Post'.
Norm and his wife, Jean, had 10 children, 26 grandchildren and 33 great-grandchildren. He died surrounded by his much loved family, and I offer them our greatest sympathy. Family and service were everything to Norm. I want to really acknowledge this gentleman, who was truly a quiet and great Australian—a true gentleman. I think there is a great deal of gratitude in this House for Norm and all of those veterans who served in all of our engagements. Lest we forget. Rest in peace, the wonderful Norm Eaton.
I spoke in the parliament yesterday about the poor treatment of some of our veterans by DVA. Because one of the veterans with whom I served was visiting Parliament House yesterday, I brought him into this very chamber. His body has been permanently impacted by his service. James Duthy is a great bloke. He has permanent hearing loss and back and lower limb damage through parachuting, jungle warfare training and mortars, and as we speak he's still fighting with DVA to get proper hearing aids, even though DVA accepts responsibility for his hearing loss through his service.
James has also worked in various roles in Afghanistan to secure infrastructure and in community development roles with different NGOs. It is dangerous working in Afghanistan. Southern Afghanistan was where he spent some of that time and where his life was saved by interpreters, as I believe mine was on a couple of occasions when I was working in southern Afghanistan. There's no doubt that those who have served in Afghanistan, whether in or out of uniform, understand that the interpreters were vital to the work that we were doing, and many in my electorate feel the same.
We saw the Australian government close our embassy on Friday last week due to the deteriorating security situation and it is believed that coalition troops will be out as early as the end of next month. On behalf of my constituents, particularly those who either served in uniform in Afghanistan or worked in Afghanistan in a variety of roles, whether that be with the NGO sector protecting infrastructure or people or, indeed, with our foreign services, I want to know what assurances the Australian government is going to give those interpreters who served Australians and Australia's interests over those 20 long years. The US and UK have announced the development of their plans to evacuate thousands who assisted their troops, and I want to know if this federal government is going to do the same.
I want to acknowledge the work of veterans in my electorate who have raised this issue and are working for veterans every day. I also want to acknowledge the work of Afghan veteran Jason Scanes, who started an ex-service organisation called Forsaken Fighters with the express purpose of getting those interpreters and their immediate family members and locally engaged civilians safely out of the country. DFAT and Defence know who worked for Australia, who is at risk and how many are at risk. We have the capacity and the capability to evacuate those individuals, and we have the moral imperative to do so, so I want to see some action from the federal government in that regard.
The Toowoomba region's economy is bouncing back from the challenges of COVID and growing the number of jobs and opportunities available for local workers. It was great to read in TheChronicle just this week about the expansion plans for the Grassdale Feedlot, run by Mort & Co, an absolutely fantastic organisation. We expect to see jobs flow in from that announcement. That's good news. Over the last year we've seen our employment rate rise by a staggering 18.7 per cent. This is great news for the region.
One business that is growing, in a very literal sense, is Brindabella Roses. It's a Blue Mountain Heights based nursery run by John and Sylvia Gray that has taken its great local products and sent them globally. It's no surprise that if you go to their garden along the New England Highway it looks amazing from the outside. But, should you get the invitation to go inside, it's a veritable garden of Eden, with some amazing flowers on display. While John and Sylvia have been exporting their roses to the United States since 2018, their new variety, the Brindabella Purple Prince, is unlocking new markets. This locally grown variety was named the winner of the local artist award at the American Rose Trials for Sustainability last year and, further, took out two more awards at the American Rose Garden Selections, known by those in the game as the Olympics of roses. The key to its success in the competition and its now success in the US market is its scent. The US is dominated by some fantastic roses, particularly one known as the Knock Out variety. It's a deep cherry red, with excellent blackspot resistance, but it has no fragrance. Now the Brindabella Purple Prince steps forth as a worthy challenger to that. To put this in context, 20 million a year of the Knock Out variety have been sold in the last 10 years in the US. So the opportunity for this Toowoomba based rose to really do well in this market is fantastic. I was excited to learn that the game-changing new rose is being sold with a little tag on the side explaining its Toowoomba roots, quite literally, telling the story of Toowoomba as the garden city that we know it to be.
I share this story for two reasons. The first is to encourage other local producers to reach out and to seek markets beyond our borders. We have fantastic products in our regions. It's wonderful to see them doing so well on the international stage. The second is to speak again on behalf of Toowoomba. It is a powerhouse within our economy, not just within the region but playing a much broader role. We've learnt to do more with less by capitalising on the best technology available, whether that's in growing roses, expanding feedlots or the fantastic life-saving medical transport equipment from local business Neocot which is used around the world to transport infants safely in emergency situations. That's another great Toowoomba innovation and design manufactured and commercialised in Toowoomba. I thank all these businesses for all they do in bringing jobs and growth into our economy.
I am here to get the NBN fixed not for the whole country, not even for the entire state or my entire electorate, but for one constituent in my electorate. Hope contacted my office for assistance in getting her phone and internet connected. She is 82 years old. She had been unwell. She had been in hospital. Upon being discharged from hospital, she was moving from where she'd been living into an aged-care facility. Anyone who has helped someone make that change in their life knows it's a very big change and one that involves lots of administration. But she was very organised. Weeks before moving in, she had arranged with iiNet, her provider, to have her landline and internet transferred to what was going to be her new home in that aged-care facility. But it won't come as a surprise that, when she moved in, NBN Co still hadn't actioned her request. She was left in aged care and in a new home with no means of communication. She told my office that she was supposed to have a support person come to her home and take her out shopping for the afternoon. That person did not arrive. She had no means to contact her support worker. She was left alone, vulnerable and with no means of communication. So what did she do? Hope, a very resourceful person who is very active in the Perth community, contacted my office and many offices on all sides of politics. She knew what to do. She jumped in a taxi and got that very kind taxi driver to take her and her walking frame from her aged-care facility to my office to demand that her internet be fixed. We did all the right things. We contacted NBN Co. We said, 'This is quite a ridiculous situation,' hoping to get her phone service connected. That still has not occurred. Because Hope had no faith that NBN Co would connect her service, she went to Morley Galleria and purchased a prepaid mobile phone. Unfortunately, it's a good thing that she did purchase that mobile phone, because to this day she still has not been connected with her NBN service.
This is symptomatic of this government's incompetence in managing the NBN. If we can't get this right for older Australians, I have no faith for anyone. We will continue to fight for Hope to get her NBN service connected. Surely this federal government, the shareholder minister, NBN Co and iiNet can work together to do the very basic thing of the internet. She's not looking for lightning-fast speeds; she just wants to have a telephone so that she can communicate with the world while she settles into her new home in aged care. I call on the government to fix it today.
Yesterday the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the national accounts for the past quarter, and the data released shows that the Australian economy is now larger than its precoronavirus pandemic size after real GDP increased by 1.8 per cent in the March quarter. That's a third consecutive quarter of growth in the Australian economy and the most sizeable growth in three consecutive quarters since 1968, over 50 years ago.
This means we're continuing to lead the world in our recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and the recession. Between December 2019 and March 2021, our economy has grown by 0.8 per cent, which means we are larger now than when we went into the pandemic. If you compare us with other major advanced economies—the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy—you see all of these economies have contracted since the pandemic. The Australian economy is the only one that has grown. Importantly, this is translating into jobs. Today in Australia we have 46,000 more Australians employed and in work than we did going into the pandemic. Unemployment is down to 5.5 per cent. There are now 13,046,000 Australians in work, more than we had in March 2020.
This is no cause for complacency. As we've seen around the world, with Europe going into a double-dip recession and even countries that have high vaccination rates experiencing high rates of COVID incidence, hospitalisations and even, unfortunately, deaths, we've got a long way to go yet till we're out of the woods. But our government is committed to coming out of this crisis stronger than we were before, and Australia's economic recovery is something that we should all be very proud of.
I want to go into the national accounts figures in some detail because I think they're important. Private investment—this is businesses investing—is up 5.3 per cent for the quarter. We've seen machinery and equipment investment at its strongest quarterly growth rate since 2009. Together, private investment contributed 0.0 percentage points to growth. Dwelling investment is up 6.4 per cent. This is people building or expanding their homes. That's the third consecutive quarter of growth in dwelling investment. Household spending is up 1.2 per cent, contributing 0.7 percentage points of growth.
What we see here is that it's very much the private sector leading our economic recovery, which is as it should be. More than eight out of 10 jobs in Australia are in the private sector, and we see here with this recovery that it's private businesses, households, entrepreneurs and investors who are leading our way out of this recovery.
This shows you that our economic recovery plan is working. As we announced in the budget just recently, we're supporting household incomes through measures like the low and middle income tax offset, extending that for another year. We're encouraging businesses to grow and invest through measures like the instant asset write-off, through extension of the loss carry-back provisions and through expanded apprenticeship schemes. Finally, we're also investing in the industry of the future, with the R&D tax incentive going out at record amounts, with changes to employee share ownership program schemes to encourage start-ups to reward employees in this way and with a new patent box innovation, which should drive more investment into emerging technology sectors.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
These bills—Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022—and the budget they underpin are consistent with the style and substance of this government, now into its third term after eight years at the wheel. They're consistent with its style and substance because they show lazy and inept economic management. There's no appetite for tackling important reform and no capability, in some cases, for even simple administrative competence when it comes to facing up to immediate challenges.
The government will try to pretend—they try to pretend every day in this place and out in the public domain—that the only frame of reference is the past 12 months. They will point to figures in the early part of Australia's economic recovery, which are positive because they're part of a rebound from a savage decline. They'll point to those positive numbers as if the previous eight years never happened, as if all of that lazy and inept economic mismanagement never happened. But the reality is pretty clear, and I think the Australian people see it. The Liberal-National government were elected on the basis of what they described as a debt and deficit emergency, and what they have achieved is an eye-watering level of debt—now a trillion dollars—without anything to show for it. It's triple the debt that they inherited. Despite what they will do in seeking to lay that at the feet of the COVID-19 pandemic, the truth is they had already doubled that debt before the pandemic occurred. That debt now stands at $40,000 for every single person in Australia, and it's entirely fair for people in the Australian community to ask, 'What is there to show for that eye-watering debt?' The answer is: very, very little.
Unfortunately, this government's approach to economic management has been a version of The Magic Puddingor the anti-Magic Pudding. They've racked up this incredible debt mountain, yet they have delivered nothing in terms of meaningful reform. If it's any kind of magic pudding, it's a bad magic pudding. It's definitely not a back-in-the-black magic pudding. It's the magic upside-down cake. They've borrowed all this money, which will be the responsibility of Australian households to deal with in future, yet what lasting reform or broad public benefit have we got for it? Absolutely nothing.
People will remember that the government bought the self-congratulatory 'back in black' mugs when they pretended they'd secured a surplus, which would occur in the future.
Opposition members interjecting—
Yes, the mugs did turn up; the surplus never arrived. The reality is that they're taking the Australian people for mugs. They have taken the Australian people for mugs over and over again, and if they can keep getting away with it they will. If they can keep telling porkies to the Australian people and getting away with it, they will.
Labor governments take a different approach. One of the things Labor governments seek to do is to improve the broad circumstances for the Australian population over the long term.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:08 to 11:20
It appears I get to have the last word in this debate on the budget bills. But, really, the last word should go to the Australian people. I think they will sit in judgement on the budget, and they're right to ask: what does a trillion dollars in debt do for them, other than saddle them with $40,000 that needs to be repaid in the future? They didn't get the 'back in black' mugs; they didn't get to see the budget brought back into black. Debt has tripled under this government's watch, and it's entirely legitimate for people to expect from good government that, when that amount of borrowing occurs, they see something for it.
In the past, good Labor governments have, in instalments, taken us further down the path of progress, egalitarianism and improved, shared wellbeing through the age pension and the creation of Medicare, superannuation, paid parental leave, the national environmental estate and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. All of those things have been delivered as incremental foundation stones of great egalitarianism, fairness and shared wellbeing in this country.
From the Howard government, the Australian people got improved gun laws—and that was meaningful reform—and the GST, which is a regressive tax that impacts people on low and middle incomes more than it impacts people at the other end of the spectrum. I think we will be wanting to watch this government very closely, because I can tell you one thing that happens when a government goes down the neoliberal path of giving tax breaks to big corporates and high-income earners: they create an enduring structural revenue problem that they need to fix. One of the ways that governments like that around the world have sought to fix that is by increasing consumption taxes. I haven't actually heard from the Treasurer or any government members a commitment that they will not seek to increase the GST in the future. Members of the Australian community should be very, very concerned that that is in prospect, because that's what neoliberal governments do.
We can think about the examples of challenges that remain to be addressed. One of the things about government is that you've got this great opportunity to turn the wheel in a positive direction, to create greater fairness and sustainability in the way that we live in Australia. There are plenty of examples of what to do. It's not like you have to cast around and say, 'What on earth could we do with all of this debt that would make a positive difference?' At a time of parching drought and the worst bushfires Australia has experienced, from this government there has been no action on climate change and insufficient preparation for extreme bushfire events.
At a time when we face an extinction crisis, when we are a world leader in the extinction of mammal species in particular, there has been nothing. There have been 40 per cent cuts to the department of the environment. There are 170 threatened and endangered species for which there are no recovery plans. The government's Threatened Species Strategy, which came to a conclusion recently, was a failure. It never included any marine species. If you take one of the target areas where they set out to try to deliver improved trajectories for 20 of the most endangered mammal species, they were able to achieve and improve population trajectory for only four of the 20. They claimed that they had delivered an improved trajectory for eight of the 20. But, for four of those eight, the trajectory was improved to the extent that the decline was slower. So there are fewer and fewer of the animals; they're just not declining at quite the same rate as before. That is what this government has done in an area of environmental crisis. We know, in the aftermath of the bushfires, that the delivery of support for affected communities has been utterly hopeless. They put $4 billion aside, and they haven't managed to get a dollar out the door to the people whose houses burnt down, whose properties were razed and who lost stock and business opportunities and all of those kinds of things.
We know that we live in a time when we need to improve productivity and innovation, but what has this government done? It's cut funding to universities. It has totally abandoned the university sector, thrown its workforce to the wolves and undermined research capacity in this country. You could hardly get a more backward-minded approach than that to one of the great economic challenges we have: productivity.
In the area of energy, we need to increase storage capacity. We need to increase grid function and grid reliability as we move to a distributed form of energy generation. We have pretty much the best wind and solar resources on the planet. Go anywhere else in the world, and they look at what we have in that respect with envy. We have proven energy metal resources. We should be a renewable energy superpower. But again this government hasn't even been content to just leave things as they were. They're never going to take things forward. They're never going to take positive steps with the best interests of the Australian community at the foundation of those kinds of reforms. But it would be nice if they'd just left the relatively good things that have been done in the past alone, but they haven't. They allowed the Renewable Energy Target to lapse. They seek to abolish and defund ARENA and the CEFC at every turn. If they can't abolish or defund them, they seek to pervert those agencies so that, even though their purpose is clearly focused on renewable energy, somehow they are enabled to invest in coal, gas and—God forbid!—even nuclear. They have taken, as part of their debt bonanza, $600 million in taxpayers' funds which they're now going to apply to a gas plant that none of the regulators say is necessary or will ever have any effect other than to raise energy prices and certainly emissions. They won't show the business case for that, but they're happy to pour another $600 million of yours down the chute.
When it comes to the experience of ordinary Australians, we're living through a prolonged period of falling real wages. Again, the government has done nothing on the positive side. They have actively sought to undermine wages in this country. They were happy to support the cut to penalty rates. They put in place a public sector wage freeze. Those things have the effect of making wages drop further. That affects all Australians all the time. Not content with that, they're going to try to stymie superannuation. They're presently having a go at industry superannuation funds in particular, which of course are the most effective and successful superannuation funds for working Australians.
Another area that is crying out for a government to grasp the nettle and do something positive is aged care. The government were in possession of the royal commission report into aged care titled Neglect, which showed that a third of residents are malnourished, that there is overuse of and overreliance on chemical restraints and that, at the end of the day, there simply are not enough hours of care to give older Australians the dignity, quality of life and human engagement that they need and absolutely deserve. The government have an opportunity to do something about that, but they have squibbed that challenge and ignored many of the recommendations.
They've particularly ignored the needs of the workforce. It does not take a genius to understand that the best and most appropriate, compassionate, professional, properly resourced and properly enabled care in residential care centres comes from our aged-care workforce, yet they're among the lowest-paid workers in Australia, and they suffer from uncertain work or insecurity of work. They're required to work across multiple centres. The COVID-19 pandemic has put an additional magnifying glass over the top of that, showing how that not only delivers utterly unacceptable circumstances for aged-care residents and the people who care for them but also creates additional COVID risks. The government could have done something to improve wages for aged-care workers and enable aged-care workers to do what they are drawn to do vocationally by their commitment to older Australians and to have the time to provide the care that we would all want for each other and for our family members and that those people should have as, essentially, a basic human right. The government has done nothing about that. They've poured money into the system in such a way that we can have no confidence that it will find its way to the workforce.
In the end, the Australian people need to ask themselves what they really expect from the Morrison government going forward. If they expect more debt that will fall on them and their families, they're not going to be disappointed, because that's the record of this government and that's what this government will continue to deliver. If people expect more economic hogwash about tax cuts gifted to profitable and multinational big businesses flowing through in wages, they won't be disappointed. There will be more of that; you can bet on that. If people expect a hands-off approach to protecting the most important things we share—our public health and education system, our aged-care system, our environment and our workplace conditions—and if people expect the government to let those things deteriorate or to actively run them down, you will not be disappointed, because that's the record of the Morrison government, and that's what they've done in every one of the eight years that they've been behind the wheel. If you expect more waste, more rorts and more of your money—taxpayers' money—being spent on buying overpriced land from Liberal mates or put into ridiculous boondoggles like the Kurri Kurri gas plant, you won't be disappointed. That's what they've done every year. That's what they'll continue to do. If you expect the NBN to continue to be run badly, with us falling further and further down the global broadband speed league tables, that will happen.
All of those things can be depended upon. That's what this government has produced day in, day out. That's the story of this budget. It's an instalment of economic mismanagement and social and environmental neglect that is entirely consistent with the style and substance of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison-dot-dot-dot government—now into its eight year and its third term, and focused on nothing other than manipulating, spinning and fearmongering its way into another term. Don't let them do it to you. Don't let them do it to Australia.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Rankin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Melbourne has moved an amendment to that amendment, adding words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne be disagreed to.
Question unresolved.
As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.
Unfortunately, I have to rise again in the House to bring the attention of the parliament to the plight of the residents of Minchinbury, who are again dealing with the terrible odour and smell from the Bingo waste facility. The Minister for the Environment in the main chamber was boasting the other day that she opened the new Bingo facility. She obviously has no idea of the harm and distress that has been caused by the Bingo facility to the people of Minchinbury. This is not some nuisance or some inconvenient smell. This is a debilitating, toxic odour which the good people of Minchinbury have been putting up with for months. As I've said in the House before, Bingo claims that it's because of the rain event in March. If the rain event in March means the people of Minchinbury have to put up with this toxic smell for months afterwards, then their processes are not good enough.
Not only was the Minister for the Environment at Bingo recently but the chief executive of the NSW Environment Protection Agency was also at the same ribbon-cutting. When the people of Minchinbury were putting up with this smell, it was not a time for a self-congratulatory ribbon-cutting, and the chief executive of the EPA showed a grave error in judgement, in my view, in being at the site when the EPA was meant to be investigating Bingo. I heard the EPA on Ben Fordham's show on 2GB yesterday, and I give due credit to Ben Fordham for following this issue and giving a voice to the people of Minchinbury. He, quite rightly, held the EPA representative to close account.
Bingo has now put in gas flares, which they say will deal with the problem. I certainly hope it does. They say now any odours that the people of Minchinbury have to put up with come from other facilities. It's true there are other facilities surrounding Minchinbury, and it is true that Bingo may not be responsible for every single odour. But this odour is a particular one. It's a particularly toxic one, and the people of Minchinbury know what it is. And if this smell keeps up, it will not be good enough for Bingo or the EPA or anybody else to wash their hands and say it's not them. So far, all the EPA has administered to Bingo, which is a multimillion-dollar company, is a $500 admin fee, which is an insult to the people of Minchinbury. It's an insult to them and what they have to put up with every day.
The state member for Mount Druitt, Edmond Atalla, has been a champion. So has the Mayor of Blacktown, Councillor Bleasdale. I also pay tribute to Councillor Carol Israel. The three of us attended a meeting in Minchinbury a couple of Saturdays ago—a public protest against the Bingo smell. I was very pleased to be there. The mayor and Mr Atalla and I issued a joint statement yesterday. I pay tribute to Trevor Govender, who arranged the protest a few weeks ago. There's another protest on Sunday which unfortunately I cannot attend due to a prior commitment outside of Sydney, but I will be there in spirit. I will be backing the people of Minchinbury all the way, every single step of the way, until this is fixed.
Bingo keeps inviting me out to the site. I'm happy to go out to the site once the issue has been fixed. I will go with Mr Atalla and councillors and community representatives. I am not going to go by myself. I want community representatives there with me. If Bingo thinks this issue has been fixed, they can explain it to the people who have to live with this smell every single day. The rally on Sunday will be outside the site in Eastern Creek. Bingo has declined to address the community.
Enough phone calls, enough complaints have been lodged, enough protest rallies, enough speeches in parliament. I'd like to come to this chamber and talk about something else at some point—something positive about Minchinbury. But while the people of Minchinbury are putting up with this, we will keep the pressure on. As I said before, Minchinbury is a great place to live. It should be well known as the first vineyard in Sydney. It should be well known because of the famous crashing jet, which used to be the Penfolds logo, which still stands at the entrance to Minchinbury. It should be known as where Greg Combet grew up when his father was working for Penfolds vineyards. Instead it's known and getting all this publicity because Bingo is not doing its job. Frankly, the EPA has not been doing its job.
Again, this is not about politics. I give due credit to Matt Kean, the New South Wales Minister for Energy and Environment, who answers all my texts and all my calls and responds to me every time I raise this with him. The EPA is responsible for policing this. A $500 admin fee is an insult. Bingo's lackadaisical approach thus far has been insulting. I welcome the fact they've now put the gas flares in, but I want to see real action. I want to see this smell disappearing. I want to see the people of Minchinbury being able to live in the circumstances which they deserve to, which is free of odour, free of smells, free of the pong from Bingo. I want to see them getting on with the job and supporting the Minchinbury Jets and the other great sporting teams on a Saturday and not having to put up with these smells.
I think every member here cares passionately about youth justice, but it would not be unfair to say that there's rarely an opportunity for direct engagement from the Commonwealth government. I think it is now time to change. I think that all levels of government should play a role with youth justice, and I think Queensland may lead the way. We saw the Oatlands tragedy last year that shocked the nation. There were two tragedies: in my electorate on Australia Day and in my colleague's electorate in Thuringowa in January of this year. Both of them focused the attention of Queenslanders on the fact that the youth justice challenge nationwide is difficult to manage and, it is not unfair to say, under-resourced in many cases.
There are no guarantees of success, but I would have to say that every Australian would want to see children having a chance. We start in the child protection area. We see them dropping out of school. We see early engagement with the criminal justice system. If you think of youth justice as a freeway, any reasonable Australian would say that the off-ramp has to be at whatever possible time and as early as possible for every single case in the system.
We may say there are only about a thousand Queenslanders in the youth justice system, and I guess that sounds like a small number. We might also look at crime stats and say, 'Well, the number of people in the criminal justice system is falling.' That in and of itself is positive as well, but it doesn't help much if you're the victim of crime, and it doesn't help much if there are fewer people committing more crime. That probably is what's happening in Queensland.
It's also worth noting when it comes to vehicle related crime that Queensland's rates per 100,000 are twice the mainland state average, not 20 per cent higher. We have an absolute clear and present challenge with drug related vehicle crime for a range of reasons. The police will tell you it's not just all about rebirthing and popping them across the border. At the moment, it's more about just driving for the thrill. When you're driving to rebirth, you drive carefully. When you're driving for the thrill, you're more likely to kill someone. There is no easy answer. There is no technology that allows us to remotely switch off engines, and it's not even close. So the answer is: get under the hood early and provide every resource we can. Yes, it starts in the family. Yes, it starts at school. But I'd like to see the Commonwealth working more closely with the states.
In Queensland's case—and I think they've got a good record, having a criminal justice plan put together between 2018 and 2020—they assessed it but it's still not solved. They're not even close to solving it, but there are plenty of good minds on it. We have Bob Atkinson leading a major committee reporting to the Premier. We have a committed Labor minister in Leanne Linard, who has corresponded on these important issues. What I'm saying is that Queensland has done something called Transitions 2 Success and they've evaluated it. We've got lessons to learn from it. But, federally, we have transition-into-work programs that just sit and hover nearby but never communicate. If you walk into a court, which is a stressful, fraught environment, you've got teams of multidisciplinary thinking about every case that comes in for a mention, but the jobactive provider is down the road and around the corner just waiting for the customer to walk in. Of course, they never do because they don't have to. As long as they're downloading the app and meeting their online reporting requirement, they don't have to have a jobactive provider at all. I'm saying that this interface is too important to ignore. In every city where there is a children's court hearing in Queensland, I'd argue the transition to work should work with Transition 2 Success. There should be multiple exits off a freeway of youth justice. Every person we can get into training, back to school, or into work is a really important victory. Let us as MPs focus on that.
I want to congratulate members on the other side, the member for Oxley and the member for Moreton, for not only being open minded about the proposal of working between levels of government and political parties but asking, 'How can we help?' There's now a grant round called Safer Communities. In a somewhat Orwellian way it was once all about CCTV. It's now about engaging directly. How do we resource these at-risk children as early as possible in the journey that takes them off the path of opportunity towards the path of building a criminal resume and get them back on? It's not impossible. There's major socioeducational disadvantage. There's epigenetics at play. There are single parents. There are parents in and out of jail. Of course it's not easy.
What we know is this. We know that programs are already in place. They do need a bit more shoulder to the wheel and they do need longer term supervision. You simply can't put youth justice youth, 15 to 19 years of age, in a job and expect them to stick because you've dropped them there. They need to be wrapped around and they need long-term supervision. The evidence from the Queensland government is around a year. I think we should be committed to resourcing that. I think every person who stays in a job has a major opportunity to get off one freeway and onto the freeway we want them to be on. Let's unite on that. We have an opportunity with Safer Communities. I commend Minister Wood for this $20 million initiative. Applications are now open and I encourage every MP to apply and make this policy a reality.
My state of South Australia has consistently had the highest unemployment rate in the country over the last few years. We've lost our manufacturing capabilities through General Motors Holden, which provided good jobs for people for many, many years. When you think of how we ended up losing that industry, it is a real shame that we had a government at the time in 2013-14 that basically goaded Holden out of Australia. Holden was a manufacturing hub. It was one of the centrepieces of car manufacturing in the world, one of 13 places in the world that could deliver a motor vehicle from design to the salesroom. There were only 13 countries in the world, and we've lost that. We continue to lose manufacturing, all the manufacturing that would feed in and provide parts et cetera.
What we've seen with this Morrison government is that they're doing nothing to create good jobs, full-time work with decent pay, for South Australians. We've seen a Liberal government in South Australia that's lost the plot and is not showing any interest.
We heard that JobMaker was going to be the centrepiece of this government's budget last year, that it was going to create 450,000 jobs. That was the sales pitch. That was the marketing pitch that we heard from the Prime Minister. That was the promise that was made at the last budget. But they've only created 1,000 jobs that they can show for. I can tell you there are hardly any in South Australia. There are hardly any in the suburbs of Adelaide. Again, it's a great sales and marketing technique by this government. They've brought the art of marketing and selling into perfection. If only they could do the same with actually delivering. Unfortunately, in the delivering part it is zero. Of course, the Prime Minister's career before coming into this place was marketing and sales.
But who suffers? Hard-working Australians who just want good, secure jobs. We have one of the longest periods of stagnant growth, negative wages, low productivity that this country has seen and it's not good for the economy. To top this off, I read in the front page of the Adelaide Advertiser today that thousands of future SA based jobs and billions of dollars of investment—that we could lose the Future Submarine project. There are jobs that were supposed to be created by the subs. It has been underway for five years. It is to build 12 Attack class submarines. More than 250 people were already employed there.
We need some clarity from the government. I know that he's going off to the G7. He said that he would meet with the Prime Minister of France. We need the Prime Minister to come back with clarity to guarantee that those jobs will remain and to stop this uncertainty being spread. The federal government must make it clear for the sake of the Australian defence businesses and for South Australians. Otherwise, how can companies have faith in this Liberal government, both the state Marshall Liberal government and the federal Morrison government, and make a decision to invest in my state of South Australia if this uncertainty is constantly maintained?
As I said, with the Prime Minister about to leave for the overseas trip, as part of the G7, South Australians demand that he returns with a clear commitment about the troubled Attack class submarine project and the future of these essential South Australian jobs that were meant to be the panacea for everything after GMH shut. The defence department has already confirmed a plan B. We want to know what that plan B is for the sake of those jobs in South Australia. We know there have been tensions between Naval Group and the defence department. It's about time that the defence department fixed this and made sure that we make a commitment to keeping those jobs and getting this project on the way. The state opposition leader, Peter Malinauskas, has been out there fighting for these jobs. We haven't heard boo from the state Premier Mr Marshall. When you compare the former Labor government in South Australia: Jay Weatherill, together with the Labor opposition, fought tooth and nail to make sure that we got that project in South Australia to create some jobs— (Time expired)
Today I want to take a moment to give a shout-out to all the parents down in Victoria slogging it out under lockdown to homeschool their kids. As a parent of two wonderful children, I understand the struggles and difficulties of raising kids while managing your career and life. Don't get me wrong, this isn't meant to discourage any prospective parents. Raising my children was one of the most rewarding things I've done in my life but it wasn't always easy. When you throw spontaneous lockdowns into that mix it gets even harder. I've had parents in my electorate come to me and tell me how hard it has been working from home while simultaneously teaching their kids.
Schools are doing their best throughout this time, and they deserve praise too. Adapting to a new situation required them to evolve their curriculum to an online system, which hasn't always been easy. What is unfortunate is that this process hasn't got any easier. Last week, in a bid to control the spread of COVID-19, my home state of Victoria entered into its fourth lockdown. At this stage, Victorians have become experts at handling their lockdowns, but the Andrews government has not seemed to achieve the same level of expertise. Schools were thrust into yet another lockdown and stopped educating schoolkids face to face on orders from the Victorian government. Parents were once again left in the lurch. Instead of full days of education, kids were left with minimal study loads throughout the week. I don't blame the schools for being in this position. They didn't ask for lockdown. Instead I asked the question: why has the Andrews government not put sufficient contingencies in place for schools going back into lockdown when they were aware of this being a possibility?
We were told that the Victorian government had learned from the mistakes of previous lockdowns. We were told that they had dramatically improved their contact-tracing infrastructure. We were lulled into a false sense of security, and now we're all paying the price. I'm thrilled that year 11s and year 12s can return to face-to-face teaching under the latest lockdown announcement, which happened yesterday, but what about those in year 10 or in grade 5? Years 11 and 12 are important years of schooling, of course, but there is so much critical learning that needs to be taught prior to this age, and now children across Victoria have had that right taken away from them for a fourth time.
I want to be clear: the health of Victorians is always and will always be paramount. I will never dispute that. Instead, what I question is why the Andrews government, who were surely more than aware of our exposure to future COVID-19 outbreaks and further lockdowns due to weaknesses in the contact-tracing infrastructure they developed, didn't develop measures to protect the education of our children.
I understand this fourth lockdown has hit Victorians really hard. For those people in Chisholm who are struggling throughout this time, if you need support, please reach out to my office, and we will help you. Our community is always ready to help one another, and I know for a fact that so many great organisations in Chisholm are doing great work to get people through these difficult times.
Today marks the 29th anniversary of the High Court decision on Mabo. Ten years before, Eddie Koiki Mabo and his comrades started the legal battle for the recognition of the Meriam people and the ownership of Mer Island. Until that day, the legal fiction of terra nullius, the land belonging to no-one, had characterised Australian law and land titles since the voyage of Captain Cook. The High Court decision in Mabo today 29 years ago changed the legal face of landownership for First Nations people forever, and it changed in a seismic way Australian law, with the recognition of common law rights in native title.
The most important thing to remember about that day for First Nations people is that it threw out the legal doctrine of terra nullius. This had been, for nearly 200 years in this country, the way in which land title was seen—that the Australian continent, including the Torres Strait, as claimed by the British under that doctrine belonged to no-one. We know, with over 60,000 years of history of management of country and connection to country, that that was an absolutely ridiculous notion, yet it was the law in this country until Eddie Koiki Mabo and his comrades had it overturned in the High Court.
On Monday this week, along with the Leader of the Labor Party and many caucus members, I went to the ACT government's fourth annual Reconciliation Day up at the National Arboretum. It was an amazing experience to see so many people from Canberra, families, out and about. The Australian Capital Territory is the only jurisdiction in Australia that has a national holiday to remind the country it is Reconciliation Week. Reconciliation Week finished yesterday. It is bookended, of course, by 27 May, which reminds us of the referendum that saw Aboriginal people counted for the first time in the Australian census and gave to the Commonwealth government responsibility for laws pertaining to Aboriginal people, and by today, which is now known as Mabo Day.
One thing that's important to note is that we have just had the fourth anniversary of the Uluru statement. Labor is fully supportive, as the member for Berowra, who is in the Chamber, knows. I know of his involvement with and support for the Uluru statement, and I acknowledge that. The Uluru statement contains three things. The first is an enshrined voice in the Constitution. Labor have made a commitment that we will have a referendum towards that goal in our first term of government. The other thing is the establishment of a makarrata commission, which has two incredibly complex, lengthy and expensive things to do. They are a national process of truth-telling and a national process of agreement and treaty. Neither of those things are easy, but Labor is putting meat on the bones of what they might look like, what they might cost and how we might take them forward. I want to make it very, very clear that a voice to the parliament, in whatever form it takes, does not mean that we cannot proceed on the other parts of the Uluru statement.
On Monday night, of course, we also had a wonderful example of Aboriginal people talking to the Australian community.
Australia's education system has been in decline for 20 years. An entire generation of students have learned less than they would have a generation earlier, through no fault of their own. Today, a 15-year-old is, on average, a year behind in learning compared with a 15-year-old in 2000. The same 15-year-old in Australia is three years behind a 15-year-old student in Singapore in regard to their knowledge of maths. Students haven't got worse; we've failed them. What's most distressing is that we've all been asleep at the wheel, no matter how many alarm bells have been rung.
It's been commonplace to read headlines about declining school performance and for a swathe of arguments to follow about how the tests aren't good enough or don't illustrate the whole picture, or how the government is not funding schools well enough. This is nonsense. It avoids us facing up to this generational crisis. While school funding has increased, school performance has declined. In the latest PISA reports, school principals reported fewer staff and material shortages than the OECD average, yet continual declines in key indicators of learning, literacy and numeracy, and science should trouble us all.
With such a serious challenge before us, it is little wonder that the revised national curriculum has drawn fire. Reading the proposed changes is depressing. As Kenneth Clark said:
It's lack of confidence, more than anything else, that kills a civilisation. We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and disillusion, just as effectively as by bombs.
Instead of raising aspiration and addressing the shortfalls, we see—
An honourable member interjecting—
Order! The member is entitled to be heard in silence.
We see critical areas of learning removed and directed language about the sort of political instruction children should receive, instead of a serious engagement with the pedagogical challenges in front of us. It's the humanities curriculum that has drawn the most fire in this regard, with critical aspects of Australian and world history being reduced.
I am deeply in favour of Australians knowing more about the history, traditions and culture of Indigenous people. Our history and our knowledge of ourselves are so much richer for that. But we can surely both do that and understand the contribution that the West has made to the society that we have inherited. As a board member of the Ramsey Centre for Western Civilisation, I continue to be stunned by the myopia about teaching foundational knowledge about that Western history and culture. We're at serious risk of giving generations of children no guidance about how to understand and safeguard many of the aspects of our culture that are most precious. Without an appreciation for how we've developed some of the values which underpin our democracy and culture, we can abandon these things too cheaply and be ill-equipped to reform them when we need to.
Other things about the proposed curriculum are equally troubling. The proposed curriculum continues to support whole-language practices for teaching reading. This is despite consistent evidence that phonics is an essential part of children developing literacy. Perhaps we need a phonics protection act and need to make funding conditional on the teaching of phonics in schools. Similarly, child led instruction is being encouraged in STEM subject areas, which evidence doesn't support.
We cannot afford to continue to experiment with educational philosophy at the expense of essential learning. We need serious reform. It's true that curriculum alone can't do this. What we're doing in preparing initial teachers needs a thorough examination. We need to move away from the admission laws, the results of which have seen a teacher shortage deliberately created by the Teachers Federation and their puppet, Adrian Piccoli. That's why the initial teacher education review, launched last month by the education minister, is welcome news. The teacher education curriculum needs to be practical and prepare ITE students for a life in the classroom. State education departments, teachers unions, academics and school leaders need to put down their weapons and use this as an opportunity to learn and set a new course.
It's to my shame that my state government in New South Wales has the worst drop in PISA results for reading and science and that, after a decade of the coalition government, there has been no serious attempt to address the power of the teachers union my state. The New South Wales government continues to push against measures that would demonstrate seriousness about fixing the problem. When they announced they'd do their own review of NAPLAN rather than cooperate nationally, it suggested that accountability is something they fear rather than seek. This must change.
Our kids aren't the problem and neither are our teachers. Good people are burnt out and poorly equipped to do their jobs. They need to be given the room and the ongoing support—not tick boxes that make us feel better—that actually develop people in their professional lives. It should be normal for people to be evaluated and assessed in the classroom. It should be normal for people to strive for and be rewarded for excellence, just as they strive for excellence in their students, and it should be normal to have frank discussions about performance and improvement. Australia has the opportunity to look at our education system and strive to become world leading again. We cannot afford to delay.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:04