by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
I want to be clear that we are agreeing to these amendments today, and I want to acknowledge the work of and thank Minister Pitt and his staff in his office and the staff of the department that helped us work on the action today to deal with radioactive waste in this country.
The passage of this bill, the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020, marks an important step in the process of Australia ensuring it can safely manage low-level radioactive waste associated with nuclear medicine. Until there is a cure for cancer, this radioactive waste will always be with us. The greater challenge of properly dealing with intermediate-level waste is yet to be addressed and, in my view, can only be addressed in a truly bipartisan and fully consultative fashion into the future. But today we are one step closer to dealing with the radioactive waste that this country produces. Importantly, we have kept within this legislation the principle of judicial review for all those who may feel aggrieved by a decision to be made.
I want to acknowledge the communities of Kimba and Wallerberdina for nominating their communities as a site for a radioactive waste storage site. This is a project of critical national importance, and I thank those communities for all that they've done and for their patience in waiting for the parliament to get to this point. I also acknowledge the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, for all the advocacy he has put forward on this matter, and all the South Australian members and senators—particularly Labor members and senators—that I've spoken to about this very important and often emotional matter.
Most importantly, I really want to acknowledge the traditional owners that we've been speaking to over this last little while, the Adnyamanthanha people. The Barngarla people have been highly engaged with me and my team over the last number of weeks dealing with this matter. It is critical that we in this place always listen to and consult with the traditional owners of the land that we seek to use, for whatever purpose that we seek to use it. I want to acknowledge the work, openness and cooperative approach of Nick Llewellyn-Jones and Geeta Sidhu, the advisers to the Barngarla people.
Most importantly, I want to acknowledge the chair of the Barngarla Corporation, Jason Bilney, and Aunty Dawn Taylor, a director of the corporation and also a community elder of the Barngarla people. They visited me in my office last week. Their concern—which has always been their concern—is to ensure that their voices are heard in the community consultation process and now, as this matter goes on to its next stage, to ensure that, should they want to, they are able to take this matter to judicial review. They simply want their voices heard. They have been, and this is reflected in the legislation we will see finalised in a few short moments. And they will be heard again should they want to contest the future declaration that the minister will make at some point. So thank you to the Barngarla people. It was a delight to meet you. Thank you for your honest, true and cooperative engagement over the past couple of weeks.
I again thank the minister and his staff, and my staff as well, for the amazing work they've done in making sure that we reach a very important step in a national project to deal with radioactive waste.
Question agreed to.
I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Siewert has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia and Senator Thorpe has been appointed a member of the committee, and Senator Steele-John has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I rise to make a statement on the Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention Bill 2021 in discharge of the committee's requirement to provide an advisory report on the bill and to present the minutes of proceedings.
The member for Fisher has the call.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I rise to present this statement to discharge the committee's obligation to report on the Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention Bill 2021, pursuant to standing order 143(c). On 24 February the House adopted the report of the Selection Committee referring the bill to the social policy and legal affairs committee for inquiry and report. The bill provides that alternatives to immigration detention are used in preference to immigration detention. In considering the bill this committee has noted that immigration is not considered to be within its purview. The Speaker's schedule of annual reports of government departments and agencies does not refer the immigration and border related functions of the Home Affairs portfolio to the committee, and the committee does not have a history of inquiring into matters relating directly to immigration. Further, the committee has noted that the Joint Standing Committee on Migration is established to inquire into and report on the Migration Act 1958 and other matters relating to migration.
The committee's view, therefore, is that the Joint Standing Committee on Migration is the appropriate committee to review the bill. I've written to the chair of the migration committee, the member for Berowra, outlining the committee's view in this regard. The committee proposes that the Selection Committee may wish to consider re-referring the bill to the migration committee for an advisory report.
Finally, I note that this is not the first instance of the Selection Committee referring a bill to this committee for an advisory report where, in fact, another committee was better placed to conduct an inquiry into the bill. In 2012 the then chair of this committee, the member for Moreton, expressed to the House the committee's concern about the process by which the Selection Committee determines the most appropriate committee to which to refer a bill. The committee encourages the Selection Committee to review this process to ensure that referrals of bills to committees are made with due regard to the areas of responsibility of each committee. I thank the House. I seek leave to present a copy of my statement.
Leave granted.
It's a great privilege to get up and speak on the bill before this chamber, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021, because, as you know, Speaker, at the heart of liberal ideals and liberal values that I as well as many other members bring to this chamber is a commitment to environmental stewardship and making sure that we define laws that protect the health and wellbeing of our nation. But it runs with other competing principles around economic progress, social inclusion and advancement, and making sure that we have a competitive federal environment so that we do not have monopoly Canberra dictating to people in their communities across the country how laws should be interpreted.
This reform comes off the back, as you know, Speaker, of the review that was completed by a fine, upstanding Goldstein constituent—the former chair of the ACCC, Graeme Samuel—who looked at the EPBC Act and its sustainability, and the extent to which it needed to be modernised. Mr Samuel came back and rightly identified that the EPBC Act was outdated and no longer fit for purpose for advancement of environmental protection in Australia, particularly when compared against state legislation and the mounted inconsistencies that it was not serving Australia's best interests and that we needed reform. One of the critical things that Mr Samuel outlined, correctly, was the need to keep implementing reform and to do it across stages so that we got the best outcome for environmental conservation and wellbeing while also making sure that industries like agriculture, fisheries, forestry, tourism and manufacturing received the benefits and what they needed from the EPBC Act to advance it and to drive improvements in legislation in this country.
Of course, there is a binary contest in environmental conservation. We hear this all the time, as though it's simply a choice between red tape and green tape—which is good if it's around the environment versus the trade-off that comes as a consequence. One of the most important roles of responsible legislators is not just to look at different types of regulation and their benefits but also their costs. People want to throw everything into a prosperity-versus-protection, conservation-versus-commerce framework. Frankly, that's naive and it's arrogant because it fundamentally misunderstands the trade-offs that we face in this chamber every day around getting the laws right to conserve the best interests for the environment for our country. We want to achieve prosperity and protection, not versus. We want conservation and commerce, not to set them up in a binary contest against each other.
This is for no other reason other than we're aware of the benefits of environmental conservation but also its utilisation to advance the interests of the environmental stewardship of our great country. There's an old saying, and the National Party members in this chamber are familiar with it and fond of saying it: if you don't grow it, you dig it. The reality is that a lot of renewable technologies, which members of the opposition and the Greens are fans of, require digging out of the ground. We don't just create concrete out of nothing, or silicon out of nothing or semiconductors, lithium ion or the like out of nothing. They have to come from extractive industries. We need extractive industries for these sorts of technologies to build a cleaner economic future for this country, and to simply set a contest up between prosperity and protection, or conservation versus commerce, then you're deceiving and misleading the people on the nature of the challenge that we face because you're becoming the greatest barrier to environmental stewardship as well as to economic stewardship and progress.
That's one of the great frustrations, frankly, on this side of the chamber: the binary nature in which members, particularly in the Australian Greens but also in the Australian Labor Party and other parties, conduct themselves. They try to set things up as a simple binary contest when they're not so simple or straightforward, and the damage is actually done to our environment, not to its enhancement. That's why we understand the importance of implementing legislation.
The other reason is because we actually want high standards. I recently had a group from a community-based organisation that came to see me about EPBC Act reform. I don't take away their good intentions, but they wanted a very singular national approach, with national standards that imposed from Canberra a monopoly world view about environmental conservation. I outlined not only the limitations around the federalist framework which we have—where we, justly, have states establishing laws—but why we actually want states to have laws. If we don't, we get monopoly outcomes which invariably race to the bottom and the lowest common denominator. They don't find smarter, better and more innovative ways to deliver outcomes with fewer burdens and less cost. This is the basis on which we have this legislation: the recognition of states seeking to improve their outcomes while removing obligations so that the nation benefits and the environment benefits, despite the rigidity that some people would wish on our environmental conservation through a monopoly outcome.
I make no apologies about my commitment to competitive federalism because on so many occasions I have seen that when we try to take power away from citizens to community organisations, from community organisations to state capitals and from state capitals to Canberra we get broader standards—sure—but they become harder to change. In order to get agreement you have to lower them and you get worse outcomes. It's a simple proposition: is it harder to change the outcomes in your own family circumstances around the kitchen table versus the decisions of a state government? The answer is self-evident.
If you lift it even further, up to the national level, you don't get a better outcome; you just get one that's lower and harder to change. We want competitive federalism. We want a system that drives standards, improvements and outcomes up. We want a system that enables environmental conservation to be dealt with in a way where we're actually advancing the environmental and the economic interests of the country, and breaking down the foolish, dismissive and disingenuous binary nature of so much of the environmental discussion in this country. As I said before, we seek prosperity and protection, conservation and commerce. We do not simply pit them against each other.
That is what phase 1 of the reforms to the EPBC Act is designed to achieve. Consistent with the Samuel review, it very much works with the states to improve outcomes and have cross-referencing between their different regulatory standards in the hope that that will improve environmental outcomes for the nation while removing needless, pointless and arbitrary red and green tape which don't actually improve environmental outcomes; they simply impose costs for no benefit. This approach is completely consistent with the decisions of the national cabinet. As members would remember, it is a process that was established in the context of COVID-19, to enable state premiers and territory leaders to buy into the process to improve governance across this country. But, again, I stress that it should be done in the context of a competitive federalist framework. Whether it will achieve that or not is a different matter, but we will leave that discussion for another day.
The bill seeks not only to modernise the EPBC Act but to remove unnecessary duplication of red and green tape. Duplication serves no real purpose except for ticking boxes on bureaucratic forms. It doesn't actually improve environmental outcomes. We should want environmental assessments to be streamlined, efficient and outcomes driven, because, again, it isn't a contest between protection and prosperity; they work hand in hand with good law. We want to improve efficiency for business and have projects assessed to deliver more jobs and a stronger economy. We want to make sure that decisions are made swiftly so that people can repurpose capital and get on with the job, as is appropriate and consistent with environmental conservation. It will also include greater certainty for community groups and communities who are affected by environmental approvals. Of course, principally, the bill's objective is to deliver better environmental outcomes. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get these laws right, and my hope is that the Labor Party will support this bill's passage through the parliament this week.
As I understand it, there hasn't been as much conversation about this in the great state of Victoria as there has in the great state of Western Australia. I understand that within the Australian Labor Party at the moment there's a significant fight, a war going on, between members about their commitment to this bill, which is dependent on whether you understand the actual wealth-creation basis of our economy, as members on this side of the chamber do—and a select number on the other side of the chamber do as well—or hold the modern progressive world view that seems to be completely disconnected from any reality or understanding about how wealth is created and the opportunities and jobs that flow from it. It's one of the reasons the Labor Party should rename itself, because it has not been a 'labour' party for a very long time. Today, if anything, it should be recognised as the 'Party of Organised Workers'. Really, it is the 'Party of Organised Capital'. They see wealth creation in this country coming not from growth in jobs and industries that improve the health and welfare of the Australian people; they see it from the perspective of financiers and from the perspective of urban capital rather than rural and regional communities where primary industries are heavily based. But that is their cross to bear and their issue to resolve.
The choice the Labor Party need to face this week is whether they're going to support passing this legislation, because there are very real consequences. Significant environmental and economic opportunities exist in Western Australia—and I see the member for Fremantle coming in; I understand he is one of the great advocates against improvements to the EPBC Act, but that, of course, is his choice. There are other Western Australian colleagues who are more supportive of reforms to improve economic and environmental outcomes.
The opportunity in this update of this legislation to improve the EPBC Act is to get projects advanced across the country to improve economic and environmental outcomes and to deliver prosperity and protection, conservation and commerce. That's the basis on which this legislation is introduced. That is the basis of the way in which we approach the environment. We ask: what do we need to do to conserve its health while recognising its potential not just to improve the economic and social welfare of Australia, though that is of critical importance, but also to create the jobs and opportunities and innovation for new industries that will help improve the future of the country? Again, you can't have many sectors in a more environmentally sensitive economy without a recognition that they are built on older industries, particularly extractive industry. We look at what we can do to make them clean and green to improve the health and welfare of the whole of the community. That's the basis on which I support this legislation. That's the basis on which I'm sure that most members, at least on this side of the chamber, support this legislation.
It is now up to Labor to show their cards. It is now up to Labor to say who they back—the economy and the environment, or the environment and the economy, whichever way they wish to put it, conservation and commerce, prosperity and protection—or are they simply going to indulge in their own internal fights because they don't actually know who they stand for or what they stand for, or what they're prepared to trade off. I know there are some state premiers that are looking at this parliament as we debate this legislation. Mark McGowan, in particular at the moment, is no doubt, despite his rhetoric, looking at this nation's parliament and saying, 'Are the Labor members of this chamber going to vote to advance their state, or are they going to draw a line in the sand and put their ideology ahead of the interests of the Western Australian people?' I know where we stand. My hope is that they do the right thing, and I see the member for Fremantle has walked in. He is, of course, a very, very distant cousin, a fellow Wilson. He's probably related to Geoff Wilson as well. I call on those opposite to do the right thing and to stand up for the best interests of this country.
On that basis, and on the hopeful commitment of the member for Fremantle and others, I call on those opposite to stand up for the best interests of this country, rather than moving what we might call pious amendments and virtue signalling—actually, virtue signalling implies that virtue is behind it; it's just elite signalling. I hope that they will stand up and do the right thing to improve the environmental protection of this country and stand up for what we know to be true and just, so that the next generation of Australians can look to environmental conservation and say that this parliament has its back with sound and proper laws that create the opportunity for environmental conservation to create the jobs that the next generation of Australians need and, of course, will put them in a better position not just to have jobs based on a framework for environmental conservation with more stewardship but to create the bounty, wealth and prosperity for future generations to invest in cleaning up the legacy of environmental degradation that preceded us. That's what stewardship is about. It's about handing over to the next generation something better than we inherited.
It's a delight to follow the member for Goldstein in speaking on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. He is a man so oblivious that in the week in which the National Party rolled their leader over climate change, with the Deputy Prime Minister of the nation changing as a consequence, and when we're in a global pandemic, the member for Goldstein thought he'd accuse us of self-indulgence and focusing on ourselves. It's quite a breathtaking assertion from the member. Talk about leading with your chin, Mr Speaker, when someone on that side of the House says the words 'self-indulgent' or 'focusing on yourself' during this extraordinary week. It's quite surprising in some ways, but in other ways it's completely par for the course for the member for Goldstein. Of course, we've also heard some of his really strange attempts to try to set up a dichotomy between Labor and the Liberals and Nationals in respect of which of us cares about conservation and commerce and which of us is self-indulgent. I think any fair observer would notice that, throughout the discussion of the 10-yearly review of the environment protection and biodiversity conservation legislation, it is Labor that has stood up for jobs and the environment, and it is the government that has been waging ideological warfare. And we see that again today with this proposed legislation.
To recap the circumstances: of course, we've had the second 10-yearly review of the EPBC Act. The conditions for review were very favourable. The government has majority government, and the government has a Labor opposition that has said, 'We will not rule anything out, we will not cherrypick, we will be open to considering anything sensible and constructive that the government wants to put forward to us.' Those are the conditions in which this 10-yearly review has been conducted.
The government received an interim report from the reviewer, Professor Graeme Samuel, an eminent Australian, who has written two very solid reports: as I said, an interim report and now a final report for this review. After the interim report was handed down to the government, they said, 'Thanks very much', then they took the recommendations of that interim report and moved them to one side. They then went over to the shelf, dusted off some Abbott-era failed legislation and lobbed that into the parliament instead. And what happened after the final review report came out? Well, they've done the same thing. They've now created this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill, and in support of this bill they have promulgated in a bit of a leak to the press—kind of, not really—some draft interim national environment standards, and those draft interim national environmental standards are materially the same as the draft environment standards that were drafted in support of that Abbott 2014 one-stop-shop bill. Once again the government have gone back to their old cupboard full of ideological warfare items and dusted off some 2014 proposals. In doing so, they've completely junked the hours of work and the millions of dollars that went into the Samuel review. They've completely disregarded that review's proposal for a range of interconnected reforms to be the first tranche of reforms.
I therefore 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 the Commonwealth government's abject failure to deliver durable reform to protect the environment and create jobs".
The reason why it's important to move that amendment is that the government has before it some serious challenges. We have a government that needs to create jobs and we've got a government that needs to do more to protect the environment. The Samuel review has given them a clarion warning on the latter. Professor Samuel, as I said, an eminent Australian, whose background is in regulation through the ACCC and in business, has said to this government:
Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat.
… … …
The pressures on the environment are significant—including land-use change, habitat loss and degradation, and feral animal and invasive plant species. The impact of climate change on the environment … will exacerbate pressures, contributing to further decline.
… in its current state, the environment is not sufficiently resilient to withstand these threats. The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable.
Those are the words from Professor Samuel through his review of the EPBC Act. It is very clear from his language that the government need to take immediate action for environmental protection, yet what they have served up to this parliament and, by extension, to the Australian people is a reform proposal that does nothing to improve environmental protections. On their own account, the standards they have drafted do nothing more than replicate the obligations under the existing EPBC Act—that is the government's own account of these standards. They say there is not an inch, not a millimetre, of additional environmental protection in these standards compared with the EPBC Act. That's what they're asking us to support.
The imperative for environmental protection ought to be very clear to this government and to everyone watching on. That is a matter that should be crystal clear to the environment minister, to the Prime Minister and to everyone in this parliament—and to everyone in this country—yet their response is: 'Look, just trust us. We'll put in place these standards that just reflect the current settings. Then what we'll do is in two years time we'll provide some standards that have improved environmental protections.' I don't think that's good enough, and I don't think the Australian people think that's good enough either.
The government is trying to pretend that what they're doing is consistent with the Samuel review and that somehow we are arguing for an all-or-nothing approach. The minister has made this claim. That's not the case. The Samuel review recommends staged reform. Labor is happy to consider a first stage of reform that is consistent with that review, but this ain't it; this is not it. We've said to the government that we are prepared to consider anything serious that they want to put forward that is consistent with the Samuel review. We've made very clear in our public comments and in speeches in this place—we have made it crystal clear—that we want to see strong national environmental standards. We want to see a tough cop on the beat for the environment. We've also made it clear we want to see them take genuine action to remedy their own disasters in environmental decision-making, including the delays and the poor decision-making on approvals for projects. We couldn't have been clearer, yet what they've given us is quite the contrary. They've given us no strong national environmental standards, only the Abbott versions from 2014. They've given us no tough cop on the beat.
What they've done is provide an assurance commissioner proposal in this bill. It's very clear to us that Australians would like to see a set of institutional arrangements that can restore public trust in the EPBC Act and the regulatory arrangements. But they've come up with this proposed assurance commissioner, which is an audit function. This just seems to provide a different entity to undertake that audit work. Now, the design of this new entity has been criticised by third parties as lacking sufficient independence and the statutory powers necessary to give effect to its role. I think Australians would like to see this government do better in relation to the audit and monitoring power to ensure genuine independence and also to make it clear what powers the entity will have to undertake that audit and monitoring function.
The Samuel report also recommended, as part of the first tranche of reforms, beefed up compliance arrangements. There is nothing of that nature in this bill or in the other bill. There's no commitment to that in this government's so-called first stage of reforms. It's just not there. It's just missing. I think Australians want to be able to have confidence that conditions are being met and that issues like, for example, making sure that native grasslands aren't being poisoned are being monitored correctly and that we make sure that we do have a tough cop on the beat for the environment. But this government is not interested in that. They've done nothing on these points.
It is incredibly important too that Australians have confidence that there will not be unnecessary delays in approvals of projects. Every delay that's unnecessary for a project is a delay for jobs, and it's a delay for investment. Now, this is something that Labor has consistently put at the heart of our discussions of this review. We have been consistently critical of this government's failures when it comes to making decisions on time, because their failures are causing delay. Their failures are causing delays in jobs. Their failures are causing delays for investment. Their failures are causing delays for projects. You don't just need to take my word for it; the Australian National Audit Office's report on decision-making under the EPBC Act laid bare this government's failures in relation to project approvals. I've seen a bit of material from this government complaining that somehow Labor doesn't support mining approvals when in fact it's their own government that is causing problems for mining approvals and for other project approvals. It is the Morrison government that is responsible for the fact that their own decision-making is full of delay and full of error. The Audit Office report, when it was handed down, found that in a single year 95 per cent, almost every single key decision under the EPBC Act—that's controlled decisions, assessment decisions and approval decisions—were made late, outside the statutory time frame. That's what this government does for project approvals and for other processes.
The same report found that 79 per cent of the approval decisions it considered are either noncompliant or affected by error. It's a report that found that between the beginning of this government's time in office—I know it was eight long years ago; they're a tired and old government—and the time of the report the delay for approval decisions had increased by 510 per cent. It had gone from 19 days late to 116 days late. That's the government's record. That's the record of this government when it comes to approval decisions. This government came into office and they thought: 'You know what we should do? We should cut the environment department funding by 40 per cent. That won't have any negative downsides, will it?' A 40 per cent cut to funding! What's the consequence of that? Jobs are delayed. Investment is delayed. There are project delays. When this government asks rhetorically 'Who's on the side of the resources sector?' I'll tell you who it's not. It's not the Morrison government, because if it was the Morrison government they would actually be taking real action to make sure that these decisions can be made on time, not cutting 40 per cent of the funding from the environment department and then saying: 'You know what? You know what the problems is? It's not our cuts to the funding, it's not our own mismanagement, it's not the errors that we make, it's not the delays to approvals and other key decisions. It's: we need to do something with law reform.'
Well, it's not good enough for the government to cause these massive problems and then try to point the finger at Labor, in the west or anywhere else. It's not good enough, and people won't cop it. People will see right through it, because, as we have said in the west and everywhere else that if you have got something serious to put to us we will consider it, but it's got to be serious. Strong national environmental standards, a tough cop on the beat and a fix to all of the problems that your government has caused through its own mismanagement—that's what we want to see.
On that point, this government has been trying to take Western Australians for mugs. They really have. It's really disgraceful behaviour. But I think Western Australians and all Australians will see it for what it really is, and that is just a continued attempt to create a political opportunity. It's always a political management question for this government; it's never about the merit. They're just trying to create a political opportunity for themselves. But I just want to say to them: after all of this time, throughout this entire review process, the position still remains—we haven't ruled anything out. We are open to considering anything serious that the government wants to put forward to us, but you've got to come to us with a package that can enjoy broad support.
All of the stakeholders that I've spoken to, no matter what their interest, whether they are environmental non-government organisations, whether they're resources sector peak bodies, whether they're business industry bodies. regulators or lawyers, they've all had an open mind and a willingness to negotiate and to compromise. And the reason that they have all had that is because they want reforms to be durable. They want them to get through on a bipartisan basis so that people can have certainty over several coming years and decades. Durability takes compromise and negotiations. Stakeholders recognise it. Labor recognises it. But what is the government doing? They're saying: 'No, it's our way or the highway. Cop it sweet.' Well, come back to the table, keep talking to us. We're happy to talk, but come to us with something we can meaningfully put back to all of the people who have an interest in this.
I might just add that the government's proposals under this bill and their other bill are to push onto other jurisdictions the obligation for doing some of the work under the EPBC Act, but what they haven't done is made any commitment of any additional resourcing to those jurisdictions. This should be ringing alarm bells for people because, if there's no commitment to resourcing and if state bureaucracies are going to take on additional workload without any additional resourcing, then it's very possible that will lead to greater delay, not less delay, in decision-making. It's entirely likely that that would lead to more problems for jobs and investment, not fewer. I noticed that, in the media statement put out by a number of resources bodies just this week, they made the same point. Those resources peak bodies said to this government: 'You've got to come up with a funding commitment for those state bureaucracies. You've actually got to come up with some assurance that not only will they be able to get accredited to make approval decisions under the EPBC Act but also they'll get some additional funding in order to be able to do so.' I think the government would be aware, because they talk to the same stakeholders that I do, that stakeholders are incredibly frustrated by the government's reluctance to afford the resourcing and support that is needed to make sure that these decisions can be made on time.
There will always be valid reasons why some decisions take longer than others. But, where the delay is caused by poor management, underfunding or workloads being too high, those are not legitimate reasons for these massive projects that generate jobs, investment and economic benefit to be delayed. Government mismanagement—and this government's mismanagement—is not a valid reason for Australians to miss out. The government would be aware of the cost of their delays to the economy and to the Australian people. With the Productivity Commission having estimated in 2013 that a one-year delay to a major offshore LNG project could cost between $500 million and $2 billion—and that was cited in the Senate dissenting report that Labor senators provided in respect of this bill—the government would be aware that their failures and their delays have real costs to the economy and to jobs.
My state, Western Australia, and all states in this nation want to see major projects going ahead. We want to see jobs. We want to see investment. These things are incredibly important. But what you don't do is create the problem of delay and then try to blame something else. You don't cut the funding by 40 per cent and then say, 'The problem is that we haven't had enough law reform.' You don't say, 'We're going to get the states to do all this work and not provide them with any comfort about the additional resourcing that they will need to use in order to do that.' Yet that's what this government is asking. They can take out all the attack ads they like in the west and they can try to point the finger at us, but it's just a desperate attempt to cover up their own gold-standard incompetence when it comes to jobs, when it comes to investment and when it comes to environmental protection. I don't often agree with the member for Goldstein, but I will agree with him on this. There's not some contest between environmental protection and jobs. You've got to be able to deliver both. You've got to find the win-win.
The stakeholders I talk to across the board—environmental, legal, regulatory, resources, business, industry, farming, property—all know that there can be a win-win. They all have that optimism that we can use the talents that we have as a nation to find a way through the problems that we face, to make our processes work better, to make sure there's better compliance, to make sure decisions are made on time, to make sure jobs aren't delayed, to make sure investment isn't delayed and to protect Australia's iconic native species and natural places. We can actually do that, but it takes a lot more than someone standing up and saying: 'Well, here's what we did in 2014. Take it or leave it.' And that is what the government is saying to us, to the parliament, and to all Australians right now. That's what you're saying to us: 'Take it or leave it. We are not prepared to propose any increase in environmental protection in those standards. You just have to take our word for it that you will get those increased environmental protections, those stronger standards, in two years time.' They're asking us to just trust them. That's what this government is doing. They're saying to the Australian people 'trust us'. I don't think the Australian people are going to trust them.
The bill that we're considering now, the bill that we've been working through, is just not enough. It's not good enough. The package is comprised of this bill, some draft standards that are rehash of 2014 and a reheated 2014 bill. How can the government seriously be asking us to support those things when we have outlined very clearly what it is. It's principles based. It's not prescriptive. We're not saying we rise or fall on Samuel to the letter. We just want something more meaningful, more substantive and more useful that we can take back to the Australian people, and that's in everyone's interest.
I think we would like a settlement. I'm not talking about buying and selling a used car here; I'm talking about a great settlement of environmental and project approval issues that can find that win-win, that can be durable, that can take us through the next years and decades, so we don't have to have another fight about what the environment laws are in a year's time or two years time or three years time. Let's find a way to set up that framework so that we continue to adapt. But at least business resources firms, farmers, property developers, environmentalists, regulator, lawyers and Australian people can have some certainty about what that framework is going to be. If we want that durability the best path for that is bipartisanship. The best path for that is having the parties of government being able to reach a genuine agreement, informed by stakeholder views from across the board, about what the settings should be and how they should work moving forward. I know that sounds difficult, but if our job isn't to create durable policy settings that help make Australia better then what are we all doing here? That's what we're doing here.
I don't need to tell you about the environmental problems in this country. You all know them. We're a world leader in mammal extinctions. We're in a situation now where we're in a biodiversity crisis. We're in a situation now where Australians are worried after the bushfire crisis, after what they're hearing about climate change, after what they're hearing about the extinctions. They're worried about native species. They're worried about whether their grandkids are going to be able to see live koalas. They're worried about what's going to happen with all of the native species that're under threat. They're worried about the fact that this government seems to have just given up on getting recovery plans done at all, let alone on time, that they don't seem to be able to get the key threatening processes documents together to abate those threats, that they seem to be comprehensively unable to respond to the gauntlet that's been thrown down to them by Graeme Samuel through this process about the state of decline that our Australian environment is in. Australians are worried about that.
Australians are also worried about government mismanagement and waste. They're worried about the fact that the department has had these massive cuts. They're concerned about the delays. They're concerned about the problems in environmental decision-making, the errors, the non-compliance. They're concerned about some of the issues that've been raised about failure to manage conflicts of interest—and if anyone is interested in that just go back and have a look at the Audit Office report. And today of all days they're worried about whether this government is doing enough to protect our world heritage properties, our natural wonders of the world that we're so fortunate to have, and our cultural wonders for that matter as well.
I want to encourage the government: stop pointing the finger at Labor, stop complaining that we don't want to cop your 2014 reheat. You've made it really clear. Come back to the table. We've been clear but not prescriptive. We are open to discussion. We are ruling nothing out. We want to you come to us with a first tranche of reforms that can be meaningfully considered. It's not a blank cheque. I'm not buying a pig and a poke. But if this government can come to us with some serious reforms, as a package of a first stage of reforms, if you can do that, then we will absolutely continue to keep talking to you, to properly consider them, to work with stakeholders from all backgrounds, from all perspectives, to find a durable set of improvements to the nation's environment laws. We would also support the government to fix some of the really serious problems in EPBC decision-making that are leading to delays, mismanagement and problems in the community when it comes to major projects. We will absolutely do all of that. Just come to us. My door's open. You all have my number. Let's see if we can't keep working on this and come up with some proposals that actually do meet some of the challenges that Professor Samuel and many, many others have laid down for us over a number of years.
If I could just be indulged, I want to thank all of the stakeholders. Every single stakeholder in this—from resources, industry, business, environmental organisations, lawyers, regulators—has engaged really constructively with this process. They have engaged really constructively with me. We haven't always agreed, but there has always been a spirit of willingness to talk, willingness to try to meet each other, and willingness to try to accommodate the different views and perspectives and imperatives that everyone faces. This review process has been a demonstration of what's great about Australian pragmatism, and good faith and open-mindedness. It has actually brought out the best in a number of those organisations and stakeholders. I think it should be reassuring for the government that, if they keep working with all stakeholders on this, there is a prospect—sure, you won't get anything that everyone is 100 per cent happy with, but at least, if we can keep working with all stakeholders on this and find something people can live with, there could be some win-win outcomes. If we don't see environment as oppositional to jobs and we don't see law reform as a zero-sum game and if we see that there are opportunities to improve environmental protections and reduce delays for projects that give rise to Australian jobs and investment in the Australian people—if we can all just bear that in mind—then we can actually find a package of first-stage reforms that do provide those win-win outcomes that actually support all of those different objectives that environmental law should support.
I commend my second reading amendment to the House. I ask the House to oppose this bill. In fact, I ask the government to withdraw this bill. As Labor senators requested in their dissenting report for the inquiry into this bill, Labor asks:
… that the government withdraw this bill and instead propose, for the parliament's consideration, an interconnected suite of reforms that:
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
I thank the shadow minister for her comments, and I'd like to respond to some of those in my contribution here. But I would like to frame my contribution as someone who spent a good part of their career as a mining engineer in the mining industry. Of course, when we enter this place we leave a good part of our history behind, but it's an industry that has been very, very good to me, as it has been to a great many people, certainly, from around Queensland and across Australia. In my particular case, it was a way for a young boy from Ipswich to find a way towards good employment. Quite a few people of my generation will remember the great mining industry there was in Ipswich only a couple of generations ago and how proudly we looked upon those of us who sought good careers in that industry and went forth. For me, the pathway was through mining engineering.
Unfortunately, in the broader debate that we have on mining and environmental protections, sadly, it has become a 'for or against' situation. Often, the mining industry has been demonised across the spectrum and not seen as what it is: both a great contributor to the nation, across a number of fields, and a sector that is very highly regulated. It is a sector that, in Australia, is asked to do a lot, and it does a lot. We can be very well assured that the mining industry does step up to the requirements we place upon it, and, in the very rare instances where it operates outside of them, it's inevitably caught and made to act on it. I hope that, through this debate, we can reframe the role that the mining industry plays in our environmental protection going forward.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was created in 1999, and since then we've seen significant changes in technology and the types of projects being pursued. I'd give the example of tailings dams. For a long, long time, tailings dams were the hardest barrier for a mine to cross, in terms of seeking its environmental approvals. This is probably for good reason: tailings dams have a very bad and, unfortunately, in a lot of cases, a well-deserved reputation for the impact they have and the lasting damage that can be caused when they are poorly managed.
I've been very fortunate in recent years to work with one of our great CRCs, CRC ORE—Optimising Resource Extraction. This is a CRC that looks at ways of reducing water consumption and energy consumption in the mining industry. And, of course, by doing that it vastly reduces the carbon footprint of mining operations that take up that technology. When it comes to tailings dams, some of the great work that has come out of the CRC ORE has been the potential in some cases to reduce the requirement for tailings dams altogether, and in others to significantly cut back the scale of tailings dams required, sometimes by beyond 50 per cent. This is a significant change in a project. As you would expect, with technology developing so quickly, we are able to better manage these projects. We're able to get better environmental outcomes. Mines today are better able to respond to the requirements that we have. We must see that these are important steps that have taken place since the time that this act was brought into play. But, as per the independent review released earlier this year, some serious reform is required to ensure this act remains fit for purpose.
I think balance is what we're looking for throughout this debate. In the case I'm presenting, it's balance between the mining industry and environmental protections. But balance between state governments' and federal governments' responsibilities is also very important. And what is very clear is that, throughout this process, the central theme of what we're trying to achieve here has been agreed by the state governments. This is very much a process of state governments and the federal government having a similar issue that they would like to address—that being simplification of this process and greater clarity and consistency in the application of standards contained in the act, to ensure that all projects are treated fairly and are subject to the same scrutiny.
From my point of view and, I think I can say, from my long time and experience in the mining industry and beyond, what I'm looking for out of this is not more yeses. I'm not looking for something that guarantees more approvals. What I'm looking for is something that provides less maybes, because it's in that inconsistency that we find troubles. It is important that we acknowledge—and I certainly do—that, within the mining industry, there is good mining and bad mining, in terms of the practices undertaken, the commodities extracted and the issues of social licence and national benefit. There are many ways that we can address a mine's value, and we need to have that nuance in this discussion.
In my region, unfortunately, we've seen firsthand the impact that uncertainty on projects can have. I am speaking again to a broader issue, part of which this legislation addresses—that is, the uncertainty that currently exists across a number of jurisdictions in terms of major project approval. One thing I can wholeheartedly agree with the shadow minister on is that delays have a terrible impact. It goes beyond investment. It goes beyond a business statement, a statement of commerce. I'm talking about the impact that these delays can have on people's lives, on families and on communities. Unfortunately, the case in my patch that is very relevant to this is the New Acland mine. For 14 years this mine has been going through approval processes, back and forth. The state government's position on this mine is that it won't make a determination on granting a mining lease while there are still active legal cases, but there are a number of other mines, like Olive Downs and Adani, where that policy has not been applied. There's significant inconsistency in the policy that's been applied there.
That has meant that the 350 people who've worked at Acland for 14 years have had uncertainty about their future. To put it into a little bit of context, that's putting a kid through their entire school education while being unsure as to what your future employment options look like. Sadly, this is a result of a government choosing to delay an approval process. The upside to this is that we can see the advantages that could have resulted had we reduced that delay 14 years ago. The investment by New Acland and the investment by its supply chain could have been deployed elsewhere, and it could now be a mature asset delivering elsewhere.
I've had the privilege of standing on many mine sites around Australia and around the world, and seeing the good and the bad. Very honestly, I'm not looking for more yeses; I'm looking for fewer maybes. That could not be a more important issue today. In the context of reducing uncertainty, the context in which this bill is being put forward needs to be considered.
We have come through a very difficult period for many people across the nation during the pandemic, health-wise and throughout the economy. This government has acknowledged that and has extended funding into major projects. The $110 billion pipeline is where we sit at the moment. They are important projects. The idea of delivering these projects is to build things that increase our productivity across Australia so that we're able to do more with less. It's a very simple view that we need to have when it comes to infrastructure, that there's a purpose and a point to it. Once we've decided that, once we understand what we're trying to achieve and once we see the productivity gains that we're trying to realise for this nation to put it in a better place in the future so that it's able to pay down the debt that we have accumulated during our response to the pandemic—that will have to happen. The only way to do that is to increase our productivity so that we can bring in more. But for those projects to go ahead we need certainty. We need it not just for us now but for our kids and our grandkids. We need the certainty that we can invest today in these projects and know that within a set time frame they will be mature projects delivering the benefits they were designed to deliver. That is very much the scope of this bill.
In this amendment bill there are some very strong measures that I hope will go some way to ensuring the act is used more efficiently. I've talked, of course, about the single-touch environmental approvals which are underpinned by national environmental standards. I'm pleased that all state and territory leaders have agreed it is an immediate priority to pass necessary legislation to streamline approval processes and assist in the development of national standards which will provide greater clarity for proponents and the community. Consistency across jurisdictions will be vital in ensuring Commonwealth requirements and obligations are upheld regardless of who makes the project approval decisions. I think we've had a great example of this during the pandemic. In a number of ways—national cabinet being the headline mechanism—state and federal governments have worked together to get a better outcome for the nation. I think that was a very important thing that we did, and this bill in part reflects that. I hope businesses will have confidence to put forward their proposals knowing there is a clear set of principles that will be applied in assessing them.
The single-touch decision process will support this government's commitment to delivering, on time, key decisions and faster approval of major projects. I will step back to my patch again and look at what Inland Rail will bring to our region. It's a great project not because of what it is in itself but because of how we will use inland rail. Much like a bridge provides a conduit between two places, inland will provide the ability for local producers to move their product. We've already had some great conversations in Toowoomba about significant industries wanting to come into the area and take advantage of the great confluence between the wonderful Western line, which runs all the way out to Roma, and inland rail. This will be a significant project that will require approval. Those people, in order to move their operations to the area, need to have confidence in taking that step forward. They need to see this government bringing forth legislation like this so they can see we understand the challenge they face: the great challenge of confidence, of knowing that there will be a return on their investment. These are the things that the business community looks for. These are the things that employees look for to make sure they have job security going forward.
I've been blessed to be able to see major projects around the world overcome significant issues. I remember being in London and watching a project there, the East London line, overcome significant environmental hurdles. We had to employ archaeologists; we had to do all sorts of inventive things to meet the requirements there. I think it's important for me to reflect that the rest of the world is addressing these concerns; the rest of the world understands that we need to overcome these challenges, not just fall at the first hurdle. It's so important that we continue to provide our major project proponents with this security.
I rise today to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. Labor will not support the weakening of the environmental laws. We're in the middle of a biodiversity crisis, an extinction crisis, and we should be doing so much better than this. We should be strengthening environmental laws, not weakening them. As the member for Griffith, our shadow minister for the environment, said, we're very happy to work with the government on getting these changes right if they will scrap this bill and come back with something that delivers stronger protections for our precious natural environment; a better solution for businesses, who are waiting too long to get approvals through; and a tough cop on the beat to ensure that the decisions that are made have proper compliance attached to them.
We have a real opportunity with the Samuel review—the 10-year review of the EPBC Act—to actually address some of the problems with these laws, which have been shown not to deliver in the way that they should. Professor Graeme Samuel said in his final report:
Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. The pressures on the environment are significant—including land-use change, habitat loss and degradation, and feral animals and invasive plant species. The impact of climate change on the environment will exacerbate pressures and contribute to further decline. In its current state, the environment is not sufficiently resilient to withstand these threats. The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable.
Those are very important words from Professor Samuel, words which we in this place should be listening to very carefully as we decide what sorts of laws we want and what sort of role we want for the Commonwealth in ensuring that our beautiful and precious natural environment here in Australia is protected into the future.
These words are a clear and succinct indication of what's at stake. Australia's natural environment and iconic places—the Great Barrier Reef, our national parks, Kakadu, alpine areas across the Great Dividing Range, unique cool-temperature rainforests in Victoria, ancient First Nations cultural sites, our world-renowned beaches and the Twelve Apostles, to name but a few—are at risk and the legislation designed to protect them, the EPBC Act, is not up to the job. And neither is this legislation. The Samuel review paints a bleak picture of what inaction to protect our environment means. It's a call for this parliament to act and, unfortunately, it's a call that's being ignored by the Morrison government. It's coalition partner, the Nationals, and the environment minister are all ignoring this important call. The measures in this act demonstrate this unequivocally.
Labor will not support this bill, and the reasons for this are outlined in Labor's dissenting report to the inquiry conducted by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. This dissenting report was damning and, while critics may argue that this is unsurprising, it is my view that the dissenting report merely pulled together the huge body of evidence that demonstrates not only how bad this bill is but also how bad this coalition government is at due process and quality public administration. One such example highlighted in the dissenting report was the findings from June 2020 by the Auditor-General. The dissenting report summarised the Auditor-General's findings as follows:
There's clearly a serious problem here—a serious problem that needs serious legislation to address it, and that is not what we have here in this bill. The dissenting report summarised the impact of this:
These administrative failures have real and significant adverse consequences for jobs and investment.
Obviously, the key concern here is that our natural environment is not being protected in the way that it should, but we also have a situation that's really bad for business and investment. We can have both; we can protect the environment and have a process that actually works for investors but, again, that's not what we have here. We would think that this government, for all their talk about the importance of the private sector, would actually want to address these issues which are putting a handbrake on investment. The Auditor-General's findings show that they're all talk and no action when it comes to red tape. We have a perverse situation where both the environment and business are losing out, and that means that Australians are losing out due to this government.
As the Labor senators who contributed to the dissenting report also observed, under-resourced decision-makers are at risk of making lower-quality decisions, leading to greater vulnerability to legal challenge. They noted that the audit report stated:
If the court finds that the decision is not compliant with the EPBC Act or otherwise subject to legal error, it can set the decision aside and require it to be reassessed. This result is costly for the department (which must conduct the assessment again) and the regulated entity (which loses certainty of approval and must delay any action until reassessment).
How have the Morrison government and Minister Ley allowed this to be the state of play when it comes to environmental protection and reasonably using our natural resources in Australia? It is damning and it should not be this way. Nonetheless, this amendment and previous amendments to the EPBC Act presented to this parliament over the last eight years of this coalition government show that the government intends to make our system of environmental protection, as governed by the EPBC, much worse than it already is.
Labor senators recommended that the government withdraw this bill and instead proposed, for the parliament's consideration, an interconnected suite of reforms that provide for stronger environmental protections to address the overall state of decline and the state of increasing threat; establish a tough cop on the beat to help restore trust; and support efficient and effective decision-making under the EPBC Act in the interests of avoiding unnecessary delays to jobs and investment. The recommendations put forward by the committee are simple in their expression, but indicate how inadequate the government's ambition for reform is.
We must have strong environmental protections in this country. Our natural environments are at risk or already seriously degraded. Not only should we be protecting our natural environment, but we should be putting more resources into maintaining and rehabilitating them. A tough cop on the beat has already been directly called for in the Samuel review. It is sorely needed because, even if we reform the EPBC laws, we need to ensure that they are applied rigorously. This is not happening now and it makes a mockery of having a regulation scheme for environmental protection in the first place. The final recommendation, to support efficient and effective decision-making under the EPBC Act to avoid delays, is vital. We know this Morrison government has decimated the capability of the public service during its eight years in office. It is an abomination that a country like Australia can legislate but then fail to properly resource the administration of that legislation.
I turn now to what this bill is actually proposing to do. The bill will establish a framework for the making, varying, revoking and application of national environmental standards and establish an Environmental Assurance Commissioner to undertake transparent monitoring or auditing, or both, of the operation of bilateral agreements with the states and territories and Commonwealth processes under the Act for making and enforcing approval decisions. This bill comes alongside the streamlining environmental approvals bill, also known as the Abbott 2.0 bill because it effectively replicates the Abbott government's failed one-stop-shop policy of 2014. That's all we have here, a rehash of something from 2014. These bills are the government's response to the second 10-yearly statutory review conducted by Professor Samuel, which was received by Minister Ley in October 2020. While the government has proposed national environmental standards, it is laughable to say that they align with what Professor Samuel has proposed.
The standards recommended in the Samuel review are much more detailed and considerably more protective than the standards proposed by the government. The Samuel review's overarching national standard refers to important concepts such as: the principle of non-regression—that is, no backsliding in environmental protections; addressing cumulative impacts; and decisions being based on the best available information, compared to adequate information in the government's proposed standards. These concepts all appear to be absent from the government's proposed standards, and they should be condemned for this. The bill provides that there is to be an Environmental Assurance Commissioner which is established as an independent statutory position within the department. The minister said:
The Environment Assurance Commissioner will be appointed by the Governor-General, will be independent and will not be subject to directions by the minister.
Conservation stakeholders are critical of the bill's model because of the inability of the proposed commissioner to investigate individual decisions related to projects, labelling it effectively toothless. When introducing the bill the minister said:
The Environment Assurance Commissioner will not have a role in monitoring or auditing individual decisions. It is not a second decision-making body, and it is not a replacement for, or a precursor to, legal review processes for decisions.
The Commonwealth should always have a role in environmental protection. They must always be able to step in and protect our vitally important things—the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu, our national parks. It's so important that the Commonwealth has that role, and Labor will not support anything that devolves that role to the states without stronger compliance around these laws. Environmental groups in my electorate, including the ACT Conservation Council, have raised this issue with me specifically. They question why the government would establish an assurance body that has no powers to undertake assurance. This is a mind-boggling piece of policy developed by the Minister for the Environment.
Reform of the EPBC was a significant policy commitment for Labor at the last election, including bringing climate change into the laws for the first time. Labor committed to establishing an environmental protection agency which would manage development approvals, ensure compliance with environmental law, collect data and evaluate progress. Labor has consistently called on the Morrison government to establish a genuinely independent cop on the beat, and the Samuel review recommended the establishment of a new independent statutory position of environment assurance commissioner to provide oversight, be free from political interference and responsible for public reporting on the performance of the Commonwealth and accredited parties. It is obvious from this bill that the government's commissioner is weaker than both the options proposed by Labor at the last election and proposed by Professor Samuel. It is weak and it will not do the work that we need an assurance body to do—that is, to protect the environment.
The bill also gives the minister the power to make national environmental standards for the purposes of the act. The bill doesn't include a set of proposed standards within it, but rather provides the framework for a set of standards to be implemented. We know from media reporting that the leaked standards are not up to the job of protecting our environment. According to the explanation memorandum, when a national environmental standard is first made it will be treated as an interim standard until it has undergone its first review, with the first review to be undertaken within two years of the standard commencing. The government's proposal is to establish standards that replicate the status quo and then, over subsequent years, seek to improve them. Needless to say, this point makes me very nervous as past behaviour indicates that we cannot trust this government when it comes to protecting the environment. I am also concerned that, rather than using the parliament to consider and reform the standards, these will be left to the minister. For something as important as environmental protection, the standards must be scrutinised here in this place.
Perhaps most concerningly, the bill allows the minister to make a decision or do something that is inconsistent with the national environmental standard where the minister considers it to be in the public interest. This government claims it may be necessary to balance environmental considerations with the social and/or economic impacts of a project. Stakeholders have expressed concern about this, and I want to put my concerns on the record too. We should be relying on a robust set of environmental standards to protect our environment, not allowing a minister to do whatever they want.
I just want to reiterate that Labor will not support any weakening of our environmental laws. We want to see strong Commonwealth laws to protect our precious natural environment, and we also want to see a better situation for investment where things can be done quickly. We want to see a tough cop on the beat to actually ensure that these laws do what they were intended to do. We want to protect our environment for the next generation and for its uniqueness in general.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Australians are feeling vulnerable and uncertain, thanks to the Morrison government's failed vaccine rollout. At this stage only three per cent of our population has been vaccinated. In contrast the US has achieved 45.6 per cent vaccination, and the UK has achieved 80 per cent. This slow, complacent rollout has been disastrous—particularly in my state of Victoria, where we have seen too many lockdowns at too great a cost.
If the Morrison government had simply done their job we could have avoided lockdowns and quarantine outbreaks. Did you know there have been 24 outbreaks from quarantine? This is a federal responsibility. But they couldn't even get a decent deal with key producers like Moderna or Pfizer. Instead they put all their eggs in one basket, and we are all seeing the consequences.
It's vital that this government pushes forward to vaccinate more Australians. It's crucial that we have a vaccine education program to prevent misinformation and hesitation when getting the jab. That's why, this Friday, 25 June, I'm hosting a vaccine information session with the Barwon Health Department of Infectious Diseases director, Professor Athan. If you've got any questions before getting vaccinated, please join this information session at libbycoker.com.au. The vaccine is our path to getting out of COVID, and we need to race towards having as many people vaccinated as possible.
I rise today to recognise the initiatives of the government to support our local not-for-profit organisations to improve energy efficiency practices, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lower their energy bills. I recently visited Nedlands Golf Club, one of the organisations in my electorate which received a grant of $12,500 from the Energy Efficient Communities Program for solar panels last year. Set on a beautiful A-class reserve, the Nedlands Golf Club is a welcoming local club providing competition and social opportunities for members and visitors.
The club has been working hard to reduce its energy emissions, and in March this year completed the installation of rooftop solar panels with the support of the grant. The club explained to me that the benefits were already flowing from the solar panels, with a significant reduction on its drawdown from the grid. The panels have also generated energy savings of up to $800 per month for the club and are projected to contribute to savings of over $9,000 annually. This year a similar program is on offer for local community groups. I commend the government for expanding this grant to support up to 12 not-for-profit organisations in each electorate, to contribute to greater energy efficiency in Curtin and the rest of Australia.
July 1—that's the date Australians will be confronted with some of the most radical changes to the Medicare rebate that will mean they will be out of pocket for hundreds of orthopaedic, cardiac and general surgery items. The plan to cut the Medicare rebate means patients must choose between cancelling life-changing surgeries and being hit with huge bills they were never told about. I realise that those changes are based on recommendations by the MBS Review Taskforce—
Mr Laming interjecting—
The member for Bowman!
but the fact is that the government have bungled the implementation of those recommendations, and, once again, Australians are going to be left out of pocket or, worse, in life-threatening conditions because of this incompetence.
I remind the House, and those interjecting, that this is not the first time the government have ventured down this road. In November 2018 they presided over the debacle that saw patients left out of pocket, spinal surgeries delayed and doctors unable to provide patients with informed consent about potential gap fees. Back then those changes involved only 70 spinal surgery items. Next month we are looking at over 1,000 surgery items. One might say that the government have failed to learn their lesson, but I say that it's not in their DNA to protect Medicare. They've got eight days to fix this problem and demonstrate that Medicare, which Labor installed, is worth protecting—but I'm not holding my breath!
The Leach Highway and Welshpool Road interchange in my electorate of Swan is one of the most dangerous intersections in Perth. Major works to improve safety and congestion are now underway. Between 2015 and 2019 there were 224 crashes, 204 of which were rear-end collisions. This project will cost $136 million in total, and the Morrison government has contributed $68 million in support. It is anticipated to be completed in early 2023 and will create up to 600 jobs. Construction will be completed by the Leach Welshpool Alliance, which is a consortium of Australian owned local contractors—Georgiou Group, BG&E and Golder Associates.
This upgrade is at the second most congested intersection in Western Australia. The project will deliver a new bridge taking Leach Highway over Welshpool Road, a new roundabout at the intersection and a duplication of the existing Leach Highway bridge. This new design is expected to improve traffic flow by easing pressure on the local roads network and it will reduce peak travel times. In conjunction with the removal of the railway level crossings in the area, this is a massive win for my electorate of Swan.
The coalition government has committed over $2 billion worth of infrastructure projects across Swan since 2013. This project is part of the Morrison government's recovery for our economy and will help Western Australians to get home more safely and sooner, as part of our congestion-busting infrastructure.
Last July, the Morrison government squibbed a chance to buy Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, because the price was too high. But they weren't so stingy when it came to JobKeeper, giving almost $20 billion to firms with rising earnings. Hedge funds, investment banks and expensive men-only clubs were among the lucky recipients. JobKeeper waste cost every Australian adult $1,000. In higher education, the Morrison government changed the rules three times to stop public universities getting JobKeeper. At least 17,000 jobs have been lost at public universities. Courses have been cut. Whole departments have been abolished. But, while public universities missed out, private universities could get JobKeeper. Bond University got $17 million, despite rising profits. New York University got JobKeeper for its Sydney campus, despite rising revenues.
So whose side is the Morrison government on? It's not on the side of a fast vaccine rollout, with its penny-pinching policies leading to a three per cent vaccination rate, at a time when more than half of all Americans and Brits have been fully vaccinated. It is on the side of giving taxpayer money to billionaire shareholders and millionaire CEOs. It might throw money at private universities, but the Morrison government is not on the side of public universities. In fact, the Morrison-Joyce government isn't on the side of the public at all.
I rise to pay tribute to the late Roger Irwin Lynch of Forster, who unfortunately died suddenly in April. During his years at high school, Roger attended Taree High, where he was a very accomplished athlete. At aged 16 he had a serious car accident that left him a paraplegic for the rest of his life, but that didn't hold Roger back. After high school Roger went on to become a chartered accountant and worked with Alan Cowan, a very respected accountant in Taree. He opened his own branch in Forster and used his financial skills to benefit the community. He was inaugural treasurer and paymaster of Valley Industries, which is now almost the second-biggest private employer in the Manning Valley and Forster region. He was a foundation member of the Forster-Tuncurry Apex club. He married in 1972, to Jan, and set off for a working holiday in Europe. Whilst he was there, he devised a plan to play golf, which had been his abiding passion as a young man, for the next 45 years, developing a stool made to his own specifications. He became known as the man who sat down to play golf.
Roger joined the Cape Hawke community hospital board in 1995 and went on to serve as chairman until he passed. During Roger's time on the board, the hospital delivered critical health services to the growing communities around Foster-Tuncurry, including pathology, imaging rooms, 20 public inpatient beds, a hydrotherapy pool and purpose-built renal dialysis. Vale Roger Lynch.
Today I rise to acknowledge Kevin and Rhonda Butler, two wonderful local residents of mine who started a little organisation called BlazeAid. BlazeAid started after the 2009 Black Saturday fires, which still are the worst fires on record for deaths. Kevin and Rhonda got together with a group of locals. We helped them along and auspiced them to get BlazeAid going so it could go out and repair farmers' fences in bushfire and flood affected areas. Right across the nation, since 2009, Kevin and Rhonda have run a team that has brought together people from all walks of life and all countries to come and help our farmers.
It's not just about rebuilding fences. One of the quotes that really struck me is that 'it's about rebuilding lives'. When farmers go out there and they find there's nothing in the field and everything is burnt and gone, here is a bunch of people who will come in—many with no experience—fix the fences and help people get back on their feet. So, when we talk about the truism of people wanting a hand up not a hand out, Kevin and Rhonda espouse that 100 per cent.
It was great last week to be at the Farmer of the Year Awards to see both of these wonderful locals, very good friends of ours, win the Farming Legend of the Year award. It was so well deserved, and we know that wherever there is a disaster that happens in our farming communities we can guarantee BlazeAid will be there, under the stewardship of Kevin and Rhonda Butler, helping farmers in their time of need.
No-one in their darkest hour in a hospital should be lying on a stretcher for eight hours. It's easy to make speeches in here about the hospital system, but all of us can agree that we need the infrastructure and the people to make hospitals work. Since 2018 I have fought for money for my Redland Hospital, in Queensland. I've fought for car parking investment. At the moment, all we've had is the turning of a sod in 2021. There is $30 million for clinical upgrades and we've got barely a pamphlet as evidence that they've engaged this challenge. We've got 20 per cent of people sitting on stretchers in A&E while they're waiting for care and, ridiculously, 51 per cent of all arrivals to emergency in my hospital are officially ramped. You're more likely to be ramped than not.
Kim Hansen, from the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, has come out—make her Queensland governor, not the one they've chosen, because she's honest enough to say, 'We are in a crisis here and we need a five-year action plan for infrastructure in our hospitals to make up for the six years of Annastacia Palaszczuk.' What a crisis! The Queensland government are happy to sign off on pay rises but will never reveal their investment in hospitals, which is never released. They're happy to carve out the maintenance budget and call it an upgrade. They're happy to report regional investment, but they hide hospitals being starved of funding. We can do better than that. We need trains that run on time and hospitals that can look after patients. If you're not going to fund the beds in the ICU, of course the A&E will be paralysed; it's as simple as that. Our medics are worn out. Our doctors are worn out. Queensland Health needs a better government running the show.
I've not been the only MP over the last few months trying to aid constituents attempting to leave the country during a pandemic. These requests are not for the sake of a jaunt or a holiday. In many cases they're heartbreaking: people wanting to care for sick parents or to say goodbye to mum or dad. In other cases they're trying to leave the country entirely to give up their lives to help parents cope elsewhere, and they have to wait an extraordinary amount of time to get the okay to do that. They've been lucky enough to secure a ticket for rare flights out, but then there's an agonising wait for government approval. In some cases the approval comes so late that the person receives word as they're boarding a plane that their parent has passed and that they've missed their funeral entirely. So imagine the disbelief of people upon hearing that the Prime Minister used a recent international trip to do sightseeing tours to pubs and to visit the place of his own family's heritage. I don't begrudge a bloke wanting to reconnect with his family; I have a problem if his government is making it tough for others to do the same in tough circumstances. I just can't believe the Prime Minister's happy to foster the belief that the standards that apply to everyone else don't apply to him. The borders were understandably shut to protect the country, but for how long? Is it until the stalled and failed vaccine rollout is sorted or until the feds build and open fit-for-purpose national quarantine facilities? If we're all supposed to be standing together, shoulder to shoulder during this pandemic, the Prime Minister should lead by example. One rule for everyone, not some, Prime Minister!
The Rotary Club of Pennant Hills started the Pride of Workmanship awards way back in 1976 to recognise people in our community who perform their daily work in a conscientious and dedicated manner. The awards have been held every year since, except for last year due to COVID. The awards also provide Rotary with the opportunity to promote the work Rotary clubs do in the community, as well as to encourage other people within a club community to get involved by putting people forward for the awards. Initially the Rotary Club of Pennant Hills encouraged surrounding clubs to hold their own pride of workmanship awards; however, local take-up led to Rotary promoting this through clubs right across Australasia. The success of the program can be seen by the many clubs throughout Australia and New Zealand that continue to hold presentations each year.
This year the Pride of Workmanship awards went to Simone Reinhardt, a pharmacist at Pennant Hills Pharmacy; Nicole Tanner, assistant hospitality manager at Pennant Hills Golf Club; Mackensie Eddington, a food and beverage attendant at Hotel Pennant Hills; Vanessa Quinlan, assistant village manager at Lutanda Manor Retirement Village; Narsinga Rao Jegganna Gari, a senior sales consultant at By Dezign Pty Ltd; Daisy Huang, the owner and manager of Joanie's Beauty and Body Works; Rosalyn Ferguson, nursing unit manager at Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Hospital; Johann Valdez, a registered nurse at Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Hospital; and Michelle Martin, director of Carlingford West OOSH and OOSH People Pty Ltd. Congratulations to all recipients of the Pride of Workmanship award, and thanks to David Firth, the president, for your leadership of our great club.
The CSIRO continues to consolidate their image as a laughingstock irrelevancy or an environmental prostitute. They have commissioned an assessment of ethanol by the greenhouse gas emissions office—'assess' being a code word for 'destroy' ethanol. They reported that ethanol will increase CO2 in the atmosphere. That's a good trick when, of course petrol goes up and stays up but ethanol goes up and the grain on the sugar cane pulls it back down the next year. So it's a pretty good outcome. Twenty-three of the 24 in the American library of parliament—their parliament is called the United States House of Representatives—says it decreases dramatically the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.
They said that dugong numbers are dropping by half, which is quite a flagrant lie. What happened in the southern half of the Great Barrier Reef, which is what they quoted, is that their numbers had dropped in half but in the northern half they had doubled in numbers. So that was a positive lie.
They then brought out a publication which said there were only 45,000 hectares of land available for irrigation in North Queensland. Of course, current reports delineate 350,000 hectares! (Time expired)
Today, I would like to speak about an upcoming honour in my home state of Victoria. Applications have opened for the 2021 Victorian Senior Citizen of the Year. Our senior citizens are the backbone of our country. They have contributed enormously throughout their lives and continue to contribute to their local communities. Often, they do this on a voluntary basis.
I know so many older individuals in Chisholm who are involved in numerous community organisations which provide vital services across the electorate. One such individual, Trevor Eddy, is a worthy nominee. I have had the distinct privilege of seeing him at work with an extraordinary number of organisations. But whether it is fighting for a better deal for people with disability as part of his involvement with Burke & Beyond, or propagating Indigenous flora with Greenlink, one thing stays the same: the singular passion and energy he brings to the task at hand.
I encourage anyone who knows a hardworking, deserving senior citizen in their community to nominate them for the Victorian Senior Citizen of the Year.
The newly-sworn-in Deputy Prime Minister must be the only Australian still eligible for JobKeeper, I reckon! He's the only Australian that this Morrison government has deemed eligible and worthy of 'job keeper'. There are 6,600 aviation workers in my electorate of Lilley who would dearly love to see the same kind of commitment to reviving their jobs as they've witnessed from the coalition government this week. I have Virgin Australia workers at both head office and the airport; Qantas baggage handlers; dnata workers; and Lockheed Martin at Pinkenba got shut down under this government's mismanagement of the economy. There are Avato workers who have had their pay and conditions cut by the former Attorney-General, and Volgren workers who have had the LNP ship their jobs to China in the past couple of weeks.
But, no, instead, this Morrison government is focused on trying to bring this dinosaur back from extinction! Ostensibly, this leadership spill has come about because the coalition government is worried about getting to net zero by 2050—a worthy goal that the globe agrees with. But this new Deputy Prime Minister is someone who, remember back when, was worried about the $100 Sunday roast. This is the public policy nous—this is the subtlety and this is the craftsmanship that the coalition government is bringing to the climate change debate. Now I understand why the former DPM has been so passionate about eradicating noxious pests! All week, we've had the former Deputy PM warning about a rodent plague, and now he has been rolled by a root rat!
The member will withdraw that.
I withdraw.
At the heart of the community, you don't find government or bureaucracy; you find people—active citizens who want to play a role in improving our society. Nowhere is this more evident than in Rotary. Rotary's mission is to provide services to others, promote integrity and advance world understanding, goodwill and peace in our community. I am truly proud of our Rotary clubs in Reid and the work they are doing in the community, whether it's removing graffiti, organising community barbecues, fundraising for preschools in Papua New Guinea, youth engagement and leadership awards, and mental health and health projects across our nation.
Recently, I attended a number of Rotary annual changeover dinners, and I was constantly impressed by some of the projects and activities that are underway. I was very proud of Dr Usha Garg and the entire Strathfield team who presented a number of youth awards to the local students at the Strathfield town hall. The Rotary Club of Five Dock also hosted their 48th changeover dinner for the incoming board. President Steven Taranto and the entire team should be immensely proud of Five Dock's Rotary club and its success over the past half-century.
The year 2021 is a very special year for Rotary in Australia and New Zealand. It marks 100 years since the first Rotary clubs were established in Melbourne, Auckland, Wellington and Sydney. As we celebrate this significant milestone, let us thank Rotarians and Rotary clubs across this country.
Australia needs more jabs and less stabbing in the back from this government. We have a new Deputy Prime Minister, who is actually the old Deputy Prime Minister. But one thing that hasn't changed is the snail's pace of our vaccine rollout. We are going into winter, and, instead of ramping up the vaccine rollout, because of this government's incompetence and this government's decision to put all of their eggs in the AstraZeneca basket, what we are going to have is a dramatic decrease in the number of vaccines given to Australians at the very worst time.
When the delta variant is rising throughout Europe and the United States and is in our community—it's currently in NSW—this government is unable to get vaccines out to Australians because they chose to put all of their eggs in the AstraZeneca basket. They didn't do a deal with Moderna. We were pleading with the government: 'Please, do a deal with Moderna.' They met with Pfizer in July but didn't sign anything until November because they chose to put all their eggs in the AstraZeneca basket. They forgot Moderna and Pfizer, and now Australians are paying the price. We need more jabs and less stabs in the back from this government. Instead, what we're given is not vaccinations but the return to the days of Barnaby Joyce, the member for New England, as the Deputy Prime Minister.
Today is the last day for Sunshine Coast locals to have their say about Sunshine Coast Council's mass transit plan. They put out a survey; today is your last day. The deadline is five o'clock. I want to encourage everybody on the Sunshine Coast to get out and have your say. If you don't, you can't complain about what the council wants to foist upon you. Have a look at the survey. There are only five options, but the one that they have been pushing the most is light rail. The Sunshine Coast Council wants nothing but light rail on the Sunshine Coast. I've written to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer to ask them not to fund light rail on the Sunshine Coast because it would be a disaster for our very way of life. It will see an increase in density along the light rail of up to five times the number of dwellings, and it will take a lane each way off our key arterial roads like Nicklin Way and Alexander Parade. Sunshine Coast locals, this is your last chance. Get in by five o'clock today. Don't take this for granted. Stand up and speak your mind. Hopefully, the Sunshine Coast Council will listen to you. But I will be there. I will back the Sunshine Coast locals every step of the way against council's light rail. (Time expired)
Australian families and children are being let down by this Morrison-Joyce government, as they have been by the five other iterations over the last eight long years. A new report from UNICEF ranks wealthy countries on their childcare policies. Forty-one countries have been ranked on childcare affordability, access, quality and parental leave. Australia came 37th out of 41. This is a disgraceful performance. We are getting left behind in the race to give our children the best possible start to life. Lithuania came 12th Hungary came 24th, Romania came 29th and we came 37th.
UNICEF found that there are eight countries where child care consumes at least a quarter of the average wage. Australia is one of those eight countries. This is a tragedy. The report says:
The high cost of childcare accentuates socioeconomic inequalities and deters women from returning to work.
Labor agrees. That is why we have a plan to deliver cheaper child care to 97 per cent of all families. Unlike the government, who only help a very small number of families, we will help the vast majority of families. Many families will be stuck with the Prime Minister's busted system, which now has record out-of-pocket costs. There's only one way to fix childcare affordability and it's to vote Labor at the next election.
Are our children being educated and trained with the skills that they need to take on the jobs in the future? This is one of the most important questions in my electorate of Lindsay. It's one I've been driving since my very first day here in parliament and long before. When I speak with our local principals, universities, TAFEs, job trainers, small businesses and manufacturers, they all agree that we must do more to develop our skilled workforce that will lead Western Sydney to develop emerging industries from advanced manufacturing to research and medicine, and this all begins in the classroom. One of the most important factors, if not the most important factor, in improving our education standards is the quality of teaching. It's absolutely critical that, in classrooms today in Western Sydney, students are being taught by experienced and qualified teachers with STEM backgrounds. Right now the evidence is showing that we don't have enough STEM teachers, and far too many—up to 17 per cent—of the ones we do have aren't teaching STEM subjects in the classroom. How can we expect our children to be equipped with the skills they need to take on the jobs of the future if our teachers aren't? Attracting, recruiting and keeping STEM professionals in teaching must be our priority to keep our education standards high, to put us back on top and to give our children the best opportunities for the jobs of the future.
Like so many Australians, I was greatly saddened to learn of the death of my friend Mike Bailey. He was so much more than just a fixture on the nightly TV. As he appeared each night to tell us what the weather had in store, he was a reassuring presence, someone you just knew was a decent man. Along the way he shared his wisdom as a journalism lecturer. He fulfilled another of his passions as chairman of Wests Tigers. He was the chair of Wests Ashfield, a club that has contributed, under his leadership, literally millions of dollars over the years to community based organisations and to schools in the local area, including Ashfield Boys High School. He would want me to put on the record that he was passionate about Western Suburbs Magpies. And I'm pleased to say that he even ran as a Labor candidate for North Sydney against Joe Hockey in the 2007 election. It was a noble cause. Mike got a respectable swing but not enough, and that's a pity because he would've been a wonderful addition to this place. He was a gentleman, a mentor, a friend. He was loyal, generous, warm hearted, funny and wise. He was a wonderful broadcaster. I am so sorry that he has left us today. On behalf of the Australian Labor Party and, I'm sure, the whole parliament, I offer my condolences to Mike's wife, Helena, and their son, Michael. May he rest in peace.
Our date with destiny has been set. On 21 July session members of the International Olympic Committee will decide if Australia will be the host—again—of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. It will be a decision about the games of the 35th Olympiad, a games we hope to be announced as Brisbane 2032. But securing the games won't be a win just for Brisbane, nor just the south-east but for the entire state of Queensland—indeed, the entire nation. It will be the people's games, and its value will lie not just in two weeks of sport but in two decades of benefit—a decade in the lead-up to the games and a decade following the games. The Olympics is the biggest show on earth. At the opening ceremony alone, you have half the world's eyeballs fixated on the screen. If we're to secure the rights to host the 2032 games, it will provide an opportunity for us to reimagine the future of our local communities and then to use the games as leverage to deliver on that vision. But, right now, we're in the hands of the IOC and—
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
For the information of members, I advise that yesterday I was elected as the leader of the federal parliamentary National Party. You mightn't have seen that! I inform members that the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management remains the Deputy Leader of the National Party. I present a revised ministry, reflecting the changes to the ministry and the representative arrangements.
The document read as follows—
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there can be two departments in one portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a Minister in all cases. Ministers are sworn to administer the portfolio in which they are listed under the 'Minister' column and may also be sworn to administer other portfolios in which they are not listed. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister has mounted two leadership challenges: one on the very day in which this parliament honoured bushfire survivors and one during a global pandemic. Why is the Deputy Prime Minister only focused on his own job and not on the real needs of Australians, including those in regional communities?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I'd first and foremost like to say a huge thank you for the work of the member for Riverina, who did a remarkable job. He is a man who is noted for the dignity in which he conducted his office, a person who we are absolutely certain will go on to further representation of our nation, as a person who can be an incredible asset. Here I am—
Honourable members interjecting—
The Deputy Prime Minister can just pause for a second. Members on both sides won't interject. They know what will happen if they do. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We know why it's a sensitive issue on the other side, because I think I'm looking at someone here who might be under a little bit of pressure himself. Whilst I was on the backbench, I got to know quite a few people from the Labor Party, and some very interesting conversations were had about their current leader. I tell you what: I'm the member for Grayndler's biggest backer. I am this man's biggest backer. I want you to be there for the long haul—
The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Pretty obviously on relevance, Mr Speaker. This is a very strange rant. It has nothing to do—
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Both the deputy leader and the Leader of the Opposition will resume their seats. As the Leader of the Opposition sat down he said the question was about jobs. But, whilst the preamble, which I was happy to allow—because I like to allow questions where I think they fit within the standing orders—was, frankly, about two leadership challenges; it did open up the subject. You can't expect me to be very liberal on the question and very strict on the answer. The question was asked in a particular way, and I think the Deputy Prime Minister is in order.
Thank you, Mr Speaker—and why stop the fun! There's the preamble and there's the outcome. There is the outcome over there. We know where we are off to. I tell you what; when you need the numbers to stay there, member for Grayndler, come and call me, because I am your biggest supporter. We need you there. We are a big supporter of you, because you're going so very, very well! Every time we are struggling with an argument out in the regions—in Wagga, in Beaudesert and in Tamworth—if it is getting a bit uncomfortable for us, we just say that the alternative is Mr Albanese, the member for Grayndler, and then we win the argument and it's all over. It's remarkable.
You were also the Deputy Prime Minister, weren't you? I think it was for about 83 days. I hope you enjoyed that experience because it's as high as you're ever going to get.
The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.
Just in terms of who we are able to ask questions of. I'm not sure why, but the Prime Minister doesn't appear to have turned up. Does that mean that we have the Acting Prime Minister at the table?
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.
On indulgence, I just wanted to say that we have rectified the situation.
There you go—that turned out to be a much quicker way to resolve the point of order than is normally the case when you ask me for a ruling.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is standing up for Australians by delivering on its plan to build a stronger, safer and more secure nation?
[by video link] I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. She knows that we are living in an increasingly uncertain world, and the government is taking action to keep Australians safe. That has been a core objective of our government—to keep Australians safe. The pandemic, the recession that it has caused, the escalating tensions in our region, the sophistication of criminal gangs and predators who would seek to harm Australians, particularly women and children, and the potential for resurgence of the people smuggler's trade is ever present. Standing up for Australia, standing up for our values and our way of life, not bowing to any coercion or pressure that might come from anywhere—
The Prime Minister will pause for a second. The member for Kennedy? The member for Kennedy has resumed his seat—good. The Prime Minister has the call.
Standing up for Australia, for our values and for our way of life, is what our government does.
Mr Burns interjecting—
The member for Macnamara will leave under standing order 94a.
The member for Macnamara then left the chamber—
But our government, also in keeping Australians safe, works to protect Australians from harm. In particular, that involves the work that the Australian government has done with the states and territories to keep Australians safe during this pandemic. Operation COVID Shield has now seen, with the vaccination program, almost two-thirds of over 70-year-olds having received their first dose; almost 50 per cent, 48.62 per cent, of over 50s having received their first dose; and over a quarter of Australians aged over 16 having received their first dose. On Monday, some 128,643 received a dose. That is the highest Monday record we've seen. Operation COVID Shield, led by Lieutenant General Frewen, is continuing to drive the vaccination program forward to put us in a position for all those Australians who wish to have a vaccination to have it before the end of the year.
There's the economic recovery plan handed down in the budget; the increased defence cooperation with our key allies and partners within the region and our Quad partners in Japan, the United States and India—and, importantly and increasingly, our defence cooperation with our European partners, with Germany, France and, of course, the United Kingdom; the increased powers for law enforcement and resources for law enforcement, which have seen us ensure that Operation Ironside, one of the most sophisticated stings of criminal gangs anywhere in the world, led by our own Australian Federal Police, had stunning results; and, of course, the new laws to protect Australians, particularly women and children online. Our government is working and acting to keep Australians safe in a very uncertain world. Our government can be relied upon to do that each and every day.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to the Deputy Prime Minister's statement:
I just don't want the government any more in my life, I am sick of the government being in my life.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that government has a vital role to play in securing regional Australia's recovery from COVID, including through an effective vaccine rollout and the creation of national quarantine? Isn't that just a wacky thing for a Deputy Prime Minister to say?
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left.
I suppose I was reflecting on what would happen if the member for Grayndler were the government and I must say that, at the time, it was terrifying. I was overcome with fear and trepidation as to what might happen if the Labor Party were to lead the government! But later on, after I'd cooled down, I realised that we were the government and everything was fine! But when we go to the rollout, I think that 6.6 million people have now been part of the process of being vaccinated, and that's a great outcome—one in four adults. Australia has got nothing but a sense of pride in what we've been able to do compared with other areas, where hundreds of thousands of people in other nations have died. Millions of people have died from COVID, but Australia has been so blessed. We've been so fortuitous and we've also had the best government in place. It's because of the diligence of this—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left and the Leader of the Opposition!
A rowdy lot, aren't they? It's because of the diligence of this government and the work of the health minister that we've had the capacity to keep Australians safe and to give them confidence and that we know how to make sure that we get the Australian people to the other side of this pandemic. Now I defer to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, who will add to my answer.
I'm delighted to support the Deputy Prime Minister.
Opposition members interjecting—
The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
I'm just trying to work out the basis on which the Deputy Prime Minister can refer to the minister for health on a question that is about why he's made a personal statement.
No, the question also referred to a number of other things, including the vaccine rollout, for which the minister for health has square responsibility. The minister for health has the call.
Indeed, in particular, what we've seen in the last 24 hours is 128,000 Australians step forward to be vaccinated, significantly more than we were anticipating at this point in time, and I think a very heartening response for Australia. Last week ATAGI made a decision which reflects the medical advice and which we respect, but this week Australians have stepped forward. And they've done so right across Australia, in the cities, in country towns and in regional areas, exactly as the Deputy Prime Minister was saying. What we have seen now is that we have over 27 per cent of all Australians who've been vaccinated—over 48 per cent of those over 50 years of age. We have over 65 per cent of those that are over 70 years of age. All of these things are coming together to mean that, whether you are in the country or in the city, whether you are in rural or regional Australia or in any part of Australia, you are being kept safe and you are keeping others safe by stepping forward to be vaccinated.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-Joyce government is supporting jobs in regional Australia?
I'd like to thank the member for Wide Bay for that question and note the work that the member for Wide Bay has done, especially in the recent announcement of the Tiaro bypass. There has been an incredible amount of work he has put into that over so many years, driven by the desire to save people's lives, which I know he has dedicated so much of his life to. I'd like to also acknowledge, in the same breath, the member for Riverina, the former infrastructure and transport minister, and the work he did working with the member for Wide Bay to bring about this outcome.
Now, the question asked was about jobs. Before I resigned, we started on the process of, and achieved funding for, the Inland Rail. The Inland Rail is the corridor of commerce that will connect Brisbane to Melbourne. When I first arrived here, and that's a long time ago, I remember the Labor Party were still just talking about an inland rail. They never got there. We are building it right now. It's happening.
And on the issue of jobs, it's the people who reside on this side of the chamber who understand that our standard of living is determined by our terms of trade. And our terms of trade reside in the fact that product goes onto the boat that pays for what we see in every section of our life. Whether it's for your mobile phone, your car, your fuel or your clothes, somebody somewhere must be putting something on a boat and sending it in the other direction. And they are the people of regional Australia—people who sometimes you probably don't get too close to, like the coalminers of Central Queensland, like the coalminers of the Hunter Valley, like those people who have the remaining manufacturing jobs that you are so desperate to get rid of. And they will be reminded of the jobs that were lost when the Labor Party closed down the live cattle trade.
We remember what it was to have a Labor Party that brought forward a carbon tax. We remember it was the Labor Party that brought about the fiasco of decimating the northern cattle industry. We understand where the jobs are. We understand where the wealth of this nation comes from. We stand by our coalminers. We stand by our iron ore miners. We stand by our farmers. We are not ashamed of our live cattle producers. We support our cotton farmers. We support our rice producers. The fellows on the other side, they rarely even visit them. So the jobs of this nation are underpinned by the wealth of the regions, and the regions of this nation are represented by those who reside on this side of the chamber.
Deputy Prime Minister, the Courier Mail front page said David Attenborough labelled the Great Barrier Reef as 'magnificent'—not 'endangered', but 'magnificent'. Are you aware that China holds the chairmanship of UNESCO, currently meeting in China? Isn't the proposed declaration by UNESCO of the barrier reef as endangered a serious erosion of Australia's sovereignty and yet another intrusion into the control room of our country?
Leader of the House?
Mr Speaker, I just point out to you that the question asked of the DPM is really better directed to the Minister for the Environment. Clearly those issues come within the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, not the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker, I am the greatest admirer of the Leader of the House—
Hang on! I haven't called you yet. The member for Kennedy.
[Inaudible] my tuppence worth in.
No, I just heard you admiring someone, which is rare for you in this place. The member for Kennedy has the call.
Mr Speaker, I love the Leader of the House, but, with all due respect, the question is about sovereignty, not about the environment. It's about sovereignty.
Yes, but that still doesn't bring it into order. The Deputy Prime Minister, like any other minister, is entitled to ask another minister to answer if the question has been misdirected. I think the Leader of the House has made a reasonable point. The Minister for the Environment.
I thank the member for Kennedy for his question, and reassure him that Australia will always stand up for our national interest. This year's 44th session of the World Heritage Committee is organised by UNESCO in cooperation with the host country China. The member refers to media reports this morning that draft recommendations were released last night that would seek to place the Great Barrier Reef on the 'in danger' list. We will work closely with all state parties in the World Heritage system to ensure they understand why Australia believes it is wrong to single out the best managed reef in the world for this potential 'in danger' listing. Climate change is the single-biggest threat to all of the world's reef ecosystems, not just Australia's, and there are 83 natural World Heritage properties facing climate change threat, so it's not fair to simply single out Australia.
The draft recommendation was based on old data. UNESCO and the World Heritage Centre didn't actually come and inspect the reef for themselves, and this means that they have failed to witness firsthand the enormous efforts of traditional owners, farmers, tourism operators and communities up and down the reef coast who are working with the Australian and Queensland governments to protect the reef. There are 200 different reef protection projects happening on the ground because of our investment. That's a $3 billion combined investment, which builds on the Liberal-National coalition's fine history of protecting the Great Barrier Reef. And I'd like to remind the House, and the member for Kennedy would be only too aware of this, that it was the Fraser government which, in 1975, banned oil and gas operations on the Great Barrier Reef. In 1981, when it was under the stewardship of the Liberal and National parties, the Great Barrier Reef won World Heritage status. On this side of the House we have a proud and determined record in protecting this national icon, and that will continue.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. The head of the Women in Agriculture has said reappointing the Deputy Prime Minister to his role 'would be a demonstration' government members 'haven't been listening to women'. In his capacity as minister for regional development, what does the Deputy Prime Minister say to Women in Agriculture?
I thank the honourable member for her question, and, might I say, as a father of four daughters, I have obviously an incredibly vested interest in making sure that women in agriculture, women in every section of society, have the best opportunity and the safest environment that they could possibly live in. I note that in agriculture, as we well know, so many businesses are a partnership where that family unit is instrumental in the success of the operation. That was the family unit that I grew up in with my mum and my dad, and where Mum, if she wasn't running the finances of the farm, was also at times the worker in the paddocks with Dad. So, in farming, it is really, truly a partnership between both the mum and dad in a unit to try and make sure that that business operation works—more so, I would say, than many other areas of work within the nation. So, without a shadow of a doubt, I have the greatest respect for what is truly half the reason that Australian agriculture has had the success that it has had.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please inform the House how the Morrison government is continuing to strengthen our economy and provide more jobs and greater economic security to hardworking Australian families across the country, and is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Wentworth for his question and acknowledge his expertise and experience as one of Australia's leading diplomats working in the private sector and being an outstanding advocate of the people in Wentworth. Despite everything that has being thrown at the Australian economy, including the reckless negativity and the fearmongering of those opposite, the Australian economy is roaring back. Unemployment is down, growth is up, and we've seen Australia's economy lead the world. We saw unemployment in May at 5.1 per cent, 115,000 new jobs—85 per cent of those jobs were full-time jobs—and we've now seen more women in work than ever before. When JobKeeper came to an end in March, we saw the member for Corio, the member for Rankin, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Sydney—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin!
all talk about the devastating and diabolical consequences that would occur. The Leader of the Opposition even said that the economic roof of the Australian economy would come crashing down—they were his words about the end of JobKeeper. The member for Rankin went out and did a video prophesising doom and gloom with the end of JobKeeper. The member for Rankin said that we didn't know what was happening in the towns and suburbs across Australia with the end of JobKeeper. Well, the ABS has told us that, since the end of JobKeeper, 84,000 new jobs have been created.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin, who keeps interjecting, said we didn't know what was happening in the towns and the suburbs. Well, he didn't know what was happening in his own towns and suburbs of Queensland, because the unemployment rate has fallen in Queensland since the end of JobKeeper, 24,000 jobs have been created in Queensland, and there are now a record number of Queenslanders in work.
We've also seen, in the March quarter national accounts, economic growth of 1.8 per cent, beating market expectations. We saw farm output at the highest level in seven years and housing investment at the highest level in 17 years. Machinery and equipment, over the last couple of quarters, have been at their strongest in more than a decade, off the back of our economic plan—an economic plan that is lowering taxes, an economic plan that is incentivising investment and an economic plan that is creating more jobs right across the country, including in Queensland.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. This week the Assistant Minister for Children and Families, the member for Capricornia, said that if the Deputy Prime Minister got the job again:
… there would be women out there that would be unhappy with that.
Is the assistant minister correct or is the Deputy Prime Minister's return to the job good for the women of regional Australia?
I respect the right of any person to make their concerns clear. I make sure that I stay in close correspondence both with my colleagues and with my family. By so doing, I endeavour, as we all do, to try and make a better person of myself. I know that it is imperative, in the considerations I had over three years on the backbench, that, like all of us, we have to see our way to a better self. I'm doing that. I find it a little bit demeaning, though, to litigate this at the dispatch box, but I'm happy if that's what you want to do.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government's leadership and investment in our world-class healthcare system is continuing to keep Australians safe and healthy during the COVID-19 pandemic?
I want to thank the member for Higgins for her work not only prior to parliament but also during parliament in supporting and promoting the health of Australians in so many different ways.
This pandemic has changed the world in so many ways. One thing it has done is reinforced the strength of the Australian health system by comparison with virtually every other health system in the world. As we know, this year alone over two million people have lost their lives to COVID-19 worldwide—2.067 million people, so two million and 67,000 people officially—and inevitably, as the World Health Organization has indicated, a vastly higher number.
At the same time, the actions taken here in Australia, which the government has overseen but done in partnership with the states and territories, the Australian public and the health community, have meant that no Australian—not one—to this point in time has lost their life to COVID caught in Australia this year. That comparison, as I have mentioned before, is almost unimaginable. It is almost inconceivable that any country the size of Australia could have an outcome such as that in the midst of a global pandemic.
But many things have come together to create that outcome—in particular, the investment of over $2 billion in aged care, including the standing up of the single-site worker arrangements in affected LGAs in Sydney, commencing today under the authority of the Chief Medical Officer. It includes the fact that over $6 billion has been invested in Medicare to assist with COVID, including 60 million telehealth consultations. In our belief, and in my view, telehealth has been the most significant and important transformation in Medicare since it was founded.
In addition to that, over $7 billion has been put into vaccine rollout and vaccine acquisition across six contracts, which have been procured at different times during the course of the program. Then of course there has been $9 billion in support for hospitals and PPE. All of that has led to a situation where we are, arguably, the envy of almost any other country in the world, having seen over two million lives lost worldwide but none lost in Australia to COVID caught in Australia this year.
An incidental associated outcome is the fact that no Australian has lost their life to flu this year. In an ordinary year, on average over the last five years, 105 Australians, tragically, would have lost their lives to flu. There are none at this point in time. And 35,000 Australians would have been diagnosed with flu and, at this stage, it's approximately 350. Together, these things are saving lives and protecting lives.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to yesterday's comments by the WA National's leader, Mia Davies, who in 2018 called for the Deputy Prime Minister to resign. She said:
I'm disappointed the party felt they needed to change leaders. I think it shows they're focused on internal matters instead of the people of regional Australia.
In his capacity as the minister for regional development, is Ms Davies correct?
The Leader of the House on a point of order?
If I might say, there is a lot of latitude being given to the opposition in relation to some of these questions—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
I contend that that question is out of order—
The Leader of the House will pause for a second. Members on my left will contain themselves. The Leader of the House is entitled—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition and all members on my left will not interject; I am hearing the point of order.
Mr Speaker, I believe that question should be ruled out of order. The Deputy Prime Minister doesn't have responsibilities in relation to those comments that the honourable member has cited. I don't know the accuracy of those comments and I don't think that the Deputy Prime Minister should be asked to respond to them.
Mr Burke interjecting—
I won't hear from the Manager of Opposition Business at this point in time. I am going to rule the question out of order and give the opportunity to the member for Cowan to rephrase the question. I will tell you why: I've made it very clear in the past—and I know that the member for Isaacs hasn't forgotten this—that the substance of the question has to be in order. In other words, you cannot use the majority of what's asked that is deliberately out of order and then simply bolt on the reference to ministerial responsibility at the end. In other words: there was very little question and a lot of comment that related to internal party matters, which is prohibited from being in questions under the Practice. But I am happy to hear from the Leader of the Opposition as it is on this.
The quote from Mia Davies is about—the quote is:
I think it shows they're focused on internal matters instead of the people of regional Australia.
There can't be any quote more in order to ask the minister for regional development than whether they're not focused on the interests of regional Australia and if they're just focused on internal matters. That's why it is relevant. The member for Cowan asked him, in his capacity as minister for regional development, if Ms Davies is correct. In my view, it's—
Could I just hear—I might have misheard the question, and if I've made a mistake I'll acknowledge that. Perhaps it would be better if the member for Cowan didn't read the whole question but, certainly, the part in the quote about regional Australia—if I misheard that.
Would you like me to read the whole question?
No, just the part about—
The quote is:
I'm disappointed the party felt they needed to change leaders. I think it shows they're focused on internal matters instead of the people of regional Australia.
I'm going to allow it on this occasion, but I think I've warned about what I'm looking for, and I hope I make it clear to those asking the questions that they can't seek to ask questions that are essentially out of order. But that quote, I think, does enable the question to be answered.
The Leader of the Nationals in Western Australia is most certainly entitled to her views, although of course I don't agree with them, and I will tell you why. Since 2013, the Nationals and the Liberals have committed more than $2.8 billion through our regional grants program. That's most certainly focusing on regional areas. That is on top of more than $2.3 billion committed through the community development grants programs, which is most certainly concentrating on regional Australia. And we can have a look at some of the program examples of the $1.2 billion we put towards the Building Better Regions Fund—something that was actually set up by the Nationals and delivered by the Nationals. The Australian government has announced a further $250 million towards a sixth round, which is obviously going towards regional Australia to look after regional Australia. More than $331 million has gone towards the Drought Communities Program, which is delivering more than 687 projects.
Regional Australia knows that, when they need a helping hand, it is this side of the chamber that they can rely on. It is the Liberals and the Nationals in coalition that they can rely on. As a further example, more than $607 million went towards the National Stronger Regions Fund, delivering 225 projects. More than $247 million has gone towards the Regional Growth Fund, delivering 17 projects. More than $206 million went towards the regional jobs and investment packages, delivering 233 projects. More than $145 million is going to the Stronger Communities Program, which has funded around 12,000 projects since 2015. The list goes on about the issues that this side of the chamber, the Nationals and the Liberals in coalition, are delivering for regional Australia, and especially for Western Australia.
When that side closed down the live cattle trade, this side was responsible for driving for it to be opened up again. That is looking after regional Australia. When that side brought in a carbon tax, this side is the one that had to deal with it. When that side never built the Inland Rail, it took this side to do it. When that side would not concentrate on the Bruce Highway, it took this side to do it. When that side did not duplicate the Pacific Highway, it took this side to do it. We are the party that looks after regional Australia. We continue to look after regional Australia, and that is why regional Australia votes for us. You have left them so far behind that there are only a couple of seats left. One's up there, and he's only just with you. The rest have all gone.
I would like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Ambassador of Slovenia. On behalf of the House, a very warm welcome to you from the House of Representatives.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
The Member for Sydney indicated that she wanted to rise on indulgence very briefly.
on indulgence—
The member for Sydney's speech in Slovenian was unavailable at the time of publication .
It's a great pleasure to be able to celebrate in the Australian parliament 30 years of Slovenian independence this week.
My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on the Morrison government's plan to keep Australians safe by protecting Australian families, businesses and critical infrastructure from threats posed by malicious cyberactors?
I want to thank the honourable member for her question. Obviously the government's No. 1 priority is to make sure that we make every decision to keep Australians safe and secure. We've demonstrated that in the budget—a $270 billion investment over this decade to provide support to the Australian defence men and women to keep Australia safe. Now, when Labor were in power they took $18 billion away from the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, and it meant that they couldn't invest in the sort of equipment that can give the Australian Cyber Security Centre and the Australian Signals Directorate the capacity to deal with the very real reality of cyberattacks and ransomware attacks.
Every Australian knows somebody in small business or in their own family group—their mum or their dad, one of their grandparents—who has been the subject of a cyberattack, and for some small businesses, for some health networks, it can be absolutely crippling. In some cases, entire databases are locked down until that particular business provides a ransom payment. It might be that the software program for a small business is held at bay from the owner of that software until they pay a ransom. This is a continuing scourge. We know that there has been an almost 60 per cent surge in reports of ransomware that have taken place in the last 12 months over COVID. With criminal groups operating online, the reality is that more Australian businesses, families and government groups will be targeted.
We know that the Morrison government is investing $15 billion over the next 10 years into Defence's cyber- and information warfare capabilities, and the Australian Signals Directorate, of whom not every Australian would have heard but every Australian should be proud, is providing a broad range of defensive and, importantly—and these crime groups and other state actors should hear this very clearly—offensive capacities to protect Australians from that ransomware and those cyberattacks.
We know that over the last week the Prime Minister, standing with world leaders at the G7, raised this issue as one of great concern to the Australian government. To the Prime Minister's credit he was able to deliver a very clear message to our agencies and our counterparts in the United Kingdom—that we want to continue to work even more closely with our Five Eyes partners and our Quad partners to make sure that we can stare down this threat. The work that the Prime Minister did with British intelligence officials in London means we can work even more closely together, and that's exactly what the ASD and ACSC will do through the Department of Defence.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to his quote this month when he said, 'Tharnicaa and Kopika were born in Australia. Maybe if their names were Joan and Sally we'd think twice about sending them back to another country which they're not from.' In his capacity as minister for regional development, does he still support the government letting Tharnicaa, Kopika and their family go home to 'Bilo' in regional Queensland, and will he use his position as Deputy Prime Minister to advance their cause?
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the purpose of question time is to hold ministers to account for their portfolio responsibilities. The topic that the Leader of the Opposition has raised is not within the ministerial responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister, and that is very clear. As such, the question should be ruled out of order.
Mr Speaker, to the point of order: there are many times in this House where ministers answer questions where they don't have the decision-making within their portfolio but the outcome of the decision-making is relevant to the areas they represent. It happens in agriculture all the time, it happens in regional Australia all the time, where, if there is an impact on their stakeholders, they take questions. There would be days of parliament where, on the basis of what the Leader of the House just said, almost all of the government's questions from that side would be ruled out if that were to be the standard. This question goes immediately to the impact on regional Australia and whether the minister will be advocating in that way or not.
The difficulty with it—and the Practice, I think, makes this quite clear—is that it has to go to the minister's responsibilities. Yes, I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business again.
I'll put it in these terms, Mr Speaker: when a trade agreement is there, there is one minister responsible for the trade agreement; but we get 10 questions across the whole frontbench, because they have stakeholder interests, and no-one objects. Here regional Australia has a stakeholder interest in this family, and that's what's being asked.
But the difference in what the Manager of Opposition Business went to—I've obviously had cause to reflect on this prior to today—is that he is being asked about a quote from before he was the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Practice makes very clear that ministers cannot be asked about their statements prior to being a minister. It makes it very, very clear, and I can take you to the page if you'd like. In fact, for the benefit of the House, I think I should.
A Minister can only be questioned on matters for which he or she is responsible or officially connected.
… … …
A Minister may not be asked a question about his or her actions in a former ministerial role.
It talks about statements as well. The only exception that's been allowed by a Speaker is if a minister themselves refers, in an answer to a question, to a statement made in a former role. Let's just be clear for everyone watching: the Deputy Prime Minister is being asked about a statement he made when he was a backbencher, not the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Practice has made very clear those questions are out of order.
An honourable member interjecting—
No, it doesn't. I know he's being invited to answer it. If the question is out of order, it's out of order. It's as simple as that.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on the Morrison government's plan to keep Australians safe by addressing the serious threat of organised crime through Operation Ironside, and will the minister inform the House on our plan to ensure our law enforcement agencies have access to vital data held overseas?
I thank the member for his question. Clearly, community safety is an issue of priority for him, and I congratulate him on all of the work that he has done to ensure that the members of his community in the electorate of Sturt are safe and secure.
Of course, community safety was greatly enhanced and improved by the success of the AFP's Operation Ironside, which delivered a very serious blow to organised crime in this country. It took out a number of very dangerous criminals at the highest levels of organised crime, and this has a flow-on effect right through the crime supply chain. It means that there will be fewer drugs, fewer guns, fewer violent criminals on our streets. No matter how sophisticated or global the operation is, the bottom line is that we need to ensure the safety and security of all Australians and make sure we are keeping our communities safe.
One of the keys to the success of Operation Ironside was how the AFP leveraged their trusted relationships with international counterparts. These are relationships that have built up over many years, if not decades. The AFP worked very closely with the FBI, the UK National Crime Agency and other international agencies in what was truly a global effort. And again Australia did some pretty heavy lifting, with more than 4,000 members of the AFP and state and territory police across the country engaged on this operation. The local results have been absolutely outstanding. There have now been 283 people charged with 679 offences, and those who have been charged have been linked to Mafia, outlaw motorcycle gangs, crime syndicates and drug cartels.
We know that there is a lot more that needs to be done, and that's why this week we are bringing legislation into this parliament in relation to international production orders. This is very critical legislation that will support our relationship with the United States as we look at various agreements, particularly the Australia-US CLOUD Act agreement. What this will do is fast-track the amount of time it takes for our police to access data that is held overseas, principally in the United States, and, as we all know, organisations such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple are all headquartered in the United States. So the legislation that will be coming into the House to be debated will open up opportunities for the Australian Federal Police, for our agencies, to access that information in a timely manner. That of course is good for all Australians, and our safety and security.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. The National Farmers Federation has backed a net zero target for emissions by 2050. Are the regional Australians who want the job opportunities from net zero, including the National Farmers Federation, wrong?
I thank the member for Grayndler for his question. I note his reference to job opportunities and state that it will always be this side of the House that is absolutely focused on job opportunities and making sure that people maintain their jobs. The sort of place where we'll be really focusing on them maintaining their jobs is the member for Capricornia's seat. We're going to be absolutely focused, laser-like, on the coalminers in the seat of Capricornia keeping their jobs. We're going to have an absolutely laser-like focus that we get Rookwood Weir built. We're going to have a laser-like focus up in the member for Flynn's seat that those miners keep their jobs. We're going to have a laser-like focus on the member for Hunter's seat to make sure those miners keep their jobs. We're going to have a laser-like focus on all the people in the seat of Paterson to make sure they keep their jobs. And, Member for Shortland, we're going to have a laser-like focus to make sure the people in your seat keep their jobs.
We are going to have a laser-like focus to make sure that they keep their jobs and you keep yours. We want him to keep his job. We want him to remain the Leader of the Opposition. We want him to stay there for years and years and years. We want you to get long service leave as the Leader of the Opposition, because, on this side, yes, we care about their jobs. I know it's hard for the member for Grayndler, because you're tied to the aspirations of an inner suburban electorate and Green preferences, and that's a tough game, but it's a—
The Deputy Prime Minister is just drifting away from the question now, at this point.
I'm sorry. I take your instruction, Mr Speaker. But, talking about regional jobs, as the member for Grayndler, the Leader of the Opposition, brought up: yes, on our side of the political fence we focus on regional jobs all the time—like we focused on them in the live cattle trade and like we focused on the regional jobs that were going to be lost when you brought in a carbon tax. And what we notice when we're focusing on regional jobs is that now within the opposition there are two groups. There's one group that are kind of supposed to be in the Labor Party, but they're not really; they wish they weren't. And they're actually the last—
I'll just say to the Deputy Prime Minister: the question was about government policy, not opposition observations.
I'll just close in saying that we're doing a very good job on regional jobs.
My question is to the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's Online Safety Bill will deliver on our plan to keep Australians safe online?
I do thank the member for Reid. Of course, she brings into this House distinguished experience as a psychologist, extensive academic qualifications and extensive experience in practice, and she understands the importance of online safety and the implications for the mental health of children and adults. What she also knows very well and is strongly committed to, as everybody on this side of the House is, is the very strong record of our Liberal-National government when it comes to online safety. We created the world's first children's e-safety commissioner in 2015 to remove cyberbullying material aimed at children and illegal online material, such as child sexual abuse material. We expanded the remit of that office in 2017 to include all Australians, and we introduced a scheme to support victims of image based abuse, something which is absolutely devastating if you're the victim of it, and overwhelmingly it is women who are the victims of image based abuse online. And in April 2019 we expanded the powers of the office to deal with abhorrent violent material following the appalling live streaming of the murder of over 50 people during the Christchurch mosque attack.
These initiatives, these measures, are supporting thousands of Australians every year. Indeed, since 2015 the eSafety Commissioner has handled some 61,000 complaints about harmful online content. Of course, we're continuing to support the eSafety Commissioner with more funding this year, more funding through the budget, funding of over $125 million over the next four years. We're backing our eSafety Commissioner and her office with serious resources do a serious and important job. But there is more to do. We're introducing a new Online Safety Bill, which is before the other place as we speak. The standards and rule of law that we enjoy in the town square should also apply online. Those who bully, intimidate, threaten and harass online should be dealt with in the same way as if they were to carry out that conduct on a physical street. The Online Safety Bill, if it passes into law, will make it easier for the eSafety Commissioner to unmask anonymous online abusers. We're at the same time increasing, through this bill, criminal penalties for online abusers to a maximum of five years imprisonment, as we committed to do at the 2019 election, and we're requiring that images which are determined to be in breach of the requirements be removed within 24 hours. We are fighting to protect Australians online, to keep Australians safe online, as we fight to keep them safe everywhere.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister negotiate a new agreement on policy with the Prime Minister, and will that be made public?
The Leader of the House, on a point of order?
Mr Speaker, you ruled on this as recently as yesterday. This is a backdoor way of talking about the coalition agreement, which is not the subject of the Deputy Prime Minister's portfolio responsibilities. It's not within order to go to the detail of that, and the precedent is very clear in relation to these matters.
I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business, and once again I won't hear from anyone else behind him.
Thanks, Speaker. To the point of order, the question doesn't go to an agreement between the parties. It goes to whether there's an agreement being sought between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, specifically about policy. If that's something that's being put in the coalition agreement then the Leader of the House is the first to announce that. But that's not what the question asks.
I'm just pondering the issue. I take the point from the Leader of the House. Certainly, I had ruled yesterday on the issue of coalition agreements. While I'm at it, I undertook, following question time, to examine the issue again. I can inform the Manager of Opposition Business, having reviewed all the examples that are cited, my ruling is consistent with that going back to Speaker Snedden's ruling in 1978. I won't detain the House with all the rulings since then, but I couldn't find one ruling that went the other way. I have a different problem with this question. I know the Leader of the House thinks it's a backdoor attempt to try to ask about the coalition agreement. The issue that's still at hand here is it doesn't go to the minister's ministerial responsibilities. That's the difficulty I have with it.
An opposition member interjecting—
It doesn't, and that's been made very clear all the way through. All any minister can be asked about and is responsible to this House for is their ministerial responsibilities. That's my difficulty with it. For me to allow such a question, and I'm being as flexible as I can be, the only thing that would be relevant is his ministerial responsibilities, for which he's been sworn in today.
An honourable member: I couldn't agree more.
No, but whatever agreements are made or not made, the accountability is to their ministerial responsibilities in this House. I don't want to detain the House any further. I'm pretty good at it sometimes. But, really, I will just say: it's pretty clear what he's responsible for, and they're the ministerial responsibilities he was sworn in for this morning.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) there is a global pandemic;
(b) the Government had two jobs this year, to rollout the vaccine and establish a safe, national system of quarantine;
(c) instead of effectively rolling out the vaccine and establishing a safe, national system of quarantine, the incoming Deputy Prime Minister has been focussed on his own job;
(d) instead of focussing on the needs of Australians, the Abbott-Truss-Turnbull-Truss-Turnbull-Joyce-Turnbull-McCormack-Morrision-McCormack and now Morrison-Joyce Government has been focussed on fighting itself; and
(e) instead of building the jobs of the future, the incoming Deputy Prime Minister has said investing in renewables is "insane" and "lemming-like" and said "the Nationals have always been opposed to a net zero target"; and
(2) therefore, calls on members of the Morrison-Joyce Government to focus on the needs of Australians and not their own jobs.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) there is a global pandemic;
(b) the Government had two jobs this year, to rollout the vaccine and establish a safe, national system of quarantine;
(c) instead of effectively rolling out the vaccine and establishing a safe, national system of quarantine, the incoming Deputy Prime Minister has been focussed on his own job;
(d) instead of focussing on the needs of Australians, the Abbott-Truss-Turnbull-Truss-Turnbull-Joyce-Turnbull-McCormack-Morrision-McCormack and now Morrison-Joyce Government has been focussed on fighting itself; and
(e) instead of building the jobs of the future, the incoming Deputy Prime Minister has said investing in renewables is "insane" and "lemming-like" and said "the Nationals have always been opposed to a net zero target"; and
(2) therefore, calls on members of the Morrison-Joyce Government to focus on the needs of Australians and not their own jobs.
This is a government that has been focused on just one job—his job—not the jobs of Australians. It has not been focused on the rollout of the vaccine—
The 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 Leader of the Opposition be no longer heard.
Is the motion seconded?
Seconded. Serious times demand serious people—and he behaves like a clown!
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no further heard.
The question before the House now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be disagreed to.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, especially in his capacity for emergency management. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting Victorians to recover from the last fortnight's severe floods and storm damage and how the government is working to make Australia more resilient to natural disasters like these?
I thank the member for Monash for his question. I acknowledge his leadership, but also the leadership of you, Mr Speaker, in your capacity as the member for Casey. I also thank the member for Gippsland, the member for Ballarat and the member for McEwen for their leadership in supporting their communities through a trying time—a trying time that, tragically, saw the loss of two lives. We simply say to every Australian: there is no risk worth taking; if it is flooded, forget it.
We are continuing to work with the Victorian government, as the lead agency, and I can inform the House that 120 ADF staff have been invited, at the behest of the Victorian government, to help in the clean-up. I thank the men and women of the Australian Defence Force who continue to support Australians in their time of need. We continue to also work in making sure there is immediate support for those who have been impacted. We partnered with the Victorian government, but also federal partners, to provide a range of support across 39 local government areas in Victoria.
It's important people understand that immediate support is there. There will be further support as the Victorian government makes further assessments around the damaged infrastructure. By partnering with the Victorian government, we have announced the disaster recovery allowance payment, which is up to $1,960 per family. Also, because of the loss of power across a number of local government areas, there is a payment, for up to three weeks, of $1,680 per family and $2,500 for small to medium businesses to support them as a result of those losses of power.
The federal government has also initiated disaster recovery payments of $1,000 per adult and $400 per child, and up to 13 weeks of income support for those that have lost employment or income as a result of these floods. We are making sure there is immediate support there on the ground with the Australian Defence Force to rebuild the communities and lives of those that were impacted.
We're also looking to ensure that we look to the future. I'm proud to say that the federal government, in partnership with state governments around the country, have created the $260 million Natural Disaster Risk Reduction Framework, putting in mitigation works around the country to reduce the risk. Also, as part of the Emergency Response Fund, this year $50 million has gone out into flood mitigations across the country, to protect communities right around Australia from floods. Applications for next year will open up in July.
Also, as part of the budget, the federal government announced the new Preparing Australia Package, which is $600 million going into mitigation work. There is $200 million for partnering with households to protect their homes and $400 million in supporting community infrastructure around these towns to support them and those around them. So the federal government is making a here-and-now investment but also one into the future to protect lives and livelihoods from natural disaster.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be put on the Notice Paper.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Last Tuesday the honourable member for Clark raised a matter of privilege in connection with a recent interlocutory judgement of the Federal Court of Australia in an action bought by the Registered Clubs Association of New South Wales against Mr Troy Stolz. The basis of the member's concern is that the judgement granted leave to ClubsNSW to obtain correspondence between Mr Stolz and the member's office, including emails, text messages and documents. The member for Clark stated that these materials had been relied upon by him to speak in the House of Representatives chamber on 13 February 2020, and thereby there was a direct link between the materials covered by the court decision and the member's contributions in parliamentary proceedings. The member has urged that the parliament intervene to assert the protection of parliamentary privilege in the proceedings before the court.
Section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act provides protections for proceedings in parliament, which means all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to the transacting of the business of the House. It is acknowledged that the courts have a role in interpreting what is included in proceedings in the parliament—in particular, the scope of the term 'for the purposes of, or incidental to the transacting of the business of the House'.
In the present case, the honourable member for Clark has not presented detailed information which might lead me to be satisfied there is prima facie evidence of a contempt or a breach of privilege. Nevertheless, I am willing to give precedence to a motion for a matter concerning privilege or contempt in relation to the circumstances raised by the member to be referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. In my opinion, the House would benefit from the advice of the committee on this matter.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for your consideration of this matter, and I acknowledge that there has been a lot of consideration over a lot of time. As a consequence, and by leave, I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests:
Whether the legal action in the Federal Court of Australia taken by the Registered Clubs Association of New South Wales against Mr Troy Stolz raises issues of parliamentary privilege or contempt such that the House should formally claim privilege and intervene in the court proceedings to assert the protection of parliamentary privilege.
Question agreed to.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Franklin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The government's continued failure to adequately represent farmers, producers and regional communities.
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—
What we've seen from this government in the last few days has shown the true colours of those on the other side who purport to represent the farmers, producers and those of us living in regional and rural Australia. They're much more focused on themselves and their own jobs rather than the needs of those who made sure that this country got through the global pandemic and that Australians were fed. These are the farmers and producers who have recently been through drought, through fires, through the pandemic and who are now dealing with a mouse plague.
We on this side of the House are focused on the needs of farmers, producers and those in regional Australia. We tried last week, repeatedly, to talk about the mouse plague. This is a mouse plague that is now affecting four Australian states—four Australian states! We've asked the government repeatedly: where is the national plan for the mouse plague? Where is the national plan for the mouse plague? We got nothing. Absolutely nothing! I have written to the government several times about this issue. The New South Wales agriculture minister has written to the government and has asked for the government to do something about this mouse plague. But, no—nothing. Still nothing.
We have houses burnt down due to mice chewing through wires. We have cars dying because of the mice inside the cars. We've had a prison evacuated because of the number of mice. This is actually a really serious issue. The New South Wales Farmers Federation has said that there's about a billion dollars—$1 billion—worth of damage to crops in New South Wales because of this mouse plague. And what do we get from the government? Absolutely nothing! We didn't even get the minister to stay for this MPI to talk about farmers and producers in regional Australia. He has absolute contempt for them. What we've seen from the government, with the new Deputy Prime Minister's election, is of course more contempt—more contempt for those people living in regional Australia and for those farmers and producers.
But we've also had really serious issues raised by farmers and producers about workforce. They can't get any labour: they can't get their produce picked off farms. This has been a structural issue. They have been in government for eight long years, and for eight years they have done nothing about addressing this. They've made promises after promises after promises about delivering for farmers, yet the workers haven't shown up. They promised 25,000 vetted workers under the Seasonal Worker Program. The minister says about 7,000 have arrived in Australia, but why are the workers not able to come in? Why are they not training Australians? The workers can't come in, because, of course, they've stuffed up the vaccine and the quarantine. There's no vaccine rollout. We can't get Australians vaccinated fast enough, because they didn't do their job. There's no national quarantine system, because they haven't done their job. We've got proposals from premiers for facilities in regional Australia to have quarantine near hospitals, near airports—meeting all the government's criteria—but they won't even look at it. They won't even do an assessment of the one for Toowoomba from the Queensland government. There's nothing from this government to try to help the people of regional Australia.
Then, of course, with the workforce, they've had this national strategy sitting on their desk since October last year! October! They haven't even responded to the report. It's got recommendations in it about how the government can deal with the short-term issue and then, long term, fix the structural issues in terms of workforce. What have we had from this government? Last week we had another announcement about an agriculture visa. They promised that three years ago, and they still haven't delivered it, so they've done absolutely nothing. But they've changed leader, because apparently it's all going swimmingly; they've done a great job for regional Australia.
When I talk to the farmers and producers and people in regional Australia about the serious issues of the mouse plague, about labour, about biosecurity, about the issues affecting them on farms, not once have I heard anyone say, 'The solution is Barnaby Joyce.' Not once has that been uttered to me. Quite frankly, I am astounded that they have changed the Deputy Prime Minister, not because they care about the people of regional Australia, not because they think this will make a difference to the lives of those people—those farmers, those producers—that are doing their best for Australia under difficult circumstances because this government's not helping them. No, they've done it because Barnaby wanted the job. That is the only reason they have changed deputy prime ministers. We still have no explanation from them on why they changed leader in the Nationals—nothing—and no proper explanation about how this is going to benefit the farmers, the producers and those living in regional Australia. They've done nothing about all the really serious issues, yet they come in here and they try to talk about farmers. They talk about regional Australia. They say the word 'farmer' and 'region' an awful lot, but they actually do very little to deliver for the farmers and the producers and those that are on the land in regional Australia.
We hear all these promises; they don't deliver on them. And we hear it when it comes to grants in particular, and I'm sure the member for Ballarat will have more to say about the sports rorts and the grants that they haven't been delivering to those seats that need them. I know that, when it comes to the Building Better Regions Fund, the largest electorate in my home state of Tasmania, the electorate of Lyons, has had $800,000 over eight long years under the Building Better Regions Fund. That's it, out of this fund that's been operating for eight years. It's the largest regional electorate in Tasmania, and why do you think it's got no money? I think it's because it doesn't appear on their little spreadsheet, because it's not the right colour code. It's just shameful how they go around allocating government funds, how they talk about helping farmers and regional Australians and then they do the exact opposite. They no longer stand up for regional Australians and for farmers; they like to pretend they do. All the farmers and producers in regional Australia that I talk to raise serious issues with me about the plague, about the labour force, about biosecurity. They don't come in and talk about the issues that they do in this place—about themselves. They're talking about really serious things.
Let's talk about net zero emissions and climate. There are some great quotes, of course, from the new Deputy Prime Minister and some of the things he's said. The bottom line is the farmers want to be part of the solution. The National Farmers Federation has committed to zero net emissions by 2050, and indeed some parts of agriculture—Meat & Livestock Australia—have committed to zero net by 2030, so they want to be part of the solution. They know that the jobs in regional Australia are going to rely on us having access to markets, because the rest of the word is going this way. Also, the technology that creates the jobs in regional Australia is going to be reliant on us having that target. But, no. What we've heard from the Deputy Prime Minister is there's no way we're going to have a target while he's Leader of the Nationals. Well, the farmers will be disgraced by that. The farmers want to be part of the solution. They're out there. They're innovating. They're doing great things every day. They've dealt with the drought. They've dealt with fires. They're dealing with mouse plagues. This government is doing nothing to lift a finger to help them—absolutely nothing. They pretend they do all the time. They're doing so little to try and help the farmers in regional Australia.
Let's talk about the women in regional Australia. We know that nobody said Barnaby is the solution to the issues they're facing in regional Australia. Let's have a look at what some of the women who live in regional Australia have said about the change of Deputy Prime Minister. I want to quote Victorian Nationals MP Steph Ryan, who said:
I've never made any secret of the fact that I think Barnaby Joyce's previous actions didn't really make him eligible for the top job.
Then we have the National's WA leader, Mia Davies, who says she's 'disappointed' Barnaby Joyce is back three years after she led calls for him to resign. She said: 'It remains to be seen as to whether or not Barnaby can rebuild trust with voters that I think has been broken.' Nationals MP Michelle Landry said:
I think that if he became leader again there would be women out there that would be unhappy with that.
Then we've got the former chair of the women's council and ex-Nationals member Jess Price-Purnell, who said:
It's actually pretty devastating. My first reaction was a word I can't say on a recording. I think we've now just taken a 10-year step backwards.
That's from a former female candidate inside the National Party. These are women who know Barnaby Joyce well; who have worked with him. This is what they say about him. This is why he should not be Deputy Prime Minister—
The member for Franklin will pause for a moment. I've given a little bit of latitude on not using the correct title but you've done it a number of times. I'll just bring you back to that.
The Deputy Prime Minister should not be in the job he's in. If those on the other side were focused on the farmers, the producers and the people living in regional Australia they would not have changed leaders. They would've actually done something about the really serious issues that those living in regional Australia are facing, that those on the land are facing—those who are trying to make a buck out of actually producing the food and the fibre that we all need and that we all relied on during the pandemic.
This country did do some great things during the global pandemic, and our farmers and producers were part of that. They've got nothing back from this government for all of their effort and all of their energy. Instead, the government are more focused on themselves. Indeed, we see that they're still in turmoil. That is the story of this government. They're still divided. (Time expired)
It's great to get up and talk to an MPI that talks about representing farmers, producers and regional communities, because it's something that this side of the chamber gets very well—and I'm sure they do internally. If you were to look at a map of Australia and if you were to look at the representation of that and the landmass you would see blue for Liberal and green for the Nationals all over that map, because in regional Australia, where there are larger seats—bigger landmass seats—that's where the Nationals and the Liberals have such strong representation. We take up regional communities. Regional communities are represented largely—very largely—by the Nationals and the Liberals. It's a structural issue for the Labor Party that they have so few regional seats. That's because regional Australia know that Labor don't get them. Regional Australia know that Labor do not understand them, and that's why the Liberal Party and the Nationals have such strong representation in regional Australia.
Deputy Speaker, you, like me, are a regional representative, and you know that regional Australia, right now, as we've come out of COVID, has been an absolute powerhouse for this country. We have a whole lot of different sectors that are just powering, Deputy Speaker, and you know that as a regional representative. The agricultural sector is powering, the mining sector is powering and domestic tourism is powering—in, I am sure, your region as well, Deputy Speaker. It is in my region—it is absolutely powering. People from the cities have discovered just what a great place Australia is to have a holiday and they're flocking out to the regions. So right now we are flourishing.
The one thing I would agree with the member for Franklin on is staff shortages. We have staff shortages in everything, because everyone is so busy. Everyone is so busy, in just about every sector. They're looking to grow and expand, which is obviously a good thing. A lot of it's on the back of what we've done as a government. One of the most popular things in my area is the instant asset tax write-off. I was talking to an agribusiness that supplies tractors and farming equipment just last week, Ongmac in Lismore. They have had a record year, as have a lot of the businesses in my region, on the back of the policies of this government.
Going to agriculture: we have an agricultural sector worth about $70 billion this year. Obviously the ag sector can fluctuate a bit with the seasons; right now, we've come out of a drought and a fire season that was crippling. The latest season has been a very good season across most of the country. We're looking to grow that sector to $100 billion by 2030. Economically, regional Australia, through a number of sectors, has been a real powerhouse as we have come out of the COVID recession.
We have done other things as a government that are really important. Regional Australia is a big exporter, a huge exporter, of a number of different products. The free trade agreements we've negotiated as a government, the most recent one with the United Kingdom just a week or so ago, are exceptionally important for regional Australia. That's why we are focused on it and that's why we have done so many deals since we've been in government, because we get regional Australia and regional Australia gets us. That's why it votes for us and not Labor.
I also want to look at infrastructure. I will go through a few infrastructure projects in my region, which are reflective of regional Australia across this nation. We have an unprecedented infrastructure program going on across the wider regions. I'm going to take you all on a little tour of my electorate. Kyogle, up near the New South Wales-Queensland border, is quite a small shire with quite a small rate base. They had 300 wooden bridges—all built around the same time, all decaying at the same rate—and had an unprecedented backlog that they couldn't, as a small rate base, cover. We and the state government—fortunately we have a coalition state government in New South Wales as well—working with the council, have together cleared that backlog from about 300 bridges that they had about seven or eight years ago to 20 bridges.
Now, why are those bridges important? Some of those bridges might only have three, four, five or six properties at the end of them. But those bridges are as important to them as the Sydney Harbour Bridge is to Sydney. It's a very productive area. They're growing things, selling things and exporting things. Those bridges are also important for kids to get to school and get to hospitals in emergencies. We saw the priority in that. That's why we went in to bat for them and made sure we helped them with that backlog.
Also in Kyogle, a beautiful part of the world—I encourage you, Mr Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, to go for a tour through there; I know you're a motorbike rider—Whiddon aged care came to me a few years ago. We, as a federal government, as you would understand, Mr Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, fund the places at an aged-care facility, and then the provider will usually build the infrastructure. Because of the size of Kyogle it didn't add up, so we as a government have gone in and helped them with the infrastructure side of that as well. We've helped them upgrade some really important roads that are really important economic drivers. I helped the Kyogle Council upgrade one of them, Culmaran Creek Road, because it is the home of Mara Seeds. If you haven't heard of Mara Seeds, it's a really big soy production area; they have a soy processing facility. In fact they supply Vitasoy with 80 per cent of their product. So that road was crucial for the economic driver of that region. We helped them with that and a number of arterial roads as well.
If you come over to Lismore, close to where I live: we have been working with the Lismore council and a whole lot of other areas in Lismore to make Lismore a sporting precinct. We are doing a $40 million upgrade of Crozier Field and Oakes Oval, where they play soccer and cricket and rugby league—all the major sports. We will get a whole lot of preseason games when it's completed. We've already had a preseason League game and a preseason AFL game. These are economic drivers. We have done a hockey upgrade and a baseball upgrade just last week, and this is why this is important: that upgrade we did with baseball means we can now host national tournaments. The national Little League tournament was held in Lismore, at the baseball facility. We had hundreds of people there in our community spending money at the cafes and at motels, because we get it; we get regional Australia. We have done the same with hockey.
We have Norco in Lismore. Norco produce great dairy products—great milk, probably the best milk in the world, and the best ice cream in the world too. In fact we are working with Norco to do an upgrade of the Lismore ice cream factory; we are going halves. They employ hundreds of people there. It's a really important economic driver for Lismore. We are going halves in upgrading the ice cream factory so it can be the latest state-of-the-art facility and be world's best practice. Again, we as a government get regional Australia, and that's why regional Australians vote for us and Labor. A number of years ago I worked with the local university to get the Farming Together program, which encourages the growth in mutuals and co-ops. It's a great model where the producer or grower becomes an owner of the processing plant, so we formed that as well.
Part of the Ballina shire is in my electorate, although the airport isn't. The airport at Ballina is a major economic driver. In fact, through COVID last year, Ballina airport was the either second or third busiest airport in the country because people weren't leaving the country, but they were looking for somewhere to go, so they were flying into the Ballina-Byron Bay airport. They came to me a year or so ago saying they needed to widen the runway. It's a 30-metre wide runway and now it has to be 45 metres wide for the new generations of jets. We saw the importance of that, so we've put up half the money for them because, again, we know that that airport is an economic driver for our region. We get the regions, Labor don't. That's why they vote for us and not Labor.
I now go to Richmond Valley and Casino. There's been a lot of misrepresentation in this chamber over the years I've been here, none more so than when people called Rockhampton the beef capital. It's not; we know that Casino is. I've worked with the Richmond Valley Council to do a $14 million upgrade of the saleyards. The council contributed, the state government contributed and federal government contributed to have state-of-the-art saleyards there. We also have the meatworks across the road, the Northern Co-operative Meat Company. They employ over 1,000 people when they're at full tilt, a really important economic driver for the region, not just Casino. We've given them some assistance to completely upgrade their frozen storage area, which will enable them to produce a new product. We get this, we understand this. We're also helping them do an industrial precinct because we know that, although high streets in towns are important, probably the most important place in a regional community is the industrial precinct. Getting land so businesses can set up is very important, and we're helping them there as well.
In Clarence Valley we have Grafton, a beautiful part of the world, as is the Lower Clarence. We've done a lot of work there. We've just finished the duplication of the Pacific Highway, a $5 billion project with the Commonwealth government contributing 80 per cent of that. It's a huge economic driver and it's saving lives as well. We've just finished that and it's been a wonderful project over the last seven or eight years. Yamba Welding & Engineering is getting Defence contracts. There are riverside precinct upgrades in Maclean and in Grafton itself. With headspace we've increased mental health services. We get regional Australia; Labor don't. (Time expired)
Yesterday, we saw politics at its absolute worst. In the middle of a pandemic, with the vaccine rollout stalled, with COVID outbreaks in two of our most populous states and cases in a third state, with quarantine not working, instead of fighting the virus, we saw a government again fighting itself. That's what we saw yesterday. If you want to see a contrast between how regional Australia is represented on one side of the House and on the other, the member for Page and the member for New England exemplified it today. If you look at some of the magnificent women who represent regional Australia on this side of the House, there is the member for Franklin. There is the member for Eden-Monaro. There is the member for Macquarie. There is the member for Richmond. There is the member for Bendigo. We've got the member for Dobell. We've got the member for Paterson, the member for Cunningham, the member for Macquarie. All of these fantastic women represent regional Australia. What have we seen for the National Party? It's back to the future, these dinosaurs who think that they know and understand the complexity of regional Australia. What an absolute joke. What a joke they have become. No wonder, when Independents run against them, whether it's in the state seats or whether it's federally—for example, in the electorate of Indi—they lose office because these guys have had it.
If you want to look at where they have had it, look at the way they are behaving when it comes to climate change. Those of us who live in regional Australia and represent regional Australia know; we get it. We know the National Farmers Federation gets it. We have to be part of this change because this change is happening. We need to participate in it, make sure we shape it, take advantage of it and make sure we get the jobs in our regions because we know it is in our economic interests to do so. Yet these dinosaurs in the National Party, who have gone back to the future with Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, do not get it at all and they are holding this country hostage when it comes to the renewable energy jobs of the future. That is what these dinosaurs in the National Party have done, and the Liberal Party are complicit in it because they know they cannot govern without them. They are absolutely and utterly tied at the hip to these dinosaurs and their policies that are taking us back into the past.
If this country is to move forward, if regional Australia is to grow the jobs—of course we want to see jobs growth in the resources sector. We want to make sure that we're able to export our commodities. We want to make sure that we are growing the best produce we possibly can, exporting it and using it in our domestic market. We want to make sure that there are Australian jobs in freight and shipping, taking it around the country and taking our products to the world. We want to make sure regional Australia is part of the future and has future jobs growth. That's what we want to see, and the magnificent women on this side of the House who represent our regions across this country are fighting for that every single day.
Yet, what we're seeing yet again is this dinosaur Deputy Prime Minister basically taking us back to the future when it comes to renewable energy. We've seen it over and over and over again. This country will not grow jobs in regional Australia. It cannot grow jobs in regional Australia while the Nationals continue to hold this country hostage when it comes to climate change. We know that the National Farmers Federation, the meat and livestock corporation, every National Farmers Federation branch in the states and territories, the Country Women's Association and the Business Council of Australia are all saying that if we do not participate in the renewable jobs of the future in our regions we will miss out. We are already decades behind where we should be to get these jobs—decades behind.
Again, what we are seeing time and time again is a National Party that is not representing regional Australia. Frankly, if you look at the faces of who they've got on their side of the fence representing regional Australia, they are not reflective of those communities. How many women have you got who represent the regions? How many women have you got in your party that actually represent the regions? Where's the diversity of people representing regional Australia in the National Party? It is simply and utterly not there.
We know on this side that our regions are ready. We are ready for a revolution. We are ready for growth in jobs, but we need help. We need help in getting regional housing. We need help in growing renewable energy jobs. We need assistance, not pork-barrelling, in the seats that the National Party holds continuously. I know that every one of the women on this side representing our regions will fight this Deputy Prime Minister every inch of the way. (Time expired)
I agree with the previous speaker that they have some wonderful women on their side of the chamber, and they take up the debate. But, unfortunately for them, when it comes to our agriculture sector, what our farmers want is action. When it comes to truly helping our farming communities, they look to see the actions, they look to see what you're actually doing when you go to Canberra, they look to see what your policy actually is and what it is going to do for their business and their sector. If they looked at us recently, they would have said, 'Here they are working as hard as they possibly can to get that free trade agreement signed with Britain.' The impacts of that are going to flow through to the farmers in the next few years.
If we happen to be talking about the Murray-Darling Basin, what is the most important thing they could do for those farmers? They could correct the inaccuracies around the Murray-Darling Basin. They could correct the overtake of water away from agriculture towards the environment. They could correct that if they wanted to, but, unfortunately, those on the opposition side, from Labor, don't want to. They don't want to correct the damage that has been done by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They just don't want to change it. If anything, they want to make it worse. So, you've got to be very, very careful when you come in here and start being critical of the people who are truly arguing for agriculture, who are truly arguing for the betterment of the people on the land.
Only yesterday we were in this chamber talking about how we could make the farm household allowance more fit for purpose for our farmers. If anybody, because of the calculations about future earnings, had somehow or other accrued a debt, we were going to waive that debt with the bill that went through the House yesterday. When the dairy farming crisis hit in May 2016, it was this government that ran to support the dairy sector. And those people who understand what happened in 2016—when milk companies had been overpaying for the majority of the year and then, all of a sudden, were trying to claw back hundreds of thousands of dollars from farming families—would understand exactly what happens when a certain sector needs some support. When we saw Batlow Apples go up in flames, it was this government, in conjunction with the New South Wales government, that put hundreds of thousands of dollars on the table, to be matched by the farmers, to get production up and running again, even though we all know it's going to take some five to six years for that fruit to start bearing once again. This government doesn't just do the talk; it actually backs itself up with the actions. And that's what I'm saying—
Honourable members interjecting—
You can snipe all you like, but the fact is that if you want to make a tangible difference to agriculture, if you want to help get the agriculture sector to $100 billion by 2030, you're going to have to change some of your policies. You can't just keep saying, 'The roof is going to fall in,' while you're pulling down all the bearers that are holding up the roof. This is what you're doing currently; you stand there and you snipe at every possible policy that might actually assist agriculture. You snipe at them. Then, all of a sudden, you say, 'Why aren't you doing such and such?'
One of the things that the member for Franklin spoke about early on was the lack of labourers and overseas workers to come in and help pick the fruit. In every committee that we sit on, whether it be the Migration Committee or the Regional Australia Committee, it was the Labor Party time after time after time that would be arguing against bringing overseas workers into Australia. It was the Victorian Labor Party that put a final kibosh on the whole program that David Littleproud had set forward. So what we have here again is opportunistic squawking that they want to help, and that we should do this and we should do that, but every chance we get to put forward policy that's going to help the people in regional Australia and help the people on the farms and in the agriculture sector, the Labor Party stands there and ensures that these assistance packages simply do not find their way onto the farms. So we need to be careful about opening up this chamber to talk about subjects like this when you are so far out of your depth and when so many of your policies run exactly contrary to the notion that you put forward today. (Time expired)
It is disappointing to hear that we're out of our depth representing our own communities. I spoke last week about ongoing issues that continue to affect farmers in my region, and I implored the government to stop playing politics, and to take some time to actually listen to the farmers, our forestry industry and regional communities, and actually address their concerns. Eden-Monaro communities have had a tough few years. We've faced challenges including drought, bushfire, numerous storm and flood events, the COVID-19 pandemic and border closures. But by far the most frustrating part of that challenge is that this government is, quite frankly, not paying attention. Our farmers are worried. They're worried about coping with workforce shortages. They're worried about CSIRO funding cuts to pasture and animal science. They're worried about the dependency on China to keep the wool industry afloat. They're worried about getting funding coordinator roles for farming cooperative groups. And they're worried that this government is more focused on themselves than on the everyday challenges of rural and regional Australians. Instead of focusing on real issues, this government is self-indulgent. Instead of talking about what matters, they're talking about themselves. But it's hardly surprising that this government continues to fail at adequately representing farmers, producers and regional communities.
On top of this, farmers are significantly affected by labour shortages. When natural disasters tear through our communities, work on farms doesn't stop. In fact, it increases. Our farmers need help, but they can't find any assistance. The labour shortage is crippling farms. The shortage is not just in agriculture, though; it's in hospitality, retail and tourism. Our regional communities have had to put up with this for far too long. The government has now announced an agricultural visa which is meant to fix the problem, but no farmer I know is holding their breath. The vaccine rollout and quarantine failures keep setting us up for failure. It's difficult to see how any new visa will fix workforce shortages any time soon.
And it's not just our farmers that are facing critical staff shortages; our regions are now at crisis point due to GP shortages. We're seeing fewer doctors move towards GP careers, fewer GPs moving to regional areas, and as a result there's significant pressure on remaining doctors and our local hospitals. What is the plan to attract new GPs to regional communities? It is your job. It is the Morrison government that carries the responsibility for supporting and growing the GP network. They need to ensure that regional Australians have access to health care, especially during a pandemic. But, once again, there is no plan to address the GP shortage from those opposite. They claim to represent the regions, but there is no answer. There is no plan to deal with the most critical issue for all regional Australians.
We're now well and truly into the second winter following the bushfires that devastated my region and many regions across this country. As I talk to people affected in my electorate, the message is clear: survivors feel that Canberra has forgotten them, that the government has moved on and the recovery of our regional communities is no longer a priority for it. I was recently approached in a local supermarket by a woman who said she is still living in a caravan after her home was burnt down, and on top of this her van has been flooded. She has no idea what her next move is, and she's not alone. The story is not unique in our communities. People are still significantly struggling following the bushfires. We are 18 months on and the impacts are still being felt by communities. Where is the focus on getting them help? It is nothing short of ludicrous that the new Coordinator-General of the National Recovery and Resilience Agency refuses to meet with me or other Labor members who represent communities where people have been impacted by bushfire. That is politicking of the highest order. That is absolute ridiculousness. It is your job to hear from our communities. It is your job to come and listen to us as we try to help those communities that are doing it really tough.
I recently spoke to forestry contractors—an industry that's been all but forgotten in this bushfire recovery. Forestry has received some support, but contractors who work in and around the industry haven't been assisted or supported at all. Jobs are on the line. And, to be quite frank, the assistance to forestry industries could have been a lot better. There's been plenty of political tourism from those opposite, and what I would say is: quit the tourism, start acting and start listening to the people in these regional communities, who know what they need to get better. I'll tell you what: we need follow through. We need a strategic plan for regional Australia. We need to ensure our regional communities can recover and prosper. We need a new government, because this one isn't listening. (Time expired)
The member who just addressed the House said, 'We need a new government.' Well, there'll be an election. There'll be an opportunity for the people of Australia to deliver their verdict. I wouldn't hold my breath, Member for Eden-Monaro.
I'd hasten to suggest I've spent more time in sawmills in my lifetime than the member opposite has in her lifetime, so I'm not going to allow her to lecture me or this place about forest industries. You know what the issue is in forest industries in my electorate right now? Fatigue. We're having to manage workers for fatigue. They are busting out so much timber, because of this government's HomeBuilder program, they are suffering from fatigue. They can work 28 days in a month but they can't go past that, because the mill owners are worried about fatigue. But I digress. I shouldn't be triggered by the member opposite, but I think I just have been.
The most seminal, most important speech that the Leader of the Opposition is given the privilege of delivering every year, I think we all know, is the budget in reply. It is 30 minutes where the whole nation pauses to listen to their plan. Well, that's the plan, anyway. The whole nation pauses and we sit here diligently listening, waiting to hear the plan. The Leader of the Opposition marched in on that Thursday evening and gave a 30-minute speech. Those opposite march in today and say how they are so committed to regional Australia, that agriculture is their thing and that the mouse plague is what they are focused on. But, if we go back to that seminal speech, the budget-in-reply speech, you would think that the Leader of the Opposition would have uttered the words 'agriculture' dozens of times in that speech because it is so important to those opposite. If agriculture is not your go, I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition would have uttered the words 'regional Australia' dozens of times. Well, I'm here to tell you that he didn't utter any of those words dozens of times. You would think that five times each would be fair—it's a priority but it's not everything.
Those opposite need to understand that their leader marched into this place to deliver the most important speech of the year on behalf of those opposite, setting out the plan to win the next election—because, as the member for Eden Monaro said, 'We need a new government'—and, do you know how many times these words were uttered? 'Agriculture', zero. This is like playing The Price is Right. But I'm being unkind, aren't I? I mean, who would say 'agriculture'? If you're focused on regional Australia, you don't mention agriculture; you mention regional Australia. I'm now thinking of Steve, an American show: 'I say agriculture. Is it up there, Steve?' No, he did not mention it—not once. You've gotta be kidding!
The best bit of advice I got in politics was to be consistent. If it's not enough of a priority to mention it at all in the budget-in-reply speech, don't march into the chamber a month or so later and say, 'This is the single-most matter of public importance,' and pause everything we're doing in this place so that those opposite can point out the supposed failures in agriculture.
But I'm not actually concerned about those opposite; the reality is that we are marching towards $100 billion of agricultural output by 2030. Perhaps they should listen to the member for Hunter. He gets it. He's trying to deliver some common sense. He is actually laying down a pathway for those opposite to be competitive at the next election. But I tell you what; you are not going to be competitive by marching in here, with lines at the dispatch box, saying, 'It's now all about agriculture, it's all about regional communities and it's all about regional Australia.' The people of Australia aren't muppets. They know that, when the Leader of the Opposition stood here making his budget-in-reply speech, he didn't even mention agriculture—not once. For that matter, he didn't even mention forestry or regional Australia. Come on; be consistent, because you're not doing yourselves any favours with the people of Australia.
What a fine opportunity this is to speak about the government's continued failure to adequately represent farmers, producers and regional communities. I thank the member for Franklin, the shadow minister for agriculture, for raising this very important matter of public importance, because regional communities like mine are so important. They are the backbone of this nation. They feed our cities and provide local jobs.
We're talking about people who live and spend locally. Just today I've been working on some ads in my local newspapers, and the feature they are running in the local papers is called 'Think Local, Support Local', because that is what country areas do—people support each other. When I came to this place in 2019 my local farmers were in severe drought. To say it was shocking is an understatement. I have never seen anything like it. But my whole community felt their pain—businesses and workers working in related businesses, like feed companies and tractor and repair companies, and the list goes on. But what did this government do? It didn't even acknowledge that these farmers were in drought. While New South Wales declared the area in severe drought, the Morrison government denied that by using outdated maps and therefore denying my local farmers the support they rightfully deserved. Then, of course, came the bushfires, multiple floods and the pandemic. What a potent mix all of that turned out to be!
In my bushfire affected areas we have over 1,000 people in temporary accommodation. COVID and the closure of international borders have meant people are holidaying locally, which is a great thing for spending and local jobs. But it has also had an unintended consequence, putting immense pressure on housing availability and pushing housing prices up—skyrocketing. Many people have told me how many landlords are either putting rents up to an exorbitant price which renters can't afford or terminating leases for higher-priced holiday rental or for sale. If you don't have somewhere to live, then how do you work and function?
When people talk about workforce shortages, a good part of that in my electorate comes from the inability to find somewhere to live. But what has the Morrison government done about that? Absolutely nothing. The Morrison government don't care about affordable and social housing in our regional areas, but they should—if they actually cared about local businesses and finding workers. It's the same for our farmers. The Morrison government have had years to address workforce shortage issues, but each time they have failed to deliver.
Sometimes I'm not really sure what they do. Last week there was another big announcement: the agricultural workers visa. But there was not a lot of detail on delivery. This latest announcement comes three years after the Nationals first said there would be an agricultural visa. So farmers won't be holding their breath for action soon and, with international borders closed for so long from the Morrison government's failed vaccine rollout and national quarantine, it's difficult to see how any new visa will fix labour shortages crippling local farms now.
The Morrison government has a terrible track record on fixing workforce shortages on Australian farms. It beggars belief that the Morrison government is still yet to respond to the recommendations of the National Agricultural Workforce Strategy handed to it in October. Producers have already faced losses of more than $50 million from rotting crops due to workforce shortages on farms. The Morrison government has failed to take responsibility for labour shortages. Farmers and constituents in my electorate just want this fixed.
Labor has written to Minister Littleproud three times now about our concerns around the agricultural workforce shortage, first in January, then in February and another letter in April. Why have we written so often to Minister Littleproud? Because he promised to fix the workforce shortage because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Has he fixed the workforce shortage? No, he has not. And what's in the budget? The Morrison government has again missed an opportunity to properly fix issues in Australia's agricultural workforce and to set the industry up for growth.
And then there's the mouse plague, on top of everything else. But what is the Morrison government doing about it? Nothing. There's no national response. There's a pattern here: no national response to quarantine, failed vaccine rollout, failed on workforce shortages and failed on the mouse plague. We on this side know the truth: the Morrison government doesn't give a rats about farmers or regional Australia.
Like the member for Barker, I am somewhat bemused about the subject matter that has been brought before us in this MPI. Last week we heard a couple of outbursts from the member for Franklin about mouse plagues and, again, she has brought mouse plagues into this MPI today.
I thought I'd have a look at where Franklin is on the map and of course it's the southernmost electorate in Australia. I don't know much about its primary production or its investment profile but I doubt that mouse plagues are actually a regular occurrence in that part of the world. But they are where I come from, out of the grain belt on the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. They're a subsequent part of farming. They're quite predictable in many ways; we know when they're coming and good farmers prepare for them. But it's interesting; when I was having a bit of a look during question time at some issues I might speak on I saw a speech that the member for Grey delivered on mouse plagues in 2011—that was me, by the way! At that time I was asking the APVMA to accelerate the local mixing process for the new registered chemical for the control of mice in broadacre, zinc phosphide. It was only able to be mixed in two places in Australia and we needed local mixing, otherwise farmers would be transporting grain there and then transporting poison back. It was all too expensive and hard to do. We got a breakthrough, and I actually have a mixing station in my local town now. There's a chemical supply unit doing exactly that. That came in the tracks of deregistering the use of strychnine for mouse control, which we had used back in the nineties.
Here I'll share my own experience with mouse plagues, and I've lived through a few of them. As a kid, they seemed like a bit of fun. They're not much fun when you're trying to protect your house, though; I accept that. I've shared all those the experiences that have been raised before. I've shared my bed with mice. I've had to wipe down my cupboards with disinfectant in the morning so we could get the kids' lunches ready for school. In fact, they chewed through the cornice in my ceiling. They used to peep their heads out at night while we were having dinner, and then their urine dribbled all down the walls of where we lived. That's what it's like living with mice. Before my wife went to school to teach each day, I used to clean up the front and back of the house. I would front-end load up bucketfuls of carcasses of mice that had perished because we'd used strychnine during the night. It was a darn good poison, and I still maintain it should never have been deregistered for use in the case of mouse plagues.
But the point is that if you want to manage a mouse plague it's all about local management. The best people to manage mouse plagues are farmers—the people who live in the towns. But you need to take early action and you need to have the right chemicals supplied to you. When I spoke on this in 2011, I was actually speaking about something that a national government could do in response to a mouse plague.
Opposition members interjecting—
We're hearing calls for action. How about you detail what you think? Why doesn't the member for Franklin actually talk about what she thinks would be a constructive thing for a federal government to do in the face of a mouse plague? I tell you what: you can't beat it with dollar bills. You can't beat it by sending the Army out there. There are no simple solutions to this. The solution to a mouse plague is local management, and it is the people on the ground who will front up and defeat them.
On the broader issue of us not regarding farmers and regional Australia, in recent years we've doubled the FMDs—a great drought management tool for farmers. We have the immediate tax write-off now on capital goods. Before that, we had immediate tax write-off on water, fodder and fencing. We have farm household support. Interestingly enough, if those farmers are affected badly enough by a mouse plague, they will qualify for farm household support. There is $5 billion in the Future Drought Fund. We've invested in new drought hubs. In my own electorate in SA, we headed out of Roseworthy. I have Minnipa, Port Augusta and Orroroo that will all have hubs. We have the on-farm emergency water grants and regional connectivity. We've put in another $84 million in the budget.
I might just touch on mobile phones. There was never a mobile phone tower policy under the Labor government—or their policy was: we don't have one. In my electorate, 30 towers have been built, another 18 are on the way, and there are two rounds of funding to come. There was another $250 million in the budget for the BBRF, one of the great investors in regional areas. I've run out of time. But for anyone to allege that this side of the parliament is not on the side of regional Australia— (Time expired)
What a contrast with the culture of those opposite! Until now there have been only men lecturing to the women on this side about how little we must know about our regions. That'd be the regions that we live in—the regions that we've spent our lives in, have raised our kids in and are still raising our kids in. There is this absolute arrogance that, for some reason, only someone who's part of a national party or a liberal national party or, goodness knows for what reason, the Liberals, would have any idea, or would have a better idea than us.
Can we just accept that every region is different? I'm going to talk about how my region is different. I know my region. I know what we miss out on. I know what this government is failing to deliver. One of the things it's failing to deliver is respect for the women who represent these regions. My region is one that sits on the edge of Sydney. We can be confused sometimes with a city electorate. We can be confused sometimes with a remote electorate. Most of the time we sit in this area of being periurban. We are the key producer in New South Wales of perishable vegetables. The floods gave that a real hit. You only need to go to Flemington markets to see how the produce availability has been affected by that. We're the key producer of turf in the country. We're an area that has orchards. We have beef. We have not much dairy, but we still do have a bit of dairy. Unfortunately, while some areas are worrying about different threats to agriculture, mine is worrying about encroachment from houses that are taking over rich land. That's a failure of government policy—a failure to protect areas that have been, in our history, absolutely vital. It was the Hawkesbury that kept the settlement of Sydney alive when the colonists were here. When they first started and they couldn't grow stuff, the Hawkesbury could grow it. We are steeped in agricultural history. The threats are horrific, I have to say. In terms of the dairies that we've lost to housing, people will look back and ask: how could a country have given up land that was such a rich source of agricultural production?
So, in terms of the things that have struck us in the last 18 months or so, yes, there was the drought. Areas on the edge of Sydney don't always get noticed as being drought affected, but that has really hurt our wine-growing parts. It has hurt anyone with pasture. Then, of course, we had bushfires, and the bushfires wiped out apple orchards. They wiped out beautiful parts of the country, including orchards that have never been affected by bushfires before. That tells you something about how every region is being affected in different ways by the changes in the climate. We are seeing things that we've never seen before. Then we had our first flood. Then we had COVID. Then we had the biggest flood that the Hawkesbury River has experienced in about 30 years—a flood that wiped out vegetable crops, wiped out turf, left silt everywhere and ate into the riverbank.
Here's where this government's real failure is. It is great at announcing support for bushfires and announcing support for floods, but that support never lands on the ground. I can count on one hand the support that my orchards have had. There have been a couple of really good bits and pieces, but that's all it is. In terms of flood, there are great big horseshoe-shaped holes in the side of the Hawkesbury River, and the state and federal governments have not worked out what arrangements are going to be put in place for stabilisation, let alone any kind of remediation of those, and that affects every producer in my region. So don't sit across there and tell us that we don't know our regions—the places that we live in, the places that we spend every minute in once we escape Canberra, the places where people tell us what they need and where we listen to the people that we represent.
I rise to speak on this matter of public importance and to wholeheartedly reject the assertions made by those opposite. This government is committed to supporting regional farming communities and has displayed this commitment through several measures, including the 2021 Commonwealth budget. We're also committed to supporting the agriculture sector to grow to $100 billion by 2030, and we are well on the way to achieving that goal.
A key challenge to achieving this aim will be in farmers having access to the human capital they need to get their produce onto the plates of Australians around the country and, indeed, around the world. To address this challenge, our government is delivering a new seasonal agriculture visa which will significantly improve access to sources of legal labour for primary producers. I have been calling for a seasonal agriculture visa for some time now, and the Nationals have delivered. This will allow producers to get the right workers in the right place at the right time. It will allow workers from ASEAN countries to enter Australia for seasonal work, in skilled and unskilled positions, for nine months of the year for three years in a row.
The agriculture industry celebrated this announcement, and local growers in the Mallee have contacted me, saying how thrilled they are with the new visa. When I spoke to Fred Tassone from Robinvale about the new visa, he told me that industry had been crying out for this for some time and that this is a really encouraging outcome for all sectors of business across Australia. Anthony Gervasi wrote to me as well about the announcement. He said: 'This is awesome news. Congratulations, and thank you for your great work. You and the Nats have delivered to our region. There is a general buzz amongst my fellow growers. Everyone I've spoken to is really excited about this news, and it's the much-needed pick-up we needed to refocus on the next season. Confidence is up today. What a great story.' This visa is a great result for farmers in my electorate of Mallee, who've been desperate for a solution to their workforce troubles.
This side of the government is committed to regional communities, and the evidence is in our budget. The 2021 budget contains several measures that build on this government's track record of world-class infrastructure investments. We know that infrastructure is crucial to the prosperity of regional communities. That's why we're investing billions of dollars around the country to deliver the best roads, the best community infrastructure and the best telecommunications possible. This year's budget is delivering an additional $1 billion to the Local Road and Community Infrastructure Program, taking this program to $2.5 billion. This money is improving the lives of our communities, and council organisations are building on some fantastic projects. In fact, I've just come from having a coffee with the Pyrenees Shire Council CEO, mayor and another member, and I've got to say they are so excited about the LRCI program and also about the Building Better Regions Fund. It gives them the capacity to make decisions at a local level about what is needed. They utilise local trades and can see great change in their regional communities.
We also have a focus on safety, particularly for road users. New overtaking lanes have been completed between Mildura and Ouyen thanks to this government's commitment to the Calder Highway in Victoria. The 2021 budget has delivered an additional $15 million to the Calder Highway, bringing our total commitment to $75 million.
I know that regional connectivity is a key concern for communities in my region, and, again, this government is doubling down on investments to improve connectivity for regional Australians. We've committed $84.8 million for the second round of the Regional Connectivity Program. Mallee received $5 million in the first round for projects to install new a 4G base station and to connect Hopetoun and Kaniva to fibre to the premises, the best technology NBN has to offer.
Contrary to the ludicrous claims of those opposite, this government is supporting agriculture and regional communities right across Australia.
The discussion is now concluded.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the private Members' business notice relating to the disallowance of the Industry Research and Development (Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program) Instrument 2021 made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 on 13 May 2021 and presented to the House on 24 May 2021, standing in the name of the Member for Warringah being called on immediately.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Industry Research and Development (Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program) Instrument 2021 made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 on 13 May 2021 and presented to the House on 24 May 2021, be disallowed.
This instrument gives effect to the Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program. The Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program aims to provide businesses with funding to accelerate exploration and appraisal activities in the basin. The Beetaloo Sub-basin is a gas field approximately 500 kilometres south-east of Darwin, extending across an area of approximately 28,000 square kilometres. The basin is just one of five such basins that the government plans to open up around Australia, in complete contradiction to our international commitment to keep global warming to under two degrees and against all expert advice that no new gas fields can be developed if the world is to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. The program will cost some $50 million of public funds over two years, alongside several hundred million dollars of taxpayer money that has been directed to the Beetaloo Basin. The Australian people are paying for this folly, and it is entirely unacceptable.
It is extraordinary that, on a day when we learnt that the Great Barrier Reef may be listed as in danger by UNESCO due to our climate change impacts and due to the lack of strong climate change policy from this government, the government and the opposition are voting against a motion to disallow the exploration of one of the most polluting gas basins in Australia. Both the coalition and the ALP are absolute hypocrites when it comes to a climate change commitment. It is astounding that, despite claiming to be committed to net zero, the ALP are supporting the government on this gas folly. The Beetaloo could result in an almost eight per cent increase in our domestic emissions, and that is not just carbon dioxide but also methane, which is almost 34 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time line. By funding the drilling in this basin the government makes a complete mockery of its commitment to the Paris Agreement to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees and under two degrees.
At a time when the Bureau of Meteorology has already told us that we are currently on track to have over three degrees of warming globally and, in the Northern Territory, over four degrees of warming, it is astounding that this government continues on a path of self-destruction to make our country and the Northern Territory uninhabitable. The government's own department stated that the emissions from the developing of onshore shale gas in the Northern Territory may be difficult to offset and could impact on Australia's progress in meeting the Paris Agreement commitments. And what has hardly been said is that we're talking about fracking here, which is deeply unpopular with so many of the regional communities that this government and the ALP are pretending to represent.
The call to stop further fossil fuel expansion is backed by one of the most conservative energy agencies in the world, the International Energy Agency, which traditionally the government was very happy to quote from because it had a conservative approach to transitioning to clean energy. But it has made clear in its Net Zero by 2050 report that there must be no new fossil fuel projects from this year onwards to keep warming to 1.5 degrees and at least under two degrees. So, remember, when this government claims that this is for the Northern Territory, that it's for northern Australia, it is gaslighting the very people who will be on the front line of global impacts.
One of the reasons that I'm sure the minister will come up and gaslight us about will be jobs. The government and the gas industry will deliver talking points and spin about the jobs relating to these projects. They're notorious for promoting gas as a big employer, but the facts actually speak for themselves. The real figure is that only 0.3 per cent, or some 42,000 jobs in Australia, are actually in the gas industry. The gas industry is actually ranked 55th in terms of employment out of 105 industries in Australia. We don't need more gas.
The next argument you will hear is that this is about supply and price. This is just more gaslighting. The supply from the Beetaloo Basin won't help Australians. Let's be really clear about that. From 2015 to 2019, the supply of gas has more than tripled, yet I haven't seen a reduction in prices. In fact, prices have increased by 130 per cent. So, since the coalition have been in government for a significant number of years yet the prices are rising, it begs the question that the policy is not working, and that is because the Beetaloo will help only exporters of gas and not manufacturers—and not domestic prices.
Only one per cent of Australian gas is used as feedstock in manufacturing—a reason that's often promoted by the government. Some 70 per cent of gas goes offshore to export markets. In fact, the gas used in manufacturing has declined in every state in the last several years. The Australian Energy Market Operator is projecting that the industry's use of gas will decrease from 2022. Ironically, the gas industry uses more gas just processing gas so that it can be exported than the entire manufacturing industry does. This is like a vicious circle of atrociousness, and the justification we hear from the minister in this place is just amazing. Manufacturing employment has declined since the 1980s, when Australia did in fact have cheap gas, but it's government policies that have actually enabled most of the gas to be exported. The real question is: if you want to reduce prices, change those laws, keep the gas domestically. Of course, that's not what they want to do; they just want to open up more, because why not make the problem bigger and put your head in the sand for a little bit longer?
The Australian Energy Market Operator has projected that residential and commercial consumption of gas is actually going to decrease. We know that the cheapest electricity comes from renewables. People know, so they will switch their home heating to electric and they will switch their hot water to heat pumps. Gas is in decline, but that's not what the government and the ALP want to hear. They want to promote the industry for longer. They want to ignore the science. Customers are moving away from gas. There's no future in this. Even our export markets know that there is a time limit on this. This huge amount of public funding going into opening up these basins will have no significant return for the public. Public money is being wasted because there is not going to be the time line return to actually justify any of this public spending.
China, a major customer, will be peaking emissions before 2030 and will hit net zero by 2060. We're always hearing from members of the coalition: why should Australia do its bit when no-one else is committing? But here we are: it's 2021, and the rest of the world is committing. They have committed to net zero, and the only player that hasn't is Australia. If only the government would listen to its own rhetoric of why we should be committing or following the pack. Japan, our largest market, have committed to almost halving their emissions by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050. So too will Korea, our third-biggest market. They've committed to net zero by 2050 as well. Some 70 per cent of our two-way trade is covered by net zero targets, so we can't bank on these markets providing any kind of substantial return for this public investment.
Is gas a transition fuel? We'll hear that. We'll hear grand words coming from the dispatch box. But it's just more gaslighting. About a decade ago you could have argued that gas was a transition fuel, but those days are long gone.
Gas power supplied only 7½ per cent of energy in the grid last year. The reason I'm optimistic about the decline of gas is that there's been such a remarkable shift in the business case for batteries. A study commissioned by the Clean Energy Council found that batteries are a superior choice for electricity peaking, outcompeting gas. The study compared a gas peaker plant and a grid-scale battery and found that the battery provided a cost saving of more than 30 per cent. So, for a government that is focused on sensible economic management, you would think that there would be a focus on the technologies that are actually commercial.
Batteries attract no carbon risk or exposure to volatile gas prices. They are attractive to investors, and that is why the market is speaking time and time again. But it's not where the government's going and it's not where the ALP is going. The proof is in the numbers. Fifteen large-scale batteries were announced this year. That's $4.3 billion in investment. The future is in renewables, not gas. We can either buy the dystopian reality this government is selling or reach for a different reality—one where our economic prosperity is actually underpinned by clean jobs. With the sunny and flat expanses of the Northern Territory, there is so much opportunity to support an abundance of renewable energy projects, and they will deliver energy overseas and domestically.
More concerning is the information we've had about the process by which Indigenous and First Nations' consent has been obtained in relation to the Beetaloo Basin—native title consent. I met last week with traditional owners of the Beetaloo Basin and nations that live downstream from where the drilling will be conducted. The traditional owners said there has been no process of informed consent for the exploration to occur, no scientific explanation, no translators provided to those community groups, no information about the long-term impact and risks to water tables and their livelihood and the land on which they live. They're concerned that even the mining companies have not been able to tell them where the exploration wells will be, how they will impact the underground water, what the final production level mine would look like or how many wells are being proposed. It's outrageous that the government is coming into this place, and the ALP is coming in this place, to support this going ahead when there has not been proper informed consent, and the risks have simply not been addressed or properly assessed.
While traditional owners live in poverty, they're seeing the government give a mining company $50 million worth of public money to drill and frack for gas on their land. This is the land they use to survive; it's their source of food and water, and it has been so for over 60,000 years. It was where we went to escape the threat of COVID. It's where they want their children to grow up to continue the tradition of living on the land. They are very real; they live on that land. They rely and need that water to be clean. And people in this place are carelessly compromising that. As one of the traditional owners said to me: 'We want our children to grow up in nature and with nature, to learn about it. We need to preserve it.'
This is the responsibility of every person in this place. It's very clear that steps need to be taken to address climate change, and that's what this motion is ultimately about. For all of the members who talk a big game on climate change, this is an opportunity to show who you are. I call on all the members in this parliament to vote with their conscience on this motion. It's not enough for government members to fall back on their miserly ambition of 2030, and 'preferably' by 2050—mind you, we know that probably isn't worth much these days with the dysfunction of the coalition party room. But the facts have changed and the science has changed since the last election. I say that to the ALP, because their justification is, 'This was a promise in 2019, and we have to stick with it.' It's hypocritical of all MPs in this place, both coalition and ALP, to tell their electorates that they're committed to action against climate change, but then, when the opportunity arises to take action where they can have real influence and show that they oppose a project that science tells us must not go ahead, they don't show up. They don't vote against it.
The coalition can't be trusted to take action, not with renegades in their own party room. The Labor Party is held hostage to its own elements. It's clear the Australian public need to know that this parliament is not genuinely committed to taking real action on climate change. If it were, under no circumstances would we be approving an instrument to spend $50 million of Australian public money at a time of record debt on a project that is not the future of Australia, that will doom us to more global warming and that will not deliver for future generations. It is shameful on every member of this place that fails to stand up and oppose this instrument.
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion. I rise to support this motion moved by the member for Warringah to prevent the government from proceeding with its plan to fast-track drilling in the Beetaloo Basin. It's not difficult to see why we've got to stop this. The environmental risks are astronomical, the local traditional owners are opposed to it and the economic returns are so poor that not even the gas industry itself was willing to invest in it. The government only ever talks about the Beetaloo Sub-basin in dollar figures and petajoules, but what you'll never hear them talk about are the carbon dioxide emissions it will produce, the falling demand for gas in Australia and abroad, the First Nations groups who've been frozen out of this process or the half a billion in subsidies and infrastructure that will be stranded in the blink of an eye, all in the name of a gas-led recovery.
The economics here simply don't stack up. Gas might've been a viable transition fuel decades ago but that moment has long passed. Industry forecasts show gas will fall from 7.5 per cent of the National Energy Market in 2020 to just one per cent by 2030—that's right, one per cent by 2030—replaced almost entirely by dispatchable storage solutions. Our key gas export markets across China, Japan and South Korea will hit peak emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2050. Even if this instrument passes today, and the government dishes out its $50 million in subsidies to the gas industry tomorrow, Australians wouldn't see new gas from the Beetaloo in the National Energy Market until at least 2025. Let's just think about that for a moment: this government is pumping millions out the door in gas subsidies for a market that will simply never exist. In what universe is this good economic management? Even the government's own Beetaloo Strategic Basin Plan admits this is straight-up bad economics, listing 'the closing window of gas demand' as a 'serious challenge'. Well, this is more than a serious challenge; this is a fatal flaw.
The gas industry is also a minuscule employer in Australia. It's one of the least resource-intensive industries and employs a mere 0.2 per cent of the Australian workforce. According to Rod Campbell, the director of research at the Australia Institute, 'Investing in almost any other industry would be a more effective way of creating jobs as part of the COVID-19 recovery than through the Beetaloo Basin plan.' For every $1 million of output the gas industry employs around 0.4 people in Australia. By contrast, the same output in health and education employs more than 10 people. That's right, more than 20 times the return on investment for jobs. Imagine what we could do with that investment in health care. At a time when GP offices are shouldering the burden of the government's vaccine rollout and regional Australia is facing critical skill shortages in aged care, disability care and child care, spending almost half a billion to prop up a small number of jobs in a dead-end gas industry absolutely beggars belief to this regional Australian and to so many other regional Australians.
The Beetaloo Basin plan totally misunderstands economic needs and opportunities of regional and remote Australia. Regional Australians are watching this government—they are—and they don't like what they see. Communities across my regional electorate of Indi aren't asking for gas subsidies and an expansion of hydraulic fracking. If anything, regional Australia wants a bigger slice of the renewable energy boom which, unlike gas, continues to grow.
The Australian Local Power Agency Bill I've introduced to parliament would put the half a billion dollars this government is spending on subsidies and stranded infrastructure in the Beetaloo Basin to much better use—to use that Australians want—and it would build jobs that Australians want. The ALPA's job would be to drive investment in locally owned renewables in regional Australia and put profits back into the pockets of communities, not multinational gas companies.
Last year Australia installed seven gigawatts of renewable energy—a record year. That's enough to replace the Hazelwood power station more than four times or enough to power 3.1 million home, and almost all of that was built in the regions. Unlike gas, this upward trend will continue and it's clean too. What if we used these subsidies to train up young people to build solar panels and batteries locally and to construct, operate and maintain renewable projects? What if we use these subsidies to build up an industry of small businesses in the regions supplying and supporting renewable energy projects?
These investments won't come with the environmental risks that plague hydraulic fracking.
Origin Energy's own environmental report for 10,000 square kilometres on the Beetaloo Basin warned that drilling 'would pose a risk of causing aquifers under some properties to leak into each other', deteriorating the quality of existing and future groundwater supplies. The ecosystem in the outback is fragile and precious. Drilling will have unknown consequences for traditional owners, for flora, fauna and farmers. You won't find these risks with large-scale wind and solar.
Last week I had the privilege of sitting down with the member for Warringah and a delegation of traditional owners from the region where the government plans to drill. We heard from Nicholas Fitzpatrick, Joni Wilson, Asman Rory and May August, who spoke on behalf of some of the many First Nations people who feel they have been flatly ignored by the government in their opposition to drilling on their lands. They told me that, from a Western worldview, you can play with geography and the environment on a topographical map and reprint the new version on the map the next day; but in their world, if you disrupt the geography and the environment, the songlines are lost forever. In a heartfelt letter, their community said the following:
We speak as Traditional Owners and custodians of and around the lands and waters that you call the Beetaloo and connected basins. Although we come from many Nations, we have come together to put an end to the ongoing threat of fracking on our countries, which will denigrate and desecrate our lands.
… … …
Together, we fight for it.
Our connections to country have been established and proven time and time again by the white man's law. We hold Native Title and Land Rights - a system that is meant to protect and enforce our rights. These have been denied to us.
For years, we have been told lies by the gas and oil corporations. That there would be no damage to the country or poison in our waters. These companies won't even answer the most basic of questions - where they plan to drill or how many wells they want to build.
These gas corporations lack any respect for us as Traditional Owners. They have failed to follow proper process in consultation with us, failed to acquire consent, failed to provide transparency in their dealings with us, and have systematically excluded our voices from the decision-making process for activities on our Country.
We don't have the same resources as these corporations. The system is already set up against us.
This Federal Government coming in over the top of what little processes we have undermines our land rights as Northern Territory Traditional Owners. The same Government who has never come out to our communities to sit with us or meet with us. They are failing to represent us.
What a painful sentence to relay to this House from the traditional owners of the lands upon which this government proposes to drill: 'They are failing to represent us.'
Who are the government representing here? Whose interests are being prosecuted? It's certainly not the traditional owners and it's certainly not the Australian taxpayer, whose money would be better spent elsewhere. Many would tell me to look at the coffers of the government's political donations bank accounts to find a few answers to that question. How are we to know without much-needed electoral finance reform and a robust federal integrity commission? Without a permanent Indigenous voice to parliament as envisaged through the Uluru Statement from the Heart, my greatest fear is that this government and future governments will forever hear that painful sentence from our First Nations communities: 'They are failing to represent us'.
It is an honour to second this motion from the member for Warringah to prevent the government from proceeding with its plan to fast track drilling in the Beetaloo Basin.
It's astounding that the government and Labor aren't even prepared to get up and speak to defend this outrage. This is a climate crime. This vote today will condemn Liberal and Labor in history, because not one Liberal or Labor MP has turned up to oppose the opening up of the Beetaloo Basin on public funds. The Northern Territory Labor government wants to open up the Northern Territory and light the fuse on a giant climate time bomb. The federal Liberals are behind it and the federal Labor Party is supporting it as well.
On the very day that we find out that the Great Barrier Reef might end up on the endangered list, Liberal and Labor are voting to open up a huge new gas basin in this country. Climate change is killing the reef. Coal, oil and gas are fuelling the climate crisis. If we want to save our reef and save Australia from climate collapse, we have to keep existing coal, oil and gas in the ground. It is as simple as that.
This is 2021, and every Labor Party member and every Liberal Party member is on notice that we need to keep coal, oil and gas in the ground, because we are running out of time to stop the climate collapse. You can't say that we are facing a climate emergency one week and then come into this place to open up a climate time bomb that is bigger than Adani the next. We will make sure that every voter in the electorates of Cooper, Macnamara, Higgins, Kooyong, Griffith, Brisbane, Ryan and Richmond knows that today their member of parliament supported opening up new gas fields that have, in that whole Northern Territory area, the equivalent of 68 years worth of Australia's pollution.
If we open up these Northern Territory basins, we can say goodbye to the reef. We can say goodbye to Australia doing its fair share of keeping the climate crisis under control. We know—because we've been told it by the International Energy Agency, the G7, the scientists and the students who are marching in the streets—that, to have any chance of stopping the climate crisis becoming a runaway chain reaction that will lead to four degrees of warming during the lifetime of today's primary school students, we need to keep existing coal, oil and gas in the ground and we need to phase out coal, oil and gas as quickly as we possibly can. We have been put on notice. Every Liberal, National and Labor Party member has been put on notice.
And the thing is that this isn't one small project. In the Northern Territory, these connected basins—of which Beetaloo is a part, as I have said, have 68 years worth of Australia's pollution. Doing this and opening this up could increase Australia's pollution by up to 23 per cent, on some estimates—just this alone. Why? Well, methane is much more toxic than CO2 as a climate gas—up to 86 times more toxic. To get this methane out of the ground, you need to go and drill huge holes, called fracking, which not only threatens the water that so many farmers and traditional owners in the area rely on but also leaks methane. The leakage rates from doing this are so high that, when you take that into account, gas is as dirty as coal. This is not a replacement fuel or a transition fuel. Gas is as dirty as coal. And if you don't want to believe the Greens, listen to the former Labor premier and foreign minister, Bob Carr, who has made the point that, on industry figures, gas is as dirty as coal.
So what you Labor and Liberal members are voting for today, as you stand together to vote to give public money to open up a new gas field, is worse than Adani, and it condemns Australia in the eyes of the rest of the world. But, worse, it fast-tracks climate collapse. We don't have time left to open up new coal, oil and gas deposits, but that is what this government is proposing to do. I think public money should be spent on schools and hospitals, not given to tax-dodging coal, oil and gas corporations to go and make the climate crisis worse. There's at least $50 million—as part of a several hundred million dollar program going from the government—that is at stake in this bill. Let's put that money into free education, building renewables and improving hospitals, instead of giving it to these big coal, oil and gas corporations that are going to make the climate crisis worse.
The thing is: this isn't just a climate crime; this is state sanctioned corruption. What is happening here is that the Liberals and Labor are giving public money to corporations that in many instances pay no tax. But what they don't tell you, because they don't even have the guts to stand up and defend this motion, is that those very same corporations make donations to the Liberal and Labor parties. Between Santos, Origin, Empire Energy and Gina Rinehart's subsidiary, Jacaranda Minerals, there has been $3.6 million in donations to the Liberal and Labor parties. That is why they come in here and vote to light the fuse on a giant climate time bomb. We should be asking these big corporations to pay tax. We shouldn't be giving them public money when they pay no tax. Why do we have this situation in Australia where the scientists are telling us, 'You need to keep coal, oil and gas in the ground,' and the Liberal and Labor parties say that they listen to the science but then come in here, in 2021, and open up a massive new gas basin? Why does it happen? It happens because the Liberal and Labor parties take money from these big corporations that pay no tax and that fuel the climate crisis.
This is a fight that we'll be taking up on behalf of the farmers in the area, who are now going to have to contend with these projects that will suck up to 34 million litres of water out of the ground as well as threaten groundwater supplies. We'll be taking this fight up on behalf of the traditional owners, who, as previous speakers have said, do not want this happening on their land, have not been consulted and are worried that this lifeblood they call country is now under threat. And we'll be taking this fight up on behalf of the students who march in the streets because they can read the science. They're not on the take from the big coal, oil and gas corporations. They know, when they march, that we cannot open up new coal, oil and gas mines.
But we also find ourselves now in the situation where the Greens and the crossbench are in line with Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, the G7, the world's scientists and the energy chiefs in the International Energy Agency, who have all said, 'We've got to call time on new fossil fuel developments.' If you want to know why our Prime Minister has to be babysat when he goes to the G7 meetings and why Australia is not being taken credibly, it is in large part because of our climate policies—because this government, with Labor's support, wants to open up new coal, oil and gas developments. We may find carbon tariffs being imposed on our exporters. This government's and the Labor Party's climate recklessness is now putting our exporters at risk and at a disadvantage, because the Liberals and Labor are still wedded to new coal, oil and gas projects.
For everyone around Australia who cares about climate, know this—and we will make sure that everyone knows this before the next election: coal and gas are the leading causes of climate change, and, if you don't have a plan to phase out coal, oil and gas, you are not serious about it. The Liberals and Labor want new coal, oil and gas projects in the time of a climate crisis. This is what today's vote shows. That is why they will be condemned.
I acknowledge the contributions of those on the crossbench but also note that they represent areas like the inner city Sydney beaches, inner city Melbourne and, of course, regional Victoria. I think that the individuals who live in those areas would probably notice if the gas were removed and turned off, and I don't see how those on the crossbench can say to the people of northern Australia and the Northern Territory, 'You can't have a job.' That is what this is about.
The Beetaloo Basin has the potential to create some 6,000 jobs by 2040. It has the potential to transform the Northern Territory economy. It has the potential to supply gas into the domestic market in Australia for decades. This is an incredibly important project. It is a key part of our gas-fired recovery and, as the Prime Minister has said, what is central to our agenda is getting access to our domestic gas supplies. We need to get gas from under our feet. So we're investing in key areas across the gas supply chain to unlock that supply, to deliver efficient transportation and to empower consumers. This is because we are a government that delivers. The strategic basin plan program is a key plank of our plan to bring on that new gas supply to help address that domestic shortfall, to manage prices and to re-establish a strong economy.
On 14 January the government released Unlocking the Beetaloo: The Beetaloo Strategic Basin Plan to accelerate exploration and development in the Beetaloo Sub-basin. We have provided $224 million for drilling and road infrastructure projects. The Beetaloo Sub-basin is potentially one of the largest undeveloped onshore gas resources in the world. It is a new world-class gas province with an estimated 200,000 petajoules or more of gas. Very conservatively, if 10 per cent of this gas proves to be commercial it could supply all of the east coast demand for over 30 years—over 30 years! So we will continue to work closely with the Northern Territory government and local industry in the Beetaloo to build the necessary infrastructure. That includes $173.6 million of Commonwealth funding for the Northern Territory Gas Industry Roads Upgrade program under Roads of Strategic Importance. Just that alone is expected to provide support for over 400 jobs.
We will get on with delivering more efficient and effective regulatory processes, including enhanced regulator capability, and we will reduce regulatory duplications. And, of course, we will work with local communities. The Beetaloo Cooperative Drilling Program has been considered carefully. It's a key plank of our plan to bring on new gas supply and is designed to address domestic shortfall, maintain affordability and continue to grow a strong economy.
In conclusion, the best way to ensure a long-term gas supply to support jobs and industry in Australia is to develop new gas basins and new gas resources. The government knows that unlocking gas reserves is key to Australia's economic prosperity and recovery from COVID-19. Only this government can be trusted to bring on new gas, lower the cost of energy, revitalise manufacturing and ensure thousands of jobs in this time of COVID uncertainty.
The question is that the motion be disagreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
There being fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I rise to speak on the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021. This is the bill that will provide time-limited financial assistance to eligible workers who are unable to earn their usual income as a result of public health restrictions, such as public health orders imposed by state or territory governments, and where the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer has determined the relevant location to be a COVID-19 hotspot for the purposes of this Commonwealth support.
This is a bill that Labor supports. Let me be really clear: these payments are needed and they are needed urgently. But, as well as supporting the bill, I will be moving a second reading amendment. 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 the Government has:
(a) catastrophically failed to address outbreaks in hotel quarantine, which has led to extended lockdowns in states across Australia;
(b) botched the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, which has left all Australians, but particularly aged care workers, vulnerable; and
(c) failed to ensure that workers and businesses received the support needed in the recent Victorian lockdown;
(2) further notes this bill may not have been necessary, if not for the Government's failure on quarantine and vaccines, both national responsibilities; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) build dedicated quarantine facilities and expand existing facilities in every state and territory;
(b) fix the vaccine rollout and expand mobile and mass vaccination clinics;
(c) start a mass public information campaign to encourage people to get vaccinated; and
(d) begin manufacturing mRNA vaccines right here in Australia".
I will be speaking to that second reading amendment as well as demonstrating the support of the opposition for the provisions contained within this bill. The COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021 would create a special appropriation with which to draw funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the COVID-19 disaster payment. This payment is set at $500 a week for people who are engaged in paid employment for more than 20 hours per week and $325 per week for people engaged in paid employment but for less than 20 hours per week. According to the explanatory memorandum, the payment would be available to any person who:
We believe these principles in the bill are appropriate, but it is relevant to note that these payments are both too little and too late. I say this particularly as a Melbournian, knowing what Melbournians have gone through over the last year and a bit. As the second reading amendment makes very clear, the only reason this legislation is warranted and necessary is this government's many failures to bring the pandemic under control. Whether through the vaccine rollout, hotel quarantine or cutting off income support in the course of a pandemic, the Morrison government has failed Victorian workers, businesses and families.
The Prime Minister has had two jobs during this pandemic and he has botched both. I note that the budget, which was recently handed down, is premised on the assumption that there will be six week-long lockdowns. This of course demonstrates vulnerabilities in the economy and vulnerabilities in the labour market. But it is our obligation to pay attention to what we need to fix. When it comes to vaccination, as we are still at about the three per cent mark of Australians who have been vaccinated, we can't even see the front of the queue. Last year the Prime Minister promised that we would be at the front of the queue when it came to a vaccination rollout. But that is so far from where we are. I note that the Prime Minister made a statement on Facebook in April, in respect of the rollout, where he said that his government had 'not set, nor has any plans to set any new targets for completing first doses'. He said, 'While we would like to see these doses completed before the end of the year, it is not possible to set such targets given the many uncertainties involved.'
This is one of the most important programs the Commonwealth of Australia has had to implement since the Second World War, and the Prime Minister just told the people of Australia via Facebook that he had no plan. It seems that he did this because having a plan means accepting responsibility for the execution of that plan, and we know how this Prime Minister feels about responsibility. Again, instead of owning up to this mistake and then fixing it, he issues a statement on Facebook, hiding away from responsibility. Yesterday we learned from the Sydney Morning Herald that the Prime Minister spent weeks planning a secretive side holiday on his G7 visit, all while arguing that Britain was too risky for Australian travellers. We're in a pandemic, a public health emergency. What are the mixed messages that are being delivered here? It is extraordinary. What message does this send to the 36,000 Australians who are stranded overseas? What does this say, on point to the provisions that we are dealing with today, to the 6.6 million Victorians who have borne the brunt of lockdown restrictions to protect themselves and their fellow Australians?
We see no leadership, no responsibility and no empathy from this Prime Minister—a Prime Minister who, as I've said, had two jobs: a speedy and effective rollout of the vaccination program and of quarantine. He's failed at both. We have been dealing with the pandemic for more than a year and the Prime Minister still can't get quarantine right and still can't get the vaccine rollout right. He said, infamously, that the rollout isn't a race—and he's wrong. It is a race, and it's a race we've got to be much, much more serious about winning, because Australians today, and particularly Melbournians, are paying the price for his failures. Melbournians are paying the price for his failures even now.
Labor was saying last year, through the member for McMahon, Labor's health spokesperson, that we needed to do five or six vaccination deals—something that was recognised by the experts then and is recognised by the experts now as the best-practice approach. The countries we like to compare ourselves to had a plan in case they had trouble with a particular vaccine around supply or any potential adverse effects, so that there would be other deals to fall back on and adequate supply. We now know that Pfizer approached the government as early as June last year for Australia to be one of the first countries to get access to the highly effective mRNA vaccine—an opportunity squandered by the Prime Minister, who put all his eggs in one basket and who has now walked away from the problem.
The President of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Karen Price, said new targeted advertising campaigns were desperately needed to tackle vaccine hesitancy, as Australians of all ages were confused and suffering from information overload. She said that we need 'targeted advertisements to specific cohorts to talk about this risk benefit of vaccination, because it's just become a real mess of messages'—a 'real mess of messages'. That just isn't good enough. Every Australian deserves to be safe and to get adequate information to make themselves safe and to keep their community safe. If that isn't the case, it is a core responsibility of government to fix this problem.
Last Friday, the Morrison government did announce that they'd provide $1.2 million in funding to multicultural organisations to deliver targeted health information about the rollout. But why has it taken so long for the Prime Minister to commit to this? This is almost a year after Labor specifically called for a communications grant program to multicultural communities so that we could better use the network, so that we could recognise the strengths within those communities to communicate vital public health information and so that we could demonstrate that we have learnt the lessons of some of the challenges we found in implementing an effective public health response for all Australians last year. But this government won't learn those lessons. This government won't recognise the great strengths that are in communities and harness these strengths in the interests of those communities and in the interests of the wider community.
As all this is going on, we have seen the damage that has been done and continues to be done by the likes of the member for Hughes, spreading misinformation and disinformation, and of course Clive Palmer, who has put the most appalling material into letterboxes in my electorate—and electorates around the country, it would appear—building on his earlier efforts to spread misinformation and disinformation by other means. Well, if Clive Palmer can be so assiduous at getting this misleading, divisive and damaging information out, we need to do so much better at countering it with an effective public health campaign. We learnt yesterday that one of the reasons that the government has delayed pushing harder on a public health campaign is concerns about supply. This is absolutely extraordinary. I really don't think you could make it up—that all of these problems have compounded and still, it seems, we don't have a plan. And that's before we get to the issues of quarantine.
As of this week, there have now been 24 breaches of hotel quarantine. Yet we still have a government that refuses to implement a dedicated national quarantine approach that is fit for purpose. Jane Halton, handpicked by the government to look into this issue last year, delivered her report to government in October. That's nearly 10 months ago. That report recommended the establishment of a national facility for quarantine to be used in emergency situations. That report, of course, has sat there gathering dust. When Victoria first came up with a proactive proposal to deal with this issue—as Queensland has also done and as other states are urging the Commonwealth to consider and support—the defence minister denounced this as smoke and mirrors. Well, no, Minister for Defence. The smoke and mirrors is the response of this government to this critical question. Perhaps the defence minister might pay particular attention to page 31 of Ms Halton's report. Perhaps he could put away the red carpet that seems to be rolled out at defence facilities for ministers in this government and get on with any plan to get stranded Australians home.
This government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to provide support for people in Victoria. It has been shamed into doing its job. As a proud Melburnian, I've rarely felt more distressed than when members of this government—members from Victoria but not for Victorians—engaged in the most divisive scaremongering over the course of last year. I'm glad that stopped, but I'd like to see a recognition of the damage that it did to people under pressure, to social cohesion and to the vital sense through this pandemic that we are, in fact, all in it together. I am pleased at the belated recognition on the part of this government of the responsibility to do the right thing, but we can't forget the history that led us to this point. We can't forget the neglect, the poor decisions, the indecision and the failure to make decisions that led this to be a requirement of this government.
As the Treasurer of Victoria said of members opposite, they like making speeches, but they are not a tangible partner. We need them to step up to the plate. Workers need them. The community needs them. He also urged them to stop the empty gestures, because it is far too late for that. Acting Premier James Merlino made clear, as should be clear to any member of this place who's serious about doing their job, that delivering income support is solely the preserve of the Commonwealth. It is solely the responsibility of the Commonwealth. People who work casually, people in hospitality, people in retail and businesses in those sectors have taken a huge hit, and a general sense of anxiety lingers across the community in Victoria, particularly in Melbourne. Who's to say that other states and cities won't be affected, having regard, as I said earlier, to the assumptions that underpin this government's budget?
The analysis of the cost of these lockdowns by KPMG chief economist Brendan Rynne has shown that the state final demand can be hit by $125 million a day. I note that that's approximately half the cost of building a fully operational 500-person quarantine facility. If ever there was a statement of the wrong priorities and of the failure to invest in the future by this government—something that my friend the member for Rankin makes clear every time he stands up in this House, and often when he stands up out of it—it's that. The failure to make decisions like these is having a real cost today. It's a drag on the economy, it's damaging people's lives and it's leaving people behind. Again, while we welcome the appropriations that are provided for here—they are urgently needed; finally the government has come to the table—we can't forget about the context. Perhaps members opposite might think about the second reading amendment that is before the House in conjunction with this bill.
Lastly, on the second reading amendment, I just want to remind members opposite and the Australian public that Labor, unlike the government, has a clear four-point plan to deal with this ongoing crisis. It is to build purpose-built quarantine facilities, to fix the vaccination rollout, to deliver a thoughtful and considered campaign to encourage people to get vaccinated, and to build the manufacturing capacity to secure the delivery of mRNA vaccines. In commending the bill to the House and in ensuring that people in need in my home town and, in the future, in other home towns, get income support that will enable them to get through this, let's not let the government off the hook. Let's remember how they were dragged kicking and screaming to this when they should have been there assuming their constitutional responsibility in the first place—when, in fact, they should have taken decisions that would have removed the need for these payments in the first place and when this Prime Minister, in particular, still fails to front up and take responsibility for doing his job.
Is the amendment seconded?
It is, Mr Deputy Speaker. I second the amendment. The COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021 is a really important bill. It goes to the type of support that the Commonwealth provides to those Australians, in this instance Victorians, who are impacted by the Prime Minister's failure to do either of his two jobs this year, which were to get vaccinations right and to build dedicated quarantine facilities.
What we know from the budget—not that the Treasurer fessed up to it on the day—is that the Treasury and the Treasurer expect there to be one-week lockdowns in major CBDs every month for the rest of the year. The budget assumes that the government will continue to fail to get vaccination and quarantine right and that, as a consequence, we will have more of the style of lockdown that we saw in Victoria not that long ago. The budget assumes that the government will continue to fail to deliver on those two key fronts. What Australians, in particular Australian small businesses, have to look forward to as a consequence of the Prime Minister's incompetence in those two key areas is more of these lockdowns. They are very damaging to business, obviously, and very damaging to workers. They are very damaging to confidence, to the ability of the people of this country to get back on their feet and recover properly from this horrible pandemic and the recession that we saw last year. You cannot have a first-rate economic recovery with a third-rate vaccine rollout, but it's a third-rate vaccine rollout that we're getting from those opposite. At the same time, they refuse to do what's necessary to get purpose-built quarantine facilities built fast enough to prevent leakage of the virus in hotel quarantine. Hotels are built for tourism; they're not built for quarantine. For too long now, as the government has dragged its feet and pretended it is somebody else's responsibility, the failure to get those quarantine facilities built has had the sorts of consequences that we saw in Victoria not that long ago. Victoria is only just emerging from that lockdown. So the only reason that this legislation is necessary is the government's failure to bring the pandemic under control, which is as a consequence of their failure to get quarantine and vaccination right.
Throughout this pandemic, Labor have tried, in this parliament and outside the parliament, to be as constructive as we can, particularly when it's obvious that the people of this country, in particular the small businesses of this country, need support. It's what we did with JobKeeper. When we originally proposed wage subsidies, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said that it would be a dangerous development. We were very pleased when they had a change of heart. We didn't rub their noses in it when they had a change of heart, because it was crucial that we got that support out into the community. The Treasury said, when JobKeeper was being withdrawn, that they feared mass job losses. There were 56,000 jobs lost when the Treasurer cut JobKeeper. He seems to have forgotten about those 56,000 families who faced the diabolical consequences of the JobKeeper cuts. What we've said all along is that we want to help the government get it right. The government has sprayed JobKeeper money all around. The member for Melbourne—and I commend him for his efforts on this front—and my Labor colleagues, including the member for Fenner, here in Canberra, and others, have done a good job of pointing out that, if the government hadn't sprayed around so much of that support, giving it to businesses that didn't need it, we would have more room in the budget to support Victorians and other Australians who genuinely need help. This bill is about getting that support out the door in a timely fashion.
The Treasury secretary, in estimates—not that long ago—said that he thought about $100 million a day was being lost from the Victorian economy during the most recent lockdown. The Treasurer wants a pat on the back for providing $20 million in support. It is too little, too late: only about $3 for every locked down Victorian. When communities are locked down as a consequence of the Prime Minister's incompetence, he should stop trying to wash his hands of it. He should stop trying to pretend it's somebody else's responsibility. It's a Commonwealth government responsibility to provide that kind of income support. To the extent that these bills provide a mechanism for that support to be provided, obviously that's an important development.
What we need to see as soon as possible are those two failures rectified. We need the government to get vaccinations right. We need them to build those purpose-built facilities. As the member for Scullin said a moment ago, we need a mass education advertising campaign to get people over this vaccine hesitancy. We also need to build the kinds of facilities that are required to manufacturer mRNA vaccines in this country. That's our four-point plan for what needs to happen now. We urge the government to adopt it. We urge the government to come to the table in a far more timely way and a far more significant and substantial way when communities are locked down. Australians are doing it tough as a consequence of the government's incompetence. The least the government can do is provide that support where it's needed.
I rise to speak on the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021. In Melbourne and Victoria, we're just exiting the Morrison lockdown. This one was the Morrison lockdown because, after the virus escaped from hotel quarantine in South Australia—and, of course, the Prime Minister and the federal government are responsible for the national quarantine standards—it came and hit Victoria and hit a population that was largely unvaccinated. In Australia, we haven't seen the kind of speed that we've seen in the United States. After they started with Donald Trump, who was in charge of dealing with COVID for the first few months, Joe Biden, in about four months, managed to get 50 per cent of the adult population vaccinated. Yet, in Australia, our Prime Minister has had trouble cracking five.
When the virus hit in Melbourne, in a community that had already been through so much and had done our fair share to prevent the explosion of a third wave across this country, we assumed that the Prime Minister, especially given his contribution towards the lockdown occurring, might have been in a position to support people when they went, yet again, without money during a very, very difficult time. But what we found was nothing, no plan at all. Even though the government factored into their budget a week-long lockdown happening every year, they had no plan to look after people who are doing it tough. The problem is that this government doesn't quite understand it. We've had members of the government say, 'Well, a week's not long to go without an income.' What people in the government don't understand is that, especially having come out of a previous lockdown where so many people had depleted their savings and were just getting by hand to mouth, many businesses and workers in Victoria were just getting back on their feet when this Morrison lockdown hit.
In Melbourne in particular we are very heavily reliant on the visitor economy. That has been brought to its knees, not just because of previous lockdowns but because social-distancing restrictions mean that things like going to the comedy festival in the same numbers or getting people together to go to a pub or a restaurant are in many places still subject to social-distancing restrictions. We were at the point where so many people, especially casual and insecure workers, many of whom work in the exact industries that were hardest hit by COVID, were just starting to look forward to some version of normal again. With the rise of casual and insecure work that we've seen—again, especially in many of those industries like hospitality, entertainment and the creative sectors—so many people are really just living day to day or week to week. So, when all of a sudden people were told go into lockdown for a week, a lot of people did not have spare money or savings to get them through that period of time. When people find out not only week by week but sometimes day by day, or sometimes on the very day, whether they're going to have any work that particular day, a week is a very long time to unexpectedly have to go without money.
So we pushed and pushed and pushed the government, saying: 'You've had some role in causing this lockdown and making people go without money yet again, and putting some businesses who were just starting to stand up back on their knees. The least you could do is continue the kind of JobKeeper support and the level of JobSeeker support that was there when the first lockdowns happened.' Lifting JobSeeker to $1,100 was recognition that, in Australia, that's what people need to not be in poverty. They need $1,100 a fortnight; that was the Prime Minister's and the government's admission. If they needed it then, they need it now when they're in lockdown. We need to reinstate or have some form of JobKeeper. If we are going to have lockdowns and people going without work on a regular basis we've got to keep people connected to their workplace. For businesses in Melbourne that are just getting back on their feet, after everything they've been through with the previous lockdowns, it is especially crucial to make sure that those businesses don't become disconnected from their workers and don't fall over yet again.
So we pushed and pushed and pushed and, finally, the government said, 'We're going to give you something.' But there was massive disappointment throughout Melbourne and Victoria when we found out in what contempt the government hold people and the pittance they were asking many people to get by on, in lockdowns that they now, on their own admission, say are going to be regular occurrences. For someone who works close to 20 hours a week, $325 a week is less than the minimum wage. The average rent on a one-bedroom place in the Melbourne CBD is $330. So people are going without their income, and all of a sudden they're being given something that's below the poverty line, that's below the minimum wage had they stayed in their job, and won't even cover a week's rent. That's critical because this lockdown happened at a time when a lot of the protections from previous lockdowns, like the protection against eviction, weren't there anymore. We lost the ability to have those supports, so the need for some kind of financial support was absolutely critical.
Think about it from the perspective of a casual worker in Melbourne. They found out that they were going to get $325. It wasn't even $325 for all the time that they were out of work, because they missed it for the first week—and, under this bill, they're going to keep missing it for the first week and then get $325 to maybe get them through the second week. But, of course, because this bill is linked to the definition of 'hotspot' as determined by the chief health officer, even though lockdowns and restrictions may continue, people stop getting their money when the chief health officer says the definition has changed. So what does that mean for a casual worker? It means that for the first week that they've lost their income they'll get no money. For the second week they'll get potentially less than the minimum wage, depending on how many hours of work they were working. For the third week, once it ceases to be a hotspot, though they might not get their shifts back because there will still be social distancing in place, they will get no money. So some workers may have had to make this $325 last three weeks, during the course of this recent lockdown. If this is meant to be the system that is going to support all of Australia going forward, then I say to the rest of the country, as a Melburnian: look out, because if we have to go back into lockdown, which the federal government is banking on happening as a regular occurrence, we are going to be in strife.
The bill gives some minimal support. But, as is the way with this government, every time they give with one hand they take away with the other. This bill also says that, if people have got some savings—what they call liquid assets—above $10,000, they are not entitled to any payment at all.
So, if you'd been saving for your first home and then you'd found yourself without any income through no fault of your own, the federal government would say, 'Dip into your home loan savings, and do it indefinitely. Do it until it runs down, because that's the way that you're going to have to look after yourself.' As we know, because so many lost out on support the first time around—casual workers were excluded, university workers were excluded—many people drew on their super. They took money out of their super during previous lockdowns to try to get them through. So what the government is now saying is, 'If you're saving for a house or you took money out of your super and you've got some money sitting in a bank account, well, we're going to punish you again for doing that and you can't get any payment.' If someone drew down from savings or from super and put it into their savings to try to get through the last lockdown, they will get punished for doing something that the government encouraged them to do. They're not going to be able to get access to this payment.
This bill needs to be fixed. This bill needs to be fixed to address those issues, to ensure that people don't fall through the cracks and to ensure that people aren't left in poverty during these lockdowns that the government is now baking into its budget. There is one other thing that should happen, though. If we had a social security system in this country that gave people enough to live on, we might not have to be in this situation where the government has to write cheques each time there's a lockdown. If everyone at a minimum were eligible for that $1,100-a-fortnight payment, which the government by its own admission has said is what you need in Australia to live above the poverty line, then there might be less need for these kinds of special purpose payments. If the minimum wage were higher and casual work and contracting out didn't leave people working an hour here, an hour there, struggling to make ends meet, then we might not have the need for these kinds of payments to be drawn on quite so much. The government needs to look at this and not just say, 'What is the least we can do?' The government needs to look at what has happened as a sign of a huge problem of growing inequality in Australian society and work out how to fix it.
One of the things in Melbourne was that people swung into action in response to this. The Salvos went around inner-city Melbourne delivering food to casual workers, knowing that under the government's payment conditions they were going to be locked out of getting any money for a week and, as I said, some of them were going to have to make $325 last for three weeks. I applaud the Sikhs, the Salvos, all those other groups that stepped up and all the businesses in Melbourne that offered free food and free support for people during the lockdown, because they knew that people would otherwise fall through the cracks. I applaud all those community groups and businesses for stepping up, but they shouldn't have to. The government should ensure that no-one falls through the cracks. If they predict that these kinds of lockdowns will keep continuing, then they've got to lift JobSeeker, got to ensure that people get a decent wage, got to outlaw insecure work, because that is the way to make sure that, in Australia, a wealthy country like ours, no-one falls through the cracks.
This COVID-19 disaster payment was welcome relief to many Victorians and many people in my community when it was finally announced at the start of this month, halfway through the lockdown that we have just come through. Let's be clear: the Morrison government was dragged kicking and screaming by Labor and the Victorian state government to offer this support. We know that this was the Morrison lockdown. It came from hotel quarantine because we do not have a quarantine system in place. It hit a population that is not vaccinated because the vaccine rollout has been botched. Victorians were in lockdown because the Morrison government has failed to do its job. The moment the Prime Minister said that the vaccination rollout wasn't a race was the moment we seemed to start losing that race. We welcome this payment. It is much needed, but we shouldn't have been in the situation where we had to push so hard for it and where it came so late.
I must say that, as a Victorian, as a Melburnian, who, together with my community, has gone through all of these lockdowns, I know how on edge people are. I know just how difficult it has been. People really have dug deep, and they have accepted the need for lockdowns to protect us all. But that is not to say that people are not on the edge, because they are. I think one of the things that was hardest at the start of this lockdown was to realise how little support there was from the federal government. The government that is meant to be there for all of us seemed to abandon Victoria. In fact, we had government members from Victoria suggesting that, really, the federal government had done all it should and could and that, if people needed more, 'Have a look at what's out there, but we're not going to step up.'
I'm very glad that eventually they did step up, but, just before they got that to point, we had people like the member for Wannon telling people, during an interview with the ABC, that they could go to Centrelink because they might be eligible for emergency payments. He said, 'What I'm saying is, if you've lost all your income, then you should go to Centrelink and see whether you're eligible for a payment.' Do the members of this government live in the real world? Do they understand what it is like for people who have already been through a very difficult year last year, and who, as the member for Melbourne said, are coming to a period when most of the supports that were in place for that year have been withdrawn and are in another lockdown? The government just do not seem to realise that that does not mean that people have resources that mean they can go down to Centrelink and check whether or not they might be eligible for a payment that's not there. They need support and they need to know that they are backed by their federal government.
As I said, it is a good thing that this payment is now in place, but it did come too late, and it is concerning that there are still too many people who are left out and who won't be eligible for this payment—people who have done the things that this government told them to do, such as withdrawing their super early on because they were told by this government to do so, even to their future financial detriment. Those people are likely to not now meet the asset test for this payment, so they will be stuck without it. I've had constituents in my electorate, particularly people in the events industry who have done it so hard through this entire pandemic, tell me that that's the situation they are in—that they are left out from this payment, that they're not eligible for it and that they feel that lack of support from this federal government. Instead of being there for all Australians, instead of being there for Victorians, this government's attitude is: 'No, this is not our problem. We are not here to support you.' It is just so disappointing that that is the attitude that people in my electorate have had to confront.
It's difficult for all of us on this side of the House as well, knowing that we are doing everything we can to advocate for these people in our communities and feeling like, for too long, that is falling on deaf ears. So I urge the members of the Morrison government to take a look at the reality of people's lives, to understand what it is like for people when they do go into lockdowns, when they can't work and when they are taking one for our whole community so that this virus doesn't spread. Take a look at what that's like, and give people the support they need. That is what they are asking of you, and it is not too much to ask.
I very much echo the concerns of the member for Scullin around the vaccine rollout and the lack of information around the vaccine rollout and the environment that that is creating for misinformation and disinformation to flourish in our community. I know that there are so many people in my community who are confused and anxious as a result of the Morrison government's botched vaccine rollout. There are frontline workers—aged-care workers, disability care workers, teachers and early childhood educators—who have not yet managed to secure even a first dose of the vaccine. There are local businesses who want to know that they have certainty in opening up going forward, yet they face a winter ahead where most of the population will not be vaccinated. More broadly, there are members of the community who are confused and uncertain about when, where and what type of vaccine they should be receiving. Why are we in this position? It's because this government saw the vaccine rollout as a Liberal Party branding exercise and not a public health effort. So, instead of putting together and running the public health campaign that we needed—the education campaign that should be helping people to understand their options and understand why getting a vaccine will support our whole community—we got a Liberal Party logo on an announcement. What a disgrace! What an absolute failure of responsibility! In the middle of a pandemic this government was more interested in putting Liberal Party branding on announcements about securing vaccines than they were about doing the work to get a public health education campaign out there. Well, we needed that campaign earlier this year, but we definitely need that campaign now, so I urge the government to step up and put together a public health education campaign that helps people understand what is going on, because, at the moment—and I'm sure I am not alone in this—I'm sure there are many members who are being contacted by members of the community who are confused, who are uncertain and who are looking for more information about what their vaccine options are. At the moment, those people are really at risk of misinformation, misunderstanding and confusion.
I was contacted just today by a member of my community who wrote to me to tell me that he received in his mailbox unsolicited health advice from none other than Clive Palmer. He said: 'Today, I received a pamphlet in my letterbox that outrageously claims that there's no pandemic in Australia and urges myself and any other recipients to avoid being vaccinated against COVID-19 with either the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccinations.' The pamphlet also contains many unsubstantiated claims and statistics designed to make readers hesitant to receive a vaccination. Obviously, Clive Palmer should not be distributing that misinformation, and I am very concerned that it is going to members of my community, and I know it is going to members of other communities in Victoria. But the gap, the space that means that people are taking on board this information, is because this government has not done its job in making sure that people understand what their options are, how vaccines work and how getting a vaccine will help us all out of this pandemic.
Of course, one of the other reasons the government didn't do that is because they failed to secure the supply of vaccines we need. So we know now that instead of securing deals with a range of manufacturers, instead of doing the early work with Pfizer in the middle of last year, the government put all its eggs in one basket and told us at that point that we were at the front of the queue. And then, when it became blindingly obvious for all of us that we were nowhere near the front of the queue, they told us that it wasn't a race.
Now we're in the position obviously where we still don't have the supply we need to vaccinate our community, and every day that passes where our vaccination levels remain so low puts us all at risk. Again, before our last lockdown, I know in my community the sense of deja vu for people as we looked at another outbreak, as we looked at the virus taking hold again. And we heard that our aged-care residents and our aged-care workers had not been vaccinated. Can I tell you the distress that caused amongst so many members of my community who had already experienced the fear last year. In some cases people had lost loved ones because the virus had got into the nursing homes. The fact that we haven't fixed that for this year is a complete failure of responsibility by this government, and it is a stress that those people, those families and the people in aged care should not have to bear and they would not be bearing if this government had done its job on the vaccine rollout. So I am very, very concerned. We need the government to pick up its game immediately on this. We need to know how the vaccines are rolling out, and we need a concentrated public health information campaign rolling out around that so that people in our community know what's going on and feel secure about getting the vaccine.
I am concerned that instead of urgently fixing this mess, instead of urgently getting people the support they need and the vaccine rollout that we all deserve and need, the Morrison government this week has been focused on itself. It's been focused on electing a new Deputy Prime Minister. Last week it was focused on the Prime Minister tracking down his relatives in Cornwall. This is not a government that is doing the work that is needed in the middle of a pandemic. This is a government that has dropped the ball so comprehensively that we are not vaccinated and there is no national quarantine system. We need this government to do its job. We need this government to lift right now. I urge the government to do better.
The only reason that this legislation, the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021, is needed is because of the Morrison government's many failures to actually guide us out of the pandemic and to put the things in place that will see us through the next period. Workers and self-employed people all need to know that there is a financial safety net there if an outbreak stops their city. While a lot of this has been focused on Melbourne and Victoria, in Sydney right now I bet there are lots of people wondering what might happen if the outbreak Sydney is experiencing spreads and we find ourselves in the same position in Greater Sydney as Melbourne and Victoria. It strikes me that the government are unable to think ahead, unable to be one step ahead; they're always one step behind. It's like COVID is the queen and they see themselves as the consort. They are never getting out in front. They're never able to show us that there is a plan to move beyond where we are now.
When I reflect back on what has happened during the pandemic, from the start we, as the opposition, were really pleased that we encouraged the government to listen to the science early on and that we recognised there was a need to deal with this as a health crisis and then to think about the need for wage subsidies so that people could do the right thing to save lives. The community responded magnificently to both those things, recognising that they were needed. I have no doubt that around the country it was the community that did this, with decisions led and pushed for by premiers, and that spared us from the worst health impacts and, consequently, the worst financial impacts. I have to say it feels like it was little thanks to the Prime Minister or the aged care minister, if you go back to the very early days. When I think about aged care—because my dad is in aged care—I realise how vulnerable people were, people in their 80s and their 90s or even those who were in their 70s and not in good health. The premiers had to step in and try and deal with, at that time, a very much unknown situation, and they didn't get any help from the feds. There was such little support at a federal level, and that attitude has continued to this day around aged care. People will look back on how this government responded in the aged-care sector with absolute dismay that it was done that way.
There was the good decision made that the premiers would essentially be left to convert empty hotel accommodation to quarantine accommodation. Yes, a good call. What we've realised though and what we've known for some time is that the set-up of hotels is not conducive in all cases to an effective quarantine system. Now, this isn't new; we didn't just work this out yesterday. We have known this, and the contrast is clear when you look at Howard Springs, which was set up with quite independent units that allow people to not have to share infected air. When you've got 24 leaks from hotel quarantine, you'd think somebody would work this out, but yet again the government's been a step behind, never a step in front. It's clear we need dedicated quarantine facilities so that we can reduce the chances of this sort of disaster payment ever being needed.
The vaccine is the other area where there have been failures. I know governments don't like to admit failures, but this government more than any are unable to recognise their mistakes. The rollout has been an embarrassment, with only three per cent of people fully vaccinated and about a quarter partially vaccinated. The rates of vaccinated aged-care workers and disability care workers are still not really clear, nor are the rates of vaccinated residents in disability care. We should have all that data. It should be at our fingertips. We should be able to look at it and go: 'Okay, there's a problem here. How do we address it?' This fear of admitting they haven't got it right means it comes across as an arrogant approach, particularly when we've been in opposition wanting to work with the government, wanting to bring forward the problems that we see and help find solutions to them.
I wonder why we still don't have really good mobile facilities, particularly for areas like mine on the edge of the city, where they are a long way from the hubs that have been established in New South Wales. I'm getting a lot of comments from people in their 40s and 50s who are finding out that it's going to be a really long wait for their Pfizer appointment. Clearly, that's because supply has been an issue. You can't deny it. You can't pretend that, no, it's all good. It just hasn't been. It hasn't even been equitably distributed amongst the states. You wonder whether that could have been done differently. Yes, we were saying that you needed more deals. You needed to do more deals for a variety of vaccines, knowing that they might not all be perfect. And hasn't that proven to be the case! You could have done a deal with Moderna. Fancy not taking the offer of additional doses of Pfizer! All those things are clearly errors that have been made. We should also be making mRNA vaccines here, or looking at how we would do that, and doing it as quickly as we can.
I don't think anyone thinks that pandemics just suddenly turn off. We know we have a road ahead of us, and that's why we not only need a plan but we really need to have information. That's the other huge gap from the Morrison government: information—especially given the changes in the vaccine, that would have given people a place to be able to clearly and succinctly find out what they needed as things changed. There has been such a lack in that, let alone the motivating and inspiring campaign that would have had people of all ages flocking for vaccines. When your supply isn't good enough, maybe you don't want that to happen, but a public health information campaign is the massive vacuum that has been left. It has allowed people like Clive Palmer to fill the vacuum with the rubbish that he says. It is stuff that is dangerous, yet we're not even seeing action from the government to correct and mitigate the misinformation that's being pumped out all around the country. That's a failure of this government.
What we need is action on all these steps, and we need a plan that will see us be protected and will see new arrivals quarantined effectively. We need a plan that allows for stranded Aussies to come home and reduces the risk for others coming in, such as the much-needed skilled workers and students. We need a plan that takes us forward. Right now we're in limbo. We need a plan that puts us a step ahead, not just a step behind. I think we need a plan that shows that this government doesn't think the job is done, because right now it feels like they've done all they're going to do. We have these little bits of tweaking, like this legislation, but it really is time for the government to take the weight and show us the way forward. We are really happy on this side to have input into that plan. If there were true bipartisanship, that's what would be happening now. We would work together.
They don't want to work with us.
They don't like to work together; I will take that interjection. They don't like to work with us, but we've demonstrated in the last few months—
There's no such thing as a legitimate interjection, so you don't get to choose whether you take it or not.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I will respond to that interjection, which is a choice I get to make. And we can be pedantic about language, should we choose to be.
That's what I'd really urge the government to do. We need to feel like we are moving forward. Right now the country's in limbo and many people are just way behind. It's really time to work with us, rather than just skite about what you think you've achieved.
I rise to support the premise of this bill, the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021, but also to table concerns about its implementation, which has inadvertently hurt regional communities such as mine in Indi. The government's decision to commit to economic relief payments for Australians experiencing extended lockdowns is a good one, but it could have come sooner and it could have been broader. It's almost three months now since the end of JobKeeper, and the government is burying its head in the sand if it thinks that Australian cities won't face further lockdowns as the vaccine rollout trickles along into next year. The government should have been working proactively with state governments through the national cabinet process to anticipate lockdowns, such as the latest one that we have experienced in Victoria, and to ensure that support was ready and available, that it was predictable and immediate, and that it reflected the economic reality on the ground in the hotspots—but beyond the hotspots too.
The current eligibility rules for this payment are short-sighted and do not understand the economic reality of lockdowns when they occur in cities like Melbourne and the impact that they have on the regions that surround Melbourne, or any capital city for that matter—it is, again, just a matter of time, while we wait for the population to slowly, slowly have access to vaccines. That's because item 492 of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Regulations requires a worker to be subject to a lockdown for more than seven days and reside or work in the Commonwealth designated COVID hotspot to be eligible for the payment. This ignores the interconnected nature of Melbourne, or any capital city, and their regional economies. When Melbourne is locked down this has a significant impact on tourism, hospitality and accommodation in small businesses and the casual workers who work for them in regional Victoria. These businesses are heavily reliant on clientele from Melbourne.
At the start of the latest lockdown the incomes of these small businesses and the workers who work for them were cut off overnight. Many of them contacted my office in distress as their balance sheets and bank accounts dwindled, with no federal assistance in sight. And when federal assistance was finally announced they were excluded. These businesses and workers still face economic hardship, even as regional Victoria reopens. For example—a huge economic impact in the electorate of Indi—the ski fields felt the impact of the Melbourne lockdown long beyond the period when Victoria was more broadly opened up. Right now in order to come to the ski fields skiers need to have a COVID test 72 hours before they get there. Many people see that as a step too far and are not coming to the ski fields. For our hospitality venues, our wineries, there has been huge loss of visitation over the period of the lockdown and beyond. The fantastic, loyal business owners of these businesses have been doing their upmost to look after their employees.
One constituent who comes to mind is a casual worker at a boutique hotel near Wangaratta. This constituent has been stood down since the lockdown in Melbourne began and lost all of her wages. The temporary COVID disaster payment does nothing to help this worker. Workers such as her were hard to recruit. We have a skills shortage right across the region, and it's acute in Indi where business owners—fantastic businesses, great employers—simply can't get the workers they need. To have workers who come out into the regions and take up the opportunities that are there being disadvantaged by government legislation that only enables payment to the hotspot means that those workers may be scratching their head and saying, 'You know what, I think I'd be better off in a capital city where at least I would get some recompense for my loss of work.' I think that's an unintended outcome of this piece of legislation. It's one I've written to the Treasurer about to bring his attention to it.
Maybe a parallel is what happened during the bushfires. There was appalling damage right across my electorate. Huge amounts of areas were burnt. But it wasn't just the areas burnt that suffered economic damage from the bushfires, it was the many, many businesses in the surrounding areas who felt the economic impacts of the lack of tourism and the consistent smoke damage—businesses like grape growers. In working with the government ultimately I was able to convince them that the impact of a bushfire goes beyond the footprint of the burnt area. And it's a bit like this with a COVID lockdown. When Melbourne's locked down the regions feel the pain as well, so support should be available to all workers who are suffering a reduction in income because of the COVID-19 pandemic. That was the rule for JobKeeper and that should be the rule that applies now. If you're impacted you should be eligible for some support.
The lack of fit-for-purpose quarantine facilities and the slow, slow pace of the vaccine rollout means that lockdowns in capital cities around the country are an unfortunate and regrettable but inevitable reality. And even the government's own current budget papers assume recurrent lockdowns.
So while this bill is a good sign from the government that it won't totally abandon small businesses and workers facing lockdowns, it doesn't have the safeguards that the regions surrounding a lockdown area need. Regions like Indi, like regional areas all over Australia, have worked really hard to keep their communities safe and to keep COVID out of those communities. Like our populations in the big cities, much has been sacrificed as a result of outbreaks—including through ad hoc border closures, which my community in the Albury-Wodonga region suffered from so dramatically. There were 138 days of border lockdown; people couldn't cross the border to go to work or to school. They had problems getting to health care, and families were separated in their own nation. We never want to see that again. I want to make it clear to the government that the impact of a lockdown and of a COVID-19 outbreak miles from other people has an impact on those people. We need to recognise that.
The least the government could do in this bill, I think, is to recognise that severe economic impacts are not just contained to a Commonwealth-government-designated hotspot. So I call on the government to amend this new national framework for COVID outbreaks to recognise this and to recognise the impact that it has on regional economies, regional workers, regional businesses and everyday people. We need to make sure that the great gains we achieved through JobKeeper can be replicated short term. It's great if it's short-term; we don't want things to go on forever. But if you're outside a Commonwealth-designated hotspot area and are affected by a lockdown then you too need to have access to support from the federal government. I make this plea tonight: listen to this—talk to people in the regions, and I'm sure you'll hear the same story. I think it's really important. I know that the member for Monash made a similar call when this happened in Melbourne and I join with him to say, 'Please work with us and extend the ability for people affected by a lockdown to access support.
Of course I support this COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021. As someone who represents a community in Victoria which has been hit by lockdowns, I support any support or financial aid being given. But I'll start my contribution by being absolutely clear: this bill shouldn't have been necessary. We have a government and a Prime Minister who had two jobs. The first was to roll out the vaccine so that everyone who wants to be vaccinated can be vaccinated, starting with our most vulnerable and those who work to care for our most vulnerable and who are most likely to be exposed, and then through the population. That's so that anyone who wants to be vaccinated can be vaccinated.
The other was to set up fit-for-purpose quarantine facilities across this country so that we could deal with the still almost 40,000 Australians who are stranded overseas and who want to come home but can't get into their own country. This is so we can open our borders and have tourists, upon which great sections of this wonderful country rely for economic input, and foreign students. Last time I looked, education was the second-largest export in Victoria. And it would mean that Australians could travel around the world, as we love to do and are known for, and then come home again, and that our economic, social and cultural future resembled our lives before 2019. Roll out the vaccine and have national fit-for-purpose quarantine: two jobs, both of which have been botched.
On both, we hear over and over again from the Prime Minister, from the Minister for Health and from members of the government: 'Oh, it's not our fault; we're not responsible. We had a conversation with the states in national cabinet.' At one minute that's on a war footing and at the next minute it isn't meeting for weeks on end. They say: 'We had a conversation in March last year'—which is more than a year ago—'where the states agreed to use hotels for quarantine. So, I mean, it's not our fault. That's right! We did ask Jane Halton! We did ask her to do a review of hotel quarantine. And she did say in October last year that we should have fit-for-purpose quarantine. But, I mean, it's not our fault we haven't done it yet, because it wasn't that long ago. Oh, yes, that's right; it's June now.' October to June—that's, what, eight months? We could have had fit-for-purpose quarantine going around the whole country by now. Oh, but the Prime Minister says, and the Minister for Health says: 'Oh, but, Member for Macnamara, don't you remember? In our budget this year, $500 million for Howard Springs. We're amazing! We've got hotel quarantine sorted.' It's not what Jane Halton said needed to happen, and Howard Springs is not sufficient for what is needed.
And so where do we end up? With yet another leak from hotel quarantine, because no matter how hard the states work, the people who work in hotel quarantine work, the people who are quarantined in hotel quarantine work to make sure they follow all of the standards necessary, they are in hotels. Hotels were not built to be quarantine facilities. We have had 24 leaks from hotel quarantine. We saw one that came out of South Australia and came into Victoria, and my community, like the rest of Victoria, faced another two weeks of lockdown.
It's not a political argument. It's not pointscoring. It is the reality of what our communities are living through. We're looking at what's happening in Sydney—every day; day after day after day—and we're hoping that outbreak of COVID is under control. But there is one thing that we all know, and that no-one could possibly deny with a straight face, and that is: had there been a vaccine rollout where the vaccine had penetrated further into the community than—are we at three per cent of the community who have had two vaccinations yet? I think that's about what we are at.
An opposition member: It depends which state!
I'll take that interjection. That's right; it depends which state. We'd be less anxious, wouldn't we, about what's happening in Sydney at the moment, because we would know that a significant proportion of the population, let alone the people who are the most vulnerable, would have been vaccinated. They might be able to catch COVID-19, but their chances of dying from it are so much less. They might possibly spread COVID-19 if they catch it, but, again, even if that is the case—and the jury is still out on that—the people around them who have been vaccinated might have an 80 per cent chance of not catching it. And if they do catch it, it would be minor. This is what we're talking about: actual people's lives, and the anxiety that we feel either in lockdown or as we're watching the possibility of a creeping outbreak in Sydney which could put people into lockdown. That's why the vaccination is important now.
And is it any wonder that people across Australia are actually white-hot angry when they find out, through reports in the media, that we could have had something like 40 million Pfizer doses, but apparently this government decided: 'Oh, we're just going to play it a bit hardball'—that's what the reports say—'We're going to quibble on the cost. We're going to quibble about intellectual property, and we're just going to let the offer'—which it's now being reported that Pfizer gave to Australia in, what, January of last year, was it? Or this year. They said they could deliver as many Pfizer vaccinations as we needed in this country. Is it any wonder that Australians across the country are white-hot angry?
Is it any wonder that I get calls and emails to my electorate office every day from locals in Dunkley who want the Pfizer vaccination because they have an underlying health issue; because they're concerned about the mixed messages that have come out about AstraZeneca, its safety and the changing health advice that has had to come out; and because they just want to get vaccinated? Then they hear that we could have had some 40 million doses, and they hear the minister saying, 'Well, you know, we rejected that offer.' It would seem his explanation is based on medical advice, apparently. We also hear experts like Bill Bowtell suggesting that that seems a bit strange because the medical advice wasn't available at the time that the Australian government said it rejected as many Pfizer vaccine doses as we wanted. It's extraordinary. So where do we end up? We end up in a place where we don't have a proper vaccine rollout and the government has now decided that we need Operation COVID Shield. There is one thing they are good at, and that's naming operations.
The commander of Operation COVID Shield, who appears to be one of the most transparent people speaking on behalf of what's happening with the government, has said, 'Well, yes, we do have some supply issues.' And the explanation for why there hasn't been a rollout of a public health campaign encouraging people to get vaccinated is that we need to get the supply issues sorted out first. So we have a government that can't do, it would seem, the four simple things which need to be done and which the Leader of the Opposition has made absolutely clear that a Labor government would have done by now--which, if we get elected, we would do immediately: fix the vaccine rollout; build fit-for-purpose quarantine facilities across the country; have a public health campaign—every other country around the world seems to do it, and if I see the French video come up one more time on my Twitter feed I think I'm going to be able to speak French!; and manufacture mRNA vaccines in this country. These are four pretty simple things that need to be done, one would think, and need to be done soon.
But I should correct myself: it would appear that it's not that simple to fix a vaccine rollout that is in as much trouble as this one is. Perhaps with national cabinet now meeting again, the premiers will assist with getting on top of it because, of course, the increase in vaccination rates in Victoria that we've seen has been because the Victorian government has stepped up with a vaccination blitz. We shouldn't need an outbreak; we shouldn't need people having to go back into lockdown to kickstart a proper vaccination rollout. We also shouldn't have needed to drag this government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, kicking and screaming, to finally announce some financial support for hardworking people, particularly in Victoria, who couldn't go to work because of a lockdown recently.
This package today is better than nothing, but we have a package with so many qualifications on it that there are so few people who are really going to benefit in the end. We have a package where the government announcement is that you have to be without income for seven days before you can even apply. Seven days without income for some people means not being able to pay the rent, not being able to put food on the table and not being able to take their kids to the local footy game or the local netball game. They're the lives that many people in our communities live. Seven days without work and without pay might not seem much to people who have relatively privileged and secure lives and jobs. But for so many people in insecure work and in insecure housing, seven days is a very long time, and then they have to wait for their application to be processed. Is it any wonder that most of us who represent electorates where people are working hard in low-paid jobs get calls day after day from people asking how they're going to get this assistance and is it going to be enough for them to get through? And then, of course, we have a government that insists that only the people who they want to designate as being in a hotspot will get the funding. It's a very strange situation when you're lucky in lockdown—lucky to be able to get the funding; lucky that the federal government has decided you're in a hotspot. No-one wants to be in lockdown in the first place. Imagine, then, having to just hope that there's no political reason why this federal government doesn't want to designate you as living in a hotspot—like the political opportunity, as was reported, to wedge the premiers so that they have to do what the Prime Minister wants them to do and not exercise their own judgement or use their own staff's medical advice to make decisions about lockdown. Imagine using a pandemic and lockdown as a political wedge against premiers, to try to force them to act according to your will. Imagine being the sort of Prime Minister that would do that.
Imagine announcing financial support for people in dire financial circumstances and, in the announcement, saying, 'Of course, we warn that retrospective compliance action will be taken against people if we find that it turns out they weren't eligible.' Imagine in the same breath saying, 'But if you're a megacompany, your CEO got a bonus, your shareholders got extra dividends, the company recorded a profit and you received millions and millions of dollars from JobKeeper, you can pay it back if you want to or you can keep it—it's up to you!' And imagine saying to hardworking Australians with no money and seven days of no income, 'We warn you we'll come after you if it turns out that you didn't really need as much money as you got paid,' but saying to big companies with big profits: 'That's alright. Keep those millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. You deserve it.' That's the message this government is sending to people, and it's not good enough. Is it any wonder that what we hear over and over again is, 'We need to change this government'? Because we really do.
The longer this pandemic has gone on, the less this government has done for the people of Australia. The longer this pandemic has gone on, the less this Prime Minister has done to support the people of Australia. I remember the early days of this pandemic when the Prime Minister and the Chief Medical Officer were the ones who actually made the announcements around the restrictions, around the settings in which we were going to keep Australia safe. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister announced the JobKeeper supplement. They announced the coronavirus supplement. They announced the support measures that were going to keep Australia safe, and then they started to withdraw them. Businesses were still hurting and they started to withdraw the JobKeeper and JobSeeker supplements.
Then, thankfully, we were out of lockdowns. The majority of this country experienced a brief period, a couple of months, in which we were able to get the economy back on track, and that is a brilliant thing. It is a brilliant thing for businesses. No-one in this House wants to see Australian businesses struggle—absolutely no-one. But then this government pretended that the pandemic was completely over. And what did they do? They stepped away from any responsibility or any support for Australians and Australian businesses.
Then, when the unfortunate situation with one of the 24 breakouts from hotel quarantine happened and Victoria—like Perth, like Brisbane, like Sydney, like Adelaide—went into a short lockdown, the federal government were shamed into doing something, the very bare minimum, to support Victorian workers. That's why the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021 is here today: because the federal government, who have removed themselves from all of the decision-making processes and all of the support mechanisms to get people through the pandemic, were shamed into bringing this bill.
I say that because, at the start of the parliamentary sitting, when we came back up here a few weeks ago, this federal government's public statements were that if the Victorian government was going to lock down Victoria then it was up to the Victorian government to support Victorians. That's what this government said, and it's only because that was so untenable and so unhelpful that they did a complete U-turn. There must have been someone sensible on that side of the House saying: 'You know what? Maybe just leaving the entire state of Victoria on their own isn't the best idea.' But that's exactly what this government have done repeatedly throughout this pandemic.
During the stage 4 lockdown, instead of supporting Victorians, the Prime Minister and the two most senior Victorians—the Minister for Health and Aged Care, and the Treasurer—issued petty press statements on the side, comparing Victoria to New South Wales, as if it's some sort of a competition, as if it's not about keeping people safe, as if the Victorian government wanted to keep restrictions in place one second longer than they needed to, as if the political pain being experienced by those actually turning up to keep people safe were somehow a flippant competition that this federal government had earned the right to comment on. Well, they didn't, because they weren't willing to turn up and actually make the decisions that help keep people safe. What's worse is they weren't willing to support people during those difficult days.
That's what leads us to this bill. It's the bare minimum bill; that's what this bill is. We should never, ever have had to be in the situation that the member for Dunkley just articulated. We should never have been in a situation where we needed the bare minimum bill. Where we should have been is way ahead in the vaccine rollout. We should have had well over 50 per cent of our population vaccinated by now. We have an outstanding health network. Look at the ways in which countries around the world have successfully rolled out the vaccines. They've used pharmacies, they've used mass vaccination clinics and they have procured as many vaccines as possible. They have been the big three parts of their success. What did this federal government do? They put all their eggs—all of them—in one basket, AstraZeneca. They put all their eggs in the AstraZeneca basket. The original deal signed with Pfizer was for only 10 million doses, because, as the health minister said, they apparently were hiding behind advice that said they didn't need Pfizer. They said no to Pfizer. They put all their eggs in the AstraZeneca basket, and now that AstraZeneca has had a change of medical advice we are stuck.
The federal government also decided to roll out the vaccines through the GP network. I know many GPs, and they have done an amazing job. GPs have done a full list of vaccinations on top of their usual roster of patients. They have worked their backsides off because they, as health professionals, feel a sense of responsibility and duty to vaccinate as many people as possible. I say unashamedly that we are so grateful to our GPs, but they have been forced to do the majority of the work when they didn't need to. Using mass vaccination clinics, community hubs and pharmacies, as well as procuring enough vaccines, could have supported them.
Add to that the fact that we need purpose-built quarantine facilities to make sure we contain outbreaks of variants like the delta variant, which is highly transmissible. At the moment, Victoria seems to be the only place in the entire world that has run down an outbreak of the delta variant, and I hope that New South Wales, Sydney, will be the second. Without purpose-built quarantine facilities, outbreaks from hotel quarantine are only going to increase. If we'd fixed the vaccine rollout and fixed quarantine, there would have been no need for the bare minimum bill we have here today.
Make no mistake: this bill is the bare minimum. It is the absolute bare minimum, which this government was shamed into doing. They were willing to leave Victoria stranded, they were willing to leave Victorians stranded and they were willing to sit there, not make any of the hard decisions, not take any responsibility, and completely evade any political responsibility for the management of this pandemic. The longer it's gone on, the less we've seen of this Prime Minister. Australians, and especially Victorians, know exactly what sort of character this Prime Minister is. They've been left behind by him, and they deserve so much better.
To start my contribution on the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021, I'd like to pick up from where the member for Dunkley left off about the changing health advice. It is correct that the health advice on the vaccination program has changed. But what that actually shows is how mistaken it would have been to follow the advice of members of the opposition who wanted to rush out the vaccine in the earlier days. Their call was that we must get more injections into the arms of people. But, because of that rushing out, we now have in this country 800,000 Australians who have been injected with a substance which our Chief Medical Officer now says poses greater risks to them than any potential benefit that they have received. That is historic proportions—that 800,000 Australians would be subject to a medical treatment where the Chief Medical Officer of the country now acknowledges that the risk to those people was greater than the benefits they received. And we know that dozens of those people have suffered from blood clots. This is the mistake that can happen when we panic and we rush, which was exactly the call that we heard from members of the opposition.
When it comes to working out our steps and procedure in tackling COVID, surely we must look at all the evidence. The first place that we might look to is a group called the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce. I have been critical of this task force in the past. However, it is interesting to note their latest findings on ivermectin. I know that members of the opposition have called ivermectin snake oil and they have said that it doesn't work. Well, let's have a look at what the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce says about this. They say: 'Evidence comes from 13 randomised trials in over 1,260 adults.' So they're actually getting up there in the number of randomised trials and the number of adults. What does our national evidence task force find? Surprise, surprise, they found a 67 per cent reduction in death in those who were administered ivermectin who caught COVID as compared to those that weren't—a 67 per cent reduction in death. They've also found a 46 per cent reduction in ICU admissions. That's what they found. Yet, despite those amazing figures, which show an almost 50 per cent decline in ICU admissions and a 67 per cent decline in death, our national clinical evidence task force somehow still recommends against ivermectin.
There is evidence that's now on the table, including the international peer reviewed evidence published only a few days ago in the American Journal of Therapeuticsa Cochrane standard, peer-reviewed meta-analysis, for the education of the members sitting over to my right—by researchers over in the UK. We've heard that apparently some of these studies that are not done in the UK should be discounted, but this is actually a peer-reviewed meta-analysis from the United Kingdom by Bryant and Lawrie. What did they find on ivermectin? I'll quote directly. They said that 'meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin' by 62 per cent in their study of 2,438 patients. They also found that 'ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infections by an average of 86 per cent'.
I put it to you, Deputy Speaker, that it is now game over for the ivermectin deniers with this peer-reviewed meta-analysis study. All those on the other side who continue to deny ivermectin are putting Australian lives at risk. The evidence is clear. The evidence is here. These people love to say, 'We must have peer-reviewed studies.' Well, here it is: a peer reviewed meta-analysis of 15 studies showing a 62 per cent reduction in the risk of death and an incredible 86 per cent reduction of COVID infections when used as a prophylaxis. Let me read the final conclusion of this meta-analysis, peer-reviewed published study:
Given the evidence of efficacy, safety, low cost and current death rates, ivermectin is likely to have an impact on health and economic outcomes of the pandemic across many countries. Ivermectin is not a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. It is a WHO 'Essential Medicine' already used in several different indications, in colossal cumulative volumes.
And those volumes are in the billions of doses. It continues:
Corticosteroids have become an accepted standard of care in covid-19, based on a single RCT of dexamethasone 1. If a single RCT is sufficient for the adoption of dexamethasone, then … two dozen RCTs supports the adoption of ivermectin.
Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable and feasible global intervention against covid-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis.
There you have it. That is the peer reviewed science. The denial of ivermectin must end, because it is costing lives in this country. Those on the other side must take off their tinfoil hats and follow the science, not the superstition and not the rumours. We know that many have spoken out against this drug because it's low cost. We know that many have invested financial interests in trying to suppress its use and these studies, because there are billions involved in it.
It doesn't stop there. Not only is there that peer-reviewed study; there is another study which summarises all the ivermectin studies. I'd like to go through what the numbers actually are here. There are 25 early treatment studies, and 23, 92 per cent of them, report positive effects. The random chance of that happening is one in 103,000. For late treatment, there are 21 studies, and 90.5 per cent of them show it's an effective treatment. The random chance of that is one in 9,000. For prophylaxis, there are 14 studies and all 14, 100 per cent of them, show it's an effective treatment. The random chance of that is one in 16,000. In total, there are 60 studies and 56 of them, 93.3 per cent, report a positive effect, and the random chance of that happening is estimated at—wait for it—one in two trillion. So, you on the other side, may well be right: this may all just be a lucky coincidence! There's a one in two trillion chance that you are right that ivermectin is an ineffective treatment, because that is what the numbers, that is what the evidence, that is what the data, actually says!
I would like to conclude: if you want to read one particular peer-reviewed study on the effectiveness of ivermectin, I suggest to you a study published last year in the Journal of Biomedical Research and Clinical Investigation. In that study, which was across four hospitals in Argentina, they had two groups. They had 407 hospital workers—doctors and nurses and orderlies—in their standard PPE equipment and they had another group of 788, again doctors and nurses and orderlies, which they gave ivermectin to. So we had an ivermectin group and a non-ivermectin group. Of the 407 in the non-ivermectin group, 237 of them, 58 per cent, in a three-month period, contracted COVID. Understand that Argentina is not a wealthy country, not as wealthy as we are here in Australia. Their hospitals were overcrowded, COVID was rife through their society and, of the nurses and doctors in those hospitals that didn't take ivermectin in that study period, 58 per cent of them became infected. But of the 788 that took the ivermectin treatment, can you guess how many contracted COVID, remembering it was 58 per cent of the other group? It was zero, a duck egg. Not one single person, not one single doctor, not one single nurse, not one single orderly, contracted COVID, and yet in the other group they had 58 per cent contract it. I think that I have given enough evidence here tonight that ivermectin must be adopted widely in this country. Looking at results across the board in countries like India and at how successful they have been in crushing their COVID curves with ivermectin, it must be adopted widely in this country. It is an effective treatment.
I would like to conclude that, unfortunately, because of the words I have spoken, because of the evidence that I have read out, if I were to put this speech during the proceedings here on the floor of the Australian parliament on YouTube, it would be censored and deplatformed by YouTube. They would take it down. They would look at it and they would question the proceedings of this parliament, question this debate. This speech cannot be put up on YouTube because of their censorship.
I acknowledge all of the members who have made a contribution to this debate on the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021 and I thank them for their contributions. This bill appropriates from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of making the COVID-19 disaster payment during the 2021-22 financial year.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Members will be silent. Order! The member for Hughes. The member for Perth, on a point of order?
I think the accusation thrown across the chamber at the member for Macnamara should be withdrawn.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if it assists the House, I'm halfway through summing up. If I could finish summing up, I think both sides are in agreement on this bill. I have already acknowledged the contributions of all members to this debate, so if it assists the House, I'll continue.
Yes.
The bill also provides for the National Recovery and Resilience Agency to report on the COVID-19 disaster payment in their annual report. Australians are a resilient people, but sometimes they need support during difficult times. This appropriation ensures that COVID-19 disaster payments will be available and fully funded should additional lockdowns occur. 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 Scullin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Kingston from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1)notes:
(a)by keeping the Member for Bowman as chair of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, the Prime Minister is showing how little value he places on committee work;
(b)his failure to respond to a letter written by female Opposition members of the committee urging him to act also shows how little value he places on the views of women;
(c)Government members need to stop the protection racket for the Member for Bowman; and
(d)the Prime Minister's failure to act is a demonstration of weakness, rather than leadership; 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 has thrown his hands in the air and capitulated to the member for Bowman; he has thrown up his hands and said, 'I will do what you say.'
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Kingston be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded?
No accountability, no responsibility and no concern for the actions will be the legacy of this government—
The member for Werriwa will resume her seat. The Leader of the House has the call.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The Leader of the House has moved that the member be no further heard. All those of that opinion say aye. To the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The member for Mackellar on a point of order.
I don't believe that I heard that the motion was seconded.
I've now called the division, and we're going to proceed with it. I think she did—
Honourable members interjecting—
No, don't try and yell at me from your seat. I will say, in fairness to both the member for Werriwa and the Leader of the House, that the microphones weren't on immediately as they came. We've agreed we're having a division for one minute, have we? The ayes have it. The noes have it? That's right. Division required. Let's not spend a minute on this when we can just ring the bells for one minute.
The question is that the motion moved by the honourable member for Kingston be disagreed to.
Just before members leave, I want to flag—I'm not making a ruling at this point, at this time of night, I stress, just before the adjournment—that I am going to consider the same-motion rule, certainly over the next day or so. We only have a couple of days to go. The reason being of course, obviously, that if a motion is identical it breaches the same-motion rule. But as Practice points out, the same-motion rule also applies to motions that are the same in substance.
There have been 10 motions moved that really go to one core question, and that is that the member for Bowman be discharged from his committee and his committee chairmanship. The Practice also points out that this is at the chair's discretion, and it has been used sparingly. My initial attitude, of course, is that if there's new information that might cause the House to vote differently then that's worth thinking about. But I'm just flagging my concern now that if the House is making an identical decision pretty much every day—as I said, this is the 10th—it may well invoke that. But I do stress to those on my right that it has been used sparingly in the past. So I'll report back.
Mr Gosling interjecting—
The member for Solomon, of course, is not helping at all. Maybe I should have said it twice at the start: I'm not making a ruling or seeking to have a debate. I am just considering the matter, and, obviously, I'll discuss it with the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business in due course. And I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on this now.
Just to raise a point of order—and I appreciate that it's something you're saying you're reflecting on rather than ruling on immediately: I would add for context that the House has been debating suspension motions. We have not been at the point where we've had the substantive motion in front of us.
I'm just flagging the general issue. I think all of that is obviously what I'm considering.
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 recognises that Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis has been hurt by the Government's failure to:
(1) roll out the vaccine
(2) deliver an effective national quarantine system; and
(3) promote wage growth".
The Treasury Laws Amendment (COVID-19 Economic Response) Bill 2021 is a bill with a grandiose title but very small ambition. It makes some minor technical changes to facilitate COVID-19 disaster payments. It's the absolute bare minimum the government should be doing. We will support it, but we do so in the knowledge that much more needs to be done.
Schedule 1 of the bill extends the operation of an existing power that allows the Treasurer to declare that eligible state and territory COVID-19 business support payments be exempt from income tax for the next financial year. This means that grants paid by state and territory governments during COVID-19 lockdowns in the 2021-22 financial year can be covered by the same exemption provisions that this parliament passed last year. Labor support the measure, but, I've got to say, we had hoped it would not be necessary.
This government has had two principal jobs in the last 18 months—the vaccine rollout and quarantine. This modest measure contained within the bill will do nothing to paper over the government's manifest failure to do either of those two jobs properly. I want to paint a picture. In Madison Square Garden last night something like normalcy returned to New York City. The Foo Fighters performed to a capacity crowd. Every single person in the audience had had a vaccination. This, to us, is what success looks like—not only watching the Foo Fighters but ensuring that everyone in attendance had had the vaccine. If you look at the American population, a full half of the population has been fully vaccinated. Here, less than three per cent of people are fully vaccinated. Lockdowns are still happening every fortnight or so. Family events and trips are having to be cancelled. Businesses face uncertainty and disruption. The virus has escaped quarantine more than 20 times. Every failure means Australian lives are at risk. Every failure costs millions of dollars in business earnings.
Rather than accept responsibility for these failures, we see the opposite—a government ducking for cover. First came the humiliating backdown on the vaccine rollout deadlines; now we don't have a deadline at all. Then came the warnings from independent experts, including their own expert on the whole vaccine and pandemic management, Jane Halton, about the failure to build a proper quarantine system. There is still no national quarantine network. Instead of focusing on fixing these problems, instead of looking at the problems that Australians are facing—the vaccine rollout, hotel quarantine—they're focused on themselves. If only they would put as much time into rolling out the vaccine as they did rolling the former Deputy Prime Minister we'd be a lot further down the path!
Schedule 2 of the bill allows the Australian tax office to share taxpayer information with Services Australia to assist Services Australia with administering the COVID-19 disaster payment. Again, we support the measure, but it's worth remembering just how measly the government support has actually been. While the government have poured millions of dollars—billions of dollars, in fact—into profitable companies and executive bonuses through JobKeeper, their support for Victorians during the latest lockdown amounts to as little as $325, if you meet the complicated eligibility requirements. Contrast that with the position of Gerry Harvey. He got $22 million on top of the record bumper profits that he received in the last 12 months. But if you're a part-time restaurant worker in Melbourne who's out of work you get $325, and that's only if you meet the strict eligibility criteria. And it gets worse than that. At least Gerry Harvey and his Harvey Norman businesses do something useful. They sell TVs and lounges and washing machines to Australians who need them. But the Australian Club got $2 million in JobKeeper. I want you to think about that, Mr Deputy Speaker: the Australian Club got $2 million in JobKeeper. This is a club that excludes fully half of the Australian population. Some people can't afford to join, but women can't join. It's an anachronism, yet this is a business that the government has seen fit to support throughout the pandemic.
There is so much more that needs to be done. I'd like to spend a few moments focusing on the manifest failures of the vaccine rollout and hotel quarantine. All people in class 1a were supposed to be vaccinated by Easter. We know that as of today only one-third of aged-care workers have been fully vaccinated, but 84 per cent of COVID cases in aged-care homes originated from the workers. It's wasn't their fault, but the fact that quarantine is leaky and vaccines haven't been rolled out is putting people at risk. Four million people were supposed to be vaccinated by the end of March, six million were supposed to be vaccinated by 10 May, and everyone is supposed to be fully vaccinated by October. We know there is not going to be a hope of meeting those deadlines. As we stand today, the vaccine rollout is a complete and utter shambles.
I want to talk about hotel quarantine. Since August last year the World Health Organization has been telling Australia that hotel quarantine—shared spaces and inadequate ventilation systems—is inherently risky. Let's have a look at the breaches. In November last year it was Adelaide. In December it was Sydney. In January it was Brisbane. In February it was Perth. In May it was Melbourne. In June it was Sydney and Brisbane. Since March 2020 there have been three outbreaks in Queensland, eight in New South Wales, two in South Australia, five in Victoria and three in Western Australia. In fact, for every 204 infected travellers in hotel quarantine in Australia there is one leak. There have been 21 breaches between April 2020 and June 2021 in Australia. Those are the breaches that we know about; there may be others that we don't know about. There were 17 breaches in the six months to June this year alone. Enough is enough. What is it going to take for this government to acknowledge that its approach to hotel quarantine is an abject failure? In February this year Professor Adrian Esterman, an epidemiologist at the University of South Australia, said:
It's critically important to stop these leaks, because we're now starting to see that not only are these variants more contagious, but they're potentially also more lethal. Furthermore, we're seeing that vaccines don't do quite as well against them.
The answer is not hotel quarantine.
While these problems continue, we've got the Deputy Prime Minister of this country more interested in creating infighting and disruption and disunity and instability within the government, instead of addressing the issues that are putting Australian lives at risk.
I want to talk about the South Australian breach. Melbourne is now emerging from its fourth round of restrictions. It's instructive to look at the source of the virus that threatens lives in Melbourne. The source is a traveller who returned to Australia and quarantined in Adelaide for two full weeks—14 days—from 19 April. He was released into the community on 4 May. He then returned home to Melbourne. He was tested in Melbourne, and returned a positive result on 11 May—22 days after coming back to Australia and entering hotel quarantine. The problem? This man wasn't sick when he went into hotel quarantine; he caught the virus there. Can you imagine if he was an elderly or vulnerable person? He could have died from the disease.
What is it going to take for this government to realise that it is presiding over an abject failure? Dr Norman Swan, who has done so much to keep Australians informed over the course of this pandemic, absolutely nailed it when he said:
That's not because South Australia is bad at hotel quarantine—it's that hotel quarantine is bad at COVID …
What is it going to take for the government to realise that enough is enough, that we have to have purpose-built quarantine systems in every place in the country where we have an international airport that travellers are coming back to Australia through. It is the Commonwealth's responsibility. You cannot 'shmirk' your way out of this pandemic. It is the Prime Minister's responsibility, and it's time he took control. You can't outsource all of the tough decisions to the states. You can't be the guy who is always there for trophy night, but who never turns up to work the next day—which is exactly what this Prime Minister is doing. He's always there to take the accolades; he's never there to take responsibility. We are seeing, on average, one outbreak from hotel quarantine once a month. Lives are at risk because of low levels of vaccination. We cannot continue with this mismanagement.
Do you want to know what is at risk here? I ask you to consider this. Of the new strains, the UK variant is twice as contagious as the original strain. The Indian variant is 40 to 50 times as contagious as the original strain. We are now seeing variants from the spread in Brazil that are less responsive to vaccines and that are also reinfecting the population. As epidemiologist Professor Mike Toole of the Burnet Institute has said, 'It is only a matter of time before these variants arrive in Australia.' Hotel quarantine is not the answer. We cannot smirk our way out of this pandemic. It's time that the Prime Minister stood up to his responsibility. It's time the government started focusing on the issues which are of concern and of need to the people of Australia. Internal party games, rolling a decent bloke, a bloke who I don't agree with on so many issues—how can it be that the National Party is so focused on its own issues instead of these issues that I'm talking about here today? One leak from hotel quarantine every month, putting Australian lives at risk. It's simply not good enough. The Prime Minister must step up to his responsibility.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House I will state the question in the form that the amendment be disagreed to.
In the brief time we have before the adjournment, I'd just like to say that the Treasury Laws Amendment (COVID-19 Economic Response) Bill 2021 is another example of the myriad of supports that the government is providing to small and medium business right around this country. I know that across the electorate of Forde some 5,900 businesses have been able to take advantage of the extended loss carry back measures to invest more in their local economy and support jobs.
We've also seen significant support for apprentices and trainees across the electorate of Forde, and a range of other measures. Whether it's building new infrastructure or whether it's providing support like JobKeeper to keep businesses open, many of the businesses across my electorate have taken advantage of these opportunities provided to restructure their businesses, keep their doors open and keep Australians employed, and that is what has been so important through COVID. The Morrison government is delivering for people right across my electorate of Forde, and right across this country. This is just another example, and I commend the bill to the House.
I rise tonight to talk again about a really major issue in my electorate, and that is housing and housing affordability. This is without a doubt the major concern that locals raise with me, because the New South Wales North Coast faces a huge housing affordability crisis, a rental crisis and a homelessness crisis, and it is getting worse day by day. Our region has seen the largest increase in house prices across the entire nation. Recent reports show that house prices on the New South Wales North Coast have risen more in the past 12 months than anywhere across Australia. House values in the Richmond-Tweed area have climbed 21.9 per cent in the 12 months to April and almost 30 per cent in Byron. The fact is it costs more on average to buy a house in Byron than it does to buy a house in Sydney. The median house price in the Byron shire is now $1.4 million, compared to Greater Sydney's $1.1 million. We've also seen equally massive increases right across our area, and for locals it essentially means they've been priced out of the market. For so many first home buyers in our region the dream of owning their own home is completely unattainable. It is practically impossible for first home buyers to even get into the market.
The rental crisis is also incredibly desperate. There is no other word for it. Rental vacancies are under 0.3 per cent. Every day locals are contacting me and telling me how hard it is to find a place to rent or that their rent has suddenly skyrocketed overnight, forcing them to move out because they simply cannot afford it. When we look at our community pages on social media we see story after story of really desperate situations—people in crisis, calling out for somewhere to live—and that is increasing at a rapid rate on those social media pages. So many long-term locals, the people who have lived in our region their whole lives, are being forced out of the area, because they just can't find a place to live. In some cases we see rents double overnight. For many people, they're paying that rent but they just can't afford to eat. That's the reality of their situation.
We're also seeing increasing pressure on our food banks, our community pantries and our meal services. Our local community organisations do an incredible job, but the demand on their services is just not sustainable. Many are saying they're seeing people they've never seen before—many working families that cannot afford to buy groceries to eat, because all of their money has to go into paying these huge increases in rent.
As a result of the housing and rental crisis we're now seeing so many people forced into homelessness. The ABC North Coast recently reported that in a state street count over the past month, more than 40 per cent of people sleeping rough in New South Wales were on the New South Wales North Coast. We've also been told it's estimated that there are approximately 400 women in the Byron region who are sleeping in their cars. This is a disgrace and it must be addressed. We just have no affordable housing in our region.
The Liberals and Nationals have been in power for eight long years, and in that time housing affordability has gotten worse. We have continuously called for a national housing affordability plan and it just hasn't happened. The fact it it's not just in my region; it's everywhere. It's harder to buy. It's harder rent. And there are more homeless people in Australia than ever before. This is truly shameful.
Recently the shadow minister for housing and homelessness, the member for Blaxland, came to my region to hear firsthand from locals about this crisis and to discuss all of the issues that I've raised today. The fact is Labor is listening, listening to my community and listening across the country, and that's why recently we announced our housing affordability plan. During the visit to my region the shadow minister highlighted Labor's plan to build social and affordable housing now and into the future. We talked about how an Albanese Labor government will create the housing Australia future fund to build social and affordable housing in places like mine that are experiencing this crisis. This fund will create jobs, build homes and change lives. It's not just good social policy; it's also good economic policy.
Labor's future fund will give more Australians a future. It's so important to have that massive investment in housing projects, social housing and affordable housing. It will also provide affordable homes for those heroes of the pandemic who have kept us safe—those frontline workers, like the police, the nurses and the cleaners—and it will provide housing for veterans and crisis accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence. These are such important issues for my community. Again, I call on the government to address this crisis across the nation.
Last night I had the pleasure of attending the Restaurant and Catering Association Lifetime Achiever Awards here at Parliament House. It was an absolute privilege to watch the recipients of this year's awards—Faith Nichols, Chris Lucas, Miccal Cummins, Peter Clarke, Jimmy Shu and Robert Molines—receive their accolades. Some came to this country as migrants and all have made an enormous contribution to the industry with their incredible work ethic and resilience. Their lifetime of service to the industry they love has made a significant contribution to our country.
I'd like to acknowledge the strong advocacy of CEO Wes Lambert, who has been steadfast through this challenging time. Resilience was a common theme during last night's event, and I was particularly moved by the speech from Chris Lucas, owner of Melbourne's iconic Chin Chin, who spoke so passionately and emotionally about the effect the continual lockdowns in Victoria have had on the restaurant scene in the city and the damage they have done to their food culture scene. It really is taking its toll. I appeal to state governments to reconsider lockdowns as a strategy going forward and look to the example of states like New South Wales, who have seen far less disruption in the industry. As mentioned when I spoke to the room last night, there's a particular type of resilience that exists in the hospitality industry, where it can be tough to survive at the best of times, but COVID has really pushed the limits to the brink.
I spent many years working in hospitality. My time spent in the industry was one of the best and most satisfying work experiences I have had and one that I would be proud to return to one day—though, to be clear, I don't have intentions of going anywhere soon! Amongst many memories I have great memories of working in hospitality in Sydney during the 2000 Olympics and made great friendships that have endured to this today. It is an industry that can take you anywhere in the country; indeed, the world. It is a creative, exciting and dynamic industry. I believe that more needs to be done to encourage young people to consider that this can be a career path. Hospitality can be more than just a casual job—not just the one you take while at uni or while you are trying to figure out what you really want to do. Strong, fulfilling long-term careers await.
Northern Tasmanian locals need only look at the career paths of Bianca and James Welsh for inspiration. Beginning their careers as waiters, the two have gone on to become co-owners of the acclaimed Black Cow Bistro and Stillwater restaurants and have won a range of awards, including Bianca winning the Tasmanian 2019 Tourism Young Achiever's Award and James achieving success as a sommelier, with Stillwater winning a number of awards for its wine list. Both are incredibly hardworking and tenacious people who are living proof that there can be long-term success in hospitality.
I believe this conversation around hospitality as a career needs to begin happening now, at a time when we are already seeing an eye-watering number of jobs that cannot be filled. Across Australia there are tens of thousands of jobs available from server, to restaurant manager, cafe manager and chef or cook. Seek alone has thousands of current vacancies advertised under these job titles, with 24,000 advertised under the general 'hospitality banner'. In Tasmania alone there are 577 current vacancies—a significant number when you consider our population size.
These numbers are not surprising to me and were highlighted in local media today by Karen Burbury, owner of Cataract on Paterson and Rupert and Hound in Launceston. Karen and I have had many discussions on the issue of skill shortages, finding people who want to work in this industry and the pressure this has put on her successful businesses. The situation has now reached a point where Karen will close the doors of Rupert and Hound for two weeks to provide further training for her staff.
Like Karen, I believe that we need to think outside the square when it comes to addressing the significant workforce shortage that exists, by attracting staff to fill the gaps in the workforce, looking at innovative training options and keeping people on in the long term, which is a sentiment backed by the Tasmanian Hospitality Association. I welcome the work already done by our government to assist the sector with skills shortages. But, in the same way that the challenges of COVID-19 have renewed our interest in rebuilding our sovereign capability in other areas such as manufacturing, so too, I believe, we have an opportunity to grow and nurture talented hospitality and tourism professionals right here in Australia. As a strong advocate for the hospitality industry, I am committed to working with this sector to find long-term sustainable solutions to the current challenges.
On Friday a week ago hundreds of locals attended the funeral service of Keith 'Cocky' Caldwell at Kembla Grange. In a moving reflection of Keith's lifetime of community service, there were representatives of New South Wales police and local surf lifesaving clubs from across our region. It was a great shock to me and to many in our community when we heard of Keith's death. He was only 60 years old and has been taken from his family and his community far too soon. It's a testament to Keith that in his 60 years he had provided so much service to our community. Keith was publicly very proud of his wonderful family, who were also active in the surf lifesaving movement. He passed away peacefully in the company of his family: his beautiful wife, Maria, as well as Jamie, Alicia, Natalie and Catherine. The service for Keith outlined his 30 years of service in the NSW Police Force in many roles, including undercover work.
I knew Keith through his work for his beloved Bulli Surf Life Saving Club. I regularly attended the club not only for presentation nights but also to be lobbied by Keith for funding to improve facilities to enable the club to best serve its community. I'd attend the club with my state colleague Ryan Park and often Councillor Janelle Rimmer as well, and Keith would give us a very thorough rundown on what work needed to be done or what new equipment needed to be purchased. With a friendly smile and a glint in his eye, Keith was a very effective advocate indeed. Keith also helped lead the club in supporting other community fundraising initiatives, such as their annual motor neurone disease walk that they had organised for the last eight years. He'd been president of the Bulli club for 18 years. He was a life member of the club as well as a life member of Surf Life Saving Illawarra and Surf Life Saving NSW.
His awards were numerous and well deserved. He was the Illawarra Volunteer of the Year 2006, Illawarra Surf Lifesaver of the Year 2011 and Volunteer of the Year 2018. He was the Sydney Water Surf Series chairperson since 2015. At the state level, Keith also received many accolades for his work, including the NSW Volunteer of the Year 2007, a New South Wales Lifesaver of the Year finalist in 2011 and Volunteer of the Year finalist in 2018. At the national level, Keith also took on many important management and administrative roles to support the movement, and he was very, very proud to receive life membership of Surf Life Saving Australia this year. I'd like to finish with Keith's own words from one of his last Facebook posts in May. He said: 'Thank you, family, for the belated 60th birthday present long weekend on the Central Coast. Grandkids had fun, love them to bits and my beautiful wife.' He loved his family, his friends and his community, and we all loved him too. Rest in peace, Keith.
I'd also like to acknowledge this evening the passing of Lois Hagan. It's with great sadness that I advise the House that one of our longest-serving local ALP members, Lois Hagan of Austinmer, passed away on Saturday 15 May. Lois and her late husband, Jim, joined Thirroul branch in 1966. They were initially members of Caringbah branch and then transferred to Thirroul via Canberra. They were great friends and supporters of the late Les Johnson, a former member for Hughes, and they campaigned together every election until Les's retirement in 1984. In the early years, the Hughes electorate extended into my area. I'm advised that Les's children Grant and Jenny were also very sad to hear of Lois's passing.
Lois had ALP life membership conferred in 1999, followed by Jim, her husband, in 2000. Her framed certificate was proudly displayed front and centre at her funeral service. She was the longest-serving branch secretary of Thirroul branch, for 17 years, and made a very significant contribution to Labor politics across our region. She was the founding member and secretary of so many important local organisations, including the Thirroul Railway Institute Preservation Society. She was heavily involved in many campaigns in the northern suburbs to improve the local area.
Many fond memories of Lois were shared at her service by her sons Jim and John, and by her grandchildren, who knew her as 'Lo-lo', and by Rob Castle, a long-time family friend. Her boys said she distilled a strong sense of social justice and independence in them. She said that there were already enough useless men in the world and that she wasn't going to add to them, and so brought them up with very strong values. Rest in peace. (Time expired)
I rise tonight to thank all those first responders and volunteers from the local SES who did so much in my municipalities of Manningham and Nillumbik as a consequence of the recent wild storms and floods in Victoria. As the local mayor, Andrew Conlon, who was here today in Canberra as part of the Local Government Association conference week, said, 'We experienced high winds of up to 100 kilometres an hour, resulting in trees down, road closures and over 4,000 homes without power across Manningham, with the worst affected areas including Doncaster East, Warrandyte, Warrandyte South, Wonga Park and Park Orchards.' There are other areas of Victoria which were even more badly affected than my electorate of Menzies, particularly in the Dandenongs and close to where I grew up in Traralgon in Gippsland.
This wild weather and the damage to homes of course called out all our first responders. In particular, I'd like to thank the SES teams and the other emergency services. Across Victoria they were inundated with calls for assistance, with over 9,000 calls being placed to SES teams across the state. The Manningham SES deputy controller of operations, Gary Birkett, said that the Manningham SES unit received approximately 140 requests for assistance, with local SES crews working around the clock in the community to remove trees off roads, cars, garages and houses, and those blocking access to driveways. To quote him, 'Crews also provided assistance to residents experiencing localised flooding to their properties.'
In addition, Manningham SES volunteers performed two rescues in Wonga Park during the extreme weather events. The first was a couple who became stuck while attempting to cross the flooded Paynes Road in their car and the second case was a rescue in Wonga Park, where a kayaker needed assistance after being caught in the Yarra, which was in flood near Mount Lofty Park. The local crews were also deployed elsewhere in the Upper Yarra to assist with the evacuation of 31 residents from a local caravan park, which was isolated by rising floodwaters.
To all of those who assisted—not just the SES teams and the volunteers who I have mentioned tonight, but to the paramedics, members of the fire brigade, the metropolitan services, and the CFA, and all those other responders—a very sincere thank you on behalf of all the residents of my electorate.
Last week I mentioned a number of recipients of the Order of Australia from my electorate in the civil division. Tonight I'd like to make mention of one recipient in the military division, namely, Brigadier Douglas Laidlaw AM, CSC. Brigadier Laidlaw was honoured for his exceptional service as commander of the 4th Brigade and commander of the Joint Task Force 646 during Operation Bushfire Assist 2019-2020. The citation noted:
Brigadier Douglas Laidlaw has demonstrated exceptional dedication and service in multiple command appointments.
To quote from the citation:
Brigadier Laidlaw as Commander Joint Task Force 646, led the rapid response and recovery efforts supporting emergency management services and fire effected communities. His superior command and leadership were instrumental in the outstanding achievement of the Joint Task Force across the East Gippsland and North Eastern Victoria regions.
Indeed, at the height of the deployment, Brigadier Laidlaw was in charge of some 1,700 full-time and reserve soldiers, including several embedded Air Force and Navy service personnel.
Outside his service as a reservist, Brigadier Laidlaw is a practising barrister and lives in Warrandyte in my electorate. He is a family man, with six children, and this award as a Member of the Order of the Australia is very much well deserved by him.
I join with the previous speaker, the member for Menzies, in paying tribute not only to the soldier he just named but also to our first responders. I also acknowledge his outstanding service to this House over a 30-year period and wish him the best after the next election. But, on a more sombre note, I can sadly report to the House that a new form of McCarthyism has kept crept into the Australian culture, and it's alive and well in the Hunter region, deep in coal-economy heartland. This 21st century version of the Cold War doctrine has been on display at our local university, where a quite extraordinary, misleading, ideological and shrill campaign has resulted in former Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile's decision to decline the offer of the position of Chancellor of the University of Newcastle.
During the Cold War, people found themselves blacklisted on suspicion they were supporters of or sympathised with the Communist Party. Suffice to say, many on the blacklist appeared without cause and suffered greatly as a result. Many lost their jobs or were discriminated against in the workforce. In Australia today, the blacklist is not so shadowy; Mark Vaile's listing has been very public. The crime he has been publicly shamed for is his association with the coalmining industry. It's a very slippery slope.
Today the excessive progressives target those associated with the coal industry, but no doubt tomorrow it will be anyone associated with the oil, gas and fuel-refining industries. What's next? The meat-processing industry? The steel-manufacturing sector? Will the blacklist extend to those who invest in or work in the energy intensive aluminium smelters or the wool industry, which regularly cops it from animal welfare groups? Maybe those industries that manufacture our fertilisers and crop protection products will be next. Who is the final arbiter of these things? Where and when will this madness end?
The world is moving rapidly towards a lower carbon economy. So too is the Hunter region, with pumped hydro, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic battery, hydrogen, biomass and gas-peaking projects in the investment pipeline. We are leading the country, and that's a good thing. But the coal industry will also be with us for many decades to come, and that is also a good thing.
Investment in new low-carbon technology is growing exponentially, and the investment around the world is largely being led by large corporations with a history in the oil, gas, energy and mining sectors. Imagine if we argue that the chair of BHP, a coal and steel company now heavily investing in low-carbon technologies, should be excluded from any involvement in local institutions which have, as part of their mission, ambitions for a lower carbon economy. That would be massively counterproductive.
Yes, Mark Vaile chairs the board of Whitehaven Coal, but he also chairs an investment fund with around a billion dollars worth of wind and solar technologies under management. Expressing interest in the largely ceremonial job on offer at the University of Newcastle, Mark Vaile said:
When considering the role, I took a close look at The University's strategic plan, Looking Ahead, and was impressed by what I found.
He went on to say:
I am excited by the role I can play in helping the University deliver on the University's commitment to become carbon-neutral by 2025.
He also said:
The importance of an energy transition is here in our backyard.
The education sector has a critical role to play in this challenge.
Mark Vaile would not have, and probably could not have as chancellor, changed the university's strategic direction, even if he wanted to. The university will recover from the loss of a former deputy prime minister with extensive management experience, with deep connections within our state and federal government, and a commitment to the institution which educated his children. The bigger concern is the misplaced campaign against one of our regions most important industries and the message the demonisation of Mark Vaile sends to the tens of thousands of local people who work in the coal industry and associated sectors. This month the excessive progressives demonise them—shame on them.
I rise to honour and congratulate the recipients of Queen's Birthday honours for 2021. In Higgins this year, I'm delighted to congratulate 35 recipients of Queen's Birthday honours, including 14 medals of the Order of Australia, 15 members of the Order of Australia and six officers of the Order of Australia. These recipients have contributed significantly both to their community and to our country.
Every year it's a long list in Higgins. I'd particularly like to congratulate Professor Stephen Davis on his AO for distinguished service to medical education, stroke research and the management of cerebrovascular disease; Ms Erika Feller AO, for distinguished service to the international community, the recognition and protection of human rights and refugee law; Mr Ian Hicks AO, for distinguished service to the community through philanthropic support for the arts, education and social welfare bodies; Ms Janine Kirk AO, for distinguished service to the community through leadership in advisory roles in not-for-profit organisations; Emeritus Professor Lester Peters AO, for distinguished service to medicine, particularly radiation oncology and professional medical groups; Emeritus Professor Alan Trounson AO, for distinguished service to medical science, in-vitro fertilisation and stem cell technologies. I'm pleased to say that I called Alan a colleague in my former working life, and he's done some amazing work over many decades to help families start when they've had difficulties with infertility.
It's wonderful to see the rich and diverse tapestry of Higgins well represented in this year's Queen's Birthday honours. Higgins constituents with an AM truly come from all walks of life: for child protection, presented to Mr Andrew Blode AM; interior design, to Ms Susan Carr AM; performing arts, to Mr Colin Cornish AM and Mrs Rose Downer AM; industrial relations, to Mr Michael Gay AM; and education for children with special needs, to Mr Anthony Thomas AM. Urban planning also gets a mention, with the award being presented to Ms Kathryn Mitchell AM, as does building and construction, for Mr Vallence Simonds AM. Constituent Mr Trent Smyth AM was honoured for service to motorsport; Ms Ricci Swart AM, for service to the media and film industry; Mr Charles Justin AM, for his work for museums; and Mrs Louise Gourlay AM, for her charity work. She has worked diligently to support the Ian Potter Foundation and my old alma mater, Melbourne Girls Grammar, where she was a substantial supporter of the new Artemis Centre. She was a school swimming captain, and I know she was delighted by the opening of this new building.
There's one thing we can count on in Higgins: overrepresentation in the medical and healthcare field. I'd like to congratulate Ms Helen Maxwell-Wright AM, who was recognised for service to diabetes research and child welfare; Dr Bryan Mendelson AM, for service to plastic surgery; and Dr Heather Mack AM, for service to ophthalmology. I'd also like to thank Mrs Yen Bui OAM for her service to the Vietnamese community in Higgins and, indeed, right across Victoria. Mrs Bui is always so enthusiastic in her dedication to serving and helping people. In fact, I've danced with Yen at Vietnamese lunar new year celebrations held in Ashburton. She's a great enthusiast for her culture and her community, and I really have loved working alongside her.
Whilst my electorate always features in the Queen's Birthday honours, not all of the action happens in Higgins, of course. I would like to make special mention of two extra people who live just outside of Higgins. One is Professor John Daley, who was presented with an AM for significant service to public policy development and to the community. Professor John Daley was the inaugural director of the Grattan Institute, and he has given a decade of his life to the intellectual leadership of this country. Congratulations for the recognition of that extraordinary work. I also recently met with Maree McCabe—now Maree McCabe AM—who is the CEO of Dementia Australia. I'd like to take a moment to congratulate her on her award for significant service to people living with Alzheimer's and dementia and to the aged-care sector. Her work in this space hits home to many who know all too well the pain of watching relatives suffering from this awful disease, as did my father.
I commend all of the Higgins residents and, indeed, all Australians represented in the Queen's Birthday honours this year. The Queen's Birthday honours reflect a lifetime of service of these many great people to our great country. I ask that the following list of recipients be included in Hansard because I'd like to put on the record the wonderful work they have done for my community and, indeed, for all of Australia.
House adjourned at 20:00
For many years now I have been arguing over the failure of governments to ensure that Aboriginal people in remote communities are able to exercise their democratic rights as Australian citizens and to participate fully in the electoral process. Sadly, we have seen successive governments deliberately discriminate against these Australians by failing to ensure that they are enrolled to vote and can participate as equally as other Australians in that electoral process and in our democracy.
I have long argued for direct enrolment to be used in remote communities. Direct enrolment, used elsewhere across the country, is where persons are added to the electoral roll from data from such places as the ATO, Centrelink and motor vehicle registries in each state or territory. Sadly, the AEC has made a deliberate policy decision not to use direct enrolment where there is no mail delivery. Of course, in many remote places people don't have individual mailboxes. Mail comes in a community bag. They are being discriminated against because of where they live and the fact that the postal system doesn't work properly for them.
Two Aboriginal men, Mr Ross Mandi and Mr Matthew Ryan from communities in Arnhem Land, have lodged a complaint against this policy with the Australian Human Rights Commission, arguing discrimination. It is clearly a policy of discrimination, exclusion and, potentially, voter suppression, which has been described as:
… any legal or extralegal measure or strategy whose purpose or practical effect is to reduce voting, or registering to vote, by members of a targeted racial group, political party, or religious community.
It's arguable here that this is direct voter suppression, and I applaud Mr Ryan and Mr Mandi for taking this courageous action. I note that they've had strong external support in the Northern Territory, including from major unions the MUA and the UWU, and they'll get more widespread support.
The Northern Territory Electoral Commission, in a recent report on its own 2020 Northern Territory election, said that the failure to use direct enrolment creates an imbalance, which places Aboriginal people at a great electoral disadvantage. This is simply a matter of what is right and of treating every Australian as having an equal opportunity to vote and to participate in our electoral processes. By deliberate government action, that is not happening in remote parts of this country. What it means is that they're undermining the rights of these Australian citizens to participate in the voting process and to fully participate in our democracy. This is a shame. The government is aware of it and the Australian Electoral Commission is aware of it, yet they've done nothing about it. It's appalling.
The first sign of this sort of activity happened when John Howard first got elected, when he cut the Aboriginal voter education and enrolment program out of the Australian Electoral Commission. Shame on him and shame on the government for not fixing this problem.
People in my electorate of Lindsay know that I always back our hardworking apprentices and those who want to become apprentices. Now is the time to recognise them—for their incredible contribution to our community and our economy—through the 2021 Australian Training Awards. Nominations are still open. Apprentices are really a driving force behind our economic recovery. That's why the Schools Industry Partnership in my electorate of Lindsay is doing really wonderful work to prepare local people to do their absolute best at job interviews to secure an apprenticeship. Ian, the director, told me that the Morrison government's stimulus to drive massive expansion of apprenticeships is exactly what our country needs. He said it's really fantastic to be supporting apprentices more than we've ever seen and that there's a true sense of excitement. Ian works closely with my Advancing Manufacturing Taskforce. Like me, he's incredibly passionate about creating local jobs for local people and making sure that people are ready to take up those jobs through apprenticeships.
The opportunity to recognise hardworking apprentices, trainees, businesses and job-training organisations is still open through the Australian Training Awards. This year's Australian Training Award categories are from the Outstanding Achievement in the VET and Skills Sector Award to the Small Employer of the Year Award, the Australian Apprenticeships Employer Award, the School Pathways to VET Award and the Excellence in Language, Literacy and Numeracy Practice Award.
There are over 2,000 apprentices in my electorate of Lindsay, who are working hard across a range of industries to develop the skills and experience they need. I want to quickly highlight in particular the manufacturing industry, because we have over 600 manufacturers in our community employing over 6,000 people. The minister for employment recently met with my Advancing Manufacturing Taskforce and urged them to take on even more apprentices and trainees. As we emerge from the pandemic making record investment into Western Sydney and developing the emerging job-creating industries, it has never been more important to bolster our skilled workforce. Boosting apprentices will play a key role in the future of our industries. That's why we have invested $4 billion to skill the next generation of Australians. This means supporting over 300,000 new apprentices and helping more than 300,000 people develop new skills through the JobTrainer Fund.
Apprentices and businesses in my electorate of Lindsay deserve to be recognised for their hard work, for the way they create and sustain more local jobs and for the way they do drive our economy. I encourage everyone who is interested to go to australiantrainingawards.gov.au and submit their nominations before the deadline—next Wednesday, 30 June. I wish everyone all the very best of luck with their nominations.
The labour movement in Canberra lost one of its real champions with the passing of Neville Betts in early June. Neville was an organiser, the New South Wales-ACT Assistant Secretary and life member of the Electrical Trades Union with service that spanned three decades. I first met Nev back in the 1990s, when I was a young whippersnapper. At a Keating Press Club lunch in 1993—
An honourable member interjecting—
I had different coloured hair. Even in that company Nev could imbue a state-of-origin atmosphere. While at times suspicious of Labor Party whippersnappers, Nev worked tirelessly across marginal seat campaigns across the region, understanding the needs of working families beyond the workplace and that there was only one party, despite its imperfections, that could deliver for working people.
For a decade I had the honour of working with him and learning from him with bargaining, organising and joint cases in the commission, across workplaces as diverse as ActewAGL, Ecowise, Snowy Hydro, the ACT government and the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex. Neville was the ETU organiser on the Parliament House site during its construction. He was loved by delegates, members and officials across the labour movement.
He could talk. For good reason his nickname was Jaws. Many a time I had a phone conversation with Neville where he spoke for the first 30 minutes without drawing a breath. After some experience of this I realised it was generally time to make a cup of tea or coffee while involved in such a conversation. Nonetheless, the position he was advocating for was invariably right. He had extraordinarily detailed knowledge of the industries he represented. It was certainly beyond that of most of the other people he bargained with around the table. He cared deeply about the families of the members he represented. As his great friend and ETU compadre Matt McCann put it, Nev fought the toughest battle of all, against cancer, over the last three years. Unfortunately, his body could not sustain the fight any longer.
He never gave up. Anyone who knew Nev would know that was in his DNA. Nev spent 32 years fighting for ETU members and his beloved power-industry comrades. He never backed off or backed down from a blue.
He liked a beer. He liked a good time. He loved to fish. Shooting clay targets was his obsession. But, most importantly, Neville loved his family with a passion. He's survived by his wife, Cheryl, his son, Jake, his daughter, Kate, and her husband, Mark. Neville was a doting grandfather to Hudson and twins Madeline and Abigaile.
I extend deepest condolences to the family, friends and workmates of Neville Betts, a man you don't meet every day.
All roads this weekend lead to Emerald in the Central Highlands. The social atmosphere will be abuzz, with four large events happening. There are Ag-Grow's field days, CQ Inland Port and SEAWAY Logistics' launch; the celebration of Emerald Agricultural College's 50-year reunion, and the Emerald Rodeo.
The Ag-Grow field days are a three-day event on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Ag-Grow was established over 30 years ago. There will be over 300 traders and exhibitors. Twenty thousand visitors are expected. This year sees the introduction of a new ladies' lane, catering for all the things ladies have to have: hats, boots, jewellery and more. There'll be working cattle-dog sales; superior beef bull sales, with 100 bulls on offer of all breeds; and an invitation horse sale.
After a year's hiatus, Ag-Grow is back and bigger than ever. Tractors and car sales are at an all-time high. Why not take advantage of the coalition's instant cash write-off? That's what people are doing.
I wish Geoff Dein and his team a successful event. Thanks go to the volunteers and sponsors that make these great days.
The CQ Inland Port and SEAWAY Logistics' launch will be 25 kilometres east of Emerald at Yamala in Central Queensland at the intermodal hub. There's the official launch of SEAWAY, a Melbourne company coming to Central Queensland for the first time—imports; exports; general freight and container packaging; terminal operators. Congratulations to both the Stent-Smith family and to SEAWAY for their new venture and partnership.
There is also Emerald Agricultural College's 50-year reunion. My good friend Ian Burnett was in the first intake of students, and he will be there on Saturday. Events over the day include a cocktail reception, time-capsule opening and tour of the college and farm, with the reunion dinner that night. In 2019, the state government closed both the Emerald and Longreach agricultural colleges. This was disappointing, to say the least. We are looking for a new enterprise to pick up these challenges, to reopen these colleges.
Finally, the Emerald Rodeo will be on Saturday night at the Emerald Showground. It's sure to attract a big crowd.
So there's plenty of fun, food and entertainment, all happening in Emerald this weekend. I look forward to attending these events.
I'd like to speak today about a constituent of mine who lives in Moonee Ponds. Scarlett Paige is her name. She has epilepsy. She's a participant in the NDIS. She's had her essential transport removed, with no warning, by the National Disability Insurance Agency.
Scarlett is not able to drive, and her approved NDIS plan includes transport. This transport was to allow Scarlett to go safely to and from hospital, to her medical appointments, and to her job and to see her family and friends. The transport in her approved NDIS plan gave Scarlett the independence to get around safely without having to rely on lifts. The funding was paid for out of Scarlett's NDIS approved package. The total package would be barely $10,000, and a portion of it is allocated to transport. She's been using the NDIS-registered providers South West Community Transport since 2019.
So, she's got the funding and it's changing her life. She's represented Australia overseas. She's got pretty significant epilepsy, but she's holding down a job. She is a poster-person for what the NDIS can do, for a very small package. So you can only imagine Scarlett's shock and horror when she received an email from the transport provider advising her that she could no longer claim the transport because the NDIA had removed this form of transport as a line item from the packages. This is the email Scarlett received from South West Community Transport on 16 April 2021: 'We'—South West Community Transport—'have recently been advised by the NDIA that the social community and civic participation temporary transport line item has now been removed from the NDIS portal, which allowed us to claim your ongoing transport services. This occurred without our knowledge on 28 February 2021. As a result, we're carrying an outstanding amount accrued by you.' South West Community Transport provided transport to over 230 approved NDIS clients, one of whom was Scarlett. Scarlett is still without transport and, instead of just reinstating her transport, her local area coordinator, who was trying to help her, suggested Scarlett find the funds to pay for it herself, and then the NDIA might reimburse her. So she needs to reapply for transport funding, all because a line item was changed and no-one was told.
While Scarlett is without transport, South West Community Transport has been left with a bill of over $100,000 that the NDIA refuses to pay. I've also been contacted by the aforesaid transport business, who are desperate to find some answers as to how they could have been left with a massive bill for clients who had approved transport services. This is core funding for people like Scarlett. The NDIS is under attack by the Morrison government. Every time a coalition MP wants to preen their feathers and say what a good job they've done, I have got an example for every minute of every day of how the NDIA is mismanaging it. Perhaps what the parliamentarians should do is stand up for the people rather than defend an agency which is making all the wrong decisions.
I'd like to propose a toast to the craft brewers and distillers of Australia. You might think this is small beer, but it is big business, I tell you. There are about 600 small brewers and about 400 distillers dotted across Australia. Two-thirds of those are in regional and rural areas. We all know where the best brewers and distillers locate themselves. That's right: the Sunshine Coast indeed. There are about 30 small brewers and distillers across the Sunny Coast. It is indeed a growing sector and one that is very quickly becoming renowned for its quality.
I want to say thank you to them for their engagement with me as their federal MP. They have educated me now over some years about some of the challenges they face in their business, especially some of the tax challenges. This in turn has allowed me to make representations on their behalf to the Treasurer, seeking assistance, and we had a win in last month's budget, about which we're absolutely delighted: a change in excise tax. Under the current scheme, small brewers and distillers typically pay their excise duty and they can claim 60 per cent back, up to a cap of $100,000. Well, no more. From 1 July, they can claim the whole bang lot, up to $350,000. You can imagine what this means to the everyday business. This basically puts them on par with those in the wine industry. Indeed, the wine equalisation tax, the producer rebate scheme, is where they're now going to come in at. We need fairness in this sector, and this is a wonderful start from the government. I'm grateful to the Treasurer for, as always, listening and taking action.
We are talking about very small operators here, so where there is alleviation in taxation—and this scheme will benefit the sector by up to $225 million—that means more investment in the business. It means more jobs for locals. It means better product and more product that our palates enjoy, Deputy Speaker. To you and to others in this chamber I say: when you are after a drink, you know where you can go: the Sunny Coast. Our small brewers, and small distillers will be there to serve.
Today I want to use this constituency statement to speak directly to the people I represent in this place. Our community was hard hit by the 2020 COVID winter. We had 67 deaths in local aged-care settings. There were over 2,500 cases of COVID, the highest of any local government area in Melbourne. Of course, we endured three lockdowns due to breaches of hotel quarantine, two of which were from other states, and we're still enduring.
Luckily, this time through, we have no cases locally. That doesn't mean people aren't haunted by every announcement, by every new exposure site that's named. It doesn't mean people aren't grieving again for people they grieved for last year. And now our nation's three biggest cities are dealing with outbreaks. This is down to our Prime Minister's bungling of the two jobs he had this year: a speedy, effective rollout of vaccines and fit-for-purpose quarantine. He has failed on both. We have been in this pandemic for more than a year and the Prime Minister still can't get quarantine right and still can't get vaccines right. There is just no excuse anymore for the Prime Minister's failure to step up and do his job, his failure to take responsibility and take action on vaccines, quarantine and aged care. But this is a Prime Minister who refuses to take responsibility. He doesn't 'hold a hose'; he says 'it's not a race'. He's only interested in saying whatever it takes to score political points and live through the next day. In the meantime, working families are paying the price for his failure to act and failure to plan. Even now, we don't really know the plan for the way out.
But tonight I want to remind my community that someone does have a plan. The Leader of the Opposition and the opposition have a plan. It's simple. Hotels were built for tourists, not return travellers who are carrying a deadly virus. That's why Labor would build dedicated quarantine facilities in every state and territory. There have been 24 leaks from quarantine—none from Howard Springs, purpose built. We'll also fix the failed vaccine rollout. Only 3.1 per cent of our population has been vaccinated. Seventy per cent of New Yorkers are vaccinated and they've returned to normal life. What we need to do is get on with this plan. Part of our plan is a public information campaign. We saw millions of dollars get spent advertising the COVID app that failed. But this government is yet to deliver on that. Nor is it delivering on creating mRNA vaccines in this country.
I rise to congratulate those associated with the Bridgeport Hotel and its magnificent $45 million redevelopment. I was lucky enough to attend the Bridgeport Hotel's 'Business Murray Bridge Breakfast', and I've got to tell you the redevelopment is impressive. That event operated as a bit of a soft opening. If it was anything to go by, this redevelopment is going to be a complete game changer for Murray Bridge. Investment on this scale is hard to fathom in that community, but it highlights the optimism of Ian Tregoning, of the Eureka Group, for Murray Bridge—$45 million invested in the community.
I share Ian's positive outlook for Murray Bridge, with its ever-improving connectivity to Adelaide. It now serves as a regional hub for the Mallee. There is no reason why Murray Bridge couldn't be the tourism destination of choice. Whether it's skiing on the river or proximity to Tailem Bend's motorsport park and the Monarto Zoo, Murray Bridge has a lot to offer—and investments like this continue to pin Murray Bridge on the map. An investment of $45 million changes lives, with the initial employment in construction, but now the task has morphed into operations.
So what of the operations? The local jobs program, a federally funded jobs program, has worked closely with the Bridgeport Hotel's management team. I give a shout-out to the manager, Mary-Lou Corcoran, who frankly is a force of nature. She and her team have streamlined the recruitment process by giving unemployed locals the opportunity to gain sustainable employment at the Bridgeport Hotel. More than 40 jobseekers have attended a specifically tailored hospitality skill set training program at TAFE SA and I'm pleased that almost all of them are now in employment at the Bridgeport Hotel. The local jobs program has witnessed people changing their lives, and this commitment and enthusiasm is to be commended.
This is an extension of what our government has done through the most recent budget—the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements program. The Bridgeport and their management team have taken advantage of that program, and we've taken people from unemployment to a sustainable employment pathway? How did that happen? It happened because the government wants to see trainees and apprentices in employment but also because Ian had the wherewithal and the willingness to invest $45 million in the Murray Bridge community. We're grateful to him and I know those 40 young Australians who have found employment are grateful as well.
I rise today to acknowledge the many worthy Australians who were recently awarded Queen's birthday honours for 2021. The last 18 months have been incredibly difficult for so many Australians, but, as we confront the challenges of COVID, we see the very best of who we are at a nation and how this came to the fore. In preparing these remarks, it was wonderful to read the fine and selfless contributions so many people right around this great country have made and continue to make each and every day. Today I acknowledge two outstanding Greenway constituents, Mrs Jennifer Monaghan and Mr Niko Milic, who received an Order of Australia Medal and a Public Service Medal, respectively, as part of this year's honours.
Mrs Jennifer Monaghan was awarded an OAM for her service to the community of Kings Langley. In my time as the member for Greenway, I've known Jenny to be someone of great intellect, vision and compassion. She is a fierce advocate for her community. Jenny only wants the very best for residents living in Kings Langley and is prepared to make the case for change when she sees a project or existing amenities just aren't good enough. She does it with respect and warmth, always very clearly expressed with asks that are realistic. Along with her loving husband, Greg, who is another great advocate for Kings Langley, Jenny is a long-term member of the Kings Langley Cricket Club. She currently serves as the club secretary, a position to which she is incredibly dedicated. In fact, Jenny and Greg were instrumental in the Pearce Reserve pavilion redevelopment.
I recently joined them and other club members and representatives from Blacktown City Council for the pavilion's official opening. Because of Jenny's hard work and advocacy, local cricketers in Western Sydney now have access to the same quality facilities as players living in other parts of Sydney. I am so delighted that Jenny's efforts of so many years have been recognised by this honour. Congratulations, Jenny, and I look forward to continuing to work closely with you on how we can keep Kings Langley the very best place to live, work and raise a family.
Mr Niko Milic was awarded the Public Service Medal as part of this year's honours. He played an important role in the development of communications protocols in aged-care facilities during the pandemic. As we all know, the pandemic presented very serious risks for residents living in aged care, as has been well documented. However, Mr Milic's work has ensured we can keep our most vulnerable members of our community safe in a way which doesn't leave them socially isolated during this very distressing time. We certainly owe Mr Milic and, indeed, our Public Service more broadly—all those frontline workers—our thanks for their diligence throughout the pandemic. Congratulations, Mr Milic, on your well-deserved recognition.
Today I rise to pay tribute to the amazing volunteers at the Orange Family History Group who work tirelessly to document and celebrate the rich and diverse history of Orange and the Calare electorate. The Orange Family History Group is committed to identifying the unmarked graves at cemeteries in Orange and the Orange region which have been vandalised, deteriorated or fallen into disrepair. Their tireless work allows historians, history buffs and those seeking to find out more about their family histories and stories to access vital information which otherwise would be lost forever.
As late as last Friday, members of the group informed me that they had added 28,217 images to the existing 26,536 registered headstone entries. This is a remarkable achievement in which they can take great pride. There are many volunteers who do great things at the Orange Family History Group with little fanfare and acknowledgement, and all of them give so much to ensuring that our history and heritage in the Central West are preserved. I would especially like to acknowledge Sharon Jamieson, Lynne Irvine, Therese Lord and Julie Milne. There are many more volunteers behind the scenes who do not want to be acknowledged publicly, and I want the Australian parliament to record its appreciation for their compassion and commitment. I'd also like to acknowledge Orange city librarian Julie Sykes, who works closely with the members of the Orange Family History Group. Thank you, Julie, for your ongoing support. I'd like to congratulate all those at the library who have given their time and assistance.
This project is long and arduous and requires the volunteers to capture every unmarked grave. Incredibly, the Orange Family History Group made a chance find whilst researching the history of our diggers from World War I. Through their work they discovered the unmarked grave of William Wrangham, a returned veteran who passed away after suffering from wounds received from being gassed in the First World War. He was a driver in the Australian Army veterinary hospital, in both England and Calais. This extraordinary discovery, driven by Sharon Jameson, ensures that one of our diggers, who served our nation when it called, is never forgotten. William Wrangham's grave is now marked. I attended the service in December 2020 at the gravesite, and I was very pleased that members of his family were there. I'd also like to acknowledge the members of the RSL sub-branch in Orange for organising that event.
On behalf of the Australian parliament, I pay tribute to all the volunteers at the Orange Family History Group, who, with great determination, are quietly working away to ensure that important pieces of our history and heritage in the Central West are preserved for future generations.
In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 17 June 2021, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
Climate change is testing our democracy, just as it is testing our planet. This parliament has failed the test of reconciling the science with our policy settings. My goals in this place are pretty simple: secure jobs, stronger communities, and making sure we plan for the future. We can't deliver on our aspirations for our country without a path to a low carbon future. If you believe in a stronger, safer Australia, you should believe in acting on climate change.
I love Western Australia: walking through Kings Park in summer, going to Cottesloe Beach, having a few too many wines in the Swan Valley, taking a holiday in Yallingup and living in the most beautiful and biodiverse place anywhere on the earth. I want to make sure that magic is there for the next generation—and the generation after that—so they can walk through the Valley of the Giants, go for a swim or a splash in the Swan River or meet a quokka for the first time. My constituents want action on climate change to protect their lifestyle, to ensure we hand over a healthier planet to the next generation and to afford them the economic opportunities that we have all had access to.
Australia is an energy exporter. We have a unique set of skills, enterprise and resources. As the world transitions to an electrified and hydrogen economy, Australia can maintain its position as an exporter of energy. Major employers in my electorate—Fortescue, Rio Tinto, BHP, South32 and even Bunnings—are committed to net zero emissions by 2050 or earlier. If Australia gets this transition right, we will live in an even more secure world. We'll have even more secure, higher-quality jobs, and people will be able to continue to pursue those jobs that they've loved in the mining, resources and energy sector, such as being an engineer, a site supervisor or a programmer.
If we get it wrong, we will face consequences. Main Roads Western Australia have released a report showing that Langley Park, the front doorstep to the Perth CBD, disappears, and that Perth city, in parts, floods if we do not prevent our oceans from rising. The Water Corporation of Western Australia has stated very bluntly:
Already one of the most fire-prone regions in the world, Western Australia's fire risk has increased over the past 4 decades due to climate change …
The Water Corporation says:
Due to climate change, the average 20% decline in rainfall throughout the South West has seen streamflow reduce by over 80%.
This, as we know, leads to a higher reliance on desalination and other energy-intensive ways of providing safe, clean drinking water.
These scenarios are real. The Bureau of Meteorology has told us—told every single member of this parliament:
In Australia, the climate has warmed on average by 1.44 °C since national records began in 1910. The last ten years 2011-2020 were the hottest on record.
In Australia's hottest decade on record, the Liberal Party and the National Party members turned on one another—a decade of leadership turmoil in the Liberal and National parties, all because of climate change.
The Deputy Prime Minister, who was sworn in this morning, has described the push for renewable energy as 'insane'. He's described the push for renewable energy as 'lemming-like'. He refuses to accept the responsibility to lead and to act. When we are elected, that comes with responsibility: that you will take difficult decisions and lead people to places that will make sure that their prosperity is protected. There's a model for this. Bob Hawke showed Australia that model. You can transform the economy. You can modernise the economy. You can liberate the economy and protect Australia's environment. The reality is that's the only path to sustainable prosperity. Bob Hawke's granddaughter Sophie Taylor-Price noted at his state funeral:
He saw it as a collective failure of our nation that we have traded short-term interests over intergenerational equality.
Short-term thinking will always give us long-term pain.
What we saw from the G7 meeting in Cornwall was strong commitment to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees, to reach net zero no later than 2050 and to conserve or protect at least 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030. It's clear, if it wasn't before, that Australia needs a plan to fit into that global commitment—one where we all benefit. As the Leader of the Opposition said in Perth at his Kings Park vision statement:
…Australia can not only continue to be an energy exporting superpower, we can also enjoy a new manufacturing boom. This means jobs.
The Business Council of Australia has noted, 'A net zero emissions future will also create new jobs.' The Investor Group on Climate Change has stated:
Climate change poses a systemic risk to the jobs and growth of the Australian economy.
In a major report by Deloitte, they noted that failing to act on climate change will cost Australia $3.4 trillion and will mean 880,000 fewer jobs in just the next 50 years. But there is an alternative vision where we can gain 250,000 jobs and grow the economy by $680 billion. That's the choice in front of us. That is the choice that we can make in this building in the actions we make today and every day. It is in our hands.
We are a big country. Our electricity system includes more than 1,000 separate networks. In 2001, there were just 118 Australian households with rooftop solar. That was 20 years ago. Now more than 2.8 million Australian households have solar panels on their roofs. What do we have to thank for that phenomenon? We have government to thank. Indeed, we have John Howard to thank for that transformation, acknowledging that government can take small, practical steps towards reducing our reliance on traditional sources of energy to more sustainable and, indeed, cheaper sources of energy.
Australian households remain desperate to do their bit to address climate change. When it comes to global investment in renewable power, we saw approximately US$300 billion invested in 2018 alone. The world is ready to cooperate and ready to act, just as the US, Japan, South Korea and the European Union have done. But, if we fail to act on climate change, we will miss out on opportunities. Australia produces seven times our share of the world's energy. We export more than three-quarters of it. This contributes nearly $80 billion to our economy. If we seize the opportunities of renewable energy, that could be even more. Labor wants to seize those opportunities, protect the Australian way of life and protect our lifestyle in a way that means we don't live against the environment but live with it. Indeed, here in the bush capital we live with our environment.
Renewable energy presents many opportunities for Australians, including jobs. It employs 25,000 people locally, and projects already on the books could deliver another 29,000 new full-time equivalent jobs. Labor recognises this opportunity. That's why we've committed to create 10,000 new energy apprenticeships, giving the next generation the opportunity to build a career in renewable energy and energy generation. We also know that we have to transform our energy grids. We are lucky to live in this big, diverse, sprawling land, Australia, but, if we are to move energy where Australians need it, we need an electrical grid built for this century. That's why Labor has committed to a $20 billion plan to rewire the nation. Keep the lights on; keep Australians employed.
That's what we need right now. We need connection, not division, not working to turn ourselves against one another—but, unfortunately, that's what we continue to see from this government. No plan for a new energy future; instead, a plan for a new Deputy Prime Minister. No plan on reducing emissions; just a list of people who have been emitted from cabinet. We need to act on climate change, and to do that we need a government change.
With the national conversation on women's safety in the home and the workplace finally at the forefront, we mustn't allow this momentum to slowly fade away, with the challenges faced by women and children across the country, no matter their backgrounds, still a continuing stain on our society. There has been some movement in this area, but the pace of change is slow. I constantly ask myself, as a member of government with the privilege and responsibility of this position, what role can I play beyond working with my colleagues on all sides to find tangible solutions, continuing conversations with members on all sides to ensure there's a bipartisan approach to this issue, or meeting with stakeholders in the community who are fighting for change? What I can do is use my voice and make another speech on this issue. I'll continue to be a voice for those who can't speak for as long as I am fortunate enough to represent my community in this place.
Just yesterday I was again reminded how prevalent the issue of women's safety is. Shortly after 9 am on Monday morning, my office received a distress call from a young mother of two children fleeing an abusive relationship and seeking emergency accommodation. Magnolia Place, the only shelter that can accommodate a mother of this age, is currently booked out, and with a very long waiting list. They unfortunately had to turn this woman away, recommending that she call my office. After some calls, I believe that we were able to find some temporary accommodation, but this phone call was another reminder of how dire the situation is for women trying to escape a violent relationship. This is true not just in Northern Tasmania but reflective of every rural town, regional city suburb and metropolitan area across the country.
On top of working to find some accommodation, my office quickly looked at what other support this young woman might need. Across Tasmania and in the Northern Tasmania region, a number of organisations exist with the sole focus of helping women and children who are looking to escape a violent relationship, or helping them stay safe after leaving; and providing support towards building a new life and hopefully a brighter future. There are services like Women's Legal Service Tasmania, who I've spoken about many times in this place, as I'm a firm supporter of the critical work that they do. Women's Legal Service Tasmania is a community legal centre committed to empowering women in the Tasmanian community to take control over their own lives by providing holistic, client centred, trauma informed legal services. Their specific approach is centred around the undeniable fact that women experience specific barriers and structural inequality.
With the formidable Yvette Cehtel at the helm as their CEO, the organisation provides essential services, including telephone advice and an information and referral line, which is accessed by women all across the state. Their legal staff are able to provide advice and referral on all legal matters, including specialist legal services in the areas of family violence, family law, child safety and discrimination law. At times, they take on casework for clients in unjust situations who need representation and guidance through the legal system, women who would not otherwise have access to the support they need. It is this need where future funding is essential, which I'll discuss in further detail shortly. It's important to note that, beyond providing community legal education through schools, migrant groups, neighbourhood houses and community groups, their Launceston office, in my electorate; and their Burnie office, in Braddon, are part of the national Domestic Violence Unit program, funded by both federal and state government responses to rising family violence in these communities. Through the DVU program, women's legal have been able to provide an holistic response to women and their children experiencing family violence, providing specialist legal services in addition to being able to provide support through financial counselling and social work services.
As a specialist service for women in the Launceston area since 1992, Yemaya Women's Support Service is centred on providing specialist trauma informed counselling, group work, information, advocacy and referral for women who experience abuse and violence within intimate partner relationships. Like other service workers, Yemaya staff have also stated that many of their clients have not reported to police the majority of family violence inflicted upon them. Other organisations, such as Engender Equality, Karinya Young Women's Service, Laurel House and Sexual Assault Support Service, or SASS, also provide important services, often working collaboratively to fill service gaps. I'd like to take the opportunity to discuss their work in our community a little bit further.
Formerly known as SHE, Engender Equality has worked across our state with and on behalf of individuals, families and communities affected by family and domestic violence for more than 30 years, recognising that gender inequality is both the cause and the context of family violence. Engender Equality believes that only by actively challenging gender based oppression can we begin to achieve positive and respectful relationships within healthy, inclusive structures and institutions. As I've said before, I believe that all violence against women starts with a fundamental disrespect and that it is by actions that address this that we'll begin to see real change.
We're very fortunate to have Karinya Young Women's Service operating in Launceston as an independent not-for-profit organisation providing crisis accommodation in a purpose-built facility for young women aged 13 to 20. Additionally, the organisation runs a separate program for young pregnant women and young parents aged 15 to 19, as well as a community tenancy management program. Many of Karinya's clients have high and complex needs and have difficulty accessing or maintaining affordable accommodation and support.
Across Tasmania, there are services offering counselling and guidance for survivors of sexual assault. Formed in 1986, Laurel House is a not-for-profit sexual assault support service for survivors across the north and north-west of Tasmania. It provides a range of different services, including face-to-face and phone counselling, a 24-hour support hotline and outreach to rural areas. Its therapeutic counselling services support all ages, and it provides support through forensic, medical and legal processes, as well as referrals and information. Along with SASS, which provides counselling, advocacy and support for southern-Tasmanian survivors of sexual violence, it also provides a statewide 24-hour crisis support service directing anyone in need to their nearest support service.
These organisations all exist and function separately. I'd like to point out that the list doesn't cover every single organisation in Tasmania, but they have worked together and continue to work together to ensure women can be supported in their time of need. Every single one of these services provides extremely valuable and much-needed on-the-ground assistance, but they can't continue to provide this without funding—and, importantly, without targeted funding. The government's $1.1 billion investment in women's safety is absolutely a positive step in the right direction. After the recent House inquiry into domestic, family and sexual violence, which heard hours of submissions, it's incredibly important to me that those who were courageous enough to share their stories don't feel that this was done in vain. I am hopeful that the recommendations of the report and additional funding can create meaningful change.
One challenge raised with the committee, and which has been directly raised with me, is the high cost of legal support and the barrier it creates for many victims-survivors in the justice system. The $129 million funding injection into specialised women's legal services will support thousands of women and children to safely escape violent relationships, and the funding has been welcomed by many service providers, including Women's Legal Services Australia. But, as mentioned in Launceston at a recent breakfast meeting with Minister Ruston and the aforementioned service providers, there is a need to ensure that the funding flows quickly and to the service providers best positioned to assist women in need at a traumatic and frightening time. I'll continue to work with the minister to progress this aim.
I'd like to take the time to thank Minister Ruston for her commitment to eliminating violence against women. It is worth noting that the next national plan speaks to 'eliminating violence', rather than the previous wording of 'reducing violence'. It is just one word, but the impact is strong. What is the point of all the money, the plans and the policies if we don't send a strong message that the end goal is that violence must end and that no level of violence is acceptable?
As mentioned, I recently welcomed the minister to Launceston, where a range of stakeholders, including those mentioned here, had the opportunity for a frank and wide-ranging discussion on the funding announced in this year's budget, the reality of working on the ground and in the community to address these issues, and how this funding should work to create effective change, particularly for investment in evidence based, trauma informed programs. I know that those in attendance felt they were heard, and both the minister and I have come away with some further work to do. I am committed to holding further roundtables with this group to ensure further progress.
I would like to finish by encouraging anyone who is interested in this area to pick up a copy of Whose Life is it Anyway?, a memoir from brave northern Tasmanian woman Deborah Thomson, who shares, through diary entries, the 17 years spent married to a violent and controlling man. It's an extremely difficult read but one that starkly highlights the reality of women living in this situation. As Deb says in the introduction of her book, 'I hope that readers who may currently find themselves in situations similar to mine will recognise the importance of keeping a clear mind and the ability to see the abuse as others see it—reprehensible and extremely difficult to fix in isolation.'
Labor welcomed the Morrison government's announcement on 19 April of this year of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It was about time. After all, veterans and their families and Labor have been calling for this since 2019. Since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, we have lost more veterans to suicide than soldiers killed in combat, and the problem is not getting any better. The public consultation phase for the royal commission terms of reference concluded on 21 May. Labor was concerned about the short consultation period. There was a risk that many veterans would not have the opportunity to provide feedback and have their voices heard. Of course, many veterans simply didn't trust the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to lead the consultations, because both the minister and his department had been vehemently opposed to a royal commission for such a long time. The Department of Veterans' Affairs has been such a big problem in the issue.
For our part, in recent months, I and a number of my Labor colleagues have been getting out and about. We have done forums from Townsville to Tweed Heads—Tweed Heads with the member for Richmond—and the Blue Mountains as well as Adelaide and a number of other constituencies and places across the country. These included having a discussion with Julie-Ann Finney and the expert advisory panel which she chaired. Julie-Ann tragically lost her son, David, a veteran, to suicide a couple of years ago. To her credit, she formed an advisory committee, which she assembled to provide input on the government's consultation themes.
The strong feedback that Labor received, particularly me as the shadow minister, is that the royal commission can't adopt an individualised approach but needs to look at systemic issues. They include the role of the Department of Defence, DVA and ex-service organisations; the complexity of the legislation; the delays with the claims process; key transition issues from Defence to civilian life; the impacts of supports for Defence and veteran families; the impact of abuse in the ADF, including sexual assault of women and discrimination towards LGBTI personnel; previous reviews and reports, like the 2019 Productivity Commission report on veteran suicide support, which the government hasn't fully responded to; the impact of ADF anti-malaria drugs and prescribed medications; and the merits of alternative therapies, including medicinal cannabis, assistance dogs and art therapy. They are a number of the issues that we think the government should look at in the royal commission.
The government has failed to make access to DVA services faster and easier. Instead, it has presided over massive delays in claims processing, with a huge backlog of claims. It's no wonder that veterans are concerned. The dysfunction, delays and denials are evident in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It has failed dismally in its commitment to make it easier and faster for veterans to access services. As a direct result of the government's misguided staffing cap, DVA is forced to rely on poorly trained labour hire workers to manage the workload, leading to dangerous waiting times and mental health crises for veterans trying to access support. We have seen labour hire rise to 42 per cent across the department and to 50 per cent in claims processing in recent years. It's not good enough. The issue needs to be addressed fairly and squarely by the royal commission.
For our part, an Anthony Albanese Labor government would commit to issues concerning veterans' homelessness and treat it seriously. The government has not addressed in the budget—and I made this point to the minister in consideration in detail—issues of veterans' homelessness. We think that should be looked at by the royal commission. Labor have committed $30 million, to be spent if we are elected, to housing and specialist services for veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness as part of the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund.
There are issues in relation to female defence personnel and veterans. We're very upset with sexual abuse in the military, and this should be looked at as well. We've seen the incidence of sexual assault in the ADF at record levels, with 161 sexual assaults reported to military police in 2019-20. The latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare figures show that ex-servicewomen have a suicide rate twice that of the general female population, with a majority of female veterans who've suffered mental health conditions being victims of sexual abuse in the ADF. In recent months, there have been numerous reports in the media and elsewhere of female veterans who've experienced horrific sexual assault, bullying and discrimination in the ADF. On top of this, many women have reported a lack of support or victim blaming when they have reported it, issues that they believe have been swept under the carpet. Indeed, their perpetrators have been promoted. These issues have all been reported publicly, which is why we think it's very important that a royal commission is able to have public and private hearings.
Many veterans have told us they want a public platform to tell their stories. We think it's critical that the royal commissioners be independent of the military, independent of the ADF, and we have recommended to the government these people be senior or current judges with expertise in areas of evidence and be independent so there's integrity in terms of the personnel appointed. We believe it's critical also that the royal commissioners have power to make findings of civil or criminal wrongdoing about individual suicide cases and are able to refer to this to the appropriate authorities where the royal commissioners believe further investigation should be undertaken, with prosecution undertaken if necessary. We think it's crucial that the government have broad and strong terms of reference appointed in the royal commission. They should not be narrow in any way at all.
We on this side of the Chamber are also concerned about the government's persistency in wanting to pursue its flawed model of the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention in tandem with the royal commission. The reality is many families of veterans do not want the proposed national commissioner legislation. It is stalled in the Senate. Labor, along with many in the veterans community, have said we're open to a permanent body to tackle this problem in relation to the implementation of a royal commission but only if it comes out of a royal commission. I note that the feedback given by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to the Attorney-General was that the community consultation undertaken by officers of the department and Minister for Veterans Affairs' makes it crystal clear that the national commissioner process should be discontinued by the government.
I want to raise another issue before I finish which I think is really important and the government has failed on—that is, the issue in respect of Afghan interpreters. It's absolutely critical that we do the right thing. We have a solemn duty to look after our veterans and their families, so we have a moral obligation to protect those who kept our defence personnel safe when they were deployed overseas. Labor, along with many defence experts and veterans, have called on the Morrison government to fast-track visas for all Afghan interpreters and their local staff following the announcement of our embassy closure and in light of the direct threats against their safety by the Taliban. We have a narrow window of opportunity, perhaps until mid-July, and the government needs to do more faster to help these people and their families by the time the last remaining troops leave Afghanistan in September.
During the recent Senate estimates, the foreign minister could not even give any assurances that these visas would be processed with any urgency whatsoever. This stands in stark contrast with plans by the USA, UK and coalition members to evacuate thousands of local staff to safety, with widespread troop withdrawals planned. We have a duty of care to Afghan nationals who were vital to Australia's operation over the last 20 years. We know these brothers in arms are facing real risk to their safety now and can't afford a year-long wait for a visa. Many veterans have said this issue is exacerbating their existing trauma because they see it as leaving their mates behind. This is not just a moral obligation; this is a strategic imperative for us as a nation, and it's in our national interest. Make no mistake: if we can't help those now then it sets a bad precedent. It will compromise our capacity in future conflicts and in peacekeeping operations to recruit local staff as interpreters.
Recent reports suggest that, after long waits, a small group of interpreters have had their visas approved and have been told to prepare for an evacuation flight later this month. But there are hundreds of interpreters and local staff seeking our protection. What's more, recently officials told Senate estimates that local staff would have to find 'commercial options' to get to Australia once their visas and exemptions were processed. It is simply not good enough. This is a government that touts its national security credentials every day of the week.
The government needs to act. We have a duty of care for these people. We have a duty to get them and their families out of Afghanistan and to Australia. We need to do the right thing. We need to get these people who have risked their lives for our defence personnel to Australia safely and to welcome them. As brothers and sisters in arms they helped our comrades in the Middle East and pursued their national interests aligned with our national interests. They deserve to be permanent residents in this country and become citizens of this country in due course.
Population growth in the northern coastal suburbs of the Perth metropolitan area is placing increasing demands on our community infrastructure, road network and essential services. New house starts are now at their highest level in 20 years. New loans for first home buyers have reached their highest level in nearly 12 years. Based on the current information available, the population of the city of Joondalup is expected to grow by 10,000 residents by 2030 while the population of the northern coastal suburbs from Alkimos up to Yanchep is projected to grow by 60,000 residents. Overall, our region is expected to grow by 70,000 residents over the next eight years. This has implications for Joondalup as a regional city as our infrastructure and services, such as health, education, aged care and sporting facilities, must cater for on average 9,000 new residents each year. All levels of government—federal, state and local—must work cooperatively to plan ahead to meet the growing demands caused by residential growth in our wider region.
Census day for 2021 is 10 August. This is when the Australian Bureau of Statistics will conduct its nationwide five-yearly survey of our demographics to collect the essential data required to aid government in planning and decision-making to meet the future requirements of our community. Increased funding is required for health, aged care, roads, and sporting and community facilities. During this debate I will outline our local needs in these areas and advocate for increased funding.
Joondalup hospital has been under considerable pressure from our burgeoning population, with patients enduring long waiting times of several hours in the emergency department—well in excess of the standard four-hour benchmark—and high levels of ambulance ramping, where patients are kept waiting in vehicles because—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 17:03 to 17:11
There are high levels of ambulance ramping, where patients are kept waiting in vehicles because there's no capacity to admit them to the hospital. To alleviate the situation, the federal government delivered $10.4 million in 2019 for a health clinic in Yanchep to take some of the pressure off Joondalup hospital's emergency department. However, the building has still not even been commenced.
Due to certain routine medical treatments not being available locally in Joondalup, numerous patients routinely have to travel long distances to Royal Perth Hospital or Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, a round trip of two hours. In some cases, for treatments such as dialysis there is a waiting list at Joondalup due to the wards being at full capacity. I call upon the McGowan WA state Labor government to provide increased activity based funding to Joondalup hospital for more specialist medical services so that local residents can receive essential treatment locally.
Moving on to aged care, I note that the ageing demographics of our population mean that one in five residents within Moore is aged over 60 years. The provision of care and services of a high standard of quality for our elderly must remain a priority for government. As a growing population of retirees settle into our developing suburbs, it is important to ensure that the necessary funding is delivered to meet the needs of our seniors, ensuring that residential aged-care places are adequately funded in order to reduce the long waiting lists for families.
With the certainty of ongoing funding for places, leading aged-care providers have plans in progress to develop purpose-built modern new facilities to accommodate up to 448 seniors in Moore over the next few years. Southern Cross Care WA has gained approval for a health and wellness precinct for seniors, including an aged-care facility for up to 138 seniors. This includes 88 residential care beds and up to 50 age-in-place apartments on the corner of Burns Beach Road and Connolly Drive in Currambine. Aegis Aged Care Group plans to operate a 140-suite aged care centre at the retirement village on the corner of Collier Pass and Joondalup Drive. Amana Living has started construction of its Kinross Care Centre for dementia patients next to its current operations. The new three-storey building will provide 96 beds. These new developments, in addition to our existing retirement facilities, will provide a wide variety of accommodation options for our seniors to suit their individual needs and circumstances.
In terms of road infrastructure, to better connect the estate with the Joondalup community, I support the City of Wanneroo's case for upgrading Flynn Drive to create the Neerabup Strategic Link. The Neerabup industrial area is located within 10 kilometres of the Joondalup CBD and is expected to grow larger than the Canning Vale industrial area. This industrial hub will support the Joondalup city centre by utilising services, retail and hospitality. Currently the Neerabup industrial area has two main east-west access points. These access points are single carriageways and are not suitable for the growing volume of traffic. Without the required upgrades the industrial area will fail to attract the appropriate level of business investment, resulting in less employment for local residents.
The development of Flynn Drive will connect Neerabup with the key east-west road connections needed to move goods within the City of Wanneroo and regional freight links including NorthLink and the Perth Darwin National Highway. The City of Wanneroo has advocated for the Flynn Drive upgrade since 2014, unsuccessfully applying for federal funding under the National Stronger Regions Fund in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and under the Building Better Regions Fund in 2018. The City of Wanneroo is advocating for four main projects that will make up the east-west development corridor deemed essential to unlocking the Neerabup industrial area. These projects are the upgrading and duplication of Flynn Drive; the realignment of Meeves Road; the construction of the Whiteman Yanchep Highway; and the upgrade of the Whitfords Avenue-Gnangara Road intersection. These four projects work together to maximise the economic benefits of Neerabup and Wangara industrial areas. The cost of upgrading Flynn Drive is estimated to be between $25 million and $30 million, which is critical to increasing the development of lots in the Neerabup industrial area.
In terms of sporting facilities, currently the residents of the entire northern corridor utilise the indoor 50-metre pool at HBF Arena Joondalup and, to some extent, the outdoor 50-metre pool at Craigie Leisure Centre. This means that the City of Joondalup's aquatic facilities services a population of more than 300,000 residents, catering for school swimming lessons, swimming carnivals and community use. This effectively means that the residents of the City of Joondalup living in my electorate have to share this facility with patrons to the north, crowding out locals as the swimming pool is at full capacity with bookings. This demand is set to continue, with the WA Department of Education projecting that 28 new primary schools and seven new high schools will be built between Alkimos and Two Rocks over the next few years. There is a need for a regional aquatic facility and recreation centre in the Alkimos-Yanchep corridor. The City of Wanneroo has developed a concept plan for the North Coast Aquatic and Recreation Centre, which is expected to cost $55 million. To date, funding of $25 million has been secured, which leaves a shortfall of $30 million in the funding required. There is a strong case, based on merit and precedent, for significant federal government contributions for this aquatic facility based on its regional nature.
I have outlined how the projected population growth in our northern coastal suburbs is placing increased demand on local health services, aged care and sporting facilities. We must adopt a regional approach to securing funding for these facilities as our population is relatively mobile and transcends neighbouring federal electoral boundaries. I strongly make the case for my grievances on behalf of my local community to be noted, and I advocate for additional funding for the abovementioned projects.
I rise this evening to draw attention to the unprecedented cruelty and complete lack of humanity we have seen from the Morrison government. The Morrison government has no vision for Australia because they don't care about Australians, only themselves and hanging onto government. We see that no more than this week, where they're focused on their internal leadership struggles while we're in a global pandemic. We have seen the member for New England back as the Deputy Prime Minister while we still have many people waiting for when they can be vaccinated. We are seeing this week that people are going to have to stop getting the Pfizer vaccine for their first dose, because we don't have enough of it and we need to prioritise those who can get their second dose. These should be the issues that are at the forefront of this government's mind this week, but instead we're seeing leadership challenges and a new Deputy Prime Minister.
Nothing typifies the cruelty of this government more than their treatment of the Murugappan family—the Biloela family—where we had to see a little three-year-old girl airlifted to Perth from detention on Christmas Island with untreated pneumonia that led to a blood infection before this government could say that they could stay here in Australia, as their community in Biloela and many other Australians from around the country and people in this place have been calling now for many years. It took images of that little girl in hospital for this government to realise that they had to do something. But, as usual, they just do the bare minimum. Rather than letting this family return to Biloela, where their community have been crying out for them to be returned, they are in community detention in Perth. While it's better than being in detention on Christmas Island, it's not good enough. They should be sent straight home to Biloela.
There are so many questions around this. Why were these little children in detention when, in 2019, the government said there would be no children in detention? They remained in detention, the only family there at Christmas Island, and the reason is that this government wanted to make an example of them—to make an example to scare people to come here, exercising their legal right to seek asylum. The question is why a little girl was left seriously ill and untreated for 10 days, until it was serious enough that she needed to be airlifted to hospital with a blood infection. As a mother of a three-year-old, I can tell you I would be so heartbroken to see my child in that state, and that is what this government is happy to let people go through. In fact, it perhaps saw this as a political opportunity, not even a problem.
This is also government that brought us robodebt. The government went after some of the most vulnerable Australians with bogus social security debts, sometimes from many years previously, put the onus of proof onto those people to prove that they didn't have the debt rather than government needing to prove that they had the debt and pursued them with debt collectors. The Federal Court has now approved a $1.8 billion settlement for people wrongfully pursued by the Morrison government's robodebt scheme, where 433,000 people had $1.73 billion in debts raised against them and $751 million was wrongfully recovered from 381,000 people. Justice Bernard Murphy has said:
This has resulted in a huge waste of public money.
… … …
The proceeding has exposed a shameful chapter in the administration of the Commonwealth social security system and a massive failure of public administration.
… … …
One thing that stands out from the objections is the financial hardship, anxiety and distress, including suicidal ideation, and in some cases suicide, that people say was suffered as a result of the robodebt system, and that many say they felt shame and hurt at being wrongly branded 'welfare cheats'.
That's just another example of this government pursuing most vulnerable as part of a scare campaign against ordinary Australians. 'Don't be on welfare, because we will come after you, and you might end up in jail. We will get debt collectors after you if five years ago, when you were on youth allowance, you wrongfully reported your income and you had a small debt which will now be pursued by debt collectors.' This is a government that thinks an increase of $3.57 per day to the JobSeeker payment is adequate, that living on $43.57 per day is okay in a country like Australia, that people can get by on that woefully inadequate payment.
In March 2020, the Australian government lifted almost half a million Australians out of poverty, including 75,000 children, by introducing the coronavirus supplement, worth $550 per fortnight according to research from the Australia Institute. We welcomed that. That was a great move from this government. It acknowledged that JobSeeker was too low to live on. When we knew that many people were going to become unemployed as a result of the pandemic, they were happy to increase that payment, and the result was that we saw people coming out of poverty. But then all these gains were lost as the government incrementally cut that coronavirus supplement throughout 2020. Between March and December 2020, an additional 900,000 Australians fell into poverty, including 200,000 children. Then, alongside this pathetic increase that they've made to JobSeeker, they also introduced a 'dob in a dole bludger' hotline for people to report social security recipients who aren't taking jobs.
These are the things that this government is concerned with: pursuing the most vulnerable in our community to make people feel fearful. It's not what Australia is about. We are an egalitarian and inclusive community. We look after each other when we need to. I think that's what most Australians would like to see, and they see the government having an important role in that, including with our social security system.
This government has also still failed to deal with the incredibly serious allegations of sexual harassment and violence in this place. We've seen the very courageous Brittany Higgins bravely come forward and talk about her experience. Then we went out to the March 4 Justice in March and came back into question time, and we had, first of all, the Prime Minister saying that we were lucky that we weren't shot at. Aren't we lucky that we can protest? Then, over the succeeding weeks, we saw him fail to answer the most basic questions about asking his staff about their involvement in this and whether they were backgrounding journalists against Brittany Higgins's loved ones. I don't think we ever got a decent answer to that. I don't feel as if these things have been dealt with. The member for Bowman also has some incredibly serious allegations against him, yet we've seen the government voting to protect his position as a chair of a committee in this place.
So what does that say to the women of Australia about this government's views about sexism and violence against women? Do they take it seriously? Are they going to do something about it? They said that they did a lot for women in the budget, but just putting the word 'women' onto the front of things doesn't actually address these problems. I know that the women in my electorate remain incredibly angry that these things are not being dealt with. We have a deep-seated cultural problem with violence against women in this country, including domestic violence, and with sexism, and to see it fail to be dealt with in the parliament, which should be the exemplar—we should be leading the way with regard to these matters—is incredibly disappointing to say the least. To see the Prime Minister fail to take a proper interest or to ask the right questions about a very young member of the government's staff is something I just find incredibly disturbing.
The NDIS is another issue that I spend a lot of time on as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. There we hear the absolutely heartbreaking stories of people battling to get the most basic supports, and then we have the minister say that we're relying too much on the empathy of public servants. It's simply not good enough.
This is a government that does not care about people. They are not on your side. They are not listening, and they have no plan other than to deal with what they see as political problems. They are always doing the bare minimum but not actually caring or walking in the footsteps of the people they represent or dealing with the issues that are facing them. They are coming after the most vulnerable time and time again: people receiving social security, refugees, women and people who were left out of their response to the coronavirus pandemic, such as international students and casual workers. (Time expired)
Imagine it's a Saturday afternoon and you and your family are thinking of the best way to spend some fun time with each other, to enjoy each other's company. So in this moment you decide to go to an amusement park on the harbour of Sydney. You may, at one point, hear your children urging you to allow them to go on one of the rides, and as a parent you offer them the tickets and see them go and enter the ride that is there. Moments later, you see smoke billowing from that same ride. Moments after that, you realise that people have died. How could you live with yourself? This is what happened in Sydney not that many years ago.
We often hear from those who pretend to care about the less fortunate, who argue that transparent government is the only decent form of government, that if a government will not release information it must be hiding something, and that what it is hiding is in all likelihood a conspiracy. I've therefore found the complete lack of curiosity, bordering on antipathy, from these aforementioned individuals somewhat interesting, if not shocking, when it comes to the Luna Park disaster that was the ghost train fire. Could this stay in curiosity and proactive antipathy be driven by clinical bias? Perhaps this bias directly led to the enabling of the corruption practised by Eddie Obeid for 16 years under the likes of Bob Carr and Kristina Keneally. The only time these purveyors of sanctimony decided they were interested was once there was a change of government.
Opposition members interjecting—
I will take the interjections. Daryl Maguire never did anything that led to the deaths of innocent children. He never did anything that caused families to be torn asunder. How dare they compare the corruption of the Wran government to that of Daryl Maguire! How will we ever know what happened under Bob Carr and those who came after him? How are we meant to reconcile the comments of the then commissioner David Ipp, when he said, 'Oh, there was just too much to investigate, so we couldn't be bothered with the proper administration of justice.' The Luna Park strategy, which those opposite sneer at, matters, because, until the historical record is set right, there is nothing to stop it from happening again.
Indeed, because the New South Wales ICAC has consistently refused—allow me to underline that word: refused—to investigate the corruption of the Wran and Carr years, while pathetically and threateningly, like those opposite wish, dedicating millions of dollars to the examination of the sex life of current politicians, the mistakes of the past, the deaths of the past, will be inflicted on the future. Perhaps the corruption of the Carr years was enabled by the uninvestigated, unpunished corruption of the Wran years. Where are those people who so often say that corruption is bred in darkness? When it comes to New South Wales, they stay silent. This is not good enough.
It is time that we held these people to account on behalf of those who died on that tragic day. An investigation of this catastrophe is long overdue. It is long overdue because there are too many questions that are unanswered. It is long overdue because people and children died. Those opposite can laugh, but it is long overdue because too many people who we know were embedded in Sydney crime circles profited from the fire. It is long overdue because it involved the High Court justices, Supreme Court justices, senior police and a lot of people around the then Premier of New South Wales, Neville Wran. We owe it to those who lost their lives in the ghost train fire at Sydney's Luna Park. So today I rise to lend my support to those who have called for the New South Wales government to establish a commission of inquiry into the ghost train fire at Sydney's Luna Park in June 1979, which killed seven people. I rise to support shining a light on these events so that they can never again on be inflicted on anyone in Australia.
We have an obligation to support the families who were denied an honest police investigation and a robust coronial inquiry. The coroner's report, the final official word on the fire, concluded that the fire was an accident caused by a cigarette butt. Based on the revelations in the ABC's recent series on the fire, that finding is a travesty, and we owe it to the victims of the fire—most of them young men—and their families to ascertain what happened that night. No-one now disputes that this finding was a travesty. In criticising the coronial inquiry, I should make it clear: I'm not suggesting there was any wrongdoing on the part of the coroner. But the coroner relied on the police investigation—
Opposition members interjecting—
And, once again, those opposite laugh and scoff. There is no cover-up that they will not support. That investigation was overseen by some of the most corrupt officers to have graced the New South Wales Police Force in the 1970s and early eighties.
I understand that, in response to a request from one of the parents, the New South Wales coroner has asked the New South Wales police to advise whether there is new evidence to reopen that earlier finding. Given the thoroughness of the ABC investigation, it is difficult to understand how they could advise that the matter should not be reconsidered—although that will require the police to first conduct an investigation. Without reflecting in any way on the integrity or capability of the New South Wales police service today, they are simply not suited to such a task. This is one of the reasons the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption was established in 1988, because, again and again, throughout the 1980s, when complex corruption allegations were referred to the police, they were unable to progress the matter—and this was so even when honest women and men were in charge.
In principle, the coroner can conduct an investigation into the likely causes of the fire. However, she is not well equipped to investigate the police officers in charge of the investigation—in particular, Doug Knight, and how he came to be appointed to conduct such a sensitive investigation; why a potential crime scene was cleared without a serious forensic examination; how he was allowed to get away with declaring the fire an accident within hours of the event; why a bulletin alerting police to possible suspects was withdrawn; or how some police stepped into the investigation to stand over eyewitnesses to get them to change their evidence. I don't know that the coroner is suited to an investigation into the conduct of the coronial inquiry itself which resulted in key witnesses not being called to give evidence about what had happened, and I'm certain that the coroner is not the appropriate authority to investigate the reasons why someone might have wanted to light that fire; how a tender conducted under the auspices of the Premier's department came to be abandoned and another initiated, which was won by a company whose principals had no experience in the management of amusement parks but did have close links to Abe Saffron.
A formally constituted commission of inquiry might also be able to locate relevant departmental files that should have been stored in the State Archives but can't be located. It will take an investigative body something like ICAC to get to the bottom of this—but, clearly, not ICAC itself. The ghost train fire and the subsequent tender for the Luna Park site were on a list of matters handed to ICAC Commissioner Ian Temby by the new government in 1989. None of the matters on that list were ever investigated. And, of course, since ICAC was set up so it would be independent, there was nothing that any government could do about it. It is, simply put, a travesty of justice that Mr Temby, who came to Sydney from Perth, via Canberra, decided to investigate other matters. But this is one of those cases where the decision should have given cause to the usual suspects, if they were sincere, to kick up a stink. Instead, they backed Labor to bury the potential corruption. How convenient! And how tragic for them.
These families have been waiting more than four decades for an explanation of what happened. For Sydneysiders, this story is burned into our shared consciousness. For those of us who grew up in that city, Luna Park will forever be a sacred place and cannot be developed because of what happened that night in June 1979 and then the response of our public institutions in the days, weeks and months that followed. (Time expired)
In my contribution to the grievance debate this evening, I will be honest in saying that I am not precisely sure of the subject of my grievance. I could be grieving for a great man—a devout and loving husband, father, brother, uncle and grandfather—whose recent death has touched literally thousands of people in Australia and around the world, but I do not think that is the accurate description of my grievance. I think instead I grieve for those of us left behind by the passing of Mr Youssef Chaaya on the cold and stormy night of 8 June, two weeks ago. I knew Youssef Chaaya as Uncle Joe. Others knew him as Abu Elie, as Baba or as Jiddo. What fortune was mine to have married into the Chaaya family and to come to know this saint, for that is what we all know he is today.
I firstly want to acknowledge members of the Chaaya family and friends in Australia, Lebanon and Canada who are tuning into these proceedings, some of them in real time. I'm so pleased to have my very long-time friend the member for Oxley here, who knows the Chaaya family very well.
From the outset I thank on behalf of the Chaaya family the staff at Auburn Hospital and St Joseph's rehab in Auburn. In the words of Uncle Joe's daughter Juliet, they were above humane and always made him feel so loved, respected and honoured. To the paramedics who tended to him so quickly and to the staff of Westmead Hospital who made his final day and his farewell so respectful, I thank you.
I will also draw in my remarks this evening on the words of Claud Chaaya, his brother Michel and their niece Mia Chaaya, whose words following his funeral were so sincere and heartfelt that I want them to be recorded in the prosperity of this parliament.
Youssef Chaaya was an incredible man. There are only two Chaaya family branches in Australia: his and my father-in-law's, Sam Chaaya's, who came to Australia earlier than his brother. I must say, it was somewhat daunting more than 20 years ago marrying into this very respected Lebanese family. I would often go to Uncle Joe's house, and, even though it was a place where I didn't hear much English being spoken and I was quite young, the hospitality that was shown to me by that man by his family was something that I will never forget. I always felt that I was in a very safe place with Youssef Chaaya and his family. How to describe him? A loyal husband to Amira, a loving father, a caring brother and a true friend—these titles would not do the man justice. He had a different perspective on life that was moulded through decades of personal experience. He had a unique knowledge of what mattered and what didn't. This wisdom is reserved only for the few.
I will briefly summarise some key points in his life to help form a better picture of his true character and the experiences that helped shape him into the person that we came to know and love. He was born in a village in Lebanon in 1933 that had fewer than 50 people in it. At the age of seven, he was taught how to beg for food. He got his first pair of shoes when he was 10 years old, but he didn't wear them until he was 11 years old because he didn't want to damage or dirty them. He would take them out, polish them and put them back in the box. He was the eldest of seven children. He worked tirelessly, including by begging, to support and feed his parents and siblings. He found some of his brothers their first jobs. He learnt how to cut hair and became a barber. He married Amira, and his reception dinner comprised himself, his new bride and their driver at a restaurant. They'd never been to a restaurant before, and, because they didn't know any better, they didn't realise that you are actually served the food and the crockery in the restaurant and washed their own dishes afterwards.
They had many kids, several of whom died and six of whom are still alive. He lived through several wars, including World War II and the Lebanese Civil War, and he still kept his family fed. He moved countries at the age of 58, so he started again at 58. He gave learning a new language a go at an old age, and he was great at it. One of his sons became a priest. Father Sami, shout-out to you in Lebanon. He actually never had any enemies or anyone who didn't like him. He prayed, he had an amazing spiritual life and he thanked God for his blessings every day, and he did all of this with a year 3 education and not a single asset to his name.
His funeral was a testament to his deep and wide respect, with mourners who filled the church of St John the Beloved, officiated by the largest number of priests I've ever seen at a lay person's funeral, not to mention the three hours of condolences received by the family in the days before the funeral. His son, Michel Chaaya, tried to find what sort of word he would use to describe this man. Would it be a poet, a barber, a cook? The answer is 'ready'. This man was always ready. He was ready to go. He was ready to eat. He was ready to laugh. He was ready to serve. He was ready to greet. And I'm sure he was ready to die as well. He just loved being Youssef Chaaya, and I always had the sense he was just happy being alive and around people.
He was the biggest people person I ever knew. He loved it when people would taste the produce straight from his garden. I remember him pulling cucumbers from the cucumber vines and wanting you to snap them to see how crispy they were. If he had to bring a gift, he would bring a pot full of oregano, or zaatar as we say in Lebanese, to your home. I'm sure it can't possibly be the case, but I actually never saw him angry or display any malice towards anyone. He was the most gentle of men.
He loved playing cards. He loved playing backgammon. I remember asking once very early on why every family function needed to end with a card table coming out and him playing cards. These were Lebanese card games that I never really learned to play. Someone described it to me as: 'This is what you did in Lebanon. This was the only form of entertainment, especially during the civil war.' He was kidnapped during the civil war, and his wife, Amira, actually had to go and negotiate his release.
I do also remember when my second child, Aurelia, was born. She was born just near Christmas, so we really didn't have many visitors, which was fine, but of course Amira and Uncle Joe came to see us in hospital. It was one of those cases where you learn new things about people whom you've known for a long time, and with Claud's translation. I was there, holding this newborn baby, and Uncle Joe and Aunty Amira were telling me about their children who had died—about the number of miscarriages, stillbirths or children who'd died in their early years. And I remember being astounded. Not only does this man still believe in God—I mean, it would have been the end of me—he believes in God even more. It was unfathomable, the level of this man's faith.
So I say to the Chaaya family, to my cousins and, in particular, to my father-in-law, Sam, how lucky we were to have had him. As Mia Chaaya said: 'You touched the lives of hundreds of people and you will touch many more even from your place beyond this world, so saying you touched lives would mean little. You didn't touch our lives, because we can still feel you. You have imprinted your love and life on our souls. All of the angels, saints and souls in Heaven are lucky to now be in your presence, and it is unfortunate for us that we had to pay the price, but I think we would have been selfish to stop that.'
I say to the Chaaya family: how lucky are we to have had this man for such a short time, and the influence that he has had on us all. I think it was really a testament to the love in which he's held by not only his family but the wider community—the respect that was shown in his passing.
Lastly, I just say to my husband, Michael: I know he was like a second dad to you. In fact, at our wedding the father of the groom, Milton, was there. We had two speeches: one from Sam Chaaya and one from Uncle Joe, who gave it as poetry in Lebanese—the most beautiful poetry you can think of. These memories will, of course, survive well into our lifetimes.
Again, may you rest in peace, Youssef Chaaya. It was a privilege to have had you even for the briefest of periods.
I just want to say, before I start, that to be in the parliament when Youssef Chaaya's memories are brought to the table by the member for Greenway is a marvellous moment to be here. It doesn't happen very often that somebody gives an address to the parliament like the one you've just given. Congratulations. I know it must be heartbreaking for your family, but this is just the sort of man who makes this nation what it is.
On the afternoon of Saturday 1 May, I had the privilege of attending the Mayday Women's Forum held in Toora. I was rather humbled and honoured even to be invited, as a male and a local member. I'd been invited to be a witness and listen to 11 impressive women from in or around Toora share their personal stories, to participate in the subsequent discussions and to take what I heard back to this parliament, which I'm doing today. I acknowledge two of the organisers, Sue Plowright and Rosemary Brooks, who are here in the chamber tonight.
Toora is a small farming village in my electorate whose main industry is dairy farming. It's located at the top of Corner Inlet, opposite Wilsons Promontory National Park. It's a stunning part of the world. With Toora having a population of around 680, you might understand that I expected around 20 participants. What a surprise it was when I walked into the hall and there were 70 women and a couple of men there. There had been a shift. This community was galvanised.
Several themes and issues emerged from the forum, but, overwhelmingly, homelessness and family violence were front and centre. The 11 presenters each shared their own powerful and personal stories: for example, an older woman with no superannuation and no home of her own; a young woman, a tradie, who had to fight against entrenched antagonism by many of the men around her but who was fortunately supported by her employer to continue to work as a diesel mechanic; and a dedicated teacher who missed out on a promotion because she sought to work less than full-time hours, to work around the needs of her young family. Each of the presenters shone a light on a myriad of insidious aspects of disrespect towards and discrimination against women.
The last presenter spoke on behalf of women she works with who have shared their experiences of family violence. Her community health centre helps people in the district with the food bank, referrals to services, food vouchers and advocacy for people at risk of homelessness. Homelessness, family violence, mental health crises and food insecurity are all rampant in her community and have been made even worse by the pandemic. In what became a moment of reckoning which stopped us all in our tracks, she asked us, as forum participants, to imagine we were in a relationship with a partner who withholds medications from you; sells your possessions without permission; hurts or kills your pets; monitors all of your everyday activities, including the clothes you wear and who you talk to—if you're even allowed to go out at all; controls all of your money, from shopping to paying bills; or abuses or hurts you in front of your children.
The presenter then went on to ask the attendees a series of questions, none of which I'd ever considered from a woman's perspective. I'd never put myself in a woman's shoes. We were then asked to reflect on matters we'd need to consider if we were a woman at risk of or experiencing family violence: Have you learnt how to delete your search history when looking for help online? Have you considered using a code language that the person using violence against you will not know? Have you used this at the hairdresser or the chemist? Have you needed to take photos of bruises or injuries and given them to a trusted friend before deleting them? Have you needed to ensure you always have petrol in your car and a spare set of keys in case you need to leave quickly? Where is your rental agreement? Where are your property deeds? Where is your birth certificate? Can you grab them in a hurry? Does your doctor have contact numbers for your friends and for the kids' school in case you get really hurt next time? The last question was: Have you taught your children the warning signs? Do they know a safe place to hide? Do they know how to call the police? Do they know your address, should the worst happen?
I ask this question soberly and with no accusation or judgement: How have we, as a society, come to this? How have we let this happen?
Violence against a partner affects all members of a family. Put simply, it occurs when one person exerts power over another in a relationship or family situation. To any victims listening to me now, family violence is not your fault. You are not responsible for the violent behaviour of others or those around you, not ever. You don't ask for it. It's never an appropriate response. Although men may experience family violence, it's far more likely in Australia that women, non-binary or gender diverse people will be in a relationship of violence or abuse. People with all sorts of backgrounds, cultures and circumstances experience violence and abuse at home.
The focus of the Mayday Women's Forum was rural women's safety, justice, opportunity, achievements and their role in rural communities. The forum followed the March4Justice on 15 May, and the organisers asked me to convey this to the parliament: 'We call on you as democratic lawmakers and policy setters to exercise your representative responsibility to act in particular on the following: provide in place, affordable and safe emergency accommodation, temporary housing and long-term homes with supports for mental health et cetera through extending existing centralised services to include comprehensive, in-person mobile and outreach services and creative and better use of existing buildings as a priority; recognise, prioritise and work through community-led enabling initiatives that draw on local knowledge, networks and know-how; recognise that every small rural town and district is distinct and has different circumstances, cultures, landscapes, assets and needs; promote neighbourliness and community cohesion; address, through formal and informal education, the lack of respect and acknowledgement of women's skill and productivity that is endemic in Australia.' But the one message in the rural context of dispersed small towns, locales and farms that is particularly important is summed up by this one plea: 'Secure long-term funding for community houses in every rural town.'
This Mayday forum and my subsequent engagement with the presenters and organisers has been a turning point, a fork in the road for me. Since engaging on issues directly on the treatment of women in this country, I have been approached by numerous people, both men and women, who are pleading with me to help make a meaningful difference, not just talk and platitudes. Our history of white settlement talks of the awful history of misogyny, from our very beginnings, that has hovered like a bad odour over our national being, an underlying theme that has infected the generations. We, as a people, have lived in a state of denial of society's generational habits, then allowed them to penetrate every institution of our creation across every state, territory and region. This lack of respect for a partner manifests itself in many ways where power, manipulation and outright intention to control another are enacted. More often than not, this is a learned behaviour, which arises from observed experience in any given setting. It is respect that we have lost—to honour one another as a first response, not one that has to be learned, but one expected as a fundamental part of our cultural norm.
I would like to finish up on a rare uplifting note. One of the families that I heard about as a result of the forum was a mum and her four sons who had escaped family violence. At the time the family was looking at the prospect of being wrenched from their close-knit community networks, including a very supportive school community, which supported the boys, becoming homeless and uprooting to a town 40 kilometres away. Long story short: the community drew on its own networks and social capital, and a home was miraculously found for this family—a small glimmer of hope in what was otherwise a very desperate and dire picture of life for so many people in our society.
Funding won't fix this. It's not money that's going to fix this. Our society has to fix this. We have to own the problems. Once we have owned the problems, we have to work out ways to fix them. Whatever those ways are, what we're currently doing is not working. But we can work together as a nation for a better outcome.
The global pandemic has brought the fundamental importance of good health to the front of all our thinking—the value of good health in our own lives, the lives of our families and the wider community. We've been reminded that our individual health is not separate from community health. We've been reminded of the ways that physical, mental and emotional wellbeing are entwined. We've been given an opportunity to consider how health circumstances can be very different, more difficult and fragile for some parts of the Australian community, including older Australians, especially those in residential aged care, Indigenous Australians and Australians living with a disability. I'm sure the circumstances we've faced together over the last 15 months and the circumstances we've all seen overseas have made us reflect with gratitude on the quality and accessibility of Australia's public health system, particularly on the expertise, skills and commitment of our health workforce—the doctors, the nurses and all the staff who make our GP clinics and our hospitals function to such a high standard.
As difficult as the COVID-19 experience has been and continues to be in many ways, it has undoubtedly been an opportunity to recognise and acknowledge the special features of Australia's universal public health system. The building blocks of that system include Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Each represents a reform that was made in the name of increasing our shared national wellbeing and each represents a reform delivered by Labor as part of our enduring commitment to that cause. Coalition governments, by contrast, have not only failed to imagine and create those kinds of reforms but actively resisted them and, once they were created, sought to whittle them away. It is amazing to think now that Liberal oppositions opposed Medicare. In fact, Labor had to create Medicare effectively twice—once under Whitlam and then once and for all under Hawke.
In recent times the coalition has intentionally underspent funds allocated to the NDIS and now it is seeking to bring in so-called independent assessments that will require participants to go back through the process of evidencing their needs without the benefit of the input of specialists who best understand their situation. There is no doubt that the manoeuvre is principally motivated by a desire to reduce funding. It's designed to reduce funding.
In a week or so we're going to see hundreds of changes to Medicare Benefits Schedule items that will increase out-of-pocket costs and decrease access to many forms of treatment. Something like 1,000 different Medicare benefits procedures will be pulled from the schedule, altering the cost of hundreds of orthopaedic, cardiac and general surgery items, which could mean that patients with upcoming procedures will have to choose between cancelling or delaying life-improving surgery and being lumped with huge bills they had every right not to expect. Many of the patients affected will be those who have already copped massive increases to private health insurance over the past decade.
Sadly, in the eight long years of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government the cost of accessing health care has soared across Australia and in my electorate of Fremantle. According to the latest annual Medicare statistics that were revealed through the Senate estimates process just the other week, out-of-pocket costs for patients in Fremantle, East Fremantle and Cockburn have risen 21 per cent when it comes to seeing a GP or a whopping 54 per cent if you're talking about access to specialist care. In terms of the broader neglect of Western Australia as a whole state, WA has the lowest rate of GPs per capita of all the states and territories—79 GPs per 100,000 people compared to the national average of 96 GPs. We're also below the national average for aged-care beds at 62.1 beds per 1,000 head of population compared to 75.5 beds nationally, and that number has seen a 23 per cent decline since 2001.
We have to remember that the 2019 Morrison-Frydenberg budget included a measure to cut $359 million from WA hospitals over five years, which was a significant retreat from the previous Labor government's approach of sharing tertiary healthcare costs 50-50. When you think of the Morrison government's stewardship of our health system as a whole, all those details make pretty grim listening, but they have to be put alongside the government's recent performance.
In the circumstances of a pandemic, this government, our national government, has two crystal-clear responsibilities: to provide and support an effective national quarantine system and to deliver a smooth, sensible, practical, strategic vaccine rollout. But we have seen neither of those things. We haven't seen an effective national quarantine system, which is squarely the responsibility of the Commonwealth, and we certainly haven't seen a smooth or sensible vaccine rollout.
The government's been entirely missing in action on quarantine. It's spent most of the time it's given to that issue criticising state governments, pressuring them to open up in the early part of the pandemic, haranguing them when lockdowns occur and doing nothing to take up its responsibility to fund and deliver quarantine around Australia that is fit for purpose—and we're going to need that more in future, I'm sure, particularly as we look to open up.
The vaccine rollout has been an eye-watering shambles. Every passing week throws up more examples of how the government is apparently intent on demonstrating how not to do a national vaccine rollout program. We never had enough vaccine options. That was pretty clear early on, and it's become super clear with every passing month. Pretty much all our eggs were put in the AstraZeneca basket, and we now face significant challenges as a result of issues that have arisen. They could have been managed. AstraZeneca is still a very effective vaccine, and people should have confidence in the way that our public health experts have adjusted the approach to AstraZeneca to ensure that people get the benefits from it while having it administered to them on a safe basis. But, when you've only got AstraZeneca and a trickle of Pfizer, it's no surprise that we still haven't got three per cent of our population vaccinated when many like countries are north of 50 per cent.
We've never had security of supply. The government said that we were top of the queue and that they would guarantee this flow of vaccines. From earlier this year, it became clear that that wasn't the case. Countries in Europe held on to vaccines that they didn't want to send our way, and as a result we didn't get what we needed. We've heard this week that Pfizer were in conversation with the government and were prepared to deliver 40 million doses by January this year. They were prepared to work in partnership with us and make Australia essentially a demonstration, a model nation for the global vaccine rollout. For some reason, the government decided to turn away from that.
Despite the government constantly telling people that there has never been a supply issue and being very thin skinned and wounded whenever that's suggested, the state governments of both Victoria and New South Wales have confirmed that they could vaccinate more Australians if only there were more vaccine available. Lieutenant General Frewen, who the government has appointed to help get the vaccine rollout on track and address any number of the disabling practical glitches that have emerged, is quoted today in the Australian as saying:
We are still in a resource-constrained environment …
That is military speak for, 'We just don't have enough vaccine.' As a result, when there was a breakout in Victoria we saw that less than 10 per cent of the aged-care workforce was vaccinated. We still see drivers who haven't been vaccinated transporting aircrew. This is holding Australia back. It is holding our recovery back. It means that we will remain shut to the world for longer. It means that the economic consequences will run deeper.
The COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the foundational importance of good health and a strong health system, and it's shown the sadly inbuilt incapacity of the Morrison government to grasp that essential point, to shoulder its basic responsibilities and to deliver even the ground-level standard of administrative competence that people should be able to expect. Without question, our future wellbeing and our recovery from the pandemic rest on that approach changing and changing fast. But it's virtually impossible to see that happening under this government. They have failed comprehensively and harmfully on aged care, they're failing on the vaccine rollout, and their plan is to weaken Medicare and to make life harder for those who depend on the NDIS. That is a recipe for hardship, inequality and suffering.
I rise this evening to speak on a matter of great importance to many in the Australian community and many in the international community—that is, the growing persecution of Christians around the world. In 2021 the situation for many Christians around the world remains dire. A current snapshot by non-government organisation Open Doors reveals 340 million Christians suffer harassment or persecution, and one in every eight Christians suffers a severe form of persecution. Between 2016 and 2018 in particular, grave violations of religious freedom took place in 38 countries, in 17 of which Christians suffered instances of severe discrimination. Radical extremist Islam is responsible for the persecution of Christians in 22 of the worst-offending countries. More than 2.4 million Christians have been killed in the past 20 years through bombings, shootings and beheadings. At least 75 per cent of all religiously motivated violence and oppression is suffered by Christians.
Two of the causes of Christian persecution are the rise of authoritarian regimes and the rise of violent Islamist terror groups or militia. As a result, we see the repression of Christians in countries including Iraq, Egypt, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, Sudan, India, Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka, China, Indonesia, the Philippines and North Korea. For simply practising their faith, such as attending church services, Christians are targeted by violent Islamist terror groups or militia. And their holy icons are also targeted as a symbol of the hatred these violent groups or militia have for all that is good in the world.
China, under the Communist Party of China, is officially atheist, with the CCP deciding which religious practices are consistent with CCP ideology. Christians in China are subjected to increased surveillance and violations of personal privacy. In China, churches are monitored, raided and shut down. Crosses have been removed from churches and online Bible sales have been restricted. Publicly expressing Christian views can result in interrogation, loss of property or imprisonment. There are reports of elderly Christians having their government assistance taken away, simply for professing their faith. Freedom of association to meet with other Christians is nearly impossible. In fact, authorities claim that the practice of Christianity is a threat to national security and have enacted laws to ban or restrict the gathering of certain groups. Other citizens are financially rewarded for sharing information about Christians to local authorities. Finally, there are documented cases of torture, forced disappearances and forced labour, including the mass killing of criminals of conscience—to harvest their organs, such as what happened to the practitioners of Falun Gong.
In North Korea, between 50,000 and 70,000 Christians were imprisoned in labour camps and killed instantly if their faith was discovered. Under Kim Jong-un's dictatorship, anyone with ties to a Christian friend or family member is denied any advancement in their career. In such cases, children do not know that their own parents are believers. The secrecy that surrounds prison camps ensures that transparency and accountability remain elusive. Freedom of expression is denied and citizens are subjected to control, surveillance and punishment, contributing to a severe breach of basic human rights. Some reports suggest Christians have been executed merely for being in possession of a Bible.
In Africa and the Middle East, hardline political Islam has ushered in more violence perpetrated against people of the Christian faith. In Nigeria, extremist groups such as Boko Haram and the Fulani Islamic militants regularly attack Christians through execution, torture and kidnappings. After one Christmas attack the terrorist group Islamic State West Africa Province, or ISWAP, declared: 'This is a warning to Christians in all parts of the world and those in Nigeria.' ISWAP is a splinter group of Boko Haram, which has pledged to turn Nigeria into an Islamist state. Also in Nigeria, Islamic militia groups have taken over villages and farmlands in order to control local populations. Few schools are able to function, due to ongoing violence which has also led to famine. Reports detail thousands of Christians who remain in camps designated for internally displaced people, and farmers are killed when they attempt to return to their farms.
Closer to home, South and East Asia have been identified as the new hotspots for persecution. Holy Week is a prime time for anti-Christian violence in this region. In Indonesia on Palm Sunday this year, two suicide bombers detonated their devices outside a mass, leaving around 20 people wounded, including a security guard who had prevented there being further victims. Two years earlier, in Sri Lanka, the local militant group National Thowheed Jamath, or NTJ, coordinated a series of bombings on Easter Sunday, targeting churches and hotels, killing 258 people and injuring around 500 more. The Islamic State claimed responsibility, as it's linked with NTJ. Five training camps for jihadists were subsequently found. Their strategy was guerrilla warfare, with the primary objective of killing Christians.
As Australians, the Christian faith is the foundation of many of the values that we hold dear as a nation. As part of the Western world, our fight against international human rights injustices is a result of our Judaeo-Christian values and traditions. I remind this House that many hardworking Australians have fled oppressive regimes to live in this free and democratic country. It's acknowledged that, whilst not always perfect, Australia has a proven record on the protection of freedom of religion and belief, and, despite the decline of practising Christians, Australia has a good record as a tolerant nation.
However, there have been some high-profile recent cases that show that religious freedom is also under attack in our country. I point to the facts that Archbishop Julian Porteous of the Roman Catholic Church was hauled before an antidiscrimination tribunal for promoting a church booklet on the church teaching on marriage and that rugby player Israel Folau, after posting a paraphrase of a Bible verse on a social media account, essentially lost his sporting career. On top of these high-profile cases, there are many more that go unheard of. If we are to fix this type of discrimination, an appropriate religious discrimination bill is needed in this country.
But, abroad, Christian suffering is much, much worse. In fact, as I've outlined, it's a matter of life or death. In recent years, the Australian government has made representations concerning persecution in different parts of the world, including against Christians, in places like India, Pakistan, China and Sudan and persecution against Catholics and Buddhists in Vietnam. Australia has provided financial contributions to help stem this persecution. As well, we have supported the creation of regional democratic institutions in the Asia-Pacific region.
We provide this representation and aid, and we seek stability in our region, in order to avoid humanitarian disasters, but the fact remains: humanitarian disasters are unfolding in parts of the world. Christians are being persecuted, and the persecution of Christians affects the rights of all people and poses a threat to our core values and, inevitably, our national security. Religious freedom is cognate with other freedoms, such as freedom of speech, thought, conscience and association. Consequently, limiting religious freedom can result in simultaneously limiting these cognate freedoms as a knock-on effect. This is why Jan Figel, the European Union's first special envoy for religious freedom, stated: 'Religious freedom is a litmus test of overall freedom in society and overall universal human rights, so it is important to pay due attention.'
With no mainstream media coverage, we must ensure that this crisis of Christian persecution gets the attention it deserves. A good start would be the appointment of an ambassador for religious freedom for this country. The US and other nations that share our values have similar appointments. An ambassador for religious freedom would serve to monitor abuse and violence as a result of religious persecution, harassment and discrimination worldwide, and recommend, develop and implement policies and programs to address ongoing and serious issues. Such an ambassador would ensure that there's a dedicated role for advocacy, research, policy implementation and diplomatic engagement with states engaging in persecution. An ambassador would provide a pathway for engagement with oppressive regimes, as well as providing a mechanism to challenge violent ideologies that target Christians. An ambassador would also promote universal respect for freedom of religion or belief as a core objective of our national and foreign policy. This would reinforce the ultimate reality that, while Christians are primarily persecuted, the proliferation of violence and extremism in any form is a problem for all of us as a community. I have a website—stopthepersecution.com—that's pushing for this. I encourage people to support it.
I would be interested to know whether or not there's profit under that process that we have just heard of then. I would very much welcome greater religious freedom across the world and that Christians or other faiths not be persecuted. We have not had in that contribution then any reference to what happened in Christchurch, which was just devastating in terms of having one of our own go and do that over there. As someone who would benefit from religious freedom when standing as a candidate in times past, I would certainly welcome it, but, as for the plug at the end, I would be interested to know how that system is working, Member for Dawson. You've already announced that you'll be leaving the parliament, and you're setting up a whole range of these websites as well. It would be very interesting to get the transparency behind all that. But I digress.
I use the opportunity for grievance to raise the following issues in respect of my own community. In my own community, where you have growth of 200,000 people in the north-west sector, we should be able to see priorities attended to in terms of good jobs; strong, affordable healthcare systems; and infrastructure that keeps pace with that growth. If you're going to move so many people in—and we hear governments say from time to time that they do want to see more homes being built to address growth in house prices—what normally happens is that the house prices stay low because the homes that get built are on the fringes of our cities, where the infrastructure isn't there. People can't buy close to the city and they're forced to move out to areas where infrastructure isn't in place. The schools aren't built, the hospitals aren't there and the public transport isn't available. That's why the homes are cheap: because no-one wants to move into those areas. As a result, the demand and supply profile dictates what the prices are. There's got to be better than that.
In our area in particular we see so many instances where infrastructure simply isn't keeping pace. If I look in my area, I see Richmond Road, between Marsden Park and Colebee. It is becoming so packed and so frustrating that businesses are reporting that they're seeing customers basically making a decision that they will not go to those businesses because it's too hard to get access to the services, the businesses and the customers that could be provided there. I'm genuinely concerned that we're seeing a safety issue arise where people are undertaking rat running, going into certain streets at high speeds to avoid traffic and being frustrated. I am worried that there will be an accident in those areas simply because of the high volume of traffic, because the local roads system is not keeping pace with that growth.
We've seen, for example, near Rooty Hill the Davis overpass. Every day, you can see traffic lined up as far as the eye can see. The state government hasn't given it priority at all. RMS traffic data shows that the amount of traffic using Davis overpass frequently exceeds its single-lane capacity. The road is at 134 per cent capacity in morning peaks and almost 150 per cent capacity in afternoon peaks. The road acts as a major access point for Mount Druitt Hospital, but, due to a lack of alternative routes, congestion in the corridor significant delays police, fire, rescue and ambulance vehicles when attending emergencies.
We could see the smart investment of infrastructure dollars to provide for job opportunities. Around Bidwill and Shalvey there are a lot of young people who would be eager to get jobs in the new Sydney Business Park, but the congestion of traffic on Luxford Road and Rooty Hill Road North is an issue. Low levels of drivers licence possession are a problem. There is high demand for public transport that is also finding it difficult to get through. That's an issue as well. Why can't we, for example, see the New South Wales government, after talking for age about how they would build the Daniels Road bus lane, make that finally happen? Why can't we get federal and state governments, in an area of high youth unemployment, to dedicate that investment to open up those opportunities? Again, it's a problem.
As for the trains in our area, the western line is congested. It's at nearly 300 per cent capacity. It runs late regularly. It is going to have more people coming onto it with the building of the Western Sydney airport and the Metro, which will connect to the Western Sydney rail line. If we're trying to encourage people onto public transport, the multistorey car park promised for Schofields is now looking like it will just be a slab of asphalt rather than a multistorey car park that can provide for people to park close to the station easily. Instead of overflowing into local streets, we would have people contained in the one space. Again, it is not there.
In this budget, the Morrison government boasts about just over $3 billion in major infrastructure projects for New South Wales, but there is nothing in these growth corridors. It is insane. With the money they announced in previous budgets, very little was actually delivered. Since 2014, the coalition has underspent on Western Sydney infrastructure by about $778 million. Since entering office they have underdelivered $1.2 billion a year on infrastructure, which is simply a joke.
I have written to the minister for transport on these issues and other infrastructure issues, and I have written to the previous infrastructure minister on this as well. Rest assured: the moment we actually know who the new infrastructure and transport minister will be, I will be knocking on their door asking for some serious infrastructure dollars, because our community needs it. To keep pace with growth, we need the federal and New South Wales governments to work together on these priorities: busting the congestion seriously on Richmond Road and Davis Road; investing in infrastructure around Riverstone to open up job opportunities in that part of north-west Sydney; extending the Metro to St Marys from Tallawong; decongesting the T1 western line; building a proper multilevel car park at Schofields; building the Daniels Road bus lane to open up job opportunities for young unemployed people and getting that into the Sydney Business Park; building the M9 motorway; and stopping the buck-passing between the two levels of government. When I approach the federal government, they say they're happy to do it if the New South Wales government thinks it's a priority. The New South Wales government doesn't, miraculously, see any of these things as a priority; therefore, the federal government won't provide the money. It is simply laughable that we have this situation in this day and age, and we need to see that move.
Health care is another area where Scott Morrison and the Liberals have continued to neglect the needs of this part of Western Sydney. They have tried to rush through almost a thousand changes to the Medicare Benefits Schedule. These cuts and changes mean that patients could have to choose between cancelling life-changing surgeries or be hit with huge medical bills. The Liberals have attacked Medicare for decades. People know it's deep within them to attack universal health care. They have tried to put in a GP tax to make you pay more to see a GP and they have cut billions from Medicare. These cuts have a real impact on Chifley locals.
Residents of Chifley have amongst the lowest life expectancy in the country, with the electorate ranking 138 out of 151 seats in terms of life expectancy. Chiefly has diabetes rates of 7.8 per cent, 50 per cent above the national average. Mount Druitt has the highest rate of smoking in the country. These are things that need an investment in them. Waiting times in the local hospital are exploding massively. Public patients waiting for joint replacements wait three months in Central Sydney; in Western Sydney they wait 14 months. One in three patients is left in the ED at Mount Druitt Hospital for more than four hours. Waiting lists for some surgeries at Mount Druitt Hospital have blown out to 331 days. For some, the wait is even longer. I was contacted by a local resident who has been waiting since 2016 to have her surgery at Mount Druitt Hospital and was told she would have to wait 10 years for her surgery. Her doctor has been able to expedite it, but she has a 12-month wait ahead, and that's still six years of waiting. I keep saying: access to affordable health care is a right, not a privilege. In this day and age, people should be able to get access to affordable health care. As the constituent said to me in the email, 'Not having the financial means to have private health insurance, it's my only option to go through the public system and wait that long.' We have got to be able to do better.
On those issues, as I said, by having good infrastructure in place to create good jobs and having people to meet the healthcare needs of our area, we should be able to get these things done. It's not that it's impossible to do; it's that we have a government who finds it impossible to do the right thing by people of our area. It doesn't matter if they're Liberal or Labor; at the state level they treat their colleagues as a joke, and they're doing the same federally as well.
I'd like to speak on an issue that's not just affecting my electorate but impacting many communities across Australia—that is, the increasing number of financial institutions and banks closing their branches. Far too many of those are in remote, rural and regional centres. I understand the need for businesses to lower their operating costs where possible and to make cuts here and there, but it concerns me that these big institutions, which have been part of our social fabric, are leaving in droves and adding to the further deterioration of the social fabric in our smaller communities.
When you go to a bank and you're talking about your own personal finances, it's a private matter. It requires intimate financial knowledge of your pay, your turnover, the workings of your business, your plans for the future and, although it sounds silly, your hopes and dreams. These kinds of discussions can't be held in a makeshift bank where you've got somebody lining up behind you to buy a postage stamp and somebody behind them wanting to get a passport photo. I'm concerned about the privacy issues relating to banking transactions being undertaken in areas that are not appropriate or built for these kinds of discussions.
Fifty years ago, the banks were part of the heart and soul of our community. I recall growing up in Kempsey. I remember the bank manager's name from the Bank of New South Wales—Fred Bingemann; he was part of the community—and I'm sure that everybody who grew up in a rural or remote location would be able to do the same. The banks were in places that were, effectively, landmarks. These now heritage listed buildings were built for that very purpose and for that bank. These banks are now leaving, and there's nothing to replace them in our remote and rural towns, so you have these magnificent buildings just sitting there empty, going to rack and ruin, because somebody in the city, high up in an ivory tower, has made decisions that are in the best interests of that institution but that leave the country people behind.
It's a real loss to our communities. As I understand it, there are more than 1,500 communities across Australia, mainly in rural and regional areas, that have no local branch available to them. Three of the big four banks—the Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and the National Australia Bank—along with around 70 other banks have entered agreements whereby their customers can access Australia Post offices to make deposits and access cash. It's known as Bank@Post. I know that Australia Post and their employees do their absolute best to provide high-quality services. I don't wish to dismiss the operations or the value of regional Australia Post franchisees, who also contribute to the fabric of our towns—and we also see post offices closing at the moment, but that's for another grievance debate—but I think this arrangement definitely falls short of what many communities need in regard to accessing financial services. As I've previously said, you should be able to undertake your financial transactions within the confines of a bank where the staff are actually trained to understand your personal financial needs. You can't go and train somebody working in the post office to provide you that timely advice or to understand your concerns about deposits, withdrawals and investments. It's just not fit for purpose.
It also doesn't lend itself to the older people in our community. In Cowper, 27 per cent of people are now over the age of 65, and that number is rapidly increasing. Most 65-year-olds know how to use the internet. Most 65-year-olds over the past decade or two have moved into online and digital. But I talk to lots of people in homes and aged-care facilities, and many of those people don't understand the internet. They're afraid of the internet. They want to walk into a bank, speak to somebody and have a face that they can trust, and in the past that has been the tradition. You knew the person behind the counter. Now these elderly people are being told that they have to pay for the privilege to do that. One of my staff members who sadly lost his mother recently told me that his mother resented being advised that she could receive her banking documents, including her statements, via email, or could use a mobile phone to access her day-to-day services. She didn't have a computer and she didn't have a mobile phone. Then they told her, 'Okay, well, we'll send it out to you, but we're going to charge you $2 per page'—for the privilege of the bank having her money to invest to make more money for their shareholders! It's just not right.
Reducing the availability of banking services will, and does, create distress and uncertainty for elderly people, who are increasingly isolated by the rapid shift online. Examples in my electorate are Suncorp's decision to close its branch in Port Macquarie, and the community of Toormina having to endure the closure of its ANZ branch in September 2020. The friendly advice from the ANZ to the people of Toormina was, 'Well, there's still one in Coffs Harbour.' Bad luck if you don't have a car. Bad luck if public transport can't get you there at the time that you need. It simply is saying to country people, 'We're considering profit over people.' I really think it's time for the banks to consider that these people have been loyal to them. It might be time for the banks to be loyal to the people, particularly in regional, rural and remote Australia. The Bellingen, Dorrigo and South West Rocks branches of the National Australia Bank had their hours reduced—fortunately they didn't close—to three hours a day during the week. Unfortunately, the Dorrigo branch completely closed its doors in April this year. The closest town to Dorrigo is Bellingen, and that's 20-odd km away. It's extremely difficult for people to be able to get access.
In the period between 1993 and 2000, we saw a substantial reduction in branches by the major banks. In June 1993 there were 7,064 bank branches. That has fallen to 4,789. That's not quite 50 per cent, but it's up there. I encourage our bankers to remember the businesses that operate and the people who live in our regional and rural areas, and the mums and dads who have deposited their wages into their banks and simply want to have access to a banking institution within their own community. These are the people who have made the banks rich, and the banks have an obligation to better meet their needs.
I rise today to speak about Medicare and the terrible way the Morrison government treats some of the most vulnerable Australians. Labor built Medicare and we will fight to protect it. I want to fight to protect it because I believe that everyone in Australia should be able to get medical treatment regardless of their bank balance. In a little more than a week, the Liberals are going to do what they've been doing for so long: make more cuts to Medicare. The Morrison government is planning on making almost 1,000 sneaky changes to the Medicare Benefit Schedule, and those changes will come into effect on 1 July, mere days away. Patients around Australia are facing the prospect of having life-saving surgeries being cancelled or being landed with huge bills they never expected.
And it's not only the Labor Party raising strong concerns about these dreadful cuts. The Australian Medical Association has warned about the rush to make sure of the changes and the fact that they cannot be implemented without major disruptions to the provision of health care to countless Australians. People don't trust this government on Medicare because they know the Liberals record on Medicare. In 1983 the Liberals opposed the introduction of Medicare and then they planned to dismantle it over four successive elections—1984, 1987, 1990 and 1993. And then, in 2014, they cut $17 billion from Medicare and proposed a $7 tax to visit a GP. That was the 2014 horror budget which set out the GP co-payments. In 2015 they cut almost $1 billion from Medicare. In 2019 they cut bulk-billing in suburban communities around the nation, including in parts of my electorate of Brand in Western Australia. Under this government it costs people in my home state of WA almost 30 per cent more to see a doctor now than it did in 2013.
We know what these Liberals really want: they want to privatise Medicare. How do we know? Because they have said it. The health minister, Greg Hunt, is even on the record in this parliament—in his first speech, in 2002—saying he would like Australia to move to a US style healthcare system. About 30 million Americans have no healthcare coverage. I hear the nightmare stories all the time from my friends in the US. Is this the vision the government has for Australia's healthcare system? You can never trust the Liberals on Medicare. Cutting Medicare is in their DNA, and it is everyday Australians who will pay the price. Only Labor will save Medicare.
We know that the Liberals don't care much for Medicare—it's obvious—but it's also clear as day that they don't care much for the age pension. In my electorate of Brand there are 16,000 age pensioners—people who have worked hard their whole lives and are doing their best to get by in retirement. They deserve our respect. These 16,000 people in the cities of Rockingham and Kwinana are rightly worried about what this government has planned for them next. Many of these pensioners manage their money very well. They budget carefully and know where every cent goes. So you can imagine how they feel when they hear about the Morrison government's plan to force them onto the cashless welfare card. They are angry and they are worried. They are offended that this government thinks they cannot control their own finances. It's an unbelievable kind of paternalism that we are seeing emerging in this country. Under this dreadful plan a pensioner will have 80 per cent of their pension on a card that will limit what they can spend and where they can spend it. That's right, the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, the man who has spent hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars on sports rorts, jobs for mates and dodgy land deals, wants to control how pensioners spend their precious money.
Pensioners know what this could mean. A roast dinner at the local club? Out of the question. A glass of wine down at the local bowlo? Banned. A lotto ticket on the weekend? No way. Pensioners won't even be able to take out cash to buy birthday presents for their grandkids or put a $5 note in a birthday card. It's absolutely shameful. In Rockingham the cashless welfare card bans people from spending at the Leisure Inn. So no more counter meals at the Swinging Pig if you're an age pensioner that this government wants to put on the cashless careful card. That popular weekly treat for Rockingham pensioners is on the chopping block under this government. How do we know this? Because it's on the government website, which lets us know where cashless welfare cards are banned from use. How do we know this government wants to expand the cashless welfare card program? We know it because they keep floating the idea and they don't rule it out.
As social services minister, Senator Anne Ruston talks about the need to have a conversation with the Australian public about broadening the card. She says she sees the card becoming more universal—that's code for forcing pensioners onto this card. We know the government right now is working with the banks to expand the card. We know there are a growing number of businesses right across the country, including in Brand, that are listed on the Indue website as part of this scheme. The government has the power to do this. It's already is in legislation. This is legislation that Labor voted against.
Pensioners absolutely have the right to be anxious about this. They know they cannot trust the Liberals when it comes to their pension. That's because the Liberals are the party of pension cuts. Before 2013 election, they promised no cuts to pensions, but then in every single budget they've tried to cut the pension. The Prime Minister himself has been behind every single one of these cuts or attempted cuts. As the Minister for Social Services, he tried to cut pension indexation, which would have meant pensioners would be forced to live on $80 less a week within 10 years. He cut $1 billion from pensioner concession support designed the help pensioners with the cost of living. Morrison also axed the $900 seniors supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. He tried to reset deeming rate thresholds, a cut that would have 500,000 part pensioners made worse off. In 2015 he cut the pension of around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension assets test. As Treasurer he tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. He also tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. The Prime Minister has also tried for years to increase the pension age to 70, meaning Australia would have the oldest pension age in to developed world.
Last week Labor's member for Barton moved in the House an amendment calling on the government to rule out cutting pensions again. Guess what? The government voted that down. All of this has occurred during a period in which the costs of living have risen. Pensioners have never done it tougher. It really is disgraceful and unbelievable. The behaviour of this government and the minister in seeking to cover up the reporting of plans for pensioners is equally shameful.
The social services minister herself actually went onto the member for Richmond's Facebook page and started to troll her all because she was standing up for pensioners. The member's electorate office also received a call from a senior ministerial staff member in the government demanding she take down a Facebook post about the cashless welfare card. This is a party that speaks about freedom of speech, but there they are trying to restrain members representing their community. The member for Richmond, of course, refused to do so. She will not be silenced, and I will not be silenced when it comes to standing up for the age pensioners of Brand.
The age pension is a proud Labor legacy, introduced by the Deakin government in 1908. Labor will continue to oppose cuts to the pension, and we will oppose always this awful plan to force pensioners onto the cashless welfare card.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 18 : 48 to 19 : 15
I grieve today for the people of Hong Kong, whose freedoms and liberties are being trampled on and destroyed by the communist regime of Xi Jinping. Let's recall that the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which was signed in 1984, stipulates that Hong Kong would retain its high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms for 50 years after the handover took place. But this agreement's been torn up by the Communist Party, which has blatantly walked away from its obligations, has closed down democracy and is now prosecuting and jailing anyone who dares question the totalitarian regime. Leading human rights advocates, such as Martin Lee, have been prosecuted; the proprietor of the democratic Apple Daily newspaper, Jimmy Lai, has been jailed on trumped-up charges; and, just in the last week, five journalists at the paper were arrested by 500 police—maybe a little overkill in terms of that exercise—and charged under the draconian national security laws.
So it was with some curiosity that I read recently that President Xi Jinping has asked China's bellicose official media and wolf warrior diplomats to present the image of a 'credible, lovable and respectable China' to the world—not that they have changed their over-the-top, bullying comments. It would seem that the growing global exposure of Xi's internal repression, external aggression, bellicose nationalism and doubletalk is having an impact on this paranoid regime. The failure to cooperate with the world health authorities to determine the source of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has now killed millions of people globally, has alerted the world to the true nature of the regime.
Let there be no doubt: the regime of Xi Jinping is a brutal, repressive and authoritarian one. It is in the process of destroying the human rights of Hongkongers as it has done in Tibet and Xinjiang and would do in Taiwan if ever given the chance. So I grieve tonight for the people of Hong Kong.
I grieve for the oppressed Uighurs of western China. This oppression has come under increasing scrutiny from China, which is very unhappy. Increasingly, the brutal oppression is being described—by Canada, by the United States, by Britain and now by other nations—as an ethnic genocide. The activities of the CCP in Xinjiang are being examined now by an independent tribunal. To quote from the journal Bitter Winter:
The Uyghur Tribunal was set up in September last year to investigate a swathe of allegations of brutality amidst the simultaneous erosion of Uyghur culture and religion. The detention of a significant proportion of the Uyghur population, torture and inhuman treatment of detainees, rape and other sexual violence, the forced separation of children from their parents, forced sterilization, forced labor, forced organ harvesting, enforced disappearances, killings in detention, forced marriages and the imposition of Han Chinese men into Uyghur households, are just some of the crimes of which the PRC is accused.
The report went on:
Lead by prominent human rights barrister Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, deputy prosecutor at the ex-Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic war crimes trial at The Hague, who was also personally sanctioned by Beijing in March, the eight member panel consisting of academics, lawyers and a former diplomat, will act as a jury to examine witness and expert evidence to assess whether the PRC has embarked on a campaign intended to destroy in whole or in part, the Uyghur people and their existence as a racial, national and ethnic group. "These acts if proved, could also raise the question of whether the PRC has committed Genocide as defined in Article 2 of the Convention of 1948 to which China was a signatory and the PRC is a ratifying state together with other crimes including Crimes against Humanity," state the Tribunal organizers.
1,500 pieces of evidence and documents have been submitted from different countries and the UK government has fast-tracked visa applications from four eyewitness camp survivors to attend the hearings in person. The Tribunal has been funded from voluntary donations and panel members are acting on a pro-bono basis. The hearings will take place over four days from June 4-7, and again later—
in the northern spring there will be further hearings.
The judgement is expected towards the end of the year.
Beijing has mocked the tribunal as a "grave violation of international law and a serious provocation to the 25 million people of all ethnic groups in the region." China has consistently denied all allegations of human rights violations and despite mounting evidence to the contrary claims that religion is practiced freely and that there is harmony among all racial groups.
In four days of evidence, the tribunal has heard harrowing stories of rape and sexual abuse; torture, including the use of electrical shocks and the breaking of bones; imprisonment; the killing of newborn Uighur children; prisoners being chained up for months in concentration camps; and being deprived of adequate food and water. Others were earmarked for lethal injections and organ harvesting. A former policeman from the region testified about how the police were trained to torture prisoners. Some 900,000 Uighur children have been forcefully removed from their families and placed with Chinese Han families or in orphanages. From 300 witness statements that were reviewed, 40 witnesses were chosen, of which 24 testified during this first session in June. More than 50 experts have been approached and 14 testified over the four days. Despite four attempts to contact the PRC, Beijing continues to denounce the proceedings as illegal and a serious provocation to the 25 million members of ethnic groups in Xinjiang.
China's regime is being increasingly exposed for what it is: an inhumane perpetrator of the most egregious systematic abuse of human rights globally. That's why, tonight, I grieve for the Uighurs and the other victims of this oppressive regime.
I rise tonight to make a contribution in the grievance debate. Too many ordinary Australians are struggling to get ahead each week, living pay cycle to pay cycle, and it feels like this government just doesn't care. Instead of fixing the rising cost of living and attending to wages, they're telling my constituents that spending $112 a day on child care per child per day is the best that they can offer as a federal government and that they will have to choose between a comfortable retirement or buying a house because it is simply impossible to have both. To buy a house and to support your family, and to keep up with the cost of living day to day, whilst trying to tuck away some money for savings as well, are pretty simple aspirations. But, just recently, the LNP in Queensland polled my constituents in Lilley and suggested to us in that poll that tax concessions given to investment property owners are the only way to keep rents low. That's their plan to improve housing affordability—to continue to inflate the housing property market and hope that wealthy investors keep rents low out of the goodness of their hearts. It is completely out of touch with the struggle.
We hear today that, in the LNP party room in Canberra, a group of men shamed Australian women who use child care. One coalition MP reportedly labelled child care as 'outsourcing parenting'. Another said that affordable child care could force women back to work—as if women have to be forced back to work. Is it 2021 or 1951 in the LNP party room? It's really hard to know.
In one year, the Prime Minister's LNP mate, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Adrian Schrinner, has spent $6.5 million on advertising and self-promotion. He's spent $1.6 million marketing and advertising the Brisbane metro project, which hasn't even been started yet. Marketing and spin—it's all about the announcements; it's not about the follow-through. And the problem is: you can't spin reality. You can't spin what it feels like on the ground in our suburbs. Northsiders know that, a lot of the time, their day-to-day lives just don't match up with the outlook that this government is portraying from Canberra.
While the rest of the world makes huge strides towards combating climate change, the best that this government can offer is a man who has famously live-streamed himself ranting in a paddock about how climate change is attributable to a higher power. A hundred and twenty countries, 70 per cent of our trading partners and every state and territory in the country have signed up to net zero emissions by 2050. The Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers' Federation, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association have all signed up to net zero emissions by 2050; our biggest banks have; our biggest airlines have; our biggest resource companies have; and our largest exporters all support the net zero target, because they understand that Australia can become a clean energy superpower, leading to stronger economic growth and more jobs, while remaining a global resources and trading powerhouse.
But where is the Morrison government on this? They're busy arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, making it look like they take climate change seriously, while our regional areas burn and while reefs in our coastal waters are bleached. This government appears to be fundamentally anti science. They disregard all expert evidence, even when it comes from their own departments. They've scrounged up 22 different energy policies in eight years, wrecking business confidence, slashing jobs and causing energy prices to skyrocket.
Australians are sick of huge electricity bills, sick of policy chaos and sick of the Morrison government putting Australian jobs, exports and the economy in jeopardy, all for short-term political gain. Only the Australian Labor Party has committed to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and backed it up with a plan that will create new jobs, not cut them. Labor knows that acting on climate change and protecting our environment isn't just an economic imperative; it's a moral one as well. I thank the House.
The question is that grievances be noted. The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 17 June 2021. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
House adjourned at 19 : 30