On behalf of the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, I present the committee's report entitled Report concerning legal action in the Federal Court of Australia and possible issues of parliamentary privilege.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—Members will recall that, on 15 June this year, the honourable member for Clark raised a matter of privilege, an interlocutory judgement of the Federal Court of Australia made on 1 June. This was in an action brought by the Registered Clubs Association of New South Wales against Mr Troy Stolz. The judgement granted leave to Clubs New South Wales to obtain correspondence between Mr Stolz and the member for Clark's office, including emails, text messages and documents. The member for Clark stated that he had relied on these materials to speak in the House on 13 February 2020, therefore establishing a direct link between the materials covered by the court decision and the member for Clark's contributions in parliamentary proceedings. On 22 June this year the House resolved to refer the matter to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. The committee was asked to consider whether the legal action taken by Clubs New South Wales raises issues of parliamentary privilege or contempt and, if so, whether the House should intervene in court proceedings to ensure that parliamentary proceedings are appropriately protected by the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987.
In carrying out its inquiry, the committee considered the written submissions from the member for Clark, correspondence from Clubs New South Wales, legal advice and relevant court documents. The committee also carefully examined relevant case law and the law relating to parliamentary privilege. At the heart of this matter is whether parliamentary privilege is likely to attach to some of the material covered by the interlocutory judgement. A threshold issue is whether the documents fall within the definition of 'proceedings in parliament', thereby attracting the protections afforded by the Parliamentary Privileges Act. The committee therefore considered, firstly, whether the documents were provided to the member for Clark in the knowledge that they would be used by the member in parliamentary proceedings and, secondly, whether an action was taken by or on behalf of the member for Clark for the purposes of parliamentary proceedings. After careful consideration of the evidence available to it, the committee is satisfied that both conditions have been met in the current case and that the documents in question therefore fall within the definition of 'proceedings in parliament'.
In reaching its conclusions the committee acknowledges that, first, the question of law is ultimately for the courts to decide; secondly, the committee does not have knowledge of the full range of documents referred to in the interlocutory judgement and accepts that parliamentary privilege may attach to only a subset of documents; and, finally, if a member's documents are covered by parliamentary privilege, this does not prohibit those documents being disclosed or produced in a court or tribunal—rather, it places limits on the use of those documents in legal proceedings. These limits are set out in section 16(3) of the act and, as with all aspects of the act, are subject to interpretation by the courts. Nevertheless, the committee is satisfied that parliamentary privilege is likely to attach to some of the documents in question and that the legal action raises issues such that the House should intervene in the court proceedings.
As our report states, the committee considers that the most appropriate course of action is for the Speaker, as the representative of the House, to take steps to ensure that the House's interests are represented before the courts. The committee's report makes one recommendation, endorsing a motion for the House's consideration. Accordingly, I am foreshadowing that, to allow an opportunity for honourable members to consider the committee's report, as deputy chair of the committee I will seek leave to move a motion in this House tomorrow. I will do that on behalf of our chair, who is not permitted to move such a motion remotely.
Finally, I would like to thank the chair and all members of the committee for their work on this matter. Particularly, we thank the member for Menzies, whose thorough analysis helped the committee navigate these very complex issues that were in front of us.
The matter referred to the committee raises issues that are relevant and of potential interest to all members of this House. Therefore, I commend this report to the House.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, I present the committee's report entitled 2018-19 Commissioner of Taxation annual report, together with the minutes of proceedings. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
I have often said in this place that tax collectors are not the most popular people in the world. Indeed, the Bible records that, when Jesus was asked to find the lowest of the low to show the populous of the Roman Empire that we should be forgiving of all people, amongst those most hated were tax collectors that he invited into his home for dinner. We, I am happy to say, on the House committee for tax and revenue find tax collectors in Australia to be very pleasant individuals who we would happily have dinner with at any particular point in time.
We have over the last two years faced enormous challenges in this country. Literally, at one point we thought that we would see most of the economy fall off a cliff. In that moment this parliament, this government and the people of Australia relied more than ever on the Australian Taxation Office to deliver payments to people who were most in need of them in an efficient and effective way that ensured that it was not to be abused in the long or the short term. This is something that very few other nations have the capacity for and the ability to do and to rely on. We take many of our bureaucratic functions in this country for granted. Indeed, we are very good at, from time to time, being abusive when it doesn't go our way, but the Australian Taxation Office showed in this moment and at that time both the importance of investing in these institutions and the bureaucracy that allowed us to move from one side of that crisis to the end of that crisis. Warren Buffett says that you should criticise in general and thank specifically. I don't have time to thank all the people in the Australian Taxation Office who made this possible, but I would like to note the leadership of Chris Jordan, Jeremy Hirschhorn and Melinda Smith in achieving this magnificent outcome.
The report that I have just presented to the House makes a number of recommendations which I would like to note, but there are three that I would like to note very quickly. The first is the Australian Business Register. This is a critically important piece of infrastructure. If implemented properly, it could see the end of phoenixing in this country and the end of abuse of people who have no opportunity or recourse to the court system to ensure that they can have their debts paid. Our report urges the federal government to go further than it already has on this and look at implementing blockchain as the underlying infrastructure for those registries, in ensuring that we have world-best outcomes that will enable all sorts of people to undertake data analysis to ensure that phoenixing doesn't occur.
The second is the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The deputy chair, the member for Parramatta, was intimately involved in the establishment of this commission, so I bow to her greater knowledge. But during the inquiry what we found was that there are a number of organisations that sit within the ACNC, such as the Catholic school system, who are already heavily regulated by a number of other bodies. The inquiry queried not so much whether they should or shouldn't be regulated by the ACNC—my personal view is that they shouldn't—but what level of regulation they have while we have other charities which are fundraising for noble causes but where the people giving those charities money take that on trust. We have too many charities in Australia whose cost-to-income ratio is above 90 per cent on marketing and administration, and that is not what people believe that they are giving their money to when they donate those things. So a better allocation of resources by the ACNC may see a major improvement in that sector.
It was the Emperor Diocletian, who saw the decline of the Roman Empire, who said that civil liberties are adjusted to tax systems; tax systems are never adjusted to our civil liberties. Our tax system has too many disputes, it is too complex and it is too difficult for ordinary Australians and small businesses to navigate. This report makes some very specific recommendations around the implementation of a taxpayer advocate similar to that in the United States: a person who sits and is embedded in the tax office to represent the interests of ordinary Australians in how the tax system is administered. The Inspector-General of Taxation has done an excellent job. Her role needs to be upgraded, and her role needs to include sitting in the board meetings and management meetings of the ATO. We have seen in the US that the implementation of a taxpayer advocate has led to the cost of collecting tax declining, has seen trust in the tax system and the administration of the tax system go up, has seen disputes fall and has made it possible for the United States government to administer their tax system in a more efficient and effective way, and I suspect it has also had the result of better and more effective tax regulations coming to the fore in the United States, as people were able to take into account what was going on where the rubber meets the road at the coalface of the collection of tax, rather than the sort of ethereal principle that we can sometimes talk about in this chamber.
The importance of the taxpayer bill of rights also should not be underestimated. You can't have a taxpayer advocate unless ordinary Australians have a bill of rights that they can find themselves relying upon. In Australia at the moment, the onus of proof for a tax debt lies not on the tax office, not on the government, but on the individual. This is onerous and unfair and reverses all the principles of common law that we understand and know. That needs to change, and a bill of rights should enshrine that. The second thing that most Australians will be surprised to hear is that, once the tax commissioner decides that they owe the tax office money, that debt becomes payable even if it is in dispute, even if it is in front of a court being argued about. That needs to change as well. A debt should only be payable once it has been confirmed by all the proper rules.
The truth is that Emperor Diocletian was right. It is the role of this chamber to ensure that our tax system adjusts to the civil liberties of ordinary Australians and not the other way around. I commend the report to the House.
by leave—I'm really pleased to stand and speak on this report. It is an important one. As the chair has said, there are a number of recommendations in this report that ask the tax office to go further in a range of areas. But, before I go to that, I just want to add my voice to something the chair said, and acknowledge the work that the ATO staff have done over the last little while, not just during the COVID pandemic but before that. They are an institution in this country that has done remarkable work over many, many years. The last decade has seen extraordinary challenges as the world has changed and extraordinary opportunities as technology has made it possible for them to rethink entirely the way they interact with the general population. These are extraordinary times for any organisation. During these extraordinary times we've seen them also take on the Australian Business Register, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and the super clearing house. They have undertaken a digitising and streamlining process. They've introduced online tax professional platforms, Single Touch Payroll, activity statement financial processing, greater tax compliance and less tax avoidance, a training program for small business.
Then of course came the COVID pandemic, and they were doing early release of superannuation, JobKeeper—extraordinary additions to what was their workload a decade ago, and, in many areas, the world was changing so fast and the opportunities and the possibilities were changing so fast that it wasn't really possible for anyone to be in front of that, particularly people that work in an institution that has to be as precise as the ATO. They did a really clever thing early on with their practitioner lodgement service, which allows software vendors and digital providers to sit on the back end and allows taxpayers great flexibility in the process that they use to engage with the tax office. That's a possibility that needs expansion, by the way, because, as the world changes and, around the world, the technology becomes more interesting and opens up more opportunities, we in this country want to be leaders. We want our software and software vendors to be leaders in finding those solutions for the full range of taxpayers, being there on the front line and exporting to the world. And congratulations to the ATO for what they've done there.
There is one paragraph in this report that I want to come to next, and this is a statement made by the Inspector-General of Taxation. It is referenced on page 13:
The IGTO noted in its submission to the Committee that while the ATO has had its functions extended over time, its workforce has experienced the opposite fate. The agency's 2018-19 annual report noted a reduction in the number of employees, both ongoing and non-ongoing, of approximately six per cent over the reporting period.
So, while we had this extraordinary increase in opportunities and challenges, we had a reduction in the resources that the ATO had to apply to this extraordinary time that they find themselves in. The chair is also right that this chamber is responsible for the vision that the ATO follows. This chamber—government specifically, but all of us in this chamber—forms part of the process that guides the ATO and ensures the ATO has the resources it needs to be a world-class leader in change management for the change that is taking place right now in our tax systems right across the world.
You have to remember that we have a tax system essentially that began in the agrarian age. A monk developed the accounting year, which was perfectly fine before you had industrial equipment and depreciation, perfectly fine when you had an annual thing. Christmas decorations would work under the same process. Then suddenly we had capital equipment, so we had depreciation. Then suddenly the business cycle wasn't a year, so we had loss carry-back, and we added to it. Then we had multinationals. Things changed. We had business. We had PAYG. Now we have contractors. The world has changed so much. We've added bits and pieces of tax law to make it work, until the tax act is like this. The chair is right: there are processes we could find that would simplify the law for sections, and that process that the ATO introduced that allows software vendors to develop software packages specifically for different sectors of the community is really important in helping to make that happen. But we are at an extraordinary time and I'd say again that, whether we're talking about multinational tax avoidance or compliance generally, there is much greater role for this chamber in providing the vision and the resources the ATO needs to lead. It is an organisation that has some amazing people and they are capable of much more than they are doing. Again, when they read this, they will probably notice that most of our recommendations ask them to do more. And, every time we ask them to do more, we then ask them to verify it with data, which means they have to do more to verify that they did it. They face quite a challenge at the moment. So we need to make sure that, if we ask them to do things, we in this chamber are standing with them and ensuring they have the power and the resources to do it.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Given that I am now in continuation, I will reflect very briefly on some of the sentiment that I expressed yesterday. Fundamentally, it is this: with employment comes a greater sense of both dignity and self-worth for the person who is filling that role. I'm sure that all those joining me in the chamber today, and the great many listening online as well, feel the same way—that not only are there extrinsic rewards in being able to take home a salary, there are intrinsic rewards in having a sense of purpose. Providing a good or a service is valued out there in the community and brings a sense of dignity and self-worth. It is against that backdrop that this current bill is absolutely positioned.
According to an AIHW report titled 'Australia's welfare 2021', Indigenous employment rates reduced from 54 per cent to 49 per cent in the period of 2007-08 and 2018-19, while the rate for non-Indigenous Australians' employment remains stable at around 76 per cent. The report also tells us that, in 2018-19, Indigenous Australians were less likely to be employed the further away from a major city they lived. So it's clear that as a nation we must adapt and evolve to better meet new and existing challenges.
The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 will provide a framework for piloting new approaches to delivering employment services in remote communities ahead of implementing the government's budget announcement that the Community Development Program, or CDP, will be replaced in 2023. The bill builds on the Australian government's commitment to reform of employment services and it's a critical component of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. The bill will establish a new supplementary payment for eligible jobseekers in remote engagement program pilot sites who volunteer to participate in placements that are like having a job. I note that the definition of eligible jobseekers is as follows: 'Someone receiving a qualifying income support payment who receives employment services from a remote engagement program service provider and who has agreed to participate and is participating in an eligible placement with a host organisation for at least 15 hours each week.' I further note that the supplementary payment provided to eligible jobseekers participating in the program will not be subject to an income test. The placements will build participants' skills to deliver goods and services to the benefit of their local communities, and provide a pathway for jobseekers to find a job. And that end goal of a job is the key driver of this policy. As we know, and as we have, rightly, oft heard repeated, the very best form of welfare is of course a job.
It's important to note that what is proposed in this bill is a pilot. The pilot will support collaboration with communities to develop an appropriately flexible program that will build the skills and vocational capabilities of people in remote communities. This is an approach that will put people living in remote communities at the heart of related decision-making. As with any pilot, it is anticipated that adjustments may be made throughout the process, and the government welcomes the opportunity to work with people living in remote communities to develop a policy that empowers them to shape their own future. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.
Vulnerable Australians deserve support and vulnerable Australians deserve programs that actually work to ensure they have the opportunities that most of us in this place have enjoyed for our entire lives. Unfortunately, I believe that the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 shows that the Morrison government doesn't truly understand how to provide the sorts of social services that are needed in the sorts of communities that we're talking about in this bill.
What we've seen with the Community Development Program as it has operated for many years is that it has experienced many problems and actually lacks the ability to get people into long-term work. Surely, if we're going to put the test on any of these pieces of legislation then this has to be the ultimate goal: does it get people into long-term work? We've seen significant failures in the Community Development Program, highlighted to the government when the Senate inquiry which was launched into it five years ago noted that the government had failed to listen to what communities and stakeholders had said and had failed to work with them in developing the sorts of programs that communities actually wanted.
Unfortunately, having read through this bill, the explanatory memorandum and everything else, there's still no path for long-term, quality and lasting jobs for the people who participate in these programs. This legislation is a missed opportunity. We need fundamental reform of the CDP; we need fundamental reform that listens to the concerns that have been raised with the government and with agencies for years and years and years now. That this is all we have to show for those concerns is deeply disappointing.
We talk about co-design, and the bill has a lot of language about co-design in it. But I've looked at the people who have been involved in the co-design and what they're actually saying about the bill. Surely, if someone believes in co-design they start with that co-design when they actually write the legislation in the first place rather than kicking it off down the road as a piece of work to be done later. Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory stated:
Remote Aboriginal communities need more jobs so that more people can secure work and the benefits work brings. … This Bill does not address this challenge. Instead it allows people to work in jobs that would normally be paid while remaining on income support.
That's what they said. This is a program that leaves people on income support while they're doing work that would otherwise be paid as a job. It doesn't have jobs and it doesn't have a pathway. I heard a number of members opposite roll out the classic line 'the best form of welfare is a job'. Well, that's a great little grab quote but, unfortunately, the best form of job-creating legislation is legislation that actually gives people jobs, and this does not do that.
Labor has committed very firmly to scrapping the CDP and replacing it with a new program, a program which gives people real jobs with proper wages. That's how you give people fundamental dignity, and that's how you deliver on truly transformative change in the sorts of communities that we are trying to help. That's also how you get real buy-in for co-design. If you're serious about co-design, then you are serious about making sure that you have a pathway to a job at the end. Co-design is essential for success, is part of a strong policy process and is part of an ongoing policy process that should have started in the drafting of this legislation rather than being left to legislative instruments down the track.
We can't ignore that the problems that this bill seeks to address have been problems that have been known to people in this place for a number of years. The Australia Institute report, titled Remote control:The Community Development Program, remote Australia's Work for the Dolescheme, highlights in detail the problems that have been in this scheme for years. This was a report that was released in 2018. They note that the regions where this program is operating have unemployment rates of up to 51 per cent. That is, where the program is supposedly successful, we're seeing unemployment of up to 51 per cent. They noted the huge concerns with human rights as the CDP pays below minimum wage. In 2018 they noted that the payment for work on this program was $11.20 per hour, well below the minimum wage. On top of that, despite working for below minimum wage pay, a person who is part of the CDP is more than 25 times more likely to receive a penalty than a participant in the urban Australia jobactive program which operates in my electorate. People on these programs were 55 times more likely to receive a serious penalty, and these penalties aren't just a written warning. It's not just something that goes on a record; it's a financial penalty where people then find they don't have enough money to pay for their kids' food, that they don't have enough money to pay for the very essentials that they've been going to work in this program to deliver. It actually demotivates people. It disconnects people's association with work, because they are in a penalty based regime where the only incentives are penalties—there is not a job at the end of the program.
The analysis by the Australia Institute looked at what actually happened, the results of the program. Their analysis showed that less than one in five participants were supported into a proper permanent job and less than one in 10 participants remained in that job for more than six months. On average, a participant would have to spend 9.5 years in the scheme before achieving the 13-week employment outcome or 12.7 years in the scheme for achieving a 26-week employment outcome.
Further, like many things, including Indue cards and other pieces this government is obsessed with, this program is incredibly expensive. Analysis shows that for every dollar that a recipient receives in income support approximately 70 cents is spent administering the scheme. So, for every dollar that you push out the door, it's costing you 70 cents. I don't know how that, in any way, is a good spend of taxpayers' money. I don't understand how that is possibly a fair way to use taxpayers' money or if it's the most effect of use if you are trying to create jobs in regional Australia. To put that in terms of what it's actually cost taxpayers, the 2,682 part- and full-time jobs with 26-week employment outcomes cost $360 million per year to operate. That amount could directly employ 19,700 people for 26 weeks full-time.
Like many in this place I regularly travel to regional centres. Because of border arrangements, that has been focused very much on regional Western Australia for this year. You see the importance of jobs. You see the importance of investing in our regional centres. Recently I was in Kalgoorlie, where I met with Training Alliance Group. They are a Job Network provider. They help people into work They have a facility on the main street of Kalgoorlie where I met with a bunch of young students and talked to them about what they wanted to get, what their hopes were. It was great to sit and speak with them about how excited they were about the sorts of jobs they might be able to do in the future. They were also learning some pretty high tech skills. The member for O'Connor may have also been there and played the same Street Fighter II console that I did that had actually been built by the students—building a video-game arcade thing, learning some tech skills, as a way to re-engage students who had otherwise become disengaged with school, back into work.
But, wherever you go across Western Australia, you are confronted by the fact that there are not enough skilled workers. The skills crisis in this country is getting worse, not better. I've heard about the challenges of finding childcare educators in Tom Price, where the limits on child care are being driven by the huge challenge of accommodation pressures and the challenge of getting people with qualifications in early childhood education to Tom Price. In Albany, I've heard about the challenge of getting truck drivers. In fact, basically anywhere you go in WA, even in the city, you hear about the need for more truck drivers on our roads to help with logistics, to help with the mining industry, to help with the agricultural industry and more. There are challenges in Geraldton with aged-care workers. There are tourism providers who are facing unique challenges in terms of a different customer base but also the need for different skills across the state. So we do have jobs, but the program in this legislation doesn't do the hard work of connecting people to those jobs.
One successful program that I was fortunate to go out and see in the member for O'Connor's electorate recently is the Esperance Tjaltjraak Cultural Rangers. It is an amazing program that I know the member for O'Connor and many in this place—and I was there with the member for Fremantle—recognise as a successful demonstration of an Indigenous rangers program. It provides community education and school programs. They're preventing invasive species taking over beautiful native vegetation, working on developing and protecting cultural sites, doing the very important work of rehabilitation and also the important work of tourist education. This is a successful program. We should have more focus on these successful programs. We should also acknowledge that there are challenges when it comes to making sure that the people who participate in these programs have access to all the other services that we rely on to have a successful working life, whether that is childcare services, whether it's in terms of access to government agencies or whether it's in terms of access to health services.
I'm really concerned, still, as many are in this place, that unfortunately there is a city-regions divide when it comes to the rollout of the vaccine. Clearly, we have not given enough support to Indigenous organisations, Aboriginal controlled health organisations, to be part of the partnership to roll out the vaccine. Now, I understand that, for many, many months, there were not enough vaccines to roll out, so that would have been pointless. But now we have to be honest. In Coolgardie, less than 50 per cent of the population have had their first dose; Waddington, 60 per cent; Kalgoorlie, 60 per cent. We need a plan from this government to fix the vaccination rollout in our regions, because, if we don't have that, we're going to see more people miss out on job opportunities and more people miss out on the ability to re-engage with the workforce, which is exactly what this legislation seeks to do.
I note that Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory have serious concerns about this legislation. One of their biggest concerns is the effect of the bill on those receiving payments. In their submission to one of the inquiries into this bill, they noted:
Those in receipt of the payment would remain in the income support system. They could be subject to income management. While they would do work that is 'like a job', they would not have the rights and protections of other workers.
There are a whole bunch of problems tied up in just that one quote. These people would remain in the income support system, despite the fact that they were working; they would have no protections as employees; and, despite working and earning their income, they could be subject to income management. Unfortunately, I believe that this is part of this government's sick obsession with telling people how to spend their money. Their obsession with income management and cashless debit cards is something that seems to pervade every area of government policy. We know that the government have said they want this to be a mainstream part of how they roll out government funding. I am a very strong supporter of the member for Bruce and his private member's bill to make sure that we stop this in its tracks, because who knows where it ends?
Around Australia, we see that this cashless debit card system is already creeping its tentacles all over the place. In parts of Western Australia, people on the disability support pension and carer payments are already being put onto the cashless debit card. In Far North Queensland you've got aged pensioners being placed onto this card. When you think about this, if you start to normalise that for people in their working life, and then you normalise it once they stop working, once they hit retirement age, that's a real concern. There are 2.6 million aged pensioners in Australia, with 241,000 of them in Western Australia. I don't want to see a situation under this system where someone is forced to work for below minimum wage for years on end with no promise of a proper job, and then, once they have worked below minimum wage with no promise of a job and get to retirement age, is forced onto a cashless welfare system. That's not how you treat people. It's not forward-thinking policy. This legislation doesn't do anything to send us in the right direction.
I will begin by reminding the member for Perth that it's a very serious offence to mislead the House. The member made a statement that there are pensioners in Queensland that are forced onto the cashless debit card. I'm not aware that that's the case. I will check that with the minister for social services. There's a cashless debit card trial across my electorate, with 3½ thousand people on the card, and I'm not aware of one pensioner who is on the card. I will be checking that, and I will be bringing that to the attention of the House if it's proved be incorrect.
The main substance of what I'm here for today is to—
The member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The member for Perth, on a point of order?
The member mischaracterised me. He used the word 'forced'. I do not recall using the word 'forced'.
What's your point of order?
I ask him to withdraw. He misquoted me.
I don't think now's the time. You can make an explanation later, by all means. The member for O'Connor will resume.
I'm here today to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021. This is one component of legislation that will help enable jobseekers in some of the most isolated Australian communities, including communities in my electorate, to access job skills training appropriate to the employment opportunities in their particular community.
I would like to acknowledge that this is a good outcome for the remote Ngaanyatjarra lands in my electorate of O'Connor. I will also give the member for Perth a bit of advice: you can fly in to Esperance, you can fly in to Albany and you can fly in to Kalgoorlie, but if you jump in a car and drive 1,000 kilometres north-east of Kalgoorlie you get to the town of Warburton; that's where the really remote communities in my electorate are. You drive through Leonora, Laverton and Menzies along the way, and it would be good to drop in and talk to some people there about the cashless debit card. Anyway, the NG lands, as I will abbreviate them, have been announced as one of the five pilot sites for the Morrison government's new remote engagement program, which will work towards devising a needs based job training program to replace the current Community Development Program.
While the bill is being introduced and debated throughout this spring period, to help provide the framework for this pilot, I'm pleased to see that the NG lands are finally getting the autonomy they have long been calling for. This will enable them to design a program that will be better targeted to the needs of their people. Unlike many remote Indigenous communities, there are in fact highly-paid job opportunities within the NG lands. The Great Central Road already carries a significant volume of tourist traffic—outside of COVID—as people travel from Uluru through the NG lands to Laverton and the Northern Goldfields gateway into WA. Also, construction is progressing well on the Outback Way, Australia's longest shortcut, which connects Winton in western Queensland to the Northern Goldfields in WA. The Outback Way will not only create an iconic new trans-Australian tourist route but also provide a vital logistics corridor for the movement of agricultural produce, livestock, mining and freight between Queensland, the Northern Territory and WA. Shire of Ngaanyatjarraku Shire President Damien McLean, his council and the Ngaanyatjarra Land Council have long called for changes to the current Community Development Program. So I am pleased to see that this opportunity has become available to them.
In a nutshell, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 will establish a new supplementary payment for eligible jobseekers in remote engagement program pilot sites who will participate in placements that are job-like. These placements will build participants' skills and deliver goods and/or services and benefits to their local communities and provide a pathway for jobseekers into a job. In short, it will enable supplementary payments beyond the current working age of welfare payments to be made to those jobseekers who engage in meaningful job training in a real-life working environment. I can't pre-empt the outcome of these community consultations but, for the NG lands, this may present opportunities towards training in hospitality, in tourism, in Indigenous arts and crafts, in the highly paid jobs of the many mining operations nearby or in road construction of the Outback Way and the associated freight logistics that will ultimately follow.
I'm excited about what this program may mean for many of my remote shires who have long found that the CDP does not deliver for their communities. Many of these shires have found an opportunity to create their own remote jobs engagement program through being part of the cashless debit trial. Interestingly, Labor have just introduced their own bill, aimed at scrapping the cashless debit card, which will destroy the Job Ready Pilot Program that is currently operating in the adjacent Northern Goldfields shires of Laverton, Leonora and Menzies as well as the Shire of Coolgardie—all shires where the CDP does not meet the needs of their jobseekers. So the Job Ready Program is already a component of the cashless debit card trial that has been operating in the Goldfields since March 2018.
Yesterday the member for Bruce—it's good to see him here today to hear my contribution—introduced his bill, which, if successful, will force the premature termination of the cashless debit card trial not only in my electorate but also across the other trial sites. I can only speak to my own personal experience, being closely connected to the shires of Laverton, Leonora, Menzies and Coolgardie as well the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, but I don't believe the member for the Bruce has ever visited or consulted with any of the above. For the benefit of the member for Bruce and his Labor colleagues: these shires volunteered to be part of the cashless debit card trial. They hoped it would be a tool to help address the social harm occurring in their communities as a result of welfare dollars being spent on alcohol, drugs and gambling rather than on the necessities of life. If only the member for Bruce had been in Leonora the day a second teenager in that one week had taken their life.
The member for Bruce, on a point of order?
I actually wish to seek an intervention under standing order 66(a).
Will the member yield?
No.
I thought he might want to stop misleading the House and I could put some questions to him so that he could make a more informed speech.
Order! The member for O'Connor will continue.
If only the member for Bruce had been in Leonora the day that that teenager took her life—the day when respected Aboriginal elder Gay Harris urged me to find a way to help solve some of the endemic issues of child-sex abuse, teen despair, family domestic violence and the breakdown of the fabric in her community.
In the following months then Minister for Human Services, Alan Tudge, came to these communities not once but many times. The Department of Social Services also came and consulted widely with the communities of all five Goldfields local government authorities. From memory, there were over 250 consultations hosted by the DSS, and I also conducted my own surveys and consultations. These shires represented their community needs and aspirations and they lobbied tirelessly the many ministers, and even the Prime Minister, when they visited the Goldfields to consult on and to announce the Goldfields cashless debit card trial. For the five shires of the Goldfields and for my colleagues who have CDC trial sites in their electorates of Grey, Durack and Hinkler, this Labor proposal to bring forward the sunset date of the existing cashless debit card legislation will undo the great work well underway. I wonder if the member for Bruce has even asked any of these communities what they want and how it can be best achieved.
Have you read the bill?
The government certainly has and we've funded it too. Since the cashless debit card program first started in 2016, the coalition has provided more than $13 million to deliver complementary and support services at all trial sites. That investment has been used to support drug and alcohol rehabilitation services, community hubs, family and children's programs, financial counselling and wellbeing programs and more. In the recent budget, this government announced a $30 million job-ready initiative to improve employment outcomes and opportunities in the cashless debit card trial sites, which also coincide mostly with the CDP sites, which are currently following their own jobs training initiatives tailored to the employment prospects in their particular geographical areas.
The entire Goldfields actually has a chronic shortage of workers, and many of the 1,000-plus job vacancies are actually for unskilled and low-skilled positions—effectively starter jobs. Many of these job opportunities provide training towards formal qualifications, but even a lower skilled job still require a degree of job readiness that many working-age welfare recipients have to date been unable to achieve and haven't been provided. That's why shires like Laverton are grateful for the nearly half a million dollars from the federal government to establish and deliver job readiness training for jobs available in their patch. This is why they've engaged an experienced job readiness trainer, Mr Mac Jensen, who has a proven track record of working with, particularly, Aboriginal youth, providing them with the necessary skills to secure and retain a job.
I want to digress for a minute. One of the privileges of our job is that we've all come across remarkable people in our travels. I see the member for Lingiari has joined us, and I'm sure he would have many stories to relate as well. Mac Jensen, who's a former Army officer, who worked with NORFORCE, who's worked with Aboriginal people in Aboriginal communities most of his working life, set up a program in the town of Wiluna in the northern Goldfields, a very isolated community with mining opportunities around the town. He engaged with the local Aboriginal people, particularly the families, identified those who really wanted to find the work and change the circumstances in which they lived, and he ran a program in Wiluna which revolved around road construction. The state government, the WA government, to their credit stumped up the funding for five kilometres of road construction and sealing on the Wiluna to Meekatharra road, which his team worked on and honed their skills. Eight of the 12 people involved in that program are now in full-time work, which is a remarkable outcome. We've seen many of these programs that have come and gone and haven't delivered the goods. Certainly Mac Jensen is right on the money.
The City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder has been granted almost $1 million to coordinate job-ready training activities for over 2,000 cashless debit card participants and to provide support for the job-ready training activities for the surrounding shires. Yesterday a federal grant round closed which had invited community groups to put forward their ideas and proposals for increasing engagement and opportunities in their regions. So, while Labor claim that instead of the cashless debit card they will provide an employment program in these communities, it seems they haven't done their homework because these actions are already in motion. Bringing forward the termination of the cashless debit card program to January 2022 will only launch the Goldfields cashless debit card trial sites and the over 3,000 participants into disarray. Labor's reckless plan to scrap the cashless debit card will put vulnerable people in these communities back at risk.
I can tell you from firsthand experience that children who went to school hungry are now being fed at home or purchasing food with the cashless debit card, so much so that school meals programs have been scrapped at some primary schools. Elders who volunteered to be put on the cashless debit card now avoid the humbugging and elder abuse they used to endure. Mothers and grandmothers now have money on their visa debit card to buy groceries, toys and clothes. When available as cash, this has been squandered in the past on gambling or the purchase of alcohol and drugs. Whilst it's never been claimed that the cashless debit card will be the universal panacea, it has been working well in addressing some of the social harm previously experienced in the Goldfields region of my electorate. So, while Labor are intent on undoing the great results the cashless debit card program has had thus far, I remain committed to helping unemployed Goldfields constituents and their community stabilise their lives. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 and the amendment moved by the member for Barton. I say to the member for O'Connor, who just spoke: I've met Mac Jensen at Wiluna, and you're right. He's a person with a great deal of drive and commitment, and he does an outstanding job. He is someone who has done his bit, if I might put it that way. I won't make any other observations about the member for O'Connor's speech. I just want to talk about this bill. It would have been helpful if the member for O'Connor had done that.
This bill, in my view, is an absolute acknowledgement of the failure of the government's Community Development Program. What an absolute disaster it was when the old CDEP scheme, the Community Development Employment Program, was abolished by the Howard government. The stupidity of the abolition of the CDEP scheme was acknowledged by subsequent Prime Minister Tony Abbott when he said, 'Abolishing CDEP was a well-intentioned mistake, and CDP is our attempt to atone for it.' What a miserable observation, frankly. The CDEP scheme should never have been abolished. I might say that I'm somewhat ashamed that the former Labor government, subsequent to the Howard government, continued with the process to abolish the CDEP scheme by putting a sunset clause in place. I opposed that.
I worked on a report on the initial CDEP scheme in 1979 and 1980 in the Pitjantjatjara homelands area of the north-west of South Australia and into the Ngaanyatjarra of Western Australia. I saw an observation only a day or so ago by people saying that getting rid of the CDP is in part to stop people getting sit-down money. Let me make it very clear. CDP is a welfare program. CDEP was a work program. It's worth contemplating that CDEP was part-time work for part-time pay at award-equivalent wages. There were deficiencies—superannuation wasn't paid and sick leave and long service leave weren't given. They were absolute deficiencies of the program.
It's worth reflecting on how the CDEP started. The program started in the early 1970s. The process commenced in the early 1970s when Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory said to the government: 'We're sick of getting unemployment benefits. We don't want sit-down money. We want to have our communities work for the money they're receiving.' The first communities involved in this were Barunga, then Beswick outside of Katherine, and then Kalkarindji, or what is now known as Wave Hill walk-off country. What happened was that the government, under an enlightened social security minister at the time, Margaret Guilfoyle, a Liberal minister, agreed that what they would do was accept paying the unemployment equivalent for the community that they were addressing. The sum of that money was paid to the community for distribution by the community, which distributed the money in a way that met their priorities and made sure people did something in return for that income. That evolved into the Community Development Employment Program which, as I said, was part-time work for part-time pay at award rates. That happened as the result of an initiative by Aboriginal people; it didn't come from government. And to hear people in this place disparage the intent of Aboriginal people across this country to seek employment options and to imply that somehow or another they don't want to work because of the failure of CDP is an absolute insult. What we know—and this is apparent, as I've experienced it over many years now—is that there aren't sufficient jobs for all working-age people in remote communities. I'm sure the member for O'Connor understands that.
Each of these communities has their own discrete small-area labour markets, which are not really understood at the macro level. Where the population is rising relatively quickly in comparison with the rest of the Australian population, large numbers of young people are left looking for an opportunity. They don't want to leave their home communities, but if they're lucky enough to have an education they might be attracted to go off and do further training. But what they need is labour market intervention; what they need is an investment in a program that will create work opportunities which are defined by the communities themselves. That's what CDEP used to be; it was controlled and managed locally, by local organisations. They determined the nature of work to be undertaken and the people who were to do that work, and those people were paid award wage equivalents. If someone didn't go to work then they didn't get paid.
This was a very popular program because it also allowed wage top-ups; if people undertook jobs and worked for their 15 hours and there was still work available in that workplace, they could get that work and be paid a wage top-up for doing that work, and at the award wage equivalent. It was a very successful program. It wasn't perfect, by any stretch, and in some places the administration left something to be desired. But what we need to understand is that we need to give people back that responsibility.
CDP took that responsibility away, breached people needlessly and caused people to suffer. It was a welfare program and it is a welfare program. What we're after now—and communities have argued for this for a long time—is for them to have control. They expect to do the work, but they need to be paid proper award rates and they need to have their income guaranteed. They understand the penalties of not going to work. They need to be paid superannuation and they need to be given entitlements. That's something which can be done, and I'm sure that the economic benefit of doing that sort of investment would far outweigh the costs in the long-term of not proceeding with such a proposal.
A new job-creating Community Development Program should at least have the following objectives: decision-making powers should be devolved to local communities and local community organisations; the objective, of course, should be to provide work opportunities and training opportunities where they're relevant; and to alleviate the issues of lack of access to jobs, low-income-support payments, remoteness and small community size, and the current welfare conditionality that imposes income penalties and barriers in gaining access to appropriate payments.
It's worth noting that the August report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, Report on Indigenous participation in employment and business, contemplated the failure of CDP and made the following recommendations:
The committee recommends that in engaging in the process of codesign, the Australian Government should consider incorporating the following elements into the redesign of the Community Development Program:
These are entirely sensible recommendations, not reflected in the government's CDP or its reform.
Whilst the government talk about co-design, what we do know is that they've chosen five sites, we're told, for a total of 200 people in this trial, over two years—bizarre. How is that going to alleviate or change things? It ain't. What they need is action now, and there should be a co-design process which talks to the people in this country who have been working in this space for many years. Aboriginal organisations and their peak organisations, their representative bodies, need to be involved and consulted, and they have not been. Why not? Is it the arrogance of this government? We need to do this, and we need to do it now.
Labor is committed to getting rid of CDP and replacing it with a real jobs creation and economic program for remote Australia, developed in partnership with local communities and organisations as I've described. I might just go back a moment. My observation and experience of the old CDEP program was that it generated its own economy, it created real opportunities and it provided the capacity for additional staffing to go into places like schools and health services. Sadly, when the CDEP was abolished, the positions that they were undertaking in those schools as additional staffing, not within formula, were taken away. Their jobs were gone. So not only did those jobs go but it meant that the schools lost the important contribution that was being made by language speakers, parents, in those school communities. That is directly what happened.
Of course, we had people say, 'But these are jobs that should have been paid for by government.' They weren't within the formula. They weren't part of the staffing profile of the school. They were additional, as they were in some local government areas, doing what might have been additional local government jobs. Somehow or other, what we've done is say, 'Well, they're jobs that should be paid for by local government, by Education or by Health, and therefore what we'll do is abolish CDEP, because they're not real jobs.' What an absurdity! At the same time, we know that they were generating business opportunities. I know of a number of communities where large CDEP organisations ran small businesses such as shops and the like.
Labor will end the CDP and put in place a remote employment program to create jobs and economic growth in remote areas. I say to the government: it's not too late to change, but you need to do it now. Aboriginal people want this in remote parts of this country, including in the member for O'Connor's communities.
It is certainly well-established that gainful employment has more positive effects on an individual and their communities than simply financial gain, and it is perhaps second only to a meaningful relationship. Work is the most important determinant of quality of life. There is no doubt about that. Gainful employment has positive impacts on not only identity but also social interactions, a sense of purpose and a sense of feeling a part of the community. Unfortunately, it is also a well-established fact that remote communities face a unique and complex challenge to gain employment. I note the contribution of the last speaker, the member for Lingiari, and his wealth of experience. However, I must say that, regardless of whether you are for this bill or you are wanting amendments, I do not know of one member in this place who would suggest that Indigenous people do not want gainful employment. Certainly that is not the case in my community of Cowper.
As a direct result of remote communities' smaller populations, there are fewer businesses and fewer potential employers there. While working remotely is expanding the field for white-collar workers, particularly since COVID, being located away from larger job markets clearly means less opportunity for the majority of the remote Australian labour force. The fact is that less than two per cent of Australian businesses are located in remote areas; and due to cultural, family or financial reasons many people are unable to relocate to areas with more work opportunities. That being said, it is also true that many people in remote areas possess the ability, the skills and the experience needed to obtain long-term employment but, as a result of those difficulties faced, remain underemployed or unemployed.
The federal government recognised this with the Community Development Program, or CDP, which was introduced in June 2015 to specifically support jobseekers in remote Australia to build skills, address barriers to employment and contribute to their communities through a range of flexible activities. Since its inception, approximately 40,000 Australians across 60 remote regions and over 1,000 communities have participated in the program, with some CDP communities having fewer than 20 residents. In October 2017, when the program had been running for just over two years, it was noted that over 80 per cent of jobseekers within the program identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, and 65 per cent of eventual CDP providers were Indigenous organisations.
Over the last six years, the CDP has provided meaningful insights into the true needs of remote communities and, conversely, the challenges that face programs such as this. Programs like the CDP are necessary and commendable, and they need the ability to adapt and evolve—and that is what this bill is doing; it is doing that through consultation and learning—into something that provides the ultimate value to the communities they are designed to assist. In recognition of this, some adaptations have already been made as part of the recent 2021-22 budget. Firstly, as a result of direct community feedback and consultation, the mutual obligation requirements were modified to make CDP activities voluntary for participants, removing the penalties they previously faced. It was also announced that the Remote Engagement Program, or REP, would be introduced to ensure that employment services fit the changing job market in remote Australia and meet the unique needs of jobseekers in those communities.
One thing that we should recognise and act on immediately—it is something that I raised in this place last week, and I have filed a private member's motion—is that 243,000 Indigenous people do not have a birth certificate. The birth certificate gives us our identity. Without a birth certificate, it's difficult to enter into education, to get a bank account, to get a driver 's licence. And, if we think about that number—243,000 without an identity—and there are just over 800,000 Indigenous people in Australia, that is over a quarter of Indigenous people in Australia who don't have a birth certificate. So, whilst we have programs such as this, there is a desperate requirement, a desperate need, to address the shocking fact that Indigenous people face the challenge of being unable to get a job because they don't have a birth certificate. So, as the federal government, we need to call on all the states and territories to implement programs that address that problem, because, without addressing that problem, we can't address programs such as the CDP or get Indigenous people into gainful employment.
The National Indigenous Australians Agency has a number of bills before parliament for progressing during the sitting period, this being the first. This bill will amend the social security portfolio legislation to specifically support the commencement of these critical REP pilots and sites across remote Australia. This bill sets out to create a new supplementary payment, to be called the Remote Engagement Program payment, of between $100 and $190 per fortnight. This payment will be made to eligible jobseekers in the Remote Engagement Program pilot sites who volunteer to participate in a specific placement such as with government services or available community organisations.
This bill will also establish the high-level qualifying criteria for the payment, that participation in the REP is voluntary and that a person can opt to leave a program placement. It will also enable the minister to make legislative instruments relating to the program's qualification criteria and program payment.
These placements will develop a participant's skill and confidence and provide a tangible pathway for jobseekers to find gainful employment. Importantly the proposed pilots of the program introduced by this bill will be co-designed with remote communities, and this is fundamental. It is absolutely fundamental that it is co-designed. The government has outlined and is committed to to take the time to work together and listen to the communities in the pilot sites about what they think could work in their community in relation to the amount of payment to be provided. I do agree with the last speaker that it has to be community led; it has to be led on the ground. We should not be telling individual communities what they should be doing and how they should be doing it.
On that note, in Cowper, in particular in Kempsey, I'm extremely pleased with the 'safer people, safer places' program that is being rolled out now. The way it's being rolled out is with a government hands-off approach, allowing that community to determine what the structure looks like, because, for decades—and being a Kempsey boy I know—programs have been implemented in the Macleay Valley and the Kempsey community that were government driven, and they have not been successful. So the secret here, as with this bill, is it is co-designed with the communities, and, in terms of the 'safer people, safer places' program, I look forward as I know there will be results in the Kempsey community.
This bill also better allows for adjustments during the pilots as lessons are learnt. That's so important as well. There's no point having a rigid structure when you learn something that isn't working but you cannot deviate from it or implement the better systems that are out there. Ryan Bulman is the group manager of economic policy and programs at the National Indigenous Australians Agency. He noted: 'If parliament passes this bill it will be a unique framework for co-design groups to put in place arrangements for the regions to test and trial, only up until 2024, into the social security system. I don't think we've ever had that, as far as I can recall, in our history.' That quote solidifies that fact about the co-design being community driven, community led. This is the only way that we as a government and we as a community and we as a nation can close that gap. Without it being done from the ground up, we will never achieve those goals.
In conclusion, this bill seeks to achieve the first step towards building the best possible program to assist those in remote communities to find gainful employment. It seeks to achieve a meaningful collaboration between government and affected communities through close consultation and adaptation and, importantly, it is the first of several bills progressing during these sittings. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak to the second reading amendment moved by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Barton, a proud First Nations woman, the first Aboriginal woman elected to the House of Representatives, who is very steeped in her community and very well connected to our First Nations peoples. This amendment asks the House to note the government's role as the architect of the failed CDP. It asks the House to note that the pilots proposed in this bill don't solve many of the fundamental issues that we know exist in this program. They are admitting, upfront, that this bill is not fixing the failures of the CDP.
The government position is that the CDP is the key to transitioning people in remote Australia into the workforce. Yet we know this is nothing more than a Work for the Dole scheme dressed up with a different name. It does nothing to create jobs. It does nothing to develop the economies of the communities that it affects. It does nothing to embed lifelong skills that ensure lifelong employment. It ignores the entrenchment of workers' rights in this country and all the benefits of a decent job that are lost to this program—like superannuation, paid leave, sick leave and decent pay that actually pays for the everyday needs of life. And it fails the test when it comes to self-determination.
This second reading amendment goes to the core of how this government engages with First Nations peoples. They enter communities with programs created without adequate consultation, that have not been co-designed with leaders and locals, and they act surprised when the programs fail, when they lead to perverse outcomes and do more harm than good. These are the issues with the CDP as it stands. Yet the exact same issues will be identified, we're sure, with the pilot schemes proposed by this bill. We make it clear that Labor is not looking to block the bill before us today. We know that it will, for a handful of participants, mean an increase to the paltry payments they get for doing the program, and those increases will be for the life of the pilot. Who could refuse those people that? We need an end to the exploitative system that is the CDP. Also, the increase in payments don't extend to participants of the existing program; it's limited to the participants of the pilot, which we know number around 200 people, and it's only for the next two years.
It's a strange half admission by this government. They admit that the CDP is a failed program, that it doesn't work, that it's deeply flawed, and they admit that we need a new program for jobs and skills development in remote Australia and they admit that under their existing scheme—which as I said, is effectively a work for the dole scheme—participants are not being paid enough. But, rather than take measures that we know could make this scheme right, right now—like raising the payments of the 40,000 people who are currently registered under the CDP—they are going to lock in those low payments for those people not in the pilot for another two years. The people in the program will work under the exact same conditions we know participants are struggling under for two more long years—all in the name of trialling alternatives.
It is a good thing that there will be an attempt to have a jobs and skills program—it's something those of us on this side of the chamber have been calling for for years now—but there is little more in this bill than half measures. The bill describes participants as being engaged in work-like activities. But we know that they won't be offered the protections and conditions of other workers. And the member for Lingiari very clearly laid out the problems there like leave, proper entitlements and superannuation. They are not protected by occupational health and safety laws and we know they won't be given traineeships or apprenticeships and will have absolutely no guarantee of a real job at the end of the two years.
There's no certainty and no security for participants baked into this bill, and the government, extraordinarily, are telling remote Indigenous communities to just trust them—'Oh, trust us on this.' How can they say that, after they have failed them for so many years, after they have failed to properly consult and when they have no real process for co-design for the alternatives to the CDP? They've shown no insight into the human rights implications of these pilots or this bill. We know that serious questions have been raised about the CDP around its implications for human rights. One could ask: where was the consultation with the Human Rights Commission?
The member for Lingiari laid out some of the issues. It doesn't pay the minimum wage; it pays way below. People on this program are far more likely to receive severe penalties, and these are monetary penalties—and we know that the monetary penalties are driving people to despair and to abject poverty. It is demotivating. It sends them backwards. They say they have no money for food for their families. We know that people on these programs are more likely to receive penalties than people on any of the other government work programs. There are reports that people have been forced to steal food for their families. Are we driving people to crime? One participant reported to the ABC, when a program was done on this, that it's 'like being a slave; it drags you down and it makes you feel terrible'. What sort of government makes its own citizens feel like slaves and feel terrible? What sort of program wants to drive people down into the ground? What sort of government wants to do that? With this bill, there is no guarantee of consultation or co-design and there's no guarantee that it doesn't impede human rights.
Why should the government be trusted by anyone to get it right this time? This bill was a test. It was a test for the government. They could have got it right. They could have gone from the very beginning, 'We can see the problems and we know how to fix them and we've got enough time to do it.' But, again, they didn't do it. They just kicked all the problems down the road for another two years. They could have done so much more. Our First Nations people and their communities deserve so much more from their government. The purpose of any jobs and skills program in remote communities must be to empower them, to boost their economies and to create capacity, and such programs must be delivered within a frame that doesn't abrogate human rights.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
A report by the Western Sydney Migrant Resource Centre named Pulse of South West Sydney CALD communities: amplifying voices during COVID-19 was released at the beginning of this month. The report describes the long-term impact of the Sydney lockdown and what it will mean to my community. Speaking with local community members across diverse backgrounds, the MRC found the biggest issues in the community are distrust of institutions, the impact of mental health issues and the effectiveness of public health campaigns in Western Sydney. The report also highlights real concerns about how quickly job prospects will reappear. It is a snapshot of a community lockdown in an LGA of concern and the stigma that was associated with all of that. It calls out the messages of blame and provide suggestions for change. Right now, families and businesses are hurting. Without support, anxiety will only increase. I thank the Western Sydney Migrant Resource Centre for shining a light on systemic issues that are well known in our community. Further acknowledgement of the issues is needed to fundamentally change and support our community. I call on governments to provide immediate support for our struggling people as we come out of lockdown. Unless we improve support now, the income and social divide will only strengthen. The Pulse of South West Sydney CALD communities: amplifying voices during COVID-19 report adds to the mounting evidence that my community need support and they need it now and, moreover, they deserve it.
[by video link] I am pleased to report that Tasmania's economy continues to lead the nation. According to the latest CommSec State of the states report, for the seventh consecutive quarter our state is at the head of the pack. Tasmania tops the ranking on four of the report's economic indicators: construction, retail spending, relative unemployment and dwelling starts. It's great news for jobseekers also. Tasmania has the strongest job market, with unemployment 26.2 per cent below the decade average. This result is proof that the Morrison government's focus on supporting our economic recovery is working for Tasmanians.
On Saturday night, it was fantastic to join the Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association national conference in Hobart. When speaking about our state's prosperity, I note that this is an industry that is literally driving Tasmania's economy forward. The fact is that nearly every sector of the economy relies on trucks to transport goods and, even though the last couple of years have been incredibly challenging, our trucking industry has risen to the challenge and kept supply chains open. So, next time you see a truckie on the road, give them a wave, give them plenty of space and be grateful for the big part that they play in moving us all forward. Our transport industry carry Tasmania, and I am proud of them.
[by video link] Well, another report says that childcare fees are out of control under this Morrison government. The latest data shows that childcare fees rose by 2.4 per cent over the 12 months to March 2021, despite fees being frozen for six months in 2020. That is more than double inflation, and what this means is that the value of the childcare subsidy is going down and out-of-pocket costs are rising. Despite the government constantly telling us that there are no problems, today I read reports that many childcare centres are introducing buy-now pay-later because childcare is so unaffordable. That is what we've come to in this country, where, to ensure that families are able to afford the out-of-pocket costs, they have to enter into buy-now pay-later schemes. This is just unacceptable.
Of course, the government wants a pat on the back for a policy that helps only a minority of families, who still have to wait another six months to even get any relief. Of course, this government's so out of touch. What they should realise is that every family using childcare is paying high out-of-pocket costs and deserves support, not just a minority as proposed by the government. (Time expired)
Labor's actions yesterday in this chamber, in moving a bill for the abolition of the cashless debit card, had a broader and more sinister purpose—to establish a platform based on a lie to take to the next election. That the government will put aged pensioners on the cashless debit card is nothing but a despicable lie, and it needs to be called out. We never have, never will and have never intended to.
It is the 2016 'Mediscare' campaign lie all over again, which culminated in robocalls to senior Australians on the eve of the election, telling them that the coalition would scrap Medicare. It was a lie then, and it is a lie now. It scared these poor old people, these people who are the most vulnerable in our community, and it was designed to scare them. It was nothing more than the old Labor motto: 'At any cost, whatever it takes'. They were determined to win the election on a lie. Shame on them!
The bill's primary aim is to scrap the cashless debit card trials. The condescending Labor Party was at its worst. We had the member for Bruce, from south-east Melbourne, and the member for Richmond, which includes Byron Bay and Tweed Heads, telling the people of Ceduna, Kalgoorlie and Kununurra how to run their lives. Get out of their lives, and let them make their own decisions! (Time expired)
Listening to the Treasurer in recent weeks, it's become painfully obvious that this government has absolutely no economic plan and no reform agenda for the Australian economy. Instead, the Treasurer's and this government's only thought is to snap back to a pre-COVID economic model that was failing to deliver for Australian workers and Australian households.
Australians don't want to revert to an economy this government has created, and a quick look at the record will explain why. This government has presided over the most barren economic run experienced by Australian households for almost 100 years. Between 2013 and 2020, growth in real GDP per capita was the worst since the Great Depression. This government is not interested in average household or per person outcomes, which should be its main job; it just reduces headline GDP through increases in aggregate demand via population growth.
Real wages in Australia were 0.7 per cent lower in 2019 compared to 2013—a damning indictment of this government's economic management. According to the International Monetary Fund, between 2013 and 2019 Australia's GDP per person grew at just 5.4 per cent—third last among major OECD economies. Under this government, Aussie households aren't just treading water; they're being sent backwards. The simple truth is that Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg are failures as economic managers, just delivering for special interest lobby groups while crushing the wages and living standards of Australians. (Time expired)
The City2Surf is the largest fun run in the world and much of it runs through my electorate of Wentworth, starting in the heart of Sydney's city at Hyde Park and finishing at Bondi Beach. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City2Surf, like many mass events, had to be curtailed, cancelled or postponed. What the Sun-Herald did in this instance was run the event differently this year, running it virtually. All participants had to do was sign up and run the distance, 14.1 kilometres, at some point between 17 and 24 October.
The City2Surf is of course more than just a popular fun run; it's an event that offers a platform to raise money for good causes. Since the first starting gun sounded, participating athletes have raised more than $48 million for worthy organisations. My team from the Wentworth electorate office, along with my colleague Senator Andrew Bragg, ran together to raise funds for a crucial not-for-profit organisation called ReachOut. ReachOut has become the most accessed online mental health service for young persons and their parents in the nation. It provides trusted self-help information, peer support programs and referral tools for more than two million Australians each year. I'm pleased to report that Team Sharma raised more than $5,800 in support of ReachOut as they continue to raise money and facilitate mental health support for young Australians. Like many participants all across Australia, I look forward to next year in the fond hope that the run will return in the usual format.
I wish to pay tribute to an elder of the La Peruse Aboriginal community, Aunty Delma Davison, on her recent passing.
Delma was born in Nowra and always remembered her father's words: 'In a white man's world, you have to be better than them to be equal.' He was talking about getting an education. That's what Aunty Delma did. She had a long career devoted to education and was an integral part of the education of many young Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal kids throughout New South Wales. She was a determined and strong voice for better educational outcomes for all schools and all children, and she spent her lifetime dedicated to her family and those in need.
Aunty Delma was employed as an Aboriginal education assistant in the 1980s in the New South Wales Aboriginal Education Consultative Group for many years. She was a life member. She was heavily involved in the establishment of the Gujaga childcare and homework centre in the 1990s at Yarra Bay House and devoted her life to Aboriginal education and young people.
She will be sorely missed, and there were many who turned out to say goodbye to her at her funeral last Friday in Malabar. I was privileged to have the member for Barton, Linda Burney, speak at her funeral. Our heartfelt condolences go out to her family at such a difficult time, including Aunty Delma's children, who recently lost their father, Uncle Leslie, and have now lost their mother. Our thoughts go out to the La Perouse community and all of Auntie Delma's relatives.
I want to take this opportunity in the House to highlight some fantastic community events in the electorate over last couple of weeks. First of all, The Gap Lions Club celebrated the opening of their new storage shed. This has been a long-awaited project, which has gone down quite a few dry gullies. It's taken a lot of perseverance, but they got there. I'm happy to have supported this project with a $4,000 grant as part of the Morrison government's Stronger Communities Program.
Brookfield State School celebrated their 150th anniversary, a significant milestone for any school, and I want to congratulate all the students who showcased their talent on the day to make sure that it was a very memorable occasion.
My local area is also home to a large defence community with the Enoggera Barracks. I was honoured to attend the opening of the 42 for 42 Afghanistan Memorial Garden. This is going to be a wonderful place to honour not only the 41 fallen soldiers from Afghanistan but also those who died subsequently from suicide. It's going to be a tremendous place of reflection for the community. I want to thank Sean and the whole 42 for 42 team for what they've done.
Fig Tree Pocket held their celebration, with the Mandalay Progress Association Jacaranda Festival. Congratulations to Joseph and his team, who put on a fantastic afternoon of food, music and drinks, ending with a movie in the park—a great way to bring the community together during these COVID times.
Finally, I want to congratulate The Gap Scout Group on 70 years of operation looking after young people in our community, providing guidance and leadership for them and their families. Theo and I particularly enjoyed this one.
Thank you to all those community groups. (Time expired)
Recently, one of Lilley's many aviation workers wrote to me, a 38-year-old father of three who was one of the 2,000 Qantas ground-handling staff made redundant earlier this year. Chris told me he had worked for Qantas for 17 years. Aviation was in his blood. His dad had worked for Qantas, from 1995 to 2006, before him. Despite Qantas receiving $2 billion in taxpayer support during the pandemic, Chris was stood down in April 2020. He had to take a job stacking supermarket shelves at night to support his family.
The Morrison government gave Qantas taxpayer money with no strings attached, failing to protect Australian aviation jobs. Qantas told workers that they could bid for their jobs. Chris said that the uncertainty, the stress and the heartache for people like him, whose families have always had aviation in their identity, impacted his mental health. He was ultimately made redundant by Qantas in February this year.
The Federal Court has since found that Qantas acted illegally when trying to outsource these 2,000 ground-handling jobs, an extraordinary judgement. But still we have not heard from the Prime Minister on this. Where is he? Where is the PM for aviation workers? What does he have to say to them? Why is there no plan for them from the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister has Alan Joyce's number on speed dial. He needs to pick up the phone and tell Alan Joyce to reinstate the 2,000 workers who were stood down illegally. (Time expired)
At some point in the last few hours in my home state of South Australia we will have reached the 80 per cent mark for first doses of COVID vaccination for those in the 16 years and over category. It's an exciting milestone for my home state, and, of course, it means we're on track to having 80 per cent fully vaccinated at some point in the weeks ahead.
The Premier of South Australia is about to announce—and, in fact, is probably announcing right now—the roadmap for my home state of South Australia to open our borders and to manage the inevitability of COVID entering our community. It was vital that we first gave every South Australian the opportunity to be vaccinated, and we're very much near that point. It's equally important that we reopen our economy, letting us rejoin all the other states in this nation and letting people spend Christmas together with their loved ones where they do have family interstate in those states that have been affected.
Of course I have been very committed to encouraging all those in my community to get vaccinated ever since this program commenced. I'm proud that some of the highest rates of vaccination in South Australia are in the local government areas in my electorate of Sturt. But, most importantly, I'm proud of all South Australians who have rolled up their sleeves. We're very close to getting to that double-80 rate. I hope we exceed it immensely, and I thank all those South Australians who have done the right thing and rolled up their sleeves.
[by video link] I'm delighted to read a speech by Franklin Legge, a 14-year-old student from Clark as part of the Youth Voice in Parliament Week campaign:
'What do I want Australia to look like in 20 years? I want our leaders to stand up for our national interests, not their own personal ones. I want parliament to be a place of productivity, safety and democracy. Regardless of who produces the policy that comes out of the place, it should be rational and reasonable.
Some may believe that this is exactly what's happening today, but I view things differently. I believe that politics in Australia have become a point-scoring game; when policy is drafted it seeks to gain the most votes rather than to help the most people, like putting off the impending climate crisis, letting poverty run rampant, discouraging migrants from improving our economy and doing nothing for the Indigenous communities who have been scarred by deaths in custody. That's all because we are inactive and unable to produce legislation that helps society, not powerful people.
We can solve many problems if we work together. My vision for the future is bright and optimistic; green and clean; economically prosperous; multicultural and diverse; safe and fair. Please leaders: I urge you to put others first before yourselves so Australia's future can be positive for everyone.'
I say thank you to Franklin and thank you, Deputy Speaker.
[by video link] I'd like to take this opportunity to update the House on two fantastic projects in the electorate of Herbert that will be going ahead thanks to the Building Better Regions Fund. The first will go some way towards helping curb Townsville's crime crisis and the second will support safety for swimmers at our beaches.
While the state Labor government dithers with its responsibility to change the legislation to meet community expectations, we're playing our part by supporting early intervention initiatives. That's why we're supporting YWAM Townsville with $778,500 under the BBRF to build a multipurpose youth precinct. This will include an adventure-based-learning high-ropes course and a multipurpose space and cafe. More importantly, it will become home for preventative intervention and rehabilitation programs for our youth. Congratulations to the team at YWAM for coming up with such an excellent concept.
Meanwhile, we all know what an amazing job volunteer surf lifesavers do to keep us safe on our beaches. The Arcadian Surf Life Saving Club has experienced a 58 per cent increase in membership over the past five years, but has been held back by its outdated clubhouse at Alma Bay on Magnetic Island. With the support of $160,000 from the BBRF, the club will be able to renovate and extend its facilities so that it isn't just for training activities and club events but also available for local community use.
I look forward to both projects becoming a reality in the coming months.
Today the case numbers are in for Bendigo and we have 24 new COVID cases. We all here wish them well, and hope that they have a speedy recovery. But these 24 cases have close contacts and they're now in isolation. These close contacts could be schoolchildren, and those schools could now be closed and going through a deep clean. Those schoolchildren could be in isolation and their parents could be in isolation. If these parents are workers in isolation or quarantine due to COVID-19, that means no work.
For millions of workers around the country that means no pay. Why? Because this government is winding back the paid pandemic leave disaster payment at the time when we're opening up and at the time when millions of workers could be forced into quarantine at a moment's notice. Why are they going into quarantine? To keep their co-workers safe and to keep their community safe. We want no worker to have to choose between putting food on the table and keeping their co-workers and their community safe. I urge the government to rethink what they're doing. Paid pandemic leave at least gave people a payment if they didn't have annual leave. They really need to listen to workers and to the union movement and consider paid isolation leave. We need this entitlement when we open up so that no worker and no family is in a position where they have to choose pay and food over the health of their family and community. (Time expired)
The Albert Valley Wilderness Society and Cedar Creek State School have been working together to educate the community on how they can live an ecofriendly and sustainable life, and recently celebrated their third joint community eco-festival. The festival included workshops showing how to make biochar and more-effective food production and to live more sustainably, as well as a tour through their Australian cottage garden design, which incorporates perennial and annual herbaceous flowers with vegetables and berry bushes and an informal planting pattern to prevent pet and disease issues, as well as to ensure there is always something flowering all year round. Delicious coffee was available from Substation 33, a solar powered coffee van, and after a huge morning of learning throughout the school community I had a chance to refuel with a tasty wood-fried pizza made by school principal Mike Meier.
I was also able to check out the progress of the school with the Albert Valley Wilderness Society and the progress they've made on their Albert Valley restoration project. This community project was federally funded through the Communities Environment Program and has completed its first stage of removing invasive weeds from the river bank. They are now ready to plant their bank-stabilising plants, which will assist in reducing erosion on the river banks for years to come. Congratulations to the Albert Valley Wilderness Society and Cedar Creek State School for the terrific work they're doing to create a sustainable community.
The elite and out-of-touch British aristocracy would often address their servants by their job titles—cook and boots—instead of having to learn their names. The Duke of Portland took this a step further and forced his servants to face the wall as he passed. But not even the dukes and duchesses of the Old Dart were as out of touch as this Treasurer, who last night showed that he does not even see the staff working for him.
In August, the Treasurer told Sunrise the cringiest story of his time staying at the Lodge with the PM:
He's actually on the dishes, would you believe, because it's just the two of us there.
After we've had dinner we both get the scrubbing brush and go for it.
You might not believe it but it's true.
… … …
We pop the spaghetti bolognaise—or … the schnitzel—into the microwave…
He thought this was such a good story he told it twice, this time to ABC News Breakfast:
… it is just the two of us, Michael, so he has been on the scrubbing brush, I've been using the microwave, we've both been cooking up … chicken schnitzel.
Why he thought anyone in modern Australia would be impressed by two men who thought that a microwave and a scrubbing brush were novelties, in the first place, is a mystery, but the cringe factor of this modern day upstairs-downstairs farce went through the roof when we learnt at Senate estimates last night, through questioning from Senator Marielle Smith, that in fact it was not just the two of them at the Lodge. The Lodge was fully staffed as normal. It just seemed to escape the attention of this out-of-touch Treasurer, or perhaps the reality just didn't fit with the fake persona that this Treasurer was trying to create. It sums up the Morrison government: fake, fake, fake.
I rise today to bring attention to Bonner's amazing school communities. Over the last few weeks I've been dropping off the graduation certificates for our year 6 and year 12 students and visiting classroom staff and P&Cs. I recently caught up with the Mount Gravatt East State School P&C, who are undertaking some terrific upgrades at the school, including a new mural for their community garden. This term, I conducted a mock parliament with the year 6 students at Belmont State School. The students debated whether junk food should be served in the school cafeteria. The two debating sides really came together to deliver some impactful arguments, and I'm sure you can guess what the outcome was. Our junior Bonner Youth Advisory Council jumped into a zoom meeting with the founder of Vuly Trampolines and Bonner local Joe Andon. Jesse, a year 6 student from Moreton Bay College, contacted me after the meeting and said that she was so inspired by Joe's story that she had started brainstorming business ideas with her two sisters. This month, alongside Minister for Education and Youth Alan Tudge, I hosted the Bonner schools forum. We were joined by parents, teachers, school staff and psychologists to discuss the future of our schools.
This week our year 12 started their external exams. I take this opportunity to wish them the best of luck as they prepare to finish up this chapter and embark upon their next journey. I'm very proud of their hard work.
People who have to go to the post office to pick up parcels in the Hawkesbury, and small businesses in the Blue Mountains who Australia Post is refusing to collect parcels from, from, will be horrified to see the bonuses that executives have doled out to themselves, as will people struggling with the NBN. Executives at NBN Co and Australia Post received nearly $300 million in corporate bonuses during the pandemic. This waste of money is just business as usual for the Liberals. They spend taxpayers' money as if it were small change. At the same time, people in places like East Kurrajong, Sackville, Ebenezer and Blaxlands Ridge and right across to Yarramundi have had to queue in post offices during a pandemic because Australia Post won't deliver parcels to their door, nor will Australia Post pick up from small businesses in the Blue Mountains such as Kirrily's Needles vs Thread. Kirrily, who is in a wheelchair and makes wonderful bags, says the service hasn't been available to her business since the start of the pandemic. She knows another small business owner who struggles to take more than 100 parcels at a time to the local post office, where we all know staff are doing their best to cope with the extra load. As Kirrily's business and other small businesses head into what they desperately hope is going to be a busy Christmas trading period, they want to see this problem fixed. They want Australia Post to do its job, serve Australians and help them do business.
Near the Ewen Maddock Dam in Fisher is a campsite which once educated thousands of school students every year. Today it lies empty, but one dedicated group of Fisher veterans have a bold vision for how this campsite can make a difference in our region once again. SMEAC is a fantastic local charity led by Tim Cuming and Ray Carson. Tim and Ray have worked incredibly hard to turn this abandoned campsite into Camp X-Ray, a new facility owned and operated by veterans for the benefit of veterans as well as the wider community. Camp X-Ray would transform transitioning veterans' lives through certified training and jobs, as well as delivering camps, drug and alcohol counselling, training and employment pathways for vulnerable young people. It will provide tourism and leisure experiences for the rest of us, including large-scale triathlon and marathon events. Tim and Ray's tireless efforts have brought Camp X-Ray to the brink of realisation. They have gathered corporate sponsorship and donations and have received charitable status and an agreement from Seqwater to use the site. Now SMEAC are looking for funding from the federal government to help renovate the campsite and get Camp X-Ray up and running. I am advocating and will continue to advocate for this project, because I know that Tim and Ray's mission will make a difference to thousands of our dedicated serving men and women in the years to come. Well done, Tim and Ray.
This month, every single state and territory wrote to the federal government requesting support to ensure their hospital systems can withstand pressure from COVID. The fact is that our health and hospital systems around the country will be under more pressure as Australia opens up. We all want Australia opened up, but we want it to occur safely, and it's important that the federal government be prepared to listen to the states and territories, which have led Australia through this crisis, and that we look after people during this process.
Tragically, I was reminded yet again of the impact of COVID with the death of Robert Webb in my electorate. Robert was the only Aboriginal ever elected to the Leichhardt council. He served loyally from 2004 to 2008. He did incredible work with young Indigenous people in the inner west and throughout the country. He was still the chair of the Inner West Council's Aboriginal consultative committee. His wife, Kathy, is in hospital still suffering from COVID, and I hope for her recovery. For all of the friends of Robert Webb, particularly in the First Nations community, I express my sincere condolences—I'm sure on behalf of the entire parliament.
Our government understands how important it is to have a coordinated global effort to reduce emissions. Confronting these challenges is a shared responsibility, and we are playing our part. We have an enviable track record in meeting our climate commitments. Unlike many of our global counterparts, we are on track to meet and beat our strong 2030 target. Historically, changes in climate policies have resulted in adverse outcomes for regional communities—
Order! The member for Mallee can resume her seat. It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. What is the cost of the Prime Minister's net zero by 2050 policy?
The plan we released today shows very clearly that the cost of the low emissions technology roadmap is $20 billion over the next 10 years. In addition to that, $20 billion is what we're investing in to produce those low emissions technologies, which is the central component of our plan to hit net zero emissions by 2050. It's technology, not taxes. It's about choices, not mandates. We're not seeking to force people to do things. We're not seeking to close anything down. They're the sorts of policies the Labor Party pursues. That's what their agenda is, not our side of politics. What we are doing is building up a portfolio of technologies which will ensure that over the next 30 years we'll be able to achieve that goal by adding to jobs, by adding to investment, by strengthening our regions and our rural communities, our agricultural sectors, our transport sectors, our mineral sectors, our manufacturing sectors. Under our government we will be able to go to COP 26 and say that our emissions reductions by 2030 will meet and beat our Paris commitments. A 35 per cent reduction is what we now anticipate because of the work that has been done and particularly because of the low emissions technology roadmap, which has been brought together by the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction. This is a plan that backs in the efforts of Australians that Australians are making, which are already seeing us reduce emissions and are setting us on that pathway to 2050, to ensure that we achieve net zero emissions without damaging our economy, without taking away the way of life that rural and regional Australians have been able to appreciate. When the Labor Party were in power they only had one plan to reduce emissions. It was called a tax.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House the Morrison government's plan to deliver net zero emissions by 2050 through practical and responsible action that also preserves jobs and creates new opportunities across Australia?
The member for Higgins knows and has been a champion of understanding that Australians understand and support the need to take action on climate change. So do I, and so does my government. I know this because Australians are already taking action on climate change; already they're doing it. Australia's emissions have already fallen by more than 20 per cent since 2005. That's stronger than countries like the US, like Canada, like New Zealand, like Japan. In fact, we have exceeded their emissions reductions over that period of time, and we've done that at the same time as we've seen record levels of renewable investment and renewable energy coming into our system and ensuring that we're setting up opportunities for the future, exceeding many times over the global average—some eight times the global average—when it comes to the installation of renewable energy in Australia. And on top of that we're meeting and beating the emissions reductions targets that we set, that we took to the Australian people and that they supported. They not only supported having a sensible and responsible target, but they also supported the fact that they knew we would seek to meet and beat those targets, which is exactly what we're doing. We expect to see a 35 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 based on the policies that we've been pursuing.
We're doing this at the same time the economy has grown by 45 per cent. Three million jobs have come into the economy. We're growing our exports, including our minerals exports and our gas exports, especially in the LNG sector, creating so much wealth and jobs for this country, and we're doing it while we're putting Australians back into manufacturing jobs. There are a million Australians in manufacturing jobs. Under Labor, one in eight manufacturing jobs was gone. They went. We're reducing emissions, growing our economy, putting people back into manufacturing jobs, supporting their jobs in agriculture, supporting them in the resources sector, and that's what our plan does. Our detailed plan to achieve a net zero target by 2050 is a uniquely Australian plan. It gets the balance right to ensure that we protect jobs, protect livelihoods, protect incomes, protect their way of life, keep downward pressure on their household costs, to ensure we can get the balance right in the plans that are necessary.
This is a uniquely Australian way to deal with this because we need a uniquely Australian solution to deal with our economy. The actions of Australia speak far louder than the words of many others who will speak from many other places. We will not have our plans determined by any others than those who remain in this government, in this place, for Australians, by Australians, and that is the plan that we're going forward with, which protects our economy and meets our commitment.
The Prime Minister's time has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the government told Senate estimates it would claim public interest immunity to refuse to release the government's modelling on the impact of net zero by 2050. Today the Prime Minister said his modelling will be released another time. How was it in the public interest to hide the impact of the government's net zero policy?
There it is! There's the policy. It's been released, and it includes the results of the modelling in the plan. I'll tell you what, you won't—
Opposition members interjecting—
Prime Minister, just resume your seat for a second. At this point, it's inevitable I need to intervene, for reasons members interjecting know. I'm just going to point out—because I'm anticipating more interjections, which I won't deal with—so that everyone is clear, the provisions of standing order 94(a) do not require a warning. I've just been generous in doing that, probably too generous, and I'll have no hesitation in using it. The member for Isaacs—I'm not going to single out everyone interjecting; I'd detain you for some time—you're interjecting regularly and you're waving your arms around.
Yes, you are. And even though you've been moved away from here, which I welcome, as far as I'm concerned it's not far enough, when in the manner that you're interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.
Opposition members interjecting—
You moved him, I didn't!
The policy that has been adopted by the government was considered by cabinet last night. That's why I'm in a position to advise that today we are releasing the plan—the detailed plan—that sets out how we reach net zero emissions by 2050: by focusing on technology not taxes, by ensuring that we're respecting people's choices and not seeking to mandate them and tell them how to live and what to buy and how they're supposed to do things on their farms and other places, to ensure we have a strong portfolio of technologies that can be successful, over the next 30 years, to achieve these targets, to get the balance right between affordability and emissions reduction, to keep prices down and to keep the lights on and ensure that there's the transparency and accountability not just on emissions reduction but ensuring that we're constantly monitoring the socioeconomic impacts of these policies, particularly in rural and regional areas.
We're absolutely confident the plan that we have, the plan that we have agreed, the plan that we have adopted, that sets out our policies in detail as to how this is going to be achieved, will be a positive economic benefit, as the modelling indeed shows. We will release that modelling as we indeed should, and we certainly will. Today we've released the plan and we will soon release the modelling as well.
That is very different to what happened at the last election. At the last election there was a choice between a 2030 target of 26 to 28 per cent by the government and a 45 per cent target offered by the Labor Party. The Labor Party was asked to release the costings and modelling that went to their policy. They refused to do it. To be fair—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Yes, Mr Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister to table the document that he's referring to.
No, I've said to the Leader of the Opposition you can only do that at the conclusion of the answer.
Opposition members interjecting—
No, it's actually really straightforward. The Prime Minister has the call.
So that modelling will be released. Of course it will be released. I've already said it would be. And it'll be there to demonstrate.
But what I do know is that we won't see any modelling on the Labor Party policy because there isn't a policy. There isn't any modelling, just like there was no modelling on their 45 per cent emissions reduction target, and they couldn't tell anyone what it cost because there was nothing in it. They have a target without a plan. They have a target without a cost. They have a blank cheque that they want to put into law, and force it on Australians and mandate them to do things. That's what laws are supposed to do. That's not our plan.
We're going to back Australians to achieve this goal, this target. We know they want to achieve it. We know they're already taking actions in their own lives, in their own households, in their own businesses, in their own industries. They're moving forward and we're going to back them to do it. The Labor Party thinks you have to make a law to force them to do it. That's not our approach. That's their taxes approach.
The Leader of the Opposition?
Mr Speaker, I know that you will foresee this coming, but I would ask that the Prime Minister table the document that he's referring to.
Is leave granted?
This is a public document.
Sorry, okay.
It's a public document.
I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition again.
If it's a public document, then it should be available to the public, which is why it should be tabled.
The question is whether the Prime Minister will table it.
I'm happy to table Australia's long-term emissions reduction plan, a whole-of-economy plan, to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. I would invite, at some future opportunity, as the standing orders allow, the Leader of the Opposition to table his plan for achieving the same thing. I'll be waiting a while. I've been waiting for two years, in fact—
Prime Minister, you just need to table it, okay?
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-Joyce government is delivering not only nationally significant infrastructure but local projects that will support our communities and regional economies? How will this benefit my state of Queensland? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of alternative policies?
I thank the honourable member for his question and once again reiterate his support for the mighty city of Gladstone and the people in the surrounding hinterland, in the state seat of Emerald. I once again reiterate his support for the nearly 750 vessels that leave the port of Gladstone every year—750 vessels with produce on board, whether that's coal, whether that's grain, that supports this great nation's standard of living; that underpins its health, its education, its defence; that brings in the export dollars that maintain the value of our currency, so vital is the port of Gladstone to where this nation goes. And I know the member for Flynn has been a great champion of that.
That is why we are building the infrastructure to further enhance the port of Gladstone—the 1,716 kilometres of the Inland Rail, which now you can get a train on from Parkes to Narromine. And today I've just heard of another 30 kilometres, from Ballata up to Moree. We're actually doing the job. We're getting the thing built. We've also started on the business plan to take it down further, from Toowoomba to Gladstone. You always start major projects with a business plan, and we're doing precisely that.
But it's also the smaller roads, the roads that have been left behind by the Labor government up there, especially the Taroom Bauhinia Downs Road. We're asking ourselves: how do we go about these areas that have been left behind by Labor? Or there's the Mundubbera Durong Rd, another road that's just been left behind by Labor. We have to really consider what on earth is going on there.
It's also the case that the member asked for alternative policies. I have to concur absolutely with the Prime Minister—the member for Flynn will want to know what our plan is; it's inspiration, it's making sure we believe in liberties and freedoms—because there is an alternative plan; it's one of legislation. It's the only thing we know about their plan: legislation. Legislation brings in laws, and laws outlaw things, and laws are enforced with penalties. Laws are enforced with penalties. So we do have a clear differentiation. In fact, we have a chasm between the two different policies, because we believe in inspiration and technology, and they believe in laws and penalties. We believe in inspiration; they believe in punishment. We believe in freedom; they believe in enforcement. We believe people can rise up to a higher level to deal with the problems; they believe that they will force them down with further laws, that they will further wrap up their lives in legislation, and that is a vast, vast difference between the processes. So I stand with this side, 100 per cent with this side, believing in the freedom of the individual, and I will make sure that the laws that would put at threat your workers are never brought into place.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it the case that, instead of delivering a climate change policy after almost a decade in government, today the Prime Minister presented a 15-page slide show with no new policy?
No.
[by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the community has had a gut full of the lack of integrity in politics. Your government in particular has been beset with scandals, rorts and lies, and trust in politicians is at an all-time low. Of course, the crossbench has been leading the charge to fix this, for example, with members yesterday moving bills to establish an effective anticorruption commission, bring honesty and transparency to political donations and to clean up the filth in political advertising. Prime Minister, why aren't you responding to this concern, and, in these last weeks of the 46th Parliament, will you actually do something tangible to restore public faith in the political process?
I thank the member for Clark for his question. I know he has a long-standing interest in these issues and the question of integrity in politics. Of course, it's an interest that the coalition government, the Morrison government, very strongly shares. That is why we are proceeding with our commitment to establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission, designed to be the lead body in Australia's successful multi-agency anticorruption framework and designed to enhance accountability across the public sector.
We've been going through a national consultation process—some 330 written submissions received, 46 consultations. We are now carefully considering that feedback as a necessary step to finalising and introducing the legislation. But of course we're doing more than preparing the legislation. What we're also doing is providing very significant funding, indeed almost $150 million is committed to the Commonwealth Integrity Commission, and at full capacity the commission will have around 172 staff.
I want to be clear that the Commonwealth Integrity Commission will have significant powers. It will be able to investigate past conduct in matters that occurred prior to its commencement, and it will be able to look into past conduct that falls into the scope of its jurisdiction, which includes some 145 criminal offences currently existing in legislation, for example, offences in the Criminal Code Act. And of course the government has also indicated that we intend to create new offences relating to criminal corrupt conduct, including concealing corruption and repeated public sector corruption.
So, I say to the member for Clark, I say to the House: our government is working through, in a methodical and thorough fashion, a very comprehensive model here. And I say to the member, and indeed I say to the opposition: If you are ready to back us, then say so. Join us on this journey to get this legislation passed in a significant step to further introduce powerful measures to be able to uphold integrity and to deal with the threat of criminally corrupt conduct at the Commonwealth level.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House about the Morrison government's ongoing commitment to keep taxes low for Australian businesses and families, helping generate more jobs in the regions and the cities right around the country, and, is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies?
I thank the member for Stirling for his question and acknowledge his background in the ADF and in the private sector. Sixty thousand people across the member for Stirling's electorate are getting a tax cut as a result of policies that we on this side of the House have supported. We on this side of the House, the Liberal and National parties, support more jobs and lower taxes. When we came to government, unemployment was 5.7 per cent; today it's 4.6 per cent. An additional 1.4 million Australians are in jobs as a result of the policies of this side of the House.
And we've lowered taxes, with more than $300 billion of legislated tax cuts. Indeed, in the last three budgets, as a result of the tax relief that we have legislated through the parliament, if you are a person on $60,000 a year—take a bus driver; take a, baker—you will pay $6,480 less tax as a result of the policies that we have passed through the parliament. And we're creating jobs right around the country with our 10-year infrastructure pipeline. There's Snowy Hydro, Snowy 2.0, with more 5,000 jobs being supported by that program; Western Sydney Airport, with more than 11,000 jobs—and, once it's up and running, 28,000 jobs; and the Melbourne-Brisbane Inland Rail, with more than 20,000 jobs across our regions as a result of that single infrastructure project.
I'm asked whether there are any alternative policies to our policies, which are creating more jobs and driving down taxes. We know the Leader of the Opposition has two big policy ideas: a national drivers licence to turbocharge the economy and a $6 billion conversation starter to pay people $300 if they have already had the jab—a policy that he asked us to support when his own shadow finance minister wouldn't support it. But we also know that the member for Rankin is cooking up another policy. Surprise, surprise; it's higher taxes. It's a $27 billion hit on family businesses—300,000 of them. We are told on the front page of the Australian that Dr Chalmers, the member for Rankin, told his senior colleagues that this tax increase would 'leave room for spending measures'. So those opposite will continue to spend more and will continue to tax more, while we on this side of the House are driving down taxes and creating more jobs.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How does he reconcile his earlier statement that the likelihood of the government adopting net zero is zero to his changed public answers this week supporting net zero for the regions? Does he agree with the member for Gippsland, who said, 'I think Michael's removal from office was the greatest act of political treachery in our party in 100 years. I said at the time and I believe it today: it was all about personal ambition; it wasn't a policy'?
The first part of that question is in order; the latter part—two thirds of it—relating to the former Deputy Prime Minister, is out of order.
I'm only too happy to answer the honourable member's question. Within the coalition and within The Nationals, we diligently went through the process, as we've always said, to make sure that it was something that looked after people in regional areas. One of the big things we were looking for when we did that—because it was incredibly important that we checked and went through it—was to make absolutely certain that there was no legislation in there that enforced things, because we don't believe in penalties.
Opposition members interjecting—
They believe in penalties. They believe that the state reigns supreme over the individual. We believe that the individual rises above the state. They believe in penalties and enforcements—and you're part of that. They believe in legislation. Legislation brings in laws and laws are enforced by penalties. Those laws and penalties put coal workers at threat, put meatworkers at threat, put the people of the Hunter Valley at threat and put the people of Central Queensland at threat. It's legislation that they're looking out for. We were making sure that the people of Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley were safe. We diligently went through that process so that we could go forward with a plan that stood for the people of business. We believe in the inspiration and the smarts of the individual to rise above the enforcements of the Labor Party, the red tape of the Labor Party, all the obstructions of the Labor Party and, finally, the unemployment of the Labor Party.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister please update the House on Australia's vaccine rollout and how it's providing protection for all, including older Australians?
I thank the member for O'Connor for his work for people right across his electorate, including in towns such as Kojonup, which has a 90 per cent vaccination rate and which was also able to establish a first-class medical centre with his support, the support of the community and the matching support of the Community Health and Hospitals Program.
Kojonup is an example of the thousands of towns and communities around Australia that have continued to be vaccinated at record levels. We have now reached 87.1 per cent of the country having had a first dose and 74.1 per cent of the country having had a second dose. We do this knowing that the pandemic continues around the world, with over 414,000 cases in the last 24 hours and over 6,600 lives lost in the last 24 hours. These are numbers that are profound and significant. We need to focus on those human impacts, and that's what we have done in this country, with the small towns, the suburbs, the communities and the cities coming together. It has been a great Australian achievement and story.
One of the most important parts of that is what we have been able to do in protecting our older Australians. We have now achieved: for our over-50s, a 94½ per cent first-dose rate; for our over-60s, a 96½ per cent first-dose rate; and, extraordinarily, as one of our great national achievements, a 98.5 per cent first-dose vaccination rate for our most vulnerable Australians, our over-70s, in terms of the coronavirus pandemic and the risks they face. That is a rate which stands with the absolute highest and finest around the world. Most importantly, it protects those Australians who are most at risk. That is backed within our aged-care facilities, with a 99.8 per cent vaccination rate for our aged-care workers.
There are those who may have doubted this. But we didn't doubt; we delivered. And that's significant. That's the baton, the hallmark, the nature, the scope of what this government does under this Prime Minister. We have been able to achieve those outcomes. The next thing is: over the coming days I expect to receive the final advice of the TGA and ATAGI on the booster program, and we will begin, again, with our older Australians. We are ready to support those in residential aged care and then in the general population. As we go forward, we are continuing to save lives and protect lives.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Net zero is a commitment meant to last for 30 years. Yesterday, Senator Canavan said the government would scrap its net zero policy after the election because 'we can't bind future party rooms or parliaments'. Why should anyone believe this slideshow will last beyond the next election if the coalition is re-elected?
I thank the honourable member for her question. Might I say: as much as I have a lot of time for Senator Canavan, he didn't actually write the plan. I'm glad the honourable member is fascinated. I must say: she seems to be following Senator Canavan a lot closer than I am, but that's good; she has a lot of spare time. They get a lot of spare time on the other side!
I think the really important thing is that, obviously, she has a strong belief that we will be in government for the next 30 years—and I appreciate that! On their recent track record it wouldn't be surprising!
I'll tell you why, Mr Speaker, that she thinks we'll be looking after this nation for the next 30 years: it's because we believe in the inspiration of the individual and her government believes in legislation. They're going to legislate, and by so doing—
The member for Sydney, she doesn't care about Central Queensland. She thinks that Central Queensland is a big joke.
An honourable member interjecting—
Well, maybe if they had half a billion dollars for an art gallery in Central Queensland life would be a lot better for them. The member for Sydney thinks that Central Queensland is a joke. She might—
I just say to the Deputy Prime Minister that you're digressing from the question.
Sorry, Mr Speaker, I was distracted by the frivolity of the member for Sydney, who obviously thought that people's lives in working—
No, you're now repeating it.
Mr Speaker, in response to the question, we'll make sure that for the next 30 years, if we are blessed with the opportunity of running the place—and I hope we are, for the sake of Australians—we will utilise the mechanism of leaving it to the intelligence of people and the inspiration of people to achieve the outcomes that we have set out in the plan. It's only the other side that believes in legislating them out of a job.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's plan will see Australia build on our record of meeting and beating our emissions reduction targets by focusing on technology, not taxes? And is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Wentworth for his question. As a well-respected former diplomat he knows how important it is to have a strong plan to meet net zero by 2050, but to do it in the Australian way. He knows that we're building on a strong track record—
The member for Macarthur will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Macarthur then left the chamber.
He knows that we have a strong track record: we met and beat our Kyoto targets by 459 million tonnes—almost a year's worth of emissions. And we're on track to meet and beat our 2030 targets by up to a 35 per cent reduction; we're already down by 20.8 per cent.
The plan we've laid out today is a practical, responsible path forward that respects Australians and respects the Australian way. It preserves and supports jobs in traditional industries but also captures new opportunities as they emerge and as customer demands change. It continues to build on the policies and initiatives that have worked.
There are five core principles behind the plan: technology, not taxes. The plan respects Australian's choices. It respects the fact that Australians have been choosing to put solar on their roofs: one in four Australians. They're not being told by the government; they're doing it because it's their choice. It respects the enormous importance of affordable, reliable energy for our regions and for Australia more generally. It supports our export industries and the strength that they provide to this great nation—and will provide for many, many years to come. And it doesn't impose costs on Australians; that's through a portfolio of technologies coming down to parity—to cost competitiveness—with the higher-emitting alternatives. There's ultra low-cost solar, which we have just introduced in the low-emissions technology statement—we're targeting $15 a megawatt-hour. There's clean aluminium at under $2 per kilogram and getting the cost of measuring soil carbon—that great 90 million-hectare carbon sink—in Australian agriculture down, to a metre, to $3 per hectare per year.
But there's an alternative. We've laid out our plan for 2030 and for 2050. Those opposite haven't. They have no target for 2030, no plan for 2030 and no plan for 2050. The only thing they have, all they seem to have up their sleeve, is a law telling Australians what to do. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition called a technology led approach 'absurd'. But we know what they really want to do; they want to impose taxes, because that's the only tool in their toolkit.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to his statement: 'These people actually did read the Productivity Commission reports. I use them when I run out of toilet paper.' Given this statement, why is the Deputy Prime Minister delivering the regions another Productivity Commission report?
I'll tell you what: I admire his history lesson. That was more than 10 years ago! Obviously, they've got a lot of spare time on the other side. They're going through people's tweets; they're reading back—I don't know, maybe they're spending time on Odgers' reading the processes of the Senate. It's remarkable that you've reached back that far back in time. I must say, I'm kind of flattered. I'm a little bit flattered that they're so interested. I came here feeling a little bit down in the dumps but he's really perked me up. He's a good fellow. I can send him some of my photo albums, he can start having a look through those.
I think what's really important is that there's consistency between what happened back then and what happens now, and that is this: right back then I believed in the liberty of the individual. I believed that the state was there to serve the individual. Right back then I believed—you probably had the same position—that the state was your master. That's why the Labor Party believes—why are you so upset about me telling them about your policy, mate?
The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
The question went to Productivity Commission reports, which the Deputy Prime Minister says is a part of what the National Party has got from the government.
We don't need to go into an explanation.
He's not talking anything about whether the Productivity Commission reports are worthwhile.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister will bring himself back to the question.
I'm happy to do that, because we are making absolutely certain in the reports that come back that we are looking after regional people. We are making absolutely certain that we've got the checks and balances that oversee this in such a way that we can maintain the coal jobs. If they're affected by international circumstances, so be it. But we are not going to affect them with domestic regulations—the Labor Party are proposing regulations, and every worker wants to know whether the regulations affect them.
I will just say to the Deputy Prime Minister that the question was about Productivity Commission reports. He needs to confine himself to that.
The reason we are reporting back is we want proper checks and balances, because we respect our people.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's plan to reduce emissions will protect jobs and generate new opportunities for industry, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She is a great advocate of manufacturing on the Central Coast and she knows how important it is that we bring down emissions while strengthening our manufacturing sector—businesses like Borg, Sanitarium, McCain and MasterFoods, in her electorate and on the Central Coast.
That's what our plan for net zero emissions by 2050 does. It supports our traditional industries. It supports manufacturing. It makes sure that we support those traditional industries but also capture the new economic opportunities that are emerging, because customers' demands are changing. With it, we need to deploy the technologies, shape those technologies, to ensure that our manufacturers are able to provide their customers with what they want. More than a million Australians are now working in manufacturing, substantially more than before—80,000 more than before the pandemic. In fact, the last time we saw a slashing of jobs in manufacturing was when those opposite were in government—one in eight. I'll come back to that.
This plan is the right plan. Our plan is the right plan for Australia. It does focus on the technologies that matter for our manufacturers: clean steel, clean aluminium, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage—essential technologies, which those opposite vote against, regularly. Seven times, they've done it. It focusses on supporting our farmers who provide the food for our food manufacturers. Our manufacturers are well-positioned to use our unique industrial advantages combining innovation, material resources, abundant clean energy and our skilled workforce.
But I am asked about alternatives. We understand that there is a choice here. There's a choice between, on the one hand, technology, and, on the other hand, taxes. The last time those opposite were in government, they imposed a tax—a carbon tax—on all Australian manufacturing and, indeed, on all Australians. We saw one in eight jobs in manufacturing lost when they were in government, in places like Kurri Kurri, where saw the aluminium smelter shutting after the introduction of the carbon tax. It's only now that we're establishing a new business there, with jobs and a gas generator at Kurri Kurri, supporting affordable, reliable energy, that great strength of the Hunter Valley region.
Those opposite don't even have targets, let alone a plan, when it comes to 2030. The only plan Labor knows is how to destroy jobs and how to destroy manufacturing in this country. We understand the need for a strong economic plan to reduce emissions and provide jobs for all.
My question as to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous answers, such that they were. How can Australians trust this government to deliver on net zero by 2050 when you will be acting Prime Minister in two days and you are opposed to it?
Today is Tuesday, isn't it? Wednesday, Thursday, Friday—it will be Thursday evening that the Prime Minister leaves. No-one is suggesting that we are going to get there by the end of the week. No-one is suggesting that. By the way, the biggest thing, of course, is that people clearly understand that, in my role as Leader of the Nationals, I'm making absolutely certain that we don't legislate the coalminers out of a job.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia. Will the minister informed the House how the Morrison-Joyce government is supporting the agriculture industry through the Technology Investment Roadmap and ensuring that there is an environment in place to protect our agriculture industry, reduce emissions, keep jobs and create new jobs?
The member for Perth can leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Perth then left the chamber.
I thank the member for Mallee for her question and her commitment to Australian agriculture. The federal government made a further commitment to Australian agriculture today, in helping it not only reduce its emissions but increase its productivity. Since 2005, the Australian agricultural and land sector have reduced their emissions by over 55 per cent but have, in fact, more than doubled their production over that period while doing it. That is a significant achievement for a partnership between the federal government and the agricultural sector using science and technology to increase productivity and profitability and reduce emissions.
We're complementing that further with the technology roadmap and with our stewardship program. We are the first country in the world able to measure biodiversity. So we are adding to the carbon-farming model that has been put out there to support those farmers—to not only carbon abate but also to get a payment through a voluntary market for the improvement in biodiversity. This is a measurement that the world now sees as intellectual property that this country owns, because of the investment that the agricultural sector and the federal government have made—a $66 million investment through our stewardship program.
We're also making sure that they can market their products—their beef, their sheep—with a sustainability brand, a seal, that says: this has been produced in the most sustainable way, improving biodiversity and abating carbon. That's a world first. And that's not about taking away productive landscape but is about rejuvenating those parts of the landscape that are costing farmers money, just using common sense.
We're also working with our innovation partners, like Meat & Livestock Australia. The red meat sector have reduced their emissions by 53 per cent since 2005, and they're planning to double the output of red meat profitability over the next decade while reducing to a net zero emissions target. And they're doing that with the science of feed supplements—they go to seaweeds and legumes that will reduce methane emissions—and genetics and soil carbon. We've made a $200 million investment through our National Soil Strategy to be able to measure soil carbon more accurately. The energy minister has also announced a $36 million science challenge to have the best and brightest in the world right here in Australia develop a credible test for under $3 a hectare. The over 90 million hectares of Australian agricultural landscape can play a part in abating carbon while increasing productivity. While supporting over 330,000 Australians in agriculture, building on their jobs, building the productivity and profitability of those farms, it can play a significant part in reducing our emissions, living up to our international commitments. This technology roadmap is not just about a more sustainable agricultural sector; it's also about a more profitable one.
My question is to the Minister for Resources and Water. Yesterday the member for Mallee said about solar panels:
They don't work in the dark, and neither do our wind farms.
Does the minister agree?
I thank the honourable member for their question. The member Mallee is right: there are wind turbines that, when there is no wind over night, don't work. They don't work during the day when there is no wind. That is the nature of intermittent generation. That is just the reality of life.
My question is also to the Minister for Resources and Water. Will the minister inform the House how the Morrison-Joyce government is positioning Australia as a leading supplier of critical minerals and rare earth elements to meet the growing global demand for the new energy technologies required in a modern economy, and what will this mean for the communities in the Parkes electorate? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?
I thank the honourable member for their question. The sun is shining down on the honourable member's electorate, and they're in a really good position in terms of agriculture. It looks like a record crop. There's a lot of water in the dams and infrastructure, but in terms of critical minerals, as the honourable member knows, there are significant resources in his area. That includes the company ASM, which signed a $250 million framework agreement with the South Korean consortium, and that looks like a significant investment. Also, this government has announced a $2 billion critical minerals infrastructure loan facility. That will help us to drive some of these projects forward. That will help us to ensure that critical minerals continue to grow, continue to build the Australian economy and continue to provide jobs for Australians.
Why is that important? If we look at what's happening around the world right now, we know that Europe's industry associations issued a statement on 22 October 2021, and that statement said they expect that the shortage in global magnesium could halt their operations in the next few weeks across Europe. The reason for that is that approximately 90 per cent of the magnesium global output comes from China. We know that in Australia we hold enough of this resource to potentially support that global demand for more than 100 years. So right across the critical minerals spectrum we want to see Australian resources in these products. We want to see Australian resources into things like batteries. I know those opposites have got a lot of questions for me around batteries, but we have some of the largest recoverable reserves of critical minerals in the world.
In fact, the nine most advanced critical mineral projects in Australia alone have the potential to add more than 7,000 jobs and unlock $8 billion of worth of investment. If we add that on to the $349 billion forecast for resources already and the 260,000-plus Australians already employed, this is a good outcome for our country. We are looking to ensure that we can fill these markets where there is demand. We want to ensure that demand is filled by Australian companies, Australian resources that are delivered by Australian workers. Those opportunities will come because of the support from the Commonwealth, the fact that we outline our plans, that we deliver absolutely a $2 billion loan facility and other levels of support. Quite simply: this is good for our country. It's good for our economy. It's good for opportunities, particularly in regional Australia, like in the member for Parkes's electorate, like in the member for Flynn's electorates, like in many regional electorates right around the country. We expect to see a lot of these jobs delivered over the coming years. We want to make sure that we fill as many as possible downstream from minerals to metals. That is why we're supporting the sector.
In my last few seconds, while I've got the opportunity, I'm asked about alternatives. We know that those opposite continue to talk down the resources sector and Australia. We stand up for our sector. We support the resources sector. We want to see more jobs, not fewer. Shame on those opposite.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister now supports Labor's policy on net zero, will he also support Labor's policy for a discount on electric cars which will make electric cars cheaper for Australian families?
I don't support Labor's policy. They don't have one. There's nothing to support. They got a target, but they've got no plan. The only things we can discern from their policies is what they did last time they were in government, which was tax people. They sought to tax people. They sought to mandate things. They sought to force them to do things. So, no, I won't be supporting the Labor Party's policy, because not only don't I know what it is, the Australian people don't know what it is. They know what their target is.
The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Yes, on relevance. It was a very specific question about Labor's electric vehicles discount.
Leader of the Opposition: you need to resume your seat. I'm going to go back to where I did yesterday and—
A government member interjecting
The minister for—yes, it's okay. I'd just stop right there. I'm going to be very clear about this. It was not a specific question about electric cars. If that's all that was asked, you would have a valid point of order, but when you have on it a tag line that's about support for Labor's policies it opens the question right up.
Yes, that's right. I don't want to have an argument. I've got a copy of it in front of me. I don't want to read the question again: 'Given you now support Labor's policy on net zero.' The Prime Minister is entitled to respond to that. If you don't want him to do that, don't put it in the question. Just ask a specific question about electric vehicles. You didn't ask that. The Prime Minister has the call. He's completely in order.
Our policies are very clear about what we're seeking to do. We've set them out in a 130-or-thereabouts-page document, which I was happy to table earlier during question time.
I'm not surprised that the Labor Party doesn't support our policy, because you won't find any taxes in it. You won't find anything in there telling people what they have to do and what they're mandating. You won't find in there anyone banning anything or anyone trying to shut down any mines or tell farmers what to do on their land. You won't find any additional regulation in our policy. That's why Labor doesn't like it. You won't find any more red tape. You won't find anyone in there trying to get into people's lives and intervene in how they run their businesses. You won't find anything in this document which is seeking to punish rural and regional Australia, which is what would happen under the Labor Party, and you won't find in our policies contracting out the decisions that should be made about Australians, about the Australian way that will achieve these targets to those overseas, because that's what the Labor Party does. Under our policy we've got an Australian way to hit net zero emissions by 2050 that is based on technology, not taxes, that is based on choices, not mandates on the Australian people, binding them with legislation—sorry, I thought he was up again. He's been very lippy today.
No. Prime Minister, you can just answer the question. You don't have to comment on people moving around the chamber.
It's also based on having a portfolio of technologies that get the job done. It's based on getting the right balance between the affordability of our energy and the reliability of energy so we keep the lights on and we get the prices down. It's based on transparency and accountability, not just emissions, and the transparency of getting emissions down but ensuring that our policies demonstrate the economic gains and the socioeconomic gains for all Australians, but particularly in rural and regional areas. I'm not surprised the Labor Party doesn't support our plan. They don't have a plan. They don't have a target for 2030. They don't like it, because it hasn't got taxes in it, because that's the way Labor does things.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister outline to the House the Morrison government's commitment to the long-term health and sustainability of the Great Barrier Reef?
I'm delighted to take a question from the dynamic and determined reef envoy, the member for Leichhardt.
The Morrison government is deeply committed to protecting the World-Heritage-Listed Great Barrier Reef. We have the best-managed reef in the world, something that has been demonstrated time and time again.
The reef is big enough to see from outer space and is one of the seven natural wonders of the world. But we see the reef through the eyes of its communities on the ground, up and down 2,300 kilometres of coastline and 400,000 square kilometres of catchment, with 64,000 jobs depending on it. That's from the farmers, whose land management practices link with water quality, to the recreational fishers, the Indigenous rangers spearing crown-of-thorns starfish, the citizen scientists the tourism operators, the small businesses and the many Australians who live between Fraser Island and the Torres Strait.
We are with the reef for the long haul and we have backed the reef 2050 management plan with over $2 billion of investment. The success of that plan is acknowledged by many, including the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, which in this year's World Heritage Committee meeting commended Australia for our strong and continued efforts, including through unprecedented financial commitments.
We continue to make our reef the most healthy and resilient it can be in the face of the global challenge of climate change. We're not about heavy-handed regulation; our reef communities are our champions and our partners—like the Destro family, who are canegrowers in Far North Queensland. They manage around 2,000 thousands of acres of cane and they partnered with us on one of our water-quality projects. Now the Destros are considered to be at the cutting edge of best cane-farming practices, with Mrs Destro saying there's not only less run-off leaving the farm but there's more profitability as well.
It's like our partnership with TurtleCare Volunteers on the Wreck Rock turtle project, the goal of which is to increase the number of turtle hatchlings on the stretch of coastline between Agnes Water and Bundaberg. Nev McLachlan, who, along with his wife, Bev, have been leading this monitoring program for 40 years, said, 'We want to contribute to ensure that future generations of turtles will be nesting at Wreck Rock for all future generations of our families to appreciate.' Or it's like the scientists in the tourism industry coming together to deliver local reef restoration. They're trialling coral nurseries to propagate corals and then planting them on areas of the reef to accelerate recovery. It's like the Indigenous women leading work on sea country, looking after waterways and looking after seagrass habitats and wildlife.
We carry Australia's pride in the reef, we guard against those who would be cavalier with its reputation and we're optimistic about the future of the reef and the communities and jobs which depend on it.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction. Can the minister confirm that in October last year, industry minister No. 6 said that we would establish mRNA manufacturing capability within the year and that in May this year industry minister No. 7 said, 'You're looking at a 12-month-plus time frame,' and that now we have industry minister No. 8 saying, 'We're looking at two years, but can't be sure'? When are you going to stop making and remaking announcements, and actually deliver locally manufactured mRNA vaccines in Australia?
It's important to note that we have manufactured 23 million vaccines in this country, and that we have more than a million people working in manufacturing in this country. Those opposite got rid of one in eight a jobs in manufacturing when they were in government, but they love to twist and distort the truth. The member opposite talked about Minister Andrews, who said at the time that any time frame would depend on a range of factors—that's what she said. That includes whether it's a brownfield or a greenfield site or whether we need access to R&D and intellectual property as part of it.
As we recover from COVID-19, we want to make sure we are well placed to control our destiny and, in an uncertain world, that means it's more important than ever to have sovereign manufacturing capability. That's why we're developing a pathway to onshore manufacturing, not just of the vaccines that we've already manufactured but more broadly for mRNA capability—mRNA vaccines. There are two benefits from this. On the health side, if we are struck with another pandemic, whether it's COVID or indeed flu pandemics, we will be well positioned to speedily provide that mRNA support. But there is also an economic and industry opportunity here too. We support manufacturing in this country and we support industry in this country—and it is important that they have access to the affordable reliable energy they need. We are back to over a million jobs in manufacturing.
But we want to see new areas of technology like mRNA developing here in Australia. That's why we are pursuing a two-part process. We are having discussions with Moderna. I should point out that there are only two companies in the world that have developed and are selling mRNA vaccines right now, and Moderna is one of them, and that no new mRNA manufacturing facility has been built in the world since COVID struck. One is planned for Singapore but is several years away. We don't know when that's actually going to arrive. We're having important discussions with Moderna, and there is great potential in that. We have also gone through an approach to market. We have received a number of submissions. We are working through those and we will have something more to say about that in the coming days and weeks. But one thing that Australians can be sure of is that we back manufacturing in this country. We back manufacturing in this country every day of the week.
My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workforce Skills, Small and Family Business. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is protecting jobs and keeping Australians in training today to secure our future workforce? Is the minister aware of alternative policies?
I thank the member for her question and all the work she is doing out there in the western suburbs of Sydney to ensure employment is being maximised. The Morrison government is backing in the next generation of Australian workers through our economic plan, guaranteeing pathways to skills and training through a record $6.4 billion this financial year. It builds on $5.9 billion last financial year. Our economic plan is about protecting jobs, connecting people with jobs and securing our future jobs.
Our highly successful JobTrainer program has supported over 255,000 Australians enrolled in in-demand skills, and the billion dollar expansion we saw in the budget sees an additional 163,000 training places, including 10,000 in digital skills and 33,800 in aged care. Our supporting apprenticeships and trainee wage subsidy provided $1.9 billion to over 74,000 employers to support their trainees and apprentices during all of the last 18 months. Our Boosting Apprenticeship Commencement program provided $3.9 billion to 77,900 employers, employing over 220,000 new apprentices and trainees, and there's guaranteed funding through to the states and territories of over $1.5 billion, increasing year after year, to guarantee TAFE funding. As a result of the input of the Morrison government, we have seen an increase of 140 per cent in apprentice starts year on year. There are more apprentices in trades today than there were before the coalition came to government. It is an extraordinary achievement by this government. But we aren't finished yet. There is still a lot more to go. We want to make sure that every Australian out there has the opportunity for a job.
I can confirm today that the Morrison government has delivered on our commitment to roll out a national network of 10 industry training hubs across Australia—promises made and Morrison government promises kept. The final industry training hub has been operating in Alice Springs for some weeks. That's in the member for Lingiari's electorate, and I'm sure he is pleased to see that. This completes the rollout of 10 industry training hubs—in Alice Springs, Burnie, Townsville, Maryborough, Port Pirie, Shepparton, Armadale, Gosford, Wanneroo and Grafton. I know the residents of Braddon, in Tassie's north west, value the industry training hub, as do the good people of Robinson.
The Morrison government is keeping faith with Australian workers. There are more apprentices in trades than when we came to government, keeping our election commitments. I am asked about alternative policies in this space. I can report to the House that there are none. It's all pretty grim over there.
My question is to the Prime Minister. This month every state and territory wrote to the government requesting support to ensure their hospital systems can withstand increased pressure from COVID. Is the Prime Minister confident the health and hospital system can withstand increased COVID cases? Why isn't the Prime Minister listening to the states and territories which have led Australia through this crisis?
The Commonwealth government specifically has supported the states and territories, especially with their COVID related health and hospital costs through a fifty-fifty funding partnership, which has resulted, from memory—and I look to the minister for health—to about $6 billion. Six billion dollars billion of additional funds have been provided to the states and territories. This is on top of the National Health Reform Agreement process, which has increased our funding to hospitals right across states and territories at multiple times, with the increases of states themselves. And, if the states had actually maintained the pace of the increase in funding from the Commonwealth in their own state budgets, then there would be even further resources available in the hospital budgets at state and territory level.
This issue has been a constant item on the agenda when I have met with the premiers and chief ministers on their hospital system readiness. It has been the subject of detailed modelling work done by both the Doherty institute and by individual states and territories in terms of drawing on their own private modelling work, which has been informing the decisions they've been making on how they manage the crisis.
I particularly pay credit to both the New South Wales and Victorian governments, who are confronting the biggest of those challenges at that scale, and how they have been responding to those issues, because they have had the biggest surge in cases and they are doing an outstanding job. I think they are doing an outstanding job.
There are other states and territories who haven't seen any of that COVID pressure. They haven't had the cases. They've tended to be the states who have been making a bit more noise, but they're yet to see the presentations and the challenges that have been faced in the New South Wales and Victorian system, and what I take from that is there is a difference between the states and territories about how they are managing their hospital systems. Our funding is at record levels and increasing at rapid rates, but, at the same time, states and territories must run their hospitals and their health systems, and they must run them well. That is what we've been working with—with the states and territories, who actually had a specific dedicated team within the Department of Health working to Professor Murphy, to ensure that we are closely monitoring the impact on the hospital and health systems.
As I said, we've been providing additional funding, particularly during the course of COVID. Overall, when you include the work we've done on vaccines, on GP respiratory clinics, the mental health increase and support that we've provided through the states and territories, we are at $30 billion in additional investments that we've put into health, into hospitals, to ensure that Australia comes through this crisis.
There won't be time for the minister for health to add to this answer, but I know this: under the policies of our government, working together with the states and territories, we have one of the lowest fatality rates in the world for COVID, we have one of the strongest economies to come through COVID and we are fast approaching the highest vaccination rates in the world. Indeed, on a first dose vaccination, we will pass the UK probably in the next— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, who is representing the Attorney-General. Will the minister please inform the House how the Morrison government's landmark privacy reforms will help better protect Australians online?
I do thank the member for Reid for her question and of course for her long-standing interest in the subject of how we keep Australians safe online, drawing as she does on her deep professional and academic experience as a psychologist. Our government does have a very strong agenda when it comes to keeping Australians safe online, and, just this week, the Attorney-General has released an exposure draft of legislation which will further extend our comprehensive approach to keeping Australians safe online, particularly giving Australians confidence that when they're using digital platforms that their personal information is appropriately protected. The exposure draft of legislation that we have released will increase penalties for serious and repeated breaches of privacy online and, very importantly, requires the creation of a binding online privacy code for social media services, data brokers and other large online platforms. The intention here is to address the clear power imbalance between online platforms on the one hand and their users on the other, by giving Australians more control and more transparency about how their personal information is being handled.
In particular, the online privacy code will strengthen protections for children and other groups of vulnerable users. We are being very clear in our requirements on the social media platforms under the code. They will be required to take all reasonable steps to verify the age of users, take all reasonable steps to verify parental or guardian consent for children under the age of 16 years, and require that the handling of children's personal information on their platforms is fair and reasonable, with the best interests of the child being the primary consideration.
We welcome feedback on this exposure draft, but we're getting on with the job across a whole range of areas when it comes to keeping Australians safe online and protecting the privacy of Australians, both adults and children, online. These are amongst the many areas that the prevalence of the internet presents. I want to acknowledge the work of both the Attorney-General and the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention in this important work.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) after almost a decade in office, instead of delivering a climate change policy, the Prime Minister has today presented another glossy document with no new policy;
(b) the Prime Minister is refusing to release the Government's modelling of its net zero policy; and
(c) the Government can't be trusted to deliver action on climate change when the Deputy Prime Minister and most of the National Party members of Cabinet don't support net zero;
(2) therefore calls on the Prime Minister to end his secrecy and immediately release the modelling of his net zero policy; and
(3) supports legislating net zero by 2050.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately— That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) after almost a decade in office, instead of delivering a climate change policy, the Prime Minister has today presented another glossy document with no new policy;
(b) the Prime Minister is refusing to release the Government's modelling of its net zero policy; and
(c) the Government can't be trusted to deliver action on climate change when the Deputy Prime Minister and most of the National Party members of Cabinet don't support net zero;
(2) therefore calls on the Prime Minister to end his secrecy and immediately release the modelling of his net zero policy; and
(3) supports legislating net zero by 2050.
The policy's on the never-never because they'll never, ever take climate change seriously. This is a government that won't—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded?
Seconded, Mr Speaker. I've seen fortune cookies with more detail than the document released this morning. It's a fake document. It's—
The member for McMahon will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has the call.
The member for Goldstein will leave under 94(a).
The member for Goldstein then left the chamber.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for McMahon be no longer heard.
The question now is that the motion be disagreed to.
No details, no commitments, no plans, because their heart is not in it. The total failure of leadership—
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be put.
The question now before the House is that the motion moved by the honourable the Leader of the Opposition be disagreed to.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Mr Speaker, I seek to give a personal explanation.
Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?
I do, on multiple occasions, not just today but over a series of days, by the Prime Minister, with regard to policies that I support as Leader of the Labor Party, relating to climate change.
The Leader of the Opposition may proceed.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today in question time, again, and on previous days, the Prime Minister and other ministers have sought to characterise Labor's policies incorrectly. Today on electric vehicles, for example, the Prime Minister mischaracterised our policy, which is for lower taxes on electric vehicles, making them cheaper. For the benefit of the House, Labor's policies that I have announced are rewiring the nation on electricity transmission—
I just say to the Leader of the Opposition this is—
I'm saying what our policies are, as opposed to what he says they aren't.
I know, but you need to show where you've personally been misrepresented, and correct it.
I have been.
The member for Kingsford Smith can leave under standing 94(a).
The member for Kingsford Smith then left the chamber.
Just for efficiency, does anyone want to join him now? I'm being very tolerant with this issue in particular, but I believe the Leader of the Opposition is starting to debate the matter. If he can show where he was misrepresented with a statement and point out that it's a misrepresentation, he can proceed, but it's not a chance to have a debate, which would happen at other times in the day.
I understand that, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has sought to characterise my policies and my support for a range of policies and has made statements that simply are not true. I stand by the statements that I have actually made, which are for rewiring the nation on electricity transmission, community batteries, new energy apprenticeships, the electric car discount and the National Reconstruction Fund. They are our policies, not what the Prime Minister says they are.
Okay, that's fine.
Just before we go to the matter of public importance, I just want to say, for the information of members—I'm not seeking to get involved in political discussion—that obviously there was quite a bit of commentary on my giving precedence to the motion of privilege last Wednesday. That has led a large number of you simply to ask about the process. So I thought it would be useful just for me to make a very brief statement to the House for the information of members, just to briefly outline what did and, more importantly, what did not happen.
What did happen was that, following the matter of privilege being raised by the Manager of Opposition Business, I considered the issue and determined that I would give precedence for a motion moved by the person who initially raised the issue of privilege, or any other member.
What this means I outlined clearly in the last two paragraphs of my statement on Wednesday, but I think it's worth just repeating those:
As members would also be aware, and as House of Representatives Practice makes clear, 'an opinion by the Speaker that a prima facie case has been made out does not imply a conclusion that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred.'
In giving precedence for a motion to be moved, I am simply allowing the House the opportunity to consider a motion immediately and debate and decide on whether the matter should be referred to the committee for inquiry and report.
As the practice also points out—I know many members are very familiar with it but I just want to point it out for other members who have been asking questions—the prima facie case relates to the moving of the motion, which puts the matter in the hands of the House.
Many commenters have said, and I'm talking commentators outside of this House, I made a ruling, but this is not correct. I did not make a ruling. As practice states:
An opinion by the Speaker on a complaint raised under standing order 51—
That's the standing order that deals with issues of privilege—
is not a ruling and so a dissent motion, as provided for in standing order 87, is not in order.
The reason why this is important is that the Speaker's decision to either grant precedence or not cannot be dissented from; granting precedence is permissive only. It enables the next step, that a member may move a motion to refer a matter of privilege to the committee. It's the role of the House to consider that proposal and make a decision about referral of the matter. I just thought that would be useful for members who have been asking about that.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Ballarat proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's decade of neglect of regional Australians and increasing misuse of taxpayers' money.
I call upon all those honourable 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—
Day after day in this place, and week after week, we've been treated to the spectacle of the National Party trying to have you believe that they, sitting on the government benches, are the only one true voice of our regions, that only the National Party represents the regions. Time and time again, we hear them use that as an excuse for holding the country hostage across a vast range of progressive policy areas, whether it's from climate change, whether it's investing in renewable energy, whether it's investing in regions across the country. That is what we hear from them.
The truth of the matter is that no one political party has a monopoly on representing our regions. Our regions in this place are represented by members of the Liberal Party. They are represented by Independents, the Katter party and members of the Australian Labor Party. All of us, together, care deeply about what happens in regional Australia. Our regions are complex. They are diverse. They are as complex and diverse as the economies that support them.
The National Party would have you believe that the regions of this nation look and sound and think exactly like they do, and nothing could be further from the truth. The stranglehold that the National Party has over regional policy in this government is holding our regions back—and I know there are members on the other side, in the Liberal Party, who represent our regions who know it too. There is no greater demonstration of that than what we saw happen with the climate debate this week.
We're told from media reports—we don't know, because somehow there's a secret deal about this so-called net zero promise that some of the National Party have signed up to and some haven't—that there's some regional Future Fund. If the history, of the way in which the National Party treats regional funding, is anything to go by I can guarantee that it won't be the regions across this grand spectrum of Australia that benefit. It won't be the regions in the Australian Labor Party held electorates or the Independent held electorates or even the Liberal Party held electorates; it will be a small group of electorates that, frankly, do deserve funding but are not on their own.
We saw recently, with the recent round of the Building Better Regions Fund, just how the National Party treats taxpayer funding. Ninety per cent of that fund went to seats held by the Liberal National Party or to seats we know, such as Hunter, such as Flynn, they are intending to target or desperately want to hang on to at the next election. The result of that has been that there are regions and then there are National Party supported regions. And that is not helping anybody except the National Party when it comes to trying to stay in office. We saw that again when we saw the minister for resources—the only person whose job seemed to benefit out of the so-called climate change deal the National Party has done.
This is not a way to run our country and it's not a way to support our regions. The truth of the matter is: there is no regional policy in this country. There hasn't been since Labor was last in office. There are a series of buckets of funding that the National Party systematically rorts to its own benefit. That is the equivalent of the National Party's regional development fund. Goodness help us when we see what they're likely to do with the next fund.
When we talk about the Building Better Regions Fund in particular, a fund the Australian National Audit Office is currently investigating, we know that since 2018 over a billion dollars of this fund has been channelled through—90 per cent of that total fund has gone to coalition held and targeted seats. If you look at the Deputy Leader of the Nationals' seat of Maranoa, during that period of time that seat has received $52 million worth of funding out of this grants scheme. The former Deputy Prime Minister's seat of Riverina has received $27 million during that period out of the Building Better Regions Fund, $22.4 million went to the current Deputy Prime Minister's seat of New England and $19.6 million went to the former Attorney-General's seat of Pearce. At the same time, $2 million went to the seat of Bendigo, $1.1 million went to the seat of Cunningham, $1.5 million went to the seat of Newcastle and a grand total of $241,000 went to the seat of McEwen. How is that at all justifiable as a regional development policy? It simply is not. It is not a fair policy. It is not a transparent policy. It is a rorted policy.
The National Party has its grubby fingers all over this program. We know that because 112 of the 330 projects approved under round 3 of the Building Better Regions Fund were chosen by a secret ministerial panel, against the advice of the department. Unsurprisingly, this is the exact same round announced in the run-up to the 2019 federal election campaign that saw coalition seats or coalition target seats receive 94 per cent of all projects and 94 per cent of all funding.
In round 5, another pre-election round, we know even more thanks to the member for Mallee, who in a brief moment of honesty told us that coalition MPs were given access to secret project spreadsheets that were colour-coded pink and green, and that they had a further opportunity that nobody else seemed to—including, I think, members of the Liberal Party—to actually go and lobby for those projects that were important to their regions, even if they did not quite fit the program's criteria. You won't be surprised to hear that the member for Mallee's seat has received over $38 million worth of funding under this Building Better Regions Fund.
What the government won't tell us, though, is which projects were cut and denied funding because they didn't suit the National Party's and the Morrison government's agendas. How many projects that fully met the criteria have missed out to those in Nationals seats that didn't quite fit the criteria? They won't tell you because this isn't about the regions; it's about them staying in power. It's about using taxpayer funding for election-winning purposes. That's what it is about. As I said before, when it comes to climate change, you can see the failings of the National Party writ large on the national stage.
I am a proud representative of regional Australia. I care about climate change and so does my community. Farmers in my region know that climate change is real; they see it every single day. Communities in south-west New South Wales and East Gippsland know that climate change is real; while the Prime Minister was in Hawaii, they lived it. Communities in the far north who rely on the Great Barrier Reef know that climate change is real; they count the cost of bleaching events. Communities all along the Murray-Darling know climate change is real; they see it in the droughts and in reduced river flows. Communities across Australia see it in floods, droughts, fires and storms. But not only do they see the cost; they know the benefits that climate action can bring.
We know that the Business Council's own modelling has found that, on average, Australians will be around $5,000 better off per person under a net-zero scenario, with regional Australians around three times better off compared to capital city residents. But we don't hear that from those in the National Party who represent that small number of seats that they claim is the mirror of regional Australia across the country. We don't hear from them about what's happening to workers in their regions across this country. We don't hear them worrying about the casualisation of people working in the mining sector—we don't hear them talk about that. We don't hear about the disparity in wages. They don't care about the workers in the regions—they don't care about them at all! They only care about their own self-interest. And nothing about that is writ larger than the Minister for Resources and Water being elevated to cabinet, someone who does not support net zero and who doesn't support the regions but certainly supported his own job in that process.
We know that the National Farmers Federation and Meat & Livestock Australia, all of those, and thousands of regional Australians feel betrayed by this National Party, which has completely and simply lost the plot when it comes to climate change. This is a party of dinosaurs; they no longer represent the regions. If we want to see what the regions look like, then look on our side. Look at the fabulous women that we have on our side representing the diversity of the regions: the members for Bendigo, Corangamite, Eden-Monaro, Gilmore, Richmond, Paterson, Macquarie, Newcastle, Dobell, Franklin and Cunningham. These are strong regional women who are standing up for their communities every single day. If we want to see the difference between our side and their side when it comes to the regions, just watch this debate and see the dinosaurs that they've put up on their side— (Time expired)
I rise to totally refute the aspersions made by the member for Ballarat. The Building Better Regions Fund has been the lifeblood for many local government councils in regional Australia and reflects the geography of Australia and their representations.
It's interesting; the coalition seats cover five million square kilometres. Labor has 1.5 million square kilometres of Australian country that it represents, and one seat, Lingiari, which covers 1.35 million square kilometres of it. In this huge, wide, brown land called Australia, there are Labor Party members representing 130 square kilometres around Australia. So it's no wonder more of the seats went to regional areas!
The member for Shortland didn't worry about getting $10 million for the Hunter Sports Centre, or the member for Cunningham—I think it's now called a different name—when it got $1 million for the Wollongong Regional Tennis Hub. The members for Solomon and Lingiari both claimed credit for getting the SWELL Centre, which is a $5 million swimming, wellness and leisure centre up there in Palmerston. Nor did the member for Lyons complain about a $625,000 playground upgrade or the Derwent Valley Health and Wellbeing Hub for $3.7 million. Gee—I mean, hypocrites! The seat of Bendigo covers 5,280 square kilometres. The members for Mallee and Maranoa, between them—Mallee has 83,00 square kilometres, so obviously they have many more local government areas; Maranoa has 70 local government areas and 730,000 square kilometres.
In the last decade, the amount of investment going into regional Australia has been second to none. In infrastructure, you've only got to look at these megaprojects that the coalition has championed, like finally completing the Pacific Highway upgrade, a $5.5 billion project. Under the Building Better Regions Fund, there are the amounts going into really good infrastructure and community and social projects—there's just short of a thousand of them—in regional Australia. The last round will be supporting 9,900 jobs during construction of these projects. They are critical to regional areas, which have local governments that are really stretched. They have huge populations, huge areas to cover—not like inner-city electorates; some of them you could ride around in two hours on a pushbike. The member for Parkes's electorate is bigger than Germany. The member for Maranoa's is even bigger. Of the members in South Australia, O'Connor is absolutely massive. That is why there is a sway towards regional Australia with these funds.
We have really helped connectivity in physical infrastructure. Just think of all the funds into regional infrastructure. Roads to Recovery has been expanded. There's the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. There's the Mobile Phone Black Spot Program. Do you know how many mobile phone black spots the ALP did when they were in government? How many mobile phone towers did they supply? The answer is zero. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are 1,270 new or upgraded mobile phone towers around the country because of that program. I would like to thank the former member for Cowper, the Hon. Luke Hartsuyker; that was his policy brainchild, and it has transformed mobile phone coverage in regional Australia.
We have supported small businesses, which are the lifeblood of employment in regional Australia. The small business tax rate is now down to 25 per cent. For unincorporated businesses, their tax offset has gone from 13 per cent to 16 per cent. In my own electorate, I've got over 10,500 small businesses that benefited from this lowering of the small business tax rate, before COVID struck.
In regional Australia, home building has been given a massive boost because of the HomeBuilder program, and we have really powered up apprenticeship training with our wage subsidies for new apprentices. There were 100,000 that benefited from this program in the first couple of rounds, and, during COVID, that number has grown to potentially another 170,000 subsidised apprenticeships.
We have established regional university centres around Australia, including the Taree Universities Campus. It started just over a year ago and it has already got 85 people utilising that centre to remotely gather and study together and do a university degree that they didn't have before. But they're in other places like Griffith and Goulburn, also in Maranoa, and in other areas around the country—over in WA and in South Australia. It's been transformational, giving people a chance to do a university degree with support, rather than doing it on their kitchen table, with difficulty, after hours. Many of the people doing it are first in family to get a university degree started, let alone finished. In terms of completion rates, these programs really give people a major benefit—because it is a hard slog if you're doing distance education and working.
There are other things that we've done—in agriculture, for instance. In the 10 years that the member for Ballarat was complaining about, in agriculture we have supported and developed the Future Drought Fund. There's the farm household allowance. People maybe have got a big farm worth a lot of money. They're asset rich but cash poor, because owning the land doesn't give you an income. In the worst drought that we've lived through in a hundred years, that farm household allowance has been a lifesaver.
We've developed the mandatory code of conduct for the dairy industry and, likewise, the sugar code of conduct. We've got the Made in Australia label showing the country of origin, where foodstuff comes from, so the food that we produce gets a premium. We've developed sustainability for agriculture. We've developed a soil strategy for keeping our soils rich so that farmers can take part in soil carbon and Australian carbon credit units. Our free trade agreements have turbocharged our food and fibre exports. As I say, there is so much we have done for regional Australia.
We've also been supporting modern technology to address climate change in the agriculture space. We're doing practical things in this road map that actually make a difference and include increased productivity. Methane biodigesters are being supported in the technology space. That can be applied to dairies because with dairy, obviously, cattle cluster in one area so you can use their excrement to recycle and develop fertilisers, clear water and develop energy sources. The Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia today mentioned research into various seaweeds and asparagopsis species. If you turn those into pellets they reduce methane in bovines. That is technology that we are exploring to see if it's applicable.
All these things are really critical in supporting regional Australia, but cherry picking support for regional councils, which are the major beneficiaries of all these great programs—we look after regional councils, because they are really important in regional Australia. The metropolitan councils have huge rates bases and little road infrastructure. We have been supporting the delivery of water infrastructure, with dams being built. We have given money to the states to get forward and get cracking on delivering extra water for agriculture and industry and for population growth. We have a decentralisation agenda. We have a minister dedicated to regional development. We've delivered the Inland Rail, which is going to improve freight between Melbourne and Sydney and all those regional areas. It will have a freight line going directly into Brisbane, and we are arguing to get it done up to Gladstone. They have all been done because the National Party is in this building, realising that if we get the right infrastructure, if we get connectivity—we've got the Sky Muster satellite up there through the NBN that's been given a double amount of extra capability—so internet connectivity, physical connectivity, infrastructure, tax treatment—you name it. Social and capital infrastructure in regional Australia is second to none and by the National Party.
The government tries to give us a lecture about the geographical size of electorates, but we are talking about building infrastructure where people live. Are they seriously suggesting that more infrastructure money should go to electorates where there are vast amounts of land where nobody is living? There are chunks of the seat of Durack, which is the largest electorate in the country, where there are no towns and there are no people living there. Why would you say that an electorate like Durack, just because of the sheer size of it, should get more funding than an electorate like Bendigo, where you have the second-biggest regional city in Victoria? The regional electorates that I and the women who are participating in this debate from my side represent all have big regional cities as well as villages and towns. We represent regional Australia proudly. The government tries to claim regional Australia as their space, but it is not. In fact, there are probably more women on our side representing regional electorates than they have women in the entire lower house. That's how proud we are. That's how strong we are in representing the regions.
It is so disappointing that the Building Better Regions Fund is one that this government has quite frankly rorted in the way that it has. It should be renamed the 'Building Better Rorts Fund', because that's all it can be. We in Bendigo are trying to redevelop our airport. We're very proud of the work that's been done. The airport is trying to get upgraded. For the first time in decades we actually have Qantas flights coming in. They've been incredibly popular. We thought we had a chance in this round of the BBRF. The council put forward an application. There is money from the state government on the table. There is support from the major airline Qantas on the table. There is support from the local council, who are the owners of the airport. There are local businesses, such as local tourism operators, on the table. This round was supposed to be the tourism round. They were told, 'Apply for it.' They missed out on round 3. They missed out on round 4. Guess what: on round 5, they completely missed out.
I want to know: is it because our colour wasn't pink or green? The member for Mallee said that they had an opportunity to go in and specially lobby. Why didn't I get that opportunity? My town needs infrastructure funding too. My town needs it just as much as their towns need it. We are growing. We have growth pressures. Yet, under this government, we've received no support. It's not just my community that's missing out. In fact, it's a whole chunk of Labor regional electorates that are missing out. The women who will speak on our side will speak about how they've missed out. In this round, we got about $40,000 from this government and, as the member for Ballarat said, in total over the last few years it's about $2 million.
Compare that to the amounts received by the electorates of ministers who were also around the decision-making table. The electorate of the member for Maranoa, who is a minister in this government, received $57 million. The electorate of the former Deputy Prime Minister the member for Riverina received $27 million. The electorate of the former Deputy Prime Minister, then backbencher and now Deputy Prime Minister received $22.4 million. They're sitting around the table. They're not even trying to be fair or transparent. Somehow their seats are more needy than seats like Bendigo, Ballarat and Corangamite—and the list continues.
If you were genuine about building the regions and supporting regional communities, you'd be fair and share it equally. But we're not seeing that at all from this government. It is simply the 'building better rorts fund'. That's what we have on the table from this government. They try to disguise it by saying, 'Our electorates are geographically bigger.' That's not how democracy works. We all have about 110,000 voters in our electorates, and our regions are made up of a network of towns, hamlets, villages and regional centres. I have the City of Greater Bendigo in my electorate, but connected to that is a series of small towns such as the township of Maldon, with 1,500 people, and the township of Metcalfe, which has 100 people. They too need regional investment. I have a truckload of projects that need support. But, if we can't even get the Bendigo Airport upgraded through this government when we have Qantas, the state government, the City of Greater Bendigo and hundreds of local businesses on board, what chance does the Maldon RSL have? What chance does the Metcalfe town hall have? Zero under this government, because they're all about their own and not about anybody else.
I come back to what's in the title of the MPI. This is the allegation from those opposite: neglect of regional Australians and a misuse of taxpayers' money. Let's have a look at what's actually happened in my electorate and let's see them defend some of those things.
As I know you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, I just recently opened a palliative care facility at Hervey Bay to service the people of the Fraser Coast. Are those opposite seriously alleging that is a misuse of taxpayers' funds? This is $7 million from the Commonwealth. The state members are nowhere to be seen. The new state Labor member for Hervey Bay is in witness protection. You can't even get him out of his office. The people whom he and the state Labor member for Maryborough represent will have access to this facility at a very difficult time in their lives. There is $7 million for this facility, and I am absolutely proud to deliver that money to our region and our community for this purpose, because it will be incredibly strongly used in what is a difficult and emotional time for most individuals and their families. So these are the types of things that we are delivering into our communities, and those opposite allege this is a misuse of taxpayers' money.
Mr Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien, I know that you're very passionate about road safety, so let's look at some of the things that we've delivered in regional communities in my electorate. There is $4 million for a set of overtaking lanes on the Isis Highway between Bundaberg and Childers, where a fatal accident occurred some years ago and local community members lost their lives. How is that a misuse of taxpayers' money?
We have $10 million on the table for the Buxton Road intersection; I know you drive past it, Mr Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien. This was championed by the Deputy Mayor of Bundaberg and former mayor of the Isis district and Childers, Mr Bill Trevor. We know there is a small riverside village at the end of Buxton Road that uses this intersection with the Bruce Highway at the Isis River. It is an area of significant concern, and we have had $10 million on the table for a number of years, yet still we wait for the Queensland Labor government to actually deliver these facilities through the NPA that we have with Queensland for road construction and delivery. They continue to push it out, and they say they're about to get going somewhere soon.
But I'll turn to another part of the Hinkler Regional Deal, and that is the Royal Flying Doctor Service Aeromedical Training Centre. We've committed $15 million for this facility. In this MPI, those opposite are alleging this is a misuse of taxpayers' money—the Royal Flying Doctor Service! This is $15 million towards a new training facility which the RFDS will utilise with their new fleet when they replace their existing fleets as they come to the end of their operational life. We know that it will add more than 1,000 accommodation nights into the region of Bundaberg, just for the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The Bundaberg Regional Council has come on board with some land to support this facility. They were a little bit hesitant earlier—they wanted to charge $550,000 for it—but they did come to their senses, after some prodding. This is an incredibly worthy project that not only will help to train the Royal Flying Doctor Service pilots in their new aircraft but will continue to ensure that they are safe, in terms of their operation and competence into the future. This is a service that goes out into the regions and helps people not only in my electorate but right across parts of eastern Queensland and into the west. This is a significant investment, and I'm very pleased it is moving forward.
There is the $10 million for the multi-use conveyor at the Port of Bundaberg, which can help us add to the regional economy. That is 100 per cent funded by the Commonwealth, yet still we wait for the owner of the board of Bundaberg to deliver this piece of equipment. Who owns it? It's the Queensland state government, currently led by the Labor Party. They won't deliver what will build our local economy and will help our local port to grow and increase its capacity. Still we continue to wait.
The list just goes on and on and on, yet those opposite want to suggest that this is a misuse of taxpayers' money. That is just outrageous. If we get down to the Stronger Communities Program—Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, every member of parliament has access to this small program—these grants are absolutely welcomed by local community groups. Imagine going to the local rowing club—the Bundaberg Rowing Club secured just over $7,000 for a new trailer—and telling them that is a misuse of taxpayer funds.
What are those opposite seriously suggesting? I know they want to make a lot of noise and a lot of political points, but the reality is places like Bundaberg Bowls Club; the Guides Queensland Elouera—new kitchen benches for them; the Bundaberg Small Bore Rifle Club; LiveFlight; Bundaberg Croquet Club—the list goes on and on and on. These are small community groups who can't raise this sort of money on lamington drives and sausage sizzles. I am very pleased to continue to deliver opportunities into my electorate and into regional Australia, not just to grow jobs but to help make our communities stronger and better into the future.
I think the last statement that the minister made highlights exactly what the problem is with the Building Better Regions Fund—or the 'building better rorts fund', as it is better known—and that is the comparison with the Stronger Communities Program. The point about Stronger Communities is that it is equal and fair. Every single MP is given an equal amount to share between the groups within their electorate. I hope every MP does what I do, and shares it as evenly across the electorate as possible. That's the whole point: there's an equity there. But these guys don't understand what it means to be fair.
The list of rorts that has occurred under this government almost leaves me speechless. But I'm not going to be speechless for the next four minutes! I'm not going to miss that opportunity. Essentially, what were seeing under these funds—so many of them—is that they're used for personal pork barrelling. They're using taxpayer funds to personally pork barrel within electorates. You would have thought that the most marginal seat in the country, perhaps, would be deserving of some of the largess. Sadly, no—$3 million has come to the seat of Macquarie.
Let's compare a tale of two regions. There is the seat of Macquarie, which is peri-urban and, interestingly, sitting right next to the seat of Calare. My seat is a mix of regional and quite remote areas, and then you've got Calare, with three big cities in it, including Lithgow—a real centre. Here is the comparison. The Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury received $3 million. In fact, all of that went to just one small part of the electorate. Calare received $44.5 million. So two seats side by side, one with a National MP and one with a Labor MP—and, gee, doesn't that make you ask: how fair is this government being?
There is another example of where this government showed absolute preference for a National seat, and that was with a decision around a mobile blackspot tower. The tower was allocated to Mount Tomah, in my electorate, the heart of where the Gospers Mountain's fire went through. It is an area where there is no mobile reception and an area where many people pass through. It is an area very, very much in need of an improved mobile signal. Under the blackspot program a tower was allocated to Mount Tomah, but then something happened that no-one was told about and suddenly that tower was taken away from Mount Tomah and allocated to a National's electorate further west. There was no reason or anything given to the community to say, 'Hey, guys, we've found somewhere better to put this, and it's several hundred kilometres away from you.' That's the sort of behaviour of this government that is clearly designed to carry political favour, rather than do what is right and do what is needed.
I thought it was worth looking at my electorate and comparing it with other peri-urban sorts of electorates, and I looked at the electorate of Pearce in WA. Pearce is described as an outer-metropolitan electorate, and it received $19.6 million in funding. In contrast, Macquarie is considered provincial. So we are provincial, outside a capital city with the larger populations living in provincial towns. Outer-metropolitan is defined as an area situated in a capital city and containing large areas of recent suburban expansion. So there you go—a fund designed for regional Australia and more of it, $19.6 billion, went to Pearce, an outer-metropolitan seat—described as that in the government's own descriptions of seats—compared to a seat like mine, called a provincial seat, completely outside a capital city.
The way the allocations are happening is wrong. These people sit on what is largely a secret panel. All we know is that it's a ministerial panel. When you look at what ministers have been granted, you see: the agriculture minister, $52 million; the Leader of the Nationals $22.5 million; and the former Leader of the Nationals, $22.4 million. It has just got pork-barrelling written all over it! This is a group of people who rule for themselves, not for the country. (Time expired)
This MPI, put on by the member for Ballarat, has no relevance to the misuse of taxpayers' money. What it should have been titled was 'Labor's attempt to mislead regional and rural Australia, whilst having a dig at the National Party at the same time'. I take great offence to being told that I don't care about anybody in my electorate and care only about my position. That is an offensive statement. That is akin to me saying to the member for Ballarat, 'You hate businessowners or people who want to make a dollar and get ahead in life.'
I make no apologies, zero apologies, for working hard to get money for my electorate, for getting out there and advocating on behalf of my people under the BBRF. It is offensive to say that it is a rort—because it is not. Time after time, my constituents come and say to me, 'Pat, how come I didn't get that grant I put in?' or 'Pat, how come we have put it in three, four or five times and we can't get it? We're going to give up.' That's because it is oversubscribed by six times—$1.2 billion this time around out of $250 million.
For the member across the floor to suggest that it has nothing to do with geography, she needs to go and have a look at a map. We represent five million hectares across Australia in our regions. They represent 1.5 million, and 1.3 million of that is in the member for Lingiari's electorate. So, in terms of what they get, they represent 17 per cent of regional and rural Australia. And guess what? They received 16 per cent in funding. That is only fair—and it is absolutely correct. So do not lecture to me. Do not lecture to the National Party. We represent regional and rural people. I make no apologies that in the last BBRF I received $6.5 million for a dementia village, to provide care for those in their later life with dementia. You're here criticising the fact that National Party members are out there representing people in their communities and get funding for dementia centres. That's right, you don't want us to go out there and ensure that we get those services for people in their later life who are suffering with dementia.
Opposition members interjecting—
No, you can't do that. You're being partisan with this.
The member should withdraw the—
The member for Isaacs, is this a point of order?
It is a point of order.
What is your point of order?
It is a breach of standing orders to make the kind of offensive imputation that this member has just made.
The member for Isaacs will sit down. The member for Cowper.
Thank you. I also make no apologies—
An opposition member: You should withdraw!
I will not withdraw. I am speaking the truth!
The member for Isaacs is warned.
I make no apologies about obtaining the $1.4 billion for my community, for the Coffs Harbour bypass, for taking 12,000 cars off the road every single day and providing a better amenity, and for one of my communities. To suggest that the National Party members don't care about their community and only care about their position, in the words of the member for Ballarat—she may need to do her homework, in future, before putting on these types of MPIs.
I could go on and on about the BBRF around Australia that has supported all communities, including those represented by Labor, all those projects that have helped our communities so far. To suggest that the National Party are dinosaurs, in terms of the climate change policy—you only need to look at what we have done for regional and rural Australians over the past two weeks. I can tell you, they are in a much better position now than they were two weeks ago.
Nobody on this side of the House is saying that the projects that have been funded are unworthy. Let's make that clear. No-one is saying that projects that have been funded on that side of the House are unworthy. What we're saying is that they should be equally funded for communities that we represent, our regional and rural communities. My community of Eden-Monaro is 42,000 square kilometres. It's the 15th largest electorate in this parliament. It's larger than 55 countries. To suggest that the space or the area of your electorate is the reason you should get funding is an absolute farce, because my communities are rural and regional.
It is incredibly frustrating that we have community members who have to move to the cities for opportunities. But when regional funding or funding that is identified as regional is going to metropolitan projects, you can see how that happens. Over 3,600 regional grants have gone to major city projects. There was $16½ million of taxpayer money meant for the regions that went to the Sydney Cricket Ground. There was $10 million of regional money that went to the North Sydney pool. Who gets the benefit of that? If funding goes to a cricket ground in Sydney, it is likely that a cricket club in Cooma or Tumut has missed out. We have tremendous sporting talent in our region—and a shout-out for Jade Allen who debuted for the Sydney Sixers last week. It's an amazing achievement given that she's been doing her pre-season training on facilities that can't even host regional local events.
I understand that some of this funding which goes into the cities will benefit regional people, but not all regional people—let's be clear about that! The fact is that the Building Better Regions Fund, which was supposed to build stronger regional communities into the future, has been a pork-barrelling exercise in round 5. Since 2018, 90 per cent of the Building Better Regions Fund has gone to coalition-held or targeted seats, when Labor holds a third of the eligible seats for this fund. And it's unsurprising that this is the case, because coalition MPs were given the opportunity to lobby for projects that didn't quite meet the program's criteria. I wasn't given that opportunity. It is an absolute joke that the Bega War Memorial Pool, which is 65 years old, didn't receive funding and yet the North Sydney pool did. It's an absolute joke!
The last round of the Building Better Regions Fund included a hardship clause for areas to apply for 100 per cent of funding because they've been under extreme circumstances. I could go on and on about how Eden-Monaro has suffered a prolonged drought, had over a million hectares burnt in the Black Summer bushfires and has suffered 28 declared natural disasters in the last couple of years—not to mention the economic impact of COVID lockdowns and border closures—and yet we received a pittance of funding. It's almost like the clause was made for regions hit hardest but that the minister made decisions not on that basis. I have six local councils, all of whom would love money from the Building Better Regions Fund. They have tens of thousands of kilometres of road network, and yet no money came.
The Australian public deserves to know that decisions over grant funding are made based on merit rather than political interest. Councils, businesses and communities across regional Australia need to know that they'll get funding regardless of who their representative is. It's not good enough in 2021 to say, 'Sorry your regional community doesn't matter to us if we don't represent you'.
A government member interjecting—
It's not outrageous! It's exactly what just happened! But it's not a surprise; it's actually not a surprise to people anymore. This is what people want; they're sick of the announcement and no delivery. Last week we spoke about the Emergency Response Fund, which has now grown to $4.7 billion. It has earned $700 million in interest and they've only committed $50 million of the fund. This is a fund for emergency response—for recovery and mitigation projects—but no money has flowed out of that fund yet. Australians are sick and tired of the continued and increasing misuse of taxpayers funding, and regional Australians are fed up with the power plays in the coalition that demand where the money goes. We need to restore faith in our democracy and this will only happen with a change of government. Regional Australians deserve better.
I thank the member for Eden-Monaro for reminding me about the 'drought round', as we described it in WA. It was a round of the Building Better Regions Fund which was restricted to those areas that had been drought declared. At the time, my electorate, which covers 866,000 square kilometres and 38 local government authorities, was not drought declared. We were subsequently, but after that particular round of the BBRF closed. Therefore my communities, the 38 local government authorities across my electorate, had no access to funding during that round, which led to a very high demand and very high expectations of the most recent rounds.
Across my 38 local governments in O'Connor, I had 18 projects put up—significant projects of over a million dollars—for a total of $40 million. Part of the reason for that was not only that we were excluded from the previous round, due to not being drought declared at that time, but also because of the Western Australian Labor government, which, once they were elected in 2017, discontinued the previous coalition government's Royalties For Regions Fund. This fund was predicated on the royalties generated in regional Australia being reinvested in the towns where those royalties are generated—particularly in towns like Kalgoorlie, Leonora and Laverton across my electorate. They produce an enormous amount of royalty income for the Western Australian government and a billion dollars of those royalties was to be predicated to regional development. This year, in Western Australia, iron ore alone has produced $11 billion of royalties for the Western Australian government. None of that money is coming back to regional Western Australia through regional development programs at this point in time. What that's led to is the only source and access of regional development funding is the building better regions program. As I say, this led to a massive oversubscription with 18 projects at $40 million. I'm very proud that I wrote letters of support for every single one of those 18 projects. The member for Macquarie, who was on her feet recently—I'm told that some proponents in her electorate complained that they didn't receive letters of support from the member for Macquarie, so that's interesting. But, certainly in my case, I've advocated for every single one of those projects, and I was very pleased that six of those projects got across the line to a total of $14 million.
We've heard accusations by the Labor shadow spokesman and others in the media that this is a pork-barrelling exercise. Well, I can assure you that my seat, on 65 per cent two-party preferred, is not a marginal seat. It's not a seat that the government is trying to defend or trying to win. It's a regional seat that covers an enormous area with 110,000 hardworking citizens, spread across 38 local government authorities and over 120 different towns, that deserve support from their federal government.
I'll quickly run through some of the projects that we've funded. The Kalgoorlie-Boulder basketball stadium—Kalgoorlie has a state-league basketball team that have been playing in very, very substandard conditions, so that $5 million to go towards the $13 million project will be very well received. The Esperance Bay Yacht Club is to upgrade the marina, which will also allow cruise ships to dock their tenders, will increase the tourism visitation and is another important project of $2 million. The Albany Motorsport Park, with $5 million from us out of a $10 million project, will create a state of the art motor complex in Albany, which will, once again, draw hundreds if not thousands of visitors to the region. That was just touching on some of those projects.
I want to wrap up by talking about the Nyabing Progress Association. Nyabing is a little town of about 200 people, and the shire probably has around 400 people in it. At the recent regional Australia committee visit to my home town of Katanning, Rachel Browne, who's the treasurer of the association, appeared and explained that they needed a new community hub in their town. The community, and I'm talking about a community of less than 200 people—member for Corangamite, before you get on your feet—raised over a million dollars to put towards a project, a community hub that they needed, and we contributed $900,000. I'm very proud of that and I'm very proud of them. (Time expired)
It's breathtaking that the Morrison-Joyce government apparently considers the Building Better Regions Fund to be its own re-election fund. The fund has delivered over $1 billion of taxpayers' money, but here's what the Morrison-Joyce government isn't telling you: over 90 per cent of the funding has gone to coalition-held or targeted seats. In contrast, Labor-held electorates received a meagre 14 per cent of the funding. It's no wonder the Morrison-Joyce government has become known to communities, including mine, as the government of rorts. It's clear for all to see why this government doesn't want to introduce legislation for an integrity commission that has real teeth—it's because this government's dirty deeds would be exposed by an integrity commission. The Prime Minister must explain to people in Labor-held seats why they are paying their taxes, seemingly to contribute to a coalition government's re-election.
Then there's the fact that 55 per cent of regional grants have gone to cities. This means 3,682 regional grants have gone to major city projects compared to only 309 projects in areas classified as remote or very remote. The Morrison-Joyce government likes us to know how important regional development is to them, but the figures reveal just the opposite. As we know, there was $16.5 million of taxpayers' money which was meant to go to regions but went to the Sydney Cricket Ground. And here's another one: $10 million of regional money is going to a pool in North Sydney. How is that regional? Where's the benefit for regional Australia in that?
There's a long list of equally ridiculous examples of regional funds ending up anywhere but in the regions. Do you know what? The people of regional Australia and the people of my electorate are wise to this government's deception and to its neglect of our regions.
This week there have been claims by the Nationals that they are fighting for the regions around zero emissions policy. A memo to the deputy leader on this: you need to represent regional Australians on climate change for 52 weeks a year, not just when it is an electoral imperative. For example, in January 2020, the federal Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources released a discussion paper on the development of an offshore clean energy bill to incentivise and regulate offshore renewable projects in Australia, but, despite promises to introduce legislation by mid-2021, there is still no sign of a draft bill. Credible offshore wind projects in my region have been waiting more than five years for this legislation. And this is the way it is likely to continue with this government saying it will only invest in technologies like solar and wind when there is a clear market failure or where it will save jobs. What about creating new clean energy jobs in our regions? Surely renewable energy projects for the regions are an absolute no brainer.
Another no brainer is support for our tourism sector across our regions during this pandemic. During COVID lockdowns I implored the Morrison government to provide desperately needed financial support to the tourism sector in my region under the Recovery for Regional Tourism program. Despite a most significant loss of revenue, the Surf Coast, Bellarine and Great Ocean Road regions completely missed out. The failure to include these key tourism destinations was in direct contradiction to the government's own program guidelines, which clearly state that gross value added by international visitors and tourism employment within the region is a key factor in determining funding. I also note that seven of the nine eligible funds for the fund were in LNP-held seats. Is that equitable?
Australia is caught up in a critical shortage of timber, and it's particularly hurting fast growing regions like mine. It's hurting construction, it's impacting jobs and opportunities for apprenticeships and ultimately it's affecting economic prosperity. The Morrison-Joyce government promised to meet the one billion plantation trees target in 2018, but this government, as usual, has failed to do anything. In fact, a concessional loan program set up to help meet the one billion trees target is not yet even open. An amount of $500 million was promised before the last election towards this target. Once again: hollow words.
When it comes to regional Australians, this government speaks big but delivers little. It delivers without equity and it delivers not for regional people. (Time expired)
What a beat-up! These people come into this place and I think their thesis is effectively that 90 per cent of the funding has gone to coalition and coalition-target seats. Well, the reality is I can tell you 100 per cent of the funding went to coalition and coalition-target seats, because we're targeting every single seat in this place. That's the reality. You know what they say about statistics: lies, damn lies and statistics. This is a cruel trick by those opposite to pretend they're on message. They come in and want to whinge and whine and carp, always pointing out these so-called inequities.
If I take the member for Macquarie's argument to its logically extent, she basically says, 'Don't worry about the merits of the application, just apply funding evenly across electorates.' What that would ultimately result in is a situation where applications with very high merit that had gone through a rigorous application process would be disadvantaged and poor applications that hadn't received the necessary work required to get applications over the line would be advantaged. You've got to think about what that means. That means we'd end up with this kind of mismatch across the country where people would ultimately say, 'There's no point really working hard to develop a good application because at the end of the day we'll be punished for an application so we might as well make rubbish applications.' We don't want to see that. We want to see merit based assessment. In fact, if we applied that rule—I will call it the member for Macquarie's rule—then those opposite would no doubt come in here and say, 'This is ridiculous, because there should be a merit assessment in relation to this.'
The reality is: this is a program about building better regions. There might be a hint in the title—'building better regions'. For me, that means stronger, more resilient regions. In my electorate, which spans 64,000 square kilometres—larger than Croatia!—I have some very, very, very small communities. If you went to the community of Karoonda, in the east Murray, with its own local government, less than 1,100 people live in that local government area. The member for Corangamite wants to have that community compete on an even footing with Geelong. You can't be serious, with respect! Geelong is not a regional community. From where I'm standing, it looks like, basically, a capital city. Quite frankly, from the people of Karoonda's perspective, it's a metropolis.
The reality is: if we don't do something serious about the trajectory of population distribution in this country, projections have us ending up, by 2050—and there has been a lot of talk about where we'll end up in 2050—with two megacities in this country. I don't want to live in an Australia which is effectively Melbourne and Sydney, with all due respect to those people who represent those fine capitals in this place. The heart of Australia beats in our regions. I want a basketball player with talent at Murray Bridge to enjoy similar facilities. He or she will never enjoy exactly the same facilities as people living in our capital cities, but I'd like them to enjoy comparable facilities. Quite frankly, our next generation of Australian Olympians disproportionately comes from regional Australia. I want older Australians living in small communities to enjoy similar facilities to those in the cities.
To those opposite who come in here and say, 'This is just another rort, because 90 per cent of the funding went to coalition and coalition target seats': this is just playing with statistics. You're losing credibility daily. You didn't come in here after the emergency round, the bushfire round, and say, 'Oh well, we did particularly well in bushfire affected communities.' Of course bushfire communities did well in that round; it was deliberately targeted at drought and other emergencies.
The reality is: the people of Australia vote with their feet. They know that the coalition—proud Liberals, proud Nationals—represent regional Australia and do it well. That's why we keep getting returned, disproportionately, in regional Australia.
The discussion has concluded.
This bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021, will provide a framework for piloting new approaches to delivering unemployment services in remote communities ahead of implementing the government's budget announcement that the Community Development Program will be replaced in 2023. It will create a new supplementary payment for eligible jobseekers in remote engagement program pilot sites to engage in placements that are like having a job and at the same time to build their skills in roles that will benefit their community. The new payment will be one aspect communities can trial alongside other approaches to training, skills, development and nonvocational support in their remote engagement program. It will also support communities. Many of the more detailed aspects of the approach will be set out in legislative instruments and policy guidance, the reason being that this will allow the flexibility to adjust as lessons are learnt and communities' ideas change over the course of the pilot.
The National Indigenous Australians Agency has several bills before parliament for progression during this sitting. The bills will provide a framework for piloting new approaches to delivering employment services in remote communities ahead of, as I just said, implementation of the government's budget announcement that the Community Development Program will be replaced in 2023. They will support collaboration with communities to develop an appropriately flexible program that will build the skills and vocational capabilities of people in remote communities. Many of the more detailed aspects of the approach will be set out in the aforementioned legislative instruments and policy guidance. The reason for this, of course, is that in any pilot program you want to be in a position where you can adjust the program as you learn. In many ways, this will resemble a randomised trial in which programs will be implemented in four different sites with about 800 people and we will measure the outcomes of those different programs. When particular features go better or a particular approach has worked better, we will see if those results can be replicated in other communities.
This is the way, really, that policy should be rolled out. Too often in this place, we present programs that we expect to work just as well in the south of Hobart as in the north of Darwin. That obviously will not always be the case, so it is critically important that this parliament and this government experiment, innovate and, to use the words of the startup world, learn to fail fast, because what is at stake here is, of course, the welfare of some of the most vulnerable people in Australia, who live in some of the most challenging communities in Australia.
I think have to accept that we have had many decades of trying. The member for Lingiari mentioned Margaret Guilfoyle, who was, of course, the Minister for Social Security in the Fraser government. As we know, that was not a government that was known for its innovation, and a lot of problems festered during that time. But Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, from the confines of Canberra, sought to solve problems and challenges faced by some of Australia's most vulnerable in their most challenging communities, and for that she should be congratulated, because she sought to do something that no government had tried to do before.
In any attempt, you are going to have successes and failures. But one of the problems and challenges that this parliament faces is that that we will often do things that won't work out the way that we want them to and will create unintended consequences and problems. What we need to do is to face up to that and admit that we have failed and that, while we may have done some good, we have also done some things that didn't work out as well as we wanted them to. In those circumstances, when we have the courage to do that, we can start to make things better.
I don't want to prosecute the failures of the past; I want to talk about the future. What this bill is about is the future. It's about trialling different approaches to helping people who are on welfare get off welfare. That's the strange thing about welfare: if you love someone—if you truly care for someone—and if you have compassion for your fellow Australians then you never want to see them on the welfare. And if they find themselves on welfare, through no fault of their own—through circumstances, or, in some cases, because of things they've done—then you don't want them to stay there very long. The statistics on this are compelling: people who find themselves in the welfare system for the long term do not have very good life outcomes. It's something that you would only wish upon your worst enemy. So when we're talking about vulnerable Australians and challenging communities, what we really want for them is to be off welfare as quickly as possible. We want to design systems that create a disincentive to stay there and a pathway out of there. It's those two things; it's not just the carrot, it's also the stick.
This bill is about the carrot. This bill is about how we can create programs that help vulnerable Australians get themselves off welfare as quickly as possible. It will, for example, amend the Social Security portfolio legislation to support commencement of pilots in sites across remote Australia from later this year for the new Remote Engagement Program, as announced by the government in the 2021-2022 budget. This program will replace the CDP from 2023. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 establishes this new supplementary payment for eligible jobseekers in Remote Engagement Program pilot sites to participate in placements that are like having a job. The placements will build participants' skills and deliver goods or services to benefit their local communities, and provide a pathway for jobseekers to find a job. The bill builds on the Australian government's commitment to reform employment services, and is a critical component of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. Over many, many decades, governments have tried different approaches to delivering employment services in remote Australia. We've learned that what works in our cities and more densely populated regions may not work in remote areas. That's something, if I may reflect upon it, which we might think isn't something that a parliament would need to discover, but we did. And in doing so, we're making changes to make the lives of vulnerable Australians better.
We've also learned that we have to adapt and evolve continually to better meet the new, unforeseen and unknown challenges that lie ahead. Australians living in remote communities face complex employment challenges, different from those experienced in regional and urban areas. Remote areas cover 75 per cent of the Australian land mass. However there are fewer jobs available in remote areas, with less than two per cent of actively trading businesses located in those areas. This bill therefore creates the payment to be called the Remote Engagement Program payment. It will be made to eligible jobseekers in Remote Engagement Program pilot sites who volunteer to participate in work-like roles, such as with government services or a community organisation. The placements will build a jobseekers' skills and provide a pathway for jobseekers to find a job—and also to build an economy. At the same time, the placements will enable eligible jobseekers to deliver goods and services to benefit their communities.
This bill supports the government's commitment to work in genuine partnership in co-design with Indigenous Australians. The government is committed to co-designing the pilots with communities and believe that this will be critical to their success. It is important that there is capacity to trial different approaches in different sites. To give effect to this, the government, in this bill, commits to work in partnership with Indigenous communities.
The bill sets out the basic parameters of the payment with other elements, such as any additional qualification criteria, and the exact rate of payment to be set out in detail in legislative instruments and policy guidance. These legislative instruments will be informed by the outcomes of a co-design process in the pilot sites. The government will take the time to work together with and listen to communities in the pilot sites about what they think could work in relation to the amount of payment to be provided, the hours of engagement to be undertaken in return and what eligible jobseekers are required to do to continue to receive the payment. The design of the new Remote Engagement Program will be informed by lessons learnt in these sites. That is a radical idea for this parliament—that is, to learn from our mistakes and to listen to the people that we are designing these programs for.
So to reiterate: during the spring of 2021, the parliamentary sitting period, the government is progressing several bills important to advancing the wellbeing of Indigenous Australians. This bill is one part of that package. As part of the CDP reform, the Social Security Act and Social Security (Administration) Act will be amended by the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 to assist eligible jobseekers in Remote Engagement Program sites to build skills in roles in government services or community organisations that are like having a job.
If there is one last thing I would like to reflect upon, it is this: these programs are important and the nature of this bill is a noble one. Therefore, I find it disappointing that those opposite have sought once again to move what is a meaningless second reading amendment. I couldn't understand for many years why they were doing this, why they were taking up the parliament's time in doing so, but what has become apparent to me in the last few weeks and few months is that there is a website called theyvoteforus.com.au, which is backed by big-tech billionaires who hide behind it seeking to buy our democracy. What this site does—in a manner and form that I think is quite wrong and maybe even evil—is seek to misrepresent the views and the voting patterns of members of this parliament. For example, we will now vote against this meaningless second reading amendment. That site will then use that vote to claim that I voted against improving the life outcomes for some the most vulnerable Australians that we have. I find it difficult to believe, knowing some of those people opposite, that they would be part of this fraud being perpetrated on the Australian people. It is just beyond me that they would continue to engage in this process, especially when we're talking about vulnerable Australians. (Time expired)
I'd like to thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021. This bill is a representation of the important strides being made as part of the Morrison government's reform to employment services to support the economic recovery from COVID-19.
This program, since its introduction in 1977, has gone through many iterations, including CDEP, RJCP in 2013, CDP from 2015 and now the Remote Engagement Program. For the first time, this program will be co-designed and developed with Indigenous Australians.
This legislation is just one building block and sunsets in 2023. The bill is not a new program. The new payment that this bill enables will be one aspect that communities can trial alongside other approaches to training, skills development and non-vocational support as part of the co-design of the remote employment program. It will provide a framework for piloting new approaches to delivering employment services in remote communities ahead of implementing the Morrison government's budget announcement that the Community Development Program, CDP, will be replaced in 2023.
I am pleased to sum up the debate in relation to this bill today. This bill is an important step towards closing the gap and significantly improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, especially those living in remote Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Barton 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.
The question now is that this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Enhancing the Bonded Medical Program and Other Measures) Bill 2021.
In the middle of a global pandemic, health care saves lives. People should be able to book an appointment with their GP and receive care straightaway—whether it's COVID related or for a regular health check-up. Unfortunately, this isn't the case for many people in my community on the Central Coast of New South Wales. Like many regions of Australia, the coast is battling an acute GP shortage. Locals are waiting weeks for routine appointments, practices have been forced to close their books and doctors are struggling to keep up with demand. People often say that Australia has a universal health-care system, but we don't. A two-tiered system has developed, where access is increasingly determined by where you live and how much you earn, and communities outside big cities are finding it harder and harder to see a GP.
People living with chronic health conditions, such as heart disease or diabetes, find they're made worse by longer waiting times and are facing the barriers to care of high out-of-pocket costs exacerbated by a shortage of health-care workers. As a pharmacist and local MP, I know that if people delay care their condition will only get worse, which is worse for them, worse for our health-care system and worse for the economy. They'll end up in emergency departments, clogging up an already-overwhelmed hospital system, when a trip to the GP could have helped them sooner. This is the case for too many people on the Central Coast. The lack of doctors on the coast is largely because of the government's refusal to recognise most of the northern end of the coast as a priority; it's not a distribution priority area. I have been calling on the government to give our region DPA status for a long time now. Changing our classification would allow practices to recruit and retain more GPs, and would help people in my community get access to quality health care close to home when they need it.
Fortunately, Wyoming-Ourimbah, which is part of my community, was granted DPA status on 1 July. This has meant that after a chronic shortage on the Central Coast, the Central Coast Community Women's Health Centre has finally been able to recruit a GP, who is now working two days a week. I spoke to Theresa Mason, the manager of the Central Coast Community Women's Health Centre today after their AGM. They, like many others in my community, made a submission to the Senate inquiry that Labor pushed for. As she said in the submission: 'Recruiting and retaining GPs to our health service has been a long-term challenge, a challenge which hasn't been improved by the government's stubborn refusal to act on the DPA status, which has meant a chronic shortage on the Central Coast of New South Wales. It's just not good enough: health care should be a priority, especially in regional communities.'
When a young mum notices that her son is sick, she should be able to take him to a GP straightaway. She shouldn't have to wait days to make an appointment while her son's condition only gets worse. Sadly, this was the case for Kristy. Kristy's son ended up in ICU at Westmead Hospital in Sydney for a month with a collapsed lung when he was just 16 months old. Thankfully, he has fully recovered but this should never have happened and it could have been avoided. It might not have happened if Kristy had been able to get her son into a GP sooner.
Then there are people like David. David lives in Wyong, my hometown on the Central Coast, but he used to live in the Hawkesbury. He told me that he needs to make an appointment at least a week in advance if he wants to see a doctor on the coast, but that it isn't the case further south. He says he's better off making the trip to the Hawkesbury because he can see a GP within an hour there, where he used to live. No one should have to drive that far to get quick access to health care, especially, he told me, during the middle of lockdown. Locals should have timely access to care close to home, in their own community.
I heard a similar story from Leonie. Her husband tried to get in to see a GP in their local area of Toukley after he became unwell. Every single practice told him they couldn't take on new patients, and then they were forced to send him away. He had to make a half-hour trip to his old neighbourhood where he could get into a GP, only to be told that he was in the middle of a cardiac event. In Australia today this is unacceptable. If Leonie's husband had been able to see a GP close to home he would have known what was happening sooner and could have got the essential health care at the hospital straightaway, and the emergency treatment he needed. Any delay in treatment can mean lives. This is all happening because there aren't enough GPs in our community and the government refuses to help. The critical lack of doctors on the north end of the coast has gone on for too long.
That's why, on this side of the House, we had to take things further. Together with Labor MPs and senators, we pushed for a Senate inquiry to be established to investigate GP shortages in outer metropolitan and regional areas across Australia, including on the Central Coast. The inquiry is now up and running, and there are already 110 published submissions. I have one here that I referred to earlier, from the Central Coast Community Women's Health Centre. From speaking with the secretariat, I understand they are struggling to keep up with the sheer volume of submissions. Over the next few months, this inquiry will investigate the lack of doctors in our area and reforms to the DPA classification system and GP training, as well as the impact of COVID-19 on GPs. This is good news for people on the coast. It's a step forward in our fight to secure more GPs and an opportunity for locals to be heard, and I will be pushing for a hearing in our region, because the voices of local people on the Central Coast deserve to be heard, not to be overlooked, ignored or pushed aside by this government.
In the meantime, the minister has announced a new exceptional circumstances review—and I have a copy of his media release on it here—for the Department of Health DPA classification, where anyone in a non-DPA area, such as a clinic, can apply for an assessment. It goes on to say:
… the following factors would be considered alongside an area's non-DPA status:
… … …
… … …
… … …
After eight years, the best the government can do on is to put out, on 2 September, a media release which says there will be a new exceptional circumstance review for the department of health's distribution priority area classification. That is the best they can do. I think the minister is genuine, and I know he's acting in good faith. I have provided letters of support for practices who are trying to access this review. But a case-by-case review will not fix a systemic, systemwide problem. Everybody knows that. After eight years in government, it's just too little, too late, and, as I said, it will not address the underlying systemic problems that are afflicting people, particularly anybody living outside big cities.
As a footnote to the minister's announcement on 2 September, the minister said:
We are aiming to ensure the process is a speedy one, to quickly help address any GP service shortfall arising from those additional factors—
the ones I mentioned before: changes to health services, workforce, or health system; patient demographic changes; and absence of services. Well, I hope so too, Minister. A belated Zoom meeting on the Central Coast will not fix years of neglect.
I'm pleased the minister has come into the House, because I've called him about this myself. I've spoken to him about this urgent problem in our community. More action needs to happen, and it needs to happen now for people like Kristy, who couldn't get her son in to see a GP, with the result that he ended up in the ICU at Westmead Hospital when he was 16 months old; David, who had to drive to Sydney to get access to health care when he couldn't get any access close to home; or Leonie's husband, who, in the middle of a cardiac event, couldn't get health care on the Central Coast.
Minister, you said yourself that, as a health practitioner, you understand the urgency. I urge you to push the government to advocate strongly for regional communities like the one that I represent and the ones that you represent. It must be better. It has to change. It's risky. It's risking people's lives. We need practical solutions to fix this shortage so we can improve health care for all Australians. It's gone on for too long. Anyone who lives outside a big city—anyone living in regional, remote or rural Australia—is feeling this.
We support the intention of the DPA changes, which were meant to get doctors to the bush. But do you know what doctors have told me across Australia? It hasn't fixed the problem in the bush; it's just spread the problem further, so that everyone living outside a big city is now impacted by this, whether it's the outer suburbs, the regions or the bush.
Minister, you said in your media release on 2 September:
The Australian Government is also preparing a formal review of the DPA indicator. Further details of the review will be announced soon.
Well, I really hope so, because I understand that, in my community on the Central Coast of New South Wales, close to 150 local practices have lost DPA status over the last three years. Some of them have closed. Others have been forced to close their books. Do you know what that represents, Minister? Forty per cent of practices in our region, on the northern end of the Central Coast, have lost their DPA status.
At the same time, as you would know, we're seeing an increase in low-urgency presentations at Wyong and Gosford hospitals' emergency departments. I worked at Wyong hospital; I worked there for almost 10 years. The staff there are dedicated, they're capable, but they are under enormous strain, and the emergency department doesn't need to be clogged up with low-urgency presentations which would be more quickly, and safely, seen in a GP surgery. Minister, it is not good enough. It has to change, and a belated case-by-case review process and a yet-to-be-announced wider review of the DPA indicator are not good enough.
I know, Minister, you are genuine in your intentions, but our community, the community on the northern end of the Central Coast, has been left behind, overlooked by this government for eight years. People in my community are feeling the impact of that. It is risky. It's impacting people's health, mental health and wellbeing. It's not good enough that people on the Central Coast are being overlooked and left behind. As I said earlier, I've spoken to you about this personally, Minister, and I've raised these issues with you countless times. I believe you are genuine in your desire to do something—but there is no urgency, and it needs to happen now. People are missing urgent health checks. Somebody I heard from today has missed a breast-screening check. People are missing checks for melanoma. People are missing urgent health-screening checks at the same time as being unable to get care, and it's clogging up our emergency departments.
Minister, this is not good enough. The people of the Central Coast deserve better. You've said you're aiming to ensure that this process is a speedy one, to quickly help. I hope so. You've also said that you'll announce a wider review of the DPA indicator soon. I hope so. But, Minister, a review is not good enough. What's needed is action, what's needed is action now, for people in my community who have been overlooked and forgotten and whose health is at risk because of this government.
I rise to also speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Enhancing the Bonded Medical Program and Other Measures) Bill 2021, because it does provide some additional flexibility to help improve the operation of the statutory Bonded Medical Program and the Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship Scheme contracts. The amendments will ensure that the program continues to benefit participants and ensure that its key objectives are achieved.
The government currently funds a range of initiatives to help attract medical professionals to and retain them in rural areas across Australia, including this program, the Bonded Medical Program, which commenced on 1 January 2020. The program provides a Commonwealth supported place in a medical course at an Australian university in exchange for participants completing a return-of-service obligation by working as a medical practitioner in a regional, rural or remote community. This helps to deliver higher numbers of GPs and specialists to areas of workforce shortage, which is particularly important in areas like my electorate of Robertson and right across the Central Coast—and I note the member for Dobell referred to this earlier, in her contribution—where there has been a shortage of medical professionals, and particularly GPs, for some time.
This has been going on for much longer than the eight years the member for Dobell referred to. It has been going on for a very long time on the Central Coast. There have actually been a number of reasons for that, and the government over the last eight years has been taking a number of steps to specifically look at addressing the shortage of GPs on the Central Coast. We have had success in the areas that we have been tackling, including, thanks to the now minister, a task force to help address the shortage of GPs on the peninsula, for example. That task force helped to deliver a number of additional GPs to the area. But we know that there are challenges, not just simply in relation to DPA status. We have seen suburbs that have been given DPA—or district of workforce shortage, as it was called a couple of years ago—status, and then the shortage cleared up; it was no longer. There were sufficient GPs in that area. Then, if DPA status is given to another suburb, we actually find that that doesn't necessarily keep GPs in our local community.
I have a personal interest in health and wellness and making sure that our system is not only the best in Australia but the best in the world, and one of the things that I know is the importance of long-term primary care. Having long-term GPs here on the Central Coast is an important part of being able to solve this very challenging issue. It's one of the reasons why the government delivered the outstanding Central Coast Clinical School and Research Institute in the heart of Gosford, which opened earlier this year. It's a world-class medical research institute and university, which means young students will be able to train to be GPs and nurses. We want them to stay. We want them to love the Central Coast lifestyle so much that they actually stay, and over time I believe this will help address some of the shortages that we face in particularly challenging like the Central Coast.
As I was saying before, this bill will provide more flexibility to consider the personal circumstances of participants, such as allowing individuals to cease being a part of the program without penalty in the event of serious disability or death. This is one of the issues that key stakeholders and doctors have helped identify and seek to address. The amendments in the bill will also allow some legacy scheme participants to allow for more time to complete the return-of-service obligations. This will apply to certain long-term participants who would otherwise not be able to complete this program in the 18-year period allowed if they opted into the program. The changes also allow for breaches under the program to be more appropriately managed. It reduces the administrative penalty for each relevant breach from $10,000 to $1,000, assuring that it's appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances. The bill will also allow for appropriate administration of breaches of legacy Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship contracts by allowing the minister to waive penalties accrued by participants for breaches of arrangements prior to the start of the amendments. The changes will also enable the minister to determine if an individual who breaches their contract after the introduction of these amendments should have a Medicare ban applied.
We do know, as I referred to before and as the member of Dobell also outlined, there has been a real challenge in attracting and retaining GPs to the Central Coast for many years now. Since the coalition government came to office in 2013, we have been working on a number of important initiatives to help resolve this problem. I have been advised by the Hunter, New England and Central Coast Primary Health Network that the Central Coast currently has 339 general practitioners working in 92 practices. For a population of 337,000, this means there are only 100 GPs per 100,000 people on the Central Coast, which I understand is below state and national averages. This challenge will only become greater as several GPs in the Central Coast are retiring or are looking to retire in the next few years. Some general practices have advised they've got no other option than to close their doors because they can't find new GPs to fill these vacancies. As I said before, we do need a number of initiatives to help address this particular issue. We need short-term solutions to bring the required number of GPs to the Central Coast. We also need medium- and long-term solutions to make sure we're not always playing catch up—so when we solve the problem in one suburb or area it doesn't pop-up in another area. We actually want to address this in a holistic way.
While there are over 3,500 GPs graduating in Australia each year, very few end up deciding to live in a regional or rural area, and this is one of the problems we face in the Central Coast, and that is why the Bonded Medical Program is so important. It gives students the opportunity to live and work where they are needed most. In my own electorate, suburbs like Woy Woy, Ettalong and Umina Beach are classified as distribution priority areas, making them eligible for this initiative, along with Mangrove Mountain, Somersby, Kariong, Calga, Kulnura and also Wyoming. I know many GP practices in other suburbs across my electorate would welcome changes to the classifications of the Central Coast to enable more and future GPs to access this program because of the very real impact that it has.
The program also has a number of benefits for the higher education sector. I'm told the University of Newcastle normally hosts between 30 and 35 students with a bonded place, with some of these students entering their first year on the Central Coast. A spokesperson for the university told me: 'The changes in the bill are very positive in terms of increased flexibility for students and the long-term effectiveness of the scheme. We understand that they provide students with more flexibility and are more family friendly, which is very important for a university like Newcastle, where the majority of our students are mature age.'
The Morrison government is also investing in other projects to boost our medical workforce. Recently, as I referred to before, the Central Coast Clinical School and Research Institute building welcomed its first 170 medical students. This is something that was made possible following a joint investment, with the Australian government contributing $32.5 million and the New South Wales government and the University of Newcastle contributing $20 million each. In addition, the Australian government provided $12.5 million of transitional funding through the Department of Education and Training to help cover the costs of establishing the new medical and clinical schools. The school has recently welcomed over 700 students from the nursing program. This is just the start, with graduate entry nursing for international students, a master's in health economics, a master's in clinical exercise physiology and a master's in clinical psychology expected to be on offer from 2024. The University of Newcastle is also looking to offer a bachelor of public and community health, a new program that focuses on the integrated and community health needs of the Central Coast. The Central Coast Clinical School and Research Institute puts our region on the map as an area of medical excellence as well as forming part of our long-term strategy to attract and retain more doctors and professionals in our region.
The federal government is also undertaking an exceptional-circumstances review process for the Department of Health's distribution priority area classification system. I know this is very, very much welcomed on the Central Coast. It's going to provide an opportunity for changes to the Central Coast population and other factors to be assessed, and it allows GP clinics in non-DPA areas to apply for an exceptional-circumstances review, which is something that I know is very welcome at a number of local GP practices on the Central Coast. This review will help clinics recruit doctors to care for communities like the Central Coast.
In addition to this work, the Hunter New England and Central Coast Primary Health Network has been working to attract and retain GPs to our region with a number of bespoke incentives, support networks and programs. I'm delighted that from August this year the Central Coast has now become home to 33 new GP registrars commencing in our region. These new doctors have been distributed across the Central Coast region, and they will help to deliver better health services for local residents.
This bill allows for more appropriate and efficient administration of the Bonded Medical Program to meet and support the needs of the modern workforce, a workforce of medical professionals providing crucial health services in regional, rural and remote Australia. This couldn't be more important at a time like this. I commend the bill to the House.
I am very pleased to rise in support of the amendments moved by Labor to improve the bill currently before the House, the Health Insurance Amendment (Enhancing the Bonded Medical Program and Other Measures) Bill 2021. I will come to some of the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Robertson, with regard to the University of Newcastle shortly. I want to take this opportunity to, at least in the beginning, try to map out the intention of this bill. It is an effort to amend the Health Insurance Act that would try to provide some flexibility into the Bonded Medical Program and the administration of those related scholarships and contracts there. The government says the bill is designed to address the doctor shortage across the regions, including in rural and remote areas. I take issue with that claim. I seriously think that is overstating the work of this bill. Whilst this might provide some relief to one small component of the reasons why we continue to have doctor shortages in rural, regional and remote parts of Australia. But it is not only those parts, as you would have heard many members on this side of the House say, including now me, as the member for Newcastle. We are suffering doctor shortages in metropolitan and outer metropolitan regions. Don't for one minute think this is a problem only for remote or rural parts of Australia. Why is that? It is because of deliberate policy decisions made by this government over the last eight long years.
There are aspects of the bill that Labor is absolutely supportive of. We do welcome these small changes to the way in which the Bonded Medical Program is going to be administered. It is welcome that there will be increased flexibility around the administration of the program. We don't have any beef, we don't have any problem with the proposed changes being made there. What is at issue is the notion that this will somehow address doctor shortage issues in this country, because it's not going to, and I don't think we should be pretending otherwise. That is really the reason why Labor pushed so hard to establish the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into the provision of GP and other health care services in outer metropolitan, rural and regional areas. We needed to be able to consider the performance of programs like the one that is the subject of this legislation, the Bonded Medical Program.
The Bonded Medical Program has been in operation for some time. It needs a thorough review, I would suggest. It has not met expectations by any means, but let's not for one moment think this is the sole reason for doctor shortages in our nation. Indeed, it is worth reminding the House that it is the Morrison government's decision to remove areas like Newcastle and the Hunter region from the new distribution priority area classification that means that doctors in thee Bonded Medical Program cannot meet their return of service obligations in areas like Newcastle and the Hunter. That just makes our GP shortage even worse.
I said at the beginning that I wanted to come back to some of the comments made in relation to the University of Newcastle by the member for Robertson. I'm not disputing the fabulous work that the university is doing and the big efforts being made to establish yet another medical school, this time on the Central Coast, but I warn this government that just creating new medical schools is not going to be the panacea either. Do you know why? I went through this argument when the government, and the National Party in particular, led the charge to create the new Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network. The government dedicated nearly $75 million to establish this network of medical schools. I believe there was a bit of celebration this year with new students starting in some of those medical schools, but let's not kid ourselves that this government, in setting up new schools, provided a single extra medical place to go into those schools. What they did was to rob universities like Newcastle, which already had the oldest and most successful regional medical training program in Australia, of medical places. We have since 1978 had a partnership with the University of New England in Armidale, training doctors for regional and remote regions of Australia, way above the national average for universities. You—not you, Mr Speaker, but this government—took medical places from successful universities like Newcastle in order to stump up on a promise from the National Party to deliver a new set of medical schools around the Murray-Darling region. It is terrific that people from Orange, Wagga and parts of Victoria get access to medical schools closer to home, but they weren't new places; you robbed existing programs in the country of those places.
If you were serious about addressing medical workforce shortages in Australia, you wouldn't just build new medical schools; you would be properly resourcing them, and you would be backing in programs such as those that the University of Newcastle wishes to implement now. We already run a really fantastic nurses training course: the Bachelor of Nursing program at the University of Newcastle. But we know that there are low numbers of First Nations nurses in Australia. For example, people from the Aboriginal medical services in Walgett and Brewarrina have come to Newcastle to say, 'We want you to run a Bachelor of Nursing program on country.' What a terrific idea! The University of Newcastle is flexible and innovative enough to be able to deliver a Bachelor of Nursing program on country, but it needs some support from this federal government to do so. So, if you were really serious about trying to address GP shortages and medical workforce shortages more broadly in rural, regional and remote Australia, you would be backing in, 100 per cent, universities such as Newcastle, which are seeking to deliver bachelor programs on country for First Nations people.
The university is not resting on its laurels. We know that the University of Newcastle is already training more than 50 per cent of First Nations doctors; they will be trained and coming out of the University of Newcastle. It is a phenomenal course that's taken 30 years to build. But, not content to just sit back, pat ourselves on the back and say, 'Good job,' we now realise the challenges of delivering bachelor programs on country, where we can increase the numbers of nurses coming through tenfold or more. So I really hope that the government is listening today and is prepared to back in a great program like the nursing-on-country program.
As I said, you can't just take from existing programs, plop them over the country and expect that all of a sudden you will have more doctors and they are going to stay in rural and regional areas. You should be turning to places like Newcastle, which has been running that regional medical training, as I said, since 1978. So it's not as if we're newbies in this field. Thirty-six per cent of the students coming through those programs come from rural and regional communities in the first place, and that compares to the 20 per cent currently coming through other medical programs. We know that graduates of that joint medical program between Newcastle and the University of New England at Armidale are twice as likely to seek work in the rural and regional areas as the national average.
So, as a program with the highest proportion of graduates working in rural and regional areas, I think there is a lot to be learned from programs that have a lot of runs on the board already.
I want to highlight a couple of case studies that show how detrimental the continuous freezing of the Medicare levy over the last eight years has been. There is this change now, where you carve out the Newcastle and the Hunter region and take out the incentives for bulk billing payments, carving us out of the Distribution Priority Area classification list—all of this means that you are making it less and less possible for people to be able to see a GP in a timely and affordable manner in my community of Newcastle.
I want to raise the case of the Fletcher medical centre in my electorate. It's one of many GP clinics across Newcastle affected by this government's callous disregard, really, for what is happening to the health and wellbeing of Australian families in nonmetro, non-capital-city communities. Madison, who is the practice manager at the Fletcher clinic, recently reached out to me, because they are desperately trying to fill GP vacancies in their clinic. The clinic is working overtime in order to try to meet demand. It is not sustainable. It has been made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic, of course, yet they know that the Newcastle catchment area is only one per cent over this mythical catchment benchmark that means they now have to apply for an exemption in order to be able to recruit an additional GP. As I said, they're only one per cent over this benchmark, but the government hasn't been able to see its way to providing them any kind of break: no exemption for you to go out and find the GP that you so desperately need, for what is a vast and fast-growing area in the western part of my electorate.
I also want to highlight the recent closure of a practice at West Wallsend. This was a practice that existed for over 30 years. Again, in an area of growing families, six years of Medicare freezes followed by this decision to reclassify our area out of the DPA list was the final straw for this GP clinic; they had to shut their doors. They serviced a low-socio-economic part of my electorate, with more than 50 per cent of patients being concession card holders. That practice no longer exists because of the inaction of this government over the last eight years. You cannot just say that you want to see more doctors out in regional areas if all you do suggests otherwise. (Time expired)
The Health Insurance Amendment (Enhancing the Bonded Medical Program and Other Measures) Bill 2021 provides additional flexibility to support the ongoing administration of the Bonded Medical Program. The bill supports achievement of the program's objectives. Amendments support participants in the program and their interest in seeking to be part of the program. While in the program, it ensures fair and reasonable application of legislative penalties by making them quite appropriate and, most importantly, proportionate. It also supports better administration of breaches of the legacy Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship Scheme, again in the interests of participants, where breaches may be inadvertently incurred.
Overall, the bill enhances the Bonded Medical Program. It allows for more appropriate and efficient administration of bonded programs, and, above all, to meet and support the needs of a modern medical workforce providing crucial health services in regional, rural and remote Australia. The program is one important element of this government's broader Stronger Rural Health Strategy. A highly skilled, well dispersed regional workforce reduces the prevalence and impact of disease, allowing better primary care to be delivered and a better distribution of the medical workforce. It's important that individuals get access to services in their local community, without the burden of travelling large distances and establishing continuity of care and trust. There are many advantages to practising medicine in country Australia rather than metropolitan Australia, and I encourage more doctors, whether they're bonded or not, to choose the rural option.
I'd like to thank all the members for their contribution, including the member for Dobell and the member for Newcastle. There are so many moving pieces in the medical workforce dilemma facing the nation. We have a lot of other policies. They mentioned the Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network, which is extending existing Commonwealth supported places to be trained for much longer, from the beginning to the end of their medical school degree, in regional centres where they're getting, I think, better training than they do when they're based in a metro high-level teaching hospital, because they see much more regular-type medicine and they get much closer clinical experience, tutoring from senior medical practitioners and a great appreciation of country life. The Medical Schools Network is also a great workforce attractant and retention factor, keeping senior medical professional people staying in country areas, because they can be involved in the rural clinical schools, of which we have 21 around the country. They are a great asset and give better training.
However, there is competition amongst all the professions. Way too many people have started going into medical specialties, and that's a dilemma that we are trying to change. General practice is an incredibly important part of the health system. It's the rock and the pillar on which everything stems from, and that's why Australia has got good public health outcomes compared to many other health systems, including well-known ones like the NHS and the American system, which isn't as good as what we have in Australia, which is a mix of private medical practice and salaried medical practice inside a very structured system. Anyhow, these issues are beyond the Bonded Medical Program, which is a good program, but we look forward, with these changes, to delivering better outcomes. I commend the bill to the House.
Order! The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Cooper has moved an amendment that all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak in support of the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Facilitation) Bill 2021. This bill will facilitate the establishment of a stolen generations redress scheme for those areas in which the Commonwealth had responsibility when children were removed from their families: the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and, of course, Jervis Bay.
In my opening comments I want to acknowledge the family story of Minister Wyatt, about his own mother, and I am sure other members of his family were part of the stolen generation—not in the territories but, nevertheless, part of this awful scheme that existed in one way or another, right across this country, for decades. There is not one Aboriginal family, that I'm aware of, that has not been touched by this shocking series of regimes that existed across the country. The effects of these schemes can still be very much felt today. Other members speaking in this debate will talk about the intergenerational effects.
This bill is long overdue, and Labor hopes to see a speedy and effective implementation of this scheme. For many decades, First Nations Australians were systemically and violently targeted by policies of elimination and assimilation. Culture and language were destroyed—in fact, forbidden. Lands and waters were taken away. And so were children. Sometimes they were taken from the arms of parents and relatives, but, more often, they were quietly and suddenly removed. Indeed, Senator Dodson, in the other place, tells his own story of when he was a child, of being hidden from the welfare and consequently not being removed himself. I'm sure that had my circumstances not been as they were when my great aunt and uncle took me and raised me, I could well have ended up—along with thousands of other children—as part of the stolen generations.
Many children never came home from school, never got off the train or the bus or never left the hospital with their mother. The anguish, the pain, the dislocation, the loss and the grief are all alive today. Even if many of the people who were taken are not with us, their stories go on. This is what intergenerational trauma is. It goes some way to explaining why many First Nations people are distrustful of institutions and authority.
Often, the people who had the shocking responsibility of removing children were, in fact, police. It goes some way to also explain why, in many communities, police are not seen in the trusted way that they are seen in other places. It goes to explain why many Aboriginal people feel that if there's anything they can do to avoid the government being involved in their lives, including being on the electoral roll, that is what they will do. It also goes to explain, very much, why there is still the enormous fear in communities of children being taken. Of course, times have changed, and children wouldn't be taken for many of the fears that are held, but the fears are so ingrained. This went on for so long. Whole families of children were taken and dispersed among institutions, never getting an education and forbidden even to know the truth of their families. They were forbidden even to know anything about their culture and were abused terribly in these institutions. You only have to talk to the old men now who call themselves the 'Kinchela boys', to understand the trauma and abuse that they experienced as young children at Kinchela Boys Home. It also goes to understanding history's cruel lesson that those who are important and powerful have a disproportionate ability to hurt, steal and destroy.
Acknowledging what was done in making reparations is part of healing, not just for individuals and families but for the fabric of our country. It is an act of truth-telling. In 1997, the Bringing them home report was a watershed moment in our country. It drew a line in the sand for this country, where no-one could say anymore, 'We did not know,' because it got such huge media attention. I was in the room on the day the late Sir Ronald Wilson and Professor Mick Dodson launched the report at the 1997 Reconciliation Convention in Melbourne. It was an absolute watershed moment. Among the 54 important recommendations of the report, reparations were acknowledged as critical for genuine reconciliation. The report contained harrowing testimonies. One woman, removed the age of eight to Cootamundra Girls Home with her three sisters in the 1940s, said:
Most of us girls were thinking white in the head but were feeling black inside. We weren't black or white. We were a very lonely, lost and sad displaced group of people. We were taught to think and act like a white person, but we didn't know how to think and act like an Aboriginal. We didn't know anything about our culture.
A submission from another survivor explained the devastation caused by the loss of language. It went like this:
My mother and brother could speak our language and my father could speak his. I can't speak my language. Aboriginal people weren't allowed to speak their language while white people were around. They had to go out into the bush or talk their lingoes on their own. Aboriginal customs like initiation were not allowed. We could not leave Cherbourg to go to Aboriginal traditional festivals. We could have a corroboree if the Protector issued a permit. It was completely up to him. I never had a chance to learn about my traditional and customary way of life when I was on the reserves.
Despite the findings of the report and the well-documented evidence pointing to the systemic disenfranchisement of First Nations people, governments of the day continued to ignore the voice of First Nations communities. In this country, this is one of the worst acts of social engineering that you could possibly think of. We rail against other countries with human rights records of abusing their populations, and it happened here. It happened here to people who are alive today. It happened in my lifetime.
The Bringing them home report also recommended a national apology from the Australian government. Of course, this apology was finally delivered by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. I remember sitting just up there in the gallery as Prime Minister Rudd delivered the apology—a powerful acknowledgement of the past and a turning point for our nation.
I've said, although I can't remember whether I said it at the despatch box, but the years of the Howard government refusing to say sorry—350,000 people walked across Sydney Harbour Bridge calling for the Prime Minister to say sorry. That apology meant so much. It couldn't give people back the years and their families, but it meant so much. It was a powerful acknowledgement of the past and a turning point for our nation. It was a first step in formally recognising the extent of the pain and suffering inflicted upon the stolen generations. There are current members of this House, including the member for Lingiari, who were present for this apology. I was up in the gallery, and the member for Grayndler, the Leader of the Labor Party, cites it as one of his proudest moments as a parliamentarian in this country.
The experience of bearing witness to such a historic moment in Australia's history is something that will always stay with me. I remember the old people sitting around—were you here?
I was here.
They were sitting around on chairs, and all the surviving Prime Ministers, bar one, of course, listening to that apology. I saw one of the most generous things I have ever seen in my life—I will never forget it—an old woman stood up and handed to Minister Macklin and to Prime Minister Rudd a glass coolamon. A coolamon is what we carried our babies in. It was just remarkable. It was gracious, and it was truly a healing moment.
The redress scheme is a result of the dedication and persistence of the stolen generations survivors, advocates and organisations. First Nations people in the territories have long been demanding justice—quietly, and sometimes not so quietly, seeking acknowledgement. To dismantle the systemic abuses of the past, we must recognise the pain experienced and its legacy. We must also look to the future and to reconciliation by taking material steps to address the inherent generational trauma caused by the loss of identity and the loss of connection to country and family, a trauma which is manifested in the economic and social inequality First Nations Australians face and, most worryingly, in the shocking rates of out-of-home care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children today. I'm sure some of the attendants here in the chamber will also remember that moment.
No amount of money can ever compensate people for what was done to the stolen generations and their families, and most worryingly, as I said, we are still seeing out-of-home-care rates climbing and climbing in this country. Members of the stolen generations and their families have waited long enough for redress. Before the last election, Labor made a solemn commitment to introduce a stolen generations redress scheme, very similar to what the government has announced. We are very pleased to see that the minister and the government have adopted a similar position. It is a significant step forward. However, the redress scheme must be implemented with the greatest of care, and those opposite must learn from the mistakes that have been made in the design and administration of the National Redress Scheme for people who experienced institutional child sexual abuse.
Redress should be about healing, not about re-traumatising. For this scheme to truly work, the government will need to listen to the stolen generations survivors and advocates and work with them so that people can access it. Governments must help, not hinder. Notably, this bill does not actually establish the stolen generations redress scheme. Instead, it deals with how payments made under the scheme will interact with the social security and tax systems, most importantly exempting payments from taxation and social security income tests, which we welcome, but also making them inalienable, so they cannot be claimed by creditors or accessed in bankruptcy proceedings. The rest of the scheme will be implemented administratively without the oversight of the parliament.
The scheme is expected to benefit around 3,600 people, and it will have three parts: a one-off $75,000 payment in recognition of the harm caused by forced removal; a one-off $7,000 healing assistance payment; and an opportunity for each survivor to confidentially tell their story to a senior official, have their story acknowledged, and receive a face-to-face or written apology. The scheme will be available to survivors of the stolen generations who were removed as children from their families while living in the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory, prior to self-government, or the Jervis Bay Territory. It will be open to applications from 1 March 2022 to 28 February 2026. To apply, people must have been under 18 when they were removed from their families by government bodies, including the police, church missions and/or welfare bodies, and the removal must have been in circumstances where their Indigeneity was a factor. The scheme will allow families to make an application on behalf of a member of the stolen generation who passes between 5 August 2021, the date of the scheme's announcement, and 1 March 2022, the date the scheme opens to applications—and this is welcome.
The Senate inquiry into this bill identified several important issues which I encourage the government to consider. They include the prospect of payments to the families of those who have died, the treatment of payments under the social security assets test and the availability of culturally appropriate support, advice and counselling. We have seen during the pandemic and so often when government programs are rolled out that communication with communities is poor. I implore the minister, whom I know understands: make sure you work with stolen generations organisations, make sure information about the scheme is available in language, make sure community organisations and health services are informed, make sure First Nations media is used, make sure that face-to-face help is available and make sure those who are making claims cannot be misled or ripped off. Accessing the scheme will be painful for many people, and we do not need to make it any harder than it already is.
Labor is pleased to support the establishment of this scheme, and I am very proud to be here with the member for McMahon, the member for Solomon and others that were here on that day in February 2008. I commend the minister for getting it done. It is a policy Labor has been committed to for years, and we support it with a great sense of urgency. I have outlined several issues that we would like to see the government address. Perhaps an advantage of implementing this scheme administratively is that these issues could be quickly and easily addressed by the minister. People have been waiting long enough and many are in poor health and many are very old. There should be no further delay.
To those state governments that still have not put in place stolen generations schemes, there are no more excuses. History will not look at all kindly on those who do not do everything they can to acknowledge this dark and violent part of our past. We support this scheme. We will not be dividing, but we will be watching carefully.
(Quorum formed)
I rise today to speak on the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Facilitation) Bill 2021 and the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021. I'd like to start by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we stand, the Ngunawal people, and pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging and, in particular, to note the moving comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Barton, and acknowledge the work that she has done in supporting Indigenous Australians.
The bills before us today are incredibly significant. They address the topic that for so long was ignored many years ago, and then for so long not acted upon genuinely but which this government seeks to address, with a commitment that is practical and works to address measures in this issue. That topic is reconciliation, one of the darkest chapters of our country's history, and we cannot turn a blind eye out of shame. We must face this issue and work towards a future that addresses and assists with the healing of the trauma caused.
The Redress Scheme is just one step in healing and acknowledgement of the harm caused by forced removal from family that was experienced by victims of the stolen generation and the financial and wellbeing focused reimbursement that addresses this.
These bills before us today will support intergenerational healing and hope to positively impact the lives of survivors. They allow for the facilitation of the Redress Scheme for stolen generations survivors. They will ensure that participants of the Redress Scheme will not be adversely affected by decreased access to other Commonwealth funds. This is only logical, as we cannot punish those who our country has already caused so much pain to in the past. Moreover, the bills will ensure that there is crosschecking of identity information, so that these reconciliation efforts are directed towards those who truly deserve it and cannot be exploited in any way by others. These bills stand as an important step in the Morrison government's commitment to reconciliation. The gravity of the bills before us cannot be understated, for they stand to solidify the Redress Scheme to protect Indigenous Australians as we, as a nation, pursue reconciliation.
The Morrison government will be investing nearly $400 million over the next five years in the redress effort. It will encompass a focus on both financial security and wellbeing for affected individuals, as I'm sure all of us in this place are keen on. These bills affect those who were forcibly taken from their homes in the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory or the Jarvis Bay territory. I'm proud to be a member of the national redress committee. The Redress Scheme itself encompasses a one-off payment of $75,000 in recognition of the harm caused by forced removal, combined with a $7,000 healing assistance payment in recognition of the variety of manners in which an individual undergoes their own healing journey.
On top of these financial reimbursements, survivors will be given the opportunity to confidentially tell their story and to receive a face-to-face or a written personal response. As a paediatrician, I know how important it is for people to be able to share their story. In fact, as a doctor, there is much to be said about the healing power of the telling of a story. Bedside manner is incredibly important, but the narrative of a shared story has an important therapeutic component. In circumstances where the stolen generation survivor has recently passed, an application on behalf of their family or estate can be submitted—an acknowledgement that the trauma experienced by survivors transcends the generations. Of course, not all problems can be solved with this government effort, but it does stand as one small crucial step in acknowledging the economic imbalance Indigenous Australians do face.
The Redress Scheme is by no means the only action the Morrison government is taking to address the conversation of reconciliation. Indeed, in the 2021-22 budget the government committed over $50 million to fund over 100 organisations supporting members of the stolen generation and their families. This support includes important activities such as family tracing, so that stolen generation survivors can understand their ancestry and learn of their families. It is harrowing to think that they have been disconnected and discombobulated from their inheritance, and the ability to be able to find and trace that lineage and pattern is incredibly important for people who are seeking to understand where they've come from. Reunion services are also being funded, so that these Australians can again meet their families and share a crucial connection that no redress payment itself can offer. Not only this but various counselling and healing support services will be made available to provide emotional support to help mend the lasting pain caused by family separation.
The Morrison government is not limiting government support to stolen generations survivors. Instead, all Indigenous Australians are privy to support. This builds on the work this government is doing to close the gap. That is why last year's budget commitment to deliver support to Indigenous Australians to build skills and find employment is so important. This comes alongside efforts towards education, with a focus particularly on the young. On top of this, the Morrison government has committed hundreds of millions of dollars towards women's safety and economic security, mental health, aged care, as well as the environment and management. As we all know, the gap between Indigenous Australians and nonindigenous Australians has been broad and wide, and has not closed at the speed we would all like. The gap is in education, health, life expectancy, employment, housing and youth in detention. In fact, the rates of incarceration of Indigenous Australians in this country remain a national disgrace.
The Redress Scheme will be survivor focused and trauma informed, to ensure that there is no further harm done to survivors. Stolen generation organisations will be consulted as the scheme is refined to ensure that it is culturally appropriate and gives Indigenous Australians the best opportunity to reconcile with the past and move into the future with stronger financial and wellbeing foundations. There is not only this; the National Indigenous Australians Agency has consulted broadly across the various departments of the Commonwealth government to ensure that the bills will have their intended effect.
The Morrison government has sought, and will continue to seek, the very best advice on how to implement reconciliation efforts in this country. It cannot be a matter for government to decide all policy regarding issues of this nature; we must consult with Indigenous Australian agencies and groups to understand the suffering of these Australians. That is why the government has done so much preparation for this scheme in the bills that are presented to us today. At this point I'd like to note, as the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt—himself an Indigenous Australian—has said, that we need to codesign all that we do. Indigenous Australians have had enough things done to them; we now need to work to make sure that we do things with them, like the Indigenous concept of yarning. That's why I support the Voice and am very proud to be on a working group on Indigenous recognition in this parliament.
These bills and the redress scheme they represent are never going to be enough to truly say sorry to the Indigenous Australians affected by the stolen generations and their families, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. As Australians, we cannot forget our past. The way forward is not to feel shame, but optimism and hope in the future of our country—optimism that we can, someday, reach a point where Indigenous Australians are on a level playing field and aren't brought down by the continuing effects of past policy. As I said in my first speech, a strong country is a country at peace with its past. This bill is one more step on the path to atonement and reconciliation, and for this reason I commend these bills to the House.
It is a genuine privilege to rise in this chamber this evening to speak on the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Facilitation) Bill 2021 and the related bills. These bills will go some way to addressing a grave, grave injustice for stolen generations in the Northern Territory and the ACT.
The removal of children from their families, now almost a centuries-long—plural—practice by governments across Australia, has created the most enormous trauma that has also transcended generations. At the outset, I want to pay tribute to those who spoke earlier in this debate: the member for Barton and, indeed, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Mr Ken Wyatt. They had very personal stories. Clearly, extremely, they're so grounded in this history of the stolen generations and the centuries-long practice of forced removal of children. I could distinctly hear the pain in their voices before me, and I just want to put on the record that I acknowledge that pain and that it is felt by so many thousands of First Nations people in Australia.
The separation of families and the destruction of communities on a massive scale cannot simply be forgotten. The fear of pain remains, not only with members of the stolen generations but with their children, their cousins and their grandchildren. That is a very deep, genuine fear that remains for so many people. No amount of money is going to undo that. It cannot adequately compensate individuals, families or communities for the extent of damage that has been done nor for the long shadow that the trauma has now cast, as I said, over multiple generations. That's on their relationships, their health, their mental health, their economic prospects and their capacity to live their culture—to feel strong in language and identity. It is such a tribute that there is a strong generation of First Nations people coming through, very proudly identifying and grounded in their identity. But that does not mask the fact that there is a great deal of trauma for many people who have direct experience of either themselves or someone in their family being forcibly removed.
That horror and that systemic pain, which is felt, very literally, within people's bodies, goes a long way to help explain the profound distrust of authority—schools, police and policies of governments and parliaments like our own—that many First Nations people have. That is something we all need to really wrestle with as well: how best to make amends. So today, I think, is a very timely reminder of how much work we still have to do as a country, as a parliament and as a community to help rebuild that trust. The most important thing about the scheme that is now being proposed and finally being established is that it gives the stolen generations people recognition: recognition of what was done to them, recognition that it was wrong and racist, and recognition of each and every person 's story.
Sadly, thousands of people who would have been eligible to claim this compensation are no longer with us. It's too late for this scheme to be of benefit to many in the stolen generations, who have passed. They passed without having any justice. That makes me profoundly sad, but it should also make us very determined not to allow this to drag on another moment longer. As a parliament and a country, we failed in one of the most important and basic duties we have, and that is never to harm children.
I know there have been many references here to Kevin Rudd's Apology to the Stolen Generations, which took place in this House on behalf of the parliament and this nation. It was a very powerful recognition. But, of course, the hard work is yet to happen. Apologies are never the full-stop moment in the process; they are really just the very start. I spoke earlier, in the other chamber, on the anniversary of the National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse, and I made the same point: these apologies are really just the beginning of a very long journey that we have in order to make amends for those gross injustices.
The purpose of these bills before us tonight is really to put in place a policy for stolen generations reparations, and Labor welcomes this with open arms. We do so because, frankly, this is an adoption of Labor policy, and I say that with a generous heart. I think it is fantastic that the government has taken a Labor policy, seen the worth of it and known that it was a good idea. It's been too long in the making, to be sure, but they decided to take on that proposal to ensure that stolen generations people do receive reparations: in this case, $75,000 in compensation plus a $7,000 ancillary payments option. We genuinely welcome the government picking up this Labor policy and trying to implement that. That is a good thing. Whether they just recognised a good policy when they saw it or whether the launch of the class action by 800 members of the stolen generations in the Northern Territory earlier this year might have prodded some action on this matter and had something to do with the timing is a matter that only the Morrison government can speak to. Regardless of how you got here, I welcome the fact that you have taken what is a fundamentally good and just policy. The hard work will now be in the implementation.
Whilst we welcome the funding for the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme, this package is only for surviving members of the stolen generations—so it is not for family members who we know have already passed. I think that needs to be made very clear. There are shortcomings in this scheme. Also, there are many people reflecting today that there are members in this parliament today who walked out on the apology to the stolen generations when it was conducted in this House over 13 years ago. Let's hope there has been much more goodwill coming to the table to ensure the success of this package before the House. We will be watching the scheme's design and implementation very, very closely. The government must get this right.
I have sat here for the last two terms watching over the implementation of the National Redress Scheme, and the government has been found wanting on a number of occasions. It is critically important that we have a forensic approach to the implementation of this scheme. These bills don't actually establish the scheme itself, because the government's going to make those more detailed announcements in terms of policy commitments rather than legal entitlements, it would seem. Instead, what the government really must do now is ensure these payments will not count as income for the purposes of social security or the veterans' entitlements means test; that is important. They must be exempt from taxation. They must be protected from creditors in any case of bankruptcy; that is another very important matter. And we must allow information to be cross-checked with the Department of Social Services to verify identity—if a person can't verify their identify by providing a Centrelink customer reference number, for example.
In setting the scheme up, it is critically important the government learns from the mistakes and the issues that have become so apparent in the National Redress Scheme for institutional child sexual abuse. These are the flags that Labor is putting in the ground for the government now. We are warning the government: you must work closely with stolen generations survivor groups at every single stage of the design process. That includes the Healing Foundation, the Northern Territory Stolen Generations Aboriginal Corporation and the other groups in the NT, the ACT and Jervis Bay. If those people are not involved each and every step of the way, this scheme will not live up to expectations. It will not deliver the justice that stolen generations people deserve and are seeking, and they will hold each and every one of us to account if it's not delivered.
We will be making sure that, locally, culturally appropriate support is also available at every step. These are critically important components of any scheme. We'll be making sure the government protects people's privacy and believes them. We'll be making sure that the process for a personal apology and acknowledgement is meaningful and sincere. Of course, I am very mindful of the fact that today there are shocking numbers of First Nations children who are in out-of-home care. It is very sobering to think about that matter and to wonder if there will in fact be another stolen generation under our own watch if that trajectory of removing kids and placing them in out-of-home care at the rates that are currently being pursued is to continue. I am deeply worried about that. Even if the government's current out-of-home care closing the gap goal was met—a 45 per cent reduction by 2031—the rate of First Nations kids in out-of-home care is still going to be five times higher than the non-Indigenous population. We cannot accept a situation that has the makings of another apology or another future redress scheme. That is a diabolical scenario, and it should not be beyond us to ensure that never happens again. Australia's past policies of systemic child removal destroyed families, decimated cultures in many parts of this country and hurt all of us. Our entire nation is stained by those deplorable practices. Hopefully this scheme and the recognition of wrong it will afford goes some way to making amends to those who were betrayed enormously.
[by video link] I'm coming in virtually from Queensland. This is a very important companion bill, the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Facilitation) Bill 2021, and I recognise the previous speaker, the member for Newcastle, is passionate about this area. It's an area where both major parties can be proud of what they've done, and in particular, the Prime Minister, who will be remembered for achievements like this—and also the national redress scheme for institutional care. They're really important steps and very compassionate ones, campaigned for for a long time and delivered under the Morrison government, which I'm particularly proud of.
I have no hesitation in recognising the large number of people who worked to this destination. The Commonwealth takes its role very seriously for the Commonwealth territories. We have a focus today, obviously, on the Northern Territory, and I think there were reasonable summaries from the previous speakers—no disagreement from me. This is a companion bill that implements certain aspects of this scheme and ensures that recipients of these payments are not subject, for instance, to the Social Security Act or the Veterans' Entitlements Act, where they may potentially not be eligible for payments. It addresses situations of bankruptcy where these payments are quarantined, and these are important elements as well—that the payments are not subject to income tax assessment or income testing or capital gains tax.
That's what the bill is about, but the opportunity today is to say how important these redress schemes are: the national scheme and the stolen generations redress scheme. Clearly, many of the recipients are very, very senior and frail, and many of them have chronic disease. It's imperative to act quickly, and the government has done that—and I think with a trauma informed, culturally sensitive approach with a focus on survivors. That is what was needed, potentially, decades ago. My contribution to this debate, for those that are listening around the country, is to pick up on a point by the member for Newcastle— (Quorum formed)To think that an opposition Labor Party MP would call a quorum in the middle of a bill of the gravity of the stolen generations readdress scheme is absolutely unbelievable. Obviously, from my virtual position in the parliament, I'm unable to see who that MP was, but, if it was in fact the member for Lalor, it is a complete disgrace that she would call such a motion in the middle of such an important scheme being debated. With bipartisan support and having very supportive, considered, survivor focused commentary being made in this parliament, this is a moment for us to celebrate. If, indeed, the person who just called that quorum was an individual representing the seat of Lalor, that is absolutely disgraceful and Hansard will record that.
These matters may seem trivial to members like the member for Lalor, but her party takes a very different view to healing, truth telling and reconciliation. They understand that a payment like this took a long, dogged fight for many outside of this parliament. It has become a position supported by both sides of politics in what is, we all recognise, an important practical step but completely inadequate to heal in a symbolic sense the suffering of, and the loss of what was taken away from, these individuals. I am very glad to speak on behalf of this facilitation bill. I know that we have the support of both sides of politics.
A message to the broader Australian community is that this important amount is not to be counted in dollars; it's to be counted in the gesture and the goodwill that comes with the payment and the commitment to hear, to listen, to accept and to understand. Just as I was saying about the member for Newcastle's point of view about not allowing out-of-home care to ever get out of control in the way that it did in the past again, we may well be facing the need to apologise for other forms of policy and the way they've affected and injured people and possibly, but not necessarily, children. A whole range of policies around employment, education, school attendance, incarceration, rehabilitation—all of these matters need every member's attention to make sure that what we do during our time while incumbent is not something that our successors have to apologise for on our behalf.
While it's important to apologise as soon as possible and in good faith, let's all look within and not satisfy ourselves that apologising for the actions of others is sufficient to get ourselves through as caring and compassionate about the issues facing Indigenous Australians. It simply isn't. Things are not as they should be. I'm happy as a member of the government to take full responsibility for that, but I know that every member of this parliament in Canberra, as do the state parliaments, regard this as one of the great domestic challenges for Australia.
This redress scheme is something that is long overdue and very much welcomed. Let's make sure that nothing we do right now, while we are representing Indigenous Australians, leads to an apology in the future and let's make sure that the lessons of today's legislation are learnt by everyone.
I rise to make a few short comments on the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Facilitation) Bill 2021. When the bill proceeds to the Senate, this matter will be taken up further by our First Nations spokesperson, Senator Lydia Thorpe. In making these comments today I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the country on which we are meeting today here in Canberra, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people.
Across the country, wherever we are, we are on stolen land. As we debate this important bill that goes a step further to giving redress to members of the stolen generations, we need to pause and acknowledge that this country was founded on violence and dispossession. That is our history. Any rational, honest look at our history would see that it is one which began with conquest and began with violence and began with dispossession. Whether it is the frontier wars that turned into massacres in many, many instances, whether it is the continued refusal of even basic civil rights, not just voting but in being able to go where you want to—into shops and businesses and where you want to go—or whether it is the forced removal of children from their families, the stolen generations, which is the subject of the bill today, we haven't done a very good job in this country of being honest about our past. When you are not honest about your past, you then find yourself repeating it and continuing to inflict pain. And I want to talk a bit later on about the real risk that we are facing at the moment that we will continue to see future stolen generations.
This bill seeks to address the despicable practice where First Nations children were removed from their families—and, distressingly, it continues today at alarming and increasing rates and extremely disproportionately with First Nations children—that is, it is happening more among our First Nations children. The bill is welcome, and the Greens welcome it. The stolen generation survivors are finally getting some redress. Too many stolen generation members, though, have already passed and haven't seen any attempt at justice. It is beyond sad and tragic that they have not been around to see the parliament at least take some step towards redressing the massive, massive injustice that they suffered.
We have seen some piecemeal approaches to redress across different states, but one of the things that that has meant is that some people have fallen through the cracks and redress has been very different in its extent, which is not fair, given that the trauma that was inflicted was a deep, deep trauma that is still being suffered, because it is multigenerational. The Greens conducted extensive consultation with stolen generation members, and our spokesperson, Senator Lydia Thorpe, put forward a while ago the need for a national redress scheme and, after consultation, arrived at a proposal that members who are accessing that scheme should be entitled to $200,000 plus $7,000 for funeral expenses, as a starting point. Of course, like any scheme—and I expect there would be acknowledgement of this probably across the parliament—we recognise that no amount of money can ever compensate for the loss and for the pain that was experienced. That proposal, that sum, is fair, I think, when you look at the way other schemes across the country work, and it begins to go some way towards acknowledging the harm and the trauma and providing some redress.
This scheme only provides $75,000, plus $7,000 healing assistance, which we'd say is not enough. We'd say that is not enough. It is welcome that it has started, but that sum is not enough. We heard during the inquiry that we conducted that people think that this is inadequate, but they know it's better than nothing, and many of them are not going to wait any longer or even be able to wait any longer, and so they are going to accept it.
One of the issues that people need to understand about these bills is that, in many respects, they are quite basic and they leave a lot of the detail to regulations. So we're going to be watching closely to make sure that the government put forward details of the scheme in the regulations, as they've proposed, because we've seen in the past, in other areas, a gap between what gets announced and what actually turns up in the regulations. And, in forming the regulations, we want to urge the government to continue to consult with members and representatives of the stolen generations to make sure the government get it right, because it's too important for them to get wrong.
One of the limitations, though, in the scheme as put forward by the government, is that families—aside from those of stolen generation members who pass away between August this year and March next year—cannot seek redress. One of the things that Senator Thorpe has been at pains to point out is that it's critical for the government to understand that taking away children doesn't just affect those children; it affects whole families, and several generations of those families. It is multigenerational. Multigenerational trauma has been inflicted by the forced removal of children from their families. Sadly, at the moment, from what we know from the government, we don't have a situation where the families of all those stolen generation members who've already passed and those who might do so over the duration of the scheme would be eligible, which we'd welcome as a step towards the passage of this legislation. But, given that this legislation does give significant breadth to the minister to craft a scheme through regulations, we hope that that is something that the minister will consider—that he will understand the multigenerational nature and the descending nature of this trauma. That is something that could potentially be fixed if the minister was willing to design the scheme a bit more broadly and a bit differently.
It is good that the payments that are going to be made—and we welcome them—will certainly not be taxed and won't be treated as income in many respects. For example, they won't count towards bankruptcy and so on. But we have to make sure, likewise, that there are no flow-on impacts from treating any of the money as assets, for example. We have to get that absolutely right by considering its interaction with other forms of payment and other forms of support that people can get.
As I say, because of the nature of this legislation—because it leaves a lot of the design of the scheme to the government—we put those matters forward, on the table, in good faith, in the hope that the government will take them into account when actually designing the scheme. There are a number of other matters that we want to raise, and raise in a bit more detail, but Senator Thorpe will take those up when this legislation comes to the Senate.
To conclude, this is legislation passing through this parliament of which an outsider looking in would say, 'Of course there has to be some redress and of course there has to be some compensation for such a wrong and such an injustice that was perpetrated.'
It's one of those things that has taken this parliament far too long to get here, and we have to acknowledge the significant milestones along the way from within parliament, including former Prime Minister Rudd's apology, which was crucial and made a difference to so many people. But I particularly want to pay tribute, in closing, to the members of the stolen generations and also to their families and their descendants, and applaud them for continuing to fight and continuing to push for justice. I think that no-one in this place would say that there's any amount of money that's going to compensate, but we can acknowledge it was the wrong thing to do and we can start to provide redress. Does this bill go far enough? No, it doesn't. Is it a welcome step towards providing redress and some acknowledgement to those people who have suffered so much? Yes, it is.
I thank the honourable member for Melbourne and call the honourable member for Lingiari—sorry the honourable member for Grey!
Mr Deputy Speaker, we do both have the same haircut, it's true! I rise to speak on the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Schemes (Facilitation) Bill 2021 and the related bills.
I've been here since 2007—not as long as the member Lingiari, and as one of the crop of 2007—I was here for the apology in 2008. I was in both the chamber and the Great Hall when Prime Minister Rudd made his famous comments, and he is to be congratulated for those. But it has been a long road. As a result of that apology, each year we have a Closing the Gap statement, and that's a good thing. On some markers, we're doing pretty well; others are particularly stubborn and we're not doing well at all. It's not, I think, as I said in the debate yesterday when we were talking about Indigenous issues, a lack of will by governments of either side, it's just that some of these problems are devilishly difficult to fix. But we have to keep trying. I think the changes made this year around the arrangements for the stolen generations, which actually bring the state governments into the national reporting and the responsibility to address these problems, is a great step forward. I congratulate the minister for that outcome because, at the end of the day, it's the states that actually deliver a lot of the services on the ground. Previously it has just been falling back to the federal government, so it's time that we brought all that together and fixed it up as much as we possibly can at least.
This is of course an intergenerational issue, and not one just for those affected. I'm very mindful of the comments of the member for Melbourne, who spoke before me, that this is an intergenerational issue. For those who were taken away as children, their children can be affected and their children beyond that—we need to take account of that. But it's not just an intergenerational issue for those people, it's intergenerational for all Australians and, indeed, all of our parliaments. The 1997 Bringing them home report was brought down in 1997, obviously. But here we are, 23 years on, still dealing with issues that were highlighted in that report. It was a decade after the Bringing them home report that we had the apology, and here we are, 12 years later, at last delivering a redress system. But it has certainly taken longer than it should have when we look at that time frame. It should be not a celebration but at least a relief that we've got to that point now and that we can move on.
Undoubtedly, the policy of removal caused enormous duress and strain. I couldn't back the theory that every person who was removed had a bad outcome with their life. We know some people from the Aboriginal community who have been fabulously successful, either because of or despite of the fact that they were removed from their parents. In many cases, they were highly educated and very influential in the world of Indigenous politics and in trying to further the cause of Aboriginal Australians, and I congratulate them for that. But even though they are, I believe, in a minority, and even though they may have made a success of their lives, it's difficult to imagine that they did not deal with the trauma and grief of separation at the time and in subsequent years. They should probably be congratulated for being such strong individuals, actually. Either way, there is no doubt that the policy of removal did a lot of harm.
My home town is Kimba. I often talk about Kimba when I'm in this place, one way or another. I moved into the town off a farm when I was 10 years old. I'd been attending a very small primary school before that time where we only occasionally had Aboriginal students. When I got into Kimba I found out there was a bigger world, if you like. The school had about 300 students at the time and a significant number of them were Indigenous. I would be lying if I said we were without prejudice. Looking back, it was a more racist world than the one we're living in at the moment. Something we can all be grateful for is the work that's been done over the subsequent years, if not to eliminate racism, because we know it's not eliminated, then to reduce the public displays of it and the acceptance of Aboriginals in wider society.
Having said that, the families that we had in town were relatively cohesive. Their children attended school. I would have thought it was the pathway to success. Sadly, one way or another, no Aboriginal families live in Kimba any more. It's difficult to put your finger on just when that happened, but it was probably around 30 years ago that the last of them moved out, the ones who had been established families there. Most of us believe it was at the time, and I haven't substantiated this, when the rules for accepting Commonwealth support—the dole, if you like—changed and they actually had to report at an office to get the money. There was no office in town, so we tended to see those families move to places like Ceduna, Port Lincoln and Whyalla and out of the smaller communities like Kimba. I think in retrospect that has been a negative for our community, but probably a negative for them as well, because I think our community had been good at fostering good outcomes for individuals.
I wasn't aware in that period of time, from 10 years old on, that children were still being taken away from their parents at a very young age. I don't think it happened in Kimba, but I wouldn't swear by it. I wasn't aware of it at the time. A 10-year-old is not aware of everything anyhow, I'd have to say. It came as a shock to me later on, I reckon, to find that this was still going on while I was at school. I knew about children being taken away from their parents, but I thought it was something that happened a long time ago. Of course, when you're a kid, everything seems a long time ago. If you're 10 or 15 years old, something that happened 15 years ago is something that happened in ancient history, but I was surprised to find that it was still going on in the mid-sixties in some places, but not in Kimba, as far as I know. If some Aboriginal families contact me and say, 'You wouldn't know what you're talking about,' I will be corrected. I'm reminded of a family that lived there—the Reids. George Reid worked for the council. He drove the dozer, from memory, and was a very valued part of the community. I don't know how many children he had, but I'm going to say about eight. Some of them went on to be good community leaders in other places, because they moved away, but in another parallel of the things we're talking about today, and we're talking about a family where some of the individuals might have been seven or eight years older than me and the youngest were perhaps three years younger. There is only one left alive today. I reckon that's a pretty sad story. It's not that they had terrible lives. They were living in urban areas, and yet that death rate is obviously higher than it is for the wider community, and that of course is another issue that we're trying to address as we go along.
So this policy of removing children, not always at birth but at a young age, has obviously caused enormous damage. This national redress scheme is perhaps well overdue, but it's here, and with payments of $75,000. Importantly, in this context, the minister's gone to the effort of making sure that it won't be impinged on, in any way, by any other Commonwealth payment, including payments to the National Redress Scheme for institutionalised child abuse. Largely, these payments are fashioned on that. That's good, right and proper. If some unfortunate individuals have fallen into both of those camps—being taken away from their parents and then suffering institutionalised child care—statements to the 1997 Bringing them home report would suggest that it's far from isolated, that it happened on a fairly regular occurrence. That is shameful.
In finishing, I come to comments from the member for Lalor, and I'm glad she brought this up. I'm not going to pick any holes in what she had to say. She spoke about the tragedy, today, of the number of Indigenous kids in out-of-home care. I think that is a tragedy. But we also have to bear in mind the difficult decisions—the impossible and diabolical decisions—that state government officials are facing here. Do they leave a child in a dysfunctional, violent household or do they take them out? What a terrible decision they have to make.
We need to be mindful of the fact that we need to protect children. I'm certainly mindful of the fact that living out of home was far from ideal. There's a figure I used in the chamber, yesterday, on a bill on Indigenous issues. I recently saw a figure—and this is another tragedy—that so many Aboriginal people are in custody; 70 per cent of them are in custody for violent acts, predominantly on family. I think that points out why children are being removed from these dysfunctional households.
I wish I could wave a magic wand. It is one of the most diabolical choices. I don't know how we deal with it. We have to deal with the issue of trying to stop that kind of behaviour in the first place, but we are talking about a very long lead time. It's not as if people haven't tried before and there are any simple solutions. So this is tough work. It doesn't matter what you do in this area, it is tough work, meeting those national targets on closing the gap. It is tough work.
Collectively as a House we tend not to argue too much about these things. I was a bit disappointed about the way some of the debates went yesterday, but we are all committed, I think, to bringing a better result. Maybe we might debate the pathways we take, but this bill is put forward in good faith by a very good minister and, I believe, by a government that does have the best interests of Aboriginal people at heart. I commend the bills to the House.
Firstly, I acknowledge the member for Hasluck and the member for Barton for their contributions to this debate. I recognise the unique perspectives they bring as Aboriginal people and as people who have been impacted by the stolen generations themselves.
My first real interaction with members of the stolen generation was four decades ago. I recall attending a conference, in 1992, at Kormilda College in Darwin of stolen generations members. These were people who wanted justice, and they wanted an understanding of their plight and their suffering and their hurt. Then we saw the then Labor government institute the 'bringing them home' inquiry and we saw its report to the parliament in 1997, where it made 54 recommendations. A key recommendation was reparations. It wanted an acknowledgement and an apology from the parliament, which, of course, took 10 years to come about; guarantees against repetition; restitution and rehabilitation; and monetary compensation.
Sadly, though, the then Prime Minister, John Howard—as the member for Barton pointed out in her contribution—steadfastly refused an apology or to recognise the importance of restitution. That was sad then and, on reflection, it's sadder now, because that was an opportunity not to deal with this issue once and for all but certainly to address the needs which were identified by the Bringing them home report and which have taken so long to properly address.
It's not my intention to go through the details of the legislation; others have properly done that. I do want to talk, though, about the stolen generations. The removal of children from their families was an almost century-long practice by governments across Australia, and we know it created trauma that has transcended generations and instigated intergenerational trauma. The separation of families and the destruction of communities on a systematic scale can't simply be forgotten. The fear and pain remain, not only with members of the stolen generations but with their children, their grandchildren and their extended families. There is no amount of money, despite the importance of this legislation, that will undo that or could adequately compensate individuals, families and communities for that hurt, for that damage and for the long shadow the trauma has cast on relationships, on health, including mental health, on people's economic prospects, and on culture, language and identity. For so many people today, the horror and trauma of systematic child removal policies goes a long way, as the member for Barton said, to explain the mistrust of authority—such as schools, policies of governments, health care and hospitals.
As the member for Barton pointed out, she was up there in the gallery on that wonderful day, 13 February 2008, when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd extended the Apology to the Stolen Generations and the then Leader of the Opposition responded in like terms. That was an important shift, because up until then the then opposition had refused to contemplate an apology to the stolen generations, and Brendan Nelson is to be congratulated for his leadership on that day. It was a very important thing to happen. It brought this parliament together—except, I note, that there are a number of people still in this parliament who absented themselves from the apology, and that was shameful.
I now want to speak about my many friends who are members of the stolen generations, some of whom have died in recent years and so have missed the opportunity for the recognition that this bill will provide. My dear friend the preselected Labor candidate for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour, who I hope will replace me in this parliament, is a daughter of a stolen generations survivor. Marion recently shared this story on her Facebook page after visiting Ti Tree just north of Alice Springs, the area from which her father came but was taken from so long ago. Marion's father, Jack, was taken from his Aboriginal mother and non-Aboriginal father at Ti Tree and sent to Croker Island off the coast of northern Australia. During the Second World War, he took part in the so-called long walk home to avoid Japanese bombing. Jack, along with many other children and three teachers, initially walked hundreds of kilometres from a point on the mainland near Croker Island to Gunbalanya, and it was the beginning of a trip that took him all the way to the south-east corner of Australia.
Marion had the opportunities to sit with his family that he never had.
When talking about these tragic events, I am reminded of Archie Roach. When Archie sang his most famous song, Took the Children Away, at the bicentennial in 1988, two elderly people from the Northern Territory came up to him afterwards. 'What did you write that song about?' the old man asked. 'Me,' said Roach, who was taken as a child, sadly, from his parents. The old man said, 'No, you wrote it for me.'
A former long-term member of my staff, Jack Crosby, who sadly passed away a few years ago now, was married to Sue Roman, a very dear friend. Sue's mother, Lindy Roman, was taken away to the Kahlin Compound in Darwin Sue, her daughter, was put in the infamous Retta Dixon Home. Sue's mother was forced to work as a domestic for families in Darwin. Sue's mum, Lindy, was judged unfit to look after her own kids but was considered fit to look after the children of non-Aboriginal people.
Sue was the youngest child in a family of five children. She was removed when she was baby. She is now 72. Sue remained under the control of the Aborigines Inland Mission, which controlled Retta Dixon Home, until she was 18. Sue had one brother. He was sent to an institution in Alice Springs, 1,400km away. There were hundreds of kids in Retta Dixon over the time Sue was there, and she was one of the few or only children who was of Larrakia descent. Her mother was therefore in Darwin. Sue was sometimes, and illegally, able to talk to her mum over the side fence of Retta Dixon, where it shared a boundary with the Bagot community,
At 12, Sue was sent to school in Victoria, into the care of foster parents who turned out, sadly, to be abusive. While with those people, her mother wrote letters to her that were never given to her. They had been sent sometimes with a10 bob note. She never saw the money. Sue's mother was not even told she was sent to Victoria.
Sue's version of the impact is simple and powerful. In her words: 'They eff your life.' 'Fortunately', she says, 'I got to learn the truth.' A friendly school teacher she had as a teenager worked with her to go through what had happened. In the process, she says, 'I made a commitment not to be poor bugger me.' She says, 'At 15 I had a couple of years of truth telling.' The school teachers were Brett and Pat Wren. They were school teachers she met in Victoria, and they became her foster parents for 2½ years. When Sue was 17 she came back to Darwin. She then went on to work with other survivors to lead a claim for compensation for what had happened to them at Retta Dixon.
Estelle Ross is a stolen generations survivor. She is an Eastern Arrernte woman. Her daughter is Christine Ross. Christine's mum is 83 in January. Recently, Christine told me of Estelle's story, which Estelle is happy to share. In 1946, as a young child, she was taken from her home at Arltunga. Six were taken at the same time. They were also sent to Garden Point off the north coast of the Territory. The six children were put on the back of a ute. They were told they were going shopping. They never came back. Estelle was sent to Garden Point Mission on Melville Island, which was run by the Catholic Church. Their mothers were not told anything about what happened to them. Estelle only left Garden Point when she was 15 when she was sent to boarding school in Adelaide. She stayed there for three years, then she was released. Estelle only met her mother again many years later, when she was an adult. At Garden Point, Estelle grew up without her family at all. Initially she couldn't speak English. She was completely denied any access to her own language and culture. When she met her mother many years later it was very difficult for her to communicate, because Estelle's mother had very little English. Estelle suffered emotional abuse and mental abuse. She says she was raised by nuns who were not compassionate; in the process, she was constantly abused for minor things. She formed a strong bond with other survivors of Garden Point and she stayed in touch with them all her life. One of the people she was there with was Jack Scrymgour, Marion's dad.
Christine reminded us that what happened to her mother led to intergenerational trauma. For Christine, hearing her mother's story was a huge upset. Estelle says that talking about this is not for the sake of compensation; it's important to make all this part of Australian history. She says it's a story that has to be told. In the words of Christine, 'Stealing children has screwed up so many kids and led to a lot of suicide.' Christine notes there is only so much you can take of living with trauma. For her, the impact has been huge and ongoing. Christine also said it has taken too long for the survivors to get compensation.
This is very important legislation, and it's very important we have bipartisan support for it. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the member for Barton and, indeed, the member for Hasluck in making sure we see this legislation in the parliament today. But let there be no doubt: this is a story of national shame and disgrace. It's a part of our history that we need to constantly acknowledge and address. This compensation process is one part of it. Those stories, like the ones I've just told you, are stories we all need to hear, lest we become relaxed and comfortable in the knowledge we've done something. We're doing something, but we're never going to change intergenerational trauma or the loss, sadness or disgrace that was brought about as a result of this process of stealing children away from their families.
We have an obligation in this place. As members of parliament we are acutely charged with a great responsibility to look after the interests of the Australian community. This legislation does that in part, but it is just so sad that so many have died and will not see the justice that will be brought about as a result of this minor, minor piece of legislation for compensation. I commend the bills to the House.
[by video link] I rise to speak on the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Facilitation) Bill 2021. In combination with the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, this bill will facilitate the operation of a redress scheme for living stolen generations survivors who were removed as children from their families in the Northern Territory, the ACT and the Jervis Bay Territory. Funded through a $378 million package announced by Prime Minister Scott Morrison in August this year, the scheme will make payments in recognition of the harm caused by forced removal from the families of stolen generations survivors to assist with the healing of this trauma for the stolen generations survivors who were forcibly removed, and to help survivors gain access to counselling and support services and a face-to-face or personal written response. It is another step taken by this government on the journey to providing redress for those forcefully removed as children in territories that were administered by the Commonwealth. The government is committed to a process of truth-telling as part of the nation's journey to reconciliation. The scheme will be survivor focused and trauma informed and will operate on the basis of doing no further harm to the survivor. Consultation with key stolen generations organisations will take place in the coming month, and internal and external advisory boards are being established to guide and monitor the scheme's establishment and to ensure the scheme is delivered in a culturally-sensitive manner.
The facilitation and consequential amendments bills meanwhile will ensure that a participant in the scheme will not be adversely affected by receiving a redress payment. Specifically, survivors receiving a payment can be assured their payments will not be used to repay any Commonwealth debts and that their eligibility or access to Commonwealth payments, pensions, benefits or services will not be effected. As my good friend, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon. Ken Wyatt has noted, with many stolen generations survivors being of an advanced age, the imperative to act now has been brought into sharp focus. The passage of these bills will ensure the scheme can start receiving applicants in the early months of 2022.
While it is, of course, solely a matter for stolen generations survivors if, when and how they choose to seek redress, pursuing it through the scheme has considerable advantages over doing so through the courts. Court matters take time. They can be complex and have a high level of evidentiary burden. The redress scheme will be largely administrative based with a minimum of complexity regarding the operation of the scheme. It recognises that there may be poor historical records regarding the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families and will establish evidentiary requirements to reflect this. As such, evidentiary requirements for redress through the scheme are likely to be lower than those required to successfully bring court proceedings. In addition to this, applicants will be able to access free application support, and legal and financial advice from independent scheme funded support services throughout the application process.
This government takes incredibly seriously its commitment to supporting the healing of stolen generations survivors. There has been great progress made under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Australians, and I commend their insights into and recognition of the urgency of establishing the scheme. It is a sad fact that it could easily, although not acceptably, have been pushed aside amidst the once-in-a-generation challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. That it didn't speaks to the priority accorded to this issue by the Morrison government. The scheme represents a major practical step forward towards healing, truth-telling and reconciliation following on from the 2008 apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples. I commend these facilitation bills to the House.
In rising to speak on the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Facilitation) Bill 2021 and related bill, I start by outlining the sadness and the empathy that I feel for anyone who has been subjected to wrongdoing on the level of the stolen generations and/or anyone who has been or continues to be subjected to child-sexual abuse of any sort, no matter what the type, no matter how severe or for how long or by whom. My heart goes out to those Australians who have been in that situation and who may, unfortunately, continue to be in that situation. I've spoken about this before in this place, and I'll continue to shine a light on this issue that stains our country, its history and, unfortunately, its future. I commend the Prime Minister on the creation of the National Centre for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse and strongly support more work in this particular policy area.
I'd like to pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging of the Kombumerri, of the Yugambeh language, on the Gold Coast, who form part of my constituency. I extend my best wishes to their organisations and their families and make special mention of Rory O'Connor, the CEO of the local Yugambeh Museum. The Yugambeh lands stretch from the Tweed to the Logan rivers—significantly larger than the Moncrieff electorate—taking in all of the boundaries.
I'd like to share a story about a local Indigenous elder, Patricia O'Connor, before I get into the nuts and bolts of the bill. The source of the story is from the Yugambeh Museum itself, so I'm confident that it is accurate. Her journey has been from a childhood in a tent home outside of Beaudesert all the way to Buckingham Palace for the Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games. Mrs O'Connor was born in Beaudesert in 1928 and has been honoured for her role as the joint founder of the Kombumerri Aboriginal Corporation for Culture Centre in 1984. She was also part of a team which successfully negotiated Australia's largest repatriation of Aboriginal remains in 1987. She helped with the reburying ceremony of 200 Aboriginal people who had, sadly, been excavated from their original burial site at Merrimac in my electorate, by the University of Queensland in the 1960s. She also opened the Yugambeh Museum, Language and Heritage Research Centre in Beenleigh, in the member for Forde's electorate, which is one of Australia's largest language centres. Of course, the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games mascot Borobi, the big koala, which has statues all over Moncrieff and Broadbeach and at the Home of the Arts and other locations is tasked with keeping Indigenous languages alive in South-East Queensland schools. I hope that Borobi comes back as the mascot for the 2032 Olympics on the Gold Coast. Borobi certainly has my vote as a natural fit for that role.
Mrs O'Connor's community work extended to involvement in the unveiling of Australia's first memorial to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service men and women in 1991. Before COVID hit, I joined her and the local Aboriginal community on Indigenous Diggers Remembrance Day to honour those who have fallen in the wars. We thank them for their service to our great country. The memorial stone is on a bora ground just outside Moncrieff, at Burleigh Heads.
I see that I am going to be wound up shortly, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will probably go into continuance for tomorrow. So what I will do is just keep going for a few more minutes until we go to the adjournment debate. But I wanted to share with the House a good news story in terms of the attitude that Patricia has towards the future and the hope that she has for Indigenous Australians and, of course, the future of Aboriginal children in our country and how much she has given to our community, how much she has given to the Indigenous community and how very pleased I have been to hear some of the words from Patricia, which I will talk about in continuance, when she talks about her hope for reconciliation, her hope for the future of our country and her hope for the relationship between the rest of Australia and Indigenous Australians across our great country. I thank the House for listening to my speech thus far. Thanks so much to Patricia O'Connor, who has served our community for so many years. It is a great story that I will share with the House in the next section of my speech.
I'm rising tonight to show my utter contempt and disgust with this government in their announcements today about bringing in voter suppression laws at the next general election. We have just had a debate in this chamber regarding the future and the voice of Indigenous Australians, and many reports tonight have revealed that at the joint party room this morning the coalition ticked off on voter suppression laws to be brought in before the next election.
I sit as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and this issue has been litigated and prosecuted there. Not one bit of evidence has been presented before the joint standing committee regarding bringing in voter ID laws. We saw this in my home state in Queensland when Campbell Newman was in charge and he tried this US-style voter suppression trick. We just saw the crocodile tears from members of the opposition regarding an important piece of Indigenous legislation: well, who do voter suppression laws have an impact on? Indigenous and First Nations members of our community; the poor, the vulnerable and the people who don't have identification.
This is nothing more than a grubby grab for votes by the LNP. We will not stand for it and the people of Australia will fight this every step of the way. In the dissenting report to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters at the last election it was made clear by members of the opposition that if the government tried this on we would fight it. Let me be very clear: the tricks and the cons that the LNP are trying to bring in are nothing more than US-style voter suppression laws. They know this government is in trouble. You only need to see Newspoll this week to realise that across Australia, Australians are waking up to this government. They see the tricks and the cons from this Prime Minister—always about the announcement, never about the delivery. So what did the LNP do in this country? They go to their grab bag of tricks and pull out the old favourite: trying to stop Australians from having their say. I know that the member for Barton, when she has spoken to Indigenous communities across this country as a leader and warrior for First Nations people, wants every single Australian to have their say.
Well, bring it on, if they want to try this on! The ringleader of this is none other than Senator James McGrath, the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—when he's not prosecuting the war on the ABC and all the other nonsense culture wars that the LNP go on about. I'm calling on the government to junk these proposals and I'm calling on members of the National Party to junk these proposals. If they think they're going to bring in laws to stop Australians from voting, they're going to have one hell of a fight on their hands.
When I read the media reports tonight I am fearful, because when the LNP are in electoral trouble, when the LNP are in dangerous territory, they do everything they can to try to stop voters. I am calling on every single member of this House to oppose these US-style voter suppression laws. It is an outrage that we would even be considering this, but I'm not surprised. We have seen culture war after culture war. The education minister gets up in this place at question time and goes on like he's at a Young Liberals convention: banging on about curriculum and banging on about the black armband history of Australia. Well, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, you're in charge. If the minister has had eight or nine long years to fix the curriculum then why hasn't he done it? We come in here and it's like some LNP young convention when he's being cheered and clapped by the backbench, a desperate government running out of steam.
Well, the latest proposal by this government to bring in voter suppression laws will be opposed. We will make sure every Australian has their say at the next election. An Anthony Albanese government will bring integrity back to Australian political processes. We will ensure that the tricks and the cons and the shysters of those opposite won't be supported, and we will deliver every Australian to have their say at the next election.
Having worked in the community housing sector, I have a good understanding of the housing spectrum and, particularly on the needs front, of how we need to protect our most vulnerable Australians experiencing homelessness and then, as they get on their feet, to give them the opportunity to get into housing and support them through affordable housing. On that, one of the things I'm most passionate about is supporting women escaping domestic violence through intergenerational welfare to get on their feet through affordable housing and then enter the housing market and, coupled with this, an opportunity for them to get back into the workforce, to arm them with the tools they need for economic independence. Economic independence and housing independence go hand-in-hand to providing women with what they need to have full independence and to get on with their lies. I think there is a lot more that we can do on that front.
When it comes to moving on from affordable housing into the housing market, in Western Sydney we have wonderful opportunities now to support people into purchasing their own homes. With Western Sydney airport coming on and growth in Western Sydney, the opportunity to not have to leave the area to get a good job—to stay, to live and to work in that area—is really important. That's why I'm really pleased with the work that we're doing, particularly around HomeBuilder and our first home loan deposit schemes. These are the programs that support young people and aspirational people in my electorate and right across Western Sydney who are working so hard. They are the people who go out and build our infrastructure projects, those big nation-building projects like we have going on in Western Sydney. Supporting them into their first home should be one of our top priorities, and that is absolutely one of our top priorities. I'm really pleased that, with the scheme, in New South Wales alone we've had around 23,000 applicants. People want to get ahead. They want to have their first home. They want to get into the market and they want to build their families. I am so pleased that so many of them want to do that in Western Sydney.
Another part of the scheme that is really important when it comes to how we're supporting first home buyers is the support that we are giving to single parents, given the challenges that face in saving a deposit while on a single income and raising children. Over 84 per cent of these are women. This goes back to affordable housing for women who want to pursue their lives and get to independence. Providing this opportunity for women who are trying to get into the housing market with just a two per cent deposit is really important, and I'm really proud that we are taking those steps to support single parents, particularly in Western Sydney, where home ownership is an important thing for people in raising their families. So we've got a lot going on in the housing space.
I was really pleased to join the Minister for Housing when we opened affordable housing in Penrith—there were 300 units at this particular property—and then going from affordable housing supporting people through the housing market into their own homes. There's more to do. I met with the minister today, and we talked about these measures and how we can continue to provide these opportunities for people in Western Sydney. I look forward to progressing these projects with him, because, as I said, the housing market, getting into your first home, supporting your family, being able to get on with your job, having a job close to home and not having to do that long commute—these are all part of the Western Sydney dream and why so many of us want to stay, live, work, raise our families and not have to do that commute for so long out of Western Sydney.
[by video link] Today's Australian Financial Review splashed this:
The taxpayer-owned shipbuilder ASC is offering jobs to hundreds of employees from the axed French submarine program at the same pay and conditions, as well as an extra two weeks' leave, promising workers no one will be worse off.
The Morrison government has put forward an offer of a guaranteed job. Yet workers, who had woken up feeling that maybe they had been looked after, then found in today's Senate estimates that there is only enough funding for these 300 workers to be paid for three months—yes, only three months. Three months is hardly a guaranteed job. If you are a submarine worker in Adelaide, the Morrison government are gaslighting you. You've got a job guaranteed for just 90 days.
But the Morrison government have a solid history of gaslighting Australians. Indeed, this morning, when Senator Wong was questioning Senator Birmingham, she exposed the fact that the decision as to whether full-cycle docking was staying in South Australia or moving to WA was clearly a political decision. The full-cycle docking announcement was finally made last month, buried by the AUKUS announcement, when they needed it to fill a fresh political purpose—a poor attempt at masking future job losses in South Australia. This very important decision for our submarine capability and our submariners was nothing but a political carrot for the Liberal government—years of stringing along WA and South Australia, all for political benefit.
Now let's look at the other projects. While the government has made much of the current Guardian class offshore patrol vessels and evolved Cape class patrol vessels currently under construction in Western Australia, there is little certainty of ongoing work following the end of these projects. In his press conference on 16 September, the Prime Minister said there was more ship construction work coming to Western Australia over the coming decade, and he listed an ice-rated replacement for the Navy's Ocean Protector; a new large salvage and repair vessel; and up to four support ships for the enhanced undersea surveillance system. The Prime Minister also said that same day that his government would work with the Western Australian government to invest in a large dry dock at Henderson—'work with'. That's not a commitment, although it's a convenient teaser for a federal election campaign, I bet. Western Australian industry tell me that they don't think any work for any of these projects has been awarded or contracted yet. In fact, industry tell me that, even though the PM says the work is going to Western Australia, the minister responsible has floated the idea of the work actually going elsewhere. It just goes to show how much a guarantee from this Morrison government is worth.
This Morrison government needs to get serious about supporting Australian defence industry. We knew they were taking it for granted before, with Australian content on the old Attack class submarine contract down to 60 per cent from the original 90 per cent, with no consequences. Then the Prime Minister said recently that the government's intention is to build the nuclear powered submarines in South Australia, maximising the use of Australian workers, but now we're hearing that the Morrison government aren't going to push for Australian industry to be involved in the future build of the nuclear submarines and that it's not a priority. It seems that intention isn't worth much from this government either.
I say to Australian defence industry: the Morrison government is gaslighting you too. It is only Labor that will invest in Australian defence industry, grow our industry through the National Reconstruction Fund, skill up apprentices so that we have the expertise we need when we need it, and develop sovereign capability here in Australia, because Labor is committed to a future made in Australia. It's only Labor that will ensure defence project contracts are transparent and companies are accountable to ensure that work happens here in Australia, that we develop the IP here in Australia, that we develop our capability and that we're not just sending this work offshore. This government is clear. This government is all about announcement but never about actual delivery.
Tonight I rise to speak about some caves and some trees, which seem rather insignificant when we've got little Cleo Smith in Western Australia still missing as the search enters its 11th day. For family and friends, indeed all sound minded Australians, this is such an awful time, a worrying time. If anybody has any information, as Premier Mark McGowan said today, please contact police.
I am rising to speak about the Yarrangobilly Caves. I know the member for Barton will be interested in this, given the fact that she is a Wiradjuri woman. Unbelievably, this absolute treasure near Tumbarumba has been vandalised. It is in the Kosciuszko National Park, in the Snowy Valley shire, and many people from my electorate of Riverina visit this beautiful, once-pristine part of the world. I've spoken to the member for Eden-Monaro, Kristy McBain. She shares my disgust at the police reports that these wonderful caves have been damaged. A NSW police spokesperson has told the ABC that a padlock securing the doorway into one of the caves was removed and the power distribution board was damaged.
What has happened is they have snapped off the stalactites. A stalactite is a tapering structure, hanging like an icicle from the roof of a cave. It's formed by calcium salts deposited by dripping water. Some of these cave systems in Kosciuszko have been there for hundreds of millions of years. To think that senseless vandals would, in the first place, break in and then smash these stalactites is just beyond belief. Police are alleging that the Jillabenan Cave, one of the six caves which form the Yarrangobilly cave system, was broken into and vandalised sometime between 17 and 23 October.
The Jillabenan Cave dates back around two million years, according to geologists. There is also a thermal pool at the site, where the water is a constant 27 degrees year round. It's a wonderful tourist attraction, and people go there from all over Australia, but particularly from Eden-Monaro and the Riverina, the two electorates neighbouring each other. Unfortunately, according to a former National Parks employee Andy Spate, who spoke to the ABC, it would not be the first time the caves have been targeted by vandals, but it beggars belief why vandals attack these things at all. It's bad enough they go around and paint and daub walls and the like, but to actually damage something that is irreversible is just so unfortunate. If anybody has any information, they are urged and encouraged to phone Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.
I know that the Kosciuszko system is part of that wonderful what used to be the Tumbarumba Shire before it was merged with Tumut Shire. That was a shame too, I have to say, having seen Tumbarumba Shire within my time as its representative win the AR Bluett award for local government management, but that's another issue.
Of course, the wonderful Tumbatrek in early February each year is something that many people embark upon. I know that the member for Eden-Monaro and I have done that once or twice together, but I revived it. Back in 2012, I resurrected something that was started by Tim Fischer, the late, great former Deputy Prime Minister and former member for Farrer. He started it in 1985. He took the national media to the top of Kosciuszko and to other beautiful parts of the Kosciuszko National Park and extolled the virtues of tourism and extolled the virtues of Indigenous occupation there for tens of thousands of years. Of course, we still all miss Tim. He passed away on 22 August 2019, aged 73. We want to honour his legacy always with that Tumbatrek. But, if anybody can identify those criminals who did that to Yarrangobilly Caves, please do so because they should face the full justice that they deserve.
I rise today to make the House of Representatives aware of what's happening in my electorate of Indi and to call for urgent attention and resources for the COVID-19 situation in towns like Albury-Wodonga, Wangaratta and others in regional Victoria.
I have just notified the health minister, Mr Greg Hunt, of the situation on the border, and I thank him for his commitment that Wodonga will be at the front of the queue when rapid antigen testing becomes available next week. Many communities in my electorate are facing COVID-19 outbreaks and transmission in the community for the first time as our economy opens up. We knew this was coming—inn fact, it was part of the national plan—and yet it seems there has been no plan to make sure we have the resources we need to respond to outbreaks when they occur in regional places such as mine.
When asked about cases in Wodonga today, the Victorian chief health officer seemed unaware of what we were facing. An equivalent-sized outbreak in Melbourne would be around 3,000 cases a day. For us, this is a very serious challenge—and for smaller communities, the numbers we're seeing are pushing our health services to the brink. In Indi, we're blitzing vaccination targets; I'm very pleased about that. More than 81 per cent of people 16 years and over are fully vaccinated, and almost 95 per cent have had one dose. I'm so proud and grateful to everyone who has got vaccinated. But despite this amazing effort, COVID-19 has found its way into our community—especially to children, who either can't get vaccinated or only recently became eligible.
Almost half of the cases in north-eastern Victoria yesterday were aged under 18, and every day we hear of new schools that have been affected. In Indi, more than 13 schools are closed due to cases of COVID-19 in the past two weeks. Even more schools in the neighbouring town of Albury have been closed, again affecting people in Wodonga. It's less than a week since all students at regional Victorian schools returned to in-classroom learning. A time that should have been a return to normality after two challenging years is instead full of disruption, with even more uncertainty and demands on families.
Due to the high demand on contact tracers in the health department, schools are now expected to do their own contact tracing. Schools are contact tracing, coordinating deep cleaning and offering both on-site and remote learning all at once. Something has to give. In Wodonga, people were turned away from testing centres before 9 am this morning and less than two hours after their opening doors our local health service was already at capacity, telling people to stay home, isolate and try again tomorrow. Imagine being so desperate to be tested for COVID-19, to do the right thing, so desperate not to be turned away yet again, that you arrive at the testing centre and camp out at 4 am? That's what's happening in Wodonga, and this is absolutely unacceptable.
The federal and state governments have known this moment would come for more than a year, but still regional health services are being left to respond without enough support from the major cities. Epidemiologists have been flown into assist today, and I'm happy about that, but it's not enough—we need a lot more help. Albury-Wodonga Health has already wound back non-core services—services such as dental and community allied health and pain management services—to move staff to testing. In Albury-Wodonga, the cancer centre has had to convert a ward to become ready to take COVID-19 patients because Albury-Wodonga's main hospital simply does not have any negative-pressure rooms.
Nowhere else in Australia has a specialist cancer hospital which has had to be used for COVID-19. This is one of many reasons, but a core reason, right now today for why we need government to fund a new hospital for Albury-Wodonga. We need it urgently. For years, regional health services have cared diligently for those in their communities, but people needing complex or high-level care were transferred to bigger cities. But with hospitals in Melbourne and Sydney now already at capacity where will our people be cared for?
I can't say enough about how proud I am of our regional health services and of the dedicated workers who are putting in extreme hours to keep up with demand; as a nurse and midwife, I know they will do anything for their patients. But I plead now: send us help for testing and contact tracing. Send us extra staff: our communities need it and they need it now.
Wide Bay's pioneers were instrumental in building Australia. Our gold gave the nation wealth, and our Gympie messmate hardwood built railways, wharves and homes. Sawmills and goldmines supported hotels, schools, police stations and telegraph offices across Gympie, Maryborough, Noosa and all the settlements in between. Our livestock put protein on family dinner tables across the country. Wide Bay is a region that Australia has relied upon since Federation, and, with our government's investment, it will continue to be so into the future.
Our need to protect supply chains in essential products like medical and building supplies, and food and beverages was never more evident than during COVID-19, when we left shops without what we went there for: hardwood timber, staple foods and some medicines. Before the pandemic, our government was building more stable supply chains in critical minerals and investing in our Defence Force capacity, including by increasing defence equipment manufacturing in Australia.
The new Rheinmetall NIOA Munitions plant in Maryborough shows that we can build that Australian industrial defence capability and we can do it fast. With the help of a $28.5 million grant from the Commonwealth government, in 12 months Rheinmetall NIOA has transformed a greenfield site into the most advanced artillery-case-manufacturing plant of its kind in the world. RNM has engaged more than 70 local regional Queensland companies to supply it with goods and services for the project. When fully operational, RNM will have a workforce of about a hundred people to produce more than 30,000 artillery shells each year for the ADF and allied nations. The RNM facility embraces our government's vision of collaboration with industry to create sovereign capability.
Manufacturing is the second-largest industry in Wide Bay and accounts for nearly a third of our exports in timber products, foods, chemicals, metals, machinery and equipment. Home renovators left hardware stores empty handed during COVID, unable to secure necessary supplies because we are overreliant on other nations.
A new $2.2 million production line, helped by a $1.1 million grant from the Commonwealth government, at DTM Timber in Maryborough means reducing our dependence on imported products by making laminated hardwood timber products in Australia. Construction beams, posts, stairs, stair treads and flooring will be made using shorter cuts of timber left over from DTM Timber's existing processing facility.
Australia's first commercial algae-processing facility, Provectus Algae, a biotechnology company in Noosaville, specialises in biomanufacturing high-value compounds. They're expanding into a larger scale manufacturing facility, to open by year's end. We provided Provectus Algae with $390,000 to assist in world-first technology to extract precious compounds from algae to produce novel biologics and pharmaceuticals for infections, inflammatory disorders and cardiovascular diseases.
More than a third of people in Wide Bay are technicians, tradies, labourers or machinery drivers, all employed by manufacturing. We have manufacturers such as Helitak, which make tanks attached to helicopters for firefighting, which this government awarded an accelerating commercialisation grant. We have longstanding processors such as Nolan Meats, which process more than 2,500 cattle per week and feed Australians and people living in Brunei, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Middle East, Africa, Taiwan and the USA.
Wide Bay has helped to build Australia since settlement, and it is positioned to continue to build, feed and grow Australia well into the future. I'm very proud of where Wide Bay is positioned in our future manufacturing strategy.
House adjourned at 19:59
Today I would like to pay tribute to the hundreds of year 12 students in my electorate of Isaacs who begin their final exams this week. I want to acknowledge them and congratulate all of them on the dedication and sacrifice they have shown over what has been a very, very challenging year. Usually I'd be attending school graduations at this time of year, which is one of my favourite activities as a member of parliament, but sadly, because of COVID-19, it won't be possible this year.
The final year of high school is, for many students, filled with mixed emotions. It is a challenging year at the best of times. It draws to a close 13 years of schooling over which students have become young adults, forged strong friendships and grown academically. Year 12 students in my electorate and across the country were forced to dig deep this year as they faced the many challenges put before them because of the COVID-19 restrictions. As a result, many students missed out on treasured milestones like their final school camp and the year 12 formal. I say to them: I'm terribly sorry that many of you missed out on these important experiences; yet, faced with these challenges, you've shown tremendous courage. The resilience you've developed this year will undoubtedly serve you well in work, in higher education and beyond.
I also want to thank the fantastic teachers and support staff for keeping their schools going in such trying circumstances. The care and compassion you have shown to your students demonstrate your dedication in educating our next generation of leaders. I thank you; your students thank you; and Australia thanks you.
Finally, I must pay tribute to the parents and carers of year 12 students for working away tirelessly behind the scenes to support our students. We recognise and acknowledge your hard work and commitment, and we cannot thank you enough.
I'm sorry I cannot be there with you to celebrate your achievements and the final days of high school. I hope that you have received my award certificate folder. I will genuinely miss being there to hand these out in person, as I've done for more than a decade. I'm tremendously excited about your future. Many of you will decide on a future course of study at university or take on an apprenticeship, while others will become young entrepreneurs and start a business. No matter how long it takes, you will find your place. Please know that I and all of us in our community are proud of you.
Like every member of this House, I think, over the last 18 months I have seen some extraordinary acts of kindness and generosity by residents in our electorates. At its heart, it represents the true spirit of volunteerism, alive and well during some of the most difficult times for our nation. I think of my community service centres, like Sydney Community Services, the Crows Nest Centre or the Kirribilli Centre, which have managed to provide so many services through the support of volunteers. I also think of individuals who, just off their own bat, acted to support their neighbours—the people letterboxing their street to offer services like picking up shopping or helping the elderly, or the young school leavers I saw, who had banded together to provide a shopping service for older people in their suburbs.
That's why I'm really delighted that this year, after a break last year, I'm able to continue the North Sydney Community Awards, which I have operated since my election to parliament, to acknowledge volunteers and community organisations in my community. I want to give a shout-out to all residents in my area to think about nominating the special person who, either because of the pandemic or more broadly—in our sporting clubs or in supporting our schools, hospitals, community service organisations or churches—has really made a difference to the life of our community.
I particularly love to acknowledge those who generally go unacknowledged, often because they don't want acknowledgement. Through these awards we have the opportunity to do just that. Nominations are open, and if people would like to get a nomination form they can contact my office. In line with the times, we even have a QR code now, so you can nominate through a QR code on your phone. Our awards are being held on 16 December, and I'm pleased that Shane Fitzsimmons, that legend of the bushfire season, is going to be the special guest. No-one epitomises an organisation based on volunteers like our rural firefighters.
I also want to highlight the role of community organisations across my electorate. One of the meaningful ways that we, as a federal government, support those community organisations is through the Stronger Communities Program. Applications for the Stronger Communities Program are open now, and these grants really make a difference in the life of organisations that often run on the smell of an oily rag. Particularly now, when they haven't been able to do their usual fundraising, because of the pandemic, I know these grants are going to be even more important. Community organisations in my electorate can get an expression-of-interest form from my office. Just to give you an idea, in the last round we were able to support the incredible Ensemble Theatre, with hearing loops for those hard of hearing; Mary's House, a domestic violence service; Sydney Community Care; sporting clubs; and the wonderful Scouts organisations, which have gone through such a resurgence in recent years. It's a great opportunity for our community organisations.
This week we heard from the government that they have finally managed to reach an agreement on net zero. After campaigning against any action on climate change for almost nine years, after days of vicious fighting in the media—with Liberals-on-Nationals violence and Nationals-on-Nationals violence and toxic WhatsApp messaging between the government and within the National Party—the government, under Prime Minister Scott Morrison, has finally been able to stand up in front of a television camera and announce a plan to reach net zero emissions by 2050—except it isn't a plan. To quote their own document, the plan is based on existing policies. It's a hastily cobbled together announcement that is completely without substance.
Climate change is the biggest challenge facing our planet today, and it's also a huge opportunity. Taking proper action on climate change will be good for regional jobs and it will be good for our economy, particularly in Queensland. We need action now, but it's clear we're not getting any of it from this government. It truly makes me wonder, over the last eight long years of lost opportunities under this government. It makes me sad for people like Caitlin, a 15-year-old young person in my electorate. She wrote a speech as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign to give our youth a voice on the decisions and issues that impact them. Caitlin, like many people her age, is intensely concerned about the future of her generation and the impact of climate change. I will let her words speak for themselves:
My name is Caitlin Narayanan. I am 15 years old, and my electorate is Oxley, Queensland.
Australia in 20 years could be either two ways; vibrant, green, and lively—or suffering, perishing, and doomed. But I have a vision. In this vision, I am strolling through a park, I breathe in the sweet, clean air and feel safe amongst the surrounding trees. The grass is green, and occupied by birds, dogs, and our other beloved animals. In the lake nearby, lily pads drift with the ducks and fish.
But this I know; if we continue to allow harmful substances into our air and our water, if we continue to allow deforestation of our precious trees, and if we continue to allow plastic waste to pollute our country, Australia as my generation wishes it to be would perish.
If we do not start protecting our priceless Australian environment, what would my vision of the park look like instead?
Would I struggle to breathe the air? Would the park be stripped of its trees? Would plastic waste drift among the lily pads?
It is the bitter truth that our environment is currently headed down the wrong path, and we are not doing enough to stop it. Our trails of destruction—our overconsumption, our carbon footprint, our carelessness—it has to stop. We must act, and act now.
Thank you, Caitlin, for taking the time to write this speech and for your passion for the future of our country. We must listen to the voices of young people. They are the ones who will have to deal with the consequences of the decisions that are being made today. They don't deserve the circus that we've seen from this government. They don't deserve a Deputy Prime Minister who, by all reports, opposed today's announcement in the Nationals party room. They certainly don't deserve a government that is too scared to legislate its own policy. Caitlin deserves better, the young people in my electorate of Oxley deserve better and this nation deserves better. They will get better under an Albanese Labor government.
This week, the state of New South Wales has reached another COVID landmark, and the parents of Bennelong have all breathed a collective sigh of relief. School is back. Bennelong is blessed with some of the best schools in Australia. We've got great public schools and the cream of the Catholic schools. We have schools that predate Federation, like Ryde Public School, and schools that are brand new, like Smalls Road Public School. We have specialist schools, like the wonderful Karonga, and giant schools, like the soon-to-be-opened Meadowbank K-12 school. From Carlingford—at the top of the electorate—to Gladesville, our schools are hitting above their weight.
Of course, we've got great parents too. But with thousands already working remotely, homeschooling has been an extra element that has stretched the time, capabilities and bandwidths of everyone. This return to school has been long overdue for many. This doesn't just come as a relief to parents; for many students the past two years have been the longest and toughest they can remember. School isn't just a place of learning; it's also a place for making friends and socialising. Chats on Zoom aren't the same as chats in the playground and, especially in the later years of high school, many of the social aspects of school, like graduation and formals, are things that can't be recreated virtually. Children's mental health has also been suffering, which is a heartbreaking thought for any parent. School can be a stressful time, but the traditional stress release valves of friendship and play have been missing for many months. I sincerely hope that the return to face-to-face schooling will see a return to lower levels of stress and other mental health concerns in the coming months and years.
It's clear that there will be ongoing challenges. We know that a number of schools have already been closed for deep cleaning following positive cases since schools partially opened last week. This will continue to happen as we learn to live with COVID. But while the lockdowns are essential and effective at keeping us all safe, we must start to open up as we continue to reach even higher vaccine targets. These short-term school closures will be the norm. As vaccinations get rolled out to children under 11, even these closures will become rarer.
I would like to end by saying congratulations to all the parents who have led their children's learning in recent months, the parents who have simultaneously relearnt and taught calculus and poetry, the parents who have split time between their own work and their children's and all the parents who deserve a break. Thanks to you all, and hopefully the rest of the year will be a return to that most elusive state of normality.
I'm going to use my time to reflect on the climate debate and the circus we have witnessed within the Liberal and National parties over the last few weeks—in fact, over the last eight years—in fact, over the last 20 years!—that does a great disservice to the constituents of Shortland. I am incredibly disappointed and shocked by the paradigm that the National Party have set up within this debate—that is, those in regional Australia are the ones that will suffer because of action on climate change and only those in inner-city cosmopolitan seats care about action on climate change. Both claims are wrong.
Firstly, regional Australia probably has the most to lose if we don't take action on climate change. Lake Macquarie is the largest salt water lake in Australia and amongst the largest in the Southern Hemisphere. I am the proud representative of the Lake Macquarie region, but the seat of Shortland is stuck between the lake and the Pacific Ocean, so rising sea levels affect my constituency greatly. Other regional electorates, particularly those of a more agricultural nature, face huge impacts on their industry with a warming climate. Also, my constituents are deeply worried about climate change and want action.
For example, Helen from Caves Beach recently emailed me saying: 'I bet that you have children and do not wish the horrifying future that uncontrolled climate change would bring. If the latest IPCC report didn't convince you, then nothing will.' Cathy from Speers Point wrote: 'Climate change is the most important issue we are facing, and the most urgent. I'm so sick of politicians who are failing to give this issue the priority it requires, giving us political dances when we need urgent action.' Finally, Katherine from Eleebana hit the nail on the head: 'The impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the climate is catastrophic. The politicisation of this catastrophe has to stop if this Earth is to survive. The National Party's influence over any decision is ridiculously overweighted.'
We have a situation now where the Deputy Prime Minister is opposed to net zero emissions, but is suddenly for it. We've got a party where the minister for resources took 30 pieces of silver to drop his opposition to net zero emissions to get a pay bump and get back into national cabinet. And we had a situation today where the government and the Prime Minister released a plan—a plan so rock solid that the Deputy Prime Minister couldn't stand next to him for the announcement—that contained not a single new initiative. It was a plan to have a plan based on technology assumptions and wildly optimistic or mythical future technology improvements. Seriously, the vast chunk of the abatement is future technology and purchasing offsets both in Australia and abroad. This government is a disgrace on climate change. Nothing they have announced today changes that. They are betraying the future of my constituents, they're betraying the economic interests of this country, they're betraying the environmental interests of this country and they will go down in history as the worst government this country has ever seen.
The Lismore Chamber of Commerce 2021 Business Awards were held recently. Congratulations to Peta Tillet, the owner of Lazuli and Co, who won the categories of retail and personal services, the employer of choice and excellence in microbusiness. The category for trade, construction and manufacturing and the category of excellence in small business went to SimplyClean—congratulation's to Becky Thompson and Huw Jones. Melanie Serone and Andrew Stevens are the owners of Connect Business Solutions and took out the category for business and professional services. The categories of health, care and wellness industries and excellence in business went to Summit Sport and Fitness Centre—congratulations to owner Matt George and manager Annie Petty. Pepe Fassos, owner and grower of Five Sixty Farms, won the category for agriculture and primary industries.
The award for outstanding dining and hospitality went to Cassandre and Kate Richards, owners of the Pickled Herd. The outstanding employee category award went to Brad Ambridge from Armsign and Angela Bontea from CASPA Services. Levi Loughlin took out the outstanding young business leader category for his business Herne's Security. Hayley Brown won the outstanding business leader category for her businesses Warrior Refrigeration and Horne's Gas & Plumbing. Friends of the Koala were recognised in the category of outstanding community organisation. The outstanding start-up category went to Hanging Rock Flowers—congratulations to owners Linda Heilbron and Paul Martens. Well done to all the nominees and winners.
The Kyogle and District Chamber of Commerce recently held their local 2021 Business Excellence Awards. The agricultural and primary industries awards went to Shane Hickey, of Hickey Food Services. Chantelle Forbes and Brad Wishart, owners of The Farmer's Plate, took out multiple categories, including retail and personal services, tourism and visitor experience, excellence in small business and the business of the year. The trading, construction and manufacturing category went to Adam Lord and Lachlan Crawter of Kyogle Tyres & More. Lachlan also won the outstanding young business leader award. Wild Honey Collective took out the business and professional services category—congratulations to founder Jasmine Phillips and her staff Kate, Lillie, Saskia and Thor. Justin and Greg Wimble, owners of Kyogle Boxfit, won the health, care and wellness industry category—well done. Jade Lamond from Connect Business Solutions won the outstanding employee category. Louise Roy was named the outstanding business leader for her business Tiger Designz & Business Consulting. Connect Business Solutions won the employer of choice and the excellence in business categories. Haylee Holliday, owner of Ascent Dance Studio, took out the category of outstanding start-up, and Kyogle Junior Rugby League were named the outstanding community organisation. Meghan Hogan, owner of Scarboroughs Shoes and Fashion, and Wild Honey Collective were joint winners of excellence in microbusiness. Again, well done and congratulations to all the nominees and winners.
There are few things better than being out in my community planting trees. It's good for the soul, good for native wildlife and good for the planet. In the Freo electorate there are numerous groups that take on the challenge of planting trees in places like the Beeliar Wetlands, Samson Park or Clontarf Hill. At a time when we have a failed national environment protection framework that's not preventing cumulative loss of habitat, we need to be increasing tree cover in addition to protecting our remnant forests better. That's particularly the case in the face of climate change impacts, including the catastrophic bushfires that scorched the east coast in 2019-20. It's momentous and welcome that the McGowan Labor government has announced that in 2024 there will be no logging of native forests in Western Australia. What's more, it's providing a $350 million package to support 33,000 hectares of new softwood plantations that will produce 50 million trees by 2031. That's a sensible and balanced approach to maintaining a supply of renewable timber and the jobs that are sustained by that industry. But we can't forget that Australia has already suffered deforestation on a large and seriously harmful scale.
The WA Wheatbelt is without question one of the great grain-producing regions on the planet, and it's about to achieve a record harvest this summer. But it's also one of the most starkly changed landscapes. Indeed, there's only seven per cent of the original vegetation left within the 150,000 square kilometre wheatbelt.
Australia wide, tree planting and landscape restoration is desperately needed. It's vital as a matter of protecting our biodiversity, it's vital as a matter of responding to climate change and, in the case of a sensibly managed plantation forest industry, it's important as a source of sustainable and renewable timber. On that front, it's worth reflecting on what the Morrison government has said in relation to growing trees in Australia. In 2018, it announced it would deliver one billion new trees over the course of the next decade. That was supposed to include 100 million trees in Western Australia. But, like so many announcements by this woeful government, absolutely nothing has happened since.
At a Committee on Regional Australia hearing in Collie the other week, I asked the president of the Forest Industries Federation of WA how many of those trees had been planted and I was told, 'The trend is actually going backwards.' It is with bitter irony, therefore—or perhaps with shamelessness—that the government has announced today new measures that apparently could unlock up to 100 million trees over the next decade, and it includes the hopeful note that this will contribute significantly towards the government's one billion trees plan. Well, that would be something, wouldn't it, considering the plan has so far delivered zero trees from 2018 to 2021—four years and no trees. But today we got another announcement, and what's the bet it will be like all the other promises from this government?
On 21 September, I visited the Gold Coast sport and recreation centre in Southport in my electorate, to present a cheque from Stronger Communities funding round 6 for $14,042. The funding was used to install solar panels, air conditioning and artificial turf at the facility. Established in 1979, Gold Coast Recreation & Sport is a community based organisation which provides sporting and recreational opportunities to people living with disability.
Ian and Sherene Gibson, whom I met during my visit, have been volunteering for 25 years because they saw a lack of services at that time for their son and could see Gold Coast Recreation and Sport as a great service for him to be involved in. They wanted to create and deliver recreational opportunities for people, like their son, with a disability—perfectly understandable, and, of course, commendable.
Back then, it was known as Gold Coast Recreation for the Handicapped. Today, the service has grown to provide a wide variety of recreation and sporting programs throughout my community. GCRS, as it is known, is a Community Care funded agency, registered to provide services under the NDIS, and I commend them for the work that they do to care for those living with disability in my electorate and beyond.
Gold Coast Recreation and Sport prides itself on its positive reputation in the community. Many of the current team members started as volunteers or on their student placements. The organisation actively engages with schools, universities and other learning organisations to assist with achieving their mission. Their mission is:
To enhance the quality of life of people with a disability, by facilitating opportunities for participation and achievement in recreation and sport.
They are doing a good job on their mission. I saw the way their volunteers and their team members worked and interacted with young adults and older participants, and I saw firsthand who in my community the funding has benefited and how. The solar panels now installed will enable lower ongoing electricity costs for air conditioning in summer. The astroturf laid under a large tree improves the OH&S of the area, lowers garden maintenance costs for the organisation and beautifies the relaxation area for their clients.
There's a range of programs offered throughout the Gold Coast to 600 clients every week, and one program is the drum lesson on the veranda at the Gibson hub—which is rightly named after Ian and Sherene, the first volunteers—where participants learn to play the djembe, which is good not only for their social interaction but also for their coordination skills.
So, in finishing, I congratulate Ian and Sherene and the whole community volunteer team. I congratulate the CEO, Anna-Louise Kassulke, who I've known for some time—decades, in fact—for the great work she does heading the team which started with just one employee and now has grown to 138 in our community.
Today, after eight years, three prime ministers and 21 energy policies, our Prime Minister got up, less than two weeks shy of going to Glasgow, to announce a plan for climate action. The problem is that it's not a plan. It is an absolute joke, and Australia deserves so much better than the circus we have seen from the Liberals and the Nationals over the last weeks—and, frankly, over the last eight years. They have got up with a glossy brochure, which is what the Prime Minister loves to do best. It's always about the announcement but with no proper plan for the follow-through. This does not adjust formally the interim target. It will not legislate even the net zero by 2050 commitment. The Deputy Prime Minister has not even given this his own support, it's been reported in their party room, and he couldn't stand up next to the Prime Minister today.
Australia will go to Glasgow as an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment on the world stage. We are going to be left behind, because this is a real moment for the world to embrace a transition to clean energy and to decarbonise. It's a real opportunity for Australia to get those jobs that come from becoming a renewable energy superpower. Instead, they've set up this false dichotomy that this is bad for the regions. No—the regions would benefit from these jobs and from these new industries. Instead of pitting Australians against each other and creating these false climate wars, we should be working together to end these wars and get on with a proper plan to get to net zero by 2050 to address the climate crisis we are facing. The IPCC—the most authoritative body of climate scientists—have called this 'code red for humanity'. I know that the people in my electorate understand that. We believe the science.
This is the thing that people in Canberra contact me about more than any other thing. We care about our children's future. We care about our planet. This government thinks this is nothing more than an opportunity to pull out another brochure—another meaningless announcement. Well, Australians are going to see through this. Australians want climate action, and I hope they take that climate action at the ballot box at this election and vote this mob out. Australia deserves so much better. Our children deserve better. Our planet deserves better. What we've seen and what we've been subjected to over the last few weeks is just not good enough. It is just disgraceful that they will not legislate net zero by 2050. They will not even make a real commitment, let alone a proper plan. It is an absolute disgrace (Time expired)
STEM is one of the essential keys that will help unlock Australian jobs for the future. As a scientist, I'm proud to be part of a government that is committed to unlocking our great nation's potential with additional funding to support growth in STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—particularly in schools. But, importantly, our investment in STEM has a laserlike focus on increasing the participation for women and girls, including those from traditionally underrepresented groups, including young Indigenous women. As a female scientist, I want our girls to be geeks. It's cool.
To advance that vision, recently I convened the very first 'go girl' women in STEM event hosted by Lauriston Girls' School in my electorate of Higgins, bringing together four amazing Superstars of STEM—and that is the term—who are all champions in their chosen fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics and are very keen to smash society's gender assumptions about increasing the public visibility of women in STEM. The four superstars of STEM are all Higgins locals: Dr Maria del Mar Quiroga, a research data specialist from the University of Melbourne; Grace Lethlean, co-founder of ANDHealth, a national initiative facilitating commercialisation of new digital health technologies; Crystal Forrester, an aerospace engineer and Lead for Space Structures in the Aerospace Division at the Defence Science and Technology Group; and Dr Jennifer Fan Gaskin, Research Fellow and Unit Lead at the Centre for Eye Research Australia. I thank them for taking the time to answer questions from young and aspiring students from schools right across Higgins who are keen to pursue a career in STEM. These four superstars of STEM join over 150 women who are role models for young women and girls right across Australia. They've been funded by the federal government to be our ambassadors.
It was great to join the Superstars of STEM for another virtual event hosted by the amazing students from another school in Higgins: Sacred Heart Girls' College in Hughesdale. These young women at Sacred Heart Girls' College are ready to embrace a career in STEM and took the opportunity to learn from the very best in the field. 'What inspired these superstars to pursue a career in stem?' they asked. 'What does a day in the life of a scientist look like? How are women treated in the industry?' These were just some of the thought-provoking topics discussed at the forum, and I was very proud to enable that to happen.
I strongly encourage all young women across Higgins and Australia to pursue a career in STEM. The Australian government has committed more than $100 million in funding to increase women's participation in STEM. By undertaking these programs, we are powering up Australia's ability to stay globally competitive, break down gender barriers and help women to get better jobs.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
It is a great privilege to rise in this chamber to speak on this motion on the third anniversary of the apology to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, as I have on each and every anniversary in this House. Each year we take the time to gather here in this place, the Australian parliament. As we should—it's the very place in which the national apology took place. It's a time for us to critically reflect on the progress being made in terms of the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
Just before we go to some of those details, I think it's really worthwhile to take a moment to reflect on the historical context of the apology. I really want to pay tribute, again, to the work of the royal commission, which really did an extraordinary job. I have talked to literally hundreds of survivors who gave testimony to that royal commission who tell me repeatedly that it was the gold standard for royal commissions in Australia. It was an essential exploration of one of the darkest and ugliest chapters in our national history.
In paying tribute to the royal commission, I want to acknowledge the former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard—who took the brave move, as one of the final acts of her role as Prime Minister, to sign off on the royal commission—and, of course, the extraordinary work of the former member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, in seeing this through.
As I said, the royal commission uncovered some of the most horrific abuse of innocent children, perpetrated by the very people that they were entrusted to. It was that gross violation of trust that sat so badly with every Australian. I have no doubt about that. It was felt very deeply in my community of Newcastle. Not unlike Ballarat, we were indeed an epicentre of institutional abuse that took place over many decades, and there are a lot of very traumatised people in my community as a result.
There was a National Apology Reference Group formed in order to help craft and shape this apology. I was very privileged to serve on that committee. I was appointed under the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and was joined by a number of parliamentary colleagues, including former senator Derryn Hinch; former Greens senator Rachael Siewert; Steve Irons, a member of the government; and a whole lot of community people. The group was chaired by Cheryl Edwardes. Caroline Carroll was on there, as well as Christine Foster, Craig Hughes-Cashmore, Hetty Johnston and Richard Weston. I always like to take a moment to acknowledge their work—their steadfast advocacy—in helping to ensure this apology took place in the first place.
Of course, an apology is really just the start of the process. It's not where you put a full stop and say, 'Job done.' That is really what we want to focus on here today. That leads us to the implementation of the National Redress Scheme.
Indeed, a number of inquiries have come before this parliament. I have put on record many times my concerns about the lack of progress of this parliament and of the government in terms of leadership and ensuring that the National Redress Scheme lives up to the expectations of the royal commission in its recommendations. Victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in institutions have consistently told us about their concerns with the redress scheme and its many inadequacies. Most of these issues were, again, revisited by the independent reviewer, Robyn Kruk, who canvassed and tabled her report, the second anniversary review. But, again, we really need to put on record that this review was a reiteration of the many, many issues that have been well known and have been put before this parliament again and again since 2019.
So, this is not an opportunity to pat ourselves on the back about small, tentative steps made in this regard. I have highlighted, as has my colleague who has joined us, the member for Barton, a number of the pitfalls in the national scheme. Indeed, back in 2019 I tabled the first report from the joint committee on the implementation of the scheme about getting the redress scheme right and moving towards justice. I note that the government has made some tentative steps towards putting in place some of the recommendations from Robyn Kruk's report, and I do welcome that. Labor stood and supported those recommendations in the legislation that came before the House recently. We supported the advance payment of $10,000 to older people with terminal illness or vulnerabilities. That is something Labor has for a very long time been calling for. It's something the Scottish parliament had put in place. They should take it as a form of flattery that we shamelessly borrowed it! I think it was a great initiative. We welcomed the reduction of the time frame, the indexation of prior payments, some changes around not requiring people to make a statutory declaration in order to lodge their applications and changes to allow redress payments to be made in instalments. All of these are good things—hence Labor welcoming and supporting the legislation that came before the House.
But so many things remain unresolved. Again, I can only repeat—we have been drawing the government's attention to these since 2019—things like the fact that we still do not have lifelong access to counselling for all survivors or their families. We have an assessment matrix that continues to prioritise penetrative abuse, despite the fact that we know full well that trauma is not caused only by penetrative abuse. We know this to be a fact. We know that the assessment guidelines still will not be made public, and that puts survivors at a gross disadvantage in completing their applications, as it does all the legal counsel involved in doing so. There is still not a minimum payment level for the redress scheme. There are so many issues that Labor has put before government, as indeed has the joint committee, which is a multipartied committee, making very constructive recommendations in our report in the last term of parliament and in our interim report again this time. We are about to lodge another report to the government, because we still have extremely low rates of participation in the National Redress Scheme.
Don't sit back on your laurels now, thinking, 'Job done!' The appallingly low rates of First Nations people participating in the National Redress Scheme are cause for alarm. The Commonwealth still has very live questions to answer around its role as a funder of last resort. We are not talking about history here; we are dealing with new cases of abuses that are contemporary, that are occurring today. So let's not think we have dealt with or have somehow managed to resolve issues of prevention, because we haven't.
That takes me to some of the comments that the Prime Minister made in his speech. He made an announcement that they have finally awarded a tender for the National Centre for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse. Well, terrific, but that promise was made three years ago. I have had survivors contacting me and asking: what is going on? Now I can at least say that a tender has been awarded. There hasn't been a hole dug or anything else, but we do have a tender in place. That is good work, but do not seek to get patted on the back for doing a job that is long overdue.
For the sake of survivors and their families we cannot continue a pathway of just ticking boxes to make ourselves feel like we're satisfying some kind of checklist. We've got to remind ourselves consistently of the importance of the apology and the tasks that lie ahead to deliver genuine justice for people who were betrayed and had criminal acts perpetrated against them. We have a responsibility to deliver justice to each and every one of them.
It gives me great pleasure to follow the member for Newcastle, who has dedicated herself to this particular issue. The reason we have an anniversary of the apology is that we can never forget the task that we have before us, to ensure that stories of survivors are not forgotten, that we deliver the justice of the National Redress Scheme and begin the healing, and that we take action to prevent child sexual abuse now and into the future, as the member for Newcastle said.
It was in October 2018 that the parliament as one said sorry; we apologise for all the wrongs exposed by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Nine thousand people told the royal commission their story. On that day in October 2018, the nation said sorry for these and all the untold stories. These stories brought light into an otherwise dark corner of our history. It was an important moment for the country and for all survivors across Australia, as the nation listened and responded to the truth about our abject failure to protect our children.
In Aboriginal culture truth-telling has an important healing quality. We know that the telling of this truth has been an awakening for the country. This is why it is so important that we as a nation respond appropriately by delivering the needed redress and allowing the healing process to continue. This is why Labor very much wants a National Redress Scheme that works for survivors and works well. Unfortunately, in the past action at the government level has been slow and often lacking.
We acknowledge the government's response to the recommendations of the two-year review into the scheme and its adoption of 25 of the review's 38 recommendations, but the government needs to do more and act more swiftly to implement the rest. Early next year for the final response isn't good enough. It is so concerning to see how far we still need to go before applications are processed and redress is received.
Speaking on the anniversary of the apology, the Prime Minister, with a great sense of achievement, reported that, as of August 2021, the Redress Scheme had finalised 6,200 payments. The original royal commission estimated that 65,000 survivors were eligible applicants for this scheme. This outcome falls far short of what is needed. Of greater concern is that this result is only 934 more than were completed when this was last reported in March 2021.
The discrepancy between applicant numbers and the number of survivors continues to raise questions for us about the scheme's ease of accessibility. Why is the government finding this so hard?
Labor has repeatedly called for it to fix the identified payment issue by, firstly, increasing the maximum payment to $200,000, as recommended by the royal commission; secondly, ensuring prior payments are not indexed for the purpose of calculating a redress payment; thirdly, ensuring governments act as funders of last resort; and, finally, guaranteeing that any review of an offer of redress will not result in the original offer being reduced. But we acknowledge that the government has responded to Labor's call, as the member for Newcastle said, to push recalcitrant institutions to join the National Redress Scheme.
At this point I would like to acknowledge the bravery of survivors. The told and untold experiences they have endured underpinned their call for justice and urgent action on redress. I want to again acknowledge the many years of hard work that has been done by advocacy groups on this front, in bringing it to the attention of the public to help educate and to change mindsets. The grassroots work of these advocacy groups has been the catalyst for the change that we are seeing in our nation today, the awakening to the scourge of child sexual abuse. That is why it is important that the government act swiftly and finally ensure that the National Redress Scheme process is trauma informed, more responsive and, most certainly, survivor focused. It is the very least the government should do. Labor does acknowledge, as the member for Newcastle also said, the Prime Minister 's announcement of a national memorial to honour victims and survivors. It will be a poignant reminder, as late as it is, to all Australians of what must not happen again—a fitting tribute.
But our work on this front is not finished. While remembering the past, we must also look to the present and, of course, the future. The story of institutional child sexual abuse has thrown a light onto the horrifying fact that child sexual abuse continues in this country, often in the child's home. Labor believes that prevention is key, and efforts on prevention must be stepped up to stop the horror of this happening. We also welcome the Prime Minister's recent announcement of the adoption of the royal commission's recommendation for a national centre for the prevention of child sexual abuse, although, as the member for Newcastle said, it's three years late. We await the launch of the government's National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse, scheduled for next week. This is a 10-year, whole-of-nation framework and we look forward to it being another step forward in the nation's child sexual abuse prevention planning, but we note with concern reports that the government has not been as inclusive as it should have been in consulting with survivor groups and advocates on the national strategy. It is very disappointing to hear that high-profile and nationally regarded advocates have been excluded from contributing to this important work. These voices must be heard. How else will we as a nation succeed?
Finally, can I say that at the heart of Labor's position regarding the National Redress Scheme is the recognition that some survivors of child sexual abuse, out of fear and shame, will avoid seeking justice and healing. This is due in part to the experiences of those who have come forward and spoken publicly. Such treatment occurs on every level—interpersonal and institutional, including at the very institution that failed to protect them from their abusers. I want those individuals to know: we understand your pain, we hear you and, of course, we believe you. Labor has long called on the government to provide lifelong access to counselling support for survivors. Readily available support should be available to any survivor of child sexual abuse. We acknowledge that healing from trauma is not a linear process. Manifestations of trauma are different for every victim and can emerge through various stages of a victim's life. Access to lifelong counselling can help assist survivors to deal with that trauma and achieve healing.
Labor continues to stand ready to work with the government and survivors to deliver a scheme that can provide some form of healing. At the third anniversary of the apology, we are again reminded of the suffering of the survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. We again renew our commitment to the Redress Scheme. Let this parliament's anniversary recommitment be the catalyst for renewed energy and effort in assisting those survivors who are still waiting for the redress they deserve. Their time is right now.
I rise this evening to acknowledge and pay tribute to the survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, and to pledge to do my part, as a member of this place, to ensure that their voices continue to be heard. They are the experts who must drive the still unfinished work that we need to do to build on the national apology.
The 2018 apology to the survivors of institutional child sexual abuse was a very important part of our nation's history, and it is important that we mark its anniversary. It was the moment when we ended some of the silence. It was the moment when we apologised for things that should not have to be spoken, because they should not happened. They should not have happened to the children whose trust was irretrievably broken and whose lives were scarred. They should not have been silenced.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:51 to 17:02
The 2018 apology to the survivors of institutional child sexual abuse was a very important part of our nation's history, and it's important we mark its anniversary. It was the moment we ended some of the silence. It was the moment we apologised for things that should not have had to be spoken, because they just should not have happened. They should not have happened to the children whose trust was irretrievably broken and whose lives were scarred. Those children should not have been silenced, or they should not have not been believed. They are the ones who we should have been protecting. They are the ones who we should have wrapped our collective arms around—not the perpetrators, the people who were moved around, who were protected and who were allowed to keep acting with impunity.
Our Australian of the Year, Grace Tame, powerfully said earlier this year, 'Well, hear me now.' Ms Tame, I echo the words of the Labor leader and member for Grayndler when I say, 'We hear you and we thank you for your advocacy and for your courage,' just as I thank all those survivors and their supporters who fought for so long for this overdue apology, CLAN and all the other groups who supported and continue to support those who told their story—9,000 told their story to the royal commission—and those who could not bring themselves to tell their story and those who have never had the opportunity to tell their story.
I acknowledge the work of my predecessor as the member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, who together with the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, heard the calls from survivors and their supporters and made the decision to hold the royal commission that led to this apology. It was a critical point on the road to this apology. I also acknowledge the member for Barton and the member for Newcastle, who spoke before me and who have been champions for survivors in this place and for the work that still needs to be done. That's why it's important that we mark this anniversary, but it's also vital that we don't pretend that the work is done.
I am concerned by a lack of urgency in much of the Morrison government's response. The National Redress Scheme is still not operating as it should. Too many survivors are dying before they receive the payments they should. The maximum payment should be lifted from $150,000 to $200,000. The National Centre for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse is still nothing but an announcement and a contract, with no work starting on building the centre. Adequate counselling is still not in place—access to lifelong counselling—for those who need it and for whom it would make a massive difference in their life. This work is too important for a go-slow or for us not to be genuine in our efforts to get it done.
So I make the obvious point: the apology was not an ending. It was an important moment, but there is so much more to be done, and it will not be done through complacency in this place or outside of it. We failed so many children for far too long. We failed the survivors, we failed their families and we failed their communities. We must not fail anymore. Child sexual abuse is not just a historical problem. It occurs right now in our community. There is so much work still to do, and we must complete that work. It must be led by the evidence and, most importantly, it must be led by the survivors, whom we must continue to hear.
I want to thank the members for Newcastle, Barton and Jagajaga for their contributions to this debate thus far—and I'm sure the member for Oxley will make just as important a contribution. The reason I wanted to speak on this motion on the national apology to survivors and victims of institutional child sexual abuse is that when I first arrived in this place the whips put me on the Joint Parliamentary Committee for Corporations and Financial Services. Obviously the whips foresaw that I would be trouble! For anyone who is suffering from insomnia, I encourage you to tune into that committee from time to time! At the time, the chair of that committee was Steve Irons, who was and still is a member from Western Australia. Steve Irons is, without doubt, one of the great people of this parliament. His sincerity, humility and willingness to act in the interests of others, the interests of the institution and his community, above himself remind me a lot of what the priests, when I was at school, used to tell me we should do if we are to be good people. Mr Irons's story—Steve's story—is well known to many in this place. His brother committed suicide because he couldn't deal with the trauma he had been through. Steve's story of having to bury his own brother is an extraordinarily powerful one, so I've always been inspired by Steve.
I also want to recognise Julia Gillard and Nicola Roxon in this respect. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander, I am not a great fan of royal commissions. I think the legal fraternity in this country has a lot to be ashamed of, quite frankly. They are not the best people at examining and providing care and compassion. However, the royal commission into institutional abuse—the response to child sexual abuse that was initiated by Prime Minister Gillard—is I think one of the most important royal commissions we've had in this nation, not because it behaved like a royal commission but because it didn't behave like a royal commission. It became very much a commission that wanted to hear the stories of those people who had suffered at the hands of those who had been entrusted to protect them. That in itself provided a bridge from the past to the future. So I think it is incredibly important that this parliament recognises the brave decisions made by others that have led us to this moment.
It was three years ago that then Prime Minister Turnbull stood in front of the parliament and apologised, with former Prime Minister Gillard, as I remember, on the floor of the parliament—appropriately—for the suffering that those children had endured when those who should have known better looked the other way. I personally think it was a very powerful moment. Why do apologies matter? It is because you cannot be fully reconciled with the present until you have recognised the problems of the past and the hurt of the past. That is why apologies matter. Our journey towards becoming a perfect nation will be stalled until we recognise the things we did previously that created unnecessary harm and hurt.
Our national apologies have always been important days of reckoning. When we apologised to the stolen generations, it was an apology for the racism, the cruelties and the injustices inflicted on our First Nations people. When we apologised for forced adoptions, it was an apology for the shame, the stigma and the brutality that forcibly splitting a parent from their child caused. When we apologised to the forgotten Australians and the former child migrants, it was an apology for the unconscionable cruelties experienced by children removed from their families and placed in institutional homes. The apologies reflect our acknowledgement of our failures as a people. Most importantly, they acknowledge that we know that those things can never happen again.
We are a people who live in a liberal democratic society. For societies like ours to flourish we must ensure that we take upon ourselves the importance of recognising that we are not only capable of extraordinary cruelties and mistakes; we are also capable of making those things right.
Truth was always at the heart of the apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. That is what the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, initiated by Prime Minister Gillard, was all about. When thousands of people came forward to describe their experiences, their pain and their anguish, it was more than about them; it was about all of us and what we needed to do as an entire community to ensure that those who come after us will never suffer in the way that those people did and to ensure that this parliament, whenever it is deliberating and considering policies and proposals, remembers how we did so much wrong in that time and in that place by not listening, by not understanding and, in the end, by not knowing.
When the national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse was delivered in this parliament in 2018, it meant many different things to so many different people. To those of us who heard the horrific and tragic stories out of the royal commission, it was an expression of grief for the pain and suffering of children and it was a promise that we would do what was in our power to ensure that never again would childhoods be violated by the people and institutions kids are supposed to trust. For the survivors who were ignored for so long, it was a moment to be heard, to be acknowledged and to have their experiences listened to. For the people of Australia, it was a moment of reflection upon the failures of our institutions and our leaders to protect children from the vilest of acts.
For too long victims were not heard, and they were not heeded. Their voices were silenced when those with more power and more 'credibility' spoke over them. However, many refused to be silent.
Since this apology, our nation has been fortunate enough to hear from the magnificent Grace Tame, who has used her platform as Australian of the Year to once again bring the realities of child sexual abuse to the forefront of the national conversation There's so much power in silence being broken. We saw it in so much testimony, and we saw it before the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Over five years, the commission was contacted by 16,953 people who were within the terms of reference. It heard from 7,981 survivors of child sexual abuse in 8,013 private sessions. It received 1,344 written accounts and referred over 2½ thousand matters to police.
The royal commission led to the national apology, when both the government and the opposition stood together to say, on behalf of Australia, 'We believe you; we are sorry.' Of course, an apology cannot undo the suffering. It cannot change the past and it cannot erase the memories. It cannot bring back the many people we have lost as a result of their abuse, but it can go a little way to lifting the burden and to start moving on the path of reconciliation. But along that path must lie action. We've said sorry. Now we must do what is in our power to ensure that the scourge of child sexual abuse is stamped out and the wrongs of the past are addressed. The announcement of a national centre for the prevention of child sexual abuse goes some way towards this goal, as does the implementation of the National Redress Scheme. However, we would not be doing our job as an opposition if we did not highlight where we believe this government could be doing better.
I'm proud to stand as a member of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme. Joining this joint select committee has been probably the most rewarding thing I have done as a member of parliament. Understanding and listening to survivors, their supporters and also the amazing groups that support these survivors has been truly inspirational. Earlier this year, I expressed my concern that the government had not committed to implementing all the recommendations of the second anniversary review of the National Redress Scheme. The review was conducted independently by Ms Robyn Kruk AO, who delivered her report to the minister at the end of March this year. In conducting her review, Ms Kruk met with 81 survivors. She heard from support services, government agencies and ministers. In total, this review received 226 submissions, on top of their commissioned feedback study in which 503 survivors, support groups and institutions participated.
Using this significant insight into the scheme and the impact that its processes and operations have upon survivors, this review was able to collate a list of recommendations. Unfortunately, many of them have not been implemented, and what the review identified is that, as it stands, the implementation of the scheme is flawed. It's functioning is so complicated and slow that we face the very real risk that survivors may die before they see a single cent. Those who have been able to navigate the process also risk retraumatisation. So, whilst it's good that this parliament comes together to acknowledge the magnificent work of the former Labor government, as we just heard from the member for Mackellar, and whilst it's good that the Prime Minister and the minister and a number of speakers have spoken about the royal commission and spoken about the trauma, they also need to own up to the fact that the government are not delivering what they promised. This is political, but it must be said: this government has let down survivors. They haven't delivered what survivors wanted. They have delivered a scheme that is too complex to navigate and hasn't seen uptake in the numbers that we expected. Reforms need to be made with a sense of urgency. The maximum payout for survivors should be lifted with from $150,000 to $200,000. That some organisations have resisted entering the Redress Scheme is absolutely disgraceful, and I wholeheartedly support the government in taking action against them.
This scheme is just too important to get wrong. We know how important it is to the survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. It was a long time coming when it was first introduced, and we must continue to ensure it is working in the interests of victims and their healing. Survivors of child sexual abuse have been waiting their whole lives for redress for the horrific crimes that were perpetrated against them as children. Growing up in a privileged middle-class family in the southern suburbs of Brisbane, in Holland Park, with loving parents and an older brother and sister, with a joyous childhood, going to school and being fully active in our community, I have no understanding or no comprehension of what it would be like to be in an institution. I have no understanding of what it would be like to be an abused child who put their trust and faith in people who were supposed to be looking after them. I cannot imagine what that would be like. I think all of us who have had the most beautiful childhoods are horrified and simply can't believe that this happened. But it did happen. It happened under government's watch and it happened under the so-called guardians of these children.
The recommendations of the second anniversary review would serve to improve the experience of survivors in the scheme. Think of it like this. A survivor has dealt with this trauma their whole life. They see a light at the end of the tunnel. They see an opportunity for their voice to be heard. They're scared, they're frail, they're vulnerable, and they're worried again that no-one will believe them. They relive that experience once again. They then turn to government—who they don't trust in the first place, having deep-seated concerns about who is managing their lives—to enter a scheme that is so hard and so complex that it gets too much. They walk away, and the trauma is simply relived.
Our focus cannot only be on the crimes of the past. We must also face another harsh reality—that there are children facing this abuse today. It gives me no joy to say that. The eSafety Commissioner has found that children's online safety has worsened during the time of pandemic lockdowns. Child sexual abuse material is on the rise, as is online grooming, activity in online abuse communities and live streaming of abuse material. We must protect children from abuse, wherever it may come from. The national apology must be more than an anniversary, where politicians—from the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition—hop on their soapboxes and talk about what has happened. We must commit to doing more. It must be a reminder that children deserve our protection, and we must do everything in our power to give it to them. Let's get this right now—for the survivors, for their loved ones and for the children, who deserve to grow up in an Australia free from child sexual abuse and violence. Today I commit once again to doing that.
Debate adjourned.
I'm glad for the opportunity to speak on this report. It's a very serious and timely piece of work. I recognise at the outset the effort and commitment of all committee members. It's notable that the committee has undertaken the inquiry in hardworking and hard-hitting fashion and has delivered a set of focused and meaningful recommendations. It's timely in the sense that it comes close on the heels of one of Australia's greatest cultural tragedies—the destruction of rock-shelters at Juukan Gorge, on the land of Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura peoples, two distinct Aboriginal ownership groups that are collectively referred to as the PKKP peoples.
As anyone who followed the awful events of last year would know, the site that was destroyed, which dated back some 46,000 years, contained some unbelievable cultural material, including a kangaroo-bone tool that was 28,000 years old—10,000 older than any similar artefact that has been discovered—and a plaited hair belt that was 4,000 years old. Think about that: an item that, for reference's sake, comes from twice as long ago as the birth of Christ, with genetic links to traditional owners today. This is history and heritage that was rightly described as being of immeasurable significance. It is through no fault of the committee that the report is also, in a sense, not timely. The recommendations in the report come too late to prevent the destruction, and it must be acknowledged that, to some degree, the recommendations repeat imperatives that have sat before this government for some time.
This tragedy, which might as well be called a fiasco, occurred through multiple failures—failures by Rio Tinto, failures of our national Indigenous heritage protection framework and failures of administration within the office of the Minister for the Environment. If any of those errors had been avoided, the tragedy might not have occurred. Underlying those failures is the larger issue of disempowerment of First Nations people, which persists in Australian life today and requires serious cultural change through reconciliation, truth-telling and institutional change, including constitutional change. These are all the things that were touched on in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which this government first invited and then dropped like a stone That is a matter of stinging shame. It's an abdication of leadership and of responsibility.
This deep and unaddressed cultural failure—the disempowerment of First Nations peoples—bled through everything that was wrong in the circumstances at Juukan Gorge. Let me quote from the committee's report on the recognition of this problem in Australian life:
What was missing from Rio's decision-making process was the voice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Committee does not want to make this same mistake.
… … …
The Committee has prioritised the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples throughout the report. The Committee acknowledges that there are many companies within the resources industry taking strong measures to protect heritage sites and commends those companies. However, the resources industry has more access to governments, the media and therefore the broader Australian community, than traditional owners and the Committee considered it important to highlight Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices above all others.
In closely examining all the things that went wrong at Juukan Gorge and in weighing the harm and the loss and the pain, the report says:
… perhaps the tragedy may at least be a catalyst for change.
Let's hope so.
It would be easier to have some optimism about that if the government had ever shown a preparedness to accept its past failures or a preparedness to get on with the task of serious reform. In its introduction, the report states:
It is time for the legislative frameworks in all Australian jurisdictions to be modernised to bring meaningful protections for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage …
Funny that. This government's 2015 Australian Heritage Strategy included a commitment to review the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act by December 2017. That did not happen. The government's own appointed reviewer of the EPBC Act, Professor Graeme Samuel, said in his final report that a comprehensive review of national-level Indigenous cultural heritage protection legislation is needed. His report mentions the fact that, post Juukan Gorge, the minister held what has so far been a one-off meeting with state and territory ministers and started some kind of process of engagement with First Nations stakeholders. But the report notes:
Little detail has been provided about how this process will be progressed.
Recommendation 7 of the Samuel final report is for this government to:
… immediately initiate a comprehensive review of national-level cultural heritage protections, drawing on best practice frameworks for cultural heritage laws.
The final report was provided a year ago, in October 2020, yet no comprehensive review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act has commenced. At Senate estimates in May earlier this year, the question was put as to why the review, which was supposed to occur by December 2017, hadn't happened. Departmental officials could only say that the review hadn't occurred and that, if there were be a review, that would be a matter for government—in other words, the bleeding obvious. Nothing has been done; nothing is being done. What was offered was the following:
There's an ongoing process of the department examining how to best operationalise that act.
In other words, meaningless, useless, pointless, bureaucratic waffle.
In relation to the roundtable meeting held by the minister with state and territory counterparts, there was a reference to a commitment to reconvene at a later date. That commitment was given in September last year. No further meeting had occurred in May, when the questions were asked in the Senate, and, as far as I'm aware, no further meeting has occurred in the time since.
On that basis, it's hard for anyone—for First Nations peoples, for anyone in the Australian community or for anyone in this parliament—to be all that hopeful about the government's response to the same recommendation in the committee report we're considering this afternoon. Again, it comes back to the point that, if you're not prepared to acknowledge the failures of the past, you're not likely to prevent failures in the future. As with so many things that we look at with this government, until there is some accountability taken for incompetence, incompetence will continue.
Australia does not have an effective national framework for the protection of First Nations heritage. This government has been aware of that for some time and it has done nothing. If the Commonwealth law had been reviewed by December 2017 as promised, it's possible that some material reform might have occurred by now. Whether that would have saved the immeasurable cultural heritage destroyed at Juukan Gorge, we will never know. When representatives of the PKKP got in touch with the minister's office, before the rock shelters were destroyed, seeking emergency intervention under the law that is supposed to provide exactly that kind of last-minute protection, no-one even bothered to get back to them. To this day there has been no accounting for that failure and no explanation of steps taken to ensure it can't happen again.
In September 2020, Professor Graham Samuel's final report to government said a comprehensive review of national Indigenous protection should begin immediately. That was more than a year ago. Nothing even faintly like that has occurred. This report is titled A way forward, and that's appropriate because we desperately need a way forward and we certainly need a response from government to make sure that First Nations Australians don't again suffer such an appalling loss of their heritage, which, in this case, was also a loss of national significance—and I would also say of global significance. But there is no point glossing over the fact that this government has excelled at doing nothing, at ignoring the obvious need for action and breaking its promises, at rolling out the stock standard process-based waffle at every turn and at denying there's anything wrong about its approach in the face of catastrophe.
When the action so far in response to the Juukan Gorge disaster has been the usual government gobbledygook about initiating consultation and convening further meetings in the future and better operationalising existing departmental responsibilities, there's not a lot of cause for hope. There's not much sign of any intention from this government of looking for, let alone of finding, a way forward. Indeed, it looks a hell of a lot like a government intent on keeping things exactly as they are, and that is a terrible shame. It will be a terrible shame. First Nations Australians deserve better and they're rightly demanding better from this government.
I'm very pleased to be speaking on the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia's inquiry report into the Juukan Gorge disaster. I note that this is one of those examples where the committee, with its key recommendations, showed the sort of bipartisanship that's really good to see come out of our committee structure.
I want to start by repeating a quote of the committee chair, the member for Leichhardt. When he spoke to ABC he said it was:
… inconceivable that Australia has not developed proper protections for such sites, and action must be a matter of national priority.
Because, he said, we can't just pay lip service to this and see a repeat of the loss and devastation of Juukan Gorge across other parts of Australia on that scale.
A 46,000-year-old site of global, cultural and archaeological significance was destroyed when Rio Tinto exploded Juukan Gorge. What the committee found, via the inquiry that the explosion triggered, was that it wasn't a one-off. The report describes it as one of:
… countless instances where cultural heritage has been the victim of the drive for development and commercial gain.
It also found failures at every level of government, and recommended urgent change to stop the destruction of Aboriginal heritage sites across the nation.
The member for Leichhardt describes the disaster as a wake-up call that there are serious deficiencies in the protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage. As Senator Pat Dodson says, the committee spent a lot of time on the ground with traditional owners and Aboriginal communities, and was moved by the lack of power that they had in the situation they found themselves in. In his view, this report highlights the systemic nature of the injustice that has been perpetrated on Aboriginal people by inadequate cultural heritage law.
This report and its recommendations for urgent change are particularly relevant to my electorate and the work that's currently being done on assessing the impact of raising the Warragamba Dam wall. There are lessons in this report for us. The quality of the assessment of the impact on Aboriginal heritage has come in for criticism. It's estimated that around 1,200 culturally significant sites could be affected by the proposal. The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area Strategic Plan recognises 14,000 and possibly 22,000 years of Aboriginal occupation in the area.
Reading about the way traditional owners felt about what happened at Juukan Gorge really resonated with me when I heard Kazan Brown—a Gundungurra traditional owner whose great-grandmother was the last Aboriginal person to leave the Burragorang Valley before it was flooded to build the original dam—talking about trying to have a voice in the current process. That's what's come through in this report—an inability to have a voice. Kazan says that in early 2018 a panel of 22 registered Aboriginal parties was established for the project, but she was not part of the panel. She was involved in only four consultation meetings and felt as though she'd been locked out of the project:
We couldn't get on the survey team. It was like people who had a real connection to the place were not included. It was really, really horrible. It's like we have no control … we go into these meetings, and there's no consultation. They just tell us what they're going to do … They don't talk with us. They talk at us.
So these same things that this committee has found, which it says are repeated countless times, we're seeing happening here as well. Kazan describes the place that could be inundated if the dam-wall-raising goes ahead:
The place is full of culture. My grandfather used to call it our Vatican. The river is our creation story … all along the river there are spots.
Reading this report, you can see it's wrong to think about it as simply loss of a natural feature of the landscape. Aunty Sharyn Halls, a Gundungurra elder, said the same when she described, for the New South Wales parliamentary inquiry into the wall-raising, what's at risk. She said:
We have an Aboriginal connection to country with our songlines and everything [in] that will be destroyed.
She talked about the creation stories that are connected. Of the 15 waterholes in the creation story, 11 were destroyed by the filling of Warragamba Dam in the 1950s. If the dam wall is raised, she says, two of the four remaining waterholes that the creation story describes will be inundated.
This is a pattern that we've seen, and it is really incumbent upon the government to act, not just pay lip-service to this. We're seeing multiple pieces of evidence that, to me, sound like the sort of thing that the committee has found with Juukan Gorge. Things that point to the New South Wales government's efforts to ensure adequate investigation and assessment of the impacts are seriously lacking. One example would be that there is no assessment about the significance of certain sites. Michael Jackson, an archaeologist and cultural heritage adviser, said:
… significance assessment was done by one person who only spent one day in the field and who had no discussions with the archaeologists involved in the field survey—not one discussion about any of the sites … There were no discussions with the Aboriginal community.
The current laws we have, as the committee has found, allow for those sorts of processes to happen. That view was echoed by multiple parties who reported to the New South Wales inquiry. What they also highlighted, from the International Council on Monuments and Sites, ICOMOS, was that the cultural heritage survey undertaken as part of the impact assessment for the dam wall project comprised 25 days across a 354-square-kilometre section around the shores of Lake Burragorang. ICOMOS said:
This time-frame appears to be inadequate, either to identify the cultural heritage places which may be affected or to engage appropriately with the relevant Gundungurra Traditional Owners.
An application has been made by the Gundungurra Aboriginal Heritage Association and other descendants to have their ancestral lands protected under section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act as a place of special significance to Aboriginal cultural heritage, and that's still to be determined. But I think what the committee's report shows is that we can't necessarily have confidence in these processes and that they are going to get the result that best preserves and protects Aboriginal cultural heritage. The committee particularly notes the need for all tiers of government to be involved in this. They have direct recommendations for the Western Australian government, and I would really urge New South Wales to look at these recommendations. In the briefing notes of one of the New South Wales departments, the heritage department, they blasted their own government and said that the consultation with traditional owners was inadequate and modelling was needed to determine the likely impacts on cultural heritage from inundation.
This is what we're seeing again, and none of us wants to see another Juukan Gorge where we realise too late and people say, 'Oops, we shouldn't have done that.' I would like to point out that the Insurance Council of Australia has taken action on these matters, and the evidence around the failure to respect traditional owners and Aboriginal heritage has led to the council dropping its support for the dam wall raising. All those stories echo exactly what we saw in a different set of circumstances at Juukan Gorge: Aboriginal people and traditional owners not being listened to. The systems in place are failing to adequately protect significant cultural heritage, and there is no point in saying that you care about this stuff and then not doing something about it. There have been reports and recommendations to the Morrison government and previous Liberal governments to review the relevant laws, and the current government and its predecessors have failed to act on them. The loss of such significant Aboriginal heritage as we saw in Juukan Gorge in Western Australia is a real tragedy. I urge the government to act on the recommendations in this report so that there are protections in place that ensure we don't see the same thing happen across the rest of the country, including in the Blue Mountains World Heritage area.
I rise to speak on the final report of the inquiry into the destruction of the 46,000-year-old caves at Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia delivered by the Joint Standing on Northern Australia. The final report, titled A Way Forward, builds on the damning interim report, which was titled Never Again. First, I wish to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land here and the land in Warringah and, importantly, the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people. Their lands and waters cover almost 11,000 square kilometres of Western Australia's Pilbara region, including the Juukan Gorge area. Sovereignty over those lands was never ceded, and I pay my respects to their elders past and present.
On 24 May 2020 Rio Tinto, in full knowledge of what they were doing, detonated explosives in a sacred site of the Indigenous PKKP people. The Juukan rock shelters were the location of their ceremonies and were sacred sites for the storage of artefacts for 46,000 years. It's important we stop and ponder to reflect on that: 46,000 years. This is a great loss to the world and to the history of civilisation. The shelters demonstrated one of the longest periods of continuous habitation on the planet. They showed that Indigenous Australians had lived in that place since before the last ice age. The Juukan rock shelters were clustered around a perpetual source of freshwater in an otherwise parched landscape. In great symbolism of the intersection of the physical world and the spiritual world of the Indigenous custodians of the land, following the destruction of the cultural sites that occurred, that water source has now run dry. As Australians, we should be celebrating our rich history. Indigenous Australians, through the Uluru Statement from the Heart, have invited us to share in this history and walk with them on a path to reconciliation. I strongly support the call in the foreword of the report for legislative frameworks in all Australian jurisdictions to be modernised and to bring meaningful protections for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage to ensure that nothing like the destruction of Juukan Gorge ever happens again. Sadly, that is not the case as to what is happening. Approvals are still occurring.
The committee recommended that the Australian parliament legislate for an overarching Commonwealth legislative framework, based on the protection of cultural heritage rather than its destruction. I'd argue that this legislation should be prioritised, with only a few sitting weeks left of this 46th Parliament. The government should consider reforms to environmental protections along those lines.
The report highlights that states have failed, and that's a concern that I and many others have, in relation to the existing reforms proposed by the government to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act which seek, in fact, to remove Commonwealth protections and have a single-touch approach driven by the state legislation. When the states have failed so dramatically, and this report recommends that the Commonwealth establish nationally consistent legislation and establish standards, I would ask why they continue to pursue the absolute opposite course of action through their legislative agenda in the Senate. We saw shameful conduct by the government this year in relation to the EPBC Act amendments and a complete lack of willingness to follow the very strong recommendations on stronger environmental and cultural protections.
The committee also recommended a set of standards and best practice in the management of cultural heritage sites and objects be established and endorsed by Commonwealth, state and territory governments. This is a national standard and it should be established. One of the tools that is recommended to assist with this is the use of the Indigenous Ranger Program. Only a few days ago, I wrote to the minister for Indigenous affairs, advocating for an expansion of the Indigenous Ranger Program, following advocacy from constituents in Warringah on the issue. We're calling on the government to double the number of Indigenous rangers over the next 10 years; to create a fund for ranger training, capacity building, networking and infrastructure costs; to double the funding for the Indigenous Protected Areas program over the next four years; and to ensure equal employment opportunities for women rangers by 2030. The recommendations argue that the authority for oversight of decisions related to culturally significant areas should be transitioned from the Minister for the Environment to the Minister for Indigenous Australians. When one looks at the outcome at Juukan Gorge, it's clear that the current decision-making process, of having this in the hands of the Minister for the Environment, failed dismally—there is no other way of describing it. And so it should be transferred.
This approach, as we heard in the inquiry, is part of the failing of the system, because there was confusion created by the current system of approvals, and, while this transition is important, the model is employed in many states and territories. But there still remains a lot of conflicts of interest as a result of multiple portfolios being held by the responsible ministers. In Western Australia, for example—in particular, in relation to Juukan Gorge—the minister for Indigenous affairs at the time was also the Treasurer, and so it's clear there were conflicts in how the decision-making went in relation to that approval. In South Australia, the minister for Indigenous affairs is also the Premier—clearly, again, a conflict. It results in conflicts of interest between the state's finances and revenue from mining and the destruction of cultural sites, and the imperative to in fact protect and preserve cultural sites. So I urge the federal government to ensure that such conflict does not arise, should this recommendation be implemented.
Recommendation 6, which recommends that the Australian government develop a model for a cultural heritage truth-telling process, is welcome. However, it needs to be viewed in the bigger picture of recognition of Indigenous people. I would posit that the Uluru Statement from the Heart and that process would be the most effective model for the development of the cultural heritage truth-telling process. Enshrinement of the Indigenous voice to parliament in the Constitution is an important first step to that model. It was something that was much debated prior to the last election, and yet no progress has been made in this 46th Parliament by the Morrison government. The makarrata, which would be a venue in this House for Indigenous people to oversee policies and legislation that impact them, would be the most effective form of truth-telling process. It would be an active voice and one that would give individuals, governments and companies a clear avenue for engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage issues.
We need to do more to celebrate our history—and we hear a lot from the minister about how we should have a positive view on Australian history! But where he completely fails his portfolio is in the recognition, in fact, of our cultural history—of our Indigenous history. In my view, there is a complete lack of education about and awareness, respect and celebration of the deep cultural heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I know my generation were failed by the system. It completely failed in properly educating us on the richness and importance of that history.
Overseas, museums abound with Indigenous cultural artefacts, yet here in Australia we are sorely lacking. We do not have a national Indigenous museum in Australia. It's outrageous. Many of the artefacts recovered from mining sites are in shipping containers and the offices of mining companies. These are artefacts that are thousands of years old. Think of artefacts from Egypt, from the pyramids, and the kind of care that is taken in that respect. But here in Australia such artefacts are put in containers or in the back offices of mining companies. We need to store these artefacts properly, to highlight their significance, to build awareness through education and celebration of our rich cultural history, and we need to make sure that Indigenous elders direct this process.
It is only through the elevation of the history and stories of our Indigenous peoples that we will build respect and learn to take responsibility as a nation for the rich cultural heritage developed over tens of thousands of years. I call on the Minister for Indigenous Australians to progress development of a national ossuary for the remains that are unable to be restored to their original country or nation, and to develop a set of protocols for the storage and keeping of artefacts recovered from mine sites. It is mind-boggling that we don't have that in place. We don't even have from the federal Minister for Indigenous Australians, from the government, a set of protocols for the proper storage and conservation of artefacts. It's just so disrespectful.
The establishment of a national Indigenous museum, as I said, is sorely overdue and something that should be a priority. I remind the minister of the proposal to establish a museum at Manly—but I know there are many others—where in fact Captain Phillip first set foot on Australian soil. Many Indigenous elders have said to me it would be a process of healing to go back to where songlines were broken.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That order of the day No. 2, committee and delegation business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
It's great to be back here in this place as a Victorian, but it has been an almighty two years in the great state of Victoria. I remember that at a similar time last year, Mr Deputy Speaker, I had returned to this place after a stint in lockdown in Victoria. People forget that Victorians last year achieved something remarkable when, at a peak of 725 cases a day, they managed to bring that down to zero and we experienced a summer of relatively normality. People were able to reunite, businesses were able to catch their breath a little bit and have people through their doors, the great city of Melbourne came alive, and people were able to connect with the beautiful parts of their state in regional and rural Victoria.
And then, this year, the delta variant arrived on our shores. After what was also a remarkable achievement by the people of Victoria, when we were able to squash the first couple of instances of the delta variant, by the second or third this variant had a strong grip on our state. It took hold and we spent the next few months in lockdown as we desperately tried to catch up in our vaccination rollout.
I do believe we are entering a new phase in this pandemic. I don't believe that anyone seriously thinks that this pandemic is over. I know you would appreciate this, Deputy Speaker Freelander. We are now entering the vaccinated stage of this pandemic, and it is a stage where, unfortunately, people of their own accord are choosing to keep themselves and their families vulnerable. A number of families in my electorate made the decision to not get vaccinated, and they are now facing the devastating reality where many of them are finding themselves getting sick and having members of their family in hospital in ICU. To anyone in my electorate of Macnamara in Victoria who is currently unwell with the coronavirus—and there are several hundred cases locally—I wish you all a speedy recovery.
As we enter this new phase of the pandemic, I want to take the opportunity in this grievance debate to first of all say thank you to Victorians for their incredible efforts and for the sacrifices that people have made in order to keep our state safe. It has been the most difficult couple of years that I can remember in my few decades in the great state of Victoria. It's been isolating, it's been difficult and it's been made much harder by some of the politicking that we have had here in Canberra.
I will just take this moment to say that consistently throughout the pandemic the Prime Minister has misjudged the mood in Victoria, that he has made the calculation that, because lockdowns are difficult, he will be the guy who is anti lockdown. Of course no Victorian wants to be in lockdown—and I hope to never, ever go back into lockdown—but Victorians knew who was there during the difficult days and who was there to not necessarily make the decisions that they liked but was willing to turn up and make the decisions to help keep Victorians safe, and that certainly was not the Prime Minister of this country. That has consequences. It has consequences, because I think we have, perhaps like no other point in our history, a nation more divided under the leadership of Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister.
People are speculating that the election might be this year. It would be extraordinary if the Prime Minister were to call the election and be unable to travel to over half of his own country. It would be extraordinary. It's because of the choices he has made that the states have been forced to act alone. The states have been forced to make their own decisions about the pandemic. It wasn't always this way.
If you cast your mind back to the very early parts of this pandemic, it was the Prime Minister and the Chief Medical Officer who stood up in press conferences after late-night meetings—sometimes at 10 pm at night. I remember that it was the Prime Minister who was the one who made decisions, based on the health advice that he was receiving, that applied to the entire country. I am obviously not advocating for one part of the country to be managed by another part of the country, but I do think that it is profound that the Prime Minister, in the middle of one of the greatest challenges that our country has ever seen, dealt himself out of decision-making that affected his country. It is profound that the Prime Minister of in our country decided that he did not want to lead, that he did not want to make the hard decisions for people, and that he wanted to make a political opportunity out of those who have been dealing with the most serious outbreaks during this pandemic. That is what we saw in Victoria last year, and that is what we have seen.
Victorians not only had to deal with the reality of COVID; they also had to deal with a Prime Minister who acted differently when New South Wales was confronted with a similar devastating reality. I remember when we were in lockdown in Victoria that the Prime Minister originally said that the economic support had to be provided by the state governments, that Victorians had to have a liquid asset test and that the support payments would be capped at $500 per person. When New South Wales went into lockdown that was increased to $750, there was no liquid asset test and the Prime Minister said they would go 50-50 with the New South Wales government to support them during their pandemic. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister played favourites, based on politics, during the most difficult time.
There's no way John Curtin was playing political favouritism during World War II. There's no way Malcolm Fraser was playing political favouritism after the Vietnam War. There's no way Kevin Rudd was pitting states against each other during the global financial crisis. But that is the choice our Prime Minister made. Instead of meeting the moment in this global pandemic, he decided to divide—and now he faces a country divided. There will not be an election this year, because the Prime Minister faces the reality and he now lies in a bed of his own making: a country divided and a country split, state by state, because instead of uniting the country he chose to pit states against each other.
In the final part of my speech I want to give a shout-out to the businesses that have sacrificed so much during this pandemic. Our economy has obviously suffered by the sacrifices that we've all been forced to make, but I have hope and optimism for the businesses that are going to roar back to life. In my electorate we have incredible businesses in the creative sector, in hospitality, in retail and in financial services. We have businesses that provide good, high-quality jobs in everything from financial services to gaming development. Macnamara is home to brilliant Australian businesses. But, again, they are facing the decision of a Prime Minister who is willing to pull support as Victoria and other states are getting back on their feet. I would just say to this government that JobKeeper was a huge lifeline for businesses, and it was fortunate that the country was able to recover in a way that meant businesses were able to have some level of certainty. But who knows what this pandemic will bring? Who knows what the challenges will be? As some businesses in Victoria are able to open up, there are still many who face financial difficulties because of the rules we are all living under. I urge the government: please, do not pull support again too quickly. Allow businesses to get back on their feet and then—when the time is right, when there is some level of certainty—the government can move.
So, I say in this place that I have optimism for the future. Hopefully the worst of this pandemic is over, but of course we need to be alive to the fact that we don't know what tomorrow will bring and we don't know what challenges might confront us. But when they do, we must not cower, as the Prime Minister did when he was confronted with difficult choices. We must not leave the hard decisions to someone else. We must not just let the states do their own thing. We must reunite all corners of the great country of Australia. The Prime Minister made a difficult choice—a choice I wouldn't have made—to deal himself out of hard decision-making. But it's time the federal government got back in the arena. It's time we reunited the country. And it's time we helped build an amazing future together across this great nation of ours.
Financial literacy is commonly understood to be a combination of the awareness, knowledge, skill, attitude and behaviour necessary to make sound financial decisions and ultimately achieve individual financial wellbeing. In other words, it's our individual ability to understand how money works in the world as well as how we earn it, manage it and spend it. Those who are financially literate are more informed about what to do with their money and are better able to provide a sustainable financial future for themselves and their families. The key financial literacy elements therefore are knowledge, behaviour and attitude. There are a number of ways of measuring financial literacy. A common approach is to define a person as financially literate if they can correctly answer three questions that test knowledge related to three key financial literacy concepts. These include an understanding of interest rates, especially compound interest; an understanding of inflation; and an understanding of risk diversification.
Australia has a relatively high level of financial literacy when ranked globally. In the 2014 Standard & Poor's global financial literacy survey of 140 economies, Australia ranked in the top 10 countries for financial literacy. Notwithstanding this strong global performance, there is widespread financial illiteracy within Australia, particularly amongst young people. There are also large and significant gender gaps, with women, on average, less financially literate than men. In 2016, the HILDA survey showed that one in two adult women struggled with the three basic financial literacy concepts. This compares with one in three adult men. The HILDA survey has been backed up by numerous other surveys and reports, including one from ASIC in 2017 which revealed that only 35 per cent of all Australians know the exact value of their superannuation and another in 2018 which showed that women were significantly more likely than men to report that dealing with money is stressful and overwhelming.
From a macroeconomic perspective, financial literacy is central to the stability of the financial system. From an individual and societal perspective, it matters for overall wellbeing, as empirical research shows that financial literacy is an important determinant of, and correlates with, a range of outcomes, including wealth accumulation and planning for retirement; superannuation savings; and women's economic empowerment and domestic violence. I note at this point that the government has recognised this as a significant issue and has taken steps to address it through supporting the development of the National Financial Capability Strategy. In the 2020-21 budget, Treasury has given $7.1 million over four years to assist in the rollout of this strategy and improve literacy levels across the country, with the assistance of government and non-government and not-for-profit organisations.
Over the course of the last two years, I've had the opportunity to meet a number of times with a group of women, a number of whom live in my electorate, who are actively involved with this financial literacy strategy, and they've got a particular focus on taking steps to improve the financial literacy of women. These women, including Trisha Lee and Elisa Fear, have formed a not-for-profit organisation called Financial Toolbox, with the aim of building the financial knowledge and skills of Western Australian women to give them independence and freedom of choice throughout their lives. With Professor Lyn Beazley as ambassador and with principal partner Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, Financial Toolbox is powered by a team of passionate and dedicated volunteers. It's important to note that they are doing this in the context not only of the low levels of financial literacy but also the stark facts that the national full-time gender pay gap is 14.2 per cent but, in WA, it's much higher, at 21.9 per cent. On average, WA women have less than half the savings of men, and one-third of WA women currently retire with zero superannuation. Financial Toolbox provides financial education which is independent and unbiased, as they are not related to any financial organisation. Their education events and resources are prepared through the generous time provided by financial expert volunteers, including accountants, lawyers and financial advisers.
Not content with providing general financial education for women, Financial Toolbox is also committed to addressing the invidious position that many women in family and domestic violence situations face when seeking to leave the violent relationship. The statistics in relation to family violence are overwhelming and don't need repetition in detail here. Suffice to say that one in four Australian women will experience some form of domestic abuse in their lifetime. In Australia, that translates to roughly 2.6 million women or more than 265,000 women in WA alone. Experiencing violence also has significant implications not only for the victims but also for their children, families, friends and co-workers. The founders of Financial Toolbox recognise that, given that 80 to 90 per cent of women who seek support for domestic or family violence are also subjected to financial abuse, thousands of women are lacking the financial independence and confidence to leave abusive relationships. So Financial Toolbox created Your Toolkit as their response to family and domestic violence.
Your Toolkit is an important and all-encompassing web based resource, providing free, accessible and practical information on personal safety, support and referral services and on money matters. The unique point of difference with Your Toolkit is that it provides in the one place all the information women need at various stages of their journey facing domestic violence. In developing Your Toolkit over more than two years, they heard from industry professionals and from women who had experienced family and domestic violence. They heard that the information they presented had to be somewhere that was easy to find and it had to be simple to understand. They were told on numerous occasions that users are not always browsing with a clear mindset; they can be in states of emergency, fear, panic and high stress when accessing the service.
Now that it's set up, Your Toolkit divides the process of promoting in women the confidence to leave abusive relationships and the confidence to achieve financial freedom into four accessible steps. The first step is called 'Prepare'. It sets out information for women on how they can protect themselves and safeguard their security and the security of their children as they prepare to leave an abusive partner. The second stage is 'Act now'. In this part, the website presents information on how survivors can keep themselves and their children safe when leaving an abusive relationship. The third stage is 'Rebuild'. This provides advice to survivors who have recently left an abusive relationship as to how they can protect themselves and their finances. It includes information about accessing legal advice and government support. The fourth stage is one that they call 'Thrive'. This provides information on how a survivor can establish financial foundations, build their financial security, and set goals and saving strategies.
Financial Toolbox have undertaken their first social impact report. This has shown that, since the toolkit's launch in March 2019, they have had over 52,000 users and 61,000 sessions. It is predominantly being utilised by women and is widespread in terms of age across all age groups. The majority using it—56 per cent—are based in Western Australia, but that still leaves a significant proportion of people who are accessing this site outside of Western Australia. Of those who've answered the specific questions, 55 per cent have experienced or are at risk of experiencing domestic abuse. The qualitative results of the social impact report show overwhelming support from industry participants. There are also testimonials from women with lived experience, including this: 'Thank you for doing this work. This work is incredibly important. There are so many women I know who would love to say thank you but can't. They're voiceless. So I speak for all of us when I say thank you. It's incredible and it's amazing.'
With the immense demand for Your Toolkit, Financial Toolbox are looking to make this service truly national, hoping to build a database of resources and organisations relevant to survivors across the whole breadth of Australia. Given the quality of the work that they have done on this matter, I am going to be strongly supporting all of their attempts for funding to continue and expand this program, because it is and can be a life-saver.
It has been a really difficult time in our country for so many people, and it continues to be for so many people. In my community in Melbourne we are now emerging from lockdown and we are very much hoping for brighter times ahead. But what's concerning me as we emerge is that there is a gap where we should have leadership. The gap where the Morrison government has failed to have a vision for how we rebuild our country coming out of this pandemic is something that I think is very concerning for my community and for our country as a whole.
As our community reopens, people want to be able to look to the future with confidence. They want to know what their jobs will look like. They want to know what our country will have the capacity to make and what our industries will look like. They want to know that their kids and their grandkids will be able to get good jobs—the sorts of jobs that lead to the security that lets them start to build their own families and to buy their own houses. But what they have been seeing around them, even before the pandemic hit, as a consequence of the Morrison government's failures, is the rise of insecure work. We see the gig economy, where people are working two or three jobs just to try to make ends meet, where low wages are standard and where people work without entitlements—no holidays, no sick leave. It is insecure work. This is a problem across sectors, but it's particularly a problem in industries that employ a lot of women. They are sectors that we've praised as being at the front line of this pandemic, but they are where workers, such as retail workers, our aged-care workers and people working in early education and disability care, are actually working in very insecure and difficult conditions. These are people, as I said, whom we have praised for being on the front line of the pandemic but whom we are not protecting with the types of secure jobs and conditions that they deserve.
People also see the consequence of wage stagnation. We now have the weakest annual growth in wages on record. We have 85,000 fewer Australians in apprenticeships and traineeships than we did when this government came to power. We have a manufacturing base that has shrunk and thousands of manufacturing jobs that have been lost. These are things we could and should fix so that all of us in our community can lead a good life. As we emerge from this recession, we should take the time and the opportunity to make the economy and our society stronger, to make it more inclusive and more sustainable than it was before the pandemic. Labor is up for the challenge, and our track record shows that we can deliver. Unfortunately the track record of the Morrison government shows that it is not up to the challenge.
The pandemic demonstrated just how important it is that we make things here in Australia. We've had supply chains disrupted. We know that at the start of the pandemic there were concerns about whether we would be able to source enough PPE, because we just don't make those sorts of things here in Australia. We've lost whole industries. In fact, we rank dead-last in the OECD for manufacturing self-sufficiency, and yet this government goaded the car industry to leave our shores. I've spoken with local manufacturers in my electorate about the impact of that decision, about the impact of manufacturers packing up, being told by the government, 'Hey, if you can't do it alone, get out.' What they've told me is that it wasn't just the big manufacturers—it wasn't just Holden or Ford. It was all their suppliers, who were part of a complex chain that meant there was work at a number of local businesses but also that there were skills tied to that work. That's what we've lost. People who run manufacturing businesses in my electorate have said that has been a huge loss to the capability of our country, and it has obviously a huge loss to employment and to the prospect of people having good and secure jobs in our country.
I've been talking about manufacturers in my electorate because they have been working through this pandemic and they are ready to step up and emerge on the other side and deliver on the brighter future that we should have. They're ready to embrace the opportunities that are there. Some of the manufacturers and industries in our community include Lovitt Technologies, who I visited earlier this year, who manufacture components for the world's biggest aerospace companies; Leeson Group, in my electorate, who produce solar technological innovation to accelerate the energy network's transition from carbon to renewables; and Australian plastic recyclers, who are doing great things to change the way we recycle plastic in this country. Then I have all the people tied to training and skilling people up, like Melbourne Polytechnic, which is creating job pathways for people to learn skills and get on with apprenticeships. There's our health precinct, where we're doing amazing research at the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre at the Austin, and with La Trobe University, just next door. All of these industries and organisations would absolutely benefit from a government that was supporting their efforts and looking at the big picture of how we recover from this pandemic. They need a government that's on their side and that is interested in and has a genuine plan for what this country looks like going forward.
I'm really proud that an Albanese Labor government would rebuild our nation's manufacturing industry. We have a comprehensive plan that would create jobs, boost vital skills, bring the industry expertise that I was talking about back on shore and supercharge our national productivity. Our plan, A Future Made in Australia, is a blueprint for local manufacturing jobs and skills. It includes investing in a national rail manufacturing plan so that we're making more trains in Australia. It includes a defence industry development strategy so that we leverage defence investment in this country. It includes an Australian skills guarantee, and this is really important. As I was saying, we've lost 85,000 traineeship and apprenticeship position since this government came to power. Those are young people who don't have a pathway into secure work. Those are older people who are looking to retrain and reskill but can't get access to the skills and apprenticeships that should be there. Our skills guarantee would give apprentices, trainees and cadets a foot in the door when it comes to work on major projects, and it would ensure that one in 10 jobs on major federally funded infrastructure projects are given to apprentices, trainees or cadets.
When I talk to people in my electorate at the moment, they're both excited about coming out and worried about the future. They want to see a pathway to skills and a pathway to good jobs. They want to know that we in this country will take advantage of the opportunities that are before us. It's a line that we've used often in this place, but that's because it's true: the biggest opportunity in front of us—the opportunity that, unfortunately, this government is letting pass on by—is the world's climate emergency.
The world's climate emergency should be Australia's jobs opportunity. Instead, this Morrison government is letting it go by, producing a pamphlet, not a plan. It isn't a plan; it's a scam. It's a political cop-out from a government that is prepared to have the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, lead its plan and that doesn't have a plan for us to take advantage of the jobs and industries of the future. They've really given up. What I've been talking about is an absence of leadership in this entire space of skills, training and future employment and industries. Their attitude towards how we tackle the climate crisis really highlights the gap, the lack of leadership and the opportunities that this country will miss out on because the Morrison government isn't doing the work.
Again, Labor would do the work. We have a plan to support 10,000 new-energy apprenticeships. Apprentices who chose to train in new-energy industries would receive up to $2,000 on commencement and $2,000 a year for up to four years afterwards, including on successful completion. This will help to increase the uptake of apprenticeships in these areas, as well as retention and completion. This could happen across industries including rooftop solar installation, large-scale renewable projects, energy efficient upgrades to homes and businesses, green hydrogen, renewable manufacturing and relevant agricultural activities. There are so many opportunities here for this country, but we are going to miss them because this government isn't serious about tackling climate change. They've come to some sort of half-hearted commitment to net zero with absolutely nothing behind it. It is just not good enough.
Labor also has a plan to invest in a $10 million new-energy skills program. We'll tailor skills training to the specific needs of new-energy industries. What an idea! There's opportunity to have here, and there's a role for government to back that in and help it develop.
Labor is really clear that the future for Australia should be strong. There should be good, secure jobs for everyone in our country who wants them. There should be a pathway for young people to know that they will have a career, that they can be retrained into a new job and that they will have the type of work that means they can lead a good life—that they can buy their own home, have their own family and feel safe and secure. That is not what we are getting from this government at the moment. What we have from this government is an absence of leadership and a lack of vision for the future, and opportunities are just passing us by.
In Western Sydney, now is the time to put the puzzle pieces of opportunity together. Western Sydney has the opportunity to create and sustain more local jobs for local people, to be at the heart of the new era in manufacturing, to stay at the forefront of emerging industries and to help people get into the their first homes so they can live where they work and they don't have to move out of our wonderful community. It has the opportunity to educate and train our kids in the world-class institutions that we have in Western Sydney and prepare them for the jobs of the future. This is all about the once-in-a-generation opportunity around Western Sydney airport and the investment that we, as the Morrison government, are making now into Western Sydney.
People in Lindsay want to work where they live. For too long we've been having to do that long commute out of Western Sydney. Prior to the pandemic, over 300,000 people a day were doing that long commute for a good job. This is why we're creating local jobs for local people, and this is what's really important to me and at the centre of my plan for Lindsay. Part of this is the support that we are giving to local businesses, including the instant asset write-off, which I know many manufacturers in my electorate have used. Over 15,000 businesses in Lindsay are able to access this, and Plustec, an Aussie manufacturer in Emu Plains, used their instant asset write-off to purchase a new saw that's essential to their business. We're also backing apprentices, and this is so important. I talk a lot about the importance of apprentices in my area because we have so much industry and so much manufacturing that we need to ensure that we have a local workforce. We are backing over 2,000 apprentices in Lindsay and we're extending the wage subsidies for apprentices so that they can get on with their training and our local businesses can get on with the jobs that they do well. It's about backing local businesses, so they can get on with their jobs.
I now go back to Western Sydney international airport, the heart of all that is happening in Western Sydney regarding opportunities. We need to make sure that we are at the table. It is a nation-building project with a focus on local jobs, including local jobs for the construction of the airport. This project is wonderful, and I have spoken to Western Sydney businesses who are on the airport site and are so proud to be contributing to this project. Some have said that it's been the highlight of their careers knowing that they're making a meaningful impact on Western Sydney. But it's not just about the jobs when it comes to the construction of the airport and its surrounds but also about ensuring that we are at the heart of a new era in manufacturing and tapping into those opportunities. It's really important that we support our manufacturing sector to access global markets, which will be right at their fingertips, particularly when it comes to Asian markets. It also allows us to build our sovereign capability in areas of critical need.
Our $1.3 billion manufacturing initiative will support businesses to scale up. This is what's going to be important, and we should focus on the opportunities that are created with the airport. In our manufacturing initiative we're focusing on areas where Australia has a competitive edge or a strategic priority, including defence. I have a number of manufacturers in my electorate who work in the defence industry, including Baker & Provan and SpanSet. The space sector is a particular focus of my manufacturing task force with our focus on Sydney Science Park, which is coming to Western Sydney and will be in my electorate. It's where CSIRO will be based, and that's really exciting. In clean energy and recycling, we've got Visy, which has made huge investments in Penrith. We've also got food and beverage and snack food manufacturing, so there's a lot going on across the priority areas of my electorate of Lindsay, and that's exciting.
Our supply chain resilience initiative provides grants of up to $2 million to businesses to address and remove supply chain vulnerability for critical goods such as medicines and chemicals. This is important, as we discovered throughout the pandemic. Its about strengthening our supply chains and enhancing our sovereign capabilities. I recently visited Scott at ALL CAST PPE. A couple of my colleagues have been modelling the masks that are made in Penrith this week, and I'm really proud that Penrith is the location of a business that's making masks. They're good Aussie made masks, and we do have a supply of pink masks. They've moved their facility to Penrith because they know that Penrith is the home of Australian manufacturing. The fact that they're making Aussie made product and that they're having a go and they're investing encourages us to continue to invest in them. We should be doing more to back our local manufacturers by walking the walk when it comes to Aussie made. That includes government procurement, and I'm very much for ensuring that we are supporting Australian Made every step of the way. I know people in my community back Aussie made because they tell me this. They have a real desire to ensure our local manufacturers, our local small businesses, are supported, particularly during this pandemic.
In addition to manufacturing, an opportunity for us when it comes to all that is happening around the development of the airport is the area of emerging industries which will create and sustain new jobs for people in Western Sydney. The jobs of the future are very quickly becoming the jobs of tomorrow. This includes industries in advanced manufacturing, which are very focused on agribusiness, defence, research, medicine and space, as I said. And how exciting is that for kids in Western Sydney? When I go to our schools, I ask children, 'Who would love to work in space?' Nearly every single hand goes up. It is such an exciting industry. It's not just about getting in a rocket, although kids think that is fantastic; it's about all those other parts of the industry. It's in computing and STEM—the teaching of STEM is going to be so important in our schools, to make sure kids have all the opportunities around our emerging industries.
In my electorate of Lindsay, we have Western Sydney airport and the Aerotropolis around that. We also have the Sydney Science Park. That covers a big part of the whole airport experience, and that's why it's so important we should be supporting start-ups. We're doing that. We're supporting that at Western Sydney University, with Launch Pad, to support that innovation and technology. I'm really excited about the prospects of what Western Sydney University is doing in supporting start-ups in emerging industries that are particularly focused around industries that are coming up because of the airport.
It's not only about the job opportunities to do with the airport; it's also about being able to live in Western Sydney, so having a home there, being able to work there and being able to raise a family there. That's why it's so important we're supporting first home owners. It's a particular focus of the Morrison government, with our First Home Loan Deposit Scheme and our HomeBuilder program, which has received over 23,000 applications in New South Wales. So, thinking about those opportunities—where young families have that opportunity to not only work in the industries that are coming to Western Sydney with the airport, but being able to live there—I was someone who commuted out of Western Sydney to the city for more than 10 years, I know how important it is to be able to stay in the local area with a good job, and that's something I'm fighting for—to make sure our local people and our kids will be able to do exactly that.
Speaking of kids, this is what our future is all about—ensuring our kids are educated and trained in the jobs of the future that are coming with Western Sydney airport. That's one of the reasons why I started my manufacturing task force and jobs for the future initiative, bringing together schools, universities, industry and business to tackle those issues around jobs training, STEM and education. Things are bright. We must make sure that our kids are ready for the jobs of the future. Again, this is all about the Morrison government's investment in Western Sydney airport, and our investment and passion for Western Sydney.
The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety shone a light on an aged-care system in crisis. It showed us the tragic outcomes of eight long years of neglect by the Morrison government, including aged-care residents suffering with maggots in their wounds and two-thirds of residents being malnourished or at risk of malnourishment. These stories were made all the more tragic by the fact that they weren't new stories. Families of older Australians in aged care, and the workers who care for them, had been sounding the alarm for years, but the government ignored them. In fact, they failed to act on 21 reports that showed older Australians were suffering in aged care. As then Treasurer, Scott Morrison even cut funding by $1.7 billion, while his government's response to the royal commission and the aged-care crisis has fallen well short.
Today I want to talk about how this neglect of older Australians has been affecting people in my electorate. At the last census, close to half of the over-55s in my electorate spoke a language other than English at home. The rate is even higher among younger age groups. Parramatta is one of the most culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Australia. The aged-care royal commission found there is a lack of understanding and respect for people's culture, background and life experience in Australian aged care. Again, this is not news. My community has been talking about this for a long, long time.
But what does this lack of understanding look like? It looks like becoming isolated, because none of your carers speak your language, or losing the ability to communicate when dementia takes away your second language and you revert to your mother tongue. It looks like being served meat when you're vegetarian, or not being served halal food, and relying on loved ones delivering food to you twice a day to make sure you eat—something that wasn't possible in lockdown. It looks like not being able to connect with your religion or the activities or hobbies that you enjoy—the things that give you comfort and joy.
The truth is that seniors from diverse backgrounds are hitting barriers at every step of their aged-care journey. It starts with information. Local aged-care services tell me that seniors from CALD backgrounds have trouble finding information in their language, which is usually only available online. Often, by the time seniors and their families find this information, the need is urgent. When you call My Aged Care, you need to know enough English to answer basic questions about yourself and request a translator in English. I find it hard to believe, but I've heard it now from so many people—that you have to ask for a translator in English in order to get a translator. This is a huge barrier for many CALD seniors and one they have to clear over and over again every time they want to access a new service or get reassessed for a higher level package.
Take the example of a man in his 80s who called my office before the lockdown. He is deaf in one ear, partially deaf in the other, blind, only speaks Serbian and doesn't have a family who can help. As you can imagine, this man struggles to communicate over the phone. My staff realised this and arranged to visit him at home with a translator. During that visit we learnt that he hadn't had a hot meal in six months because his mobility had deteriorated and he couldn't cook for himself. He desperately needed help, but he couldn't communicate with My Aged Care over the phone. As a result of that visit, he was connected to My Aged Care and is now getting help, but it terrifies me to think of what might have happened if he hadn't managed to find my office.
Even seniors who are able to overcome these barriers and get through to My Aged Care end up with services that don't meet their needs, in terms of language or cultural needs, whether it's at home or in residential aged care. Local aged-care services tell me that seniors want home carers who can understand their culture and language and who know what they're saying but that there are simply not enough carers with these skills and that the pay is so low that it's hard to attract people. This is not an outrageous demand. I'm sure it's the minimum we would all expect for our loved ones and for ourselves.
For seniors who are isolated from family and friends, the carer who visits them at home may be the only person who ever visits them, and a shared language is central to that. Most residential aged-care providers in Parramatta claim to be multicultural; however, none of them specify what language they speak other than English on the My Aged Care website. Western Sydney is served by a small community of culturally specific aged-care providers, and I've worked with quite a few of them over the years to develop those services. They include the Australian Chinese Community Association, the Greek Welfare Centre in my electorate and Sri Om Care. But these are a rarity.
According to a report by UTS for Seva International, there are only two services providing culturally specific care for South Asian communities in Western Sydney, where South Asian people represent 14 per cent of the population. Sue Advani from Seva says that South Asian seniors who go into residential aged care all too often find themselves unable to communicate with their carers, and, because of the language barrier, they can't participate in activities either. They rely on family members to deliver food they can eat—for example, vegetarian food. When you consider the rate of malnourishment among aged-care residents generally and the risk to seniors of being served something that is not suitable for their diet or religious beliefs, this is more than worrying. Even more worrying than that is that Sue says this is a common experience. For all seniors and families in this situation, culturally inappropriate care adds layers of complexity and despair. She wants to see a concerted effort from governments to not only support specialist services but make sure all aged-care services are equipped to care for their local communities.
It's hard to imagine the Morrison government delivering on this, when the response to the royal commission has fallen so short and given they have neglected this area for so many years. They have fobbed off, delayed or outright rejected recommendations. Of the 148 recommendations from the royal commission, over half are not being implemented or aren't being implemented properly. They announced $17.7 billion over five years, which sounds like a big number. But it promises 80,000 extra home-care places, which won't even clear the existing backlog, let alone deal with the kinds of issues that I'm raising in this place today. CALD seniors are being locked out and left behind by a system that is already failing most of the older Australians in its care, and they deserve much better.
I also want to talk about a brilliant campaign to help people in the community get the best possible care at the end of their lives—the Westmead Push for Palliative Care. Palliative care aims to give people who have advanced disease, with little or no prospect of survival, quality of life at the end of their lives. The care is provided by specialists who are experts in pain management as well as compassionate and spiritual support. Despite being one of the biggest hospital precincts in Australia, Westmead Hospital has not had a dedicated palliative care ward for many years. In fact, there is only one dedicated palliative care ward, with 16 beds, in the Western Sydney local health district, and it's at Mount Druitt. That's 16 dedicated palliative care beds in a health district serving close to one million people, which is expected to reach 1.3 million by 2031.
This means that locals who can't receive palliative care at home because of complex needs are faced with a difficult choice: stay in a hospital where your doctors are based and where you may still be receiving treatment on a ward that's focused on providing care to recovering patients, or move to a different, unfamiliar hospital, which may not be able to provide the other treatments you need for specialised end-of-life care. Patients who choose the palliative care unit at Mount Druitt often have to shuttle back and forth to Westmead to see specialists or undergo surgery when they are frail and unwell. Those who stay at Westmead will share just one specialist palliative care nurse. Before lockdown and increased COVID-19 restrictions, oncology patients were sharing wards with end-of-life patients. Volunteers say this will happen until there is a dedicated palliative care ward at Westmead Hospital.
This matters. Most Australians die in hospital—51 per cent in 2019. Many will need palliative care, and the demand for palliative care in hospitals is growing every year. Westmead Push for Palliative Care, an extraordinary local organisation, has been fighting to reinstate a palliative care ward at Westmead Hospital, and I'd like to thank them for their efforts, as well as the dedicated volunteers, including Dr Philip Lee, who is head of the former palliative care unit at Westmead; Caroline Raunjak; and Anna Pelle. The New South Wales government has just agreed to reinstate a palliative care unit at Westmead because of their extraordinary advocacy. But we still don't know when the unit will be open or what it will look like. Westmead Push for Palliative Care is keeping up the fight to make sure the unit opens soon and that it's a standalone dedicated palliative care ward with appropriate bed numbers and is staffed by experienced specialist palliative care nurses. Funding of this redevelopment by New South Wales Health is critical. Thanks to Westmead Push for Palliative Care for keeping up the fight.
Next Tuesday is the day of the race that stops the nation. But hundreds of wharfies are threatening action to stop the ports, and we just don't need that; we cannot afford it. An article in the Australian today indicates that hundreds of wharfies at Patrick Terminals have threatened a new round of rolling 12-hour strikes in Melbourne and all-day strikes in Sydney next Tuesday. That, if it occurs, is going to cause considerable hold-ups in the lead-up to Christmas, with further action planned. Patrick Terminals chief executive, Michael Jovicic, said the 'aggressive' round of 'crippling' strikes announced by the Maritime Union of Australia would 'result in significant delays at the Port of Melbourne, which is recovering from the effects of COVID'. The MUA had agreed to suspend industrial action in the wake of an outbreak that forced 44 per cent of Patrick's Melbourne employees to serve some form of isolation in the past four weeks. But, according to the Australian, the union has notified its intention to embark on these rolling strikes every Monday, Wednesday and Friday in Melbourne for the first two weeks of November, as well as other work bands.
A 24-hour strike is planned for the Brisbane terminal on 31 October, and on Monday the union notified its intention to strike for 24 hours at the Port of Botany on Melbourne Cup day. The Port of Botany, as I mentioned in the parliament last week, is already undergoing significant delays, and this is affecting particularly Roger Fletcher, who is one of Australia's largest sheepmeat exporters, if not the largest. He claims that it could see an end to chilled sheepmeat as opposed to frozen sheepmeat being exported, because of the delays. What he doesn't want to see is those 20-foot-equivalent containers stacked up on the shoreline, stacked up at the ports, because that costs him money. But it also, ultimately, costs farmers money, and certainly they're his major concern. He appreciates—as all of us do, Madam Deputy Speaker—that farmers have had a very tough time in recent years: drought, bushfires in some areas, flooding in some areas and, of course, COVID. It has been a tough time for farmers, and finally they're getting back on their feet. The prospect of a bumper harvest is good. There are record sheep prices, and that is good. The national record was achieved at Wagga Wagga, my home town, just the other day, at the Bowman Saleyards, and that is fantastic. But what farmers don't need is for this sort of action at these wharves to hold up their prospect of a better future.
The company has proposed annual 2½ per cent pay rises for four years, no forced redundancies, caps on the use of casual workers and a commitment to preserving jobs, with a focus on permanent roles. That's good, because I know how hard the member for Capricornia—to name just one person—has fought to see casualisation of workers having better arrangements, having better conditions, and people not having to just take casualisation because companies don't offer permanent employment. I know that the Minister for Industrial Relations, who is also the Attorney-General of Australia, Senator Michaelia Cash, is onto this, and that's a good thing. She said the escalation of industrial action could not come at a worse time—of course she's right—given communities were coming out of lockdowns and businesses were reopening their doors.
We as Liberals and Nationals are big backers and big supporters of business—small business, medium-sized business, big business. We back workers, but business can't employ and engage workers if these sorts of things are happening, because, at the end of the day, they have to have credible bottom lines. They have to be able to open their doors and make money in order to employ more people. The arrangements we have put in place since coming back into government in 2013 have fostered a sense of optimism in the business community, notwithstanding we've had droughts, floods, fires and of course the virus, the worldwide COVID pandemic, which has caused such heartache and, sadly, taken so many lives. The MUA Assistant National Secretary, Jamie Newlyn, said Patrick had not reached out to negotiate with the union other than to say their offer was on a 'take it or leave it' basis. There is always a stand-off with these things. It is unfortunate. Hopefully it can get resolved. I have spoken to the transport minister to see what he can do, and he assures me that he has had meetings to that end. I've also spoken with the Leader of the Opposition, to see what he can do from the union viewpoint. Hopefully we can get some common sense, we can get some bipartisanship and we can get this matter resolved.
You can arrange these things on a bipartisan level. When I was the Deputy Prime Minister and I was in charge of the Transport portfolio, I was proud of the fact that we were able to put in place a national freight code, which we managed in hours—not days, not weeks, not months but hours. Working with the ministers—and rest assured none of them were Nationals; they were all Labor or Liberal—it was fantastic to see them come together and work through this. When COVID was first taking a grip on our nation, we all realised that we needed 10 times more toilet rolls than we otherwise would have—we all needed to go to the toilet and have 10 rolls of toilet paper each and every time!
Of course, there was a rush on supermarket shelves not just for Kleenex and other toilet paper but also for so many essential items that we had come to take for granted. We saw those terrible scenes of supermarket shelves being emptied. There were places in my electorate, including Parkes, and Tumbarumba in the member for Eden-Monaro's electorate, where buses originating from the city turned up and stripped the supermarkets clean—absolutely took everything, even gherkins and other things that the member for Stirling may not like on his dinner table. They took everything they could lay their hands on.
Then, of course, we had to put in legislation to stop those goods being sent overseas, because there was that concern. Labor ministers Rita Saffioti from Western Australia, Mark Bailey from Queensland and Jacinta Allan from Victoria came together to work through that national freight code with Andrew Constance in New South Wales—with some help from the new Nationals leader, Paul Toole, I have to say—Michael Ferguson in Tasmania, Chris Steel, another Labor minister from the ACT, and Eva Lawler, another Labor minister from the Northern Territory. They all worked cooperatively and collaboratively to make sure that we put in place the national freight code, with the Domestic Border Control Freight Movement Protocol being endorsed on 24 July 2020 to allow freight to move safely and efficiently across state borders. While everything else seemed to be crumbling around us and we had so much despair and heartache, trucks were able to go through those borders in just a matter of minutes to deliver necessary goods to supermarkets.
I say thank you to the truckies. They were the real heroes of 2020 and beyond. Even this year, they have kept their wheels rolling. Truckies, as we know, keep the freight moving and keep our nation going. I say thank you to those wonderful truck drivers. What they did—not just with supermarket supplies but also with vital medical equipment, personal protection equipment and everything else that they moved around the country—saved lives. They actually saved lives, so thank you to them. We are in a situation at the moment where so many people are now fully vaccinated—that is fantastic. As we, hopefully, come out of the worst of COVID-19, we can look to a brighter and better future.
From a regional perspective, we are crying out for workers. In so many areas of endeavour, we're crying out for more people to come into the country areas and coastal areas and fill those jobs. Just the other day, I attended the Riverina Skills Study, with Regional Development Australia Riverina partnering with Charles Sturt University to release the findings of a report to see where the gaps are—and we know many of them, of course—and, most importantly, to see how we can connect people with those employment opportunities. There are many. We've got a bumper harvest coming up. We've got so many opportunities in regional Australia, and our best years are ahead of us.
The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:53