I present the 35th report of the Petitions Committee for the 46th Parliament.
I present the following petitions:
The petitions were unavailable at the time of publishing.
I present the following ministerial responses to petitions previously presented:
The re s ponses were unavailable at the time of publishing.
At the first presentation for 2022, we can see a large volume of petitions and ministerial responses today, which reflects the break in the sitting period. The committee has been pleased to see the public's continued engagement in petitioning, which continued over summer. Working with the House of Representatives social media team, we have used the break to continue our petitioning education and public engagement efforts. This has included sharing information on what is a petition and the rules around petitioning; advice on who can create and sign a petition; and suggestions as to how to request action on issues of public concern. There has been continued engagement with petitioning, as this is the only method for the public to have a direct voice to parliament. Petitions remain an important part of our democratic process.
The committee has been pleased to see the ongoing engagement with petitioning continuing into the new year, with all Australian citizens and residents entitled to petition the House. We can see a diversity of issues and approaches to petitioning. For example, while some requests are advocated for by individuals only, others make up part of a more coordinated and wide-reaching campaign. Of note, there are no signature thresholds for petitioning; all are treated equally.
I look forward to updating the House on the work of the Petitions Committee in the future.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The story being told right across Australia, from my electorate of Melbourne to the people of Sydney and Brisbane, is one of their lives being disrupted because of unfair and unsustainable aircraft noise.
That's why, following previous bills I have introduced to this place to tackle the problems, I rise now to introduce the Brisbane Airport Curfew and Demand Management Bill 2022. Let me start by saying that this bill is the product of years of community campaigning by thousands of Brisbane residents, standing up to the Brisbane Airport Corporation.
In particular, I would like to commend the work of Max Chandler-Mather, the Greens candidate for Griffith, Stephen Bates, the Greens candidate for Brisbane, and the Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance who have led the way in fighting for a reduction in flight noise. The bill itself was produced after direct and detailed consultation with the Brisbane community, and I want to thank everyone who engaged in that process.
I had the chance to meet some of those residents at a community consultation meeting in the Brisbane suburb of Hawthorne, in the electorate of Griffith. This is an incredibly well informed and organised community. Their feedback over the course of this consultation process has improved the bill, and for that I thank them.
Unsustainable flight noise has had a devastating impact on the people of Brisbane. A survey of 2000 Brisbane residents last year found that 81 per cent of respondents had their sleep disrupted as a result of flight noise, 68 per cent of respondents suffered from mental distress, and 11 per cent of respondents had been forced to seek medical help. Studies around the world have shown the terrible health impacts that come with prolonged exposure to high levels of noise and sleep disruption. With international and domestic flight traffic beginning to return, this situation is only going to get worse.
It's clear that the community was badly misled in the initial consultation for the new parallel runway at Brisbane Airport. This has been confirmed by two independent authorities, including the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman and the Brisbane Airport Advisory Committee recently established by the federal government. Both identified serious flaws with the consultation, but unfortunately neither have gone far enough in their recommendations.
We need immediate action as well as a sustainable, long-term solutions to unsustainable flight noise.
This bill introduces a curfew from 10 pm to 6 am and an hourly movement cap of 45 flights per hour at Brisbane Airport. It also directs the minister to instruct Airservices Australia to produce a long-term operating plan for Brisbane Airport that reduces flight noise, ensures more flights over Moreton Bay and changes flight paths to ensure a fair distribution of air traffic over Brisbane.
A 10 pm to 6 am curfew will ensure every Brisbane resident is able to get a good night's sleep, without being exposed to unhealthy levels of flight noise.
Meanwhile, a flight cap of 45 flights per hour would allow Brisbane Airport to return to pre-pandemic flight traffic, while ensuring they don't grow unsustainably beyond that level.
But, of course, without a substantial change to flight paths and airport operations, a cap and curfew won't address many of the fundamental issues with Brisbane Airport. This is why the Greens will also legislate to force the transport and infrastructure minister to implement a long-term operating plan for Brisbane Airport.
A long-term operating plan will ensure that better consideration will be given to:
These are reasonable and moderate measures that airports around the world have already adopted. Indeed, it's happening around Australia as well. Sydney Airport already has a long-term operating plan, a curfew and a cap on flights. The question that both the Liberals and Labor must answer is: if it's good enough for Sydney Airport, why isn't it good enough for Brisbane?
Brisbane Airport Corporation has said previously it expected annual passenger traffic through its domestic and international terminals would more than double from 22 million in 2014 to 50 million by 2035. It also forecast the number of annual individual flights would grow from 227,000 in 2019 to 360,000 by 2035 and 500,000 by 2045. That is completely unsustainable, in terms of local air and noise pollution and carbon emissions that contribute to the climate crisis.
Prior to the pandemic in 2018 the four major privately owned airport corporations, including Brisbane, made a combined profit of $757.6 million—up nine per cent. As we emerge from travel restrictions and begin to see more international travellers visiting Australia, we can expect similar profit levels to return. We must not let the private corporations' relentless pursuit of profits get in the way of a better future for all of us.
Let us be clear. This is ultimately about the Brisbane Airport Corporation relentlessly pursuing profit at the expense of the community. Like so many big corporations and billionaires, the rules are written in their favour, with little regard given to the community and the environment.
It is no surprise that Brisbane Airport Corporation has previously donated to the Labor Party. While as recently as 2018 the Australian Airports Association, the chief lobby group for airport corporations, paid tens of thousands each to Labor and the Liberals for secret cash-for-access meetings. No wonder the major parties are so reluctant to hold the big airport corporations to account.
This, ultimately, is a story of everyday people standing up to the power of a big corporation. And the Greens will always stand with people in that fight.
I said earlier that this is a story that is happening right around the country, and it is. This bill will apply to Brisbane Airport; previously introduced bills were with respect to Melbourne. Now the electorate that I represent is, as some people would know, some distance from the airport. Some might ask, 'How is it that airport noise has become an issue in the inner city of Melbourne?' The answer is the same as the problem that is sought to be addressed by this bill with respect to Brisbane.
It's a story being told right around the country. As our cities have grown, and as air travel has grown, no-one has paid attention to what that means for people living under areas of flight paths that aren't immediately adjacent to the airport. There is a whole set of rules in place for people who are near airports; but, for people further afield as well as for people who are living next to airports, the law has not kept up with the rise in traffic. As a result, we see two things. We see the point has been changed where all the planes have to gather and turn around before they loop over the city and come in and land on the runway. As a result, in places like East Melbourne you can look up at certain times of day and see plane after plane after plane going over.
We also have the issue in Melbourne of people needing to clock up their training hours, or perhaps going for some joy flights. They're coming in and doing loops around the MCG, which, for the people who live near it, turns into unstainable and unfair aircraft noise with low-level, low-flying planes all the time. No-one has paid attention to it, and it's the same in Brisbane.
Over the years the number of flights has increased and flight paths have been changed. They're going over people's houses, and there's nothing in the law to protect them. And instead of taking on the big corporations and government entities that have the chance to regulate it, Labor and the Liberals are captured by these very same organisations and refuse to stand up on behalf of residents.
This bill is about getting a better balance, and it's about saying that people who live in our cities have the right to live in peace and to have their amenity protected. This is getting to the point where in Melbourne, as well as in Sydney and now in Brisbane, it is affecting people's health. It is not just a question of not being able to go outside in your own home because of intensive aircraft noise; it is affecting people's health. We need to do something about it, and this bill will do that.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Introduction
In my electorate of Indi, getting a cheap and reliable supply of electricity to every household is a real challenge.
In the bushfires, communities like Corryong got completely cut off from electricity when the power lines to Wodonga burned down.
In towns on the edge of the grid, like Euroa and Mansfield, it's common to experience power surges that damage appliances and have total blackouts.
And we know that many households, especially in the regions, struggle to pay their power bills.
Wodonga is in the top 30 postcodes in the state for forced electricity disconnections.
In fact, regional areas make up 40 per cent of forced disconnections in Victoria, even though we make up only 25 per cent of the population.
Other towns in Indi, like Cudgewa and Marysville, also rank among the top postcodes for disconnection rates.
This bill tackles some of these challenges by making home batteries cheaper for all Australians, because having a battery in your home means lower power bills.
It means taking control back from power companies over your power usage.
And it means that, when the power fails, your battery kicks in and keeps the lights on.
But, right now, batteries are too expensive.
They are out of reach for most Australians, and my bill will help fix that.
Outline of the b ill
At the federal level, the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme, introduced by the Howard government, has been key to accelerating the deployment of rooftop solar and driving down the price.
My bill builds on this Howard government framework and updates it for the 2020s.
In short, my bill adds home batteries as an eligible technology to create certificates for under the scheme.
This means that, when you install a home battery, you earn certificates which you can then on-sell to electricity retailers, who are required to purchase them.
The effect of this is my bill will drive down the installation cost of a home battery.
Right now, a 13.5-kilowatt-hour Tesla Powerwall 2 might set you back around $15,000 all in.
That's just way too much for most Australian households to even consider.
My bill could drive down that price by around $3,000.
Under my bill, as under the existing scheme, the precise amount you will save will depend on how big your battery is and how you use it.
But the fundamental point here is this: to unlock massive savings for Australian households, to bring power security to regional households and to accelerate our transition to renewable energy, we need to make home batteries cheaper.
The government has an existing policy mechanism that could do this.
My bill will get it done.
What it would mean
We know that when we make it easier for Australians to go renewable they jump at the chance.
Around a third of Australian homes have rooftop solar, the highest uptake in the world, bar none.
But the number with batteries is less than one per cent. And we know that the next step in the renewable energy boom is building storage.
Batteries soak up that extra renewable energy when it's cheap and plentiful and smooth out our grid at night when we need it.
And the savings for households are huge.
Energy entrepreneur Saul Griffith just today released his book on how Australian households can save money by going electric.
His analysis shows that a fully electric household would save around $5,000 a year in petrol costs, in power bills, in heating bills.
That's a massive economic windfall that is sitting there for the taking.
And we know that getting batteries into Australian homes is the biggest barrier to capturing those savings.
I'm grateful for Saul's work, which has been instrumental in shaping this bill.
And I'm looking forward to hosting him this Friday in Wodonga to show him how Indi is leading the nation in the renewable energy boom.
In the 2000s, the Howard government saw a role for government in driving solar power.
In the 2020s, it's clear there is a role for government in making batteries more accessible to Australian households.
And we know how to do this. This bill will get it done.
More needs to be done
Now I know that, if we are to really unlock the potential of home batteries, we also have to invest in our workforce.
Right now, too many solar installers, especially in regional areas, struggle with the long wait times to get an inspector out to certify the safety of home battery installations.
Because installers can't get rebates until they get that safety certificate, we need more safety inspectors.
That means we need to invest more in skills in regional areas.
We need to be training up more sparkies and electrical engineers in regional centres to take up the jobs that we desperately need people to fill.
Recently I met with Allister Neely, who runs the small business Elect Solar in Wangaratta.
Allister has built his business from the ground up.
And he trained in the local Wangaratta TAFE.
He told me that if we could introduce incentives for home batteries, like I'm doing with this bill, it would be a boon for his business—if he could get the workforce.
And even if we make batteries cheaper we still need to put them in reach of the people who would benefit most from them.
That's why I'm calling for the government to introduce a new program of no-interest loans for low-income households to purchase solar and battery installations.
That would be a game changer for slashing power bills.
I'm also pleased to have worked with ACOSS on this draft legislation, and ACOSS have put forward their own amendment which would provide additional rebates to low-income people for the cost of power.
And that's something this House really should debate.
Impact of the Bill
In my electorate of Indi, there have been 42,000 installations of solar panels, heat pumps and solar hot water systems that have been supported through the existing scheme.
That's tens of thousands of households who are benefitting from cheaper, cleaner power in Indi alone.
Expert analysis by Green Energy Markets suggests this bill could drive the installation of up to two million batteries by 2030.
That would be the equivalent of six Hazelwood power stations worth of capacity into Australian homes, bringing cheaper and more-secure power to millions, acting as a massive electric sponge soaking up excess daytime solar and balancing the grid.
We need to do for home batteries what we did for solar panels—put them in reach of millions of Australians so people can take those practical, sensible steps to not only tackle climate change but make the smart economic choice for their families.
This bill would get that done.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and I'm delighted to be able to say that the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Cheaper Home Batteries) Bill 2022 is a win-win policy. In short, this bill will amend the Renewable Electricity Act to make home battery installations eligible for small-scale technology certificates under the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme. The SRES has been the centre of the dramatic growth in renewable generation over the last decade. Over three million solar panels have been installed in homes across Australia as a result. Thirty per cent of households now have solar; by 2030 it will be 50 per cent. In Warringah there have been over 6,356 solar connections, making up more than 37,300 kilowatts of power. Each of the three councils also has programs to improve the uptake of solar. This work is strongly supported by Zero Emissions Sydney North and many others.
But we must turn our attention to home battery installations. The effect of this legislation will be to subsidise home batteries, improving the economics and increasing the uptake. Because this scheme is over 15 years, the bill will send a positive long-term investment signal to project developers and investors. It will reduce market volatility, particularly in the middle of the day, and it will support more investment in renewable energy.
Why do we want batteries? To reduce every person's power bills for households. This will provide important grid services. It's incredibly important that we do this. Only 33,000 batteries were installed last year, but it could easily be compounded over time as the economics improve. We know we need to bring the price of batteries down. It's projected already to drop by 58 per cent by 2030, and we anticipate 500,000 home batteries by 2030, and many more if this bill passes. With this demand, there's an opportunity to create a substantial industry in Australia.
So the question for the government is: are you fair dinkum in wanting to actually deliver net zero and lower the power prices for households? If you are then this is a bill you will support. By processing battery materials for the advanced manufacture of them, we could add $7.4 billion and 35,000 jobs to the economy. So these are the solutions that the government should be focusing on, and are strongly commended the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It's a pleasure to introduce the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Faster Internet for Regional Australia) Bill 2022 to the parliament.
The purpose of this bill is simple: to ensure all regional Australians have access to fast, high-quality, and reliable internet at the same standard our city cousins enjoy.
That should be a simple principle that we can all get behind in this place, but unfortunately, to date it is not.
Everywhere I travel in Indi, constituents tell me about their challenges with phone coverage and internet connection.
Two weeks ago in Violet Town, I met with small business owners who've had to turn away customers because their EFTPOS machines can't connect to wireless broadband signals.
In Wangaratta, I speak to young families fighting slow home internet speeds every day just because mum and dad are trying to work from home while the kids do remote learning.
In Wodonga, I hear about the tree changers who've had to wait months to get connected to the NBN when they're used to same-day connections for utilities down in Melbourne.
And in bushfire-prone communities in the Upper Murray like Corryong and Walwa, or down around Marysville, I hear from residents who are fearful of phone, power and internet lines going down in an emergency again, leaving them stranded to fend for themselves.
It doesn't matter whether you live in Brighton or Benalla, or Woolloomooloo or Wodonga; access to fast, high-quality, and reliable internet should be the same for all across the nation.
If passed, this bill would establish ambitious standards that NBN and other companies who own and operate broadband infrastructure must meet or face financial penalties.
Right now, the government wants to give NBN a free pass when it comes to the quality of service it delivers to the regions.
In terms of internet speeds for example, the government has said NBN only needs to deliver superfast download speeds of 25 megabits per second once a day.
Once per day! It could be 2 am, or 2 pm, for five minutes, or five seconds. That's how low the government is setting the bar for the NBN, and that's not good enough for me, and it sure as heck isn't good enough for my constituents.
Twenty-five megabits per second supports up to five devices, be it an iPhone or an iPad. If one person is streaming iview in HD on one device, speeds will be snail pace on other devices.
We've all been there. If mum and dad are streaming the news in the living room, it'll take longer for the kids to finish their homework in the study. Or if a cafe manager is in the back office talking on Zoom to its coffee bean supplier, the EFTPOS machine out front will keep dropping out.
That is just not good enough from this government.
Under my bill, NBN will have to serve up to a minimum of 25 megabits per second at all times of the day, on average.
Just last week, a constituent of mine in Taggerty told me how she sends her work emails after hours because the network is just too slow during the day. That is simply absurd in our modern age, and it's hurting our regional economies.
This bill also establishes minimum wait times for new NBN connections and fault rectifications in the regions.
This government wants to give NBN a free pass on this too.
Right now, the government wants to let NBN take up to 19 business days—essentially a whole calendar month—to connect some new homes or small businesses in the regions, even if it's close to a fixed-line facility.
All small-business owners know the first 12 months of a new local startup are the hardest. A month's delay in connection to the NBN is the last thing an accounting business relying on cloud based software or a beauty salon setting up a new online booking system needs when it's getting up and running.
In the cities, most new connections are same day and if it needs to be connected to a fixed-line facility it can usually be done within a few days. We deserve the same in the regions.
The same goes for fixing network dropouts.
The government wants to mandate a one-day wait time for network faults to be rectified in the cities, but up to three days in the regions and remote areas. The impact of a 72-hour outage on a small-business balance sheet is immense. You'd think the government would see that and act on that.
People are usually shocked to learn that no internet standards like those I've proposed in this bill exist right now.
All we have is a general expectation that these companies, including NBN, will be incentivised to build and maintain high-quality broadband infrastructure on the basis that it makes solid and sustainable commercial sense.
What this means is that in regional electorates like mine, where there is no competition, there is no incentive for NBN to continue providing a high level of service over time as the government moves to privatise the NBN.
If we don't introduce a bill like this, regional Australians will simply have to 'get what they're given' when it comes to internet speed, connection times and fixing faults.
That's not on.
Over a year ago, the government published draft internet connectivity standards which would entrench, not solve, the telecommunications divide between the cities and the regions.
We've seen zero progress on those draft standards since, and I highly doubt we will before the next election.
What's worse is that the government intends to establish those standards via regulation. That means internet standards would be at the total discretion of the minister, not enshrined and protected in law like this bill does.
That doesn't sound like adequate protection to me, especially under a government which said the NBN rollout was complete when it wasn't and is trying to force cash-strapped local councils in the regions to foot the bill for the rest of the build.
If we can legislate and protect employment and education standards, we can legislate and protect internet standards.
This bill has broad in-principle support from peak bodies across the nation, from the National Farmers Federation to the Small Business Council of Australia and the Australian Communications Consumer Action Group.
Here's some what the NFF had to say:
'Current teleco service guarantees and service performance are not up to standard, and change is needed to reflect the needs of consumers and businesses … the value of the tax dollars of Australians in the bush has no lesser value of that of city dwellers … not only is this unjust, the ramifications of drawn-out repair times are potentially life-threatening.
If Australia is going to continue the transformation to a digital economy in the regions, statutory infrastructure providers [like the NBN] need to provide an environment to support that transformation.' I couldn't agree more.
Regional business leaders and entrepreneurs also back the bill.
One of them is the inspirational Jo Palmer, the founder and CEO of Pointer Remote which empowers city-based employers to hire talent remotely in the regions. This is what Jo says: 'For those who do not have access to a strong, reliable connection, they are excluded from participating in the workforce remotely. The faster and more equitable access to a strong reliable connection secured through the faster internet for regional Australians bill we can access work, pay tax and stimulate the economy at a community level, with major flow on effects for national GDP.'
And according to Matt Pfahlert, the CEO of the Australian Centre for Rural Entrepreneurship based in Beechworth: 'This bill respects the enormous challenges rural job innovators already face to create new business and industry opportunities … Rural communities do not need to be further hobbled, and deserve a sporting chance in a global marketplace by having a reliable telco infrastructure that is currently taken for granted by people in metropolitan areas.' Again, I couldn't agree more.
It's clear that the government has backed away when it comes to holding telcos to account in the regions. We deserve communications excellence at all times, just like the cities.
The bill does that, and I commend it to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Order! The question is that this bill be now read a second time. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next sitting.
A point of order?
I want to second the motion by the honourable member for Dawson.
You're a little bit premature. You'll need to second the motion after the member for Dawson has spoken.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Firstly, can I thank the member for Kennedy for his enthusiasm in seconding it. Can I thank also the member for Wide Bay who seconds the notice of motion and is also here in the hope that he would be the one rising to second it. Thanks to Senator Matt Canavan for his work on this issue and the Nationals backbench policy committee, who have been deliberating on this issue for some time.
This bill really seeks to reinforce one of our commitments to civil and political rights, through the international convention on civil and political rights, and I particularly refer to article 19, which states:
Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference—
'without interference'. It also states:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice—
or her choice. What we find today is that we have a grave problem with foreign social media services. We're talking about big tech. We're talking about outfits like Facebook, outfits like Twitter, outfits like Google and YouTube, outfits like Instagram, outfits like WeChat, outfits like TikTok which have become notoriously censorious of political discourse. In fact, in its biggest example, the then leader of the free world, the former President of the United States Donald Trump was taken down off a fair few of these platforms, particularly Facebook and Twitter. That was much to the delight of the Left across the world. But US venture capitalist Fred Wilson, one of the early investors in Twitter, who is Left leaning and who doesn't like Donald Trump said—and it behoves all of those who delighted about the former president being removed from social media to listen to these words:
I think it is problematic that Twitter has this much power. Not only are they silencing Trump, they are taking away his tens of millions of followers, and they are prohibiting all of his followers from seeing his tweets.
We should be careful what we wish for. This is a slippery slope we are heading down.
… … …
This should be a warning sign to everyone in DC; the Senators, the Representatives, the folks leaving the White House and the folks entering it. He who kills the king becomes the king.
I'll repeat those words from Fred Wilson:
He who kills the king becomes the king.
We have now so much power invested in this big tech oligarchy. In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union are not known for their like for President Trump or their like for right wing political views, but their senior legislative counsel, Kate Ruane, said:
… it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions …
That's where we're at: these platforms now form the public square; they form the place where ideas are debated, where ideas are put forward, where discussion ensues. We now have these big tech oligarchies controlling that space where political, philosophical, ideological, cultural and social discourse goes on all around the world, including in this nation.
At least two members of parliament in this place have been removed, cancelled, by these big tech outfits—one of which is my friend the member for Hughes. Whatever you think of his views, he's an elected member of parliament. He wasn't saying anything that was illegal either on Facebook or on YouTube. He had a video of a speech given to this place removed from YouTube. Further than that, he had his entire profile taken off Facebook and Instagram. I can also refer to the member for Cook, the Prime Minister, who had his posts removed from WeChat. They were not particularly unlawful. They weren't particularly egregious. He was simply putting forward the views of the Australian government to people of Chinese ethnicity in this country, but he was taken off WeChat. We had a foreign social media service, ostensibly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, silencing the Prime Minister of this country in his own country. If that does not ring alarm bells, I don't know what does in this place.
The 1688 Bills of Rights, something that all parliamentarians should read up on, established modern democracy, and the Westminster democracy that we're a part of in this place. The Bill of Rights said:
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
Yet we have big tech taking down from their platforms videos they don't like of parliamentary proceedings, debates and even quotes from debates.
It extends from members of parliament to media organisations. Sky News had many videos removed from YouTube not for illegal things, again, but because they breached what these big tech outfits call their community standards. There's another term for community standards; it's call editorial guidelines, but these outfits pretend that they're not publishers, and by calling them community guidelines rather than editorial guidelines they gets away with it and they don't face defamation. They can't have it both ways. They can't be editors that are chopping and changing content on their platforms and not be liable for things that are said on those platforms. But I would prefer that free speech was let run unabated on these platforms, except for illegal speech or defamatory content.
The fact is that foreign social media services are interfering with the political discourse in this country. I have outlined that already. In this parliament, we have protected big news media against foreign social media services, or, at least, we've put the money of big tech into the pockets of big news corporations in this country, but we have done nothing to protect the little people out there. My bill seeks to do that in two respects. It gives a terminology of protected persons, which forms the pillars of democracy in this country. It says that there should be no censorship against lawful content from politicians, political candidates, political parties, journalists and news organisations. At the same time, it would provide recourse for people who are censored for their philosophical discourse on social media, allow them a pathway to go to the Australian Communications and Media Authority to adjudicate whether it was right for that censorship to occur, and, if it doesn't, in both instances, there would be fines of over $1 million against these big tech outfits. This is very important.
I will close with a large quote from Joel Kotkin. It explains everything. Read the book, The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class. It reads:
Not satisfied with controlling information pipelines, the tech oligarchs have been moving to shape content as well. Controllers like those at Facebook and Twitter seek to "curate" content on their sites, or even eliminate views they find objectionable, which tend to be conservative views, according to former employees. Algorithms intended to screen out "hate groups" often spread a wider net, notes one observer, since the programmers have trouble distinguishing between "hate groups" and those who might simply express views that conflict with the dominant culture of Silicon Valley. That managers of social media platforms aim to control content is not merely the perception of conservatives. Over 70 percent of Americans believe that social media platforms "censor political views" according to a recent Pew study. With their quasi-monopoly status, Facebook and Google don't have to worry about competing with anyone, as the tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel observes, so they can indulge their own prejudices to a greater extent than the businesses that might be concerned about alienating customers. With their tightening control over media content, the tech elite are now situated to exert a cultural predominance that is unprecedented in the modern era. It recalls the cultural influence of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, but with more advanced technology.
This bill is important. It provides for no less than safeguarding of Australian democracy against the big tech oligarchy that threatens to remake the world, including our country, in their own woke image. We need to act before it's too late.
Is the motion seconded?
Yes, I second the motion. But I want to explain that I haven't had time to read what I am seconding. I am entitled to say that.
I'm going to maybe save your reputation, member for Kennedy. The question is that the bill now be read a second time. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am going to make this as simple as I possibly can.
The Liberal-National government and Labor opposition's climate target is for net zero emissions by 2050. I think that's too late. The science says that's too late. But that's their target. The Liberal and Labor target is for net zero emissions by 2050.
The scientists that we pay to advise us on this, as well as the undisputed authority, according to government, on global energy systems, the International Energy Agency, said last year that, to reach net zero by 2050, not one single new coal, oil or gas project can be built—not one.
Yet, on the government's official register, there are 114 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline, containing more than double the amount of Australia's current emissions. That's 2½ times Australia's emissions every year locked up in these projects that the Liberals and Labor want to develop.
So either the government and opposition agree on achieving net zero by 2050 or they believe in advancing these 114 projects, even one of which, of the bigger ones, could blow our climate target.
Maths and physics don't let you believe in both. So which is it—net zero or new coal and gas?
Physics and biochemistry say either we can have farming or we can have coal and gas, but we can't have both. So which is it?
The mining and burning of coal and gas are the leading causes of the climate crisis. So, if you don't have a plan for coal and gas, and you want to open up more coal and gas mines, you don't have a plan to keep Australia safe from a climate breakdown.
The executive director of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, said last year:
If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now—from this year.
He continued:
More and more countries are coming up with net zero commitments, which is very good, but I see a huge and growing gap between the rhetoric and the reality.
He is right.
In Australia, with our 114 new projects backed by Labor and the Liberals, this gap between rhetoric and reality is as long as the Great Dividing Range.
The International Energy Agency's research on why we cannot afford any new coal, oil or gas projects being opened up makes intuitive sense. It's what our scientists are telling us, too. It's what the United Nations is telling us, too. You have to stop pouring petrol on the fire before you can start putting it out.
Keeping coal and gas in the ground is the very first thing a government would do if they were serious about treating global heating like the climate emergency that it is.
That is why this bill is being introduced today—to put a pause on the approval of new coal and gas projects. Existing projects in operation will be untouched by this legislation. We can deal with them later.
Although the Greens policy remains for the rapid phase-out of coal and gas on the path to net zero by 2035, this temporary freeze on advancing these 114 projects through the pipeline should be a circuit-breaker that everyone can agree on.
We need this pause to help develop the policies that the Australian government can take to the next UN climate conference.
The Greens will be working every day from now until May to kick this rotten government out, but we need to make sure that, in the next parliament, we don't keep opening up new coal and gas projects. One project at Beetaloo, a basin that both Labor and the Liberals want to open up, will increase Australia's pollution by up to 13 per cent just on its own.
With the bipartisan commitment that is in place for opening up these new coal and gas projects, it is only through third parties in this place, like the Greens, having power that we are going to see the action the science requires, which means a moratorium on opening up new coal, oil and gas projects.
Then Australia can join in the push that other countries are leading. The United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union are all leading a global push to stop additional pollution from coal and gas and tackle the climate crisis.
Over 100 countries representing 70 per cent of the global economy have signed up to the methane pledge that US President Joe Biden was pushing at the climate summit to knock 0.2 degrees off a potential future temperature rise from this one pledge alone.
But Australia didn't sign up to that pledge at the climate summit and the opposition said they wouldn't sign up to it either because of the power of the big gas corporations which are trying to fudge the fact that gas is as dirty as coal when you take into account the potent damage of methane.
The UN Chief, Antonio Guterres, also pushed the no new coal pledge where countries from the developed and developing world have signed up to no new coal projects. As the campaign made clear: 'Moving away from coal is not a death knell for industrialization, but rather a much better opportunity for green jobs.'
This bill will enable a moratorium on new coal, gas and oil projects. It's a pretty reasonable proposition. It's not even about existing coal and gas projects. We're just saying don't open up new ones.
This has the support of people in the country right across the political spectrum. People do not want us opening up new coal, oil and gas projects. We can have discussions in this place about what to do about existing ones, how to get out of it and support coal communities and workers through the transition, but everyone should be able to agree not to open up new ones.
We are in a climate crisis. We've been told that we've got a few years to tackle this otherwise the window closes. And if that window closes, climate change becomes a runaway chain reaction and our kids and our grandkids live in a country where Australia heats by over three degrees in their lifetimes, where farming in the Murray-Darling Basin is going to become nigh on impossible in many parts of it, where whole cities will become uninhabitable during our kids' lifetimes, where droughts become a regular occurrence, as do bushfires. That is what is at stake, and this parliament, this government and this opposition cannot be the ones who stand by and listen to that science and pretend to accept it and then go and open up new coal and gas projects.
It makes sense not just if we care about our kids, and it makes sense not just from a climate point of view but from an economic one too. Global capital is quickly fleeing emissions intensive projects. These coal and gas projects need to run for three or four decades to be profitable.
There will be no customers for coal and gas products in three to four decades. These assets will be stranded and the communities they leave abandoned will collapse and be forced to disperse.
Every single coal and gas project from here on in is going to have great difficulty in securing finance, because banks and insurers are exposed to great reputational risk matched only by the degree of great financial risk.
People don't want to be customers of climate-denying institutions. Young, smart talent don't want to go and work for climate-denying institutions, and that's why increasingly, through a form of corporate socialism that I know the member for Goldstein loves and boosts every time he comes here, it is the public that is now having to put their hands in their pockets and give money to these big tax-dodging corporations to go and open up new coal and gas fields, because the banks won't touch them with a barge pole. So the member for Goldstein comes in here and says, 'Well, let's have the public subsidise these big tax-dodging corporations,' in a form of corporate welfare that most people are astounded even exists.
I repeat the point that I made at the start in conclusion. We have differences of views about how quickly we should get out of existing coal and gas, but everyone can surely agree that we shouldn't open up new coal and gas projects. No-one should be able to refuse this, and it's what the Australian people want.
I commend this bill to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the bill moved by the member for Melbourne and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australians' trust in politicians and the political process is at an all-time low and for good reason, because due to this country's weak political donation laws, voters don't even know who they are voting for. Indeed millions of dollars in political donations remain undisclosed each year, and Australians are routinely left in the dark about who's bankrolling their current and prospective elected representatives.
To restore this dwindling trust, we urgently need significant reform, starting today with a deep overhaul of our political donations framework. We also need an independent federal integrity commission with teeth, more comprehensive media freedom laws and better protections for whistleblowers. This is what the community demands, and it should be something that receives bipartisan support.
The current disclosure threshold for political donations is $14,500, and obviously that is way too high. Moreover the current legislation also doesn't require donors to disclose if they donate just below the threshold multiple times. So, in practice this means that, for example, a mining company can donate $14,499 multiple times without the public ever knowing about it.
Indeed a report released this month by the Centre for Public Integrity showed that almost 30 per cent—or $1.38 billion—of donations received by the major parties since 1998 came from unknown sources. The recent figures released by the Australian Electoral Commission paint a similar picture because, in the last financial year alone, more than $68 million of unexplained money flooded into the political parties, making up almost 40 per cent of all donations.
Making matters worse is that donation disclosures are only required once a year, meaning that up to 19 months can pass between a political entity receiving a donation and the public becoming aware of the donation. How on earth is the community expected to make informed decisions at the ballot box if they have no idea who is bankrolling candidates and parties? They can't.
I would add that the situation is even worse in Tasmania where we also have to endure the weakest state political donation laws in the country. Indeed, despite promises from the Tasmanian Liberal government to legislate for stronger transparency in political donations, both the Liberal and Labor parties went to the Tasmanian election last year backed by hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of dollars of dark money. Indeed in the last financial year the Tasmanian branch of the Liberal Party only disclosed the source of $260,000 out of $3.4 million—a startling 7.6 per cent. The Tasmanian branch of the Labor Party was not much better, only disclosing where 15½ per cent of its funding came from.
This brings me to the bill before the House today—the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Cleaning up Political Donations) Bill 2022—that would strengthen the transparency and accountability of political donations; starting with the lowering of the disclosure threshold to $1,000 and requiring aggregation so that multiple donations received from the same donor must be disclosed if the sum of all donations meets this threshold.
The bill also requires real-time reporting of donations to the AEC and, in particular, that political entities must provide a return to the AEC within two business days of receiving a donation over $1,000. The AEC is then required to publish this on their website as soon as reasonably practical, which is not a new concept, because several states already require real-time reporting of donations. Indeed if we debated this bill right now and it received bipartisan support, we could see such disclosure at the upcoming federal election.
Surely voters have a right to know who's bankrolled a candidate or party before casting their vote, because the reality is that government policy is shaped by political donations.
In other words when someone hands over many tens of thousands—or hundreds of thousands or millions—of dollars in donations, it comes with an expectation of a return on that investment. And very often in Australia these days, the return on such investments is pretty good, to say the least.
Not irrelevant is that Pratt Industries donated a thumping $1.3 million to the Liberal Party during the last financial year, and afterwards the company was awarded a $10 million grant from the federal government from the Bushfire Recovery Fund. Make of that what you will.
Moreover, donations from certain industrial sectors continue to severely impact policy and decision-making. For instance, I have no doubt that the reluctance of both major parties to implement meaningful gambling reform is a direct result of the huge money that they receive from that industry. In the last financial year alone, the coalition received over $540,000 from pro-gambling stakeholders and Labor received $516,000. And, again, this is just the money we know about.
It's also hardly surprising that fossil fuel companies, backing large gas projects across Australia, gave nearly $1 million in political donations to the three major parties last financial year, a fact that came to light the same week the opposition committed to opening a new taxpayer funded gas-fired power station, a policy opposed by energy experts across the board.
Politicians should be serving their communities, but instead they're bending over backwards to please the big donors. And big money in politics is a huge problem. Indeed, the Centre for Public Integrity reported that just 10 donors accounted for more than $4.2 million, or 23 per cent, of all political donations in the last financial year. That's why this bill implements a cap of $50,000 on the total amount any one donor can donate during an electoral cycle.
The bill also places a cap on the total amount that candidates and parties can spend on election campaigns, because parliamentarians should be elected on their policies, their values and what it is they can offer their community. Instead, our current system facilitates elections based on who has the biggest war chest.
Australians would remember that Clive Palmer spent an absurd $80 million on the last federal election, and it has been reported that he intends to surpass this at this year's election. This blatant threat to attempt to buy the outcome of an election is something that all of us should be taking very seriously.
Moreover, politicians and parties should not be accepting donations from sectors whose business causes direct harm to Australians. That's why my bill prohibits donations from fossil fuel entities, gambling companies, liquor companies and the tobacco industry. It also increases the penalties for corporations who breach electoral laws.
And finally, my bill expands the definition of a gift to include any expenditure that benefits a party, such as the 'Love Your Local' campaign we saw from the poker machine industry during the 2018 Tasmanian state election. It also captures money spent to attend political fundraisers and functions to minimise payment for access to politicians.
In closing, I urge all members to support this bill because the community is crying out for reform, and it's way beyond time politicians focused on the public interest, not their self-interest.
I would also like to acknowledge my member of staff Millie von Stieglitz for the remarkable job she has done preparing what is quite a complex bill.
In my remaining time, I invite the member for Indi, who is seconding the bill, to comment on the bill.
Is the motion seconded?
I second this bill and commend the member for Clark for its introduction. As an independent, transparency and integrity are at the heart of what drives me and the people who put me here. Political access and influence should never be for sale. I'm proud to disclose the names and the amounts of every single donation I receive above $1,000 every financial quarter. That includes smaller cumulative donations from the same person that, together, total over $1,000. I'm also committed to disclosing the names of anyone who cumulatively donates more than the Australian Electoral Commission threshold of $14,500 within five business days. This bill would hold us all to a similar standard.
The publication of AEC returns earlier this month show how urgently we need to reform political donation laws. Recent analyse by the Centre for Public Integrity found that over $1 billion in financial contributions, or about 35 per cent of all donations going to the major parties, came from unknown sources in the last two decades. What's more concerning is that Australians will have to go to the ballot box none the wiser on what donations the major parties have received since they filed their returns.
I thank the member for Clark again for his leadership, and I commend this bill to the House.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes the recent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal recommendation to create a new class of medals and clasps which recognise the loss suffered by the families of Australian Defence Force personnel killed or seriously wounded as a result of their service;
(2) acknowledges the advocacy role taken by former SAS serviceman Kerry Danes and his wife Kay Danes;
(3) thanks the veterans and the families of veterans that made submissions to the tribunal; and
(4) urges the Government to complete the consultation process as soon as practicable and ensure that the proposed recognition be applied to all military service on behalf of this nation.
In this motion today, I wish to note, acknowledge, thank and urge. I want to note the very important decision from the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal on 25 January, making a recommendation to government relating to recognition of the fallen—those who make the ultimate sacrifice—and those who are injured and wounded in service. Of course, I want to acknowledge the significant 25-year campaign by Kay and Kerry Danes of Alexandra Hills in my electorate, who since 1996—12 June, to be precise—have campaigned for the result that was released by the tribunal on 25 January. Of course, I wish to thank every veteran family that made a submission and every veteran family that was part of these discussions—260 of them in 2021. Of those, 70 made verbal submissions to this inquiry. And I urge my government and every future government to do everything possible to bring this proposal to fruition.
Deputy Speaker, it won't have passed your notice that 25 years is a very long time, and it does reflect the reverence Australia holds for its honours and awards and the importance it attaches to them. Those 25 years have been incredibly frustrating for those who campaigned. I joined this campaign in 2008, when a former coalition colleague and former Assistant Minister for Defence said to me as he retired and completed his term, 'If there's one thing you should continue doing, it is this fight for recognition.' I want to make it very clear what this is. We are proposing that, in line with other Western economies and allied nations, there be a tangible form of recognition for the next of kin of those who have served in active service and made the ultimate sacrifice or been injured or wounded, whether physically or emotionally.
When we talk about these matters, this is not in any way to disparage the current system but to recognise that historically there was a time when a mothers medal was sent to the next of kin as listed in the enlistment papers of service personnel. That finished in September 1945. From that period of imperial medals, we then moved to Australian medals, and it's this scope that the tribunal has considered. The recommendations—if you will forgive me as I attempt to distil them—were that we should look at a medal directly for the next of kin and for anyone who is identified as next of kin—potentially more than one person—and that a next of kin medal be worn on the left by the genuine next of kin. Veterans' medals, as everyone would know, are worn on the right by their family members.
But the additional question is: can the medal order of wear clearly and tangibly demonstrate that this sacrifice has been made? At the moment, the medals represent the service given by the individual, but they don't recognise the sacrifice, and this comes in many different forms. A clasp, for those not initiated in these matters, is often a horizontal bar that appears on the cloth part of the medal. It is very tiny in some cases, but it is very noticeable and of extraordinary importance to those who understand the medal order of wear. The point of this clasp is to make it possible, when those medals are worn in perpetuity by family, to see at a single glance not only the service but the sacrifice. If you think about being at an RSL and approaching the families of veterans, the proposal is that, with one single glance, one can see that the sacrifice has been made, and an appropriate way of engaging or entering into a conversation with that family becomes all the more possible.
That's important because, if we look at the numbers of Australians who have been fallen or been injured or wounded, the numbers are extraordinary. Keep in mind that the recommendation goes back to September 1945. Few of us in this place or beyond these walls would know that 98.4 per cent of Australia's fallen fell before that date. They currently have imperial awards, for which the tribunal is unable to make a recommendation. It surprises me that there wasn't some recommendation to this effect. While it cannot formally be done, additional work can be done by this place to ensure there is continuity back to 1885, when the first person fell in the service of this country, in the Sudan.
If we think about the historical tale of Australia—from Sudan to the Boer War, to the trenches of World War I, to Beersheba, to the Rats of Tobruk, to Kokoda, to all the places of World War I's Western Front, to WWII service in the air, on water and on land—so many of these great historical battles are currently not able to be recognised with this clasp or medal, if we go ahead purely with this recommendation. This motion today contains a two-part recommendation—first of all, that we urge government and the entire community to look at the recommendations from 25 January and continue to be part of this consultation process. But with 98 per cent of our fallen holding imperial awards it's also important to recognise this may require an approach from this nation to Her Majesty for permission to include a clasp so we can treat all medals equally, back to the first fallen. I think it's incredibly important that we don't have clasps only for 1945 going forward.
Many have expressed views on the mothers medal. Sadly, as I understand, they were sent in the post office to be collected by next of kin. While that would seem an incredibly hardhearted instance for us now, that shows the reality of how things were at the time. Many families didn't appreciate the mothers medal as much as they should have. But one would also agree if we can start the medal from that moment forward there is no duplication, but it is the clasp that is important because that sits on the medals themselves.
This two-part recommendation of this motion is for everyone—not just this parliament, not just the veteran community. Remember, many of them made recommendations that may have differed quite significantly from what was recommended. We would ask those veterans to continue conversations in RSLs and with service personnel all around the country, on bases, here and overseas, because this is a very important step. It is incredibly important to finally capture, in a tangible sense, the full service and sacrifice of our service personnel. I'm utterly delighted that, finally, we have reached this stage. But it is not the end of the journey. There is still potentially 12 to 18 months of further conversation if and when this is to proceed.
It would be incomplete of me not to make a passing observation that, through the 15 years I've been involved in this campaign and the 25 years since Kay and Kerry Danes picked up this challenge, with 50,000 people filling out petitions, there was a decision to develop a pin for the three arms of the armed forces in place of the medal. This was an important step, but it is only halfway there, and these pins have been presented. But I'm disappointed that in many cases these pins may well have been an effort to stymie the ultimate campaign for appropriate medal recognition. These are strong words that I put today in this motion, but we worked extremely hard with chiefs of the Defence Force over this time, with varying levels of success, and these pins began being presented internally by Defence without notifying the government of the day. I think that's incredibly disappointing—that it was done by press release. It was only because I stumbled upon an inbox press release in the minister's office that I was able to notify the Prime Minister that these pins were being presented without the Prime Minister being aware. That was fixed within one hour, and the Prime Minister presented the pin that day.
This wasn't the greatest day in the history of this story, but, ultimately, I think the right thing happened. By supporting the recommendations of this report, we are allowing continued veteran contribution. I once again thank Kay and Kerry Danes and quote Kerry in particular, a 42-year Special Air Service Regiment veteran: 'I'm delighted with this recommendation from the tribunal. I feel we are very close now to a tangible result.' He, like all of us here, would thank every veteran family who, with the most painful memories of service in many cases, have made sure that, historically, not only service but sacrifice is appropriately recognised.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later.
I'm pleased to support this motion and the sentiment behind it. Recently, the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal recommended the creation of a new class of medals and clasps which recognises the loss suffered by families of Australian Defence Force personnel killed or seriously wounded as a result of their service. This followed a referral of the matter to the tribunal in January last year by the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel.
In its report on the inquiry, the tribunal noted that Australia, through the Order of Australia and the Australian defence honours and awards system, already recognises the services of ADF members. In addition, Australia recognises the wounding, injury or death of such members in a variety of essential ways—for example, through health care, income support, compensation, family support services, bereavement pins and memorials. However, the inquiry considered that none of these consequences of service are reflected in the present medallic forms of recognition, none expressly convey the gratitude of the nation for individual sacrifice and none provide a suitably solemn and individual emblem of that gratitude. The tribunal therefore recommended that it is timely, if not incumbent, for Australia to initiate such an expression of its gratitude to members and their families. This would provide a tangible and readily recognisable expression of national gratitude for the sacrifice of ADF members killed or suffering a serious wound, injury or disease in or as a result of their service, and that of their families, and would do so in a way that allows existing defence honours and awards to better tell the story of that service.
Importantly, this motion recognises the strong advocacy of former Special Air Service Regiment Warrant Officer Kerry Danes and his wife, Dr Kay Danes, including through a petition that attracted around 45,000 signatures. Mr Danes launched his campaign several years ago, following the tragic Black Hawk helicopter collision during an army exercise in Townsville in 1996 which resulted, tragically, in the deaths of 18 soldiers. He has made the point that telling a story is important to our nation. Our existing defence honours and awards systems tell the story of where our personnel served and for how long but, for those killed in service both overseas and at home in response to emergencies, conflict and disasters, we do not officially personalise their sacrifice and conclude their record of service. Mr Danes therefore proposed a clasp on these individuals' campaign or service medals which would complete the story of personal service and sacrifice. After all, there are precedents overseas, as the member for Bowman said, and we should recognise them.
Australian soldiers have argued that there should be something similar to the Purple Heart for ADF personnel killed or wounded in action. But it should also recognise the families for their service and sacrifice, and I want to acknowledge also the advocacy of my colleague the member for Solomon on this issue and thank him very much, because, alongside the member for Bowman, he has been a strong advocate for special forces and Afghanistan veterans, as well as for veterans' mental health and for victims of abuse in the ADF. Thank you, Luke, for the work you've done.
Of course, those advocates and Labor urge the government to stand up on behalf of and for former ADF personnel and their families. The government has not always done this, firstly, in the response to the Brereton war crimes report, which had a terrible effect on the mental health of our current and former personnel. Secondly, tragically, the Morrison government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a royal commission into defence and veterans' suicide. We know that many defence personnel have been medically discharged, have suffered mental health issues and in some cases have, tragically, taken their lives. I would encourage everyone to cooperate with the royal commission. I know that the Sydney hearings are happening today. I would encourage veterans and their families to engage with the royal commission. Some sort of recognition of the impact of service and the sufferings would play a therapeutic role for veterans and their families. This is a decision which I'd ask the government to take up on the recommendation of the tribunal.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the many veterans and their families for their sacrifice, and for the submissions that they've also made. I note that the awards tribunal saw hundreds of submissions and individuals. There are 220 individuals and groups who have made submissions to that inquiry. I urge the government to not procrastinate, to engage consultatively, to accept the advice of the umpire and to do the right thing by these veterans and their families.
Inscribed in the wall of the War Memorial are the words: 'No greater love has any man than to lay down his life for a friend.' They're very solemn words and they strike to the heart of every veteran and every person who has ever served—and every person who has lost anyone as a result of that service. I want today to acknowledge all the young Australians who worked up the courage to finally go into a recruiting office and raise their hand and swear by oath or affirmation that they'll put their life on the line for the defence of their country. They raise their right hand and they swear an oath to Australia, its people, its government, its Queen, her heirs and excesses according to law, so help me God. Once that solemn pledge has been made, then that young Australian's life changes, and it changes in a very profound way. Veterans and those who are serving will understand exactly what I mean. I don't have the words to articulate the degree of soul-searching that happens prior to making that decision to make that pledge. We then take them to their recruitment training establishments at Kapooka or Cerberus or Edinburgh at the Australian Defence Force Academy or the Royal Military College, and there we teach them, we ingrain in them, we inculcate in them very deeply, very solemnly that their importance as an individual is secondary to that of the team and that the person on their right and the person on their left are the people they should make the ultimate sacrifice for. They would, in an instant, give their life for that person on the right or the left.
Many ask why, and the answer is simple: it's because that person on your right or your left would give their life for you. This is further inculcated, further strengthened, further reinforced as we take them through initial employment training, and then they finally march into their unit. Upon marching into a battalion, they see the battle honours that unit has received, and they feel and they smell and they taste the legends of generations that have gone before them. They understand the importance of the person on their right and on their left. Then, we, as a nation, put them in harm's way. We send them to the most dangerous places on the planet, and there they're required to engage the enemy by whatever means that might look like. But, ultimately, they're willing to put their life on the line for their mates, for their unit, for their country and for their mission.
Then the funerals come as a result of that. I've spoken in this place before what it means, and those that have attended a military funeral will understand the significance and the solemn feel that that portrays to everybody that's involved. At the conclusion of one particular funeral, which I'll never forget until the day I die, I was required to pass the Australian national flag to a next of kin, as is the tradition. I'll never forget the look in that mother's eyes as she took that flag, and in this place of words I'm lost for the words that describe what I've felt that day. I wanted to bring that young bloke back. I wanted to hug her. I wanted to have the words that would ease her pain. And I didn't. I felt guilty that I, as part of the leadership team, had taken her son away. I still feel guilty. I still feel inadequate. I still feel as if there were words that I should have said that I couldn't, and I'm sure that there are many people in my position that want to say those words and can't.
Let this remind people of those words that can't be said. Let this remind people of the tears that we shed in private. Let this remind people of the ultimate sacrifice that is paid in defending our nation and its people. If we can do nothing else for those that make that ultimate sacrifice, we can do this: we can remember them. We must never forget them. Lest we forget.
I thank the member for Bowman for bringing this forward. He approached me some time ago—years ago—about this issue. It must be said it was in a typically weird way, but, nevertheless, I thought it was something very worthwhile supporting. I got behind it and have been advocating for it since. I thank the member for Blair for his acknowledgement of that.
Before I get into the substance of this motion, I want to make a quick comment about the service at the War Memorial and the Last Post ceremony we have at the start of each parliamentary year. I was frankly disgusted at the level of turnout from politicians, federal members, in this place. There would have been 15, 16 or 17 federal representatives—MPs and senators. There should be four ranks of members of parliament and senators, people who represent Australians, at that one service that kicks off the parliamentary year. It's one hour of your time to acknowledge all those that have laid down their lives for our country before you get on with the rest of the year and the politics and the carry-on. We do important work here, yes, but you only have to give up one hour for that Last Post ceremony to say, 'For this calendar year and our efforts in the parliament, we will remember those that gave their lives for our freedom.'
What it will also do, members in place, when you attend that Last Post ceremony and look up at the tens of thousands of names of those that have gone before us, is remind you to not be so flippant about war. It will remind you that war is a serious business and is paid for in the blood of patriotic men and women of this country. When you launch a pre-election campaign with megaphone diplomacy, talking tough, just remember that this country will always stand up for its values and its principles. We won't take a backwards step. But needless and careless actions and flippant references to war should be thought about deeply. That Last Post ceremony gives all honourable member the opportunity to reflect.
I also want to acknowledge the work of Kerry and Kay Danes in bringing the work that led to the inquiry forward. I served with Kerry for a short time in Timor-Leste. He's a great man who has done a lot, as is his wife, Kay. I worked closely with her to try and get the interpreters of Australian veterans and some of the embassy security guards out in that shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan. They are good people, as is Andrew Sloan, who does a mountain of work to assist veterans every day. He did a lot of work on this campaign that led to the inquiry that has now given us recommendations. I want to acknowledge and thank Ray and Pam Palmer, who lost their son, Scotty. He was Territory born and bred. He was lost in Afghanistan with the commandos. Ray and Pam have been a big supporter of this push to get some sort of medallic recognition for those who have been either killed in service or injured or wounded in service. It's an important recognition, medallic recognition. As Ray often says, his son's name is up on the War Memorial wall, but it would be nice to have his son's medals that accurately reflect the totality of his service and his sacrifice.
So I encourage the widest possible consultation about the recommendations. The ball's now in the government's court to do that work, and I wish them well in arriving at a good conclusion. As the member for Blair added, the royal commission is in Sydney and holding hearings, and my thoughts, prayers and solidarity are with all involved in that program.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made in the order of the day for a later hour.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) access to high quality education, skills and training opportunities is a fundamental right;
(b) too many Australian students are prevented by social, economic and geographical barriers from accessing this right;
(c) the inequity in education, skills and training opportunities has been exacerbated by the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Government's decisions to, amongst other things, increase the cost of higher education, refuse to fund free access to public TAFE and neglect of the needs of the school system;
(d) in contrast, Labor has a range of commitments to make education and training more accessible, including to:
(i) make child care cheaper for 97 per cent of Australian parents;
(ii) support 10,000 New Energy Apprenticeships;
(iii) introduce an Australian Skills Guarantee;
(iv) provide 465,000 free TAFE places and up to 20,000 new university places; and
(v) invest $440 million to improve ventilation in classrooms and provide more counselling and psychological support; and
(e) more needs to be done to assist students who are disengaged in learning, or who do not respond to traditional school programs; and
(2) further notes that one of the standout success stories in achieving this is, Hands on Learning, a program first piloted at Frankston High School in 1999 by Russell Kerr, OAM, that builds wellbeing, engagement, and attendance by creating opportunities for students to discover their talents and experience success through significant and authentic hands-on projects, that results in 95 per cent of Hands on Learning students finishing school, getting an apprenticeship or getting a job.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognise that everyone has the right to education. The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides:
… the education of the child shall be directed to:
(a) The development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential …
As general comment No. 13 on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Right notes:
Education is both a human right in itself and an indispensable means of realizing other human rights … education is the primary vehicle by which economically and socially marginalized adults and children can lift themselves out of poverty and obtain the means to participate fully in their communities … education is … one of the best financial investments States can make.
And, importantly, the comment notes:
… a well-educated, enlightened and active mind, able to wander freely and widely, is one of the joys and rewards of human existence.
We know in this country that simply providing access to education—simply saying there's a school or a TAFE or a training facility or a university—is not enough. We need to do more to make sure not only that children and students can afford to go and get training and education, including higher education, but that they are engaged and connected in that education and training. That is particularly important when it comes to schooling. Not all students learn in the same way. Not all students engage in the same way. But all students, all children, have a right to a quality basic education.
The move under the previous federal Labor government towards needs based or Gonski funding was an important move towards acknowledging this and an important ambition towards fairer funding and provision of education. But we know there is so much more to be done. There was more to be done before the last two years, when the pandemic and necessary shutdowns and remote learning impacted children. They impacted their education, some of their socialisation and, in too many cases, their mental health. There was more to be done before that, and there is so much more to be done now as a consequence of health measures, which were necessary, impacting on education.
A 2019 publication produced by Save the Children, called Future directions—hands on learning: keeping young people connected to education and building capacity for future success, noted:
… there should be a greater focus on engagement at school through developing a positive learning disposition. Engagement is defined as not just turning up, but also a student's connection with learning.
The publication said:
Education is a proven game-changer which can help improve social mobility and mitigate inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people who experience disadvantage.
It went on to say:
Engaging all Australian children in their learning journey is key.
In 2019, Save the Children—which has taken over running of a program that comes from my electorate, from Frankston, called Hands on Learning—called on the federal government and other governments to make this engagement a priority in 2019 and into the next decade, and that call has so much more power now. But nothing has been done in response to that call. Governments need to make engagement in learning and access to learning a priority.
What is Hands on Learning? It's a practical school program that builds on wellbeing, engagement and attendance by creating opportunities for students to discover their talents and experience success through significant and authentic hands-on projects. It was piloted at Frankston High School in 1999 by Russell Kerr OAM as a response to too many years witnessing struggling students with different learning styles written off prematurely and not given the opportunity to realise their potential.
It's in 100 schools now, and 95 per cent of students that engage go on to stay in education, get a job or get an apprenticeship. It finished as a top HundrED Global Collection education, not-for-profit program. It should be funded to go from 100 schools to about 300 schools across this country. I've seen firsthand at Frankston High School, Elisabeth Murdoch, Mt Eliza college, Patterson River Secondary College and across my electorate how great it is for children, their families and the community. I call on federal government to fund Hands on Learning.
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I rise to speak against the motion today, obviously, and I'd like to pick up where the member for Dunkley left off, speaking particularly on apprenticeships. This motion is yet another example of how Labor will disregard the facts in order to try and fit their political narrative. We see them do it time and time again. Nowhere is it more evident than in this motion when it comes to apprenticeships, because this government has long been a very keen supporter of apprenticeships. We understand that it's a vital part of education and skills training out there in the community. It's also a recognition that we, unlike the Labor Party, understand that it's not the government that is creating jobs in Australia. Rather, it is Australian businesses, and we need supportive policies that will help Australian businesses to grow their workplaces and grow job opportunities, especially when it comes to apprenticeships.
I had a look at the member for Dunkley's own electorate because I thought this motion must be driven from someplace. How bad is it on the ground in Dunkley that the member is so concerned particularly in terms of the way she was talking about apprenticeships? I had a look. In Dunkley, trade training apprenticeships are up 41 per cent since Labor was last in office. Apprenticeships are up 41 per cent in the member's own electorate, and such is her disgust that she has come in and moved this motion. We can only assume that, if we were to go back to a Labor government, as she would wish, we would see those apprenticeships fall again because those are the policies of the party of which she is a part; whereas, under the coalition government, there are 41 per cent more apprenticeships in her own electorate, for the young people in the area of Dunkley, than there were when Labor last left office.
It's part and parcel of our government's JobTrainer fund: a $2 billion investment in skills supporting over 463,000 low-fee or no-fee courses in areas of skill shortages through TAFEs and registered training organisations. We are on track to make our target of almost half a million job-ready, skilled-up apprentices ready to take on the career of their choice. Let me say that again: half a million young Australians are going to be skilled up and ready to take on jobs because of the apprenticeships provided by the Morrison government. With our extended JobTrainer fund, as outlined in the budget, any Australian can enrol in qualifications in aged care, digital skills, disability care or child care and access a JobTrainer place regardless of their age, employment status or prior qualifications.
Not only are we supercharging the economy to provide more for jobseekers but we are actively investing in the industries of the future to ensure that we don't have skills gaps when it comes to priority workforces—in particular for qualifications in digital skills, aged care, disability care and child care. That is because we want young Australians to be able to pursue their dreams and pursue a job in their chosen field, but we particularly want to make sure that, as they complete their skills training, there are those important jobs for them to go into. In those industries where we might face skills shortages in the future, this presents an opportunity not only to provide them with the training that they need but also to make sure that those industries are catered for. So while Labor come into this place and talk down these important initiatives, talk down the state of the economy and talk down the skill training initiatives, over half a million Australians are going to be job ready because of the JobTrainer Fund. In fact, there will an increase of 40 per cent who are job ready in the electorate of the member who is moving this motion for political purposes.
I want to speak quickly about the out-of-pocket costs of child care. Encouraging greater workforce participation as the economy recovers is particularly important for young families in my electorate of Ryan. Since we came to government, there are more than 280,000 kids in child care than before as a result of us making child care more affordable and accessible. This is every family's own choice to make. But, as a government, we want to make sure that, if parents wish to get back into the workforce and access child care, childcare places are both accessible and affordable. So we will continue with these practical measures—not the political grandstanding of those opposite—to make sure we get Australians into apprenticeships and reduce the cost of living for Australian families.
I would like to thank my friend the member for Dunkley for bringing this important motion to the House today. There has probably never been a more important time for a motion like this. It looks at our education sector, which has had such a difficult time during this pandemic—whether it be early learning, primary school, secondary school or tertiary education. I'm so grateful to all the staff, students, families and advocates for education in my electorate who have taken the time, throughout the pandemic and now, to share their experiences with me. They know we need to do so much better in this country. They know that education really is our future and, at the moment, we're not hitting it as we should.
A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of visiting Natasha and her team at the Eltham Child Care Cooperative in my electorate. Natasha and her team can only be described as absolute troopers—highly intelligent, very caring troopers who have soldiered through this pandemic making sure that our youngest children are cared for and supported. But, like early educators across Jagajaga, Natasha and her team are feeling let down. They are feeling like they have been abandoned. They are tired of having to adapt, often at short notice, to changing conditions of the pandemic, all the while trying to continue to provide the high-quality education that gives our children the best start to their learning journey. Natasha and her team, and all the early educators across our country, deserve so much better recognition, support and pay for what they do, but they're not getting it from this government.
Our families deserve so much better as well. Again, the pandemic has revealed to us just how important early education is for children and for parents. And parents are telling me they find the early learning system difficult to navigate. Childcare fees are too expensive. And we're still in a situation where for many parents, and particularly for many women, if they choose to go back to work for more than a couple of days, they're in a losing position; they actually spend more on child care than they earn in wages.
I'm proud to be part of a Labor team that knows this current situation can't continue and is putting front and centre our plan for more affordable child care. It's a plan I'm really proud of—97 per cent of families will see cheaper child care under a Labor government and no family will be worse off. We take early learning seriously and we want to provide the real support to early educators and families alike.
As the member for Dunkley noted, when we talk about education, we also have to consider that not all students respond to traditional school programs. We need to have the flexibility that recognises this and supports students to find something that works for them. In my electorate, Open House in Macleod does a great job helping young people of secondary-school age to unlock employment opportunities through hands-on work in crafts, mechanics, engineering and woodwork. This program from Open House has seen great success. Graduates of the program have gone on to apprenticeships or other forms of full-time work. I'm proud to have been able to support Open House through the Stronger Communities Program. Programs like this deserve more support and are really important to our country.
In my community, we know the value of TAFE as a key part of our education sector. We know how important it is to have courses and training available to people in our local area. We're lucky to have two wonderful Melbourne polytechnic campuses at Greensborough and Heidelberg West. But we also know what the Liberals think of TAFE. When the Liberals were last in power in Victoria, they cut TAFE funding so much that the Greensborough TAFE shut down. It was only with a Labor government back in place that the Greensborough TAFE was re-opened to ensure that people in Melbourne's north-east, in my electorate, had a local provider of skills and training.
On this side of the House, Labor knows the value of TAFE. That is why a federal Labor government will provide 465,000 free TAFE places nationwide. This is a massive investment. I'm very much looking forward to what it will mean for people in my electorate, for young people, who have been dealt a really severe blow through this pandemic, to get on track, to get the skills and learning opportunities, the skills that take them through their future and lead to well-paid secure jobs.
Building on our commitment to skills and training, an Albanese government will ensure that at least one in 10 employees for major government projects are apprentices, trainees or cadets. This is a commitment that will see tens of thousands of Australian workers given the training to set them up for their future. Education is so important. A Labor government will back it at every level.
I want to commend the member for Dunkley for putting this motion on the books today. It's a great opportunity to talk about a range of educational settings within my electorate. Firstly, in relation to TAFE college and training, we have an amazing TAFE college, GOTAFE, based in Shepparton in the Goulburn Valley. But it needs to have an enormous amount of money spent on the facility. We potentially need $100 million spent on GOTAFE and its five or six different campuses.
The Victorian state government has simply stopped spending money on our Shepparton campus. When you go inside and look at the motor mechanic, there are trucks there that simply cannot get their bonnets off because they don't have enough headroom. When you're learning to be a mechanic, you need to have access to the electronics that enables you to dial into Berlin, and Berlin will then tell you what's wrong with the car. That's what the modern mechanic needs. You can't get that sort of training in Shepparton, because the state government won't invest in the TAFE college to give them not world-leading but basic training to be a mechanic. We need a state government that stops talking about the rubbish and starts supplying some funding so that these TAFE colleges have the correct facilities. We know that apprentices are at an all-time high right now, and all those apprentices are getting half their wages paid by the federal government. Again, the Victorian state government can talk this rubbish up; however, it's the coalition that is helping them in every way.
The Greater Shepparton Secondary College, which is also a member of Hands on Learning, is one giant school that the Victorian state government built for Shepparton. So there's only one government secondary school for parents to choose to send their children. That school would potentially need a trade school added to it and a smaller campus for children who come from a region with a small primary school, who would do better in a smaller setting rather than be forced to go to school with 2,500 students. So we might need a slightly different nuanced approach. We all know that Greensborough TAFE had to shut down. We also know that the truth behind that is that the state Labor government at the time privatised registered training organisations and made the TAFE colleges ridiculously too expensive. Effectively, it's their own policies that have led to these outcomes.
The second part of the member for Dunkley's motion goes to Hands on Learning. I want to congratulate the people behind this amazing educational facility. Many schools have adopted Hands on Learning: in Victoria, 98 schools; in Queensland, 10 schools; in New South Wales, eight schools; and in Tasmania, 48 schools. In Shepparton we have Gowrie Street Primary School, along with the Greater Shepparton City Secondary College. In Echuca we have the Echuca Primary School, the Twin Rivers School, the River City Christian College and also St Joseph's College. Nathalia's primary school also has Hands on Learning.
The opportunity for those kids who are struggling academically to go and learn in a different fashion—often it means going out to a shed at the back of the school; learning how to work in a team; learning how to make things, using their hands; being tutored by potentially tradies, sometimes retired tradies. It's an opportunity for these kids to develop their self-esteem to work in a team, to build their self-esteem so that they can effectively take that new learning, that new structure, and get the confidence that they need. So while the setting for Hands on Learning may be in some building out the back, it's a front for this opportunity to develop these skills within the individuals in a different way to sitting in the classroom and learning in the same way that 70 or 80 per cent of students learn. This is a different way of learning, but it's just as critical, just as important, and the outcomes are stunning.
I would urge our government, our ministers to look at this as a way of continuing to grow Hands on Learning. Victoria is obviously doing a great job, but maybe some of the other states could pick up the running with Hands on Learning.
I rise to support the private members' motion moved by the member for Dunkley, and commend her for bringing this to the attention of the House. All Australians, wherever they grow up, deserve the best shot at the education, skills and training opportunities that we have to offer. My late dad was a builder, an engineer and a TAFE teacher. He often called TAFE the elevator in life; training was what gave him the chance that no-one else in his family had had. Unfortunately, this isn't the reality for many young Australians, including people in the community I represent on the Central Coast of New South Wales.
The Central Coast is one region—that's how locals talk about it, our community—and that's how it should be treated by this government, but it's not—and this is especially true when it comes to education and training. Over the past eight years the Morrison government has cut more than $3 billion from vocational education and training. This has made it harder for people in my community to take up a trade, to get a traineeship and to get the skills that they need. It has led to a growing skills crisis across the coast. Young people tell me the courses they need are only available outside the coast, at Tighes Hill, near Newcastle, or Ryde, near Sydney, and that the cost of travel on top of course fees makes it hard to finish their training. After close to a decade of funding cuts, there are now 231 fewer apprentices in Dobell. That's close to a 10 per cent drop, and it's impacting people looking for work and employers trying to recruit.
Late last year I held a manufacturing round table where I heard from local businesses about the challenges they were facing. Most of them said there were jobs available, but there was a shortage of skilled workers to fill them. These are businesses like the Borg group, which has a strong history of manufacturing on the Central Coast. Grant from Borg told me they currently have 75 apprentices across 10 different trades, but they're struggling to fill positions in certain trades, like industrial painting, fitting and machining and other metal trades. If the locals in my community had access to quality, affordable training close to home, businesses like the Borg group would be able to fill those positions and young people would be able to gain the skills they need for a steady job and a good career, which would boost local jobs and our local economy.
People on the north end of the coast are also being prevented from accessing the education and training they deserve because of where they live. Just recently the government announced the next round of its Commonwealth Scholarships Program for Young Australians, designed to help people take up a trade or an apprenticeship. These scholarships are available to people in a few hand-picked regions across the country, including Gosford in New South Wales—just south of my electorate. But the north end of the coast has been completely excluded from this program. As I said before, the Central Coast is one region and young workers in my community could use a scholarship like this to upskill and find more secure work. They shouldn't be left behind just because they live 40 minutes north of Gosford. It's unfair.
Young people living outside big cities have always struggled to get a fair shot at training and employment opportunities, and that has only been heightened during the pandemic. At the peak of COVID, when work was scarce, there were higher numbers of young people looking for work on the north end of the coast, so it makes no sense to exclude them from this program. I ask the Prime Minister: why? Why are young people on the north end of the Central Coast being overlooked and left behind again and again by this government? Every young person, wherever they're born, wherever they live or wherever they grow up, deserves a fair shot at quality education and training that is close to home and affordable, that will provide them with the skills they need for a steady career and a good future. That's why Labor has plans for free TAFE. Under Labor we will provide 465,000 free TAFE places to Australians studying in areas where there is a skill shortage.
Last week I heard from the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia about the lack of training opportunities for pharmacy technicians—essential workers on the front line of the pandemic and critical to the supply, distribution and manufacture of lifesaving medicines. They are working in COVID vaccination clinics without ready access to the training they need. This training would support and encourage people to join industries in need of more workers, and would create jobs in regional communities like mine on the Central Coast of New South Wales in industries like trade and construction, energy and manufacturing. We have a plan to add 10,000 apprenticeships in the energy sector. Under Labor's plan we'll encourage businesses to take on more apprentices in the new energy sector by providing $100 million in funding.
Only recently, with the member for McMahon, I visited a business, Twin Lakes Air and Solar, at Toukley. Mitch, from Twin Lakes, rang me this morning. They install air conditioning, solar panels and batteries up and down the coast, and land big contracts in Sydney and Newcastle. Businesses like Twin Lakes, with refrigeration apprentices, have the potential to drive jobs and growth, and to make the coast and other regions outside of big cities powerhouses of renewable energy. Labor's Powering Australia plan will make that a reality. Under the Morrison government, under this Prime Minister, local businesses and local jobseekers are being left behind. (Time expired)
The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour.
by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) the Prime Minister making a statement in relation to the anniversary of the national apology to the Stolen Generations and speaking for 10 minutes;
(2) the Leader of the Opposition speaking in reply for 10 minutes;
(3) the Minister for Indigenous Australians and Member for Barton speaking for 10 minutes each; and
(4) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That further statements on the anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
I present the report 2021 regional telecommunications review: A step change in demand.
I have received a message from the Senate transmitting a resolution agreed to by the Senate relating to a proposed Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards:
That—
(1) A Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards be established to inquire into and report on matters relating to the development of codes of conduct for Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, and in conducting the inquiry, the committee:
(a) develop a code or codes of conduct for Commonwealth parliamentarians, parliamentary staff, and parliamentary workplaces to ensure safe and respectful behaviour;
(b) consider:
(i) equivalent codes of conduct in other, particularly Westminster, parliamentary systems,
(ii) how any proposed code can prevent bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and sexual assault,
(iii) reasonable expectations of respectful and professional behaviour,
(iv) the views of Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplace occupants, in particular staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, parliamentarians, and other workers in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces,
(v) the applicability and enforcement of any proposed code in relation to other legislation, including statutory obligations under relevant workplace and anti-discrimination legislation,
(vi) the findings and recommendations of the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Review, Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces,
(vii) the terms under which an alleged breach of any proposed code may be referred for review,
(viii) appropriate appeal mechanisms for findings made under any proposed code, and
(ix) the context of any enforcement body established by the Parliament;
(c) recommend options for:
(i) the enforcement of any proposed code, and
(ii) mechanisms for reviewing the operation of any proposed code; and
(d) consider any other related matter.
(2) The committee may report from time to time, but that it present its final report by no later than 1 November 2022.
(3) The committee consist of 12 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 1 Member of the House of Representatives nominated by any minority group or independent Member, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator.
(4) Participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination in the House of Representatives, of the Government or Opposition Whip or Whips, or any minority group or independent Member, and in the Senate, of the Leader of the Government or Opposition, or any minority group or independent Senator, and such participating member may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee and have all rights of a committee member except that a participating member may not vote on any questions before the committee.
(5) Every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(6) In the event that a House is not sitting and is not expected to meet for at least two weeks, the relevant whip may nominate any appointment or discharge of a member of a committee in writing to the relevant Presiding Officer. The change in membership shall take effect from the time the Presiding Officer received the written nomination. At the next sitting, the Presiding Officer shall report the change to the relevant House and the House shall resolve membership of that committee.
(7) The members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee’s final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier.
(8) The committee elect:
(a) a Government member as its chair; and
(b) an Opposition member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee.
(9) At any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.
(10) In the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(11) Three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House.
(12) The committee have power to:
(a) appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only.
(13) At any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.
(14) Two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House.
(15) Members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.
(16) The committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
(17) The committee be:
(a) provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and
(b) empowered to publish from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
(18) The provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution.
Ordered that the message be considered immediately.
I move:
(1) That the House concur in the resolution of the Senate relating to the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Standards; and
(2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution.
Question agreed to.
I have received messages from the Senate informing the House of the appointment of senators to certain joint committees. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Prime Minister has refused to listen to calls to make rapid antigen tests free and accessible through the Medicare system for all Australians;
(b) this means workers on modest wages have been forced to pay for their own tests, simply to be able to go to work, resulting in a pay cut for those workers;
(c) more than 150,000 Australians have signed this ACTU petition calling for rapid antigen tests to be made free and accessible; and
(d) the government should listen to these Australians, act now to make rapid antigen tests free and accessible through the Medicare system, to take pressure off family budgets, protect workers and get our economy moving again; and
(2) agrees that this petition may be tabled immediately by the Manager of Opposition Business.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Prime Minister has refused to listen to calls to make rapid antigen tests free and accessible through the Medicare system for all Australians;
(b) this means workers on modest wages have been forced to pay for their own tests, simply to be able to go to work, resulting in a pay cut for those workers;
(c) more than 150,000 Australians have signed this ACTU petition calling for rapid antigen tests to be made free and accessible; and
(d) the government should listen to these Australians, act now to make rapid antigen tests free and accessible through the Medicare system, to take pressure off family budgets, protect workers and get our economy moving again; and
(2) agrees that this petition may be tabled immediately by the Manager of Opposition Business.
Don't pretend you're supporting front-line workers when you're making them pay for their own test. They make modest wages and have to pay just to go to work!
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded?
Yes. This incompetent government must listen to the Australian people and make rapid antigen tests free today.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
SPEAKER (): The question now is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business to suspend standing orders be disagreed to.
I seek leave to table the petitions. They've rejected the substance of the motion, but the motion also sought to table the petitions, and I seek leave.
Leave granted.
I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 29th annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, held virtually in Seoul, Republic of Korea, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
The Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, the APPF, brings together members of parliaments from throughout the Asia-Pacific region each year. Delegates discuss matters of interest and importance to the region and adopt formal resolutions across agenda topics. Australia has been an active participant in the APPF since its establishment in 1993 and this most recent meeting of the APPF was no exception. Along with myself as delegation leader, Australia was represented at APPF29 by the members for Lalor, Lindsay and Moreton and by Senator Van in the other place.
The meetings of APPF29 took place in November and December 2021. While the forum was hosted by the Republic of Korea, the continued spread of COVID-19 variants across the world saw the meeting take place virtually for the first time in APPF history. The overarching theme for APPF29 was the role of parliaments in strengthening resilience in the post-COVID-19 era. The agenda for the APPF covered political and security matters, economic and trade matters, and regional cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region. The APPF meeting of women parliamentarians was another important item on the agenda. Australia participated in each of these sessions and prepared draft resolutions on the following topics: identifying ways to ensure a gender-sensitive crisis response after the COVID-19 pandemic; strengthening multilateralism and addressing issues based on rules; accelerating the digital economy and enhancing productivity; the role of parliaments in disease control, economy and human rights; and ideas for interparliamentary cooperation. The Australian delegation worked closely with other delegates to negotiate and, where possible, combine the proposed resolutions on each topic into a single version. At the final plenary session, a total of 13 resolutions and a joint communique were adopted.
During the opening session of APPF29, I announced I would be stepping down from my role as president of the APPF. It has been an honour and a privilege to serve as president since 2020, and I know that the APPF will continue to be a vital institution for our region. I also want to take this moment to thank member nations for electing me to this office and, in particular, thank my friend and colleague from the Japanese Diet, Hirofumi Nakasone, for nominating me for the presidency. Subsequent to my announcement, the APPF executive committee agreed to changes to the role of president, with the functions of this role being transferred to the annual meeting chair. These changes will ensure the APPF is in a strong position to continue to provide our region with an important platform for years to come.
I would like to thank the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea for their successful delivery of the first virtual APPF. I would especially like to thank my fellow Australian delegates for their contributions to APPF29 in representing and promoting Australia's interests and contributing to the working groups and plenary sessions. The virtual meetings were held at a busy time of the year for members, and my colleagues' contribution to the APPF reinforces the importance of the APPF to our region.
I commend the report to the House.
I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The government is committed to ensuring the ongoing improvement of Australia's federal courts and tribunals. It is with pleasure that I introduce the Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No.1) Bill 2021 (the bill), which primarily seeks to improve the administration of the federal courts and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The bill does not introduce fundamental changes to the way our legal system operates. Rather, it represents some incremental changes that will streamline and clarify existing processes in the federal courts and the AAT.
In particular, this bill amends the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Administration Act 1999, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Admiralty Act 1988, the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1989, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962, the Family Law Act 1975, the Federal Circuit Court Act 1999, the Federal Circuit and Family Court Act 2021, the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985, the Judiciary Act 1903, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. The bill would also repeal the Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976.
The government aims to make merits review through the AAT accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick. To this end, this bill will amend the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Administration Act, the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the Paid Parental Leave Act, the Social Security (Administration) Act, and the Student Assistance Act to streamline and harmonise the practices and processes of divisions within the AAT. Amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act will also address minor technical and administrative issues within the existing act. Amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act will require consequential amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
The bill will also make minor and technical amendments to the Judiciary Act, which will amend inconsistencies in terminology between the Judiciary Act and the High Court Rules, and to prescribe forms by practice direction rather than retaining them in the High Court Rules.
The bill makes minor amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act, the Family Law Act and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act to clarify that hearings conducted remotely using videoconferencing technology are exercised in 'open court'. The bill also amends the Judiciary Act to clarify that a court shall be taken to be exercising federal jurisdiction in a proceeding in the state or territory in which the proceedings commenced. These amendments are appropriate to remove any doubt as to the validity of hearings across the federal courts being undertaken remotely, particularly since the broader use of remote hearings since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The bill makes amendments to the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (FSI Act). Under international law, foreign states are entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of other countries in certain circumstances. In Australia, this immunity is governed by the FSI Act.
These amendments clarify the application of the FSI Act to ex parte proceedings following the High Court's consideration of the issue in Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd v Republic of Nauru in 2015. In Firebird, the court held that the provision in the FSI Act relating to judgements in default of appearance does not apply to ex parte proceedings.
The bill clarifies the application of the FSI Act to ex parte proceedings to ensure that foreign states are afforded appropriate procedural immunities, and reduces the risk that an Australian court could register a foreign judgement against a foreign state in circumstances where Australia is obliged to afford that foreign state immunity under international law. Furthermore, the bill similarly extends these procedural protections to proceedings relating to the recognition or enforcement of a foreign award against a foreign state pursuant to the International Arbitration Act 1974.
This bill will also clarify that the Admiralty Rules 1988 are rules of court and apply certain provisions of the Legislation Act 2003 so as to exempt the rules from sunsetting, but require that they be registered and published. This aligns the treatment of the Admiralty Rules with the rules of the federal courts.
The bill would repeal the Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act. The Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act was enacted to give effect to the agreement between the Australian government and the government of the Republic of Nauru for appeals to the High Court of Australia from certain classes of decisions of the Supreme Court of Nauru.
This agreement was terminated on 13 March 2018 while still providing for appeals and applications for leave instituted before the date the agreement was terminated to be heard.
All relevant appeals and applications for leave instituted before the agreement's termination have concluded. Accordingly, it is appropriate for the Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act to now be repealed.
The introduction of this bill represents the government's enduring commitment to ensuring that our legal system is fit for purpose. In particular, the bill will improve the efficiency and operation of our federal courts and the AAT.
I commend the bill to the House.
Labor supports the Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021. The bill would make a number of largely administrative amendments to various acts of parliament relating to federal courts and tribunals.
There were three aspects of the original bill that Labor did not support, which we amended successfully in the Senate. To her credit, the Attorney-General and her office worked constructively and in good faith with me and my office in relation to Labor's concerns. In the interest of getting this bill through the parliament, the government agreed to two of Labor's amendments. Despite the government's opposition, Labor's third amendment also succeeded in the Senate. I understand that the government has taken the sensible and pragmatic view to now accept that amendment, too. I would like to thank the Attorney-General for that.
The first aspect of the bill we did not support related to the role of the Governor-General in the appointments process for members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Currently, a person may not be appointed as a deputy president or as a member of the tribunal, unless, in the opinion of the Governor-General, the person has special knowledge or skills relevant to the duties of a deputy president or member. The original version of the bill would not have changed the fact that appointments would still be made by the Governor-General, but it would have amended the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act to require the minister, as opposed to the Governor-General, to form an opinion as to whether a person has special knowledge or skills relevant to the duties of a deputy president or member.
While this change was unlikely to have any significant practical impact on the appointments process for tribunal members, the government failed to make a case for why such a change was necessary or desirable. Given the Morrison government's shameful record of appointing almost 80 Liberal Party associates and former Liberal Party politicians, staffers and donors as members to the tribunal, Labor senators refused to support an amendment which, even just at the level of perception, further undermined the independence of the appointment process. Senator Watt moved an amendment to remove that aspect from the original bill in the Senate. That amendment was successful, despite the government's opposition.
By way of further context, it is difficult to overstate the damage that the Morrison government has done to public confidence in and the integrity of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Liberals have handed at least 79 jobs on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to Liberal mates—that is at least 79 former Liberal Party staffers, failed Liberal Party candidates, Liberal Party donors and members who've been given secure and very highly remunerated jobs on the tribunal, and, for many of them, their only qualification seemed to be a Liberal Party membership card.
Full-time members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are paid between about $200,000 and $500,000 a year, and it's basically impossible for them to lose their jobs, even if they never turn up for work or are incompetent when they do turn up. Based on data provided by the tribunal, we know that some full-time members, people who are receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in salary, have been doing no work. We know that many other full-time members have been doing very little work, finalising fewer than 25 applications a year. We also know that, as a result of potentially unlawful remuneration policies adopted by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, many part-time members of the tribunal are being paid tens of thousands of dollars more than full-time equivalents. The Auditor-General looked into this, and the tribunal has undertaken to update its remuneration policies.
The poor record of a small number of tribunal members undermines the excellent work of many great members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, some of whom are former Liberal Party parliamentarians and staffers. Let me be clear: membership of a political party is not a disqualification for appointment to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The issue is that the Morrison government has treated membership of the Liberal Party as the only qualification for appointment. How else can one explain the appointment of a man like Anthony Barry, who's a former Liberal Party media adviser turned big-tobacco lobbyist who reportedly boasted about dropping out of law school and who continued to work as a lobbyist long after he was appointed to the tribunal, or the appointment of John Griffin? He's another senior Liberal Party aligned lobbyist who continued to advise the Liberal Party on 'state and federal election campaigns as a senior political strategist and campaign adviser while he was a member of the tribunal'. It became so bad that former High Court Judge Ian Callinan, who was hand-picked by the former Attorney-General to conduct a review of the tribunal, felt the need to recommend that all future appointments be made on the basis of merit. You would hardly think you needed to recommend that, but former High Court Judge Ian Callinan, in his review of this tribunal, said that that needed to be done.
As I've said before, it saddens me greatly to see the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, a great innovation in Australian administrative review processes, diminished in this way by this rotten government. Every year tens of thousands of Australians rely on the tribunal to conduct an independent review of decisions by Commonwealth ministers and public servants, decisions that can have major and sometimes life-altering impacts on people's lives. Age pensioners, NDIS participants, veterans—this government cares more about the interests of their little circle of mates than about those Australians. For the Morrison government, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is there to serve the interests of the Liberal Party and its mates, not the interests of Australians.
Turning back to the bill, the second aspect of the original bill we did not support in the Senate was the extension of the same protections and immunities to Immigration Assessment Authority reviewers as are currently provided to High Court judges and members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Labor has long held concerns about the so-called fast-track assessment process under the Immigration Assessment Authority. That process is neither fast nor fair, and this parliament should not endorse any measure which even implicitly suggests that the fast-track process is somehow the equivalent of or even similar to a normal judicial or tribunal process. Senator Watt moved an amendment to remove that part of the bill, and that amendment was successful. I note that in the interests of getting this bill through the parliament the government agreed to support that amendment.
Finally, Labor senators opposed the amendment to the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to allow the Federal Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to provide short-form reasons rather than detailed judgements where a decision dismissing an appeal does not raise any questions of general principle. That aspect of the bill was criticised by the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, the Josephite Justice Office and Law Institute of Victoria on the basis that it would disadvantage unrepresented applicants, including those seeking review of refugee decisions. We shared those concerns, and so Senator Watt moved an amendment in the Senate to remove that aspect of the bill. In the interests of getting this bill through the parliament, the government agreed to support that amendment in the Senate. So, with Labor's amendments having passed the Senate, what we are left with is a good bill which makes useful, largely administrative and long-overdue amendments to various acts of parliament relating to federal courts and tribunals.
I can only imagine how many months and years this bill, or at least a version of it, sat in the former Attorney-General's to-do pile gathering dust, gathering dust under the long ignored Respect@work report, the exposure draft of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission Bill and departmental briefs on the nine or so judicial vacancies on federal courts. The list of urgent, unfinished business under the former Attorney-General was a long one. At the risk of damming the current Attorney-General with faint praise, I give her credit for bringing this simple but worthwhile bill forward to the parliament, and I commend the bill in its amended form to the House. I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that the current Government has:
(a) appointed at least 79 former Liberal Party politicians, failed Liberal Party candidates and former Liberal Party staffers to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal;
(b) used the Tribunal to serve the interests of the Liberal Party and its mates rather than the interests of the Australian people; and
(c) in doing so, brought the Tribunal into disrepute; and
(2) calls on the Government to implement a merit-based selection process for Tribunal members."
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
The original question was that the bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Issacs has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House I will state the question in the form that the amendment be disagreed to. 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.
I rise to farewell my old friend Bert Collins. Bert was 105. He would have turned 106 next month. He was a lover and a fighter. Bert loved ballroom dancing, and he was good at it. He won plenty of tournaments. He loved making music boxes. He made one for my little boy Jack. He loved talking—and boy did he have the gift of the gab!—and he loved Peggy, the woman he waltzed around the dance floor.
But he was also a fighter. He fought in the Pacific in World War II. He fought and he beat cancer. When he was 101, he was diagnosed with stage 4 metastatic melanoma. He was put on a trial drug and he beat the cancer. And he fought for ordinary people. He was a union rep at Farmers department store, what was later became known as Myers. He was a member of the SDA for 90 years. And until yesterday morning, at half past one, he was the oldest living member of the Australian Labor Party.
Two weeks ago, Bert fell over at home chasing cockroaches around the house. He was rushed to hospital, but he never recovered. Yesterday, I got a call from Bert's great RSL mate, Jim Wrigley, that Bert had gone. Jim also told me that he went over to Bert's house, and in the corner where Bert had fallen over were two dead cockroaches. They don't make them like Bert Collins any more. Rest in peace, old friend.
Today is an important day for this parliament as we reflect on the 14th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations, and I commend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and particularly my friends the member for Hasluck and the member for Barton for their speeches.
I also want to commend a decision made recently by the New South Wales Premier to move to permanently fly the Aboriginal flag on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. This is something I have strongly supported, particularly after it was raised with me very passionately by an Indigenous student from Hunters Hill High School in my electorate. This decision recognises the significant role that our Indigenous peoples have played in our nation's past, present and future, and the role of those communities, particularly in the Sydney region. I also want to reflect on the fact that, of course, the Sydney Harbour Bridge itself was the site of that incredible march of 250,000 people in the year 2000 in support of the cause of reconciliation—a march I was happy to join at that time.
I was reminded recently of how far we have come when I saw a post from the current principal of St Aloysius' College in Kirribilli, Mark Tannock. He told the story that the then headmaster, the late Father Tony Smith, decided to fly the Aboriginal flag for the 1988 bicentenary. It quickly occasioned a visit by the police to warn him that radicals had taken over the school flagpole. The school is proud that the flag continues to fly today.
It is an important decision, and I congratulate the Premier on making this a permanent reminder of reconciliation.
AYNE () (): Lifeline Canberra's biggest fundraising event is its annual book fair. It is loved by Canberrans and attracts over 50,000 people each year. Volunteers work all year to make it happen, and I was able to see some of these hardworking volunteers in action when I visited their busy warehouse late last year. It was set to celebrate its 50th book fair this past weekend, but unfortunately was forced to cancel the event on the weekend over safety concerns relating to protesters at Epic on Friday, including the destruction of fencing.
For more than 50 years, Lifeline Canberra has provided telephone support for people in crisis. Lifeline is the benchmark for suicide prevention and mental health advocacy. We lose one Canberran every week to suicide, and Lifeline Canberra is vital in keeping this awful statistic from being higher. This crisis support has never been more important than during this pandemic, with family and social support structures torn apart through lockdown and border closures. Nationally, Lifeline receives a new call every 30 seconds and received over one million calls last year alone.
The book fair had set a fundraising target of $1 million over the three days. Lifeline Canberra's annual running cost is $4 million, so the book fair is crucial. I urge Canberrans to continue to get behind Lifeline's important work, especially in light of the book fair being cancelled this year.
On this day 80 years ago the SS Vyner Brooke was fleeing the Fall of Singapore. The little boat was overflowing with 181 passengers, mainly women and children. Sixty-five passengers were Australian nurses. The SS Vyner Brooke was clearly not a navy boat, yet, on Valentine's Day 1942, 80 years ago today, nine Japanese planes bombed the vessel 30 times in five minutes, killing many passengers and sinking the ship. Twelve Australian nurses never made it to shore. Of the 53 nurses who did make it to Indonesia's Bangka Island, 21 would live just another two days before they were marched into the sea and machine-gunned to death by Japanese troops on Radji Beach.
We know this because one nurse, South Australian Sister Vivian Bullwinkel, survived and told the story of the extraordinary bravery of her colleagues. Although scared, these nurses had not tried to hide from the Japanese because they had sick and wounded to care for. They thought that, being women and nurses wearing Red Cross armbands, they would be safe. Tragically, they were wrong.
Yesterday, in my seat of Boothby, the Governor-General dedicated a brand new memorial to these unbelievably brave women, made possible by $500,000 of federal government funding—a project I have worked on and spoken about throughout my time in this place. This is one of the very few memorials to Australia's servicewomen, and I hope that we will soon see funding for a sculpture of Sister Vivian Bullwinkel at the Australian War Memorial. For today, we remember all the nurses for their courage, bravery and sacrifice. Lest we forget.
I rise to honour the life of Michael Beahan AM. Many among us in this place are deeply saddened by the passing of Michael. Michael was a dear friend to me. He was kind and generous with his time and his offering of advice to me. Kindness and generosity are not usually associated with politicians, but he was no less effective for it. He left a formidable legacy of service to the Australian community and to the Labor Party. He served as the Western Australian ALP state secretary, and in that time he put in processes that led us to electoral victory. He also served as a Western Australian Labor senator from 1987 to 1996 and as President of the Senate from 1994 to 1996, during the Keating Labor government.
After parliament he remained deeply committed to the Labor Party and to working for others and the community. Many Labor members in my local electorate, in the Brunswick Labor branch, spent time with him over the years, lucky enough to share his wisdom and passion for social justice. He was an advocate for the role of neighbourhood houses, for local communities, for health services and other social justice projects. He was one of those genuinely lovely people that grace this planet from time to time and that the rest of us had the good fortune to know and befriend.
As a public servant in the truest sense of the words, he was a good man. It was never about his ego. He was always about helping others. It is a legacy that will endure for those of us who were fortunate to know him. I extend my condolences to his partner, Margaret; his children, Daniel and Kate; his stepchildren, Georgia and Michael; and their families. Vale Michael Beahan.
Just over a year ago in Canberra, I went to see a demonstration project involving bidirectional energy charging technology funded by ARENA. For those who don't know what bidirectional energy charging is, it basically enables your car to become a mobile battery—if you have electric vehicles, that is. That can be a very resourceful use during power outages. It means you can charge your electric vehicle car from your rooftop solar panels, and then, after you've finished driving for the day, you can use your car battery to power up appliances at home. Bidirectional energy charging is literally putting power in the hands of people. But the best part of this is that it can use renewable energy, which then helps to drive down emissions. I can't believe how quickly this technology has developed and become commercially viable, all thanks to a federal government grant of $3.5 million. That means the future is here.
JET Charge, in Melbourne, is leading the way in making bidirectional energy charging a commercial reality. I recently visited this impressive company and met their founder, Tim Washington, who happens to be a Higgins constituent. JET Charge is a real-life example of how our government's commitment to technology R&D is the right approach to driving down emissions. You need smart, sensible investment, and that means investing in technology, and that's what this government is doing—driving down emissions by supporting clean technology, research development and commercialisation.
I had the pleasure of joining with locals and visitors alike to take part in the Tumbatrek, a bush walk experience through the magnificent landscape around Tumbarumba. This year's walk followed a route that highlighted some of its most iconic assets, including the development of the Snowview Estate, the Tumbarumba to Rosewood Rail Trail, local mountain bike tracks and the Hyne timber mill. It took in around 16 kilometres. This iconic annual event provides an informal opportunity for community and government leaders to discuss issues whilst experiencing the best of the landscape around us.
At this year's event, I was joined by local state members Dr Joe McGirr and Justin Clancy, along with Snowy Valleys' mayor and councillors. I enjoyed being able to have conversations with those from the Tumbarumba rotary, the Tumut Art Society, the Tumba cycle association, Snowy Hydro, the Hyne timber mill and other local businesses and community advocates.
Tumbatrek was the brain child of Tim Fischer, a former deputy prime minister who, in 1985, along with a few keen locals, wanted to promote tourism in the Tumbarumba region. It went into a short recess in 2007 before it was resurrected by the member for Riverina. As the member for Eden-Monaro, I have the honour of holding Mr Fischer's bushwalking stick, and the legacy that he leaves for this community and the ideals behind it are not lost on anyone. I look forward to, hopefully, the return of the dinner event next year, which was cancelled this year due to COVID. I say a big thankyou to Kayley and the Snowy Valley Council for arranging the event. Although a little sore, my husband and I are looking forward to next year's event.
May I take this opportunity to congratulate Scotty James on his silver medal in the snowboard halfpipe at the Winter Olympics. Scotty grew up in Warrandyte in my electorate of Menzies. He first competed as a 16-year-old and, in the decades since, we've seen him consistently become one of the best performers in his area of skiing in the world, competing in World Cups and other outstanding events. In winning silver, Scotty improved on his bronze medal at Pyeongchang in 2018. So I congratulate him and wish him well.
After the event, many may recall seeing the interview with him in which he said, 'Now I need to finish off my collection for the pool room in Italy in 2026.' We hope that over the next four years he can add to that bronze medal and silver medal with a gold medal to complete that collection. Not only is he one of the best competitors in his chosen sport; he's worked hard to secure the best training facilities that can possibly be provided for the halfpipe at Mount Buller in Victoria.
I also congratulate the other Australians who have performed very well at the Winter Olympics, including Jakara Anthony and Jackie Narracott. But, indeed, just to compete in the Olympic, to be an Olympian, is a great achievement in itself, and I congratulate all the members of the Australian Olympic team.
If you're sitting in an office on Collins Street or Macquarie Street, you never worry about your mobile phone dropping out. But, if your office is a tractor in Tallangatta or a shearing shed in Ruffy, the story is very different. This government is failing regional Australians when it comes to phone and internet coverage, hobbling our ability to run businesses and keep up with global competition.
I want to thank Rob Jamieson from Ruffy for giving me this list of what a modern-day farmer needs good phone and internet coverage for. Banking is moving online. Tax requirements, including bank statements and payroll, are online. So are fulfilling regulatory requirements like biosecurity, national livestock identification certificates, buying and selling of stock, agricultural census requirements, remote monitoring of irrigation, water tanks, lightning trackers, equipment, research, maintenance, security monitoring, data analytics to track yields, the spraying of fertiliser, drones to monitor fencing and livestock and, of course, emergency communications in firestorms and floods. The list goes on.
Farming in Australia is a high-tech industry, but this government provides farmers with phone and internet coverage from the Dark Ages. I am committed to improving phone and internet technology for the people of Indi, and I won't stop pressuring this government to show up for farmers, residents and all small businesses that deserve the tools that they need to live and thrive in the 21st century.
In 1982, 'Eye of the Tiger' was the No. 1 song in Australia, Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister, and the average cost of a cinema ticket was $5. It was also the year that George Town Medical Centre GP Dr Tim Mooney AM began working at the practice. Born and raised in the town, Dr Mooney graduated from the University of Tasmania in 1979 before returning to his home town. With a commitment to both his practice and the community, Dr Mooney has been heavily involved with the Australian College of General Practitioners and the Royal Flying Doctor Service and was a founding member of the Rural Doctors Association of Tasmania. In 2017, his decades of dedication were aptly recognised when he was made a Member of the Order of Australia 'for significant service to medicine through a range of multiple practice roles, to doctors in rural and remote areas, and to the community'.
Luckily for us George Town locals, Dr Mooney has instilled his love for his community and rural medicine in his daughter Dr Caroline Mooney, who is now a principal in the practice, which he describes as a highlight of his 40-year career:
For me personally, being able to provide a service for the community for this amount of time and raise my family here to the extent that one of my daughters is now a doctor and a partner in the practice, that's very gratifying.
Dr Mooney, you are beloved by so many in our local community, and from the bottom of my heart I want to say thank you. I'm personally thrilled to hear that you have no intention of retiring soon.
I have been contacted recently by many Qantas long-haul flight attendants who are deeply concerned by Qantas management's application to the Fair Work Commission to cancel or terminate their enterprise bargaining agreement. This will result in huge reductions in income and conditions for loyal Qantas staff. These workers feel let down by Qantas after they stood by the airline through the most difficult period of its existence. They had long periods where they were stood down and had to get other jobs. Many of them risked their health and safety on repatriation flights long before a vaccine was ever developed. They have been in isolation after simply going to work. Many of them had to go into two weeks isolation just after undertaking flights. They have gone above and beyond. Yet, after only a few months of negotiations between Qantas and the FAAA, Qantas are off to the Fair Work Commission to try and cancel the enterprise bargaining agreement.
I've spoken to both parties, and it's evident that they're not too far apart in reaching an agreement. Qantas received over $1 billion worth of taxpayer support during this pandemic to get them through, and I believe it's incumbent upon them to treat their staff fairly, come back to the negotiating table and seek to nut out an agreement with their loyal staff. They have, unfortunately, got form with this. They recently sacked their ramp staff and baggage handlers, and it was found to be illegal by the Federal Court. Let's hope they don't go down that path once again. Qantas, don't use this pandemic as an opportunity to try and smash the union. Get back to the negotiating table.
I wish to speak directly to my electorate to say it remains a great honour and a great privilege to represent the good people of Moncrieff in this place. I adore my community, which I have been part of for more than two decades. The central Gold Coast is my home. It's the home of ideas and innovation, experiences and thrilling adventures, and it's the perfect holiday destination for Australians and our international students and tourists. The part I most enjoy is visiting schools, community organisations, sporting clubs, surf clubs—I've got nine of those—aged-care homes, galleries, temples and events. The Gold Coast's multicultural communities go far beyond coexistence. We have a special ability to share knowledge and ideas with one another to build a strong community where all who call Moncrieff home support one another and work together.
My community has faced many hurdles throughout the last two years. Our primary industries of tourism, hospitality and small business have all suffered major setbacks due to state border restrictions, freight delays and now workforce shortages. Despite those challenges, the resilience and perseverance of the central Gold Coast, the home of the entrepreneurial spirit and self-made success stories, prove that we will continue to work together to overcome our challenges well into this next year of 2022.
The Morrison-Joyce government hate accountability, and that's why they've broken their three-year-old promise to introduce a national anticorruption commission. We know from the cabinet leak last week that the Prime Minister only became interested in the integrity commission when he thought he could bundle it up to help pass the Religious Discrimination Bill. This government has no shame. They announced plans for this commission over 1,000 days ago, and it is sorely needed. A recent analysis of grants over three years by Nine media revealed that coalition-held seats received a massive $1.9 billion compared to $500 million for Labor electorates. In my Hunter region, all four Labor electorates combined received less than half what the Deputy Prime Minister's seat of New England received by itself—$48 million for New England compared to $800,000 for the electorate of Shortland, which I have the privilege to represent. What a disgrace!
Public trust in politics is at an all-time low. In our age of social media, fake news and an environment where far-Right extremists are attempting to dominate the civic space, we elected officials have an important role in restoring this trust. The creation of an anticorruption commission would help with this task. Integrity in public life matters. Fighting corruption matters. Misusing public funds for political gains matters. This is why the Australian people are demanding an independent national anticorruption commission. An Albanese Labor government will deliver one; this corrupt Liberal government will not.
I ask the member to withdraw that last comment.
I do.
On 21 January this year, I proved positive to COVID. I wasn't too worried about that because my health advice over the last 12 months has had me on vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, B1 and other supplements to improve my immune system, although I was in trepidation about going back home to Phillip Island to tell my wife that I had tested positive. I also had access to Ivermectin, which we both immediately went on as soon as I tested positive. We had five days of Ivermectin and then another five days to prove it treated. I had some symptoms. I had a bit of a rough time for three or four days. I am not vaccinated. I won't be vaccinated because my view was the risk from being vaccinated was just as high as the risk I was taking from getting the virus itself. So I had to make a decision, and I made a decision on my behalf. I made a decision that I wanted to continue in this House, and I had just been through a fairly major health issue only a few weeks before, so I was fairly vulnerable. But I believed I had actually done the right thing and protected my body in the way that I wanted to protect it, by the choice that I made and the choice that all of those demonstrators out there we're talking about have made—choice and freedom and not having the things that they do imposed upon them by politicians in this place and others. (Time expired)
Today I welcome the very long-awaited announcement of the successful local applications from the Black Summer Bushfire Recovery Grants Program. I say 'long-awaited' because people in my bushfire impacted electorate of Gilmore in the Shoalhaven and the Batemans Bay-Moruya area in the Eurobodalla have been waiting a very, very long time for the successful grants to be announced. Since the 'black summer' bushfires, I have been working with a large number of local groups, organisations and councils with regard to what they need to help with bushfire recovery. Earlier in 2021, I took part in a lengthy process to ensure local projects were supported in the Shoalhaven and the Eurobodalla. Although I remain disappointed that this process has taken so long and that the government has clearly politicised the timing of these grants, I'm pleased to see that many local projects have been funded, bringing a total of over $22 million in local projects for the Shoalhaven and the Eurobodalla—projects that I have fought hard for. The Mogo Community Recreation Hub in the Eurobodalla is being funded to the tune of just under $1 million. The Moruya Showground, the home of the Moruya evacuation centre during the bushfires, will also receive an upgrade. Conjola Park, also hit hard by the bushfires, will receive funding for Conjola Park foreshore recovery. These are just some of the terrific projects which I look forward to supporting as they go ahead.
I rise to pay tribute to an extraordinary Australian: army nurse Vivian Bullwinkel. On this day 80 years ago, she was onboard the SS Vyner Brooke, which was fleeing Singapore and overflowing with 181 passengers, including women and children and wounded soldiers. Sixty-five passengers were Australian nurses. The ship was bombed and, of the 53 nurses who did make it to Indonesia's Bangka Island, 21 would live just another two days before they were marched into the sea and machine-gunned to death by Japanese troops in a horrendous act of brutality. We know this because one nurse—Bullwinkel—was shot but feigned own death and survived to tell the story.
Bullwinkel died in 2000, but she didn't let the experience define her life. She survived three years as a POW. She retired from the Army in 1947 and became the director of nursing at Melbourne's Fairfield hospital. She devoted herself to the nursing profession and to honouring those killed on Bangka Island, raising funds for a nurses memorial and serving on numerous committees, including for a period as a member of the council of the Australian War Memorial.
There's one place where we tell the stories of service and sacrifice, and that is the Australian War Memorial. There are plans to establish a statue in Bullwinkel's honour. What a great act of bipartisanship it would be for this federal parliament in the middle of a pandemic if we could find a way to fully fund a statue to commemorate Vivian Bullwinkel and all the nurses who have served in the Australian Defence Force. I say to those nurses: thank you for your service on this, the 80th anniversary of the Bangka Island massacre. I have written to the Prime Minister seeking his support for a statue at the Australian War Memorial.
A happy Valentine's Day to all.
Labor is red, the Liberals are blue.
To the Prime Minister: I've a Valentine for you.
For all of the nation it's been nine long years,
He's tricked, he's lied, he's played on our fears.
To Hawaii he fled in the midst of a fire,
A hose he didn't hold; he was labelled a liar.
Order! I'm going to ask the member for Perth to withdraw that comment.
I withdraw.
Our global relations have hit a new low.
'Did he lie?' a journo asked.
I don't think, I know.
Order! You just can't paraphrase something.
I was quoting a journalist.
You can't quote an unparliamentary remark.
I withdraw.
While his raid of this House has led to disorder,
He must confess now his hate of WA's border.
In Clive he found a billionaire to back,
And together they launched a western attack.
But not all his supporters were as loyal as Clive.
Now the cabinet is leaking as his support takes a dive.
Who leaked it out? Who revealed his plan?
This tricky political fix, PBO won't name his man.
This out-of-touch PM disappoints us daily.
His governing skills are as good as his ukulele.
To get rid of the PM will not be easy,
But what you can do is vote Anthony Albanese.
On 9 April 2019, this government committed $3.4 million to headspace in Kempsey to provide much-needed mental health services to the youth of the Macleay valley. After 2½ years of delays I was very happy to finally be advised that the building works were finally underway to fit out a fit-for-purpose building at the headspace Kempsey location, which will soon be open. Despite the lengthy delays, the expansion of youth service has provided youth mental health services to 58 young people, and it has 73 active clients at present. It is also pleasing to hear that partnerships are at the advanced stages of being formalised to ensure the four core streams, including mental health, work and study, physical and sexual health, and alcohol and drugs, are in place.
It is vitally important that the whole range of services are available to the youth of the Macleay valley—a place where they can go and, if they need help, talk about the social, physical and emotional changes that affect so many young people in today's society. I look forward to attending the opening of headspace Kempsey on 14 March 2022 and working with the Samaritans for the benefit of our youth.
Last Friday I met with the chairman of the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations, Stefan Romaniw, and other Ukrainian community leaders in Melbourne. I indicated to them Labor's clear position of solidarity with the people of the Ukraine and our absolute rejection of any Russian military action that violates Ukraine's sovereignty and independence.
Labor stands with the people of Ukraine and all Ukrainian Australians at this difficult time. If Russia continues down the path of aggression, it will be attacking one of the core principles of the post-World War II order, which is that all UN members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This is a simple, clear principle.
Mr Putin must understand that it is not in the long-term interests of the Russian people to continue down this path. The era of spheres of influence and other such pseudoimperial constructs has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Australia should unite with our allies and friends in sending the strongest of messages that Russia needs to back off and it needs to back off right now.
Order! The time for member statements has concluded.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Just before I call the Prime Minister, I have a short statement to make. On Thursday after question time, the Leader of the Opposition asked me to reflect on comments made by the Minister for Defence in responding to a question during question time and report back to the House. When the matter was raised during question time, I made it clear that I had not heard the comments, as the level of interjections was so loud as to prevent me from hearing precisely what had been said. I have, however, since carefully examined the Hansard transcripts of that period of question time and considered the relevant sections of the Practice at pages 516 to 517. Even though no explicit charge was made by the Leader of the House, there was an insinuation made by the Leader of the House. I'm of the view that, in context, the reference by the Leader of the House about the Leader of the Opposition is not in order under standing order 90, and I would ask that such comments not be repeated.
I inform the House that the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Defence Industry and Minister for Science and Technology will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week. The Minister for Defence will answer questions on her behalf in the Defence portfolio, and the will answer questions on her behalf in the Science and Technology portfolio. The Minister for Regional Health will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week. The Minister for Health will answer questions on his behalf.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for your timely consideration of the matter that I raised on Thursday afternoon. It might be appropriate so that we can just move on, given your ruling, if the Leader of the House can just withdraw his comments from Thursday, given that you've said they're inappropriate.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have also considered this issue carefully, and at page 515 of the Practice it makes it very clear that a request for a withdrawal must be made at the time the remark was made.
The member for Solomon is warned. The whole purpose behind that provision is, as I understand it, to expunge the record from Hansard. If—and I say 'if', and I certainly hope it doesn't happen again—the matter arises, I'll deal with it then, and I don't need to hear any further from the Leader of the Opposition.
My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. It's been reported by journalist Peter van Onselen that last week the minister strongly argued against legislating a stronger anticorruption commission. Was the fact that the minister paid $30 million for a piece of land worth $3 million mentioned in the discussion, or did everyone in the room just join the dots?
The Leader of the House on a point of order?
Mr Speaker, the first part of that question may be in order, because there was public speculation—again, rumour and gossip and bits and pieces that appeared in the media—and the opposition may base some question on that. The second part was a slur, and it was made to be ruled out of order. It was a political stunt, Mr Speaker, and it should be treated as such.
The Manager of Opposition Business on the point of order?
Thanks, Mr Speaker. It's quite specific in Practice that ministers are meant to be across major issues within the media. This certainly qualifies as that. In terms of the issue of an anticorruption commission, the minister is representing the Attorney-General in this House and therefore he is the appropriate person to ask. The reference to the land purchase is something that has already been dealt with as an in-order question many times in this House.
Not by me it hasn't. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The first part of the question is in order. The second part of the question, in my view, is contrary to standing order 90 in that it does, in my view, constitute an imputation of improper motive. I'm happy for the minister to deal with the first part of the question.
I thank the shadow minister for her question. As she would well know, there is a well-established convention, for very good reasons of public policy, that cabinet ministers do not comment on or disclose what occurred in cabinet. I recognise it has been quite a long time, for very good reasons, since anybody on the other side of this House was in cabinet, because the Australian people have not seen fit to trust them with the heavy responsibility of government. It is quite curious to be on the receiving end of lectures about probity and public policy from the member for Ballarat, of whom it was said in ANAO report No. 9 of 2014-15, 'the recording of reasons for funding decisions did not adequately explain'—
The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, this is the sort of part that might be in order had there been—
What is the point of order?
It's on direct relevance—had the question referred to any alternative policies. As it happens, opposition questions rarely involve that. But if alternative policies is what allows these sorts of comments, it is clearly beyond the question that was asked.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. There was no reference in the question to alternative policies. The minister will turn to the question.
You are right, Mr Speaker, but there was a clear suggestion about probity. Let's be clear, the shadow minister's track record when she was a minister in relation to probity was quite properly called into question by the Auditor-General.
Has the minister completed his answer?
I have.
My question is to the Prime Minister. From Europe to our region, the world is facing increasing uncertainty. Will the Prime Minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is addressing these challenges and the importance of acting in our national interest with strong and consistent principles and values?
I thank the member for Sturt for his question.
The member for Moreton is warned.
It is true that we do face, particularly at this present time, incredibly uncertain international and regional circumstances. These are very uncertain times. It is a very uncertain environment, not just in Europe but in our own region here in the Indo-Pacific, with the threats and the coercion that we face here in Australia. We are seeing threats and coercion and bullying in other parts, which I will come to in a moment. It is a time for resolve, it is a time to stand up against those who would seek to bully, whether it is Australia, whether it is Lithuania, whether indeed it is Ukraine. It is a time to stand up to the bullies and the autocrats who work together, not just in Europe but also here in our own region. It is not a time for having an each-way bet on national security. It is not a time for appeasement and the trading away of Australian values in search of appeasement.
It is a time to work with our partners, as our government has done, enlivening the Quad that was dismantled by the actions of the Labor Party when they were last in government. It is a time for AUKUS, which was brought together with our closest of partners in the United Kingdom and the United States, for a generational leap forward in our national security settings that were put in place by our government to give us the capability to defend Australia in a way we have never been able to before and to work closely with our Five Eyes partners. It is a time to strengthen our defences, as we have done as a government, whether it is our cybersecurity defences, our land defences, our air defences, our sea defences, and particularly our submarine capabilities. All of these are working together to keep Australians safe.
Indeed, as Russian troops are amassing on Ukraine's border—and Australians in the Ukraine have been advised of the seriousness and dangerous nature of this situation now for many weeks—we look at these issues and these events with great concern. We support Ukraine's sovereignty, absolutely; we support their right to their territorial borders, that they not be imperilled by their neighbour. We denounce Russia's bullying, their coercion, their intimidation and their threats of violence against Ukraine. We will always take steps to do that. We have taken those steps with our like-minded partners. But I know that the Chinese government has not stood with the rest of the world in denouncing the actions of Russia, and they should do so. There should be no cue taken from the actions of Russia for coercion or bullying in our region. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the only reason he planned to introduce legislation for a national anticorruption commission was to attempt to encourage one of his backbenchers, a plan which even his own ministers did not support? Instead of playing politics, why won't the Prime Minister do his job and introduce a national anticorruption commission?
Our government developed a detailed proposal for a Commonwealth integrity commission, hundreds of pages of legislation which I have tabled in this parliament. If the Labor Party wishes to support that legislation, it can become a reality. The only party standing in the way of it is the Labor Party, and I'm not surprised. If you look up to Queensland, if you look down to Victoria, I am not surprised that the Labor Party would not seek to support the legislation that I have tabled in this parliament. Our legislation goes to hundreds of pages, there's goes to a two-page thought bubble.
The member for McEwen, would you like to withdraw that unparliamentary remark?
I withdraw.
I thank the member for McEwen. The member for Flynn has the call.
' DOWD (—) (): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison-Joyce government is investing in building the nation's water infrastructure, which is securing the future of regional communities? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
E (—) (): I thank the honourable member for his question and note that it was 868 days after the Labor government in Queensland basically pulled down the dam they had formally constructed, and 868 days later, it took them to decide they were going to fund fixing up their problem. It took the coalition, the Nationals and Liberals, approximately two days to meet their funding requests so that we could get this dam rebuilt.
This dam is so vitally important for both the people of the city of Bundaberg, in the member for Hinkler's seat, and for the people in the seat of Flynn. I acknowledge the great work that the member for Flynn and Col Boyce have done in making sure that this becomes a reality. I also note the macadamia industry, for which this was so incredibly important, and the Steinhardt family. It was great to look around with Bree Grima to see what we can do with this water now that we're securing it once again—98 per cent of our macadamias get exported, as well as the sugar cane, which is a vital component of the heritage of that area and also part of the future of that area. This is absolutely showing the people of Central Queensland how serious the coalition is and how serious the Nationals and the Liberals are about making sure that we are part of their prosperity into the future.
We want to make sure that this nation becomes as strong as possible as quickly as possible. It's part of our purpose; it's part of our process. Regional Australia is so important in that. It's not the first dam; it's not the second dam. It's one of a myriad of water infrastructure projects that we are building throughout the nation: Rookwood Weir; Big Rocks Weir; the Adelaide River offstream water storage; Dungowan, which started with a pipeline; the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme; and the western irrigation scheme.
You also asked for alternative policies. That's very hard, because we don't even know the names of the alternative ministers most of the time!
The member for Griffith!
We've had the member for Ballarat, who has come to her feet today—
The member for Griffith is warned!
but she didn't ask anything about regional infrastructure. What she asked was basically a slur. That's basically all we got from her. The member for Griffith is apparently the shadow minister for water; we never hear any questions from her. The member for Blaxland apparently covers regional services; we never get any questions from him. The member for Brand covers mining resources. The best one of all is the member for Franklin, with agriculture—so important in our nation, yet we never get a question. It's like the Casper cabinet—the Casper cabinet of friendly ghosts who never actually ask a question! It's like a one-man show. We will never know about alternative policies, I say to the member for Flynn, because we never actually hear from the alternative ministers. This just goes to show the shallowness of any alternative government they propose.
DREYFUS () (): My question is to the Prime Minister. It's been widely reported that last week a number of the Prime Minister's colleagues blocked an anticorruption commission with retrospective powers. Why are the Prime Minister's colleagues so concerned about an anticorruption commission with the power to investigate corrupt acts committed before it was established?
I will ask the minister representing the Attorney-General to respond.
Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat for a moment. The member for McEwen will leave under 94(a).
The member for Mc Ewen then left the chamber.
I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to answer this question from the shadow Attorney-General. Of course, the premise of his question is entirely misconceived. Quite differently to the proposition he put to the House, in fact, our government has a well-developed, carefully-thought-through model for the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. We have gone through a very detailed process. Hundreds of pages of legislation are in the public domain. We have gone through a nationwide consultation process, with 333 written submissions. And we have put in place the necessary funding. In fact, in total, almost—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The minister will resume his seat. Before I call the member for Isaacs on a point of order, assumedly: the level of interjections is far too high. If the member for Isaacs is going to ask me about a point of order of relevance: it is very difficult to hear the minister. If you want me to be able to rule on points of order, you have to give me the opportunity to hear what is being said.
I think I can assist you, Mr Speaker, by pointing out that the minister has now spent a minute on irrelevant detail. I do raise a point of order on relevance. He should direct his answer to the question. He hasn't attempted so yet.
As I foreshadowed, I'm going to listen carefully to the minister.
The simple fact is: while the shadow Attorney-General may not like it, what I'm going to squarely is the very extensive policy efforts made by this government in developing a detailed model for a Commonwealth integrity commission. I know the shadow Attorney-General is not great on detail when he doesn't have an instructing solicitor; I know that. We have a detailed model. We have committed, as I was saying before he leapt to his feet on an unsuccessful point, $150 million in funding. And it's very clear that the Commonwealth integrity commission will be able to investigate past conduct and matters that occurred prior to its commencement. Its jurisdiction—this is an important point—will include over 145 criminal offences that currently exist in legislation, including offences under the Criminal Code Act, fraud, abuse of office, falsification of documents, offences under the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act and the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Under our detailed and well-developed policy framework, the government will also create new offences relating to corrupt conduct, including concealing corruption and repeated public sector corruption. So we have a well-developed model, and I simply repeat the offer that the Prime Minister has made publicly and repeatedly: we stand ready to introduce this legislation as soon as the Labor Party indicates that it will support it.
The member for Macarthur! The member for Lyons! The member for Lyons is warned.
We can, together. I say to the Labor Party: We can, together, take this matter forward and achieve an outcome for the Australian people. We've done the detailed work. All you need to do is sign on. It's not hard.
My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, Albury-Wodonga desperately needs a new hospital on the border. Last year the member for Farrer said the government is 100 per cent behind a new hospital, but Senator Hume has said the government does not have a funding role. The Deputy Prime Minister has said the same. But that's not true. The government gave Shellharbour Hospital $128 million and Geelong hospital $50 million before the last election. So which is it, Treasurer? Does the government fund regional hospitals or not, and will you commit $300 million for a new cross-border hospital in Albury-Wodonga as soon as possible?
I thank the honourable member for her question. She has raised this issue specifically with me and she is aware that the Commonwealth is helping to support hospitals to a record amount. Under this government hospital funding in Australia is at a record high. We consider a range of infrastructure projects, but, as the honourable member knows, there is a real role there for state governments. State governments have a real role to play in funding those infrastructure projects. So we'll consider proposals on their merits, but we recognise that the Commonwealth does help fund hospitals. But, when it comes to infrastructure projects, state governments have a key role to play.
My question is also to the Treasurer. How are the Morrison government's tax cuts helping Australian families, particularly women, keep more of what they earn, and is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question. She is a very strong advocate on behalf of the tourism sector. She's a strong advocate on behalf of small business. Indeed, more than 30,000 in her electorate are going to be able to access the immediate expensing provisions.
At every turn we have sought to cut taxes—cutting taxes for small business to the lowest level in 50 years; providing record amounts of investment incentives through our tax system, which have been particularly effective through this pandemic; and cutting taxes for families. More than 11 million Australians have received more than $30 billion in tax cuts, and particular beneficiaries have been young people and particularly young women. Women aged 25 and under are paying 20 per cent less tax today than under the Labor Party—worth more than $2,000 a year.
Now, every step of the way as we've sought to cut taxes we've been opposed by a Greens-Labor coalition. That's because when it comes to tax policies the policies are very similar. The only difference is the colour of the letterhead. I went to the Greens website and I had a look at their tax policies, and they look like a Labor wish list. There's a housing tax—we've heard that before. There's a tax on family businesses and trusts—we've heard that before. There's a tax on the mining sector, a carbon tax, higher taxes on superannuation and higher taxes on income earners. Then, of course, most damningly of all, on the Greens website there is a 30-year project for the Leader of the Labor Party: death duties and inheritance tax.
The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
A point of order on direct relevance. In terms of alternative policies, exactly how far back in history is going to be considered relevant? Realistically, are we going to go back to the Trojan War?
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call.
When it comes to the Greens-Labor coalition, the Leader of the Labor Party has been very busy, very defensive and very hypersensitive, saying it is nonsense. The member for McMahon has been on the record when Labor and the Greens were in coalition.
The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a).
The member for Griffith then left the chamber.
This is what he said:
The Greens are a party who have a very clear policy objective but also a party that you can sit down and discuss policies with.
This is what the member for McMahon has said. These are the words of the member of McMahon:
In the event that the Greens held the balance of power, then of course we'd work in that arrangement.
The member for McMahon belled the cat. The Greens and the Labor Party are a coalition.
The member for McMahon is warned. I would once again ask the Leader of the Opposition not to approach the dispatch box until the time is up.
You did. I'm not going to argue with you. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
I seek leave to table The neoclassical theory of the competitive market system, an essay of mine from first-year economics at the University of Sydney, written on 7 August 1981. It is handwritten, Mr Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Is leave granted?
Mr Speaker, that is a two-page document in crayon, with pictures. It is not to be tabled.
Leave is not granted.
O'CONNOR () (): My question is to the Prime Minister. Leaking from cabinet is a criminal offence. Has the Prime Minister asked the Australian Federal Police to investigate the source of the major cabinet leak designed to undermine the Prime Minister?
Honourable members interjecting—
I'm going to ask the member for Gorton to return to the dispatch box and ask that question again. The member for Mackellar's booming voice was preventing me from hearing the question, as were members on my left.
Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. My question is to the Prime Minister. Leaking from cabinet is a criminal offence. Has the Prime Minister asked the Australian Federal Police to investigate the source of the major cabinet leak designed to undermine the Prime Minister?
The Leader of the House on a point of order.
It's impossible for the Prime Minister to answer such a question. If he has provided a reference to the Australian Federal Police, it would be in confidence to the commissioner. It's not in order to ask that question.
The manager of opposition business?
To the point of order, we are allowed to ask questions about what the Prime Minister has done and what action he has taken. If he has chosen to go down the path that the Leader of the House has said and decided to keep secret what he's done that is a matter for his answer, but the question is in order.
The Prime Minister has the call; the question is in order.
The member's question is mistaken.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House how the Morrison government's strong economic management is working to produce more jobs for Australian families and small businesses, particularly in my electorate of Berowra? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies?
I thank the member for Berowra for his question and acknowledge his commitment to small business and lower taxes. Indeed, more than 50,000 members in his electorate are getting tax relief as a result of policies that we on this side of the House have supported.
It's easy to forget what the state of the economy was early on in this pandemic in 2020. We saw 1.3 million Australians lose their jobs or see their working hours go to zero. Treasury thought the employment rate could potentially reach as high as 15 per cent. We responded with programs like JobKeeper, which helped save more than 700,000 jobs. Today we have an unemployment rate at a 13-year low of 4.2 per cent, on track, according to the Reserve Bank of Australia, for a 50-year low, with a three in front of it. There are 1.7 million more Australians in work today than when Labor was in office, including one million more women in work today than when Labor was last in office. So we will continue to invest in infrastructure and skills programs and to cut taxes to deliver this strong economy.
Our approach is in stark contrast to that of those opposite, because this Leader of the Opposition has never held a Treasury portfolio. This Leader of the Opposition, this leader of the Labor Party, has never delivered a budget. Indeed, his economic policies consist of a $6 billion cash-splash to pay people who have already had the jab. He wants to support the economic recovery with a national drivers licence as well, and he wants to remove the fuel excise—wait for it!—on electric vehicles. That is the state of the Leader of the Opposition economic roots. There is no excise on electric vehicles. The Leader of the Opposition talks a big game from opposition, but, in government, Labor deliver something very, very different.
The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Mr Speaker, I realise the target of this lettuce attack is the Leader of the House—
What is the point of order?
but it can't be in order for him to just go on for three minutes, not on his portfolio, with a character attack on me and the Leader of the House. If you won't think of me, think of Peter! He's just sitting there, Mr Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer is in order, and the Treasurer has the call.
I thought he was going to table another set of finger paintings, Mr Speaker! Labor talked today about secure work, but the reality is that, when they were in government, unemployment was 5.7 per cent. It's 4.2 per cent today. The Labor Party talk about high wages. When Labor were last in government, real wages were falling. The Labor Party talk about the cost of living, but electricity prices doubled when Labor were last in government. They talk about lower debt, but they've made more than $90 billion of additional spending promises that aren't funded. They talk about lower taxes, and we know this Leader of the Opposition supported $387 billion of higher taxes at the last election. We on this side of the House stand for more jobs. We on this side of the House stand for lower taxes. The same can't be said about those opposite.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's own department has confirmed it briefed the Prime Minister throughout the course of 2020 and 2021 on rapid antigen testing. Why didn't the Prime Minister do his job and order enough rapid antigen tests when it really counted?
At no point prior to the onset of omicron had the government—other than the issue of aged care around August last year, when the government then immediately went to procure rapid antigen tests for aged care, which was our responsibility—had any health advisory body, any chief medical officer, any health department or the Prime Minister and Cabinet department or any other department recommended that the government should be engaged in purchasing rapid antigen tests.
In fact, they weren't even approved by the TGA until November last year. And so the suggestion that is put by the Leader of the Opposition, that somehow, they would be recommending that we do something that was contrary to the medical opinion of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, is just a further example of how the leader of the Labor party has sought, all through this pandemic, to play politics with the pandemic for his own political gain.
The government, throughout this pandemic—yes, it is true we—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat for one a moment. The member for Macarthur is warned. The Prime Minister has the call.
It is true that through this pandemic the government took the action to close the borders right at the outset; in particular, we closed the borders to China, and we were criticised for being racist at the time. That helped save Australia from this pandemic over the course of these last few years. The government did move to put in place JobKeeper, to support apprentices, to put the cash flow boost in place, which means we've come through this pandemic with one of the strongest economies in the advanced world. And, yes, we took the decision in August 2020 to ensure that we manufactured the AstraZeneca vaccine here in Australia, where we could manufacture it, because other vaccines were not able to be manufactured in this country or so many other countries around the world. We did all of that, and we now have the highest vaccination rates in the world.
If the Labor party believes—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Yes, Mr Speaker. The question goes to rapid antigen testing and nothing else.
So your point of order is direct relevance?
Yes, it is.
The question does go to rapid antigen testing, but the Prime Minister is on point insofar as the COVID pandemic.
Member for Shortland, I will not tolerate questions, particularly when I'm ruling on a point of order. The Prime Minister is relevant and the Prime Minister has the call.
So if the Labor Party thinks that they would have achieved better results than what I have just outlined, if they believe that if it were the Labor Party sitting on these benches, they would have achieved better results, then I don't believe the Australian people believe that for a second. Had the Labor Party been elected at the last election, $387 billion worth of taxes would have become a reality and then, when the pandemic hit, the Australian economy would have gone down the sinkhole—
The Prime Minister—
under the policies of those opposite.
The Prime Minister will return to the question, please.
Our government has kept Australians safe. We have kept our economy strong. We have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, and the— (Time expired)
I ask the defence minister if he would update the House on the Morrison government's commitment to a stronger Defence Force, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for his question. He well knows, given his background in the defence portfolio, that this government is absolutely committed to investing in the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. We're not only interested in investing in them, but we're interested in making sure that we can give them the equipment and the stock that is available to help them help us to keep our country safe. We have made no apology for that. From day one we've ramped up, off a very, very low base, the investment that we've made in defence.
I always think that the Labor Party promises a lot when they're in opposition; when they get into government they do the complete opposite. Part of the reason, of course, is that they can only be in government with the assistance of the Greens, and the Greens demand that the defence budget be cut. That's exactly what happened when Labor was last in power, because defence spending under Labor fell to 1.56 per cent of GDP. It was the lowest since 1938. So when you hear the men and women of the Australian Defence Force saying that they don't trust Labor—
The Minister for Defence will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
The point of order is actually irony.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There is no valid point of order. The Minister for Defence has the call.
You don't do anger very well, Richard; you know that. The reality is that this government is investing some $270 billion in Australia's defence capability. Now, you ask yourself the question: why would Labor have ripped money out of defence and out of ASIO and out of the Australian Federal Police and out of the ACIC when they were in government? It's because they lost control of our borders. They had lost control of our borders; that's the reality. And it's not just this Leader of the Opposition you need to be concerned about.
The Minister for Defence—
He's already made his point of order.
The Minister for Defence will resume his seat.
Mr Speaker, I wish to raise relevance.
Just for completeness, there was no valid point of order. You can only raise relevance once. I'm happy to hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Speaker, this is the single occasion in this question where I would like to raise relevance. I fail to see how going to that is at all relevant to the question that was asked.
The minister is being relevant and I give him the call.
I was asked about alternative approaches. The fact is that when Labor was in opposition last time, before the run up to the 2007 election, they promised Australia that they would keep the economy managed, as John Howard did, and that they would keep investment in defence going at the levels that the Howard government had. When they got into government they did the complete opposite. So don't look at what they do or say in opposition; look at what they do in government.
And it's not just the Leader of the Opposition that you need to worry about. The whole frontbench is like some sort of relic of the past from the Rudd-Gillard years. When you look at the number of boats that arrived on their watch, it gives you a bit of a flashback to the incompetence that they presided over when they were last in government. Don't forget that, if you look at the member for McMahon, one of our favourites, when it comes to tax policy— (Time expired)
My question as to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm he failed to order enough rapid antigen tests, said it wasn't his job and blamed the states; he failed to order enough vaccines when it counted and said it wasn't a race; and, during the bushfires, he went missing and said he didn't hold a hose. Why won't the Prime Minister just do his job?
Since the pandemic hit, 1.1 million jobs have been created, and 11.5 million Australians have benefited from tax relief over the last three years. There are 700,000 jobs that have been saved through JobKeeper, and 71.3 per cent of trade and exports are now covered by free trade agreements.
Eight hundred and fifteen thousand six hundred female business operators are in place as of August last year, compared to 647,000 in 2013. Two hundred and twenty thousand trade apprentices are now in trade training, the highest number on record. There's been a 20 per cent reduction in emissions since 2005. One in four homes has rooftop solar. Electricity bills are down five per cent in the last year and eight per cent in the last two years. There are 1,213 major transport projects, supporting 100,000 jobs. Over 99 per cent of homes and businesses now have NBN access. There are over 1,200 mobile blackspot base stations now funded, with over 900 already built. There are 135,000 new home projects backed by HomeBuilder, and 300,000 Australians or more are in their homes because of direct support provided by government since the last election alone.
Over 93 per cent of Australians are double vaccinated, one of the highest rates in the world. We are ranked second in the world for pandemic preparedness by the Johns Hopkins index. Seventy defence vessels and 1,700 vehicles are being built in Australia for our Defence Force. A hundred thousand defence industry jobs and 15,000 small and medium businesses are being supported. Over 4,000 visas have been cancelled or refused for criminals since 2019. A hundred and sixty-three thousand one hundred and five new aged-care homecare packages have been delivered since the last election. Five hundred and two thousand four hundred and thirteen people are now being supported by the National Disability Insurance Scheme; that's up from 277,155 at the time of the last election. Over 94 million telehealth consultations have been conducted, and we've revolutionised telehealth.
I'd be happy to have an extension of time, but the clock will beat me. But what I can tell you is that that's what doing your job looks like. That's what it looks like. This Leader of the Labor party wouldn't be able to keep up if he tried.
Honourable members interjecting—
Just before I call the member for Lindsay, I would like to remind members that it's considered highly disorderly to be banging on their desks.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on what steps the Morrison government is taking to keep Australians safe and protect both our way of life and Australia's critical infrastructure, especially from the threat of cyberattacks? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
ANDREWS (—) (): I thank the member for her question. Tackling the threat of cybercrime has been an absolute priority for the Morrison government. As the director-general of ASIO said just last week in his annual threat assessment, during the pandemic we have all spent more time online, and that means that there have been a number of security challenges that have been presented to us and that we have to deal with.
Last financial year alone, the Australian Cyber Security Centre received more than 67,500 cybercrime reports, and over a quarter of those incidents were on critical infrastructure systems. These critical infrastructure systems are the systems that deliver essential services that all Australians rely on, and they include things such as water and sewerage, energy, our banking and financial services, transport, and food and groceries. Any threat to these very vital services is a threat to our way of life.
That's why last November the Morrison government introduced into parliament, and passed, the first tranche of its critical infrastructure reforms so that our nation is much better equipped to deal with a range of threats, including cyberattacks. That was the first stage of a two-part legislative approach, and last week I introduced the second tranche of our critical infrastructure legislation into parliament. That includes changes that will deal with risk management systems and how requirements for systems of national significance are actually put in place and administered. In addition, we have been progressing work on our ransomware action plan. We released that last October. We've been going through a process of consultation with businesses and with the community. Under that plan, there will be a range of new criminal offences and tougher penalties, and we will hit the cybercrooks where it hurts them most, and that is in their bank balances.
There is absolutely no doubt that our nation is facing a very clear threat when it comes to cybercrime, and businesses, individuals and governments all need to be resolute in tackling it. The suite of measures that we have introduced as a government is delivering a very sound and a very clear message to anyone considering interfering with our critical infrastructure and our way of life. The message is: 'You will not be successful and you will face very tough penalties.' As a government, we will always act in the best interests of Australians and make sure that jobs and essential services are well protected. We will always continue to do that. We understand that national security is a very serious task and not one that should be risked to a party that lacks the resolve or the gravitas to tackle serious issues in a responsible and resolute way. (Time expired)
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Prime Minister was warned by many organisations last year of the need for rapid antigen tests, including the Australian Medical Association, the Transport Workers' Union and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry;
(b) it's reported today the Prime Minister received multiple briefings from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on rapid antigen testing in 2020 and 2021;
(c) despite multiple warnings, the Prime Minister failed to order enough rapid antigen tests when it mattered and instead blamed the states;
(d) the Prime Minister has failed to make rapid antigen tests free and accessible for all Australians through Medicare;
(e) the crisis in aged care has led to the Australian Defence Force being brought in to perform basic tasks; and
(f) the latest failure on rapid antigen tests comes after the Prime Minister's failure to order enough vaccines; and
(2) therefore condemns the Prime Minister for repeatedly failing to do his job and instead blaming others for his failures.
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) the Prime Minister was warned by many organisations last year of the need for rapid antigen tests, including the Australian Medical Association, the Transport Workers' Union and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry;
(b) it's reported today the Prime Minister received multiple briefings from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on rapid antigen testing in 2020 and 2021;
(c) despite multiple warnings, the Prime Minister failed to order enough rapid antigen tests when it mattered and instead blamed the states;
(d) the Prime Minister has failed to make rapid antigen tests free and accessible for all Australians through Medicare;
(e) the crisis in aged care has led to the Australian Defence Force being brought in to perform basic tasks; and
(f) the latest failure on rapid antigen tests comes after the Prime Minister's failure to order enough vaccines; and
(2) therefore condemns the Prime Minister for repeatedly failing to do his job and instead blaming others for his failures.
This disunited, dishonest, dysfunctional government is failing older Australians in particular—
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.
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?
It is seconded. If there is a single failure that reflects the gross incompetence of this government, it is the failure to provide—
The member for Hotham will resume her seat. The Leader of the House.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Holtham be no further heard.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister regret spending $1 million of taxpayers' money to support Clive Palmer's court case to force open Western Australia's borders in 2020?
ISON (—) (): One of the things learnt during the course of the pandemic, a once-in-100-years pandemic, is that conventions that would normally apply in certain circumstances in the routine operations of government, through the course of the pandemic, have had to be rethought and challenged. It is the normal course of events, it is the normal convention, that when cases of that subject matter are heard it is the normal course for the Commonwealth government to provide what we did on that occasion.
The member for Isaacs will leave under 94(a).
The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.
And so, Mr Speaker, that is what the Attorney-General at the time did—and did so with the support of the government. After further discussions with the Western Australian Premier, I took the decision for us to withdraw from the case. It was our view that the normal convention that applied outside of a pandemic, and the situation of the pandemic, led us to make that decision and we withdrew that decision. And I'm pleased with the result that was finally arrived at by the court.
My question is for the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs Will the minister update the House on the Morrison government's actions to protect women and children from foreign criminals and is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches or views?
I thank the member for Groom for his question, and I commend his genuine concern about the safety of women and his advocacy for protecting women and children at law. The Morrison government has, of course, had a bill in front of this House for approaching 1,200 days—before the Leader of the Opposition, before the Labor Party and before the Australian Greens—to strengthen the character test and enable the government to deport more foreign criminals from Australia who commit serious crimes against women and against children, and family and domestic violence. So while the Leader of the Opposition has time to go back and look up his school homework, I would ask him to do his homework on this bill. If he did his homework on this bill he would know that these reforms will allow us to deal more swiftly and more quickly when serious crime occurs, thereby preventing more family violence and domestic violence against women and children in Australia. It begs the question: why would the Labor Party oppose for 1,200 days a bill that says the government should be allowed to deport foreign convicted criminals for serious offences? This would have to be one of the things you've opposed the longest and the most in the Labor Party's history, you feel so passionately about it.
I say to the opposition and the Australian community: the Morrison government will not back down from our view that the law needs further reform to deport more foreign criminals and stop them in their tracks when they commit these serious crimes against women and against children in Australia. It's an important issue.
To hear the heckling from the Leader of the Opposition, I have to say: who does he take his instructions from on this issue? We know he is in lockstep with his partners, the Greens. The Greens are the ones who really oppose this bill, and they have dragged the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition to this position. Why would the Labor Party continue to oppose this? It's all because of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition isn't taking an each-way bet on this; he's taking the multi on this. He's on every single position in relation to the deportation of foreign criminals. I say that's not good enough and this government says it's not good enough. If we have to put this bill for another 1,000 days, we will. We believe passionately that the law is important and the construction of the law—
The minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
The minister began answering the question, but now he's going off on all sorts of tangents. He knows that he has the power now, which is why he got rid of Novak Djokovic. That's exactly how it happened.
Is your point of order relevance?
Yes.
There have been a number of matters that have been going on in the chamber that have distracted me, so I'm not going to ask the minister to return to the question because I wasn't sure if he was straying from the question. The minister has the call.
An honourable member interject ing—
I take that interjection and I take that point of order from the Leader of the Opposition: it should not be easier to deport an international tennis star than the government finds it to deport a criminal who has raped a woman. It should not be, and that's why we seek these powers. On the question of deportation of foreign criminals, it is the Leader of the Opposition who fails the character test.
The Prime Minister?
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
He gets to decide that, not you!
The Leader of the Opposition can raise something with me later on. The Prime Minister has the call.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Just before members leave, I want to address the House on something. I note that the member for Warringah isn't in the chamber, but hopefully she's listening from her office.
Last Thursday the member for Warringah raised an issue with me relating to the length of last Wednesday's sitting, which ran through Wednesday night and into the early hours of Thursday morning. The matter was also raised with me by the member for Chifley. As members know, the meeting and adjournment times of the House of Representatives are set out in the standing orders and a matter for the House to determine. On those occasions when the House sits longer hours to deal with specific legislation, a decision of the House is required. I understand this often occurs following discussions between the government and the opposition, and I am not involved in any way in those discussions. While sitting until 5 am is certainly not desirable, and I'm sure we all hope it is a rare occurrence, those who work in this building know it is always a possibility that longer hours of sitting may occur from time to time. However, I understand the member's concern about the House sitting through the night and finally adjourning just after 5 am, and I note recommendations of the Jenkins review aimed at balancing wellbeing with the business of the parliament—particularly recommendation 27, which addresses the parliamentary sitting calendar and the order of business. I expect matters such as this one raised by the member for Warringah will form part of the consideration of those recommendations.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the parliamentary staff who worked through the night last Wednesday to ensure the business of the House was able to be completed.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?
I do, by the minister for immigration during question time.
Please proceed.
The minister for immigration made a number of imputations in his response. The facts are these: his imputations are wrong, as demonstrated by the fact that the courts upheld his right as a minister to cancel a visa in the globally covered case around Novak Djokovic. He knows it. The whole of the parliament knows it, and he is being deliberately—deliberately—misleading in his characterisation he gave in his answer.
I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 16 of 2021-22, entitled Award of funding under the Safer Communities Fund: Department of Home Affairs; Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources.
Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
Others will judge our time here. It's customary to thank friends and colleagues, but we can do that over a 'Lukiatto' or a late-night dinner. It's customary to hold our family tight and say thank you for the remarkable opportunity, but we can do that at home. This opportunity I want to devote to thousands of Australians who never lost faith in what we do here and at a time when so often—perennially—in Australia we are tempted to dismiss, discard or disparage democracy. There are so many people out there, colleagues, that cannot count their time here in days or months or years or even decades. They were never here, but they fought and provided the basis of this pyramid that we enjoy of democracy, whose apex is right at that dispatch box. They weren't just our campaigners—they were anyone who cared enough to fill out a petition; bang the table; dare I say, glue their hands; burn the doors. Whatever their passion about federal issues, I need to say in your own way, thank you, because it may be ugly but it's our ugly.
I've got a friend, Geoff Redpath, known as Twinks. He lived in Anzac Avenue, Camp Hill, and with his piercing blue eyes he would look at me as I would try to explain to him my shortcomings in this place, and he would ask me about what happens down here. He desperately wanted to know about the ifs, the buts, the workarounds, the expedience, the flexible and malleable morality that's on show here sometimes, and I would just try and try and explain. Geoff will be remembered as an unsuccessful LNP preselection candidate, and if you go on the web you'll see on the ECQ website that he ran in an unbelievably close Division 6 election for local government on the Fraser Coast, where three candidates all got 33 per cent. He led by 50 votes after prepoll and fell short by about that margin, and within months—no wife should come home to find a lifeless husband in the backyard shed. But he never lost hope; he wanted to fight to the end for this great nation in his own way. If I could talk to Twinks now—and there are so many of his mates that will grasp for answers and perhaps never get them—I just want to say: by never giving up he gave us an opportunity to do what we do here.
All around outer metro Australia, a place that didn't really ever coalesce any political power when I got here 20 years ago, is now a place that seems to determine election results. In that time I've been proud to see two outer metro prime ministers do amazing things for this nation. Those busy outer metro people that so many of you will know who are busy commuting and driving—we often observe they drive into the left-wing water bubblers and pot plants only to drive home to the real thing at night: real water and real bushland. There's not a lot of headroom there for global issues for them. They're busy and they care about population, roads, jobs and development, and it's over and over again. Those conversations of outer metro Australia are now a serious force.
I look around Team Queensland and I'm inspired by Dryden: some of them were princes of their land. Those ranked Team Queensland stood a team so variable that it seemed to me:
Not one, but all mankind's epitome;
Stiff in opinions, always in the wrong,
Was everything by starts—
Sometimes wrong.
But, in the course of one revolving moon,
Was chemist, fiddler, statesman, and buffoon.
All of us together—like you can't choose your family, you can't choose Team Queensland—are a ragtag band who do great stuff down here, and in your own way you cut a cloth that works for your electorate. I was inspired by Don Randall, the great WA MP, who didn't give much for the pomp and the procedure down here. One day, when he was driving around his electorate, doing what he did so well, he pulled over to one side when he didn't feel well and he died in his car serving his electorate. He was, I argue—perhaps Ross Cameron's an exception—one of those first outer metro MPs who was here for there. This place is made by those people, and long may it stay that way. All of you, wherever you are, whether you're sitting in tea rooms recruiting membership or filling out the petitions that got us a defence force recommendation for a next-of-kin medal—Kay and Kerry Danes—and whatever you did, that's what makes it special and that's why I'm so delighted to have been here. Outer metro Australia is not deeply ideological. So, when you drive out from whatever city skyline you might inhabit and you head out to those parts, those expectations are simple, but if they see you doing the right thing they'll adopt you.
I want to say a little word about social policy and a little bit about the place of activism on the Right. Social policy is very important to me. I find economic policy sometimes a little formulaic. My apologies to the member for Fenner who has exceptional expertise in that area. In social policy, the decision in 2001 was: do we join a party of economic credentials and fight silently on social policy? In two decades that has changed. Forgive the partisan comment, but I would argue that it is now this side of politics that is potentially the most progressive in reforming and rebuilding and reimagining social policy. We just don't fight for inputs but we fight for outcomes, and I think that's so important. When we arrived, the member for New England was speaking up in the party room in a way that absolutely captivated me.
I took a different path and started working on pharmaceutical policy, something I knew a bit about, with Chris Bilkey and Professor Philip Clarke from the University of Melbourne. We mapped out a way to save the nation about three-quarters of a billion dollars every year. I didn't believe those figures at the start. The minister didn't believe those figures at the start, but, to his credit, he took on that idea before we lost power, and to Labor's credit they continued it. To this day, that one single backbencher policy saves this nation three-quarters of a billion dollars a year and another $60 billion to $70 billion of out-of-pockets for non-concessional cardholders who paid way too much for drugs for their kids. That's what we're here for.
We fought hard for education so that teachers in the poorest areas of Australia can have the gains they achieve in NAPLAN and ATAR recognised. We still don't have those metrics. In welfare, it's been about work for the dole. It's been about making sure we get value for money and the principle of mutual obligation—that you're not paid a welfare payment as some sort of automatic right but there's an expectation that if you can give you should give. So much credit goes to the former member of Warringah in those areas.
In housing, a very, very understated, quiet former adviser, Carolyn Rosario, said to me in 2018, 'What's your government got for people my age?' I reached for her speaking notes, and she said: 'What you need is to help us with deposits. In a Canberra rental market you can never ever save for a deposit with the rents we pay.' We sat down and did a one-page summary. We sat down with the Banking Association and ironed out the glitches, took it to the Assistant Treasurer and to Treasury, and, without me knowing—and we can argue over the provenance—our leader announced it. The campaign launched in 2019. Since then, 56,000 families that would be renting today are in their own home and they don't have to ask a landlord if they want to put a nail in the wall to hang up their young child's merit prize from school. We know how transforming that is. The Reserve Bank governor, just last week, was saying that it's about income. It's about raising household income, and everything else is so able to follow.
In Indigenous policy, these have been long and trying debates, colleagues. You'd be right to say not much has changed. I spent a year in a semi-desert community, Lajamanu, and we pioneered a breakthrough drug that's now a standard treatment for trachoma. What I learned there is that we must never, ever forget the needs of remote Australia where the Indigenous languages are still spoken at home and never let that be washed away by general Indigenous statistics that don't reflect the true suffering in remote Australia. We, colleagues, are marked on what we're doing in the farthest corners of Australia—a globally unique political challenge and an immeasurably hard one. If, in the next few months, we can terminate and complete successfully a 20-year journey to allow a young Indigenous couple wanting to take out a loan from a bank to build a home on native title land—I cannot believe we haven't achieved that in the last 20 years. But I have to walk away from this place saying, 'Not yet.' It's remarkable that we haven't found a way to bring lenders to the table to make that possible.
In welfare reform, it was about keeping Work for the Dole tacked together under significant attacks, but we saw the PaTH program expand that. One day I saw that the department, before Easter and Christmas, would routinely pay welfare cheats and people who were not compliant bonuses that the minister's office didn't even know about. I worked to make sure that stopped. To our credit, that has also happened. This touches on the role of activism. It's probably a little bit too strong to say that that has been an important part of my time here, but I firmly believe there's a role for activism on the Right. How you define it is a different question, but I want to say that we have brought through, in this party room now, many strong social policy reformers and many people prepared to be activist. You might say that it may impede our path to government or keeping in government. But, if there are some little things that in your heart you feel you've got to fight for, I'm just saying: 'Fight for it!' Let people know how passionate you are about it.
The best example was from 2019. Our training providers and RTOs all over the country—Bernard and Daman Malik are here with me today—came to me and said, 'We're being driven into the ground, potentially, by an overly heavy and unreasonable bureaucracy.' I'm not speaking on Mr Malik's behalf but, in many cases, there was the perception that, simply, the chief officer wanted fewer RTOs in this country because other countries had fewer. We are the nation of small business. Those RTOs in every corner of regional Australia are providing the training and the vocational skills outside of TAFE. Eighty-five per cent of that training is private, and, to be driven off to court to the AAT and be told to muscle up with a barrister and find a hundred grand to keep your family business open when there was a chance to work together with RTOs was devastating.
As an MP, you can give a speech here in the tiny Federation Chamber, snip it on YouTube and send it out to the people that matter. Two months and a week later, that chief executive was gone. Since then—thank you to the member for Swan—things are way better in the training space. Don't for a minute think that that's not important, because our greatest export is people, and one of our greatest service exports is training and educating overseas students. I will provocatively say that, more than submarines and tanks, our best foreign policy tool is to educate South-East Asia in the highest-quality, English-speaking vocational modules and university courses. That does us an enormous diplomatic advantage, and we need to make sure we are a major slice of international education.
As we move through activism, there was also some crazy, stupid stuff—like the cruise ships. You remember getting booted out of here for 24 hours by Speaker Bishop for the bunker oil that was spilt in the chamber here. Who benefited from that, politically? Was I going to get a couple of votes from Balmain mums or a few people who live around ocean cruise ship terminals? But, honestly, for those companies to burn clean fuel in ports in every corner of the world except Australia—because we didn't mandate it—and to keep burning the disgusting stuff here, I thought, was disgusting. So speak up on it! I finally dragged the table to do it.
If there is a way of being activist about small things, I think that makes a huge difference. We saw in Logan, streets torn apart and fence palings ripped off and everyone mugging each other. It wasn't, in these interracial fights, the case that we needed more social workers. I made the obvious observation that they needed jobs and opportunity. If you connect the disadvantaged and the dispossessed with work, that's the difference. I was absolutely ratioed for it, but months later, after the dust had settled, all the inquiries said just that. If we can start to think about the importance of connection to the economy as the solution, I think that's really important.
For our South African colleagues, when I saw the farmers being murdered and mutilated, I asked a fair question: is it completely mutually exclusive to be white and a refugee? It isn't, and it was important to ask that question of DFAT, and I give them credit: they looked at that hard. We've also had designated area migration agreements that have provided a partial solution to this most complex of social issues. But these elements are utterly ones that we can all choose in our own time to fight.
Now is the time for the sealed section. There are only people sitting around me because I promised to read out a few of the myths that deserve to be busted today, and in most cases the answers are going to be yes. It is true that I broke into a biohazard area during a white powder scare in my time in a ministerial office, purely because I wanted to check my emails. That is true. I then had 12 hours in there being fed McDonald's Big Mac meals by a dude in a biohazard suit. The only upside was getting a biohazard suit.
I was doing my best for the Howard government. I remember Mr Howard asked me, 'What do I need to know about meningococcal?' I said, 'Prime Minister, there are only three things you need to know.' Before you ever say that to a prime minister, make sure you know what the third thing is! I was writing a speech for the Prime Minister and for my boss in the Senate, and I had the strange failing of writing that this vaccine would be funded for those 18 and under, instead of those under 18. A colleague of mine was listening and he tapped me on the shoulder and said, 'Which one was it?' We realised we had just spent, without any authority, about $20 million on meningococcal vaccine delivery to 18-year-olds. Thank you to my team for finding some kind of workaround.
Of course, I also need to fess up here about my leadership aspirations and my leadership challenge in 2007. It was messy. I was tired of what was happening between Howard and Costello, and I decided I would announce my leadership bid the following day at the party room. I thought I would run those lines by a few staffers at the Holy Grail, and only later was I told that one of those in the group was John Howard's son. As I walked away to the sound of my own footsteps, I'm sure the first words were, 'Who is that guy?' It was neither good nor pretty.
But inside this building there are some special memories as well. The first one is that we may hold the record for making a division in this chamber from the furthest distance. I was in Civic on the corner of Constitution Avenue and London Circuit, luckily in a car. We got green lights, and if you can do it at all you can do it with ease. But I was hurting inside. That's a record for you to break. I am looking to Angus Taylor for that. I've perennially raced him up and down that bloody Red Hill, and, when I asked him, 'Mate, what's your best time?' and he told me, I went out and broke it by 10 seconds. He then revised his time and said, 'I told you the wrong one.' He told me he was actually five seconds faster than what I'd just run. I said, 'Mate, I want to see the metadata.' It's never been forthcoming.
Comcars have been an important part of our lives, and I must confess: yes, it is true that, I having lost my phone down into a storm drain when getting out of a Comcar, the driver dismantled the storm water drain and lowered me head first in, holding onto my belt, while I foraged around to find the device. We did, and I nominated him for Comcar driver of the year. He came second. It was rigged.
We move forward to the media. I have an apology to the Melbourne Age, on not one but two occasions. First of all, when they phoned up and said they had identified what they believed to be a first-term MP wearing board shorts after midnight with a mattress on his head in Howitt Street, Kingston, we said, 'Deny, deny, deny,' but I was completing a move between apartments. We simply said they had no DNA evidence, and they elected not to go to print. Likewise, in Bougainville, when I for some reason jumped into the back of a truck full of Bougainvillean rebels and put my arm around them and did a Black Power salute with my white hand, again it was, 'Deny, deny, deny; it was simply the arm of a lightly complexioned Bougainvillean,' and they were told to ignore the fact that the latest model of iPhone was in that hand.
It is true we have done some pretty silly handstand sculls, the first of which, again, was at the Holy Grail, pre smartphone. I said, 'I'm sure I can get away with it,' and knocked down a beer. The only way you should do it Down Under, Hawkie, is upside down. Every journo, of course, had no camera with them. They proceeded to report the story and simply used my parliamentary photograph in the newspaper upside down.
Lastly, we do mow lawns in Bowman to get votes. I do want to confess: the 'Lam mow' was launched in the back of a utility. We had a mower. Many argued there was no motor in it, but it's true: I did mow one lawn in every suburb on one day. It is true I didn't completely have consent to mow the lawn from the homeowner. I had what I believed was a single mum who sounded like she desperately needed a mow. I didn't realise the partner was at home with his size 12 boots, and midway through the mowing he came out, opened a stubby, popped out a chair and watched me mow his lawn. It wasn't good, and, from now on, I've promised that, if ever someone says, 'Please come and mow my lawn,' I'll make sure that I have consent from every adult in the household. So that's the end of my confessions. There was one final one about writing op-eds, and one would have wondered whether they were actually going to lead to us getting into government from opposition or not. But that one contributed by my friend the member for Dickson: everything you said last night was dead right.
In concluding, I want to mention some special people. We all have incredible offices behind us, don't we? I want to mention my team: Sonia Bryant, Stephanie Eaton and Penny Donald, and, more recently, Mitchell Dickens and Peter Nugent. But I'd also like to mention the young ones who came through our offices, where we provided platforms for them to go off to great things, like Matt McEachan, Mitchell Redford, Marty Kennedy and Shane Goodwin. There are those in Queensland who are passionate people, as I described earlier, from the president, Lawrence Springborg, to Lincoln Folo, Guelf Scassola, Con Galtos and Craig Luxton. Those people all exist in every one of our lives.
In this chamber, of course, I have referenced 'Team Queensland'. I've loved talking welfare with the member for Pearce, who is someone that I think will be greatly missed in this place. On the other side, the member for Fenner, I always remind you, sir, that it took you four times as long as it took me to get your Harvard degree. After 12 months, they said that there was nothing else they could teach me. Then, of course, there's the deputy chair, Lisa Chesters, who has done an awesome job standing by the work of the committee, and there's my neighbour Maria Vamvakinou. Further afield, there's Gareth Ward MLA, a man of impeccable character in the New South Wales parliament, and Steven Marshall MLA, the Premier of South Australia, who took me to sailing lessons where we rammed straight into the marina's rocks with a journalist onboard. Thank you for that, Steven.
To be honest, I've thought hard about just how inconsolable I would be at the time I talk about family. But I've been nothing but elated, and I want to celebrate and thank this incredible time I've had with my family through this job. Either I need more empathy training or my time at home has been truly incredible. To all the dads out there, there's nothing better than coming home 18 times a year and getting that massive groundhog day hug, like you've genuinely been missed. There's nothing better than to have your daughters say, 'Dad, you're back already,' 'Yes, darling, it's a short sitting week,' and then after a couple of days they say, 'Dad, when are you going again?' They have an incredible place to grow up at home, thanks to my lovely wife. I want to say to Olesja: our community has given us incredible support, and we have got through that, and your story, which is an amazing one, is now inextricably woven into the story of Australia. I dumped you into the WorkChoices election in 2007. You had no idea what was going on, but you roadside with me, something we've pioneered from Bowman that has now afflicted every campaign in Queensland. I can remember my wife coming to me and saying, 'Darling, they all seem to know your L name.' And I remember a tradie driving in his ute. His window came down, and he clearly wanted to say something. It could have been good or bad. He looked me right in the eye, and he went like that, thumbs down, and then he pointed at Olesja, and he went like that, thumbs up, and he drove off—I thought 'Whatever it takes.'
Olesja, your story is remarkable. Your grandmother was a Belarusian partisan who basically lived in a burrow while the Nazis overran the country. Her husband went out briefly to try and find some supplies. When he came back, his wife and children were gone. They'd been found by the Nazis. It's a hard story. That mum looked after her two babies as well as she could, but they perished in her arms one by one from starvation on a forced march. She could have been liberated to the West when the Americans arrived. They gave her the choice of any Allied country in the world to live in. She said, 'No, I'm going back into Stalin's Russia to find my husband.' And she did. They spent winters eating bark, but they were together. She had more kids. That's why you're with me, darling. They're your elders, and those elders and that history is now part of this incredible social experiment we call Australia. I think that is truly, truly remarkable.
I quoted Robert Kennedy. I remember that PM Howard leant across to Christopher Pyne and said, 'Clearly one of yours, Christopher.' In that fabulous South African speech in 1966, he said that every time a person stands up for a principle and acts to look after the lot of another, or take on an injustice or stand up to it, there's a tiny ripple of hope. Every time they do that, there is a tiny ripple of hope that is sufficient to sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. They were words designed for South Africa, but I thought it was still an utterly reasonable test for what we do here. They may not be mighty walls in Bowman, but they can seem pretty impervious down here. Those tiny cracks of opportunity that come along every now and then are the ones you grab to make this country a little bit fairer and a little bit more understanding for the people who most need it. Never underestimate those people. It doesn't matter if they vote for you or not; you make an incredible difference in their lives.
I talk about ugly, but it's our ugly. I talk about never dismissing, disparaging or abandoning what we do here. Today I want to talk to all of those people who do that and give us the opportunity to be here. If I could be judged on those grounds, so I will: #jobdone, no fuss.
I rise to support the second reading, though not the amendment, of the Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021. This is obviously a bill that has a number of technical changes and adjustments to the way in which we deal with administrative law and justice in this country. I suppose I would like to start by taking the opportunity to make a few general comments about the value of having the system that we have, particularly the Administrative Appeals Tribunal system.
There is a very common expression in law, going way back, that it's important that punishment fits the crime. I equally think it is important that access to justice is fairly weighted against the significance of its cost and the need for people to seek avenues to reflect and perhaps even appeal decisions that we as a government make. It is vital to our democracy, particularly in administrative law. Particularly when it comes to the executive of our government, it is quite important, in my view, that citizens have fair and reasonable opportunity to appeal and seek review of those decisions. We all know as members of parliament that a lot of decisions made can be at a level that is not worthwhile, and it would be very difficult to pursue them through the superior court system if that were the only opportunity you had. So if you applied for a visa and it was unsuccessful, or if you had an issue with a determination that had been made about your eligibility for a government entitlement, it's obviously not reasonable, and it would be unjust, if people's only recourse against those decisions were to go through an expensive process of potentially going to the Federal Court, say, or beyond. If we didn't have other avenues, a lot of people would have decisions that they felt should have the right to be reviewed and, in their view, changed, but they wouldn't have that access without a burden of cost that would make it impossible for a lot of them to pursue.
As members of parliament, we have constituents come to us all the time who have these sorts of issues. Whilst we're clearly, as parliamentarians, not in a position to give opinions or adjudicate over decisions that a constituent has been given and that they may believe is unjust or should be changed—and nor should we; equally, it's important that we support them in pursuing an avenue where they can seek to have that decision reviewed, and to see that occur in a way that's accessible to them. Most of the things that we're changing through this bill are relevant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is exactly that body that gives people access to an appropriate level of decision-making review for the standard of the issue that they have that shouldn't cost them an inordinate amount of money to seek rectification against.
If memory serves me well, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal first came into effect in the 1970s. It was for the purpose of ensuring that people had the avenue that meant they didn't have to go to the superior courts for matters that would be expensive to pursue there, and of course would also potentially overwhelm the superior courts, like the Federal Court, and even on appeal from there. So the Administrative Appeals Tribunal achieves that quite effectively. It means that people can go at a lower cost. It means they can get a quicker decision outcome. And it means that decisions that are made—by our administration, by the executive, by people with delegated authority, by agencies et cetera—can be appropriately reviewed by people who have the capability and the expertise to understand whether or not the correct law has been applied in each circumstance.
It's not surprising that on a regular basis we need to review and modernise and change the way in which the AAT and other elements of administrative legal appeal functions are structured because, of course, things change on a regular basis as far as the types of matters and the types of issues that may be raised at the AAT and others are concerned. Equally, we can ensure that we have efficiency. Much like case law improves the understanding of statutes and the principles and fundamentals of different areas of our law, exactly the same principle applies with the AAT and the way in which they adjudicate over cases and determine whether or not a matter that has been brought to them is in fact a decision that should be overturned or a decision that should be kept in place.
One of the changes that is being made here is to make that a little more efficient, allowing for AAT and others to make decisions with a different burden of reasoning on the decision made, and so to determine that if there is no general principle that needs to be given a view on, then some decisions can be a little more efficient and quicker so that people get their decisions as quickly as possible. We want that. I think that's very important. I know when I've dealt with matters that are on appeal to the AAT and other bodies, it has been the case that at times those decisions can take a little while. And when it is perhaps someone appealing a decision that has been made regarding a visa or an entitlement through social security and other services, veterans' entitlements et cetera, it's just as important not what the decision is but that the decision is made in a timely way, because speed of justice and speed of decision-making is vitally important for people in those circumstances as well.
I note with interest that there are also a couple of adjustments being made in the bill regarding the way in which certain immunities et cetera exist for foreign governments when it comes to, in some cases, quite ancient treaties that we have in place with their status and their potential immunities in our legal system. I have to confess that I do not have a deep enough understanding of some of the complexity of that. I think there were some matters mentioned in the notes that I read regarding a case between a foreign government and a corporation here in Australia. But, clearly, it makes sense for us to embrace and implement sensible suggestions that are made by those who do understand the legal ramifications of certain decisions made in law that can improve things through the change in statute that we are making here.
In conclusion, it is pleasing to see opportunities to make the AAT and other avenues of access to justice for all Australians cleaner, clearer and modernised. We always want to see and ensure that in this country everyone has equal access to justice and review of decision-making. We don't want to be in a situation where anyone that might have fair and reasonable grounds to seek review of or appeal a decision of government, or a decision of the administration, finds that they can't pursue that or don't find it in their interests to pursue it because the cost or time of doing so becomes prohibitive to them. We want to ensure that there are appropriate avenues for this. The AAT has achieved this for many, many decades. What we see in this bill now is an opportunity to enhance the way in which the AAT and similarly other federal avenues of appeal on decisions are administered. I commend the bill to the House.
This bill, the Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, would make a number of largely administrative amendments to various acts of parliament relating to federal courts and tribunals, principally the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The legislation amended includes the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act, the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the Family Law Act, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act, the Federal Court of Australia Act, the Judiciary Act, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act, the Paid Parental Leave Act and the Social Security (Administration) Act.
Amongst other things, this bill would empower the president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT, to direct that a proceeding in the Social Services and Child Support Division be referred to an alternative dispute resolution pre-hearing process. It would allow the president of the AAT, or an authorised member or officer of the AAT, to summons a person to give evidence or produce documents across all of the divisions of the AAT, including the Taxation and Commercial Division and the Social Services and Child Support Division. It would clarify that the AAT's power to correct errors in the text of a decision or in a written statement of reasons for a decision can only be exercised by the president or the member who presided at the preceding. It would clarify that hearings conducted remotely using videoconferencing technology in a federal court, including the Family Court, are in open court. It would update the terminology regarding the jurisdiction of a single justice of the High Court sitting in chambers or of another court exercising federal jurisdiction sitting in chambers.
The bill will amend the Admiralty Act to bring the admiralty rules into alignment with other rules of federal courts, such as by, among other things, declaring the admiralty rules to be rules of court. It will amend the Foreign Judgments Act, the Foreign States Immunities Act and the International Arbitration Act to provide certain procedural protections to foreign states, and it will remove the ability to hear appeals from the Supreme Court of Nauru in the High Court of Australia. All of these amendments are supported by Labor.
Three aspects of the bill, however, did attract controversy, and they are as follows. The first is the proposed amendment to the Federal Court of Australia Act that would have allowed the Federal Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, to provide short-form reasons rather than detailed judgements where a decision dismissing an appeal did not raise any questions of general principle. This has been criticised by, among others, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, the Josephite Justice Office and the Law Institute of Victoria on the basis that it will disadvantage unrepresented applicants, including those seeking review of refugee decisions.
There was also a proposed amendment to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act to remove the role of the Governor-General in the appointment process for the AAT. The bill would have conferred that authority on the minister. However, there have been notable institutions that have expressed concern about this change—again, the Law Institute of Victoria and Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, among others—principally on the basis that there is no obvious justification or reason for it and the change could undermine the independence of the appointment process. There is no obvious justification or reason for this change. In fact, the Attorney-General's Department did not advance any justification or reason to the Senate committee inquiry into this bill at all. Its submission was completely silent on these amendments.
Thirdly, the bill would provide the same protection and immunity for immigration assessment authority reviewers as a justice of the High Court of Australia. Those protections are currently conferred on members of the AAT while they perform their duties. Again, the Law Institute of Victoria and the ASRC and others have argued that such protection should not be extended to IAA reviewers because, unlike AAT members, IAA reviewers do not have to take an oath of office, do not have special skill or knowledge, do not have fixed terms in advance and are not statutorily required to disclose conflicts of interest. Unlike AAT members, IAA reviewers are also not required to afford procedural fairness to applicants. Fortunately the Senate—with some concurrence of the government—has agreed to amendments to resolve these issues. We thank the government for agreeing to all of these amendments in the House.
As many of you will know, before entering this place I was a lawyer. Indeed, I was president of the Law Society of Western Australia, director of the Law Council of Australia and inaugural chair of Law Access in WA. Access to justice is very important to me, and the AAT plays a critical role in providing access to justice. It may be surprising for people to know that up until the creation of the AAT there was no formal and established way across the Commonwealth to access merits based review of administrative decisions. Indeed, litigants were limited to accessing the prerogative writs through the High Court, and later through the Federal Court system, for judicial review of such decisions. It was the creation of the AAT and its sister tribunals that provided that broad basis for merits review of administrative decisions.
These decisions cover a wide array of decisions made by government and government officers, and they impact on the daily lives of Australians in many different ways. I'm sure many, if not all, members of this House have engaged with those agencies that frequently see their decisions appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or its sister tribunals or tribunals that have since been merged into the AAT. These, of course, include immigration matters, social security and Centrelink matters, Department of Veterans' Affairs matters and taxation issues. All of these are really important to everyday Australians in their dealings with government. It is important in that regard not just that there is a process to access merits review but also that that process is accessible to ordinary Australians and that it does not come with a lot of the difficulties and costs associated with accessing a court process. This is particularly the case with a merits review process such as the AAT should provide because it provides the individual with an opportunity to present new and additional information to a decision-maker in the AAT about a decision that government has taken and have that decision made again. It is not limited just to causes for appeal to a court through a judicial review process.
But if our courts and tribunals are not accessible, then, of course, they are not an effective way for Australians to assert and be guaranteed their legal rights—as in this case, the case of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in particular—the citizens' rights against the government. Unfortunately, the way this government is administering the AAT is resulting in politicisation and, in turn, massive delays, and justice delayed is justice denied. Last year, in the same week that its own budget papers confirmed that wages would be going backwards for another four years, the Morrison government reappointed four of its mates to these taxpayer funded jobs. Since 2013 the Liberals have, staggeringly, appointed at least 79 of their mates to the AAT. In contrast, in the six years of the Labor government, from 2007 to 2013, there were just two Labor linked appointments to the AAT—both experienced and highly skilled lawyers welcomed by the then Liberal opposition. The appointment of Liberal mates to the tribunal is so out of hand that even former High Court Judge Ian Callinan QC had to recommend to government that all further appointments be on the basis of merit. One would have thought that all appointments to the AAT were based on merit. But it turns out that this may not be the case.
Each year, tens of tens of thousands of Australians rely on this tribunal to conduct an independent review of decisions by Commonwealth ministers and public servants. These decisions can have life-altering impacts—such as whether an older Australian receives the age pension, whether a veteran receives a service pension, whether a participant in the NDIS receives funding for essential support or whether a refugee obtains a visa. The time frames in which people are seeking justice or review through the AAT is something that we all should now be ashamed of. Let me provide an example from a constituent. One of my constituents lodged an appeal through the AAT. It took over a year for the AAT to acknowledge receipt of that appeal—not to hear it, not to deal with it, not to provide a decision, but just to acknowledge receipt of it. After one year, it still wasn't scheduled for any procedural process through the tribunal, let alone an actual hearing. This is an example of something we are seeing repeated across the registries of the AAT around the country. There are clearly issues in the administration of the AAT occurring under this government, but a big part of it is that a large number of members of the AAT are not fully competent to perform their role in the timely manner in which they need to do that. That is holding up justice. That is preventing citizens from receiving justice. It is preventing them from being able to hold their own government to account to provide the supports they need and deserve, and which we as a parliament have legislated for them to have access to.
While membership of a political party is not in any way a disqualification for appointment to a tribunal, I readily acknowledge that many of these member are undoubtedly competent and highly qualified. The tribunal, though, is now rightly perceived by many in the community as hopelessly and absurdly politicised. And, worse, these jobs for mates, of which there have been 79 since 2013—that's nearly 10 a year—have resulted in the work that the AAT needs to do not being done and not being doing in a timely manner. It is denying justice. So, just like the current Liberal government, sadly, the AAT is failing to deliver outcomes to deliver justice for Australians. Australians deserve a better future for the AAT and a better future for our justice system.
There have been some egregious amendments before this parliament, but this one probably tops the list. Once again, we have the Labor Party playing games, this time with our justice system. Why do they do it? So they can post on one of the most discredited websites on Australia, the one which is run by OpenAustralia Foundation. They put up articles claiming that people 'strongly voted' for or against particular issues in this parliament. Newsflash to all the lefties out there, most of whom can only think what they are told to think: you can't 'strongly vote' for stuff in this chamber; you can only vote for it or against it. Those opposite have the gall to come in here and lecture us about justice. They wouldn't know justice if it slapped them in the face with a three-day-old salmon fish. That's how appalling this amendment is. They cannot help but simply play games. It never stops—and they seek to be the alternative government of this country! Their bedfellows on the crossbench never stop lecturing us about honesty and integrity—oh, and climate; how could I forget climate! I wonder what OpenAustralia Foundation will make of some of their donations today.
The member for Shortland can get upset, but I bet that, in the seat of Shortland, the Labor Party preferences these fake independents. David Hardaker at Crikey said that I was 'frothing at the mouth' when I made this speech two months ago. If I was frothing at the mouth back then, I'm as angry as hell today. The people of Australia deserve to know the truth—and they deserve to know the truth from those opposite, who cannot help themselves; they come into this chamber today and seek to play games with our justice system. Their mates on the crossbench take money not just from coal investors, but from a director of a coal company; and not just any coal company, but a coal company purchased from Eddie Obeid; and not just an ordinary investor, but an investor who had an adverse finding against them by the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption; and not just any donation, but the largest donation that they received; and not just from a number of transactions, but a single transaction that was then split eight ways. And why was that done? So it could be under the threshold, so they didn't have to declare it. And how did all this come to light? Did those opposite front up? Did those opposite tell people how this happened? Did they admit to their administrative mistake? No, no, no. We had to wait for the Australian Electoral Commission to do an audit.
The member for Shortland can shout as much as he likes, but the fact is that we know he and his party will be preferencing those who claim they're in favour of the climate, while taking donations from coalminers; who say they're in favour of honesty, while trying to hide these donations; and who say they're in favour of integrity but couldn't tell us what happened until there was an audit by the AEC. And that's who the Labor Party prefers to be in parliament. And then they put the votes up on the OpenAustralia Foundation website. I've got to say that the OpenAustralia Foundation should not have tax deductibility because it isn't a charity. But it does. And I suspect they probably misled the ATO when they received that status as well.
So I want David Hardaker to write on Crikey today that he was wrong and that what everyone on this side has been saying about Simon Holmes a Court, Climate 200, the fake independents, the crossbench and the Labor Party might actually be right. That's all I want. I just want those people who claim that democracy only thrives when we have a well-informed electorate to do some of that informing today, rather than hiding the truth from their readers. It's time to fess up and admit that the people you have been promoting, shamelessly, for three years have actually been taking donations from coalminers and coal investors who bought their coalmine from Eddie Obeid—so let's leave integrity out of this for the minute!
When it comes to the actual administration of justice, this bill makes that justice and that administration better. But those opposite come in and make all sorts of claims and allegations, under parliamentary privilege, without being able to back up any of it. This is a good bill. It should have the support of all sides of the House. And the Labor Party should stop this nonsense and the silly games and moving second reading amendments just so their undergraduate politics can play out on the internet.
I thank all members for their contribution to this debate—in particular the member for Burt. I know he's very interested in these matters, and his contribution can only be described as an audition for the position of shadow Attorney-General after the election. The government is committed to ensuring the continued improvement of the Australian legal system. The introduction of the Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 is another step the government is taking to ensure that our legal system keeps pace with community expectations.
Importantly, this bill will improve the administration of the Australian federal courts and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, known as the AAT. It makes a number of amendments to enhance the operation of the AAT and harmonise procedures across most of its divisions. The amendments impact the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2004, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and a number of pieces of legislation in the Families and Social Services portfolio.
The bill amends the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and the Judiciary Act 1903 to modernise practices, which will produce efficiencies in the hearing of matters. It makes minor amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, the Family Law Act 1975 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021, to clarify that hearings conducted remotely using videoconferencing technology are exercised in open court. This clarification is particularly important due to the broader use of remote hearings since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The bill makes amendments to the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 to clarify the application of this act to ex parte proceedings, to ensure that foreign states are afforded appropriate procedural immunities. Furthermore, the bill similarly extends these procedural protections to proceedings relating to the recognition of enforcement of a foreign award against a foreign state, pursuant to the International Arbitration Act 1974.
The bill also clarifies that the Admiralty Rules 1988 are rules of court, and it applies certain provisions in the Legislation Act 2003 to the operation of those rules. This will exempt the rules from sunsetting but require that they be registered and published. This aligns the treatment of the Admiralty Rules with the rules of the Federal Court.
The bill repeals the Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976, which was enacted to give effect to the agreement between the Australian government and the government of the Republic of Nauru for appeals to the High Court of Australia from certain classes of decisions in the Supreme Court of Nauru. This agreement was terminated on 13 March 2018, and as such the act is longer required.
The primary intention of this bill is to improve the efficiency and operation of the AAT and to clarify and improve the operations of our federal courts. Ultimately, this will benefit those Australians seeking to resolve disputes in our legal system I commend the bill to the House.
The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Isaacs has moved as an amendment that all words after that be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question before the House now is that the amendment be disagreed to.
The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
It is a pleasure to speak on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2021 because this parliament should take a great interest in anything to deal with the way in which we think through the things that are affecting us as a country, an economy and a community, particularly through the arms of research in this nation. Labor has already said we will support this bill because we do appreciate that the bill itself is designed to amend the Australian Research Council Act to apply indexation to approved research programs, and it will also insert a funding year for the 2024-25 financial year.
The Research Council is an independent body which funds primary and applied research through the Discovery Program and the Linkage Program. It has been impressed upon us by the bill itself and the documents supporting the bill that this will be important to support the ongoing operations of the Australian Research Council, which we obviously support, and it's why we support the bill.
Coming to the broader point of research, research is critical, particularly in the environment that we are in, where there is an active reconsideration of industry policy being undertaken by countries all over the world. There is a need for us to think through how we meet or make the things that nations need, the way in which we are reliant on others and the way in which trade may or may not be working to help us in meeting the needs of the country. There is also a need for us to address things like self-sufficiency wherever we possibly can. That will not be something that can be achieved perfectly, nor should it be pursued overwhelmingly. We need to work out the things that we are strong at and good at, and be able to mobilise resources to ensure we scale that up.
The pandemic showed that when we needed certain things—most notably in the arena of medical equipment—we found at key points in time that we couldn't get our hands on masks and ventilators and, down the track, vaccines. It has also re-emerged that we yet again need more access to masks and rapid antigen tests. This also showed us that when supply chains were under pressure we needed to reconsider how we manufactured the goods and services Australians needed to get access to in times of need.
The other thing that has forced a reconsideration of industry policy is geopolitical factors, where, as I referenced a few moments ago, we have had to rethink where we get our goods from, the way in which trade is operating and the way in which disruptions to that trade may be affecting our ability to get those things. You are now seeing industry policy become a bigger feature of public policy in a way that it hasn't for many years. In fact the view had been, through a process of economic liberalisation through the eighties and nineties, that industry policy itself had been too driven by governments, had not been sensitive to markets and had potentially distorted the way in which resources were allocated, and that we weren't getting the best outcomes. For many years in this nation—and it started under a Labor government—we moved away from this whole notion of what was described as 'picking winners'. That singular phrase has stayed in political discourse in this country and in economic thinking for decades.
Yet what was happening offshore was that nations weren't necessarily so dogmatic. In fact a number of countries were actively thinking about what sectors they could back—some of which had come out of command and control economies, most notably countries that had exited the Soviet Union's sphere of influence. Most notably I think of Estonia, which has completely reinvigorated its economy with a big focus on digital and tech and which is one of the outliers, one of the outstanding nations, in digitisation and what it has been able to do to reform its own operations. Countries have thought about their strengths. Countries have thought about what they can do to mobilise resources to get things done.
From our perspective, Labor have said, through the National Reconstruction Fund, there would be a number of sectors we would think deeply about to ensure we see better industry outcomes. The pressure is on nations to think about industry policy in a new way, to think about how they can support sectors that are really important to their economy and, through the way, potentially, to ensure that the economic complexity of nations evolves as well. As has been observed, when you look at Australia's economic complexity, we have a lot of work to do to ensure that we are not completely and utterly reliant on a few sectors alone.
Under the National Reconstruction Fund that Labor have championed, we will look at improving value-adding in agriculture. We will look at improving value-adding in resources and mining. We will look at what we can do in the arena of energy and renewable technology development. We will also look at the arena of medical and medical manufacture, and at what we can do to support early-stage innovation and enabling technologies that other countries—again, I come back to the point about picking winners. A lot of countries have dedicated themselves to having very rigorous programs in place to pursue the development of national plans around artificial intelligence, robotics and quantum computing. All these things will be really important longer term. If, as a country, we want to be left behind, we only need to underinvest in some of those areas. Other nations get it. This is not just an issue of economic security but of national security as well.
In particular, there is this hunger that exists in the Australian community to see us deal with this fact that I think shocks a lot of people—that we are ranked amongst the lowest in the OECD on manufacturing self-sufficiency. We import way too many things across critical areas where we used to have a history of local production which has now gone. We need to rebuild that, and we need to find ways to ensure that we've got the things we need. Bob Hawke thought this through many years ago. That was why he championed, for example, back in 1989, the establishment of the cooperative research centres. It's why he thought about ensuring that we didn't have a brain drain and it's why he thought about the way in which he and his government could broaden the way in which the economy was working to ensure that we weren't reliant in just a few spaces, and we had these CRCs supporting economic and social activity along the way.
But, if we want to deal with manufacturing, if we want to boost manufacturing—which is what a lot of people want to see—and if we're going to be a country that makes things, it is critical that we be a country that thinks about how those things are made. Ideas are crucial. We see those ideas emerge largely through the investment in R&D that we make as a nation. As I mentioned earlier, the reality is that as a nation we don't do enough to address that issue of manufacturing self-sufficiency. And, if you want to make things, as I said, the other area you need to think about is how they're made. On the R&D side, we keep sliding down the international rankings. Since 2011 and 2012, we have seen investment in R&D contracting—falling from 2.11 per cent of GDP to 1.79 per cent of GDP in 2019-20. This is not good if we think longer term about economic health.
If you look at expenditure on R&D incentives in the period from 1985 to 2017-18, for example, you see that there is a build-up of national activity under a Labor government and then a drop-off under a coalition government, only to be resuscitated under Labor and then fall again. Those stats don't lie. They are there. If we are not backing our brains, we will see ourselves short-changed in the longer term. As has been identified by countless reports in R&D in this country, including reports commissioned by the government itself, we will only ever be a follower. We will be an importer. We will be basically leveraging off someone else's brains and someone else's ideas, and we will be a nation reliant on the imports of very sophisticated technology or product. We've got to be able to do better. We have to have the faith to back our local brains. We cannot continue to have a situation where we see cuts in that investment.
When it comes to research through arms like the Australian Research Council or others, the only consistency we do see is regular cuts from the coalition. From the moment they got into power, we saw continual attempted cuts. We saw a cut of $550 million introduced in the 2014-15 budget. Then there was an attempt in the 2018-19 budget to make a further $2 billion cut. This spooked even people within the coalition, and there was reporting by the Senate which talked about the damage this would do to the longer-term economic prospects of the nation. It had to be overturned. But what is staggering is that the coalition, without any sense of shame, then turned around and suggested that they were now adding $2 billion to research and development in this country, and they've been going around trumpeting how much they're investing in R&D when the reality is that that was the prevention of a cut that they thought they would make.
What we do see so often in this country under the coalition is that there is no sense of a broader framework with respect to what research is being undertaken in the nation, what's required to support it and how government can put those things in place that ensure that that happens. So we see piecemeal efforts. We see the announcement of a patent box or a fintech sandbox here and there, or we see different initiatives rolled out during a Press Club speech and a bit of money put here and there, or we see this type of initiative put forward. We see the coalition playing around with research as people reacted to the acting minister for education just before December deciding he would make a call on what research he valued and didn't value. We don't see any significant plan by the coalition to say: 'Look, we are falling behind relative to other nations. This is bad for our longer term economic prospects, and here's what we'll do to fix it.' There is none of that. This bill does not provide that. Nothing else that the coalition has done will provide that.
There are two consistent things, I have to say, about the coalition. One is they will always attempt to cut, particularly in these areas, and will always make a budget cut on issues that are critical to the nation. The other is, when they're under pressure, they'll make an announcement to make it look like they're doing the opposite or that they're better than what they are. But the announcements themselves don't stack up. There's no substance to them. We find out soon enough that the detail overwhelms the spin and the shine and the gloss of the announcement and we are back to square one. We cannot afford that.
A lot of us on this side of the House recognise, we believe, that this country, be it First Nations people or the people who came hereafter, given the isolation of this continent, given the way supply lines have worked historically, have had to be a people that are smart enough to work out problems confronting us. In a dry and arid continent like this, we've had to make our own luck and we've had to have the smarts to do it. We need an investment in brains, through the Research Council or the tertiary sector or our vocational sector, making sure we've got that. The coalition have always cut and failed to support local ideas and failed to back thinking. I constantly hear from firms, who are under pressure in the absence of government support and excitement for what they do, thinking they'll have to go overseas. It is unbelievable that we still have that in this day and age. This has been a constant thread through Australian history, where people have had to leave these shores to get backing for their ideas because we didn't back know-how, and that's not right. It's not right and it signals spectacularly a lack of faith in our own people to sort out these problems that face us all—economic or social. We should not have that. We should be making sure that institutions like the Australian Research Council and everything else benefit from a solid framework backed up by a significant investment that ensures that Australia is not just a place that makes things but also a place that knows how to make them as well.
It's a pleasure to follow the member for Chifley on this debate on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2021, and I commend him for his contribution to the debate. Whilst the legislation provides indexation of research funding, the reality is that coalition governments—previous coalition governments and in particular this one—have no credibility and no commitment to research and development in this country, as the member for Chifley so eloquently highlighted. Even more shamefully, the Morrison government has a track record of politicising the government's research grants process—first in 2018 when Minister Birmingham blocked 11 research grants, then in 2020 when Minister Tehan interfered, and now, after just two weeks as the acting minister, Minister Robert has vetoed six grants that were about to commence which had been scrutinised and approved by the Australian Research Council, an independent body that approves the grants on the basis of their merits and their suitability.
What makes Minister Roberts's interference even more disgraceful is that he announced his decision on Christmas Eve when he clearly hoped that his actions would go unnoticed and unreported. He was hoping it would be all swept under the carpet and nobody would notice his mean-spirited action. It was an insensitive and callous decision that would undoubtedly have shattered the Christmas of those researchers who lost out from their grants being cut. So much for the minister's Christmas goodwill and Christmas spirit! Furthermore, the minister 's interference was disrespectful to the independent assessing committee and destroyed all public confidence in the grants process. Is it any surprise, then, that the Australian Research Council chief executive, Professor Sue Thomas, announced that she will step down from her role early? I also understand that there has been a petition, with nearly 1,500 signatories, calling on Minister Robert to reinstate the grants.
Even more notable is a letter to the minister and Professor Thomas, signed by over 60 current and past ARC laureate fellows, which is very critical of the minister 's intervention. I will quote, in part, from that letter:
As current and past ARC Laureate Fellows, we are very concerned in the way that applications for 2022 ARC Discovery Projects were managed. Our concerns are threefold.
First, the funding decisions were announced a month later than usual, only a week before funding could commence on January 1st. Most if not all university research offices were by then closed till the new year. It is highly unlikely that any of these grants can indeed commence on January 1st, and staff be hired.
No good reason has been given as to this delayed notification. The retention and recruitment of research staff is greatly harmed by such delays. This late decision is likely to have the greatest impact on early career researchers, especially with regards to diversity and inclusion.
Second, the funding decisions were announced on Christmas Eve, giving an appearance that the date was chosen to avoid close scrutiny. This was a heartless date to give the many unsuccessful applicants news about their applications.
Third, and most critically, six grants—all in the humanities—were subject to rigorous and independent peer review and were recommended for funding but vetoed by the Minister … These projects cover topics like climate activism and China which are vital for the future well being of Australia.
I believe that that letter sums up the situation very well and just highlights, in my view, the improper interference by the minister and the government.
Researchers in Australia continuously face uncertainty and insecurity, living from one grant to another—grants which, in most cases, have to also be subsidised by the universities themselves. These are some of Australia's smartest minds, whose research leads to life-changing industrial and medical science and technology that not only returns over $3 in economic benefits for every dollar invested but ensures that Australia remains internationally competitive and capable of innovation. Indeed, we should be proud of the innovation brought about by scientists and other researchers in this country over the past decades. We have led the way on so many occasions
Sadly, we now have reports that over three-quarters of all young researchers have considered a career change in the past five years. I personally know of researchers who have left Australia to secure work overseas, and they got that work overseas, yet they couldn't get it here in Australia. Right now, they are working in other countries doing the very research that would have benefited us, as opposed to the countries they are working in.
Adding to the insecurity for researchers, Australian investment in research and development is at an all-time low, having fallen from 2.25 per cent of GDP in 2008 to around 1.79 per cent in 2018. The OECD average for research and development investment is 2.38 per cent. We are not only falling behind other countries but also slowly reducing the amount of money that goes into research and development in this country. How can we possibly remain competitive with the rest of the world if we are not prepared to invest in the research that is necessary to drive us forward?
This all comes at a time when universities already struggle to retain academics and researchers because of the loss of income that they faced from the COVID-19 pandemic and the Morrison government's failure to financially support the university sector. Because universities themselves have to put money on the table with respect to many of these research projects, it makes it even more difficult for them when the government cuts its own funding.
In my view this is short-sightedness on the part of this government and, quite frankly, it beggars belief from a government whose ministers I've heard come into this place time and time again and talk about the importance of research in this country, which I agree with. Yet their talk is not matched by the dollars that they put into the sector when the budget comes around each year.
As the member for Chifley quite rightly pointed out, over recent years there have been hundreds of millions of dollars cut from research and development in this country, and when the government tried to put a few dollars back in a year or so ago, it was simply a matter of just trying to pick up some of the cuts that they had already made. Sadly, they didn't continue with topping up the research and investment dollars that they announced a couple of years ago.
The minister's letter of expectation sent in 2021 to the Australian Research Council proposes several changes in respect of governance and the programs themselves. Both the Australian Academy of the Humanities and the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia have raised concerns about those changes. They have written to the government outlining their concerns. Their concerns are legitimate, and I urge the government not to ignore them for they are the organisations that know best where the research dollars should be used.
I will just conclude with an observation—and the member for Chifley quite rightly alluded to this in his remarks and, again, it's part and parcel of the governance and programs that the government is saying it wants to support with research grants—and it is: direct a lot more of the funds into the manufacturing sector. When this government decimated the automotive manufacturing industry sector in this country, it was contributing about the same amount of dollars to this country that this whole package commits to. With the indexation, which is what the legislation is all about, this package commits to around $800 million of research and development funding. That is about the same amount of money that was being poured into this country by the car makers at the time they closed their operations here.
So here we are, on the one hand, talking about the importance of a sector, and the importance of investing in a sector, while, on the other hand, we had the sector already operating here and investing the same amount of dollars that we are proposing through this parliament today and that will be coming out of taxpayer funds. Those investments, albeit they were being made by the car makers, had benefits for the rest of society, and their research and innovation was then transferred and used by other sectors. Today we don't even make cars in this country anymore. That's the kind of loss and foolishness I see from this government and why this government has never truly been committed to research and development. It talks the talk but it doesn't walk the walk.
Having said that, I hope that the government will at least listen to the concerns raised by the sector with respect to these allocations.
This bill, the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2021, amends the ARC Act to enable continued financial assistance to be provided for approved research programs administered by the ARC through to 2024-2025. Specifically, this bill alters existing funding allocations for the next three years using an indexation rate, resulting in an additional appropriation of $844 million to 2024-25. I welcome this.
The bill does not affect the substance of the act or operations of the ARC at all, and more's the pity, because some of the finest minds in the Australian research community tell us that reform is indeed needed. Let's see why they'd say that. Late last year, after months of delays, successful ARC Discovery projects were announced on Christmas Eve, with 587 project approved for funding out of 3,096 applications. While the nation was sleeping, 587 projects were slipped under the tree. This long, drawn-out process was led by the ARC College of Experts, highly skilled, extraordinarily competent, credentialled people, eminent in their fields. They worked through more than 3,000 applications, shortlisted them and then recommended them for funding. The list then went to the minister for education. So it was the night before Christmas and all through the house not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse. But there was some stirring, and six projects never made it down the chimney to the Christmas tree. They went up in ministerial smoke. The acting education minister, Mr Robert, exercised his right to overrule the rigorous ARC review. Minister Robert decided that six of the expert panel recommended grants for research relating to climate activism and China were not, in his view, in the national interest. He put his ministerial red ink through them.
I have been a researcher who has been through the ARC process. I've spent countless hours on writing grant applications, extensive literature reviews, careful collation of research teams' publication records and CVs, endless meetings, project planning rationale, compilation of budgets, proposed student scholarships, and collaborations with other departments and universities. Then comes the first assessment and ranking, then writing, and writing again, rejoinders. Then comes more waiting. Announcement dates are delayed, lives are put on hold and postdoctoral students, in December, are left wondering if they'll have a job in the following months. It means suspended planning and lives on hold. All of this is in an environment where university researchers experience less and less career certainty. We have heard speakers in this chamber this afternoon detailing the brain drain to other nations. All of this is in an environment where universities were excluded from JobKeeper. Finally, then imagine having made the cut, being a winner in the field where less than 20 per cent have success, and being one of the team in those six projects rejected by the minister on the basis that they did not, in his view, demonstrate value for taxpayers' money or contribute to the national interest.
Professor Lynette Russell, an historian at Monash University and current ARC laureate fellow, described the minister's veto as 'a significant constraint against academic freedom'. Let's be clear about who such laureates are. Laureate fellowships are awarded by the ARC to the most respected professors in their fields, with only 17 granted yearly. Professor Russell said:
Whether it be the test of 'national interest' or an excessive focus on a sector like manufacturing, research funding in Australia is becoming political and short-sighted.
Professor Russell went on to say:
Our title is rather telling: we are a college of experts, and I think it's fair to say the minister is not.
She went on:
The best return comes from letting researchers focus on curiosity-driven research. This has given us mRNA vaccines, the laser, and many other inventions that have lifted the quality of our lives.
Professor Brian Schmidt, the Nobel-Prize-winning astrophysicist and Australian National University vice-chancellor, in his state of the university address said there had been only 'four known occurrences of political interference' in the ARC's grant process, three of which in the last three years. He went on to say:
My strong view, a view held by many university leaders, whether they say it out loud or not, is Australia needs an apolitical system to allocate research funding and a review of the Australian Research Council.
Professor Schmidt said political interference can 'corrupt knowledge and slow down its creation'. He argued that academic independence is 'one of democracy's key advantages over other forms of government'. He said:
[It] allows us to pursue ideas across a broad spectrum of possibilities. We don't just focus on what is known or thought relevant or acceptable at the time.
The professor asked:
What would our society be like when the study of history, politics and literature has to reflect the views of the minister of the day?
Where would we be if we hadn’t been working on climate mitigation strategies for the past 30 years while the merchants of doubt sowed their seeds?
What if we hadn't invested in understanding the foundational properties of messenger RNA when it seemed just a dalliance with no practical benefits?
A petition with nearly 1,500 signatories—including those of high-profile authors JM Coetzee, Michelle de Kretser, Alexis Wright and Amanda Lohrey—has called for Minister Robert to reinstate the defunded projects and commit to legislating the complete independence of the ARC from government interference and censorship. They said:
That two-thirds of the six censored grants should be in literary studies demonstrates a dismissive attitude to the value of the imagination and creativity.
They went on:
The actions of the government reveal that it is committed to defunding Australia's literary culture by overriding academic autonomy and determining what kinds of knowledge can and cannot be pursued. This is especially ironic given its recent campaign to defend freedom of speech on Australia's campuses.
I want to be clear here: both major parties agree it is appropriate for the minister to wield this power. But I, alongside all of these esteemed academics, would say it is time for this to be reviewed. A Senate inquiry will now examine the power of ministers to veto research funding, after the Greens successfully referred to the Senate education committee their bill seeking to remove the power. Submissions to that inquiry close on 25 February, and I urge anyone out there who, like me, is concerned about ministerial interference to make a submission to that parliamentary inquiry. Thank you.
I want to be clear that Labor does support the passage of the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2021, but I especially want to acknowledge my support for the amendment moved by the member for Moreton:
… the House notes that the Government's mismanagement and politicisation of Australian Research Council grants and failure to adequately support Australia's universities during the pandemic are causing serious harm to our world-class researchers …
The Australian Research Council is Australia's independent research agency. Its purpose is to grow knowledge and innovation for the benefit of the community by funding the highest-quality research. The ARC runs a competitive grants process over a number of grant schemes. The process is arduous. The previous speaker, the member for Indi, spoke of this earlier and of her personal experience of that process. It goes through the highest standard of peer review. Applications take many months to put together and they take many more months to review.
I worked in the university sector for nearly 10 years. My first job in that sector was at the University of Western Australia, where I was a research contracts lawyer. One of the first tasks I had in that role was to develop contracts for successful applicants for Linkage Projects. Linkage Projects, through the ARC, involve academics working with industry and the university, with in-kind contributions, to develop a particular line of research. I also worked on developing agreements around centres of excellence. And though I did not do the agreements for Discovery Projects grants, I had a lot to do with the many academics that pursue Discovery grants, which is, in this country, the principal mechanism to fund basic research in the humanities and the sciences.
Discovery grants are extremely competitive. There is only a 19 per cent success rate. In fact, Discovery grants are harder to get than any kind of grant a Liberal government might give to someone in a safe Labor seat. Linkage grants involve, as I said, close collaboration and partnership with industry. In round 2 in 2020, the success rate was nearly 26 per cent. These grants are hard to come by. It takes a lot of effort to even get your application in, to get it through the rejoinder process, and there are many, many minds that work on these—the applicants themselves, but also the teams of research grants officers who help academics and their entire teams work through this process.
The peer review process is also arduous. Each proposal is about 50 to 100 pages, and each one is assessed by two members of the ARC College of Experts. They take their job seriously and read every single word. There's no colour-coded spreadsheet for the ARC College of Experts. Members of this college literally receive suitcases of applications under the ARC Discovery grants process. That's how competitive it is. It takes months to get through, reading every single night, these very extensive and expansive applications. Those applications then get reviewed again by four subject experts. This is a trusted, thorough, arduous and thoughtful process that has developed over many years. But this government shuns a well established trusted process in favour of its own personal political assessments.
The acting education minister rejected six humanities grants on unsupported grounds of not contributing to the national interest and not demonstrating value for money—this from Minister Robert, the member for Fadden, who charged the Australian taxpayer $1,000 a month for mobile broadband services. Where is the value for money in a $38,000 internet bill? And when did the minister make this announcement? It was on Christmas Eve last year. This is the longest delay in announcing ARC grant recipients in 30 years. You've got to ask: What are these people doing? What is the government doing? They have a college of experts and a thorough independent review process. They get their recommendations and do nothing with them, or they fiddle about with them. Who really knows? Ultimately, they make a political decision to grab a little soundbite in the middle of the night so that they can make an attack on academics, who are already under severe pressure, given that this government failed to support them through the pandemic, and, as we know, thousands of research jobs have been lost around this country, and 40,000 jobs have been lost within the higher education sector.
This is the longest delay in the notification of grants in 30 years. But perhaps the ARC Discovery grant applicants are even a little bit lucky that the member for Aston has been stood aside as education minister. That particular cultural warrior may have gone even further than Minister Robert. The truth is that there's a long history of interference in the ARC independent processes by the Liberal Party of Australia. Brendan Nelson, as the minister, vetoed three in seven applications. Senator Simon Birmingham, as the relevant minister, vetoed 11 ARC humanities grants. They play stupid, harmful games by picking titles that will get them a headline and maybe a bit of a clap and a cheerio from some of the shock jocks around this country. In doing so, they disrespect the literally thousands of hours of work conducted by researchers in universities right across this nation and that of their peers, the senior academics, the leaders of our research institutions that review these applications night after night. They think it's a little bit of a joke to pull out some seven-word title and dismiss the hundreds of pages of tens of thousands of words and the years and years of research that sit behind it. It's disgusting and it has to stop. It's wasteful, it's stupid, it's unfair, and it holds back Australian science.
I want to say a few words to conclude on the matter of science and commercialisation. I studied at university and worked there for 10 years amongst academics and academic scientists. From being around that system and from general reading, I’ve learned that you can’t boss around science. Discovery happens as it happens, but it always happens on the back of years and years of hard work.
The commercialisation of scientific discovery is important, but it is not everything, and it never will be. Not all science or scientific discovery can be commercialised. Take the discovery that the Helicobacter pylori bacterium plays a major role in causing most peptic ulcers. The work of the South Australian great, Robin Warren AC, and the Western Australian great, Barry Marshall AC, worked against commercial interest that produced medications and expensive surgeries to treat ulcers. Ulcers were thought to be a product of stress, and many people around the world spent thousands of dollars on psychiatric assessments and psychological appointments to try and beat ulcers. There was a groundswell of commercial interest that tried to defy the findings of Barry Marshall and Robin Warren. What Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved was that ulcers could be cured by antibiotics. This simple—it's not a simple discovery; it was years of testing and, famously, even self-testing. They changed the lives of millions of people around the world.
These two Australian scientists were working in Fremantle Hospital, Royal Perth Hospital and the University of Western Australia many years ago, beavering away, trying to get funding just like everyone else tries to do in a very competitive research system. A complex discovery, complex to discover, changed the lives of millions once they had proved it—of course, Barry proved it on himself. They quite rightly were rewarded with the 2005 Nobel Prize for medicine. This is a scientific discovery that won't make money. It saves people money. It saves individuals money. People that get peptic ulcers and other stomach complaints now know that they can have a simple test for Helicobacter pylori bacterium, they can take a round of antibiotics and they will more than likely feel much better; they don't have to go through gastric surgery or other kinds of treatments that often make people's lives much worse.
To conclude, I would ask that education ministers in this government have a real think about how they treat scientists in this country—how they disregard their thoughtful and long-term work and their extraordinary effort when they put in these applications—and not dismiss the extraordinary work that goes into each and every Australian Research Council grant application. I thank the House.
I thank all members and senators who have spoken in relation to the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2021. The bill amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to ensure continuity of the funding scheme of the Australian Research Council, the ARC. This bill is a routine matter that updates the existing funding caps and inserts new funding caps through until 30 June 2025 to provide for anticipated inflationary growth and the cost of Australian research supported by the ARC. The new cap for the 2021-22 financial year has been increased to just over $815 million, and a new paragraph has been added to provide appropriations, as per agreed Commonwealth policy, to the 2024-25 financial year.
The government values the important role played by university research in the creation of new knowledge, new social and economic citizens and as a platform for our engagement with intellectual and practical challenges facing the world. Of course, as you will know, Deputy Speaker, in my portfolio area, innovation and technology is a driving force for good as we reduce our emissions as part of a global solution toward sustainability.
The ARC is an important funder of industry linked research at our universities—research with real-world impacts to accelerate Australia's innovation agenda. Schemes under the ARC's Linkage Program require industry partners to provide matching funding to leverage funding provided by the Australian government. These schemes encourage and extend cooperative approaches to research and improve the use of research outcomes by strengthening links within Australia's innovation system and with innovation systems internationally.
ARC funding has supported many tangible long-term industry collaborations. For instance, a team led by Professor Michael Breadmore at the University of Tasmania has worked for over 20 years on great innovation to develop the world's first mobile device that can rapidly detect the chemical signature of inorganic homemade explosives—an interesting and important part of research that twins with national security. A spin-off company, GreyScan Australia Pty Ltd has now been formed and is selling the device for use by first responders and checkpoint operatives in a variety of detection scenarios, including military, public security, cargo and mail screening, passenger screening, commercial premises and, of course, at major events.
The ARC's Industrial Transformation Research Program funds research hubs and training centres to support higher-degree research students and postdoctoral researchers in gaining real-world practical skills and experience through placement in industry. One of the challenges that's always existed is making sure that academics get practical and real-world experience, not just because of the benefits to them but also because of the knowledge transfer that occurs into industry.
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I draw attention to in the context of primary research—many members might forget that it has an industrial capacity to take ideas and to develop them all the way through to commercialisation and scalability. These hubs and centres fund research in the priority areas: in advanced manufacturing; cybersecurity; defence; food and beverage; agribusiness; medical technologies and pharmaceuticals; mining equipment; resource technology and services; critical minerals processing, which is one of the most important sectors not just for Australia's research and industrial capacity but also for national security interests; oil, gas and energy resources; recycling and clean energy; and space.
These priority areas reflect the Australian government's commitment to developing critical industry sectors and to support collaboration between universities and industry. An example of these centres working in the advanced manufacturing and clean energy space is the ARC Training Centre for Future Energy Storage Technologies led by Professor Maria Forsyth at Deakin University. The researchers and their industry collaborators at this training centre are determined that the next breakthrough in battery technology will have a manufacturing home here in Australia, and thank the Maker for that. The centre is also training industry-led graduates who will become the next generation of renewable energy industry leaders in Australia—something we should all be excited about. There are already around 100 of these training centres and research hubs established in Australian universities, with funding of up to $5 million each provided by the ARC and with significant additional funding and support from industry partners.
These centres are breaking down the barriers between the ivory towers and real-world applications and charging Australian industry with the world-leading engineering and innovation talent of our universities. The Australian government's support for the ARC is enabling this transformation to occur in our innovation system. Successive Australian governments have made a sustained and significant investment in high-quality research within our university sector, which has contributed to its success and recognition internationally.
I thank members for their contributions and for supporting the government's continued commitment to the higher education and research sector. I do so because, on behalf of the whole House, this conversation is critically important when we look at the big challenges that not just our country faces but the global community. With the challenges and risk that are presented to the world on so many fronts, the solution is going to be the role of our scientists and innovators in technology, which is going to help and advance humanity. Particularly when you look in areas like the challenges affecting us resulting from climate change, it's going to be so important that we harness the power of technology and integrate it to the heart of our economy so that we can not just continue to innovate and prosper and grow but be part of the global solution not just to help ourselves but to help the world cut its greenhouse gas emissions footprint in the process.
It's going to be our research scientists and innovators who are going to take these ideas from their gestation through to their development, commercialisation and scalability, whether it's the potential of different forms of hydrogen and its role in industrial capacity and export as we move away from traditional fossil fuels to new and dynamic types of fuels or where it's ammonia. It's going to be the vehicles that we utilise in the same space through to what's necessary for freight, with potential for air and road transport too.
In every space of the economy and society we are going to face new challenges. The question for us is going to be how we respond to it. Universities can work in partnership with our research institutes as well as local communities. When I speak to various business leads and local mayors around the country about how they see their economic opportunity up to 2050, all of them talk about partnerships as part of the solution, and research is part of that conversation as well.
It's on that basis that the government remains utterly committed to the focus on higher education and research sectors as part of the building of Australia's future economy—something that it has done in past, we are rightly proud of and we wish to see continue into the future. It's on that basis 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 Moreton 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 is that the amendment be disagreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That order of the day No. 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Loans Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2021. I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Coalition Government has repeatedly tried to cut the pension, including pensioner concessions, the assets test and indexation, and attempted to increase the pension age to 70".
The Pension Loans Scheme lets older Australians get a loan from the government to supplement their retirement income. It is an important program, offering older Australians another option for improving their retirement income. Established in 1985, the scheme is a legacy of the Hawke government. But take-up rates for the scheme have been low, primarily due to a number of barriers to access. These barriers are well known and have been known for the nine years of this government. They include: not being accessible to all older Australians who own their home; the complexities of the loan scheme being difficult to understand and navigate; a lack of safeguards against securing excessive debt; high interest rates on the loans; and cultural concerns Australians have around protecting the family home in retirement, and family inheritance.
In the 2018-19 budget the government announced it was finally moving to introduce legislation to address the low take-up rate. Labor welcomed and supported the changes, and take-up rates did improve—moving from 780 participants in 2018 to over 5,000 participants in September 2021. But this improvement is against a potential pool of around four million Australians of age-pension age, including around two million pensioners who own their own home. So this result is not good enough. Many pensioners are asset rich but cash poor. They are struggling to make ends meet and would benefit from options offered under the scheme. Many older Australians living in retirement homes have contacted me to say having access to this scheme would make a big difference to their quality of life. The government's actions demonstrate they know just how far short their previous efforts to improve this scheme have fallen.
This bill introduces two new features to the scheme. Firstly, it introduces a new safeguard: the no negative equity guarantee. This will prevent the Commonwealth from recovering the amount of the debt exceeding the value of the asset. Secondly, it allows participants to access a portion of their payments annually as a lump sum advance. This change will help older Australians to make larger purchases such as extra support or to make home modifications. These are improvements to the scheme, and Labor welcomes them. They are changes that could and should have been made earlier.
The government committed in the last budget to a campaign to raise awareness of the scheme. Crucially, they have kept secret just how much they plan to spend on this campaign. I think every Australian would have questions about this government spending an unknown amount of public money on advertising during an election year. This is a government that thinks of ad campaigns first and policies second. That's why this measure comes up with a branding effort, changing the name of the scheme from the Pension Loans Scheme to the Home Equity Access Scheme.
At MYEFO, the government further reduced the interest rate, to a level more in line with other mortgages: 3.95 per cent. Labor supports the reduction of the interest rate, but it comes way too late. Participants have been paying interest rates higher than almost every other mortgage across Australia for years. Worse still, Labor knows these higher interest rates have been indirectly contributing, as a savings measure, to the government's budget repair policy. These are savings made off the back of older Australians, including full-rate pensioners, and Labor believes the changes in the bill are another job half done and another missed opportunity to fully address all the well-known and identified barriers that stop pensioners taking up this scheme and improving their quality of life in retirement.
The University of New South Wales's analysis shows that, whilst these changes will make a modest difference, much more work remains to make sure access is easy for those who need it. Too many older Australians in retirement homes and other communities have no access to this scheme. This lack of access is unfair. Addressing this will take some work—work that a government which cared about making a difference instead of an announcement would already have done.
Pensioners won't be fooled by the government's half-hearted attempts to support them. They know that this is a government that has tried to cut the age pension and reduce the living standards of pensioners at every opportunity. In fact, to improve the budget bottom line, this government has tried to cut the pension and increase the pension age to 70 in almost every one of its nine budgets, including the three budgets where the current Prime Minister had the job of Treasurer.
In the 2014 budget, they tried to cut pension indexation, a cut that would have meant pensioners would be forced to live on $80 a week less within 10 years. This unfair cut would have ripped $23 billion from the pockets of pensioners in Australia, affecting every single pensioner. In the 2014 budget, they cut $1 billion from pensioner concession support that was designed to help pensioners with the cost of living. Also in the same budget, they axed the $900 senior supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. In the 2014 budget, the coalition government tried to reset deeming rate thresholds, a cut that would have seen 500,000 part pensioners made worse off. In 2015, they did a deal with the Greens to change the pension asset test and cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year. So many part pensioners lost their pension because of this coalition-Greens saving measure. In the 2016 budget, they also tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. The government's own figures showed this would have left over 563,000 Australians currently receiving a pension or an allowance worse off. Over 10 years, in excess of 1.5 million pensioners would have been worse off.
On top of all this, the government spent five years trying to increase the pension age to 70. They waited four years before adjusting the deeming rates for age pensioners, despite the Reserve Bank continually reducing its rate for the same period, another indirect saving measure for the government. The coalition still have cuts to pensions in the parliament. They want to completely take the pension supplement away from pensioners who go overseas for more than six weeks. This will see around $120 million ripped from the pockets of pensioners. They still want to make pensioners born overseas wait longer before qualifying for the age pension by increasing the residency requirement from 10 to 15 years.
Spiralling out-of-pocket healthcare costs are a big concern for older Australians. These have increased because of the Medicare freeze put in place by the coalition government, and no-one spends nine years, including three as Treasurer, trying to cut the pension and increasing the pension age to 70 unless it is what they really believe in. Pensioners know they can't trust the Morrison-Joyce government if they are to protect their living standards and act to offset the rising costs of living.
In conclusion, the coalition have gone through three leaders in their nine long years in office. No matter who the leader has been, cutting your pension has been an enduring priority. Cutting the pension is in their DNA. But Labor's support for older Australians is unswerving, so we welcome the changes in this bill and we will not stand in the way of the bill. We have moved a second reading amendment. We will support older Australians, and our support is unswerving, as I've said. We welcome the changes in this bill and the interest rate reduction announced at MYEFO, but more work is needed to enable all older Australians of age pension age to access the scheme, untap the equity in their homes to improve their retirement income, and enhance their quality of life.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Loans Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2021. I totally reject the amendment put forward by the previous member, which frames the government as having failed badly on pensioners and older people in Australia. I reject that entirely, but I think this bill is a good move. It addresses some of those great problems, those conundrums, that people and the nation have to manage. How we fund the retirement of people in Australia at the kinds of levels that they would like to have their retirement funded at is a challenge for them and a challenge for us.
Age pensions were established in Australia at the beginning of the last century, in about 1909. At that time, when life expectancy was about 50, it was for people who reached the ripe old age of 65, so there weren't actually all that many people who went on the age pension back in 1910. If you survived that long, then you claimed your pension. Today, of course, the pension is available from the age of 66½ heading to 67. I note the comments of the previous member about the coalition trying to extend that to the age of 70. But it was, of course, the Labor Party that extended it from 65 to 67. But it is what it is, and I don't think that's a bad age.
Life expectancy is now 82.9, almost 83, years which leaves a gap of around 16 years in which people may draw an age pension, and that is the challenge that is facing the nation. It has been addressed over the long term by investment in superannuation, but I think Australians would be surprised to learn that, of that cohort of people in excess of 65 years old who are in the bracket of being eligible for the age pension, only 62 per cent actually draw on it. That would probably be surprising to most Australians. I'm sure you, Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, have gone into an office and people have asked what your pension number is as they assume everybody is on the pension. That is far from the case. If 62 per cent are drawing their age pension, it stands to reason that around 38 per cent are not, and I think this is the great success of the policies of a number of governments. Compulsory superannuation was brought in by a Labor government under Paul Keating—I think he was the Treasurer at the time, in fact—at a rate of four per cent. It increased to nine per cent in 2002 under a different government and now it's drawing its way northward again, and the current rate is 10 per cent and that is happening under a Liberal government, a coalition government. So there is broad support across the political parties for the notion of compulsory superannuation.
It's worth noting that there has also been an explosion in the net wealth of older Australians making voluntary contributions through superannuation. I'm sometimes put upon by senior Australian saying, 'Well, what are you doing for independently funded retirees?' What we do for independently funded retirees is set up this amazing system where the taxpayer subsidises your contributions into superannuation, whether that be done in the compulsory manner or voluntary. The 15 per cent flat tax gives the means for senior Australians to actually set up their financial affairs as they head towards retirement in a situation where they pay no tax. That has been subsidised by the taxpayer.
I'm certainly not decrying that, but I think people should understand that's how this very generous scheme by world standards has come about. It's led to that drop off in the number of people drawing on the age pension in their older years, which is, of course, the safety net. That safety net is designed to give a good standard of living, not a luxurious one by any means but a reasonable standard of living. An interesting way that the age pension is set is that it is not set by any one indicator; it is set by whichever is the highest between the CPI or the aged-sector expenditure barrel or a percentage of average weekly take-home male earnings. That means, on any one of those criteria it rises faster than the other two. So it is a generous scheme in world context, and, as I say, it provides a good standard of living but not a magnificent one, which is where this legislation and the personal loan against the family home scheme sits in place. We should celebrate what we've done.
At the moment, the pension stands, with the supplementary payments pension, for singles at $967 a fortnight and for couples at $729 each or a combination of $1,458 a fortnight. So I think we can safely assume that's the lowest rate of pay for people who are over that age of 66½ at the moment. The pension is brought down on a sliding scale according to your assets and income, assuming you are earning an income from your assets. That's the base rate. But, of course, the family home in Australia is not included in the assets test, and 80 per cent of Australians over the age of 65 own their own home. Again, this is a tremendous achievement in the world scale. In Australia it is still one of the things that we aspire to—to own our own home. Successive governments have recognised that that is a separate investment to everything else that that particular person can lay their hands on. So the family home is not included in the assets test.
But in the last 10 years—in fact, in the last 20, 30 or 40 years or any time frame you'd like to look at—there has been a spectacular increase in the value of the family home. Over the last 10 years, it's perhaps been as much as $200,000 or $300,000 or $500,000. In Sydney, the median value of a Sydney residence is $1.3 million. It would stand to reason that if your major asset is outside the pension requirements you should be able to utilise in some way that great increase you have had in your wealth by taking a risk at a younger age, saying, 'I will take on this debt, I will take on the challenge and I will pay off the family home.' Rather than having to spend a modest retirement, perhaps they might elect to spend a better financed retirement and get a little bit more in their latter years.
The obvious way into this is a reverse mortgage. They are available in the commercial market. But for many it's a pretty new concept. With a family home that they've scraped and saved for all their lives and consider to be sacrosanct, they venture into the commercial market with the mentality, 'I have worked for and paid for my house; why would I put it at risk?' It is of concern to them that somehow the market might turn against them and they might end up losing their family home or they might end up losing the value of the family home because they've drawn down on it in their retirement. It's a fairly unlikely outcome given the track record of real estate in Australia, but you can understand why it is a real concern for these people.
So government stepped into that space some years ago and provided the Pension Loans Scheme, where, rather than taking your loan out against the bank you take it out from the federal government. It's breaking the ice in this area. But this amendment actually eliminates that fairly remote possibility that the owner may overdraw the value of their property, resulting in they or their estates actually owing a debt to the Commonwealth. I don't think it will be a game-changer, but I think it is sensible legislation and it carries, I think, minimal risk for the Commonwealth and the taxpayer. This is to get more people to recognise that this is part of their wealth that they generated during their life and that there's no particular reason to leave it entirely intact for a second generation. Of course we would all like to leave our children a good start in life, but it is not incumbent upon the current taxpayer that they be funding somebody in the future. So it's a choice they can make. It's not compulsory. This should make it a little more friendly. The no-negative-equity guarantee will provide peace of mind to retirees that, whatever happens, they will not accumulate debt in this scheme.
This amendment also allows for a lump sum in advance twice a year. They can access, in total, for the year, up to 50 per cent of the current maximum rate of the pension back against that reverse mortgage, that offset against the family home. In the case of a single person, that would be $12,580 and, in the case of a couple, it would be $18,960 to supplement their pension. For a couple, that would put them in excess of $50,000, which is a pretty tidy income. My view is that, if you have that kind of income, why wouldn't you use it to enjoy your retirement years? So I absolutely commend the legislation and the minister for putting it forward, and I commend the bill to the House.
The Pension Loans Scheme is an important one. It allows older people in our community who are asset-rich but income-poor to have a source of income. But, of course, like everything under this government, it's been botched, and now we are dealing with a bill that attempts to fix a couple of the problems in the dying days of this parliament so that, in another case of spin and marketing, the Morrison government can say it's done something for pensioners.
The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Loans Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2021 addresses some of the inadequacies of the current Pension Loans Scheme and, on that basis, deserves to be supported. But it doesn't address all the flaws in the scheme. And as the member for Barton has made clear in her amendment, which I support, it doesn't make up for this government's neglect and mistreatment of pensioners over its many years in office. Changing the name of the Pension Loans Scheme is a typical move from this government. They have brought forth a bill to change not much more than the name of the scheme. The name of the scheme has been changed to the Home Equity Access Scheme. The bill also amends the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act to improve the flexibility of the scheme. Again, that is a change to be welcomed.
The bill adds two new features to the scheme. There is a 'no negative equity' guarantee so that participants don't repay more than the market value of their property regardless of their debt. This is a necessary protective requirement. It is in place for commercial reverse mortgage products and it should provide people some peace of mind around taking up this scheme. The bill also allows for two lump-sum advances in any 12-month period, with each lump-sum being capped at 50 per cent of the maximum annual rate of the age pension.
These are positive changes, but they probably don't do enough to drive uptake of the scheme, which remains at a really low level. There a number of reasons for that. A lot of them go to how people understand the scheme and how it has been promoted to them. It goes to cultural issues. It goes to the complexity of financial products. It goes to the interest rates that have been set by this government around it. And it also goes to who is able to access the scheme.
One of the unfinished pieces of business that doesn't seem to be addressed by this bill is that the Pension Loans Scheme still can't be accessed by residents of retirement villages, where people own their home but don't own the land the home is on. I see from many advocates for older Australians that that is something they would like to have addressed. Unfortunately, this has not been addressed as part of this change that the Morrison government is bringing forward. Again, it is typical of this government that in drafting a bill, in making changes, they failed to listen adequately and consult adequately with stakeholders about how they can best improve people's lives, particularly the lives of older Australians and pensioners in our community.
As the member for Barton has outlined in her amendments, this government always gets it wrong when it comes to pensioners. They're focusing on a marketing effort with this bill by giving the scheme a new name. They're not doing the hard yards of actually doing the work to improve the scheme across the board and drive the uptake that would make it a success. These changes come in the dying days of this government, at least two years too late. During the past two years, participants in this scheme have been paying a higher interest rate than almost every mortgagee because this government is taking pensioners' money instead of doing the right thing by senior Australians. So now again we have a moment where I presume they have heard from their electorates, have spoken to pensioners, realise they have done the wrong thing by them and are trying desperately to fix that up before an election.
I want to be really clear that, in contrast to this government's last-minute efforts, Labor believes that this scheme can do good things for our country. It can do good things for older people and we would make it work for all older Australians. We would allow people to genuinely unlock their housing assets and improve their retirement income. And, of course, it is not just in fixing this scheme that a Labor government would be on the side of pensioners. Across the board, Labor would stand up for pensioners in a way that this government has just failed to do.
Let's go through a quick review of the government's inaction on pensioners in their history in office. In the infamous 'slash and burn budget' of 2014 the government tried to cut pension indexation, which would have left pensioners living on some $80 a week less within 10 years—$23 billion would have been ripped from the pockets of the pensioners of Australia. This was what an earlier incarnation of this government was proposing to do to older Australians. In the same budget, the government cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions, axed the $900 senior supplement and tried to reset deeming rate thresholds. What a record! It goes on: in 2015 the government did a deal with the Greens to cut the pension for approximately 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension assets test. In the 2016 budget there were two things: an attempt to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to restrict overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks, and trying to cut the pension for more than 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners.
The government's record of policy misery for pensioners continues. They spent five years trying to increase the pension age to 70, waited four years before adjusting the deeming rates for aged pensioners even though the Reserve Bank continually reduced its rates over the same period. I can say with confidence that I hear about every time this government fails to adjust the deeming rates. I hear about what that means for older people in my electorate—the fact that they have been left consistently in a very unfair position by this government's failure to get deeming rates right over its time in office. This is the government that wants to axe the pension supplement from pensioners who go overseas for more than six weeks, which would see around $120 million ripped from the pockets of pensioners. These are people who might be looking for a family reunion trip to the old country. You can't do that and keep your pension. They want to make pensioners born overseas wait longer before qualifying for the aged pension by increasing residency requirements from 10 to 15 years. Everything this government does seems to be designed to make the lives of pensioners harder.
A Labor government would be different. I want to be really clear about how important pensioners and older Australians are in my community. It is a privilege to represent them in this place and to stand up for them. These are the people who built this country. We say it a lot in this place, but it doesn't seem to translate into action. They built this country and they deserve our respect. They deserve a pension system that they can rely on and that they can trust into the future. The track record of this government demonstrates that that is not what they have delivered. At every opportunity, the Morrison government and the Liberal-National governments that preceded it have taken the chance to try and slash and burn the pension. It's not good enough.
Pensioners deserve so much better than this government. They deserve so much better than a record of trying to squeeze or trying to take away a pension. Now a name change is meant to fix things in the dying days of this parliament. Pensioners deserve a government that understands they should be supported now and into the future; a government that is not obsessed with trying to find savings by squeezing the aged pension wherever it can; a government that actually understands what it means to be responsible, to be living on a pension, to be budgeting on a pension, to rely on a pension for your day-to-day life and your participation in the community. This is something I hear very often from constituents in my electorate, particularly during the pandemic. Pensioners feel like this government just hasn't understood how their participation in the community has been impacted, and how the support for pensioners through this pandemic hasn't really recognised the fact that, like all of us, they were separated from loved ones and from community, and they don't feel supported by this government through this time.
While this bill goes some way to fixing this scheme, it doesn't far enough. I wholeheartedly endorse the amendments moved by the member for Barton. I urge this government to do better by the pensioners of Australia.
I rise to speak about the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Loans Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2021. This bill will increase the flexibility of the Pension Loans Scheme, giving senior Australians more options when drawing on the equity in their homes and other real estate assets to improve their living standard in retirement. The guarantee will apply to all scheme participants from 1 July 2022. The guarantee will mean that, when scheme participants settle their debt, they will not repay more than the equity in the property used to secure their loan. This measure will enhance the strong safeguards currently in place, such as conservative age based loan-to-value ratios that minimise the possibility of a participant's debt exceeding the equity in their secured property.
Australians are living more than 10 years longer than they were 50 years ago. We want our senior Australians to enjoy the best quality of life during their retirement, and one of the key factors in achieving this is financial independence. For many senior Australians, the age pension is a key source of retirement income, but, with housing prices increasing significantly in recent years, we are seeing many of our senior Australians becoming paper millionaires with limited ability to access the benefits of their appreciating assets. Since 2003, the median house price in Sydney has grown from around $524,000 to approximately $1.33 million, and in Melbourne from around $280,000 to approximately $973,000. Even in Mallee, prices have gone up significantly in the last few years.
This is where the Pension Loans Scheme comes into play. The PLS was introduced in 1985 and is similar to a reverse mortgage or home equity release product. Like home equity release products available in the private market, the PLS enables Australians of age pension age to voluntarily unlock the equity in their home. It gives them the option of staying in their own home while boosting their retirement income. Importantly, people have complete discretion as to how they spend their money.
In 2019 the Morrison-Joyce government provided access to the scheme for all Australians of age pension age, including self-funded retirees and maximum rate pensioners. We also increased the amount available as a fortnightly loan. These changes have seen a fivefold increase in take-up over the last two years, and there are currently more than 5,000 participants in the scheme.
The changes to the PLS made through this bill will increase the flexibility of the scheme for senior Australians by providing a mechanism through which retirees can access capped lump sum amounts to meet unexpected and larger expenses. The introduction of a no-negative-equity guarantee will give participants confidence that they will not repay more than the equity they have in the property used to secure their loan when settling their debt. These changes will make the PLS a more flexible and attractive option for senior Australians in their retirement. To ensure senior Australians are aware of the scheme, its eligibility requirements and the changes made through this bill, the government will conduct an awareness campaign in the lead-up to implementation of the changes on 1 July this year.
It's estimated that around 80 per cent of senior Australians over the age of 65 are homeowners. The changes introduced with this bill will give older Australians more freedom to enjoy their retirement. This could be the freedom to visit their grandkids post COVID, to purchase that one special thing they have always wanted, to make repairs to the house, or just to remove financial pressures in day-to-day life. Over time, these reforms and our world-leading home equity regulation will help change the way we view homeownership. Your home is more than simply a place to live; it is a store of value that can be released to boost retirement living standards.
So how does it work? From 1 July 2022, participants in the scheme will be able to access up to two capped payments in any 26-fortnight period. Participants in the scheme will be able to access a portion of their payment as a lump sum advance. This will give retirees a new mechanism and greater flexibility to meet unexpected or substantial expenses. The maximum lump sum advance is capped at 50 per cent of the maximum fortnightly rate of age pension over the following 12 months—that is, 26 fortnights. Based on current age pension rates, the maximum advance payment will be around $12,500 for singles and around $18,964 for couples combined.
Participants will be able to take up to two advances in any 26-fortnight period, with the combined total limited by the 50 per cent cap. Any advance taken will reduce the amount of the fortnightly Pension Loans Scheme payment received by a participant. The amount a participant can receive will generally be the same, regardless of whether they take an advance payment, fortnightly payments or a combination of both. This will protect participants from building excessive debt balances while providing them with flexibility on how they draw on their real estate assets for self-support. As with all financial products, it's important to note that people considering participating in the scheme are advised to seek independent financial advice to ensure the Pension Loans Scheme works for them.
Homeownership has always been the bedrock of our society. We know that most Australians want to stay in their own homes during retirement—often a place with decades of memories. We want to give older Australians the confidence to tap into a small proportion of their home equity to increase their retirement outcomes. This bill is all about giving our senior Australians more choice and control in their retirement lifestyle.
I rise to support the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Loans Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2021. The Pension Loans Scheme is a long-standing legacy of the Labor Hawke government. The Pension Loans Scheme is one of a wide range of Labor policies that have sought to ensure the safety and the dignity of older Australians as they move through the later stages of their lives.
The loans scheme allows older people who are asset rich but cash poor to access income. This is a position that a large number of older Australians find themselves in, as many find themselves having substantial financial assets in the form of a home or property ownership but without any steady cash income support. The purpose of the scheme, which was created under the Hawke government, is to enhance the living standards of senior Australians who are unable to access the age pension because they were unable to meet the income test. Whilst the Pension Loans Scheme provides an important capacity for older Australians to access an income in the later stages of their lives, in doing so, to maintain their quality of life, this program has suffered under the stewardship of the Morrison government.
There are a number of barriers that prevent Australians from accessing the program in its current form. Equity, equality of access, the complexity of the available financial products and by-products, unintended consequences of safeguards against excessive debt, interest rates and cultural issues are all factors that contribute to the relatively low uptake of the Pension Loans Scheme. Despite each of these barriers being known for a substantial period of time and becoming more pronounced throughout the nine years of this Liberal-National government, the only notable reform we've seen to the scheme in recent years was through the modest changes made by the Turnbull government in the 2018-19 budget. These changes include expanding eligibility to full-rate pensioners and self-funded retirees, increasing the maximum fortnightly payment rate under the Pension Loans Scheme from 100 to 150 per cent of the full pension and the reduction of the interest rate from 5.25 per cent to 4.5 per cent. We supported these changes as they meant that more senior Australians, including full-rate pensioners, could increase their income. These changes expanded the way in which older Australians were able to access the scheme and the amount of money available to them through it.
The bill before the House further expands the scheme. This bill introduces more financial safeguards and greater payment flexibility, allowing two annual advance lump sum payments to help participants with larger expenses. In the lead-up to the election, in 2021, the government finally gave up on one of its long-term efforts to improve the budget bottom line on the back of pensioners by reducing the interest rate to 3.5 per cent—something that has obviously been necessary for some time to bring equity to the system. However—there's always a 'however' with his government; there's always a 'but'—it has become predictable with the Morrison government that this bill and the government's effort focuses more on marketing effort than actual substance. The Pension Loans Scheme and the safeguards that our country puts in place to ensure the dignity and safety of Australians as they move through the latter stages of their lives require more than just a marketing strategy.
The Pension Loans Scheme, an important Labor legacy that is crucial for older Australians to have access to income, requires more than just a new name in order to be sufficiently reformed, and provide a benefit to older Australians that it was intended to create. However, as happens so often with this government, the needs of older Australians are not considered or legislated for beyond the PR benefit that the Morrison government can achieve through announcements. It is crucial that older Australians have the capacity to live out their lives with dignity, and with access to basic services and quality of life.
The government have repeatedly failed to fulfil this requirement, and their failure for older Australians has been even more stark throughout the course of this pandemic. A lack of care for older Australians and aged-care residents is endemic to the Morrison government. We have seen time and time again, throughout this pandemic, their sheer disregard for the lives and the wellbeing of older Australians and aged-care residents. The botched vaccine rollout for aged-care residents and staff, and the ongoing lack of support for those within the aged-care sector—through lack of PPE, lack of booster shots and lack of support for staff—send a clear message from the Morrison government that the needs of older Australians are not a priority. Throughout their time in government, particularly through the course of the pandemic, the Liberal-National coalition have failed to listen to the stories and the experiences of older Australians and their families. The coalition have failed to legislate the very real changes which are necessary in order to reform the way in which this government treat those Australians who have retired and are moving on through the later stages of their lives.
The government's failure to truly address the needs of older Australians in this country extends far beyond this bill. One of the great examples of the failure of older Australians by this government is in the current state of the aged-care system. The government wants to claim to have put forward a plan that reforms the aged-care sector; but, beyond the smoke and mirrors, the government's response to the royal commission and to the mounting criticism of the current crisis within the aged-care system does not even fall short. It fails completely.
The government's proposed policies fail to deliver the enduring forms and improvements necessary to address the crisis in the short and the long run. Labor's criticism of the Morrison government's response to the aged-care crisis is not politics. It is not about political mudslinging; it is about facts. The Morrison government have delayed or outright rejected many of the crucial recommendations that the royal commission put forth as necessary changes for the reform of this industry. Throughout the omicron wave of this pandemic, day after day, we've been hearing stories of understaffed aged-care centres, of patients being left unattended—in many cases without access to even the basic medical treatment and care—and of the overworked and exhausted staff who are doing their very best in a broken system. The government have done very little to truly address these issues facing older Australians.
In aged care, the government's plan includes none of the recommended workforce and workplace changes that the royal commission outlined as necessary aspects of addressing the growing crisis within the industry. There's nothing to improve wages for the overstretched and undervalued aged-care workers. Similarly, with regard to the Pension Loans Scheme, which is the subject of this bill, there is very little done to address the core constraints faced by Australians in accessing the pension loan scheme.
While Labor welcomes any changes that have the capacity to improve access of older Australians to a reliable income and financial security, the bill proposed by the Morrison government does not do enough to reform a fundamentally broken system which has been created under this government's watch. Older Australians face a myriad of challenges in accessing adequate care and quality of life. It is disappointing that the government has procrastinated on so many issues facing older Australians. The budget and MYEFO changes, which are the subject of this bill, come two years too late. Participants have been paying higher interest rates than almost any mortgage, a saving measure for the budget off the back of senior Australians, including full-rate pensioners. Having such high interest rates has acted as a disincentive for many older Australians to access the scheme, and Labor believes that this scheme allowing people to unlock their housing assets to improve their retirement income should be fair and easy access for all senior Australians. As I said, the government has again missed an opportunity to introduce real change.
Labor knows the government needs to address outstanding cultural barriers to see real change in the take-up rates. The Morrison government needs to do better in addressing the issues which continue to bar many Australians from accessing the Pension Loans Scheme. Many tens of thousands of Australians live in land lease communities. These Australians own their own home, but, because they do not own the land, they are unable to access the scheme. This is unfair. The government must look at this issue and make further changes and open the scheme for these Australians. There are also many known cultural barriers that inhibit some Australians from accessing the scheme, yet the Morrison government has done very little to address these issues. Older Australians will not be fooled by these well-timed changes made by the Morrison government in this bill. Although there are positive changes to the loan scheme within this bill that provide some benefit to older Australians, cutting the pension is in the Liberals' DNA.
The Liberal-National coalition have tried to cut the pension and increase the pension age to 70 in every budget, including the three budgets where the current Prime Minister had the job of Treasurer. In the 2014 budget they tried to cut pension indexation. Had they been successful with that cut, it would have meant that pensioners would have been forced to live on $80 a week less within the next two years. This unfair cut would have ripped $23 billion from the pockets of every single pensioner in this nation. In the 2014 budget the government tried to cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions—support designed to help pensioners with the cost of living. They axed the $900 seniors supplement to self-funded retirees receiving a seniors health card, and they tried to reset the deeming rates threshold—a cut that would have seen 500,000 part-pensioners made worse off.
In 2015 the government cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the assets test. In the 2016 budget they tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. They also tried to cut pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners—a supplement which actually helped pensioners keep their homes warm during winter and cool during summer. Why you would want to go and attack pensioners is beyond me, but that is the DNA of this government. The government's own figures show they would have left 563,000 Australians currently receiving a pension or allowance worse off. Over 10 years, in excess of 1.5 million pensioners would be worse off under this Liberal-National government.
If all those attempts to cut the pension and diminish the quality of life for older Australians weren't enough, the Liberal government has spent five years trying to increase the pension age to 70. Of course they waited four years before adjusting the deeming rate for age pensioners, despite the Reserve Bank continually reducing its rate at the same period. On top of all that, the Morrison government has repeatedly taken steps aimed at phasing the cashless welfare card into use for the age pension. It is an offensive and dehumanising step, further robbing older Australians of dignity in autonomy.
Older Australians need a government that truly has their best interests at heart. Spiralling out-of-pocket healthcare costs are a big concern for older Australians, because of the Medicare freeze put in place by this coalition government. Pensioners know they cannot trust Liberal governments. As I said, cutting the pension is in the DNA of the Liberal Party, and ignoring the needs of older Australians—whether that be with regard to the pension, aged care or health care—is the Liberal Party's core belief. While the modest changes to the Pension Loans Scheme contained in this bill are being accepted by Labor, they are not enough to ensure the quality of life and security of older Australians. For that, we need a government that cares more about pensioners than about marketing.
The Pension Loans Scheme is a legacy of one of the great Labor governments, and Labor's ongoing support for this legislation is a reflection of our well-established history of legislating for the interests of older Australians. Older Australians deserve respect, compassion and care. Once again, the Morrison government, in this bill, is failing to provide that for them. It has never been more clear that an Albanese Labor government is what this country needs and what Australians, especially older Australians who helped to build this country, deserve.
Once again I stand tonight on a very critical piece of legislation, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Loans Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2021, which deals with the welfare of older Australians who are relying on the pension. We have the Labor party yet again playing games by moving a second reading amendment. They know it. The member opposite knows it. Yet they can't help themselves. There is nothing that they will not play games on.
So here, once again, we have an opportunity to debate how to make the lives of ordinary Australians, people who spent their entire working lives saving for their retirement, better, and we have the Labor party moving a second reading amendment so they can post on their stupid, silly and idiotic website run by that front group the OpenAustralia Foundation, which will no doubt say that every member of the House on this side strongly—as though I get to say, 'Mr Speaker, I'm not just voting for this but strongly voting for this'—voted against the welfare of pensioners. Let's be very clear about that. This is dishonest politics by the Labor party. These are untruths. This is misinformation. This is the sort of stuff they accuse Clive Palmer of doing day in and day out, and they do it, and they don't try to stop it. They're in this parliament enabling it.
We've seen it today already. We saw today on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, a newspaper not known for its support of any sensible party of government or any sensible political movement in this country, that the award-winning journalist Rob Harris has undertaken an investigation that I think Bernstein and Woodward would have been proud of, to discover that those crossbenchers who claim to be Independents and disaffected Liberals comment are fake Liberals and fake Independents but are real supporters of the Labor Party.
Opposition members interjecting—
I say to the members opposite: you can complain as much as you like, but one of the impacts—and I'll speak to the point of order—
I call the member for Moreton.
Deputy Speaker, we are three minutes in and the member for Mackellar hasn't touched on the legislation at all. He has to at least be tangential, surely, when it comes to the piece of legislation in front of us.
Alright. Please proceed.
Deputy Speaker, maybe if the Labor Party stopped moving second reading amendments that basically have everything including the kitchen sink in them, I would then have to speak to the amendment, but we've had the member for McEwen speak on everything but what was in the legislation, so I don't quite—
I call the member for Moreton.
Deputy Speaker, surely, if he's taking a point of order on my point of order, he should refer to my point of order.
I say yes. Please proceed.
Everything under the sun is in order because of your second reading amendment, so you can't have it both ways. The Labor Party can't come in here and move second reading amendments so that they can facilitate the misinformation that the OpenAustralia Foundation goes on with all the time. The member opposite can carry on as much as he likes about it but he is just as guilty of using this parliament not for debate or for actually improving the lives of pensioners but for simply playing undergraduate political games. You don't like being called out on it, but the truth is I'm going to stand here on every piece of legislation and call you out on it, because what you have been doing over the last five years is appalling and it denigrates our democracy, and frankly you all should be ashamed of yourselves. Sorry, those opposite should be ashamed of themselves, because they take votes from the crossbench, who—as we found out about this today on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, from the award-winning journalist Rob Harris, who has clearly undertaken months of investigation to understand this—vote 88 per cent of the time with the Labor Party and say that they're in favour of the climate, integrity and transparency.
Well, wow! Wasn't this a doozy of a day! The front page of the Herald! No doubt, this story has been there for any other news organisation to report on—the ABC, Crikey, the New Daily—but it took an intrepid reporter at the Sydney Morning Herald, which is not, as I say, a paper known for its support of right-of-centre political movements, to actually finally say: 'The hypocrisy stinks so much we are going to report on it.' And those opposite take their votes. What we found today was that those on the crossbench have been accepting donations from coal investors—not just coalmines but directors of coal companies. They are not just normal coal investors. These coal investors bought their coalmines from Eddie Obeid.
So we have both honest and untransparent. We have—
I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough. We are now seven minutes into a 15-minute speech. I've given the member for Mackellar as much generosity as possible, but he has made no reference to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Loans Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2021 at all. Surely he must make some reference to the legislation in front of us.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the standing orders are quite clear. The opposition get one opportunity to call a point of order on relevance.
I ask the member for Mackellar to return to the substance of the bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I of course adhere to your ruling. I think that the substance of this legislation is about how to make the lives of older Australians better. That's what I think is the substance of the thing. So I'll do what those opposite want.
This debate was about the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Loans Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2021, but they've moved a second reading amendment, which basically means anything that the sun shines on is now allowed to be part of this debate, because that is what all their amendments are about. Their amendments are about playing undergraduate games with the future of older Australians, and I will go back to where I was rudely interrupted before, no doubt, the member for Moreton calls quorum on me, because that's their usual next tactic when they hear something they don't like hearing about, which is how they take the votes from someone who has been receiving donations from a coal investor who bought a coalmine from Eddie Obeid—who had an adverse finding in the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption—who then split that one transaction amongst eight members of their family.
This was only discovered when a reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald, Rob Harris, had courage, because no doubt he was discouraged from writing the story, and then posted the story. That is why this government fights day in and day out to make the lives of pensioners better, and it can't do it because those opposite—
I call the member for Macnamara.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Mackellar is defying your ruling right now. You called for him to return to the subject of the bill, and he has gone about as far away from it as he has ever been. I'd ask you to return him to the bill that's before us today.
I ask the member to return to the question before the chair.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I continue to be relevant to the second reading amendment moved by those opposite and I encourage them to stop playing their puerile undergraduate political games of moving these second reading amendments so that they can post on some puerile undergraduate misinformation website that those on this side of the House don't support pensioners. And that's the problem. That's the problem right here. That's the problem with the donations. That's the problem with their speeches. That's the problem with their tactics. They don't want to talk about what the real issues are, because they're only about misinformation, hiding things and not telling the Australian people what's really going on.
We've had speeches from those opposite—literally all of them incorrect. We've had those opposite trying to claim that this government has been trying to institute the cashless debit card for pensioners. That is untrue. They continue to repeat it online. Why do they continue to do that? Because they're part of an institutional political movement that can only win votes by misinforming the Australian people. If they want to have a genuine debate about how to make the lives of pensioners better, everyone on this side is up for it. But they want to move second reading amendments.
There are those opposite making the absurd claim that we're responsible for trying to increase the age limit for the pension. Everyone in Australia knows that Wayne Swan began that process under the Rudd-Gillard government. Somehow those opposite are trying to fit up this side of the House with it. Once again, they'll have all their little front groups out there making that claim. They might make a political point; they might get the money from the coal investors who bought their mine from Eddie Obeid, and, nine times out of 10, they might actually be able to hide that from the Australian people. But the Australian people are no fools. They know when they're not being told the truth. They know that for decades this government has been the one side of this House that has supported and enhanced the lives of ordinary Australians on the pension.
Australians know that the pension wasn't started by the Whitlam government, as those opposite assert. Australians know that it was started by the Menzies government, when it was about caring and being compassionate towards those seeking to retire. Australians know that this side of the House has consistently and constantly fought for measures that are about making those people who have spent their lives trying to make their retirement more comfortable more possible. For example, section 56(2) the Superannuation Industry (Supervision Act) 1993, which was designed to fine trustees because they had done something wrong and stop them from paying that fine out of members' funds. Let me make that clear: stealing money from ordinary Australians' retirement savings.
Last Thursday, we found out that almost a quarter of a billion dollars has been taken out of the retirement accounts of ordinary Australians by industry super funds. And why? Because, as APRA confirmed for us, Australia's largest super fund, Australian Super, was apparently one administrative error away from being insolvent. Is there no-one on that side of the House interested in the fact that $233 billion worth of retirement savings of ordinary Australians is run by a company with $12 in share capital? APRA doesn't seem interested, because of legislative changes moved by those on that side. Don't come into this chamber and try to hoodwink Australians into believing that you care about the climate when you're taking money from coalminers, that you care about honesty and integrity when you didn't declare that, and that that coal investor bought his coalmine from Eddie Obeid. Don't come into this chamber and claim that you care about Australian pensioners but that you don't actually care about the fact that the largest superannuation fund in Australia is run by a company with $12 in share capital while it manages $233 billion in retirement savings for ordinary Australians. And the reason you don't care is that they donate to your political party. Don't come into this chamber and make claims that you care about pensioners or that the cashless—
The member for Moreton, on a point of order?
Deputy Speaker, the member for Mackellar is making outrageous accusations about you. I would ask you to ask him to come back to the legislation before the chamber.
I ask the member not to use the term 'you' in your debate, please?
Let's be very clear: this is a guarantee that makes the lives of ordinary hard-working Australians, who've done nothing wrong except spend their entire lives saving for their retirement, better. It gives better access, better equality, more freedom, more fairness in this society, and preserves those things that we actually care about. Those opposite don't.
I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Loans Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2021 and in support of the amendment moved by the member for Barton. There must be an election coming, and some members opposite are feeling under pressure, because this third-term government is finally taking some long-overdue action on the Pension Loans Scheme—or Home Equity Access Scheme as it will now be known. Unfortunately, once again, it appears to be too little, too late.
The Pension Loans Scheme is a legacy of the Hawke Labor government. It was intended to allow older Australians who are asset rich but cash poor to access additional income if they missed out on the full age pension because of the assets test. The Pension Loans Scheme is effectively a reverse mortgage, administered and distributed by Services Australia. The initial payments above any age pension entitlement accrue as a debt secured against real estate the person owns, such as the family home or an investment property. As with a commercial reverse mortgage, participants can stay in their family home and do not have to repay the loan while living there. The government generally recovers the debt when the property securing the loan is sold or from the person's estate after they passed away.
In the 2018-19 budget the government made changes including expanding eligibility to full-rate pensioners and self-funded retirees; increasing the maximum fortnightly payment rate under the Pension Loans Scheme from 100 per cent to 150 per cent of the full pension; and reducing the interest rate from 5.2 per cent to 4.5 per cent. Labor supported these changes as they meant more senior Australians, including full-rate pensioners, could survive in the face of the rising cost of living. The cost of living is a real concern among older Australians in the electorate that I represent on the Central Coast of New South Wales, where one in five people is aged over 65. Dobell, the northern part of the Central Coast, is home to over 22,000 people relying on the age pension for some or all of their income, and there are over 2,500 self-funded retirees holding a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.
Under the current arrangements, a full-rate pensioner can increase their income by up to $12,580 for singles or $18,960 for couples combined per year, based on the current rates of pension. Self-funded retirees can get up to 150 per cent of the maximum age pension. This bill introduces a 'no negative equity' guarantee so participants would not pay more than the market value of their property, regardless of the debt. The bill will also allow for two lump-sum advances in any 12-month period. This will help people to meet larger expenses such as replacing a car or home improvements or renovations.
Labor supports these amendments, but more could be done so more senior Australians could benefit from this scheme. In MYEFO 2021-22 the government finally gave up one of its long-term efforts to improve the budget bottom line at the expense of older Australians; it reduced the scheme's 4.5 per cent interest rate to 3.9 per cent, a change which came at least two years too late. Participants have been paying a higher interest rate than almost every mortgagee—a savings measure for the budget off the back of senior Australians during a pandemic, including full-rate pensioners who are struggling with the rising cost of living. The high interest rate is likely to have contributed to the low uptake of the scheme. Although some four million Australians are of age-pension age—including 2.6 million age pensioners, of whom around 80 per cent are home owners—there are currently only 5,000 participants in the scheme.
Labor believes this scheme, allowing people to unlock their housing assets to improve their retirement income, should be fair and easy to access for all senior Australians. Unfortunately the government has again missed an opportunity to achieve real change and address the barriers to participating in this scheme. The government cannot claim to be giving senior Australians real choices in their retirement without addressing these known barriers. Research by the University of New South Wales has found that, where there is a low awareness or low understanding of financial products such as commercial reverse mortgages and the Pension Loans Scheme, interest in them can be improved by providing information in an easy-to-understand way. Clearly, for the government, there is much more to do here.
There are still older Australians unable to access the program despite owning property. For instance, many Australians live in land-leased communities, including many in my electorate on the New South Wales Central Coast. There are over 500 such communities in New South Wales, accommodating around 34,000 residents. These Australians own their own homes but, because they do not own the land, they are unable to access the scheme. This isn't fair. The government must examine this issue and make further changes to open the scheme for these Australians who could otherwise benefit. Of course these changes do nothing to address the very real living costs and the pressures faced by age pensioners who do not own their own homes, many of them women—the fastest-growing group of homeless in our society today.
Although these are positive changes which will assist some older Australians, Australia's age pensioners won't be fooled by this government. They know that this government is not on their side. They need only look to the bungled vaccine rollout, the problems with boosters, and RATS not being available to aged-care homes. This government has failed older Australians, especially older Australians living in the outer suburbs or the regions. Many times, they've tried to cut the pension and increase the pension age, including in three budgets when the current Prime Minister had the job of Treasurer. In the 2014 budget, they tried to cut pension indexation, which would have meant that pensioners would be forced to live on $80 a week less within the decade. This unfair cut would have ripped $23 billion from the pockets of Australian pensioners. In that budget, often known as the 'horror budget', they cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions—support designed to help pensioners with the rising cost of living.
They also axed the $900 seniors supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. As a pharmacist and as someone who worked at the local hospital in Wyong in my community for almost a decade, I know how much that support means to older Australians, especially in terms of being able to afford health care as out-of-pocket costs grow and waitlists lengthen. This government then tried to reset the deeming rate thresholds—a cut that would have seen 500,000 part-pensioners worse off.
In 2015, the Liberals did a deal with the Greens to cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension assets test. In the 2016 budget, they tried to cut the pension of around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. They also tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. The government's own figures show that this would have left over 563,000 Australians who were currently receiving a pension or allowance worse off. Over 10 years, in excess of 1.5 million pensioners would be worse off under this government.
On top of this, this third-term government spent five years trying to increase the pension age to 70 and they waited four years before adjusting the deeming rates for age pensioners, despite the Reserve Bank continually reducing its rate over the same period. The Liberals still have cuts to pensions before the parliament. They want to completely take away the pension supplement from pensioners who go overseas for more than six weeks. This could see around $120 million ripped from the pockets of pensioners, many of whom have family ties and family responsibilities outside of Australia which mean absences of longer than six weeks—for example, those caring for a loved one or a family member. The government still wants to make pensioners born overseas wait longer before qualifying for the age pension by increasing the residency requirements from 10 to 15 years.
Older Australians are worried, and why wouldn't they be? They're worried about the rising cost of living, including out-of-pocket healthcare costs. They're worried about the spiralling cost of living under this coalition government. They're worried that, if they need more assistance to stay in their home, they'll have to wait far too long to get it. They're worried that, if they need residential aged care, it will be substandard because it's underfunded and understaffed. Above all, they are worried that, if this Morrison government is re-elected, they could face another three years during which these problems just continue and grow.
In time I have left, I want to briefly turn to the subject of aged care. Frail older Australians in our community deserve better. They deserve better than this government. They deserve better than a minister who goes to the cricket for three days rather than presenting to the COVID hearings to be held to account for the deaths of over 600 older Australians who have died in aged care this year of COVID.
It was four years yesterday that I lost my dad to younger onset dementia. I know many people in this House and many people across Australia have lost a loved one slowly, piece by piece, as dementia has ravaged them. So many people have spoken to me who, through COVID, haven't been able to speak to or see a loved one. One local person told me that she could only see her mum through a screen on FaceTime and her mum tried to pass her a cup of tea through the screen because she didn't understand that they weren't in the same room. Then there was the great-grandson who was so distressed that he couldn't visit his great-grandma because he wasn't old enough to get a jab and so couldn't see her.
Senior Australians deserve better. They deserve a government that cares. There have been countless reports on aged care in Australia, including from the royal commission. An interim report is titled Neglect, and the neglect has continued under this government. What I can't forgive is this Prime Minister, who, as Treasurer, made savage cuts to aged care which have left the system underfunded and older people vulnerable and exposed. I can't forgive the Prime Minister for this and nor will I forgive the aged-care minister for going to the cricket while older Australians died alone, without someone to comfort them, without a kind word. This is not good enough. Older Australians deserve better. No frail, older Australian—someone's father, someone's mother or someone's grandfather—should die alone, lonely and afraid, in aged care.
If there is any measure of our society, it is the respect and dignity that we show to the most vulnerable in our community. Senior Australians deserve better. Older Australians deserve better. They deserve a change of government. They deserve a government that cares. They deserve a government that acts. They deserve a Labor government.
I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Loans Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2021. Through this bill, the Morrison government is increasing the flexibility of the Pension Loans Scheme to give our senior Australians more choices in their retirement. Australians are living more than 10 years longer than they were 50 years ago. I'm sure I speak for all in this place when I say that we want our senior Australians to enjoy the best quality of life during their retirement. One of the key factors in achieving this is financial independence. The retirement income review highlighted that accessing a portion of a pensioner's home equity can greatly improve their living standards in retirement. This is particularly true for those senior Australians who hold a substantive asset but have limited income.
For many senior Australians, the age pension is a key source of retirement income, but with housing prices increasing significantly in recent years many senior Australians have become paper millionaires with limited ability to access the benefits of their appreciating assets. For example, since 2003, the median house price in Melbourne has grown from around $280,000 to approximately $937,000. This is where the Pension Loans Scheme comes into play, giving senior Australians another option for using their accumulated wealth to support their retirement lifestyle. Participation in the Pension Loans Scheme is voluntary, and the scheme is similar to a reverse mortgage product. Like home equity release products available in the private market, the scheme enables Australians of age pension age to voluntarily unlock the equity in their home. It provides senior Australians with the option of drawing a fortnightly loan amount, backed by the equity in their home or other real estate assets, to supplement their other retirement income. Through this scheme pensioners can top up their pension payment with loan payments up to a maximum of 150 per cent of the fortnightly rate of the age pension. Eligible nonpensioners, such as self-funded retirees, can receive the full 150 per cent of the fortnightly age pension rate in loan payments. This gives senior Australians the option of staying in their own home while boosting their retirement income. Importantly, participants in the scheme have complete discretion as to how they spend their money. In 2019, the Morrison government provided access to this scheme for all Australians of age pension age, including self-funded retirees and maximum rate pensioners. We also increased the amount available as a fortnightly loan. These changes have seen a fivefold increase in take-up over the last two years, and there are currently more than 5,000 participants in the scheme.
This bill will introduce two additional features to the Pension Loans Scheme to further increase flexibility and confidence in the scheme for those senior Australians who choose to use it. These measures will come into effect on 1 July 2022. Firstly, the introduction of a no negative equity guarantee will give participants confidence they will not repay more than the equity they have in the property used to secure their loan when settling their debt. This change will make the Pension Loans Scheme a more attractive option for senior Australians in their retirement. Secondly, participants in the Pension Loans Scheme will be able to access a portion of their payment as a lump sum advance. Life often throws surprises your way. This change reflects that reality, giving retirees greater flexibility and a new mechanism to help them meet unexpected or substantial expenses.
Homeownership has been seen as the bedrock of our society. For many Australians, a place to call your own is a crucial part of what has been called the Australian dream. This bill is all about giving our senior Australians more choice and control of their retirement lifestyle. We want to give all Australians the confidence to tap into a small portion of their home equity to increase their retirement outcomes. It is estimated that around 80 per cent of senior Australians over the age of 65 are homeowners. The changes introduced with this bill will give those Australians more freedom to enjoy their retirement. It will help them to stay in their own homes throughout their golden years where they can continue to create cherished memories with friends and family. We want our senior Australians to enjoy greater choice, financial independence and quality of life in their retirement years, and so I gladly commend this bill to the house.
I too rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Loans Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2021. The Pension Loans Scheme, or PLS, now renamed by the government as the Home Equity Access Scheme, is meant to allow older people who are asset rich but cash poor to access an income. The intention was to enhance the living standards of our senior Australians who are unable to access the age pension because they did not meet the income test. Why, then, are the take-up rates so low? That is the question we should all be asking. Clearly there are a number of barriers that are preventing Australians from accessing the program, and these include things like equity of access, complexity of financial products, unintended consequences of safeguards against excessive debt, higher-than-average interest rates and cultural issues.
In fact, these very same concerns have been raised with me in the electorate office recently. I was contacted by a constituent, Peter. He and his wife are both retired and on a pension with a small, self managed superannuation fund. They explained that, like many Australians, they receive a fortnightly part age pension and a drawdown from their self managed super fund for the rest of their needs. The couple own their own home, which, like for so many other properties, has increased in value over the years. They inquired about the possibility of supplementing their pension income through the PLS but found the process to be difficult, overly complicated and contradictory. Again, they appear not to be alone in this.
I met with Peter to listen to his experiences and his wife's experiences, and I was shocked to hear about the conflicting advice they received from Centrelink regarding the implications of joining the scheme. My constituent explained that when a pensioner has a PLS in excess or uses funds for a purchase the asset results in a decrease in pension. The government allows the pensioner to draw down on the difference of up to 150 per cent via the PLS and then charges 4.5 per cent interest on the amount, which compounds over the years. Peter sought clarification from Centrelink about how the PLS would affect his personal pension under the current asset test but received very unclear and contradictory advice. That's just one example of the advice that's being given to people who are seeking the PLS.
Following our meeting in December, I took it upon me to write to the minister responsible to seek clarifications for my constituents about how the scheme affects the pension and asset testing and particularly about Peter's situation. The minister's response highlights that, indeed, the proceeds from the loan or any asset purchased with the loan would have an impact on the pension. But there is clearly a lack of clarity and transparency in the PLS which is dissuading people from using it. And changing the name to the Home Equity Access Scheme does very little to clear things up—it's just a name change.
It is true that the 2018-19 budget included some modest changes, including expanding eligibility to full-rate pensioners and self funded retirees, increasing the maximum fortnightly payment rate under the PLS from 100 per cent to 150 per cent of the full pension and importantly reducing the interest rate from 5.25 per cent to 4.5 per cent—a very modest reduction.
We supported these changes because, after all, they meant that more senior Australians, including full-time pensioners, could perhaps increase their income, and I welcome the fact that this bill expands the scheme even further. It introduces more financial safeguards and greater payment flexibility, allowing two advance annual lump sum payments to help participants with larger expenses. It's a testament to the people who have been vocal advocates in this area that the government finally gave in and reduced the interest rate again to 3.5 per cent.
We on this side have long fought for this measure to bring greater equity to the system, but the changes have come too late for too many. Interest rates in Australia have never been lower, yet participants in this particular scheme, the PLS, have been paying a higher interest rate than almost every mortgagor in the country. This is a similar problem to that of deeming rates, which are set much higher than standard interest rates and ultimately penalise pensioners. What kind of government makes money from pensioners? This is what's happening in this case.
On this side of the House, we believe that this scheme, which allows people to unlock their housing access to improve their retirement incomes, should be fair, easy and understandable for all senior Australians to access. Unfortunately, this government has again missed an opportunity to introduce real changes that affect the lives of pensioners for their betterment. There are still older Australians unable to access the program despite owning real property. For instance, many tens of thousands of Australians live in land lease communities. These Australians own their own homes but, because they do not own the land, they're unable to access the scheme. This is extremely unfair. The government must look at this issue, make further changes and open the scheme for these Australians.
The PLS needs to be fair, transparent and easily accessible. The government can and should do better by people like my constituent Peter and all other pensioners trying to live their retirement years in dignity. We are supporting this bill, but at the same time we want to ensure that all pensioners are supported to live in dignity. They deserve nothing less, and unfortunately this government has a very bad track record when it comes to supporting pensioners. We've become used to seeing this government try to chip away at people's age pensions, and that has been the record of this Morrison government.
Pensioners have worked very hard to receive in the course of their working lives a small pension to live in dignity. The age pension is a proud Labor legacy. It was introduced by Alfred Deakin's government under pressure from Labor to ensure that older Australians could live with dignity. Pensioners, as I've said many times in this place, have worked hard all their lives. They've contributed to our economy and our society by paying taxes, and they've built the foundations that we walk on today. They deserve respect and dignity, and they deserve a government that is on their side. Only Labor will fight for pensioners. When Labor was last in government, we increased the pension—a real increase, not CPI or cost of living and other things. It was a real increase of $30 per week.
Over the past seven years, this government has had a record on cutting pensions or trying to cut the pension time and time again. It seems like a national sport for the Liberals and Nationals to attempt to cut the pension in every budget, every year. For example, in 2014, they tried to cut pension indexation, a cut that would have meant pensioners would be forced to live on $80 a week less within 10 years. In the same year, they cut $1 billion from pensioners' concessions. Then they axed the $900 senior supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. In 2015, they did a deal with the Greens to cut pensions for around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension asset test. In 2016, they tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 other pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. That same year, they tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. The government's own figures showed this would have left over 563,000 Australians who were receiving a pension or allowance worse off than they were. And who can forget that they have spent years trying to increase the pension age to 70?
Most recently, in August last year the government was caught out by Labor on its pension freeze for 2.5 million pensions. This side of the House fought very hard to stop this cruel pension freeze. The Morrison government still has cuts to the pension before this parliament. For example, it wants to completely take away the pension supplement from pensioners who go overseas for more than six weeks. This would see around $120 million ripped from the pockets of pensioners. As I have said in this place many times, pensioners who have worked all their lives and paid their taxes have a right to live wherever they want to in retirement—whether it be overseas, whether it be moving from South Australia to Queensland, whether it be moving from Victoria to Western Australia or whether it be moving from Australia back to their ancestral home in Europe or somewhere else around the world. They have every right to do so. They've worked all their lives. They've paid their taxes. They have the right to retire in dignity and live where they want to. Yet this government still wants to make pensioners born overseas wait longer before qualifying for the age pension by increasing the residency requirement from 10 to 15 years. All this is occurring while the cost of living continues to rise, including spiralling out-of-pocket healthcare costs because of the Medicare freeze put in place by this coalition government.
Cutting the pension really is in this government's DNA. Pensioners won't forget this government's record on cutting the pension. Pensioners have worked their entire lives. Pensioners deserve dignity. They deserve to live out their last years in serenity, quiet and peace, not constantly juggling paperwork and trying to see how they can earn much-deserved retirement pension dollars in their old age.
It's always a pleasure to follow the member for Adelaide. I always appreciate his contributions. I just want to get him to reflect on a comment he made in his contribution around people living in properties where they own the house but lease the land. Many of those people who live in that situation, who receive the age pension, also potentially receive some form of rent assistance. If you change that system it might affect their ability to receive rent assistance, and that might be a greater detriment to their income than amendments to the Pension Loans Scheme. As with any of these things, whilst I understand the point the member for Adelaide was trying to make, we should always be cognisant of the potential flow-on effects by considering the full picture, not just a particular issue.
In my time prior to this place, as many would know, I spent a long time in banking and financial services. Frequently I spoke to clients about reverse mortgages; it was always a point of discussion because they were looking to find ways to access the equity in their home. Despite the fact that the Pension Loans Scheme, in its various forms, has been around since approximately 1985, there have been a variety of changes to the scheme over the years to try and make it more attractive and open it up to more people. In that time from 1985 to now, we're in a situation where only about 5,000 or so people access the Pension Loans Scheme.
This bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Pension Loans Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2021, is important for a number of reasons. Importantly it's about improving the flexibility of the Pension Loans Scheme and giving the opportunity for more senior Australians to have options on drawing on the equity in their home or on other real estate assets to improve their living standards in retirement. As the member for Adelaide and others in this debate have quite rightly pointed out, we have the privilege of being in this place. But we have this privilege because of the people who have gone before us. We should recognise the efforts of those people who have worked hard all their lives—they've saved and they've contributed to building our nation as it is today—and always work towards ensuring they have adequate incomes in retirement.
There are those, we recognise, who have had the opportunity to have very significant and adequate resources for retirement. Many of those people lived and worked in an age, particularly if they worked for large corporates or if they worked for the public sector, when they received defined benefit pensions. Those on designed benefit pensions, particularly larger ones, don't face the difficulties of the risk of the variability of superannuation returns that many newer retirees face. Many others had various forms of fixed or annuitised pension income, which gives them a level of certainty on the income that they receive each and every month or over the course of a year.
But, as we know, one of the great risks with retirement income is that, your income stream—whether it be from an allocated pension, the dividends from a share portfolio, rental income from an investment property, or income other pension sources—generally, in most cases, is sufficient to cover your day-to-day living expenses, but, if you're going to live for 20 or 30 years after retirement, you're going to have some other major expenses. You might need to purchase a new car. You might need to upgrade your appliances at home. You might need to do some renovations. Sadly, your health might deteriorate, and you might need to do some renovations to improve safety measures around, or access to, your house. Not having something like a pension loans scheme where you can access a capital amount to do these things will impact on the pool of investments you have with which to generate an income.
We have long talked about the adequacy of retirement incomes in Australia. Whilst I think this is a good step in helping and improving that flexibility, I think much more work needs to be done on the entire retirement income ecosystem to ensure that it's fit for purpose in the 21st century, and I would hope that the next parliament takes up that opportunity to do some more work in that space.
As I look at this new bill, one of the important features—which is lacking in some of the products that are available out in the marketplace, although I do note, since 2012, this issue has largely been taken care of in those products as well—is the introduction of a 'no negative equity' guarantee to all scheme participants from 1 July 2022. The guarantee will mean that, when scheme participants settle their debt, they will not repay more than the equity in the property used to secure their loan. This measure is designed purely to enhance the safeguards currently in place and ensure that the conservative age based loan to valuation ratios minimise the possibility of a participant's debt exceeding the equity in their secured property. I think that's critically important.
One of the reasons those changes were made in 2012 by those opposite when they were last in government is that, during the 2000s when reverse mortgages were a very popular product out in the marketplace, we saw that, when things went bad with the GFC, people were left in a position of negative equity position in their homes. Equally, even in the ordinary course of events, they could have been left with a negative equity position because of the effect of compounding interest on the debt that was initially taken out. That means that, if you exceed the equity in the house and you have that negative debt, that money has to come out of other assets. So this is a very important and key provision of this bill that brings it into line with what's been done more generally in the marketplace since 2012.
Equally, from 1 July 2022, participants in the scheme will be able to access up to two capped payments in any 26-fortnight period. Participants of the scheme will be able to access a portion of their payment as a lump sum. This will give retirees a new mechanism and greater flexibility to meet unexpected costs and substantial expenses, as I outlined earlier. The maximum lump sum advance is capped at 50 per cent of the maximum fortnightly rate of the age pension over the following 12 months. Based on current age pension rates, the maximum advanced payment could be around $12,580 for singles and around $18,960 for couples combined. The participants will be able to take up to two advances in any 26 fortnight period with the combined total limited to a 50 per cent cap. Any advance taken will reduce the amount of the fortnightly Pension Loans Scheme payment received by the participant, and the amount the participant will receive will generally be the same regardless of whether they take an advanced payment, fortnightly payments or a combination of both. So the value of that flexibility is they can adjust what they wish to do to best meet their circumstances, and that's what the objective of this bill is—that people can make their own informed decisions based on their own individual circumstances. Importantly, this will also protect participants from building excessive debt balances while providing them flexibility on how they can draw down on their equity and their assets for self-support.
Why are these changes necessary? Well, as we've seen over the past many years, Australians are now living up to 10 years longer than they were 50 years ago. As I said earlier, we want to see our senior Australians enjoying the best quality of life during their retirement. The key factor to achieving this, above all else, is financial security and independence. For many senior Australians the age pension is a key source of retirement income, but with housing prices increasing significantly over recent years we've also seen many senior Australians become asset rich and cash-flow poor. These changes open up the flexibility and the opportunity for many Australians to access that asset and create a cash flow for themselves that is going to improve their cash flows and their quality of life. That's what the Pension Loans Scheme is designed to do—and that is, in fairness, really what it has been designed to do since its introduction in 1985.
As I said, there are many other of these types of products in the private marketplace, but their interest rates are higher and their fees and charges are higher, so there is an attractive proposition in what the government is offering to Australian pensioners. Importantly, people have the opportunity to make their own decisions, and we would always encourage people to get sound financial advice to assess their situation and the suitability of this or any other type of product. The changes introduced with this bill will give older Australians more freedom to enjoy their retirement, and that's what we want to see. As I've seen regularly across my electorate in talking to those who are now retired, whilst previously they wanted to go on trips overseas—and many have even recently said to me they want to go back to cruising, because that's one of their great joys: to have a cruise maybe several times a year—equally many are buying caravans and travelling around Australia, enjoying our great continent. These changes provide the opportunity for them to have the cash flow and the access to equity in their home to do those things. But, importantly, it allows them to stay in their home. It doesn't involve them selling down their home to access that equity to do those things, unless they so decide to do that from a lifestyle perspective.
We know that homeownership in Australia has been a bedrock of our society. It is your home. It's more than a place simply to live. It's a place where you've spent many, many years enjoying being surrounded by your family and your friends in your community. It is critically important, therefore, that we support our senior Australians in their retirement to enjoy it to the extent that they wish. I believe that by giving them flexibility through our Pension Loans Scheme to stay in their own home and access that equity for the benefit of their retirement to spend as they wish and to tap into, if they require, for emergency expenses is just another example of this government continuing to deliver for all Australians right across the country. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate interrupted.
I rise today with a smile on my face, not because it's Valentine's Day, but because the Black Summer Bushfire Recovery Grants Program has finally been announced, and there are some hugely worthwhile projects in Eden-Monaro that are being funded. It has been a long and difficult road to get to this point for so many of my communities, and I am glad that the government has listened to the calls to do more. I cannot count how many times I've stood up in the parliament and begged the government to do more since I was elected in 2020. I have asked politely, I have pleaded at times, I have even gotten mad, because it seemed like the government didn't listen or didn't care.
I speak to people almost every day who are still going through trauma and have got a long way to go before they get back in a home. People in regional communities like mine are strong and stoic, and usually they don't want or need government assistance, but these past two years have been incredibly hard and, two years on, this funding is needed just as much now as it was immediately after the fires. The funding is so very, very welcome, but I do question that we are now two years on, and the timing of the announcement is a little bit unusual. It's starting to feel like a bit of a coincidence that we are on the eve of an election. But the funding has been announced, even if overdue. Community groups and not-for-profit organisations have worked incredibly hard to meet the grant applications deadline. They were promised they would hear back in December last year, but bushfire recovery has turned into an election sweetener. But I'm stoked because I can now get in contact with community groups and congratulate them on receiving these grant funds, and I can't wait to catch up with them to see how their projects are progressing.
I have been fighting for years to get this funding over the line, and now I can turn my mind past the announcement and to the delivery, because we need to see the money delivered to these projects quickly and seamlessly. I have already spoken to some community groups, and the relief and happiness from individuals and groups is truly heartwarming. I want to make sure they are not forced to jump through any more hoops. The announcement has been made, funding has been promised and our communities are celebrating, so it is time to get a move on and make sure this money flows.
While many people across Eden-Monaro are no doubt feeling optimistic and hopeful thanks to this announcement, my heart still goes out to those struggling, to those members of my community who have been living in caravans or temporary accommodation for two years. I have no doubt they will be glad this money is coming to our community, but I also know that the funding won't help them directly. There are still so many people that need assistance, and some may be too proud to ask for help. Please know you are not forgotten, and we will continue to fight to make sure that you get the assistance and support that you need as we head into our recovery.
For many years now, members of the Queanbeyan community have been working really hard, raising money and building awareness about the need for a purpose-built respite care facility in Queanbeyan—somewhere that will support carers and provide short-term residential care for people aged between 18 and 59 suffering from a terminal or chronic illness. Respite Care for QBN is a project that was inspired by the tragic experience of Yvonne and Joe Cuschieri's son, Steven, who died at 53 while in an aged-care home, receiving respite care. At the time, it was the only option for Steven, who was being cared for by his parents after being diagnosed with brain cancer. Since then, the fight for a respite centre has been powered by a desire for no other family to have the same experience. One of the recommendations from the royal commission into aged care was to get younger people out of aged care. This facility is not only much needed and wanted by the Queanbeyan community but was highlighted as an issue by that royal commission.
Plans for the respite centre are continuing to progress, and the next piece of the puzzle is to secure ongoing funding. I remain committed to working with all levels of government to find a suitable ongoing funding arrangement, but in the meantime I'm looking forward to attending the Respite Care for QBN 1920s ball and men's calendar launch this Saturday evening. Organisers have done an incredible job of pulling this event together and, after three COVID related cancellations, I am sure they are feeling relieved that this day is coming. It promises to be a fun-filled community event, raising money for an incredibly important local cause. I can't think of a better way to spend Saturday evening, and I look forward to seeing you all there.
In Western Sydney, we are creating more local jobs for local people and the infrastructure to unlock even more opportunities. I am backing, at the table and fighting for more local jobs for Western Sydney to be at the heart of a new era of manufacturing and to educate and train our kids at world-class institutions in the jobs of the future. People in Lindsay want to work where they live. As someone who did the commute each day for over 10 years, I know how important this is. That is why creating local jobs for local people is at the centre of my plan for Lindsay.
Over 82,000 people in Lindsay have benefited because of the Morrison government's tax plan, and the benefits from creating tax relief for our local people is so important when we are talking about creating local jobs. Over 76,000 taxpayers are benefiting directly from our tax cuts, and over 15,000 businesses in Lindsay are able to access the instant asset write-off. This is one of our measures when I go out to local businesses that I hear about most, whether it is a manufacturer creating Australian-made doors and windows or a manufacturer that is creating Aussie-made Penrith trucks. A great example of this was when I took the Treasurer to visit Scott and his team at JK Williams, a local earth-moving business. We saw how much their business benefited from the instant asset write-off.
We are also creating wage subsidies for apprentices, backing over 2,000 apprentices in Lindsay. We are extending the support to ensure they can finish their training. It is so wonderful when I walk onto the floor of a manufacturing business, on the floor of a factory, and see young women taking up trades and being supported in doing that.
The COVID pandemic has hit businesses in my electorate of Lindsay hard, like across Australia, and for many it has been the biggest challenge they have ever faced. But JobKeeper has supported almost 6,000 businesses and 26,500 employees in my electorate of Lindsay. The tax-free cashflow boost has helped around 5,200 small and medium businesses, providing $229 billion in payments to help businesses in Lindsay stay afloat during the pandemic. Around 6,500 local businesses will be able to use the extended loss carryback measure to support cash flow and confidence.
With unemployment at 4.2 per cent, the Morrison government has made an unprecedented investment in skilling and training Australians, and we have the highest number of trade apprentices—220,000—since records were first kept in 1963. There are now more Australians in jobs than there were pre COVID. This is so important to my community of Lindsay, which is growing in opportunities and growing in investment. A lot of this has to do with our investment in Western Sydney international airport, a nation-building project right in the heart of Western Sydney, with 28,000 direct and indirect jobs by 2031, five years after the airport's opening, which is really just around the corner, in 2026. It's a $5.3 billion investment from the Morrison government, connecting Western Sydney to the world. Over half of the workforce during construction, which I'm really proud of, has been local people. So that is exceeding the original target of 30 per cent. We have a local workforce of over 50 per cent. That truly is local jobs for local people.
Something I am really passionate about is the future of our young people and educating and training our kids in the jobs of the future. When there's a once-in-a-generation opportunity like the Western Sydney airport, and with universities coming on board and the CSIRO moving into the local area, we have to grasp hold of these opportunities for our young kids so that they can work where they live and not move out of the area to find a good job. That's what I'm passionate about, that's what I'm driving, and that's all part of my plan for Lindsay.
I rise to speak about the status of women in this country. From the scourge of gender based violence to the stubborn gender wage and superannuation gaps, Australia has a long way to go in achieving true gender equality.
Last year shone a light on some of the core institutional barriers to the advancement of women in Australian society. We saw a cultural reckoning in this very building, the exposure of a toxic workplace environment which too often has ignored the appalling treatment of women. This led to an outpouring from women around the country who related to this and said enough is enough. We saw our 2021 Australian of the Year, Grace Tame, shine a light on the sexual abuse of Australian children and the rights of victim-survivors to talk about their experiences. Last week, we saw Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins speak so eloquently and with such power at the Press Club, confirming their status as two of the most courageous inspirational Australians.
I also want to acknowledge some of the strong and inspiring women from my electorate who have bravely shared their stories of such experiences with me, including how often they have been let down by the very system that should be there to support and protect them. None of these women wanted to be in a position to be talking about these things. But their work and the work of countless others is changing the conversation around gender based violence around in this country, and it's something for which all Australians should be grateful. If we look at the facts, women still face many barriers, and that needs to change.
We've heard a lot of talk from the Morrison government about women but not a lot of action to address the inequalities faced by Australian women. To address these issues, we need a government that cares about inequality and how to address it, not just how a photo opportunity could help address an immediate political problem.
I am proud that Labor is, and always has been, committed to equality for women and is committed to a suite of policies to address the many facets of gender inequality in this country. First and foremost, we need to ensure that women are safe, both in the home and in the workplace. The Respect@Work report found that two in five women have experienced sexual harassment at work in the last five years. That's why Labor will legislate to make it clear that employers have a positive duty to eliminate sex discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation. In the home, we know that one in six women have experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner and that one woman is killed on average every week.
Right now, women fleeing violence are being turned away from accommodation and services because of insufficient funding towards sector workers and the failure to recognise this tragedy as a national priority. A Labor government would fund 500 new community sector workers, with half of these in rural and regional areas. These workers would include caseworkers to help women leave violent relationships, financial counsellors for women in financially abusive relationships, and support workers for children. We would also appoint a new family, domestic and sexual violence commissioner to act as an advocate for victim-survivors, coordinate national safety policies, provide reports that track progress against the national plan and work with states and territories to gather data.
Housing is also crucially important for women's security. A Labor government will create a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to build 20,000 social housing properties—4,000 of the 20,000 social housing properties will be allocated to women and children fleeing domestic and family violence and to older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness.
We have a continuing gender pay gap in Australia where we face a 20 per cent gap in total wages and women retire with 40 per cent less super than men on average. I am proud that Labor is going to legislate to close the gender wage gap with a range of policies, including empowering the Fair Work Commission to have more power to look at wage increases for female-dominated industries, including some of those that have been at the coalface throughout the pandemic. That includes aged care, early childhood care and education—female dominated industries that have really helped to get us through this. It is time they received the pay and respect they deserve in that way.
It is not just one policy that is needed to address these things; it is looking at the issue of gender equality across the board. Our childcare policy is another really key element that will make that conversation more equal as families discuss who goes back to work with— (Time expired)
I was at Peak Hill on 15 January 2018, when the first lot of Australian steel from Whyalla was dropped off to begin the momentous Inland Rail project. The first leg, from Parkes to Narromine, is completed. That benefited more than 100 small businesses tapping into $110 million of procurement. Inland Rail continues to create jobs and spark local economies, with concrete sleepers for the nation-building infrastructure project being made in Wagga Wagga, my hometown.
As Deputy Prime Minister a month after the Inland Rail project started, I was pleased to start the process by getting the intergovernmental agreements with the states signed up—firstly with Jacinta Allan in Victoria, then with John Barilaro in New South Wales and finally with Mark Bailey in your home state of Queensland, Mr Speaker. But last Friday was a red-letter day for Wagga Wagga and indeed the project when the Australian Rail Track Corporation signing contracts worth $143 million with Austrak was announced and declared. I was able to go out and have a look at the factory at Bomen, nearby the special activation precinct at the Riverina intermodal and freight logistics hub—very much Inland Rail central. This is supporting 36 jobs that would otherwise not be continuing at that Austrak Wagga Wagga facility, as well as 14 jobs for Austrak's Rockhampton plant.
The 1.3 million sleepers, almost a million of which will be made in my hometown, under the new contract will be used to upgrade existing track and complete new sections of rail from Albury through to the Inland Rail end point in Queensland. I visited the facility on Friday and there I met production supervisor Lara Foster, a very impressive supervisor and person who is making sure the staff are doing what they need to do. She's originally from Griffith. She worked with the goldmining operations at Lake Cowal near West Wyalong. She is part and parcel of that vital component getting the job done at Wagga Wagga. Austrak managing director Murray Adams was there, as well as ARTC Inland Rail manager for stakeholder engagement New South Wales (South) Heath Martin. We made this significant announcement.
I commend Austrak on its continuing role in Inland Rail. It is creating many jobs—not just the 36 at the concrete plant, but many others in small businesses tapping into this process. It's proof-positive that this 1,700-kilometre corridor of commerce is generating so much excitement in regional Australia—and for good reason. The cement comes from Berrima, the fly-ash comes from Mount Piper, the wire steel for the 280-kilogram sleepers comes from Newcastle and, as I mentioned before, the steel for the actual rail comes from Whyalla. But there are so many businesses tapping into this whole process. Lara Foster said she's been working at the facility for the past five years, and she was pretty energised by this announcement. She said this contract is one of the largest she has seen, and she's excited it will keep 36 families in jobs in Wagga Wagga.
The federal government has already invested up to $14.5 million in Inland Rail. It is making such a difference. The1.3 million sleepers will include 695,000 standard gauge sleepers for projects in New South Wales and 615,000 dual gauge sleepers for projects in Queensland. And the scope of supply includes the design, manufacture, testing, storage and loading of the sleepers. As we spoke at a press conference, there were 65,000 sleepers stacked up behind us for that presser. It was an impressive sight. It goes to show what can be done when governments invest in the regions. It goes to show what can be done when governments such as ours invest in nation-building infrastructure—and right across this country we're doing just that. The $110 billion of infrastructure is supporting 100,000 workers.
Inland Rail is more than just building a rail line; it's investing in our regions and completing the national freight rail network. Parkes in my electorate is on the east-west-north-south intersector. That's making massive advances too, with small business and just with the community involvement. When I talk about community, it's not just about moving freight on rail. It's about getting trucks off the roads. It's about people. It's about investment. It's about the future.
Over recent weeks, far-Right antivax protests have cropped up in Canada, Britain, France and New Zealand. Last week these protests came to Canberra, where our 99 per cent adult vaccination rate makes us the most vaccinated city in the world. These protesters have a right to peacefully protest, but those of us who believe in science also have a right to point out that vaccines save lives and conspiracy theories can kill. Since the Morrison government belatedly began rolling out COVID vaccines in Australia, these free vaccines have protected thousands of Australians from hospitalisation and death. They work. Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C do not.
These protesters aren't just wrong about the science; they're also a risk to democracy. As Van Badham has pointed out, these groups should be judged not just by their relatively small numbers but by the damage they're willing to do. Ironically, the people who claim to be saving democracy are the biggest threat to it. The violent antilockdown protests in Melbourne, the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January last year and the global so-called freedom protests have brought together a dangerous brew of conspiracy theories. Today, 15 per cent of Americans agree with the central false tenet of QAnon: that the government and other entities are controlled by Satan-worshipping paedophiles running a child sex trafficking ring. The Melbourne antilockdown protesters have waved swastikas and nooses and welcomed anti-Semites. Some of the Canberra protesters waved fascist and Confederate flags. One brought a loaded sawn-off shotgun into the Parliamentary Triangle.
The Canberra protests attracted support from Senators Hanson, Antic and Rennick. Like Greens Senator Thorpe, with her support for those who vandalised the Museum of Australian Democracy, these extreme senators seem not to realise they're playing with fire. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister and the Labor leader were asked about their attitudes to the protest. The Prime Minister said he understood their concerns and blamed state and territory governments. It reminded me of Donald Trump's remark after Charlottesville that there were very fine people on both sides. By contrast, the Labor leader noted that vaccines save lives and called on the protesters to show some respect for health workers.
The protesters didn't seem to care who they were hurting. When the vandalism of fences at Exhibition Park forced the closure of the Lifeline Bookfair, they shut down a charity event that helps people with mental health challenges. Lifeline's amazing volunteers had been working for months to prepare for the book fair. I have made a donation to help compensate, and I'd encourage other Canberrans to do so too.
I'd also acknowledge the many Canberrans who turned the other cheek over the weekend, putting up with abuse in the streets and in shops. There are countless stories of nasty behaviour, but I'd particularly single out Richard Watkins and his staff at BentSpoke in Braddon, who behaved with calm decency when a protester threw a glass at the bar. I'd also commend the professionalism of the Australian Federal Police in managing these protests.
Finally, there was the attempt by protesters to co-opt the Eureka legend. In one sense, there's nothing new in this. Barely had the shooting stopped in 1854 when the battle of the Eureka Stockade became the battle for the Eureka Stockade—a battle for its history, meaning and legacy. As Geoffrey Blainey once put it, Eureka is a great neon sign with messages that flick on and off, with different messages for different people on different occasions. But the Eureka legend is too big to be co-opted by extremists. Mark Twain called it the finest thing in Australian history. Ben Chifley believed Eureka was the first real affirmation of our determination to become masters of our own political destiny. HV 'Doc' Evatt said that Australian democracy was born at Eureka. Gough Whitlam thought that it would stir the imagination of the Australian people. Even Robert Menzies and John Howard acknowledged the role that Eureka played in our democracy.
Yes, Eureka was a tax revolt, but it was also about democracy, multiculturalism, egalitarianism, mateship and the fair go. Eureka inspired the women's suffrage movement and the republican movement. It's fitting that our first female Prime Minister was the member for Lalor. As Clare Wright, Peter Fitzsimons, David Headon, John Muir, John Molony and others have made clear, Eureka is a big national story—a story for everyone, not just the extremists.
It's estimated that over the next 20 years the Sunshine Coast will have to house up to an additional 200,000 residents. Our challenge is to ensure that we do something that the likes of Sydney and Melbourne did not do: as an important part of South-East Queensland, our challenge is to build infrastructure ahead of the population curve.
There is no doubt that it is not easy for us to continue to carve out money. Indeed, the Sunshine Coast today is the recipient of more federal funding for infrastructure than it ever has been in its history. Some could argue, therefore, that that's enough; let it be. But I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that there's a reason the member for Fisher and I continue to prosecute the case for more funding, and that is population growth.
There is no project of greater importance to our future as a region than heavy passenger rail. With the explosion in population, rail will be important not just to ensure connectivity but also to ensure population settlement. Indeed, the trick for us is to avoid urban sprawl and a strip of high-rises along the coast and to allow for density around new railway stations and greater density in old railway towns.
Now, for the first time in history, this government, the coalition government, has put money on the table—$390 million no less—for the north coast rail line between Beerburrum and Nambour. Not so much as one dollar had ever been put to that stretch of rail, but we went into bat for it and we secured that record funding. Unfortunately, the state government, who owns and operates that rail system, still to this day refuses outright to match our funding. It is a free gift. It is a 50 per cent discount on their cost. We ask for no equity play, but still they refuse to match our funding. Nevertheless, our priority remains delivering for the community, and that money shall be used thus, and we want it to be used. But it will only be used on stage 1 of a two-stage project, between Beerburrum and Nambour.
This takes me to our priorities for rail moving forward. There are two. First, we need to ensure that stage 2 of the project, Landsborough to Nambour, is improved. If indeed the state government is wanting to hold back on getting the job done, as they are, let's go for the solution that the community deserves. That solution is full duplication all the way through to the Nambour station, designed in such a way that it can accommodate the possibility of fast rail in the future. That's what stage 2 should look like. Our second priority is to have heavy passenger rail running from Beerwah all the way through to the Maroochydore CBD, passing through Caloundra and Kawana, opening up that coastal strip to heavy passenger rail for the first time. We're serious about this, which is why we have put $5 million on the table for a business case for stage 2 through to Nambour and $3 million on the table for investment planning for the CAMCOS corridor. The state, thankfully, will match us on the CAMCOS investment study, but it still refuses to match us on Nambour.
In closing, I will just say that these two rail projects, which our region needs, will be the most transformative projects. The fact that we will be hosting the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games puts a deadline into the system and builds pressure into the system. We need to ensure these projects are delivered on time.
House adjourned at 20:00
We are in the midst of a GP crisis in regional parts of Australia, particularly in my electorate of Bendigo. It has not been this bad since the Liberal and National parties were last in government in 2004, when people would say that the books were closed. People are saying that all over again. I regularly get complaints from people who have lived in the area for a long time and their GP is just booked out and from people who have moved into the area and can't find a GP that will add them, so to speak, to the books. They're told that the books are closed.
This crisis is of the government's own making. They really have stuffed up primary health care delivery in this country. The freeze to the Medicare rebate has made it hard for some GPs to break even, forcing some GPs to charge gap fees for people wanting basic consult services. It means that some people delay going to the GP for a regular check-up because of the cost involved. They don't go to the GP until their symptoms or condition is much worse. They then present to the GP with quite chronic health issues. With the Medicare freeze the government has made it harder for GPs. It's simply a lot more expensive for GPs to run their practices today, and Medicare is not keeping up.
The government also hasn't trained enough doctors locally and hasn't put the right incentives in place for doctors to move to the regions. What the government has done in the last little while is too little too late. People are saying to me locally that they don't believe it will work. We have a real problem attracting people to the regions. In my area of Bendigo I am told that locally we are about to have seven GPs retire and a few more move away. That's going to have a huge impact on the ability of GPs to meet demand.
Right now if somebody is wanting a consult in any of the big clinics they almost have to plan to get sick three weeks ahead. It's at least a three-week wait for some people to see a doctor. Kids don't tell you three weeks in advance that they're about to get sick. It's okay if you're going back to a GP, say, to get a script renewed, for a regular check-up or for a consult to manage a chronic health issue. But that's not the majority of cases. The majority of people seek primary health care, seek an appointment with their GP, because they're sick. At the moment the system is so under pressure they're having to wait three weeks. In the middle of a pandemic people can't access the basics of primary health care. As we come out of this pandemic we need to be investing more—more in Medicare, more in primary health care and more in encouraging GPs to move to the regions and to stay.
On the weekend I had the opportunity to join Premier Steven Marshall to inspect the finished Magill and Portrush roads intersection project. It was a $98 million partnership between the South Australian and Australian governments. I was very proud to be there at the end because of course I was there at the very start. I remember back in 2019 when we made the commitment to invest together in that project—$98 million; 50-50—to upgrade and overhaul that intersection.
Portrush Road is Highway 1, so it's a Commonwealth freight route, and Magill Road essentially bisects my electorate, so it's right in the heart and of course has an enormous amount of traffic. Some 65,000 cars a day go through that intersection. It needed an overhaul. We have delivered on that. We have extra turning lanes off Portrush Road onto Magill Road in both directions, as well as enhanced left-turn lanes in all directions, particularly from Magill Road to Portrush Road if you're travelling east.
It took almost three years from conception to finished product. The Premier and I visited there on Sunday. We saw the new asphalt being laid. That will cause some local disruption. I do apologise to residents for the inconvenience of the last couple of years, particularly the last few weeks of night works. It is always a significant hindrance to people when a major highway like Portrush Road has to have restricted lane use. But I'm very confident that people are happy that the imposition was worthwhile and that the outcome we're getting is going to deliver for local families and businesses. What it means, ultimately, is that people will be able to get home quicker and safer. Obviously, having large trucks move through that intersection and carrying a lot of commuter traffic locally, both roads are major arterial roads. Magill Road carries people from our suburbs into and out of the city, and Portrush Road takes people from the tollgate and takes freight moving through the city, which goes from the tollgate, right along Portrush Road and up into the northern industrial parts of northern Adelaide and South Australia.
It's a great outcome. It reminds us of how important it is to keep investing in congestion busting in our suburbs. This is one of three projects happening in my electorate, along with the Fullarton Road and Cross Road project and the Glen Osmond Road and Fullarton Road project. All three are excellent examples of us investing in congestion busting for our suburbs. And there's also the productivity outcome of making sure that we are moving goods to market as quickly as possible as well as getting families to and from where they need to go as quickly as possible. I'm proud to see it delivered. I'm proud that, after we committed to it before the last election, coming into the next election we can say that it is done. It's another great example of two governments working together to deliver for the eastern suburbs of Adelaide.
The end of 2021 was supposed to herald the start of the 'hot vax summer' for my electorate of Lilley. Queenslanders had smashed our 80 per cent vaccination target with a week to spare, restrictions had been lifted and we were ready to celebrate. We now know, with the benefit of hindsight, that the omicron surge delivered a fresh set of challenges, and the hot vax summer has been postponed for another 12 months.
As we prepared to enter our third year of this pandemic, there was a sense amongst my community that northsiders needed a bit of a morale booster to get through the omicron surge and kick off a fresh year. So I fired up Lilley's trusty Ute Full of Tim Tams and got to work. I asked my constituents to nominate someone they knew who deserved to be recognised for their work or for their good deeds during the omicron surge. And seeing as today is Valentine's Day, I wanted to wish everyone in the chamber a happy Valentine's and spread the love by recognising a few of the very deserving Lilley nominees of the Ute Full of Tim Tams here in the federal parliament.
Of course, the first stop for Lilley's Ute Full of Tim Tams was to our Lilley healthcare workers at the Prince Charles Hospital, who were nominated by Lily, as it was. Our nurses, our doctors, our wardies, our cleaners and our admin staff at the Prince Charles Hospital do brilliant work even at normal times, but they have worked around the clock, for two years straight now, testing northsiders at the fever clinic and treating positive patients in our pop-up COVID ward.
Sandra, who is a local nurse living in Boondall, was nominated by her husband, Kevin. Sandra works at a hospital in Brisbane and regularly puts up her hand to work extra shifts or to stay back to help out with the constant COVID staff shortages. They were a very nice couple to meet, too. Martin nominated his partner, Stephanie, who is molecular scientist at a local pathology lab. Stephanie has been working day and night to tackle the flood of PCR tests at her lab, even working until after midnight on Christmas. Stephanie was not even there when we went to drop off the Tim Tams—she was at work—but I was very glad to meet Martin and their dog instead.
James nominated Joy, from FriendlyCare Pharmacy, which is just across the road from my electorate office, in Nundah. Joy put together a survival kit for James when he was struck down with COVID and organised a contactless delivery for him. Marie nominated Kevin for his voluntary work at the pop-up clinic at Doomben Racecourse. Without volunteers like Kevin putting up their hands to help out we would not be at 90 per cent vaccination rates in Queensland, as we are now.
Sandra, Stephanie, Joy and Kevin are just a handful of the people who have received a packet of Tim Tams from me this summer and a handful of the healthcare workers who have gone above and beyond the call of duty to help us get through the omicron surge. I thank them and everybody who has helped out for all of their work this summer.
I want to acknowledge the 15 Order of Australia recipients from the electorate of Berowra. Former RFS Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons is a hero to so many people. He was honoured with an Officer of the Order of Australia for his work in leading the RFS during the Black Summer bushfires of 2019-20, when six per cent of New South Wales or around 5½ million hectares of land was burnt. His leadership brought calm at time of great crisis. Justice Gary Watts has been appointed a Member of the Order of Australia. Justice Watts was one of the leading practitioners of family law in Australia before his appointment to the Family Court in 2005, and since 2018 he's served on the appeals division of the Family Court.
Group Captain James Badgery was made a Member of the Order of Australia for exceptional service to the Australian Defence Force in aerospace capability development. Mr Kazi Ali, who's dedicated his life to serving the Muslim community in managing death and burial issues, was also recognised for his service to the Islamic community with a Medal of the Order. Another OAM recipient is Lorna Clayton, a resident of the Living Choice retirement village in Glenhaven. Just after settling into her new home, Lorna set up a writing group. Lorna did a letterbox drop in the village and asked people if they were interested. She managed to get a handful of people involved to give talks about things they'd written. The writing group still meets once a month and has spawned the retirement village's annual writers festival.
Kay De Luca and her late husband, Tony, were also honoured for their service to motoring clubs. Mrs De Luca served as the treasurer and a committee member of the Council of Motor Clubs for 12 years and was also secretary-treasurer of the BMC-Leyland Australia Heritage Group, which was founded by her husband. Also honoured with an OAM was Beverley Garside who was diagnosed with two autoimmune diseases in the mid 1980s. Following an operation, Beverley put her hand up for the Thyroid Foundation's committee nominations and was soon appointed president in 1999. Beverley also raises awareness in the community about thyroid disorders and how people can best detect symptoms and changes to their thyroid.
The late Lionel Smith was recognised for his services to firefighting. Lionel was a long-serving fire control officer in the Hills district and gave over 75 years of service to New South Wales firefighting organisations, with his first firefighting experience at age 15. Other OAM recipient include: Bastiaan van Dongen, from Cherrybrook, for his service to the Dutch community; Professor Elizabeth McCusker, for her service to medicine as a neurologist, particularly in the field of Huntington's disease; Mr Bruce Wood, of Thornleigh, for his long service to cricket in our district; and Ms Susan Day, from Cheltenham, for her service to the community through a range of organisations, especially in the Beecroft community.
Margaret Skewes was awarded a Public Service Medal for a long and very successful career in the New South Wales public service. Peter Jacobs was awarded an Australian Fire Service Medal for his outstanding work over 36 years in the RFS and Fire and Rescue NSW.
I want to congratulate all the recipients and encourage people in our electorate to nominate people for the Order of Australia. It's a wonderful way to recognise Australians of all walks of life for their achievements in the hard work that they do for our community.
Today, a local organisation based in my electorate of Griffith that facilitates reunions of members of the stolen generations and their families is holding an event to commemorate the 14th anniversary of the national apology given by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. It's an event that I try to attend every year, and today I'm so sad not to be able to be there with Link-Up Queensland and all of the people who are joining together to commemorate this significant day. They're at QPAC and they're having an event at which people will be making speeches, including members of the stolen generations themselves, about our nation's history and our nation's future. I want to say to those people who are gathering together at Southbank that I do wish very much that I were with you today to commemorate this really significant occasion. I want to particularly acknowledge any of the stolen generations who have any connection with the former Cranbrook house, which is one of the places where people were taken and which Link-Up Queensland has had a long history of addressing in terms of bringing people back together.
I also want to acknowledge the CEO of Link-Up, Ms Pat Thompson AM. I really wish to congratulate her as well as acknowledge her. She was recently appointed as a Member of the Order of Australia, which was well-deserved. She'll be there today and she'll be making sure that she continues that serious and solemn work of bringing together and reuniting families. I also want to acknowledge everyone else from Link-Up Queensland who works so hard to bring people together. These reunions can sometimes be very joyful occasions, but they can sometimes be very sad occasions, particularly the graveside reunions which unfortunately feature all too often in the work of Link-Up Queensland.
Of course, today this parliament will be acknowledging the anniversary of the apology. Each year, we remember the Bringing them home report, which was tabled in the federal parliament on 26 May 1997 following a national inquiry commenced under the Keating government. That report recommended that there be an apology. It really emphasised the importance of apology and acknowledgement. It said the first step in any compensation and healing for victims of gross violations of human rights must be an acknowledgement of the truth and the delivery of an apology. That apology was finally given by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, as I said, in 2008. As I said, it's the 14th anniversary of it this year, so I want to thank Kevin for that.
Today I wish to mark the recent passing of a larger than life constituent, a friend and a mentor who was also a tenacious and a passionate person. His passing has left his family without a devoted and loyal husband and father. John Broadhurst was that person.
John's life began in a little terrace house in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England, in 1938. He remembered his childhood during a time of war, vividly recollecting spending his nights sleeping in a cellar and listening to the bombs drop on the iron-and-steel works in Shelton. After leaving school, John worked in his parents' pub while attending night school, where he studied accountancy. He did national service in the army—the infantry—but he was demobbed after a year because his feet were too big and they couldn't find shoes big enough to fit them. Many who have crossed his path over the years, I'm sure, will have found his shoes too big to fill.
John's love of children encouraged him to set up youth clubs, where he coached seven- to 21-year-olds in how to prepare speeches and play sport, from soccer and netball to even table tennis. His work ethic was best identified through his passion for the hotel industry, the love of which he inherited from his parents. At the age of 21 he took over a new pub of his own in Bass Worthington, which had only 1,500 homes under private ownership. John and his then wife became the youngest pub managers in the UK.
John, with his boxer dogs, emigrated to Australia in 1966, first working in Brisbane for a new Japanese crane manufacturing company, Kato cranes. He went on to become the president of the association of Australian crane manufacturers and distributors. John's commitment and passion over 12 years led him to become the general manager of the manufacturing plant for Kato cranes, before he was adopted by Coles Cranes, a British company that manufactured in Australia.
John's love, passion and talent for golf saw him devote his time at Windaroo golf club as the president from 1987 to 1990. Even when John decided it was time to retire, at the age of 65, he volunteered in my first ever campaign and was instrumental in my success. His advice, encouragement and mentorship were very important to me over the years. After the election, John was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a version of leukaemia, and he went through chemotherapy and overcame his battle.
Although John had a love of pubs, boxer dogs and cranes, it never outweighed his love for his wife, Helen, and his daughter, Cathy. He was a great man who will be sorely missed by his community, and he will always be remembered. May he rest in peace.
I was so pleased to join literally hundreds of local families outside the St Kilda Town Hall just a couple of weeks ago, before the sitting period. We united to send a clear message to the City of Port Phillip: do not sell off our local childcare and childhood education centres. Do not sell off our early childhood centres—simple!
The City of Port Phillip has been on this crusade based on incorrect information, provided by council officers, that councillors should sell off these places because there are some upgrades that need to happen to these local centres. There are. But the advice that was given to the councillors was that the state government would invest in upgrading these facilities only if there were a minimum 66 places, which is complete nonsense. It's complete nonsense and it is the whole basis on which the City of Port Phillip has gone through this long and really upsetting process to sell off our incredible local childcare and childhood education centres. They don't need to sell them. The state government, thanks to an excellent letter written by the Minister for Early Childhood, Ms Ingrid Stitt, has come to the table and said to the City of Port Phillip, loud and clear: 'We are at the table. Do not sell off these early childhood centres. We are going to be there to support you and to support the City of Port Phillip. We understand that you can't do it on your own. There is money available. It doesn't matter how big or small these centres are, the state government is here to help fund them.'
This is an absolute turning point that the City of Port Phillip should grasp and say, 'We're going to pause all intentions to sell and we're going sit down in good faith with the state government and work our way through the upgrades that need to happen at these centres.' That's what should happen today. Instead, over the last week, the City of Port Phillip have been issuing public intention-to-sell notices. The mayor attended the rally with hundreds of families. Councillors attended the rally with hundreds of families. This is something where the council isn't going to have to fix it by itself. There's a $6 million maintenance levy fund that have been funding the centres, which should be utilised in partnership with the state government. My message to the City of Port Phillip is: 'Stop. Stop your plan to sell off our local childcare and childhood centres. You don't need to sell them. You have a partner in the state government who is willing, in good faith, to join you.'
I want to thank all of the parents who have spoken up and who have led this campaign. We will keep fighting. I would urge the City of Port Phillip to end this crusade to sell off our centres. Now is not the time to do it. They are too valuable, and we need them to continue.
My electorate of Bonner is home to a great array of innovative businesses. In particular the port of Brisbane is a booming hub of Australian manufacturing success stories and local job opportunities, ranging from manufacturing to freight and logistics, technology innovation, maritime industries and warehouse storage. Like many across Australia, these businesses have faced challenges during the COVID pandemic, but I'm happy to say that the port of Brisbane hub is now thriving with the help of our federal government support packages.
I recently had the pleasure of hosting the Treasurer at The Yard Brisbane in Hemmant, where we saw firsthand the benefits of the federal government's economic support programs. The Yard is an incredible maritime business that constructs and maintains vessels of all types and classes, from tugs and barges to high-speed passenger ferries and superyachts. Julie and Nick from the Yard spoke to the Treasurer and me about the benefits of using JobKeeper, the instant asset write-off and the export market development grants. Julie told us that these programs have enabled them to keep over 400 staff employed, meaning more money in the pockets and food on the table for so many local families. Not only that, federal government supports have allowed The Yard to plan for the future and expand their operations, creating more local jobs.
Another vital business in the port of Brisbane hub is Lineage Logistics. Lineage Logistics might not be a household name, but they have kept food on the kitchen tables right across Australia during the height of the pandemic. Lineage Logistics are experts in cold-food storage and have serviced businesses like Woolworths. Recently, I was able to meet with Lineage to thank them for their work during the pandemic and to tour their impressive facilities. The conversations that I had with people like Jay, the operations manager from Lineage, also gave me a greater understanding of supply chain challenges and how they will be able to address them into the future.
Unfortunately, like many industries during COVID-19, Lineage have faced labour shortages. Thankfully, they were able to partner with OZ Labourforce, who quickly filled the gap of employee shortages. OZ Labourforce are a great local business that I recently had the pleasure of meeting in the port of Brisbane hub. They were able to supply skilled, reliable labour that kept Lineage operations running and food on supermarket shelves for Australian families. OZ Labourforce benefited from our government's JobKeeper package. They told me that they are thankful for the ongoing supports that have kept their workers employed and their trucks moving across Australia.
Bonner is home to businesses with a wealth of knowledge, resources and a skilled labour force. These businesses are leaders in their fields, not only in Australia but across the globe. I'm proud to be working with, and delivering for, Australian businesses, and keeping jobs and opportunities local.
I rise today to pay tribute to my friend Daryl Burge-Lopez, who passed away last month. He had recently been in poor health, but his death at 78 was not expected. Daryl had three loves in his life: his family, his friends and the Labor Party. He was a long time member of the Homedale branch of the Barton electorate. He first joined the Labor Party in Victoria, in the then federal seat of Yarra, held by Jim Cairns, and involved himself with many of the anti-Vietnam War protests. This started his lifelong love of politics and campaigning for a just society. He was with his cousin Barbara when he was admitted to hospital. Barbara and her granddaughter Chloe were very special to Daryl, and I extend my sincere condolences to each of them. I also extend my condolences to his brother Peter and his family.
Daryl had many friends, but his closest friend was David Dawson. They were known as 'the odd couple' by local ALP members. I think they were both Oscar Madisons actually! Rather than playing a regular game of cards, like Felix and Oscar, they met each day at a local coffee lounge and argued about nothing in particular—often extending their arguments, I'm told, to two sessions at the cafe, morning and afternoon, with a break for lunch. David, I know my office can't fill the gap left by Daryl, but you are always welcome to come and discuss any day's issues with us.
Daryl was a good son, caring for his mother until her death. Each week he took her to the hairdresser, met David for coffee and then came to my office to discuss issues, before collecting his mum and going home. His last debate with my staff was over which seats Labor would win at the next election. Sadly we can't finish that debate. Election campaigning was Daryl's greatest motivator. He was happiest on the hustings. He had a unique style, I have to say, that often prompted calming words from the returning officer and, on the odd occasion, the police! Daryl was a bookseller and had a fantastic library which he shared with people. I want to thank Daryl for his lifelong devotion to the Labor Party, for his friendship and for his support of Labor in Barton. Thank you, Daryl, for our memories of a true Labor stalwart. You will be very sadly missed.
Sometimes there are moments that give me an enormous sense of privilege, honour and deep gratitude to be serving as the member for Robertson. I actually want to pay tribute to my colleague on the other side of the chamber the member for Barton. I had the absolute privilege of going this weekend to visit the Glen for Women in Yarramalong. It's due to open in late April. There will be 20 beds. It is one of the most extraordinary, most beautiful places that you will ever visit. The tranquillity, the beauty, the care and the thoughtfulness of every single aspect of the design are something we can all be incredibly proud of.
This is something that has been a long-held dream for so many people here on the Central Coast, and particularly the incredible community at the Glen for men, led by Joe Coyte but surrounded by an incredible community, every single one of them determined to never leave another person behind. In saying this, I want to pay tribute to some incredible female voices in that community—Aunty Cheryl, Aunty Coral and Aunty Jan—who were absolutely determined to see the success of the Glen for men replicated in a centre that we are now seeing become a reality. It is due to open in late April, thanks to a $9 million investment from the federal government but actually driven by determination, passion and a vision of this incredible community and these women who were determined to make sure that their daughters and their granddaughters would not be left behind and that the experiences of the past, the challenges of the past, would not be the challenges of the future.
I had the incredible privilege to be able to bring the Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon. Ken Wyatt, to visit the Glen for Women at Yarramalong. We also had the opportunity to meet with the Darkinjung Aboriginal Land Council and the NAISDA Dance College at Kariong. This commitment, this investment, this incredible centre of hope, is about more than just beds and a program around drug and alcohol rehabilitation that is culturally appropriate. This is about a heart, a community, a family, a determination to make sure that we have a better future tomorrow than what we have today, for all Australians.
I pay tribute to all of those at the Glen, including Joe Coyte, Kylie and the incredible team that has been involved with their heart, their soul, their mind and their strength in planning every single detail of what I know is going to be a legacy for generations to come.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that under the Government, Australia's aged care sector is in crisis due to almost nine years of neglect and funding cuts;
(2) notes that:
(a) after 21 expert reports, the Government knew older people were suffering in residential aged care and did nothing to fix the problems;
(b) the pandemic has exacerbated the structural problems and exposed the weaknesses in the aged care sector and the Government has done nothing to protect or support aged care workers or residents; and
(c) the Government has failed to plan ahead and has failed to supply aged care workers with adequate supplies of personal protection equipment; rapid antigen tests (RATs) and surge workforce which has led to tragic, unnecessary suffering and deaths of residents; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) urgently supply resources, such as RATs needed to help aged care workers get back to work and to ensure residents in aged care get the care they deserve; and
(b) implement all the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and end the neglect.
The Morrison government's neglect of the aged-care sector and its failure to prepare and plan during the pandemic has led to residents being locked down, isolated and disorientated without enough food and water, with wounds untended and incontinence pads unchanged. This is unconscionable abuse of our elderly citizens, and it isn't caused by aged-care workers or providers; it is caused by this federal government. The sector has deteriorated shockingly under the coalition government due to its serious neglect over the past nine years. Funding cuts, inadequate staff-to-patient ratios, low wages and a casualised workforce have all led to a system buckling under intense pressure. This was happening well before the COVID-19 pandemic but has now become a full-blown crisis.
Our fathers, mothers, grandparents, aunts and uncles all deserve better in their old age. They've worked hard their entire lives, paid their taxes, volunteered in their communities and raised their families. They deserve to live out their twilight years with dignity and respect. Instead, we have heard story after story, hundreds of harrowing stories, from aged-care nurses, workers and family members about the extremely poor conditions in which our elderly folk are living in aged care. These stories are appalling and they have shocked me to my core. It is truly unacceptable. I don't want any family of mine or yours in federally run aged care as it currently stands. Severely neglected, underfunded and poorly resourced during the pandemic, it's a national disgrace. Aged-care workers are trying their best to give high-quality care to residents, and I thank them for everything they do. But, with little support from the government, they are frustrated, devastated they cannot provide the high-quality care that residents deserve.
Aged-care workers have spoken out in desperation. Many feel they are working on a factory production line, not in an aged-care environment, with only five minutes to shower frail residents and with responsibility to care for 20-plus patients or residents at a time. It is physically and emotionally demanding work by people who are among the lowest paid workers in our economy. Staff shortages are hammering the sector. At least 25 per cent of aged-care worker shifts are not being filled. The Morrison government has announced it will bring in the ADF—an acknowledgement the system is in crisis. But how on earth are 1,700 Defence Force personnel to cover more than 140,000 shifts a week?
Compounding these problems, we now know that 60 per cent of aged-care workers and at least 60,000 residents still haven't received their boosters, and aged-care homes don't have enough rapid antigen tests or PPE for staff. These are vital measures for protection against the pandemic, and this government has completely failed to deliver them. There are currently over 10,000 active COVID cases among staff and residents, and more than 680 aged-care residents have died with COVID since 1 January this year. That's an average of 17 residents dying every single day. This latest outbreak has forced aged-care facilities around the country to lock down and confine residents to their rooms because they don't have enough RATs, PPE or boosters being delivered. Many residents feel like prisoners. This is inhumane and unnecessary, and it should never have happened.
The Prime Minister is responsible for the aged-care system. He failed to listen to 21 expert reports and he even failed to listen to the recommendation of his own royal commission. I call on this government to immediately provide adequate PPE and rapid antigen tests to aged-care facilities, to expediate the vaccine booster program for staff and residents and to address the issue of staff shortages by listening to the sector and what it needs. Aged-care workers are heroes. They've been working on the front line during the pandemic, while the aged-care minister attends the cricket and the Prime Minister plays the ukulele! Across my electorate, indeed right across Australia, aged-care workers are pleading with the Morrison government to step up and support them, not with a paltry and insulting payment, which many won't get, but with proper planning, action and leadership from this federal government, which has failed to protect our most vulnerable Australians.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. As a 42 year old, I'm in that stage of life where we go from our parents caring for us to us caring for our parents. It's a strange transition to make, and you get your first real view of human frailty. I think it's important that we are all very clear and aware of the challenges that this sector faces. People in this vulnerable time of their lives do have some peculiar challenges, and it's very important that we address those and that we are upfront about those. I was very glad to see this government call the royal commission. I'm very glad to see that we've wanted to address that.
On a personal level, it's incredibly important to me. My father is currently a recipient of home-care support. He's one of these grumpy old men—and I'm happy to double down on the 'grumpy old men'—in need of care, and home care gives him the freedom and ability to live in his own house with some level of control, which I think is so important. I think also of the wonderful home care provided at the Naroo Frail Aged Care Facility, in Warialda. Sadly, far too many members of my family have required care, particularly my grandmother and my Uncle Donald, both of whom required significant care as dementia played a big role in their later years.
But I would disagree with the member opposite's summation. The Australian government is delivering significant, once-in-a-generation change in the sector through a $17.7 billion reform package. This is already delivering more home-care places and more funding for residential aged care. It's increasing the amount of time that residents are cared for, whilst strengthening the regulators to monitor and enforce the standard of care. And it's right that we do this. It's absolutely right that we meet the needs of our senior Australians, now and into the future, while undertaking the urgent reforms recommended by the aged-care royal commission. There is important work for us to do in this important space, but I'm very proud to be part of a government that is facing that challenge head-on.
The reforms and investments that we're already seeing are especially important in my electorate of Groom, where more than 25,000 seniors rely upon aged-care services. While home care has an important role to play, as in the case of my father, it's important that we do not see it as a replacement for residential aged care and that we continue to make strides in that area as well. Ultimately, some people will require 24/7 monitoring, and we need to ensure that high-quality facilities are available to them, no matter where they live, to provide the level of care and support that their families would expect.
That's why I'm proud this government has made significant investment into aged-care facilities in my region to upgrade and expand their offerings. I think of Beauaraba Living in Pittsworth. It has received a total of $2.3 million of federal funding, which has assisted it to deliver a $9.1 million upgrade to its facility. I think it's the best accommodation in Pittsworth. I love to go out there and see the facilities. It's absolutely fantastic and a credit to the people at Beauaraba and to the amazing staff out there.
This upgrade included the creation of new bed wings and the construction of a new wellness centre. The federally-supported upgrades also included the construction of two 13-bed memory support houses, which will allow Beauaraba to provide dementia care in a specialised environment more commonly known as a house model. The amazing aspect of this approach is that every part of the facility is designed to provide care and comfort to the residents, particular those who are battling with dementia, from the paintings on the wall to the design of the furniture. There's an incredible garden space and huge living area, to encourage family members to come in and be part of the experience there for the residents. It's so important that they keep those relationships alive.
Another example of the government's commitment to bettering aged care in my area has been the funding provided to Blue Care in Rangeville. This is an $8.9 million investment towards an $18.4 million upgrade, providing a significant boost to that facility.
Toowoomba is projected to have significant growth in its aged-care population over the coming decade. The over-70s are growing at three per cent per annum—a significant rate—and, by 2036, people over 70 will make up more than 19 per cent of the region's population. I'm glad to see us continuing to invest in this crucial sector in my area.
Nearly 40 years ago, my relatively young mother had to go to a residential aged-care facility. With multiple sclerosis robbing her of the body that worked and leaving her bedridden, it was no longer safe for her to live at home. Her nursing home was full of wonderful, dedicated staff who cared for her and their other patients. There were several registered nurses on every shift, enrolled nurses and occupational therapists. But my sister and I still made sure we went every day to help feed her and make sure she was comfortable, because, when we helped by volunteering, it meant that others were assisted more quickly, especially at mealtimes.
But let's fast forward to now. Twenty-two reports and the aged-care royal commissioners have told us that the system is broken. Too many aged-care residents are malnourished. Does the government realise what that means for our elderly? Our most vulnerable are starving. Let that sink in for a moment.
In this circumstance, how can there be so little action to fix the system which is tasked to look after our aged population when they can no longer safely stay at home? These residents are people who saw through the worst of the Great Depression, world wars and financial crises. They are our beloved grandparents or parents, and the government has left them languishing, ignoring report after report, until we find ourselves here in the current crisis. And they all deserve so much better.
These reports have detailed solutions. Yet, rather than there being change for the better, the situation has just got worse, however much money is spent. The government points to how much money they've put into the system, but then why, under this government's watch, has nothing changed?
There have been more than 600 deaths in aged care just this year, and it's not even the end of February. Again, aged-care residents were not prioritised in the rollout of booster vaccinations. Lockdowns have been difficult for all of us, but just take a moment to consider what they've been like if you've been a resident in aged care. The vaccines were slow and there are many who still have not had their booster shots. They've spent countless days isolating in their rooms, probably terrified of what will happen next, with personal care limited at best. Not only does this directly affect their physical and mental health, but it has robbed so many of spending their final days with their loved ones.
Recently there have been comments in the media that you only go into aged care because you're going to die, and whilst for many, many people this isn't the case, it is, however, all the more reason to make sure that those final days, months or years are as comfortable as possible. You should not be tortured with a lack of food or stimulation, or by not having wounds treated properly or not even being able to see the ones you love.
I've spoken to many aged-care workers over the last few years. They are dedicated and caring, and they do what they do because they know there is a need and they just love the residents they work with. It is certainly not for the money, because they average $22 an hour, and many have to work multiple jobs and split shifts just to pay the bills. But they continue to prop up this system in crisis, because they have a conscience and don't want to let anyone down. Clearly, it's unreasonable to keep looking to their good nature. With 140,000 shifts in aged care not filled, the 17,000 defence personnel, although welcome, will hardly make a dent and are not a sustainable solution. While the Prime Minister's promise of an $800 payment goes some way towards recognising just how much these workers have borne the brunt of the dysfunctional system and the stresses of the pandemic, it's a one-off payment, and not nearly enough and not soon enough.
The government must find solutions now as we enter the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Aged care remains in crisis. More than 12,000 aged-care residents and workers currently have COVID, in more than 1,100 aged-care homes. If rapid antigen tests were available and free to staff and visitors, many of these outbreaks might not have occurred. Too many aged-care residents are still waiting for the COVID-19 booster dose. Aged-care homes have been left with insufficient personal protective equipment and shortages of RATs. Older Australians deserve to be treated so much better, and it's time the government did just that.
Every year since 1990, in the times I've come into this House and out of this House and back into the House, aged care has been an issue. Aged care has been an issue for all of that time. Every year, under every government—
An honourable member interjecting—
listen closely—home-care packages are up, residential care places are up; every year, aged-care funding is up. When I came here, we spent $3 billion on aged care—$3 billion. Under the Howard government, it went from $3 billion to $9 billion to $11 billion. I remember, at the close of the Howard era, I went to Mr Howard and he said, 'Don't ask me for more money for aged care, Russell. You've had enough.' Of course, there was never going to be enough, because we had an exponential rise in the number of older people. And the models that we used, as I told many of the aged-care facilities in my electorate, when people went in at an earlier age and actually stayed for some five, eight, nine, 10 years, completely changed.
Because of home-care packages, we are putting people into aged-care centres when they are much older and when they are much frailer. Even though when you put them in—when they go in of their own free will, I should say, their health and lifestyle and wellbeing improve dramatically, and then, sadly, goes. Death and taxes. We all know we're going to die. That's why aged care should not be somewhere you go to die; it's somewhere you go for a really good part of your latter years. It should be a good experience.
I heard the member for Werriwa speak most passionately about the care her mother received. And it's the care my mum received, my dad received, and my father-in-law and my mother-in-law received from aged-care sector providers. They have all passed away. But, in my electorate, is there a crisis in care? No. If anything, there's a crisis in the fact that no government, in the whole time that I've been here, has been able to keep up enough funding to make sure that everybody's getting a fair go. You've got to have a really close look at the models.
My not-for-profits are amazing, the way they approach aged care—and I have to say my for-profits in that care do very well too. In my time as federal member for Corinella, then for McMillan and then for Monash, I would have had three inquiries regarding difficulties that people were having in aged care, and we were able to resolve every one of them. We have amazing providers in Gippsland. Now, my electorate might be a one-off and unusual; I don't know. But I am so proud of my aged-care providers and those who work for them.
Have we got difficulties at the moment? We sure have. It's called COVID. It's called a pandemic. My providers, like many others, struggle getting the right PPE, the right approach and the right masks. How do we go about this? How do we engage with our community? Many had been cut off from their community, with Victoria being in lockdown so many times. Have there been difficulties? Absolutely there have been difficulties. How have they been handled? To the best of the provider's ability. We have worked with them closely through all of that to make sure that those people, who are part of our most vulnerable community—and there are so many others—are the ones who are specifically cared for in our community. I just don't know how they were able to work so closely with the broader community to enable them to deliver, and they're still delivering every day.
There will always be more money needed in aged care. We will always take this as a very important part of what governments do. We will be judged, one day, on our ability to provide services to older Australians. They deserve that respect and they deserve that encouragement.
Two words sum up the challenge of aged care: neglect and respect. Neglect is the title of the interim report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which found widespread failures in the aged-care system under the Morrison government. Respect is what aged-care workers have not seen from this government. This government is constantly attacking workers, and never more so than when it comes to aged-care workers. I commend the member for Corangamite for bringing on this critical motion at this vital time.
Here in Canberra Nicole Butler was reported in the Canberra Times as having been unable to visit her mother, a resident at Warrigal Stirling, for nearly a month because of the COVID outbreak. She said:
Sometimes she's not showered, or she's hasn't been changed on a regular basis. And so when I'm in there I have to do those things. I have to take care of her because the staff are run off their feet.
That story is common in many aged-care centres across Australia. This isn't a crisis that has suddenly snuck up on us. It was even in the pre-COVID era. Alex Reid's mother, Nancy, worked alongside Edward 'Weary' Dunlop to care for returned soldiers after World War II. Alex said that he had to supply incontinence pads because there weren't enough available in the aged-care centre and when he looked at her oxygen he realised that it hadn't been connected properly. He, as a trained scuba-diving instructor, was then asked to do training for the aged-care staff in that centre. He was happy to do it, but he shouldn't have had to. That training should have been there.
In the recent omicron wave all residential aged-care facilities in Canberra have registered COVID cases and there have been six deaths reported. The ACT Health team and Canberra Health Services have responded remarkably well to those pressures, but they have been dealing with a situation that has been made worse by the neglect of the Morrison government, by the failure of the vaccine rollout and by the failure of the booster rollout. We know that there are 80,000 residents awaiting their booster and that, if more had been boostered, we might not have seen more than 400 COVID aged-care deaths in January.
Lack of access to rapid antigen tests impacted aged care because it made it so much more difficult for visitors to check their COVID status before they visited. Workers in the aged-care sector have described it as a 'war zone'. What did the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services do? He went to the cricket for three days. This minister follows in the footsteps of Bronwyn Bishop, who had to step down as aged care minister in 2002 over the kerosene baths scandal. So, while the member opposite pretends that aged care has been an issue the coalition has always stood for, in the end he admits that John Howard said that he didn't want to put any more money into the sector. That is the attitude of the Liberals when it comes to aged care.
We need to clear the home-care package waiting list. Over recent years, tens of thousands of people have died while waiting for a home-care package. We need better workforce conditions, better wages for staff and better training for staff in the aged-care sector. The Productivity Commission found that the average wait for a home-care package was 28 months. The government's marginal increase in the number of packages fell massively short of what was required. We have aged-care staff who are living in poverty because the wages they are receiving are less than what they might receive for stacking shelves in retail, worthy as that job is. We have reports of physical abuse, neglect and malnutrition being rampant throughout the aged-care sector. We have, as a result of the omicron wave, an impact on the sector which is worse than they have ever seen before.
This is a sector in crisis, and it needs more than short-term, stop-gap, attempted solutions from the Morrison government. Yes, it is important to call on the Australian Defence Force to do what it can to assist, but let's not pretend that that is a sustainable, ongoing solution to the systemic problems in aged care. They must be fixed, and the only way they will be fixed is under an Albanese Labor government.
The truth is that, for all their bluster across the chamber, the challenges that continue in the aged-care sector predate the Liberal-National government. It was the Labor government of the day who underfunded and facilitated the dismantling of Australia's aged-care system and put the care of our respected senior Australians at risk to start with.
The Prime Minister has put a spotlight on the entire aged-care system, recognising the deep structural changes needed to reform and return Australia's aged-care system to a world-class, leading senior support and care sector. We listened to the experiences of Australians who gave evidence to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and we are taking decisive action to implement the recommendations, with reforms to deliver vital services, improved quality care and viability in aged care.
The Morrison government is making significant reforms that are paramount to the structural integrity of the aged-care sector, including those announced throughout the royal commission's inquiry and the COVID-19 pandemic and in the immediate response to the release of the royal commission's final report. The Morrison government's principles for reforming the aged-care sector are made up of the three key pillars we've heard: respect, care and dignity. Without these principles and Liberal values, our aged-care system is at risk of returning to the old habits left by previous Labor governments.
The royal commission's final report made 148 recommendations—123 joint recommendations, 18 additional recommendations by Commissioner Briggs and seven additional recommendations by the chair, Commissioner Pagone. The government has accepted 127 of the recommendations and supported an alternative approach to four recommendations where commissioners had differing views. Twelve recommendations require further consideration, and another six recommendations to raise taxes and fees for senior Australians and their families were rejected. It's important to note that Labor criticised the government for not accepting the recommendations that would have posed a major financial burden on the consumer, our senior Australians.
Through our $17.7 billion aged-care reform package, the Australian government is focused directly on delivering a once-in-a-generation change. The government is investing record funding across the aged-care system over the forward estimates. From $13.3 billion in 2012-13 under Labor, it has grown to $26 billion in 2021-22—significant growth. Funding for aged care will grow to an estimated $32.8 billion in 2024-25. Residential care funding in 2021-22 is $15 billion, up from $9.2 billion in 2012-13, and it's estimated that, by 2024-25, this will grow to over $19.5 billion.
Aged-care homes are often a last resort for senior Australians who can no longer support themselves independently. That's why the Morrison government is providing senior Australians with support to live in their homes longer. New home-care packages have increased from 60,308 under those opposite in 2012-13 to 275,597 in 2024-25, an increase of 357 per cent—silence from the other side of the chamber. Over the same period, funding will increase by 518 per cent due to growth in high-level packages. As at 8 February the Morrison government had dispatched over 117 million rapid antigen testing kits, and it continues to maintain commitment and supply, dispatching to pharmacies across the country and into the hands of Australians, especially those who are most vulnerable to the effects of this virus.
Collectively these amendments form the second step in the government's five-year reform agenda, through the five key pillars for reform, which are home care; residential aged-care services and sustainability; residential aged-care quality and safety; workforce; and governance. Competent and effective governance provides the basis on which the aged-care sector delivers its services. The Morrison government has strengthened legislative arrangements to improve the governance of approved providers, and these amendments align with the royal commission recommendations 88 to 90, which note that good provider governance arrangements result in high-quality care for consumers.
All of this will improve the financial resilience of the industry, improve service continuity and allow the government to identify at-risk providers sooner rather than later. I'm proud that we're fixing the problems in the aged-care sector without raising taxes and fees. As long as the Liberal-National coalition is in government, we'll continue to be dedicated to working for all Australians—for you, for your mum and dad and for your grandmother and grandfather.
BURNS () (): I'm very pleased to speak on this incredibly important motion put forward by my friend and colleague the member for Corangamite, who has a deep connection to and fights for the aged-care residents in her electorate and for the many families who rely on our aged-care sector. I want to thank her for putting forward this motion and for all of her work in that sector.
I want to start by saying thank you. I want to say thank you to the staff in our aged-care sector who are working around the clock to look after some of the most vulnerable and most important Australians that we've got. I also want to say thank you to the staff who are looking after my grandparents. I am deeply grateful not just for the care and effort that they put into supporting my grandparents but for their professionalism, their skill and their commitment to producing high-quality care for people that I love, and not just for them but for all of their fellow aged-care residents as well.
As we all know, our aged-care staff don't have many choices, unlike this government. Our aged-care staff don't have the choice to go to the cricket instead of turning up to work. Our aged-care staff don't have the choice to just take three days off and head down to watch Mitchell Starc bowl a few balls. That's just not a choice that is available for our aged-care staff. Our aged-care staff don't have the choice to, instead of turning up for work, do ridiculous TV appearances playing the ukulele. It's absurd and it's silly, but that's not a choice that our aged-care staff have. They have to turn up to work, in conditions that are extremely challenging, where they are constantly in need of extra support and in need of extra resources. Our aged-care staff don't have the choice to just lay down tools. They have to work their guts out in order to support the people in our aged-care homes. I just want to say thank you to all of them for all of their efforts.
What they need is not just thanks. They also need a significant pay rise, and it would be a profound gesture of support if the federal government, instead of telling everyone in the aged-care sector how good they've got it, actually supported our aged-care workers in the Fair Work Commission in their case for a permanent pay rise—not just some election cash splashes like this government is very fond of but a recognition that the work that they do is important and high skilled, that delivering high-quality aged care is something fundamental that we as Australians respect and hold dear and that older Australians, people who have given this country everything, at the very least should be met with the level of care and support that each and every human being is worthy of.
But, instead, the government will often cite facts and figures and macro figures about how much they're spending, about their record spending in the sector, saying they've sent this many masks and this much PPE, citing 70,000 hours of shifts—all high-level figures that have been put together by some operators in various ministers' offices. But they haven't actually addressed the issues in the sector. It's all very well and good to send X many masks into aged care. That's good—of course it's good, but it's not fixing the problems in the sector. We have chronic staff shortages, staff who are paid less than many of those who work in our supermarkets stacking shelves. Our supermarket workers have been heroic throughout this pandemic, and this is not in any way a reflection on them; it's a reflection on saying, 'We need to value our workers properly in this country,' and at the moment our aged-care workers are some of the most undervalued and underpaid workers, due to the attitudes of this government.
I don't want to hear facts and figures from the minister for health and the minister for aged care. The minister for aged care hasn't actually been able to provide accurate facts and figures throughout this whole thing. Putting that aside, we don't want to hear facts about what record spending this government is doing, because it's rubbish. What we want to see is action that actually addresses the chronic staff shortages, the huge waiting lists in home care, the neglect of some of our most important Australians. We need change, and it starts with this government.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that 20 February 2022 marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Australia and Poland;
(2) acknowledges that Poland and Australia enjoy a significant tradition of cooperation which started much earlier than the establishment of full diplomatic relations on 20 February 1972; and
(3) honours:
(a) the long history of Polish settlement Down Under; and
(b) Polish-Australian bonds of friendship that reflect a true partnership between our nations.
In 1972, diplomatic relations between Australia and Poland began. While today I rise to celebrate 50 years of formal relations, we must also recognise that the strong partnership between our countries that we enjoy today was born many decades earlier. Today I am honoured to acknowledge the long history of Polish settlement Down Under. Tales of Poles settling in Australia and contributing to our nation's development date back to the early days of the 19th century. For as long as there has been an Australia, there have been Polish Australians. The partnership between our two nations has been made stronger by our shared ideals.
At the siege of Tobruk, during World War II, Australian and Polish forces fought side by side. In the aftermath of World War II, thousands of Poles fleeing that dark era in our history, when nations fell into the darkness of communism and oppression, migrated to Australia. Among them were my grandfather, my grandmother and my father. These were people who sought refuge in Australia, dreaming of hope and the opportunities their new home would offer.
Decades on, Australia and Poland's relationship remains stronger than it's ever been. Polish Australians have made and continue to make significant contributions to all aspects of Australian society, from sharing their diverse culture to their vital role in our nation's economic success and innovation. The Polish community in Australia today are dedicated to preserving our history and promoting Polish-Australian cultural ties through the work of numerous community clubs and groups across our nation. Polish Australians strive to enrich the lives of those around us by both acknowledging our heritage and appreciating our new home. Members of the Polish community should be proud of all we have accomplished and contributed to Australia.
The presence of an Australian embassy in Warsaw is central to our bilateral relationship. The embassy offers significant support to Australians visiting and living in Poland. The embassy never fails to promote the spirit of Australia in Poland.
Between 2015 and 2019, total merchandise trade between Australia and Poland grew by 11 per cent. In 2019 Australian investment in Poland reached $1.2 billion, and Australians enjoyed nearly $2 billion worth of merchandise imports from Poland. In terms of exports, Poland continues to seek Australian resources and services to support its growing economy. Both nations benefit from our strong bilateral academic and business relationships. I'm proud to be part of a government that remains cognisant of the benefit of free trade and accordingly continuously seeks opportunities to promote Australian business abroad. I commended the work of the Australian embassy in promoting Australian trade and investment interests in Poland and the numerous Australian companies that already operate in Poland.
Further to our cultural and economic support of each other, Poland and Australia are true friends. Both nations have proven their commitment to our relationship time and time again through numerous formal agreements and gestures of goodwill. For example, in 2012 the Australian government donated half a million dollars to support the preservation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau memorial site. Frank Lowry, an Australian businessman, and his family were instrumental in preserving that site so we will never forget the atrocities that can occur when we turn around and walk away. Following the Black Summer bushfires the Kosciuszko National Park, which Polish people would pronounce differently to the way we pronounce it, received generous donations from Poland. With Australia's borders reopening I look forward to welcoming back many Polish visitors.
The other thing I want to mention is that a dark period in our history was the totalitarian state that took over Poland, which is a proud nation. For hundreds of years it didn't exist except in the hearts and spirits of Polish people. But when freedom came, it first came to Poland through Lech Walesa and the boatyards and millions of its people were set free. (Time expired.)
Is the motion seconded?
Yes, I rise to second the motion moved by the member for Mackellar. Polish Australians have made a great contribution to this country over the last 50 years and way back further, prior to formal diplomatic relations between our two countries. Following the atrocities of the Second World War, Australia received an influx of Polish refugees. The Polish born population increased from 6½ thousand to more than 56,000 people between the years of 1957 and 1966. Most arrived from war-torn Europe, though some came from various fields of battle having fought with Australians throughout the war, such as in Tobruk. Many brought with them memories of the horrors of the war, some from concentration camps and others from various fronts. Though they were grateful to find a welcoming home, it was the new Polish Australian community that got them through these horrors and helped them to settle into their new home.
This lasting connection with their homeland has meant a thriving diaspora community exists in Australia, with a significant presence through community groups as well as sporting clubs. These are particularly prevalent in my home city of Melbourne, which has the largest Polish Australian population in the country. That Polish Australian community has blessed us with people like Dr Karl, Magda Szubanski, the member for Mackellar and, of course, the terrific Premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk.
Today, though, I want to tell the story of one Pole in particular, who is not as well known. His name is Slawomir, or Stan, Lasek. Stan was born in Warsaw in 1926 and was barely a teenager when Poland was invaded in 1939. Like so many young Poles, Stan was unable to complete his education. He took up arms and joined the Polish resistance, fighting mainly in the mountains in Poland's south. He was caught by the Germans and arrested, but managed to escape and rose through the ranks fighting proudly in defence of his country. Stan Lasek lost his father and many other family members in the war, some in the deadly concentration camps established by the German regime. When the war came to an end in 1945, Stan decided to flee Poland which came under the control of Russia and he started a new life in England, where he married Barbara and they had four sons.
In the late 1960s Stan and Barbara made what they described as the best decision of their life, emigrating to Australia. The family settled in Wollongong, where Stan worked at the Port Kembla steelworks. He coached junior soccer and he was without doubt one of the biggest supporters of the Socceroos as they created history by qualifying for the World Cup finals for the first time in 1974.
Stan, Barbara and the boys didn't hesitate in becoming naturalised Australian citizens in the early seventies, and in 1975 Stan and Barbara joined tens of thousands of others outraged by the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and taking to the streets in protest. Stan loved Australia's landscape, such a far cry from the dense forests of his native Poland. In 1988, having moved to the bush, he was named the Gulargambone citizen of the year for his amazing tree-planting efforts, trying to green one of the driest parts of our continent.
In his later years, Stan travelled to Canberra to receive his long-overdue wartime medals from the Polish ambassador. What made Stan even prouder, though, was receiving Poland's highest military medal—posthumous—on behalf of his late father, Antonio, who was recognised as a national hero by those who fought with him in World War II.
Stan Lasek, like so many, was a proud Pole. He had risked his life for his birthplace, but, like so many of his compatriots, it is Australia that made him happiest. Stan would have turned 96 last week, and, while, sadly, he's no longer with us, his memory and his legacy continue to live on through his four proud boys.
Stan is a terrific example of the contributions of our Polish Australian community and the values that form the basis of the relationship between those two peoples, and it is these shared values that must underpin this relationship for years to come. In recent times, Poland and the European Union have been in a bitter feud over a wide array of issues. These include efforts to marginalise its LGBTIQ community, its assertion that Polish law is paramount to EU law and its reluctance to phase out fossil fuels in line with Europe's ambitious climate policy and to move away from the independence of its judiciary. On this 50th anniversary of diplomatic ties, we are reminded of Australia's responsibility to engage with allies like Poland on issues such as these and to assert the importance of these issues as core to our relationship.
I rise to speak on this private member's motion moved by the member for Mackellar, and I commend him for his fine words. I commend also the member for Cooper—Stan Lasek's story is a story that is so typical not just of Poles but of people from so many countries all around the world. It's a fabulous migrant story, and thank you for sharing it with the House.
Poland is a good friend of Australia's, and indeed, as the member for Mackellar has indicated with this motion, our friendship extends beyond the half-century of formal years of diplomatic relations. Our ties with this small country, which is only about four per cent the size of Australia, are in fact far greater and far longer than that. Our ties stretch back to World War II, as the member for Mackellar indicated, in the trenches of Europe, defending Allied territory against Adolf Hitler in the protection of freedom, with our troops, our diggers, our men, our women as well, making sure that they did what they could to prevent the spread of totalitarianism and, later on, communism. Our troops fought alongside Poles in the siege of Tobruk in 1941, and a number of Australian aircrews flew in support of the Warsaw uprising in 1944.
More recently, in August 2021, the Australian government, working with our friends in Poland, was able to strike a deal to secure more than a million Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines to help support our vaccination campaign—our vaccination campaign which has been one of the most successful in the world, I might add—and the outbreak last year in Sydney. We are grateful to our many, many Polish friends for this assistance at one of the most serious times of the pandemic here in Australia.
Closer to home and highlighting the connection between the Riverina, my electorate in the central west, and Poland, I'm proud that the town of Cowra, known for being home to Australia's World Peace Bell, holds an annual festival known as the Festival of International Understanding. This festival highlights the customs and traditions of a different country each year, and in 2006 Poland was the feature country. Regrettably, I was not the local MP at the time; Cowra was then in Hume. But, from all accounts, there was plenty of traditional dancing and Polish cuisine such as pierogi, potatoes; sauerkraut, pickled cucumbers; and plenty of vodka, I'm told.
Turning to trade: Poland is a growing market for Australia. Between 2015 and 2019, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade reported that two-way trade between our two nations experienced growth of 11.2 per cent per annum, valued at nearly $20 billion. That's a lot of money. Our major exports to Poland include coal, ores and other concentrates. The Riverina and Central West regions are home to a number of mines—not coal mines, but gold and copper mines—with the CMOC-Northparkes mine in Parkes and the Evolution mine at Lake Cowal, near West Wyalong. I trust and hope that some of the exceptional minerals that are extracted from the ground there make their way to Poland.
In 2018 Australia was proud to host a visit from the President of Poland, and, just as we were pleased to welcome His Excellency Andrzej Duda—when we're not in the middle of a pandemic—we usually welcome thousands of Polish visitors to our shores. When those borders are lifted, I'm sure they're going to be coming flocking back to work, to visit, to play and to catch up, of course, with relatives. Up until June 2020, we welcomed about 17,400 tourists to Australia and almost 500 working holiday-makers. That shows the great relationship between Australia and Poland.
With the borders reopening very soon, I encourage more Polish tourists to come back and consider visiting my electorate—from Warsaw to Wagga Wagga!—and indeed they will certainly be very welcome. They can pick cherries at Young. They can help out wherever they can, as a farmhand or in any of our other great industries throughout the electorate. Perhaps they may make lifelong memories, and, today being St Valentine's Day, maybe they might even come to Australia and fall in love—not just with the place but also with an Australian here—further strengthening the strong ties that Australia and Poland have enjoyed for 50 years. May this association continue for many more years to come.
I give the call to the member for Newcastle and extend my own happy Valentine's Day to everybody, in the spirit of the member for Riverina.
It's with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this motion before the House today. This Sunday, 20 February 2022, marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Australia and Poland. This is, indeed, a significant milestone, which underlines the very strong partnership between our nations. It's an important occasion that is most certainly worth recognising and celebrating in the Australian parliament today. The contribution of the Polish community to Australia's social, cultural and economic life is immense. It's estimated that over 200,000 Australians have Polish ancestry, and, as well as celebrating this important milestone, I want to take some time today to acknowledge the enormous contribution of Poles to my community of Newcastle.
Certainly one of the largest groups of migrants to come to Newcastle as part of the postwar wave of migration were the Polish people. They have changed our city for the better in so many ways. The very first intake of displaced peoples from postwar Europe arrived in the Hunter region via the port of Newcastle back in 1949, and, up until 1960, there was a migrant camp established in a town called Greta, in the Hunter, which became home to more than 100,000 people. Some 18 different nations from war ravaged Europe were represented by the people passing through that camp, but the Polish community were indeed amongst that group.
Around 10,000 babies were actually born in the Greta migrant camp during its life span, and, while there's nothing really left of that camp anymore, there are exceptionally strong memories of that place when you talk to members of the Polish community in Newcastle. It was a city unto itself. It had its own water and sewerage, a hospital and a transport division—buses, ambulances, the whole works. It had cinemas. People have very fond memories of all sorts of activities that they were organising at the time.
Men from the migrant camp in Greta were sent all around the place to work. Many of those men came into Mayfield, in my electorate, to stay at a hostel which was very close to the BHP steelworks. Whilst that old hostel in Mayfield West is off limits now, the building has survived all these years.
One of the men who arrived in Newcastle in 1949 and grew up at the Greta camp was the late John Gebhardt. I really want to pay tribute to his enormous contribution both to the local Polish community and as the founder of the Ethnic Communities Council in our region, which has become Hunter Multicultural Communities. John Gebhardt's daughter is now the CEO of that organisation. John spearheaded a dedicated focus on delivering adequate services and support to refugees settling in the region, and he fought really hard on issues of education, aged-care services and community development.
I also want to take some time to acknowledge Victor Lupish, another Novocastrian who arrived on one of those first ships coming into Newcastle in 1949. Victor is a life member of Hunter Multicultural Communities and played a vital role in ensuring that Greta migrant camp is a rich part of our history. There are so many people currently serving on the executive of the Polish Association in Newcastle that I would like to acknowledge, and I'm not going to have time to name them all today. Former president Janina Sulikowski has been an extraordinary influence in our region, as has the current president, Marek Bartczak. The community still runs a fabulous Polish school, and that's an important part of our community.
I was fortunate to meet with the Polish ambassador last year to talk about this milestone occasion. Whilst we're all focused on this today, there is great concern about what is happening now in Poland's neighbour Ukraine. Whilst we stand in solidarity with the Australian Ukrainian community at this difficult time, Australia should be looking to support, in every way we can, Poland in its efforts to build resilience and civil society in Ukraine. (Time expired)
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the significant impact that COVID-19 is continuing to have on the day-to-day lives of Australians;
(2) notes that the Government has demonstrably failed in preparing the nation to be able to live with COVID-19, with;
(a) significant shortages of basic necessities prevalent in our supermarkets and shops;
(b) many communities being unable to access Rapid Antigen Tests, and countless examples of price gouging of these essential medical supplies; and
(c) issues in supply chains, workforces and a lack of support from the Government continuing to wreak havoc on small businesses and employees;
(3) further notes that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services would rather go to the cricket than show up and do their jobs while Australians continue to suffer; and
(4) condemns the Prime Minister and the Government for:
(a) their lack of foresight;
(b) their lack of planning;
(c) their lack of leadership; and
(d) abrogating their responsibilities to everyday Australians.
We're now well over two years into the pandemic. By the government's own rhetoric, by now we ought to be able to live in a world that is 'COVID normal', having left our caves and embraced the new world. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. Certainly, it is clear to me that during the pandemic a pattern of behaviour has emerged that has harmed our response and harmed our progress. The reality outside of these walls, in my own community in the electorate of Macarthur and in electorates around the country, is well short of normal. We have a Prime Minister who, at the beginning of the pandemic, was off to the footy. He couldn't manage the vaccine rollout and put some of our most vulnerable, particularly those in aged care but also other vulnerable people, at very high risk. We've had huge queues for testing. We've had a lack of response to staffing levels in our aged-care environment and in our hospitals around the country. We have a Prime Minister who, in spite of being requested to make sure we had supplies of rapid antigen tests available, did nothing of the sort. He really ignored the problem, and it was too little, too late. There has been a pattern of behaviour from this government and this Prime Minister that has harmed our response, harmed our economy and put those most vulnerable at risk.
We've had the aged-care disaster, in which many very vulnerable people have lost their lives, yet we had a minister who was off to the cricket and a Prime Minister who didn't see it as a crisis until far, far too late. Unfortunately, there is a systemic problem here, and it will not be addressed by reading out shopping lists from the health minister or by complaining about the states but doing nothing to fix the problem. People are unsure, they're very worried about what is happening, yet we still have a government whose reaction is too little, too late. The Prime Minister would have everyone believe that everything is going well. That's his perspective, from Kirribilli House, but it's not the perspective that we see in my electorate. There are still supply chain issues, with shortages of even simple things, like aspirin. If you go to the supermarket now, there are control limits on how much aspirin you can buy, because of shortages. It's also true for more sophisticated medications. Tocilizumab, which has led our response for those with severe COVID but is also used for severe rheumatoid arthritis, is in very short supply. Its use is being limited because of the lack of supply. The government have mismanaged the pandemic. They've called the shots wrong. They blame other people. And issues in supply chains are affecting us around the country.
Let us consider rapid antigen tests. It is absolutely ridiculous that we don't use rapid antigen tests in this parliament. Every other parliament around the country is using rapid antigen tests to screen people coming into parliament, yet we are doing nothing of the sort. I've written to the Speaker and to the President of the Senate about this. It is ridiculous that we are still relying on temperature testing for people coming into this parliament. We know that temperature testing is a very poor tool. The majority of people who catch COVID, particularly young people, do not have a fever, and yet we're relying on temperature screening in Parliament House.
It was apparent to me very early on—and I wrote to the Prime Minister about it—that rapid antigen tests could play a very important role in the ongoing management of the pandemic, not just in parliament but also in schools, major businesses, sporting events and functions around the country. We could reduce the restrictions if we used rapid antigen tests. Nothing has happened. Months after rapid antigen tests have become normalised in other countries, the government has failed to secure adequate supplies for our population. Residents of Macarthur face great difficulty even now in getting RATs. In fact, at times they are unable to get them at all. This is a direct result of the Prime Minister's failures and the failures of the coalition government to adequately manage the pandemic from the word go. The response from the Prime Minister has been, 'We're off to the footy; there's no problem,' then, 'I don't hold a hose,' and now 'I don't hold a RAT.' Aged care is a disaster, and the government has had no systemic response to fix the problems. Those opposite have been abrogating their responsibilities to the most vulnerable, and they should be damned for that.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Whilst I have great admiration and respect for the member for Macarthur, I disagree with him most earnestly on the motion he has put before the House. Australia is ranked second in the world for pandemic preparedness, according to the Johns Hopkins Global Health Security Index. Let's look at the additional findings of that particular piece of work:
Most countries, including high-income nations, have not made dedicated financial investments in strengthening epidemic or pandemic preparedness.
Australia has.
Most countries saw little or no improvement in maintaining a robust, capable, and accessible health system for outbreak detection and response.
We have.
Political and security risks have increased in nearly all countries—
I acknowledge that—
and those with the fewest resources have the highest risk and greatest preparedness gaps.
Well, we're certainly addressing those issues, and of course national security is of the utmost importance. The protection of our people is always No. 1.
Countries are continuing to neglect the preparedness needs of vulnerable populations, which exacerbates the impact of health security emergencies.
We certainly haven't fallen into that trap, quite to the contrary. The work that we did with our First Nations people, through both the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the shadow minister, has been exceptional.
Countries are not prepared to prevent globally catastrophic biological events that could cause damage on a larger scale than COVID-19.
Again, Australia does not fall into that category. The work that we have done, through the national cabinet process as well, has been exemplary.
On the first point, about dedicating financial investments, according to Johns Hopkins: 1.1 million jobs have been created since the pandemic hit—1.1 million jobs. Eleven and a half million Australians are benefiting through tax relief because of the policies that this government has put in place.
More than 95 per cent of Australians are protected with vaccines. I wish there were many more. I wish that it was 100 per cent, and I'm sure Dr Freelander does as well. As for those Australians—and they're allowed to do it—who were protesting in Canberra over the weekend and for many days before, they should all go out and get a jab, get two jabs, get three jabs—get that booster shot—to protect themselves and their families, loved ones and associates, and, perhaps just as importantly, to protect those strangers whose identities they will never ever know; they'd protect them as well. It's all well and good to protest and carry on—and I appreciate that they weren't just all anti-vaxxers—but, to that point, as I'm sure Dr Freelander will agree: some of our colleagues who are promoting that sort of stuff should take a good, long, hard look at themselves. Seriously! To those colleagues who—for the sake of a political photo op or some sort of opportunity to get more likes on their social media—go out and address those crowds and whip up a maelstrom of malcontent: I think that's very, very sad.
During the first week of this year, I had the opportunity, and I was so pleased that I did, to work with a leading Perth diagnostics firm to arrange 32.6 million rapid antigen test kits to come into Australia via 46 chartered flights. I thank Qantas for the work that they did in that regard, right up to the top—right up to the CEO, Alan Joyce. They went out of their way to make sure that those RAT kits came into Australia.
More than 94 million telehealth consultations through Medicare for 16 million patients have been put in place. I appreciate this was not just a COVID response, but it's one of the many things that we are doing to address those health issues, some of which have been exacerbated by the pandemic. Eight hundred and fifty-seven new medicines have been listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme since 2019. Again, it shows that this government is getting on with the job of addressing all the health issues, not just COVID. And there have been 1,400 additional nurse placements for the regions. That's so important. I come from regional Australia and I appreciate what has been done in the COVID response by good, ordinary, everyday country Australians, and I thank them—and all Australians—for doing what they've done to resist COVID.
I thank the member for Riverina for his forbearance, for us, as to the commotion on our side of the House.
In November last year, the Prime Minister announced his desire to get out of people's lives. Now, the Prime Minister isn't known for following through on his promises to Australians, but I must hand it to him: in this case, he really delivered. Over the following months, as the omicron surge swept through the country, the Morrison government was a government in name only. During the most difficult time of this pandemic in Australia, the Prime Minister was absent once again. National supply chains collapsed; supermarket shelves were empty.
In my electorate of Lilley, people were lining up in their cars for a PCR test before dawn at the Boondall entertainment centre, from 4 am. They drove from chemist to chemist in vain, looking for RAT kits. Retail workers copped daily abuse from frustrated shoppers. Families could not see their loved ones in aged care because of outbreaks in nursing homes, and aged-care nurses were burnt out and exhausted. While all this was happening, the Prime Minister's most valuable contribution to the public health crisis was to redefine 'close contact'—as if COVID was ruled by semantics.
The Morrison government claims that no-one could have known the challenges that a new variant would bring, but here is a list of people who in fact did know the challenges that a new variant would bring. The federal government's own health officials warned that widespread community transmission would see PCR testing sites overwhelmed and urged the federal government in February 2021 to adopt rapid antigen test kits to alleviate pressure on the system. Public health specialists briefed members of the federal government in August that PCR testing facilities would not be able to cope with rising case numbers. The Australian Medical Association warned senior executives in the federal health department in September 2021 of the need to develop a strategy to procure rapid antigen tests, as did the Doherty Institute, which provided the federal government's own commissioned modelling.
While health industry bodies, hospitals, epidemiologists, GPs, aged-care providers, unions, and state and territory premiers beseeched the federal government to provide more masks and PPE, to build capacity for testing and to launch public information campaigns, the Prime Minister buried his head in the warm Hawaiian sand. For this Prime Minister every problem is someone else's fault and every crisis is someone else's responsibility. The Prime Minister tipped international border quarantine onto the states. He blamed the vaccine 'strollout' on international supply shortages, although every other country in the OECD seemed to manage. He failed to procure enough RAT kits because he was too busy fixing the vaccine rollout. Instead of taking responsibility, he reportedly commandeered stock from businessowners and from Queensland Rail. He lets members of his own party dog whistle to antivaxxers in the parliament and on social media, hiding behind freedom of speech so he can harvest a few preference votes. At every turn the Prime Minister has pitted the states against each other, politicised lockdowns and border closures and watched on with glee as the premiers, who were forced to make tough decisions, took the heat for his failings.
The Prime Minister thinks it's time for the government to get out of Australians' lives, and I agree. It's time that this coalition government got out of Australians' lives. Call the election. Let Australians elect a government which is ready to lead and has the will and the plan to build a better future for our nation.
I would like to use my remaining time, Mr Deputy Speaker, with your forbearance and my special thanks to the clerks, to share with the chamber an email I received from a Lilley allied health business owner. She wrote:
Dear Anika
I'm a small allied health business owner in Sandgate and I currently employ five full-time staff.
We knew that Queensland borders would be opening and that there would be more COVID cases in our community.
I bought last year N95 masks, RATs, face shields for my staff and extra masks for clients too. However, since the government has let it rip the cases have been so much higher than any of us anticipated.
The majority of our clients are unvaccinated because they are young or because they haven't had a support worker or someone to take them to get vaccinated.
I have spent nearly $2,000 on PPE in the last two months, which is a lot for a small business, and most of it hasn't even arrived yet.
With all of the cancellations due to COVID we are also operating at a quarter of our usual capacity. We cannot pass these costs on to clients, as the far majority are NDIS or Medicare funded and they cannot afford additional costs outside of what their funding covers.
We need your help. Allied health services working within the disability sector with vulnerable populations should have access to adequate PPE and RATs for the safety of our clients.
I wanted to share that message because, when the Prime Minister says it's time to live with COVID and time for the government to get out of people's lives, this is what happens—vulnerable people suffer. I for one think that vulnerable Australians have suffered enough. It is time for the government to call the election so we can get on with a new government that can deliver for working-class Australians and people in need.
For the past two years state governments, with the assistance of the federal government, sadly, have imposed many regulations and restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These measures have eroded our freedoms, our human rights and our civil rights. Such infringements on our rights were introduced under the guise of public safety, but the oft-cited health advice on which they were allegedly based has never been held up for public scrutiny.
States have introduced draconian measures, such as border closures, without having the validity of such measures tested in court. Governments have prevented doctors from prescribing medicines that were safe and effective, with a long history of safe use. Governments have mandated and coerced Australians to undertake a medical procedure that does not have long-term safety data. Substances that people are forced to inject into their body out of fear of losing their job are produced by big pharma companies that are getting very rich off these mandates while bearing no responsibility for any of the harm their products may cause, thanks to an indemnity granted by the government. We already know some of the harmful effects but we don't know all of them, because there is no long-term safety data.
There's always going to be a section of the Australian community that for whatever reason is hesitant or totally opposed to these provisionally approved inoculations. The mainstream media are kidding themselves when they seek to demonise all pro-freedom people with the antivaxxer slur. There were tens of thousands of protesters on the lawns of parliament on Saturday. They were not all antivaxxers. Most of them were actually fully inoculated—I'd say many of them—but they were antimandate. They were hardworking people. Many of them lost their jobs due to workplace vaccine mandates. They were opposed to the discriminatory measures that are locking ordinary Australians out of polite society as well—locked out of cafes, locked out of restaurants, locked out of theatres, locked out of sporting venues and even locked out of hospitals. They are sick of being forced to comply with measures that just make no sense.
In my home state we have mask mandates. We have vaccine mandates in the form of 'no jab, no job' policies. We've even had borders closed to people who weren't vaccinated. But still the omicron variant crossed the border, from the vaccinated, and swept through the state. The vaccinated caught the disease, the vaccinated passed on the disease, the vaccinated went to hospital with the disease, and the vaccinated, sadly, died with the disease. Ordinary Australians look at this data and ask the obvious question: why are we still pretending that masks, QR codes, vaccinations, lockouts, lockdowns and discrimination can stop the spread? The mainstream media has failed to actually ask that question, but it is a question that we can ask and it should be asked.
As the pandemic transitions to the endemic phase, we need a royal commission to find out not only how we got into this situation but who is responsible. The devastating impacts of the pandemic response on millions of Australians cannot just be swept under the rug. To gloss over the rise of tyranny and authoritarianism in this country would only further embolden those who seek to coerce and control the Australian people. If we fail to examine how and why we were stripped of rights and freedoms, we will fail to learn the lessons of history and we will be doomed to repeat them at the next pandemic or the next opportunity to induce fear amongst the populace and then tyranny. That's why I have called for a royal commission or a similar commission of inquiry with sufficient powers to fully investigate the pandemic response from all levels of government—federal, state, local, Public Service institutions, departments and agencies. I'm asking people who believe in freedom, who believe in human rights, who believe that wrong was done over the course of this pandemic, to get on board with this. I've got a petition at georgechristensen.com.au/inquiry. I am calling for wide terms of reference in that, to include all aspects of the pandemic response that have eroded our freedoms, human rights and civil rights: lockdowns; border closures; mask mandates; vaccine efficacy and safety; vaccine passports; medical segregation and discrimination; transparency of medical advice; treatments and interference with GPs; misinformation and censorship; big tech and freedom-of-speech issues; quarantine facilities, rules and operations; restrictions on social gatherings such as weddings and funerals; access to hospitals and services; international travel and return; school closures; regulation enforcement and police overreach; PCR and rapid antigen tests—all of these issues. I urge anyone who has suffered under any instance of government overreach in the pandemic response to head to the website and support my call for a royal commission into the pandemic.
We have learned a lot throughout this pandemic. One of the most important lessons is this: we can take nothing for granted—from our health, to our loved ones, to our jobs, to a sensible political policy debate. Nothing is certain. Australians have learnt this. Unfortunately the government still has failed to learn the lessons of this pandemic. It has no comprehensive plan for our future, none. It's a rite of passage for parents to say to their children, 'I'm not angry; I'm just disappointed.' Although many are angry at this Prime Minister, I am in the disappointed camp. I went back to the first time I spoke in parliament about the challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic presented to us. Two years ago, on 23 March 2020, I said:
… every Australian needs the Prime Minister to do well now. I want him and his team to be incredibly successful in battling this virus. Peoples' lives do rest on them making the right decision day after day after day.
Sadly, like millions of Australians, my trust and hope that this Prime Minister and this government could provide the leadership that Australia needed were misplaced, because it was just a few months later that this Prime Minister and his government had dived into bed with Clive Palmer in the High Court, funding $1 million of his court costs to try and tear down Western Australia's health measures. I note that the member for Dawson said that the various border and other state government health restrictions were not tested in court. Well, I remind those on the government benches, those that sit with the member for Dawson, that it was tested in court. It had the full support of the then Attorney-General, in testing this question. The government piled tens of thousands—hundreds of thousands—of taxpayer dollars into the campaign that Clive Palmer was running in the High Court. It was tested, and the side that the government chose to back lost. That was a fortunate thing, because it allowed state governments, who have been the real workhorses during this pandemic, to get on with the health measures that were needed to save lives and to save livelihoods.
I can think about other things that this government have chosen not to prioritise during this pandemic—getting enough rapid antigen tests, finding a good distribution mechanism, dealing with the obvious challenges we're going to have around rolling out vaccinations for children and booster doses. But they did have enough time to take millions of dollars of Western Australia's taxpayer funds and tip them into car park rorts all across the east coast. That was a priority for them. Rapid antigen tests were not. If we think about where this government's failures have been most tragically demonstrated, they are in the aged-care sector. We know that in this year alone at least 622 aged-care residents have died of COVID-19. This is a sector in complete crisis, and the government's response has been abysmal.
I believe, and Labor believes, that every Australian deserves to get quality care, whatever life you've led, whatever income is left in your bank balance once you retire. To get quality care, we need to support the people who work in this sector. Supporting aged-care workers and the workforce means listening to them. They have been coming to this building year after year, telling us about the challenges in this sector. They were here last year, talking to us about what it was like working with COVID. The government ignored their message. Now the government is sending in the Australian Defence Force—a crisis response because the government chose not to listen to a sector in crisis.
A quarter of aged-care-worker shifts are currently not being filled. Residents' wounds aren't being tended to, and people are waiting for hours for food, water and basic care. We know that some 60 per cent of aged-care workers have not had their booster shots. We saw in the West Australian today a report that some one-third of aged-care residents have not yet had a booster shot in Western Australia. This is happening at a time when we have COVID outbreaks at Coolibah Care in Mandurah, Brightwater's The Cove in Mandurah and Juniper's Cygnet in Bentley—and we know there are more to come.
I want to thank those who are standing up for aged-care workers, not just in this place but across Australia—their unions who have been here week after week, telling us the aged-care workers' stories, standing up for them to make sure that those who are protecting the most vulnerable people in our aged-care sector get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
I have to say that quite frequently the member for Macarthur and I are in furious agreement. That's because we're both paediatricians. We both understand the healthcare system, including the public healthcare system, and we both understand the difficulties that this country has faced with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is something that's happening not just here in Australia but right around the world. But, in this instance, unfortunately, I have to violently disagree with the member for Macarthur's private member's motion today. In fact, I find it quite astounding, as someone who sits on the National COVID-19 Health and Research Advisory Committee, that he put this particular motion in writing. The reason I say that is this: I understand the member for Macarthur knows how difficult the situation has been, globally, over the past two years, but I'm disappointed because this is about Labor having to talk down the COVID response.
I understand that in opposition it is important to pick out things that you'd like to point out or highlight, and it is true that this has been an awfully difficult period in Australia's history. But, if we take a step back as a country and look at the leadership that the federal government, the Morrison government, has provided to Australia, it has been quite simply extraordinary. That leadership started from the get-go with an understanding that Australia as a country was going to have to learn to live with the virus. We knew that this was here to stay. This is a prime minister who had the maturity to realise this wasn't a short-term thing, that it wouldn't be over in two weeks, that there was going to be a very different approach in the weeks, months and years to come.
Further, I think the Prime Minister's leadership has clearly shown that he understands the balance between lives and livelihoods, that we need to be able to get the balance right, that saving lives is absolutely essential—every life needs to be saved—but the impact of this COVID pandemic on livelihoods also needed to be given consideration. Unlike premiers, who are actually being assessed for their impact on healthcare outcomes, the federal government is being judged on both health and economic outcomes. With that in mind, we acted quickly and we acted decisively. Throughout this pandemic, on critical issues, we've acted responsively, flexibly and nimbly. That started with the closure of international borders. It moved through to the development of the national cabinet, which has brought all the state and territory leaders together with the federal government. There's been an enormous amount of work on expert committees. The member for Macarthur and I sit on one of these bipartisan expert committees, which enables all the experts in Australia to provide information and expert evidence to government. That's been incredibly important.
One of the biggest bugbears for Australia has been securing our supply chains. There's absolutely no doubt that there have been rolling critical issues with supply chains. That started right back in March 2020, when we as a country had issues with obtaining personal protective equipment. It's hard to remember now, but we had problems with masks. We were running out of masks. We've had problems with toilet paper. We've had problems with all sorts of things with regard to sovereign supply. The minister for health, under the guidance of the Prime Minister, had secured these supply chains by stepping up local manufacturing capability. And then there were the COVID PCR tests in April 2020. Again, it is hard to believe these things. We were moving at speed to respond with diligence and care to all of these things.
More recently we moved to the vaccine rollout, which we have now delivered ahead of time, actually. In fact, I was in the media saying that I was hoping that we might have 'freedom day' by Melbourne Cup. In fact, we had freedom day well ahead of that. The vaccine rollout had difficulties—there is absolutely no doubt about that—but the government's hard work was able to deliver the outcomes that this country so vitally needed.
We move to rapid antigen tests. There is no doubt that the PCR testing for COVID was the gold standard for delta. We needed aggressive suppression because delta had a much higher mortality rate and had a different underlying set of data behind it. But, when you look at omicron, it's been more important to move to having access to rapid antigen testing. And there is no doubt that this government has moved very quickly, in a number of weeks, to rolling out RATs and to making sure the general community can have access. We've also made sure that the fringe benefits tax availability for businesses means that businesses can use them more readily. And we've also made sure there's concessional card support for those who can least afford RATs. It is worth mentioning that this government has provided an excellent outcome for Australia.
If there were ever a eulogy for this government, it would be this quote:
… I don't accept that it's—
the system—
in complete crisis … my view—and the data supports it—is that the sector is performing and has performed exceptionally well in the work that it's doing.
If there's any quote that sums up the incompetence of this government, the criminal incompetence of this government, it is that quote from the minister for aged care services, Senator Colbeck, made only a couple of weeks ago, after he came back from going to the cricket: 'The system is performing exceptionally well.' Well, 681 Australians have died in aged-care homes since 1 January this year. This is the government's view of a system performing exceptionally well—681 souls taken because of the incompetence of this government. And that's what this government says is a system working well. That is what the member for Higgins presumably means when she says 'living with the virus'. Well, these 681 Australians are no longer living with this virus. And it's tragic, not just due to the impact on those individuals but due to families having lost loved ones because of the incompetence of this government.
This incompetence has been on display for the last eight years, but has been well and truly elevated to a new level by the COVID crisis because in aged care there is nowhere to hide. This Prime Minister is the master of buck-passing, of blame-shifting. He will blame anyone he can for his own failures. In aged care he can't blame the states because aged care is purely a responsibility of the Commonwealth government. It's purely under the responsibility of the Commonwealth government that 681 Australians have died in aged-care homes since 1 January this year. One-quarter of shifts have been unfilled, and there are not enough boosters for both the workforce and residents of aged-care facilities. There is a sad lack of PPE, and there are very few rapid antigen tests to be found. This is all to be laid at the feet of the Commonwealth government, a government that has failed every single Australian in aged-care facilities and their families. They have failed every single senior Australian who can't get a meal, who can't get a shower, who can't find someone to take them to the toilet—and Australians know it.
At street stalls what I'm most often pulled up about is what's happening in aged care. I had a street stall outside the butchers at Blacksmiths a few weeks ago and I had a couple come up to me to have a chat. The mothers of both the husband and wife were in separate aged-care facilities around the Lake Macquarie area. Both of them expressed huge frustration that they couldn't see their mums. They were worried about the treatment their mums were getting and they were worried that the staff of the aged-care facilities weren't getting enough support to look after their mums and all the other mums and dads in those facilities. The truth is that in this entire COVID crisis this government has been late, late, late. They failed on the national quarantine system, and that's why we had the Ruby Princess disaster that spread to aged-care facilities in Sydney in 2020. They were dreadfully late in providing vaccines—it wasn't a race, according to the Prime Minister. And yet again they're displaying an arrogance completely unrelated to ability. They ignored the inevitable crisis when they opened up the economy and did not secure enough rapid antigen tests.
All of this was foreseeable, all of this was predicted by experts. The Prime Minister likes to say everyone's exercising 20/20 hindsight, but the truth is that people were warning us about every single one of these issues at the time. What's particularly tragic for the aged-care system is that the system was broken before the COVID pandemic began. The system was broken, and you only need to look at the aged-care royal commission findings to see that the title of the entire review sums up this sector: Neglect. This government urgently needed to take action in the aged-care sector before the COVID pandemic hit. They failed to do that, and what's worse is that they piled on more of their incompetence in responding to the COVID crisis. What's the result of this neglect? It's that 681 Australians have been taken before their time this year alone in the aged-care sector. This motion is really important. The ignorance of the government is shown in claiming that all is going perfectly and the system is performing exceptionally well, and that demonstrates how out of touch they are with the lived experience of every other Australian.
I'm pleased to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Macarthur. He's somebody who's spent his life making sure Australian kids get the best start in life. As a paediatrician for over 37 years, the member for Macarthur knows a thing or two about keeping people healthy, so I thank the member for Macarthur for moving this important motion that recognises the significant impact that COVID-19 continues to have on the day-to-day lives of ordinary Australians. It also recognises that the Morrison government has demonstrably failed in preparing the nation for these COVID-19 times. I know the impact that COVID-19 is having on people in Moreton, and what's become clear to me is that the pummelling isn't being felt evenly across my communities.
We've all been let down by the Morrison government's failure to prepare, failure to plan and rabid failure to take responsibility. But for some people these failures have had huge impacts on their lives, especially those in multigenerational households. If you're unable to isolate, everyone under the same roof will get sick. Casual workers who get sick or need to isolate have no income to buy food for their families, and when they get better they can't access a rapid antigen test to ascertain if they can actually return to work safely. It's been especially hard for single parents. Some permanent employees who've been infected have had no leave available and have had to take time off to recover with no pay. Many people were not eligible to get pandemic leave disaster payment. Older people have found it really tough. Many are too afraid to leave their houses. They're staying at home, not helping local businesses in terms of spending, not getting any exercise and getting lonelier day by day.
Australia was in a good place to prepare for this pandemic. Our island nation is isolated from the world. That bought us time, but the precious preparation time gifted to us by our geography was wasted by the coalition government. The Morrison government didn't properly prepare. They didn't adequately plan, and they fobbed off every responsibility they could, firstly, to the states and territories and, secondly, to everyday Australians. We should have had access to vaccines earlier, but the Morrison government didn't properly plan and didn't pick up the phone. Australians should have had access to rapid antigen tests—so that businesses could continue to operate, so that truck drivers could actually deliver food to shops and so that families could visit loved ones safely—but that didn't happen, because the Morrison government again failed to plan.
The Prime Minister has made an art form of ignoring good advice provided by experts, and many of our most vulnerable older Australians have been locked in their rooms in aged-care facilities. They're soiled, desperate and many of them are infected with COVID-19. It is a horror show. Hundreds have died—our parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, neighbours and loved family members. Just this year—and it's only February; it's Valentine's Day—681 older Australians have already died from COVID-19 in aged care.
What has the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services been doing while aged-care facilities have been in crisis? He went to the cricket—not for a day, but for three days. This is the minister who said in early February that the aged-care sector was doing 'extremely well'. What is he smoking? Just last week we had 1,700 Australian Defence Force personnel launched into the aged-care sector. That's a full-blown Cyclone Tracy meets Cyclone Yasi-type crisis. Six hundred and eighty-one Australians are dead. The Leading Age Services Australia CEO, Sean Rooney, said last week:
… there is no doubt that there would have been fewer cases and fewer deaths if we had had enough RATs for daily screening of everyone, access to PCR tests where needed, access to surge workforce as promised and reliable access to PPE.
The royal commission into aged care's report, released just two years ago, was called Neglect. What would they call it today? Maybe their next report should be called 'Disgrace'.
Locals are confused about pandemic information, with no communication from the government about the virus and what to do if you catch it, about vaccinations and boosters and about rapid antigen tests and where to get them. The void has been filled with misinformation and conspiracy theories on social media and in our mainstream media. It's not just the failure of the Morrison government to keep Australians informed during this very difficult time; as the Prime Minister will know, members of his government are actively undermining our health workers by spreading and encouraging dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories about the pandemic and making money from it. If the Prime Minister stands by and does nothing, he is condoning this behaviour. Less ukulele, more whip!
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
The priority of any government is the cultivation and the preservation of lives and livelihoods. There are few programs that truly embody this ethos more effectively than this government's Road Safety Program, with the corresponding $3 billion in record investment that has been placed towards it. I don't think it matters which side of the floor you sit on; we can agree that this investment is a worthy and necessary investment.
It's been said many times in this place—certainly many times by me, in my former role as chair of the Joint Select Committee on Road Safety—that even one death on our roads is one death too many. Previously in my life, as a police officer I personally attended many scenes of traffic fatalities and serious injuries, and I know firsthand the devastating effect that they have on not just those who are involved in the accidents but also the families and loved ones, as well as the long-lasting effects on the first responders. Can I just thank all the first responders, current and former, for the work that they have done and that they continue to do.
It's important to note that the responsibility for road safety advice lies not only with all levels of government but with each of us individually. We all need to take responsibility for our driving and for monitoring conditions. Those small decisions that we make every day on the roads have the potential to directly and significantly impact the lives of many, many others. Surprisingly and unfortunately, during COVID, with fewer people on the roads—fewer people driving—the incidence of death and serious injury on our roads didn't decline; in fact it increased, despite that expectation. Now, whether that sad fact is because drivers didn't make better choices or whether the quieter roads gave them the opportunity for increased speed and increased complacency, one might be forgiven for saying that every year we have a pandemic on our roads.
Two years ago, over 1,188 people lost their lives on Australian roads. The majority of those were in regional Australia. In my electorate, statistically, we have five times the rate of fatalities when compared with metropolitan counterparts. In this country, 55 per cent of all fatalities occur on regional roads, despite having significantly lower populations. These are statistics that the government is taking seriously, and it is investing in lives by increasing investment in road infrastructure and ensuring the effective monitoring of conditions. I should note that the monitoring is meaningfully achieved through the proviso that, to receive funding under the Road Safety Program, states and territories are required to provide road safety data and to report against road safety metrics. Through the continued statistical analysis gained from evolving initiatives, we know the infrastructure improvements that actually work.
While the provision of life-saving measures in and of themselves are their own reward, as a member of parliament for the last three years I've also seen the direct positive impact on the community and on job opportunities that addressing and improving dangerous areas has created. Investment in infrastructure projects provides consistent opportunities in my electorate of Cowper for its residents to find gainful employment via councils and private contractors alike. In fact, it's expected to support around 13,500 jobs across the country, with the bulk of works being completed in regional areas, which I know will be welcomed by many.
This government's record $110 billion, 10-year infrastructure pipeline will support and secure jobs, drive growth and help rebuild Australia's economy from the COVID-19 pandemic, and meet our national freight challenge in getting Australians home sooner and more safely. Regardless of what happens in May, I know that we agree that we need a bipartisan approach, both sides, so all our people can return home safely.
It's Valentine's Day today, and one thing's for sure: I have a whole lot of love for the people of Gilmore. Since coming to office in 2019, I have proudly delivered over $1.6 billion in community infrastructure and roads projects right across Gilmore, in the local government areas of Kiama, the Shoalhaven and Eurobodalla—from Minnamurra in the north to Tuross Head in the south, to my home town of Nowra and the bay and basin to Ulladulla. These community and roads projects are ones that I have actively advocated, with many discussions with community groups, associations and advocates, and of course I have taken up the fight for these projects.
There's the Nowra Bridge project—$155 million in federal funding for this important new bridge across the Shoalhaven River at Nowra. The Nowra Bridge is set to be across the river by the middle part of this year. So far, 1,900 workers have worked on the bridge, over more than 700,000 work hours. It's a huge boost for jobs and local spending, with 120 workers on site each day. The new Nowra Bridge is set open in the middle of 2024, depending on the weather.
I want to thank all the workers on this very necessary project. I want to thank locals who have put up with some pretty horrendous traffic conditions during construction of the new Nowra Bridge. But I have been very vocal in saying that the government needs to do much more. I said at the Nowra Bridge official sod-turning that we have to get on with the Nowra bypass. Quite honestly, I am dumbfounded that no elected representative before me—and there have been a lot of Liberal ones—has done anything about a Nowra bypass. Sure, they like to talk big on roads, but, when it comes to doing it, their complete failure to do anything about the Nowra bypass has been one of the biggest abrogations of responsibility there could be.
Is the Nowra bypass a New South Wales government priority? No, it's not. In fact, the New South Wales government's Illawarra-Shoalhaven Regional Transport Plan doesn't even include the Nowra bypass. The local council, Shoalhaven City Council, wanted it included, but it wasn't. Forgive me, but the New South Wales government has completely failed on the Nowra bypass.
Deputy Speaker, it doesn't matter where you live on the coast—whether it's at Tuross Head, Gerringong, Milton or Bomaderry—one thing is for certain: if you want to go north or south through Nowra, there is only one river crossing, the Nowra Bridge. Ask residents of Nowra, North Nowra and Bomaderry what they think of the bottlenecks and of travelling at a snail's pace to get to their place of work or to school or even to get around on weekends. Locals have certainly told me. Since launching my petition I have received thousands of responses from people, and the stories of frustration with the traffic and the need for the bypass are compelling.
The Black Summer bushfires taught us many things, including that egress along our highway is paramount. We saw and felt what happened when the Princes Highway was cut off during the bushfires: how our one-road-in and one-road-out communities were cut off from access, power and communications; how tourists were stranded on our highway and camped in their cars as, thanks to the love and support of locals, they were brought food and supplies.
When councils consider development applications, good road access to properties is a condition, but our entire community on the New South Wales South Coast has a massive access problem. There is only one way north and south through Nowra, and that is over the Nowra Bridge. If the Black Summer bushfires have taught us one thing, it's that we have to be ready for the next disaster. We have to be ready and able to get people out by providing safe egress, and we have to provide safe access for our emergency services workers and volunteers. That's why the New South Wales government must make the Nowra bypass a priority. That's why the Nowra bypass must be included in the Illawarra-Shoalhaven Regional Transport Plan. Make no mistake: without it, Bomaderry and Nowra will turn into the next Albion Park bottleneck, which routinely saw traffic backed up for over five kilometres in the summer months.
For over 40 years, the bypass has been mentioned. Since 1986, land has been earmarked for the Nowra bypass. It's beyond time to get on with the Nowra bypass. My message to the New South Wales government: make the Nowra bypass a priority. Include it in the Illawarra-Shoalhaven Regional Transport Plan. Start the preplanning for the Nowra bypass now.
It's with great pleasure that I join today's debate, and I acknowledge the member for Gilmore as representing the second most beautiful electorate in Australia—just behind Gippsland! It's great to have you here.
It's no surprise to see that the speakers on this particular motion are predominantly from regional communities, because regional MPs understand better than most the critical importance of good road networks. Roads are the arterial life of our regional communities, the critical component making sure we can stay connected, whether it's for freight or to stay connected with our families.
The member who just spoke reflected briefly on the impact of the Black Summer bushfires and what they exposed as the frailty of our road network when it comes to natural disasters. In Gippsland, the Princes Highway and several major roads linking coastal communities were badly exposed for being poorly maintained in terms of vegetation. We spent several weeks in which communities were cut off or relying on the Australian Defence Force to deliver the most basic supplies. We have to change our approach to maintaining the resilience of the road network to ensure that our communities can stay connected even in the face of natural disasters. What we saw, post bushfires, on the Princes Highway was a major tree-clearing exercise, which locals reflected on quite dryly as, 'It's about time.' They had been calling for it for decades.
I do appreciate the opportunity to speak in relation to the Road Safety Program. As the member for Riverina, who initiated this program, often reflected, too many people are killed and injured on our rural and regional roads. In fact, a disproportionate number of people continue to be killed and injured on rural and regional roads. From memory, in my time as the minister for transport, I think it was something in excess of 50 per cent of road trauma that occurred on rural and regional roads. Given the higher speeds often involved, the chances of someone being killed or injured are much higher in a crash on those rural and regional roads, in comparison to the city.
As the former minister and now a humble backbencher—or not so humble, as the member for Hunter is probably reflecting—I don't accept that we have to have any road trauma on our roads. We, as a government, have signed up to the safe system approach: safer drivers, safer vehicles and safer speeds on safer roads. The safe system approach is designed to ensure that no crashes need to occur in the future, as we move towards zero road trauma. I fear, though, that governments at state and federal level are often guilty of focusing on the driver component of the safe system. It's far easier to blame the drivers than to accept responsibility for the lack of investment in infrastructure in the road network.
The challenge for us is to work constructively, in partnership with local and state governments, to deliver the types of roads that our rural and regional communities expect. That's why the Road Safety Program, brought forward by the member for Riverina when he was the minister and continued by the member for New England in that role, is so important. It's important because it has a 'use it or lose it' component. The 'use it or lose it' component is of great importance for this particular program because it forces the state governments to develop a sense of urgency about getting the job done.
What I've seen in my electorate of Gippsland, over the past three years in particular, is a recalcitrant state government unwilling to work in a constructive way to deliver the projects that have been funded by the federal government. The federal government doesn't actually build the roads; the federal government goes into partnership with the state government to deliver projects. What I've seen in Gippsland is tens of millions of dollars allocated in the 2019 election still being held by Treasury, not ending up with black stuff on the roads in Gippsland. It's to the eternal shame of the Victorian state government that they haven't been able to reach an agreement to secure projects that would deliver road safety improvements in my electorate.
The contrast has been the Road Safety Program. The moment there was a 'use it or lose it' component to it, the Victorian state government suddenly found the capacity to improve road shoulders, to improve sight lines, to install roadside safety barriers, where appropriate, and to roll that program out in an expeditious way to improve road safety in the Gippsland electorate.
I'm calling on the Victorian government to be a better partner when it comes to delivering road infrastructure safety improvements in Gippsland. I'm calling on the Victorian state government to develop a greater sense of urgency and reach agreement with the Commonwealth on money that is already there. The federal government often pays up to 80 per cent of the funding for road projects in Victoria—up to 80 per cent. The state government only has to find 20 per cent to get these much-needed projects rolling out across my community. Perhaps it will take a 'use it or lose it' approach from the current federal transport minister to try and force this state government to get on board and deliver the road safety improvements that we deserve in our regional communities. Too many people are being killed and injured on roads that could be fixed. The money is available to fix them. We just need the state government to demonstrate the capacity to get on with the job.
This is a great program, particularly if you're responsible for an electorate like Grey, with thousands and thousands of kilometres of road that needs maintenance and, in some cases, upgrading. This program alone has delivered $82.8 million to the electorate of Grey. It comes amongst—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 12:54 to 13:10
As I was saying, over $1 billion in total for road infrastructure in the electorate of Grey is coming from the federal government. It's phenomenal. From this particular program, we've seen shoulder sealing, audio tactile line marking on centre-lines, kerb widening and surface improvements on the Eyre Highway, the Augusta Highway, the Barrier Highway, the Stuart Highway and the Upper Yorke Road—thousands of kilometres of roadway. We've seen a complete upgrade of the Upper Yorke Road between Maitland and Arthurton. I rated it as the roughest bitumen road in the whole electorate of Grey, so I'm very pleased to see that. We've seen shoulder sealing and surface treatment on the Todd Highway. The Todd Highway runs down the centre of Eyre Peninsula. It's what we called a 'mirror knocker': as the road got narrower, as the trailers of the semitrailers dropped off the edge and broke down the bitumen, it got to the stage where the road train drivers were clipping mirrors as they were going down the road. That was definitely not a good outcome. That road has now been reshouldered all the way through to Kynecutter. So that's been an absolute improvement for road safety.
It's the same thing for the Birdseye Highway, which cuts across from Lock to Cowell. With the establishment of T-Ports on the Eyre Peninsula, which is a barging operation that ships grain—I believe they took over 600,000 tonnes this year—we've seen a complete redirection in the way grain is moved on the Eyre Peninsula. With the closure of the railways, some people said, 'How will we get our grain to port?' Well, we've actually shifted the port for many growers for the moment. Things change, times change and we need to adapt. So the upgrading of the highways has been very important to my electorate.
We've also seen money go towards the Middleton to Maitland road. It's the same as the Arthurton to Maitland road; it just runs through town. After my 14 years in parliament, it's so gratifying to see this road being upgraded. I can remember a time when we had a different regime in South Australia. I managed to secure some federal funds, but I couldn't convince the Premier at the time, Jay Weatherill, to take the federal funds because they were required to put up 20 per cent and they thought it would so badly affect their GST receipts that they couldn't bring themselves to do it. I've got to say that the advent of the Marshall government has been an absolute revelation. We've now got a state government that is keen to do works outside the capital city and a federal government that is keen to invest in them; hence, as I said, we've got the $1 billion for this particular program and the $82 million coming back into Grey.
There's also a considerable amount of work going on with the Horrocks Highway. For those who don't know South Australia well, it runs from about the middle of the Flinders Ranges at Wilmington right down to Gawler. It runs through the beautiful Clare Valley. In running through the Clare Valley, it is a big commuter route—a tourist route, if you like. That road had become very bumpy. It's winding and quite narrow in places and, without a doubt, dangerous. While work is not yet complete there, we're certainly getting on with the job. We're down south of Auburn now. That's making a considerable difference. We've come all the way from Wilmington to Auburn with that significant upgrade, and we're continuing that work. It has been warmly met on the ground.
The Stuart Highway has been in the press a bit lately. It's been cut off for about a fortnight due to floodwaters at Glendambo, which has resulted in the isolation of Coober Pedy. Thank you very much to Senator Bridget McKenzie for bringing the national disaster relief funding arrangements into operation and to the rest of the federal cabinet in making the RAAF available to do those food drops into Coober Pedy. With the railways cut at the moment, the Stuart Highway is one of the essential feeders through to northern Australia. It's good that it's open again now and it's good that we're spending extra money on making that roadway safer—the same thing: putting the shoulders out, putting the tactile markers down the middle to keep sleepy drivers awake and to keep people safer on the roads. There is a lot of traffic going on in northern South Australia. It is the economic future of our state, in many ways. We'll see more big copper finds up there—BHP are on the trail at the moment—and the roads need to be in a suitable state to deal with those loads.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
In December last year I presented the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources entitled The now frontier: developing Australia's space industry. On 11 November 2020 the committee adopted an inquiry into developing Australia's space industry and was asked to focus on how the Australian government can support and encourage the space industry while preserving and protecting the space environment.
Space is an industry that inspires, fascinates and excites people. Generally rockets and astronauts come to mind when we think about the space industry, but in fact it's technology and equipment that are very much part of our day-to-day lives. There are enormous opportunities for individuals, organisations and communities to take advantage of this growing sector, particularly in regional and rural areas.
Most Australians are familiar with our nation's involvement in the moon landing in 1969—a little bit before my time—and the tracking stations at Honeysuckle Creek and Parkes, in New South Wales, that relayed images back to earth of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the moon. This followed the rocket-testing program in the late fifties at Woomera, in South Australia, as part of the Australian government's Weapons Research Establishment. But perhaps less familiar to Australians is the continued use of space based technologies and applications in our daily lives. Mobile phones, the internet, weather forecasting, GPS technology and banking services all rely on data derived from space.
Space related technologies—robots, drones, remote sensors and artificial intelligence—were once considered those of the future but are now very much where we are. For Australia to be competitive, we need to not only foster these technologies and their applications but ensure that we have the right people, with the right skills and expertise, to make it happen. Australia needs to position itself—it must position itself—to capitalise on these opportunities. Australia enjoys natural and structured advantages that can be leveraged to benefit us socially and economically. Our geography and landscape, education and training systems, technical expertise and international partnerships and agreements all combine to form an important foundation for access to the global space industry supply chain and the development of sustainable commercial activities.
The Australian government has set a goal to grow the domestic space sector by $12 billion and create an additional 20,000 jobs. The report presented last year makes recommendations designed to support this growth and beyond. Some of these recommendations include the call for an overarching vision of the industry in Australia, to inspire confidence and investment in our space capabilities and give an increased visibility of space across the government and parliament.
Importantly, space is an accessible industry to those wishing to pursue a career in this field. The sector presents many opportunities for young Australians, and the need to grow a workforce to support it is paramount. There are a range of professions not generally associated with the space industry, such as law, medicine, project management, communications and business, that will be able to support and facilitate Australia's industry to grow to an internationally competitive sector. Further, there is so much potential for our rural and regional areas to benefit from and get involved in Australia's space sector. This includes the links between our regional industries and the space sector; the application of space related technology and infrastructure to agriculture, health and telecommunications; and, of course, the uptake of regional education and training to better equip young people to build their careers in the industry.
This is an exciting time for the Australian space industry, with awe-inspiring work already being done here. In terms of growing the future workforce, the report tabled in December identified the need for greater education of young people in science, technology, engineering and maths. We had evidence that most of the higher level jobs are filled by those who have been educated overseas. We need to make a change in that regard and encourage education at a university level in both space engineering and aeronautical engineering, rather than look overseas.
Firstly, I would like to extend my belated congratulations to Mr Enrico Palermo, who became the head of the Australian Space Agency last year. Mr Palermo has a decorated career in physics and mechanical engineering, having spent over 14 years at Virgin Galactic at the time of his departure as both Chief Operating Officer of Virgin Galactic and President of the Spaceship Company.
When it comes to space exploration and space industry I am fortunate to represent the electorate of Bean. We are home to the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, which is one of only three deep space network stations around the world. Its dishes are a remarkable sight to see against the beautiful backdrop of Tidbinbilla and, in true Australian fashion, there are cattle around its base. Just as its predecessor at Honeysuckle Creek played a critical role in the first moon landing, with footage of that first giant step coming from Bean, the CDSCC has played critical support roles in the Apollo space missions to the moon, the Skylab space station and the early flights of the space shuttle. It has been involved in hundreds of other missions since its establishment in 1965 and today is providing vital around-the-clock contact with more than 30 spacecraft on deep space missions.
The deep space complex, together with other critical space infrastructure across Australia, is a tribute to our skills and expertise in the space industry and what we can achieve. Bean is also home to the ANU Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, including the Mount Stromlo Observatory, and EOS's satellite laser ranging facility, which is also based at Mount Stromlo. This region has decades of experience in satellite technology. We can build on our proud legacy. It makes sense for this region to be one of the hubs of such activity. We continue to have the science, technology, infrastructure and skills to punch significantly above our weight in the global space industry, but it's critical that we make the investment in TAFE and university places that will underpin this industry for decades to come. Only a Labor government will do so.
Not only does the space industry have value and importance for space exploration; space based applications impact our everyday lives and are particularly important for Australia. For example, supermarkets use satellite navigation in their delivery fleets, autonomous and driverless vehicles rely on satellite navigation enhancements, emergency and disaster relief responses rely on specialised satellite imagery, and adaptation to climate change relies on space data. The pace at which space based technologies and innovation are developing is set to revolutionise the way we live. Increasingly it's where money is being made, where jobs are being created and where industry is being undertaken, and it is expected to grow exponentially. Estimates of its global value into the 2040s range between $1 trillion and $3 trillion, and data shows that for every dollar invested there is a direct return of between $2 and $10. It's a tremendous opportunity for Australia going forward.
Labor have been calling to expand Australia's space industry for many years. We sought an Australian space science and industry agency to ensure that we did not miss out on the opportunities a space industry provides. We understand its capacity to create thousands of new high-skill, high-wage jobs in advanced manufacturing, research, earth observation and space technologies, but additionally a range of professions are needed to support that industry, creating new jobs in law, medicine, project management, communications and business.
Currently, Australia ranks 18th among the G20 countries for government investment in space as a percentage of GDP. Globally, it's about one to 1.5 per cent of the global effort. It's clear we need to capture a bigger slice of the space market.
Labor welcomed the establishment of the Australian Space Agency in 2018, and I'd like to acknowledge the importance of the agency and the role it has played in strengthening the industry. As someone who worked closely with the engineers and scientists in the sector, I say that funding announcements, while welcome, need to be backed up with clear plans for such investment, and, critically, this needs to include an investment in skills. Let's hope that these are the first steps in what will become a giant leap for Australia's space industry.
In the heart of my electorate of Adelaide, on the former Royal Adelaide Hospital site, a real industry transformation is happening, and what's known as Lot Fourteen has become the national hub for the space industry in Australia. It is home to the Australian Space Agency, the Australian Space Discovery Centre and Mission Control Centre and the SmartSat Cooperative Research Centre. It is also home to over 90 private companies, research and educational institutions and government departments in this sector.
This is an industry that has enormous potential to generate much-needed local manufacturing and high-tech jobs for SA and beyond. The target in Australia is to triple the size of the space sector to $12 billion by 2030. In addition, it is estimated that around 1.4 million companies across Australia will benefit from the growth of the space industry.
Adelaide company Fleet Space Technologies, also based at Lot Fourteen, is a perfect example. Fleet, run by its amazing CEO, Flavia Tata Nardini, has grown from three staff in 2015 to about a hundred today. It made history in 2018 when it launched the country's first commercial nanosatellites into low earth orbit. Since then, it's gone from strength to strength. Fleet is now planning to build a satellite hyperfactory at the Australian Space Park at Adelaide Airport. It will be the nation's first dedicated space manufacturing hub once it is completed. And now Fleet has opened its first office in Houston and is partnering with NASA to put the first woman on the moon.
With the sector growing by around 50 per cent over the past 10 years, companies such as Fleet will need a whole generation of highly skilled technicians, mathematicians, engineers, physicists, chemists et cetera, and this will be South Australia's—and, indeed, Australia's—great opportunity and challenge. We need to ensure that we are training people locally to fill these jobs locally. And that starts in the very, very early years. So, in addition to ensuring that our universities and TAFEs are responsive to the growing demands of this industry, we need to inspire children, from their earliest years, to see the beauty and potential of STEM subjects.
The Andy Thomas Space Foundation, launched in November 2020, will also play an important role in this, and I'd like to acknowledge its CEO, Nicola Sasanelli. The foundation, also based at Lot Fourteen in my electorate, will be an interface between the space industry and the wider Australian community. It will support education and training from primary to tertiary levels and promote career opportunities in this expanding sector. The Australian Space Discovery Centre, also based at Lot Fourteen, will play an additional role in sparking young people's imaginations through school programs and other learning initiatives.
I, too, take this opportunity to congratulate the new head of the Australian Space Agency, Mr Enrico Palermo, on his appointment. He brings a great deal of industry and corporate experience, which can only benefit this industry.
I'd like to congratulate all the companies, agencies and investors who have believed in Adelaide and South Australia. It is thanks to these people that we are starting to see the much-needed return of manufacturing and technology in this country.
But I would also like to pay my respects to the former South Australian Labor government, under the leadership of Jay Weatherill, whose foresight at the time—and I remember having discussions with him and him saying how important this industry was—was the catalyst for this expansion of the industry that we are witnessing today. It was that state Labor government under Jay Weatherill's leadership that established Australia's first dedicated space office in Adelaide in 2015. Without this foresight, we certainly wouldn't be where we are today, reaching for the stars.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. It being 1.30, the chamber stands suspended till 4 pm today.
Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16:00
I rise to congratulate the Australian winter Olympic team on their fantastic achievements in Beijing to date. The Olympics aren't over yet, but from an Australian perspective they've already had the most successful winter games ever. I congratulate Jakara Anthony, Scotty James, Jackie Narracott and Tess Coady, who have been amongst the medallists. We still have seven days to go. There are amazing athletes still competing, including Warringah's very own Sami Kennedy-Sim, who is competing in her third Olympic Games. I wish Sami the best of luck in the women's ski cross on Thursday. She has overcome great adversity, including injuries and a stroke in 2013. She is a proud ambassador of the national Stroke Foundation. She raises awareness of strokes in young people.
The Australian winter Olympic team has come a long way since I first competed as a 17-year-old in Albertville in 1992. The team has nearly doubled in size and now more than half of the team are women. I congratulate all the athletes for making it to the Olympic Games. I wish the athletes the best of luck for the events still to come. I remind people that, by supporting the Australian team overseas, you are supporting Australians who are doing their very best. They really should make us all feel very proud. Whether it's summer or winter Olympics, they do need support. I remind the government that funding of sport is essential for that message of health and wellbeing to our communities.
Delivering my election commitments means delivering for my community, and that is absolutely what I'm focused on. That's why I'm so proud that I have delivered one of Australia's first Head to Health clinics, a mental health clinic in my community in Penrith. I want people to have the highest quality care and support when they need it most. I worked really hard for that $14 million investment. I was really pleased to very recently open that with David Coleman, the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention.
This centre will ensure our community has access to mental health and wellbeing services 365 days a year. The pandemic has shown how crucial it is for us to provide support and wellbeing to people who need it most in our community. It will play a central role by supporting local GPs, private and public hospitals and emergency departments.
I thank our local PHN CEO Lizz Reay, Neami health and the Lindsay Healthy Active Living Network for their collaboration on this wonderful project. It was a real collaboration, bringing the needs and real-life experiences together to create something that will make a difference to people's lives. The centre can be contacted through the Head to Health phone line on 1800595212. It's open, as I said, 365 days a year.
This Prime Minister and this government have failed my community—in the bushfires, in the floods and repeatedly throughout the pandemic. It's becoming a joke, but not a funny one, because this incompetence is hurting the people I represent here and fight for in this place. We're entering the third year of the pandemic and we're watching the way other countries are navigating ahead of us and still not once did it occur to the Prime Minister that he should focus less on marketing himself and more on rolling out the vaccine smoothly and not once did it occur to the Prime Minister that he should ensure that there were plenty of rapid antigen tests available as we began to open up so people could use them as a tool, not to protect themselves but to protect their families, workmates and communities.
Unsurprisingly, the Prime Minister, who doesn't know how much a loaf of bread or a litre of petrol is, didn't think he needed to provide rapid antigen tests for free. Why? Because he doesn't understand how much the ever-rising cost of living is weighing down on Australians. He thinks that spending up to $2 a litre for petrol to drive around looking for rapid antigen tests, at $25 a pop, is something everyone should have the time and the money for. He's out of touch and, hopefully, soon he'll be out of a job.
The federal government is investing in healthier, more productive soils to help achieve the agriculture sector's quest for $100 billion by 2030. Grant guidelines for the second phase of the $50 million National Soil Carbon Innovation Challenge have been released. Applications are open until 3 March. The grant opportunity gives research and commercialisation organisations up to $20 million to develop lower cost, accurate technological solutions for measuring soil organic carbon stocks and so much more.
As co-chair, with the member for Barton, of the Parliamentary Friends of Soil group, I appreciate the importance of identifying and addressing issues relating to the health and maintenance of Australia's soils. Recently, with the member for Hume and Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction, I visited YLAD Living Soils, in Hilltops shire. He used to represent it; I do now. It was an important meeting. Certainly, Bill and Rhonda Daly, who operate that farm—a farm that has been operated by Bill and his family for four generations—are working wonders with soil health. They're cutting costs with every method, absolutely lowering synthetic fertilisers, chemicals and pesticides and making the most of their soil. They're saving money because of it. They're making their farm more profitable, and that's what it's all about. They are doing what all farmers should be doing, and that is looking after your soil.
I have always promised that one of the things I will do in my time in this place is love my community, and one of the ways that all of us do that in this place is through the Stronger Communities Program. I have been fortunate to be out in my community, helping organisations receive funding to do things that will make the Perth community even stronger. These include: the Friends of Coolbinia Bushland, who will be restoring some of the bushland that was damaged from a recent fire; Mount Hawthorn Primary School Parents and Citizens, with new instruments for their school band; Sexual Health Quarters in Northbridge, who provide sexual health and domestic violence prevention services, to improve wheelchair access for their facilities; OzHarvest, which is based in my electorate but serves the entirety of the Perth metropolitan area, which will be getting a new forklift to help their volunteers prepare food and get things out the door quicker; Green World Revolution, a new plastic recycling service, to help members of my community recycle plastic; and the Mount Lawley Bowling Club, so terribly treated through the sports rorts affair, which will be getting some new lawn bowls so that more people can participate in this fabulous sport. There are also security cameras for the Mount Lawley Inglewood Roos Junior Football Club, a new couch and feeding chair for the Maylands Playgroup, an oscillating edge sander and welding fume extractor for the Bassendean Men's Shed, new fencing for Cahoots and a new gazebo for Ellis House Community Art Centre.
As a first responder, you wear the uniform and carry the tools to deal with an emergency, but in a natural disaster it's the community, without the uniform, that rises around you to help you. The Goomeri community joined police, SES and fire and rescue, risking their own lives searching for a 14-year-old, young Krystal Cain, after she and her father were swept away in a once-in-a-lifetime flood near Booubyjan, on the way to Krystal's grandmother's house.
When someone goes missing in a torrent 10 metres deep, in raging floods, it quickly becomes evident that it's not a search for a survivor. Survival and safety overrule normal workplace health and safety. You're exhausted and wet and you don't know what you will find, but you do what needs to be done. In the city, you often go years without knowing who your neighbours are. In the country, particularly in remote localities, relationships with neighbours are forged partly by necessity, in preparedness for times like this.
On behalf of Wide Bay, I would like to recognise those brave and determined people who left their own families to venture into the flood affected territory to search for Krystal and those who looked after Krystal's father, Lenny, who suffered a heart attack while clinging to the tree with his daughter, before she was tragically swept away.
One of the great privileges of being a member of parliament is the opportunity to join with extraordinary people in volunteer organisations, cultural and sporting groups in my community as they work to make the community stronger and to support each other. Today I want to tell the parliament about Delacombe Park Cricket Club and one of the most special events that I have been privileged and proud to be a part of. It's described by the driver of the event, Bill Mallinson, as 'an event which sent waves through the club and community, an event that will be remembered for years to come as a significant day in the fight for recognition and opportunity for girls and women.' Delacombe cricket club has a girls team for the second time this year, and they want to have a women's team. They want to have a team for people with special abilities. They want to have a team for people who are vision impaired.
But their clubhouse and their culture reflected the history of men, and it didn't reflect the contributions of women and girls. Bill, Ash Hudson, Miranda Maling, the girls from the girls team, the women who are part of that club and the men from the first team came together, and on Saturday we officially opened the Women's Wall, where photographs of the first girls team, the coaches and the women who have run the canteen and been supporters were put up on that wall and everybody there was told, 'Girls and women can be whatever they want to be as long as they get the opportunity.' It was the most special event I've been to in a long time.
The Sunshine Coast doesn't need a survey to tell us that we live in the most beautiful part of the world. We don't need a survey to say that we are the centre of the universe. We don't need a survey to tell us that the Sunshine Coast is dearly loved. But, alas, a survey we got. This is in fact a global survey, the Tourism Sentiment Index. The Sunshine Coast has been announced as the world's most-loved destination of 2021, as it should be. Indeed, this accolade doesn't come from applications. It doesn't come from lobbying. It comes from word of mouth worldwide. I tell you what: if that's what they're saying now, let's wait to see what they say in 10 years time. Because, as home to the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, we will indeed be on the TV set for half the world's eyeballs. They love us now; they're going to love us even more in the future.
It is disappointing that the Morrison government is failing to recognise that the aged-care sector is in complete crisis right now, and the lack of response and the lack of planning from both the minister and the Prime Minister is just not good enough. Of course, we want every elderly Australian to get high-quality care, and, to get that quality care, we need amazing people to support them. Unfortunately, at the moment 60 per cent of aged-care workers haven't had their booster shot. At least 60,000 residents still haven't had their booster shot. The Prime Minister said it wasn't a race to get vaccines in arms, but it still is a race, and he has gone missing in action.
A quarter of aged-care worker shifts are not being filled. Wounds aren't being tended to, and residents are not getting food and water. This is having real-life consequences. Of course, one of the consequences of not filling these shifts is that families remain separated. This is why Brenda, a resident from Seaford Rise, was separated from her mother, who was 95, unable to see and unable to hear. Their only communication is through touch. Yet, because of the staff shortages in aged care, Brenda was told she could not see her mother. She could not have that experience. Shame on this government!
In October last year, I spoke in parliament about the shadow pandemic and the need to increase mental health services in our local communities. I've been engaging with local communities about the Head to Health program and my advocacy to see Head to Health satellite centres rolled out following last year's budget announcement of over $487 million for 40 Head to Health sites across the nation.
One community in particular has been active in its support for my advocacy on this cause. Before travelling to Canberra for this sitting period, I received a petition with almost 3,000 signatures from the Limestone Coast community, asking for one of the 24 Head to Health satellite centres to be located in Mount Gambier. Last week I presented those signatures, along with letters of support from Limestone Coast community service providers, to the minister for health, Greg Hunt. The community has sent me a clear message; they want me to fight for a Head to Health site for Mount Gambier. I enjoy a good fight, so I'm looking forward to doing so.
Mental health is an issue that will impact everyone at one stage or another. Mount Gambier is South Australia's second-largest city, and services the wider population of the Limestone Coast and the 'greater green triangle'. Giving this region the services required to tackle mental health issues when they arise will make for a happier, healthier Limestone Coast, and the flow-on benefits will be immeasurable.
The people of Blair are paying 42 per cent more to visit a GP since the coalition government came to power, with a 67 per cent increase in out-of-pocket expenses for specialists as well. One of the biggest changes this government made was the Distribution Priority Area classification system that came in on 1 July 2019. Doctors are telling me it's much harder to get overseas trained doctors and bonded doctor access to Medicare, which means poorer health outcomes for my area. I've been on this case now for a number of years and I've been pushing it, along with local GPs, and I want to pay tribute to the work they've done—people like Dr Cathryn Hester and Dr Magdy El Ashrey. Dr Hester is at Karana Downs, at Colleges Crossing Family Practice.
I was pleased to announce that a Labor government would make a difference here. If we get into government, an Albanese Labor government will make it easier for people across Ipswich, including in rural towns and the Karana Downs area, to see a GP. We will change the classification to make sure people can get access to GP services that are currently reserved for the bigger cities like Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. We will make sure this is the case. I want to thank the shadow minister for health; and my good friend the member for Oxley for his advocacy; as well as local GPs.
I've met with both the current minister and the former minister, and I've written to them. And guess what? Their correspondence said they wouldn't change this until we got poorer health outcomes in my area. It's not good enough. Labor will make a difference.
The Saluting Their Service Commemorative Grants program ensures that Australia's wartime history is preserved and that those who have served during wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations are commemorated, as they should be. Today I want to acknowledge the Latrobe Council, which has been successful in its application under the program's last round. The iconic Australian Axeman's Hall of Fame in Latrobe celebrates the role that the timber industry and the sport of woodchopping have played in forging our nation's identity. This funding will create a display to commemorate the specific contribution made by Australian service personnel with connections to the forestry industry. This is something that hasn't been specifically honoured anywhere else in Australia thus far.
The display will honour those who served in the 2/1st, 2/2nd and 2/3rd Australian Forestry Companies of the Royal Australian Engineers, Australian Imperial Force, during the Second World War; employees of the forestry industry who served; Australian servicemen who took part in competitive woodchopping events in England, Scotland, PNG, New Britain, the Northern Territory and Queensland, or as returned amputee servicemen during and after the Second World War; and Australian servicemen of the AIF who took part in competitive woodchopping events on the battlefields in France in the First World War and the Second World War.
Thank you to Mayor Peter Freshney and everyone within the Latrobe community for your passion to preserve our wartime history for generations to come.
Canberra is a welcoming community, and we have the privilege of having around 130 of the recently evacuated Afghan refugees joining our community. These refugees are on temporary protection visas and struggle to afford housing and basic necessities.
On Thursday night, at the Canberra Theatre Centre, the Fred Smith welcome concert is being held. Fred Smith is a diplomat, and he sings of his experiences, including in Afghanistan. This concert is his way of welcoming those refugees to our community and also thanking the ADF and the diplomats who have worked on this evacuation. The concert will be raising money in particular for educational supplies for Afghan students here in Canberra. Tickets are still available, though there are not many left so you'll need to get to it quickly. You can also support these refugees by donating vouchers to the Red Cross. I understand that the Canberra Centre has supported this community very generously by donating some vouchers. I want to thank Michael Rabey and the Rotary Club of Canberra, the Australian Red Cross and the Canberra Theatre Centre for putting on this fantastic event.
Canberrans and other Australians around the nation are working hard to welcome new arrivals following the crisis. Unfortunately, their goodwill and generosity have not been matched by the Australian government. These temporary protection visas are cruel and should be abolished. People should have a permanent means of becoming Australian residents because there is nothing temporary about the situation in Afghanistan.
I want to speak about the alignment of Gnangara Road and Whitfords Avenue in my electorate of Pearce. Unfortunately, for too long this alignment has been ignored by Western Australia's state government, despite the concept having been part of the Perth Metropolitan Regional Scheme since the 1990s. The current government has failed to build this vital infrastructure. Continued population growth in Perth's northern suburbs has compounded the traffic issues associated with this intersection and increased the demand for this much needed project to be completed. The Barnett Liberal government committed funding towards this project in 2016, only for the then replacement state Labor government to remove the funding and allocate it to other projects the following year. Now we're six years on and the traffic congestion at this intersection is substantially worse. Despite the WA Liberals committing $10 million at last year's state selection, disappointingly there's only been more silence from the state Labor government on this matter.
This project simply needs to happen. It will reduce congestion, improve traffic flow and provide greater safety for road users. It will benefit the local governments of Wanneroo and Joondalup and, importantly, the residents of Wangara, Darsh, Landsdale, Madeley and Pearsall. It requires a little bit of foresight and vision from the WA Labor government and a little bit of political will to get it done, but this project is a no-brainer. Delaying or ignoring the project would not be a viable option.
Last Thursday morning I had the pleasure of participating in the launch of the Legacy Cup, an annual event as part of Legacy '23 in women's football. Not surprisingly, the former Matildas were the victors in the game of football, beating the parliamentary football team 6-4, so they hold the trophy. Even though I have it here, I'm holding it on behalf of Senator Nita Green who's on maternity leave. There were three senators involved in the match: Senator Watts, Senator Chisholm and Senator Canavan, all Queenslanders like me. We were joined by a couple of Matildas, including Ashleigh Sykes, but couldn't compete against their superior skills. Hosting the FIFA Women's World Cup in 2023 is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to realise a truly meaningful legacy for football, which is what this is all about. It's an ambitious plan to ensure we deliver positive and enduring benefits for Australia's largest community sport beyond 2023.
The five pillars are participation, community facilities, leadership and development, tourism and international engagement, and high performance. We know that sport is important and that football is an inclusive platform that can deliver economic, health and social benefits to more Australians than ever before. As I finish I would like to go on the record to apologise to the Matildas that I played against. I've played a lot of rugby league and rugby union and did some bad slide tackles, so I do apologise.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:23 to 16: 33
As the federal member for Wentworth, I often hear from young people in my electorate who feel disenchanted with the political process. They feel as though their voices are not being heard. I'm keen to fix this. I often say to people that the political system in Australia is only as good as we make it, and the level of engagement, particularly of young people, will materially determine the quality of our elected representatives and the quality of our decisions as well. That is why I am seeking the assistance of young people aged from 14 to 24, living or studying in my electorate of Wentworth, to help me build and to participate in the first Wentworth Youth Advisory Committee. It's my hope that this youth advisory committee will help raise the voices of young people from a variety of backgrounds, a variety of life experiences and a variety of political opinions, and those whose views are not as well represented in the political debate as they should be.
As many of us who participated in the Raise Our Voice campaign know, when given the opportunity young people are only too willing and enthusiastic to put their views forward and help shape the political debate, and I want to make sure that that's an ongoing part of my representation. So, if this sounds like you or someone you know, please encourage them or yourself to speak up and be heard. I'd like to know what issues are important to you as a young Australian. What issues would you like me to raise right here in parliament on your behalf? Please reach out to me and share your thoughts.
Good, sufficient local infrastructure has never been more important for local jobs, for health and for our quality of life. Recent ABS data shows that, by 2041, my electorate of Greenway will experience some of the highest rates of population growth in the entire state of New South Wales. We will experience a population increase of, for example, 72 per cent growth in Blacktown, 65 per cent growth in Acacia Gardens, and a 318 per cent growth in Riverstone, to name but a few suburbs. But with this population growth will come growing pains if we don't have sufficient infrastructure. Sue Hunter from the Riverstone and Schofields chamber of commerce has reached out to me, saying: 'We are bursting at the seams, and without a plan we are in serious trouble.'
It is imperative that the roads we drive on, the parks our kids play at, the hospitals our most vulnerable attend and the mobile coverage we rely on every day are well equipped for this explosion in growth. That's why I'm dedicated to ensuring that we: have the Rouse Hill Hospital emergency ward we need and deserve; provide local job opportunities through the relocation of the SBS to Western Sydney; provide better mobile coverage infrastructure locally, like in our local suburb, The Ponds; plan for TAFE, where we will skill up our local apprentices; and employ local people to build this critical infrastructure.
We know that, to build the Western Sydney of tomorrow, we have to start planning today. This Liberal government has let Western Sydney down, time and again. Only Labor has a plan to do better by the people of Western Sydney.
I rise to update the parliament on a very important day for the young people of the Ryan electorate, and I talk not about St Valentine's Day but the fact that today we have a brand-new headspace centre opening its doors—a new, expanded centre. Headspace Taringa was one of the busiest centres in the country—the second-busiest in the whole nation, in fact—throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and demand for the support centre has skyrocketed.
Now, they had a fantastic team there, but the simple fact was that, because they had outgrown their facilities, they were faced with the problem of having to cut off their waiting list because they had a wait time of over eight weeks. Thanks to a $780,000 contribution that I secured from the federal government, headspace Taringa has now been able to relocate to a brand-new, much larger facility in Indooroopilly. It's far more fit for purpose, not only for the staff but also for the numbers of young people who they need to service there. Those staff have worked tirelessly to keep up with the additional demand, and I know that the new larger facility will help them to reach even more young people in the Ryan electorate. Its doors are open today for young people to visit, and I encourage anybody who needs a hand to reach out to headspace Taringa.
I want to congratulate Jamie and the whole team—now, headspace Indooroopilly; formerly, headspace Taringa. I can't wait to visit the new centre and officially launch it, but, in the meantime, I'm delighted that the doors are open and it's servicing and helping young people in the Ryan electorate.
I rise today to throw my support behind thousands of nurses and midwives across New South Wales who are preparing to strike tomorrow for the first time in 10 years. This strike has been a long time coming for our frontline workers, who have, quite frankly, been overworked and undervalued for far too long. Our nurses and midwives are striking for better staffing ratios and a small pay rise. After what they have had to go through over the last two years of the pandemic, it baffles me that it has come to this. They shouldn't need to strike to be heard. Our nurses want to give the best possible care, and this means they cannot keep working with unsafe ratios. They cannot keep running themselves into the ground. They are exhausted. They're striking because their calls for a one to three ratio in ED and a one to four ratio on the ward are falling on deaf ears. The fact is: our nurses and midwives are currently running on goodwill in a broken system.
Tomorrow, I'll be travelling to the Yass hospital to stand with workers and show them that I care—that I am listening. I wish more coalition members would do the same so they could hear firsthand what our nurses and midwives are experiencing every day. Staffing problems and ratios are a significant problem right across New South Wales. In Bega, we have a brand-new hospital, but we don't have the staff to fill it. In Yass, the ward was supposed to be closed for two weeks over Christmas; it ended up being closed for over a month, only opening on 31 January. Nurses and healthcare workers have borne the brunt of this pandemic and our healthcare system has been unprepared to cope with it. They have always had our community's back, and, as they strike tomorrow, I am proud to have theirs. (Time expired)
I rise today to pay tribute to the federal government's funding program for security cameras in our communities. These security cameras, which have been funded for a long period of time now, are making a real difference. When you switch these cameras on, you switch off crime, you detect crime, you deter crime, and it gives the community great confidence. In the electorate of Casey, new networks are being installed in Warburton, Millgrove, Seville, Wandin and Montrose. An existing network in Monbulk has also been extended to the new pavilion at the Monbulk Recreation Reserve. Existing camera networks are located in Lilydale, Healesville, Yarra Junction, Yarra Glen, Woori Yallock, Mount Evelyn, Mooroolbark and Belgrave.
As I said, this has been a very successful program, not just for the towns themselves but for the collective of those towns that I read out. It really has created a network across the Yarra Valley-Dandenong Ranges and the outer east of Melbourne that has been most useful for the police. The cameras go straight back to the police stations. Of course, the footage is stored, and it's made a real difference in fighting crime—graffiti, vandalism and some very serious crimes as well. I pay tribute to this program, and long may it continue.
Buying a brand-new home in a brand-new housing estate should be an exciting and happy time for any family, especially when they've bought in at a premium price, with the promise of first-rate community facilities, infrastructure and services. But, for residents of the Ashbury housing estate in Armstrong Creek, within my electorate, it hasn't turned out as promised. They've been badly let down by their council, the City of Greater Geelong. Council has failed to ensure delivery of much promised infrastructure and services.
I met with a group of Ashbury residents recently and was dismayed to hear of the challenges they and their children are facing in getting basic services like walking and bike paths, playgrounds, sporting and community facilities and road traffic safety treatments. They were promised these facilities by council, and they were told they would be well and truly delivered by now. But, instead of playing fields, there is a mosquito-ridden drainage swamp. Instead of 18 kilometres of bike and walking paths, there is predominantly long grass and mud. Major access roads to the estate are potholed.
Residents rightly feel neglected. Other estates are receiving promised infrastructure while their estate is lagging. Residents deserve to know a time frame for the provision of overdue facilities. That's why I've started up a petition. I want residents to sign the petition, to have a voice to say to the council: 'You must deliver the infrastructure. You must deliver it now.' I urge the council to do the right thing and deliver what's promised.
Earlier this chamber debated a motion on the space industry. Unfortunately, because of time constraints on the debate, I missed an opportunity to speak, so I briefly want to add my support to that motion. I am from Adelaide, and the Australian Space Agency is located only a few hundred metres outside of my electorate. It's a great honour to have the Space Agency based in South Australia. South Australia has an enviable heritage when it comes to the space industry in this country. Of course, we have the Woomera Test Range in northern South Australia. Andy Thomas, the first Australian to travel into space, a great Australian hero, is from Adelaide and went to the same school as I did.
Space as an industry will grow exponentially over the next few years. We plan to increase it to a $12 billion industry, and that might be low-balling. It's probably the sort of sector that will grow way beyond our expectations. But it is definitely the future. We must have a Commonwealth focus on this area. We have that now, having established the Australian Space Agency back in late 2018. It was decided that it would be headquartered in Adelaide. That has meant that an ecosystem has grown up around that agency at Lot Fourteen in Adelaide. I'm a great supporter of the industry. It's going to be a huge part of the South Australian economy into the future, and that's why I support the motion that was passed earlier today.
I rise to congratulate an outstanding community champion in my region, Trish Webster, who recently received an award on Australia Day from the three combined Rotary clubs of Murwillumbah. This was very well deserved—indeed, as were all the other recipients. Trish is the creator and administrator of the very successful local Facebook group Murwillumbah Matters. The page now has almost 30,000 followers, and Trish works tirelessly to provide information for our community. This was especially true during our devastating floods of 2017. Throughout the past two years during the pandemic, Trish has been there, working tirelessly to provide information for us, always updating us. Murwillumbah Matters is always a great place to get local information and support across a whole range of issues.
Running a Facebook page can be very challenging at times, but Trish is always respectful of the very differing views within our community. Murwillumbah Matters really provides a great place for people in the community just to find information, provide support and pass on other information. As Trish said when she received the reward, 'It's a joy to run a successful community page where information is vital and gives people a chance to be heard.' She said it was challenging during the height of the pandemic, but she felt people were relying on her. People are relying on you, Trish, and we really appreciate your commitment to our community through Murwillumbah Matters.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
There's nothing quite as sad as hearing aged-care nurses and carers these days talking about their love for the job that they do and then telling you why they just can't do it anymore. I can't count the number of aged-care workers who've told me that they just can't keep going—people like Sue, who told me she has been an aged-care nurse for 20 years. She has had the honour of nursing the parents of many friends in our local area but has walked away from it. She has described it as 'too shameful to continue doing the job'. So I'm very pleased to speak to this motion moved by the member for Corangamite.
Nurses and carers are walking away because they know they simply can't meet their own standards of care and that the load is just too great. Another worker tells me how hard it is to communicate with residents with the masks, the face shields, the full PPE, and says some of the nicest moments with residents are when she can link families via Zoom and FaceTime. She says 'watching their faces light up with happiness, just being able to see each other', is a real highlight for her, as is delivering parcels that families have dropped at the front door, the closest that families can get to their loved one.
I think that care workers see that, as hard as it is for them, it's really hard on residents and their families. Tony, another aged-care worker, tells me that he loved working in aged care, but, he says, 'The government has stripped me of my love for aged care, and I will not work in it again.' It is a real loss to the sector that, throughout this pandemic, incredible carers and nurses have walked away because they just don't feel supported by this government. There haven't been the resources put in to make their job bearable. Families are seeing that.
Marie has described to me how her uncle has been locked in his room since the week before Christmas. The week that she wrote this to me, she said that he was 'now allowed to have a visitor, but the visitor had to bring their own rapid antigen test and do it on site'. Of course, in the past few weeks, that has been a really difficult thing to find, let alone for people to be able to afford. For Karen, the decline in her mum from the ongoing lockdown is really apparent to her. Her mum suffers dementia. Karen says that when she's able to get out she is stimulated and operates at a much better level. But that obviously hasn't been happening.
These are the stories that show how critical the situation is in aged care. I think the Morrison government has been betting on out of sight, out of mind when it comes to aged care, that only a relatively small number of people are in residential aged care or work there or visit, and that people just won't notice. Well, we've all noticed. It isn't good enough that aged care is being really left on its own to struggle through some extremely difficult times. I think the government is betting on the fact that these are the people who will be silenced either by age, by exhaustion or by respect, because the families of residents really respect what the workers are doing and they don't want to make life more difficult for them.
The royal commission, which cost more than $100 million, told us this before COVID, before the pandemic. The report, which was the size of a box of wine, showed us that it isn't good enough and there is neglect in these facilities. That was before COVID. I wish that that had been enough to distract the Prime Minister from his photo-ops and the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services from going to the cricket. Clearly it wasn't enough. The pandemic continues to be not enough to get their attention—the attention that aged-care residents deserve.
It has to be bad, doesn't it, when the government calls in the troops? It is bad beyond what any of us not living or working in those facilities can perceive. I don't speak from my own perspective in recent times. I haven't been inside an aged-care facility since Boxing Day because of the ongoing lockdowns that occur. It opens for a day and then an outbreak slams it shut. My mum, like many others, has to look at an email at 11 o'clock tonight to see if she's allowed to go and feed my father the next day. This is what so many families are going through. We cannot in this place think that that is good enough.
I also want to challenge the concept that the people who live in aged care are palliative. They're not. They are living and they deserve a richness to their life. It is our job in parliament and as a government to make that happen.
I thank my friend the member for Corangamite for moving this motion and bringing this debate to the parliament. The aged-care crisis is an utter disgrace. This is a national emergency. This is a national crisis. It is not an exaggeration to say that. Right now we have more than 1,100 separate COVID outbreaks in aged-care facilities across this country. Many of our most vulnerable Australians, in their frailer years and days, are isolated in their rooms week after week. They are alone and scared. Some of them are in their last days and they will die alone because the government didn't order enough rapid antigen tests to give to the aged-care facilities and they can't have visitors.
They rightly expect the government to support them, given all they've done for our country. One quarter of workers' shifts are unfilled. That means no food, no showers and no toilets. Aged-care residents across the country are left untoileted and unbathed. There have been more than 640 deaths in aged-care facilities this year alone, many of which were preventable. They should not have happened. Those older Australians should be alive. They are literally dying because of this government's inaction.
What is the government's response? The Prime Minister's standard formula—to deny there's a crisis. He says there's no crisis. In fact, the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services said that it's all going 'exceptionally well'. Why is the government calling in the Army if there is no crisis? The Prime Minister lives in denial. Some 60 per cent of workers still haven't had their booster shot, and we know the difference that the booster shots make to transmitting COVID. They slash the risk of outbreaks. More than 60,000 residents, our most vulnerable Australians, have not had their booster shots because of this government's incompetence.
If denial doesn't work then he distracts. He was washing a woman's hair in a hair salon—in a downright creepy fashion, frankly—when he could have gone to an aged-care facility and washed someone's hair which actually needed it. He could have done something useful with his time. If that doesn't work then he deflects. He tries yet again to blame the states, just like he did during the Victorian outbreak in 2020, when the vast majority of deaths of Victorians were in Commonwealth run aged-care facilities, because of his failure and neglect.
When all else fails he dreams up something, but it's always too little too late—like the insulting $400 bribe to aged-care workers. It's another bribe that runs out, of course, around the election. Do you know how many aged-care workers are going to get that $400? Six per cent, because it's pro-rataed. What this government has done to the aged-care sector is criminal—casualisation. Only six per cent of aged-care workers in this country have a full-time permanent job. Only six per cent of them will get the $400. The rest of them would be lucky to get $100 or $200. That is not dealing with the aged-care crisis. It's an announcement that he made up to try and survive the National Press Club, not a serious response to this national emergency.
But the big lie—or the untruth, because I'm not allowed to tell the truth and call the Prime Minister a liar, of course, under the standing orders—is his line: 'It's COVID. It's a one-in-100-year pandemic.' Well, yes, sure it is a pandemic. But he was warned. He was told about this outbreak. He knew it would happen. He was told there'd be more strains. He didn't order the rapid antigen tests like every other developed country did. Their governments secured supplies, but not this bloke. He wanted to leave it to Harvey Norman and the private sector to make a profit instead of buying them with taxpayer funds for a lower rate and giving them to the community. Shame on him! But, really, it comes after a decade of neglect. That is the big lie. It didn't just creep up on him. It's not like someone yelled, 'Surprise, there's an aged-care crisis!' He's in his ninth year of government—nearly a decade of failure and neglect. The one common thread through all of this is the Prime Minister himself. He was the Minister for Social Services who presided over nearly $2 billion of cuts to aged care, he was the Treasurer who baked them into the budget, and now he's the Prime Minister. He broke it. He owns it.
Yes, of course, the pandemic has exacerbated and weakened the sector. But these problems are long-standing, and they're structural. The government has had 21 expert reports into this crisis. He then commissioned a royal commission, thinking he was going to lose the election and he'd kick it down the road to be Labor's fault. There were 148 recommendations, and he hasn't responded to over half of them or he has made an inadequate response. There's no 24/7 nurse on call in a nursing home, nothing for workers' wages—and $3.2 billion has been given to providers, with no strings attached. Shame on him. He should sack the minister and then sack himself.
Aged-care workers came to Canberra last week, exhausted and overworked, some straight from a night shift, determined to tell their stories so that Australians know the truth about aged care. They spoke of frail, elderly people stuck in their rooms with wounds untended, without water to drink, and sitting for hours in incontinence pads left unchanged. They spoke of their devastation at not having time to care, to comfort someone dying alone or to share a kind word. Sadly, this government was warned and failed to act.
It was clear from countless reports and inquiries that the aged-care system was in crisis long before the pandemic. But many people will remember that it wasn't until Four Corners aired their investigation into abuse and neglect in residential aged-care homes in 2018 that the Prime Minister was forced to act. The final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, Care, dignity and respect, was delivered almost 12 months ago in February last year. The report contained 148 recommendations to urgently address the crisis in aged care. Some 12 months later the implementation of any of the recommendations has been painfully slow—even recommendations which were accepted in full, which were less than half. Many are only being partly implemented, and nearly a quarter have been rejected outright or listed for further consideration. As a result, the aged-care sector has lurched from neglect to crisis, and older Australians are the ones who are bearing the brunt of the government's inaction.
I'm often contacted by locals concerned about the quality of care. They know that aged-care workers are dedicated but under strain. They know that aged-care workers are doing their best but in a crisis. Bruce from Hamlyn Terrace told me that his sister-in-law has been in aged care for five years and that, during that time, he's noticed a significant deterioration in the quality of care, particularly after the home was taken over by a major corporate provider. Bruce said that prescriptions don't appear to be kept up to date, sandwiches now count as meals for both lunch and dinner, and the home is completely understaffed. He was concerned, after his sister-in-law's diabetes diagnosis, that the meals provided would cause her health to deteriorate further. He says that when the family couldn't visit due to COVID restrictions it was impossible to get an update on his sister-in-law's care, but they are reluctant to complain in case it impacts her. He said: 'Nobody is doing anything or taking notice of residents' needs. Something needs to be done.' This can't and won't improve while aged care is underfunded and understaffed.
Aged-care homes are already struggling to retain existing staff, and the token buyout of a retention bonus from the government won't keep aged-care workers in the system or attract others while work is insecure and the demands grow day by day. Aged-care workers are dedicated, but a warm inner glow doesn't pay the rent, keep food on the table or protect their family from harm. Leanne, an aged-care worker from Lake Haven, told me recently:
Nothing has been done to retain aged care workers through improved wages or conditions. Politicians have constantly been told of this crisis. Staff are leaving the workforce, they are burnt out, tired, sad, working so many additional hours to cover staff shortages. We are overwhelmed with conflicting responsibilities—to care for residents, look after our own health and that of our families. Making sure we don't let our guard down even in our private lives, the care of the residents is at the forefront of our thoughts even when not at work.
She goes on:
Aged care workers are being separated from our families to try and keep the residents safe. How can we continue to work like this? We are giving our absolute best, but that just isn't good enough.
It was four years ago yesterday that I lost my father to younger onset dementia, a cruel disease that stole my father from us piece by piece, day by day. I will be forever grateful to the dedicated aged-care staff at his day care centre, in my parents' home and in respite care who lovingly helped to care for my father. But I cannot forgive this Prime Minister for his cuts to aged care as Treasurer, leaving older Australians abandoned and neglected and alone. And I can never forgive the minister for aged care for abandoning older Australians in his care, under his responsibility, and for leaving aged-care workers exhausted, overworked and in crisis.
I will finish with the words of Debbie, an aged-care worker, from a handwritten letter she handed to me last week. She said:
By not acting in a timely manner to rectify past failures in aged care, the Prime Minister continues to enable the neglect of our frail, vulnerable elderly in care. Time is vitally important, especially for those currently in care.
Time's running out. Vulnerable Australians are at risk. The Prime Minister must act now. (Time expired)
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I rise to support the motion regarding the recommendation of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal for the creation of a new class of medals and clasps which recognises the loss suffered by families of Australian Defence Force personnel killed or wounded as a result of their service. This recommendation was made following a referral of the matter to the tribunal in January last year by the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel.
It's worth noting that Australia, through the Order of Australia and the Australian Defence Force honours and awards system, already recognises the service of ADF members. However, there is a need for an expression of the gratitude of the nation for individual sacrifice. The tribunal therefore recommended that the time had come for Australia to initiate a physical expression of its gratitude to members and their families. This would provide a meaningful and widely recognisable expression of national gratitude for the sacrifice of ADF members killed or suffering a serious wound, injury or disease as a result of their service, and that of their families, and would do so in a way that allowed existing Defence Force honours and awards to better tell the story of that service.
I'd also like to take the opportunity this afternoon to speak about the contribution many local businesses are making to Australia's defence industry; in particular, a couple of businesses in my home state of Queensland. I've spoken before in the Chamber about the Rheinmetall factory in Redbank, in the heart of the Oxley electorate. I've had the privilege of visiting that facility, and I'm so pleased that a defence force capability is being built in the Oxley electorate. It's certainly my hope and vision, as the member for Oxley, that our region, particularly the south-west suburbs of Brisbane and the Ipswich corridor, becomes the hub or epicentre of Defence Force manufacturing in this country.
In the opportunities I've had of talking to the sector and its industries, I was lucky enough to visit a world-leading Queensland company, Gilmour Space Technologies. The company was founded in 2013 by brothers Adam and James who by sheer willpower built a company which will be launching small satellites into orbit later this year. Gilmour will make lower-cost access to space available, and their first payload will be a bushfire early warning satellite. The work that the company is doing is incredibly important in improving Australia's sovereign capability. The company receives support from the Queensland government, including an investment by QIC announced by the Queensland Treasurer in July last year. This was part of the company's $61 million series C capital raise. Clearly, the private sector sees the opportunity here, as we all should.
The Australian government recently included space as one of the 14 sovereign industrial capability priorities for Defence. Last year defence scientists signed an agreement with Gilmour to develop defence related space technologies as part of a long-term strategic arrangement. There is plenty happening in this sphere, particularly at Gilmour Space Technologies. I look forward to their first launch from Queensland soil later this year, and I strongly encourage the federal government and the Department of Defence to look for more ways to work together to support the company's efforts to get Australia and Queensland into the space race. I'm really proud that Queensland is leading the way when it comes to not only investment but also the opportunities for our Defence Force capabilities.
I'd also like to highlight the work of Products For Industry, a locally owned and operated business. PFi Aerospace work for the Australian Defence Force using their program Skyfall, a low-cost, high-volume, client-customisable real-world threat simulator, and they have also unveiled their Australian development program for low-cost, high-speed surrogate ballistic targets designed to provide enhanced local, area and theatre air defence training for the Australian Defence Force and allied nations. Once again, I commend this motion and the intent behind it to the House, and I want to finish by recognising the incredible service of each and every member of Australia's Defence Force, past and present.
It is a privilege to rise to speak to this motion. I'd like to recognise some of my colleagues who are also participating in this debate and may have already spoken. I note in particular the members for Blair, Solomon and Bradman. The recognition of our veterans and their service is an issue which enjoys bipartisan support in this place. I know all members, not just the ones contributing to this debate, share a common desire to see our veterans and their families cared for and recognised. But sometimes that care and recognition are elusive and can only be found after some struggle and trouble. That is why this motion is so important.
As things stand, Australia lacks formal recognition of injuries, wounding and death in service. If you look around the world, other countries have formal recognition for wounding and death in the service. The United States, of course, famously has the Purple Heart. Canada has the Memorial Cross and the Sacrifice Medal. France has the Medal for the War Wounded. India has the Wound Medal. The United Kingdom has the Elizabeth Cross. Sweden has the Armed Forces Medal for Wounded in Battle. But Australia has no such recognition for our defence personnel who are injured or killed in the course of their service. This is in spite of the fact that, since the Second World War, our service personnel have experienced a variety of deployments around the world. These have ranged from peacekeeping missions to counterinsurgency stabilisation missions, to direct combat against an enemy force. These deployments have been dangerous, and many of our service personnel have been injured or killed.
But the dangers from service do not begin and end with a deployment overseas. Too many are injured and even killed in training and other everyday occurrences and accidents relating to service. Make no mistake: serving your country carries dangers, and it's frankly baffling that we have no suitable recognition for those who fall victim to those dangers.
It was a peacetime accident that brought into stark contrast this lack of recognition for the price of service. In 1996, two Black Hawk helicopters carrying troopers from the Special Air Service Regiment collided near Townsville. When the smoke cleared, 15 members of the Special Air Service Regiment were dead, as well as three members of the 5th Aviation Regiment. This terrible disaster highlighted that those who were killed and wounded in this accident would receive no formal recognition for their sacrifice.
For Kerry and Kay Danes, this accident was a catalyst. Alongside others, they began to campaign for proper recognition for those wounded and killed in service. Like others have in too many examples, they had to struggle against the inertia of a bureaucracy which often seems allergic to change. Indeed, in the course of my work as the member for Bean, I've been approached by many veterans whose service has not been appropriately recognised. For some, my representations have resulted in some measure of justice or recognition; for others, the work continues; and, for some, the recognition comes too late.
After some time, the government agreed to an inquiry which resulted in the recommendation from the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal that we are discussing today. We are finally at a point where we will be able to secure recognition for the service of those killed and injured in our Defence Force. But the final steps are up to this government. The final steps to turn the recommendation from the tribunal into an applicable mechanism for award recognition are entirely up to this government. I commend this motion, and I call on the government to take all necessary steps to finally give full recognition to those wounded and killed in the service of our country.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
MAN () (): Access to high-quality public education is a fundamental right, particularly when you're training to work in a dangerous job. Working with horses is one of those jobs. The equine industry is a pillar of the Hawkesbury, estimated to be worth around $160 million per year. Formal training for those working in the industry helps to make sure everyone comes home safely at the end of their day—from the races, from shows or simply from holding horses for the farrier or leading them from the stables to the paddock.
The New South Wales government is undermining this valuable industry in the Hawkesbury by axing equine studies from Richmond TAFE. Under the Liberal's plan, a total of three racing industry courses and performance horse studies will go, and farriery will move into animal studies. It also means 12 dedicated TAFE teachers will lose their jobs. Slashing equine courses from Richmond TAFE has caused deep concern among the horse community in the Hawkesbury, from employers to students to teachers to former Melbourne Cup-winning jockey Darren Beadman, now working with global racing giant Godolphin. But I've also heard from people who might have a horse or two in the Hawkesbury who are simply worried about what the cuts will mean for the future of the region.
A rally held at the campus last Friday added many more voices calling for an end to these ridiculous proposed cuts. Among those was Brooke, a trainer at Hawkesbury Race Club who is responsible for 25 horses. She did her accreditation through TAFE. She said the closure of the equine course will not only mean it'll be harder to find workers to fill roles in her stables; it could also make the workplace more dangerous. Brooke says that TAFE teaches students horse management, how to manage wounds and how to spot injuries. There's a riding program so that students can also safely learn how to manage different horse temperaments. She told me that, if the course doesn't exist, they're going to have to learn on the job, but she fears that will lead to more workplace accidents, describing it as 'a strong possibility'. That's the fear from someone in the industry. Tara, who co-trains horses in the Hawkesbury, has employed students from Richmond TAFE. She just can't believe that the equine courses are being abandoned.
Graduate Montana tells me that, when she was 16, she travelled an hour each way by car with her mum to attend Richmond TAFE. She gained a valuable set of skills that landed her a job she loved in the racing industry. Here's what she says:
It gave me so many opportunities in the industry and if they stop the courses it's going to take those opportunities away from so many kids.
Sixteen-year-old Brianna is one of those kids. She's been riding since she was five and wants to turn her passion into a career. She was devastated when her application to study at Richmond this year was unsuccessful, and she came to the rally with her mum to support reinstating the courses. All students at the rally spoke of the extraordinary dedication of the TAFE staff—people who love sharing their passion for the animals and passing on their knowledge.
What's also concerning is what these cuts will mean for the future of the area. There are so many unanswered questions surrounding this move. With the viability of Richmond TAFE undermined, what is the future of that campus? What effect will the cuts have on the future of the local equine industry? And, if the industry heads elsewhere, will we see more development and the loss of what is now a prized rural lifestyle?
Access to quality vocational job training and education should be expanded, not dismantled. It's what an Albanese government would deliver, providing 465,000 free TAFE places. That's including 45,000 new places under our free TAFE plan. The Liberal-National government has cut TAFE and slashed apprenticeships for nearly a decade now, and we have 85,000 fewer apprenticeships and traineeships compared to 2013. That's what the government has done. Cuts like those happening in Richmond are part of the Liberals' privatisation by stealth, something we want to end by ensuring that at least 70 per cent of Commonwealth funding and Commonwealth vocational educational funding is dedicated to our public TAFE. Free TAFE will help rebuild industries hit hardest by the pandemic, like hospitality and tourism, as well as meet current and future needs in the care economy—things like child care, aged care, disability care, nursing and community services. Free TAFE will provide opportunities for school leavers in the new energy jobs and advanced manufacturing of the future, and only Labor will deliver that. (Time expired)
As the member for Chisholm I want people in my community, from Box Hill to Wheelers Hill, to get ahead, whether that is through developing a new skill or pursuing further study. Today I am proud to say that Australia's education and training system is strong, with guaranteed choices for Australians looking into a job.
The Morrison government remains steadfast in its commitment to ensuring that Australians have the right skills for the workforce of today and the future. That's why we are providing a record $7.7 billion in skills and training this year—that is more than double the pre-COVID levels—to support students and apprentices, training organisations, and employers. As part of our economic response to COVID-19, we are providing free or low-fee training courses across the nation through the $2 billion JobTrainer fund so Australians can upskill or reskill in areas of identified skills need.
This is a fantastic program, and less than two weeks ago it was great to be able to talk about JobTrainer with the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison; and the Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business, Stuart Robert. The setting was KOR Equipment Solutions in Mulgrave, an amazing local trucking company and a fitting place to share the news that JobTrainer has now seen more than 300,000 enrolments across the country, with nearly 100,000 course completions in areas of employment growth. I want to take this opportunity to thank KOR managing director Stephen Pewtress for hosting us on site and for talking us through some of the company's own fantastic training programs.
In contrast to this record of achievement, you have the Labor Party. When it comes to helping Australians get the skills they need to get into a job, Anthony Albanese's record is pretty clear, and it's a record of failure. The last time Labor was in government, in 2012-13, the number of apprentices and trainees in training collapsed by 22 per cent, or 110,000. Between 2011 and 2013, when Anthony Albanese sat at the cabinet table, Labor cut employer incentives to businesses that employ apprentices nine times, totalling $1.2 billion. And let's not forget the failed VET FEE-HELP system, which resulted in thousands of Australians being lured into dodgy courses with free iPads and dubious career opportunities.
Now you have to feel for the member for Dunkley, who has been sent out to attack our skills and training policies, when it is those same policies that have delivered record numbers of trade apprentices in her own electorate. Departmental program data demonstrates that trade apprenticeships hit over 1,540 in Dunkley in September 2021, the highest number on record, and an increase of 41 per cent since Labor left office. So it is clear that Australia's skills system is firing ahead, both in the member for Dunkley's electorate and across the nation. It is not, as the Labor Party would argue, a system in crisis. The only people talking down skills and training in Australia seem to be Anthony Albanese and the rest of the Labor Party. Well, they're entitled to do it, but we'll just keep getting on with the job of delivering more jobs and more opportunities for the people of Chisholm and the people of Australia. (Time expired)
I don't know quite what to make of the member for Chisholm's contribution just then. We do have very different values and priorities. I put my name down to speak on this motion because it's incredibly important. We often hear the catchcry that Liberal and Labor are both the same. There's that bloke that keeps putting those ads on the front of the newspapers saying that we're the same. But I'm sure those opposite would agree that we're not the same. We have different values when it comes to different policy settings. I think it's just become the catchcry of opportunists, the cynical, the disengaged or others who have different motives altogether. But it is true—and I tell people this when I'm in my electorate—that we work together across the aisle most of the time, but from time to time we have differences in policy because we attach a different value to things. I'm proud that, when it comes to education, it is really important in our mob, and that's what I'll talk about. I won't be like the member for Chisholm, just having a crack at the Leader of the Opposition, with some ridiculous stats she's plucked from somewhere. But I agree with the member for Dunkley. I think she was completely right when she said, in her motion:
… the inequity in education, skills and training opportunities has been exacerbated by the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Government's decisions to, amongst other things, increase the cost of higher education, refuse to fund free access to public TAFE and neglect of the needs of the school system …
The facts are that the universities weren't supported, there has been a disregard for the building of skills among young Australians and the opportunities that they need—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 17:25 t o 17:36
I was just saying how committed federal Labor is to education and I was painting a picture of what had happened prior to the COVID pandemic arriving. I guess the dangers were there for all to see. Before the pandemic we had an overreliance on international students. We assumed that they would always be travelling here. Once the pandemic hit, the federal government excluded higher education from its JobKeeper package, providing a further and completely unnecessary hit to the bottom line of universities. We all know that some companies and organisations with rising revenue—they were doing well and didn't need JobKeeper—got it. The unis really struggled.
The federal government did drop the ball when it came to supporting unis. We on this side will not and have not. We have a series of plans that will put the sector back on track, with real benefits for every level of education in this country. We'll start by rebuilding the tertiary education sector, which was so badly hit during the pandemic, by creating up to 20,000 new university places across the country, including at Charles Darwin University in my electorate. We're also going to stop the rort in the skills and training being provided, by providing a massive 465,000 free TAFE places, which will give every Aussie kid an opportunity to learn at TAFE or a VET training provider. We will take advantage of the opportunity presented by the climate crisis and will support 10,000 new energy apprenticeships. All of this is underpinned by the Australian Skills Guarantee.
Younger Australians in primary and high schools have faced so much disruption. We'll invest $440 million to improve ventilation in classrooms and to provide more counselling and psychological support. I have a couple of young kids at primary school. All the staff have been fantastic. Up in the Northern Territory we've done better than most with the pandemic in terms of having the kids at school for longer, but I want to give a shout-out to all of our educators, principals and staff, who have done such a wonderful job. We'll keep backing them. (Time expired)
[by video link] Australia's education, skills and training systems are important for our country's foundation. Education and training lays the groundwork for strong economic growth and creates pathways for more jobs, skilled and experienced workers, and stability across the nation. The Morrison government recognises that young Australians have been heavily impacted by COVID-19 lockdowns, creating increased levels of stress and anxiety, disrupted school routines, restricted face-to-face contact and difficulties associated with social relationships. But the resilience and adaptability of each and every school system and each and every teacher is to be applauded. It is great to see that more than four million students have returned to the classroom for 2022.
The education and training of young Australians is paramount. Choosing to invest in the time it takes to hone the skills you need to get into a job is one of the most important decisions you will ever make, because the skills you develop can help you get your dream job. I want people in my community of Longman to get ahead, whether that's through developing a new skills or pursuing further study. I'm proud to say that today's Australian education and training systems are strong, with guaranteed choices for Australians looking to get into a job or wanting to start a trade or their dream career.
The Australian government remains steadfast in its commitment to ensuring that people have the right skills for the workforce today and in the future, and I expect the future of education and training to be even stronger under the Morrison government. Through record funding, $7.1 billion in this financial year alone, the Morrison government is ensuring that Australians, whether they live in a city, on the outskirts of a city, or in a rural or regional area, can get into high-quality jobs in their local area.
Today, our $2 billion JobTrainer Fund is supporting up to 463,000 placements in free or low-fee courses in areas of skill shortage through TAFE and registered training organisations. We are seeing results. We started 2022 on the right track, with almost half a million job-ready Australians skilled up, with over 300,000 Job Trainer enrolments and the highest level of trade apprentices on record, with 220,000 in training. That is why the government is providing a record $7.7 billion investment in skills and training this year, 2021-22, more than double pre-COVID levels, to support students, apprentices, training organisations and employers.
As part of its economic response to COVID-19, the Australian government is providing free or low-fee training courses across the nation through its $2 billion JobTrainer Fund so that Australians can upskill or reskill in areas of identified skills need. This investment has seen more than 300,000 JobTrainer enrolments across the country, with nearly 100,000 course completions in areas of employment growth. As part of the 2021-22 budget, the Australian government extended the JobTrainer Fund until 31 December 2022 and expanded it to fund a further 163,000 placements—great news indeed. Under the extension, any Australian who wants to enrol in aged care, digital skills, disability care or childcare qualifications can access a JobTrainer place, regardless of their age, employment status, or prior qualifications.
In addition to JobTrainer, the Australian government has invested $4.8 billion over four years from 2020-21 through the Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy to support businesses and group training organisations to take on new apprentices and trainees. This includes $1.2 billion announced in the 2020-21 budget, $2.7 billion announced in the 2021-22 budget, and a further $900 million through the portfolio additional estimates statements 2021-22. There are already more than 1,300 apprentices in Longman, and these new measures will lead to even more opportunities for apprentices and trainees in my electorate and around the country, with expanded wage subsidies. The number of Australians taking up a trade apprenticeship is at its highest level since data was first collected in 1963.
When it comes to school funding, this government invested a record $23.4 billion in all Australian schools last year and will invest a further record $24.8 billion this year. Since we first came to government, funding across all schools has increased by 80 per cent and will increase by a further 40 per cent by 2029. Commonwealth funding for government schools has doubled—it's grown by 100.7 per cent—since 2013 and will see a further 46 per cent increase to 2029. We've locked in record school funding that provides fairer funding for Australian schools, agreed to by all state and territories and approved school authorities. The success of these— (Time expired)
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I'm pleased to contribute to this important motion today about the impact of cybersecurity and, moreover, the attacks that have taken place against Australia and Australians. There are many well-known sayings we're familiar with in this place: 'as safe as houses' or, as we used to say, 'as safe as the Bank of England'; and, if something was secure or impenetrable, we always used to say it was 'as secure as Fort Knox'. Well, it's no longer enough to ensure that our banks are safe and secure; our IT and online software programs need to be as well. It's more than just the buildings and the infrastructure; it's the software and the computer hard drives et cetera.
Today's motion refers to the impacts of cyberattacks on Australian businesses. Some would assume that cyberattacks are simply targeted at large organisations and corporations. I say: not so—not so at all. Unfortunately, I've seen it even locally, with such organisations as Riverina Water. Just last year, the local water supply organisation for the southern part of my electorate, servicing 73,000 people with fresh drinking and domestic water across four local government areas, had its IT systems hacked as a result of an unauthorised electronic intrusion. They are not alone. Indeed, we've heard from previous government speakers, in this and other debates, about the attacks on local governments and other organisations.
It's critical that people update their software and put those patches on. It's critical that, indeed, they do visit the various government websites—and cyber.gov.au would be a very good start—to take the steps to protect themselves, their businesses, their families and Australia's digital sovereignty. It's critical that they protect their businesses and their bottom lines, because to get hacked means that you could very well have all your information sent overseas by nefarious characters who would use it to harm you and, potentially, your families, and, indeed, Australia's digital sovereignty.
We heard some very good remarks in question time today from the Minister for Home Affairs, who talked about, last November, this government introducing into parliament, and passing, the first tranche of its critical infrastructure reforms so that our nation is much better equipped to deal with a range of threats, including cyberattacks. That was the first stage of a two-part legislative approach.
Last week, the home affairs minister introduced the second tranche of this critical infrastructure legislation into the House of Representatives. It includes changes that will deal with risk management systems and how requirements for systems of national significance are actually put in place and administered. Minister Andrews talked about the Australian Cyber Security Centre receiving more than 67,500 cybercrime reports just in the last financial year alone and that more than a quarter of those incidents were on critical infrastructure systems. She said that these critical infrastructure systems are the systems that deliver 'essential services that all Australians rely on'. They include such things as water and sewerage; energy; our banking and financial services; transport; and food and groceries. As she said, and as she reported to the House in question time today, any threat to these very vital services is a threat to our way of life. If anybody were to become complacent about these things, that would be a critical error to make, because, as I said, it's very often the case that it's small businesses, family-run businesses, that are the target of these attacks.
In an article in April 2021 in the Financial Review, it was reported that more than half of the businesses in Australia reported being cyberattacked—more than half! That is an amazing statistic. The Review reported that these businesses lost an average of four days of productivity just to get their businesses back online. The frustration, the exasperation of that when you're trying run a small business, particularly during COVID—it's difficult enough without these attacks. That's why I urge and encourage people to visit cyber.gov.au. The other thing is that half of the businesses that were impacted paid their attackers and many of them did not have their stolen data returned. There's a lesson to be learnt there.
Again, make sure you've got the right patches, make sure you have the right processes in place, and never, ever be complacent when it comes to cybersecurity.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that naval shipbuilding:
(a) is critical to:
(i) the Australian economy;
(ii) sovereign capability; and
(iii) national security; and
(b) creates thousands of specialist jobs across advanced engineering and high technology industry sectors;
(2) further notes:
(a) that the termination of the Naval Group French submarine contract caused the loss of thousands of jobs and contracts with defence industry sector businesses;
(b) the continued uncertainty relating to the Australia-United Kingdom-United States nuclear submarine announcement about:
(i) where the submarines will be built;
(ii) who will build them;
(iii) Australian workforce participation in the build;
(iv) the workforce skills required;
(v) the number of submarines required;
(vi) the cost of the replacement submarines; and
(vii) the delivery date of the submarines; and
(c) the recent concerns about the performance and few opportunities for Australian firms on the Future Frigates; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) respond to the questions raised about the replacement submarine contract;
(b) ensure that all Australian naval shipbuilding contracts maximize Australian workforce participation with public, transparent and audited mandatory minimum content requirements; and
(c) ensure that all naval procurement is fit for purpose, value for money and delivered in a timely way.
The coalition has been in government in this country for 19 of the last 25 years, and it has been in government for the last nine years. Today, when the government talks up the importance of national and regional security, when there is instability in the region and when Australia should be prepared, Australia has an ageing submarine fleet, no submarine replacement contracts and no clear path for the replacement submarines. All we have is an announcement about nuclear submarines and an agreement with the USA and the UK. None of us know what's in that agreement, but we have, supposedly, an agreement. We don't know who the supplier is going to be, we don't know how many submarines are going to be ordered, we don't know what the cost will be, we don't have a delivery date, and we have no commitment whatsoever on the Australian workforce content or even the skills that will be required if we do have Australian participation in the build. Simultaneously, we have thousands of workers and small businesses throughout this country who had secured contracts and work from the French submarine replacement program who have been left hanging with no contract, no work and no certainty about their own future. Hundreds of millions and perhaps even billions of dollars have been wasted over the French submarine contract. Again, we'll probably never know what the real figure is, but there is no doubt that the figure will run into that amount of money—such has been the incompetence of this Morrison government. In the last nine years this coalition government has gone from a Japanese proposal, under the Abbott prime ministership, to a French contract, under the prime ministership of Mr Turnbull and the then Minister for Defence, Minister Pyne, to the US-UK nuclear option under Prime Minister Morrison and the Minister for Defence, Mr Dutton. This is a serious issue. The Australian government's incompetence has undoubtedly damaged Australia's credibility and trust around the world, particularly with important allies in Japan and the European Union.
Now we have credible reports that the proposed Hunter class frigates may also not be fit for purpose. The BAE model is reportedly too slow, unsafe and more costly to run. These are huge investments, estimated at $45 billion for the nine frigates alone. To have doubts about the design and suitability before we even start the build again highlights the incompetence and bungling of this government. I hope we don't go down the path of seeing hundreds of millions of dollars wasted again. What is somewhat concerning is that BAE, which is the builder of these frigates, has also been suggested as the possible builder of the submarines. That in itself raises questions. Of course, none of the government ministers responsible for those decisions are likely to be around in 10 or 20 years time or whenever any of these vessels are delivered, be they the frigates, which are supposed to come online in 2033 or thereabouts, or the submarines, in 2040. They won't be around to be held to account for their decisions today, just as former minister Christopher Pyne, who campaigned on delivering the submarine contract to South Australians in 2016, is no longer here to account for the embarrassing backflip and failure of his government to deliver for South Australia.
The real issue here is that the naval fleet, and the work attached to it, is so important, particularly given this government's decimation of the auto industry around Australia and particularly in South Australia, where the hope was that the naval contracts would at least pick up some of the losses that we incurred as a result of the auto industry being closed. Sadly, we have no guarantee at all that that will be the case, particularly with the submarine contract, which for the last six or seven years has been mooted as being a winner for South Australia. We now have an agreement which tells us nothing about where the submarines will be built, how many jobs will be created in South Australia or what research and development from the South Australian defence industries will go into that. Once again, we see another key South Australian industry left in limbo, with skilled workers being lost and businesses struggling to stay afloat, because the Morrison government treats South Australia as irrelevant and the South Australian Marshall Liberal government is too weak to stand up for South Australia.
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I was quite excited when I saw this motion on the Notice Paper, talking about naval shipbuilding and the member for Makin moving it. I thought: 'This is great. We're going to see some well earned praise for the coalition government and what it has done for naval shipbuilding, what it has done for defence investment and what it has done for the fine state of South Australia.' But all we get is carping and whining and whingeing—typical negativity. I like the member for Makin. He's a great fellow, but that five minutes that he just delivered is five minutes of my life I'm not going to get back. I'm annoyed about that because I thought he was going to talk up our sovereign capability. I thought he was going to talk up the fact that we are investing record amounts. I thought he might even have been just a tad honest about the fact that, during the Gillard and Rudd years, defence spending dropped—and the defence minister talked about this in question time today—to 1.56 per cent of gross domestic product. That was the lowest level since 1938, and the member for Makin knows, as we all do, what happened in 1939.
We are putting in place investment of $90 billion in new naval ships and submarines. The member for Makin should be talking that up, because South Australia is going to play a key role in that shipbuilding. There's more than $1 billion in modern shipyard infrastructure—
Order! I just remind the member for Makin that he was heard in silence during his speech. Give the same respect to the other speakers.
There's up to $62 million in workforce growth and skilling initiatives to enable the delivery of these platforms. It's not just the ships and the infrastructure to build those ships; it's the upskilling of the people. It's making sure we've got the right trades and the right apprentices, and, when it comes to getting young people into the workforce to do all those sorts of jobs, there's no better side of the House to do it than the Liberals and the Nationals. We have a proven track record. The member for Makin talked about the longevity of this government and how many years, over the past quarter of a century, we have been in government. There's a reason for that. It's because the people of Australia know and trust that, when it comes to national security and when it comes to defence investment, we will be the right ones on the treasury bench to deliver, and deliver we are doing.
I note the member's reference to the contract with Naval Group and the AUKUS announcement. I'm not going to enter into a debate about contractual arrangements. They form part of the national security, which is quite rightly kept within the confines of the Prime Minister, defence chiefs and others who decide national security. But, whilst I recognise the talents and skills of those who work in the electorate of Makin—I do—I welcome any opportunity for workers in any electorate of Australia to partake in this process. I know, having gone around as the then Assistant Minister for Defence—and, indeed, as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs—to the various military bases and to where they manufacture armoured personnel carriers and other equipment, that it is a question of not just where the product is completed but all the other manufacturing plants and factories in towns right across the nation. That includes Tasmania—and I acknowledge the service of the member for Braddon, who is no longer in the Chamber. It is the entire country that feeds into the process of getting the right military equipment, and that is what we're doing. When it comes to shipbuilding, 70 defence vessels and 1,700 vehicles are being built in Australia right now.
We're getting on with the job. We're getting the job done. That's because the people trust us when it comes to defence and when it comes to national security. When it comes to shipbuilding, certainly, they know that the Liberals and Nationals will deliver, and they remember that when Labor was last in office there was not a ship built. Labor did not build a single ship. We are getting on with the job. We're fixing up the errors of the past—the Labor past—and we're making sure that, for us, national security comes first.
I rise to speak on this important motion, and I thank the member for Makin for raising this very important debate. For South Australians, defence industry jobs were meant to provide a vital lifeline following the loss of manufacturing in our state, especially the loss of General Motors Holden. Thousands of people worked not just at GMH but at manufacturing plants around the place that supported GMH. But this government's continued mismanagement of defence contracts has thrown the manufacturing industry into chaos and insecurity.
The Australian naval shipbuilding industry is facing a double threat. Firstly, we have the submarines. Most experts feel that the decision to switch to the nuclear option makes sense from a defence point of view, especially given that the French submarines contract was plagued by cost blowouts, changes in the commitment of local content, and delays. We on this side of the House have been supportive of the arrangements with the AUKUS deal, the Australia-UK-US deal, but that doesn't mean we can ignore this government's constant bungling of defence contracts; nor should it detract from the fact that it was a diplomatic debacle with the potential to impact Australia's honour, security and sovereignty. As a consequence of this mismanagement, around 350 Naval Group Australia jobs, the majority of which are in South Australia, will be lost. That's not to mention further potential job losses and uncertainty about the future in some of the supply chain companies.
To date, the Prime Minister has not provided any details or guarantees as to whether the submarines will be built in Adelaide. This creates continued uncertainty for the workers and associated industries. We must ensure that Australian industry is involved in the development of these submarines from the start in order to ensure that Australia has the capability to maintain the vessels into the future.
Last week, this was reiterated to me during a meeting I had with representatives from Engineers Australia. Their studies have shown that, to meet the demand for workers over the next 12 months, the defence industry will be required to grow at unprecedented levels. This can be challenging at the best of times, as we all know, given the unique nature of defence jobs, such as security clearances and a whole range of other things. While Australia possesses some skills in nuclear, we lack the skills required to work on the maintenance of nuclear propelled submarines. In fact, a 2016 Australian Department of Defence paper looking into Australia's requirement for submarines noted the government had ruled out nuclear since the time required to amass such support systems and skilled people would extend beyond the time frame for replacement of the Collins class fleet.
I understand it takes five to seven years of postgraduate experience before an engineer is considered competent for independent practice. This means we'd need to begin training our local skilled workforce immediately if they're required by 2032 and if we want to employ people here in this country. Given these challenges we must ask the question: even if the submarines are built locally, how many of the jobs will be local? It is not only the submarine project that is creating uncertainty for workers and industry. There are now reports that raise concerns that the future frigates program is facing multiple technical capability and safety issues. The future frigates, the second-largest procurement project in Australia's history, is based in Adelaide, and it's another example of mismanagement by this Morrison government. It's already running $15 billion over budget, it has faced delays over several years, and now we know there are serious concerns that the vessels may be slower, vulnerable to detection and with limited range.
The Morrison government must take control of our critical defence contracts, get them back on track and see these projects delivered to create local jobs and save current jobs. We on this side of the House have provided a bipartisan commitment to spend $270 billion on defence over the next 10 years. We have committed to the nuclear powered submarines, but we now want to see a clear commitment by this Morrison government and the state's Marshall government to growing our sovereign defence industry with a focus on creating local jobs.
If the global pandemic has reminded us of anything at all it's the importance of national security and our sovereign capability and their impact on Australian jobs and the Australian economy. Minimising our reliance on and the impact from external supply chains and other state forces has never been more important. Thankfully, this government is committed to effectively facilitating all of the above, and Australia's shipbuilding industry forms an important part of this commitment. In fact, a recapitalisation commitment this significant has not been seen since World War II.
The sad fact is that Australia's national security and strategic environment has seen a negative downturn in recent years, with military modernisation evolving at speeds not experienced before. The capabilities of potential threatening sources have been rapidly advancing and expanding, meaning our homegrown technology edge is not what it used to be. We are now in a position that we must act swiftly to meet the evolving threat, with the Indo-Pacific region now at the centre of strategic competition. It is uncomfortable to realise that our naval shipbuilding enterprise faces a real threat from foreign espionage.
I've said this when discussing matters relating to national security, but the sad fact is that what you can't see can hurt you. There are those with different interests to our own that seek to compromise or collect Australian intelligence. Unfortunately, this includes our next generation of naval capability. Thankfully, under the current proposed reforms to the security of critical infrastructure act, the federal government is introducing a naval shipbuilding identity assurance program. Harnessing the capabilities of AusCheck, it will provide a constant and consistent level of background checking and identity assurance for every person requiring unescorted access to our naval shipyards and multi-user sustainment sites. It will be modelled on the aviation security identity card, also managed by AusCheck, which is used to conduct background checks on people requiring access to restricted areas in airports, and to date this has proven to be very effective. It is a relief to see the program will be rolled out very quickly in the coming year.
On a very positive note, in my own electorate of Cowper, companies like Birdon Group and Bale Defence are set to benefit directly from the renewed focus of national naval shipbuilding enterprise. Both Port Macquarie based companies have previously secured large-scale overseas contracts, and in recent months it was great to see Bale Defence awarded the ADF contract to supply 40 rough terrain vehicles, with potential for larger future orders. It will be exciting to see mid-North Coast local ingenuity being utilised for our own naval capability, as it absolutely should be. Seeing our world-class local heavy engineering and industrial manufacturing capabilities used to their full potential is a gratifying prospect. This commitment to naval shipbuilding will support at least 15,000 jobs nationwide by the end of the decade, and I look forward to seeing Birdon Group and Bale Defence expand their teams and capabilities.
But in the process we must recognise that mid-sized and small Australian companies are more cost-competitive than the large overseas primes and their subsidiaries and suppliers. Australian companies must be given the opportunity to compete and participate on a level playing field as prime contractors. Examples like Birdon Group and Bale Defence in my electorate have already proven their capability and cross-competitiveness in not only US military contracts worth billions of dollars, just for the two, over the past decade, receiving high praise for quality performance. Before now, I appreciate, there has been a reluctance for local companies to invest in equipment and manpower without the security of Australian contracts to shore up the spend. This government's longer-term commitment now and into the future will allow local industry to invest with confidence.
Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
It is a great pleasure to speak on this motion this evening. Firstly, I'd like to thank the member who moved the motion in my absence in a previous sitting week, because debating this motion gives me a great opportunity to express my unwavering support for the Australian Defence Force Cadets, their vital service to the country and the work that they do instilling values into our young people. Service, courage, respect, integrity and excellence—these are the values of the ADF Cadets that underpin their mission to lead and serve our local communities and our nation.
In particular, I'm very proud that the Ryan electorate has a number of ADF Cadet units, including at the Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera but also located in a number of schools within the electorate. It's of course a community based youth development program, which focuses on preserving the customs and traditions of the Australian Defence Force. That's incredibly important for the Ryan community, because the Ryan community is, as I said, home to the Gallipoli Barracks, so it is home to many serving Defence personnel but also ex-Defence personnel and veterans who have chosen to stay located in the local area and those who have located there as part of their service at the Amberley barracks, further down the highway. We have a very proud tradition in the Ryan electorate of supporting our service men and women and veterans, and promoting the values and the ethos of the Australian Defence Force in the cadets is a tremendous way to do that.
Last year in May—I'm just trying to get my dates right; with COVID, things tend to blend together—I was very pleased to have the Assistant Minister for Defence, Andrew Hastie, come to the electorate. It was one of the few visits that he was able to successfully complete given the on-and-off border openings in Western Australia. He came to look at the site and to have discussions with those who are helping me lead the charge for the new Brookfield cadet unit in the electorate of Ryan. The Morrison government, at my urging, has already committed some $100,000 in funding to help get this new cadet unit off the ground. There is significant need in the local community. Brookfield is some distance from the existing cadet unit over at Enoggera, and already, since the call was put out that we were looking to establish this unit, over 40 young people have put up their hands and said they are keen to become cadets as this unit is started up. Assistant Minister Hastie is revered for his own service, but not many people would know that he was a cadet himself and he credits the cadets with instilling in him that love of service and that love of country and encouraging him as he got older to then join up to serve in the ADF. It was great to have him there to talk all thing cadets because not only is it his portfolio but he embodies everything we're trying to achieve with the program in terms of instilling those values in our young Australians and then, hopefully, inspiring them to go on to a career of service with the ADF.
I really want to give a shout-out to the local residents who are helping in this endeavour to put the new cadet unit together—that is, the president of the Kenmore-Moggill RSL Sub Branch, Lieutenant Colonel Rick Maher; and the sub-branch treasurer and a former officer in the Royal Engineers of the British Army, Richard Ponsonby; and Leonie Smith. These individuals have been instrumental in getting this cadet unit started. It was their initiative. They came to me and said, 'We'd really like to start this up. Can you secure some initial funding,' which indeed we have been able to do. As the unit progresses, ultimately, to its establishment, all three of them are working incredibly hard. Rick and Richard are obviously both servicemen themselves and are devoted to bringing that to our local youth, as I am. So I give a shout-out to them.
I also give a shout-out to the 129 Australian Army Cadet Unit, which, as I said, is based at the Gallipoli Barracks, at Enoggera. They have 144 currently serving cadets, so that unit is going very strong. Despite the COVID-19 restrictions, they've still been able to conduct regular parades and weekend activities together, including obstacle courses and other ways to build their skills as part of the cadet training program.
It has been a pleasure to deliver that $100,000 worth of funding. I very much look forward to welcoming our very first cadets in the very near future to the Brookfield cadet unit and to helping to see those values instilled in even more young people within the Ryan electorate.
I thank the member for Ryan for his motion and I'm pleased to support it. The ADF cadet program is a community-based youth development program focused on leadership and team building. At a time when other youth development programs are declining, the cadets remain a popular, respected and reputable youth program. The cadet program has been successful in appealing to a diverse audience, attracting a high ratio of young women into its ranks, as well as Australians from culturally diverse backgrounds.
For our part, Labor supported legislative changes, following the 2015 first principles review of Defence, to provide a clearer legal framework for the cadets. These changes established the cadets as a volunteer-based youth development organisation and enhanced the administrative oversight of cadets. A future Labor government will continue to support the cadets as an important youth development program, while avoiding an excessive administrative burden on the volunteers who make this program possible.
There are about 28,000 cadets currently enrolled in three cadet programs; about 4,200 officers, instructors and approved helpers who supervise and support these young people; and 584 ADF cadet units across the states and territories. I've had the privilege of engaging with a number of cadet units in and around the electorate of Blair, both Army and Navy cadet units in Ipswich, up at Milford Street; in Springfield as well, with the member for Oxley; and the Air Force cadet unit at RAAF Base Amberley, the largest Air Force base in Australia, in Ipswich in my electorate. I want to take this opportunity to commend all our ADF cadets and recognise the great work of the volunteer cadet leaders and staff, many of whom are parents or former cadets or veterans themselves, who give up their time to mentor these young people. Indeed, one of my electorate staff, Tyler Brennan, is a former cadet and now a cadet instructor. Thank you, Tyler, for the work you do with the cadets.
Cadets are an important source of defence recruitment for the ADF, with many going on to serve in a permanent ADF capacity or in the reserves. We on this side recognise this and the important role of the cadets and of a commitment to their continuity and growth. An Albanese Labor government will ensure a vibrant and well-equipped cadet program into the future. This is critical because, really, in many ways the current government has failed when it comes to the recruitment and retention of defence personnel. The cadets provide a conduit to the ADF, as youth sporting teams do to the NRL, the AFL, the AFLW, the A-League or any other elite sporting competition.
The latest Defence annual report shows that in 2020-21 Defence met only 90 per cent of the permanent force recruitment targets, and we know it has failed to meet the 2016 Defence white paper targets every year since 2015-16. At the same time the 2020 Defence strategic update and the 2020 Force structure plan showed that workforce costs are set to fall as a percentage of the defence budget while capability acquisitions will rise. In other words, investment in defence people and defence jobs is significantly lower than spending on capability and procurement. Given the government is failing to meet its current recruitment targets and that personnel shortages are already impacting the ADF, this could become a pressing defence capability issue in the future.
Back in 2020, as part of the defence strategic update, the government promised to deliver a new defence workforce strategy in the following year, 2021. Well, 2021 came and went, and they failed to release it. Now we hear that the government will release the defence strategic workforce plan in early 2022, a year late. We understand it has been delayed by the new AUKUS agreement between Australia, the UK and the USA. That's disappointing. It puts obviously national security issues front and centre. Of course, there's no guarantee the government is on track to meet the current white paper target of 62,400 personnel, so we need to see the new workforce plan as soon as possible if we're going to have enough people, both permanent and reserve, to operate the ADF.
The government talk a big game when it comes to defence, but the reality is they have failed when it comes to not only defence capability and major acquisitions but recruiting and retaining enough ADF personnel to keep this country safe now and in the future. For nine years they have had no credible plan to grow the ADF. That's where the cadets come in. We commend the cadets. They play a key role in the pathway to ADF recruitment. I commend the work they do. I thank them for what they do. I thank the instructors and helpers in the cadet units around the country. Labor will continue to support this important youth development program.
I join my colleague the member for Blair in congratulating the cadets across our country. Bendigo, which is in my electorate, is an old town that has a long defence history. We too are home to Army cadets, Air Force cadets and Navy cadets. We see them each and every Anzac Day. They play an important role not just at Anzac Day events but at a number of other events that happen. Our RSLs quite regularly call upon our cadets to participate, help and raise the flag at their activities.
Cadets are critical, as others have said, in providing an opportunity and pathway to young people who might be interested in a career in the ADF. They do so much more than introduce young people to our Australian Defence Force opportunities. They also provide young people with an opportunity to come together to learn leadership skills, participate in team activities and be engaged in a really proactive and positive environment. You are part of a team when you're part of the cadets.
Not all young people are active in sport and not all young people are active in theatre. Cadets provide young people an opportunity to be involved in another activity after school. It's not for everyone, but some people really connect with it. Some make friends for life through being involved with the cadets, regardless whether they go on to a defence career or not.
It has been particularly hard for young people in all of our electorates but particularly those in Victoria over the last few years. I give a special shout-out to the people in my electorate, including the cadets, who haven't been able to gather like they usually do. There haven't been a lot of activities. Our Anzac services have been pared back because of COVID. They haven't been able to gather regularly on their parade nights, because of social-distancing requirements, or they have had to do it via zoom. One young cadet said to me that, after having schooling via zoom all day the last thing they wanted to do was cadets via zoom. It missed the point of why they would gather in person.
It has been a challenging two years for these young people and all young people. Last year I spoke to our year 12s, who were getting close to graduation. They were in year 11 when they were doing homeschooling. For most of year 12 they did homeschooling. I asked them what their plans and hopes were for the future. It was also to offer them an apology. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Those final two years of schooling are such a rite of passage. There's a plan from day one about what your final two years looks like, and so many of our young people just didn't get that opportunity. School formals looked different. Exams looked different. Being able to get together and do the regular extracurricular activities at school looked different. A number of them deferred their studies. They said that they weren't going to study this year and that they were going to look for other opportunities.
So I think that, when we're talking about our cadets, we need to talk more broadly about young people in Australia and we need to work out what we're offering a generation of teenagers and people in their early 20s—a generation of younger people that, because of COVID, have missed out on so much of what the rest of us got to do. Yes, it's different in states like WA and Queensland. But in states like Victoria and New South Wales, where we were subject to a lot of changes around what we could do, this is a generation that didn't get those rite-of-passage moments like the rest of us. This is a generation that may not have got the marks that they wanted and may not be studying. This is a generation for whom homeownership is looking more and more unlikely. This is a generation who, it looks like, will have four or five career changes, maybe even more of that.
So the more that our government can do to create opportunities for younger Australians, the better. The more cadet programs leading into apprenticeship programs within the Defence Force, the better. The more we look at expanding out and paying a proper wage to people who might want to work in conservation, the better. There's an opportunity for us here in this place to really think about how we can support that generation of young people, who've really borne the brunt of a lot of what's happened with COVID. I couldn't imagine being 18 or 19 and having to go through the last two years of what a lot of our young people in Australia have. They should be congratulated, but they should also be listened to.
So I'm keen to hear more from our cadets about what they'd like to see in the future. I'd like to thank them for what they do. We couldn't have the events that we have in Bendigo without their service. I'd also like to encourage any young person thinking about it to give it a go. You might meet a best friend, you might have a career in the ADF and you might have some good fun along the way.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House notes that the Member for Kennedy and the Member for Clark call on the Government to provide for sovereign fuel security in Australia during the transition to reliance on renewable energy and net-zero carbon emissions, including by ensuring:
(1) a ban on Australian oil exports;
(2) Australian processing, by Australian owned and operated companies, of Australian oil;
(3) Australian petroleum contains a minimum of 33 per cent renewables (algae and ethanol inter alia), by 2027;
(4) Australian manufacture, by Australian owned and operated companies, of drop-in fuel using waste materials, with a targeted supply of a minimum of 33 per cent of the Australian fuel diesel market by 2027;
(5) Australia stockpile a minimum of six months supply of fuels, oils and lubricants, noting that:
(a) these materials are manufactured in Australia from Australian oil; and
(b) where this is not possible, that imports be restricted to those materials genuinely unable to be manufactured in Australia from Australian oil;
(6) any investment in industrial facilities to meet the requirements of this motion be limited to the genuine need for fuel security, with the object that Australian manufacturers achieve 100 per cent energy supply from renewable energy and net-zero carbon emissions; and
(7) Australian manufacture of electric vehicles, and their component parts including battery production, with a target of 100 per cent of all local, state and federal, government vehicles and buses, in metropolitan areas being Australian made by 2035.
For those who don't know—and I hope everyone does know—China and Russia have been meeting. All China wants is Taiwan, and all Russia wants is the Ukraine. We've heard it all before, haven't we? 'All I want is the Sudetenland.' Then: 'All I want is Czechoslovakia.' Then: 'All I want is Poland.' And then: 'All I want is Russia.' So it is a terrible time which we're getting into.
Now, you talk about defence. Honestly, members of the ALP and the LNP in this place should hang their heads in shame. You have two days of fuel supplies. When we kicked up a hell of a stink about the fuel supplies, there were emergency supply tankers put in America—on the other side of the globe.
What we've moved is a motion for a ban on the export of oil. There could be nothing more illogical and stupid than to allow 27 per cent of our requirements in diesel and petrol to go overseas, which we then buy back. It goes overseas to Singapore and to South Korea. If China places an embargo—'Oh, they wouldn't do that!' Well, talk to the Germans in World War I, when Winston Churchill made sure the Anglos had control of every drop of oil on earth. The Germans decided they wouldn't be a third-rate power and they went to war. As to World War II, we all know what forced Japan into the war—an oil embargo. As a young man—I think I was 21 years of age—I joined up because we were at war with Indonesia. Over what? Borneo oil. But this government has no supply of oil whatsoever in the country. They can't use their own Australian oil because it can't be processed in our refineries, except for about three per cent of it. So if China embargoes our fuel, the whole thing becomes a mockery. There is no way that you can move one single soldier from that point to that point. So we're moving this bill. We're not talking about it; we're doing something about it.
As to reducing CO2—well, quite frankly, I think the things that have been done in Australia are a farce. I've always been one for reducing CO2. But if you convert waste to diesel, that's 33 per cent of your oil needs. And they're already doing it: Southern Oil are already doing it in Wagga Wagga and Gladstone. It's not pie in the sky. The Prime Minister has visited; the Premier of Queensland has visited. So they're already doing it. The Germans did it for the last two years of the war—waste to diesel; pyrolysis—by the Fischer-Tropsch method.
Our manufacturing industries are gone in this country. Well, let's get them back. And I defy the ALP or LNP to tell me one single thing that they have done to get those industries back.
Now, what we are proposing is that all government vehicles in metropolitan areas be electric; that would extend our fuel supply but also would mean that we're not dependent upon the fuel supply for at least three or four per cent of our vehicles. They are to be made in Australia by an Australian-owned company. Now wouldn't that be something! Wouldn't that be something, if we were actually constructing motor vehicles in Australia again! Did we make good motor cars? Seventy-two per cent of the market was held by Australia.
Finally, as to renewables: algae is the really big special thing here, and Israel is mapping out the way forward. As to renewables, of course, no less a person than Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth said that the first answer to the world's CO2 problems is ethanol. So why aren't you doing something about it? I mean, you people sit in this place—you're the government! And you were the government—the ALP was the government.
Mr Wilkie is seconding this motion. I was on a 24-hour hour call-up to go and fight in Indonesia. He actually was in the Army when they saw combat. So, both of us, from our backgrounds, feel it imperative to do something. We feel it imperative to do something serious and practical.
I'm not going to go into why the present methods we're using to cut down CO2 are totally impractical and totally illogical, but no less a person than Al Gore has put up solutions. On fuel: we are at 28 per cent, whereas, in America, they're almost totally self-reliant now as to fuel. They are sick of fighting wars. You had World War I; you had World War II; you had the Indonesian war; you had the Arab wars, which just seemed to go on forever; you had the Gulf War and the Afghanistan war. Let's stop fighting the wars and supply our own petrol so that we don't have to fight the wars, and, if we get into one, we can defend ourselves. (Time expired)
I call for a seconder for the motion.
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I'd like to thank the members for Kennedy and Clark for bringing this debate forward today. Fuel security has always been important, but these are probably the most fraught times for this since the seventies. Aside from the more protectionist nature of trade today and the implications on tariffs at international borders, the pandemic has tightened supply lines, and a single container ship wedged in the Suez has shown us how dependent global trade is on a few small choke-points. This debate really does matter. It also couldn't be more timely. On the weekend, I saw fuel at $2.28 in Sydney. Clearly, fuel shocks are real.
While I don't agree with all of the protectionist measures in this motion, there are certainly some elements which are critical and should be addressed immediately by the government. The call to stockpile six months fuel supply is vital to ensure we can keep moving, even in a crisis. I am pleased to see that the government is acting on this. We are securing a baseline level of key transport fuels to be kept onshore to act as a buffer against supply shocks through the implementation of a minimum stockholding obligation. This will see a 40 per cent increase in our local diesel stocks. But, when prices stabilise again, we must invest in fuels to ensure that we have domestic storage.
Beyond the need for storage, sovereign manufacturing capabilities are also essential, which is why the government is ensuring that we have access to the fuel we need to keep Australia moving. We have already locked in Australia's refining capacity and its 1,250 employees through the landmark Fuel Security Act. This means that the Ampol refinery in Brisbane and the Viva Energy refinery in Geelong will both remain in operation until at least mid 2027. In fact, the Viva Energy refinery at Geelong in Victoria has extended this commitment until 30 June 2028, one year more than the minimum required period under the Fuel Security Act 2021. Locking in our refineries is a matter of national security, of Australia's sovereignty and our self-sufficiency at critical times, our resilience, and our resilience as a nation. It means that we continue to have the ability to refine domestic crude oil in times of emergency.
We are investing in our refineries through the fuel security services payment, which recognises the vital role that refineries play in our long-term fuel security. The payments are designed to ensure that refineries are supported in downtimes, not when they are performing well. Due to reduced demand, the pandemic resulted in a surplus of fuel products, particularly jet fuel. With the demand dropping by over 80 per cent, refineries faced challenges in reducing the production of petrol and jet fuel while maintaining diesel production. The first quarter of the fuel security services payment has now been finalised by the government, with payments well below the maximum support available. For quarter 1, 2021-22, Ampol will not receive any payments, as their payment rate is zero cents per litre. The results demonstrate the fuel security payment system is working as intended, with refiners only receiving support from the government when refinery market conditions are poor. In the case of Ampol, their margins have rallied to such an extent that they do not need any support. Viva's margins are also improving, with the payments well below the maximum available. This is the economically responsible way to support domestic industry.
I'm pleased to see the government has remained committed to domestic refining. It is not too long ago that most states had their own refinery, and, while the companies operating them saw business sense in moving offshore, it is good to see that the government has acted to ensure that not everybody has left the market.
While Australia's fuel supplies have remained secure and affordable through the pandemic, we know we need to shield Australians from potential shocks in the future and enhance our national security in the process. Our economy relies heavily on energy and liquid fuels, and this will continue to grow. (Time expired)
Let there be no misunderstanding: this country must achieve net zero carbon emissions as soon as possible, and by that I mean 2035, not 2050. It also means that this country must not invest in any new oil, gas or coal projects, but it does mean we need to fast-track our renewable energy industries, including fast-tracking the development of an Indigenous electric vehicle industry. But none of those ambitions and needs let the government off the hook that, right now, and for the immediate future, we need energy security when it comes to fuels, oils and lubricants. Yes, let's get rid of them as soon as we can. But right now, tomorrow, next month, next year, we must have absolute fuel security when it comes to our carbon based fuels, oils and lubricant. What have we got instead? This country imports 90 per cent of our refined fuel—90 percent coming from overseas—and much of our 68-day stock that we claim to have in our possession is in fact in the United States of America and on ships at sea. In other words, we have bugger all fuel reserves within our borders, on our land. In fact, as of November last year we had only 54 days of jet turbine fuel, 24 days of petroleum and 20 days of diesel.
I make the point again: fuel in America is useless in a crisis and fuel on ships is potentially useless in a crisis, in particular, when we have only four refineries in this country and two are closing. All this is happening at a time of real, genuine international drama. What if there's another war in the Middle East? What if there's a war over Taiwan? What if there's a war in Ukraine? I notice that even today, just a couple of hours ago, Minister Dan Tehan warned that supply chain issues may worsen with a Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is real. What about if there are industrial catastrophes in the oil refineries of Singapore or South Korea? These are all potential scenarios. These are all real threats to the importation of fuel to this country. So why on earth we don't have at least 60 days supply of jet fuel, of petrol, of aviation gasoline, of all the oils and lubricants, beggars belief and is a failure of governance in this country by a series of governments of both colours.
Of course, the best solution to this is absolute self-reliance through renewable energy. That's what we actually need, and we have an abundance of these renewable energy sources that we can be bringing online far more quickly than we are already doing. In fact, Australia is genuinely a renewable energy powerhouse with remarkable resources like our wind, our solar, hydro, the potential for geothermal, wave, tide. There are also the emerging technologies that are on the drawing board and technologies that we can't even fathom just yet, ones that we will discover over the next several years if we get behind these industries.
I suppose one of the key points of this motion by the remarkable member for Kennedy is that we need government to be involved in every way possible by investing in these new industries and new technologies. I think paragraph (7) of the motion is very important, and that is that Australia moves to establish the manufacturing of electric vehicles and their component parts, including battery production—for which we have the minerals—'with a target of 100 per cent of all local, state and federal government vehicles and buses in metropolitan areas being Australian made by 2035'. That's achievable. We have the know-how, we have the money, we have the resources. We just don't have the political will and the incentives to make it happen. That's all we need. If this country is going to achieve net zero—I hope by 2035—and 100 per cent reliance on renewable energy then we need the government to be more involved with regulations, with funding, with incentives. I reckon a great start is a target of 100 per cent local, state and federal government vehicles and buses by 2035. Heavens, all those levels of government rely on federal funding and so we have the levers at our disposal to force them to make it happen.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:43