FLINT (—) (): on indulgence—I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the chamber for their indulgence. Good morning, Prime Minister. I wrote two versions of this speech. Thank you, Member for Barker, here looking after me as always. Thank you. I wouldn't be here without you. I wrote two versions of this speech, and some advice was that the first was a little bit too angry. I'm happy to take suggestions, as to whether you'd like the angry version or not, but maybe you can buy the book eventually instead.
We are a different nation and a different world compared to when I gave my first speech to this place on 31 August 2016. I am vastly different too. I rose to give my first speech as a person—a person who was a proud Australian, South Australian and Liberal, and the fourth generation of my family to serve our local community in Boothby. Today, I give my valedictory speech not as a person but as a woman, having been forced time and time again over the past seven years in this place to confront and defend the fact that I am female. This has been exceptionally challenging for me. Throughout my long and interesting career, developing policy in industry associations, as a staff member in politics, as a senior Liberal Party volunteer and as a deliberately provocative newspaper columnist at the Agestill not sure how they published me—and then the Advertiser for over three years, I was never attacked as a woman. I was never reduced to a woman.
As a newspaper columnist, the only vaguely sexist comment was a letter to the editor asking if I was writing for the Advertiser or Dolly magazine. That might be something that my fellow women in the chamber understand, because we grew up with Dolly magazine, and perhaps you have to be of a certain vintage to get the reference. Before anyone tries to suggest that perhaps the internet and social media weren't invented when I was writing columns, they were. I'm old, but I'm not quite that old. At the Age and the Advertiser, I never had to put up with the repetitive sickening, sexist, misogynistic abuse and dangerous behaviour that started in the lead-up to the 2019 election and hasn't stopped since.
At my lowest point last year, after a series of events in and around this place that you could not dream up if you tried—my 'Whipsie Chicks' Jessica Anne Howard and Larnie, understand exactly what I mean—it occurred to me that all of these things were happening to me during my time, in this place, in politics, because it's up to me, as a woman, to try to fix them for all women. So today I want to suggest a few ways we can fix things for women in in public life because, as some other Chicks sang, after they'd been cancelled, 'I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down.'
My first suggestion is: the Left of politics needs to act, and that action needs to start in this place with the Leader of the Opposition. Last March, in response to an emotional speech I gave in this place, the Leader of the Opposition told the press gallery and the Australian people that he would act when sexist and misogynist dangerous behaviour was drawn to his attention. Well, he hasn't, despite further speeches I've given in this place, the letters I have written to him, and the numerous newspaper reports, especially since last December when online attacks on me reached a disgusting new low of sexism and misogyny.
It's tempting to describe the Leader of the Opposition with a single word, a four-letter word. It begins with L and ends with R. But that would be unparliamentary, so I won't. Instead, I call on him again to finally show some leadership on the issue of women's safety in public life, because it's not just me who is copping this behaviour. It's not just me who is being abused by men and some women on the Left; it's senior ABC journalists like Leigh Sales, Jane Norman and Lisa Millar, and businesswomen like Sal Grover.
I want to be very clear about the sort of behaviour that I'm talking about. Men on the Left, some of whom are public figures of influence, have done the following: stalked me; suggested I should be strangled; criticised the clothes I wear and the way I look; repeatedly called me a whiny little bitch; repeatedly called me weak, a slut, a dick—and I apologise for the language—and much, much worse over email, online, on YouTube, on Facebook, and on Twitter. They've commented that I should be raped, grudge-fucked, that I am doing sexual favours for all my male colleagues, that I should be killed, that I should kill myself, and many, many more things that I will not repeat here. These men have also consistently reminded me that I deserve everything that has happened to me.
To the Left, to GetUp, to Labor, to the unions and to the left-leaning media—you know exactly who you are— you need to finally show some leadership and put a stop to this sort of behaviour by not pretending that you will stop this sort of behaviour, because you're on the side of women, allegedly, but by actually stopping the behaviour. They have the power to do so. They have the power to lead. They have the power to stop implying that I'm the wrong kind of woman or that Senator Holly Hughes is the wrong kind of woman and that we deserve everything we get because we're Liberals and we stand up for women. If they don't, well, they're not really leaders, then, are they? I say that particularly to the Leader of the Opposition.
The second challenge that will allow women in public life to get on with their jobs is for social media companies or big tech to start to behave like corporate citizens. I did put some very colourful language in here to describe their approach, but I'm trying to maintain some standards of decency, even if they're not. We know that big tech could stop all forms of hateful abuse tomorrow if they wanted to, but we also know that they won't. Just look at their recent evidence to the Select Committee on Social Media and Online Safety. Again, I commend the member for Robertson for her incredible leadership of this committee. My submission to the select committee documents the abuse they allow on their platforms. And I will have a lot more to say about this later today when I speak on the trolling bill.
People like to say that social media is like a sewer. Experiencing the online attacks over multiple platforms, as I have since last December, I think it's more like a festering toxic sewer. But this is where I think the analogy needs to be extended. It's not so much about the sewage itself; it's about the companies that are spreading it. Big tech is the modern-day equivalent of the unregulated, greedy, big business polluters of the industrial revolution. Big tech is enabling toxic sewage to spill into the homes and the lives of innocent, hard-working Australians every single day
It took the 19th century legislators decades to clean up the waterways, the air, the streets, and public health in Britain. But they did, and lives were saved, improved and enhanced. It's the responsibility of every single person in this place to support legislation that will clean up the online sewer right now and force big tech to finally behave the same way that we demand of every corporate citizen and every business in Australia, as responsible corporate citizens. I do believe this will happen, thanks to our government and Prime Minister Scott Morrison. We are already leading the world with our online safety laws. I commend this place and all of my colleagues, Minister Paul Fletcher and the Prime Minister, for their leadership in this space.
Having seen and having personally experienced sexist and misogynistic attitudes online from other human beings, my third observation and suggestion is probably the most important. Women need all-encompassing protection from sexism and misogyny through, I think, the Sex Discrimination Act. We need to stop the abuse at the start. Women like journalists Leigh Sales, Lisa Millar, Jane Norman, Erin Molan, Natalie Barr and Van Badham, AFL player Tayla Harris and businesswoman Sall Grover should be able to do their jobs without highly sexualised abuse.
I know that women on the other side of this place, like the member for Kingston and the former member for Adelaide, Kate Ellis, copped this too. Ms Ellis devotes an entire chapter of her book, Sex, Lies and Question Time, to the online abuse of women in parliament and public roles. Ms Ellis's excellent book does a lot more than that as well. She explains how difficult it is to be a woman in this place. If you want to make it easier for your female colleagues, please read the book. It's outstanding.
This is a hard place to be a woman, whether you're a staff member, MP or senator. I want to thank most sincerely Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins and her team for their incredible work in a short period of time last year on Set the standard, the Jenkins report, which I believe will finally lead to the change that we need in this place. More broadly in society, however, women will continue to be attacked, abused, belittled, gossiped about and lied about until we have blanket protection that says it's an offence to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate women. We know this has worked to protect other groups in our society. It's worked well. Now we need to protect women. We are half of the population. I hope everyone here today and especially those in the next parliament can give this some consideration.
My final major observation about this place is also about modern society in general. I've thought very carefully about the things that have happened to me and the things I've seen happen to others in and around this place. All of it comes back to one simple problem: a complete lack of respect for other people. This is the obvious conclusion of the less great project, the disruption of Western civilisation. They've sought to replace our institutions, our traditions and our conventions with causes that have no moral compass and no guide as how to respect your fellow human beings. The outcome is disrespect, abuse and hatred. When you replace religion and the models and ethics it has taught us with the religion of climate change, for example, when the battle of ideas is replaced with cancel culture and the lynch mob, when you tell women that we have fewer rights than men who choose to change their sex to be women, when women are abused for asserting our right to be women, when the Left celebrate being rude and disrespectful, claiming freedom of expression, when this becomes the standard, contempt creeps in, hate flourishes and society breaks down.
That's probably enough heavy duty reflection for a Wednesday morning of a double sitting week, you'll be pleased to hear! What I now want to do is briefly celebrate what my government, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, has done to support and protect women during our time in office, which is more than any other Prime Minister and any other government in the history of this nation. We have record funding for domestic violence strategies, child care, catch-up superannuation contributions for women and new programs for women's home ownership.
We're the first government to take endometriosis seriously. I cannot thank enough the former member for Canberra, Gai Brodtmann, the member for Forrest and of course the minister for health, Greg Hunt, for their incredible help and support on this issue. As such, we've launched the first ever national action plan on endometriosis. I want to acknowledge and thank Senator Anne Ruston as well. I say to all the endo warriors out there: ladies, I know there's much more to do and we will do it together.
The same goes for stillbirth. There's now the first ever national action plan on that. Again, I recognise our incredible minister for health, Greg Hunt, and amazing people like Claire Ford, who told me her story, which motivated me to fight for the change we have already achieved and we will continue to achieve.
We are the government who introduced the world-leading eSafety Commissioner online anti-trolling bill, which is before us today, and amended the electoral act to make politics safer for all of us in this place and the other. We're the government who commissioned and implemented the Respect@Work report. We also commissioned and are implementing the Foster report and the Jenkins report. Our record is something to be very, very proud of.
In terms of my local community, there's a lot I've achieved as well, and I probably could stand here for the rest of the day talking about my incredible community and volunteers and what we've done together. But, the first and probably one thing that I'm most proud of was fixing Oaklands Crossing, a 40-year-old problem for my community. It was thanks to us, a Liberal government, and particularly the minister for urban infrastructure, Paul Fletcher—Paul, thank you so much—that we fixed this and also the Goodwood, Springbank and Daws Road intersection. This is saving people hours every day between both intersections, and it's making life much safer.
Right next to the Goodwood, Springbank and Daws Road intersection is the repat hospital. This historic veterans' hospital, chapel and rehabilitation site is the site that the previous state Labor government cruelly shut down. Thanks to my lobbying, thanks to the Morrison and Marshall Liberal governments, we've reopened it and the site is once again thriving. I should apologise to the minister for health for relentlessly pursuing federal funding for this site. As you can tell, I've been a bit of a serial pest for poor Greg, but he's been very patient, and thanks to the Morrison and Marshall Liberal governments we have nation-leading dementia care at the repat, a brand new brain and spinal rehabilitation unit and, thanks to the immediate past minister for veterans, the member for Gippsland, and perhaps some more very persistent lobbying from me with the support of my incredible veterans' community in Boothby, we have one of six of the nation's veterans' wellbeing units at the repat.
Just a couple of kilometres away we also have, thanks to the Morrison Liberal government, the soon-to-be completed brand new war memorial in the upgraded Women's Memorial Playing Fields for the 21 brave nurses and their colleagues who gave their lives for our nation on Radji Beach 80 years ago today in World War II. Nearby are my Vietnam vets, and I could not be prouder that I managed to help them with their new permanent home.
There are several very different projects I was particularly passionate about that will serve my community for generations. The first—and, Prime Minister, thank you for being there to launch it—the nation-leading recycling plant that I worked very closely on with cities of Holdfast Bay, Marion and Onkaparinga. That is located on one of the most visionary waste sites I've ever seen. It is absolutely best practice, and this will improve our environment and support my community in Boothby by for generations to come.
In the arts, thanks to some more relentless lobbying by me, we will see South Australia become the gallery destination of the nation with Australia's leading Aboriginal arts and cultures gallery on North Terrace; a brand new gallery for Hans and Nora Heysen in Hahndorf, and I thank Lyn and John Nitschke for their relentless lobbying of me to get support for this project; and a brand new visitors' centre at historic Carrick Hill in my electorate, and I acknowledge South's most generous philanthropists, Ian and Pamie Wall, for their generous support of this project as well and Richard Heathcote for all his work.
On a very local level, I've worked so closely with my incredible local volunteers at the Sturt CFS group, our four Surf Life Saving Clubs, our local RSL groups, Lions and Rotary, environmental groups, our First Nations people on sites and volunteers, sports clubs, community groups, mayors and councillors and council staff, and we have delivered so many upgrades for our local community. Revisiting all of these varied projects, and I haven't even mentioned the Flinders Link train line extension or the Fullarton and Cross Roads upgrade, I'm starting to realise why I feel a little bit tired.
I also realised last week that during my time in parliament I have moved further and further to the right in the chamber. I first sat next to my twin, the member for Robertson, and then right behind the Prime Minister. I moved to the right with my wonderful, wonderful whips, Bertie Bert and Rowan, and now find myself here in National heartland. I've got to say: being a country girl at heart, this is a very comfortable place for me to be. I want to thank the current Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, and the immediate past Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, for their wonderful support over the years. However, before anyone gets any ideas about a potential defection or future path for me, I'm standing here today in double blue for a reason: I'm a passionate Sturt supporter. I am talking about not the seat of Sturt—although I'm very happy to see it in Liberal hands, James!—but the Sturt footy club. I look forward to getting to a lot more games when I achieve my freedom. But, more so, I am a Liberal through and through—and I am also a staunch coalitionist, so I am happy to be sitting here with my National Party colleagues. To all my dear friends in the Nats: we can't do it without you, and vice versa. Long may we remain the most successful coalition and parties of government in Australia and the world. Just don't try and re-establish yourselves in South Australia any time soon, because the member for Barker, the member for Grey and I will stop you at the border!
When people ask me why I'm a Liberal, the simplest and easiest answer is: I was born Liberal. I will always continue to do all I can for the party in my voluntary roles, as I've always done—first as chairman of the rural and regional council, and I thank the member for Barker for strongly encouraging me into that position, and now as president of the women's council, where I'm instilling processes, procedures and traditions that I hope will last for generations. No doubt my dear friend Nick Cater will soon start pitching to me to write a fourth edition of Gender and politics, about women in the Liberal Party, after the federal election. And I acknowledge the incredible class of 2019, where we achieved fifty-fifty representation of men and women.
Finally—we're almost there!—I need to say some specific thank yous. Thank you, of course, to the people of Boothby for giving me this incredible privilege of serving you. I have never worked harder in my life and we have achieved so much, as I've outlined. Thank you. The kindness and generosity, and the cards, flowers, emails and gifts that flooded my office when I announced I was retiring, were really humbling. To my dear friends and supporters, including the Hon. Dr Brendan Nelson, Peta Credlin, Peter, Jenny and Anna Hurley, Matthew, Charmaine and Sue Binns, Tony Franzon, Vicki Franzon and John Lewis, Greg and Marguerite Evans, Nick Cater, Dr Susan Evans, Dr Louise Hull, Dr Jane Woolcock, Dr Graham Tronc, David 'Penbo' Penberthy—if he hadn't called me and said: 'Do you want to tell your story, Nic? I know you've had a hard time', I probably never would have—and Janet Albrechtsen, who stand up for women time and time again: thank you.
I turn to my Liberal Party volunteers. To my longest-serving president, Archbishop John Hepworth, who the PM dubbed 'the Bishop of Boothby', which was very appropriate, and who sadly passed away a few months ago and who was one of my best supporters: we miss you, John, and thank you. To Jenny and Vern Hembrow, Geoff and Lis Bartlett, Garry and Sue Dolman, Rhys and Helen Roberts, Brenton and Kay Griffiths, Fran and Dennis Southern, and Helen and all the Ronsons: thank you. And thank you to my staff: Jane; Janice; Georgia; Camilla; Zane—who you all know through his wonderful work as the whip's assistant; Eleanor, my constituent whisperer; Amie; Sue; most especially, Alexander Hyde, without whom I could have achieved none of this; and, more recently, Fiona Lee, who has been a godsend and to whom I will be eternally grateful for supporting me and the Boothby EO through our final months.
South Australia also, sadly, lost Professor Dean Jaensch a few weeks ago. We're all thinking of him and his wife, Helen—two incredibly kind and generous people. Without Dean, without Professor Haydon Manning and Andrew Parkin from Flinders University, and without an excellent education from my tiny little Kingston Community School primary school under principal Grant Murray, and from Pembroke School under Malcolm Lamb, I doubt I would have ended up here. These wonderful teachers taught me how to think, not what to think. I worry for our students today, especially in our universities, but I acknowledge the minister, the member for Wannon, and the very important work he began and we will continue.
To all our incredible Parliament House staff—the attendants, clerks, security guards, Comcar drivers, catering staff and everyone: thank you. You're all such amazing and kind people, and I will really, really miss you and our chats. Thank you to our wonderful whips team—Bert, Rowan, Drummy, Kenny—to our staff—Leonie, Zane and my amazing 'whipsie chicks', Jess and Larnie—and to those whips opposite—the member for Fowler, the member for Werriwa and the member for Lalor—with whom we make this place run seamlessly. You do not understand what the whips do until you have to do the job; believe me, we are very important people! The Speaker probably appreciates that more than anyone.
I would not have been here in this place in the first place were it not for the member for Barker. I've cried a lot less during this speech because during my maiden speech he paid me out and said, 'Gee, that was a lot of crying, Nic,' so I'm trying hard not to cry quite so much today. Tony, thank you for your support, especially during my campaigns. And to everyone from Barker FEC; Mackillop SEC; Mount Gambier, Millicent and Kingston SE; branches, and also to the member for Waite—thank you; I couldn't have done this without you. To Senator Alex Antic, who was so kind, supportive and protective during the 2019 campaign, thank you. And congratulations to you and Edwina on the arrival of Oscar. There are a couple of other ladies I know in this place who are also precisely the sorts of women who are incredibly tough and staunch defenders of women, my good friends Senators Claire Chandler and Amanda Stoker. I'm so proud of you both.
Okay. We're almost there. Sorry, Tony; the crying's building up now. To my very best friend, Jano—who is now partnered with Jason and has just had baby Amelia—thank you for still being here after seven long years. To my newer friends Amber, Gemma, Caro, Parnell, Sunita—wow; how lucky am I to have ladies like you in my life! You've managed to get me through the past 12 months. Thank you.
Thank you to my parents, Evan and Glenys, for all their support. To dad and his brother Tim, who I know are incredibly relieved that they will never have to put another corflute up on Shepherds Hill Road—they're still complaining about it, and that was in the 2016 campaign—thanks, Dad and Tim, for your support. And to my family, Johnny, Cat, Brodie, Elijah, Dylan, Alexis, Belinda, Josh, Hugo, Gwenyth and especially Simon, Rachel, Fraser, Alana and Edward, I'm so glad to finally have someone in Adelaide with me, and I can't wait to spend more time with you. To the House, thank you for your indulgence; to all of my amazing colleagues, my class of 2016, thank you; Prime Minister, thank you for your leadership. I look forward to watching on the television, but seeing us return to this side of the parliament after the next election. Thank you.
Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge the traditional owners of this country, the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, and the traditional owners where I live, in Mparntwe country, the Central Arrernte people. It's an honour and a great privilege to be here, and it always has been.
Just to contextualise what I'm about to say: the Northern Territory first got representation in this parliament 100 years ago in the election of 1922, when Harold Nelson—HG—was elected as a Labor candidate into this parliament. I was first elected in 1987—that's 35 years ago—and have been in the parliament for 32 years: 12 as the member for the Northern Territory and 20 as the member for Lingiari. My good friend in my neighbouring seat is Comrade Gosling, the member for Solomon. Over that period, I have been really, really fortunate—in the context of Labor members of parliament, extremely fortunate. I've had 15 years in government, six years as a parliamentary secretary in the Hawke and Keating years, and six years as a minister in Rudd and Gillard years.
But the truth of it is that I wouldn't be here if it weren't for so many others. Yes, I was fortunate enough to be given those opportunities, but it's the good people of the Northern Territory and the Indian Ocean Territories that I owe the most. They are the reason I'm here, and I want to thank them for their ongoing support and friendship. My No. 1 priority since coming to this parliament has been to advocate for and represent them in this place. Just as a reminder, Lingiari is 1.34 million square kilometres, and the Indian Ocean Territories, way off there in the Indian Ocean, are often forgotten by so many, but they have had the travails and trauma of the Tampa, children overboard and deaths at sea. My good friends in the Cocos Islands—just such a wonderful community.
So it's a very dispersed electorate, from the Red Centre where I live, to the north and the Indian Ocean Territories. It has a wonderfully diverse population, although 42 per cent are Aboriginal people, for whom I am most thankful. The overwhelming support of Aboriginal people has meant I have been here election after election—11 successful elections and one which I lost. As an indication, at the last federal election, there were 194 mobile polling booths in the Northern Territory, and across those booths I received 80 per cent of the vote. That's an indication and the reason why I'm here.
My motivation: well, I should just say I'm here because I've been so fortunate to be elected. But I actually grew up just down the road in Narrabundah. I never visited this joint when I was a kid. I never had ambitions to be a member of parliament. My first visit to Old Parliament House was when I was working in the Department of Trade and I was carrying ministerials over to John McEwen's office. That's a while ago! And I'm not the only Snowdon ever to seek election. This will be for my mates over there in the rural rump—I beg your pardon, my National Party comrades! My grandfather, Percy Claude Snowdon, stood as an independent Country Party member for the seat of Murray Valley in the 1945 Victorian state election. Thankfully, his political journey didn't pass on to me!
My motivation for seeking election in the first place was driven by my involvement in my church, community and sporting organisations, the mighty trade union movement and my job as a teacher. But perhaps the most important influence was that of Dr HC Coombs and Dr Maria Brandell, whom I worked with on a project in the Pitjantjatjara homelands in the late seventies and early eighties. Dr Coombs was a magnificent and wonderful Australian who became a mentor of mine. After I left that university job, I went back to teaching. And then I was fortunate enough to go and work at the Central Land Council in Alice Springs where my boss was Patrick Dodson—now Senator Patrick Dodson. Our bosses were the traditional owners of Central Australia, and they taught me such a great deal and motivated me to want to become a member of this parliament.
But I have to say that my parliamentary journey over this 35 years would not have been possible without the love, support and sacrifice of my wife, Elizabeth, and our children Frankie, Tom, Tess and Jack. Elizabeth, my partner for 40 years now, took upon herself the primary responsibility of raising and nurturing our wonderful children and maintaining our household. I simply don't have words that do you justice, Elizabeth, or that are adequate to express my love and gratitude.
Our first child, Frankie, was born a fortnight before the first election. I was on the road in Tennant Creek electioneering. I rang the midwife that night and said, 'What's it look like, is Elizabeth okay?' The midwife said, 'Everything's fine, don't worry, don't hurry back.' I woke up at about 3 o'clock in the morning and thought, 'No, that doesn't sound right.' So I woke up the person who was driving me, my good friend, and I said, 'Do you mind if we go back to Alice Springs, I think there might be something happening.' So we arrived back in Alice Springs and turned up at the house, in Chewings Street, and no-one was there. And I said, 'God, bugger me dead, what's happened?' So we go to the hospital, go to the maternity ward, and there's Frankie, with her mum, being wheeled out of the birthing suite. So I missed you—I'm sorry! I don't think you've suffered as a result—at least, I hope not! Over the next years Tom, Tess and Jack came along. Elizabeth took 12 years out of the paid workforce, from her profession as a teacher, until young Jack went to school. We're so proud of the four of them. They are wonderful human beings. I'm sorry that I wasn't around for you. Prior to the COVID period, I was only home around eight nights a month over that 30-odd years journey. So I missed all those important days—birthdays, school events and all of those things.
I also want to thank, and acknowledge the sacrifice, loyalty and friendship of, all those who have supported me over the period—the members of the Northern Territory Labor Party, my union comrades, the volunteers, all of those who make it possible for us to be here. I know that all of you all understand that, while you might be the poster boy or girl, in fact you're only there because of those who are behind you, and I'm ever so grateful.
I also want to thank those electorate and ministerial staff that I had the great fortune to work with over many years. They effectively became my second family. Their dedication, friendship, professionalism, loyalty and resilience have been essential for me to be able to carry out my job. My closest comrades were always in my electoral office. There are two who I'll mention: Carol Bourke and Jack Crosby were two wonderful, wonderful human beings, who passed away whilst in the job. They were the truest of comrades, friends, advisors and, of course, fearless critics until the end.
While I'm giving the thankyous, I'd like to obviously thank all of the parliamentary staff: the cleaners, the gym staff, Hansard, security, the attendants, the clerks, the sergeant's office, the Speaker, the nurses, the gardeners, the caterers, the volunteers, the terrific library staff, who are so vital to what we do; the staff of Aussies, who keep the caffeine up; and, of course, the Transport Office and the drivers, who look after us around Australia; and the airline staff, with who I've become so friendly. I think I spent close to two years flying over that period, and I've come to know those flight attendants really very, very well.
Let's now talk about the journey. It was a different world in 1987. There were no mobile phones and no internet. My first office had a computer and a fax machine. I travelled for days around the electorate without any form of communication back to home base. I recall my first speech down there in the Old Parliament House, with my mum and dad in the Speaker's gallery and Elizabeth with Frankie upstairs with a great friend. My first office was in Old Parliament House, a poky little joint on the Senate side. It was around nine square metres. You couldn't swing a cat, and you certainly couldn't have more than one visitor. My neighbour at the time, my first neighbour, was John Hewson, who was also elected at that election. So life in Old Parliament House was so, so far different from what you lucky buggers have got here! Until we arrived here in 1988, there was very scant security. The parliamentary bar was a constant buzz and a meeting place of literally all sorts.
I'd had experience of being in that place a couple of years prior with Patrick, now Senator Dodson. We were involved with the Northern Territory Land Council and campaigning against changes which the then Hawke government wanted to make over land rights, particularly national land rights. We were keen to prevent them falling into the trap which had been set by Brian Burke, the Premier of Western Australia, who opposed national land rights. We were unwilling and we campaigned to make sure that no legislation passed that undermine the existing rights of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory in the Northern Territory land rights act, and we were successful.
Over the years, of course, you meet some really wonderful people. Very early on, Gerry Hand became a very close friend, along with Nick Bolkus and, after the 1990 election, Simon Crean and Daryl Melham. Over the last 20 years or thereabouts, I've shared accommodation with now lifelong friends—Nick Bolkus for a while and Simon Crean. When Nick retired from this place, we were looking for someone to stay, so we auditioned a few. We interviewed Brendan. He was the successful candidate, poor bugger!
An honourable member: Tell us about the initiation!
That's right! But that house in Narrabundah has some wonderful memories, and if only the walls could talk. The dinners, the plotting, the planning, the conniving, the arguments—they all took place there. Some of that had more than a passing impact on events in this place. At some point, if those walls could talk, you'd hear some stories. Thankfully, you won't hear them from me!
The ALP caucus is an interesting beast. Over the years, there have been some very unique characters, all with a lot to offer: lively policy debates, leadership ballots, vacancy ballots. I lost one once! It didn't make me happy!
An opposition member: That's democracy.
Yes, that's democracy, as my comrade says. I have to say, over the years, it's become a much tamer affair. You need to lift your game! But I do enjoy the friendship of my caucus colleagues, particularly our regular Thursday night dinners, which are an opportunity to decompress, have a yarn or just be plain silly. And there's a lot of that happening.
But the outstanding and positive change that has come to our caucus is its feminisation. In 1988, only nine per cent or thereabouts of our members on the House of Representatives floor were women. It's now 48 per cent, and after the next election it will be over 50 per cent. That's all because of the hard work done by women in our caucus. Thank you. And there is the wonderful legacy of Julia Gillard, as our nation's first female Prime Minister. Now I know for certain that the pathway to leadership is open to all women in our caucus. A few blokes have got to loosen their grip a bit, but that will happen—don't worry! The most recent reckoning of the abuse of women in the parliamentary workforce and in the workplace, and the acceptance of the need for action and cultural change, is welcome and long overdue.
There are a lot of things I could talk about about being a minister, but there simply isn't time, and I wouldn't do justice to the very many people I had the great good fortune to work with in the various portfolios. I have great memories of those times, and it was a great honour and a great privilege, but I do want to mention a couple of things about the caucus that I wasn't happy about. There were decisions taken by the caucus that I opposed. I kept caucus solidarity, but, of all the decisions, the one that caused me most concern was the decision by the Howard government to intervene in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, which I strongly opposed. I also strongly opposed the abolition of ATSIC and the decision to ban live cattle exports from the Northern Territory. These decisions were unnecessary and caused hurt and harm. In the case of the intervention in the Northern Territory, the repercussions are still being felt. The trauma is still there.
In relation to the ministerial responsibilities, what I learnt, and what reaffirmed my belief in public service, was the importance of the people in the public service who work for ministers. It reaffirmed in me the belief in a strong, independent public service in the Coombs tradition. An independent public service is central to our democracy and system of government, and I want to thank those many fine public servants with whom I had the good fortune to work, as well as those thousands of people who work in public service offices around this country, working for us. I think it's well past the time for another review of the type of the Coombs royal commission of the 1970s.
I was going to talk about the parliament, but I'm aware that time is passing. I just want to make the observation that it is such a great privilege to be in this parliament debating, representing the interests of our constituents. There could be no finer job to be done. Work as a parliamentarian is the best work. We might throw barbs across the chamber, but the reality is we're all here for a good purpose. We might disagree but—if we do show some respect for one another, as we should—despite the political rhetoric and the barbs that are thrown, we are here for a good purpose, and the people of Australia rely upon us to do that job.
I want to comment on the parliamentary committee process, and I see the Chair of the Indigenous Affairs Committee, Julian Leeser, is here and the Chair of the Northern Australia Joint Committee, Warren Entsch, is here. They are two committees that I've been involved with for a long time, as well as the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which I've enjoyed. I have to say that these committees work really, really effectively because of the bipartisan way in which we address the issues and the respect that we show to one another and to those who appear before us. So I want to say to people here—and it's just so sad—that the recommendations which come out of those committees are so often shelved when, in fact, they should be the guiding light for what happens.
At the very outset of this wonderful journey that I've been involved in, I made clear in my first speech that my priority and desire to represent and advocate for the interests of First Australians was my most significant responsibility. So I've sought to have this place understand the need to address the injustices experienced by Aboriginal people, and to have people's rights as First Australians properly recognised and addressed and their needs met. But if I look at the past 32 years in this place, the outcomes, sadly, have often been very frustrating and sadly disappointing. And First Australians' needs have not been met. So many remain marginalised and in poverty, living in poor and overcrowded housing with scandalous levels of preventable, chronic disease. In my view, this is largely driven by the institutionalised racism that has been so much part of government since Federation and by the ongoing refusal to accept the need for truth-telling and acknowledgement of past and continuing injustice.
Over the time I've been in this place, there have been periods of great hope—and then times of great disappointment. I've mentioned the Hawke government as being a bit of a disappointment on the issue of national land rights, but they did so many very other good things. At the time of the Barunga Statement and the call for a treaty in June 1988, Prime Minister Hawke said in a document that he signed:
… we would expect and hope and work for the conclusion of such a treaty before the end of the life of this Parliament.
Sadly, that was not to be. It was not to be, because we couldn't get the support of the then opposition parties.
A tangible indication of positive change was the establishment of ATSIC. ATSIC gave First Australians a voice and decision-making responsibilities at a regional and national level. Sadly, it had its demise under the Howard government. A very significant victory, and a very important victory, for the Jawoyn people of the country adjacent to Kakadu National Park came when Prime Minister Hawke used his personal authority in cabinet to prevent mining at Coronation Hill—that is, Guratba, the home of Bulla. That was in spite of trenchant opposition from sections of cabinet and caucus. I want to quote from an article by Sid Maher in 2015 in which he quotes Bob Hawke at the time:
Mr Hawke said that when the issue came before cabinet and there was support for the mining proposal, 'I was annoyed beyond measure by the attitude of many of my colleagues, of their cynical dismissal of the beliefs of the Jawoyn people.'
He challenged cabinet that those who opposed the Jawoyn position essentially were saying that the traditional owners were talking 'bullshit'. 'I think I made probably one of the strongest and bitterest attacks I ever made on my colleagues in the cabinet,' Mr Hawke said.
He said there was no doubt this contributed to his loss of the prime ministership to Paul Keating later in 1991.
Mr Hawke said he attacked the 'monumental hypocrisy' of cabinet rejecting the Jawoyn's beliefs about their god while the same people who denigrated that belief 'can easily accommodate and embrace the bundle of mysteries which make up their white Christian beliefs'.
He said this 'supercilious supremacist discrimination' was abhorrent to everything he held to be important Labor beliefs.
That was a historically important moment.
Then we had reconciliation. Patrick Dodson was appointed the chair of the reconciliation council. Paul Keating pursued reconciliation and gave that momentous speech in Redfern Park in December 1992. For the first time, the Prime Minister spoke about dispossession, violence, prejudice and injustice suffered by First Australians. He then was responsible for initiating the passage of the Native Title Act, following the High Court decision in Mabo, and, in 1994, the Keating government adopted racial hatred legislation, including section 18C.
In 1995, the Keating government commissioned the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, with Commissioner Sir Roland Wilson and Pat's brother Mick. The Bringing them home report was tabled in 1997, but, sadly, Prime Minister Howard obdurately and obstinately refused to apologise to the stolen generations. So, sadly, the election of the Howard government brought a crash into despair. ATSIC was pre-emptively scrapped. Self-determination and self-management as drivers for public policy were also scrapped.
The most debilitating decision for people in my electorate was the decision by the Howard government for the intervention. There were attacks on native title. In 1996 after the Wik High Court case, the then Deputy Prime Minister attacked the High Court judges as being activists. That resulted in what then became the Howard 10-point plan, which depleted the rights of Aboriginal people as native title holders, broadened the power of federal and state governments to extinguish native title and made the initiating of claims difficult and very restrictive. That needn't have happened, but it did. Unwinding the intervention was a significant challenge for the Rudd and Gillard governments. The initiative to close the gap was most welcome, but, despite the rhetoric, sadly, little has changed. Kevin Rudd's apology to the stolen generation was of momentous, historical importance and significance. It marked a huge step forward. But the gathering at Uluru and the Statement from the Heart in May 2017 have provided the opportunity to reset the agenda. There is simply no excuse now, in 2022, for any government to walk away from the need for constitutional recognition of a voice to the parliament, truth-telling and a process of treaty.
So, when I reflect on my over three decades in this place, I remain appalled at the failure of successive governments to come to terms with our First Peoples and accord them the recognition and the justice that is their due or, despite the rhetoric so often heard about closing the gap, to even do the simplest things by addressing the harshest poverty suffered by so many and providing them with adequate and safe housing that would do so much to change their lives. The housing crisis requires the investment of billions, not millions. That is an investment that would make such a difference to Aboriginal people in my electorate and elsewhere across the country. The COVID crisis has, in plain sight, reaffirmed the appalling result of overcrowded housing. If you're at all serious about improving health, education and employment outcomes then the housing crisis must be addressed. It's urgent. If we are to stop preventable diseases, such as rheumatic heart disease, then we must fix the housing problem.
There are so many other things that need to be done, some of which flow from the inquiry into the destruction of Indigenous heritage at Juukan Gorge. My colleague Patrick Dodson was there. This involves the need to domesticate into Australian law the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Australia is a signatory but has not yet domesticated it into Australian law. Most importantly, we need to incorporate the principle of free, prior and informed consent into all laws.
Following me, I hope, in this parliament will be a great Australian, Marion Scrymgour. She will be the candidate for the Labor Party. She's an Aboriginal woman of leadership and distinction and a former deputy chief minister of the Northern Territory.
I want to acknowledge and thank my colleagues from the Northern Territory who have served in this place: Bob Collins, who as a senator was my close friend; Senator Trish Crossin; Senator Nova Peris; and Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. I thank them for their friendship.
I now want to conclude by, again, emphasising my heartfelt thanks for being given the honour of serving here. There cannot be a greater honour. I hope that all of you appreciate the importance of your presence here and the importance of making sure we have good government. It's going to be sad for me to leave this joint. It's been my life. I want to conclude by quoting Patrick Dodson at the National Press Club in 1985. I remember this speech because not only was I working for Patrick at the time but we had as an editor Mungo MacCallum. I'll just finish with this quote from Patrick, which I think is as relevant today as it was then: 'If this nation is to ever attempt to wear the mantle of maturity, to have any sense of pride and independence, to claim it is a just and fair society, you must first negotiate with us, the traditional owners of this country, the people you have sought to conquer. Non-Aboriginal Australians have an obligation to negotiate with us not simply on the basis of imposing preconceived interpretations of what rights we can have from you through governments but on the basis of justice and equity.' Thank you.
The member for Gorton on indulgence.
I rise to say a few words about the member for Lingiari, my mate, the man with the mo. I'll be very brief, but I think it would be fitting for me to say a few words and reflect upon the remarkable parliamentary career of the member for Lingiari. It's clear that there was a dedication to public service—more than three decades in this place. The testament to the endurance of the member for Lingiari and his duty to public service, I think, can sometimes be assessed by the fact that, out of the 227 members and senators that we have currently, he is the only member of parliament who sat in the Old Parliament House as a member of parliament, and it's likely, given the estimated time of the election, that by the time the election is called the member for Lingiari will have been the 23rd-longest-serving member of the House of Representatives, which, given the fact that there have been well over 1,200 House of Representatives members, is an extraordinary achievement in that time. If it weren't for the fact that he lost the election in 1996, which unfortunately many of our parliamentary colleagues did, he rather than the member for Menzies would be Father of the House now—the longest-serving member.
His spread of parliamentary roles included being an executive member of the Hawke government, the Keating government, the Gillard government and the Rudd government. The breadth of his policy went through social services, Indigenous rights, employment and health. He had many roles in the area of defence: defence materiel, veterans and defence personnel. As the shadow defence minister, I have the good fortune of seeking his counsel in this portfolio and other portfolios. The true breadth and depth of his experience and expertise as a parliamentarian is almost without parallel, and I just wanted to pay tribute to him. Of course, I've spent 17 years as a co-tenant, and some people would say some people get less for murder! The fact is that he is a remarkable parliamentarian with an extraordinary history and he deserves that recognition.
I thank the member for Gorton, and I too want to pay tribute to Wazza. Your guidance and friendship has been sensational, and I don't think La Cantina will ever be the same again. Thanks, brother.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
One of the great privileges of being the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel is having the opportunity to meet, and get to know, so many of the men and women who serve and have served this nation and their incredible, supportive families. Representing them is simply an honour.
I've seen first-hand the critical and fundamental role that families play in supporting the capability of our Defence Force and the wellbeing of defence members.
If we want a strong Defence Force—operating at its best—then we need to have the best possible support available for family members.
The responsibility to care for the men and women of the ADF, veterans and their families currently rests with our generation, and we have to do everything we can to give them the care and treatment they deserve, the best possible care and treatment our country can provide.
The Australian government recognises the unique challenges faced by these families.
Supporting the partners and children of our service personnel must be an ongoing and evolving effort.
This legislation that I am introducing today will expand the existing family support package first introduced by the Australian government in 2018.
This bill demonstrates the government's ongoing commitment to its response to recommendation 19 of the final report of the Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, The Constant Battle: Suicide by Veterans,tabled in Parliament on 15 August 2017.
It also responds to recommendation 19.2 of the Productivity Commission report, A Better Way to Support Veterans, to ensure veterans and their families are supported to the best of our ability.
Important new support to veterans in this bill goes beyond a 2021-22 budget measure and commences on 1 July 2022.
This initiative builds on and enhances the existing family support package by expanding the services available and allowing families greater choice in how they use services provided through the program.
The Enhanced Family Support Package will also be available to more working-age veteran families through expanded eligibility.
Intensive support will become available to families—at, or in crisis—to adjust to new or challenging life circumstances, complementing other Department of Veterans' Affairs and Australian government services.
This initiative will provide families of veterans under 65 years that are in—or at risk of, being in—crisis with up to $12,500 over two years.
This support can be spent on a range of services that meet their health and wellbeing needs.
This includes household services such as cleaning, gardening, counselling for family members and a range of other practical support.
Families will be able to access up to $7,500 of support in the first year, and up to $5,000 in the second year.
In addition, families with children will be able to access a further $10,000 a year for each child under school age and $5,000 a year for each primary school-aged child, until the child reaches high-school age.
We know that widows and widowers are particularly vulnerable following the death of their veteran partners.
Under this initiative, the family support package for widows and widowers will be expanded to all three acts that support veterans.
This package provides widowed partners under 65 years old up to $27,835 each year for two years.
This equates to $514.12 per week.
This support will help meet the cost of help around the home such as cleaning, gardening, maintenance and other practical services to support the wellbeing of family members.
Widows and widowers will also have access to the additional childcare assistance until their child reaches high-school age.
To implement the Australian government's Enhanced Family Support Package, schedule 1 of the bill will amend the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 to expand the family support package.
It will also introduce a legislative framework to establish the family support package in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988.
The bill also provides that family support payments for veterans and their families are exempt from income tax and from being assessed income for the purposes of the Social Security Act 1991.
The Australian government is deeply committed to supporting veterans and their families.
We want our service men and women, veterans and their families to know that Australia is proud of them and that our country will always be there for them.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
():
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian Radioactive Waste Agency Bill 2022 gives effect to the government's commitment to transition the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency from a branded function of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources to a separate non-corporate Commonwealth entity.
Establishing a new agency provides the opportunity to create a fit-for-purpose agency with a clearly defined purpose and scope of works.
Radioactive waste is generated by the Commonwealth and other Australian entities and is predominantly a by-product of nuclear medicine. There are a number of Commonwealth agencies in Australia producing and storing radioactive waste or that have a role in advising on radiation safety as one of their functions. However, no Commonwealth agency has radioactive waste management as its primary function.
Establishing a dedicated, topic-specific agency with highly-specialised technical expertise ensures Australia's radioactive waste is managed in accordance with domestic and international conventions. It ensures a committed focus on the continued development of best practice radioactive waste management policy, including research and development of intermediate level waste solutions.
Nuclear industries have long supported Australia's scientific capabilities and enhanced our reputation as a global leader in medical and scientific advances. It is long overdue to establish a dedicated agency that can provide expertise in specialised waste to ensure our scientists and medical researchers will continue the vital work enhancing the lives of communities across the world.
The new agency will be responsible for all stages of design, construction, licensing applications and operation of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. The bill also provides the agency with the functions it needs to manage radioactive waste at the facility. The agency will have specialist technical expertise in the waste management of radioactive material and work with stakeholders including waste producers, industry, the community, and government agencies, to ensure ongoing best practice in the waste management of radioactive material in Australia.
The bill establishes the critical office of chief executive officer, who will lead the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency. The CEO will lead an agency that has operational responsibility for the running of the facility, along with strategic responsibility for advice to government and other agencies on material that will become waste.
Recent advice indicates that every Australian will draw on the benefits of nuclear medicine in their lifetime. Establishing this dedicated agency is an important step in ensuring the waste generated by nuclear medicine is appropriately dealt with for future generations, providing critical security for the industry. This bill continues to demonstrate this government's commitment to improving safety and certainty around waste management of radioactive material in Australia.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I'm pleased to introduce the Health Insurance Amendment (Administrative Actions) Bill 2022.
The bill streamlines Medicare administrative processes to reduce the administrative burden on Services Australia.
The bill provides the ability for Services Australia to develop a system to place a doctor on, and remove a doctor from, the Register of Approved Placements.
Specified bodies like the Department of Health and the general practice colleges are responsible for determining if a doctor is eligible to be placed on the Register of Approved Placements.
The specified bodies will notify Services Australia of their decision, and Services Australia will place doctors on, and remove doctors from, the Register of Approved Placements accordingly. Currently, the act does not allow for this step of the process to be automated through a computer system.
This bill enables Services Australia to achieve efficiencies by developing systems that support an automated approach: specifically, systems to support placing doctors on, and removing doctors from, the Register of Approved Placements, once a decision has been made by a specified body.
Conclusion
The efficiencies that can be realised through implementation of this bill may lead to reduced processing time frames, and allow doctors to start work at a medical practice and provide services to patients in the community sooner.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The criminal misuse and trafficking of illegal firearms is a deadly crime and an ongoing threat to the safety of the Australian community.
At the 2019 election, the coalition government recommitted to the Australian people to implement tougher criminal penalties for gun related crime.
These reforms fulfil that commitment. We are doing everything in our power to ensure the ongoing safety and security of all Australians.
Not only are illegal firearms used regularly to threaten and commit acts of violence; they enable organised crime groups to protect their interests and be more lethal in their activities.
One illegal firearm in our community is clearly one too many.
The continued supply of firearms, combined with their durability and recirculation through the community after being trafficked, is a growing and serious threat to the safety of our communities.
It only takes one illegal firearm in the hands of a person with malicious intent—whether it be criminal gangs or domestic violence perpetrators—to be of great concern to the community.
This bill shows the government's intent towards traffickers and criminal networks. Gun related crime and violence will not be tolerated.
The bill will double the maximum penalty for existing firearms-trafficking offences from 10 to 20 years imprisonment under the Criminal Code Act 1995.
For those trafficking in large quantities of firearms and firearms parts, the bill introduces aggravated offences to the Criminal Code. These serious crimes would carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
The bill will also ensure that offenders cannot use loopholes, such as breaking up trafficking shipments and operations into smaller numbers, to avoid aggravated offences and the resulting higher penalties.
As promised at the last election, the bill will also impose a mandatory minimum sentence on these offences of at least five years imprisonment, a further reflection on the serious nature of this crime. This will be accompanied by appropriate judicial discretion for cooperation with law enforcement and guilty pleas.
The combined effect of these increased penalties and aggravated offences will be to provide a strong deterrent against traffickers, their facilitators and backers in organised crime.
Conclusion
Illegal firearms put us all at risk.
Any efforts to reduce the number of illegal firearms in the community is a positive step forward.
The bill appropriately reflects the community's expectations, the serious consequences of gun related crime and the gravity of the offences.
These measures are a further demonstration of the Morrison government's commitment to keep our communities safe.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Minister for the Public Service, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Department of Home Affairs—Proposed fit-out of 808 Bourke Street, Docklands, Victoria.
The Department of Home Affairs is proposing fit-out works for new office space at 808 Bourke Street. Home Affairs currently occupies three buildings in the Melbourne central business district and surrounding areas. The leases are due to expire in 2023, with no options to renew. Under its Melbourne precinct strategy, Home Affairs will consolidate the three sites into one new location, allowing for operational efficiencies and reduced property operating costs. The estimated cost of the works is $34.3 million, excluding GST. The project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 1 December last year. The committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 that it is expedient to carry out the project. Subject to parliamentary approval, the construction work is expected to commence in May this year and be completed in February 2023. On behalf of the government, can I thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Minister for the Public Service, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Services Australia—Fit-out of new leased premises at 205 North Quay, Brisbane, Queensland.
Services Australia is proposing to undertake fit-out work at the newly leased premises at 205 North Quay, Brisbane, Queensland. Services Australia currently occupies nine buildings in the Brisbane area, many of which are approaching the end of economic life. Services Australia is proposing to consolidate these sites into fit-for-purpose office accommodation at North Quay, Brisbane. The consolidation of these sites is for office accommodation only and will not involve the relocation of existing shopfronts and services. The estimated cost of the works is $89.4 million, excluding GST. The project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 1 December 2021. The committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the project. Subject to parliamentary approval, fit-out work and relocation to the new building are expected to be completed by December 2024. On behalf of the government, I thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating the member for Boothby to be a member of the committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.
by leave—I move:
That Ms Flint be appointed a member of the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee's report entitled Report on the 2020-2021 annual reports of bodies established under the ASIC Act.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Before the House this morning are three bills: the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022 and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (COVID Enfranchisement) Bill 2022. It's fair to say that one involves technical amendments, one operational and one fundamental, and I will deal with them in that way.
Firstly, I'll deal with the technical. The technical relates to ensuring that electoral material which is disseminated by all of us—and, indeed, many not in this place but wishing to come to this place—needs authorisation. That authorisation ought to carry not the technical name—namely, the entity last included on an AEC return—but effectively the common name. It is intended to convey exactly that. People want to know, and I think it's appropriate that people do know that electoral material has been authorised by entities, and, in that regard, people might well know of the common name for a political party.
If I can just digress on that, the member last night in his amendment suggested that we be allowed to use—and I understand that this met with favour in the Senate—acronyms. I personally am concerned about that. Whilst everyone in this place, deeply engaged in politics, might know what UAP Queensland means, there are a lot of people out there who might not. It's not a big stretch to ask for the name rather than the acronym to be included. It might, indeed, shock people in this place to know that many of my friends don't know what ALP or LIB stand for. So perhaps some consideration might be given to that. But, like I say, that is a deeply technical bill, and it's one I support but not one which I think requires deep consideration or debate in this place.
The second of the bills is what I would describe as an operational amendment. COVID has changed almost everything we do, from the fact that I have a disposable mask in my pocket to put on once I finish this debate to holiday plans to when children go to school. It's fair to say that we're exhausted and that we've faced a lot of changes as a result of the pandemic, and that is true of the forthcoming federal election. There is a prospect that at the date of the next federal election there will be a large cohort of Australians—large in an electoral sense, perhaps not in a notional sense—who will be prohibited from visiting a polling booth because they are dealing with a COVID diagnosis and are therefore forced to isolate. No-one, and I mean no-one, in this place wants to disenfranchise those people from casting their vote, and I remind Australians—and this is something I'll have a little bit more to say on shortly—that three of the last five elections in this place have been incredibly tight. If you cast your mind back to 2010, 2016 and 2019, they were incredibly tight. They were equally tight in terms of the number of votes required to change the outcome on the floor of this place. And so it is understandable that the government is taking measures—measures that have bipartisan support, I'm pleased to say—to ensure those individuals can cast their vote at election time. How could it be that they couldn't? If you were to undertake a PCR or a rapid antigen test within 72 hours of election day after the time for nominating a postal vote before the election and obviously without the ability to cast a declaration vote in any other way then you would be disenfranchised. And so, sensibly, unique amendments have been cast to ensure that authority can be provided to the Special Minister of State to facilitate phone voting for those individuals. I'm pleased to see that this measure is sunsetting at the end of this calendar year. I'm pleased for no other reason than that it's a show of optimism that we'll be past the pandemic by the end of this calendar year. I've got to say that 2022 has felt like 2021 wearing a wig! But let's hope that this is the only federal election that we need these extraordinary powers for.
I have dealt with the technical, not wanting to detain the House very long on that, and mentioned the operational. I should say this issue has given cause for concern in relation to the upcoming South Australian state election which is occurring next month. I do note that the member for Isaacs made some comments about that last evening. I will make the point that the South Australian Electoral Commissioner has put in place a mechanism to ensure all South Australians are enfranchised at that election.
Noting that, and hoping that this will be the only federal election where this power is ever required and having dealt with the technical and the operational, I will go to the fundamental. The fundamental in relation to this string of bills is the need to ensure that our electoral laws are sufficiently robust to prevent any form of foreign interference. Foreign interference in election outcomes I don't think is a new or novel concept, but it seems to be on the rise. It's a fundamental truism that the outcome of elections with respect to this place should be determined by the Australian citizenry and the Australian citizenry only. I don't think anyone in this place, or anywhere else in this nation, would disagree with that assertion. So we need to make sure our laws are robust enough to ensure that we don't end up in a situation where we effectively risk the very real prospect of serious international actors with serious resources influencing the outcome of federal elections.
Why is this debate and this legislation particularly timely? It would be important at any time, but it is particularly important given the information provided by the director-general of ASIO on 9 February of this year regarding his annual threat assessment in which he revealed that a person linked to a foreign government recently attempted to fund political candidates in an unspecified Australian election. This is where I want to draw the attention of those in this place and anyone who might be listening to the fact that, as I mentioned previously, three of the last five elections in this place were determined on a wafer-thin margin. I think it's fair to say that we can call the 2010 election a dead heat. The 2016 election came down to a handful of votes in the seat of Capricornia, ultimately. And, of course, we sit in a parliament now where the margin—as evidenced by the events of last week—is wafer thin.
None of that is a problem, except for the fact that it presents a particularly delicious opportunity to those foreign actors who might wish to change the course of Australian political history. Why do I say that? Well, I say that because three of the last five elections have been determinative. If a foreign actor with significant resources—and long may it be that political campaigns in this country are run on relatively modest budgets. Indeed, I understand that at the last federal election the seat of Longman, the last coalition seat to be declared, ran on a budget that represents something about the size of my monthly household expenditure—a wafer thin amount of money. So it's a deliciously attractive proposition for a third party, particularly a foreign government, to seek to influence outcomes. Quite frankly, that is very achievable, unless we have these kinds of protections.
I want to make sure that Australians determine the outcome of these elections. I want there to be the highest level of confidence in the Australian citizenry in the outcome of elections. I remember waking up in 2007 on the day after the election, and those opposite might not be surprised to realise that I woke up incredibly tired because I'd spent the day on a polling booth. I woke up incredibly disappointed, but I wasn't angry, and nor was there any thought that that election was anything other than fair and the outcome one that I had to, albeit over time, come to accept. I don't want, and I done think anyone else in this place wants, the kind of uncertainty, innuendo and other considerations that were offered up after the last US presidential election. We don't want that to become a feature of Australian politics, and, accordingly, this bill is an important safeguard.
The last thing that I want to say is about something that has garnered a little bit of attention in the media today, and that has been the subject of a couple of interactions in question time over the course of this week. It is important that the people of Australia understand that they will determine the outcome of the election in 2022—not foreign government or actors or otherwise. The one thing that I want to point out is this, and I want to be really clear so as not to offend the standing orders and to be clear about what I want to say. At no point in what I'm saying am I suggesting that those opposite or the Leader of the Opposition have garnered this support. I'm not making that assertion. I would never make that assertion, and I don't think that it would be fair to. But one thing that I am desperately concerned about, as we have seen reported overnight, is that some foreign governments have made the decision about who they would prefer to see govern this country. That's a matter for them. I note that it is attracting significant media attention.
But there is one thing that I will say to the Australian citizenry—the people, I remind the House, who will determine the outcome of the 2022 election. I make this plea to them: make your own decision about who is to govern your country following the next federal election. Don't be influenced by the attitude of foreign governments. You take an Australia-first, citizenry-first approach to this election. Don't be swayed by what might be coming out of foreign capitals and foreign leaders elsewhere—and I make that assertion very clear in what I'm saying about who is motivating those outcomes. I don't believe what we're hearing from one foreign government in particular is being courted by those opposite at all. I think it's an unfair criticism to suggest that. But it is clear that that foreign government would very much like to see that outcome, and I don't want that view to infect decisions that are made by the Australian citizenry in the lead-up to the 2022 election. Australians must decide the outcome and make-up of this House and no-one else.
Before I call the member for Perth, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022, and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (COVID Enfranchisement) Bill 2022. The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
Democracy is a fundamental Australian value. Indeed, it is a value that we make our newest citizens sign up to when they take their citizenship pledge, and, because Australia's democracy is so strong, we do sometimes take it for granted. But every single federal election we are reminded just how lucky we are to live in Australia and how lucky we are to have the institutions which lead and run our democratic processes, from those that run the processes we have here in the parliament through to the Australian Electoral Commission and their thousands of staff who help us have free and fair elections.
Like many in this place, I've been involved in democratic elections for a long time. And, I worry, like many do, about what COVID is doing to our democracy. I have memories of joining my parents at polling booths when I was a primary school student, handing out how-to-votes, being bored out of my brain hanging around at Picton Primary School for hours and hours. But, as I got older, I started to enjoy those experiences more and more. It does make me realise that the election we're about to face, not just for policy and other reasons but because of the particular circumstances of a global pandemic, will be an election like no other.
The schools and how they interact—schools at the moment across the country are telling parents and community members not to come onto school grounds. We have elections where we actually have thousands of people come onto school grounds, admittedly on a Saturday, but it really is a challenge for all of the school communities. I know it's a challenge for the school communities in my electorate.
We're going to see more and more early voting, which I have experienced where, if the early voting location is poorly chosen, can be a real pain for the small businesses that are located next to them. That's before you pile on the challenge of a global pandemic and the potential for infected voters to be attending those voting locations. I worry that voters will be scared of seeing these long, socially distanced lines thinking: 'Oh my God, how many people in that queue! How long am I going to have to wait to vote?'
We know that there are the challenges that we've seen around having more postal votes and the logistic challenges that presents. We are all changing the way we communicate with our electors. We've done that over the last two years, but we're going to change that again in the context of an election—fewer town halls, more outdoor gatherings. I wouldn't have known two years ago what a COVID-safe phone bank was, but now I am very good at them.
There'll be challenges for the Australian Electoral Commission in both keeping their staff safe but also, as we've seen across this country, of getting enough workers to run that election. We have a very high standard of the quality of service that people expect. I note that one of the recommendations in the amendment moved by the shadow Attorney-General is about making sure that we have enough resources for the Electoral Commission to do all of the things that they need to do to run the sorts of elections that we are used to having and ensuring that everyone can have a say in those elections. I'll talk more about that in a moment.
I've worked in elections trying to elect good Labor people across this country, from Brisbane to Melbourne. I've helped out in a campaign in Frankston and here in the Australian Capital Territory in a territory election, and I've done a fair few in Western Australia as well. But the most remarkable election experience I've ever had was in 2014, when I went to Afghanistan, to Kabul, to be an election observer for the counting of their presidential election. That was an election like no other. The fights over individual ballot papers and the markings on those ballot papers make us look too polite, in terms of the conversations we have with our scrutineers on election day. I was lucky to join my friends—back then my friends were known as Luke Gosling and Josh Wilson, who are now known as the member for Solomon and the member for Fremantle—on that delegation, spending three-and-a-bit weeks trying to make sure we helped a country in their transition to democracy. As we look at, in this legislation, how we strengthen our democracy, it's quite heartbreaking to think that there have been democracies that have fallen over the last few years. What has happened in Afghanistan, not just to their democracy but to the country and the people of Afghanistan, is particularly heartbreaking for me and many others in this place. That's why, wherever we can, be it through our aid program or through our leadership in the international community of making sure we have strong, fair, democratic and open elections, we should do everything we can to strengthen democracy—not just here but everywhere.
One of the challenges we have—it's been in the media this week—is the challenge of making sure we comply with the various laws that are passed in this place to make sure we have open elections. I have been a party secretary responsible for filing the forms with the Electoral Commission to make sure all appropriate matters are disclosed, as the Australian people expect, and to ensure all candidates comply and to make sure we train volunteers in how they can comply with the relevant electoral laws. Whatever side of politics it is—government, crossbench, wherever—it is disappointing when someone does not comply with those rules. I think the expectation of the Australian public is that a swift apology and full disclosure are delivered.
When I think about the challenges of elections and people putting in all the paperwork and everything, one of the things that scares me most about elections—it's thankfully no longer a challenge I have; I had it when I was a party secretary—and the thing that used to terrify me more than anything was lodging candidate nominations. What if a form was wrong? What if you forgot one? What if there wasn't the right number of dollars on the cheque attached for the candidate deposits? I think that's something that has made people nervous for many decades in terms of making sure people fulfil their obligations. This week in this place we paid tribute to another Western Australian party secretary, Michael Beahan, who then went on to an incredibly distinguished career in the other place, in the Senate. He was a proud Western Australian and a fabulous secretary of the Western Australian branch of the great Australian Labor Party.
I turn to the amendment that has been moved by the shadow Attorney-General. I think this speaks to some of the other challenges that need to be addressed in making sure we have that robust democracy. We have seen one particular concern raised by those opposite about foreign interference—a concern I share. There should be no foreign interference in Australian elections. Australian elections should be run by Australian rules, run for Australians and decided by Australians. But there are other things we can do to strengthen our democracy, as the amendment notes. We could lower the disclosure threshold, no longer taking $14,500 before a single cent is disclosed. Instead, bring the threshold down to $1,000 and disclose every donation over that $1,000 threshold. Further, let's start talking about real-time disclosure. We in this place, when we have to fulfil our obligations with members' interests, have 28 days. Political parties sometimes have up to almost 18 months. We should fix this. We should get to a point where there is proper disclosure in reasonable time that the public would expect.
The amendment also recommends that we should provide more resources to the Australian Electoral Commission to increase enrolment and turnout. We know we still have a problem in Australia where there are by-elections with poor turnout. We know COVID presents some particular challenges about people feeling comfortable about engaging with their democracy. And we know, in my state of Western Australia, we still have, in 2022, a completely unacceptable rate of Indigenous enrolment. Only 69 per cent of First Nations people in Western Australia are understood to be on the electoral roll. That's completely unacceptable. And the only reason that that is the case is that there are not enough resources put into helping people not just get on the roll but stay on the roll. And we also can't avoid the fact that the vast bulk of those people who are not on the roll in Western Australia are concentrated in one particular electorate, Durack, which covers the north of Western Australia. I would call on the minister, himself a Western Australian, himself a former party director in Western Australia, to take further serious action on this. Unless we have every Australian voting, able to vote, and fulfilling their obligations to be enrolled and participate in our elections, they are not truly representative of the full spectrum of the Australian people. We can find the resources in this place to fix it, and we should. That's one of the reasons I commend and support the amendment.
We also need to make sure that people have confidence in their democracy, that they're not being fed all this misinformation and disinformation. There's a lot more that can be done there. Just as there is a lot more that can be done to make sure that when people go to vote, particularly where they're voting for the re-election of members of the government, they can have confidence that those members of the government have been under the oversight of a powerful and independent national anticorruption commission.
Turning to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022, I welcome that this is a ban for foreign campaigners. It closes a loophole so that foreign entities cannot incur expenses for the purpose of federal elections in Australia. As other speakers have said, Australian elections are for Australians. In 2018 the parliament banned foreign governments, citizens and entities from making donations to candidates in federal elections. This was an important measure and had broad support. But we all need to remain vigilant about other ways that foreign entities might seek to inappropriately influence our democracy.
Those amendments did not take into account circumstances where a foreign entity could incur electoral expenditure and communicate electoral matter. This meant that a foreign government or corporation could campaign for a candidate, or on an issue, in a federal election. We can all think of examples. Greensill has deep connections with the conservative side of politics both in the UK and here in Australia. It could be Trump enterprises. For all Clive Palmer's faults, at least most of his companies are based here in Australia. We also need to make sure that we have penalties for those who seek to avoid or circumvent these laws. That's why it's good that this legislation has penalties and anti-avoidance measures to close further loopholes. Further, electoral material should be authorised by people here in Australia—and this bill closes that loophole.
Over the years, there have been attempts by foreign actors to undermine our democracy, and all sides of the parliament have been targeted. With all sides of the parliament having been targeted, it's important that all sides of the parliament are vigilant. Labor is committed to ensuring that the parliament and our democracy are protected from foreign interference. While the Prime Minister only ever acts on this if it's in his electoral interests, Labor is committed to legislating in the national interest. That's why we welcome that this bill increases the penalty for publishing misleading material in relation to the casting of a vote and gives the Australian Federal Police further powers.
The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022 makes minor but important amendments to ensure that material is authorised. It's important that material that is placed on digital platforms is properly authorised, and that must comply too. It allows parties to use a shortened version of their name. When we're talking about the names of political parties and what they have done, we can't avoid the fact that the biggest change to a political party name since the last election was the change that Clive Palmer made to the registration of his party. It used to be Clive Palmer's United Australia Party, an entirely owned entity of the Clive Palmer machine. Clive Palmer still owns and runs the whole show and pulls every single string, but he knew that he needed to take his name off the political party, so he changed it to simply the United Australia Party. But then he couldn't help showing that this is still his machine—still something that he drives every day to help the re-election of the Morrison government. In doing so, he's come out and announced that he's going to spend the most money ever in an Australian election: $100 million. We know that, just as he announced after the last election, that is money that he spends because he wants to keep people like his friend the Minister for Defence in government. This huge spending has practically no scrutiny, and the government doesn't want to scrutinise it. If you ask, 'Why don't they want real-time disclosures and why don't they want to bring the disclosure threshold down to 1,000?' I'd say the answer is simply two words: Clive Palmer.
I rise to speak in support of the second reading of the three bills that we're debating together this morning: the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022 and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (COVID Enfranchisement) Bill 2022.
I'd like to start by commending Assistant Minister Morton for the work that he's done not only on these three matters but on a whole raft of electoral reform over the last few months. I've spoken on a number of these bills. I'm very proud to serve on the electoral matters committee, and some of the matters that have come before us to be legislated have come from that committee. Others have been born out of the necessities of dealing with potential disruptions of future elections because of COVID et cetera. I think the assistant minister has done an excellent job in identifying a number of loopholes, like the ones I'm about to touch on in this debate, that we might have sought to address some time ago if there had been higher awareness of those issues. I commend the assistant minister for his diligence there.
I'd also like to commend the Australian Electoral Commission. Whenever we've debated changes to the electoral act and I've spoken on them, I've always taken the opportunity to commend them and their professionalism—Commissioner Rogers and his entire team. Again, we have them in regularly to give evidence to the electoral matters committee. I think they do a fantastic job. I've listened to some of the other contributions to this debate, and it's very pleasing to hear the unity of commendation for the integrity of elections that we conduct in this country. Sometimes we don't like the results, but that's never been because there are questions about the AEC's professionalism and integrity and the due diligence with which they conduct our elections. I think that in every election that's ever been held in this country, even though we sometimes do and sometimes don't like the results, no-one has ever suggested that the actual conduct of the election—the counting of the votes and the returning of the results—was anything but to the highest standards. That reflects very well on the AEC, and I know that they're regarded very highly internationally as well. So, as we always seek to reform our electoral laws, we're very lucky to know that, whatever changes we make, they're going to be implemented effectively, efficiently and with exceptional impartiality by our Electoral Commission. We're very lucky to not have any concerns about that.
There are three bills that we're debating together, and they're all examples of why it's important to continuously update our electoral laws and always look for opportunities to ensure that, as technology changes and moves forward, as different tactics may or may not be used in election campaigns, we're always learning about ways to keep robust defences and protections in place for our democracy so that the Australian people decide who their government is and no-one other than the Australian people can influence that. When we are out there on the battlefield that democracy is, it's important that we argue forcefully and have these debates about where we want to take the future of our country, and it's healthy that we scrutinise each other, but it's also important that there are some fundamental rules in place so that we're always having fair fights. Even though sometimes we might not like what the other side has to say about a policy that we've got, it's fair enough and it's part of free speech that they can make criticisms based on their judgement of what we're doing, and we get to do the same in return. That's fair, but we don't want anything unfair and we don't want any unfair influence.
There are three elements that all speakers have mentioned, so I'll just again do the same and perhaps deal with them in three contributions. The first is spectacularly obvious and sensible, and I note that everyone has spoken in favour of it: simplifying the authorisation requirements that we have for political materials and political advertisements. My whole life—and, I'm sure, for most of the time since Federation—we've had these requirements that, when you've got something to say in an election campaign, you've got to take responsibility for it.
Where there is a billboard, a slogan, an advertisement or a pamphlet that's being handed out—or, in more recent times, television and radio commercials and now, of course, social media, the digital world et cetera, as well as phone calls and text messages—there's a requirement that, if someone's saying something in our democracy and seeking to influence the outcome of an election, they have to identify that they have authored the message and they have to take responsibility for it. That's so that, if, for example, there were something that breached the electoral act, was defamatory or breached other laws in any way, shape or form, there would be a person held responsible for that. With political parties, that tends to be our campaign directors. The Independents are a bit more opaque, and we've had to look more closely at them in recent times to make sure they comply with the same rules that we do, as political parties. Nonetheless, if something is put out to influence an election—to spruik for a candidate, attack another candidate et cetera—that needs to be authorised. You have to know that, if someone has said the wrong thing in an advertisement, they can be found and held to account for that, most often by the Electoral Commission but sometimes, potentially, through the courts.
What we're doing here is making that much more straightforward in a modern world where it's very easy to use the internet to find out information about an authorised piece of material. Clearly, as other speakers have said, we're just simplifying what the written and spoken words need to be. At the moment, I'm a member of 'the Liberal Party of Australia (SA Division)'. If I put something out and authorise it as 'the Liberal Party', I think it's completely reasonable that people know where to find me, even though I didn't put the full name of the legal entity in place. So, if I authorise something as 'James Stevens for the Liberal Party, Adelaide', I don't think in the modern world people would struggle to find and track down who James Stevens was and hold me to account for something that I'd put out, seeking to influence an election. In some ways, it might even make it easier because, of course, legal names can often be confusing and can potentially misdirect people from the true source of the messaging. When our names are on the ballot paper, you already have the short and simple descriptor. When I'm on the ballot, there's my name and then it just says 'Liberal Party'. It doesn't have the full legal name of the party. You can have that shortened version. We're simply allowing that to be the case for authorisations as well. I think it's common sense, and I think everyone has spoken in support of it, so I commend that initiative to the House.
The second measure, of course, is something that's temporary and will sunset in December this year. I'm referring to the measures to expand the access to telephone voting to address the risk of people not being able to cast their ballot at the upcoming federal election because they may find themselves in a situation we couldn't have envisaged the last time we went to the polls. With the challenges related to coronavirus, someone might be in a position where they were intent on voting on election day and, adjacent to election day, either they test positive to COVID or they meet the definition of a close contact of a COVID case. That puts them in a conflicted position. As much as we require them to attend and vote on polling day, if they haven't already prepolled or lodged a postal ballot, equally, the state or territory health advice may be such that, were they to proceed to carry out their requirement and right to vote, they would be in breach of a health directive. Without getting into constitutional questions about which of the two would prevail, I think this provides a very straightforward solution for people's confusion if they find themselves in that circumstance. We know that postal votes are delayed: if you happen to be within a couple of days of an election, it would be impossible to apply for and receive it in time to adequately fill it out and return it under all of the various time lines that are required for a postal vote to be valid. So, for a variety of reasons, it makes sense to give people access to telephone voting. It's a system that's already used for the vision impaired and for people in some other categories— I know if you're in Antarctica, it's a way that you can vote—and now this will be expanded to a larger cohort of people. And, as I say, the suggestion is very clearly that this will have a sunset provision. It's not something we want to have permanently in our system, but it's something that we need to have, to manage the risk of people being disenfranchised on election day because they have either tested positive or met the definition of a close contact of someone with COVID and have a restricted ability to attend a polling booth to vote, as they otherwise would have. I think that's very straightforward, too.
The third element, of course, is a loophole that I'm sure we all would have happily addressed at the first opportunity. It's now been identified and we're, sensibly, dealing with it now—that is, the ability for foreign entities and foreign natural people to have any form of ability to engage in and influence our elections. We've already made some changes over the years and, in fact, late last year, to ensure that all categories—not just political parties but people who are running as Independents et cetera; the definition has expanded to confirm that it covered them—are prohibited from receiving political donations from a foreign entity or a foreign citizen in our elections. That's forbidden, quite rightly, too. We always want to make sure that our elections are only influenced by Australians.
I'm a staunch supporter and defender of the right of people to provide financial contributions to the political process. It's an important part of people's right to free speech and their right to support an outcome of ideas and an approach to running this country that they support. You can do that by volunteering and stuffing things in letterboxes, knocking on doors, making phone calls or handing out how-to-vote cards on election day, and you can, equally, do it by providing financial support to do the same sort of electioneering. That can happen through financial investment as much as human resource investment. But it's vitally important that that remains exclusively the domain and purview of Australians. We never want any risk of interference from foreign sources—wherever that might come from—engaging in and seeking to influence the outcome of Australia's democratic processes, because we know that anyone from outside this country who is wanting to influence the government of this country doesn't have Australia's best interests at heart. They have their own best interests at heart.
I'm not interested in interfering in the democratic processes, or non-democratic processes, depending on the nation, or in how they choose their leaders or how they determine their future. And it's equally vitally important that we don't allow that to occur in this country. Already, of course, we have the prohibition on donations to political candidates, political parties et cetera. But there is, evidently, a loophole that would allow some direct influence from foreign sources, particularly through issues-based campaigns where, at the moment, it is not technically illegal or a breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act for someone to, potentially, engage with their own money directly in advertising or in distributing messaging or other forms of communications material to seek to influence—particularly through some of the sort of grey areas of our democratic processes—the outcomes of elections. And we could speculate about all the different forms that could potentially take. I won't digress into that now, because I think the simple point is that, no matter what the example is, we don't want it in this country.
We weren't aware that the capacity for that to occur existed within our electoral laws, necessarily, in the past, but, now that we are, we're taking the opportunity to rectify that, or provide an enhanced set of protections, so that any avenue whatsoever for foreign interference in elections, in perpetuity into the future, will be very clearly a breach of the electoral act—a crime in this nation—and that serves to protect our democracy from that influence. Just in finishing, it's a reminder of how vital it is that, in every term of parliament, we look to opportunities to keep improving the robustness of our democracy.
I may or may not have the honour to serve in this chamber in the next term of parliament. In the last few sitting weeks of this parliament, this may be the last suite of electoral amendments that pass through this parliament. But, whomever is serving in the next parliament, it is vital that they're always reviewing and looking at the most recent election, as the electoral matters committee does after every election, and looking at new technologies and new avenues to influence and seek to communicate political messaging and persuasive political material. We know that technology and other things are always going to continue to provide new risk points for that, and we've got to make sure we're always just as robust in responding. I think we've done that this term with a whole range of measures that have been legislated through this parliament. I know we're doing everything we can to ensure that the coming election will be just as robust, if not the most robust we've ever had. It's this sort of reform that makes sure that everyone in this chamber is here legitimately and is legitimately representing the people of Australia and making decisions in our best interests. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to enter the debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022 and related bills and also to strongly support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Isaacs, which I will come to a little later in my remarks. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters coming up to six years, I believe the work of that committee is critical to ensuring that we see free and fair elections in this country. As a staunch supporter of democracy and someone who has always argued for the right of every person to have their vote counted, no matter what their background, where they're from or what their belief is, I think the reforms that we are dealing with today have been developed in a constructive and bipartisan manner.
I thank the committee for its work but also the minister and shadow minister. From our side of the chamber, that's Senator Don Farrell. I thank his office and his team for ensuring that, at all times, the federal opposition has been working in a bipartisan and constructive way, which is critical to ensuring the integrity of the work of the Australian Electoral Commission. I thank the commissioner and his leadership team but also the frontline workers of the Australian Electoral Commission, who have diligently been going about their work to ensure that the next general election in Australia is held with the fairest and clearest intentions. The work that they do to ensure that our elections in this country are free and fair cannot be underestimated. I thank them for their impartiality and their independence but also for their hard work. I thank all the AEC staff, particularly those who have been doing the work in preparation for an election which will be different, like no other, perhaps a once-in-a-generation election under the spectre of COVID and dealing with the fallout of COVID, for their hard work and, in anticipation, for the work that I know they will do in a matter of months.
These measures make a number of changes to our electoral laws to ensure the effective functioning of our democracy. In summary, we are introducing an electoral expenditure ban for foreign campaigners, increasing penalties for publishing material that is misleading, simplifying authorisations for electoral material and ensuring COVID-19 affected communities are given the opportunity to vote. We have had some dry runs in my home state of Queensland with two elections being conducted—the state election of 2020 and the council elections in 2020. We've also had a number of by-elections. Most recently were the elections on the weekend in the state of New South Wales.
The first of these measures serves to close a loophole, ensuring that foreign entities cannot incur electoral expenditure for the purposes of federal elections and referenda. This follows the 2018 reform, which I was proud to see spearheaded by the opposition, that banned foreign governments, citizens and entities from making donations to candidates in federal elections. This is an important shield to ensure that our democratic system is not interfered with by foreign actors. However, those amendments did not account for circumstances where a foreign entity could incur electoral expenses and make political communications. In effect, in the short term, this left our democracy open to foreign actors campaigning on behalf of a candidate or an issue during an election period. This is an election loophole that clearly needs to be closed. That is exactly what this bill will do. Foreign entities will be prevented from incurring electoral expenditure of $1,000 or engaging in fundraising for this purpose. There will be penalties for noncompliance and avoidance, similar to those that apply to a ban on foreign donations.
Additionally, this bill bans foreign actors from authorising electoral material. What does this mean? This means that the Australian elections can only be influenced by communications from people or entities associated with our nation. We know that Australia has been subject to international attempts to undermine democracy—I think that's a fairly open statement—with foreign actors targeting all sides of politics to advance their personal agenda. I want to make it clear: everyone in this chamber and myself are absolutely committed to ensuring that our Australian democratic system is shielded from foreign interference. This is a commitment that transcends personal political motivations and highlights how seriously we all must take Australia's national interest and security.
There has obviously been some debate that this is the dying days of this term and that we're seeing a government using a whole range of, I guess, dry-run messaging. We saw it last week, and we've seen it this week in question time. I want to be very clear: not only does politicising Australia's national security pose very real risk, in my opinion, it just wreaks of desperation. While we're seeing the term 'national security' bandied around by a government pretty much accepted to be running out of steam, trying to convince the Australian public to enter in its second decade of office, I don't think the Australian people need that sort of debate, and I don't think it is warranted in any way, shape or form. The Prime Minister seems to be talking about national security and the interference of foreign actors, which seems to be about the Prime Minister's political interest. I want to be clear: my colleagues and I, led by the Leader of the Opposition, are committed to making sure that we see legislation in the national interest. That is why we're supporting this bill—to ensure the continued integrity of our democratic institution.
In addition to the foreign influences provision, the bill also increases the penalty for publishing material that is misleading and relating to the casting of a vote, taking from six months to three years. This will give the AFP increased power to investigate these offences as account takeover warrants and data disruption warrants can only be sought by the AFP for crimes with a penalty for at least three years. An increased penalty for this electoral offence will prevent this sort of undermining of the electoral system that we've seen perhaps most recently in the United States. Increasing the penalty for the existing offence of publishing misleading material in relation to the casting of votes will greatly assist the AFP in investigating any breaches of this provision, particularly in the upcoming election.
As I outlined, the bill amends the law relating to the authorisation of electoral matter. Electoral matter or materials intended to influence how someone votes in the election must be properly authorised. This bill introduces measures that will allow a party to use a shortened version of their registered name. This means that names of state branches will not need to be included, and extraneous words may be omitted. Additionally, if the name includes the words 'Australia' or 'of Australia' at the end of the name, those words will be able to be omitted from the authorisation line.
I'm happy to see Labor successfully moved an amendment in the Senate to allow a party to use their registered abbreviation. In our case, on this side of the chamber, ALP. The changes in the bill will simplify and shorten the authorisation line to assist where the authorisation line is spoken in video messages and electronic or television commercials. This will allow more broadcast time to be taken up with the message rather than the authorisation line. As someone who, over the years, regularly authorised television ads, I can attest that you need more time to get your message across when it comes to political advertising. Voters will easily be able to identify the authorising identity of the electoral matter, and that's the critical key here.
The bill extends existing provisions for secure telephone voting to allow those who have been impacted by COVID-19 to cast their vote over the phone. This is critical, as I said, in dealing with the COVID pandemic and ensuring that all Australians have their say. This measure will be strictly limited to those who are COVID-positive or who are identified as close contacts and forced to quarantine. I think the member for Barker illustrated the point of someone receiving a positive test who has missed the deadline for postal voting but is unable to get to a prepoll location or to get there on election day. Telephone votes will be available to voters only if the Electoral Commissioner reasonably determines that such a measure is necessary or conducive for the conduct of the election. This determination will be made by the commissioner via a legislative instrument, and, before making the determination, the commissioner will need to notify both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Voting via telephone will only be available after 6 pm on the Wednesday before the election. So that window, where Australians may be showing symptoms and are unable to get to a polling booth, will still, in my opinion, enable them to have every opportunity at their fingertips to have their say.
I want to spend my remaining remarks on the second reading amendment. Whilst we aren't declining to give the bill a second reading, we want to make a number of points about how our electoral system can be further strengthened. The government and members of the Liberal and National parties, particularly in Queensland, have some aversion to ever wanting to lower the current threshold of $14,500 to a fixed $1,000. I'm really pleased that the Queensland government, the Palaszczuk Labor government, in my home state, has led reforms to ensure that we have some of the most transparent donation laws in the nation. I don't know why any person in this chamber would argue that $14,500 is a low enough threshold. It is nonsense to say that we shouldn't lower the threshold to $1,000 so that political donations are simply transparent for all to see.
It's the same with requiring real-time disclosure of political donations. I'm sure the member for Mackellar, in his speech, will talk about the recent coverage of large donations being cut up into different avenues. Having real-time disclosure of donations will ensure that that doesn't happen again. I'm looking forward to members of the government finally joining the broader community, who support democratic and free and fair elections and open and transparent donation laws, to make sure we lower that threshold to $1,000 and have real-time donations.
I also think having more resources allocated to the Australian Electoral Commission will not only ensure greater transparency but also help more Australians to have their say. We've seen the shocking set of circumstances in the Northern Territory, where staffing numbers have been reduced. Obviously that has an impact on remote polling booths around the Northern Territory, ensuring that fewer Australians are having their say. You have to look at the pattern here. It was only last year that we saw the outrageous proposal put forward by the government that we have voter ID laws put in. No evidence on this was ever given to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. If there was evidence provided, if there were detailed examples of multiple voting, if there were clear-cut cases of this—but there has never been any evidence of this in the reviews of the 2016 and 2019 elections, the two elections through which I've served on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. In my opinion, that was just the government—the Liberal and National parties—changing the rules, or trying to change the rules, to help themselves. When you're in desperate circumstances, with the polls and community sentiment against you, the old trick is, Trump-like, to change the rules and make it harder for people to vote. I've said this in the chamber before. That tactic, or that trick, by the government was nothing more and nothing less than voter suppression, making it as hard as possible to get people to vote.
Voting isn't an obligation; it's a privilege. There are members of the Australian community who treasure and cherish the opportunity to vote. Obviously, ensuring that every Australian has their say in a fair, transparent and open way is what I'm committed to as a federal member of parliament and what I know every member of the opposition is committed to. So, when those proposals are put forward by the government, we will fight for democracy. We will fight tooth and nail to ensure that we have free and fair elections where every vote is counted. That's what today's suite of bills will also ensure, and that's why I'm pleased to be supporting the package put before us, but I yet again call on the government to make sure that they do more to improve our democracy in this country.
The question is that the amendment be disagreed to, and I call the member for Mackellar.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker Freelander, and can I inform you that it is always one of my favourite times in a parliamentary sitting week when I get to give a speech while you are in the chair. It is something that I truly look forward to. I am going to relish every single moment of this speech. I was going to give a five-minute speech but, now I've realised that you're in the chair, I think I may give a much, much longer speech. And I see the member for Cooper. This is a double joy for me today. It's like when you put your hand in a box of chocolates and you pull out one of those cherries covered in chocolate and it's got a bit of liqueur in there. They were always my favourite as a child. So, Deputy Speaker, the combination of you and the member for Cooper is like a cherry coated in chocolate with liqueur.
I thank the member for Mackellar. That is terrific to know. Our great pleasure would to be to see you in the next parliament on the other side.
Now, Deputy Speaker, that doesn't sound very impartial from the chair. In any case I refuse to have you goad me into lowering you down in my rankings of deputy speakers.
Thank you.
Discretion does not allow me to actually name the ranking, but I assure you, Deputy Speaker, you are very, very high on that ranking.
It is my great pleasure to speak about the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022 makes minor and, may I say, technical amendments to the notifying requirements for the authorisation of electoral communications. These amendments to the electoral act will ensure voters are presented with the current name of registered political parties and disclosure entities in authorisations for electoral communications. Currently, political parties and other disclosure entities are required to use their name as included on their most recent AEC financial return, which has the potential to mismatch the entity's actual name where it has recently changed. The reforms ensure registered that political parties authorise their communications in line with how their name appears on the ballot paper and that other disclosure entities appear as they are referred to on the AEC'S Transparency Register. 'Transparency' is a very important word, and we're going to talk a lot about transparency today.
The bill also provides some limited flexibility for registered political parties in how they present their current names in authorisation. This streamlines these requirements and avoids unnecessary duplication without distracting from clear communication with voters. For example, political parties who have the word 'Incorporated' in their registered name would be able to omit this word. Similarly, the bill enables registered political parties which are a branch or division of a federal party to omit the words specifically referring to the branch or division. This avoids unnecessary duplication, noting that authorisations specify an entity's location as part of their notifying particulars. The reforms also allow the flexibility for these parties to use their registered abbreviations for authorisations to provide consistent alignment with the electoral act. These reforms also apply to the Broadcasting Services Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act.
I have to digress slightly here to mention one of my favourite authorisations of all times. When I first joined the Liberal Party, John Howard was running for re-election in 1998. Tony Nutt, a great servant of the Liberal Party, had become the state director in New South Wales, so all electoral advertising had to be authorised by 'Tony Nutt of the Liberal Party, New South Wales'. Of course, Tony's name is actually Anthony Nutt, so, instead of materials being authorised by 'T Nutt, Liberal Party, New South Wales', it became: 'Vote for John Howard, authorised by A Nutt, Liberal Party, New South Wales'. Maybe we should make provisions in this law to prevent circumstances like that embarrassing prime ministers or opposition leaders who are seeking election to the highest office in the land.
The second piece of legislation I'd like to speak to is the Electoral Legislation Amendment (COVID Enfranchisement) Bill 2022. This bill builds upon the government's reforms last year to provide the Australian Electoral Commission with the necessary legislative tools to deliver a COVID-safe election. The bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to allow the option, where necessary, to provide a contingency arrangement for electors in mandatory isolation or quarantine due to COVID-19 during the final 72 hours before polling to participate in the upcoming federal election. It can allow regulations to be made to expand the Australian Electoral Commission's secure telephone voting service to persons in mandatory isolation due to COVID-19. Access to this service would be limited to persons in Australia subject to a public health order that prevents their attendance at a polling place for one of the following reasons: they have tested positive for COVID-19 using a test approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration; they are a close household contact of such an individual; or they have been otherwise directed to self-isolate or quarantine under a public health order, due to the risk of transmission of COVID-19.
Telephone voting is currently used for voters who are blind or have low vision and for voters in Antarctica. Current regulations implement this through a secure two-stage telephone system to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Secure telephone voting for coronavirus affected individuals can only be offered after a person is no longer eligible to apply for a postal vote—that is, from 6.01 pm on Wednesday three days before the polling day until the close of polls. The Electoral Commissioner would be required to issue an instrument advising that he is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the extension of this service is necessary for the due conduct of the election. He would be required to notify the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition before doing so and to publicly inform of integrity measures that will apply to safeguard the conduct of the poll using the telephone method of participation. The regulations will have the option to specify the circumstances and the order of admission for votes cast using this method. These provisions will automatically be repealed on 31 December 2022.
The third piece of legislation that we are dealing with here is the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022. The bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the referendum act to combat foreign influence in Australian elections and strengthen the integrity of Australia's electoral communication framework. In relation to foreign electoral communication expenditure, now more than ever, it is critical that we have the appropriate laws in place to stop foreign actors from being able to infiltrate our electoral system. Our national security agencies are warning us of threats to our democracy by malicious foreign actors. Yesterday, the ASIO director-general revealed that they had disrupted a foreign interference plot in the lead-up to an election in Australia, adding: 'We are seeing attempts at foreign interference at all levels of government in all states and territories.'
This bill will prohibit foreign individuals and entities from authorising or directly funding election campaigns. This is implemented by introducing a ban on foreign campaigners from authorising election advertisements. This amendment will support the integrity of Australian electoral processes by ensuring that only those with a legitimate connection to Australia are able to authorise electoral communications. The amendments prohibiting foreign campaigners use the existing definition of 'foreign donor', making these amendments simple to apply. Further, the bill will prohibit foreign campaigners from incurring electoral expenditure of a thousand dollars or more in a financial year or fundraising for that purpose. Together, the amendments ban foreign donors from circumventing existing restrictions within the electoral act by seeking to influence and conduct electoral campaigns.
This builds on past reforms that established prohibitions on the receipt of foreign donations. In 2018, the Morrison government introduced a ban on foreign donations to political parties in passing Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill. Last year, the government tightened these laws to further extend the ban on candidates, MP, senators and associated entities through the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021 and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021, which is already having an impact, as we've seen this week. Due to these reforms, the Australian Electoral Commission was able to undertake an audit of certain electoral funding by certain candidates at the previous election. The intrepid Rob Harris of the The Sydney Morning Herald and The Agediscovered that some of these candidates, notwithstanding the fact that they said that they were in favour of reducing carbon emissions, were taking donations from coalminers or coal investors.
And, indeed, they were, Member for Bradfield. I was surprised. I would go further: I would say that I was shocked and horrified at this revelation. But it gets even worse, member for Bradfield.
Order! I remind the member for Mackellar to be relevant.
I'm being incredibly relevant to disclosure, honesty and transparency in the electoral system. I know that you, Deputy Speaker, are equally concerned about these things. I know that you—you of all people, Deputy Speaker, and the member of Cooper, too—would not stand for anyone in your party taking a donation from Eddie Obeid.
I know that neither of those members of the opposition would ever imagine that they would say one thing and then do another. It would never occur to a member of the Labor Party to do that. And I know, for sure, that if the tobacco lobby came knocking on your door, Deputy Speaker, and offering you a $100,000 cheque, you would turn them away—politely I have no doubt.
I wouldn't be polite about it!
Not only would you not accept the $100,000 cheque; but, if you were to accept the $100,000 cheque—and I cannot imagine a scenario under the sun where that would be the case, Mr Deputy Speaker—
That's good; I'm glad.
I could then not imagine a scenario where you would say to your electoral returning officer: 'It would be embarrassing, given my previous comments and my policy stance and the things that I believe in, that my largest donor is someone from the tobacco industry lobby. Could you please hide this by spreading it out over eight people, so that I don't have to disclose it.' I know that very few people in this House would ever dream of seeking—
Member for Mackellar, could you please get back to the legislation before us. We're not asking for a running commentary on electoral donations.
Deputy Speaker, I am speaking directly to foreign donations and donations generally made in the electoral act. Deputy Speaker, I know why you are trying to get me to limit my comments. I know that you know how embarrassing this is for a member of this parliament. I notice that that particular member of parliament was down to speak on this bill. I assumed that was either sarcasm or irony. But they've exercised judgement—which they haven't exercised to this point in accepting a $100,000 donation and then seeking to hide it—by deciding not to speak on this bill.
I say to you, Deputy Speaker, that you would not accept a $100,000 cheque from the tobacco industry, and you would not then try to hide that by spreading it over eight separate people, so that it was under the disclosure limit. I can't understand why anyone thinks this is okay. Of course, this went unreported by the ABC. It went unreported by The Guardian. It took a crack team of investigative journalists at the Sydney Morning Herald, which—and I say this in dark humour—has now been described as a pro-government paper. How a paper that publishes very prominent and good journalists like Jackie Maley and, until recently, Elizabeth Farrelly, who joined the Labor Party, could be described as pro Liberal strikes me as curious. But apparently the problem we have here is not actually a problem; we just have a PR problem.
Now, I note that Simon Holmes a Court is speaking at the National Press Club in five minutes. I wonder if those intrepid journalists, who I know get frightened by people who've inherited a lot of money, will stand up at the microphone and ask the tough questions, like: if you tried to hide a $100,000 donation from a director of a coal company, how can we trust that you haven't tried to hide other donations? When it comes to it, we realise, of course, that the member responsible for this, the Climate 200 candidate, is using exactly the same person who is being used by Simon Holmes a Court to run his fundraising entity. Oh dear. Oh dear, indeed.
The member's time has expired.
I've seldom heard a more irrelevant speech.
LIL () (): These are important amendments to several bills—the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022 and Electoral Legislation Amendment (COVID Enfranchisement) Bill 2022—and I support them. I've dedicated most of my career to the foreign policy and national security of Australia to keep Australians safe and secure, to ensure stability and security in our region. That should be the job of our government, because beyond partisanship is a collective commitment to Australia's national interest, and this must include protecting our democracy from negative and harmful foreign influencers.
We all know how important our democracy is. Australians know and deeply feel the importance of our democracy and the history of our democracy. We're proud of it. We're proud that this country is a place where we really had one of the first genuinely liberal democracies in the modern world—and it's a longstanding democracy. Our democratic institutions and practices are known and hailed for robustness, for adaptability, for functionality and for resilience.
Many of the amendments in these bills, such as the access for COVID affected voters or the amendments around electoral matters and materials, might seem minor in the grander scheme of things, but they all add up and they ensure that Australia, which has led the world in many respects when it comes to a public conversation about protecting our democratic institutions from subversion and interference, is also doing the work that this parliament needs to do, the bits and pieces, to keep building and ensuring the robustness of our democracy. It's these little matters, these little one percenters if you like, which add up to give us that total picture. They allow us not only to strengthen our institution but also to protect them, to make them more resilient from those outside negative influences when they seek to harm our democracy, our principles, our institutions and when they attack our values at their core. So I support the amendments for these bills for that reason.
The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022 closes a loophole to ensure that foreign entities cannot incur electoral expenditure for the purposes of federal elections and referenda. In 2018, this parliament banned foreign governments, citizens and entities from making donations to candidates in federal elections. This was an important measure to protect our democracy from foreign interference. I remind the House that it was actually the Labor Party who led this reform. I remind the House, particularly those on the other side who love to hear the sound of their own voices as the great protectors of democracy, it was those on the other side—the Liberal and National parties—who wanted to keep taking foreign donations for as long as possible. That's a fact, and, no matter how much blustering and huffing and puffing they do, they can never change that fact.
The amendments, however, did not take into account the circumstance where a foreign entity could incur electoral expenditure and communicate electoral matter. This meant that a foreign government or corporation could campaign for a candidate or on an issue in a federal election. So I'm pleased that this bill, these amendments, will finally close that loophole, and it will prevent a foreign entity from incurring electoral expenditure greater than $1,000 or for fundraising for that purpose. There'll be penalties and anti-avoidance provisions which will apply, similar to the existing provisions in relation to the ban on foreign donations.
In addition to banning foreign entities from incurring electoral expenditure, these amendments in this particular bill also ban them from authorising electoral material. These provisions ensure that only people or entities with a link to Australia can participate in our elections, even if their name is 'A. Nutt'.
Over the years there have been many attempts by foreign actors to undermine our democracy, and all sides of parliament, all political parties, have been targeted. On this side we are committed to ensuring that the parliament and our democracy is protected from foreign interference. That has shone through in our track record in this place, as I mentioned earlier, with the lead that we took on the reform that was necessary and we're now finally seeing.
We've got a prime minister who only ever acts if it is in his electoral interests—everything is seen through the prism of political survival. But I can say this categorically: Labor is committed to legislating in this place in the national interest. We demonstrated that back a couple of years ago. We're demonstrating it again today. That's why we support these bills, to ensure the continued integrity of our democratic institutions.
In addition to the foreign influences provisions, there are obviously other amendments that increase the penalty for publishing material that is misleading in relation to the casting of a vote. By increasing the penalty for the existing offence of misleading or deceiving someone in relation to the casting of a vote from six months to three years, it will give the AFP increased power to investigate these offences as well. That is because account takeover warrants and data disruption warrants can only be sought by the AFP for crimes with a penalty of at least three years imprisonment, so strengthening the penalty for this electoral offence will help prevent the sort of undermining of the electoral system that we've seen all too often across other Liberal democracies and we've seen in the United States and some parts of Europe. Increasing the penalty for the existing offence of publishing misleading material in relation to the casting of a vote will greatly assist the AFP in investigating any breaches of this provision in the upcoming election.
All of us in this place are cognisant of our responsibility to stand up for our democracy, for the democratic institutions and the democratic values and the principles that make us who we really are. I understand, and I've noted the importance of these amendments in these bills even though they might seem functional or minor in some respects. They are not. I think everyone in this place should agree that these little building blocks are the things that give resilience to our democratic institutions and protect them from interference.
There are some failings in our democracies. We know the famous quote I think Winston Churchill once said, 'Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.' We know it's not perfect. But, when we see the failings, we should not be sweeping them under the carpet. We should not be hiding from them. We should immediately seek to make reforms that will strengthen our democracy. They've got to be stamped out. And now, more so than ever, in the period that we live in with such geostrategic uncertainty, with such volatility globally, so many authoritarian state based actors are seeking to disrupt and influence negatively many democracies around the world, including nascent or new democracies. We've seen this happen at its worst where the military dictatorships take over that democracy. A nascent democracy like Myanmar is a perfect example.
What we are seeing with respect to Ukraine and the pressure being placed on it by the authoritarian regime in Russia has us at a moment in history where there is a contest between democracies, liberal democracies—we sometimes take for granted those things that we value. We value the rule of law. We value freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience. We value equality before the law. We value independence of the judiciary and the parliament and the executive. We value all of those fundamental principles of democracy. We are now in a global contest against state actors—particularly state actors, but some non-state actors—who would seek to disrupt, to deny, to diminish us and to diminish those values, and to destroy what we have built up over many, many centuries.
It is a real battle; it is a real war. It's not just fought on battle grounds with weapons or hardware or military weapons; it's fought on the internet, it's fought in cyberspace—in the cyber world, in space—and it's fought in the hearts and minds of billions of people. I know that sounds a bit grandiose, given we're talking about some rather minor amendments, but these are important because this is where it starts—plugging some of the failings in our own institutions, in our own systems. This is what we do, and what we should do. We must be cognisant of how important it is because all of it is interconnected and all of it will have consequences for the future of our democracy and other democracies around the world. If we can't get our own house in order, then it becomes so much more difficult to be able to fight to stand up for other fledgling democracies around the world who are struggling as we speak.
On that basis, obviously, and the fact that these amendments are very important, I support the amendments in these bills. Thank you.
I might not be as entertaining as my colleague the member for Mackellar, but I do promise to be shorter in my speech!
I'm sure you'll be more entertaining!
It is our job here, as parliamentarians, to stand up for and work hard for the democracy that many Australians in some ways take for granted as they go about their daily lives. This is so that they can vote in elections and be confident that there is no interference, particularly from foreign actors. That's why I'm rising to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022 and the cognate bills being discussed in the House today—bills that strengthen the integrity of our electoral process to prevent these foreign actors, to prevent deceptive conduct and to provide clear authorisations.
The foreign influences and offences bill is an important bill. It ensures that Australia's electoral communication framework is not only protected, but strengthened to combat foreign actors from being able to infiltrate our electoral system and to ensure that those who attempt to mislead voters are held to account. The Morrison government is committed to ensuring that foreign donations are prevented, particularly in a time where we've seen heightened activity of foreign interference. Just this week, the ASIO Director-General unveiled a plot to disrupt an election in Australia, so now, more than ever, we need to make sure that our electoral systems are safeguarded from any threats.
The foreign influences and offences bill builds on the government's commitment to prohibiting foreign donations through a foreign donations prohibition framework. The government has already introduced legislation, and the more recent electoral legislation amendment introduced a number of restrictions on foreign donations.
Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act to prohibit foreign campaigners from authorising electoral communications. It also prohibits foreign campaigners from fundraising. These measures not only ensure that only those with a legitimate connection to Australia can authorise communications but also close existing loopholes in our electoral system. By restraining foreign campaigners from fundraising, it ensures that foreign donors are not circumventing the current restrictions by conducting and funding electoral campaigning directly.
In addition to ensuring that our electoral system is clear and transparent, the bill is also aimed at strengthening the offences of misleading or deceiving electors in relation to the casting of a vote. Electoral misleading and deceptive conduct is a serious offence, and currently our laws do not reflect the scale and severity of this offence. In a 21st-century digital and telecommunication environment, where voter disinformation is a serious and real issue, providing a means to ensure that misleading and deceptive information is prevented from being circulated is of the utmost importance. By introducing this bill, the Morrison government is accordingly holding to account for the significance of their actions those who wish to disrupt elections through misleading communications. The bill displays our government's continued commitment to preserving electoral integrity in Australia by combating the rise of foreign interference and ensuring that those who try to mislead or deceive voters are in fact held to account.
I turn to the second bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022. This ensures appropriate disclosure of authorisations to make sure registered political parties authorise their communications in accordance with how their names appear on the ballot paper and that other disclosure entities appear as they are referred to on the AEC's Transparency Register. Under the current electoral act, political parties and other entities use their name based on their most recent AEC financial returns, and this has the potential to mismatch the entity's actual name and recent changes to the location of the entity. These changes minimise any potential voter confusion as to who is authorising electoral communications. This is important so voters are clearly aware of who is providing electoral information, further supporting our strong stance on electoral integrity and clarity.
In addition, the bill removes unnecessary duplication by allowing political parties to omit specific branches or divisions of their party, as authorisations already specify an entity's location as part of the authorisation itself. For example, state divisions of the Liberal Party might include in brackets 'New South Wales Division'. However, I know that, when I authorise my content, I still put my address for my materials as High Street, Penrith, signing off with 'New South Wales'. This legislation will also provide alignment with other acts of parliament, including the Broadcasting Services Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. Overall, this bill ensures greater accuracy in the disclosure of electoral communications by putting them in line with how they will appear on the ballot paper and other disclosure entities.
In summary, these two bills that I've spoken about specifically today ensure that our elections are protected and safeguarded. Elections, as we know, are the hallmark of a democracy. The quality of our system is defined by how we ensure that voters are allowed to make an informed choice free of interference, particularly foreign interference, and misleading or deceptive consent, and that any material received is transparent so that, when voters go to the ballot box, they can make an objective decision as to who they want to sit in this House and the other place.
I'm pleased to rise this afternoon to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022 and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (COVID Enfranchisement) Bill 2022. Before I do, I note that during this debate the member for Perth, specifically when talking about the importance of fair and free elections, made a gratuitous attack on the United Australia Party, which I would like, of course, to respond to. At this next election, it will not just be the two old major parties contesting it. This will be one of the first elections in Australia's history where there will be a real third choice. Australians at this next election will have a real third choice, not just the two major parties, and this is even despite how the system is rigged against the smaller and minor parties. In our entire electoral system, which we've been talking about and debating this morning, the cards are stacked against new and minor parties.
Let's just take a couple of examples. The incumbent members of a major party, the Labor or Liberal party, when they go out to campaign at this next election campaign, of course, are on full freight—they are being paid a wage by the taxpayer and will have their staff paid for by the taxpayer. If they go to a railway station in the morning, the transport—the car that they have—will be paid for by the taxpayer. But the new party, someone that's trying to break into politics, doesn't have any of those advantages. They must fund everything out of their pocket. Their volunteers must be genuine volunteers—not the paid volunteers that we as elected members of parliament have. New parties don't have access to these community grants schemes, which are little more—as we all know—than local pork-barrelling before an election. We know the media covers our election campaigns as a presidential race, giving millions of dollars of free advertising to the old parties. And that is how it has been in past election after past election after past election. But at this election there is truly a third choice. These will be fair elections; we know there are no Dominion voting machines in Australia. So I would encourage every Australian to get onto the rolls and make your voice count. Don't listen to the nonsense. Make your voice count at this next election: a big change can be made.
With that, at this coming election, it's very disappointing to hear that the AEC has gone down a road of superstition, ignorance and sheer stupidity by mandating vaccine mandates for those that will work on election day. Let's be very clear: you are free to turn up and vote at this next election whether you've been injected with one, two, three, or now maybe even four shots of the COVID vaccines. But if you want to work as an AEC official in the election booth on election day, you will have had to submit to being so-called fully vaccinated. Now, it is not yet clear whether that that will mean two injections or whether it will mean three injections that you have had to undergo.
Dr Robert Malone has described such mandates as 'pointless and idiotic'. Professor McCullough has called for all these mandates to end. And yet here we have the Australian Electoral Commission going down the track of mandating injections. And there is simply no cause for this. Free and fair elections should allow any Australian to put their name forward to work for the AEC on election day. For the data is clear. In the latest data from the UK, the COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report for week 6, 10 February, we go to table 13 and it clearly shows that those in the 30 to 39 age bracket who have been injected three times have a 140 per cent greater chance of being COVID-positive. The 40- to 49-year-olds have a 172 per cent greater chance of testing positive for COVID if they've been triple vaccinated, and those in the 50 to 59 age group have a 127 per cent greater probability. That is what the data shows. So the AEC is, clearly, missing the boat. The AEC is, clearly, adopting the policies of superstition, ignorance and stupidity, and its vaccine mandates for employees at this next election should be called off and should be suspended.
One of the great concerns that I have about having fair and free elections is not just the voting system but the influence that our large foreign social media tech giants—Facebook, Twitter, Google and TikTok—have on the Australian political landscape. The other day, the member for Dawson moved a very wise private member's bill seeking to stop these foreign tech giants from censoring and removing political posts that are not illegal. It should be the principle in this country that, if you can say something on a soapbox in the town square on a political issue, and that is lawful speech, it should be unlawful for a foreign tech giant to censor and delete that speech. Doing so is foreign interference in the Australian electoral system. Our democracy is being threatened by the censorship policies of these tech giants. I commend the good work of the member for Dawson. That's why I have moved a third reading amendment to this bill, expanding on the good work from the member for Dawson, to ensure that there are greater protections in our democracy from foreign interference from these large tech giants.
We also need to draw a line between what is foreign interference and what is a genuine free debate and criticism from other nations. We should rightly be free to call out human rights abuses in other countries where they occur. Likewise, other countries should be free to call out abuses of human rights that occur in our country. Those of us who witnessed it were able to see through the censored media the scenes of Victorian police officers opening fire with rubber bullets, shooting into the backs of fleeing demonstrators in the shadow at the Shrine of Remembrance. Acts like that deserve to be condemned. That is not foreign interference in Australian election campaigns. Likewise, when we see abuses of human rights in other countries, Australia has the right to call them out.
We have a very special relationship with Canada. Australian and Canadian troops served together in the Boer War, World War I and Korea, arm in arm, shoulder to shoulder, to fight against tyranny and for freedom. It was Australian troops, working side by side with Canadian troops, that brought about what the Germans called their darkest day during World War I. It was the Australian and Canadian troops that turned the tide on World War I, fighting for freedom. Today, all Australians look at what is happening in Canada and at what Prime Minister Trudeau is doing to the Canadian people and the truckers in Ottawa. We should call that out as an abuse of human rights—loudly and clearly. This is the shame of what is happening to our great Canadian brothers.
An issue that greatly concerns me about the interference of these foreign tech giants is that in this parliament we have parliamentary privilege, and we should be free to stand up here and debate whatever issue comes to us without fear of censorship, without fear of impeachment, and without fear of being de-platformed or struck off by these large foreign tech giants. But that is not happening. I declare a vested interest in this because it has happened to me. But this is not about me. This is about this parliament going forward to enable whoever comes into this parliament in the years and decades ahead to stand at the dispatch box or rise in their place and speak with their conscience without having to worry that their speech will be questioned, impeached or de-platformed by someone from a foreign country, a large tech giant. But that is exactly what is happening today. Speeches that I have made in this parliament, the proceedings of the Australian parliament, are being censored and removed from YouTube’s platform. That should shock every single Australian.
Freedom of speech in this place goes back to the Bill of Rights in 1688. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 provides:
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.
For centuries, that has been the principle. And the way that came about, the historical reason for that act in 1688, goes back to the reign of King Charles I. In 1629, three members of the UK parliament—Eliot, Holles and Valentine—were thrown into the Tower of London for making speeches concerning complaints about allegedly illegal taxation. The monarch of the day imprisoned them in the Tower of London. Sir John Eliot died there in 1632 and the two other members of parliament were detained in the Tower of London for 11 years. In 1668, Eliot's conviction was reversed by the House of Lords. It was regarded as illegal and against the freedom and privilege of parliament. This was followed by the Bill of Rights of 1688, which simply says that the proceedings of parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.
Yet today we have large foreign tech giants questioning the proceedings of this parliament and if it doesn't comply with their so-called community standards—not the community standards of the community but the community standards and interests of these large tech giants—they will impeach that speech, they will take it off their platform, they will threaten the member of parliament that if he makes another speech such as that he'll be struck off their platform altogether. Allowing this to happen gives the tech giants of today—the Facebooks, Googles, YouTubes, and TikToks—greater power to censor parliament than the King of England had in the late 1600s. We need to take action against this, and that is what the amendment that I'll be moving in the third reading will address.
Our elections are important. The integrity of our elections are important. They are continually are under threat. We need to be ever vigilant on foreign actors who are trying to undermine Australia's democracy and Australia's election campaign. I support these bills. They make further enhancements to our democracy. However, I will be moving an amendment in the third reading stage.
The government is committed to improving the robustness and integrity of Australia's electoral processes. Now, more than ever, we must have the appropriate laws in place to stop foreign infiltration into our electoral system, the heart of our Australian democracy. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022 would prohibit foreign campaigners from authorising electoral matter and prohibit foreign persons and entities from either fundraising or directly incurring $1,000 or more of electoral expenditure in a financial year. The bill also increases the maximum penalty for the offence of misleading or deceiving an elector in relation to the casting of their vote, reflecting the seriousness of this offence.
Next, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022 demonstrates the government's commitment to reducing voter confusion, unnecessary red tape and regulation across government. These amendments will provide clarity to voters by making the information provided in authorisations more useful and clear. The bill also adds some additional flexibility for registered political parties as to how they present their names in notifying particulars. This streamlines these requirements without detracting from communication with voters and avoids unnecessary duplication.
Finally, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (COVID Enfranchisement) Bill 2022 provides a contingency arrangement to respond to the potential impact of COVID-19 on the upcoming federal election by allowing the Australian Electoral Commission's existing secure telephone voting service to be extended as necessary to persons required to self-isolate or quarantine due to COVID-19. The COVID enfranchisement bill proactively responds to the COVID-19 risk environment in advance of the 2022 federal election. The government firmly believes Australians should participate in federal elections utilising in-person or postal voting where these services are available, although this bill provides an additional means when those options are not available due to COVID-19 isolation requirements during the final 72 hours before polling day. The COVID enfranchisement bill builds upon the powers granted to the Electoral Commissioner under the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Contingency Measures) Act 2021 and the measures the Australian Electoral Commission is already taking to deliver a COVID-safe election during 2022. I commend these bills to the House.
The original question was that this 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 immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move the amendment circulated in my name:
(1) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 3 — Freedom of parliamentary proceedings
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
23 At the end of Part XXI
Add:
351A Freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person is a foreign campaigner; and
(b) the person is the provider of a large social media service; and
(c) the person, by communicating electoral matter, impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament.
Penalty: 100 penalty units.
(2) Without limiting when the provider of a social media service impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament, the provider of a social media service impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament if the provider:
(a) prohibits, restricts or prevents the posting of proceedings by a member; or
(b) if a member posts proceedings:
(i) removes the post (other than at the initiative of the member); or
(ii) restricts access to the post, including by means of shadow banning; or
(iii) encourages or requires the member to remove the post; or
(iv) victimises the member because of the post, including by means of banning, shadow banning, suspending or deplatforming the member or supressing posts by the member; or
(v) prohibits, restricts or prevents the reposting of the post by any person; or
(c) if an end user of the service reposts a post to which paragraph (b) applies:
(i) removes the repost (other than at the initiative of the end user); or
(ii) restricts access to the repost, including by means of shadow banning; or
(iii) encourages or requires the end user to remove the repost; or
(iv) victimises the end user because of the repost (including because of a statement included in the repost), including by means of banning, shadow banning, suspending or deplatforming the person or supressing posts by the end user.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the extent that it would otherwise infringe any constitutional doctrine of implied freedom of political communication.
(4) This section does not limit article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1688.
Definitions
(5) In this section:
large social media service includes the following social media services:
(a) Facebook;
(b) Twitter;
(c) YouTube;
(d) Instagram;
(e) WeChat;
(f) TikTok.
member means a member of the House of Representatives or a senator.
posted has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2021.
proceedings means proceedings in Parliament.
provider of a social media service has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2021.
remove has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2021.
repost a post means post on a social media service a post that previously been posted on that or another social media service.
The amendment I have moved is to protect the proceedings of this House from foreign interference. I'll go through the sections that are here:
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person is a foreign campaigner; and
(b) the person is the provider of a large social media service—
including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, WeChat and TikTok—
(c) the person, by communicating electoral matter, impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament.
The wording of that—'impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament'—comes from the direct words of the Bill of Rights 1688, which ensured that debate in this chamber could be free, that freedom of speech reigned superior and that no-one, not even the King of England, could impeach what was said in this parliament. Yet we have a situation today where we have these large social media giants using their control of what is said in this parliament by threatening members of parliament with having their speeches made here deleted, de-platformed and censored. The proceedings of the Australian parliament must have priority over the so-called ideological positions of these large social media giants. Where they have such a position of influence across society, we cannot have these large social media giants holding the power to censor the proceedings of the Australian parliament and to de-platform elected members of the Australian parliament. To allow so undermines our democracy. Yet that is exactly what has happened.
I know I could be accused of self-interest here because of what has happened to speeches I have made. I have introduced bills in this parliament, such as the No Domestic COVID Vaccine Passport Bill and posted my speech on the bill from start to finish on YouTube, but on YouTube, there is nothing in between the Speaker saying 'I give the call to the member for Hughes' and the end of my speech. My speeches have been censored and deleted from YouTube. This is a breach of the Bill of Rights of 1688, and we need to set out that this is specifically illegal because it interferes in Australia's democracy.
For members of this parliament, if you go to the official Australian parliamentary website, alongside your member's name, there are links to Twitter and Facebook so that you can contact a member of parliament. Yet we allow Twitter and Facebook to decide that some members of parliament are unworthy of having a Facebook page. We cannot have that situation in this parliament. This, again, is a violation of our democratic principles. It threatens our democracy. It is foreign interference in our electoral campaign. I, as a member of parliament, am banned from having a Facebook page for saying nothing other than the truth and for posting peer-reviewed studies—expert opinions of doctors that are now shown to be correct. We've even had Facebook's admission in a court case in the US that, when they say something is 'misleading', they don't mean that it's misleading; they now just mean that it's an 'alternative opinion'. The way that we are slandering people—saying they are saying something that is misleading—is contrary to freedom of speech. It destroys the principles of debate and open discussion, and we've seen the damage that it has done over the last 12 to 18 months, not only in this country, but around the world.
This section of my amendment provides that, without limiting when the provider of a social media service impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in the parliament, the provider of a social media service does so if—
Order! Member for Hughes, would you like to continue?
Yes, I seek the call.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be disagreed to and I call the honourable member for Hughes.
Examples would be if the provider prohibits, restricts or prevents the posting of proceedings by a member or, if a member posts proceedings, the provider removes the post, other than at the initiative of the member; restricts access to the post, by means of shadow banning; encourages or requires the member to remove the post; victimises the member because of the post, including by means of banning, shadow banning, suspending or deplatforming the member or supressing posts of the member; prohibits, restricts or prevents the reposting of any post by a person; or if the end user reposts a post to which the paragraph applies.
This amendment guarantees the freedom of speech in this parliament. It says that this parliament stands supreme above the tech giants. It goes to the traditions of the UK parliament back in the 1600s, where they said specifically that the parliament has primary place over the King of England. The King of England could not censor the proceedings of the parliament back in the 1600s. YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter should not be able to do the same thing today.
I hope that other members see the importance of this. As I've said, this is not just about me. This is about the integrity and the primacy of the Australian parliament and the Australian people over these social media giants to prevent them putting undue influence on our parliament and our Australian elections. I hope it has the support of many members of the House.
I advise the House that the government will not be supporting this amendment. We have not had extensive notice of it, and, on a quick perusal, it's unclear exactly what its effect would be. I note that the effect of proposed section 351A(1) would require that a person, to be the subject of the provision, would need to be both the provider of a large media service and a foreign campaigner. I note that 'foreign campaigner' is not defined in the bill that's been provided, from the research I've been able to do in the available time. I note that 'foreign donor' is a defined term in the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018, but I have not been able to identify a statutory meaning for 'foreign campaigner'. In any event, the government will not be supporting this, on a range of grounds, but principally because its effect is uncertain.
The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
Question agreed to, Mr Craig Kelly dissenting.
Bill agreed to.
FLETCHER (—) (): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak to this bill, the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022, and in doing so 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 is of the opinion that, in listing the bill for debate before such time as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security can conduct its inquiry and table its report, the Government has broken long-standing convention on national security legislation and substituted a bipartisan approach in the national interest for its own political expediency".
It is seconded by the member for Scullin. The bill we're debating today has its origins in another introduced by the then home affairs minister in December 2020. That bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for review, as is customary and proper for national security legislation. The PJCIS critical infrastructure bill review was a significant undertaking throughout 2021, receiving 88 submissions and 66 supplementary submissions and holding public hearings across four days. It's worth reflecting on and emphasising this review, because the bipartisan committee unanimously found that while uplifting the security of Australia's critical infrastructure was an urgent and crucial task it could not recommend passage of the minister's original bill. The committee arrived at this difficult decision because, quite simply, the bipartisan PJCIS unanimously found that the government had not finished its work on the bill and the work that it had done it had not done well enough.
The original bill sought to uplift security and resilience in all critical infrastructure sectors, promising that the government would work in partnership with the responsible entities of critical infrastructure assets to establish a clear, effective, consistent and proportionate approach to the security of critical infrastructure. The government promised that it would ensure these new requirements did not duplicate existing regulatory frameworks. It proposed four major areas of reform: first, to expand the coverage of critical infrastructure from four to 11 sectors; second, to introduce positive security obligations for critical infrastructure assets; third, enhanced cybersecurity obligations for assets deemed to be systems of national significance; and, finally, a provision for a government assistance regime to allow as a last resort emergency powers for government to secure Australia's critical infrastructure.
In principle, these are sound and indeed crucial policy priorities, but the committee found that far from being a clear and effective approach, far from being an exemplar of collaboration, far from avoiding regulatory burden, this bill was an irreconcilable mess and that it simply could not recommend the passage of the bill. I quote from the committee's report:
While the Committee strongly supports the aims of the SOCI Bill, it would need a significant amount of re-drafting to pass in its entirety and respond adequately to many of the concerns expressed to it during this review. This would delay significantly the time-critical elements of the Bill.
So as to not delay urgent provisions that would help secure Australia's critical infrastructure from cyberthreats, the committee, working pragmatically in a bipartisan manner, which is the best way for all committees to operate, in the best interest of the nation, recommended the bill be split.
Accordingly, the time-critical and most urgently needed elements of the critical infrastructure package were passed as the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Act 2021, receiving royal assent on 2 December last year. Accordingly, the government accepted the committee's findings that the remaining elements of the original 2020 bill be reintroduced as a separate bill. I quote again from the committee:
The Committee therefore recommends that the remaining elements of the SOCI Bill be amended in consultation with industry, and reintroduced in a subsequent Bill (Bill Two) containing the less urgent measures, such as risk management programs and declarations of Systems of National Significance (with accompanying enhanced cyber security obligations). Bill Two can then proceed at a more manageable pace for government and industry and ensure that the Security of Critical Infrastructure framework that Australia needs generates broad stakeholder consensus.
The Committee believes that the elements in Bill Two, following appropriate consultation and amendment where necessary, are essential because they recognise that industry has its own obligations to secure essential services for their customers and the nation.
The Committee is also recommending that Bill Two be referred to the Committee when it is introduced for further review …
The government has now come back to the opposition with this second bill and it is that which I speak of today.
The government has departed from the intention of the PJCIS bipartisan unanimous recommendations in a significant and deeply concerning way. Indeed, in asking the House to allow passage of a bill on which the committee is yet to report, meaning we cannot consider the committee's recommendations and any resulting amendments, the government is departing from a long-standing convention on national security. Labor have worked constructively and cooperatively on national security legislation. It is what we always do. We seek to find agreement. As I say, it is a committee that is bipartisan in nature and looks to work through outstanding differences to find, where possible, a unanimous position. But the government has ignored convention. It's in breach of what I would say are the national security conventions of this parliament by proceeding with the bill today and seeking passage without the proper review being undertaken by the relevant intelligence committee.
Today, Labor is left with two conclusions. The first is that this government has utterly failed to manage its legislative program effectively, let alone with the probity important national security legislation demands, and is thus cramming this bill into a rapidly diminishing parliamentary calendar, a problem completely of the government's own making.
The second conclusion—and one of gravest concern— is that this government is so desperate to distract from its infighting, incompetence and failure to deliver in response to the pandemic, national security, defence capability and so many areas of public policy it is now stooping to politicise national security. In recent days you may have seen very significant, eminent former and current public servants, heads and former heads of national security agencies, warn the government to not produce the debate and discourse about national security in a partisan manner, because that in itself will undermine our national security. We call upon the government to resist this base political instinct of the Prime Minister to go down his partisan path in the area of national security.
But, unfortunately, the procedure of this bill today is another example of a government willing to discard national security conventions of the parliament in order to politicise national security. That has been censured by no less than eminent independent current and former heads of intelligence agencies. I would say to the government that they really need to rethink this. If there are graver national security concerns, as we agree there are, if the region is less stable than it was some years ago, which the opposition agrees is the case, then it is not fitting for the government, the Prime Minister or any minister to seek to politicise these matters. They must desist in the interests of this nation.
In question time yesterday, the Minister for Home Affairs said that national security is a very serious task and not one that should be risked to those who would not tackle serious issues in a responsible and resolute way. With the actions today, their refusal to allow not just the House but the bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, chaired by a government member, to properly consider this bill, I would contend that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs proved that it is they who are irresponsible on the serious task of national security. We call upon the government to not go down this path. It is not in the nation's interests. It might be in the base political interests of the Prime Minister and his personal ambitions, but it is not in the interests of this country. They need to desist in that behaviour.
This government has left to the eleventh hour the important responsibility of ensuring the protection of Australia's critical infrastructure. Let's be clear: Labor has done everything to work constructively and efficiently and expeditiously with regard to this legislation, including in seeking to work with the government to find an efficient time line to pass this bill without in any way compromising on the national security legislation demands, as the Australian people deserve. This is so important precisely because of the complex challenges of this threat environment.
Critical infrastructure is increasingly interconnected and interdependent, delivering efficiencies and economic benefits to operations. However, connectivity without proper safeguards creates vulnerabilities that can be deliberately or inadvertently compromised, resulting in disruption and consequences across Australia's society, economy, security and, frankly, sovereignty. Relying on post-incident management alone is inadequate to truly ensure the protection of Australian critical infrastructure. Prevention and risk management is essential to truly make an impact on the security and resilience of the Australian critical infrastructure.
The reforms in this bill seek to make risk management, preparedness, prevention and resilience business as usual for the owners and operators of critical infrastructure assets and to improve information exchange between industry and government to build a more comprehensive understanding of the threats. The owners and operators of critical infrastructure assets are best placed to understand and manage the risks associated with their assets. We are told the government will continue to work closely with industry through an enhanced partnership to establish baseline standards and support the uplift of security resilience practices across infrastructure. That is critical for this to be properly undertaken.
The enhanced framework and the intention, of course, is to uplift security and resilience across Australia's critical infrastructure assets. This framework, if properly implemented, when combined with better identification and sharing of threats, will ensure that Australia's critical infrastructure assets are more resilient and secure. So it is a vital reform that needs not only implementation but ownership, and it needs, I dare say, the bipartisan approach of this parliament. The government needs to continue to work with industry in these matters. The rationale for these efforts is that the Commonwealth needs to establish a clear, effective, consistent and proportionate approach to ensuring these matters are resolved.
What we would call upon the government to do is this: enshrine, as has always been the case, the pre-eminence of the committee in reviewing the provisions of this bill that should be considered by the committee before the determination and enactment of this legislation. That is what is needed today. The government needs to return to the conventions of national security in the parliament, because to rid itself of the normal conventions of considering national security legislation will, in fact, render this bill, if not ineffective, certainly imperfect as a result of not being properly considered in that very significant parliamentary committee.
In 2019, the Prime Minister called a press conference here at Parliament House. Of course, he had the media in front of him, and he had accompanying him the Minister for Home Affairs, now the defence minister. He told Australia that we were under attack, and he said that Australian organisations and Australia's critical infrastructure, including all levels of government, were subject to sophisticated, malicious cyberattacks. Well, that is the case. In fact, the opposition has been warning the government for some time now about the deficiencies in our ability to manage those attacks and indeed, where required, respond to those attacks. We've been underdone in this area of national security, and we've been calling on the government to actually focus on these issues. The threat of which the Prime Minister spoke is very real, and to that extent we, of course, agree with the government. It is a threat that demands an equally sophisticated response. Instead, in 2019 Australia just got another announcement and photo opportunity by the Prime Minister. But, of course, it's taken well over two years for the follow-up.
As I said earlier in this contribution to this debate, the problems of this bill, the problems that we find ourselves in in the dying days of this parliament and the fact that we are dealing with such significant legislation so much later than the announcement by the Prime Minister are a testament to the laziness and incompetence of the government. Foreshadowing an emergency, effectively, as the Prime Minister did in 2019 and having us debating this matter now in early 2022 really does speak to the incompetence and lethargy of this government. More should have been done earlier. In that time, the government has ignored urgent advice to do even the barest minimum to uplift Australian cybersecurity, such as by introducing a mandatory ransomware payment scheme. Instead, it left this to Labor to introduce, before finally adopting our call for a national ransomware strategy.
In the time since, of course, we have continued to see the Prime Minister talk about these matters but not deliver, and that is not good enough. There's no point in the government rhetorically talking about national security. You see it with the defence minister each and every day. He talks about a potential change to our region and the stability in our region, but he doesn't deliver the assets that are required for our Australian Defence personnel. It's very similar to what we're seeing here now. Cybersecurity was identified as a major threat many years ago, yet the government has been asleep at the wheel, even though it likes to boast that it has a focus on national security. There is no evidence to suggest that, whether it's failed Defence contracts with massive blowouts or massive delays or whether it's this legislation here, where so many stakeholders—so many sectors of our economy, the federal opposition and national security experts—have been calling on the government to respond to these matters. The government leaves it to the last minute and then decides to abrogate its responsibility to ensure that the parliamentary committee responsible for intelligence and security be involved in the final review. It says everything about the failure and the yawning gap between announcement and so-called delivery by this government. We say to the government: we support a proper response to cybersecurity. We support the provisions of that piece of legislation that was enacted recently, and we also want to see this area enacted. But we say this to the government: stick with the convention on national security and allow the bipartisan parliamentary committee that deals with these matters to consider the provisions of this bill. By doing that, we would obviously be able to join the government to support legislation arising from that review by the parliamentary committee in question.
But, to do otherwise, to disregard the review by the committee and to break with convention on national security, is the exact opposite of what a responsible government would do in these circumstances. With that, I move the amendment in my name and call on the government to do better in this area of significant public policy:
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 is of the opinion that, in listing the bill for debate before such time as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security can conduct its inquiry and table its report, the Government has broken long-standing convention on national security legislation and substituted a bipartisan approach in the national interest for its own political expediency".
Is the amendment seconded?
I am very pleased to second the amendment, and I reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Gorton has moved as an amendment that all words after that be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be disagreed to.
Once again, we have endured a speech from those opposite and the member for Gorton about not politicising national security. So what's the first thing he does? He moves a second reading amendment. And what is the purpose of this second reading amendment? Well, the purpose of it, of course, is so that those opposite can talk about anything but the bill in front of the parliament and anything but the issues that deal with national security.
They do this, no doubt, because this week has been a very big week for those opposite. They got a very important endorsement from the Global Times of China—from the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party internationally. I can understand why it is that they want to avoid talking about national security. Not only is it not important to them; they are like Dracula running from the sunlight on this. They wouldn't want those opposite pointing out the uncomfortable truth. Even Senator Kitching in the other place has been so concerned about national security and the lack of rigour from those opposite, that she's been calling it out herself. Obviously, she's given up on trying to get action through the Labor Party, so what she's doing instead is going directly to the Australian people and calling attention to the problems that we have.
At this very moment, we have Simon Holmes a Court at the National Press Club. I say to the Australian people: if ever there were a reason to talk about the need for national security and disclosure, it's that gentleman at the National Press Club. He said at the National Press Club today, 'We need to strike at the very roots of democracy.' I'm not entirely sure what that means, but it sounds very threatening.
What we need to do is nurture the roots of democracy, and that's what is incredibly important about what we are trying to do here in this place. We are trying to protect and preserve the people of Australia. We are trying to ensure that their national security is protected. We are trying to make sure that they live in a country that they know is safe from foreign influence. And what do we get the at the National Press Club? We get the privilege that you can only get from inheriting millions of dollars from your parents, and he is trying to lecture ordinary Australians, hardworking Australians who just want a better life. But that's not for Simon Holmes a Court. That's not what they want over there. What they want to do is hide donations from coal barons who bought their coalmines from Eddie Obeid—
The member for Scullin, on a point of order.
The point of order is on relevance. The member for Mackellar started his speech talking about how wide-ranging this debate could be, but none of these matters are before the bill, which is a very important national security bill. He should treat the House with some respect.
I thank the honourable member for Scullin. I call the honourable member for Mackellar.
Drawing attention to Eddie Obeid and the fundraising shenanigans of those opposite, they moved the second reading amendment that, basically, allows everything anyone—
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
Thirty-nine years ago today, on 16 February 1983, the Ash Wednesday bushfires devastated numerous communities across Victoria and South Australia. The fires took the lives of 75 people. Fourteen of those were Victorian CFA firefighters and three were South Australian Country Fire Service members. More than 180 fires across the drought-stricken landscape, combined with ferocious winds, left a path of devastation that we still feel the effects of today. Over 3,700 buildings were destroyed or damaged, and 2,545 individuals and families lost their homes. Before Black Saturday, Ash Wednesday was our deadliest bushfire.
Over the last 30 to 40 years the electorate of McEwen has suffered in every bushfire major season there is, with over 75 per cent of the electorate burnt. The Black Saturday and Ash Wednesday fires killed more people than all the fires in between. We today remember particularly the five Panton Hill CFA fire brigade members who lost their lives in the service of their community: Bill Marsden, Peter Singleton, Maurice Atkinson, Stuart Duff and Neville Jeffery. Never will those names be forgotten, because of the memorial at Panton Hill. Today is a timely reminder, when we remember those lives lost, to also think about those who put their lives on the line every day: our CFA volunteers. We thank them for everything that they do in keeping the community safe. Today is a day that's going to be very painful for our CFA members, but it's a day that has been etched in our memories forever, and we will never forget.
Chisholm is such a fantastic to live and raise a family, and a big reason for this is our great local schools. Last week, I had the pleasure of stopping by Huntingtower School in Mount Waverley to hear about how the school is working to teach STEM skills in exciting and engaging ways. The Morrison government recently contributed funding to Huntingtower School, through the communities program, for the construction of a new STEM recycling centre. The centre is a great initiative for teaching kids about sustainable environmental management and waste reduction, among other things—and it's all powered by solar panels on the roof. It has been a hit with students and teachers alike, and it's just another example of the Morrison government's emphasis on teaching important STEM skills, which are only likely to become more critical in the future. Thank you to the principal, Andrew Houghton; head of STEM, Greg Hellard; and students Xabier and Anjali for showing me around your wonderful campus. I can't wait to come back again to see more of the exciting things happening at Huntingtower.
As most in this chamber would know, there is a crisis in regional areas when it comes to accessing GPs. I'm just beside myself, because for the last couple of months I've been trying to get a GP to stay in Dodgers Ferry in my electorate, and the Tasmanian Board of the Medical Board of Australia has just not got on board with this. And now we've had the sad news that we are losing this GP. He's going back home to the Netherlands because they have not approved his application. They want an extension out till March this year. His wife is pregnant, so there's a baby on the way, and there is uncertainty over what he can do. This is a guy—I won't name him—a young doctor. He has settled in Dodges Ferry and provides a great service. He is loved by the community and loved by the senior practitioner at the Dodges Ferry Medical clinic. They have been tearing their hair out trying to get his application through the Tasmanian medical board. There's no reason given for the delay. It's almost like the Tasmanian medical board just does not realise that there's a regional GP crisis going on. And this is an easy fix. This application could have been given the tick and the flick, and this guy could have stayed and continued to serve as a GP. Instead, what we're getting now is he's going to go home to the Netherlands, Dodges Ferry Medical is going to be down a GP, and they're going to have to go through the whole process again and try and get somebody else. The Tasmanian medical board needs to do better.
Sport is central to the Australian way of life. That couldn't be truer than in my electorate of Reid, which is home to Olympic Park and other world-class sporting venues. Reid is a sporting seat—and it has a very sporty member, I can tell you! That is why the Morrison government is backing our local sporting facilities with $5 million for Concord Oval, which is home to the Wests Tigers and the West Harbour Pirates. This is a massive redevelopment that will have a centre for excellence with incredible facilities for our football players and brand-new amenities for local community groups. I inspected the works last year, and I can tell you it is going to be world class! Also in Reid, upgrade work is almost completed at St Luke's Oval in Concord, home to the Concord Giants, where $500,000 has helped to widen the oval, returf the field and add new irrigation and drainage.
But football isn't the only sport in Australia and it certainly isn't the only sport in Reid. Drummoyne Swimming Centre has produced some of Australia's finest Olympic champions, such as Dawn Fraser, and $500,000 has been allocated for that training and recreation facility. This funding has delivered a new multipurpose clubhouse for community groups, including the Drummoyne Devils Water Polo Club.
Goddard Park at Concord is home to Yaralla Cricket Club, which has recently celebrated its 130th anniversary, and we have committed $1 million to upgrading the amenities block there. (Time expired)
Almost 80 years ago, on 19 February 1942, the Second World War came to Australia's shores when Darwin was bombed for the first time. It was a chaotic day of suffering but also acts of heroism. I've spoken before about nurse Margaret de Mestre, Gunner Hudson, the brave waterside workers and many more. But today I want to talk about a United States hero, Lieutenant Robert Oestreicher of the 33rd Pursuit Squadron of the United States Air Force, who was flying with 10 P-40 Kitty Hawk flyers on the morning of the attack. His squadron first encountered the Japanese Zeros as they flew towards Darwin, and he called out, 'Zero, zero, zero!' Lieutenant Oestreicher flew into the clouds and engaged the enemy, taking down two Japanese aircraft with little or no support from other aircraft. When the battle was over and he landed at what was left of Darwin air base, he discovered that his was the last surviving aircraft of the original 10 and several of his comrades had been killed. Historians have examined Japanese war archives, which are incomplete, and confirmed the details of Lieutenant Oestreicher's exploits. He returned to Darwin for the 40th anniversary, 40 years ago, and was warmly welcomed. The story of Lieutenant Oestreicher is a manifestation of the cooperation of our relationship with the United States, the bonds we forged in the heat of battle and the bonds we continue today.
I rise to speak on the importance of International Women's Day on 8 March and the work the Morrison government has been doing to improve the lives of women. We still have a lot of work to do but we are committed to making record investments in women's safety, economic security, leadership and equality. On leadership, I'm really proud that, in my class of 2019, we had a fifty-fifty induction of women and men into the parliament—without quotas.
Locally, in my community of Lindsay, I'm committed to supporting issues particularly around domestic violence. I delivered funding for specialist domestic violence caseworkers at health centres and had that funding extended. Unfortunately, Penrith consistently ranks as one of the top LGAs in New South Wales when it comes to domestic violence. That is a list no-one wants to be on and we have so much more work to be done.
I've also delivered funding for the PCYC Mums and Bubs program helping local mothers connect and meet through exercise programs and for lighting along the Nepean River to improve safety. I particularly had women and families in mind when I committed this funding as part of an election commitment.
International Women's Day is a day to celebrate how far women's equality has come. But as Nicolle Flint, the member for Boothby, eloquently outlined today in her valedictory speech, the journey surely is not over.
Many people in our Greenway community know exactly who Sue Hunter Lawrence is—whether it is through her role as the head of the Riverstone Schofields Chamber of Commerce, or through her ongoing support of many fundraising campaigns, including Dollars for Dignity, or through her help during the 2021 floods where she coordinated a flood relief furniture and nonperishables drive for those affected. No matter how you know her, I'm sure everyone in our community can agree that Sue is a tireless champion in so many ways. She has rallied for better support for small business and for future planning in one of the fastest-growing areas of Australia. Her advocacy across Sydney's north-west is unmatched. She does it all with an innovative, solutions based approach. For instance, she has her sights set on a green space and town centre in Riverstone and the north-west to boost local businesses and create an even better community.
During the most challenging of times for local businesses in an area like ours, which was on the receiving end of the harshest restrictions in the state, Sue was there for our businesses and our people. This year, on Australia Day, Sue was rightfully recognised for all of this as the Blacktown City Council Citizen of the Year. What a worthy recipient! On behalf of the people of Greenway: thank you, Sue, for stepping up as one of our best-known local volunteers. Our community would not be what it is without you.
I was perusing the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, as I do on a daily basis, and I came across this article which talked about Sydney's median house prices and the deposit now costing around $320,000. That is more than the cost of a house in some city suburbs and regional markets, including the area I represent in the Riverina. It talked about the fact that a house in Cootamundra, in the south-west slopes of the Riverina electorate, sold the other day for $300,000—a three-bedroom, two-bathroom house with scope to improve.
There's a message here—that is, move to the bush! Heavens knows we need you there! Particularly for those people seeking work there, the unemployment rate in regional Australia is now 3.8 per cent. That's on the back of the policies we have put in place, as Liberals and Nationals, to make sure the regional areas can be their best selves. I've always said about the regions that they're big enough to get a good cup of coffee in but still small enough to care. Indeed, we welcome people to move to country areas, as they have done through the COVID pandemic, knowing that regional areas are the safest and best places to be during this pandemic. Great places to live, affordable housing, friendly people—why wouldn't you want to move to the bush?
Mehdi Ali was 15 years old when he was put in detention. Now he is 24. He came to Australia seeking a better life and he committed no crime. But he spent his 16th birthday, his 18th birthday and his 21st birthday behind bars. People like Mehdi are still being locked up until they break. Children are becoming adults in a cage, all because the Liberals and Labor have a cruel policy of mandatory offshore detention. What kind of country is this, where Mehdi, just one of the 68 detained refugees transferred from Nauru and PNG for medical treatment, is still held in detention after nine years, and where, in compassionate Carlton, at the Park Hotel in my electorate, 28 people are still locked up and caged?
In Senate estimates this week the Australian security agencies, including ASIO, said they had no concerns about those 28 refugees. The only reason these refugees are still being detained is cruelty—cruelty that is used by the government to play politics before an election and to enforce the mandatory offshore detention regime put in place by Labor and continued by the Liberal Party. And there are still over 200 people being held offshore, including Afghan refugees whose families were evacuated to Australia but who the government will not allow to join their loved ones here. As we head towards another election where refugees and asylum seekers will be used as political footballs, please don't forget Mehdi and everyone else locked up. The Greens will keep fighting to close the camps, free the refugees and make Australia the compassionate country we should be.
Our nation's greatest challenge is to resolve the China question. I am deeply concerned about reports that Chinese operatives have sought to infiltrate the Australian Labor Party ahead of this year's federal election.
Opposition members interjecting—
I don't know how to interpret the interjections from across the House. They may not be concerned, but I am. I'm also concerned that the Chinese Communist Party's mouthpiece, the Global Times, has now endorsed Anthony Albanese, the Leader of the Opposition, as our next Prime Minister. Labor retort that they have been acting all along in the spirit of bipartisanship, but, when the Leader of the Opposition criticises the government and then calls for a relationship reset, that is not bipartisanship. When the Leader of the Opposition decides to ask China to stop not all but some coercive measures being inflicted on our nation, that is not bipartisanship. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition calls for greater military cooperation with China, I can assure you that is not bipartisanship. If anything, it is weakness, and it is no wonder the Global Times is backing them in.
Many times I've risen in this House to offer the government a path forward to protect Macarthur's unique koala colony. Tragically, the koala has been declared endangered across much of eastern Australia, and this is a travesty. I welcome the environment minister making this declaration, but this has happened on the coalition's watch. For six years now, as previous environment ministers, including the current Treasurer, will attest, I've been pleading with the government to take this issue seriously. They have not. Instead, the coalition have ignored every offer to work with them in a bipartisan fashion. They've rejected every solution and every request for funding and support. Now we have the government admitting to their failures in spectacular style and still doing nothing. I am very angry about this.
Those opposite have done nothing to protect the koalas in my community, the last disease-free koalas on the fringes of Australia's biggest city, from becoming extinct. Our vibrant colony is living in the Georges River catchment area, facing huge threats from habitat destruction. They've had no support from this government. We need a Twin Rivers national park. They've done nothing. We need to stop land clearing. They've done nothing. They don't listen. They do nothing. They're a fraud. (Time expired)
I've spent a lot of time in this chamber in recent months—indeed, years—speaking about the need to improve mental health services in the regions. Today I take that cause up again, specifically on behalf of young people living in the Barossa. Our government is undertaking the largest single expansion of the headspace network, creating an additional 51 new services and bringing the total number of headspace facilities in the nation to 164 by 2025-26. I'm advocating for the establishment of one of those new headspace centres for the Barossa Valley. The closest headspace facility for the roughly 10,000 young people living in the Gawler and Barossa regions is Edinburgh North, located in Adelaide's northern suburbs, some 45 kilometres away. Waiting times at that facility are up to 28 weeks for any ongoing therapy. Clearly, more services are required.
Like many regional areas of Australia, the Barossa Valley also has long waiting times—reportedly six weeks to access GP appointments required for mental health plans. Even then, access to private psychologists is difficult, with many closing their books due to excessive case loads. I'm fighting for the establishment of a headspace service in the Barossa to service the ever-increasing mental health and wellbeing needs of young people in that community.
I rise today to show some appreciation to ANU student Zoe Logan, who undertook an internship in my office last year. Unfortunately, the pandemic and restrictions meant that Zoe, like many Australians across the country, spent most of her placement working from home. Although she missed out on the hustle and bustle of parliament, the contribution she made to my office was nothing short of outstanding. During her time, Zoe researched the state of health services in Eden-Monaro and concluded that the current level of delivery is unable to provide the level of care required by the community. Whilst this comes as no surprise, Zoe also found the delivery of health services in Eden-Monaro in desperate need of transformation.
In only a matter of months, Zoe did what many across the region wished the government would do. She listened to the community, reviewed what doctors, healthcare workers and residents were saying, and investigated how a range of recommendations could be implemented. Zoe's report noted that the critical GP shortage in Eden-Monaro had significant flow-on effects. The lack of access to essential primary health care impacts the physical wellbeing of residents but also has infrastructural, economic and social implications.
In addition to compiling a very thorough and necessary report into our health services—which I look forward to sharing—Zoe also brightened our office with enthusiasm, excitement and a desire to make a difference. Thank you for your work, Zoe, and I hope to get you into parliament soon.
Our government is committed to lowering taxes. Forty thousand taxpayers across the north-west, the west coast and King Island in the great state of Tasmania are getting tax relief as a result of the Morrison government's policies. We've cut taxes for small businesses to the lowest level in 50 years.
One particular business that's benefitting is De Bruyn's Transport, which is a Tasmanian family owned transport business based Burnie. They've got trucks—lots of them. They've used the federal government's extension of the instant asset write-off to move their vehicle and equipment procurement program forward a complete year. This has enabled them to purchase a new fleet of heavy vehicles.
The new fleet has meant a reduction in maintenance costs, greater fuel efficiencies, a reduction in emissions, better ergonomics and support for their ageing fleet of drivers. It's also helped attract new drivers to the industry and strengthen their bottom line. Their tax savings have also been invested into a new depot in Devonport, creating even more jobs and wealth for the region.
De Bruyn's is one of the largest transport operators in Tasmania, and they're moving forward with confidence. On this side of the House, we understand that, in business, confidence is king. The Morrison government will always have the backs of our small and medium-sized businesses in the great state of Tasmania.
BUTLER () (): The 2020 bushfires were really damaging for Australia's koala populations on the east coast. We know that to be the case. Yet, it wasn't until two years after those fires started that the minister finally received advice on whether to uplist to increase the protection status of the koala. For some unexplained reason, it wasn't until three months later that she actually announced the decision to uplist the koala from vulnerable to endangered. But why would we expect anything better from this government other than delay, obfuscation and failure? In fact, this government is the government that has actually managed—you wouldn't believe it—to fail to produce a koala threatened species recovery plan.
This recovery plan is more than six years overdue. In that time, the koala protection status has been uplisted. It is an absolute disgrace that this government's failures in relation to the environment are being visited upon our iconic national treasure, the koala, but also on so many other threatened species that this country is failing to protect under the leadership of the Morrison-Joyce government. It's about time they stepped up, did the right thing and took real action to protect koalas and all threatened species, as our country deserves.
This morning the House witnessed a valedictory from a highly talented, progressive young woman, my friend and fellow Whip, member for Boothby, Nicolle Flint. Nicolle will be remembered for the many things she's done in this place over the last six years, perhaps most notably for her campaign on endometriosis, which has now established a national action plan.
Nicolle has been a strong and intelligent voice in the parliament. She was a journalist and a solicitor before she came to the ranks through the Young Liberals. She has committed one sin, it seems, and that is that she is a strong woman that comes from the Right. She has been attacked mercilessly in her period in office. Hideous bullying and vilification from GetUp, which started in the 2019 election, continues today. The people who conduct these attacks are creatures of the gutter. Today, she stood and defended other women in public positions from the Left and the Right and in the media. I think it is a great failure of this place that those women from the Left who speak out in defence of their own have not come and shouted down those who have thrown rocks at Nicolle Flint.
NDIS participants are having the money that's meant to provide them with dignity and choice slashed by this government. In a tricky and sneaky move, participants are looking at their new plans, seeing a dollar figure and thinking, 'That's about the same as last year, so that's okay.' But then they're reading on to see that they have to make that money last two or even three years. Children with autism, cancer survivors and people with cerebral palsy are among the targets.
While my team can get a resolution on some cases, too often people are forced to take the legal path, which is a slow and expensive process, involving more assessments from therapists, not to mention the cost of legal representation. It can be 100 days from appealing to having an initial hearing. One mum took me through the saga of a top-tier law firm working for the NDIA asking her son's therapist to submit every note they'd ever made on him without making clear who would read or assess that material. The psychologist had to engage a lawyer to make sure that she was following her legal obligations while protecting the child's privacy. It's a farce and, quite frankly, torture for well-equipped and resourced parents, but it is beyond the reach of so many people, who are missing out on what is fair. As the mum said, 'Wouldn't it have been cheaper just to give my non-verbal, intellectually disabled son his funding to start with?'
NDS () (): It's very clear to me that the biggest threat to Australia's security and the safety of Australians is the Leader of the Opposition and his very good mate the member for Melbourne. Last time Labor were in government, they were in bed with the Greens and, together, they cut Defence spending to its lowest level since 1938. And now, as they look to rekindle their love affair and weave friendship bracelets together, their plan is clear—rinse and repeat. The Greens have already announced that they will cut our Defence spending in half. The Greens also don't believe in protecting our borders, and they have a fellow traveller in the Leader of the Opposition. This is a Leader of the Opposition who proudly declared in between shedding tears for Kevin Rudd—what a loss that was!—and declaring that he wanted to fight Tories that he could never personally turn back a boat. He's a Leader of the Opposition that when he was last in government was part of a team that cut funding to ASIO, the AFP and the Criminal Intelligence Commission. Along with cutting funding to Defence, it cut funding to every major organisation that keeps Australians safe.
The member for Melbourne proudly produces his videos outlining how he would dictate terms to a Labor government and how he would play with them like a puppet master. At a time of increasing global threat and uncertainty, Labor and the Greens would together endanger Australians.
I want to thank the members of the Defence Force and law enforcement community in my electorate. They have my support. The Leader of the Opposition may have the support of the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party, but he doesn't deserve the support of Australians.
This is how the Morrison government treats community centres in my electorate. The Langwarrin Community Centre, literally the heart of the Langwarrin community, do their work on the smell of an oily rag. Their childcare services were hit pretty hard in 2020, as many in my electorate were. They were encouraged by this government to waive gap fees and they did, because they care about the families that they look after. They were assured by this Morrison government, particularly when it ripped away JobKeeper from childcare workers, that their childcare subsidy was guaranteed, even when children weren't attending or not permitted to attend because of lockdowns. They took the guarantee at face value.
It turns out they shouldn't have. It was just another hollow promise. Because of problems with the government's own system, Services Australia improperly took $10,000 away from the Langwarrin Community Centre. After almost a year of trying to get that back, they had to come to me for help. We got half of it back from Minister Tudge. But do you know what the slap in the face was? This Morrison government wants my community centre to collect debts from their own struggling families that exist because of Minister Tudge's inadequate supervision of his department. It's outrageous. This community centre serves people who are in need, and this government wants to turn it into a debt collector. Shame!
Today marks the 80th anniversary of the Bangka Island Massacre. Earlier today I visited the Australian Service Nurses National Memorial on Anzac Parade. Eighty years ago this week, the SS Vyner Brooke, a 1,670-ton cargo vessel, fled Singapore a day before the city fell to the Japanese. The Vyner Brooke had 181 passengers, including 65 Australian nurses. Off Bangka Island in the Bangka Strait, the Vyner Brooke was attacked by Japanese aircraft and was sunk. Over the course of the next two days, some 150 people eventually made it ashore to Radji Beach. They were sunburnt, they were dehydrated and they were exhausted. The survivors surrendered to the Japanese, expecting fair treatment as they were mostly noncombatants. It was not to be.
On this day 80 years ago, a terrible war crime took place. The men and women were separated. The men were shot and bayoneted, and the women, including 22 Australian nurses, were made to wade into the sea and then machine-gunned from behind. The sole survivor, Sister Vivian Bullwinkel, later said about the brave women who walked into that sea:
They all knew what was going to happen to them but no one panicked. They just marched ahead with their chins up.
We now know of this atrocity because Sister Bullwinkel, though hit by a bullet, played dead and she survived. She hid along with another survivor, a wounded British soldier, Private Patrick Kingsley. After 12 days, Sister Bullwinkel and Private Kingsley surrendered again, choosing the risk of execution over the certainty of starvation. Private Kingsley died from his wounds shortly thereafter. Sister Bullwinkel became a prisoner of war for 3½ years, and it was during this time that Sister Bullwinkel did something absolutely extraordinarily brave: she kept and hid the bloodstained uniform that had been pierced by a bullet. Had the uniform been found and its significance understood, certainly it would have meant death for her. The uniform she had worn on that day, with its bullet hole, now stays on display at the Australian War Memorial. It is a national treasure held in trust for all generations. It was that very piece of evidence that was presented to the war crimes tribunal.
In the Hall of Memory at the Australian War Memorial, there are 15 stained-glass windows depicting defence force personnel. The windows stand watch over the shrine of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. One of those windows represents a nurse, and on it there is one word: 'Devotion'. Today on this anniversary we remember all who were killed: the service personnel, the civilians and especially the nurses, who call to mind the thousands of Australian nurses who have served Australia in conflicts. We remember their devotion to their patients, to their country and to their duty, and I have no doubt their great example of sacrifice, duty, service, love, care and compassion is exactly what has motivated the thousands upon thousands of nurses who have served the Australian community so faithfully and in such a dedicated way over the course of this pandemic. There could be no greater tribute to Sister Bullwinkel than the service that has been shown by our nurses over these past two years of the pandemic. But to all of those who were killed on that dreadful day and all of those who have served: lest we forget.
'Marched into the water at Bangka to be machine-gunned in the back': there are many details in the Sydney Morning Herald original report on the Bangka massacre, but it is perhaps this line, unvarnished, unadorned, that jars the most. The brutal murder of 22 Australian nurses and a civilian woman on Radji Beach 80 years ago still shocks us.
They were fleeing the Fall of Singapore with British servicemen only for their ship to be sunk by Japanese bombers. Washed up on the Indonesian island of Bangka, they were at the mercy of a ruthless enemy. Japanese soldiers took away the men and killed them, and then they murdered the women. These were not troops who had taken up arms against them but members of the most selfless, humane profession that we can imagine. As they waded into the surf and the fate that they knew awaited them, matron Irene Melville Drummond called out, 'Cheer up, girls. I'm proud of you, and I love you all.' Their courage is beyond imagining. They stood tall until the moment in which they fell, and yet one survived.
Shot but alive, Vivian Bullwinkel played dead among those from whom life had just been so savagely torn. She eventually surrendered to a Japanese patrol because even after all that had happened Ms Bullwinkel knew that was her one chance of survival. She spent over three years in a prison camp, but survive she did. Vivian Bullwinkel then took the truth to the world. She took it to the families. She took it to the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. As she explained:
I have tried so hard all this time to drive these scenes from my mind.
And yet she was resolute:
This story is one that must be told everywhere …
She was the only one who could, even when it must have been just so difficult. When Holocaust survivor Primo Levi performed his final weighing up of the burden of the witness, he turned to 'The Rime of the Ancient Mariner':
Since then, at an uncertain hour,
That agony returns;
And till my ghastly tale is told,
This heart within me burns.
Historians would later say that Ms Bullwinkel wasn't able to tell her full story—that the nurses were raped before they were killed. Ms Bullwinkel was directed by the military to not reveal that detail in order to protect the families of those victims. But Vivian Bullwinkel kept bearing witness, and she kept honouring the profession that they had all served together. Indeed, as Vivian Statham, she became the matron of Melbourne's Fairfield Infectious Diseases Hospital and helped turn it into a teaching hospital.
Today we think of the brave nurses working with this dreadful infectious disease that the world is dealing with at the moment and their bravery on all of our behalf.
Through her survival, so many more lives would be saved through her ongoing contribution as a nurse. Throughout it all, she made sure her friends who didn't come home would never be forgotten, a great Australian who we once again honour here today. Lest we forget.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In Senate estimates today the minister for aged-care services said, 'I don't accept that deaths in the community or deaths in aged care is an indicator' of his performance as a minister. Seven hundred and forty-three people have died of COVID in aged care this year alone. Does the Prime Minister agree with his minister that he is performing well?
Since the beginning of this year, as of 15 February, 711 people have died in residential aged-care facilities. Deaths reported in residential aged-care facilities in total to 9 February of this year is 5,728. Every single life that has been lost to this virus, whether here or around the world, is a terrible tragedy for the families affected by those deaths. That is one of the objectives that our government, working with other governments around the country, have worked tirelessly to seek to minimise through the course of this pandemic, and we will continue to do that. The work that we've done and the additional supports that we've put in place, which indeed have been supported by the minister for aged-care services, led by the minister for aged care, who is in this House, have been there to ensure that Australia, when compared with other countries around the world, have had one of the lowest rates of fatalities from COVID, including in residential aged-care facilities. And so I say this: while we mourn the loss of those who have passed away in aged care, who have had COVID when they've passed away, as the Chief Medical Officer has been at pains to point out, passing away with COVID is not the same as passing away because of COVID.
Opposition members interjecting—
Those opposite may interject on that, but that is the medical advice which has been provided by the Chief Medical Officer. But I would say this, that for every life that has been lost, which we grieve, we give great thanks for the many thousands of lives that have been saved by the actions of our aged-care workers; our aged-care providers; the actions of healthcare workers across the system, the nurses, the government officials; and indeed the policy leadership that has been provided by the government, including the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the minister for aged-care services. So, if those opposite wish to use these issues for political exploitation, that is a matter for them. We will continue to get on with the job of saving as many lives as we have over the course of this pandemic.
My question goes to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please outline to the House why it is important not to appease or be intimidated from calling out those countries that seek to coerce and bully others; and how has the Morrison government led the way in not being intimidated, by standing up to bullying and coercion, including our region; and what has been the response to the government's approach?
I thank the member for his question and his concern on these matters. The Australian government remains deeply concerned about the ongoing threats of terrible violence against the people of Ukraine from Russia, a country that faces no threat from Ukraine whatsoever, yet they face these terrible threats of intimidation and violence. Russia must unconditionally withdraw. There cannot be any dividend or concession provided in the name of appeasement to Russia. That is the view of my government.
Cyberattacks have been reported to be undertaken on the Ukraine, on its government, on its defence forces and, indeed, on its banks, and those reports run counter to the reports of suggestions of pullback, which are unconvincing and unconfirmed. President Biden said this:
If Russia attacks Ukraine, it will be met with overwhelming international condemnation. The world will not forget that Russia chose needless death and destruction.
There is one significant global power that pretends to international leadership that remains silent and even complicit when it comes to condemning the actions and the threats of violence and intimidation by Russia, and that is the Chinese government. That is deeply concerning to those who live here in the Indo-Pacific region. We have warned about these issues for some time, and as a government we have taken strong action to stand up to any coercion and any threats that have been levelled at Australia. We have been criticised for doing that as a government, including by those opposite. We have been further targeted as a country because of the strong stand that we have made, but we have also earned the great respect of nations around the world, such as those in Europe and the United States. They have seen what Australia has done, and they have been impressed by our resolve and our resistance.
My government will never be the preferred partner of a foreign government that has chosen to intimidate this country and has sought to threaten this country. They will not find a fellow traveller when it comes to threats and coercion against Australia in my government. I will never be their candidate.
My question is to the Prime Minister. This year alone, 743 residents have died of COVID in aged care. Tens of thousands are not getting the care they need. This comes two years after the release of a royal commission report entitled, simply, Neglect. The aged-care system is in crisis. Aren't all these things indicators that the minister for aged care services should be sacked today?
To respectfully correct the member, this year, as the Prime Minister set out, sadly, we've lost 711 residents in aged care in Australia. And, as the secretary to the department has indicated in various discussions before the Senate, each life lost, no matter what the circumstances anywhere in the country, is one which we grieve deeply. We are aware, based on the very latest data that we have, that approximately 58 per cent of those were previously in palliative care. We feel for them, and we thank the families and all of those who have worked to protect them.
In terms of Australia's actions, we are thankful for the work of our nurses and our carers who have helped to deliver one of the lowest rates of loss of life in residential aged care in the world. And I think that that is a very important point. On the latest figures I have, Australia's—
The minister for health will resume his seat. The member for Hotham on a point of order.
Speaker, it's on relevance. The question was to the Prime Minister because it relates to the performance of his completely incompetent minister for aged care services. The minister answering the question cannot go to this point of who leads this sector for the country.
What's the point of order, I'm sorry?
The point of order is on relevance, Speaker. This is about the performance of the minister and whether he should retain his job. That is not a question for the Minister for Health and Aged Care. It is a question for the leader of this country: the Prime Minister.
No. All members in this House would know that the Prime Minister is able to direct a question to the appropriate minister. The minister has the call.
Perhaps the most germane of facts is to understand what has happened in Australia during the global pandemic compared to the rest of the world. In Ireland, the rate of loss of life is sadly 331 per cent of that in Australia. In France, it's 543 per cent. In Canada, it's 633 per cent. In the USA, it's 668 per cent. In Spain, it's 698 per cent. In the UK, it's 879 per cent. In Belgium, it's 1,291 per cent. All of these are fine countries doing the finest work they can, compassionately, to protect their citizens. They have faced a global pandemic and each of those countries has saved lives. In Australia, more lives have been saved on that comparative basis than in all of those which I set out.
We've done that through a series of actions. Firstly, beginning with the borders, there's been testing, tracing and distancing. But, in addition to that, there have been the specific measures within aged care. These have been difficult measures. Indeed, we have a 99 per cent vaccination rate amongst staff. Contrary to what has been put by some, we have a 92 per cent vaccination rate amongst residents and an 86.4 per cent vaccination rate amongst residents eligible for boosters. In addition to that, in this year alone over 50 million units of PPE have been made available. There's support for staff with our retention bonuses. In terms of residential aged-care facilities and rapid antigen tests, 13.9 million tests have been provided directly and another over nine million tests have been provided through the pensioner concession scheme. (Time expired)
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison-Joyce government is supporting Australian agriculture and future-proofing our agricultural supply chains? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any threats to these supply chains or any alternative policies?
I thank the honourable member for her question and note how in the seat of Mallee ,with legumes, canola, wheat and so many citrus products, the people of her area have done their part in not only feeding Australia but assisting in the food task of the world.
A key component of that is urea, which is a vital fertiliser. Eighty per cent of the urea Australia uses comes from China. But this government has put $255 million on the table for the construction of a urea plant at Karratha. This will provide about 96 per cent of Australia's urea needs. This is an absolute statement on the preparedness of this side of the House to keep the sovereignty of our agricultural industry in place.
The member for Mallee also talks of alternative policies and threats. Of course, what we have seen is that an alternative government is a Greens and Labor alliance. They mock it, but actually, in this very city, we have a Greens and Labor alliance. We have the fact that the Chief Minister, Andrew Barr, is in the Labor Party, and yet the Attorney-General, Shane Rattenbury, is in the Greens. We have Emma Davidson, an assistant minister, in the Greens. Another assistant minister, Tara Cheyne, is in the Labor Party. The environment minister, Rebecca Vassarotti, is in the Greens, but the transport minister, Chris Steel, is in the Labor Party. So let's part company with this myth that there is not a Greens and Labor alliance.
We have Senator Katy Gallagher in the other place, who has never organised a business, but she has been a leader and organised a Greens and Labor alliance. It is present not only in this city; it is present in this building—a Greens and Labor alliance.
The Deputy Prime Minister will just pause for one moment. The question goes to threats to supply chains. It does talk about alternative policies, but I think the Deputy Prime Minister is straying somewhat and I would ask him to return to the question.
Thank you, Speaker, and I'll say why: because the Greens believe in a moratorium on the production of gas. You cannot produce urea with just nitrogen and water; you need gas, nitrogen and water to produce urea. If you have a Greens-Labor alliance such as exists in this very city or such as existed in Tasmania, you will have the inability for our nation not only to feed the world but to feed ourselves.
Honourable members interjecting—
Just before I call the member for Gorton: the interjections are too high in the chamber, particularly from the member for Cooper. You look so innocent, but I'm sure it's coming from you.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Nine days ago, the Prime Minister announced 1,700 Defence personnel would be deployed into aged-care homes. The Department of Health has admitted that, of the 1,700 promised, only 106 personnel have been deployed. When the lives of aged-care residents are at stake, why won't the Prime Minister do his job and deliver what he promised?
At this point in time, as of today, there are 133 Defence personnel who are—
Honourable members interjecting—
I can't hear the minister for health.
There are 133 Defence personnel who have been deployed to assist in aged care. That includes 116 ADF personnel who are supporting the aged-care sector and 17 ADF personnel who are deployed as ADF aged-care support planning and coordination teams. Of those, 35 are currently providing clinical support: seven in New South Wales, 10 in Victoria, eight in South Australia and ten in Queensland. Eighty-one are currently providing general duties support. Seventeen, as I mentioned, are providing coordination in the ACT.
That means that, at this stage, there are 25 aged care facilities that have been directly supported on the basis of the very terms which the Prime Minister set out: those which are facing a significant, clear and present threat to the capacity to carry on operations. Nineteen are currently being staffed, with six of them having had their duties completed. Those include Greens Care Community in Murwillumbah; Ron Middleton VC Gardens in North Richmond; RSL LifeCare Tura Beach; Dorothy Impey Home in Pascoe Vale; Anzac Lodge Nursing Home in Coburg; Coptic Village Hostel in Hallam; McGregor Gardens in Pakenham; Mercy Place Ave Maria Shepparton; Mercy Place Shepparton; Bairnsdale Parklands Care Community in Bairnsdale; Embracia Moonee Valley in Avondale Heights; Churches of Christ in Cardwell; the Good Shepherd in Townsville; Blue Care Alexandra Hills in Brisbane; Cabanda Care in Rosewood; Tanunda Lutheran Home in Tanunda; Ridleyton Greek Home in Brompton; Ananda Aged Care Hope Valley in South Australia; and Juniper Cygnet in Bentley, Western Australia.
In addition to that, we see that the ADF has played a significant role throughout the course of the pandemic. That role includes the support work which was done in relation to previous outbreaks. We have over the course of recent weeks been able to support Victoria with ambulance drivers and with the transport of passengers. In addition to that, they have been assisting with the dispatch of deliveries from the National Medical Stockpile. That National Medical Stockpile has seen supplies go to all aged-care facilities in Australia to assist, whether it is with the rapid antigen test program—where, as I mentioned before, 13.9 million tests have been dispatched—or whether it's in relation to the now over 50 million units of PPE which have been provided all up.
It is a well-known matter of fact and record that the government also offered the Victorian government the use of the ADF to assist with the hotel quarantine program. Unfortunately, that was not taken up.
My question is to the Prime Minister. This week in estimates, government officials confirmed that projections for emissions from the enormous Beetaloo methane gas basin have increased by a whopping 5,000 per cent, and this is before any of the gas is even burnt. Prime Minister, why are you continuing to push ahead with this giant climate bomb? If the 114 new coal and gas mines proposed by Liberal and Labor government go ahead, we will blow any chance of meeting even your weak climate targets, so will you back the Greens' call for a moratorium on new coal and gas mines?
The answer from my government is no. The answer we would find out if there were a Labour government is, 'We'll tell you later.' We'll tell you later—after they've sat down with the Greens and sought to negotiate the formation of a government. That Greens and Labor alliance is the 'galah party'—the Greens and Labour alliance.
The Prime Minister will return to the question, please.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I ask the minister for resources to add further to my answer.
To reiterate the Prime Minister's position, we are not closing coal, oil and gas projects in this country. We are not. With regards to the emissions piece that the member has raised, this is pretty straightforward. The Beetaloo Basin is not currently online. For those who know anything about the resources actor, you will know that these projects and these basins deplete over time. That is why we must have a pipeline of projects in this country to make sure we can continue to supply gas, not only for our domestic consumption but to meet our international contracts.
We only have to look at what happened in the recent pandemic. This country maintained its reputation as a reliable supplier. In fact, it exceeded all expectations, by delivering on contracts, meeting its commitments and providing resources and energy to its trading partners, which has kept the lights on, not just here but right around the world—in South Korea, in Japan and in other countries where we have trade agreements and contracts which we have met. I say to those opposite, and I say to the member asking the question—
The member for Melbourne, on a point of order?
The point of order is on relevance. We're more than halfway through the question. The question was about climate, and I thought the government might at least like to mention climate change once.
The question specifically went to the Beetaloo Basin. The minister is addressing that and the minister is relevant.
Thank you Mr Speaker. I will come to the question the member has put. We have reduced emissions by 20 per cent! No-one else has done that—not those opposite and no-one before us. Emissions are down by 20 per cent. I say to the member for Melbourne: we are taking a balanced position. We are delivering for our nation not only in terms of the economy and jobs but by making sure we have a reliable and affordable supply not only of gas but of electricity for this country. Can you imagine where we would be if the member for Melbourne and the Greens teamed up with those opposite to implement that policy? $500 billion worth of investment would be lost. That is the cost. This is what has been put forward by the member for Melbourne and the Greens, a policy where they would not allow any future coal, oil or gas production and no new projects in this country. Eighty thousand jobs and $500 billion of investment would be lost. And it would be supported by those opposite.
The minister is entitled to compare and contrast, but there was no part of the question in relation to alternative approaches. I would ask the minister to return to the question.
Of course, Mr Speaker. Going back to the Beetaloo, what we know as the Beetaloo Basin is one of the biggest gas developments in the world. It will drive billions of dollars of investment in the Northern Territory, thousands of jobs for Australians and continue to deliver for our economy. This is how we pay for roads and schools and hospitals. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House why the Morrison government's proven record of keeping taxes low will always be a priority for the members of this side of the House, and is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Herbert for his question and acknowledge his distinguished service in uniform on behalf of our country and also his support for lower taxes. These are being used by businesses in Townsville—Fair Dinkum Builds has bought a couple of scissor lifts with the benefit of our immediate expensing provisions. We on this side of the House have cut taxes for families. We on the side of the House have cut taxes for small business down to the lowest level in 50 years, and we have put in place record business investment incentives through our tax system. But we have been opposed every step of the way by a Greens-Labor coalition and by a Labor leader who has never delivered a budget and never held a Treasury portfolio and who thinks tabling his high-school essay is good enough credentials to run a $2 trillion economy.
The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
The point of order is on relevance. The question that was asked of the Treasurer essentially went to the government's own tax record. He couldn't sustain an answer on that for more than 45 seconds, which in part is because this is the second-highest taxing government in our country's history.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The deputy leader knows that there is no set time frame that a member or minister needs to talk to in the three minutes. The Treasurer did refer to government tax policy and then was dealing with alternative approaches. The Treasurer has the call.
This Leader of the Opposition can't be trusted to implement our legislated tax cuts for families, because he described them as 'tax cuts for the top end of town'. This Leader of the Opposition can't be trusted to deliver lower taxes to the Australian people because he supported a carbon tax, a mining tax, a congestion tax, a retirees tax, a housing tax, higher taxes on super, higher taxes on income earners and a family business tax. And, of course, he has supported death duties and an inheritance tax.
But it's not just the Greens who are supporting his call for an inheritance tax; it's also his comrades in the union movement. Less than six months ago the ACTU put out their tax plan. There it is, in all its glory, on page 2, calling for an inheritance tax. Why is this important? Because the Leader of the Opposition has said—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. I hope this is a valid point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
There's a requirement that members be referred to by their title. He is referring to someone who brought in death duties when he should be referring to the member for Mackellar. He is the only person who has been arguing for it!
Honourable members interjecting—
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Once again, the level of interjections is far too high. I think the only people who can hear what is being said are those watching on television, because they have a direct feed through the microphone. The Treasurer has the call.
As we know, the Greens and the Labor Party have been in coalition in the past, and the Greens today are calling for an inheritance tax. But also the unions are calling for an inheritance tax. Why is this relevant? Because this Leader of the Opposition has said 'successful Labor governments collaborate with the unions'. This is their tax policy. This is the ACTU's tax policy. That's the troika the Australian people will get. If the Labor Party ever get their chance to sit on the treasury bench, you will get Labor, the Greens and the ACTU in cahoots, promising higher taxes and death duties.
My question is to the Treasurer. Yesterday the Treasurer told the House that he was concerned that political donations weren't being disclosed. Can the Treasurer confirm his Kooyong 200 Club raised $1.1 million in donations last financial year but named no individual donors in its AEC return? Why didn't he refer to this failure to disclose in his answer yesterday?
Opposition members interjecting—
Order. The Leader of the House on a point of order.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I see you've already gone to the relevant page, but it's clearly not within the Treasurer's responsibility. It's not a question that can be asked of him under the standing orders, and it should be ruled out of order.
The Manager of Opposition Business on the point of order.
To the point of order—
Opposition members interjecting—
Government members interjecting—
Can you just pause one moment?
Sure.
Opposition members interjecting—
Government members interjecting—
Two more days to go, but who's counting? The Manager of Opposition Business on the point of order.
Thanks, Mr Speaker. It has long been the case that issues which are normally not allowed to be asked of ministers, the door is opened when they give answers on the same topic. It has frequently been the case where we've had ministers, for example—there was a long precedence with the previous Speaker, where there's a normal prohibition on someone not being able to be asked about a previous portfolio. If they give a long answer when they're asked about a statement that they've issued, we've been allowed to continue to penetrate and ask questions about those answers. Had the Treasurer not given the answer he gave yesterday, I agree, this would be completely out of order. But yesterday, the Treasurer opened the door wide to the question of whether or not people are disclosing donations. He decided to lead with his chin, he's opened the door wide and we are simply asking him about that answer yesterday.
The Manager of Opposition Business, if you'd like to take me to the relevant part of the Practice that supports that proposition, I'm happy to look at it. Do you want to take me to the relevant part of the Practice?
Do I have the call?
Yes.
So you're saying that unless I come up with the correct page in a 700-page book right now, you're going to overrule a precedent that we've been using in this House since Federation?
Let me just say on this—
I'm happy to go and start finding the page, but really!
The Manager of Opposition Business is dangerously close to reflecting on the chair. You're asking me to rule on something—
Yes, but you—sorry, do I have the call?
You're asking me to rule on something—
Yes.
and I'm asking you what you're relying on.
If I have a call, I will respond. I won't respond without the call.
I'm sorry; I can't hear you.
I was saying I won't respond unless you give me the call.
The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
Thank you. Mr Speaker, when you were a private member in this place, you sat in this chamber as this precedent was being used. You have sat here, time after time, when a minister has been challenged, and, in particular, this has happened where they've held a previous portfolio. And in each of the questions—
Government members interj ecting—
Members on my right, I need to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
In each of the questions that have been asked by the opposition, they have always had the same form of the first line, which is referring to the previous answers. If that line's not there, the ruling has always been the question is out of order. But if the question that follows does refer specifically to previous answers, it has been in order. It has been a practice that we've been following.
I'll allow the question, but I will have a closer look at it overnight. But I will allow the question. The Treasurer has the call.
We adhere to the relevant rules, but my comments yesterday were about the member for Warringah and the $100,000 donation from people linked to coal companies and the absolute hypocrisy of the Independents. The reality is that a vote for the Independents is a vote for the Labor Party, and that is because the Independents include former members of the Labor Party including in my electorate in the seat of Kooyong. They claim to be a cleanskin, but they're former members of the ALP. And when the Independents come into this place, they vote for the Labor Party, so the fact of the matter is that a vote for the Independents is a vote for Labor.
The Treasurer will resume his seat.
Speaker—
The Treasurer has concluded his answer.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the Morrison government's tax cuts and tax incentives are generating jobs in my electorate of Robertson and around Australia? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Robertson for her question, and I acknowledge her strong support for small business in her electorate, like the Daily Dough Co. Emma, at 18 years of age, lost her job during the middle of the pandemic. She went on to start up a small business—a doughnut-making company that makes 2,000 doughnuts a day, which now employs 40 people and has used our immediate expensing provisions to buy a van to expand its business. That is a wonderful story of resilience during this pandemic and of small business having a go and getting a go.
Our tax cuts have provided people with more of their hard-earned money as a result of their efforts. It has recognised their aspiration; it has rewarded their aspiration. It has supported small businesses. It's backing them when they back themselves with these investment incentives. That is our track record: cutting taxes. That is our policy; that is what we believe in. The same can't be said for those opposite. Because this Leader of the Opposition, who has never delivered a budget and has never held a Treasury portfolio, has stood for higher taxes his whole career. He described our tax cuts for families as being for 'the top end of town'. He stood by the member for McMahon when the member for McMahon told the Australian people: 'If you don't like our $387 billion of higher taxes, don't vote for us.'
This Leader of the Opposition supported a retirees tax, a housing tax, higher taxes on super, higher taxes on income earners and a family business tax. Now we know that he has also supported an inheritance tax, and he's been supported by the Greens and he's been supported by the unions. But the Leader of the Opposition, in advocating for an inheritance tax, has even been supported by someone on his own side—a person that the Leader of the Opposition has described as 'a first-class economist'. Who could it have been who wrote a paper titled Bring back the inheritance tax? Who could it have been on the other side who said 'bring back the inheritance tax'? Who was it? It was the comrade from Fenner—the original Bolshevik—who, like the Leader of the Opposition, has advocated for higher taxes and who, like the Leader of the Opposition, has advocated for $387 billion of higher taxes on the Australian people. Only this side of the House will deliver lower taxes and more jobs
My question is to the Prime Minister. I ask: does the Prime Minister have confidence in his education minister?
The matters relating to the Minister for Education and Youth I have been taking extremely seriously. Members will be aware of the independent process established with Vivienne Thom. The matter is in process and it has not concluded. In fairness to all involved in this matter, it would not be appropriate to make further comment at this time.
My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on steps the Morrison government is taking to safeguard Australia amid a deteriorating global security environment by working with strategic partners and allies, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for her question and acknowledge her own family's history and contribution to this country and to the security of this country. The security of this country is more important than ever given, as the dire situation unfolds in Ukraine, we are seeing in the Indo-Pacific the build-up of missiles and nuclear weapons by the Chinese government. This is a very serious time, and we as a country need to be in a position of strength to work with our allies, to invest appropriately and to make sure that we can take the decisions that will allow us to keep our country safe not only today but in the decades ahead.
This government announced the AUKUS agreement as a key part of the defence of our nation and a very important part in the deterrence of any aggressor who would seek to take action against Australia. The declaration is a clear one from our country, from the United Kingdom and from the United States that we stand as one against aggression and coercion. We don't believe that the alliance between China and Russia is in the world's best interests, and we will continue to take decisions on and make investments in our Australian Defence Force to keep us safe.
There are many people who opposed AUKUS, and I think it is important for people, when I'm asked about alternative approaches, to understand the difference between the sides of the House. Our side built up the investment in Defence after Labor cut it to its lowest level since 1938. We have invested in our relationships. AUKUS is a result of that. It's designed specifically to keep our country safe.
People are asking, 'What would the other side of politics bring if they were elected at the next election?' It's a fair question to ask. If you want to know what an Albanese-Bandt government would do after the next election, what a Labor-Greens Alliance would do—it's an important question—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
The point of order is on the basis of relevance. Obviously the assertion that has just been made there is not true and can't be relevant. The only relevant answer to this question has got to be the failure of this government on submarines—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Minister for Defence is being relevant to the question.
If you ask yourself, 'Why when in government last time did Labor rip money from the Australian Defence Force and take it away from our troops?', in part, it was because of the pressures they put on themselves through the relationship with the Greens. At least the Greens are honest about taking money from defence before an election. The Labor Party always do it after the election. They tell you before the election that they are no different to the coalition, that they will just power on and keep support going. They never do it when they're in government.
We know that the Greens recently announced their policy in relation to AUKUS. The Greens have announced today that, if they have a balance of power after the next election—that is, if they are in a coalition—they will 'push to boldly reform our defence force to ensure a peace focused approach is prioritised', reduce spending to one per cent and break the AUKUS agreement— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the minister for education's name has been taken off his door? Did this happen before or after there was a discussion in cabinet about him being sacked?
The Leader of the House, on a point of order?
The Prime Minister is responsible for the economic management of this country, for national security, for guiding our country through a pandemic, for many things, but he is not responsible—I'm sorry to inform the member—for sign writing or for placement of door names in this building. That might come as a shock to this undergraduate member, who has never troubled the frontbench. This question cannot be in order.
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business, if you want to be heard on it. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
There's only one minister whose name has been removed from their office door. If the Prime Minister wants to say, in his answer—
The Manager of Opposition Business is not making a point of order. He is speaking to the point of order. I'm giving the Manager of Opposition Business an opportunity to respond. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
It's the advice from the Prime Minister's office and from the Prime Minister that causes the parliament to put the names of ministers on doors. If it's just a coincidence that, of all the ministers, it just happens to be the minister for education who's been disappeared in this way, then that can be the answer.
I think I've heard the Manager of Opposition Business sufficiently; a valiant effort as it was. The question is out of order. It's not within the Prime Minister's purview. I will give the call to the member for Braddon.
I have an important question for the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is defending Australia's trade interests in the global rules based trading system, and is the minister aware of any alternative arrangements?
I thank the member for Braddon for his question. His electorate exports out of Australia right around the world, and he understands how important our trade policy is. Our trade policy has been proactive, it's been principled, and it's been patient. It's those three Ps that we've adopted because they're an important way for us to conduct our trade policy. We've had nine FTAs concluded since we came to government. That's taken the amount of trade covered by FTAs from 27 per cent to 75 per cent, with the conclusion of the UK FTA. We have been principled because, when you're standing up for your exporters, you have to take a principled stand. You can't be wishy-washy. You have to take a principled stand. That's exactly what we've done when we've stood up for our exporters, especially when they have faced economic coercion. And we've been patient because, when you are going to get reform of the World Trade Organisation, you have to make sure that you can work with other countries, take the time, and get the reform that you need.
I've been asked about alternative policies. The first approach that I've heard from those opposite is the forked tongue policy. This is when you're having a bet each way. When you're asked about our current trade disputes with China and how you would resolve them, what do you say? 'I would like China to withdraw some of the actions that are being taken to stop Australian products going to China'—the Leader of the Opposition. So is it our rock lobster fisheries in Western Australia, our barley growers in South Australia, our beef producers in Queensland?
Who misses out? We need to know, from the Leader of the Opposition. You can't have a bet each way when it comes to these policies.
Then the other approach—and this is a beauty too!—is the Labor-Greens unity ticket policy. Surprise, surprise. Guess what the Greens want to do if they're in coalition with Labor at the next election. They want to review each one of our FTAs. And guess what the current policy of the Labor Party is when it comes to our FTAs. They want to review every single one of our FTAs. You're not focused on negotiating new ones. You're not out there focusing on what you would do with India. They're there saying they would renegotiate all our FTAs. You know what that means. That means you would put in jeopardy every one of our exporters by renegotiating those FTAs that now cover 75 per cent of our exports.
I'll send out a general request from the chair: I know there is a natural desire to want to address members on your side, but it's helpful when ministers talk into the microphone.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Last night 10 news revealed the Prime Minister plans to sack the education minister after parliament rises this week. Can the Prime Minister confirm his government is falling down around him with cabinet leaks, damaging text message leaks and even the sacking of ministers now being leaked to undermine the Prime Minister?
I have no intention of responding in relation to inaccurate reports in the media. I've been taking the matter that the member refers to extremely seriously, and I don't think it's a matter that should be trivialised in the way that those opposite are seeking to do. The matter is in progress; it has not concluded. I think it is only reasonable and fair to all those, including the minister and others who are involved in this matter, that I not make any further comment on that process until it is concluded.
I've been asked more generally about matters. What our government is focused on is three very important things. The first is keeping our economy strong in the middle of a one-in-100-year pandemic. Our economy, with the unemployment rate going to below four per cent for the first time in 50 years, with some 1.1 million jobs created since the pandemic hit, with some 11.5 million Australians benefiting from tax relief, with some 700,000 jobs saved specifically through JobKeeper—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
It goes to relevance. The question did go to a serious issue: the issue of the leaking of cabinet is a really serious issue. It's actually a criminal offence. It's more like a dam wall bursting over there, and that's what the question went to.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Part of the question was extremely broad. I don't write the questions. Part of the question was extremely broad. I can't direct the Prime Minister to just answer one part of the question. It was multipronged, and the Prime Minister is able to answer the question. He is relevant, and I ask him to return to the dispatch box.
In addition to those 700,000 jobs that were saved through JobKeeper, as the minister for trade has just been pointing out, our government has been expanding the borders of our own trade around the world, mostly recently with the United Kingdom. Over 70 per cent—some 71.3 per cent—of our trade in exports is now covered by free trade agreements.
When we came to government, there were some 647,000 female business operators in this country. Today there are 815,600 female business operators, and there are a million more women in work today than when the Labor Party last sat on these benches. There are 220,000 trade apprentices in training today—the highest level we have seen since 1963. In addition to that, we're supporting manufacturing businesses to boost our sovereign capability. There are some 5,054 grants worth over $2 billion which have been supporting manufacturing businesses since we came to government, ensuring that manufacturing employment in this country and manufacturing capability are being expanded.
Electricity prices have come down by over five per cent in the last year and over eight per cent—
The member for Griffith is warned!
over the last two years. The other projections we've had to keep Australians safe through this pandemic, to keep Australia safe in one of the most dangerous global times we have seen—and standing up for Australia, unlike those opposite, who are the preferred choice of a government who has been coercing Australia.
My question is the outstanding Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's Operation Sovereign Borders is continuing to keep our borders secure and people smugglers out of business, and is she aware of any alternative policies?
I thank the outstanding member for Ryan for that fabulous question. Australia's borders have always been critical to ensuring the safety and the security of our community, and, as many parts of the world go through some pretty serious upheaval, we have been very conscious to make sure that we have very clear and consistent policies on border security that break the people smugglers' model.
It's been well over 2½ thousand days since the last illegal people smuggling boat arrived on our shores. When the coalition came to office, illegal boats were arriving at a rate of several a week, and there were tragic consequences involved with that. Fifty thousand people on more than 800 boats under Labor arrived here, and there were tragically over 1,200 deaths at sea—we don't exactly how many there were because we don't how many boats did not even make it to a level of safety here. As a result of that, there were over 10,000 people in immigration detention, including over 1,000 children. That is Labor's legacy. That is their legacy on borders—which is absolute chaos—and the Australian people should actually be very, very wary, because, back in 2007, those opposite said, with their hand on their heart before the election, that they wouldn't change a thing. Nothing could have been further from the truth, because when they came into government they started to dismantle our very strong border policies. They couldn't help it and, quite frankly, the left of the Labor Party has always won out on borders. That's exactly what would happen again if ever they would come back into government.
Not only did the Leader of the Opposition vote against turnbacks at his own Labor conference, but the member for Gilmore signed a pleading letter to the conference to 'reject mandatory detention, offshore processing and boat turnbacks'. The member for Gilmore has absolutely revealed what the view of those opposite really is, and it is concerning. That was the member's stated position, and so heartfelt was her view on that that she was the No. 1 signatory on a very long list of individuals, including lifetime Labor members and a vast array of union officials.
Operation Sovereign Borders has been particularly effective. We stopped the tide of boats. We damaged the people smugglers' model. And many of the people who were responsible for Labor's failed policy are still here in this chamber today. That gives us no prospect that there will be any change to their policy. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week the Prime Minister said the national anticorruption commission he promised in December 2018 could be legislated before the election. Now the Attorney-General has confirmed the government will not put legislation to parliament this term. Why won't the Prime Minister do his job and deliver an anticorruption commission?
MORRISON (—) (): We've tabled our legislation for that integrity commission.
Opposition members interjecting—
We have tabled it. The Labor Party don't support it, and that's why it's not proceeding.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. Will the Minister update the House on the Morrison government's plan to strengthen Australia's criminal deportation laws? Is the Minister aware of any contrary approaches or views on this reform?
I thank the member for Berowra for his question. I know he has experience in the law and in understanding the law and how it operates in relation to the deportation of foreign criminals.
It's true to say that for over 1,200 days now the Morrison government has pursued improvements to the Migration Act to increase our ability to deport foreign criminals. Indeed, we've sought this before every election, and we've asked the parliament for the ability to do it for so long now that every member of this House has had the opportunity to understand what is before the parliament—what it does and doesn't do and how it operates.
That's why it's disturbing to hear consistently that people still claim a lack of understanding about what the government intends in relation to the Migration Act. In fact, in 2019—I'm happy tell the House that 2019 was an election year—before that election, in relation to this bill, the Leader of the Opposition told 6PR that this bill was a 'good idea'. That was before the election on the radio. After the election, Labor and the Greens voted twice against it in the parliament.
Now we are in 2022. Today we've been advised—1,200 days in—that Labor now supports this bill again. That's what we've been told today. That's an unconfirmed report so far, but the government does intend to put this bill into the House today, and the test for the Leader of the Opposition is to abandon his Greens allies finally and come into this parliament and vote on it. If you've voted twice against it, will you now come into this chamber and vote for it? That's what the people of Australia want to know: will you take public safety seriously? It isn't good enough to hide in your office and put it through on the voices and send it to the Senate, when you know we've run out of time, potentially, to pass this bill. It's important, if you are going to change your position at the last minute with the impending election this year, that you come into this chamber, put your money where your mouth is with your members, side with public safety and vote in favour of this public safety bill.
The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
I am worried about you, Mr Speaker, because the member opposite has denigrated you about thirty times during this contribution. I'm worried about the standing—
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The minister is reminded that any reflections on you are reflections to the chair.
The Leader of the Opposition knows full well he has a responsibility to Australia. The question becomes, after 1,200 days—for 1,170 he has been in a coalition with the member for Melbourne; now we are to believe he has dropped that coalition in the last 30 days with an election impending—will he break with the policy direction from the Australian Greens and support the government's sensible laws to protect the safety of Australians? Will he put his money where his mouth is to protect women and children and to make sure that we have the capacity to stop foreign criminals coming in in the first place and to deport them when they do commit crimes? We will find out, I suggest, today when he has consulted with his 'non-coalition' partner—his ally, his friend or whatever the relationship status may be—the member for Melbourne. We will see if he joins us on this side of the chamber today.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Three years after the Morrison-Joyce government promised $660 million for 47 commuter car parks, only six are operational. An Auditor-General's report found that 77 per cent of these projects were pledged to coalition seats at the last election. Instead of wasting taxpayer money on rorts, why hasn't the Prime Minister done his job and legislated for a national anticorruption commission?
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Speaker—
No, I haven't given you the call yet, minister. Members on my left. The minister has the call.
I thank the member for her question. I think that question earns the non-sequitur award of the afternoon. But, nevertheless, let me be very clear to the House that in communities around Australia where people turn up wanting to get on the train to go to work, they turn up at 6 or 6.30 or 7 in the morning and there are no commuter car parks available them. For example, I visited Watergardens in north-western Melbourne, where I saw today how commuters are forced to park up to a kilometre away, on the dirt on the side of a busy road, and walk to the station along an unpaved cutting. We are doing something about that. We are committing funding for the Watergardens commuter car park under our $70 million commitment to the northern lines of Melbourne, one of six commuter car parks under construction right now—Berwick in Victoria, Coomera in Queensland. I was with the Queensland Labor transport minister announcing the commencement of construction on the Coomera park 'n' ride, and I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that when people turn up to a location like that they're not asking about lines on spreadsheets; they're asking, 'How can we get a facility built so that we can get to work'—
The member for Bendigo.
'and get on and provide for our families, not turn up and find that there is nowhere to park?' It's a very similar story in Emu Plains in Western Sydney, where a commuter car park is under construction. It's a very similar story in Ferny Grove, where a commuter car park is under construction, and I know that the Minister for Defence was there at the opening event at the commencement of construction. It's a similar story in Revesby in New South Wales, where a commuter car park is under construction; in Beaconsfield in Victoria, where a commuter car park has been completed, funded under this government's program; in Craigieburn in Victoria; in Croydon; in Epping; in Hurstbridge; in Mandurah in Western Australia—we are getting on with delivering infrastructure projects around the country that are designed to meet the needs of Australians. We're getting on with it. That's what we're here to do, and that's what we're doing.
Honourable members interjecting—
It's like this wall of noise has started to appear from the very, very far back—led by the member for Bruce. I'm sure. The member for Flynn has the call.
My question is to the Minister of Resources and Water. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison-Joyce government is ensuring a secure supply of affordable gas supplies for Australian manufacturers while assisting our friends and allies to meet their energy needs? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?
I thank the member for Flynn for his question and congratulate him on his valedictory speech last week—another outstanding contribution. The member for Flynn understands how important it is that we maintain a pipeline of projects for gas and other resource projects. He has the big exporters at Gladstone out of the Gladstone port and at a time of great instability around the world. Mr Speaker, you only have to look at the situation in Ukraine to understand how important it is to this nation's security and our economic security that we maintain this pipeline and continue to deliver gas, not only for our domestic needs but right around the world.
We've seen a report overnight from the ACCC around pricing. The instability that we are seeing has seen very large increases for the gas price, in particular, in places like Europe and Asia. In fact, those prices are between $30 and $40 a gigajoule right now. In this country the ACCC reports that offers have been under the $10 mark and around $10 in recent times, and that is a significant differential with the world price. It's important that we continue to maintain that supply. It's important that we continue to ensure that it is affordable and reliable for Australia's manufacturers for Australia's domestic use. Without it we can't produce urea, we can't heat our homes, we can't produce electricity at affordable prices. So we'll continue to do that. Those prices have been maintained because the policies of this government have ensured that it happens—whether it's the implementation of the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, which allows me, as the Minister for Resources, to direct more gas into the domestic market; or whether it's the heads of agreement that we've signed with the big exporters out of Gladstone on the east coast. They are meeting the terms of that; they have to put forward any uncontracted supply for use in the domestic market first.
What is very clear is that it is working. We are ensuring prices are staying down. We are ensuring reliability of supply is there. That gives confidence to investors into this country. That is why they're come here to look for more opportunities like the Beetaloo basin and others. We'll continue to work on gas production in this country. It's why we have a gas-led recovery. It's why we put forward strategic basin plans like the Beetaloo, the Adavale, the Cooper, the Bowen and the Galilee. We need to make sure supply is continued into the future; without it, there will be a shortfall. I say to states like Victoria, which has a moratorium on unconventional gas, that this is the reason you will have challenges in the near term. If you don't produce enough gas locally, you will need to look to the north and look to Queensland and others for that supply. It simply can't be provided at the price at which you can get it out of Bass Strait.
I'm asked about alternatives. The alternatives are pretty straightforward. We've heard what the Greens' alternative is: there will be no more projects. In fact, they've doubled down and said that, under an alliance with the Labor Party in government, they would even get rid of the projects that have been approved. That is the statement, that is what they've put into this place as an actual proposal.
We'll stand with the resources sector. We'll ensure the security of this country. We'll ensure Australia's economy and jobs into the future.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Australian's editor-at-large, Paul Kelly, who wrote today:
Pivotal to Australia’s success in its pushback against China has been support from the public and bipartisanship from Labor. This bipartisanship is a national asset. The election needs to leave Australia in a stronger position to deal with China, not diminished and more divided.
I find it hard to agree when we have a Leader of the Labor Party who claims bipartisanship but says when it comes to the coercion of Australia on trade issues he only wants to see some of that coercion—
I've been going for 20 seconds. I don't think preciousness is a point of order.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Yes, Mr Speaker. It goes to a mistruth I have previously given a personal explanation on. Previous speakers have ruled that, once a personal explanation is given, the mistruth cannot be repeated over and over again.
Part of the issue is that I didn't hear what the statement was. I'm not asking for it to be repeated. When the level of interjections is so high, this is the problem we have. I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business, but I don't think I can rule on it because I didn't hear what the Prime Minister said that is said to be offensive. I'm going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was quoting from The Australian on 28 January 2022 on some of the actions that have been taken to stop Australian products going to China. It's a direct quote from the Leader of the Opposition. He may wish to walk away from it, Mr Speaker.
I hope that wasn't directed at me, Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition.
Yes, Mr Speaker. You have now heard the quote. The quote went on to say: 'Whether it be resources—
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will get to his point of order.
The quote went on to say 'whether it be resources, wine or agriculture—all of'. It went on to make that clear. The Prime Minister is attempting to mislead. To be fair, there was a misleading quote somewhere as well. Ministers know that they're embarrassed by this, but I have made our position very clear in our national interest, and this goes to the very quote that Paul Kelly made, which is that it is not—
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Honourable members interjecting—
Before I hear from the Prime Minister, the Manager of Opposition Business was going to take me to a standing order.
Thanks, Mr Speaker. I refer you to standing order 68—the part immediately following 68(c)—which gives the Speaker the right to intervene when the misrepresentation is made again. When that's been used, it's often been in cases like this where there is a national interest gravity to it.
The Leader of the House on the point of order?
Mr Speaker, on the point of order, the Prime Minister was reading a direct quote given by the Leader of the Opposition. It may be inconvenient for him to hear those words, but it was a direct quote. It is not within the spirit of standing order 68, which says, as the Manager of Opposition Business pointed out:
If a Member has given a personal explanation to correct a misrepresentation and another Member subsequently repeats …
But this is not a representation; this is a direct quote of a comment from the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister is entirely—
Honourable members interj ecting—
Just wait one moment. I really don't need the commentary. It's not assisting. The Leader of the House?
Mr Speaker, standing order 68 goes to a circumstance where somebody has made a misrepresentation about a member of the House and that is cleared up after question time by way of submission from the member claiming to have been offended against and there is then a repeat of that misrepresentation—for example, that they were at an event when they weren't at that event, or that they said 'blue' when it was actually 'red'. It's not that, Mr Speaker. The quote that the Prime Minister is making in question time is a direct quote from the Leader of the Opposition. It is quoted in the Australian newspaper. It may be inconvenient to the Leader of the Opposition to hear those questions, because it goes to his weakness on China, but the standing order is very clear: it's in relation to a misrepresentation, and it does not apply in these circumstances.
I thank both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. I agree with the Leader of the House. The Prime Minister has the call.
It was again the Leader of the Labor Party, when he was asked about Mr Keating's comments criticising AUKUS and saying China was not a threat, who made this response:
Paul Keating always has strong things to say and it's always important to listen to what he has to say … He is wise counsel.
Well, I don't agree with the Leader of the Labor Party about Paul Keating's criticisms of AUKUS and this threat. I don't share his view, nor do I share the view of the member for McMahon, who said:
We will come to office if we win the next election with an open mind as to how Australia and China can best collaborate on the Belt and Road Initiative.
The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Thanks, Mr Speaker: on direct relevance.
The question is pretty broad. It talks about bipartisanship in relation to the relationship between Australia and China. The Prime Minister is relevant, and I will ask him to return to the dispatch box.
But that's not enough, because the shadow Treasurer said this: 'The government'—that is, the Liberal-National government—'is being a bit negative about the Belt and Road Initiative.' That's what he said. And then there was when the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party went up to Beijing. You won't be able to find the speech he gave to the Beijing Foreign Studies University; he's taken it off his website! But I'm pleased that Senator Paterson has put it on his website. When he went up there, this is what he said:
Our starting point has to be that we respect China and deeply value our relationship with China. We must seek to build it. And not just in economic terms, but also through exploring political co-operation and even defense co-operation.
He said that as the shadow defence minister. I tell you where I do agree—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
We've got another Manchurian candidate—
Honourable members interjecting—
I didn't hear it. Everybody calm down for a moment. Did the Prime Minister make an unparliamentary remark?
[inaudible] but I do agree with—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
The member for Lyons! How could I possibly have heard what the Prime Minister said?
The member for Bruce is not being very helpful.
Member for Lyons, that is not helpful either. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
On the dignity of the House, which this Prime Minister is undermining: the defence cooperation was started by your government—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I don't need to hear from Leader of the House. The Prime Minister withdrew.
Opposition members interjecting—
He did; he said, 'I withdraw.' I appreciate the Prime Minister did withdraw, but the microphone didn't pick it up. Prime Minister, can you just return to the dispatch box—
If it assists the House, I will withdraw again. Back on this, in that article, he said, 'The election needs to leave Australia in a stronger position to deal with China.' There is only one side of the House that has demonstrated their resolve on this question. I can tell you that the arbiter of that is the Chinese government themselves, who have picked their horse—and he is sitting right there!
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) the Prime Minister making a statement of no longer than 10 minutes in relation to the national security of Australia;
(2) the Leader of the Opposition speaking in reply for 10 minutes, and;
(3) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, supported by the Prime Minister.
Leave not granted.
I thank the member for Lindsay for her question and for her passionate advocacy for manufacturing in her electorate. Her electorate has a strong network of manufacturers that rely on affordable, reliable energy. Crucial to that is gas. Gas provides 42 per cent of the energy requirement for manufacturers in this country. It also is a critical industrial feedstock for products like urea, as we heard earlier today, and it also provides the firming necessary for the record level of investment we're seeing in renewables in this country. Families and small businesses rely on that gas for hot water, heating and cooking.
But, if supply of gas is short, prices go up. You only have to look at what's happening around the world to see that. We've seen tensions within Europe that we've talked about today, and we've seen underinvestment in gas in Europe in particular. That has driven up prices. Indeed, the UK saw the highest gas price it has ever seen—$50 a gigajoule in December last year—and household energy prices have gone up in response to that. But that's not been our experience in this country. As the ACCC noted in its report on its latest gas inquiry, our gas prices have been sitting at as little as 25 per cent of the price that you're seeing in other countries. That's 75 per cent lower than the prices in Asia and Europe. Central to that is the supply that we've seen coming on, ensuring that our manufacturers and other customers have Australian gas working for all Australians.
I am asked about alternative approaches and risks to our approach. The greatest risk is a Labor-Greens partnership, because the Greens have made it very clear that they will demand a gas ban—a ban on new gas projects—in return for passing Labor's climate legislation. Labor can protest as much as it likes about this, but we've heard about this from the member for McMahon, who has described the Greens as 'a party that you can sit down and discuss policies with'. He says, 'We've done that,' but he goes on to say, 'In the event that the Greens hold the balance of power, then of course we'd work in that arrangement.' This morning he went further and he said that supply of gas and the gas-fired recovery is nonsense. This is further proof that Labor has lost touch with the blue-collar workers in manufacturing in this country. We will always be their supporters.
Mr Speaker, given that it's almost 20 to four, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Isaacs proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's broken promise to deliver a national anti-corruption commission.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The ever-growing list of scandals involving the Morrison government shows us why Australia urgently needs a powerful and independent national anticorruption commission. The government promised this in 2018 and again at the 2019 election but has now broken its promise because it is terrified of what such a body will uncover about its nine long years in office. Now it uses every subterfuge that it can find, to ensure an effective national anticorruption commission will never be established. Well no amount of announcements, no hose dodging, no ukulele playing from this desperate Prime Minister can hide the fact that this government has waged a deceptive campaign to prevent the establishment of a national anticorruption commission worthy of the name. How do we know? Because just yesterday, under intense questioning, the Attorney-General was forced to come out from behind her whiteboard of spin to contradict the Prime Minister by confirming that, yes, the government has broken its election promise to establish an anticorruption commission. The Courier Mail headline today says it all. 'Another election promise in tatters: Key commitment scrapped'. It's now clear the only way that Australia will get a national anticorruption commission is to change the government.
The truth of this is that this Prime Minister and his colleagues are terrified of what an independent national anticorruption commission would reveal about what this government has been up to for years. The list of scandals and rorts is shameful—and they're just the ones we know about. That list includes: the car park rorts, the sports rorts affair, the defence minister's rorted community safety grants, the Western Sydney airport land rip-off, the energy minister's use of a forged document, robodebt, and the appointment of dozens of former Liberal Party members and staffers to highly-paid government jobs without proper process. The sheer number of potential corruption matters arising from within this government is disturbing enough. But even more disturbing has been this government's response, because in every case the Prime Minister has reacted by doing everything he can to cover up that potential corruption.
This is a government that staggers from scandal to scandal, surviving only by misusing its power to threaten, to distract and to cover up its wrongdoing. This is a government that lives in terror of accountability for its own actions, led by a Prime Minister who never takes responsibility for his own. From 'I don't hold a hose, mate' to 'We don't have an anticorruption commission, mate', that's this Prime Minister. This is a government led by a Prime Minister who his own cabinet colleagues do not trust, and who the Deputy Prime Minister has described as a 'hypocrite' and as a person who 'earnestly rearranges the truth to a lie'.
It is said that the fish rots from the head, and this government is now rotten through and through. And the stench from that rot is doing our nation great harm. The rot of this government has dragged Australia down to its lowest level on record in Transparency International's latest corruption perceptions index. Australia used to have a proud record of being one of the world's most open, transparent and least-corrupt nations, but now, under this government, Australia's standing has suffered the biggest fall of any OECD country.
And now, having run out of excuses and delaying tactics, the government has put forward an excuse that shows nothing but its contempt for the truth and for the intelligence of the Australian people. This Prime Minister—just listen to this!—now claims that the government can't legislate for a national anticorruption commission because Labor doesn't support the sham cover-up commission that his government is proposing. He made this pathetic claim just now, in question time today. The Prime Minister is trying to tell the Australian people that he can only govern now with the permission of the Labor Party! Well the Australian people are not buying this garbage! The truth is that no-one who cares about the integrity of government in our country supports the pathetic sham of a body that the government is proposing. To the contrary, its proposal has been rejected as a sham not just by Labor, but by legal and anticorruption experts across the country, by everyone in this parliament outside of the government—and even by some of the government's own backbenchers.
The government claims that it has been consulting on its proposed model for three years, and, in the same breath, that the model it is now putting forward is identical to the exposure draft released over a year ago—meaning that it ignored every single point in every single one of the 330 submissions it received on its catastrophically bad proposal. It is now crystal clear that this wasn't so much a consultation process as a deceitful delaying tactic and a contemptuous waste of the time of all of the hundreds of experts and members of the public who took the government, foolishly, at its word and made detailed submissions on how the government's hopelessly flawed proposal could be improved. Confirmation of this sham consultation was the reason for the headline in the Sydney Morning Herald today:
'A glorious waste of time': Corruption watchdog bill unchanged after years of consultation.
We have had a fake consultation from this fake of a Prime Minister.
So why doesn't Labor support the government's proposal? Because it is a cynical, disgraceful sham. It is a body deliberately designed by this government not to uncover corruption but to cover it up. We all remember the Gaetjens inquiry into who in the Prime Minister's office knew about the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins, an inquiry that was announced with great fanfare and never heard from again. That's the driving idea behind this government's sham of an integrity commission. This government wants to have that kind of cover-up operation on an industrial scale, because they need that scale to cover up their own industrial-scale rorting.
But don't just take my word for this. The Centre for Public Integrity, composed primarily of retired and senior eminent Australian judges, says of the Morrison model:
This is a sham—it is designed to cover up corruption, not expose it.
And it said it would be 'the weakest watchdog in the country'. Former court of appeal judge Stephen Charles said:
It's not really an anti-corruption commission at all.
It's a body set up to shield parliamentarians and public servants.
Geoffrey Watson, SC, former counsel assisting the New South Wales ICAC, says it is 'designed to cover up corruption, not expose it'. The Police Federation of Australia is rightly outraged that, while inquiries into police officers would be held in public under this plan, inquiries into ministers and other members of parliament would be held in secret.
Labor do not support the government's proposal. We don't support it, because it is so weak that it wouldn't be able to instigate its own independent inquiries, even in response to tip-offs about major corruption from the public or from whistleblowers who see that corruption occurring. It would create a two-tier system, with public hearings possible for law enforcement officials accused of corruption, but hearings for politicians and public servants working under the direction of the government would be held, of course, in the strictest secrecy. And it would be prevented from investigating any of the ever-growing succession of past scandals from the Morrison government.
Every state and territory now has a dedicated anticorruption commission. The Commonwealth is the only jurisdiction without such a body. The only politicians preventing a national anticorruption commission from being established are the Prime Minister and his colleagues opposite, who are trying to con the Australian people with their weak, secretive and compromised plan which will ensure that they are never held accountable for their rorts and scandals.
Repeated surveys reveal that around 90 per cent of Australians support a national anticorruption commission being established. That's because they've had enough of the growing stench of this scandal plagued government. Unlike the Morrison government, Labor is committed to establishing a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission. The Morrison government's broken election promise and its increasingly desperate and dishonest excuses for inaction show that the only way that Australia will ever get a national anticorruption commission is by changing the government.
I thank the House for the opportunity to respond to the matter raised by the shadow Attorney-General. I make the point, firstly, that, despite the claims of the shadow Attorney-General, the Morrison government has a detailed and well-developed model for a Commonwealth integrity commission. We have consulted extensively on that model. We have committed funding. In fact, in total almost $150 million in funding has been set aside for the operation of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission, and the principles under which it will operate have been set out very clearly. It will be able to investigate past conduct and matters that occurred prior to its commencement. Its scope will include some 145 criminal offences, which presently exist, including in the Criminal Code Act, in the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act and in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The government will also create new offences relating to corrupt conduct, including concealing corruption and repeated public sector corruption.
I want to be very clear in response to an endless series of misleading claims made by the shadow Attorney-General. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission will have the same powers as a royal commission to investigate criminal corruption in the public sector. The Commonwealth Integrity Commission will be able to receive referrals from all of the existing integrity agencies, such as the Australian Federal Police and the ombudsman, and it is designed so that it will deal with the most serious types of criminal conduct. That's an important design point. It is very important that we do not set up a body which can become a vehicle for political stunts, for referrals which are made for purely political purposes of the kind we have repeatedly seen from the shadow Attorney-General. On nine occasions, the shadow Attorney-General has pompously stood in front of the cameras and said, 'I am referring this matter to the Australian Federal Police.' On nine occasions the Australian Federal Police have said, 'There is nothing here.' Of course, the shadow Attorney-General would like nothing better than a giant machine into which he can feed political accusations, but we are taking a much more serious-minded approach to this.
The reality is, in the design of such a scheme, it is critical that we strike a balance between effectively dealing with serious corruption in the public sector while ensuring that appropriate checks and balances are in place. The simple fact is we have never heard from Labor or the shadow Attorney-General what Labor's model would involve. We hear repeatedly from the shadow Attorney-General; he just used the same formulation in his remarks as he uses in the headings of his media releases. He says that Labor would have a 'powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission'. Well, I've got news for the shadow Attorney-General: three adjectives is not a policy.
There is a very wide range of serious design questions which need to be considered when it comes to what ought to be included in the design of such a scheme. It is blatantly clear from the experience with state government bodies around the country that there have been manifest examples of severe injustice occurring because of design flaws in the way that the various state anticorruption bodies work. That is why our government has made claim that we have serious reservations with the models that have been put forward by others in this place—for example, the models put forward by both the member for Indi and the Greens Party have serious weaknesses. They do not sufficiently provide procedural fairness to individuals who are being investigated for corrupt conduct. They would allow the use of significant coercive powers in relation to low-level misconduct and disciplinary offences. They would not safeguard against vexatious, baseless, politically motivated and time-wasting referrals which detract from legitimate investigations. Again, I remind the House that sadly the shadow Attorney-General has a distinctly inglorious record of engaging repeatedly in just such vexatious, baseless, politically motivated and time-wasting referrals. The models that have been put up do not include mechanisms to protect national security information, do not include protections for journalists and their sources and would compromise the potential prosecutions of corrupt conduct by overly publicising investigations.
I will say this of the member for Indi and the Australian Greens: they at least have put forward a model. The government has a very detailed model. We've seen a model from the Australian Greens and from the member for Indi. Both of those models are very seriously flawed, for the reasons that I have indicated. But I make the point that we have seen no model from the shadow Attorney-General. He has never bothered to share with the Australian people what he is proposing. He has three adjectives. Government by adjective is what we can expect from the Labor Party. That is not a way to deal with a matter of this serious nature.
We have put forward a detailed model. It has been carefully developed and extensively consulted on. The funding is there. As the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have made repeatedly clear: if Labor stands ready to support our model, we stand ready to introduce it. But, disappointingly, Labor has resolutely refused to engage. Labor has spent three years preferring to engage in political point scoring rather than constructively taking this matter forward. How the shadow Attorney-General can stand up with a straight face and claim that he supports progress in this area after his inglorious record on this matter is, frankly, bemusing.
It is bemusing how a party features such eminent personalities as Craig Thomson, who was found guilty of 65 charges of fraud and theft for using Health Services Union funds for personal benefit; how a party features such personalities as former Senator Sam Dastyari, who was happy to let a Chinese company and a donor pay for his travel and legal expenses and is known to have provided advice to a Chinese donor, Mr Huang Xiangmo, about how to avoid surveillance from Australian intelligence agencies. The inglorious record of the Labor Party when it comes to these matters is really quite extensive.
We've had the extraordinary scenario where the shadow minister for government accountability, Senator Keneally, who, in her time as the Premier of New South Wales, cancelled the Sydney Metro project and extraordinarily claimed that there was no loss of public money involved in that. The New South Wales Auditor-General, Peter Achterstraat, in his report on transport projects, said:
Of the $412 million spent on the Sydney Metro, $356 million represents expenditure with no apparent future benefit to the people of New South Wales.
The then Premier of New South Wales—now laughably Labor's spokesperson on government accountability—who took the decision to dump Sydney Metro was responsible for that extraordinary waste of money.
Of course, the Labor Party is the happy home of Adam Somyurek, who featured in an investigation into the alleged rorting of taxpayer funds. He admitted signing off timesheets that allowed a staff member doing factional work to be paid with taxpayer funds. The Labor Party is the long-time home of Mr Eddie Obeid, who was ultimately sentenced to five years imprisonment for misconduct in public office. Mr Ian Macdonald corruptly issued lucrative mining licences at Doyles Creek in the Hunter Valley. The Supreme Court sentenced him to 10 years. Those charges were later quashed, and he is awaiting retrial. Justice Adamson described him as 'devious' and said that, in the discharge of ministerial responsibilities, he had betrayed the people of New South Wales. Of course, there's Joe Tripodi, and Cesar Melhem. Who can forget Cesar Melhem? And who can forget the inglorious record of the member for Maribyrnong on these matters? He was very extensively ventilated in the trade union royal commission.
On the other side of the chamber, we have a party that has not bothered to put forward a model. We, by contrast, have a detailed model. Our position has not changed. If the Labor Party wants to join with us, we can get it done.
[by video link] One thousand one hundred and sixty-one days is just over three years, and in the last 1,161 days around 900,000 children were born in Australia and around 600,000 Australians died. Fifty-one people were killed by a terrorist in Christchurch. Ash Barty won Wimbledon and the Australian Open. The Notre Dame cathedral burned down. Australia lifted itself from the charred remains of our devastating fires. A royal baby was born and a royal prince passed away. Armenia and Azerbaijan declared a ceasefire. Kabul fell to the Taliban. A US president was defeated. A British prime minister resigned. Astronomers released the first ever image of a black hole. And the Morrison-Joyce government broke its promise of an anticorruption commission to the Australian people. On 13 December 2018, this government promised that it would deliver an anticorruption commission, and yesterday the Attorney-General confirmed that that promise has been relegated to the black hole of broken promises by this government.
This year Australia recorded its worst ever anticorruption score according to Transparency International. Since 2012, it has dropped 12 points on the anticorruption index. Let me put that into context. That puts us on par with countries like Cyprus, Lebanon and Syria. Make no mistake: this is a direct result of the government 's failure to bring about a national anticorruption commission. It is not just a backflip or a change of heart but a deliberate deception and a deliberate misleading of the Australian people for over three years. All of that is because this Morrison-Joyce government is scared to death of being held to account for its numerous scandals: the car park rorts, the sports rorts, the Western Sydney airport land rip-off—$30 million of taxpayer money—robodebt, the appointment of dozens of former Liberal party members and staffers to highly paid government jobs without due process, and the Minister for Defence's community safety grants program—that rort.
Those on the other side might shrug their shoulders to all of this and claim that these don't really impact your lives. It doesn't affect the price of a loaf of bread, for example. But they do impact real lives—first and foremost, because this kind of behaviour undermines our democracy. When the Australian public see corruption, they don't attribute it to one party or another; it taints us all. It taints all of us. Secondly, these things do have a direct impact. They have a direct impact when people in Noranda miss out on netball courts because they don't live in a Liberal-held seat; when worshippers at mosques in Labor-held seats don't get the security upgrades they need; when commuters in Cowan can't get a parking spot at the train station because their electorate didn't make it onto the minister 's spreadsheet; and when individuals take their own lives because of a cruel and callous robodebt system that wrongly targeted them. Yes, corruption can mean life or death, and what goes on in this House does have a direct impact on the people we are here to represent.
As the member for Isaacs said, the only politicians preventing a national anticorruption commission are the Prime Minister and the Liberal-National coalition, who instead try to pretend that they give a hoot with this weak, secretive and ineffective model that's been described as a sham and a toothless tiger. Even the AFP Association can't support it, because members have to refer themselves. Yes, I can see them all standing in line saying, 'Investigate me; I'm corrupt!'
We are not afraid to bring it on, and Labor will do it because we understand that corruption has real impacts on real people's lives and on our democracy. We listen to our constituents. The only way to get an anticorruption commission is to vote in an Albanese Labor government at the next election.
It's a privilege to rise and speak on this important issue affecting integrity in Australia, and I want to start where the minister for communications left off in examining some of the issues that have in recent years pertained to public sector corruption in Australia. I think it is true that, as the minister said, matters before corruption bodies in Australia in recent years have been more prevalent on the Labor side of politics. And that's the convictions—that's the conviction rate. That's the record, certainly, in New South Wales. In Victoria we're seeing similar issues arise. But that doesn't mean it is confined to any side of politics or to any part of a government, federal, state or local, or otherwise.
The issue at stake in this matter of public importance, and what we've been talking about as a parliament, is the proper construction of an integrity body in 2022 that deals with corruption—that allows for corruption to be dealt with—but also takes into account the mistakes that have been made in public-sector corruption bodies over periods of time. Labor is fond of quoting Geoffrey Watson, and the shadow Attorney-General did. But I have to note again that the experience in New South Wales, when he worked with the public sector integrity body, the ICAC in New South Wales, when he was counsel assisting, was one of great learning for any member of parliament in this House. Some of the sanctimony that we see from the other side, I think, has to be tempered against the fact that people who have been put in front of public sector integrity bodies have had to stand aside from their positions, have been accused—without right of response, without right to defence, without right to reply—and later been completely cleared and exonerated by those bodies, years after those accusations have been made. People without any allegations to answer have had to go through that experience. And I think, in the design of these things, the government 's model has been put forward. It's true to say Labor doesn't have one yet. I'm sure they're working on it—we'll see how that goes: maybe they'll produce one, maybe they won't.
But, in our design, we must take into account the mistakes that have been made in other jurisdictions. And the process of trial by media without response by a person alleged to have engaged in some sort of corruption, to later be exonerated—years later—of those same corruption claims is, I think, to any fair-minded or reasonable person in this place, a concern. It's something that should be addressed in the design of a body. We've seen even the Victorian government take measures, in relation to IBAC, to wind back some of the errors that were made in the original legislation for IBAC. We've seen the South Australian government do the same. So it's nonsensical for the Labor Party to get on a high moral horse and pretend that this is about some kind of Star Chamber where, out of this place, they want to refer every political matter of the day—every single political matter of the day. And that was the experience with the New South Wales ICAC when the ICAC legislation first came out. You had every local government area, every councillor in every chamber pathetically throwing the accusation they had referred every single matter—a debate that came in every single council in every part of Sydney—to the New South Wales ICAC, which made headlines for the first year or two. It was pathetic, it was a waste of time, nothing was ever investigated and a lot of copy got written. Mistakes have been made in public integrity bodies. They should be addressed in the model that's put forward by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has attempted to do so.
The public has also noticed, where these public trials have occurred into some public figures, they have been very unfair and very unbalanced and haven't produced any result or finding of corruption by people—again, destroying lives, destroying reputations, but not getting the bottom of corruption. We all await with interest the outcome of the accusations in relation to the former premier Gladys Berejiklian, because there are matters there that have been raised, in relation to the ICAC, that have been in the public domain over and over, and it is not appropriate for me to go to them. But who polices the ICACs and the integrity bodies is an important question, and how they're constructed is an important question. And that's why the government has put forward a bill that is sensible and is reasonable. Mr Speaker, you can remember that, when the investigation into Gladys Berejiklian came out, the ICAC released accidentally information that they had been taping and recording of a very private and personal nature in relation to Gladys Berejiklian. Who lost their job in relation to that, out of that integrity body? Is that an inappropriate use of the powers that were given to them by the state—the unfettered power? These are valid questions to be asked. And, when reputations are actually lost, when people are innocent, what right of recourse do people have?
So the government has put forward a very balanced model, taking into account the reality of public sector corruption in Australia. And the opposition is critical, yet the opposition has no policy alternative, no response, nothing but, 'yours is not good enough but we have nothing in return'. Well, I think the public see through that, and we'll keep pursuing our model.
When it comes to trust that Australians put in their government and democratic processes, what we've seen after almost a decade of those opposite, with the coalition holding the reins, has been a really swift decline. We've spent almost 10 years watching those opposite avoid transparency measures at all costs. They've flouted the norms and conventions around ministerial responsibilities over and over again. As a result, trust in the parliament and in the public service has nosedived. We've had to watch rort after rort and scandal after scandal unfold for years amongst those who hold the highest office in this nation, and, instead of holding that responsibility in the upmost regard, they've been trashing it. It's a disgrace. We need a proper national integrity commission. It's a shame that the minister has left after what was a pretty lacklustre defence of their sham of a model, but there you go.
What we saw just last week was that those opposite, the federal government of Australia, are so afraid of being held to account that they rolled their own Prime Minister in cabinet over the issue of an anticorruption commission because they were worried that a proper anticorruption commission would investigate what they've been up to—all their rorts and improper behaviour and unethical behaviour. As we know, they've been very, very busy rorting on an industrial scale, and Australians have had enough.
As I've said before in this place, we need to rebuild the ethical infrastructure of our nation, and federal Labor will do that if we get the confidence of the Australian people at the next election, because we need a powerful, independent, transparent anticorruption commission with retrospective powers. Every single non-coalition member in this place is united in supporting it, and we cannot settle for anything less, least of all the embarrassingly weak and secretive model the government is proposing, which experts such as The Centre for Public Integrity, have comprehensively slammed as being 'A sham designed to cover up corruption'.
Australians have the right to know how their hard earned taxes are being spent, and we all know that this is yet another broken promise from the government for broken promises. We all have a role to play in restoring public confidence in our democracy. Only federal Labor will give this assurance to Australians: that not only are their taxpayer dollars being used appropriately but also that decisions are being made in the national interest rather than in narrow, sectional, political interests, as they are with those opposite.
It's good that the member for Wentworth is in the chamber, because I remember watching an episode of Q&Ait must have been some 18 months ago—and the federal government had put him out there to try and defend the pathetic stance of the federal government when it comes to a national integrity commission, and the blame was put onto COVID of course: 'We can't do anything because of COVID! The public service staff couldn't possibly!' But, luckily, Ken Henry and other people were on that panel, as was Tanya Plibersek, the member for Sydney, who stuck holes in that argument pretty quickly. This was on 26 October 2020, but, as the member for Sydney said, the draft legislation was ready in the December before that, in 2019. So those opposite have deliberately wasted time because they simply do not want a proper national integrity commission. But, we need one.
In addressing the matter of public importance, can I start by saying I certainly support having a Commonwealth integrity commission and I strongly support the legislation that we, as a government, have drafted and produced, and it's available for anyone to review online as part of the extensive consultation that has been undertaken on that. It has also been made clear to us that the opposition in this chamber, without sitting down and talking through the issues, have said they have no interest in supporting the bill we have put out for public consultation. That's the reality of where we are right now. It's disappointing because it's important that we don't have a Liberal integrity commission or a Labor integrity commission; we've got to have an institution that is respected, that is endorsed, that everyone supports, that has a robustness. It should be an institution that endures well into the future and should not be designed on any particular short-term objects or political pointscoring in the lead-up to an election campaign. It should be true to its objective, which is to make sure that genuine issues of corruption have a proper dedicated channel through which to be investigated and potentially followed through to prosecution.
Corruption is already a crime at the federal level, and anyone aware of any corruption can raise it with the Australian Federal Police. But it does make sense to have a dedicated independent body focused on investigating serious corruption issues and then deciding whether they think a credible prosecution brief should be given to the Commonwealth DPP, and potentially that will lead to a prosecution in the courts. One of the important things in all of that, in my personal opinion—and I know it's the view of our government—is that there is enormous risk to the reputation of people if, until that point is reached, until that test is met, these bodies can be used to unfairly destroy reputations permanently because of the mere spectre that someone has had a referral to these bodies or even that an investigation is commenced within these bodies. If they ultimately find no evidence for the claims, they can still destroy reputations.
It's very easy for us to learn lessons, because these bodies exist at a state and territory level across the country as we speak. I don't cast any aspersions on particular integrity bodies that are operating around the country already, but I don't think any of them is perfect and I don't think anyone would suggest that any one particular model is perfect. They are all different. They all have some things that some of us would agree with more with than others. But I think there are some fundamental propositions we have to defend in this country, and the first is the fundamental principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
The mere suggestion that someone may be referred to a body for the initial component of an investigation—that could potentially be something that is in the public domain from that point, and that is something that can be used to cast aspersions on that person whether or not they have committed a crime that they have had no chance to defend themselves against but, more importantly, should not be expected to in our society. If we want to end up in a situation where we're going to use these bodies as political weapons so that people can say they've referred you to an ICAC or they've sent a letter to a person claiming that you've done certain things and they want them investigated—those sorts of things can be used as political stunts rather than genuinely creating an integrity body that has at its heart a focus on investigating, uncovering it where it exists, and then presenting briefs of evidence to the authorities for prosecution.
That's what we need to be focused on. We could have a constructive conversation about the model we've presented. We could talk very genuinely about how we can create an institution that is respected, that is seen as having the utmost integrity and that is put in place for the right reasons. Our opponents in this chamber don't want to do that. So now we have a slanging-match over whether to have an ICAC, when we could have one already if those opposite were prepared to indicate an open-mindedness towards the legislation we're ready to introduce into this chamber. We're in this position because we don't have that bipartisanship. I fundamentally believe that some things need to be way above petty politics. This is exactly the sort of thing that should not be about pointscoring in the media; it should be about the genuineness of a body that will properly investigate and root out corruption in our society. (Time expired)
Yesterday the Attorney-General confirmed what we had all known for many month, if not years, now: that the Morrison-Joyce government has no plans to introduce a Commonwealth integrity commission. I've come from the local government sector and the private sector before that. Codes of conduct and corruption watchdogs are there to ensure that people in positions of power are responsible with it. That is not a difficult concept.
The Prime Minister made a promise to the Australian public and has absolutely no intention of keeping it. To be honest, it's actually not the first of his broken promises. It's just another one of the countless promises made by this government and not kept. But at least this one makes sense, because it doesn't really take a focus group to work out the reason this government doesn't want a watchdog with teeth: they're frightened they might be bitten. All you have to do is ask yourself: why is this government fighting so hard against corruption being exposed? What are they scared of?
Australians want their parliamentarians to be held accountable, and this government should be accountable for its endless rorts and scandals. Here's a list of them, but by no means is it exhaustive, because it's hard to keep up. We've had the car park rorts, the sports rorts, the airport land rorts, the Minister for Defence's community safety rorts and the minister for energy's use of forged documents. We've had robodebt and the appointment of dozens of former Liberal Party members and staffers to highly paid government jobs without proper process. And the one that was a huge insult to regional communities across the country, including my own, was the Building Better Regions Fund. We've all become accustomed to this government using colour coded spreadsheets and treating taxpayer funds as a coalition re-election slush fund. With an election looming, I wonder if the government will find another $10 million in regional funding to divert to a Sydney pool.
The fact is that the Building Better Regions Fund, which is supposed to build stronger regional communities, has been a pork-barrelling exercise. Since 2018, 90 per cent of the Building Better Regions Fund has gone to coalition held or targeted seats, when Labor holds one-third of the eligible seats. Newsflash: apparently Eden-Monaro is no longer a target seat for the Liberal government. Bizarre! Coalition MPs are constantly given the opportunity to lobby for projects that don't meet grant criteria. Ten million dollars of regional funding went to the North Sydney pool, yet the Bega War Memorial Pool, which is 65 years old, got nothing—a BBR application made, a regional pool that needs updating, a pool well used by our community, but an application knocked back. And I wasn't able to lobby, like members opposite. Tell me: why does my community deserve less?
There needs to be greater transparency in decision-making and there needs to be greater transparency in grant funding. It takes a lot of time, a lot of effort and, sometimes, money to comply with grant processes that are becoming more and more complicated. Volunteers, not-for-profit organisations and community groups deserve to know that they are on a level playing field. Our communities deserve to know that grant applications are not in vain purely because the member representing them doesn't sit with the government of the day. The Australian public deserves to know that decisions over grant funding are made based on merit, rather than the political interests of those in power. And the only way to truly get the transparency that our communities want and need and to stop the rorts is for the government to implement an independent watchdog.
Every single non-government member and senator in the parliament is demanding a powerful, independent integrity commission, and the only people preventing this are the Prime Minister and his colleagues. They have the numbers in the House. They could introduce the bill and pass the legislation at any point. Yet they won't. Why? Why is this piece of legislation the only one that they want bipartisan support for? Every community I visit in Eden-Monaro says the same thing: people don't trust the government. The government has undermined people's confidence in our democratic institutions because of the lack of transparency over grant funding and decision-making which impacts our communities.
It is time to restore faith in our democratic institutions and in our government. An Albanese Labor government will put an end to this government's shameful tolerance for scandals and rorting and help restore the Australian people's trust in their government. A Labor government will establish the powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption body that this country deserves. (Time expired)
I'm grateful that the member for Wentworth is here, because I want to refer to the former member for Wentworth. It might not surprise people in this place that the former member for Wentworth and I didn't agree on much. But I've got to say I agreed with his assessment of the member for Isaacs. I remember the member for Wentworth came into the place regularly, and he'd say, 'The Member for Isaacs gives weight to the maxim that, with the right lawyer, anyone can go to jail.' I refer particularly to the 10 or 11 referrals we have had to the AFP. By the way, all of those referrals have been met with a variation between, 'Not today, Charlie,' and complete scorn. In any event, none of them have gone anywhere. But those opposite want me to come into this place and accept the member for Isaacs when he says, 'I've got a better ICAC model than you.'
While we're on the topic of contrasting and comparing, I am not going to stand here and be lectured by those opposite about integrity. Those opposite are the party of Craig Thomson, Sam Dastyari, Eddie Obeid—the list keeps going, buddy. There's Ian Macdonald. What about the red shirts affair that's happening right now, for those who might want to say these are not contemporary matters? The reality is those opposite better get their house in order before they come into this House and try to lecture those of us on this side of the chamber about questions of integrity. They would do well to stop being led on legal matters by the member for Isaac.
I come from SA, and I have watched up close and personal what I think is one of the better models in Australia for these corruption commissions. That's not to say that I think it's a particularly good model. In fact, that's not to say that the South Australian parliament thought it was a particular good model. They've recently stripped the powers of ICAC, because they've watched individual after individual be targeted by ICAC in an attempt to land a big fish where there were no fish to land. And each and every one of those individuals has been put to immeasurable expense and has had their career either truncated or quashed. These are super serious matters. They are complex and they're delicate. For those opposite to say: 'We only want our model. We couldn't possibly consider your model. There is nothing to be gained from your model,' is complete bunkum. The reality here is that the model we need is one that treads the fine line. There are already statutes across this country that deal with issues of dishonesty in public office and other places. But those opposite want to come in here and say, 'Look at what we say; don't look at what we do.'
There are a myriad of things where they want us to do that at the moment. In defence spending, they want to say, 'We are strong on questions around defence; we will maintain funding on defence,' but in fact the last time they came to government they cut defence spending to its lowest level since the 1930s. They come in here now and say, 'Believe us when we say that this time we will be strong on borders.' That's what they say: 'Believe us, because we say it.' Well, the Australian people can see through that stuff. Quite frankly, they saw it in 2007. They saw you completely capitulate on borders, because the likes of the member for Melbourne said you had to, if you wanted to govern.
I'm from an agricultural electorate and we haven't forgotten about your stance in relation to live exports. You came into this parliament and said, 'Trust us on live exports; we've got farmers' backs,' and you are saying that consistently now in terms of all things agricultural. But, you know what, we saw what you did to the live export trade.
All I say to the people of Australia in the lead-up to this election is: don't listen to what this mob say; look at what they do. They are the party of Craig Thomson, Sam Dastyari, Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald. Integrity is not their gig.
Yesterday the Attorney-General confirmed that the Morrison government will not fulfill its promise to implement a federal anticorruption watchdog before the election. This is yet another broken promise from the Morrison government—the worst, most scandal ridden government we've ever seen. Already during this sitting we've had the Religious Discrimination Bill dumped by this government, after causing so much anxiety and division, and now they won't even bring their anticorruption bill to the House. As usual, they are blaming everyone else to deflect from their own incompetence.
Senator Cash accused Labor of playing politics and said this was the reason the bill was not being introduced—just laughable! The real reason they won't introduce it is the brightest legal minds in the country have labelled their version of an anticorruption commission as a weak, ineffective and secretive body. Here is what the Centre for Public Integrity has said about the Prime Minister's ICAC: 'It's a sham designed to cover up corruption, and the weakest watchdog in the country.' The truth is the Morrison government is so terrified of what a powerful, independent and transparent anticorruption commission—one with teeth, if we had our way—will reveal about its behaviour. Last week the Attorney-General said the government didn't have time to legislate a federal ICAC. She said passing religious freedom laws was the government's most pressing priority. Well, we know what a disaster that turned out to be. They didn't even have the support of their own party room to pass that legislation.
This is a government in chaos. There is no time for a federal ICAC, what with all the scandals and rorts in the Morrison government. Almost every single day we see report after report in our media about their rorts such as car park rorts, sports rorts, the Western Sydney airport land rip-off, robodebt, use of forged papers, the appointment of dozens of former staff and Liberal members to highly-paid government jobs without due process—the list goes on and on. There's no end to the scandals and rorts in the Morrison government. But not only is this government too busy defending itself from scandals; it is petrified of what a powerful anticorruption watchdog will uncover about it and its conduct.
Every state and territory now has a dedicated anticorruption commission. Every single member and senator in this parliament, apart from those on the other side, is united against the Morrison government in demanding an independent anticorruption watchdog with teeth. The Australian people have made it abundantly clear they want one. The constituents in my electorate of Corangamite tell me this every day—that they want a federal ICAC. And the only thing standing between us getting one is this Morrison Liberal government.
There is an absolutely pathetic broken promise here, and Australians have had enough. They are sick and tired of a government that refuses to lead, a government that refuses to be accountable, a government that has no integrity and a government that uses taxpayers' money for its own personal slush fund. No wonder the Australian public is disillusioned with politicians and is cynical about government; they are living through the worst, most self-serving scandal ridden government Australia has ever had.
The Australian people deserve better than this. The only pathway now to getting rid of this government and having a national anticorruption commission is to vote the Morrison government out. Only a Labor government will deliver a transparent, independent, powerful anticorruption body—a national ICAC. It would operate as a standing royal commission and it would have independent powers to investigate. Unlike the Morrison government, Labor has no tolerance for corruption—and neither do the Australian voters. We need to restore confidence and integrity in our political system, and the only way to do this is to vote in an Albanese Labor government.
Few issues expose the rank hypocrisy of the Labor Party more than the Commonwealth integrity commission. The coalition has already furnished detailed legislation for such a commission, and the only reason it's not proceeding is that the Labor Party refuses to support it.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
We even have the shadow Attorney-General laughing and scoffing at the proposition of a Commonwealth integrity commission. I would have respect for the Labor Party—I truly would—if their opposition to our legislation were based on an alternative piece of legislation. Have they furnished one? No. Does the shadow Attorney-General wish today to furnish an alternative piece of legislation? No, because they have nothing. They have nothing more than two pages of talking notes, no doubt handwritten by the Leader of the Opposition when he was at school, along with his economics dissertation. That's all they have. There's only one party that is truly holding this back more than anything, and that is the Labor Party, together with the little pixies at the bottom of the garden with whom they dance hand in hand, the Greens.
If there is an organisation in this country which should never, ever dictate on integrity, it is the Australian Labor Party. I'm not just talking here about the Craig Thomsons, the Sam Dastyaris, the Obeids or the Ian Macdonalds. There's an insight here that hasn't been raised yet. If you think about everyone they've had lined up from the other side to speak about integrity today, there's something missing. We've had members from Victoria, the Northern Territory and WA. Guess who's missing. The shadow Attorney-General is already squirming. Guess who's missing from this line-up. There is no Queenslander from the Labor Party speaking to this.
So where are the members for Moreton, Griffith, Rankin and Oxley? They're all in their suites under their desks. They're rocking back and forth with their hands over their ears saying, 'I can't hear this; I can't hear this.' I'll tell you why: because the Queensland Labor government is burning in an inferno of misconduct, and those opposite know it. They come here today with all the motherhood statements about integrity in office, yet they failed to mention the very jurisdiction in this nation which is burning because of its lack of integrity, and that is the Queensland Labor government. They know it, and that's why the shadow Attorney-General has fallen silent with his head down at the desk. He knows as much as the rest of them do that the Queensland Labor government is in deep trouble.
We have a conga line of people, all statutory office bearers or former office bearers in Queensland, running from the Queen Street Mall all the way to 1 William Street. Guess what they're doing: they are blowing the whistle on the lack of integrity in the Palaszczuk government in Queensland. What do those opposite say about that today? Nothing.
Oh, they're blaming News Corp. There you go—good old News Corp. We'll take the News Corp option from the shadow Attorney-General. They know that it is ridiculous.
Here we have a situation. Just imagine the integrity commissioner, Dr Stepanov, who's been asking tough questions of the Labor government in Queensland because of their use of lobbyists in the executive building during the last election campaign. She makes a complaint about one of her staff members, and what happens? Within two weeks, her office is raided and a laptop that she had asked to be investigated and forensically examined is taken and allegedly wiped. What was on that laptop, I wonder, Premier Palaszczuk? What lack of integrity is your office representing, and why do your federal colleagues come in here and stay silent about your state, your jurisdiction and your government? (Time expired)
The discussion has concluded. Before we go on to the next piece of government business, I would just like to remind members that we're not at the football; we are actually in the chamber of the House of Representatives. I particularly remind the shadow Attorney-General that I've seen better behaviour from him before.
by leave—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, I present a corrigendum to Report 35: Petitions and ministerial responses dated 14 February 2022.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Do you claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
I call the member for Melbourne.
Thank you. Prior to question time, the member for Ryan, during a 90-second statement, referred to me and the Greens, saying that the Greens want to cut defence expenditure in half. That is not true. The Greens' policies are for defence expenditure to be 1.5 per cent of GDP, which I note is higher than Germany, Canada and Japan. That policy is on our website and has been there for some time.
Separately, during the course of question time, the Treasurer referred to me and the Greens, saying that I and the Greens want to impose an inheritance tax. As I've made clear, at this election our election platform does not include an inheritance tax. We do want a tax on billionaires and a tax on big corporations making super profits, and I would invite the Treasurer to, rather than misleading the House about non-existent taxes, come in and have a debate about the ones that we are actually taking to the election.
I will be speaking directly to the second reading amendment that the Labor Party has moved, the member for Gorton specifically, to the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022. When you look at the terms of the second reading amendment you will see that virtually nothing can be out of order in this debate because the amendment is cast in such broad terms that you can basically talk about fusion on the sun and that would be relevant to this bill. We all know why they do this. They do this so that their stupid, undergraduate games played by the Open Foundation where they can make out that those members on this side of the House—
An opposition member interjecting—
I notice the member opposite laughing. Of course they laugh. You are the joke. The members opposite are the absolute jokes of this parliament. They take votes from crossbenchers who claim to be in favour of climate change action but who attempted to hide a donation from the director of a coal company who bought his coalmine from Eddie Obeid, and those opposite laugh! They are an appalling group of individuals who simply have misled and misinformed the Australian people through their stupid little puerile games conducted by the Open Foundation. They come in here every single day and move some second reading amendment because they think they are being oh so clever, like none of them ever left the student representative council at Bond University. That's how they operate; that's the sort of government we could expect from them, a government run by puerile undergraduates. We don't really have to imagine very hard. We only have to look back to when they were last in government in 2010 and relying on—you guessed it—the votes of the crossbench!
But this time we'll have a very special crossbench, paid for by Simon Holmes a Court, who was today at the National Press Club, where he was making all sorts of claims about how you can move as many—
I call the member for Gellibrand on a point of order.
It's a point of order on relevance. This is a bill about securing Australia's critical infrastructure against the threat of—
There is no point of order. The member for Gellibrand will resume his seat.
The member for Gellibrand should have spent more time at the SRC at Bond University really honing his craft on how to play silly games in an elected chamber. But what we do here actually matters. There is one point that I'll take from him, which is that this is about critical infrastructure. Those opposite have opposed a bill to secure Australia's critical infrastructure. Why have they done that? Because they have no idea how to govern Australia.
What they do know, however, is how to misinform the electorate, how to play silly games through their mates at the Open Foundation and how to accept votes from the crossbench. They know how to accept votes for the crossbench, bought and paid for by Climate 200. That hides their donations from directors of coal companies who bought their mines from Eddie Obeid. They don't like anyone talking about Eddie Obeid. But this director of a coal company also had an adverse finding at the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption. I was listening to Simon Holmes a Court today—and, by the way, what Kendall Roy is to Succession Simon Holmes a Court is to Australian politics. I haven't seen a similarity that stark in a long time. What we got from Mr Holmes a Court today was one slogan, and behind that slogan was another slogan. If you dig far enough, you'll find the slogan-making sausage machine funded by the director of a coal company who bought his mine from Eddie Obeid. Simon Holmes a Court said he has three values, by which he means three slogans: climate change action, women and integrity.
Let's not judge them by their rhetoric. Let's judge them by what they do. On climate change, I can't think of a greater challenge requiring serious people to make serious points and come up with serious policies. Those on this side of the House came up with net zero by 2050, a fully documented 200-page plan, with billions of dollars in investment and funding for renewable energy.
Opposition members interjecting—
I can't believe those opposite want to be interrupting at the moment, given that they are taking votes from a person funded by a coal investor and a coal director whose money came from Eddie Obeid's coalmine.
I call the member for Isaacs on a point of order.
The member for Mackellar really does need to direct his remarks to the subject matter of the debate, which is a critical infrastructure bill. He's using the second reading amendment to support this spray, which simply reflects the member's fear of losing his seat to an Independent.
I call the minister.
The debate on the amendment has been very, very wide ranging throughout this afternoon. Just because the member for Isaacs doesn't enjoy what the member is speaking about is not a reason to be confining the debate in a way it hasn't been confined for other speakers.
I'll just remind members that it is difficult to hear when you are yelling and screaming out like at a football match.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will seek to keep my voice at a lower tempo so you can hear the interruptions. I understand that the member for Isaacs has a perennial fear. He goes on ad nauseam about integrity, but Eddie Obeid sat in his party for years. Now we find that he was granted, according to the Independent Commission Against Corruption in New South Wales, an unlawful coalmine where the processes were illegal. At that point, he then used those profits to hand it off to a donor who then sold that mine and used those proceeds to fund crossbench MPs whose votes those opposite now accept. It is incredibly difficult to understand why the member for Isaacs doesn't want to investigate this process. He has referred something like 10 or 11 items to the Federal Police. I wonder if he has referred this incident to the Federal Police, or is it really that he's just not interested in the policy, that he's not actually interested in improving integrity in Australian politics, but is more interested in the politics of it and accepting votes from people who receive tainted donations.
We've heard the explanations, by the way: first, it didn't happen. Then it did happen, but it wasn't serious. Then it did happen, but it was a rookie mistake. And, now, it did happen, but I didn't know about it. Then it did happen, but it was a rookie mistake, I didn't know about it and the person who did it has now resigned. But the problem we have is that this person is the shareholder of the Climate 200 fund that Simon Holmes a Court is using to fund all these fake Independents. I just wonder why they are laughing at the fact that our democracy is being undermined by things like the open foundation, and that's why they move these wide-ranging second reading amendments—so they can talk on anything and they can criticise anyone they like. But they don't like it when the tables are turned on them.
What I might suggest to those opposite is that they come in here and they deal with the substance of bills in front of us. I know this works at the Bond University student representative council. I know that this was probably a very clever tactic back in the nineties. But the fact of the matter is we are trying to run a country here, and when people take donations from coalmine executives whose donation is tainted, for whom there was an adverse finding at the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, you have to wonder why those opposite are not more curious. I'm curious why suddenly their integrity on the policy of integrity doesn't seem to have much integrity, and maybe the member for Isaacs could stand up and explain that, because, under his second reading amendment, he could pretty much talk on whatever he likes. So he should do that, and often does, I might add, on many different bills.
What we could actually talk about is the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022. We could talk about that, but those opposite would rather move smart alec amendments so they can just have a go, while at the same time then referring all of this to their mates at the open foundation that run a website designed to misinform the Australian people. I can only assume that those opposite have concluded that the Australian people aren't smart enough to see through their tactics and, further to all of that, that the only way they can get elected is by misinforming people, by saying that they're in favour of climate action while accepting money from a coalmine investor, who—I don't know if I've mentioned this yet—invested in a coalmine that used to be owned by Eddie Obeid.
All these things really do matter when it comes to integrity. All these things really do matter when it comes to running a government and the parliament of this nation. If those opposite us are sincere, which I somehow doubt—but I hope that I am wrong—they will, instead of actually moving all of these second reading amendments, actually come in and have a debate around ideas and policies that really matter and stop accepting tainted money and votes from people whose money it was— (Time expired)
I'm going to begin by making a statement of the obvious: Labor supports effective and rational measures to secure Australia's critical infrastructure. I'm a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which reviewed the original version of the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2020. As other speakers in this debate have noted, the committee's bipartisan report, which was tabled on 29 September 2021, recommended that the original bill be split in two and that very significant parts of the bill not proceed at all in their original form. Just to make sure that all members of the House understand the significance of this: this is a committee that consists of six government senators and members of this House and five senators and members of this House from the Labor Party. Those 11 members unanimously recommended that the original government bill be split in two, and that a very significant part of the original bill not proceed at all.
The reason why the intelligence committee recommended that very significant parts of the original bill not be proceeded with is that they were neither effective nor rational. For example, the original version of the bill included proposed new positive security obligations for workers and businesses who operate and maintain a vast array of infrastructure assets across Australia. But the detail of exactly what those positive security obligations would or could be and who those new obligations would apply to was left entirely to regulation, and the government couldn't provide the intelligence and security committee with any real insight into what those regulations would look like. This meant that the breadth and potential impact of the government's legislation was uncertain. In other words, the government wanted the parliament to hand it a lot of power to do something, but it couldn't tell the parliament exactly what that something was.
While the government's intentions were unclear, perhaps even to the government itself, what was clear to Liberal and Labor members of the intelligence and security committee was that the powers sought by the government had the potential to impact literally hundreds of thousands of workers and businesses across Australia. And yet the government couldn't explain how those measures would improve the security of critical infrastructure.
Of serious concern to all members of the intelligence and security committee was that despite the impact that the proposed measures could have for the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Australian workers, the government did not consult workers or their representatives, and barely consulted with industry, before the introduction of the original version of the critical infrastructure bill. The government accepted the intelligence committee's recommendation to split the bill in two so that the parts of the bill that had been identified as urgent could pass the parliament without delay, and the other parts of the bill could be reconsidered and redrafted in the light of the committee's comments and feedback from key stakeholders. The parts of the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020 that the Department of Home Affairs identified as urgent passed the parliament last year with bipartisan support, following a number of amendments being made to implement recommendations of the intelligence and security committee.
And that brings me to the bill before the House today, which contains the remaining elements of the original bill, but, we all hope, in an improved and amended form. That remains to be seen, because this bill has, appropriately, been referred to the intelligence and security committee for inquiry and report. But in a significant breach of convention, the government has insisted that the bill be debated in the House of Representatives before the committee has completed its inquiry. My colleague the shadow minister for defence, the member for Gorton, has already outlined Labor's concerns about the government's departure from convention. It's also a matter of concern to me personally, as a member of the intelligence and security committee—and I expect that it's a matter of concern to all other committee members, whether Labor or Liberal.
The bill is now before the intelligence and security committee, and has only been introduced into the parliament very recently—in fact, last Thursday. And so, as is customary, Labor's final position on this legislation will be determined after the committee has completed its review. And just for the assistance of the member for Mackellar, the second reading amendment moved by my colleague the shadow minister for defence deals with a single matter. Not the broad-ranging, invented concept that he was talking about, but a single matter, which is the breach of convention involved in the government bringing on this debate ahead of the inquiry and report by the intelligence committee—and that is the only thing that the second reading amendment deals with.
It being the case that serious concerns have already been raised with my office about inadequate consultation by the government on this bill, including a lack of consultation with industry, workers and unions, my colleagues and I will be pursuing that lack of consultation in the inquiry. Labor members will also be looking very carefully at the extent to which the various other recommendations set out in the intelligence committee's earlier report into the original version of the critical infrastructure bill have been implemented in the development of this legislation. The intelligence and security committee does not make recommendations for fun. They are the product of extensive deliberations between committee members, Labor and Liberal, after careful consideration of the evidence that's brought to the committee. We expect them to be implemented. If one or more of the committee's recommendations have not been implemented in this case, the Department of Home Affairs and the government had better have a good explanation.
I also note that a number of recommendations have been made by the intelligence and security committee in other contexts that go directly to the security of Australia's critical infrastructure and the security of the personal data of Australians that the government still hasn't responded to. In October of 2020, for example, the committee recommended that the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act be amended to require service providers to store telecommunications data on servers located in Australia. The government has not responded to, let alone implemented, that recommendation.
The intelligence and security committee is an essential bipartisan institution. Until the member for Cook became Prime Minister, the committee's role in the development of national security legislation was invariably respected and sometimes lauded by all sides of politics. In recent months, we have seen an escalation in desperate, divisive, irresponsible rhetoric from the Prime Minister and some of his senior ministers on matters of national security. We saw that desperate, divisive, irresponsible rhetoric being repeated in question time today. No serious and responsible person from either side of politics or indeed from outside the political arena thinks that the politicisation of national security is in the national interest.
I've previously referred in this place to remarks that the former Attorney-General, George Brandis, made in his 2018 valedictory speech about the importance of bipartisanship on national security issues. In that speech, Senator Brandis listed three reasons why our domestic national security policy had been, in his opinion, successful during his time as Attorney-General. The second reason he listed was bipartisanship. Referring to eight national security bills introduced by the Abbott and Turnbull governments and supported by the Labor Party in both Houses, Senator Brandis said:
All eight tranches of legislation were passed with the opposition's support after scrutiny by the PJCIS. It was a fine example of government and parliament working hand in hand to protect the national interest. I have heard some powerful voices argue that the coalition should open a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security. I could not disagree more strongly. One of the main reasons why the government has earned the confidence of the public on national security policy is there has never been a credible suggestion that political motives have intruded. Were they to do so, confidence not just in the government's handling of national security but in the agencies themselves would be damaged and their capacity to do their work compromised. Nothing could be more irresponsible than to hazard the safety of the public by creating a confected dispute for political advantage.
Senator Brandis's reference to 'powerful voices' in the coalition who were arguing in favour of politicising national security, contrary to the national interest, was widely understood to be a reference to the current Prime Minister and the current Minister for Defence. I disagreed with Senator Brandis on many matters, but, on this issue, he was absolutely correct. When politicians seek to use national security as a political weapon, it's bad for our country, it's bad for our security agencies, and, ultimately, it's bad for our national security.
We've seen the same characters on the other side of the chamber seek to politicise national security and Australia's security agencies before. When the current government leaked what was said to be ASIO advice to the Australian newspaper to launch a political attack against Labor in February 2019, the then director-general of ASIO, Duncan Lewis, could not have been clearer. After making it clear that the ASIO advice had been misrepresented and distorted in newspaper reports, Mr Lewis went on to say:
When reporting wrongly attributes advice from ASIO, or where our classified advice is leaked, it undermines all that we stand for.
I urge members of the government to reflect on those comments by the former director-general of ASIO, Mr Lewis, which he made on 18 February 2019, and to go back and read Senator Brandis's valedictory speech. While you're at it, I would encourage you to read the current director-general of ASIO's recent comments to Senate estimates, where he made a similar point.
I rise to speak on the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022. Critical infrastructure is:
…those physical facilities, supply chains, information technologies and communication networks which if destroyed, degraded or rendered unavailable for an extended period would significantly impact on the social or economic wellbeing of the nation, or affect Australia's ability to conduct national defence and ensure national security.
Typically, these assets are used in the supply of services critical to us all: communications, defence, food and water, health care and, of course, critical transport sectors. It goes without saying, therefore, that critical infrastructure is pivotal to the functioning and prosperity of every one of our lives and, indeed, the proper functioning of our nation. Any disruption to this critical infrastructure could be devastating to Australian businesses, leading to supply chain and service industry failures affecting us all.
Designed to strengthen critical infrastructure assets, this bill will protect the assets to ensure the continuity of essential services in this country. The potential risks of a disruption to critical infrastructure are significant, with the Australian way of life at risk without adequate protections in place. We could see shortages or destruction of essential medical supplies; supply chain issues for food and water; and the failure of our telecommunications network, so crucial to communication in this country. In addition, our transport and traffic management systems could be disrupted. The finance sector could be shut down, and business and government may be unable to function. These are risks that cyberwarfare and other threats may pose. They may sound apocalyptic, but that's because they are.
Australia is lucky to not have experienced any of these at scale in any significant way just yet. But we cannot be complacent about the very real threats that our dependence on the internet, the cyberworld and data generation pose to the functioning of society. Those threats are very real. For instance, in just the last three years there have been numerous cyberattacks on the federal parliamentary network. Further, malicious actors have conducted cyberattacks on health organisations and medical research facilities. Moreover, logistics businesses transporting groceries and medical supplies have also been subject to attacks attempting to derail these systems. Quite extraordinarily and very concerningly, the Australian Cyber Security Centre handled over 1,600 cyber incidents in the last two years alone, with approximately one-quarter of these incidents affecting entities associated with Australia's critical infrastructure. That's 400 times where Australia's communications, food and water supply or defence systems were under threat of malicious activity.
The immensity of these risks has itself called for action. In line with the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's advisory report on the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020, the bill before us today aims to address these very real threats to our safety and the prosperity of our nation. This advisory report, alongside over 12 months of industry consultation, has informed the reforms within this bill.
There are two key obligations of this bill which I will outline now. Firstly, critical infrastructure entities must maintain a risk management program whereby any potential material risks for the assets are identified and a concerted effort is made to reasonably mitigate the risks. This program would be then reported to a board, council or governing body of some kind to ensure compliance and effectiveness of the reporting. In doing so, the impact of hazards will be mitigated and the operation of critical infrastructure assets ensured. As the member for McPherson and Minister For Home Affairs noted, this kind of risk management is increasingly important, considering the interrelated nature of our critical infrastructure systems whereby Australia's economy, security and sovereignty are at stake.
Secondly, this bill provides that critical infrastructure systems that are nationally significant would have to be declared as a governing body. Due to this, critical assets will be identified and any interdependencies of assets across key sectors will be noted. This will allow for the potential consequences of the asset's failure to be recognised early and then risk-managed accordingly. Under this bill's reforms, the secretary of home affairs may require the development of cybersecurity incident response plans, cybersecurity exercises to build cyber-preparedness, vulnerability assessments to identify vulnerabilities for remediation, and the provision of systems information to build Australia's situational awareness. These reforms are crucial, as they will not only mitigate the risk of crisis but also improve Australia's ability to respond if just such a crisis does, in fact, arise. There are, of course, other measures within this bill which are being considered as well, and these measures include compilation using feedback received from stakeholders and aiming to improve the efficacy and efficiency of the statutory framework. Some of these measures include amending the classification system of critical infrastructure assets, and clarifying their impacted stakeholders, who have a right of reply to any ministerial decision enforced.
While the government notes the urgency of these reforms, they have been made in a considered fashion, with extensive industry consultation. To find the balance between maximising additional security for the nation and minimising compliance costs is difficult, but I trust that this bill, with so much consultation put forward, has found the right mix. Even post passage of this bill, the government will continue to collaborate closely with relevant industry professionals to ensure that the reforms are not only effective but do not place any excessive regulatory burden on these entities.
This bill is the second step in our plan to strengthen Australia's critical infrastructure in the national interest. This bill comes after extensive consultation with industry and will create a risk-management program, enhanced cybersecurity obligations, the systems of national significance, and updated information-sharing provisions. The obligations do not apply automatically and must be selectively 'switched on' by the minister. This bill has been developed by the Minister for Home Affairs and recognises the supply chain challenges due to the pandemic that the transport and food and grocery sectors are still managing. The best approach to managing our critical infrastructure from attacks is partnership between business and government that leverages expertise and reflects the complex and evolving nature of the threat. These reforms are a key part of the government's Cyber Security Strategy 2020 and help protect the security of essential services that Australians rely on every day and the sovereignty of our nation.
While those on this side are working hard to keep Australia and its critical infrastructure safe, those on the other side are complaining needlessly—in fact, those opposite have come into this debate to complain about us bringing on this important legislation. The protection of our critical infrastructure, however, is not something that can be delayed. Just to outline the progress of this legislation and the consultation engaged in, the key elements of this bill were first introduced in the parliament in December 2020. They were part of the critical infrastructure package that was extensively viewed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The bill was split late last year, and the first half passed.
The exposure draft of this bill, the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022, has been out since the end of last year. The government worked extensively across the summer to consult widely with industry on the further development of this bill, and, in particular, on the risk management plans that formed the main element of this bill. The minister personally hosted nine round tables with the sector to hear their views. The important Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has received several iterative briefings on this bill, including a briefing just last week on the finalised bill. So it is disingenuous for those opposite to say they haven't had time to consider this bill properly. The bill has been, appropriately, referred to the PJCIS, and the committee will report back before the bill is debated in the Senate. But let's be clear: this is important and urgent legislation. It is national security legislation. If those opposite want to play political games and whinge and complain in this place, it pretty much sums up their approach. It's not about what's in the national interest; it's all about political pointscoring to them.
The importance of this bill cannot be understated in a time of ever-increasing security threats. We can see that the world, post COVID, is becoming more unstable. We hear from the Northern Hemisphere that a great deal of security issues are potentially at foot—most notably, cybersecurity threats. We might feel that the Northern Hemisphere is a long way from here—but the cyberworld has brought the world closer to us. We had the tyranny of distance; we now have the power of proximity. But with that wonderful connection through the internet comes ever-increasing security threats. We must make sure that Australian businesses and governments keep up and stay ahead of these risks.
The Morrison government is committed to ensuring the security of Australia's critical infrastructure. By securing these assets from any shocks, the availability of vital services will be maintained for all Australians. This bill will ensure the prosperity of Australia by ensuring the assets maintaining our way of life are not at risk of any threats—whether that be malicious actors, national disasters or other perils. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.
I'm disappointed to be speaking on the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022 in the chamber today. It's not because the content of the bill isn't important—despite the bizarre rant we saw from the member of Mackellar today, which really reduced himself and the seriousness of the issues we are dealing with here. This bill is important; the security of Australia's critical infrastructure in the face of cyberattacks is one of the most important national challenges we face in the modern world. And, also, it's not because the contents of the bill are not urgent amidst a deteriorated cyber-environment; this government has already wasted far too much time acting on these issues as it is. I'm disappointed to be speaking in this debate today because this debate trashes an important convention on the way the parliament has engaged in debates about national security legislation dating back to the Howard government.
Labor has always sought to offer constructive bipartisan engagement to this government on defence and national security matters. It's in the national interest to do so, and that's what animates us. Unfortunately, these consistent offers of bipartisanship require a willing partner. The Morrison government lacks either the competence or the intent to treat bills like this in a bipartisan matter. There are reasons for suspicions on both fronts: on competence, this government has a growing record of bungling and incompetent mismanagement on defence and national security policy, including cybersecurity; on intent, this is a government with a growing record of trashing parliamentary conventions on national security legislation and an increasing, disturbing and damaging practice of deliberately sacrificing the long-term national interest in the pursuit of short-term political gain on defence and national security.
It's worth looking at the history to understand this. The previous Minister for Home Affairs introduced the original bill into the house on 10 December 2020. This was designed to better protect Australia's critical infrastructure assets from a growing range of cyberthreats. He did this by expanding the coverage of critical infrastructure from four sectors to 11. He introduced positive security obligations for critical infrastructure assets and enhanced cybersecurity obligations for assets deemed to be systems of national significance.
The original bill was referred for inquiry and report to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in the usual matter. No-one doubted the need for these laws; people just wanted to get it right. And I said so in my second reading speech on the first of these bills when I noted that addressing the worsening threat was both an urgent and difficult task; it required PJCIS oversight. In September last year the PJCIS issued a bipartisan report on this bill. It's fair to say that the committee was scathing in its assessment of the original bill following an avalanche of objections by stakeholders who felt that they had been ignored in the bill's consultation process. In response to these concerns the committee, chaired by a government senator and with a government majority amongst its members, declared that it couldn't recommend that the bill be passed. The committee said:
While the Committee strongly supports the aims of the SOCI Bill, it would need a significant amount of re-drafting to pass in its entirety and respond adequately to many of the concerns expressed to it during this review. This would delay significantly the time-critical elements of the Bill.
So it recommended the bill be split in two, with the most urgent parts of the bill passed immediately and other less urgent and more complex elements of the package deferred to a separate bill. The committee report said that, once reintroduced, bill 2 should be referred to the PJCIS for review, with a concurrent review of the operation to date of the amendments to the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act resulting from bill 1.
It is this bill 2 that is before us in the chamber today. It was introduced into this place late last week. There is a longstanding bipartisan convention that bills be referred to the PJCIS and reported on before they are brought on for a vote in either chamber. There's an important reason for this. It's the same reason that we have the PJCIS: to ensure that the parties are able to work together on national security matters in the national interest. It's intended to allow for issues with bills to be scrutinised, for evidence to be weighed and for members to thrash out the issues before they are asked to take a position on them in this parliament. It's an important convention for maintaining constructive bipartisanship on Australian national security in this place, and it's a convention that has worked well since the PJCIS was established under the Howard government—one of those conventions that helps this place work better for the people who sent us here. It's a convention that helps us uphold the interest.
The Morrison government will break this convention by asking members of this House to vote on the bill before its consideration by the PJCIS. It will be the first government to break this convention since the PJCIS was established, just as, in 2019, it broke the convention that bipartisan recommendations of the PJCIS be adopted by the government. This government's willingness to trash bipartisanship and to trash important parliamentary conventions on the treatment of national security legislation sets a disturbing precedent and damages Australia's long-term national interests. Indeed, the Minister for Home Affairs had the chutzpah to lecture the Labor Party on the urgency of this bill in question time this week, adding a little partisan kicker to her dorothy dixer answer when she said:
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.
That comment was unbecoming of the minister and I think she knows it. But, given her invitation, let's examine how responsibly this government has treated the issues in the bill and why the issues in the bill are now so urgent. This Prime Minister's first act on coming into power was to abolish the dedicated ministerial role for cybersecurity that his predecessor established in the 2016 Cyber Security Strategy. Wasn't that a farsighted decision? It was obvious to everyone but this Prime Minister that cybersecurity would only grow in importance as an issue in national security and geostrategy. At the worst possible time, this Prime Minister destroyed all political leadership on cybersecurity within the Commonwealth. Cybersecurity became the last item on the bottom of the to-do list of the already busy home affairs minister. It was below even the Ruby Princess.
This is no exaggeration. This is what happened. Despite ransomware growing to become a billion dollar drag on the economy, during his time in the role, the former home affairs minister never once used the word in this chamber. It just wasn't on his radar. It got less attention than the Ruby Princess. It was on my radar, though. I continually spoke in this chamber on the growing threat of ransomware through 2019 and 2020 and I, ultimately, released a discussion paper calling for a national ransomware strategy in early 2021. The Leader of the Opposition had the foresight to see the ongoing and growing importance of cybersecurity to Australia's national security and kept a position within his executive team to stay focused on it. It wasn't until I had spent nearly 10 months campaigning for a national ransomware strategy that this government adopted its Ransomware Action Plan that picked up on many of the issues that we had championed in our discussion paper.
We see the same drift and lack of political leadership on cybersecurity in the treatment of the issues in the bill before the House today. The genesis of this bill was in the 2020 Commonwealth Cyber Security Strategy. The problem is that this strategy wasn't released until four months after the four-year term of the 2016 Cyber Security Strategy had expired. It took the Morrison government 10 months to conclude its 2020 Cyber Security Strategy after it had finished its initial consultations with industry. That's why this bill is now so urgent: the issues spent the better part of a year adrift in the vacuum of political leadership created by this Prime Minister before the process for developing this bill even began. That's why this government is now desperately trying to cram the passage of this bill into the limited sitting days this Prime Minister has scheduled before the next election. It's a story of bungling followed by petty politicisation—a pattern we're becoming all too familiar with with the Morrison government.
This government bungles defence and national security policy because it's out of its depth and lacks the competence to do otherwise. And this government plays politics on defence and national security because it's out of its depth and doesn't understand the consequences of doing so. Given the current defence minister is the sixth defence minister in eight years under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, you might forgive him for still being on his training wheels. Any sensible defence minister still learning on the job would welcome offers of bipartisan support. Instead, defence minister No. 6's ignorance and the Prime Minister's political desperation have led them to trash the national interest on these issues in pursuit of short-term political gain.
Unfortunately for them, they lack the record to be credible. This is a coalition government that has announced more submarine deals than it has delivered commissioned submarines—in fact, it has cancelled more submarine deals than it has commissioned submarines! The six bungling defence ministers of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government have wasted eight years on failed submarine procurements, only to have to start again from scratch. Again, the first submarine commissioned by this government won't be commissioned until the 2040s. The Collins class will be 50 years old by then! As a result, this government's defence bungling has left Australia with a serious decades-long capability gap at the worst possible time.
Under the bungling mismanagement of the six defence ministers of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, the Future Frigates program—the second-most expensive defence project in our history—is similarly over budget, massively delayed and plagued with problems. In fact, the Navy will have to choose between running them at full power and turning the radar on. There's an echo here of the $3.8 billion Taipan helicopters procured by these six bungling defence ministers of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, with doors that don't work and that you can't safely exit while the guns are firing—a bit of a problem if you're dropping into a battle zone! At these Senate estimates we've heard that the six bungling defence ministers of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government have similarly presided over yet another downgrade in the flying-hour availability of the F-35s—25 per cent down this financial year and double-digit reductions across the forward estimates.
The defence record of the Morrison government is so shameless that it now seeks to play politics with Australia's national security. The bungling of this Prime Minister and his defence ministers extends beyond procurement and into foreign policy. This is the Prime Minister who mistakenly adopted Beijing's position on Taiwan as our own in a radio interview. He then doubled down and covered up this basic fundamental mistake with dissembling when he was called out on it by the foreign policy establishment, geostrategic experts and anyone who takes this issue seriously. Instead of acting in the national interest and copping his own mistake, he damaged our credibility by asking Australian diplomats to assert that black is white on one of the most sensitive and serious issues imaginable.
Defence minister No. 6 is no better. In the most difficult of circumstances, he has repeatedly referred to Ukraine incorrectly and insultingly as 'the Ukraine', including again in question time yesterday. As Ukrainian journalist Olena Goncharova has noted:
… saying "the Ukraine" is more than a grammatical mistake—it is inappropriate and disrespectful for Ukraine and Ukrainians.
It implies that Ukraine is a subregion of Russia. Russia's menacing of Ukraine could not be more serious and demands the full attention of our defence minister, and in this week, of all weeks, the defence minister should not be ignorantly adopting the language of the aggressors in this stand-off.
All this bungling reveals a prime minister and a series of defence ministers hopelessly out of their depth on defence, national security and foreign policy. We need strength in the face of the very serious security challenges our nation faces. But, underlying this strength, we also need competence. These issues are not easy, and constructive bipartisanship often means giving those doing a difficult job the benefit of the doubt. But we cannot give this government the benefit of the doubt on the politicisation of these issues. Their ignorance is no excuse for this.
There is a reason our country has never had a prime minister so desperate and shallow as to play politics on issues this fundamental to our nation's security. These actions damage the national interest, whether this Prime Minister grasps it or not. As Dennis Richardson, a former D-G of ASIO under the Howard government, a former secretary of the Department of Defence and a former Australian ambassador to the US, said today:
Traditionally, Australian governments have seen it to be in the national interest to have a bipartisan approach to critical national security issues. It is a long time since an Australian government has actively sought to create a partisan divide on national security.
These comments came after the Prime Minister and the defence minister sunk to a new low of political desperation when they sought to politicise ASIO's annual threat assessment for partisan gain. Former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was right when he described this behaviour as 'reckless' because it 'undermines Australian national security' and 'uses matters of grave national security purely for crass political advantage'. Malcolm Turnbull belled the cat when he noted, 'It's just a sign of desperation.'
Despite the warnings from those who know better, the Prime Minister and defence minister No. 6 have continued to debase themselves on these issues in question time. They should listen to the people whose job it is to keep this country safe. In Senate estimates this week, director-general of ASIO Mike Burgess warned those in this place that his organisation was 'not here to be politicised'. He said:
… there may be people—officials or members of parliament or ministers—who choose to misuse that.
But:
ASIO is here to serve our national interests—not sectional interests, or partisan interests or personal interests. So, hypothetically, our intelligence is there to be used for national interest purposes only, not interests of individuals—
however ambitious they may be to become prime minister or win the next election. That was my editorial addition there. I'll take the D-G's advice, and I won't make the subtext of his warning any more explicit in the House today. His message was clear enough as it is.
But I do say to those in the government: stop playing political games with national security. Respect the conventions of this House when it comes to the treatment of national security legislation like this bill before the House today. Understand that bipartisan engagement is a valuable national asset in the face of the very real security challenges that we now face. Don't desperately trash this. Don't sacrifice Australia's long-term national interest, at a time of acute danger, in pursuit of short-term political advantage. I know this Prime Minister proclaims that he doesn't think about his legacy, but that would be a very, very dark legacy to leave on leaving office.
I don't get much of an opportunity to follow the media, so I don't know what's happening in the world, but I jumped into a car and ABC radio was on, and I was quite shocked to find out that China and Russia are meeting to discuss Taiwan and the Ukraine. As a person who is a published historian, which I'm very proud of, I take the keenest of interest in history. Jeez! If you can't learn from the past, you will suffer a repeat of the past. Russia and China are talking about Taiwan and the Ukraine. I was speaking to one of the three or four senior ministers in the government, and I said, 'I can't believe this—Taiwan and the Ukraine.' He said, 'Sudetenland and Austria.' There was a bloke called Adolf Hitler who said, 'All I want is Austria,' and two weeks later he said, 'All I want is the Sudetenland,' and two weeks later he said, 'All I want is Czechoslovakia,' and two weeks later it was Poland and then Russia. Well, if this is not a repeat of that!
Please. You are dicing with death here—the death of our nation. You live in an empty land. Take a 100-kilometre-wide strip starting at Cairns and going down through the golden nulla-nulla—Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. Take that out and dot it around Darwin. There are a million people living in a land the size of Brazil or the contiguous United States, almost as big as China and almost twice the size of the European Union. There's no-one living there.
You say: 'What? Are the Chinese going to invade?' They already have, under your stinking free trade agreement. When Prime Minister Tony Abbott stood up and clapped Andrew Robb, I said: 'He just signed his death warrant. They'll be gone within six months.' Within three months he was gone. You think the Australian people are so stupid, but they can see you out there signing these agreements and then telling us that it's a wonderful thing for us. Do you think we're so dumb? You say: 'What? They're going to invade us, are they?' Well, they're already in Darwin. Under the free trade agreement, they can bring in as many people as they like for a project—not a new project but a project. They are already. I'm not going to denigrate people, but the senior minister in the government gave the Ord stage 2 and stage 3 to China—gave. Thirty-one Australians applied for the water, and they gave stage 2 and stage 3. Well, alright—they've taken back stage 3. But they still have stage 2, which will probably be the biggest farming operation in Australia. But they own four of the other five big farming operations, the biggest farming operations in Australia.
Let me give you a geography lesson. Darwin is the port into northern Australia. Outside of the coal port at Abbot Point and Mackay Port, there are no ports in northern Australia outside of Darwin. The Ord is about one-third of the way to Perth. They own the Merredin airbase in Perth. The Merredin airbase was sold to China. Guess where the terminus is of the east-west railway line and the east-west highway—Merredin. It's 100 kilometres this side of Perth. They have the airbase, they have the water development, and they have the Port of Darwin. I don't know how many mines they own or how many pastoral companies they own or how much landmass they own, but it's a very substantial proportion. I said to the state member, who represents two-thirds of the northern surface area of Western Australia, 'How much of it do we still own?' And she said, 'About nil. We blackfellas are supposed to own some of it, but we're not allowed to use it, so forget about that.' It's almost all foreign owned. I said, 'By China?' She said, 'Yeah, probably predominantly.' That's from the member.
Who is responsible for this? What, were there penguins in Antarctica? That's a quote from a judge at Nuremberg, by the way. 'No, I was just taking orders; I just had to go along with what the government was doing.'—when you are the government! And the ALP—you were the government! You probably will be the government in a few months time. Are you going to do anything about it? Looking at your record, I would say that there's as much chance of a snowflake in hell as you doing anything about Darwin.
The most prominent leaders in this government said that they were going to do something about Darwin. They said they were going to do something about Global Switch. They said they were going to do something about universities, the Drew Pavlou incident, which was a day of shame for this nation. They were going to do something about missiles. They were going to do something submarines. They were going to do something about fuel security. Fuel security! I contacted the government at the highest level and said that all the trucks were going off the road in Townsville. I mean, a candidate for the KAP in Townsville had to be the person in Australia to blow the whistle on AdBlue. If you think China's not going to have a go at you, have a look at AdBlue. Every truck in Australia over eight tonnes has to have liquid urea, which is called AdBlue, in its petrol tank or is in very serious breach of the law. We were due to run out of AdBlue in the first week of February. The government officially informed in writing that they had it all under control. The first time they said they had it all under control. The second time they said that they had it all under control and they were setting up a task force—and every truck in Australia.
If you think I'm exaggerating, I rang up the biggest livestock hauliers in Australia, one of the biggest trucking operations in the country, and he screamed abuse and obscenities at me on the telephone. He said, 'You're supposed to be members of parliament, and every truck in Australia is about to cease operation.' Then I rang up the biggest mover of fruit and vegetables in Australia. I got a similar blast off him. How could a government not know that every truck in Australia was about to cease operation? And if you think China is harmless, they were just going to give us a little touch up and let us know who's the boss because they control the supply of liquid urea into Australia.
I will be moving the amendment to the bill, seconded by my very excellent colleague from Tasmania. But I want to say to the government that talked about Darwin. You were going to fix that up, but it's owned by China. You talked about Global Switch. You were going to fix that up. You talked about the Queensland university and the Drew Pavlou incident—Chinese influence. You had an inquiry. Yeah, that's what you do when you don't want to know. You're going to do something about missiles; you're going to do something about submarines; you're going to do something about fuel security; and you're going to do something about AdBlue.
Let me go to fuel security. We on the crossbenches might disagree violently on a lot of things, but at least we can come together for the good of the country. We're not here for shouting matches and proving the other blokes are the bad guys and I'm the good guy. We can work together, and we have formulated legislation. How could you possibly live in a country that is in the most perilous situation, with 25 million predominantly Europeans living in the middle of Asia on probably the richest resource nation in the world outside of Peru and the United States, I suppose. The empty part of Australia contains all of the iron ore and almost all of the coal. It contains all of our gold, silver, lead, zinc, uranium and aluminium. Is there anything else that we export? Yes, there is. Cattle! It's all in that empty area as well. And they're already here. They've got Darwin. They've got the Ord. They've got Merredin. They're already here. They don't have to knock on your door. They're already inside the house.
I'll go back to fuel security. If China embargoes our fuel—and don't say they don't do it because they already did it, with AdBlue. That is something that has to go in every fuel tank as part of our fuel in Australia, and China just cut it off in one hit. If you can't get the message, then you are very stupid, and future generations of our country will curse you. I tell you: they will curse you. So, when we raised the issue of fuel security—it was mostly the crossbenchers; it most certainly wasn't the opposition that raised the issue of fuel security—again and again and again, eventually, you had an inquiry. Then you said, 'Right oh, we admit we need emergency supplies.' You put the emergency supplies in the United States! And in a way I sort of love you for it because, in any conversation I am in, the government is the laughing stock. You put the emergency supply of fuel in the United States. If you do not have a globe at home, then get one and you will find that the United States is on the exact other side of the globe from Australia. That's where our emergency tanks are. And you're saying: 'We've got two or three weeks or three months'—or whatever it is—'supply in storage.' If China embargoes our fuel, you've got two days. There'll be queues of two or three kilometres in every single place.
Before I shut up, I will say that it's a little-known fact that, arguably, the major underlying cause of World War I was that Winston Churchill bought all the shares in British Petroleum. That meant the Anglos owned every single drop of oil on earth. It was owned and controlled by the Anglos. I'm exaggerating slightly, but only slightly. So the Germans said: 'Churchill is the minister for the navy. He's going to put diesel boats in. Oil trade will be cut off. We'll be a third-rate power. Either we fight or we accept we'll be a third-rate power.' So they went to war. There were other factors involved, as we all know. What was World War II about? It was about America embargoing fuel into Japan. What was the European war about? It was about Hitler trying to get to the oilfields. The whole thing was about Stalingrad; of course, that was the gateway to the oilfields. That's what World War II was about. As a young lad of 19 years of age, I joined up because we were at war with Indonesia and everyone was going to go. I was pretty scared. We were on a 24-hour call-up to go overseas and fight. What was it about? Indonesia had invaded the oilfields of Borneo. We were, once again, fighting a war in the interests of Royal Dutch Shell. Let me not be cynical and say: you've got to fight wars to protect your oil pipeline. We have 27 per cent of our fuel needs available to us, and we send it overseas! We can't refine it in Australia. So, with 27 per cent self-sufficiency—no, we send it overseas. Waste disposal? We can easily do that. The Germans, for the last two years of the war, got their diesel from waste disposal. Something I will say, they can produce 30 per cent of Australia's diesel requirements if they get legislation giving them waste from the major population centres.
Just let me turn to wars for one more moment. Since Borneo, we've been involved in the Gulf War. What was that about? Oil. We were involved in Afghanistan. What was it about? Oil. The Arab nations have cut off the oil supply on numerous occasions. It is the No. 1 weapon of war, but we have done absolutely nothing about it. The government talks about missiles. I have read four million books on warfare and history. This nation can be defended. It can be defended if we have 100,000 or 200,000 missiles—a missile fortress wall around our nation. It can be defended if every single boy, and arguably every single girl, gets a rifle and is taught how to use it. And if you think this is unreasonable or ridiculous, that's exactly what happened to me when I was 12 years of age.
I'm just being reminded that I have an amendment here that I need to move. I move:
That the following words be added to the end of the amendment moved by the Member for Gorton: .", and the House notes that:
(1)this bill seeks to enhance the regulatory framework for Australian critical infrastructure assets, particularly to improve protection against cyber-attacks; and
(2)to ensure that the bill meets its stated objects, modifications be made to allow:
(a)coverage for Commonwealth and state and territory government data;
(b)coverage for critical data of Australian critical infrastructure providers that is stored offshore; and
(c)the declaration of a particular business's critical data to be of national significance and require that such data must not be stored, transferred or accessed outside of Australia.
I want to conclude by saying that Global Switch arguably control the information systems inside our armed forces. They're owned by China. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the amendment moved by the remarkable member for Kennedy and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gorton moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Now the honourable member for Kennedy has moved an amendment to the member for Gorton's amendment, adding other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kennedy to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gorton be disagreed.
The Australian government is committed to working in close collaboration with industry to create an uplift in the resilience of critical infrastructure and the essential services that infrastructure provides for all Australians. Threats ranging from natural hazards to human induced threats, such as cyberattacks or from malicious trusted insiders, all have the potential to significantly disrupt Australia's critical infrastructure. The interconnected nature of our critical infrastructure means that the compromise of one essential function could have cascading consequences that could affect the essential services that all Australians rely on and lead to severe economic impacts. As these threats and risks continue to evolve in an increasingly interconnected world, so too must our approach to ensuring the ongoing security and resilience of these assets and the essential services they deliver, protecting our economy and our sovereignty. Where the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Act 2021 enhanced the government's ability to respond to cyber-threats, this bill, the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022, introduces preventative measures to ensure the continued protection of Australian critical infrastructure. This bill sets out two key obligations, the risk management program and the enhanced cybersecurity obligations for those critical infrastructure assets deemed to be Australia's 'systems of national significance'.
The risk management program asks critical infrastructure entities to identify material risks that could have an impact on the ongoing functioning of their critical infrastructure asset to, as far as reasonably practicable, eliminate or mitigate the risk of that impact from occurring and to report to government their implementation of the program. The set of proposed rules that will underpin the risk management program, presented within the explanatory material of this bill, create a principles-based framework that recognises both domestic and international standards. A principles-based rather than a prescriptive approach empowers the experts within each critical infrastructure entity to identify the best and most efficient way to uplift resilience in their sector, while providing the necessary framework to ensure an economy-wide critical infrastructure uplift in resilience.
There are some critical infrastructure assets that are so vital, interconnected and of national significance that if they were impacted by a cyberattack it would cause disproportionate, cascading consequences. The bill sets out criteria for the declaration of these assets as systems of national significance. These systems may be required to comply with enhanced security obligations. These obligations will support a bespoke, outcomes-focused partnership between government and operators of these systems to enhance cybersecurity and build an aggregated threat picture of cybersecurity risks to critical infrastructure in a way that is mutually beneficial to government and industry. A key focus of the government moving forward will be a comprehensive program of engagement and education for critical infrastructure entities to assist them to meet these new obligations through the reinvigorated Trusted Information Sharing Network, the TISN. The government is committed to partnership with and education of industry through the TISN to be the primary engagement mechanism to enhance the security and resilience of critical infrastructure, rather than a heavy-handed, regulatory approach.
This bill demonstrates the government's continued commitment to collaborating with and empowering operators of Australia's critical infrastructure to create the necessary uplift in resilience that will ensure Australia continues to be a safe and prosperous nation. I thank members for their contributions and call on them to support this very important bill.
Thank you, Minister. The original question was that the bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Gorton moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Kennedy has moved an amendment to that amendment, adding words. Member for Kennedy, you're seeking the call?
As I understand it, I am moving that this bill covers the information stored overseas, which the current bill does not. I'd like the minister to give clarification to the House on this point, because the reading of everyone on this side of the House and on the crossbenches says that it does not cover the information stored overseas.
That's a question that you've asked of the minister, Member for Kennedy. I'm not sure if the minister wishes to respond at this point? No. Then the amendment that you have provided in writing and that you moved is what we are putting to the House now, Member for Kennedy.
The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kennedy be disagreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
Order. As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Mr Katter and Mr Wilkie voting no.
The question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Gorton be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
EVANS (—) (): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to restate Labor's longstanding position on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021. Labor has consistently engaged in good faith with the government to amend this bill and its predecessors. In 2014, Labor supported changes to the Migration Act moved by the Abbott government to strengthen the character test, introduce mandatory visa cancellations for foreign nationals who served a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, and provide further discretionary powers to the minister to cancel a visa. These measures brought Australia into line with other countries. Since 2018 the government has proposed further changes, which are contained in this bill. For the past four years, with three immigration ministers and through three Senate inquiries, we have raised our concerns time and time again.
To be clear, we have three main concerns with this bill: the risk of low-level offending being captured by the cancellation regime, the retrospectivity in cancellation, and the significant and corrosive impact this bill has on our relationship with New Zealand. As the bill stands, it does not adequately address these concerns, and we will be seeking to deal with these matters by way of amendments in the Senate. This bill and its prior iterations have sat on the Notice Paper for almost 1,200 days. The government has had ample time to get this right. The shadow minister, Senator Keneally, has written to the many ministers. The shadow minister has met with the current minister. They even reached an agreement, only for him to tear up the deal. The minister is yet to explain what it is that he wishes to be able to do that he cannot do already. As the Novak Djokovic debacle shows, the Migration Act already gives the immigration minister godlike powers. The minister can cancel the visa of anyone who is or might be a risk to Australians and to our society.
I want to briefly set out Labor's concerns on those three areas, firstly turning to retrospectivity. The imposition of a mandatory failure of the character test would apply to people who have been convicted at any point in the past. Some of these individuals will have lived in Australia for decades with no recent criminal history. A number will previously have been considered by the minister or the department and been determined through that process to pass the character test. The bill introduces a form of double jeopardy in relation to visa cancellation. In raising this retrospectivity concern, Labor notes a recommendation regarding retrospectivity in a December 2017 report issued by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, then chaired by now Assistant Minister Jason Wood, recommending that any changes to the mandatory visa cancellation regime 'be accompanied by a caveat that no retrospective liability is thereby created'.
There is also the issue of the treatment of low-level offending. A person could be subject to discretionary visa cancellation under this bill but not under existing law where they have been convicted of a designated offence but the conduct is such that it could not reasonably support a suspicion that the person is not of good character. This could include, for example, a conviction for assault for grasping a person by the sleeve. The minister did come some way with his amendments to the last bill, which I acknowledge. I do note that these have been incorporated into this bill. But, unlike the existing definition of substantial criminal record in section 501 of the Migration Act—a person sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more—the test this bill applies is not the actual sentence served. To ensure consistency across the act and to address issues identified by various stakeholders regarding low-level offending, Labor requests that the government agree to amend the bill to use the existing substantial criminal record definition within section 501.
I want to turn to the issues that go to our relationship with our good friends in New Zealand. The New Zealand government has said that this bill would make a bad situation worse for New Zealanders and, therefore, New Zealand. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has publicly described the impact of cancellation as 'corrosive'. High Commissioner King wrote to the Senate inquiry expressing serious concerns about the bill and rushed inquiry process and the disproportionate impact these amendments may have on the hundreds of thousands of New Zealand citizens living and working in Australia. Previously, the government of New Zealand raised concerns about the retrospectivity provisions of the bill and the deportation of people who arrived in Australia as young children. Critically, they have repeatedly pointed to the corrosive effect that Australia's visa cancellation and deportation policies have had on bilateral relations. Nothing in this bill attempts to address the valid concerns raised by the New Zealand government, nor has the government taken steps to repair strained relations with one of our closest neighbours. These are priorities for Labor, which is why we have requested a detailed review of the ministerial directions, with regard given to the impact of visa cancellations on New Zealanders.
This need not be yet another example of the Morrison government seeking to divide Australians. This is especially important where all of us in this place have shared concerns relating to domestic violence. If the parliament can speak as one on this issue, recognising and advancing our shared concerns, this is important. This bill fails to recognise the complex nature of family violence, particularly for temporary migrant victim-survivors and it may increase the reluctance of victim-survivors to report family violence offences if they could have their own visas cancelled as a consequence. This issue was raised by many submissions to the Senate inquiry, including by the Law Council of Australia, and the potential unintended consequences of the bill as drafted must be addressed. The Department of Home Affairs, in their submission to the Senate inquiry, noted that broad grounds to refuse or cancel a visa due to family violence offending already exist in the visa cancellation framework. Indeed, ministerial direction 90, which governs section 501 visa cancellation and refusal decisions, requires that acts of family violence be considered as very serious, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or of the sentence imposed. The current regime, therefore, provides a rigorous regime which treats family violence seriously in the exercise of the discretion regarding the refusal or cancellation of a visa. The minister should stop playing politics with family violence and instead consider the changes sought by the temporary visa working group, the National Advocacy Group on Women on Temporary Visas Experiencing Violence and the inTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence to provide meaningful support to temporary visa holders who have experienced family violence.
I should note that the only difference between this bill and its previous versions is an alteration to the definition of a designated offence. Conviction of such an offence would deem that a person had automatically failed the character test, but it of course would still be up to the minister to exercise discretion to cancel the visa. The bill that's before us now seeks only to amend section 501 of the Migration Act. Yet, yesterday, we saw the minister talk about issues with respect of the cancellation powers in sections 116 and 17 in the Migration Act. This is an issue that had not been raised before with Labor or across three Senate inquiries. It's not clear that the bill in its current form addresses this issue, and we can only assume the government will be moving amendments to do so. As they are not amending the bill here, they must be amending it in the Senate. This morning the minister spoke about the need to get this bill passed, yet today in question time he spoke about running out of time before the election. It just doesn't look like he is serious when it comes to the issues contained in this bill.
As I foreshadowed, Labor will move amendments in the Senate to address our concerns about the impact on New Zealand and the retrospectivity of the bill. The matters this bill deals with should not be issues which divide us; they should not be mischaracterised, nor should our longstanding position be misrepresented. We remain willing to engage constructively with the government to improve this bill. The improvements we seek are important and they should not be controversial.
I'm very pleased to rise to speak in support of the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021. Unfortunately what those watching will have just seen from the member for Scullin is a classic example of Labor having an each-way bet when it comes to protecting Australians and keeping Australians safe. There are no such wobbles on this side of the chamber; we will continue to stay strong and make sure that we employ the powers needed in order to keep the Australian community safe.
The member for Scullin rightly pointed out that Senator Keneally was only telling half the story when she went on Sky News this morning and claimed Labor would be supporting the bill. It was a bit of a fib; while they might be supporting the bill in the House, they're going to try to amend it in the Senate. As a government, we have made it really clear that this bill is required in order to deport people who do serious harm to Australian citizens. These are convicted criminals. These are not just people we think might be of bad character; they have been convicted of a serious offence. Yet the Labor Party, in the amendments they're going to put into the Senate, are saying: 'We think it goes too far. We think somebody can be convicted of a serious offence but still not meet the threshold for deportation.' It goes to show that they simply can't be trusted to make the hard decisions required to keep Australians safe.
We heard from the member for Scullin a couple of examples where Labor take issue with this bill and think the powers are out of step with what is required. He said Labor was worried that this bill would catch up low-level offenders. Let's just think about which offences this bill deals with. These are people who have been convicted of an offence punishable by jail time of over two years. They have been convicted of offences like stalking, domestic violence, assaulting police officers, breaching AVOs, possessing weapons, concealing child abuse offences, and date rape offences. Which of these would the Labor Party nominate as too low level an offence against Australian citizens in order to justify these people remaining in the country? Breaching an AVO? Stalking a partner? Drugging someone on a date and raping them? This is ridiculous. These are people who have been convicted of these offences. These are not low-level offences by any means.
The member for Scullin claimed that we didn't understand the nature of family violence, that this might stop people from coming forward. But this isn't about people coming forward; you don't just get to make a report and have a partner's visa cancelled; they have to be convicted of an offence. And then, even if they don't get the full sentence of over two years, the government can say the person is not of good character and is deemed a risk to Australian citizens. When it comes to domestic violence, does the member for Scullin really think that someone is not going to come forward in a case where somebody has committed a domestic violence offence—to the extent that they can be convicted—and they can be convicted of an offence that warrants more than two years in jail? Does the member for Scullin really think that, simply because they don't get the full two years in jail from a judge, that person should stay? Because that's the loophole we're trying to close: people are being convicted of these serious offences punishable with more than two years in jail, but activist judges are not giving them two years jail. They're giving them less. I know the imputation it carries when I use the word 'activist' about judges, but there is a level of activism involved in this.
In Queensland—I can only speak for my jurisdiction; that's the jurisdiction that I know—judges can take into account, as part of sentencing, the fact that a person may be deported. So we have judges making decisions about whether or not someone should be deported, and they do it by saying, 'Well, this person will be deported if I give them two years jail, so I'll give them a year and a half,' or, 'I'll give them 12 months'. Well, that's not in keeping with the community's expectations. The community's expectation is that they elect a government to keep them safe and to set rules, and somebody should be deported if they're convicted of a criminal offence, particularly against an Australian citizen. It's not in the hands of judges to decide that they can circumvent that law by giving them a lesser sentence, on the understanding that that will prevent the government from deporting that person. That's the loophole we're trying to close.
Finally, the member for Scullin used the example of New Zealand. Well, New Zealand might be upset that their criminal citizens are being deported back to New Zealand. So what? Why is Labor expecting this government—elected on behalf of Australian citizens—to care more about the feelings of the New Zealand government than they do about Australian citizens against whom violent and heinous crimes are being committed by visa holders who we can't deport because Labor won't support us in closing this loophole? I see it time and time again: the Labor opposition wanting to side with foreign governments and wanting to side with the feelings of foreign diplomats and foreign government officials over what's in the best interest of Australians. We will not do it. We on this side of the chamber will take the side of Australians every single time, in their best interests. And how can Labor argue that it's not in the best interests of Australian citizens to have visa holders who are committing serious crimes, being convicted of them, and not being deported—not having their visas cancelled!
And we're serious about it. We've shown that we're serious about it. We've cancelled over 10,000 visas during our time in government—that is 10,000 individuals convicted of serious offences who, if their visas weren't cancelled, could have gone on to commit more harm against Australian citizens. Certainly, in my electorate, I know if I was walking down the street and I said that to someone, they'd say, 'Well, of course—that's just your job, to get rid of these people who are convicted of crimes and might undertake further crimes against Australian citizens.' Except that it contrasts so starkly with the Labor Party, who didn't do their job. They didn't do their job of protecting Australians. During their last government, the Rudd-Gillard government, they refused or cancelled a total of 1,128 visas—a tenth less. Does anybody on the street think that we only had 10 per cent of the crime that we have today, under the Rudd-Gillard government, that it was some kind of utopian period where people didn't commit crimes and violent crimes? Of course not. People were committing crimes, they were being convicted, and the Rudd-Gillard government—of which many, many members still sit as Labor Party members in this chamber and were involved in that cabinet—didn't have the ticker to cancel those people's visas. And, as a result, Australians were put at risk.
We've cancelled over 10,000 visas. And, just to give people an idea of what we're talking about, in Queensland—again, the jurisdiction that I know best, so that's where I'm going to talk to—we have cancelled 1,800 visas. That's in Queensland alone. Let me give you an idea of some of the offences: 154 visas cancelled from child sex offenders, including those who hold child pornography; 46 murderers; 88 rapists; 119 armed robbers; 316 drug offenders and 633 other violent offenders. Those are the visas that we've cancelled because we've got the ticker to do it, unlike the Labor Party when they were in government.
Now, the government that's got the ticker to do it, to cancel these visas, is coming to this chamber, coming to parliament, and saying: 'We'd like to close a loophole.' It's not good enough that somebody who is holding child exploitation material, child pornography, is allowed to stay in this country as a visa holder just because they don't get two years in jail, because an activist judge goes, 'Well, I could give him two years in jail, but then they'd deport him, so I'll give him a year and a half.' How is that fair on Australian citizens for the largesse they provide to visa holders—because they know that the vast, vast majority of visa holders come in and contribute something to Australian society and contribute exceptionally positively—to have somebody have an activist judge who decides to try and circumvent the law because they don't want somebody to be deported, even though they've been convicted of a serious offence punishable by over two years in jail. That's what this bill does.
The bill changes the test from being based on the actual jail sentence somebody has received when they've been convicted to anybody convicted of an offence punishable by at least two years in prison. Just because they are convicted of these offences doesn't mean they automatically get their visa cancelled. The government still has to look at it. There's still a certain period of appraisal, as you would expect. Every case is different, and all of that. We'll hear all of that from the Law Society, and we'll hear it regurgitated from Labor—lots of excuses. There's still the opportunity for the government to look at it, but the government has to be satisfied they've been convicted of this offence punishable by at least two years imprisonment, they've received a lower imprisonment than that two years and that they pose a risk to Australian community. And who would argue? Which of these Labor politicians who are going to try and amend this bill would have the guts to stand up and say that somebody possessing child exportation material and didn't get two years should deserve to stay? That material might be of an Australian child, or that might lead to further offending, or that material is possessed by any—
Quite right, member for Herbert. It's just not acceptable. So what the Labor Party should be doing is not having an each way bet, not talking out of both sides of their mouth, not saying on one side of their mouth on Sky News: 'We support the bill. There isn't a wafer of difference between us and the government when it comes to keeping Australians safe,' and then sending the member for Scullin in hear with his very low voice, nice and quiet, to say, 'We support you, but actually we're going to amend it and we're going to amend it so it doesn't cover some of the offences that you'd like it to cover, and we're also going to amend it just to make sure New Zealand aren't offended when we send back their criminal citizens to their country.' That's called having a bob each way. That's called not having the ticker to make the decisions that you need to in order to keep Australians safe.
We know that the Labor Party members have form on this—right? We know they have form on this, because it's not just about the fact they won't support this bill so that we can deport convicted criminals. There is a lot of difference between this government and the Labor Party when it comes to our willingness to keep Australians safe. Look at examples Labor Party members have given us, the character references they've written for foreign criminals. The Leader of the Opposition, himself, in 2020—this is recent history, right?—wrote a reference for a violent outlaw motorcycle gang member facing deportation. He wrote to the minister: 'I seek your assistance in finding a solution for this man.' This is a member of a violent outlaw criminal gang responsible for drug importation, responsible for harm against Australian citizens, and the Opposition Leader, just like he wouldn't have a ticker to turn back the boats—that's his own admission; that's not me—writes we just need 'a solution for this man'. Well, there is no other solution for a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang, for this government, than deporting him so that he is away from Australian citizens so he cannot cause harm.
The Manager of Opposition Business here in the House likes to be outraged all the time when we try and insinuate we keep Australians safer. In 2014 he wrote a reference for a drug dealer facing deportation, alleged to have imported five kilos of cocaine and 140 kilos of ice. This is a person the Manager of Opposition Business saw fit to write a reference for, to implore the government on—when he had been convicted of importing five kilos of cocaine and 140 kilos of ice! Think of the damage that would do on the street to Australian citizens partaking in that. It is beyond belief.
To Australians who might be listening, I say: judge the Labor Party on what they do, not on what they say. There is a gulf of distance between the opposition Labor Party and this government when it comes to keeping Australians safe. We are the ones who have cancelled 10,000 visas for criminals. They only did a tenth of that. We need these changes to keep deporting criminals to keep you safe, and the Labor Party should support them.
On the eve of an election, a bad government with untrustworthy ministers who have no record to run on are trying to ram through a bill that will hurt people and that is completely unnecessary—and the Labor Party is about to support them. This bill, the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021, tries to put ministers above the law and says that ministers will now be able to do of their own right, without anyone being able to interfere, the things that they can currently do under legislation but that you have the right to have looked over by a judge. It is completely unnecessary, because the government already has the power under legislation to deport people if it considers them to be a risk. Every one of the examples the previous speakers have gone through are examples where the minister can act. We know that because, in the same breath as they talk about why they say this bill is necessary, the government boast about how many people they have deported already under existing powers. It's why this bill is unnecessary. It's why the Labor Party was right when it said in its dissenting report that this bill is unnecessary.
But this bill is not just unnecessary; it is harmful. It is talking about people who may have been in this country for a very long time, who may now have children who have grown up in this country, who have done absolutely nothing wrong. But their family now faces being split apart and someone being sent to a country they may not have set foot in for a very long time, for decades, simply because the Prime Minister and the government are looking to beat up on people in the lead-up to the election.
This bill will not make this country safer. The government already has—and I stress this—extensive powers under legislation. It has God-like powers under section 501 to deport people on the basis of character. The government already has that power and is using it all the time. What this bill does is say that in certain situations you can't even challenge it. If you have a situation where someone has been here for a long period of time—they might be a New Zealand citizen who's here on a visa, and they might have kids here who are going to the local school. That person may have, in their youth, committed an offence, and it may well have been that a judge said, 'Look, I'm not going to impose a sentence on you because of all the circumstances of the time.' Now, years and years later, when they've potentially got kids going to school who've done nothing wrong, the government, under this legislation, without any oversight at all, can come in and say, 'We're sending you off to a country that you potentially haven't been to for a long time, and we're going to split your family apart.' In situations where someone has really done something so heinously wrong that they are a threat to the Australian community, the government already has the power to do something about it. What the government is seeking here is something more.
In the dying days of a bad government, you've always got to be really careful about the legislation that they try and rush through. That is when bad legislation gets put through and it's when, instead of fighting on the basis of principles, the opposition usually say, 'Yeah, we'll give you what you want.' Write the words 'national security' on the front of a bill in crayon and it's sure to get the opposition's support; they'll wave it through, even as it puts ministers above the law, undermines the rule of law in this country and does potential harm to innocent people. The government will come in time and time again and say, 'We need this to keep the country safe.' You've got to repeat over and over again that the government already has the powers. Why would they be wanting to do this? Why would they want this legislation? It's because not only do they want to have the powers but they want to be above the law.
I am sick of refugees and migrants and asylum seekers being used as political footballs at every election, and that is what is happening again. As we head towards an election with a government in strive, they're saying: 'Who can we kick now? Let's think about kicking kids who've done nothing wrong, who might be attending Australian schools, who might have even been born here. Let's put them at risk.' The Labor Party says, 'Where do we sign up?'
The problem about agreeing to pass bills in the dying days of a bad government is that history suggests that those laws stay on the books for quite a while. They stay on the books for quite a while, because, when there's a change of government—and I really hope there will be one at this election—the new government comes in and says, 'We couldn't possibly be seen as somehow being soft and unwinding it,' and so the power stay on the books. That's why it's so critical that when a bad piece of legislation comes to this place that you don't vote for it but vote against it.
This is an old-fashioned view of mine perhaps, but, if there's a bill in front of this place that you don't agree with, you oppose it. One of the most precious things that is given to each of us when we come here is our vote. It's all well and good to go back to the communities and say, 'I'm going to stand up for migrants; I'm going to stand up for refugees; I'm going to stand up for people who are on visas,' but you can't say that in your community and then come to this place and vote for a bad bill that has the potential to hurt people who've done nothing wrong.
Just in narrow political terms, why give a terrible Prime Minister a win on the eve of an election? Labor did this with the religious discrimination bill as well. Instead of voting against it, they voted for it, thinking that somehow that would help. If there's a bad bill, especially on the eve of an election where we might be about to change the government—and fingers crossed that happens—let's stop them doing bad things before the clock runs out.
There's one thing we need to put to bed: this idea that somehow the bill has been amended by the government and that's the reason the opposition can vote for it. The technical amendments that the government is moving were already out there when the opposition said previously that the bill is unnecessary and bad and that they were going to oppose it. So these are not new amendments that have been moved to take account of opposition concerns. The bill is in the same position as it was before. What we have here is a decision on the eve of an election to allow a government, a bad government, to do more bad things, and we'll oppose it. We'll oppose it, because bad legislation should be opposed.
One thing that was mentioned in the speech from the opposition, which is going to vote for this bill, is that it will affect our relationships with other countries. The government comes in here hairy-chested and says, 'Oh, why should we care about what those other countries are saying?' Well, it's an easy point to make superficially, but, when you delve into the detail and think about who this is going to apply to, it isn't someone who's come here from another country, been here for six months and done something wrong while they're here, so that the government says, 'Send them back.' The sole reason the government wants this bill is that it's retrospective, so someone from New Zealand who might have been here for a couple of decades, who for all intents and purposes is an Australian resident and whose kids might be going to local schools—I'm sure every one of us knows someone who's in that situation—is now about to be double-pinged for something that happened a while ago. It is, in a sense, double jeopardy, because what the government is saying is that people who have already served their time for something wrong that they did—and it might have been a long time ago—now have to potentially face, for themselves and their families, the additional prospect of deportation, perhaps to a place that they've never visited, especially in the case of their children.
That's why the New Zealand Prime Minister has said:
… send back Kiwis—genuine Kiwis … Do not deport your people and your problems.
There's a ring of truth to that that the government won't tell you about. I repeat: this isn't about people who might have come here from New Zealand or another country, landed here and committed an offence while here on a holiday visa. This is about people who've been living in our community for a very long time and who now have established networks and links.
The government will try to persuade people to vote for the bill by listing a range of heinous offences and crimes, and some of those listed by the government members are heinous offences and crimes. Most people in this country—all of them, I expect—would accept that for someone who's done something like that there is a case, when that person is genuinely not connected with Australia, for saying, 'If you've been here a short period of time, you're not welcome here anymore.' Most people would probably accept that. But what this government doesn't tell you as its members list the examples is that, for every one of those heinous examples, there are other offences which this bill is aimed at squarely capturing and where, when hearing all of the circumstances, a judge or magistrate has said, 'Actually, in this situation, even though this offence might have involved having a fight with another person, it happened, for example, in a pub when you were young, and I'm going to put you on a diversionary program.' The person might have been an exemplary citizen all the way through. The government doesn't tell you about those examples, and they don't tell you about the examples where someone has found themselves in front of a court for doing something wrong and then changed their life. They talk about all of the others, but they won't tell you about those examples, because they know that they wouldn't wash with the Australian community.
Most people would say, 'Oh, if you did something wrong and a judge or magistrate looked at it and decided that you should go through a diversion program and have a small sentence, that's right, especially if since then you've cleaned up your act,' because there is a sense in this country that if you do the crime you do your time and you do your punishment, and you don't then find in 10, 20 or 30 years that something else comes down on top of you. That's what we're talking about—all of those cases where most people in our community would say: 'Oh, no. Hang on. That person is actually a genuine local, and in that particular instance that person should be allowed to stay, and especially their kids shouldn't be separated from their parents.' That's all going to be caught up in this.
If a bad minister—and there are plenty of bad ministers in this government—decides they want to make a political point because they're worried about how they're going in the polls, there will be no recourse if this legislation passes. There'll be no recourse for the kids whose parents now get deported for something that might have happened 20 years ago, perhaps before the kids were even born. There will be no recourse for them. Up until now, you would have been able to go to court and challenge that; under this bill, you won't be able to. You've got to think through all the consequences.
I expect this government to come in here, hairy chested, and say, 'We've got to take away people 's right.' They do that all the time. And I repeat: this isn't about people who are genuinely threatening the safety of the Australian community because there are already powers to deal with that. It's a naked power grab for godlike powers from untrustworthy ministers in government, and we should not be waving it through. We should be opposing it. I call on the Labor Party to reconsider because, if there's one thing that we've learned, especially from the last little period, it's that, when you take on this government and you stand up to bullies and oppose bad legislation, we can sometimes in this place stop it, but the surest way of guaranteeing that a bad government gets its way is by doing what the Labor Party is doing now and voting for it. We won't have a bar of that. This bill should be opposed.
I've got a pretty detailed speech here, but I want to start off by addressing some of the points made by the member for Melbourne, the Leader of the Greens. He's talking about how the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021 hurts people. The bill is about a character test that talks about deporting paedophiles, murderers, rapists and people who have been convicted of domestic violence. We're not talking about a traffic infringement; we're talking about people who are hurting children. We're talking about people who shouldn't be in this country. For anyone to stand up in this place and back in paedophiles, back in murderers, back in—
Order! The member for Melbourne on a point of order.
That is outrageous and that should be withdrawn.
I thank the member for Melbourne, who will take his seat. The member for Herbert, it would assist the House if you would withdraw that, please.
To assist the House, I'll withdraw. For any political party to not see the benefit in this bill and in this character assessment test, which is talking about deporting paedophiles, rapists and people in this country who have done the most heinous things, is absolutely disgraceful. The member for Melbourne, the Leader of the Greens—who should absolutely hang his head in shame—talks about this being harmful. I tell you what the harm will be if we don't do this. The harm will be to the Australian children and to Australian people who have been hurt and victimised—people who have had their rights stripped away. They shouldn't be in this country. They should be deported. For the life of me, I couldn't think of anyone in this place who would oppose it, but the Leader of the Greens, the member for Melbourne, surprises me most days. The Leader of the Green also stated that he's sick and tired of migrants and immigrants being targeted. This isn't targeting people who are doing the right thing; this is targeting people who are committing crimes. This is targeting people who are doing the most heinous things to our children throughout this country, and they should be deported.
We've seen time and time again judges give lenient sentences. We saw in Cairns recently a lenient sentence given to someone who was convicted of rape and did not do time in jail. They were convicted, but they didn't do any time. If that person was a foreign national, guess what? They're out. They do not stay in this country. I don't care if they've been here for one minute, 10 years or decades. If you commit a crime like this, you're out of this country. It should be as simple as that. To have any political party oppose that is shameful.
The member for Melbourne is interjecting, saying that there already is that. No. This needs to be broadened to capture those people. That's what's disappointing. The member for Melbourne comes in here, not knowing what he's talking about, blaming the Labor Party and blaming the Liberal Party. I'll tell you what we're talking about doing. We're talking about broadening the character assessment—the character test—to ensure that these people who commit these crimes don't stay here.
The Greens decided to oppose this bill in 2019, and they didn't bother to attend any of the committee hearings. One of the senators for the Greens described the bill as damaging and toxic and said she was glad it did not pass the Senate. These are their words. When you go through the bill, when you look at the details and you look at what we want to achieve—making sure that we can get rid of the people who commit these heinous crimes—well, the Greens stand by it; they don't want this to pass. We've seen another senator saying that the government is stigmatising and persecuting particular groups of people. Stigmatising and persecuting paedophiles? Stigmatising and persecuting murderers and rapists? Yes, that is true! Get out! You shouldn't be in this country! I don't think it is fair to hear the Labor Party or the Greens say we are really worried about the reputation—
It's always good hearing the Leader of the Greens interjecting. But, like I just stated, the senators described the bill as damaging and toxic. Senator McKim described it as stigmatising and persecuting. This is just garbage. And I'm not worried about what another country cares about when it comes to getting rid of and deporting criminals out of our country. I understand we have really strong relationships with New Zealand, and I think that's great, but, when it comes to deporting criminals, getting rid of these people who have committed these crimes, whether they are bikies, drug pushers, rapists, murders, rapists, paedophiles, we should do it every single day.
I think the Labor Party shouldn't be wanting this to go in on the voices so they can make amendments in the Senate. The Labor Party should bring this to a vote, so the people of Australia will know where you stand. Do you support the bill in its entirety? Do you stand with us in expanding and strengthening the character test to ensure these people, these paedophiles, are kicked out? Or do you want it on the voices, so can make amendments in the Senate? Let's be clear: no-one watches the Senate. No-one is paying attention there; they're paying attention to where the Prime Minister sits and the Leader of the Opposition sits. They want to see the government and the opposition state what their intentions are.
I think it's clear what our intentions are. I think it's very clear what we want to achieve with strengthening this character test, and we should be standing as a parliament together, minus the one Green we have here, who is more interested in politicking and throwing mud at the government. We heard him slandering the ministers here. But, at the end of the day, this government, this government that I'm in, this government on this side of the House, wants to deport these people who commit these serious crimes. We should not have foreign nationals who've been convicted of being paedophiles, of sexually abusing children, of murder, of rape and of domestic violence in this country.
I read an endorsement just before from a sister. She wrote to the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee in 2019. She said that her sister was murdered and her sister's partner was murdered. Their deaths and the impacts on their family, their three children and their close family would not have occurred if this proposed legislation was in place.
Taking away the politicking and taking away the grubby antics of the Leader of the Greens, taking away all commentary in this place, we should be listening to the people that it affects. We should be listening to the people who would still have their loved ones here if this were in place. The Police Federation of Australia also made a submission to the same committee. They said that anyone convicted of a crime of violence, regardless of their length of sentence, and who is a noncitizen of Australia, should have their status to remain here 'immediately reviewed'. I agree. I couldn't think of a more fitting statement from the police.
People get deported to many countries, not just to New Zealand. And whilst having strong relationships with other nations is very important, we should never put other countries before our own. We should always put Australians and the future of Australians first. I heard the member for Ryan mention Senator Keneally. Senator Keneally has written to the government suggesting that this bill is designed to capture trivial offences. Senator Keneally wrote to Minister Hawke saying that this bill is designed to capture trivial offences. I don't think rape, sexual assault, child abuse and paedophilia are trivial offences. They're some of the most heinous crimes that this nation has ever seen. Senator Keneally should explain why she considers domestic violence and the other offences captured in the bill as trivial. I disagree with her statements. I think most people around the country would disagree with her statement as well.
The member for Bruce, Julian Hill, claims the punishment does not match the crime. This is what Labor members have stated. I don't know how many times to reiterate it. If you commit these serious offences, if you are sentenced to jail, you should be deported. How can we have foreign nationals, regardless of their time spent here, committing heinous offences, and having people like the member for Bruce say that the punishment does not fit the crime if there is a murder or a rape. Those people who commit these crimes should be deported. Quite frankly, they should be locked up for good. I don't think paedophiles should be released, let alone give non-Australian citizens a free pass because they may have been here for some time, as the Leader of the Greens stated. That's not good enough. Bad behaviour should be punished, regardless of time in country.
The Greens have made their position clear. The Labor Party have made their position murky; no-one really knows where they sit. But I would urge the Labor Party not to let this go through on the voices and not stop it from going to a vote where you have to stand for something. This is a time when Australians will want you to make a strong decision. My view is that you'll let it flow through on the voices and then make amendments in the Senate. We want to see what the Leader of the Opposition has to say on this. I want to see what the Leader of the Opposition has to say on this. The Australian people want to see what the Leader of the Opposition has to say on this. He'll either bring it to a vote and stand with the coalition and support it or he’ll sit with his mate from the Greens and talk about the coalition that they want to form. This is the time you stand to be counted. The Australian people deserve that. They don't deserve to hear about it a time when the Senate does whatever the Senate does.
It is my belief that all members in this place should support strengthening the character test. We should ensure that future generations, our children—Australians—are protected. If violent, heinous, disgusting crimes are committed by foreign nationals, then they should deported. Australia deserves that. Australia deserves better than what the Greens are suggesting.
My comments will be brief because the substantive issue is incredibly simple, and that is that the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021 is entirely unnecessary because the government and the minister already have sweeping powers to cancel or revoke visas on the basis of someone's character. It's that simple. We don't need to be here. But it does raise the question: why are we here? Why is the government bringing on this entirely unnecessary and patently cruel built? I'll tell you why. It's because this government will miss no opportunity to pander to racism, to hate and to xenophobia. It will take every opportunity to polish up its national security and so-called border security credentials, and it will not miss an opportunity to try to wedge the opposition whenever it can. I will say it again. This bill is unnecessary. It is a blatant attempt by this government to pander to racism, bigotry and xenophobia and to thump its chest and make out it is tough on national security, tough on border security. It will not miss this opportunity to try to wedge the opposition.
And what's Labor doing? It's going to roll over. It's going to abandon all the towering speeches it has given on this bill and previous iterations of this bill. It's going to completely abandon high principle. It's going to roll over for one purpose: to pander to its political self-interest and try to get more votes at the next election in order to win government. In other words, this mob is unprincipled. We know that that mob is unprincipled! This is an opportunity tonight for this mob to show some backbone. But it won't. It 'll roll over as it chases votes.
I say shame on the lot of you! On this issue, when it comes to some aspects of national security and certainly when it comes to border security, I've had a gutful of the lot of you—the government and the opposition. You are completely and utterly unprincipled—and that's not good enough, that's not in the public interest. Why can't we in this place finally show some humanity, show that we are a principled country, show that we do the right thing, show that we treat people fairly, show that we have a developed sense of judicial justice, show that we respect the judicial system and show that we don't go around accusing judges of cooking the books and looking for loopholes. This is another terrible missed opportunity tonight—that the government would behave like this and that the weaklings in the opposition go along for the ride.
It's not good enough for the opposition to say: 'Don't you worry about our behaviour tonight. We'll seek to amend this bill in the Senate.' No, you should vote every time along the lines of what you believe is right and how you feel about a bill. It's like the Religious Discrimination Bill last week. We had towering speech after towering speech after towering speech from the Opposition—and then they rolled over and voted in favour of the bill. You are weaklings the lot of you! What has this country come to? And then you look with amazement at the rise of the Independents and try to come up with some explanation as to why there is such a high interest in the crossbench and the Independents right now. It's because we represent our community, we vote on conscience, we stand on high principle and we don't abandon all of that just for the sake of some lousy votes.
I must say that I feel quite uncomfortable with the raising of the voice of the previous member, the Independent, especially with a female deputy speaker in the chair when we're talking about women's safety. I think there are other ways to conduct ourselves in the House.
A picture tells a thousand words and the picture before us this evening is the Labor Party and the Greens in a nice little coalition that is protecting foreign criminals when it comes to the safety of Australian women and children. When we have a serious public safety issue that has gone unresolved for 1,200 days—that is, over three years—as a government it is our responsibility to the Australian people to continue to prosecute the case to the Labor and Greens alliance that politics needs to be set aside and that the safety of women and children from non-Australian violent criminals should be put first. It's about the safety of Australian women and children. This is what the Australian people expect. This is what my community of Lindsay expects. In fact, I received a message this evening from one local woman who said, 'I can't believe we are debating over whether women deserve to be safe.'
So I commend the minister for immigration for his relentless pursuit of what is right to get this bill through the House for the second time against a barrage of opposition from the opposition and their partners in crime, the Greens, to protect Australians—mums, sisters, friends and daughters. How can anyone argue against that? How can anyone argue that a young woman driving to her boyfriend's house in the early hours of the morning shouldn't be safe as she steps out of her car to go to his house? She should not be threatened with a knife and the words, 'Be quiet or I will cut you.' Under our current laws, the convicted criminal from Mauritius received 18 months imprisonment and a 12-month community corrections order. The initial refusal of his visa on character grounds was set aside by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, determining that he did not fail the character test. A young woman was attacked at knifepoint and threatened with her life by a citizen not of Australia but of Mauritius, and his character was considered good enough for a visa. It's hard to believe but very true. This is why we need change, and this is why Labor needs to stop mucking about and to support this bill.
We don't accept violence against women by Australian citizens. As someone whose LGA of Penrith has one of the worst records of domestic violence in the state of New South Wales, along with the Central Coast—which I know Deputy Speaker Wicks knows, as it is her home LGA—there is no way I could stand to let a noncitizen get away with serious violence against women because of a loophole in our laws. I don't understand why Labor has been so opposed to protecting our women for so long. I don't know why Labor is putting the feelings of the New Zealand government above the protection of our women. Labor needs to support this bill, not just wave it through to the Senate for them to weaken it there. But I guess being weak is a core strength of Labor.
So here I stand to support the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021 in the strongest of ways, a bill that aims to protect Australia's national security interests by cracking down on convicted criminals who have committed violent or sexual offences, a bill that aims to protect Australian women. Since I came into this place in 2019, 4,000 visas have been cancelled. That is 4,000 serious criminals who have been kept out of the Australian community. That is almost four times more in three years than the whole of the previous Labor government. If we look at the numbers since 2014, we have cancelled or refused 10,000 visas. These aren't good people: nearly 1,400 were sexual offences, including over 900 for child sex and child pornography offences; 500 were armed robbery offences; 1,700 were drug offences; and over 200 were murder offences. But then there are the men—the men who wield knives at women, men who punch women in the head and men who beat their partners—who have been getting into our country and retaining their visas because of a legal loophole. I hope Labor agrees with us, after 1,200 days of refusal, to stop this today and to support this bill.
So what is the bill about? The bill aims to broaden existing discretionary powers to cancel and refuse visas under the character test. It's the character test where criminals and their lawyers are finding loopholes. Through this bill, we are allowing discretionary refusal or cancellation of a visa for noncitizens convicted for a designated offence of at least two years imprisonment. And since the power will be discretionary, the government will have flexibility to focus on serious crimes perpetrated by criminals who pose a risk to the Australian community.
Labor has tried to argue that this sets a threshold too low for visa cancellation. Too low? I refer back to my story about the young Australian woman who was held at knife point and had her life threatened. And I remind the House that those who have committed serious, violent and sexual offences are captured by this bill. Labor, again working with their partners in crime, the Greens, are being weak on security and weak on protecting Australians from violent offenders, and it is just not good enough. What makes it worse is that this bill has been before parliament for 1,200 days. That is over three years of inaction by Labor and the Greens. And now they want to weaken it in the Senate so that we don't upset New Zealand by sending their convicted criminals back home. You tell that to Australian women, and you tell that to the women in my community of Lindsay!
The bill before the House is a proportionate and responsible bill to ensure foreign criminals who have broken the law are stopped from committing further injustices on Australian soil. It implements strong protections to ensure that Australians are kept safe by improving the character test provisions of the Migration Act. Australia is the best country in the world. We need to ensure that those who live here are protected from those who seek to go against our national interest. This bill, the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill, demonstrates the Morrison government's ongoing commitment to the safety and protection of Australians—its commitment to the safety and protection of Australian women—and I commend this bill to the House.
I am pleased to rise this evening to speak on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021. I was listening to the debate when the member for Herbert, Mr Thompson, was making some excellent points about this bill, like how we need to protect this nation from paedophiles, from child rapists, from those that would push drugs upon our kids—all excellent points. But I also heard the member for Clark contribute to this bill, asking, 'Is it actually necessary?' I listened to the member for Clark, and I think he has many good points. I asked myself: under the current legislation, the migration minister of this country had the power to deport tennis player Novak Djokovic from this country not because of something he had done incorrectly but because they thought that somehow his mere presence in this country would do something which would, I think the minister's words were, 'increase antivax sentiment'. Antivax sentiment is code for antifreedom sentiment. The antivax debate in this country is about a case of freedom of choice.
In this country the minister has the power to expel someone for their political views, even though they have never espoused those views in this country. Just look at the details of that particular case and what happened. We know that Novak Djokovic arrived lawfully as the world's No. 1 tennis player for the Australian Open, a Grand Slam event. That Grand Slam event, the Australian Open, brings our nation enormous wealth and prestige. I have been overseas at that time of year many times, and it is one of the few times we see Australia mentioned on the front page of the world's newspapers as they report the results of the Australian Open. So, when the world's No. 1 player arrived, there should have been a red carpet and a marching band. Instead, the way he was treated at Melbourne Airport—remembering that he had lawful documents and had come here lawfully—is what you would expect if someone turned up at Melbourne Airport with a kilo of hashish in their bag. He was held overnight in Melbourne Airport and questioned for hours on end. That is not how we want to treat international sporting personalities when they come to our country to contribute to our nation. What precedent has this set?
We know that it is not just the Australian Open that we rely on for overseas events. Australia has to compete for every single major sporting event. We don't have any great special right to host any single event. We are up against competition from the Middle East, from South-East Asia, from China, from countries all around the world that want to host world cups in their particular sport. But what we have now done is handed all those other nations a competitive advantage, a reason they can attack Australia. They can argue against Australia. Why should you have your No. 1 world sporting event, your world cup, in Australia, knowing that the Australian government can deport your top player not because of something he has done wrong but because of a political issue?
Novak Djokovic was a political prisoner in this country, and that should bring shame upon every single one of us in this parliament. If we're going to amend the law of the Migration Act we should be looking at taking away that provision that gives the minister that discretion, to ensure something like that never happens again. We need to give each sporting group that goes out to compete for these events worldwide the confidence and the backing that they cannot be attacked by other nations calling upon our record on expelling and deporting their major players for nothing other than the political expediency of the government.
If you think our tourism industry is going to come bouncing back when we reopen our borders, I suggest having a look at the tweet that George Brandis, our high commissioner in the UK, recently put out a couple of days ago. The tweet he put out was:
We have a simple message to our best mates in Britain: we can't wait to welcome you back down under.
It's had over 2,800 comments. But, sadly, the majority of those comments are negative towards Australia. Our international reputation has been trashed over the past 12 months. The government claims that it doesn't mandate compulsory vaccines. Yet it won't let Australians exit the country unless they have been 'fully vaccinated'—whatever that means at a particular point in time. Is it two jabs? Three jabs? Who knows. It may be four, five or six jabs sometime in the future.
We've got to get our tourism sector firing again. One of the ways we can do it is admit to the mistakes we made under the Migration Act with Novak Djokovic. We as a nation should apologise to him. We should apologise to the Serbian people for what we did—making him a political prisoner, an example. We ignored the science and the evidence. The idea that someone with the fitness of Novak Djokovic poses a health risk to anyone in this country is a complete nonsense. It should never have happened. Yet that is the existing power the minister has under the Migration Act today. It is difficult to see why these additional powers are needed. If I'm to err on this issue, I'd prefer to err on the side of giving the minister the discretion when it comes to rapists, paedophiles, criminals and drug pushers—those who try to push upon others the drugs they make for pure profit. Those people do not belong in Australia. I thank the House.
I thank all members for their contributions in relation to the debate on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021. I welcome those who have recently come to the position of supporting the bill. I thank them for their lukewarm support. I note that there is still opposition in this House to a straightforward bill with simple matters in front of the House. I will briefly address those concerns.
As I've been saying for a number of days, this bill has sat in front of this House for around 1,200 days. It's been in here and out of here, and it's back here again now. It's not something the government has come to at the end of our term; we've been consistent in pursuing it for the last 1,200 days for important reasons. It's certainly not a racist bill as the member for Clark would have us believe. Our entire immigration policy is non-discriminatory; our cancellation policy is non-discriminatory as well. Crime doesn't have any nationality or race or ethnicity. Any person, from any background or any culture, can be good or bad. The government has no view about that. So it is odd to introduce the topic of race after 1,200 days of a pretty serious debate about crime and the victims and impact of crime. And the member for Melbourne had some bizarre objections about sympathy for people who have committed crimes. We're talking about convicted criminals in relation to this bill—serious convicted criminals with serious sentences.
Again I'd urge members in this place to be focused, as Australians want us to be, on the victims of crime rather than the criminals themselves. We need to focus on the victims as a priority because the victims in this case are the Australian community and the perpetrators are non-Australians. The primary responsibility of the House of Representatives in the Australian parliament is to think about the impact of serious and violent offending on Australian citizens. In many cases, we're talking about vulnerable people and groups. Women are victims of sex based offences. In these offences we're talking about, children in particular are victims. Their families are victims. Having administered much of the domestic violence cohort for a number of years, in a junior role and now in this role, I can tell you that those crimes are shocking, they're graphic. They're difficult to deal with as a minister, when you read the material repeatedly—as do law enforcement officers when they do their job and as do courts when they do their job, but here in this job you do that as well—and there are serious impacts upon the victims. So anything we as a government and as a parliament can do in this space, to ensure that we don't see these crimes happen in the first place, is absolutely wise and the right approach in relation to a bill of this nature.
That's why it has been surprising that people have, for 1,200 days, obfuscated about what this bill entails. Labor has suggested that this will capture trivial offences. The government has gone out of its way, every day, to demonstrate that there are no trivial offences captured by this bill. There are no trivial offences at all. In fact, when you check out the list of designated offences and the requirements for a minimum two-year sentence, you'll understand these are the most heinous of crimes. These are the ones that have the most impact upon victims, whether they are armed robberies, aggravated burglaries or sexual assaults.
Looking at other crimes, members haven't spent a lot of time in this debate focusing on possession of a firearm, something we all agree on. We agree on that for our own citizens. We think people should have gun registrations and firearm licences, and there have to be rules about possession of a weapon, but why would we allow a noncitizen or temporary resident to possess a firearm? Why would we think that was okay? It's against the law. If a temporary resident or visa holder possesses and is convicted of possessing a firearm, that's a serious offence. I know the policy of the member for Melbourne's party, the Greens, is against the possession of weapons. That's one of the designated offences here. You spoke about needing to have sympathy and compassion for perpetrators on a number of occasions in your speech. I truly don't understand where you're coming from on this one. I know you've got concerns about parts of the Migration Act that the government has addressed over the years in many ways, but here we're talking about serious, violent crime and serious, violent criminal offenders who have been convicted, including for possession of firearms, something I suggest all members actually agree on.
I came to this role and picked up this bill, with the Labor Party opposing it a couple of times, and addressed some of the concerns that Labor has had. There are no further concerns, I believe, that are valid in relation to this bill because it is very simple: the designated offences are there for every Australian to see—for lawyers to see and for judges to see. It provides clarity and certainty to the law around cancellations. It means we'll have more discretionary power, not mandatory power. There wasn't even an objection raised by the member for Melbourne about mandatory use of the power. It's discretionary and it gives the government and the minister the option to cancel whenever we have people who've committed these crimes, not just crimes here in Australia but the same crimes offshore.
Yes, it is retrospective; that's a criticism I've heard. I make no apology for that, and the Morrison government makes no apology for the retrospectivity, because it would make no sense otherwise. If you are a repeated convicted sexual offender in an offshore country, we want to know that before we give you a visa. We want to have the option of saying, 'No, you can't have that visa.' The powers don't exist in a sufficient way, or a lawful way, for us to be able to do it now—and that's been tested in the courts. The evidence has mounted around section 501 of the Migration Act over the years. I can provide examples to any member here of the judiciary over time in different courts—it might be the Victorian courts or the ACT Supreme Court—taking into account, in sentencing, the fact that this government will be deporting a person or cancelling their visa, with sentencing thereby coming in under the mandatory cancellation thresholds. This evidence has mounted for some years in different courts at different levels. This is the serious work of government. We've mounted this case for about 1,200 days because that evidence from the courts has mounted. Some people criticise courts for that. The public is often critical of courts for that because they feel that serious criminals are getting off on technicalities and getting around our laws. But, to be fair to the courts, it's the job of everybody here to improve the law so that the courts can interpret it properly. That's what the courts are saying to us. That's why the Morrison government has put this bill into the House—to say that we will define the law in the way we want to do it, preferably together as a parliament, on serious and violent crime. Then courts can see that the law is clear. There won't be challenges to our system. There won't be people getting through after the AAT overturns ministerial cancellations in serious crime cases. There won't be people coming from offshore who have committed sexual based defences offences over a long period of time in other countries.
I have to say that many of the objections that we've heard here and continue to hear I find to be excuses. I'm reminded of the lateness of the hour. After 1,200 days, I think everybody's minded to get onto a vote on this bill. I will finish up. I have a lot more to say on this, but maybe I'll have to say it somewhere else. I do think this serious bill requires the support of this House. I want this to be supported in the Senate. We have spoken to the crossbench, and we believe we have support. It is sensible law. It is a good law. It will protect Australians. Frankly speaking, there are not many bills that will pass in this place that will not just deal with crime when it happens but prevent crimes from happening in the first place. When we can do that, we should do that and we must do that. I commend this bill to the House.
The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Adjournment proposed and negatived.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Western Australians are absolutely sick and tired of this Liberal government. You see, Western Australians are not silly. They know that this Prime Minister's double pike backflip with a twist in relation to WA's border is nothing more than a desperate vote grab only weeks before an election. You simply can't believe a word he says. For this Prime Minister every problem is someone else's fault and every crisis is someone else's responsibility. He spent the entire pandemic attacking Mark McGowan over the Western Australian government's strong border stand and safe COVID management. The Liberals sided with Clive Palmer in an effort to bring down the WA border. The Prime Minister personally attacked Western Australians, calling us cave people. Only Labor will stand up for WA. Western Australians want to see a partner for our state in Canberra. They don't want a federal government that's constantly working against them. Only Labor will be the partner that WA needs here in Canberra. Our strong federal WA Labor team will be standing up for WA every single day to support working families with child care and other costs of living; to secure good, secure, well played jobs with better skills; and to create a future made in Australia so that we can generate new jobs and industries to diversify our economy and become more self-reliant.
As the federal member for Burt, I've been working every day to make sure our community gets the infrastructure it needs and deserves. Working in partnership with WA Labor, I've helped secure funding to remove Denny Avenue Level Crossing, replacing it with an underpass, making our commutes faster and safer and rejuvenating our Kelmscott town centre at the same time. We're raising the rail through the Armadale CBD and extending the Thornlie railway line with two new stations at Canning Vale. We've widened Armadale Road and built the new Armadale Road bridge over the freeway. We're extending the Tonkin Highway, with upgrades at the intersections of Kelvin, Welshpool and Hale roads.
There's more in the works. Just last week, I announced that a federal Labor government will deliver $4 million to build the Langford Indoor Netball Centre. For too long, talented netballers in Perth's south-eastern suburbs have been missing out. They have been forced to travel huge distances to compete in elite sport. They deserve better, and that's why we'll deliver a state-of-the-art netball centre. The Southern Districts Netball Association at Langford is the training ground for great Aussie netball legends like Courtney Bruce and Caitlin Bassett. The construction of the new facility will mean that the next generation of superstars can train and play at the elite level locally, following in the footsteps of these two great players. This new facility will be an absolute game changer for Southern Districts and a game changer for netball players in my community. It means a better future our young sports players.
Only an Albanese Labor government will stand up for Perth's south-eastern suburbs. Families in my community—in fact, families across Australia—are facing skyrocketing costs of living, stagnant wages, insecure work and skills shortages. They can't afford another wasted decade under this government. We want the economy to recover strongly, but there's no doubt working families are really feeling the pinch right now. The federal Labor government will help ease that burden with policies for cheaper child care and reducing other costs of living. We'll make secure, well-paid jobs a priority, so that Australians who work hard can actually get ahead. It's reforms like these that will help our nation's economic recovery not just from this pandemic but from the most wasteful federal government in history.
We shouldn't just return to how things were pre COVID-19. We want a better future for Australians. Don't be fooled by the latest Liberal scare campaign. It's an increasingly desperate attempt to distract from their diabolical failures on rapid antigen tests, boosters, supply chain, wages and debt. The Prime Minister is now, quite literally, clutching at straws. Australians can do so much better than another wasted decade of missed opportunity under this Morrison government. Only Labor will stand up for WA and ensure a better future for all Australians.
It is only in the last couple of days that I have received news that a round of the Australian Black Summer Bushfire Recovery Grants have gone into my electorate. There were two councils affected in the 2019-20 season. There was a very significant effect down on lower Yorke Peninsula where about 5,000 hectares were burnt out. Eleven properties were damaged and about seven houses were destroyed. Obviously there was a lot of farm machinery lost as well as fencing and so forth. The community came together really well. It was caused by a faulty electrical connector near the Yorketown water tower, ironically.
I am very pleased to hear that there have been successful applications that I supported. One is for $40,000 worth of funding for bushfire signage throughout the council area, which will be put to good use. There is $1.8 million for a multipurpose community centre at the Edithburgh Oval. There will be an upgrade of the oval, the change room facilities, the clubrooms—the whole works. That will be a huge boon to the Edithburgh community. When I rang up the leading light down there, who is a good friend of mine, she was absolutely delighted. She was blown away by the news, I would have to say.
Minlaton is a nearby town with a population of, off the top of my head, about 1,100 people. It's surrounded by a very fertile farming community, and they have been crying out for a childcare centre. There are lots of dual working parents in the Minlaton area, so where do we put the kids? They were delighted to hear that $2.25 million had been allocated to building the Southern Yorke Community Childcare Centre. This is backed by the local council. They are seeking to find some private operators to come in and run the facility once it's up and running. I was talking to the mayor only yesterday. One way or another, they will find operators, even if it is the council themselves. That will be a great boon to that particular community and will be well received. There is also $40,000 to repair the roof and the wall of the Edithburgh RSL and Bowling Club which was damaged in the fire itself. The fire actually came right to the verges of the town, and there were people evacuating the town at the time, so it was one of those scary times. So that's a very good outcome for Yorke Peninsula.
Over on the other peninsula, we also had fires down around the Port Lincoln region, and I have to say this is not an unusual circumstance. There's some pretty tight scrub down there, and you get a lightning strike and whatever, and it's hard to control. Of course it was the place where in 2005 we saw the terrible fires when we lost nine lives. Over 70 homes and hundreds of farm buildings were destroyed when it burned from one side of the peninsula to the other. Mercifully, 2019 was not as bad as that. That particular fire destroyed two homes.
But one thing that I can say is that, across all of the fires that occurred on Lower Eyre Peninsula, one of the things that come into focus is the ability of the communications network to keep up. There's been about $1.6 million allocated for a Telstra 4GX mobile phone tower to be placed at Coulta—which is on the Lower Eyre Peninsula, near Wangary—and perhaps in Port Lincoln. That will service a whole lot of that area that has had these issues in the past.
I would just reflect on that as a point of interest: the fact that a mobile phone tower costs $1½ million or a little shows how expensive these facilities can be if they are not near backhaul capacity and electricity. It's one of the things that we grapple with as we're trying to extend the mobile phone network around Australia. There are three things you need for a mobile phone. You need elevation—that's your tower or a hill—you need electricity—that's the electricity line or a big array of solar panels and batteries, because they use a lot of electricity—and you need backhaul. If you don't have cable, you're talking about radio, and that diminishes the effectiveness of the whole system. Everything is a trade-off. So, while we would like to have a mobile phone tower on every corner, there are a whole lot of individual barriers that get thrown up, and decisions are made around the economics of those.
But, to come back to the grants themselves, this is an excellent outcome. It's a large fund. I'm sure it will be weighted into the districts like Kangaroo Island in eastern Australia, and I fully support it.
I rise to address the House about the importance of young activists and how our next generation of Australians are stepping up and making noise. I'm quoting the 2021 Australian of the year, Grace Tame. She urged people to make noise when they see injustice, and she is so right. So many little girls and women have been taught to be quiet, polite and small. Throughout history and in living rooms across Australia and the world, girls have been told they should be seen and not heard. Women too often get told to smile by men who do not like what they have to say. It's a way of silencing them and asserting power. It's about reminding women to be pretty and non-threatening to men. That's why I'm so pleased to see Australian women in their 20s and 30s making noise, taking up space and shining a light on areas that have been kept dark and silent. That's what leadership looks like, and Grace Tame embodies this type of leadership. Over the past year, she has shared her gut-wrenching story of grooming and abuse. She's worked to secure improvements to our court system, she's called for important reforms and she's used her story to educate people. She's done it with profound strength and brutal courage. Every generation needs its Grace Tame, and hopefully there are many who advocate across different issues.
Activism runs deep in my electorate of Cooper. It always has and I hope it always will. Cooper activists are in every street, cafe and classroom. We have activist organisations like the Aborigines Advancement League, which was forged to fight for the rights of Aboriginal people. Their iconic mural documents a history that needs everyone's attention and recognition. It's a visual reminder in my electorate of trauma and mistreatment and also of strength and leadership on land rights.
We have climate activists with solar panels on their roofs who teach their kids about the importance of recycling and reducing consumption. We have teenagers who write letters—a lot to me—and scrutinise the happenings of the United Nations climate change conference in Glasgow. There are activists who are working so hard to reduce emissions and get others to join the mission to address the climate change crisis. We have activists who've worked hard and fought for marriage equality and supported the decades-long fight for LGBTI rights. There are so many ways to be an activist. In 1976 two women were convicted of 'offensive behaviour' for holding hands on a tram in Melbourne. Then, decades later, women and lesbians protested by holding hands on Melbourne's trams. The world was very different, and thanks to so many activists we've come so far. But we still have a long way to go on so many issues.
A few weeks ago Dylan Alcott was announced as the 2022 Australian of the Year. This impressive man, who has so many achievements behind him, is another activist in my electorate. In 2017 he founded the Dylan Alcott Foundation, which gives scholarships and grants to Australians with a disability to overcome barriers to participate in sport and education. They offer mentoring to young people to help them see the sorts of future that is clearly possible. He's also brought to life Ability Fest, a music festival that is accessible to people of all abilities. This man, Dylan Alcott, has set countless Australians on their way after new doors were opened and new opportunities realised. I'm excited to watch 2022 and see him, as Australian of the Year, use his platform and the months ahead to be an activist for those of different abilities.
He's spoken of the importance of properly funding the NDIS to make sure people with a disability receive appropriate care, and I couldn't agree more. For many of us in Labor, the NDIS is one of the proudest legacies we've achieved, and the Morrison government has deliberately underspent NDIS budgets, which has seen Australians with a disability deprived of the funding that they're entitled to. He's spoken up about supporting people with a disability to work in paid employment. He's spoken of the life-changing power of employment and the confidence, freedom and autonomy it gives.
Each generation has had their protest movements, whether it's marching in the streets, holding up signs, chaining themselves to bars or buildings, supporting boycotts or burning their bras. In my time I've learnt that activism is a marathon; it requires years and decades of persistence. But ultimately my message to the next generation is to maintain the rage. (Time expired)
I rise today to congratulate four innovative female-founded and led startups within my own electorate: Kinephonics, In2thewild, Grow Your Mind and Pioneera. All four organisations recently received a grant under the government's Boosting Female Founders Initiative. Those here will know that the Boosting Female Founders Initiative is designed to help female founders of startup businesses to extend their reach to domestic markets, to global markets, to scale their products, to invest in R&D and to take on new workers to help to turn a startup business into a mature business. The funding that we've provided these female founders will assist these entrepreneurs to crossover or bridge some of the boundaries that we often see female founders encounter in terms of accessing capital, accessing mentoring and accessing investors.
The current program for the female founders initiative will see $12 million distributed between 38 worthy female-led businesses. With four recent recipients in my own electorate of Wentworth, I would like to highlight these incredible businesses here today.
Kinephonics is run by founder and CEO Anna Gill and will receive $400,000 of federal funding to support their remarkable neuro rehabilitation pilot program. This pilot will seek to teach non-verbal adults to speak, and this next generation health infrastructure will help combat cognitive decline for many adults. I spoke to Anna just a few weeks ago to congratulate her and was excited to hear about the potential of Kinephonics and her neuro rehabilitation program. My congratulations go to Anna and the Kinephonics team for their transformative approach to the health sector.
In2thewild, another recipient of the Boosting Female Founders Initiative, is an eco-conscious, sustainable business founded by Celeste Giannas that is changing the landscape of tourism. Their sustainable, off-the-grid, transportable and tiny homes are being used by holiday-goers and by those looking for a change in lifestyle across Australia. Celeste will receive $480,000 of funding under this program to help upscale her business. This will give the In2thewild team the opportunity to explore new projects such as using tiny houses to address temporary housing needs.
Kristina Freeman's business Grow Your Mind provides engaging and evidence based mental health strategies for educators, children and their families. Under the program, Grow Your Mind will receive $650,000 of funding to help upscale this wellbeing program. It will allow Kristina and her fellow founders to transition their business to an online platform, so that more educators across more of Australia can access this crucial mental health training.
Finally, with COVID-19 disrupting many workers, the work of the Pioneera group has never been more important. Pioneera, founded by Danielle Owen-Whitford, is a digital platform that conducts linguistic analysis of written communication. It does this via digital communication in workplace settings that measure behaviour and mental states, so that workplaces that have a larger workforce working remotely are able to monitor the stress levels of their workforce and tailor personalised interventions to help address that. This will not only support employees at an individual level; at an enterprise or business level it will help lessen things like workplace sickness, low productivity and low morale. Danielle will receive $275,000 to help her expand the impact of Pioneera during such challenging times. I spoke to Danielle a few weeks ago to hear a little bit more about this exciting business. It monitors the chats in team platforms like Microsoft Teams, Slack and others to detect changes in people's language or frequency of communication or response rates to give you a sense of whether people's mental health or awareness or attention is changing. That will allow businesses that would otherwise miss the cues from face-to-face interactions to help monitor the mental health of their employees.
I wanted to pass my congratulations to all of these very talented, capable and worthy female founders for all their entrepreneurial skills and risk-taking—for taking a chance to develop new technology and for helping to build the businesses that will provide the engine of jobs, growth and the economy a long way into the future. The determination of these four individuals, with the assistance of the Boosting Female Founders Initiative, will help keep these Australian founded and female led businesses in Australia—growing, creating jobs and contributing to the strengthening of the Australian economy. I congratulate each of them.
I rise to call out the Morrison government's failure to introduce a national anticorruption commission. This is without a doubt the most corrupt, rotten and wasteful government in the history of our nation.
Order. The member will withdraw the term that was just used then, and I ask you not to repeat it. I ask you to withdraw. I talked about this in question time just yesterday.
So we're not allowed to call out the government for being corrupt? I didn't hear you in question time. Is that really your ruling now?
That is absolutely correct. I'm asking you to withdraw.
In the interest of continuing, I will withdraw. Unbelievable! That's your ruling, Mr Speaker; we will abide by it. This government has rorted billions of dollars. They treat taxpayer dollars as if they were Liberal Party dollars—as the Auditor-General shows year after year—shovelling taxpayer money to marginal seats. You know it; it's what happens. That's what they do. They treat the AAT as an employee agency for Liberal mates. They stack government boards with failed Liberal politicians. We found out in the audit committee that the national housing, financing and infrastructure board doesn't have a single person now with any expertise in social or affordable housing; all the blokes are retired Liberal politicians.
Apparently it's okay for the member for Pearce to accept $1 million in secret donations. Under this government, it is okay for members of parliament to take bags of cash left outside their door and not declare where they came from. The Prime Minister has broken his promise to introduce an ICAC. And his excuse? He blames Labor. He says it's Labor's fault. Somehow it's our fault.
The assistant minister, on a point of order?
Thank you Mr Speaker, yes, a point of order. He is reflecting on members. No members have taken bags of cash left outside their offices. He is wrong and he should withdraw.
The member for Bruce can continue.
He blames Labor for their own failure to introduce a bill and debate it in his House. It is truly bizarre. He did propose a weak model. It's not a big stick; it's like being whacked with a little bit of balsawood or beaten with wet lettuce. He then blames New South Wales for having an ICAC with teeth. His so-called good friend Gladys Berejiklian was hauled before ICAC, which scared off the government. That's the same Gladys Berejiklian who called him a horrible, horrible person and a complete psycho. Then his latest excuse is that there's no time. Well, the parliament last week sat till 5 am. He has a record low number of sitting days. Here's a tip for the Prime Minister: you could schedule more sitting days and have a debate on a national anticorruption commission. Bring it on. He won't even have the debate. He's scared because the parliament may impose a model with teeth.
We saw the report of the cabinet leak last week. Astoundingly, the Prime Minister was trying to get the votes for his flawed, divisive Religious Discrimination Bill to divide the nation. He was trying to trade votes for that by promising a debate on a corruption commission. There's no sense of irony on that, is there? He was trading votes for a debate on a corruption commission while trying to get something else through the parliament. But then he was rolled in the cabinet, because—get this, and let this sink in—the cabinet, the most senior ministers in the government of Australia, were scared that there might be a corruption commission with retrospective powers that might investigate their own time in office. That's exactly what the media report said. Australians know that the Prime Minister has no intention of introducing an ICAC. He's a cunning politician, but he is not a leader.
It's not just a matter for the government and the Liberals, sadly; it's a matter for the nation. It impacts our global standing in the global rankings of corruption. Australia has become more corrupt after a decade of the Liberals. In 2012, when Labor was in office, we ranked seventh out of all the countries in the world on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. We could do better, but that was not bad—top 10. In January this year, last month, we saw the worst score that Australia has ever recorded: we've fallen to 18th globally. The reason for the drop is the Prime Minister's failure to establish a federal anticorruption commission, after a decade in office. This bloke has lost touch. He's lost trust. He's now lost Tudge. He's out of ideas, out of time and out of office. I seek leave to table this graphical illustration of the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index showing the fall of Australia under this Prime Minister.
Leave not granted.
It is a fact. Anyone in the country can look at how the world has ranked us. We've fallen down. We've become a more corrupt country under this failing, rotten government. (Time expired)
Before I call the member for Ryan, Member for Bruce, I will just get you, at your own leisure, to look at the top of page 517 of Practice. It's been in place for 50 years.
I just want to comment on the issue of the day in the time I have remaining. It was an absolute privilege today to watch the valedictory speech of my colleague the member for Boothby, Nicolle Flint, in this chamber. She is a courageous and tenacious member of the House, and as a new member I have learnt so much from the upstanding way she has carried herself. I've worked with her on issues involving funding for endometriosis treatment and research and seen the effective way she advocates and secures real change in the place. I've also seen the way she holds her head high and refuses to be diminished by the abhorrent behaviour that has been directed at her by political opponents. Nic, thank you for the service you have given your community and this place and for your support of colleagues like me. You are a great loss to our parliamentary party room.
In her speech, the member for Boothby called out commentators, political operators and activists of the Left who preach tolerance and support for women in politics but then direct at their female political opponents the most horrendous and vile abuse. Lo and behold, the Left were at it again today. We saw a terrible display of vandalism and violence from members of the Left at the University of Queensland in my electorate of Ryan. Today was market day, and young volunteers including young women were volunteering at the UQ Liberal National Club tent. They were attacked and had their property defaced with red paint and were labelled Nazis for simply expressing their political opinions on campus. Members of our Australian Defence Force also had their own tent at UQ's market day, and the same thugs were videotaped spray-painting the front of the ADF tent and hurling expletives at these service men and women. I am a fierce defender of free speech, but time and again we see the Left seeking to silence conservative men and women on university campuses through the use of violence and intimidation. Shame on these leftist criminals for using violence to try and silence free speech! If my Labor and Greens opponents in the Ryan electorate had any ticker, they would call out this disgusting behaviour by their supporters. I'll be contacting the UQ vice-chancellor to demand an investigation to identify these thugs and expel them from their studies on campus. Students should be able to go to market day and choose clubs and societies to be a part of, free from violence and intimidation.
House adjourned at 20:00
CHALMERS () (): Mr Deputy Speaker, thanks for the opportunity to speak about critical infrastructure in my community, around Queensland and around Australia. On the eve of the last election, in 2019, the Morrison government promised 13 congestion-busting road projects in a swag of marginal seats in Queensland. One of the 13 projects is the Priestdale and Rochedale roads intersection upgrade, on the border of my electorate and the member for Bonner's. Almost 20,000 vehicles use the intersection each day and, given its proximity to five local schools, there is often a lot of congestion during peak hours and around school drop-off and pick-up times. There is also a lack of safe crossing points, which makes it difficult and dangerous for pedestrians and schoolkids to cross at the roundabout. Everyone in my community remembers the heartbreaking accident in 2018 when a young boy was hit by a car at that very intersection.
That's one of the reasons why it is really disappointing to know that, three years since the Morrison government said they'd make this intersection safer, work still hasn't started on improving and upgrading it to make it safer. It was announced before the last election, and now the government say we've got to wait until after the next election before work will start on what are not particularly complex roadworks. At the last election, we committed $14 million to fast-track the upgrade of the intersection. Unfortunately, the government have not acted with the necessary urgency. It's been three years already, and now they say our community has to wait even longer.
As we've come to expect from this government, there was a big announcement, there was media, there were cameras, there were government ministers and members patting themselves on the back, congratulating themselves on a job well done, but, as I said, three years later nothing has changed at the Priestdale Road and Rochedale Road intersection. Of the 13 projects announced by the government, only one has been finished and only one is under construction. And this isn't a one-off; it's a continuous pattern of behaviour with this government. There's the big announcement, the big photo opportunity, the cameras. They tell everyone how good they are and then they disappear.
Also, we got confirmation on Monday that the government has spent only $33 million of the $1.6 billion they promised Queenslanders in the last budget. This again is a pattern of behaviour: lots of big promises spraying the cash around but then failure to actually deliver. What it means is that my community, the community in Bonner and other communities represented here in this House—local families and communities like ours right across Queensland and Australia—have to cop the consequences of a government that promises big and then fails to deliver. What it also means is that in this election, no matter what those opposite promise in communities right around Australia, you can't trust them to deliver it.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a fantastic program being run in the electorate of Herbert. It's Catholic Education's Emerging Leaders Incentive Scheme. The Emerging Leaders Incentive Scheme is a scholarship program with a difference. It's available at all 11 Townsville Catholic Education schools and it's to provide scholarships, training and career opportunities for our First Nations students. It's funded under the government's Indigenous Advancement Strategy and is based on evidence based research that focuses on partnerships and collaboration between students, parents and carers, schools and the community. The team at Townsville Catholic Education have been working hard on growing and developing the program, and it was great to meet with them in Townsville recently.
So far, nearly 600 students have successfully taken part, and it has had a significant impact on their lives, in giving them the best start in life. Each student is supported throughout the year with leadership, cultural and wellbeing experiences and opportunities. Students are incentivised to make positive choices during their time at school. To give you an idea of how that plays out, I want to share with you Emma's story.
Emma is a year-10 student who managed to attain a gold incentive level. In giving advice to encourage her peers, she said:
Find something you love doing in the community. Whether that is sport, drama, volunteering or even going to community gatherings like church but it has to be something to do with your community. So no you can't just say video games. I found a great way to do this was through my external interest being drama.
Next is academic success…. But what does that really mean? Some of you may say getting A's all the time, but it doesn't always mean that. For me, success is finding something I can enjoy in a subject. Even in classes like religion or science which neither are my strong set. Being able to put your mind to it and strive to overcome the dislike of that subject and going, "No I don't like this, but I don't hate it either. No, it's not for me but I can see how others like it".
This is what I have used for every subject that I have ever taken and that unwillingness to hate a subject has driven me to find passions that I never thought I would have.
Lastly is engaging with the resources that you all have available to you. The emerging leader's team who try their best to engage you in a variety of different activities, such as the mentoring program of the older students, homework and tutoring clubs after school and shalom reading of a morning all of which I have been involved with over the years.
Emma does a fantastic job, and she is inspiring many people. I want to thank her for her leadership and the Catholic schools on this program in the electorate of Herbert.
While this hasn't been the summer that any Australian wanted to have, we all had hopes that the worst of the pandemic was behind us and that we could get on with a much-needed break over the warmer months—going on a holiday, getting to a festival, catching up with mates or spending Christmas relaxing with the family. The virus, unfortunately, had other plans.
I've said it many times over the past two years of this pandemic, but the healthcare workers on the front lines of this crisis have been the heroes of this pandemic. I've thanked them many times in this place and in our community, and during the last lockdown in Melbourne I arranged a thank you hamper for every member of staff at the Altona North Respiratory Clinic, in my electorate, run by Dr Mukesh Haikerwal—a familiar face to all Victorians. They've done nation-leading work in delivering both testing and vaccinations to our community. But, while the focus is often on clinicians, it's not just the doctors and the nurses who bear the brunt of the pandemic. This pandemic has, for example, put a spotlight on the heavy burden carried by our aged-care workers and the enormous stresses that they have been put under during this latest outbreak. They have our nation's thanks.
But today I want to highlight and thank two groups of frontline healthcare workers who are sometimes overlooked—the people manning the phones and the front counters at our GP clinics and our pharmacies. The receptionists at our local GP clinics are often the first interactions we have with our local doctor. They support the work of our GPs every day and they play a vital role in our healthcare system. The staff at your local pharmacy are a similar point of first contact. They're on the front lines. They're the people who anxious, scared and sick Australians turn to for advice and assistance.
As I said earlier, it hasn't been the summer that any of us wanted, but it has been a particularly difficult one for people staffing our GP clinics and our pharmacies. They've had to field waves of calls from frustrated Australians trying to book vaccination appointments in the face of distribution failures, including parents who've had long-booked vaccination appointments for their kids cancelled because of these distribution failures and have been scrambling to find a new appointment before school returns. I know that my family experienced this on the school holidays. They've had to deal with wave after wave of frustrated Australians calling and turning up at the front counter asking, 'Do you have any rapid tests available?' They've had to deal with anxious mobs turning up at their workplaces on the back of an internet rumour.
The frontline staff at our pharmacies and our GP clinics have borne the brunt of our community's frustrations and anxiety at not being able to get a jab or a RAT. They shouldn't have had to cop the consequences of this government's failure to do its job and its failure to plan ahead on RATs and vaccinations. They've had no easy job, and I'm sure that everyone in this place will join me in thanking them for their service to our community. We see the work that you have done and what you've had to put up with. Thank you for everything you've done for our community during this frustrating summer.
Australia has been termed the allergy capital of the world. One in 10 infants and one in 20 adults have food allergies. Each of these Australians lives with the ever-present risk of life-threatening anaphylaxis. At each snack or meal they need to literally walk the allergy tightrope. This is an issue close to home in Higgins because research has shown that Melbourne has the highest rates of food allergy anywhere in the world. If we extrapolate national data, there are about 72 hospital admissions just in Higgins each year from allergic reactions. That is why the Walking the allergy tightrope report with its 24 recommendations, which was produced by the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, is so important. As a member of this committee, I was proud to contribute to such a report on an issue I worked with in my professional life.
As a young paediatrician I had rooms in Higgins and as a professor of paediatrics my team was the first to confirm the rising allergy epidemic in Australia. That's why I'm fighting for a $28 million investment in the next budget to enable the creation of a national allergy council and a national allergy centre of excellence. Funding of the NAC and NACE would increase access to quality care as well as providing further education, translation, prevention and treatment of allergy and anaphylaxis. This funding could potentially reverse the deadly trend of increased allergies and anaphylaxis in Australia. It would provide relief and hope to literally thousands of Australians and their families.
This investment would include $7.7 million towards a shared care program to cut wait times to see a specialist by at least 50 per cent. Importantly, it would also improve access to care, especially for Australians in regional and rural areas—and I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have seen people wait for over two years to see me as an allergy specialist, and it's so hard for rural patients. It would allow our healthcare professionals to be connected with access to education and resources and to more efficiently support patients. An additional $4.9 million would be allocated to education and training for allergy researchers to answer the most probing questions in this important field.
I'm proud to be a strong advocate for the National Allergy Strategy, and this funding would surely be a step in the right direction. My thanks to: Preeti Joshi and Maria Said, the co-chairs of the National Allergy Strategy; Jill Smith, CEO of ASCIA; Sandra Vale, NAS manager; and Kirsten Perrett, the director of the Centre for Food and Allergy Research. Together you are making a massive difference for those children with food allergy, and I thank you.
Health is the issue in my electorate that my community want me to fight for the most. I know this because when I was first elected I sent a survey to every household and, every time a new family or a new couple or a new individual move into the electorate, they receive the same survey. They have all said health is the most important issue. I also represent an electorate with the oldest population by median age, and this can bring challenges with respect to infrastructure as well. We desperately need more healthcare and more aged-care infrastructure in my electorate.
For instance, the Mount Barker District Soldiers' Memorial Hospital is over 100 years old. The hospital serves the population in the Adelaide Hills, which by 2036 will be 100,000 people. Presentations to the hospital's emergency department have increased from over 12,000 in 2017-18 to more than 19,000 by 2021, and more than 50 per cent of patients unfortunately have needed to be transferred to city hospitals. We don't have the acuity right, and the hospital requires new services. We've been able to get some much needed funds from the federal government, and I welcome that. However, what we really need is an investment of over $200 million to create a proper standalone hospital that would suit and meet the needs of the community. I also want to mention that more pressure is being placed on Mount Barker hospital because the Gumeracha hospital emergency department has been closed. That was a state government decision, but I'm going to do all I can to make sure that we keep it open.
There's another issue in my electorate that desperately needs addressing, and that is palliative care. In my electorate on the South Coast we desperately need at least a four-bed palliative-care facility because people in communities on the South Coast have to travel 70 kilometres to the nearest palliative-care facility. We need to make sure health is front and centre. It always beggars belief that we always manage to find money for defence, submarines or whatever else you need to build, and yet health takes a second seat. We need to do this. Health is the most important issue in my electorate. I will continue to do all I can to fight for our health needs.
Late last year it was absolutely fantastic to get down to Sparks Reserve in Box Hill, home of the mighty Box Hill Rugby Union Football Club. Thanks in part to the Morrison government contributing funding of $300,000, Sparks Reserve now has brand-new lighting, supporting the many community groups that use the grounds and also the local economy, with the many jobs projects like this create. The Box Hill rugby club have been fighting for better lighting at their home ground for over 20 years, so I am especially proud to have been able to get this done and deliver on a commitment I made at the 2019 election.
I was deeply honoured to be asked to switch on the lights at an event at the club, but the thing that truly makes me most proud is that Chisholm is home to a club that is doing so much good. Last year the Box Hill rugby club ran what it called the Time|Out program. This was a six-week free program designed to support more women in the community to be physically active. The club embarked on this program when they made an uncomfortable discovery. After researching female sports participation trends in Victoria, they found that more than 40 per cent of women do not feel comfortable training in public. This informed the goals of Time|Out to help local women with their confidence, physical and mental wellbeing, and skill development. It also supported them to overcome their fears.
Recently Time|Out was deservedly recognised at the Whitehorse City Council civic awards, with Box Hill Rugby Union Football Club taking out the sport and recreation award for 2022. I congratulate the team behind Time|Out—Lauren Broomhall, Yash Pathak and Abhishek Pratap, as well as Claudia Read, Ella Reid and Renee Fox—for all their outstanding work. Also, although I know that he wouldn't want to take the credit away from those I have just mentioned, it wouldn't feel right to not acknowledge club president Jack Goodman, who has put a real emphasis on community at the heart of his club. Well done, all, and thank you for your contribution to Chisholm.
I have been visiting local community and sporting groups in my community that do such important work to provide spaces where we can all come together. I have seen at these clubs the need for more work to be done to upgrade some of our local facilities so that these organisations have the modern infrastructure they need to thrive. Having seen this need, it makes me furious to know that just over the river, in the member for Kooyong's electorate, the funding for sporting clubs seems to have been flowing fast. Between 2018 and 2021 the Treasurer's seat received $5.7 million in federal government grants. By stark contrast, my community in received just under $800,000. So, in the same three-year period, Liberal held Kooyong, just across the river, received more than seven times—that's right; seven times—more grant funding than my community. What a farce! What an absolute disgrace and show of disrespect to my community!
A tennis club and a bowling club in Kooyong each received $50,000 for lighting upgrades. I know of at least two clubs in Jagajaga that would love to have that kind of support. A cricket club in Kooyong received $30,000 for electronic scoreboards. There are at least three clubs in Jagajaga which would be chasing funding for those scoreboards.A football club in Kooyong received $88,000 for female-friendly facilities. That kind of funding would make a big difference to local clubs, including Heidelberg United. I'm not suggesting these clubs aren't doing great things in Kooyong; I'm sure they are. But there is no credible explanation for why federal grants funding in Kooyong is seven times what it is in Jagajaga, other than that this Liberal government is concerned about keeping the Treasurer's seat.
We need a national anticorruption commission. Our communities deserve to know where their money is being spent and that it's being spent fairly and based on need. The Morrison government have had three years to introduce a national anticorruption commission, yet now, in the dying days of this parliament, they tell us, 'Oops, sorry; we've run out of time.' It's not a priority apparently. We can spend weeks and weeks debating other things, but they can't bring legislation for a national anticorruption commission. It is just not good enough. They've squibbed out of it. They've finally admitted that they've squibbed out of it and that they won't be doing it. Well, Labor will get it done. We will introduce a powerful, independent national anticorruption commission. We will make sure that this country gets the government it deserves and that my community gets its fair share.
The social, cultural and economic value that volunteers bring to the local community needs to be heard and celebrated. In Tasmania alone, there are more than 300,000 volunteers—
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Bass will pause. Members on both sides, the member for Bass is giving a constituency speech, which you are able to give without interruption. Can we start the member for Bass's speech again? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The social, cultural and economic value that volunteers bring to the local community needs to be heard and celebrated. In Tasmania alone, there are more than 300,000 volunteers, who give their time positively contributing to the wellbeing of other individuals and communities. The work is done quietly, tirelessly and without being asked for recognition. But it's great to see volunteers recognised for their service as part of the Australia Day honours.
I have the privilege of knowing the first recipient I'm highlighting today. It was an absolute joy to see Pamela Watkins recognised for her service to the community through a range of organisations. The list of her contributions is endless. As well as volunteering at the Old Umbrella Shop in Launceston, driving for the Australian Red Cross and being a blood donor for more than 40 years, Pamela has also taken on leadership roles with the northern Tasmanian branch of the Royal Commonwealth Society, the John Lewis Foundation and the Launceston Penguin Club. On top of all this, Pamela has also acted as a foster parent and exchange student host. Pamela, you are so deserving of this honour.
For the North Launceston Football Club, their very own club legend, Tasma Lapham, was awarded an OAM for more than 40 years of service to the club. The club's beloved volunteer was previously awarded AFL Tasmania Volunteer of the Year, as part of the AFL's 150 year celebration in 2008, and she has been rightly recognised again for her decades of dedication to running the club's catering service. Tasma is a legend among the club and its community. Congratulations, Tasma.
Life member of the Vietnam Veteran's Association and current state secretary and treasurer of the association's Launceston sub-branch, Malcolm Cash OAM has also been rightly awarded with the Order of Australia for his tireless work with Vietnam veterans. As part of the wonderful group of volunteers who make up the local sub-branch, Malcolm also spends every Tuesday mowing lawns and doing general home maintenance for elderly veterans and widows. Congratulations also to Mr Terence Bracken OAM, for recognition of his service to the motorsport industry; to Mr John Cornish OAM, for recognition of more than 50 years of volunteering for Scouts Tasmania; and to Mrs Betty Laverty, for service to music through pipe bands.
I also want to recognise the four northern Tasmanians who received meritorious awards for emergency services. To Australian Fire Service Medal recipients Ian Sauer OAM and Matthew Buck, Ambulance Service Medal recipient Dr Peter Mulholland and Mr Graydon O'Halloran, who was awarded the Emergency Services Medal, a sincere thank you for your outstanding efforts to keep our community safe.
I was delighted to meet India's Minister of External Affairs, the Hon. Dr S Jaishankar, when he was hosted last week by the University of Melbourne's Australia India Institute. The minister was in Melbourne as part of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and took part in a very insightful conversation on the Australian-India partnership and our cooperation in the Indo-Pacific. I want to take this opportunity to also acknowledge the work of my former colleague Lisa Singh, who is now the CEO of the Australia India Institute, and congratulate her on the launch of the India Matters program. This is a program that seeks to promote Australia and India's relationship by facilitating discussion on politics, commerce, education and culture, with people-to-people participation. Interaction like this acts as a key facilitator. The rise of India and its place in our region, including its role as one of our top source countries for migration, signifies the ongoing and future importance of Australia's relationship with India. Such dialogue and people-to-people exchange during this period of considerable regional and global change is very critical. Our engagement with India is important to building our research capacity, extending our reach into Asia and beyond and supporting the growth of our economy.
Over a period now of almost two decades, migration from India to Australia has increased significantly, drawing largely from international students and skilled migrants. India leads as a top source country for migration to Australia, and migrants from India are now an emerging community in my electorate of Calwell, with thousands settling and taking up citizenship with great enthusiasm. In fact, in the 20 or so online citizenship ceremonies that I have conducted in the last year alone in the Hume council, over 50 per cent of those taking up citizenship have been from India and the subcontinent. These are new citizens who are becoming a part of our very vibrant diaspora communities.
Members of my local Indian community are doing an excellent job to assist the Indian settlement experience in Calwell. Local organisations such as the Sahara Welfare Resource Centre and the Oorja Foundation, both community led, volunteer based organisations, bridge an important gap between the community and access to settlement services. Other places of significance include the Sikh Gurudwara in Craigieburn and the Kali Mata mandir temple, providing the spiritual guidance and places of worship so important to my local faiths. Our local Indian community contributes to and adds to the richness of our multicultural community. In this century going forward, engagement between Australia and India will enhance our region's mutual social and economic growth and success. I'm proud that this principle, this model of engagement and growth, is formed and shaped in places such as my electorate and continues to grow through those within our community.
The Connells Point Netball Club is one of the strongest netball clubs anywhere in southern Sydney, established more than 60 years ago. Already for the upcoming season more than 250 players have signed up, which is great news. There has been a very successful summer series of training as well, with more than 120 participants just over summer. In particular, I want to congratulate Evie Economou, of Connells Point Netball Club. She has been selected to participate in the Sydney Netball Academy run by Netball NSW. It's a very prestigious program. Hundreds of people applied, and just 44 were selected, so congratulations, Evie, on that great effort. Thank you to Julian Finch, the president; Maureen Finch, the secretary; and everyone who does so much to make Connells Point Netball Club such a bedrock of our local community.
The Microbiome Research Centre at St George Hospital is a fabulous place. The Commonwealth government has provided some $6 million of support to the St George & Sutherland Medical Research Foundation, and the work that's going on at the Microbiome Research Centre, led by Professor Emad El-Omar, is literally world-leading. In addition to the Microbiome Research Centre, there are a series of different projects going on. There are 127 projects underway at the foundation at the moment, including 28 international projects. It's a really good thing for southern Sydney to have such a high-quality research centre based in our own community. It helps to attract the very best and brightest to St George Hospital. Thank you to Professor El-Omar and everyone who is doing such great work.
East Hills Baseball Club has a proud history in the East Hills region. Peter Archer and Jill Archer, the president and the vice president, are a dynamic duo. They run that club with great pride, and they have grown it into one of the strongest anywhere in Sydney. This weekend coming, we'll be opening the new lighting down there at Kelso Park, contributed to through the federal government grant of $250,000. I want to thank everyone at East Hills Baseball for their efforts. In particular, congratulations to Chelsea Wicks and Ryleigh Delacour Batch on their selection for the New South Wales under-16 team for the Australian youth women's event in Adelaide. Congratulations East Hills Baseball.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I rise to support Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022, which provide for additional expenditure on government programs which require further funding since the budget appropriation bills of May 2021 and the subsequent coronavirus response bills. The appropriations authorised by these bills total approximately $15.9 billion.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 provides additional funding of approximately $11.9 billion for the ordinary annual services of the government, which include departmental costs of Australian government agencies for departmental and administrative activities which have previously been endorsed by parliament. The Department of Health will receive $2.86 billion, with the majority of this funding to support the government's response to COVID-19, including to secure additional treatments for coronavirus, provide support for greater testing capacity in relation to rapid antigen tests, and support the rollout of vaccines and boosters within the Australian community. In my electorate, service providers such as Community Vision Australia have highlighted the impact of the increased operating costs of delivering services to clients in a COVID environment. It is intended that this funding will go some way to alleviating the cost of rapid antigen testing and providing personal protective equipment for the workforce.
The Department of Social Services will receive $2.75 billion, which will be used to support the delivery of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Department of Education, Skills and Employment will receive $1.41 billion across a range of programs to support the childcare sector, jobs in the post-pandemic recovery, and additional funding to support vocational education and training. The Department of Defence will receive $1.28 billion to support the implementation of recent government decisions to boost defence capability.
On the other hand, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022 provides additional funding for services that are not in the ordinary course of government, including capital works and payments to the states and territories and local government. As the local government authority covering three-quarters of my electorate, the City of Joondalup receives annual federal financial assistance grants for roadworks and general purposes. I am pleased to support the city in its advocacy for a federal funding contribution towards a number of priority capital projects in the upcoming budget process. These projects have been submitted by Mayor Albert Jacob and Chief Executive Officer James Pearson.
The redevelopment of the community facilities at Heathridge Park is a major project for the City of Joondalup. Heathridge Park caters for more than 30 different sporting clubs and community groups. In 2019 the city initiated a needs analysis and feasibility study confirming the inadequacies of the ageing infrastructure. The city's draft concept plan for Heathridge Park proposes a new multipurpose building to replace the three existing buildings and to upgrade the sporting facilities and public amenities to provide greater all-year-round use. The estimated construction cost of the redevelopment is approximately $15.7 million. The next stage of the process will be the detailed design and tendering for the construction phase, subject to the necessary local, state and federal funding being secured.
I wish to highlight the disparity in state government funding of community facilities between suburbs located east of Marmion Avenue compared with suburbs located to the west of Marmion Avenue, along the coast. In the lead-up to the 2021 WA state election, the McGowan Labor government committed $8 million to the Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club redevelopment, and a further $4.9 million was allocated to the Ern Halliday Recreational Camp in Hillarys. In contrast, only $2.5 million was committed to the redevelopment of Heathridge Park, which is located east of Marmion Avenue. The residents of Heathridge and suburbs located east of Marmion Avenue deserve parity of funding with their neighbours along the coast. A federal funding contribution towards the upgrade of Heathridge Park as part of the current budget process would make this project possible, in conjunction with the revised funding commitment from the state government and a municipal contribution from the City of Joondalup.
Moving on to minor capital items, the City of Joondalup requires $130,000 in funding to construct a coastal lookout in Merrifield Way and Tom Simpson Park in Mullaloo. The project consists of the construction of a boardwalk in the coastal dune system overlooking the southern portion of Mullaloo Beach. Currently, there is no pedestrian connection between the northern end of Mullaloo Beach and the adjacent shared coastal pathway. Similarly, it is proposed to construct a raised boardwalk to provide this connection, with $220,000 in federal funding required.
Building on the success and popularity of the park warrior course recently installed at Whitfords Nodes Park with the aid of a federal funding contribution of $500,000, the city is proposing to install the second facility in the northern suburbs of the city, provided $300,000 in funding can be secured. The park warrior course is an innovative concept combining exercise with fun and play, making it attractive to families, young people and adults. It is designed to encourage people over 12 years old to get active and healthy in an open space, while having fun. The park warrior course will provide significant health benefits for users, building strength and increasing coordination, balance and flexibility.
The Burns Beach Master Plan is a planning framework designed to guide the future development of the Burns Beach foreshore to ensure it reaches its full potential as a high-amenity coastal destination with sustainably managed community facilities and small-scale commercial activities for enjoyment by residents and visitors alike. In particular, there is a focus on the development of a coastal node, which requires $500,000 in funding. This node will activate the coastal precinct and attract both local and international visitors through a range of tourism activities, including a destination cafe, restaurant and commercial kiosk.
The Padbury north-east cluster of parks includes Wentworth Park, Fraser Park and Byrne Park. All three parks are dry parks with park infrastructure at the end of its life cycle, offering little in the way of visual amenity, with no usable green park space. Through the revitalisation program, which requires $655,000 in funding, the parks will be upgraded with an irrigated turf area for recreation, mulched areas, planting beds, tree plantings and universal access parks.
The City of Joondalup has been progressively modernising its lighting in and around the city centre. Funding of $1.3 million is sought for the replacement of 210 lights in the residential areas of the Joondalup city centre, improving community safety and energy efficiency to reduce carbon emissions.
The scenic Neil Hawkins Park was first developed approximately 30 years ago and the park infrastructure is nearing the end of its useful life. Therefore, the city is seeking $2 million in funding to renew the facilities for park users.
A funding contribution of $2.1 million is being sought to construct a new dual carriageway roundabout at the intersection of Whitfords Avenue and the Craigie leisure centre access road. The design includes a fourth leg functioning as the main access to the Pinnaroo cemetery. The new intersection will allow safe traffic movements—particularly for vehicles turning right, both into and out of both facilities. Vehicle queueing will be reduced, resulting in a better functioning road section.
The city plans to revitalise the Joondalup city centre, to activate the area by undertaking a number of works, and is seeking $4.2 million in funding. The aim is to increase the activation in preparation for the increase in the number of residents within the Joondalup city centre. The city's main street, Grand Boulevard, is a key thoroughfare and a vital connection to the suburbs across the city of Joondalup and it needs an upgrade to its ageing infrastructure. It requires improvements to the streetscape to provide greater amenity for people who visit, live and work within the city of Joondalup by enhancing the infrastructure and services throughout the area, including for public transport and pedestrian usage. This will enhance the experience for all.
As a result of the recent federal electoral redistribution, new suburbs within the city of Stirling, including Carine, Gwelup, North Beach, Trigg and Watermans Bay, have been included in the Moore electorate. I am pleased to support the city's advocacy for a number of local projects. Mayor Mark Irwin and Chief Executive Officer Stuart Jardine, along with Councillor Karlo Perkov and Councillor Tony Krsticevic, have advocated for funding for a number of projects.
The regional playground on Okely Road in Carine is more than 20 years old and is due for renewal. In line with recent developments of other regional facilities, the City of Stirling is seeking $2 million in funding to upgrade this area to a community parkland with picnic facilities, a range of play options and accessible amenities.
Funding of $100,000 is being sought to deliver a new urban mountain bike beginner trail to meet the current community demand and provide more amenities for our younger generation. Carine Regional Open Space has been identified in the state's Perth and Peel Mountain Bike Master Plan as the destination for a new urban mountain bike trail and jumps.
Moving to the coast, funding of $100,000 is being sought to install CCTV cameras in the bay beach car park areas, including Trigg, North Beach and Watermans Bay. The CCTV cameras will assist with the deterrence of antisocial and criminal behaviour and provide evidence to support WA police investigations.
Funding of $160,000 is being sought to create a sense of place in Flora Terrace by providing landscaping, more trees and street furniture to create better ambience around the retail precinct.
A contribution of $300,000 in funding is required to upgrade the Henderson Environmental Centre to enhance its purpose of supporting the community in taking action towards the protection of the city's biodiversity—in particular, the provision of air conditioning and upgrades to the environmental education displays.
Funding of $380,000 is sought to renourish sand at Mettams Pool and the northern bay beaches by transferring approximately 10,000 cubic metres of sand sourced from Trigg Beach. Similarly, $250,000 in funding is required to replace the beach access ramp at Mettams Pool beach to provide universal access to the water, including for those with limited mobility.
To encourage sustainable modes of transport over single-occupant vehicles, $100,000 in funding is being sought to provide end-of-trip facilities for cyclists, including secure bike-parking racks, bicycle repair stations and changing-room facilities. Similarly, a funding contribution of $2 million is being sought towards building a $10 million coastal path network from Trigg to Watermans Bay. The project aims to provide shared path improvements and a dedicated bicycle lane facility along West Coast Drive to address ongoing concerns about the potential risk and injury caused by fast-moving cyclists on the coastal recreational shared path, and also to provide a safe cycling facility for the public. The City of Stirling is also seeking $30,000 in funding to provide publicly accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure at key precincts and locations around the city.
I am pleased to support the abovementioned applications for federal funding contributions by both local government authorities within my electorate—the City of Joondalup and the City of Stirling—as part of the upcoming budget process.
As I remove my mask this morning, I'm reminded that we have entered the third year of a global pandemic and that, no matter how much we wish it away, it is not yet over. I want to take some time to thank the magnificent residents of my community. As the very proud member for Lalor, I stand here to thank every person who lives in my community for their commitment, for their patience, for their resilience and for the way that they have worked together across what has been an incredibly difficult time, and we're now into the third year.
It has been a difficult time for the local people that I represent in this place, but they have shown enormous Australian spirit in the way that they have approached this pandemic. Like most Australians, they heard their Prime Minister giving the bad news that this pandemic would reach our shores, that things would change. They were assured that our government would take charge, take control, that there would be tough decisions but this government would make them. And, like most Australians, they buckled up, they dug in, and they looked after themselves and their neighbours when they were asked to learn how to wash their hands all over again, like they hadn't learnt it before in their life; as they sang little ditties over bathroom sinks and taught their children to wash their hands; as they donned masks when they were asked to to protect not just themselves but other people in the room with them; when they stayed home, even when they desperately needed to go to work to pay the rent or to pay the mortgage.
It has been a really, really tough time for the people in my electorate. We had two winters with high infection rates. We lost people in our aged-care centres. We had disruptions to family life through childcare difficulties. We had schools close, schools open, schools open for the parents of essential children or for disadvantaged children. We had schools scrambling to ensure that every family had the equipment, the curriculum and the support they needed. We had support staff in schools and teachers ringing families every week, touching base with families that they knew or identified where children might not have had the support they needed; those families were contacted every day. That's what we've been living.
I can only imagine how the people in my electorate felt yesterday, if they tuned into question time, to hear the Prime Minister tick off his list of accomplishments in this pandemic. Sitting opposite, I was appalled. One of the most disappointing things about this pandemic has been this Prime Minister's failure to take the reins, failure to plan, failure to actually become the leader that crises create an opportunity for people to become. And our history speaks long about those opportunities. We don't have to look very far. In question time yesterday the Treasurer failed to mention the global financial crisis that a Labor government led this country through. He failed to acknowledge that leadership means standing up, making decisions, accepting responsibility. The Australian public will always forgive a leader who makes an error, as long as they know they're on the journey with them. This Prime Minister has failed at that. The juxtaposition between him and state premiers has been written large in our history.
From the very first, this Prime Minister failed to define his role. He acted politically at every turn. He watched the news cycle rather than listening to the feedback he was getting. As a member of this parliament and someone who cares deeply about their community, I know that, because I spoke to many of my colleagues in electorates across this country, from both sides of the House and from the crossbench, about what was happening in their communities. I'll tell you what good members of parliament did: they opened their ears and listened. They found new ways to receive feedback from their community. We helped thousands of people with Centrelink in those early days when people couldn't go to work. We fed information back to government about what was happening on the ground. We tried to assist government to fix the small things that we knew were creeping in.
I'll give you an example, Mr Deputy Speaker. In my community we knew that the government had not included many of our residents who happen to be New Zealand citizens. What did Labor do in response? We raised this with government. We said, 'There must be a way you can support this community.' We gave them ideas. Some ideas were taken up by government, but not enough—time and time again. When childcare situations became terrible we were on the phone talking to ministers. We were talking to our shadow ministers, who were also talking to ministers to say, 'We need to change this right now, because the impact is adding pressure to families on the ground.' But every time there was hesitation.
There was reluctance to take up good ideas. JobKeeper: how long did it take for the government to finally land that, to say it was a good idea? There are those on our benches who, having led Australia through a global financial crisis, are very experienced, and they deserved respect—but, no. We got baulking; we got failure to see that we needed economic stimulus and we needed it right away. They failed to see that families, like those in my community, needed that support, and that without it the economy was going to fall apart. They were always too slow.
They were too slow in aged care. Local members were on the phone to aged-care centres. I know that I was. I had community members ringing me to say, 'There's a problem in our aged-care centre, Jo.' Their mum or their dad was there. What do you do? You ring the aged-care centre and find out what they need. You ring the minister and say what is happening there. But, time and time again, the systemic changes that needed to be made were not made. That led to a lack of infection control. No-one is denying that aged care was pretty much in crisis before the pandemic hit. This government, in its 10th year, still has not quite acknowledged that, despite the royal commission.
I think the saddest thing about the pandemic has actually been the failure to understand that the Australian people would come on board, that they would do what was necessary. They've now proven that they are up to the challenge and have lived through the challenge, as we go into our third year. But it wasn't just the politics of the day that seemed to get in this Prime Minister 's way. It wasn't just fixing the minor details when something large was changing. It was the failure to do the big things. It was the failure in quarantine and the failure in vaccination that meant that in Melbourne we had a second winter when we didn't need to. We could have reached those 95 per cent plus vaccination rates if we'd had vaccines here in 2020. The failure in quarantine meant that we had further lockdowns. There's the failure most recently in testing, in the failure to provide free rapid antigen tests to every Australian family.
All of those things were very clear, and yet yesterday we got a list of accomplishments rather than any acknowledgement that we had learnt something. In child care, every time we knew what measures needed to be put in place, there was a delay. Every time, there was a delay which actually meant that, on the ground, families were scrambling and childcare centres were scrambling. These are things that this government had clear responsibility for.
In contrast, we on this side dug in in our electorates, we opened our ears, we listened and we worked as hard as we could to help the residents make the adjustments that they needed to make. And you know what else we did? We thought about what the world would look like post this. We identified the systemic problems, we identified what the pandemic had shone a light on. Take aged care, for example. There can be no clearer example than in aged care that a casualised workforce, people in insecure work working in more than one facility, was a problem. It highlighted the problem of insecure work across the country because it put pressure on people to not go to work when they really needed to go to work, and we asked them not to. They had to wait and wait and wait for other things to be put in place to support them.
What Labor did was focus on those systemic issues, and what Labor have come up with is a clear focus where a better life for every Australian family is just over the horizon, with more affordable child care, and safer and more affordable housing, because those two things were highlighted during the pandemic; secure, well-paid jobs so that Australian families can plan for their future with real job security; investment in skills and training; and a commitment to closing the gender pay gap, because that was highlighted so strongly in the pandemic, where we saw feminised workforces on the frontlines every day, taking all the risks. As I've said before, and I tell everyone in my electorate, when you're driving down the street and you see an aged-care worker changing out of the boot of their car in a public street so they do not take any infection home to their family, you know we've got some issues in this country.
Labor will commit to a future made in Australia because the pandemic shone a light on where we are in the global chain and where we are in terms of when a disaster strikes. Labor will invest in renewable energy. Labor will make buying Australian easier because we will make Australian things here. We'll rewire the nation. Labor took time during the pandemic—we dug into our electorates, we supported the residents as much as we could and then we focused our minds on how to create a better way back from this pandemic.
In a few months from now, the Australian people will go to the polls. In the weeks leading up to that, there is going to be a lot said. There are going to be a lot of lists of accomplishments. I want to say to the Australian people, when you're watching a minister of this government with their tick-flick list of accomplishments, ask yourself what question they are answering. What question are they answering? Because, if you're choosing now, Prime Minister, to do a list of accomplishments, there are obviously questions being asked. The questions being asked are the same ones that have been asked throughout the pandemic. Why didn't you trust that the Australian people would get on board? Why did you think you needed to be focused on the politics of the day? Why did you think that you had to win the news cycle, when all you needed to do was lead? All you needed to do was apply your intellect to the problems at hand to get across the large things, like ordering vaccines and building quarantine facilities, and get across the small details; and to focus on the learnings so that errors were only made once, so that, when communities went into lockdown for a second time, things became automatic. We didn't need to change childcare regulations every time and put things in place for short bursts of time. When this government's listing how much it's spending on aged care, ask yourselves: what question are they trying to answer? Well, they're trying not to take responsibility for the errors that were made—for the lack of PPE on the ground, in aged-care centres. That's the question they're trying to answer.
I finish by saying I'll be back in my electorate tomorrow, with leave from the parliament, to attend the funeral of a very, very dear friend. I've spoken about Harry van Morst before, and he's been mentioned in Hansard on several occasions over many decades. He was a man who always had his eye on the big picture, but he knew how to look for the details in the smaller pictures that made up the big picture. He was a great leader in my community, and I wish wholeheartedly that we had a Prime Minister who understood leadership. I wish the Prime Minister understood that what you have to do is bring people together, not choose to try to divide people to win a political news cycle.
I thank the member for Lalor for her contribution to debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022. The appropriation bills are probably some of the most arcane bills to come before this chamber, and I know that most people tuning in to parliament today will probably switch off when they hear that we're debating appropriations. But these are also some of the most critical bills that we debate because at the core of the government of any state's implementation of those things that it stands for is the very important process of appropriating money. We have to ask ourselves: what is the purpose of government if not to maximise the freedom of individuals consistent with the freedom of others?
We on this side of the chamber envision a society of freedom and fairness, where people know that they can undertake their lives free from excessive coercion from government. We envision a society where fairness means that when you have a go, you get a go. Equality is not equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity, and on this side of the chamber we strive for that every day because we know that everywhere in the world equality of outcome, where it has been enforced on individuals, has only led to serfdom and slavery and imprisonment of those people who have suffered under the yoke of that government. Opportunity is something that this government works towards every single day of the week.
When we talk about compassion and care for fellow Australians, we don't mean the compassion of a bureaucrat or an overweening government. We know that care and compassion come from those who know us and love us—our friends, our family, our neighbours. Communities of care and compassion develop organically and are supported by government, not enforced by government. This requires freedom, this requires fairness and this requires equality of opportunity. When we have achieved all of those things, we will truly live in a society in which we can preserve those things that are sacred and protect those things that we have always done because we understand them to be good and part of our culture and our lives.
I come to this place with a very unusual story. My father was a migrant to this country. When he arrived he couldn't speak English. My mother's maiden name was Brittain-White. They met, they fell in love, they got married and they had children on the northern beaches of Sydney. I was born in Manly. I grew up in Belrose in a house made from fibro, which those of us who grew up in such houses know have the quality of keeping heat in during summer and making sure that it is out of the house by the time winter comes around. There were snakes in the house; my mother didn't like them, but my father always reasoned with her that the snakes in the roof kept the possums out. I don't think my mother was entirely convinced that this was a compelling reason to allow snakes to live in the roof of the house.
One of my favourite stories is that we were watching Jaws one night, and there was a lot of noise coming from the bathroom. My brother, who's a year younger than I am, was dispatched to find out what was causing all the noise. It was the shampoo bottles falling off the window shelf. He sat down and said, 'Mum, it's a snake coming in and knocking the shampoo bottles off the shelf.' A minute later, not believing his story, I went to the bathroom to have a look and found that the snake was halfway across the ceiling and looking down at me. That night I gave the screech of a warrior to let those in the house know that we were in danger. I think the snake was about four foot long, but every time I tell the story it grows a couple of inches. These are the stories of people who come to this parliament with real-life experience. We didn't inherit our money. We didn't think that driving Teslas down to the South Coast to a winery where we can recharge them is the experience of ordinary Australians.
When we come into this chamber we know that it is important that we follow the law so that, when we go to the Australian people and say that we want net zero by 2050, we have the programs and the laws in place to make that happen, and not secretly take donations from coal investors and directors of coalmines who bought their coalmine from Eddie Obeid. They have the gall to come into this chamber and lecture us about honesty. Where was the honesty when they received the $100,000 cheque and then deliberately divided it into eight separate payments so it was below the disclosure regime? Is that honest?
Where's the integrity in not facing up to the fact that your largest donor happened to be a coal baron who got his money from someone who is currently in prison for maladministration and that you received your largest donation from a person who had an adverse finding against them at the Independent Commission Against Corruption? You have spent the last six months criticising the former Premier of New South Wales. There is not a skerrick of evidence of one incident of corruption, but you have happily accused her of corruption. Where's the integrity in that? Where's the honesty in that? Why should we believe that you are possibly in any way, shape or form in favour of the climate. Maybe you are just in favour of the slogan that gets you the money and gets you the votes so you can sit in this chamber.
Australians are not fools. They know a fraud when they see one. They know a fake when they hear one. These people are funded by Climate 200 and funded by another person who inherited great wealth. They bring to these arguments no policies and no ideas. Their only campaign slogan seems to be: 'Vote for us. We're better than you because we inherited a lot of money.' Australians will see through this. I have absolutely no doubt that they will see through this, because it is experience that informs your priorities.
At the next election Australians don't want to hear how hard it is to drive your Tesla to Berry to get it recharged at your favourite winery. They want to hear about what this government or any government is going to do not just to create the jobs of the future but to invent the jobs of the future. They want to know how we are going to make housing affordable for all Australians, not just those lucky enough to inherit their wealth. They will want to know why it is that Australians under the age of 40 now have the lowest level of homeownership in the history of this nation or since 1947. We all know that when the census is updated in June this year it will probably show that it is the lowest since this nation was founded. They want to know what you're going to do about that, not about how hard it is to recharge your Tesla at a Berry winery.
They also want to know what you as a government are going to do to keep this nation safe and secure and a beacon of hope and opportunity in a tempestuous region. People are crying out for freedom and vision. They know they are being threatened by an overleaning authoritarian regime. They want to know that there are alternatives. They want to know that you have the strength to stand up not only for yourselves but for them too.
They know that slogans are great but plans are better. When it comes to climate change they will want to know what your plan is to fix it. This government has a plan—net zero by 2050. It's not a plan to drive your electric vehicle to a winery in Berry to get recharged; it's a plan to get the Australian economy to create more jobs, to invent the jobs of the future, to bring manufacturing back, to secure our fuel supply so that our nation is both safe and secure, to ensure that we can go to international fora and point with a true and honest heart to those sitting around the table and say: 'We are meeting our goals. What about you?' We can go and we can hold our heads high with net zero by 2050.
I note that Simon Holmes a Court is speaking at the National Press Club today. I know that he's scary and that he inherited a lot of money, and we know how journalists get scared of people who are wealthy. But I wonder if a single solitary journalist from the fourth estate will have the gumption to stand up to him and ask: Why is it that in September and October you said that the epitome of any government's sincerity towards climate change is signing up to net zero by 2050 but that the minute the Morrison government did that it was apparently astroturfing and greenwashing? Was it astroturfing when you were saying it, Simon, or is it just astroturfing when the politics change? A question to this very wealthy individual from Melbourne should be: are you interested in the politics, or are you interested in the policy?
Opposition members interjecting—
Sorry, I did not mean to insult the good people of Melbourne. Apparently he's not from Melbourne; he's from somewhere else. I'm not sure if those opposite are suggesting that where he's from is a tax haven. I'm sure that's not true. We all know that, under Daniel Andrews, Melbourne is not a tax haven; that's for sure.
In the seat of Mackellar, there have been some incredibly important advances on these goals. In education, which is the very core of providing equality of opportunity, we have increased funding per student by 52 per cent. When you look at schools such as Kinma School, St Lucy's at Narraweena and St Martin's Catholic Primary School, we have made sure that we've upgraded the IT equipment that they have there. We have made massive improvements to classrooms, with new furniture, whiteboards and, importantly, air-conditioning. Even schoolyards at Galstaun College, Kambora Public School, Collaroy Plateau Public School, Maria Regina Catholic Primary School and Mona Vale Public School, Elanora Heights Public School, Frenchs Forest Public School, Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School, Narrabeen Lakes Public School and Yanginanook School—all these schools have benefited from taxpayer funded opportunities to improve the experience of education that our children are having. We know that equality of opportunity starts not just at the school but in families. But that is an important core principle.
I also say to you that it is not good enough that we just do this here in Australia. Under our foreign aid programs we are ensuring that women and girls around the world have access to education that they've never had before in any of those parts of the world, because, regardless of your gender, you deserve the same opportunities to develop your God-given skills, no matter where you live. It shouldn't be determined by whether you were lucky enough to have been born in Australia. Wherever you were born—in the South Pacific, in Africa, in South-East Asia—if you're a girl, you should have as much opportunity to get an education as a boy.
In my area, one of the biggest things that we face is traffic congestion. Under this government we have provided $7 million to local roads. We have boosted the opportunities for and efficiency and productivity of local businesses with new phone towers at Belrose and Cottage Point. They provide assurance not only for business but also locals, so that they can always reach their friends and families, and, if an emergency occurs, they can get in touch with people.
When it comes to net zero, this government has done an extraordinary amount to give community groups, surf clubs and rural fire brigades access to the best that we can in renewable energy, including installations of new solar panels at the Newfrontiers Grace City Church, Sunnyfield and the Peninsula Senior Citizens Toy Repair Group. The skilled older retired gentlemen of the Peninsula Senior Citizens Toy Repair Group take toys that have been thrown out and rejuvenate them, fix them, paint them and send them to countries where people do not have the same opportunities that we have—once again, the South Pacific, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. South Narrabeen Surf Life Saving Club now have solar panels on their roof provided by the Australian taxpayer, so they can spend less money on electricity and more money on saving lives. That's what this government is about. It's not about telling people what to do; it's about enabling the future, giving freedom and empowerment back to individuals. Big governments create small people. This government is about being small and making sure that we have the most empowered citizens anywhere in the world.
I too rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022, which are the government's appropriation of money to spend on the things that it believes are the most important things to do. They provide the opportunity for us in opposition to comment on the government's decision-making—particularly, for me, when it comes to the portfolio I represent within the Labor Party: infrastructure, transport and regional development.
Before I do that, I want to make some commentary about what we're seeing in the parliament at the moment. It is very, very clear that we are only weeks from a federal election. At that election we will have a government that has been in office for nearly a decade seeking a second decade in office—a long time in government. If you didn't know that an election was imminent, you would just have to watch question time. When you see some of the ministers and the way in which they're behaving, that will show you. With that election on the horizon, we are seeing them throw out a whole lot of things—as you do—to see what's going to stick as messaging to damage Labor, whether it is the, frankly, dangerous politicisation of national security, something we unfortunately see the Liberal-National Party do often at election times, a very dangerous precedent indeed; re-announcing infrastructure projects for the third time, which we saw again on the weekend; pitting sections of the community against each other, as we saw with the Religious Discrimination Bill, as somehow a way to achieve an electoral advantage, as we saw last week; and, as we've been seeing through Senate estimates, the topping-up of slush funds in anticipation of being able to announce and spend those in the election. We've even seen the Treasurer—pretty unedifying for a Treasurer of this nation—digging up, through the dirt unit, speeches from the Leader of the Opposition from national conference and carrying on about those in parliament.
The reality is that what we're seeing from this decade-old government is a real division as they go into the election campaign, where they have members of the backbench clearly unhappy and saying so publicly. We've got leaking from cabinet at a fairly serious and senior level, including again yesterday. We've got a Prime Minister, I think, who is trying to rally the troops but is finding it very difficult to do so. That's the context in which we're going into an election. It does say everything about this government that, last night, when we had a senior journalist tweet that there was a scandal-prone cabinet minister about to go, everyone was going, 'Which one?' There are so many of them in this government who have behaved in such an inappropriate way that there were a few bets on who that might be.
In terms of the appropriations and the portfolio I represent, there are a few comments I want to make. I want to start with regional development. The damning thing about this decade-long government is that they have not had a regional economic development policy in the period that they've been in office. They've had a lot of different programs—and I will talk a bit about those programs—and there's been lots of commentary, but there actually hasn't been an overall policy for how you grow regional Australia and look at the disparate nature of regional Australia and the different natures of the economies that many of us represent across this parliament. No one political party has the monopoly on regional seats. The National Party hold some, the Liberal Party hold some, the Independents hold some and the Labor Party hold some. The thing that unites us all is that, as proud regional members, we know our economies are incredibly diverse, they have experienced disaster and COVID in different ways, and we actually do need to have a proper regional economic development policy that looks at how we maximise the contribution that our regions make to our economy as a nation and how we make sure that they are places that we can all live in.
Unfortunately, as I've said time and time again, when the National Party continues to have its hands on the regional funding buckets, the funding is simply not disbursed fairly. We've seen that particularly with the Building Better Regions Fund. We will be looking very closely at the decisions. Round 6 closed just recently. We had many local councils ringing our MPs to say, 'Is it worth us bothering to put in for this program, given our experience, over the last decade of this program, of spending huge amounts of time, money and effort to put applications in and really not getting a look-in?' Apparently, that's the way the Deputy Prime Minister thinks you look after the regions.
Ahead of the last election, we saw coalition seats and coalition target seats receiving 94 per cent of all projects and 94 per cent of all funding for the infrastructure component of the BBRF. That cannot be explained, as those opposite constantly try to do, by saying, 'We hold more regional seats.' If that's what you're going to do, Labor holds 13 per cent of the regional seats in this place, so you would think a fair distribution might be that we get 13 per cent of the funding, at least. That's certainly not what has happened. One hundred and twelve of the 330 projects approved under round 3 of the program were approved by a secret ministerial panel and against the department's own recommendations. We've had $1 billion used in a partisan political way under this government, and that has not assisted regions across the country. I have no doubt that the sixth round will be used in exactly the same way.
How does the Deputy Prime Minister think that is helping all regions across the country? If he thinks the program is good for regional Australia, he should go and say that in Bendigo and Newcastle, which have received less than $2 million, under this decade-long government, out of the program. Geelong has received just over $2 million. Lyons, in regional Tasmania, has received $5.5 million, and Dobell, on the Central Coast, has received $50,000 in funding. That's the contrast. Day after day I hear MPs on the other side getting up and saying, 'I've got this amount of money and this amount of money.' Well, that's great for you, but it's not great for every region across the country. That's why the Building Better Regions Fund has delivered $57 million to the Deputy Leader of the National Party's own electorate, $27 million to the former Leader of the National Party's electorate and $22.4 million to the current Deputy Prime Minister's electorate. There's a bit of a pattern. The fund isn't about developing regions and developing the economy of our regions; it has been used constantly for political pork-barrelling.
I can 100 per cent guarantee that, under an Albanese Labor government, we will fund programs in our regions. We will absolutely do that, but what we will not do is have the waste and rorts that we've seen under this government, which have now gone beyond the pale. I caution the government again, in the lead-up to round 6, that the Australian National Audit Office is having a look at this program. It's unfortunately not due to report until June—it was due to report in May, but that has been put back. I think you will find there will be a fair amount of scrutiny on the way in which decisions about this program have been made.
We want to have a grants program that regional communities can trust and that delivers funding through an equitable, fair and transparent process to the communities across the country that need it. That is the type of program that regional Australia, regional organisations and regional local governments are calling out for—one that they can trust, not one that sees them having to waste valuable time and money on applications that, frankly, are doomed from the start.
I'll turn away from regional, now, to look at the infrastructure programs across the country. Of course, in this appropriation bill we're talking about the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and the appropriations that come through that in particular. The day before, we saw the government again trumpeting its commitments on infrastructure. It said there'd be $1.6 billion of new spending in Queensland, $3.3 billion for New South Wales and $3 billion for Victoria, but that's not what has actually been happening—and I think this is partly the product of the government not expecting that it would win the 2019 election. It went out there and didn't negotiate, particularly with Labor states, about what it was going to spend money on. It made all of these announcements about money it was going to spend, but it has not been able to get that money out the door and deliver it.
In Queensland they've spent $30 million. That's been the investment of the Commonwealth on infrastructure. In Victoria, they've actually spent next to nothing, and in New South Wales they've spent next to nothing. In fact, they've hardly committed anything to public transport in New South Wales at all. I know infrastructure projects take time to get off the ground, but the reality is that, if you don't negotiate with states and territories about what those spends are going to be—as they didn't do in the last election campaign—you often see that money sitting in the budget and on the books for a long period of time without actually being delivered to communities. Of course, that doesn't even recognise the fact that in the last budget what this government did was cut infrastructure spending again. I quote from page 84 of Budget Paper No. 1, where it says the Infrastructure Investment Program was expected to decrease by $3.3 billion over the four years to 2023-24. It was a cut.
So we've seen a wasteful government, the most wasteful government since Federation, racking up $1 trillion of debt, but they've still managed to cut infrastructure spending in that time. Of course, as we know, the government wasn't really that worried about actually delivering infrastructure spending; it was more interested in the announcement. If you want to look at an area where this government has been pretty woeful in its capacity to actually implement programs and to actually deliver—and there are plenty; there's a big, long list—it spent an enormous amount of time advertising the Urban Congestion Fund and advertising and getting headlines for commuter car parks and all sorts of things, but the actual delivery, the actual building, has been completely and utterly woeful. After almost a decade, the government has no clear ideas left, beyond making announcements that they know they will not actually deliver and writing cheques that will never be cashed by state governments or local councils, in some instances, to build roads.
When you look at major projects, you see exactly the lack of seriousness that the government has had. I do want to say that, in terms of the Inland Rail project, which was started by Labor—that's something the Deputy Prime Minister seems to keep forgetting, that the first $1 billion of investment actually came from a Labor government—we have seen costs blow out. It's pretty extraordinary, really. They started off at $4.4 billion. Then it went to $9.3 billion. The cost blowout of Inland Rail is now $14.3 billion. That's what is sitting on the books for this program—$14.3 billion, from, initially, $4.4 billion. Incredibly, there is still no plan for where the route is going to end—or for where it starts, really, and how it's going to get to the port. This project is too important to stuff up, but, unfortunately, that has been what the government has been doing. We need to fix it.
I want to go to Labor's record on infrastructure when we were last in office. I am so proud to follow in the footsteps of the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, one of Labor's Infrastructure shadows. Hopefully, I will be able to transition, if we're fortunate enough to win government, into being Infrastructure minister. There are a few of us women in that portfolio now. I know my colleagues in WA and Victoria are two fabulous women I'm really looking forward to working with.
As we look to build back better from COVID, effective transport policy and targeted infrastructure investments are going to help build equity into the hearts of communities across Australia. We know that we need to build infrastructure so that transport is not a constraint on people's lives but, instead, an enabling force allowing them to thrive. This will see us build on our proud record.
The last Labor government more than doubled the infrastructure spend per person across the country. We doubled the roads budget and we rebuilt a third of the interstate rail network. We invested more money in public transport than all previous federal governments combined. We worked collaboratively with the states. We didn't try and pick fights with them. We invested in nation-building projects in partnership with the states, like the Pacific Highway duplication, Cross River Rail and metro projects in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. We began work on Inland Rail, and we were in the process of advancing high-speed rail.
We worked to take the politics out of infrastructure, with Infrastructure Australia, a body that, unfortunately, has been sidelined by this government. We went from 20th to second on the international league table which ranks countries by the scale of investment they're making in their infrastructure. When we left office, our nation was investing more than any other major advanced economy, with the exception of South Korea. It was a very proud record, which we intend to build on. We know how important it is not just to talk about infrastructure but to actually deliver.
After a decade, Australians know everything they need to know about this government. The government are addicted to waste, they're addicted to rorting and they're desperate to hold onto power. They pretend to be good economic managers, but all they've delivered is a trillion dollars of debt, a budget full of rorts and nothing to show for it beyond a few colour-coded spreadsheets. It is the most wasteful government since Federation and it is one that should be, by all rights, defeated resoundingly at the next election. (Time expired)
I say two words to the member for Ballarat about wasteful governments. It starts with 'pink' and ends with 'batts'. That's my retort when it comes to wasteful government, and that's what we saw last time Labor was in power in our great country. If Labor were in government now, they would have spent $6 billion on getting Australians to do what they were already going to do, which is be fully vaccinated.
It gives me great pleasure to rise and talk about these appropriation bills, to talk about what's happened in my community and on the Gold Coast in terms of government spending. Gold Coasters know that infrastructure is so important to the future of our community, with the South-East Queensland Olympics coming our way, thanks to the federal government being able to deliver that for South-East Queensland. The Gold Coast will host hundreds of thousands of visitors from all over the world in our beautiful city for the 2032 Olympic Games. So, of course, transport infrastructure is very, very important on the Gold Coast.
The Morrison government has a $110 billion infrastructure agenda over 10 years, and that is a considerable amount of investment across our great country. I want to talk about what's happening on the Gold Coast, specifically in my electorate of Moncrieff. The light rail from Broadbeach—Pacific Fair, for those watching—to Burleigh will now be extended from Burleigh Heads all the way to Brisbane. There's an intersection with heavy rail. Gold Coasters will be able to get on the light rail at Burleigh and go all the way through to Brisbane, which I think is very, very important for our connectivity. Certainly it's important for those who live, work and play on the Gold Coast. The Morrison government has announced additional funding of $126.6 million for the Gold Coast light rail—Minister Fletcher was in my electorate a few months ago announcing that—to make sure that we can deliver for Gold Coasters. That funding was essentially for the Queensland Labor government's cost blowout, which I will highlight to the member for Ballarat as well in terms of blowouts. That money is basically because the Queensland government haven't got around to signing up contractors for that particular six-kilometre stretch of light rail. Consequently, for the good people of the Gold Coast, taxpayers, it is costing more money, thanks to the Queensland government deciding when that will start, which always tends to somehow magically fit in with their election cycle. But it is good news for the Gold Coast that it is able to continue with that light rail. Stage 3 brings us to $395.6 million total investment from the federal government, in partnership with the state government and local council as well, to deliver the Gold Coast light rail for the constituents in Moncrieff.
Another major infrastructure project on the Gold Coast is the Coomera Connector. We have all been on the M1 going to or coming back from Brisbane. Just the other day, when my stepson came home, it took him two hours to get from Brisbane to the Gold Coast, thanks to the congestion on the M1. While we are expanding areas of the M1, all the way down through the electorate of McPherson as well—and I acknowledge the work that Minister Karen Andrews, the member for McPherson, has done for the widening of the M1 heading towards the Gold Coast airport—there is also now the Coomera Connector. I was with Minister Robert, the member for Fadden, just a few weeks ago when we announced an additional $316.1 million in infrastructure to assist Gold Coasters to get home sooner and safer, and, as the former Deputy Prime Minister would say, to avoid 'sitting in traffic and looking at bumper stickers'; I think those were his words at the time.
So no more excuses, please, from the Queensland government, in terms of delivering infrastructure for Gold Coasters. They've now got the money from the federal government. They can now put the shovels in the ground and turn some sod. Let's see that work commence.
This funding actually brings the Commonwealth government's investment in the Coomera Connector, which goes from Coomera into my electorate of Moncrieff to Nerang, to a total of $1.07 billion. It's a significant infrastructure investment in South-East Queensland, and this commitment that the Morrison government has made to South-East Queensland will make a big difference for the upcoming Olympic Games.
Tourism, of course, is very, very important to the Gold Coast. It's our primary industry. It was worth about $5 billion before COVID hit, according to federal government figures. We've been hit quite hard on the Gold Coast, and our federal government, the Morrison government, delivered a $1.2 billion tourism package, including 800,000 half-price domestic airfares. We're coming to the very end of that at the moment on the Gold Coast, so those last airfares are coming through now to help our local economy. Also $10 million from the regional tourism fund was delivered for tourism and is currently being acquitted through Destination Gold Coast, our tourism peak body. I congratulate Patricia O'Callaghan, for the work that she's done for Destination Gold Coast, and the new chair, Adrienne Readings, as well.
In terms of small business, Moncrieff has a very high concentration of small businesses—probably about double most other electorates around the country. We've got over 30,000 small businesses. The Morrison government delivered $300 million for small and family businesses, to support those businesses that have been in distress. That was on top of JobKeeper and other measures. The headline in the local paper, the Gold Coast Bulletin, was 'Feds answer SOS from Gold Coast business', and I think that just says it all. It says that our community understands that it was the federal government that kept the doors open on the Gold Coast through this pandemic, and it's the federal government continuing to keep all of the doors open on the Gold Coast for our very important business community and our small businesses across the Gold Coast but particularly in Moncrieff. As part of that, there was also a $70 million hardship program for Gold Coast businesses, which particularly helped those businesses on the border—again, in the member for McPherson's electorate—see their way through to where we're at now, with the borders having reopened.
Also we were able to deliver for our only community sporting club in Nerang. I'm very pleased that we delivered the Building Better Regions funding of $596,650—smaller amounts, as the member for Ballarat was outlining; much bigger amounts, before. But, in Moncrieff, certainly, it was $596,650, and I can say to you that Steve Condren, the manager of the Nerang Community Bowls Club, was in tears when I called him for his upgrade for his club, and the good people of Nerang will now have a much bigger clubhouse that belongs to the community. That's taxpayers' money that has gone back directly to the community, and I'm very pleased for the good people of Nerang that they'll have that. To Rob, Bob, Pete, Lyn, Rose, Luchica and Maurice out at the Nerang Community Bowls Club: it was a great pleasure to work with you—and to Regional Development Australia Gold Coast, who helped them with their application.
Regional Development Australia is an outstanding organisation. The member for Ballarat said we didn't have a regional plan. Well, I think Regional Development Australia branches and committees all over the country would take offence to that remark, because they are doing a wonderful job in our regions to help develop our communities, our infrastructure and all of those worthy projects out there in the community.
It's pretty good to talk about infrastructure, tourism and the small-business community, but there are also the arts in Moncrieff, and we know that the arts have been doing it very, very tough. As many in this place know, I'm a great supporter of the arts, having come from the arts myself. We've been able to deliver about $1.65 million, I think, during this term. Most recently, we've been able to deliver some money to Home of the Arts. I commend the City of Gold Coast for the work they've done with our new art gallery. It is a beautiful thing. It is an extra experience for tourists from all over Australia and, indeed, all over the world, who will be able to go and experience arts and culture on the Gold Coast and see how much it has gone ahead and how much it has grown up over the last decade or so.
We were able to deliver $27½ thousand directly to Home of the Arts, just in the last few months, for Friday night live sessions on the small outdoor stage on the grass. They are really going to help local musicians and local artists with their income, and they will entertain locals. I'm really looking forward to going to one of those sessions. We also delivered, for the development of a touring show called Lost in Palm Springs, $75,407 to Home of the Arts. That, again, will help them to make sure the arts are buoyed through this difficult period.
Minister Fletcher has been in my electorate quite a few times, as he does have quite a few portfolio areas, and we welcome him every time he comes. I took him through Home of the Arts, and we saw the beautiful statue of Iris. It's an incredible statue, a winged angel—a beautiful piece of art—and I encourage all Australians to pop in to HOTA and see that exhibition.
The minister has a couple of areas. He's got urban infrastructure and cities and he's also got arts and communication in his portfolio. We've been working very closely with him for his RISE Fund—the Restart Investment to Sustain and Expand Fund—and we saw $200,000 go to Blues on Broadbeach, which was a fantastic festival. Congratulations to Major Events Gold Coast on putting on that show, a COVID-safe event. Much of the funding went to ensuring it was a COVID-safe event. It was very successful, and it was an event that the city needed. Broadbeach needed it at the time that it was delivered, and it helped very many small-business owners and families across my electorate to keep going at a very difficult time.
I've also got a very long list—I'm going to run out of time—of smaller amounts of funding for the arts that are certainly worthy of mentioning in this place. There was $450,000 for the beach fest, which was another event. Events on the Gold Coast are so important to the local economy and local jobs, and these smaller amounts really have helped. Kicks Entertainment received $498,402 for the Spilt Milk festival tour, delivering world-class productions for regional Queensland, the ACT and Victoria. We helped them to develop their show and take it on tour. Everybody NOW received RISE funding of $300,000 for a two-year program for South-East Queensland that engaged audiences and artists in participatory performance making—so drama there. Nautic Giants received $100,000 for an inclusive, contemporary and sustainable music festival with a focus on local talent—so important—youth opportunities, innovative environmental technologies and social accountability. And, of course, there were those other two amounts that I mentioned—the $27½ thousand and $75,407—as well for Visions of Australia and the Lost in Palm Springs exhibition.
I'll finish by saying hello to all of those at the Royal Queensland Art Society's Gold Coast branch, in Broadbeach, which I visited last week just before we came to Canberra. They received a very small grant, $3,000, for the installation of lights to improve the visual appeal of the gallery. I'm pleased to say that I purchased two small paintings and they now hang in my office here in Parliament House. Thank you to my beautiful community, and hello to all of those across the arts sector in the electorate of Moncrieff.
This tired, old do-nothing Liberal government has run out of ideas. We will not take lectures on fiscal responsibility and defence spending from the most wasteful government since Federation—a government that will deliver $1 trillion of debt and have not merely enough to show for it. The only wedge they have left is their national security smears. Let me be abundantly clear: Labor supports the AUKUS agreement; Labor supports the current government's approach to China; and, contrary to the falsehoods of the Minister for Defence, Labor is strong on China, Labor is strong on defence and Labor is strong on national security. I know it is not fun for the nation's media to report on, and it's certainly not fun for the Prime Minister and his ministers to talk about—and I want to let you in on a little secret—that there is national unity between the major parties on defence. For the Liberals to propagate anything otherwise is a complete fallacy. Our criticism of the government on defence is when they don't live up to their own policy objectives, like in support of our Australian defence industry. In a time of geostrategic instability it is absolutely not in the interests of Australia or, indeed, our defence partners to be propagating fake news in relation to defence spending and Labor's record on defence.
Under the Rudd Labor government the average yearly increase in Australian defence spending, according to the World Bank, was up by 10.9 per cent, compared to the last budget of the Howard era, which itself had annual increases of only 7.5 per cent, even when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as major operations in Timor and the Solomon Islands, started during that period. The Abbott government not only completely dropped the ball handed to it by Labor on a replacement submarine for Collins but also cut defence spending by an annual average of 1.4 per cent. Even the Turnbull government only managed to increase spending in defence by just over half the amount of the increases of the Howard era following the Abbott reductions. Now under Scott Morrison, our Prime Minister, despite all the rhetoric, they have increased defence spending by only 1.4 per cent annually to 2020.
This Liberal government has no authority to discuss Labor's record on defence. Its record is certainly nothing to gloat about. Historically Australian governments have consistently spent on defence more than two per cent of GDP in times of uncertainty and strategic risk. Contrary to what the defence minister would like to have you think, the defence budget was above two per cent of GDP in both war and peace and under both coalition and Labor governments from World War II until the early 1990s, when every power reduced defence spending, including the US and UK, at the end of the Cold War. During the first half of the 1980s, when Australia was at peace, defence spending actually averaged 2.5 per cent of GDP. For much of the Vietnam War the defence budget was over three per cent. While we're not in a shooting war now it's reasonable to ask whether the geostrategic risks we're confronted with today are of a similar scale to those we faced in the late 1960s. It can't be denied that we are in a period of heightened tension.
As an island nation it's important that we have our own sovereign sustainment and maintenance capability with a skilled trade workforce and the technical know-how. Developing and expanding this requires Australian involvement in acquisition and build as well. The lack of oversight resulting from six ministers in eight years of this Liberal government—indeed, four defence ministers in just the last four years—has resulted in significant time frame and cost blow-outs, with local industry involvement taking a back seat. But for every cost blow-out we're seeing underspends as well, with projects not hitting the spend milestones budgeted because, even more concerningly, they are not meeting the capability, delivery and availability milestones required. Right now our defence acquisition program is predicted to come in $815 million under the original budget targets. The Liberal government's continued lack of support for the Australian defence industry has meant that work that can and should be done in Australia by Australian businesses in all levels of the supply chain is continually sent offshore. This federal Liberal government has continually mismanaged and politicised the naval shipbuilding program, as well as the acquisition of a variety of other major defence projects, to the detriment of Australia's strategic interests.
Let's take a look at what's actually going on and let's start with the latest blow-up in the press. Just yesterday we heard that the Morrison-Joyce government is continuing to scale back flying hours for the RAAF's Joint Strike Fighter, admitting that this critical platform will underperform government promises for at least the next four years. The F-35A project is currently underspending by $175 million, with only 54 aircraft delivered instead of 56 by the end of 2021-22. Two fewer aircraft may not seem like much, but with the classic Hornet fleet now fully retired as well, the Air Force needs every plane that it can get. The Joint Strike Fighter aircraft are critical for Australia's defence, and the fact that they are flying thousands fewer hours than planned is a very real concern.
The Triton high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicle, the UAV program, is $98 million short between equipment and infrastructure spends. Spending on the Hawkei protected mobility vehicle is $207 million short due to a delay caused by a problem with its brakes and supply chain woes. That means the project will spend less than last year, even though it's now meant to be entering full-rate production. We have the Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicle, which is nearly $300 million short of its target and spending less this year than last. Somewhat depressingly, by the end of this financial year the project will have spent more than $1.8 billion with only the first block of 25 overseas built vehicles delivered and local construction for the remainder not even due to start until 2023—that is, at least a seven-month delay. There has been a delay of up to a year in finalising design work on the second block of 186 Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicles for the Army that are due to be built in Australia.
The embattled Hunter frigate program is $123 million under and will barely spend more this year than it did last year. It's not the trajectory you'd want to see as design activity ramps up and purchases of long-lead-time items such as combat systems and propulsion train elements should be starting. While the government has made a lot of announcements about long-range missiles, they haven't transformed into spending. The Navy's guided weapon subprogram is falling well short of its planned outlay, from $210 million down to just $74 million, a massive drop in program spending compared to last year. We have the classic MRH-90 helicopter failure with the project missing its target by $106 million due to a delay in its delivery schedule. Ironically, one of the few big projects that's still forecast to hit its spending target for the year is the Future Submarine program, which was cancelled less than a quarter of the way into the financial year. Seemingly, this now cancelled program is costing Australians at least $3 billion for the delivery of precisely zero submarines.
The top 30 acquisition projects in Defence are a combined $1.9 billion under their planned budget for the year. While this government propagates drums of war with increased indications of evaporating warning times and a pressing need for new capabilities to be delivered faster, instead the government is actually delivering this new capability even slower than planned. This Morrison-Joyce Liberal-National government is clearly incapable of managing its defence contracts. It's failing on all counts: overspends, underspends, cost blowouts, time blowout, project failures, all adding up to delays in providing much needed capability. Ultimately, it's the Australian Defence Force, our men and women in uniform, who suffer from a lack of availability of critical platforms due to the chronic mismanagement of defence projects under this government. This Liberal government has failed to implement or, indeed, articulate strong, measurable and enforceable Australian industry capability requirements in our defence project contracts.
Only Labor is committed to ensuring major defence project contracts contain measurable, enforceable, audited and transparent Australian industry capability requirements. Only Labor is committed to actually supporting and growing our sovereign defence industry capabilities. The government remains just announcement and spin. Be in no doubt: Labor is committed to supporting our Australian defence industry and improving our defence capability to support our men and women in uniform and ensure our national security.
I have not had a COVID vaccination. There seems to be great interest in my decision. On Monday I updated the House and those interested in my electorate and elsewhere that I had contracted COVID. I described what I did to treat myself during the course of my illness and the support I got from the state government, which is the standard support for every person in Victoria. It was a matter of transparency and honesty as far as I was concerned. Now I am being accused of spreading dangerous conspiracy theories, according to Dr Rob Phair, President of the Rural Doctors Association of Victoria. I have never done this. I tell it like it is when put to me firsthand.
I have only ever put forward views of those I represent who cannot be heard otherwise—heartbreaking stories around vaccinations from both health practitioners and patients alike. I represent the views of those often ignored. People who know me know this to be true. Since when has it been the case that, if one wants to tell it like it is—not, as the media puts it, to toe the line or go after a headline—suddenly one is spreading dangerous conspiracy theories? I am not a right winger, as you know, Deputy Speaker Coulton, let alone an extremist. I am an independent thinker. I owe no-one and no-one owns me. My parliamentary colleagues know I don't fit into a box. I've crossed the floor in the past on a matter of principle. Mind you, the truth can be very threatening if one is in an environment where truth is not valued.
Why can we not have a discussion when we have a difference of opinion? Having a discussion does not cost lives. People will continue to decide what vaccines they will have, what treatments they will embrace, and good on them for doing that. That is their choice. I have never sought to influence people's choices, just made my decision based on the advice from my health practitioners, and I have been pilloried for it. I have told the House stories of reactions to the vaccine received. They are facts, not hearsay. Are we no longer able to bring to light evidence that is uncomfortable, that presents a different picture?
It is well known that fear polarises people. When did we become a fearful nation? Divisions are deep in our community and they are getting deeper. Fear undermines everything and is a powerful form of manipulation. There is an alternative. The alternative is love, for love casts out fear. We heard a lot about it in the Religious Discrimination Bill speeches, and I think the member for Burt made a marvellous contribution last week. They were probably the highlight of the 46th Parliament. We have a choice: fear or love. Love does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful and endures through every circumstance: 1 Corinthians. Love requires courage as well as compassion, which we see in everyday acts of kindness. Love knows that everyone is entitled to some respect, however great or little. Truth must win out, because it's fundamental to good governance, and the people of Australia have every right to expect it. Love, truth, respect, all underpinned with humility. Finally, wisdom—without it, we're dancing in the dark. Love, truth, respect, humility, honesty, integrity and wisdom: I look forward to seeing their manifestation in this parliament.
These are appropriation bills. So, as for these bills, I would like to say this: my concern about appropriation bills in the history of the parliament is that they are not assessed against any objective criteria. The policy targets are ambiguous and, it would appear, designed so that the outcomes cannot be tested. Economic policy, employment and national wealth are sensible criteria. What key performance indicators are used to assess the appropriation bill we're talking about today?
When it comes to social policy, those above and below the poverty line and a proportion who are excessively rich might be considered within the taxation policy. Are industry and the community measuring the impacts and outcomes in health and education policy? I worry for the poor, who seem often to bear the brunt of what I would see as poorly targeted initiatives.
On the environment, business taxation concessions and business welfare appropriations in the environment sphere are worth testing. Has the parliament suggested objective criteria? I suggest we do.
Both sides of politics complain about federal-state duplication, but what have we ever done about it? We need to test the workings of this parliament against the health, wellbeing and financial security of our First Peoples, which Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, described as unacceptable in his valedictory address. I want to take a moment here to say that the member for Lingiari is our last contact with the old House, so this is an historic day, as he is making his valedictory speech.
Of course it's unacceptable. The Australian people know it is, and they want change. We will not flourish as a nation until our generous Indigenous people enjoy the equality and respect that they deserve. I will have more to say on these fundamental issues, because they go to the heart of good governance, honesty, integrity and value for money, which all Australian citizens expect of this parliament and its parliamentarians.
These bills appropriate around $16 billion in 2021-2022—$11.9 billion in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 and $4 billion in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022. The bills are aimed at providing for the ordinary course of the provision of government services. The Labor Party doesn't block supply in the Australian parliament, and that's why these bills will go through. But the Australian economy is in a parlous state at the moment. The budget deficit is the largest in the nation's history. Debt will get close to $1 trillion over the course of the next decade because of this government's decisions. Productivity is in crisis in Australia. We're not generating as much income per person as we used to. We're now facing the prospect of inflation, and we have skills shortages in almost all industries across the country. The number of people undertaking training, particularly through apprenticeships and traineeships, is falling under this government, and the manifest skills shortages are related to the lack of investment in training and skills.
The chickens are coming home to roost for this government's poor economic management. But it's not only their poor economic management that is a factor in the anger that we're seeing around the country in relation to the Morrison government; it's their mismanagement of the healthcare crisis and the aged-care crisis, particularly over the last six months. The government's incompetence has been on display, particularly in relation to its handling of the recent omicron COVID outbreak. Their 'she'll be right' attitude has led to crisis in health care and aged care, which has affected almost all Australians over the course of the last six months.
In health care, it's now evident that the Morrison government was woefully ill-prepared for the outbreak of the omicron variant in Australia. It's not like they didn't have ample warning. We knew the outbreak was coming to Australia. Epidemiologists and health experts were saying it wouldn't be stopped at the border. We saw the outbreak in South Africa and how it swamped their healthcare system. We knew that it was much more contagious than the delta variant, so Australia had ample warning.
The Prime Minister and the government were warned back in October last year, by health officials and by a parliamentary committee which made recommendations around Australia's preparedness, that it would hit Australia, that it would be more contagious and that it would put enormous pressure on our healthcare system, particularly our hospital system. They recommended that rapid antigen tests be the preferred method of testing people for COVID, yet the government, we now know, did not get out ahead of it and order enough rapid antigen tests to cater for the wave that was coming. Basically the government ignored the advice that they were given around preparedness for the omicron outbreak.
The Prime Minister, rather foolishly, supported state premiers who were 'letting it rip' and opening up too quickly. A classic example of that was in New South Wales. The Premier, Dom Perrottet, got to December and wanted the political advantage of being able to say to people, 'We're now free; we're opening up for Christmas and the summer period,' and let it rip. They basically removed all restrictions. Masks were gone. Checking in was gone. Person limits indoors were gone. Everything was open. You could go to nightclubs and everything. It was all done in one go. Despite the fact that we knew what was coming from South Africa, they still made that decision, backed by the Prime Minister. Never forget that the Prime Minister came out and backed the New South Wales Premier, saying that he was making the right decision and it was time to release Australians from those restrictions.
We now all know what happened. Omicron spread like wildfire. It hit and it became rampant. Our testing facilities simply couldn't cope. We had these outrageous scenes of people lining up, with their kids, in cars for five or six hours to get tested, only to get to the front of the queue and be told that the facility had closed and they had to go away and try again the next day. I'll never forget the phone calls and emails from constituents—red-hot anger with the government about their mishandling of testing and their response to omicron.
Then the Prime Minister developed policy on the run, saying to people: 'If you've got symptoms, you don't need to worry about going to get a PCR test anymore; you can get a rapid antigen test.' They changed the rules quite quickly, and that just confused people. It went against everything that governments and health experts had been saying about the importance of getting PCR tests. They said now, 'You should go and get rapid antigen tests.' But there was one problem: you couldn't get them. You couldn't buy them anywhere, come hell or high water. They were rare as hen's teeth. I remember visiting a few pharmacies over that period when the demand for rapid antigen tests was through the roof. You would walk into a pharmacy and all you would hear was the phone ringing—the phone ringing constantly—and those pharmacists having to pick up the phone and say, 'No, we don't have any; try again in a week,' and not being able to do their ordinary jobs. That was a symptom of ill-preparedness.
We had this quick spike in cases that put pressure on our healthcare system, particularly our hospitals. I spoke to a couple of ICU nurses who work at the Prince of Wales Hospital. They were literally run off their feet. They were worried about their patients and about the capacity of the healthcare system, because you had other ICU nurses either getting COVID or being close contacts and being out of action for a week. That meant that the ICUs were understaffed, and the hospital administrations were bringing in nurses from other areas who weren't trained or specialised in the ICU. One of those nurses said to me: 'It's useless. It's basically like asking you to come and work as a nurse in the ICU. If you haven't been trained in that area, and you don't know how to operate the equipment and you don't know the procedures and protocols, you're basically just getting in the way.' That is what was occurring. That is unforgivable, because that's risking the health and safety of the Australian public.
Is it any wonder that nurses went on strike in Sydney yesterday in their thousands? They are fed up. They have had enough of the Morrison government and the Perrottet government being ill-prepared to plan for COVID, to support the healthcare system and to support our frontline workers during this difficult time. I want to make it clear that I support our nurses. I supported them taking industrial action yesterday. I support their claims for ratios and fair pay, because they deserve it, as do other healthcare workers and other frontline staff who have been working around the clock to keep our country going.
The aged-care sector was in crisis prior to omicron; but omicron has made acutely visible all of the problems that we have in our aged-care sector, and it's now at breaking point. There's a staffing crisis in aged care that has now been uncovered. It's been there for a long time, but it's now been uncovered for all to see. For years aged-care staff have been overworked and underpaid, with many of them having to work two jobs—because they've been put on as casuals—just to try and make ends meet. They're working extra shifts and having to work in other jobs just to feed their families. When they raised these concerns prior to COVID, what was the government's response? They didn't care. This government didn't care. They didn't back workers. When are they going to back workers and their union? When the aged-care cases came before the Fair Work Commission, do you think the Morrison government or the Turnbull government or the Abbott government ever intervened to say, 'Yes, these workers deserve better pay and better conditions?' Of course not. They opposed them. They opposed those Fair Work claims, those work-value claims in the Fair Work Commission. Then, when omicron hits and staff or their close contacts get sick, what happens? You get shortages, you get elderly residents being locked in their rooms without the basic care that they deserve, and the crisis in the system is uncovered.
In one case I was contacted by a constituent in our area about an aged-care facility in our community that requested that visitors pay $11 just to visit their relatives. I want to read this e-mail from Alan in my electorate. It says: 'We received this e-mail from the aged-care facility that our very close friend is at in Little Bay. They are asking that we pay $11 every time we wish to visit her. She has no family. My wife and I are the closest thing that she has, and we've known her for 68 years. We're both pensioners, and the cost of this will severely limit our ability to be able to visit her regularly. We feel that it's outrageous to ask this amount of people who are the only contact to the outside world for these people in care.' That's what our healthcare system has come to under this government—asking relatives and close friends to pay to go and visit their loved ones! That is an absolute disgrace.
Now you've got the government attempting to bribe aged-care workers with two $400 retention payments. Well, guess what? It's too little, too late. Why weren't you supporting their Fair Work claims, their work-value cases, when they were moving these amendments in the Fair Work Commission years ago? Why weren't you out there supporting aged-care workers when they were saying to you years ago, before COVID hit, that the system was in crisis? The government pay lip-service to workers in the aged-care sector, and now all Australians are suffering because of it.
The measure of a country is how well you look after your most vulnerable citizens, particularly the poor and the elderly. Australia used to take pride in the fact that we had a very strong healthcare system, underpinned by Medicare and universal access, and an aged-care system that ensured that all had access to decent care. But now Australians are starting to ask themselves: what happened to that wonderful healthcare system that we built through Medicare, and what happened to the care that we used to show for Australians who are vulnerable in their elderly years? It's been undermined by this government. It's been destroyed by this government, and its about time that Australians saw writ large what has been occurring not only in economic management but in our healthcare system and our aged-care system. Hopefully they will say, come the election: It's now time for a change. It's now time to put back in place the policies that ensure we look after our most vulnerable through health care and aged care.
I remember, in July 2019, finally being called the member for Mallee. Mine was the last seat in Australia to be named and declared, so I was very proud in that moment to step into this role. It has been an incredible journey over the last 2½ to three years. My colleagues who have been around for some time say there has never been one like it. In December, I put together 12 newsletters for my 12 shires. In the newsletters, I talked about what has actually been achieved. It's been really easy, in the last two years in particular, to be quite downward looking—to look at how difficult things are, how challenging they are—and there's been much justifiable criticism of a lot of handling that has gone on. But there's also been some excellent work that has gone on, and I've got to say that our government has achieved a tremendous amount in very trying times.
Today I want to talk about some of the achievements that the people of Mallee have experienced in the last, nearly, three-year period. It's about delivery, and, as a local member, I am really proud to say that over $2 billion has been delivered in the electorate of Mallee. There was $626 million in direct support distributed for businesses throughout COVID and for employers to be able to keep their staff paid, if not working. There has been $472 million invested in roads. That's a tremendously important focus for the people of Mallee. We are 83½ thousand square kilometres; there are a lot of roads. While $470 million doesn't go all the way to repairing every road, we're still on track. We have many huge trucks, big B-doubles, that traverse all the small roads across Mallee, which therefore need constant upgrading. That work continues.
We've also had $26 million delivered through drought recovery. This has been an incredibly important fund and program for many shires in Mallee. Many pieces of infrastructure and a lot of support for organisations throughout Mallee have come from this drought funding, and shires have been incredibly grateful. We've also expended $440 million on the Murray Basin Rail Project. That's not to say that it's been delivered. There has been a lot of pushback from the state government, and the work is yet to be completed. But I want the people of Mallee to know that I am very focused on that work being completed, and I will see it through. We've also distributed $60 million for healthcare improvements across Mallee, and I want to touch on some of those shortly.
There has been $15 million invested in our telecommunications. Anyone in Mallee who traverses the highways and byways or the small towns and back paddocks knows just how difficult connectivity is. So I am really thrilled that $15 million has been invested. There is so much more work to be done, and I was very pleased to work with Julian Leeser, my colleague, recently to address the issue of connectivity. Again, it's another topic and another issue that we have to remain focused on to see improvements for regional areas.
Into the details: I have 12 wonderful shires, and one of them is the Hindmarsh Shire. There have been funds delivered for childcare services, as well as $11.5 million for roads and bridges. I was very pleased to be on site to do the first sod turn for the Albacutya Bridge. Unfortunately I could not be there for the demolition of the old bridge. It was an incredible piece of architecture, so I was very sad not to see it come down. But the new bridge is on its way, and it will provide safety for those who need to use that bridge for their businesses and farms and for tourism. The Wimmera River Discovery Trail received $600,000. Tourism in our regional centres is actually pivotal for keeping our economy ticking over. The Wimmera River is just another one of our beautiful rivers; it is just iconic. I had the joy of opening the Dimboola Community Civic Hub. There was $600,000 invested by our government in this particular project, and the locals love it. It's another opportunity for tourism and for people to enjoy the spaces in Dimboola.
Of course, there is more work to be done. I have to confess I made a mistake and reported that I had funded a particular project called the Davis Park Precinct, and that hadn't actually happened. You do a lot of work in this House, and occasionally you slip up, and that was a slip-up for me. So I'm fighting very hard for that project to be delivered because it's incredibly important to the people of Nhill.
Loddon shire has received $14.5 million for the Mitiamo and District Reticulated Water Supply Project. If we don't have water, we don't have life. Our communities can't live. Our farms can't grow. I was so thrilled to be down there with the previous Deputy Prime Minister to announce this particular project. It's part of our national water grid and an incredibly important investment. Loddon shire has also received $22.6 million for its roads. The local council have loved—all my local councils have loved—the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program because it's given them the ability to pinpoint their own projects. It hasn't been tagged or tied to any particular outcome, but they have been able to achieve a tremendous amount of work that really matters to the locals who live in those regions. So that's another one. For Donaldson Park in Wedderburn, there was $2.5 million. Our sporting precincts matter enormously not just to people who play sport but to their families and to communities in small towns. They really are the epicentre.
An honourable member: And tennis courts.
And tennis courts, absolutely. Pyrenees shire has received $14.3 million for roads. Roads are something that I think every member in this House hears about; they matter. When you're driving on bad roads, it's no good for your car and it's certainly no good for the occupants. So road investments have been significant in this period of time. The Lexton Community Hub has received $2.7 million. Then there is the Waubra Bowls Club, $300,000, and the Avoca walking track and bike paths—things that get us out into our communities, again increasing tourism for our smaller towns.
Buloke shire, a wonderful shire up in the north of my electorate, have received $450,000 for childcare services, a vital piece of investment so that young families can get on with their lives—so that their children are cared for and parents can go back to work. If we do not have child care in these smaller towns, it hinders our productivity more generally. Charlton Park and the Charlton Harness Racing Club are two pieces of investment by this government that are just a sight to behold. I was totally delighted to go to the Charlton Park site for the opening—there were crowds there—and I will be going to a race meet down there very soon. The Buloke shire did receive $4.3 million under the Drought Communities Program and have expended that funding—again, on projects that they want to spend it on. Our local shires are so important to really understanding what's going on on the ground and where the priorities are. Buloke has also received another $2.4 million for community infrastructure.
Central Goldfields Shire, down in the south-east of my electorate, have received $10.3 million for roads and bridges. One of the first things that I heard about when I stepped into this role, from very passionate locals, was the Carisbrook levee and how important that was. The flood that happens once in a hundred years down there completely messes up that area when it happens, and it happened recently. I fought hard for the $1.2 million for that levee, and I'm really pleased to see that that work is going ahead. In aged care, the Havilah aged-care facility in Maryborough received $4.96 million. We've talked today about aged care, and it's on all of our minds just how important our aged-care facilities are for our seniors. So to see investments in aged-care facilities across Mallee—there are several; this is one of the key ones—is very exciting, and I think it shows the commitment that we have to improving our aged-care services.
The Central Goldfields also received $120,000 for community halls. I've got to say: it just was elevated in the community; they just loved all of these halls. There were five of these halls that were done up—they were painted or had a new kitchen—and they really are the epicentre of small communities. The communities can meet there for dances—the old country dances, which I well remember—and for events with their sporting clubs or community groups. So they were very excited about this funding. All that work has been done, and I've seen much of it.
Gannawarra Shire received $15 million for roads and bridges. Gannawarra Shire also has a huge area around Kerang which is a huge development for renewable energy, and we have a focus on that being able to be uplifted onto the grid and made valuable. That's a space to continue watching. We are investing in that space.
In the Kerang Christian College, $1.23 million was invested. They are proud of that work. I was pleased to be at the opening of that. It's a very vibrant school, with a wonderful science lab now. So STEM is on its way in Kerang Christian College.
For the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District channel embankment infrastructure, $3.5 million has been delivered. Eleven thousand irrigators rely on the water in that region, and they are doing a wonderful job.
The ag shows in Gannawarra Shire received $475,000, to Cohuna, to refurbish their showgrounds and facilities. Our local shows and ag field days have suffered terribly over the last three years. Many of them have not been able to operate at all. So this kind of investment by the Morrison-Joyce government in our shows has kept them going and has given them not just something to do but something to actually keep them afloat through this period of time. We expect them to come back in a vibrant way in 2022.
Swan Hill region has received $83 million in roads and bridges. Sixty million dollars was committed to the Swan Hill Bridge, and if the states could get their acts together that would be fantastic and this bridge could be built. It has had a tremendous amount of go-slow on it, with the heritage listing and needing to sort out which bridges are going to be replacing which priority in the heritage listing. Hopefully, we will see that work begin soon. It's not for want of passion and interest in it in the Swan Hill Council; they are very passionate about this project. And locals want to see it delivered.
We've also delivered $30 million to the Swan Hill hospital. It's the remit, of course, of the state government, but our $30 million meant that the state government finally stepped up and also promised $17.8 million. The emergency department at Swan Hill hospital I have spoken about before: it would bring you to tears if you walked in there. That money is very well spent. Here I go again! We want to see the state government pay attention to our regional hospitals. They need funding. They need a focus. And I would urge the Victorian state government to look beyond the halo of Melbourne.
This time two years ago, I was pleading with the Morrison government to provide bushfire recovery support for the communities hit by the Gospers Mountain fire. That was not just for the communities that burned, where people experienced the trauma of being surrounded by flames and saw their homes or their neighbours' home in ashes and had their properties smouldering for days. And it was not just for the bushland in that World Heritage Area, where valley and ridgeline after valley and ridgeline were reduced to just blackened trunks, and where native animals—koalas, snakes and lizards, wombats, possums, kangaroos and birds—were all gone or dead. It was also for the small businesses whose hopes of a good summer went up in smoke as people stayed away long after the fires had stopped.
This time two years ago, 300 small businesses in the upper mountains had met with me to share their pain and their ideas about how we could move forward. Since then, fire affected communities from the mountains to the Hawkesbury have had to keep asking, keep waiting and keep holding on as they have come to terms with so much of the recovery from fire having to wait. Only last week I was able to connect another elderly landowner still without fences from those fires two years ago with the wonderful Rough Track kids, who've been helping to replace fences destroyed by fires and, more recently, floods.
There are some communities who'll be very happy to see projects announced in the latest bushfire recovery funding—from the tourism sector in Katoomba, grateful that the street heading down to the iconic Three Sisters will become tree-lined eventually and that the much-missed Winter Magic Festival gets a boost, through to the tough-as-boots Kurrajong Heights and Bilpin communities, who may end up with a community centre that actually meets their needs, and the Macdonald Valley, where the tiny St Albans and surrounding community are still finding their feet not just from fire but from two floods, and they'll see things like an upgrade to their community hall. I thank these communities for their patience. I know that the hundreds of times I've spoken for you and about you in this place—whether it was the nagging or the pleading, the anger or the despair—have been because I saw your resilience to what you'd been through as the months postdisaster dragged on.
The projects that have been announced are some of the sorts of projects that those of us in bushfire areas have urged the government to fund, and the millions are welcome—although we could have seen them a year ago rather than on the eve of an election. I hate to consider the possibility that the Morrison government held off announcing this round of projects, which we were told would actually be pre-Christmas announcements, until now, a few weeks away from an election day. That would be absolutely disrespectful to my community, to what they've gone through. I also am aware that there are very good projects that have missed out, and we'll continue to work for the funding that these communities need.
There is a whole stage of work, though, that hasn't happened yet in our region, moving beyond recovery to preparation and mitigation, and that applies to floods, fires and storms. The Emergency Response Fund of $4 billion, which I have spoken about often—I voted to create this fund—I saw as an amazing opportunity to get mitigation and preparation projects happening in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury. But not a single cent of it has been spent. It has accrued more than $800 million in interest in the two years plus it has been around. There have been plenty of opportunities for it to be invested, and it is a crying shame that it hasn't been spent on improving telecommunications, on creating safer places, on creating evacuation centres.
It is also a shame that the Prime Minister has not seen fit to visit any of these bushfire affected areas and speak directly to the people who are still recovering. Anyone who's been through a massive trauma like fires the like of which we saw would know that, two years on, it is still fresh; there's a really long way to go. I would urge him to speak with people.
When we talk about fires in the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains, we can't forget that we also face floods. A year ago, a really big flood hit the region. One hit the area two years ago, after the bushfires, but 12 months later it was followed by another one. At the weekend, I met a couple in Lower Portland. They have still not received a cent of support to restore their land. They have agricultural land, and they are two of a number of people. In an area like mine we don't necessarily have massive rural plots. They're small rural landholdings relative to other parts of the country. While there's been a lot of talk of funding, it just hasn't eventuated. The tightness of the rules means that things are designed for big rural properties, which leads to smaller farms and producers just falling through the cracks. For instance, people who are breeding prize-winning cattle or champion horses for dressage don't necessarily meet the criteria, and that means many have been overlooked. There really is no point in making promises to people, putting it out there, only for people to find out that they fall through the cracks.
I know we can do disaster recovery much better. I know Labor would do disaster recovery much better, with more flexibility so that you could consider a person's situation holistically. I will never forget that the day after my house burnt down in 2013 the Liberal government made a decision to reduce the amount of support available for people who'd been affected by that fire. That was a deliberate decision, and it affected hundreds and hundreds of people who under the new rules were no longer able to seek any emergency assistance. That set the tone for what I have seen from a disaster management perspective. I do want to acknowledge that David Littleproud as minister worked very closely with me in the early stages of the post-fire recovery; however, many of the promises have not been fulfilled. The relationship with New South Wales remains a challenge, and these are things that Labor can do better.
One of the things that leaves my community most vulnerable in a disaster is mobile phone coverage and a poor NBN service. The NBN was never about downloading movies; it was about being able to do high-speed uploads and downloads so you could run businesses, you could access doctors via telehealth and, as COVID showed people who had no imagination to understand it beforehand, you could work from home, do school from home and stay connected to the world while stuck at home. Macquarie has had a mishmash of NBN technologies dumped on it. Not only is fibre to the premises not being used to its full potential but we have the dud copper based fibre to the node, the fragile fibre to the curb and two technologies that simply don't do the job, wireless and satellite. Wireless can't meet the data demands and is congested, while Sky Muster users remain frustrated by not enough data, high latency and dropouts.
The aim of Labor in government would be to increase the spread of fibre. We need to have fibre use spread way further than it currently is, and we've already announced that fibre-to-the-node customers will be able to upgrade to fibre to the premises as we'll run fibre past another 1.5 million homes. That's a start. The rollout of the NBN has been botched by the Liberals and has actually left many in my community more vulnerable during fires and storms than they were before. Fancy that—2022 and we are more vulnerable! Tens of thousands of FTTC and if FTTN customers no longer have landlines and so, when the power goes, so do our phone lines. Don't just say, 'Use your mobile.' Filling the gaps in our mobile coverage has been one of the Morrison government's biggest failures of all. Its own regional telecommunications review, which I made a submission to, highlighted that under this government there's been a patchwork quilt approach to connectivity in the regions, including mine. The report found that in instances of natural disasters and emergencies, connectivity is significantly impacted by power and network outages. It reduces access to recovery and support, and that's what's so disappointing about the government's response to the natural disasters that we've had in the last few years.
There has been no significant investment in improving our ability to communicate. Despite royal commissions and inquiries, advocacy from fire affected MPs and a general hue and cry about it, all we see is the odd mobile phone tower being added and incremental improvements. The 2013 Blue Mountains fire was a wake-up call to improve telecommunications for places like Hawkesbury Heights, Winmalee and Yellow Rock. We lost no lives, but we could well have, and one of the key takeouts for locals was that we really need solid and reliable phone connections. The landlines we had back then meant people could phone neighbours, even when the mobile signal was crowded and only texts would get through. But today, eight years on, there are hundreds of people like me who are now without landlines and can't get a mobile phone signal in their home when the power goes off.
This government always leaves things till it's too late and then does too little. Surely it won't take a more deadly bushfire in our region for them to wake up to the need for mobile coverage with improved reach and resilience, with batteries that survive power cuts. Telstra doesn't always get the best rap, but I want to thank them for responding to my relentless push to have some of the issues addressed in the very rural parts of my electorate. Thanks to them there is some progress, but we're a long way from good enough, let alone resilient. There's so much more that a good government would be doing to keep the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury safe, and that's what Labor will do.
I want to talk about the recovery of koalas. Of course, when we talk about koalas we know that many other animals need the same habitat that koalas do, but we use it as an iconic species. Koalas have been under pressure from a range of threats, including chronic habitat loss due to development. That then drives other threats, like dog attacks and being hit by cars, plus diseases such as chlamydia, and now we have extreme weather events under climate change.
The Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury have turned out to be critically important for koalas. The work of Science for Wildlife since 2014 shows that the area is a potential refuge for koalas under climate change, as habitats out west become less suitable for koalas and habitats to the east, including in the Hawkesbury, are under increasing human-development pressures. We have the most genetically diverse koalas in the country, making them vital for conservation. Dr Kellie Leigh describes them as 'a hidden bunch of rule-breaking koalas who've not read the literature on koala ecology'. Thank goodness! They occupy habitats that we didn't even know they could use. They thrive on trees that grow in dubious-quality soil types, she says. Some live above 1,000 metres altitude, and they get snowed on.
The modelling that predicts the extinction of koalas by 2050 was largely based on land-clearing rates, and it was done before the bushfires. These growing populations were seen as a source of hope, free from the threat of development. The bushfires showed is just how big a threat climate change really is. Not only does the habitat loss have to stop. Dr Leigh say we need to actively manage koalas and their remaining habitats. Listing the koala as 'vulnerable to extinction' didn't reverse the trend of decline, over the last few years, and the Morrison government failed to take the steps that were needed. Will uplisting to 'endangered' be enough for them to act? Looking at their track record, there is no evidence of that at all. To move koalas back off the endangered list and away from the threat of extinction, we need to increase koala numbers.
The government sat on the uplisting announcement for three months before turning it into a photo opportunity. When Labor's National Koala Conservation and Management Strategy ended, in 2014, the Morrison-Joyce government never got around to replacing it—that's eight years of failure—and there is still no recovery plan in sight. This is a government that always does too little too late and doesn't listen to the experts. At a national level, the Liberals are not serious about saving koalas. At a local level, in the Hawkesbury, the Liberals are not serious about saving koalas. Anyone who claims to care about koalas but hypocritically supports measures to clear valuable habitat without seeking any expert input cannot be taken seriously. It does feel like the jeweller Tiffany, with fundraising from its diamond koala brooch, is doing more to save the koala than nearly a decade of Liberals have done. (Time expired.)
At the outset, I commiserate with the member for Macquarie on losing her house in 2013. I know what it's like to have your house robbed. Mine was in 2012. You feel a sense of violation. I can't even imagine what it would be like to lose your premises to a fire. My thoughts go out to you. No doubt that's some time ago and you've recovered from that. That is why this government and indeed all governments of all political persuasions have made an extra effort to help people—as you would expect us to do—recover from those deadly bushfires.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022 seek authority from the parliament to provide for additional expenditure, further funding on top of the normal budgetary process—of course, the budget handed down by Treasurer Frydenberg in May last year—and the appropriation coronavirus response bills in February 2022. Bill No. 3 proposes appropriations of about $11.9 billion and bill No. 4 proposes $4 billion. It's significant and necessary that we do so.
I want to talk a bit about mobile phone communications. I appreciate the member for Macquarie has made comments from her Labor talking points in relation to this. We are up to round 6 of the Mobile Black Spot Program. Nearly 1,000 mobile base station towers have been erected in regional Australia. There are 1,200 that have been funded, so another 200 are to come online in the coming weeks and months. This is a significant investment in mobile communications of regional Australia not only for safety aspects but also for convenience for regional Australians. I know this all too well. I appreciate that there are many black spots within my Riverina and central west electorate. They are still there, and we are working towards making sure that we address that. I'm pleased that the then leader of the New South Wales Nationals, John Barilaro, said last year that they were aiming to make New South Wales black spot free by 2023. I welcome that commitment, and I look forward to working with the coalition government in Macquarie Street to help achieve that aim. Australia has such diverse geography and topography that making the entire continent black spot free is a dream. It's a very difficult reality to actually achieve, but we're working towards it. Compare and contrast what we've done, the commitment we've made and the investments we've contributed with what Labor did in the six years that they were in power here in Canberra. Not a cent was spent on a mobile tower in country areas. This was such a shame.
I appreciate what the member for Macquarie said too about the NBN and making sure we have the rollout of telecommunications in that regard. She used the word 'mishmash'. When we took over in 2013 it was a mishmash. I can recall well in Wagga Wagga that there were many holes dug and many channels in the ground but not too much optic fibre in those holes. It was very much a mishmash when we took over. We have done what you would expect the coalition government to do—that is, fix the gaps within the system to make sure that people get a good service.
I want to talk about the investments in my local area. They have been significant. Like in all other electorates throughout the country, not just regional electorates but city electorates as well, such as Bennelong, we have made significant investment in making sure that communities can be their best selves and making sure that we have the right infrastructure. We are making sure that in city areas we bust through congestion and in country areas we are making sure that we improve and enhance connectivity. That goes to not just road and rail but other ways and means as well.
In Wagga Wagga the federal government has contributed $10 million to the PCYC building just near Robertson Oval in the heart of the city. This is a significant investment—more than $20 million. Local, state and federal governments have contributed towards that. I appreciate that the police citizens youth clubs are and always have been very much state funded organisations. They do so much work through the New South Wales officers who are attached to that fine organisation. Seeing the difference they make to youth—to keeping youth active and out of trouble—the government invested $10 million into that project in Fitzhardinge Street. It is going up. It's very impressive. It's three storeys. Already we've got the steel structure up, using local contractors, using local small businesses. That's going to be a very exciting development for our city.
Ten million dollars has gone to a company in Wagga Wagga, run by Sam Turnbull, called Flipscreen. Flipscreen is a very innovative company. This grant—and another one, of $824,791—is going to enable Flipscreen to build and market a new on-site crushing system for the mining and recycling industries. Flipscreen has engineered and invented a crusher bucket. It achieves high-volume crushing rates with a significantly larger range of crush sizes compared to competing products. It is exporting these around the world. It is going to create hundreds of jobs in Wagga Wagga. The company is based in Copland Street, in Wagga Wagga's eastern industrial estate. It's going to put the 'made in Wagga Wagga' brand around the world. That's fantastic, and I commend Mr Turnbull and chief financial officer Daniel Jones for their initiative and vision to make Wagga Wagga a manufacturing hub for these crusher buckets and for so many other associated industries that will feed into the process. That is a great thing. These machines can screen up to 3,000 tonnes of material per hour. Compared to what is currently available, that is a major step forward. Well done to Flipscreen, who are proud to call Wagga Wagga home. I'm proud to say that the federal government has invested into that business.
Another company that I'm really proud to say that the government has supported—with grants of $369,000 through Accelerating Commercialisation and a further $100,000 through the Business Research and Innovation Initiative—is Zetifi, run by Dan Winson. It is improving connectivity for those in rural and regional areas, particularly farmers. As I said before, at the present time we haven't got every black spot covered, but Zetifi provides the technology and innovation that enable many farmers who don't have the connectivity that they would desire to do their business via the phone when they're up the paddock, when they're in remote locations on their stations. Zetifi is providing those options and those opportunities for farmers, not just in the Riverina and the central west but right across our broad land.
We as a government have paid particular attention, during the coronavirus, to organisations that would sometimes be forgotten or missed, such as movie theatres, particularly those picture theatres in country areas, which have done it really tough during COVID, because of course you couldn't go to the pictures. It has been very, very difficult. We now have the SCREEN Fund, the Supporting Cinemas' Retention Endurance and Enhancement of Neighbourhoods Fund—there's a title for you! Yesterday I talked to two local cinema operators: Craig Lucas of Forum 6 Cinemas at Wagga Wagga, who have received $85,000 through the SCREEN Fund round 2, and Kate Sproston, manager of Southern Cross Theatre at Young, who have received $35,000 in that program. The Wagga Wagga cinema employs up to 30 staff, not all of them full time, many of them university students. For many of them that would be a part-time job. That picture theatre and the one at Young, which employs 40 to 50 volunteers, provide such great entertainment for locals. Making sure that those picture theatres continue to run is really significant, because they've been hard-hit through the coronavirus.
To that end, late last year, in December, I was really pleased to attend the official opening of the Tivoli theatre in the historic Masonic Hall at West Wyalong. It received funding of $150,000 from the federal government, $450,000 from the New South Wales government and $300,000 from nearby Evolution Mining. Is a very well-turned-out picture theatre. They revitalised it and brought it back to life. It is a grand venue. They have restored it to its 1920s glory. Bland shire is very proud of this particular facility. It will not only provide state-of-the-art cinema; it will also be used as a multipurpose function centre for all of those activities in and around Wyalong and West Wyalong and the wider Bland shire.
To that end, even little grants don't go unnoticed. The Cowra amateur musical and dramatic society received $5,000 from the 2021 volunteer grants program. That mightn't seem so much when you're talking about Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022, which total around $15 billion. But $5,000 for those dedicated volunteers means all the difference, because they can get on with practising Shakespeare instead of selling raffle tickets at the pub on a Friday night. They're just wonderful people. Like all of those people in all of our electorates, those volunteers—those people who run these little community organisations—you can't do without them. They are so fantastic. They bring live theatre and performances to Cowra, which is a fantastic community. It's a community, like all of those in my electorate, that is so multicultural. Each year Cowra hosts a festival of international understanding, highlighting a different country each and every year.
Of course, Cowra is home to the peace bell, which is gonged at said festival. Cowra started this initiative on the back of the breakout from the internment camp during World War II, when many Japanese occupants broke out one night. There was an incident there when many people were killed, including Australians, Australian soldiers who had been fortifying that internment camp. You would have thought, from that, that there would be hostilities between Japan and Cowra, in particular, and Australia, in general, but, no; Cowra has forged great ties between itself and Tokyo. The Japanese war cemetery is maintained by, again, volunteers, who do such a power of work. I was proud to fund the reroofing of the visitor centre at the Japanese gardens. They are one of the biggest attractions for that town. The links, the bonds that have been forged between Cowra and Japan are very special. They've put aside the hostilities. They've put aside that dreadful night in World War II. From that, they've built a festival of peace and understanding. That, I think, speaks volumes of the people of Cowra and their ability to embrace peace, to embrace friendship and to put that conflict during the Second World War aside.
This government will continue to provide investment and infrastructure right across our regions, right across our country. Appreciating that the election is but a few short months away, people should know that this government has their back. These have been very difficult times. I feel for the Prime Minister, who has led the country through the bushfires, through drought, through mice plagues, through floods and through COVID-19. It has been very difficult. I was there right beside him for much of that as Deputy Prime Minister, and I'm proud of the way our government responded quickly and effectively to all those crises.
Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 16:00
I understand that in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022 there is about $16 billion for various things—purchases and services—that the government needs to provide. Of course, as is usual practice, we won't hold up supply and we will support these bills, but it would be remiss of me to not talk about some of the government services and supplies that these appropriation bills are referring to.
In recent weeks and months we've seen more evidence of the Prime Minister and the government not doing their job. We have seen Australian citizens let down again by this government and this Prime Minister. Anybody who listened to the Prime Minister prior to the opening of the state borders last year heard him talk a big game about what a great Christmas we were all going to have, but then of course we saw the pictures—and some of us saw it in real life—of the queues of people trying to access tests around the Christmas period and the overload on our systems. Then we had the lack of access to rapid antigen tests, or RATs. Everybody knows how difficult it was to get these. A number of pharmacies and chemists had signs up saying that they didn't have any supply.
We said to the government, 'You really should be able to provide them under Medicare like you do the PCR tests.' I still don't understand the difference between getting a rapid antigen test and getting a PCR test and why the government pays for one and not the other, particularly when the rapid antigen tests are cheaper than the PCR tests under Medicare. I also don't understand why the government purchased those rapid antigen tests so late in the piece. We were opening up in December and most of the tests were not ordered until January. How did this happen when the government was getting so many warnings last year? All the other countries overseas were using rapid antigen tests for many months prior to Australia making a decision to open.
We heard from the Prime Minister: 'Maybe I shouldn't have been so optimistic. We didn't know omicron was coming.' What an absolute load of rubbish! We did know omicron was coming. We did know that we'd need rapid antigen tests. The Prime Minister wants to pretend that it's all very well with hindsight. He knew. He got multiple warnings from the Australian Medical Association. We could see what was happening overseas. We still don't have a proper answer as to why enough of them were not ordered in time.
It's not just the rapid antigen tests that the Prime Minister has let us down on. There are of course the booster shots. Trying to get family members a booster shot has been unbelievably difficult. I still have today family members who can't get in to get a booster shot. They are now waiting another week or two to get their booster. This is still happening today in Australia—people are not able to access a booster shot. We were all told: 'You can go out and get a booster shot. We're opening up to this. We're moving it from four months to three months. Everybody can go and get them.' That is not true. It's not that easy to get a booster shot.
Pharmacists are working so hard trying to give the vaccine to as many people as they possibly can as quickly as they possibly can, but they too were let down by the government. They were let down by the government when it came to the booster shots and how we could get them in people's arms. The government changed the time frames and said everybody could go and get them. They kept changing the rules to get people through quicker, but they didn't make better provision for people to be able to get their booster shot. They didn't make sure that there was a surge workforce to give all of these injections.
So we had a complete failure on the booster shots and a complete failure on the rapid antigen tests. This, of course, is because, as we were told last year, 'It's not a race.' It originally was not a race to get everybody vaccinated, according to the Prime Minister. We have been continually let down by this government.
The other place that we've been really dramatically let down has been in the aged-care system. I want to pass on my sympathies and condolences to all of those families who have lost loved ones during this particular outbreak. In January I talked to some of the aged-care providers in my electorate and in my home state of Tasmania about just how difficult this has been for them. They were getting confusing advice. There were not enough rapid antigen tests for staff and for residents. The advice about whether every resident needed to be tested if there was an outbreak, or every staff member, or just those on shift—it was a shemozzle. There was a lack of clear direction coming from the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth runs aged-care services. Again, we have an incompetent minister who, for some reason, is still in the job, which I just can't fathom. I don't think anybody can, actually. He has completely gone missing in this. They promised a surge workforce. The surge workforce wasn't there. We heard revelations in Senate estimates today that some facilities are closing down because they don't have the staff to continue to operate. What's going to happen to these older Australians when the home that they are living in is forced to close because there are not enough staff? That is on the minister and the Prime Minister for not doing their job. They knew what would happen when the borders opened. They knew what would happen when we had to 'live with the virus', to quote the Prime Minister. How has this been allowed to happen? Imagine being the family members of these aged-care residents, where they've got outbreaks in facilities. They're frightened for their loved ones and now they're being told, 'We don't have enough staff to care for your parent'—or your loved one—'so we're going to close the facility.' Where are the older Australians in these facilities going to go when the facilities have to close because the government didn't do its job? It's not good enough. Too many people have suffered because the government didn't do its job. It didn't do enough and it didn't do it soon enough. That is the reality.
When it comes to aged care, that sits firmly on the shoulders of the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services. I'll never forget that COVID select committee where he was asked how many older Australians had died, when he rustled through the papers because he didn't know. It's his job to know. But, after what happened with the warnings and what happened in those homes last year, to open the borders to live with the virus and not to have a better plan for aged care is just staggering. It's not just incompetent; it really is bordering on—I don't want to say, Deputy Speaker; I'd probably be deemed unparliamentary. But I cannot fathom how somebody says, 'The number of older Australians who die is not a performance indicator of my job,' how he has got such an attitude to this. These are people's lives. We had the Minister for Health and Aged Care in question time today stand up and say, 'Oh well, you know, some of them were palliative anyway,' and compare the situation to other countries. They knew they could have saved more lives if they had done more soon enough. That is the reality. Instead we had the minister stand up with this number salad, as though somehow this was going to actually satisfy the families. Has he talked to the staff of these facilities? Has he spoken to the families about what's going on? Has he spoken to the people trying to run the facilities? The only reason the system is holding together at all is the diligent staff, who are going above and beyond, running around in these aged-care facilities, trying to take care of older Australians. It's been an absolute disaster.
In my home state of Tasmania, schools went back last week, and already we've got outbreaks in a whole heap of schools. Already we've got parents saying: 'We don't have enough RATs. We need to get some RATs.' It's not going swimmingly. We've got inconsistent advice again coming from governments. We've got a lack of rapid antigen tests in our schools. In Tasmania we actually had our education minister resign last week because she got stuck overseas with COVID. She was on leave instead of trying to make sure that kids and parents were all sorted and the system was all okay for the kids to go back to school. We've had a failure of the state and federal Liberal governments when it comes to the kids going back to school.
But we've also had a complete failure by the federal government and the state Liberal government in Tasmania when it comes to our state's infrastructure. We had a range of questions in estimates on Monday about the Hobart City Deal. It's just extraordinary. We had $25 million promised for a rail corridor and for a study into a rail corridor, and it turns out that the state government have been sitting on a report that says this corridor is not viable but hadn't told anybody! Indeed, only $2 million of the $25 million has actually been spent. There was a big signing for this Hobart City Deal. It was touted. There were the usual big pictures. Hundreds of millions of dollars were, allegedly, coming to Hobart. It was all announcement and no delivery. So far we've had $2 million spent.
We had $300 million set aside for a runway on the Antarctic Territory—it's a long way from the city of Hobart, but apparently it was included—which they had to abandon, of course. The Minister for the Environment has said that it's not going to proceed. We don't know what's happening to the $300 million that was earmarked for the runway down on the Antarctic. I hope it's coming to Greater Hobart, but who knows where that $300 million is or has gone, or what's happening to it. Then, of course, we've got the Bridgewater Bridge, which has been promised more times than I can count. We still don't even have a final design. Nothing's happened. It's been years. Nothing's happened. It's just extraordinary that the governments have gotten away with this. They come down and talk about hundreds of millions of dollars for this great deal—and absolutely zip. We've had a complete failure to deliver at both the state and federal level.
Indeed, the only thing happening in my electorate is the removal of the Hobart Airport roundabout, which is a project at that interchange to allow traffic to go further south-east into the member for Lyons's electorate, past the airport. Of course, that project was actually first announced by Labor. It was an election commitment that we made back in 2013. If Labor hadn't made that commitment, nothing would have happened. The government certainly wasn't going to do anything. It had to make a commitment, but it was for less money. The design is terrible and won't stand the test of time, because the commitment was not enough, unlike Labor's commitment at the time. But this is the only project that has happened in my electorate under nine years of this government—the only one. All the other projects in my electorate happened under the former Labor government where we got a commitment and they were in the budget when Labor left office. Seriously, what has been happening with infrastructure in Tasmania under this government is a complete disgrace, and my constituents have had enough of it. They're sick to death of all of this promise, promise, promise and nothing ever turning up.
Frankly, all these promises and the Prime Minister or the minister flying in and signing all these things, are consistent with what this government does time and time again—all announcement, no delivery. You sort of expect the Prime Minister to come, but we don't know what he's going to dress up as next. So far we've had the racing car driver, we've had the pilot, we've had the hairdresser and we've had the ukulele player. I'm wondering what comes next. Is he going to drive a digger next, with his hard hat on? Where's he going to go next? Seriously, Australians are over it. He's got to stop dressing up and pretending to be somebody else and do the job we're paying him for. We want the Prime Minister to do the job he is being paid for, not to play silly games, not to dress up for announcements, not to go around doing silly stunts. We want him to deliver. We want him to deliver on stuff like infrastructure, which is productivity-changing and creates jobs. We want him to deliver on health care. We want him to make sure that every Australian that needs one can get a rapid antigen test. We need him to make sure that all Australians can access a booster for their COVID vaccination. Seriously, he needs to get on with the things that matter to Australians. He needs to do his job, the job that he is being paid for.
Australians are over it. The Prime Minister knows Australians are over it. We've seen a whole heap of scare tactics over the last couple of weeks in parliament while he tries to dodge and, 'Look over here,' and change direction. The big scare campaigns are coming out. But, seriously, Australians just want him to do his job—the one we're paying him for. If he can't do his job, he should get out of the way and call the election.
It's a pleasure to rise and speak on these appropriation bills, and it gives me the opportunity to reflect on the record of delivery across the electorate of Forde over the past nine years, since the coalition first came into government in 2013. I'm pleased to follow the member for Franklin's contribution and I'll be pleased to read out a list of significant achievements and deliverables in the electorate of Forde. I'm pleased to say that we continue—
I don't need a spreadsheet.
Order, Member for Franklin!
I've got a list here, Member for Franklin, because it wouldn't fit on a spreadsheet! We've committed, since we came to government in 2013, to make this a better, safer, stronger country for all, through creating jobs, supporting local community organisations, delivering roads infrastructure, supporting our vulnerable, and enhancing opportunities for small to medium businesses across the country, and, importantly, in my electorate.
As I look back over the past nine years at this coalition government's record of delivery to my electorate of Forde, it's heartening to see the impact of that delivery making it a better community for everybody to live in. If I go through some of those things and the projects that have been delivered or are under construction or are planned, we can see significant changes to the safety of our local roads and we can see significant improvements to people's ability to get to and from work safely. But, in addition to those big infrastructure projects—which I'll touch on a little bit later—importantly, we've left more money in people's pockets.
Across my electorate of Forde, some 74,000 taxpayers have benefited from the tax relief that this government has put in place. We've already seen some 18½ thousand businesses across the electorate of Forde being supported through the expanded instant asset write-off to encourage investment and boost local jobs. I've spoken to many businesses, right across the electorate, who have taken advantage of these provisions to replenish their capital equipment, to improve their productivity and to improve their ability to produce new goods and services, and it's been very, very well received.
One of the important things for everybody in my electorate of Forde is health. We've seen, during the pandemic, the introduction of telehealth and the importance of that for people to be able to still get support and service from their medical practitioners without having to physically go into doctors surgeries. Some 622,000 telehealth consultations have occurred through Medicare in the past year, and these services are now being extended. We've added over 2,800, I think it is now, new medicines to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme since we came to government in 2013, and the community of Forde has benefited to the tune of over 2.3 million prescriptions being subsidised through the PBS.
As I touched on, one of the really big deliverables in my electorate of Forde has been infrastructure. I represent one of the fastest-growing areas in Australia, and one of the things that have held back or impacted development, impacted quality of life, tradies' ability to get to and from the job site, people's ability to get to work safely in our major industrial areas—in Yatala and Loganholme, and now, over in the west of the electorate, in Park Ridge and Meadowbrook—has been the quality of our infrastructure. When I look at what we've delivered across the electorate of Forde, I'm very pleased to say we've made some significant investments.
The M3 Gateway merge, which the member for Bonner here is also well aware of, had a total investment of some $195 million by the Australian and state governments—$115 million from the federal government. That project, from the Gateway merge to Springwood, has now been completed. The next section of the M1, from Springwood to Loganlea Road, is now well under construction. Some of the northbound lanes, from Sports Drive to the Gateway Motorway, have now been opened. Part of that also is the extension of the busway from Eight Mile Plains to Springwood. In addition, I've secured the funding for the remaining part of that upgrade from Daisy Hill to the Logan Mortorway, which will be a $500 million investment by the Commonwealth government, matched by another $500 million from the state government. That project will get underway once the current panel from Springwood to Daisy Hill is complete.
Importantly, south of that area, in the northern Gold Coast, we have four major interchanges which are critical to access both our residential communities and our business communities. I'm pleased to say that exit 54 at Upper Coomera was completed several years ago, through a $10 million investment by the federal government in conjunction with the developers of Coomera town centre, Westfield QIC and the state government. This has made an enormous difference to the communities of Upper Coomera and Coomera. We've recently added to that with a $7½ million investment, bringing it, in conjunction with the state government, to approximately $15 million for a new car park at Coomera train station, because we know how important access to public transport is. The parking facilities at Coomera train station well and truly needed that upgrade, because people just could not find a park unless they got there very, very early in the morning. Many of those people would otherwise drive into Brisbane or other places. Now they will be able to get a parking spot and catch the train, reducing the pressure on the M1.
As we head north from exit 54, we have exit 49 at Pimpama, which will be a $110 million joint investment by the Commonwealth and state governments. Work on that will commence in the second half of this year. We've commenced construction at exit 45, with a $20 million investment to realign the southbound exit off exit 45, which, in the afternoon, will stop traffic banking back onto the M1 in a 110 kilometre per hour zone, which is an enormous safety issue. That will also free up some of the traffic movements around the roundabouts and the current bridge, particularly affecting Tillyroen Road and Peachey Road.
We're also upgrading exit 41, with an $82 million investment between the Commonwealth and state governments, with work now well underway to duplicate that exit. It will be along the lines of the model of exit 54, with a new bridge, increased lane capacity and much longer exits off the freeway. Again, sometimes at exit 41 in the morning, trying to get into the industrial estate, the traffic could be backed up for at least a kilometre on the M1 in a 110 kilometre an hour zone—incredibly dangerous.
In local roads, the Milne Street to Tallagandra Road upgrade again will be fifty-fifty joint funding—a $5 million investment. That's now in the design stage. Hopefully work will commence on that later this year, which will duplicate from Milne Street to Tallagandra Road. That work will start on Beaudesert Beenleigh Road, which is increasingly busy, given the development to the south of Beenleigh in Bahrs Scrub, Windaroo and further afield. We've seen the upgrade of the Jellicoe and Station Road intersection, where people exit off the Logan Motorway to get into Loganlea and to Waterford West. That $1.4 million investment, in conjunction with the Logan City Council, has made an enormous difference to an intersection which had a terrible crash history.
Further to the west, on the Mount Lindesay Highway, we spent $20 million upgrading service roads between Chambers Flat Road and Greenbank Road. Now that that has been completed, we're now working on the section between Stoney Camp Road and Chambers Flat Road, which is a joint $75 million investment. I recently had the opportunity to open the new Norris Creek Bridge, which I'm delighted at the design of, given how high it is, how wide it is and the way they've designed it to allow for wildlife to be able to cross underneath it rather than having to cross over it. Given that's an area where we have koalas and a range of other wildlife, I'm greatly appreciative of the work that Main Roads has done in its design to make it friendly for wildlife to cross the road. That duplication will make an enormous difference.
There are a number of other road projects where we've provided funding to Logan City Council and we're waiting for the council to finalise design to get on and build those roads, such as the duplication on Chambers Flat Road, from Park Ridge Road to Derby Road, and the upgrades of High Road and Easterley Street at Waterford.
Equally, in a growing community you need community facilities, and part of that is the support of our local sporting clubs. Through a number of community grants, we've supported Mustangs Brothers Rugby League Football Club to the tune of $150,000 for new lighting and water infrastructure to upgrade their fields. I'll say that Logan City Council and the state government also jumped in and helped with some additional works there, such that Mustangs Brothers have now got a completely new surface on their field, but that is now well and truly protected by the water infrastructure and the new lighting. It looks fantastic. They've also received a grant from the Commonwealth government, through the Powering Communities Program, for solar panels on their roof.
Ormeau Shearers rugby league club received some $500,000 to build a new clubhouse and dressing shed. The old one was an old steel shed that was well and truly past its use-by date. For the club at Ormeau, in the growing corridor of the Gold Coast, that's been a tremendous investment.
Loganholme Lightning Football Club have had two grants, one for their clubhouse at Cornubia. In conjunction with some state government investment, it has transformed that clubhouse and those dressing rooms, in reflection of the fact that the club is now playing in the National Premier Leagues in Queensland. The other upgrade will be at Chris Green Park in Beenleigh, with a $600,000 investment by the Commonwealth government augmented by a $1.2 million investment by Logan City Council to further build on these facilities. You can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, from what I've outlined in that list—and there's so much more that I could go through—what we've delivered for the community in Forde over the last nine years.
Other exciting and interesting projects as I look across the electorate have been on the environmental front, where we've provided funds to a range of community organisations for restoration of our local riverbanks; protection of rare and endangered species, such as the Ormeau bottle tree; and installation of solar power across various community organisations to help them reduce their power bills, which means that the small amount of funds they get for various things or through fundraising can be directed to their activities on the ground.
Another very interesting project is Australia's first biosolids gasification facility at the Loganholme Wastewater Treatment Plant. This $6.2 million investment to Logan City Council will transform sewage sludge, or biosolids, into renewable energy and an environmentally friendly project called biochar. The project's construction phase has commenced and work is well underway. I believe we'll be opening that facility sometime in April.
Also, Logan City Council has been granted funds, through the Smart Cities and Suburbs program, for locals to prepare their houses and businesses to be more resilient to flooding and equip first responders with crucial information through modelling for disaster management. Equally, we've seen a range of grants to great community organisations, including our rural fire brigades, our Meals on Wheels, Rosies youth mission, Lighthouse Care, Nightlight and many others who do a terrific job across our electorate each and every day.
Importantly, what this shows is that the Morrison government is delivering for my electorate of Forde across a whole range of areas. Despite the protestations from those opposite, I'll continue to work with my community—
Opposition members interjecting—
Well, through the previous contribution, not so much those of you over there—which is unusual.
I'm pleased to say that the Morrison government continues to deliver for the community of Forde in a whole range of areas, and I look forward to the work we'll continue to do into the future.
This is terrific. The Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 gives the government another $15.9 billion to spend, which is nice because they've already got a $16 billion slush fund in the budget. They put that in the mid-year update—decisions taken but not yet announced—so they won't tell Australians what's in their $16 billion slush fund but they want another $15.9 billion. This does then invite discussion of the government's economic and budgetary record. Labor's not going to be lectured by this mob, the most wasteful government—the most corrupt, rorting government—since Federation.
The government desperately pretends that the Australian economy is going well, but the reality for Australians is very different. The cost of living is rising rapidly. I spoke to a constituent last week. They get the same basket of groceries delivered every week, their basics. It used to cost $100. It's now $25 dearer a year on. Childcare costs have gone up by 6½ per cent in the last year alone and by 44 per cent since his government was elected. Petrol is skyrocketing. It's gone up by a third—that is, 33 per cent—in the last 12 months alone under this mob. Meanwhile, while the cost of everything is going up, wages in this country are stagnating or going down in real terms. 'In real terms' is economic jargon which means the price of things is going up faster than wages. That means wages in real terms are dropping because your pay buys less and working families in this country are going backwards.
The government hates it when you actually point out these facts. They rely on their spin and their brand propaganda. They go around saying the Liberals are great economic managers. It's simply not true. How are people across Australia supposed to pay for things now that the cost of petrol is going up, the cost of food is going up, the cost of child care is going up, the cost of transport is going up, but wages are stagnating or going backwards in this country? I especially feel for retirees, as we saw reported on in the newspaper this morning, like single pensioners who are living alone.
Have a look at wages. For workers, middle Australians have never been more vulnerable. It's not a COVID thing. The really dishonest thing is that whenever you raise these problems and you put them to the Prime Minister, he says it's COVID. We blame everything on COVID, but it's not the case. Even before COVID, real wages in this country under the Liberals for six years went backwards. From 2013 to 2019 real wages in this country went backwards by 0.7 per cent. That is reflected in OECD data showing our wages fell, and last year they went backwards again by $700 on average per worker. They could blame that on COVID, but put those things together and they mean less money in people's pockets while the cost of everything is going up. The government's own projections in their budget, the mid-year financial update for which we're giving them money now, say that real wages will go backwards again this financial year—they'll go further backwards this year. What that adds up to is eight years of stagnant wages under this government. In fact, it's the lowest average wage growth on record. Since they started collecting economic statistics in this country, the Liberals have presided over the lowest average growth on record.
The worst thing is it is deliberate. The former Minister for Finance Mathias Cormann told Australians, when the issue of low wages was put to him, it's 'a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture'. And you can see this architecture—it was an outbreak of honesty, but he's left now—cuts to penalty rates and opposing wage rises for childcare workers, aged-care workers and public servants at every turn. It's a flawed industrial relations framework so workers cannot bargain fairly for a wage rise in this country under the Libs. And their badly run, lazy migration program is letting in the wrong kinds of low-skilled workers, which holds down wages in certain occupations. The data is clear.
To contrast this with Labor's record in government, under Labor wages grew faster than the cost of living. Australians had more in their pockets and could buy more stuff. They had more discretionary income under a Labor government; people were better off. The McKell Institute's analysis last year showed that if the average wage rise under the Labor government had continued for the last decade under this mob, the average worker would be $254 better off. That means that if we'd had the same wage achievement that we saw under Labor, the average worker would have $13,000 more in their pocket every year than under the Libs.
COVID has also exposed the risk to workers and the Australian economy of casualised and insecure work and of underemployment—two other facts the government doesn't like to talk about. There are 1.5 million Australians still looking for work or looking for more work as they can't get enough hours. The vulnerability of casual and insecure workers—the government has done nothing about this—was revealed as a weakness in our society through COVID. These are millions of workers who do not have sick leave; millions of workers who cannot get a secure job or ever get a home loan. They love to talk about home ownership, but they never talk about those millions of workers that are locked out of the home market, not because their income is not high enough to get a loan but because they cannot get a loan on a casual wage, on a labour hire contract. They're privatising the Public Service: tens of thousands of Public Service jobs have gone; people are existing on casual labour hire contracts. It's wasting taxpayers' money. I see this in my community.
They had a scheme, you know, to fix this. The Prime Minister announced it with great fanfare. He gave it a cute little name, as he does: it was the JobMaker scheme. He was going to create 450,000 jobs. Well, we heard today in Senate estimates what actually happened: they created 7,300 jobs—not 450,000; 7,300. If he was honest, he'd rename it the JobFaker scheme, because that's what it was.
But, really, all this exposes the great big lie—the lie that they say day after day, the lie that the Liberals love to perpetuate: the claim that they are better economic managers. It's just rubbish. It doesn't stack up. If you look at the actual data on wages, productivity, tax, debt or growth, it doesn't stack up.
Now, we've been hearing a lot about tax, of course, in question time. The government loves to talk about tax cuts. Well, they're flailing and desperate, as we also saw in question time today. They stooped to a new low. In the Prime Minister's own words, they put their hand in the chum bucket. He actually called the Leader of the Opposition 'the Manchurian candidate'. He actually said that. I heard it. The Speaker didn't; there was a bit of noise down there. That's what he said. He got up and withdrew, but he knew what he was doing. That was effectively accusing the opposition of treason. That's what it means. It's against the Practice. And it's a disgusting, disgraceful slur. And the irony is: when you talk to the national security professionals, that is exactly what China and our opponents, or adversaries, or competitors—whatever you want to call them—want. That's the kind of behaviour they are trying to incite in our country, and the Prime Minister is so desperate, so naive, he fell into the trap again and again. He's a desperate, little man.
But then we go back to the other lie, that Labor always taxes more. Well, the fact is: the Morrison government is the second-highest-taxing government in the last 40 years in this country. On the average tax-to-GDP ratio—that's the measure—it's the second-highest-taxing government in 40 years. Guess who was the highest? We can have a look: there was Whitlam and Fraser and Hawke and Keating and Howard and Rudd and Gillard, and Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison, that nightmare dynasty. It was John Howard! Twenty-three point five per cent was his average tax-to-GDP ratio; 22.4 per cent was Morrison's. That's what it says. So I seek leave to table this graph, Deputy Speaker, which sets out the facts. It exposes your lie, Government. It exposes the lie that the Liberals are lower-taxing. It's simply not true.
Is leave granted?
Leave not granted.
You don't want the facts recorded? No? Alright. Well, it's there for anyone to google. The facts are: every Australian is paying $4,500 more tax under the Morrison government than they were under Labor, and every household is paying $9,600 more than they were under Labor. They're the facts.
We could have a look at debt, though. That's a good one, isn't it? What do the facts say about that? Well, it's a little bit awkward for the government; I'll give you a heads-up. These economic geniuses are racking up a trillion dollars of debt; a trillion dollars, with almost nothing to show for it—no legacy; no real investment in infrastructure, just announced things; no investment in skills; they're just trying to repair the cuts they made to TAFE in their first six years. There's no social housing to show for it, just a whole lot of money to the private sector to push up housing prices, push up building costs and randomly renovate people's bathrooms—that's the truth of it. Tens of billions of dollars they've wasted, unnecessarily. We'll never cop a lecture on fiscal responsibility from this mob ever again. Twenty billion dollars of JobKeeper was rorted—paid to businesses to increase their profits and pay themselves executive bonuses. The former head of the Council of Small Business Organisations described it as close to theft. It was a rip-off. They ripped off taxpayers' money and shovelled it out the door. You could see big business, couldn't you? They'd be backing their trucks up to the Treasury in the dead of night. As the giant ATM funnels out the cash, they'd be shovelling it into the back of the truck, thinking: 'Who's stupid enough to give us this money to increase our profits? Oh, that would be the Morrison government. Free money! Off we drive.' They wasted $20 billion, and the next generation of Australians and the generation after them are going to be asked to repay this Liberal debt.
They wasted economic supports during lockdowns. Billions were paid to individuals and businesses that they would not have to have paid if they had ordered enough vaccines and built quarantine facilities. We're an island continent. They didn't build quarantine facilities; they didn't keep the disease out until people were vaccinated. Then they were last in the developed world on the vaccination rollout—the slowest. If they had even been average, we would have avoided months of these lockdowns. We would have been living with the virus more safely months ago, and they wouldn't have had to pay billions of dollars. But just shove that on the debt for the next generation!
There's the rorts, the waste and the corruption—shovelling taxpayers' money to marginal seats as if it were the Liberal Party's own. In my electorate, the most disadvantaged in Melbourne, we could do with a little bit of help. We didn't get a dollar of election commitments at the last election. I think you, Deputy Speaker Zimmerman, got a lovely regional pool in the electorate of North Sydney—that's famous. The list could go on. There's privatisation, as I said, wasting money, with billions of dollars paid to consultants and their contractor mates. No problem—just load it on the debt!
What's Morrison's response? He says, 'It's a one-in-100-year pandemic; don't blame me.' Here's an inconvenient fact: half of the Liberal debt was before COVID. This mob, the geniuses over there, doubled Australia's debt before COVID. From 2012 to 2019, Australia had the greatest debt growth of any developed nation in the world, out of all 36 OECD countries. I seek leave to table this graph, which shows the truth about the Liberal debt. See this? There are some nice, small red Labor lines, and then—ooh!— six years of more than double the debt, even before COVID. I seek leave to table this to tell you the truth about Liberal debt.
Leave not granted.
Another cover-up! Let's try again. I seek leave to table this graph, which shows that your government, the Liberal Morrison government, grew debt before COVID faster than any developed country in the world. It exposes the lies that you perpetuate day after day about debt.
Order! I'll come back—
Sorry—'the government perpetuates', not you, Deputy Speaker Zimmerman.
You're coming very close to using unparliamentary terms, I have to say. Are you seeking leave to table that document?
I'm seeking leave to table this document.
Leave not granted.
Another little cover-up! Well, as we said, it is awkward for them, because, before they were elected, they promised surpluses in the first year and every year thereafter. And what have they delivered? They've delivered eight record deficits. If you look at their budget papers, which we're debating, they're projecting 40 years of deficits. That's their record. They stood up before the election and said, There'll be surpluses in the first year and every year thereafter.' What did they do? They delivered deficits. They told untruths to the electorate.
Remember the 'debt truck', Deputy Speaker Zimmerman? You'd remember that, the one Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott were driving around. They had this figure—which was also a lie, frankly—on the side of it of $315 billion of Labor debt. In fact, Labor never had $315 billion of debt. The first year the country got to that was under Tony Abbott. I seek leave, for the record, to table this picture of the Liberal debt truck. If we had to now make a debt truck to represent this government's debt, we'd need every truck in Australia to come as a convoy in a road train right across the country—a debt convoy. Is leave granted?
I ask that question.
Sorry, that's you, yes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't get carried away. Is leave granted?
Leave not granted.
What a surprise! Before the election, of course, they're pretending that there is no problem, but after the election you can bet your house they'll try making massive spending cuts to the NDIS, to health and to aged care, because the reality is that the only way out of their mess is growth. Yes, you can trim their rorts and waste, but the only way to pay off this multigenerational debt will be to grow the pie, to shrink the debt-to-GDP ratio. So how's that gone? Under the Liberals, economic growth slowed, with average annual GDP growth lower than every decade since the Great Depression in the 1930s. That's their record. They release these optimistic budget forecasts, like we see here, every six months, and they're rubbish. They turn out to be garbage. It's just stuff they make up to put in the budget and kick the problem down the road.
Growth is anaemic under this mob. Last September they were saying: 'We got 0.7 per cent growth. How good is that?' In the UK, where they vaccinated their population properly, they got four per cent. They turned a health crisis into an economic crisis. They do not deserve another decade in office.
I rise in the second reading debate of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022 to talk about some of the excellent investments this government is making in my electorate of Sturt. I'll start with the most significant in dollar terms. In my electorate there are three really critical congestion-busting projects happening because of the Urban Congestion Fund. Three intersections were identified. I remember well back in early 2019 the Commonwealth government coming to the state government, which I was involved in at the time, and asking what intersections in metropolitan Adelaide were most in need of upgrades to help families get home quicker and safer and to help businesses move around their commercial activities more efficiently. The state government department of infrastructure were able to take an evidence based approach, a data-driven approach, to identify the intersections that were most in need of congestion relief. Three of those, happily, are in my electorate of Sturt. They are the Portrush Road-Magill Road intersection, the Fullarton Road-Cross Road intersection and the Fullarton Road-Glen Osmond Road intersection.
There were also many other intersections put forward outside of my electorate of Sturt as part of that process. The 2019 budget was the first time the Commonwealth committed to a range of those projects, and there were 16 across metropolitan Adelaide and three in my electorate of Sturt. That was before the election. As the new candidate for Sturt, I was able to join Premier Steven Marshall in announcing a commitment to those projects. Other federal ministers had been through the campaign as well prosecuting the need for those upgrades. Having been elected in the 2019 election, I have been pretty dedicated ever since to these and other commitments we made at the election. I have been very focused on the delivery of those commitments that we made.
The most important and significant of those is the Magill Road-Portrush Road intersection. That's a $98 million 50-50 funded project between the Marshall government and the Morrison government. It's in the heart of my electorate. Magill Road essentially bisects the seat of Sturt. Portrush Road at times is the boundary and it certainly runs through the middle of the seat at times as well. Portrush Road also happens to be Highway 1. I am lucky—maybe not—to have Highway 1 running through my electorate. It's in many ways the busiest carriageway and that intersection is the busiest intersection in the metropolitan area, with 65,000 vehicle movements a day through that intersection.
Just last weekend I had the pleasure of joining the Premier on site to inspect the essentially finished product. Three years later, just before the federal election we're about to go to in the months ahead, we have delivered on that promise. That $98 million intersection upgrade is now all but completed. There are some minor landscaping works et cetera to occur, but all the major civil engineering is done. The final topcoat of asphalt went on just a few weeks ago. This has made an enormous difference to that intersection. It benefits not only my constituents in Sturt but really the whole of metropolitan Adelaide because it helps with the flow of traffic in one of the busiest intersections. As I said, we're constantly investing in those choke points to allow us to relieve traffic congestion and have people spend less time in cars and more time in their productive working life, with their families or doing what they want be doing with their time. Not many people would say: 'I love sitting in traffic. That's the thing I like to do in my waking hours.' That's an excellent outcome.
The other two intersections are progressing apace as well. The Fullarton Road-Cross Road intersection is a $61 million investment—again 50-50 between the two governments. They've undertaken all the land acquisition. That's at the corner of my electorate. It also abuts the seats of Adelaide and Boothby. It's right on the corner of the three electorates there. That's of course not why it was chosen for upgrade. It's a vital carriageway in both directions. It's been a dangerous intersection. There was an awful tragedy there around 12 months ago, where two people were killed in a vehicle collision. But it carries an enormous number of vehicle movements a day, and during peak hour it does congest quite significantly. It's probably worst for the people who live in the seat of Boothby who use it to come up towards the CBD and, of course, go back out again in the evening time. I'm grateful for the impact this will have for my constituents in Sturt, but I'm also very grateful for the broader impact it will have.
We had some heritage issues there that were initially controversial in how they were proposed to be dealt with. I'm glad that the state government agreed with representations from people such as me; the member for Boothby, Nicolle Flint; local state MPs et cetera to move, safely, a heritage gatehouse from the Waite Arboretum rather than having it demolished. It would have been a lost piece of heritage. Now that is being safely relocated. That's a site that is owned by the University of Adelaide, and I thank them for their participation and goodwill in working with us to see that relocated. It has to move to another location on their site at the Waite campus. They've been very good about that, and I think we've achieved an excellent outcome. So we're going to see that intersection upgraded, and that is imminent. The major civil works will be commenced and completed over the coming months.
The third one I mentioned was the Glen Osmond Road-Fullarton Road intersection. There are two intersections on Fullarton Road that we are working on in this program—the intersection with Cross Road and the intersection with Glen Osmond Road. As you can imagine, if you fix one intersection, you're in danger of just moving the problem to the next intersection up the road. So I'm very pleased that we identified that next intersection along as well, which is again on the boundary of my electorate and the seat of Adelaide. That will ensure that the good work we do at Fullarton Road and Cross Road doesn't simply move the problem further up to the Fullarton Road-Glen Osmond Road intersection. Glen Osmond Road carries a lot of traffic from the Adelaide Hills. Anyone who lives in the Adelaide Hills has to go down Glen Osmond Road to get to the city—or it's certainly the preferred route for people. There has been enormous population growth in the Adelaide Hills. We need to anticipate the increased pressure of traffic along that carriageway, which we're doing by investing in that intersection as well as upgrading sections of Fullarton Road.
In each case we are expanding the capacity of these intersections in both directions. We're doing sensible things. They're all, funnily enough, quite similar. They were all designed and built many, many decades ago—probably way back when we still had a tram network in Adelaide—and haven't really been improved in any way since. Now, in the year 2022, we're seeing that all three intersections need substantial upgrades, which is why in all cases there is land acquisition, adding of lanes, adding of turn lanes, lengthening of slip lanes—all the things you can imagine that will increase the capacity to carry vehicle movements through those intersections. We're also making sure we're properly provisioning for bike lanes and pedestrians and making sure the safety outcomes are there. I'm very proud of the progress we've made on all three of those infrastructure investments. Together that's nearly $200 million worth of investment in congestion-busting in my electorate.
I'm also very pleased to have campaigned for, had commitments on and now be delivering some significant recreational upgrades in the electorate. Just over a month ago I was able to be at the ribbon-cutting at the Kensington Gardens Reserve. It was initially a $6 million project, which was $3 million from the Commonwealth and $3 million from the Burnside local council. That initial project was expanded in scope when an opportunity came about to apply for some stimulus funding through the state government, as part of their COVID response economic stimulus package, so it's now ended up being a project worth a little over $7 million. It's a fantastic outcome for the communities and neighbours of the Kensington Gardens Reserve. It's an environmental project that has seen the Stonyfell Creek and the awful duck pond that was there turned into a beautiful environmental wetland, which provides some natural cleaning of the water streams and the intermittent creeks that flow through that site. There are Indigenous plantings, and the wetland has the effect of cleaning pollutants out of the water before it continues on to become a part of the Torrens catchment and end up in the Torrens River.
We've also resurfaced and realigned the tennis courts at the East Torrens Kensington Gardens Tennis Club, which has brought them up to Tennis Australia standard. That has been a great outcome for the club, as have some upgrades to the amenity of their clubhouse. We've also got a parkrun-compliant track there now, which is already being used. There's a nature play space for the kids and an important Kaurna Indigenous interpretive experience for educational purposes as well. It's something that we consulted on very constructively with the local Kaurna elders in the region. The Kensington Gardens Reserve has always been a very significant place for the Kaurna people, and it has become a very enhanced cultural site for them through the investment that we've made there as well. I was honoured to be at the ribbon-cutting for that project, which is another great example of the three levels of government in my electorate working together. It happens to be in the Premier's electorate as well, so he was there, as well as Vicki Chapman, the member for Bragg, and of course Mayor Anne Monceaux and other local councillors from Burnside council.
We've also invested $2 million in the Magill Village Precinct upgrade. This is a bit different again. It's another very exciting rejuvenation project that was brought to me when I was a candidate by two local government areas—the Campbelltown council and the Burnside council—for an area on Magill Road that forms their boundary. They had a proposal to bury the overhead cables along a segment of the Magill Road streetscape, a segment where there are a lot of cafes and a little village atmosphere, and to rejuvenate that into a proper precinct that would be a great retail hub and also a great place for families to enjoy the local amenity. The project has involved undergrounding powerlines; repaving the street; doing a lot of plantings, putting in a new avenue canopy as well as ground covers; putting in place street furniture, like park benches et cetera; and traffic softening so that it's a safe place for families—they can leave the house on a Sunday morning, walk down with the kids, get a cup of coffee or some brunch and just enjoy the beautiful Magill Village, as we've called it. I'm very proud that we've invested in that, together with the other funding partners—again, state and local government. It's a $15 million project, and it's becoming a great icon example of ways we can work together on these sorts of projects throughout Adelaide but particularly in my electorate. Already there are some other ideas that have been brought to me from councils in the area, with similar projects to achieve the same sort of outcome.
Finally, in the time that I have left—we've also been investing in some really important environmental projects. One in particular I want to highlight, which is just finishing construction now, is the Second Creek gross pollutant trap. It is a reality of the urbanisation of the Torrens River drainage basin. Almost the entirety of my electorate is in the Torrens basin. There is a risk of a lot more solid rubbish being washed into the creeks that feed into the River Torrens. They're not complicated to remembers, these creeks: there's First Creek, Second Creek, Third Creek, Fourth Creek and Fifth Creek. I'm such a local member, I remember them all so easily! Second Creek is the one with this gross pollutant trap that we've invested in, together with the local government and the local Landcare board—Green Adelaide it's now called, as part of Landscape SA. We're making sure that we're keeping the Torrens clean and that we're capturing any gross pollutants, whether that's rubbish or just heavier foliage from deciduous trees—that are not native that have been planted through the streets of my electorate—that can build up and create algal blooms et cetera in the river.
These are the sorts of local projects I'm really proud to be associated with and really proud to be delivering for the people of my electorate. There's been much done over the last three years, but there's just as much to do in the years ahead. I look forward to making similar commitments to my electorate in the lead-up to the campaign. I hope to have the honour of being re-elected by the people of Sturt and continuing to deliver for them into the future.
Australia's sports stars are nothing short of extraordinary. Last year we saw Emma McKeon set an Olympic record for the number of medals won by a female Olympian at a single Olympic Games. With seven medals, she equalled a record which hadn't been matched since the 1950s. We've just seen Jakara Anthony take out the gold in the women's moguls at the Winter Olympics. There are so many other extraordinary athletes out there going faster, higher, stronger than anyone who preceded them. When I see that great success on the sporting field, I wish that we could see Australia's economy performing just as well. But unfortunately, under the Liberals, the Australian economy is struggling. If it was an engine, it would be sputtering and blowing smoke.
Labour productivity, which is how much we're able to squeeze out of every unit of input, grew at an average pace of about two per cent right through from the 1970s to the early 2010s. But, in the period since the Liberals have been in office, labour productivity has grown at a quarter of that rate, at just 0.5 per cent per year. The decade ending in 2010 saw the slowest rate of growth of income per person of any decade in the postwar era. Even if we exclude the COVID pandemic, this was the worst period of income growth in the postwar era.
The fact is that the government just aren't stepping up to the task of ensuring that we have a more productive, dynamic and entrepreneurial economy. Their notion of productivity is that it's all about cutting—cut your employee protections, cut your wages, cut your environmental regulations, cut the social safety net—whereas, for Labor, productivity is about investing. We want to invest in institutions, in individuals and in infrastructure. We want a national broadband network that doesn't involve copper being run from a box in the street but takes fibre to the premises.
We want an education system that doesn't see the test scores of Australian teenagers dropping year after year on the OECD's PISA test but actually sees us rising to the top of the international league tables and outperforming previous generations. In Labor we're concerned about the collapse of apprentice and trainee numbers that we've seen under the coalition. We're worried by the capping of the number of students who can go to university, the effective reintroduction of a 'command and control on the Molonglo' system, instead of what you would have thought the Liberals would be in favour of—a more market-based system in which universities can expand places when there's student demand. All of that would mean we got a more skilled workforce and an increase in productivity.
We need to do more, too, to encourage entrepreneurs to build startup firms. The startup rate has declined since the start of the millennium. Part of that is because we're not encouraging startup talent in unexpected places. We're not going out there and encouraging those Elizabeth Blackburns and Peter Dohertys who are born on the wrong side of the tracks to link up with mentors and with the capital that they need to start new firms. We're not doing for entrepreneurs what we do so successfully for young people with sporting talent. We need an Australian economy that is as good as its sports stars.
Australians are feeling the pinch. Too many Australians are telling me things like the woman who came up to one of my street stalls said: 'There's always more month than money.' What she meant by that is what so many Australians feel—that prices are going up faster than pay packets and the assistance that people receive.
Since December 2019, the price of beef is up 17 per cent, the price of furniture is up 11 per cent, car prices are up 10 per cent and childcare costs are up nine per cent. It has taken the Morrison government for Australians to start seeing fuel prices topping $2 a litre. Yet, when you look at wages in the latest budget brought down by the Treasurer, real wages are forecast to fall. That just continues a period which has been utterly lousy for real wages.
Since the current Prime Minister took the job in 2018, average total earnings in real terms have gone up just 2.9 per cent. That's an average of one per cent per year. Yet, over the same period, the combined wealth of Australia's billionaires more than doubled, from $115 billion to $255 billion. That's the world under the Morrison government: battlers seeing wages going up in real terms by just one per cent a year; billionaires seeing their wealth double. Is there anyone you know who has seen a doubling of their wealth since Scott Morrison started the job of Prime Minister? If so, the chances are they're a billionaire, because it's billionaires that have done well, while battlers have struggled.
Indeed, some of those billionaires received help under the Morrison government's JobKeeper program. Nick Politis received dividends from a firm that benefited from JobKeeper and has seen his wealth rise from $1.3 billion to $2 billion during the pandemic. We've seen Brett Blundy's wealth increase from $1.7 billion in 2018 to $2.65 billion in 2021. James Packer, whose firm Crown received JobKeeper, saw his wealth rise from $5.25 billion in 2018 to $5.7 billion. Len Ainsworth saw his wealth increase from $4 billion in 2018 to $5 billion in 2021. Recipients of JobKeeper include the Australian Club, a men's only club in Sydney that voted two to one to continue excluding women members, and yet, while increasing its surplus, it got $2 million of JobKeeper from the Australian taxpayer.
Car dealer AP Eagers have seen their profits and their revenue boom and yet took home more than $130 million in JobKeeper—luxury car dealers sending Aston Martins out the door like they're making a Bond movie and yet seeing cash showered down upon them from the Morrison government. We've seen firms such as Accent Group paying executive bonuses out of JobKeeper money. Indeed, Solomon Lew's own firm Premier Investments paid executive bonuses while receiving JobKeeper. They did so in direct contravention of advice from the Australian Taxation Office and the view of the head of the Business Council of Australia, Jennifer Westacott. Despite that, we haven't heard boo from the Treasurer when it comes to paying executive bonuses out of JobKeeper.
Labor supported the JobKeeper scheme. We believed that it was important to save jobs. But you don't save jobs by giving money to firms with rising revenues. You didn't save jobs by giving money to the King's School, to Wesley College and to Brisbane Grammar while their revenues were rising.
I want to talk, too, about the way in which people with disabilities have suffered during the pandemic. Labor introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme to deliver certainty and security to Australians living with disabilities and to their families. Yet under this government, rather than providing certainty, the NDIS has seen plans arbitrarily and without clear cause changed.
Last December my constituents Belinda and Hugh Clifford contacted me about their seven-year-old daughter, Ashley, an NDIS participant diagnosed with a rare genetic condition. Ashley's condition causes a range of disabilities that prevent her from functioning independently, including autism and ADHD. Without help and supervision, she can't dress herself, use the bathroom, play or use fine motor skills. In 2021, Ashley's NDIS plan expired and, with no warning to the family, a revised plan was put in place, which cut the majority of her funding. In-class therapists who were assisting Ashley and her teachers at school were removed. Physiotherapy sessions that were helping her with toileting were cancelled. The family had been counting on this support. The Cliffords found themselves having to pay the costs out of pocket. The plan's accompanying report included incorrect information on Ashley's disabilities, diagnoses and educational history.
A few weeks later, Ashley's mum, Belinda, tried to rectify these errors by providing medical records confirming that Ashley's diagnoses had been incorrectly recorded. However, when a third plan for Ashley was put in place, much of that incorrect information remained, and her annual funding was slashed once again, this time by an additional 41 per cent. The Cliffords now receive less NDIS support than ever. To quote Belinda, 'Not only were the therapists supporting Ashley, but they were also putting strategies in place to support the teachers. These supports have been removed, and it is hindering her development, having negative long-term effects for her independent decision-making and capability. Both my husband and I are exhausted physically, mentally and emotionally. We are pouring from an empty bucket.'
We know that the Clifford family isn't alone. NDIS participants are facing arbitrary plan cuts across Australia. The Morrison government encourages them to bring their concern to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but we know it is costly and that the tribunal is backlogged. Those families need support today. Families relying on the NDIS deserve more than uncertainty, instability and inconsistency.
I have been contacted, too, by others who are concerned about the way in which the National Disability Insurance Scheme is being managed. One provider contacted me and just said to have a look at this picture. They had sent an email requiring an update on a prosthetic payment to the National Disability Insurance Agency in April 2021. They then sent me the next email, which showed a reply being received in November 2021. That's what some of these agencies working with vulnerable people are facing—sending emails in April and receiving a response almost seven months later, in November. It's just not good enough.
Today, the member for Maribyrnong, the shadow minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and shadow minister for government services, held a disability workers roundtable, drawing together representatives from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, People with Disability, Advocacy for Inclusion, disability workers and support agencies. That roundtable heard that, for people with disabilities, COVID has become an ongoing scary nightmare. They are facing challenges in getting rapid antigen tests, they are facing challenges in getting the booster shot and they are facing challenges in getting appropriate protective equipment.
People with disability, as the member for Maribyrnong pointed out, have effectively been in lockdown since March 2020. And it hasn't stopped. To the extent that there ever was a queue, those with disabilities should be at the front of it. They are some of the most vulnerable people in our community. They need better support. That's to do with how we treat people with disabilities, such as the two cases that I have talked about. But it is also about how we treat disability service providers and the people who work there. We have to ensure that working with people with disabilities is a worthwhile career. My uncle Brian Stebbins spent a career working as a disability support worker. I admire him for the work that he did and for the gallant way in which he respectfully worked with those with disabilities. But when we're underpaying disability support workers, we encourage people in that industry to think of it as a 'just for now' job rather than as a career. We need to ensure that those working with people with disabilities are properly supported so that their work can be an ongoing career through which they can pay a mortgage and raise a family.
I thank the member for Fenner and I congratulate him on his work with the Indigenous Marathon Foundation and the Parliamentary Friends of Running.
This government spends so much of its time in this building and in the broader community patting itself on the back in relation to its economic management. If boasting by the government were counted in the national accounts, this economy would have soared to well beyond pre-COVID levels. But unfortunately, when you scratch beneath the surface of this government's claims, you realise that when it comes to what's actually going on in communities around this country, what's actually going on in households and around kitchen tables, the real underlying story is nowhere near as good. This government is very good at cherry-picking statistics. We're used to the line 'lies, damned lies, and statistics', so it's important when we talk about this government's economic management that we focus on statistics that mean something to people.
Let's look at GDP growth, the overarching measure of the economy. If we look at total GDP growth over the course of this government, Australia doesn't rank too badly. We might get a bronze medal, but that's only because this country has experienced such high population growth over the last decade. When you extract population growth and look at per capita GDP growth, we don't even get a participation certificate but drop way down the rankings. That's the measure that is important. Per capita measures are important because they indicate what's happening to people's standard of living. Why is it that GDP growth per capita has been so weak over the term of this government? Productivity growth is one of the key measures, and productivity growth has stalled or during parts of the last decade gone backwards. I'll drill into that in more detail later.
What does this mean? It means our living standards have stalled. We are experiencing one of the worst periods of living standard change since the Great Depression. Perhaps the best single measure of this for households, the most meaningful statistic, is wages. I want to spend a bit of time on what's going on in the labour market because this government goes on and on about what's occurring in the economy in terms of total jobs created. But they don't talk about the wages those jobs are providing to households and the quality of those jobs in terms of how secure people are in their workplace. What's happening to real wages in our economy? The period between 2013 and 2020 saw the worst real wages outcomes since the Great Depression. Real wages in the lead-up to COVID were lower than real wages in 2013. For a country that is rightly accustomed to households experiencing growing living standards over time, this is an absolutely appalling outcome. It represents a decade of economic mismanagement.
I want to talk about the RBA's take on what we're going to see over the coming couple of years, and this reflects the abysmal projections in the government's budget papers. In its statement of monetary policy on 2 February the RBA said that wages growth has picked up, but it has only just returned to the rates prevailing prior to the pandemic. This means that what we're seeing is wages growth returning to the wages growth our country was experiencing in the worst decade since the Great Depression. I might stress that the RBA is talking about average wages growth. What that means is that many in our community are experiencing even worse outcomes than that. I don't want to get into basic statistics, but if the average rate of wages growth between 2013 and 2019 was negative then many in the community are experiencing wages growth that's worse than mildly negative, so no wonder there's so much frustration building in the community. The RBA statement to the Standing Committee on Economics review on 11 February reinforced this by stressing that they see that the vast bulk of Australians will continue to experience wages growth with a two in front of it for the next year or more. The government's forecasts in their budget and the RBA's forecasts stress that we have a weak labour market when it comes to real wages growth and there's no end in sight for people—no wonder people are frustrated.
It's not just that those in work are experiencing low real wages growth—in fact, many are actually experiencing negative real wages growth—what about underemployment? Underemployment, we know, has become a much more structurally important part of the labour force since the 1970s and 1980s. Back in the 1980s, full-time work was much more of a prominent part of the labour market, a much more common form of employment, so underemployment was nowhere near as much of an issue. Today, we know that underemployment is a critically important part of the labour market to evaluate if we're looking at the labour market's overall performance. To be sure, unemployment is still a key statistic, but we can't look at that alone; we have to look at the number of people in part-time work who want more hours.
While underemployment has fallen recently, it is also true to say that it remains stubbornly high. It remains a real problem. Not only is it a real problem in aggregate terms but we know from analysis undertaken recently that it remains highly problematic in a number of regional communities around Australia in particular. We know that labour underutilisation is particularly bad in a number of regional communities—for example, in Queensland and WA and in the Hunter. We know that unemployment plus underemployment in those communities is over 15 per cent. This is a huge structural problem which this government has no answers to.
Not only that, but a number of macroeconomic forecasters—including Treasury, in estimates this week—have indicated that there is probably slackness in the labour market on top of these structural underemployment figures. We heard that the number of people entering the labour market seeking jobs was greater than expected by macroeconomic forecasters, putting greater downward pressure on wages. In the face of this sustained downward pressure on wages, after a decade of weak performance, this government has no plan.
So we see real wages growth at historically low levels. We see underemployment, reflecting the fact that there are many, many individuals and households who can't make ends meet with the hours that they're getting. But there's an additional element to the labour market which is critically important. Quite apart from the amount of money many people are getting, they're facing insecure work. They're facing conditions in the workplace which are problematic above and beyond the amount of money they're getting. Even when a household might be getting as many hours as they seek in aggregate, those hours might be very erratic across weeks. Even when a household might be getting the income, or close to the income, they feel they need to sustain their standard of living, they may have issues securing a mortgage. There are real and growing problems when it comes to insecure work in our economy, which this government has no answers to.
The labour market tells us a lot about our standard of living. It tells us that real wages have stalled or are declining for many people. It tells us, through the underemployment statistics, that many, many people want more work, which is a reflection of the fact that the work they're getting is not giving them the standard of living they require or aspire to. Also, it tells us there are many people who have issues that transcend the dollars they're receiving in their pocket. They have insecure work, which means that their work patterns do not give them or their families the security they need. That has huge implications for them saving over the long term for their retirement, huge implications for how they deal with economic shocks, and huge implications for them, for example, entering the housing market—and all of this in an economy where inflation is now rearing its ugly head.
All of this is occurring in our labour market, where we now see growing inflation in products that are the biggest part of the household budget for people on the lowest incomes—people on benefits or age pensioners. We see inflation rising across the board, but we see it rising the most in the areas of fuel, transport, clothing, footwear and furnishings. When we look at which groups in our society are most adversely affected by rising inflation, they're all the people we would expect: people on low incomes, people on benefits, age pensioners. This government has no agenda for raising our quality of life, for raising productivity, for raising our standard of living and for raising GDP per capita. That's why many people are, rightfully, particularly worried about inflation rearing its head in this strategy- and policy-free environment.
We have what the government was calling a couple of years ago a snapback. At that time we criticised them for trying to snap back to an economy that was so weak at that time and had underperformed for so many years in the lead-up to COVID. So we have a snapback. That's exactly what we're seeing. We're seeing the economy snap back to the real wages growth that we were experiencing pre-COVID. We're seeing something as lacking in ambition as a snapback after $1 trillion in debt has been accumulated, after an unprecedented period of expansionary monetary policy and after a number of our exports have gone through periods of elevated prices. The government had an opportunity to recalibrate, to build in microeconomic reform and to restructure the economy, and that opportunity was not taken advantage of. This is exactly what we're seeing reflected in the per capita economic measures.
This is a segue to productivity growth. Productivity growth is one of the key, if not the key, medium- and long-term determinants of rising per capita standards of living. We are coming off one of the worst decades of productivity growth in our nation's history. We're coming off the worst decade of productivity growth in more than half a century. Where is this government's plan to boost productivity growth?
Labor has laid out a plan that touches on productivity growth along so many dimensions. We have had a childcare policy for a couple of years now that is going to be so critical to boosting labour participation by so many of our skilled and experienced women. Of course, it's also critically important as a matter of fairness but, for the purposes of looking at it in this context, it's also a really important microeconomic reform. We have our investment in human capital, our investment in TAFEs and our investment in apprenticeships. This so critical to dealing with some of the labour shortages and supply chain issues that our country is experiencing.
We need to spend our investment in infrastructure so much more efficiently. One example is rewiring the nation. That is going to do so much to help put downward pressure on energy prices over the next 10 to 20 years. Of course, then there is a suite of policies in the realm of government procurement. They are going to be so critical to getting better value for money for one of the single biggest components of spending in our economy.
I want to segue from that examination of outcomes in the labour market to industrial relations because I think industrial relations is both a productivity issue and a fairness issue. It is also an issue that has to be addressed if we're going to get better real wage outcomes for many people in our economy. It's linked to that issue of insecure work that I touched on. We go to this election with a really comprehensive plan when it comes to industrial relations. It touches on some of the real challenges in this economy.
Insecure work is going to be dealt with along a number of dimensions. For example, the Fair Work Act is going to have its objectives changed and the Fair Work Commission is going to have powers added so it can deal with this very challenging issue. There is going to be equal pay for equal substantive roles. That is a long-overdue change in a number of important sectors of our economy. There is going to be an objective test for what is casual work. Again, this is something that should have been dealt with in this term, but this government bodgied it. There are going to be improved processes for government procurement. There's going to be a limit on no-fixed-term contracts. So there is a whole suite of policies that are going to do so much to deal with that issue of insecure work and the damage that it is doing to the quality of life of so many people.
Again, I return to some of those key determinants for people's quality of life. We need reforms and economic management from government that can start to put some upward pressure on people's real wages and create an economic environment where we start to deal with underemployment so that we deal with that slackness in the labour market. And we need to start to deal with insecure work. Of course, we need to retain some flexibility in the workforce. Flexibility suits many people, but it is not something that is benefiting all too many people in the labour force. Flexibility in too many contexts is something that is being imposed upon them and they bear too much risk without appropriate compensation.
We talk about the economy so much in this building, and that's appropriate. But there are far too many statistics at times, without drilling down into what are the statistics that actually mean something to people. There's far too much cherrypicking through the national accounts and through the daily ABS releases. But when it comes to things that actually matter for people's quality of life—their real wages, their security in work and whether they're getting enough hours—it's clear that this last decade has been a lost decade. We can only fix these issues if we have a comprehensive plan to do with productivity and to do with people's dignity in the workplace.
I'm always pleased to make a contribution on appropriations bills. I always start by reminding the House that, unlike the Liberal Party, the Labor Party is not a party of constitutional vandals, and we will support supply. As this could well be my last contribution before the election, I'd like to take some time to reflect on the last three years of this parliamentary term and highlight some of the issues that are affecting my constituents' lives. I'd like to highlight what's important to them and recognise the immense privilege I have in representing my local community.
The number one issue in my community, like in most communities in this country, is health—adequate and universal healthcare. Medicare matters to the people I represent in this place. Shortland is the sixth-oldest electorate in the country and has an average household income below both the state and national average. Access to Medicare is a necessity, not a luxury, for my constituents, and primary health care is fundamentally important in taking the pressure off our already overstretched public hospital system, particularly our emergency departments.
A brilliant initiative developed in the Hunter region is the GP Access After Hours service. This provides out-of-hours consultations with a GP for people needing medical advice, and it takes huge pressure off our emergency departments. It sees 70,000 patients a year, and, importantly, there's a triage service at the start of the process, where families will talk to a registered nurse on the phone. This process helps 25,000 people who then do not have to see a GP. The other 45,000 people do see a GP, instead of clogging up an emergency department. This service is much loved and much used by Hunter locals. The Liberals and Nationals, in their wisdom—at the height of the omicron wave, just before Christmas—cut funding to this essential service. This has meant that the service has had to close completely at the Calvary Mater Newcastle hospital, in Waratah, and that services have been halved on weekends at public hospitals and at the Belmont and Toronto hospitals in Lake Macquarie. My community is justly outraged by these cuts. They know what a quality and efficient service GP Access is and how important it is—now more than ever, in the pandemic—to take pressure off public hospitals. I'm so proud that the Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, visited the region over the summer break and committed a future Labor government to fully restoring funding to GP Access.
One of the other very common complaints from constituents is bad or non-existent mobile phone coverage in their homes and places of work. I represent an area where whole suburbs are mobile phone black spots, and yet the Morrison-Joyce government refuses to provide funding for them through the Mobile Black Spot Program, a program that is only subscribed through half its funds. The other half of the funds gets returned to Treasury each year. Yet my electorate, which is a regional electorate, is deemed not to be eligible for this funding. It is insulting. Two of the most severely impacted suburbs are Mount Hutton and Dudley. Although the telecommunications companies have invested in new towers in these suburbs, this has not solved the issue for many of my constituents. I'm talking about people who, for the past two years, have had to study and work from home and have not had the ability to do so. I've had an elderly constituent with Parkinson's disease having to do telehealth appointments in his front yard, on the main road, in the rain because there is no mobile phone reception inside his house. There's also a doctor who misses calls when he's on call and is needed for emergency work, and many people are unable to use QR codes in the suburban shops. The Morrison-Joyce government has ignored Shortland and the issue of mobile phone reception, and it is disgraceful that they continue to refuse to provide funding through the Mobile Black Spot Program.
I also want to take this opportunity to recognise and pay tribute to some of the extraordinary constituents I've encountered over the past three years, who I have the privilege to represent in this place. Because of the last two years of the pandemic, I'm sure I'm not alone in having encountered constituents who have adapted to very difficult situations and thrived in the changed world we live in. I have the greatest admiration for Greg Gates and his great workforce at Sirron Holdings Group at Caves Beach. Before COVID, Sirron was a successful dishwasher manufacturer. Because of the economic downturn, they pivoted to manufacturing hand sanitiser and now have an extensive range of disinfectants, cleaners, hand and surface sanitisers and soaps and are just going from strength to strength. This is a real Australian manufacturing success story, and I'm so proud to represent Greg and his Sirron team in the parliament.
CrocQ Lucero is a talented musician. Because of the lockdown, this work basically dried up, so he focused on his other passion, Filipino cuisine. CrocQ is quite the entrepreneur and successfully pivoted to expanding his Filipino cuisine company, Mini Pinoy Grill. Mini Pinoy specialises in spicy sauces. Having cooked and barbecued with these sauces, I can attest that they are truly quality products—and not for the faint-hearted! CrocQ, you are an example of someone facing a difficult life and work situation who was able to embrace the challenges posed by the pandemic and successfully grow a business. I wish you and Mini Pinoy Grill every continued success.
COVID hasn't stopped internationally acclaimed filmmaker Jye Currie going from strength to strength with his films over the past few years. Jye's film Victim won 11 international awards last year. His new movie, Beat, filmed in Newcastle, premiered in January and explores themes of homelessness and fame. I have every confidence Jye will enjoy as much success this year as he did in 2021.
I want to mention a few of my constituents who have excelled in both their professional and private lives and have achieved success and acclaim both nationally and internationally: Paralympian Rheed McCracken, who won silver in Tokyo last year; Emily van Egmond, who played with the Matildas in Tokyo; Whitebridge's Geraldine Viswanathan, who has achieved much success in Hollywood and recently featured in a Super Bowl ad with Jim Carrey; Red Bull cliff diving world champion Rhiannan Iffland, who continues to thrive in this competition; and Hayden Gavin, who was recognised for not only playing 150 rugby games for the mighty Southern Beaches but also being a finalist in the prestigious Australia's Most Ordinary Rig competition!
Finally I want to thank my constituents who have been recognised in the recent Australia Day Honours List: Pamela Comerford, Elizabeth and John Dickeson, Denis Gordon, Lauretta Morton, Brian Rudder, John Thomas and Derek Brindle. Thank you for all your service to our community. I'm very proud of the people I represent, and I look forward to the coming months, when I will seek the support of my constituents to continue to be their voice in Canberra. I look forward to speaking and meeting with them in the coming weeks, as I have done over the past nine years. I will be campaigning on Labor's plan for a better life for working families, with cheaper child care, strengthening of Medicare, affordable housing, secure work and a future made in Australia, which is so important for the Hunter region, which has a proud industrial and manufacturing heritage and has much to gain from Labor's plan.
In the time remaining to me, I want to reflect on a separate issue, which causes great sadness and, quite frankly, anger to me. It is the outrageous politicisation of national security by the Prime Minister and his ministers. Prime Minister Scott Morrison is effectively doing Beijing's bidding in his attempt to politicise national security and exploit issues for petty political advantage. This is truly desperate fearmongering by a Prime Minister deeply unpopular not only in the community but in his own party room. It runs in stark contrast to the expert advice we have heard from estimates only in the last couple of days. A senior DFAT official today said that Beijing seeks to exploit social and other divisions in countries to pursue its interests. That is why I say, with no fear of contradiction, that Prime Minister Morrison is doing Beijing's bidding by trying to portray that there is some division between the Liberal government and the Labor Party on the issue of national security. There is no distinction on attitudes to increasing Chinese aggression in our region. There is no division. There is no distinction. There is no difference. But Mr Morrison attempts to portray one, for petty political advantage, and he plays right into the hands of the aggressive policies of Beijing.
Similarly, we have seen accusations about candidates that are completely contradicted by testimony by the ASIO chief, who made it very clear that, first, the attempts at foreign influence had failed. He had absolute confidence in every single candidate of that political party some people have speculated on. More importantly, he made it very clear that these attempts at foreign interference are not restricted to one side of politics. This is a challenge every political party has to deal with. ASIO chief Mike Burgess made it very clear that it was not helpful—in fact, it was very counterproductive—to speculate about this in public.
But this is not the first time that this government and this political party, the Liberal Party, has attempted to politicise national security. This is a political party that, when it gets into trouble, goes back to this well time and time again. They have got form for doing this, reaching back to their predecessors in the United Australia Party. There great political hero, Robert Gordon Menzies, for example, was an utter hypocrite. He was a man who was very supportive of Australian intervention in World War I but yet refused to serve in the Army. He was a man who, 10 days after Hitler invaded Poland, advocated doing a peace deal with Germany, making very clear in a letter to Stanley Bruce, our high commissioner, that the troubles in Poland were not worth a hill of beans. That's why I very clearly say that Menzies was an appeaser; he sought to appease the Third Reich. The National Party—the Country Party at that time—was quite right to turf him out of their coalition. Artie Fadden, the then Leader of the National Party, did the right thing by the nation by saying he could not serve under Menzies, an appeaser of the Third Reich. That's not the only time. Let's not forget Vietnam, when, again, Menzies and the Liberal Party brought Australia into a war on a lie, a war where 500 Australians died, tragically, or the Gulf War, another lie, where John Howard brought us into war.
The great tragedy is that there is room for debate of our national security and the defence of the nation where we can talk about how the government and the Australian Labor Party have differences, and that's in procurement performance, in making sure the Australian Defence Force have the weapons and the equipment they need when they need it. This is where this government is so egregiously falling down. Twenty-five major projects are running, cumulatively, 68 years late. Let me repeat that: 25 major defence procurements that are vital to the ADF are running 68 years late under this government.
An honourable member interjecting—
There is a rotating litany of defence ministers that come and go. Goldfish have a longer life expectancy than defence ministers in this government. They are spending $7 billion on new Black Hawk helicopters after spending $3½ billion on the MRH-90 failed Taipans, a helicopter where the door was not wide enough for troops to exit the helicopter while firing the helicopter machine gun. We had the $1.5 billion Spartan battlefield airlift aircraft that couldn't fly into battlefields—a minor problem, spending $1½ billion of taxpayers' money on an aircraft that couldn't perform its main purpose of flying into battlefields. We had the $3 billion battlefield management system that failed cybersecurity tests. We had $4 billion wasted on the Attack class submarines, on the contract with the French, which this government has now junked. We only learned yesterday that the Joint Strike Fighter, the $16 billion spear's edge of ADF, the frontline air defence fighter for the ADF, is flying thousands fewer hours each year than planned and budgeted for.
Probably the most appalling example is the $30 billion Hunter class frigates that have now blown out to $45 billion. They have gone from $30 billion to $45 billion, and not one of them has hit the water yet. They are running four years late; they are 2,000 tonnes overweight; they will be slower than the rest of the fleet; they will have a shorter range than the rest of the fleet; and they will be very noisy, which is a problem for a frigate that's primarily designed to hunt submarines. Noise is an issue if you are trying to hunt submarines, unsurprisingly. As concerning as that is the fact that, because it's overweight, because they have stuffed up the design, the frigate captains will have to choose between using their radar and going at full speed. In a high-threat environment, where you're facing potentially incoming missiles, being able to use your radar and go at full speed tend to go hand in hand.
So this government is failing the defence of the nation because it is failing on defence procurement. It's failing on dealing with the issue of an aggressive China. They sold the Port of Darwin, and they are now trying to politicise it, at two minutes to midnight, in a vain attempt to get re-elected.
The great tragedy is: there are many decent people in the Liberals and the National Party. There are really decent people who are united in making Australia a better place and making sure that we defend Australia and our national interest. But they are being led by people who are unworthy. They are being led by people who will stoop to anything to wring out petty political advantage. They will use the proceeds of crime money for petty political advantage. They will politicise the ADF. They will fearmonger and scaremonger to try and wring out every little political advantage as we approach an election. That's a great pity because it not only does them a disservice, it does the nation a disservice. It undermines confidence in the parliamentary system. It undermines confidence in a united Australia that will confront the many global challenges that are now arising.
So I end this speech with profound disappointment about the actions of the government. I can only say: let's bring on a Labor government. We'll fix this country. (Time expired)
I thank the member for Shortland for his contribution and the colourful history lesson.
Today I rise to address Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022. Labor will support these bills. We've got a long history in the Labor Party—we don't block supply. But let me be clear: we will not be lectured on fiscal responsibility by the most wasteful government since Federation. We will not be lectured on money matters by a government which doubled the debt before the pandemic. And we won't be lectured by a government set to deliver a trillion dollars in debt with nothing to show for it.
The track record of this government, the track record of the Liberal Party, is embarrassing. The self-styled 'better money managers', the party that brands itself as 'financially responsible', is facing a trillion-dollar debt that Australian taxpayers will be paying off for the next century. Yet, somehow, this government has still managed to be the second-highest-taxing government over the past 30 years. Australians are paying almost $5,000 more tax every year under the Liberals than under the last Labor government in 2013. And what did they spend it on? What do they have to show for it? Maybe they can reflect on the $40 billion of JobKeeper payments that went to companies that shouldn't have qualified for them. What a proud moment for this Treasurer! This Treasurer, the member for Kooyong, will go down in history as overseeing the single biggest waste of public money since Federation, and still this Liberal government has the temerity to go out there in public and claim it is the party of fiscal responsibility. If this Treasurer was your accountant, you would have fired him long ago! You wouldn't trust him to run your piggy bank, let alone the nation's finances. We simply cannot risk another three years of Liberal fiscal mismanagement. Their incompetence threatens the financial security of millions of Australians, and they simply have to go.
But the failures of this tired Liberal government are not limited to their financial incompetence. The economy is suffering under the government's watch. Productivity has been flatlining, and poor productivity performance means a smaller economy overall.
One in four Australian businesses are experiencing critical skills shortages. We've seen a rapid decline in qualified apprentices and trainees entering the workforce—a 44 per cent drop in my home state of Tasmania over the past six years, compared to under the Labor government. Just imagine that: in the last six years of the Labor government, we qualified a million apprentices and trainees; in these last six years of the Liberal government, there were 500,000—they halved it. Outrageous!
At the same time, there are two million Australians who are either looking for a job or want to work more hours. We need a plan to train people, through TAFE and higher education, to fill the critical skill shortages, now and into the future. We need a plan to ensure that there are more opportunities for more people in more parts of the country, especially regional areas. And Labor has that plan. A Labor government will provide 465,000 free TAFE places in areas of critical skills shortage, including 45,000 new TAFE places. Under Labor's plan for free TAFE, we will focus on those areas which are currently seeing that critical skills gap because of the Morrison government's abject neglect. Free TAFE will help rebuild industries hit hardest by the pandemic, like hospitality, tourism and construction. Free TAFE will help meet current and future needs in the care economy by training people for jobs in child care, aged care, disability care, nursing and community services, and free TAFE will provide more opportunities for apprentices and trainees to upskill in areas of need such as trades and construction. Free TAFE also provides opportunities for school leavers, workers wanting to retrain or upskill and unpaid carers. On top of that, Labor will also provide 20,000 new university places for areas of need, most principally across regional Australia.
Labor wants a future made in Australia, and that means investing in our best resource—and, no, it's not coal; it's people. Australia is blessed with natural resources, but under this government we are missing out on an opportunity to value-add and employ Australians in manufacturing. A Labor government will invest in our manufacturing sector and get the cheapest energy to where it's needed through an overdue upgrade to our outdated energy grid. With cheap and abundant renewable energy, our manufacturing sector will create jobs for Australians. It's all part of Labor's better future, made in Australia plan. And it's a great plan, because for Australia to succeed and build back stronger after the pandemic we must be a country that makes things again.
We've seen the consequences of this Liberal government's neglect over the past nine years—fewer jobs, missed opportunities and a nation left exposed when the coronavirus hit. Labor will rebuild our proud manufacturing industry and build a future made right here in Australia. We want to build ferries and buses right here. We want one in 10 jobs on major federal infrastructure projects to be given to apprentices, trainees and cadets to upskill the next generation of workers. We want to invest in clean energy to cut power bills and realise Australia's potential as a renewable superpower.
The truth is that Australians cannot afford another decade like the last. We cannot afford another decade defined by economic complacency and poor productivity. We cannot afford another decade marred by stagnant wage growth and skyrocketing living costs. To boost productivity we need investment in energy, technology, infrastructure and human capital. This Prime Minister, this Treasurer, this government will never understand that. They will never understand why you can't rort and waste your way to success. It's all they've ever known.
Good governments don't not spend their days abusing public money in order to shore up marginal seats. Good governments don't spend their time crafting colour coded spreadsheets and overriding expert recommendations in order to suit their naked political purposes. Good governments act with decency and integrity and have a vision for not only the people who voted for them but also the people who didn't vote for them. Sadly, this is not a government that acts with decency or integrity. This Liberal government shuns both of these virtues in favour of dodgy dealings and self-promotion.
It's been 1,161 days since the Prime Minister announced that his government would establish a federal anticorruption watchdog, and what has happened? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The Attorney-General admitted this week that it won't happen. It's pathetic. What a disgrace. What a blight on this parliament and on this government. A government that shirks accountability and integrity is a government that has something to hide. But you cannot hide incompetence, and this tired Liberal government has been exposed for what it is: unsuited for office, unfit to lead the nation and unwilling to take action on critical issues.
Just look at the state of aged care in this country. It fills me with rage, the state of aged care in this country. Not only did the government fail on the vaccine rollout. It failed to provide even one single federal quarantine facility. It also failed to order enough rapid antigen tests. It failed to take appropriate action to protect our most vulnerable citizens during a global pandemic. It promised that they'd be first for the vaccines, and too many were left waiting. Even before the pandemic, we knew the state of aged care was in crisis from the royal commission's interim report entitled Neglect. Aged-care residents even now are malnourished and frightened, and they are dying in their beds, often cut off from their families.
Dedicated aged-care workers come to this parliament to talk to us, in tears, about the fact that they can't do enough. They don't have the time to put into caring for people. So many of them are using their own lunchbreaks and time off just to hold a hand because they don't have time to do it on their shift. Those aged-care workers don't get paid enough. We know this. They're at their wits' end trying to keep their residents alive and cared for. We have an aged-care-services minister who has presided over—
A division h aving been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 17:55 to 18:0 2
As I was saying, dedicated aged-care workers are at their wits' end trying to keep their residents alive and cared for, and we have a minister for aged-care services who has presided over 1,600 COVID related deaths in aged care and who ditched a Senate committee meeting to sit at the cricket, and he's still in cabinet. My advice to the Prime Minister: don't just give Tudge the nudge; get rid of Colbeck too. It is unforgivable. It is sickening. Senator Colbeck must resign today or be sacked by this Prime Minister.
In the short time I've got left to speak, I want to address some of issues that were raised in question time today. The contributions by the Prime Minister and the defence minister were absolutely reprehensible, playing petty domestic politics with national security and defence. It's important to say that Australia's relationship with China is a long and complex one. There have been positive aspects and difficult aspects of the relationship under both Labor and coalition governments. But I will not sit back and allow the Prime Minister and the defence minister to concoct a fantasy in the public's minds about Labor's position. It's important to note that in 2004, in a statement that was reported as 'sure to please Beijing', Liberal foreign minister Alexander Downer said that, in the case of a military clash over Taiwan, ANZUS was 'symbolic' and Canberra would not side with Taiwan. In 2007 Liberal defence minister Brendan Nelson said:
I have … reassured China that so-called quadrilateral dialogue with India is not something that we are pursuing.
In 2008, when Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd admonished China for human rights abuses in Tibet, Liberal opposition leader Brendan Nelson said:
I don't know whether it's wise to have broadcast it as publicly as he seems to be doing.
In 2009, when Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd issued a visa to Uighur separatist leader Rebiya Kadeer, senior Liberal Philip Ruddock described that decision as 'a mistake'. In 2009 Prime Minister Rudd refocused Australia's defensive naval power in response to China's increasing military spending. The response from the Liberal opposition leader and later Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was that it made 'no sense to base its long-term strategy on the highly contentious proposition that Australia is on an inevitable collision course with a militarily aggressive China'. Chris Ullman reported that 'the Chinese agree'. In 2012 the Labor government, citing national security, banned Chinese company Huawei from involvement in the NBN. The ban sparked fury from Huawei's Australian board members including former Liberal foreign minister Alexander Downer, who described the ban as 'completely absurd'. Senior Liberals Andrew Robb and Malcolm Turnbull said the ban should be lifted.
We come to 2015 and unnamed Australian defence officials expressed angst and our US allies were annoyed that the Liberal government gave long-term control of Darwin port to a company closely aligned with the Chinese government. Liberal trade minister Andrew Robb said, 'We have to act in the national interest, and that is what has happened with the port of Darwin.' A few months later, he went to work for the company, and in 2019 Robb accused Australian intelligence officials of spreading anti-China sentiment, saying 'the evidence was not there'. I say all this because it's important to remember that the relationship with China is long and complex, and members can trawl through Hansard and the press to find all sorts of things said by members from all sides about this relationship with China.
The key thing to remember is that we are stronger when we present a united front on the international stage, and until this week that is precisely what we've done as a nation. Coalition and Labor can have our differences internally, but out there on the international stage we have presented a bipartisan front. And that compact was broken this week by the petty politicking of the Prime Minister and his defence minister. They are reprehensible. They are serving the interests of foreign powers. That's what is happening. We had evidence today from DFAT that Beijing seeks to exploit political division in Australia. The Prime Minister is playing into Beijing's hands for his own naked political purposes. He can serve the Liberal Party's political interest or he can serve the national interest, but he can't serve both and he must make up his mind.
Today was a sad, sad day in Australia's parliament. Today we saw the spectacle of an Australian prime minister who either didn't know or didn't care that he was doing the bidding of the Chinese communist party in our parliament. He either didn't know, was too stupid, was out of his depth on national security and defence or didn't care and just put his own short-term political interests first. DFAT has made it clear that the Chinese communist party—this is no secret, we all know it—seeks to 'exploit social and other divisions in countries to pursue its interests'. That is very apparent. We know the work of the United Front around the world trying to divide democratic governments in Liberal societies in order to pursue the agenda of the Chinese communist party. This Prime Minister either didn't know or didn't care and took the bait, hook, line and sinker. In fact, he didn't just take the bait; he was the trout that jumped into the boat.
At another time in a different strategic context we had a term for this, 'a useful idiot'. That's what we saw in the parliament today, the Prime Minister as a useful idiot of the Chinese communist party. However, the extraordinary things about what we saw today is that they can't even do things competently. Just like every scare campaign the Morrison government are running at the moment, they are so divided that they run both sides of their scare campaigns. Today we saw the utterly disgusting spectacle of my friend the member for Corio having his integrity impugned in this parliament. I won't repeat the slur because it was unbecoming of the Prime Minister and the parliament, and the Prime Minister did reluctantly withdraw it subsequently. But this slur came in the same week that the Minister for Defence, his so-called partner in crime in this ridiculous scare campaign against the Labor Party, gave an interview to Peter FitzSimons in the 9 newspapers. Let me quote what Peter Dutton had to say about the member for Corio two days before the Prime Minister's absurd attack on him in the parliament today:
On the current frontbench my first pick would be Richard Marles with whom I have a long-standing friendship. I have a friendship with a number of other Labor MPs, past and present, but Richard Marles I think has a particular quality and capacity and intellect that if you're being objective you would admire.
This is the man who the Prime Minister smeared two days later. This is the man whose integrity was, absurdly, questioned two days later.
It did jog my memory, though, hearing a ridiculous Liberal Party scare campaign when it comes to Corio. It took me back to the 1938 Corio by-election. The Tories have a long history in this country. They were the United Australia Party back then, they weren't the Liberal Party, but the Tories have always loved a scare campaign on national security, no matter how poor their record. In the 1938 Corio by-election, Robert Menzies, who later urged negotiations with Hitler 10 days after the invasion of Poland, ran a scare campaign against our great wartime leader John Curtin, a hero of this nation, with the absurd campaign slogan—
this was the campaign slogan in the Corio by-election in 1938—'The eyes of Hitler are on Corio.' This is the legacy of those opposite in running ridiculous scare campaigns on defence and national security.
There's John Curtin, a hero of this nation, who gave his life to serve this nation—
who saved this country in the Second World War—
Order!
who took Australian troops to defend this country in the Second World War—
Order! Order! Member for Gellibrand—
and then there's the coward Robert Menzies, who wouldn't serve in World War I—
The member for Gellibrand—
who took this country to war and wouldn't serve himself, the coward—
Member for Gellibrand, can you just take your seat for a moment. I'm going to ask all members, on both sides, to behave with a little bit of decorum. There's uncontrolled shouting going on. Please control yourselves.
This is the record on national security issues that they are so ashamed of. 'Hitler's eyes are on Corio'— It sounds familiar from what we heard in question time in the parliament today.
What happened in that by-election? Well, Mr Curtin, the hero of this nation who saved us in the Second World War, said that the voters of Corio wouldn't listen to these nonsensical scare campaigns. They might pay attention to Mr Menzies's failure to prepare Australia for the strategic circumstances that we found ourselves in in the forties, but they were more likely to care about the bread-and-butter issues that he was running on at the time.
What happened? The voters of Corio agreed. They gave a resounding election victory to the Labor Party, to Mr Dedman, in that by-election, and John Curtin went on to become a national hero, leading Australia through the grave challenges of the Second World War. He put Australia's interests first, ignored the forelock tugging of the Tories, and turned Australia towards the US, the foundation for ANZUS, because he, like all members of the Labor Party, put our long-term national interests first. We don't play short-term, partisan, petty political games because we're desperate in the polls, like this Prime Minister.
In question time yesterday, the Minister for Home Affairs continued this government's desperate politicisation of Australian national security by taking a dorothy dixer on cybersecurity. That's my portfolio. In her answer to the question—
The DE PUTY SPEAKER: Member for Moncrieff, please give some respect to the speaker.
I know the member for Moncrieff aspires to a portfolio on the frontbench, and that's why she sold her values out in the recent debate on the Religious Discrimination Bill, but she's going to be waiting for some time. The home affairs minister, her neighbour on the Gold Coast, said:
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.
Well, let's compare the records of the two parties on cybersecurity over the past three years. This Prime Minister's first act on becoming Prime Minister was to abolish the dedicated role for cybersecurity in the ministry that had been established in the 2016 Commonwealth cybersecurity strategy by his predecessor. In the face of worsening cyberthreats from state and non-state actors alike, this Prime Minister created a political leadership vacuum on cybersecurity, at the worst possible time. Cybersecurity is relegated to the bottom of the home affairs minister's already lengthy to-do list, beneath even the Ruby Princess, it seems. Cybersecurity policy-making became adrift in this government and has been ever since. In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition had the foresight to retain a dedicated role for cybersecurity in his ministerial team—and that's my role on the frontbench on the opposition side—and Labor has been leading the policy debate ever since.
In 2020 we released the 'National cyber resilience' discussion paper, which highlights the systemic risks of cyberthreats to Australia's national resilience. We emphasise that cybersecurity is a whole-of-nation endeavour that cannot be pursued from behind the ramparts of the defence and security establishment silos of government. In this discussion paper, we flag the need for interventions that project the outstanding cybersecurity capabilities of our agencies across government and into the broader community. We flag that the potential of initiatives like the UK National Cyber Security Centre's Active Cyber Defence program, which delivers a range of scalable, automated interventions and tools designed to address commodity-level cyberthreats and to lift the baseline of cyberresilience.
In the wake of the release of this discussion paper from the opposition, I was pleased to see some of these principles adopted in ASD's Cyber Enhanced Situational Awareness and Response package, CESAR, particularly in the form of Telstra's Cleaner Pipes initiative. This was welcome, but there's much more we could be doing in this space. We could be a lot more ambitious and a lot more aggressive, and I'm keen to explore the potential for the ACSC to collaborate with the NCSC on active cyberdefence through the AUKUS agreement.
We've seen a similar pattern when it comes to ransomware. As the shadow minister with policy responsibility in this area, from the moment I took on this portfolio, I was hearing loud and clear from CISOs in the public and private sectors that the ransomware threat was growing on a completely unsustainable trajectory and that the Morrison government's hands-off blame-the-victim approach needed to change. In the absence of a dedicated ministerial role for cybersecurity, the Morrison government did not hear this message and it did not act. Indeed, the former home affairs minister and current defence minister did not once mention the word 'ransomware' in the parliament during his entire time in the role, despite the issue growing into a $1 billion drag on the Australian economy during that time.
In contrast, Labor led the debate, ultimately releasing a discussion paper calling for a national ransomware strategy designed to increase the costs and reduce the returns of ransomware attacks on Australian organisations by using all the policy levers available to government. I campaigned on the need for a national ransomware strategy for eight months and even introduced a private member's bill on the issue before the Morrison government finally acted and released a ransomware action plan, which I suppose is completely different—the marketing spin is different, at least.
I'm pleased that, since then, the Morrison government has picked up many of the policy ideas that we included in our Time for a national ransomware strategy discussion paper, including the increased use of offensive cyberoperations to deter the targeting of Australian organisations; a ransomware notification scheme; a sanctions regime targeting individual hackers; and a task force inside the AFP to address the cyberenforcement gap. Again, Labor led and the Morrison government followed on this important issue in national security.
The lack of political leadership on cybersecurity within the Morrison government has also led it to undervalue the role of the broader Australian cybersecurity ecosystem, outside of government, in building Australia's national cyberresilience. We see this in the fact that, unlike the 2016 Commonwealth cybersecurity strategy, local industry development is completely missing as an objective in the 2020 cybersecurity strategy. The institutions that were put in place by former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull to grow Australia's domestic cybersecurity industry are completely gone. They don't exist under the 2020 strategy. There's no joined-up Commonwealth strategy to align procurement, industry development and R&D policy, to encourage the development of our domestic cybersecurity or our domestic critical technologies industries. There's a similar blindness to the role of independent security researchers or even private-sector cybersecurity firms in building Australia's national cyberresilience. I have long campaigned for the increased use of vulnerability disclosure processes by Commonwealth entities to harness the contributions of independent security researchers. People are giving their time voluntarily to try and uplift the cybermaturity and cyberresilience of the Commonwealth.
I was pleased, after giving speeches in this place, to see this adopted as a recommended cybersecurity control in the Information security manual. But take-up of VDPs across the Commonwealth remains patchy—it's not a mandatory control to be implemented—and the use of bug bounties is almost non-existent, despite the fact that this is now a very common tool used by our allies to lift cybermaturity and cyberresilience, in the US and in the United Kingdom. The US has run the Hack the Pentagon program for many years now, and it has discovered literally thousands of vulnerabilities in US national security and defence agencies through bug bounty programs. The United Kingdom, through its National Cyber Security Centre, has mandated the use of vulnerability disclosure processes in all UK government entities and even runs a vulnerability process of last resort itself for situations where that fails. We can do far better in Australia. We can learn from the example of our security allies.
It's the same story when it comes to private sector incident responders. We need a step change in the level of collaboration between the ACSC and private incident responder firms, something that is the norm for our international allies. I know that, at the moment, the US and the UK are experiencing a significant uptick in cyberattacks targeting both government and significant private sector entities. It's associated with the tensions in, and the increasing aggression towards, the state of Ukraine that we are seeing. We are seeing constant cyberattacks on government entities there, more than the incident responders within the NCSC can respond to itself. So, understandably, the NCSC is working with private sector incident responders on a day-by-day basis. It's working hand in glove, sharing information and sharing interventions. This is just something that we do not see happening in Australia. We can do so much better here.
Commonwealth cybersecurity policy is in need of a significant culture change, but it won't happen until we have political leadership in this space and until we address the political vacuum created by this Prime Minister—by the Morrison government when it abolished the dedicated office of cybersecurity in the ministry. The Morrison government is intent on politicising defence and national security in the lead-up to the federal election. We know that this desperate Prime Minister thinks it's in his short-term political interests to play games with these most important issues.
I'm going to do something outrageous here today. I've already quoted Peter Dutton, the defence minister, favourably. I'll now quote from the valedictory speech of George Brandis, the former Attorney-General. For a very substantial portion of that speech, Senator Brandis warned this parliament of the perils of politicising national security and defence. It's one of those speeches that you listen to, as an opposition member, and you know that the message is not meant for you. He was calling for bipartisanship, but he warned about the 'powerful voices' inside the coalition party room that were calling for a different approach—for a short-term, petty, partisan approach. It's very clear after this sitting fortnight who the powerful voices that Senator Brandis was referring to in that speech belong to. Senator Brandis was right when he said bipartisanship on national security and defence serves the national interest. It helps Australia face the very serious security challenges we face. It strengthens our hands in the face of authoritarian adversaries. And those opposite that would seek to traduce this in the pursuit of short-term political gain are doing this nation an enormous disservice.
I agree with some of the things that my friend the member for Gellibrand had to say. It is a time for leadership in this place. It is a time to unite Australians and to seek consensus, not division. I'd like to speak tonight in relation to the ongoing challenges associated with the recovery from the Black Summer bushfires. We must never forget that many Australians are still recovering from those tragic events of two summers ago, where much of the east coast of Australia was devastated by fires. In my electorate of Gippsland, hundreds of homes were lost. Lives were lost, property was lost, stock was lost. Over the past two years, a lot of really good work has been done by my community in partnership with local, state and federal government, but we still face many challenges as we work through the longer-term recovery issues.
But in good news, just yesterday the Black Summer Bushfire Recovery Grants Program was finally announced. I believe in giving credit where it's due, and, to be fair, I was quite outspoken in my criticism of the program when it was first announced. I make no apology for those criticisms because, at the time of the announcement of the Black Summer Bushfire Recovery Grants Program, there was a notional allocation applied to the East Gippsland region of just $4½ million. I found that notional allocation to be unacceptable, and I made my point very well known to the minister and to the National Recovery and Resilience Agency. But that's history. The concerns of my community were listened to by NRRA and by the government. They heard my community's concerns, and they worked to provide a bigger pool of funding for the most impacted communities.
I want to recognise in this place a couple of staff members in Senator McKenzie's office who worked with me on this program and assisted greatly in arguing for increased funding: Emma Geoghegan, who has now left the office, and Karina Menday, who has been working with me as we deal with some unintended consequences of the program we're trying to resolve for some of the unsuccessful bidders. I thank both those staff members for the constructive way they've worked with me. And for Senator McKenzie's staff: I salute you for that. I thank the minister for being able to argue the case within the ERC process to increase the funding for the Black Summer grants program from $280 million to $390 million.
The broader region of East Gippsland will receive about $30 million out of that program. That is fantastic news for my community. It's one of the most disadvantaged regions in Australia. It experiences low-socioeconomic indicators around household income and has experienced great challenges with the combined impacts of droughts, bushfires and coronavirus. That has had a really deleterious impact on the people of East Gippsland. The projects that were announced yesterday will go a long way to instilling additional hope and confidence in the community.
Some of the projects that were announced yesterday had been on the books of the community for many years and even predated the bushfires. I congratulate the East Gippsland Shire Council on some of their successful bids. The Bairnsdale Aerodrome project is getting $9.6 million. The aerodrome was a critical asset during the bushfire response, relief and recovery phases. It was used as a base for civilian aircraft and defence aircraft. The aerodrome needs significant upgrades. That $9.6 million will be well received.
The Mallacoota Surf Life Saving Club consisted of a caravan. It is a very humble club. That humble club's caravan was burnt to the ground during the bushfires. We worked very constructively in the immediate aftermath of the fires with the Minderoo Foundation. The Twiggy Forrest foundation supported my efforts to secure funding for that group. Partner surf lifesaving clubs in the region assisted with new equipment. We were able to replace the caravan with a new Jayco Basestation, which was very well received. I'm afraid that the humble Jayco Basestation will be surpassed by the $2.5 million multipurpose club that's going to be developed in partnership with the SES and Coast Guard. It's a great win for the surf lifesaving club.
Another really interesting project is the Snowy River railway trestle bridge. It's an old wooden bridge that has basically been demolished by neglect by the state government. Since the rail services were taken away from Orbost the bridge has been slowly crumbling. We secured $3 million from the state government quite recently to begin the restoration work. Yesterday I was pleased to see another $1 million going to that project. That will allow the trestle bridge to be used by pedestrians and cyclists as they traverse the East Gippsland Rail Trail, which we have also been successful in securing funding for. These are all good projects for the visitor economy and also very important for the liveability of my region and encouraging people to have more active lifestyles. I really do congratulate the community for working over a period of years to secure that funding.
Other projects will be well received: the Mallacoota Mudbrick Pavilion upgrade, $493,000; the Mallacoota bowls club, $85,000; and the Mallacoota Gun Club, $276,000. You might notice a pattern there. They are all in Mallacoota. Mallacoota is a sleepy little village on the coast of my region. It was the most directly impacted town during the Black Summer bushfires. There were 135 homes lost. In the days that followed we experienced the most incredible evacuation of civilians by the Australian Defence Force off the coast of Mallacoota. HMAS Choulesand MV Sycamore transferred I think 1,500 people and their dogs and cats and a few parrots as well. It was quite an amazing evacuation of people. The one road into Mallacoota was blocked and it remained blocked for I think about six weeks. That reflects the hardship that the town experienced and also the direct losses that the town experienced. The gun club was burnt down, the bowls club green was damaged and the pony club facilities were destroyed. All these things take money to replace.
Another interesting project that was funded yesterday is the East Gippsland Timber Milling Project. This is a project that I think we could look at rolling out across Australia in response to disasters in the future. A portable sawmill, with trained staff, is established on a person's property and the timber that has fallen on their own land is milled. It allows the farmers or other landholders to use that timber for re-establishing the fencing and stockyards or for even as feature timber in their own homes. It has been very well received in my community. That additional $520,000 will be greatly appreciated right across the region.
Another project that I'm particularly happy about is in the little town of Bend River. It's another town that has one road in and one road out. It suffered enormous economic losses when all the visitors had to leave during the Black Summer bushfires. The East Gippsland shire has been successful in securing $1 million for a path through the town, which again encourages Gippslanders and visitors to our region to have healthy active lifestyles. These are great wins for the community. Again, I recognise the NRRA, and the minister's office worked in a constructive way to increase the pool of funding and to ensure that some of the communities most directly impacted by the fires were supported.
Of course, in any of these types of programs, not every applicant is successful. The fundamental flaw in a program like this is that local MPs very often get absolutely no say in helping to establish some of the priorities. In this case, in my region, some of the most impacted little townships of Buchan, Sarsfield and Wairewa all missed out in their applications, and my challenge now as a local member is to try and work constructively with those community groups, to work with the minister's office, and to work with local and state government authorities to try and find ways to secure funding for their projects. Have no doubt that I won't be giving up on those communities, and I will be working to secure the funding they need to deliver the services the community expects after going through so much hardship. So the battle will continue in that regard.
Deputy Speaker Rick Wilson, I just want to reflect on the recovery process for a moment. You, yourself, have been through bushfires in recent times. Right through the recovery process, the lack of respect for local knowledge held by experienced MPs who have been through fires and floods and natural disasters in the past is a real problem for us in this nation. I fear the role of a local MP in these situations is undervalued. We have a bureaucratic approach, where both state and federal bureaucrats seem to think they know better than the people who've lived through these experiences with their communities in the past. I will be challenging NRRA and Bushfire Recovery Victoria to, in the future, demonstrate a greater understanding of the networks that local MPs often establish over a very long period of time and the appreciation they have of their communities and the challenges they will face in the recovery process. It bothers me enormously that every one of my concerns that I raised with the agencies in the immediate aftermath of the fires have come to fruition because we didn't take the action that could have been taken at an earlier time. We have to look at these issues and understand that there are people who have had direct life experience in the community or in MPs' offices who could be a great asset during the recovery process.
One of the things I will point out in relation to the issues for prevention, recovery and resilience in the face of tragedies like the Black Summer bushfires is that we all know in this country that we are going to have more fires. To have wildfire in Australia, you need three things. You need to have hot, windy days; you need a point of ignition; and you need fuel. This is not rocket science. We know that, every summer in Australia, we are going to have hot, windy days. We know that, every summer in Australia, we are going to have a point of ignition. It could be a lightning strike, an idiot with a match or just an accident. The only thing we can really have an impact on as humans is the fuel load. We have to do more, in partnership with our state government entities, to reduce the fuel load. Hazard reduction is failing miserably in this country and in the state of Victoria. We have to learn from the traditional owners of the land. Indigenous people had firestick technology they applied through thousands of years, and we ignore their learnings, their lessons, at our own peril. Hazard reduction is one thing we should be working much more constructively with the state governments to achieve if we are going to prevent or reduce the impact of these fires. If we had been doing the hazard reduction work, the damage to my community would have been significantly less.
What we saw during the Black Summer bushfires was that every fire started on public land, every fire was a natural lightning strike, and the damage was done on the public land-private land interface. That's where people lost their homes, lost their fences, lost their stock. We need to be working to secure critical asset protection through fuel reduction, mulching and removal of fuel from around the townships to make sure that people are protected in these dangerous conditions.
There is only one thing worse than three-word slogans, and that's four-word slogans: more boots, less suits. We need more boots and less suits—more boots on the ground doing the practical environmental work and less suits in the city making excuses for why things can't be done. So I call on the state government to work in a constructive way with my community and with the federal government to ensure that we are doing the preventative work on natural resource management right throughout the state, not just in response to a disaster but well ahead of the fire season—things like slashing roadsides.
The Princes Highway was closed for more than a month. That's simply not good enough in 2020. It was closed because there was too much vegetation on the roadside. The community was ecstatic after the event when the crews went through and actually cleared 30 metres on both sides. It makes the road safer, but it also improves lines of sight so they can see oncoming vehicles, and it reduces the chance of hitting things like kangaroos, wallabies and wombats, as well. So maintaining the roadsides in a safe manner and mulching the vegetation along the roadsides is something that my community is keen to pursue. We are the custodians of a vast natural estate in Gippsland, but we have very few staff on the ground, in agencies like Parks Victoria, DELWP and Regional Roads Victoria, to actually do that maintenance work in our communities. It's a huge job opportunity, for those of us who live in those rural and regional communities, to have trained staff in the area, doing that great work on our behalf.
While I'm talking about the resilience of the road network, I have to reflect on those communities which have one road in and one road out. It is incumbent upon us at the federal level, and also at the state level, to support those communities with critical asset protection so they can be safe in times of natural disaster. People are going to visit those towns. People live in those towns. We have to maintain safe access for them in times of natural disaster. I give credit to the state government during the last bushfire period, the Black Summer bushfires. The warnings that were issued in partnership with the ABC, as the emergency services broadcaster, were very clear and encouraged people to get out of those communities well ahead of the danger period. But we need to do more work in terms of critical asset protection, prevention, recovery and resilience work.
While I have the opportunity, can I also extend my community's incredible thanks to the Australian Defence Force for the role they played during those bushfires. Having the Army, Navy and Air Force working in partnership with the civilian agencies was something that I have never seen before in my community. But what I learnt from that is that the civilian agencies really don't have a great understanding of the capability of the Australian Defence Force. How the Bushmasters can access areas that the Toyota LandCruisers can't came as a bit of a surprise to some of the civilian agencies. So I think more training between civilian and defence agencies is important and something we should aim to do on a regular basis throughout our region.
Finally, I just want to thank Gippslanders for the way they've shown extraordinary resilience and stuck together in what has been a long recovery process. I'm proud to represent that community in this place, and I recognise there's still a lot of work to be done in terms of the recovery from the bushfires. The $30-odd million we announced the other day will be a great help, but it won't solve all our problems. We need to keep working together. You won't hear me in this place talking Australians down or talking Gippslanders down. We have to right now as a nation, as a parliament, show leadership, be as optimistic and as relentlessly positive as we possibly can, unite wherever possible and, please, seek consensus wherever we can, not division.
I rise to speak on the appropriation bills before the House. One of the most fundamental roles of the federal government is to ensure that communities across the country have access to Commonwealth funding. This funding is essential for ensuring the health, safety and security of our electorates. Unfortunately, throughout the almost decade of the Liberal-Nationals government, there has not been an equitable division of Commonwealth funds across our electorates. What we have seen is this government using the public purse as its own personal slush fund. When grants programs work the way they are supposed to, we see benefit right across the nation, in all our electorates. We see regional areas strengthened. We see critical infrastructure expanded. We see communities thrive. This has not happened under the Morrison government for the very simple reason that they're more interested in their own political survival than they are in the welfare of the Australian people.
Many Labor and Independent held electorates across the country, like our electorate of McEwen, have been neglected by this Morrison government. The electorate of McEwen has been waiting for federal funding for the Macedon Ranges Regional Sports Precinct since 2018. The project has been fully planned and has continued to involve collaboration with community groups, sporting associations, the state government, the local council and me. The Macedon Ranges council have committed $10.7 million. The Victorian government has committed $11.6 million. The AFL has committed $100,000. Both the state and local governments recognise the need for a growing community to have access to sporting facilities, and it's these facilities that help our community thrive through the teamwork, collaboration and health within a quickly growing area like McEwen.
Despite application after application to the federal government for a grant under the Building Better Regions Fund, the Morrison government has refused to fund this project and, in fact, has misled the community on multiple occasions by getting them to put applications in and not doing a thing. The excuse is that the funding process is competitive, but, of the 54 community projects approved for funding under the grants scheme, 43 went to councils and organisations within Liberal electorates.
The reality is that the Morrison government are using this grant scheme as their personal slush fund and ignoring communities like Macedon Ranges who would benefit from this money. It's no wonder that the government are failing to introduce a national anticorruption commission and that the plans they have made are only for a commission without retrospective powers. It's pretty clear what the Morrison government are afraid of. They are afraid of facing accountability for the shameful way in which they have allocated public funds throughout their time in government. Electorates like McEwen deserve proper Commonwealth support as much as any other. We're fed up with having our needs overlooked and disregarded by this government. There are so many areas of funding in which the government is failing our communities, and the cries for help fall on deaf ears.
One of the biggest issues facing families in our electorate is child care. The Liberal government have been dragged kicking and screaming to the table on childcare reform, and the issue has only intensified throughout the course of the pandemic. Due to the immense pressure and hard work from the member for Kingston, the Liberal government, after ignoring the calls of Australian women and families, business leaders, economists and the early learning sector for years, finally were dragged kicking and screaming to do a patch-up on child care. But, instead of the real support that Australian families need, what the government delivered was a cynical attempt to deal with their ongoing PR crisis. The provisions did nothing to help millions of families struggling across our nation. Beyond the hype and the media spin, the government's plan for child care fails to benefit the majority of Australian families.
Labor's childcare plan would benefit around one million Australian families. The government's plan would only support about a quarter of that and only those families with more than one child requiring child care. Then, when the eldest child of such families begins attending school, the extra support provided will be ripped away. In contrast, Labor's childcare plan benefits 86 per cent of all Australian families with children under six, regardless of how many children they have. The vast majority of low- and middle-income-earning families would be better off under Labor, even the families who would see some of the benefits under the government's childcare plan. The Morrison government is leaving our families behind and denying support to those who are in need of it most.
A few months ago we received an email from a woman in the electorate named Doreen, who has two children, both aged under four. Think about this, Deputy Speaker. Doreen and her husband both work full time, and they're spending $3,000 a month on child care. It's like a second mortgage. Like many families, they had hoped that the government's promised increase in support for child care would help give them financial relief right now, but the childcare support put forward by this government will not come into effect until July this year. By that point, Doreen's oldest child will be attending kindergarten, and her family will no longer be able to get the benefits anyway. It's always about announcement, but, when you get through the detail, there is always a catch. There is always a little hook from this government that leaves people short and short-changes Australian families.
An honourab le member: Ts and Cs apply!
Exactly! Thousands of families across Australia and in our electorate are in the same position. They need relief now. But the government are still dragging their feet and failing to support the families who need it. The government like to claim they support families, but, below the surface and beyond the marketing campaigns, the only thing the government are interested in is making an empty promise, making an announcement, and a plan which fails to benefit most Australian families.
I will turn to health care. Our healthcare systems are in desperate need of assistance as well. Particularly, the regional areas of my electorate are in dire need of increased funding and Commonwealth support. Every week I am inundated with calls from my constituents. They are scared—parents of young children, families and partners of those struggling with chronic illness, healthcare workers who are overwhelmed with the demand for their services. They ring my office regularly with harrowing stories of the strain on local GP clinics in our electorate. There simply aren't enough doctors in our towns to look after the needs of our communities. Parents with sick children cannot find doctors to treat them. Our GPs are doing the very best they can, but they are overworked, tired and struggling to keep up.
The government have failed rural electorates. In McEwen, families are faced with weeks-long waits for appointments with a GP. The government want Australians to believe that their incentive programs are going to fix this, but what they're not telling you is that many of the communities that are most in need, including those in McEwen, aren't going to see any of the money from the programs. We have written to the federal Minister for Health and Aged Care on numerous occasions to ask for urgent assistance for our region, but we've had no support in the responses. Meanwhile, every day the people of McEwen are turned away from GP clinics and emergency rooms because there are not enough doctors to care for them.
This is not the level of medical care that should be acceptable in Australia, especially in the midst of a pandemic and while our country is attempting to deal with COVID. You can never be sure when you or your family might need to see a doctor, but if you do you want to know that one will be available. Time and time again the Morrison government has put politics above the lives of Australians. The fact that the Morrison government has failed to secure basic medical care for the people of McEwan and so many other Australians across the country, you would think would be an embarrassment to the coalition, particularly in the midst of a pandemic. The state of rural and regional health care is a damning indictment on the priorities of this government.
If the issues plaguing regional health care within our electorate were not bad enough, we turn to the state of aged care under the Morrison government, which is even worse. Aged-care residents have suffered more than any other group throughout the course of this pandemic. Today in question time we heard responses that were pretty much just, 'Well, that's how it is.' When a minister of the Crown spends his time at the cricket and not facing up to the challenges of his job, with any normal government at any normal time—and you can go back and read Erskine May and look at every single Reps practice—you would expect in a situation like that the minister should resign. That is the history of the Westminster system, but it's not the history of a government that is covered in corruption.
Aged-care homes are being forced to lock down in response to COVID infection. During such times, many residents lose the capacity to communicate and interact with family and their support networks, making the staffing crisis experienced in their homes and the anxieties associated with COVID even more difficult to cope with. More than two years into this pandemic the situation in aged care is just as dire as it's ever been. Across the country we hear reports of understaffed aged-care homes, residents' buzzers being left unattended and residents left to die alone.
Our criticism of the Morrison government's response to the aged-care crisis is not politics. It is not political mudslinging; it is just a fact. The Morrison government delayed and outright rejected many of the crucial recommendations that their own royal commission—a royal commission they were forced into because they didn't want it—put forth as necessary changes for the reform of this industry. The government's plan includes none of the recommended workforce changes that the royal commission outlined as being required. There is nothing to improve the wages of overstretched and undervalued workers in the aged-care industry. This government has ignored the recommendations and failed every single one of those workers. They have shirked primary responsibility for the mandatory care of aged-care residents. The proposal does not meet the recommendation made by the royal commission that includes cleaning and some administration work as some of the care minutes that will mandated. That simply is not good enough. Staffing levels are central to many of the problems in residential aged care, and these reforms are crucial to increasing the standards of care and ensuring that the horrific stories of neglect that we heard throughout the course of the royal commission do not continue into the future.
If all of this wasn't enough, the government have failed to clear the home-care package waiting list for over 100,000 people, ignoring the wishes of Australians who want to age at home. This has left many older Australians with no option but to go to an overworked, understaffed home which the government has failed to reform. The Morrison government has failed to take any of the steps that Labor and stakeholders have called for over the past two years in particular, and now, in the midst of the pandemic, aged care is what it is due to this neglect and not being able to stop a preventable crisis.
The government's repeated attempts to cut NDIS funding for participants is another example of the way in which the government is rejecting the needs of the most vulnerable in our community. The government ripped $4.6 billion out of the NDIS, and the ministry repeatedly failed to act despite 1,200 Australians dying while waiting to be funded by the scheme. My electorate of McEwen is not alone. There are many electorates that are in need of Commonwealth funding and assistance. There are so many programs that need increased funding. Electorates like ours are repeatedly disregarded and disrespected by this immoral and irresponsible Morrison government.
The way in which the Morrison government have continually ignored their responsibility to divide Commonwealth funds in accordance with need is something that a normal person would be embarrassed by. The pork-barrelling, the secret coalition slush funds are definitely an embarrassment at a time when faith in our political institutions is falling. Australians don't pay more tax if they live in coalition-held electorates. They don't work harder, so they don't deserve to get a disproportionate amount of public funds.
People in our communities are sick and tired of being left behind by this government. They are sick and tired of being left behind in child care, in aged care and in health care. They are exhausted by applying again and again for grants that they have no chance of receiving because they haven't made it onto the shifty little spreadsheets that have been brought up over the last few years. The pork-barrelling must end. The cabinet-run slush funds must end. Communities need support. The communities that are suffering are the ones that need the most support, not just those that are in a coalition electorate.
It's time to see the end of this tired, failed, scandal-ridden government. Australians deserve a government that is on their side, a government that is going to stand up and deliver. When we look at things like child care, Medicare and aged care, Labor cares. Only an Albanese Labor government will deliver benefits for all Australians and bring Australians together, rather than what we've seen over the past eight years of division, both inside and outside the cabinet and on the streets. It's time that we replaced this tired, worn-out government with one that is going to be there for you when you need it.
While the bills today seek to appropriate a total of around $15.9 billion in 2021 across the two bills—$11.9 billion in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022 and $4 billion in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022—I want to talk a little bit about economic management and the failures of this government, in particular what we are seeing at the dying end of a government that seems to be focused more on itself than the people of this country.
I'll start by talking about economic management. I assume this will be a hot topic during the next general election. The government likes to purport that they are great economic managers, that they have steered Australia through the global pandemic. But tonight I want to lift the veil on what we mean when we talk about financial responsibility when it comes to the day-to-day work of the government. It's pretty rich to be receiving lectures on fiscal responsibility from the most wasteful government since Federation, the government that doubled the debt before the pandemic—who can forget the 'Back in black' cups?—and a government that, for the first time in Australia's history, will deliver a trillion dollars of debt.
I remember the days when the debt trucks used to drive around before elections. As a former state secretary and campaign director, you could set your watch by the debt trucks driving around. They normally had trucks with double-sided billboards with 'Labor's debt bomb' on them. Well, I don't know if those debt trucks are on bricks in someone's house, or if they've been run off the road, because what we've seen delivered under this government is a trillion dollars worth of debt. Somehow I don't think we'll have an argument about debt in this country anymore.
The coalition has delivered eight deficits—more consecutive deficits than any other government since the 1920s—and it has projected at least 40 more to come. Despite the repeated hypocritical preaching on their commitment to low taxes, this government is the second-highest taxing government of the last 30 years and is now collecting $4½ thousand more per person than Labor did in 2013. And this is before we get to competency.
Let's look at their record. They failed on the vaccine rollout. They haven't delivered one single new federal quarantine facility. They didn't order enough rapid antigen tests. They presided over a crisis in aged care. They disappeared when workers and small businesses needed them to step up and show leadership. They handed out billions of dollars of JobKeeper payments to businesses whose revenue had increased and they pork-barrelled billions more taxpayer dollars in politically motivated grants.
The failures aren't limited to the budget either. The economy is suffering under this government's watch. Productivity has been flatlining. Poor productivity performance means a smaller economy, an economy that is growing far slower than it could be and it should be. Think about what another decade of failed productivity targets would do to the living standards of ordinary Australians. Unfortunately, the government rorts and wastage don't lead to productivity growth. To really get productivity moving we need investment in energy technology, infrastructure and human capital—in our people, not just the politics.
To analyse why we're in this situation you only need to look at the last two weeks. What has happened in the last two weeks? We've seen a government increasingly obsessed about itself and increasingly divided. Members have crossed the floor, undermining the parliament and undermining the Prime Minister of Australia. We have also seen a government completely destroying itself about integrity and have also seen cracks within its own cabinet.
This is what has happened in just the last two weeks. We have seen the textgate scandal, where former New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian leaked and texted another Liberal cabinet minister—they could be from New South Wales or could be federal—talking about the Prime Minister. That's pretty tawdry stuff. I won't go there, because there's not enough time in today's debate.
Then we saw the former Deputy Prime Minister texting about the current Prime Minister. I won't be able to read into Hansard exactly what the former Deputy Prime Minister said because it contains a word that starts with 'l' and finishes with 'r'. Needless to say the quote goes something like this: 'Tell BH'—which is Brittany Higgins—'I and Scott, he is Scott to me until I have to recognise his office, don't get along. He is a hypocrite'—and someone who doesn't tell the truth—'from my observations and that's over a long time.' And this is the killer bit. He said, 'I have never trusted him and I dislike how he earnestly rearranges the truth' to be something that is not a truth.
This is the second in command in Australia. This is the 2IC. Of course it's embarrassing enough that that has been leaked and is now on the public record, but of course the Prime Minister said he only said that, according to the former Deputy Prime Minister, because we didn't work very well together and we didn't know each other that long. That is despite both of them serving in the cabinet and the current Prime Minister being the Treasurer at the time.
Those sitting at home are wondering what on earth is going on and why this government isn't focused on jobs, the economy, security and all of these things. They simply don't have time to worry about the issues facing Australia. This is TheHunger Games occurring in our nation's capital. It's not the Labor Party launching attacks or the crossbench launching attacks; it's government-on-government violence that we're seeing here.
We saw the serious and, quite frankly, illegal leaks from cabinet last week. Cabinet has been now leaking itself, and not just once but twice. We saw through the Ten Network that Mr Morrison was rolled in a cabinet meeting when he proposed a controversial strategy to get enough votes for his religious discrimination laws which were debated this week and held up in the Senate. It was reported that there was apparently a heated debate in which several ministers, including the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, Paul Fletcher, passionately spoke against the plan.
We know that cabinet is rarely leaked. When you get to this stage it shows a government completely bereft of focusing on Australians and only focusing on themselves. Of course, last night we saw yet another leak. The Prime Minister's inner circle leaked against the former Minister for Education and Youth. His door may have been stripped of the title. Now we know that he doesn't even know whether he has got a job or not. Once again the government are focusing on themselves, not focusing on the people of Australia.
We need investment in infrastructure that will propel our economy forward, like cleaner and cheaper energy and an NBN that will underpin our digital economy. We need investment in our community. We need investment for projects to get people home sooner.
One of my election commitments from 2016 was an update of the Centenary Bridge. Although long overdue, the government has finally heard my pleas and the community's pleas to see this $220-million project invested in. It should not have taken five years. This money was put on the table early by the Palaszczuk Labor government—a government that proudly invests in infrastructure, that proudly delivers for the community. I give my thanks and pay my great respects to the minister for transport, the Hon. Mark Bailey, and also to one of the hardest-working state members in the country, Jess Pugh, the state member for Mount Ommaney, who I'm proud to say is one of my five local state MPs but also someone who fought tooth and nail to deliver this funding for the Centenary Bridge. This work will mean that the current bridge, which is over 50 years old, will be upgraded to six lanes, and the Jindalee off-ramps and on-ramps, finally, will be improved, which will see people getting home quicker but also not sitting in traffic. I'm really proud of this election commitment, and I'll be fighting tooth and nail to make sure this government delivers on its commitment and we see real progress on the Centenary Bridge.
I won't hold my breath, because, with this government and the Prime Minister, when it comes to the announcements and the photo ops, we know that they're great at photo ops and masters of making announcements and then not following through. Just today, we asked yet again about one of the greatest rorts in Australia's history, the car park rorts. When Minister Fletcher was asked about this project, he said, about people in Queensland: 'They're not asking about lines on spreadsheets; they're asking about: "How do we get a facility built so that we can get to work, not turn up and find there is nowhere to park."' That would be okay if the 48 car parks that were promised three years ago had been built. So take a random guess: how many of the 48 car parks have been built? Six. Once again, this government cannot be trusted when it comes to announcements. So, you betcha, I'll be fighting tooth and nail to make sure that we see the Centenary Bridge—the most important critical piece of infrastructure in my electorate—built.
I know there is someone who can be trusted to deliver those projects. That is the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Anthony Albanese—someone who is the most experienced infrastructure minister in this country's history, a former Deputy Prime Minister who has a wealth of experience from sitting in this parliament for over 25 years, and someone who, I know, won't just make promises but will actually deliver on what they say.
We'll have 'A Future Made in Australia' by co-investing in advanced manufacturing and other critical sectors to create jobs, diversify the economy and revitalise our regions through partnerships and businesses, to help turn good ideas into good secure jobs. When I visit businesses in my electorate—and I'm a proud supporter of small businesses; small businesses are the backbone of our economy. I come from a small business background: my parents proudly ran a business that started from scratch when my father came out of World War II and built a successful enterprise in his own name, with my uncle's name as well. We simply cannot allow businesses to suffer anymore under this government. Now, when I talk to local businesses, they simply say the same thing over and over again: they can't find qualified workers to fill their vacancies. They are saying it loud and clear. The skills simply aren't out there.
Those skills are not just going to magically materialise. It will take a government committed to investing in our young people and building our skills base to see any movement in this area. I want to see young Australians given a boost—given a chance at a good education and good skills training. We'll invest in skilling Australians, to make sure that they get ahead, by providing free TAFE and creating more university places.
Labor's $1.2 billion 'A Future Made in Australia' skills plan focuses on tackling skill shortages to help us all move forward through the COVID-19 pandemic and drive future economic growth. We know that, for nearly a decade, this government has cut TAFE and slashed apprenticeships. We now have 70,000 fewer apprenticeships and traineeships, compared to 2013. In my own electorate, there are 1,400 fewer apprentices than when this government came to power. The number has not been staying the same or levelling out; it's gone backwards.
That's why we need 20,000 new university places to fix shortages and fill future skill needs by training Australians in jobs, including engineering, nursing, tech and training, because Australia's economic future lies with its strongest asset—its people.
There's the cost of child care, and the fact that since this government was elected childcare fees have gone up 35 per cent. Combined with a decline in real wages, we've seen the childcare system become completely inaccessible for too many families.
It's no wonder the government can't focus on these things, no wonder they can't talk about building a future for working families in Australia, because they are simply focused on themselves and applying political bandaids to their many, many mistakes. Whether it is disunity, dysfunction or, quite frankly, dishonesty, it is making this government utterly paralysed. That's the central characteristic that defines the government. It doesn't just mean they're competent; it means things aren't getting done. Look at the issues around health and aged care. Quite frankly, the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Greg Hunt, will go down in Australia's history as one of the worst health ministers our nation has ever seen.
The incompetence and character of this Prime Minister—where he won't hold a hose; he won't take responsibility. His character is now seen by the whole nation. We know that, time and time again, he cannot be trusted to deliver on the things that matter for all Australians. It's simply not good enough to say, 'It's not my job; it's someone else's job,' or, 'It's the states' responsibility.' We've seen over 700 lives lost in aged care, yet the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services in this country goes to the cricket but retains his job. That says it all. Whether it be leaks, whether it be attacks on the government, we on the side of the chamber know we'll continue to fight for all Australians. (Time expired)
The Liberal Party claims to be the party of sensible economic management, but what we know is that that's just another broken promise from a very broken government. I remember being incredibly worried about the $40 billion of debt that the WA Liberal Party left the people of Western Australia. The member for Pearce was the Western Australian Treasurer for the duration of the Barnett government. It was a lot of money, $40 billion; it was a huge debt. It's still being paid off. But then the Prime Minister came along and said, 'Hold my beer!' and gave us $1 trillion of debt. Their only plan to pay it back—you can't go and sit in that chair, member for Mackellar; I can't have a go at you then—is a certain member's plan for an inheritance tax. To pay back this thousand billion dollars of Liberal debt, there's a certain member of this place who is running around knocking on the door of the Treasurer, knocking on the door of the Prime Minister and saying, 'Let's have an inheritance tax.' That's the only fresh idea the Liberal Party have.
I hope that their plan for an inheritance tax goes the same way as their plan for the 'back in black' budget that they actually couldn't deliver us, but we do know, when it comes to taxes, that this Prime Minister loves a good tax. It was this Prime Minister, when he was Treasurer, who suggested that we should have the GST increased. He came out and said it was a proposition worth considering. Someone talked him out of it, but I know that idea hasn't gone. They love taxes so much that the Treasurer collected $150 billion more in tax this year than was collected in the last year that Labor was in government. In fact, the two highest taxing governments in the last 30 years have been those led by John Howard and by the current Prime Minister.
I do feel a little bit for Peter Costello. The second-rate Liberals ride on his coat-tails. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister never served a day in government with Peter Costello, yet they ride on his political legacy. At the same time, we know that Australians are paying $4,500 more in tax, per Australian, than they did under Labor in 2013. On top of people having stagnant wages and insecure work, they are paying these very high taxes to fund the Liberal Party's slush funds. This government cannot take any credit for what it claims is economic recovery unless it also takes responsibility for the crises that are happening across this country.
There's a crisis in aged care: in this calendar year alone, we've had some 700 Australians in aged care die of COVID. We do not have enough rapid antigen tests to provide for those who need them. People have been left driving around, from chemist to chemist, week after week. We still don't have a plan for getting the Australian Defence Force over to Western Australia as we start to see an outbreak of COVID in aged-care homes there.
It all starts to feel like this government just does not have a plan. Its only plans are the lived reality of Australians: wages going backwards; people looking for secure, well-paid jobs and being unable to find them; and people paying huge amounts for child care—35 per cent more than when this government first came to office. But there's always someone they can blame. They can blame the cost of beef on the situation in Ukraine. They can blame on the states the fact that they didn't order enough vaccine doses.
We know that people are worried about their lived reality under this government. Look at those who represent aged-care workers in Western Australia. A very well-respected community leader, Carolyn Smith, said:
We only have to look over east to see what COVID has done in aged care facilities.
I think many aged care workers, many residents, many families, are going to be concerned.
Western Australians are hugely concerned about the next few months, and we can't afford to repeat the Prime Minister's mistakes yet again. Western Australia needs a partner in Canberra, not the sort of government that bashes us up, year after year, and then, only at election time, all of a sudden the Prime Minister wants to be Western Australia's best friend—to the absolute disappointment, I should say, of many of the government's backbenchers, who complained about WA's health measures for years and years. We need a government that is actually going to learn the lessons of COVID and invest in our people. That means fixing the holes in our economy, making sure we're a country that makes things again; making sure that we dive into the talents of the Australian people so we again buy Australian. Buying Australian doesn't just mean buying from Liberal Party donors; buying Australian means buying from the hardworking small and medium-sized enterprises across this country, giving them access to the $190 billion of government contracts that are signed every year. As we say, Australian taxpayer dollars should be able to go to Kalgoorlie, not Korea, whenever possible.
Labor has a clear plan on how we start to shift the tide on buying Australian. We'll establish a future made-in-Australia office. We'll assist Australian businesses to bid for those major infrastructure projects that have billions of dollars of federal government money attached to them. We'll make it easier for small and medium-sized businesses to secure government contracts, and we'll make sure that businesses that get government contracts look after their workforce. We need to support First Nations businesses so we can maximise the skill transfer and opportunities for those businesses to grow even more. We need to make sure the businesses that are contracting with the Australian government are paying tax in Australia. It would be a much better idea to get companies that operate here to pay tax here, rather than go with these crazy ideas from government backbenchers to have an inheritance tax. We should also support Australian industry—
Order! You're being disloyal—and provocative, I might add!
I withdraw, Deputy Speaker. I've said all I need to say about the interesting proposal by a particular individual on the government side for an inheritance tax. And why would we be talking about an inheritance tax when instead we could be doing things like cutting taxes? It's only Labor that has committed to cutting taxes on electric vehicles. At the moment, only 0.7 per cent of cars sold in Australia are electric. In the UK and the EU it's 11 per cent. Let's lift that up, and let's do it by cutting taxes on electric vehicles. At the same time, let's fix some of our energy grid. Let's get more community batteries across this country. Labor has a plan to add another 400 across Australia. It will be a welcome addition. I've currently got one lonely community battery in my electorate, in Yokine. It does a great job, but it would be great to have a few more.
We also need to make sure that we start to do the big heavy lifting of rewiring the nation. I'll end my comments talking about rewiring the nation. We know that the electricity grids of Australia are desperately outdated. They were built in the last century—it shows. We've had 22 energy policies from this government, and Australians, again, have paid the price. If we want to have more batteries and if we want to have more renewables, we need a modern, refreshed grid. This is how we act on climate change, it's how we lower power prices and it's how we ensure more productivity in Australia. We know that Australia is uniquely placed to be at the forefront of the renewable energy revolution that we are going to see happen across the world. But we need a government that genuinely believes in climate change, not one that simply believes in advertising about what they say they are doing on climate change. I'll conclude my remarks by saying that, if we act on rewiring the nation and on renewable energy, it means more jobs, more secure jobs, more secure power and more affordable power. And it means that Australia won't get left behind as the global economy transitions.
Thank you, mostly, to the member for Perth. The member for Greenway.
In this appropriations bill debate tonight, I would like to predominantly pay tribute to, but also reference, a remarkable man and his son from my electorate of Greenway—Damien MacRae, from Kellyville Ridge, and his son, Aiden. I want to take members back to 2017, to a story that appeared in the local media in Blacktown about Damien MacRae, who was diagnosed with stage 4 melanoma. Along with his young son, Aiden, who loved LEGO, they decided they wanted to do something positive to raise awareness of melanoma. They got together and designed—bearing in mind that this was when Damien was informed that he had literally months to live—a LEGO prototype for a sun-smart series of characters called LEGO Surf Rescue. This featured LEGO people wearing sunscreen. It was iconically Australian. The characters were dressed in surf-lifesaving outfits. The whole point was that it was not only something that he and his son, Aiden, could do together but also something that could subliminally change peoples' minds about the importance of being sun safe and the dangers of melanoma.
I was really privileged to meet Damien and to spend some time with his family, so much so that I actually moved some private members' business in the parliament on 11 September 2017, entitled 'Melanoma and LEGO Surf Rescue'. In that motion I moved that we acknowledge that Australia has the highest incidence of melanoma in the world, that it's the most common cancer in young Australians aged 15 to 39 and also that LEGO is a world-renowned brand with a philosophy to foster imaginative and creative learning and development through play. I also wanted to take the opportunity to congratulate Damien and Aiden on creating this Australian sun-smart beach themed LEGO project, LEGO Surf Rescue, which actually achieved the required 10,000 supporters for the LEGO Ideas Review. I learnt a lot through this process. At that time you needed to have 10,000 followers or endorsements in order for LEGO to think, 'Well, this could be an idea that we might end up taking up.' We also recognised—and I think this was really delightful—that we had cross-party support for this. Russell Broadbent—then the member for McMillan, now the member for Monash—supported it. The motion was seconded by Matt Thistlethwaite, who is the member for Kingsford Smith but also Labor's forefront person for Parliamentary Friends of Surf Life Saving. We really did acknowledge—and I think it did move everyone there—the resilience and positivity that Damien displayed, despite his terminal diagnosis, in raising awareness of the dangers of skin cancer.
In the end, we called on LEGO to support LEGO Surf Rescue and to approve the project to become an official LEGO set. As we are all aware, LEGO has done pretty well during this pandemic. There are some industries have actually thrived, and LEGO and the jigsaw puzzle industry would surely be some of them. I highlighted, in speaking to that motion, as did Mr Broadbent and Mr Thistlethwaite, that the goal of Aiden and his dad, Damien, was for this LEGO set to feature sun-smart Australian heroes wearing hats, sunglasses and sunscreen. They had an Australian beach with waves, surfboards, a sandcastle, lifesavers and a shark. This was iconically Australian. I was really delighted to have been given one of these prototypes, which I proudly displayed in the window of my suite in Parliament House and which my two daughters now play with.
Where I am getting to here is that this was submitted to the LEGO Ideas program, as I said. It received an enormous amount of supporters from around the globe. They managed to get to 10,000 supporters, the benchmark for official review. It was highlighted that, whilst Australia has some of the best weather, it also has the highest incidence of melanoma in the world.
This is where the story could have ended. But, on 11 February, just a couple of weeks ago, the story reappeared in the Sydney Morning Herald. What was highlighted here was, again, the story of 2017. So, nearly five years ago Damien began writing his will, organising his funeral, but he had had this positive experience with his son Aiden designing this LEGO set. I quote from the Herald article:
… Mr MacRae was astonished to learn last week that Lego had released onto the market its own Beach Lifeguard Station, including many of the features that were previously unique to the MacRae designs. It even had a rock pool, though the marine inhabitants included a turtle instead of a starfish.
Unlike the MacRae design, nobody was wearing a hat or sunscreen.
Damien is quoted in this article:
"As soon as I saw it I thought, that's not an exact copy, but it's clearly influenced by what Aiden and I had done," …
"They call it a lifeguard station but everything in it is basically how we presented the office, with binoculars, computer, maps and they've replaced the sunscreen with a bottle."
I don't know if LEGO is aware, but, as the article states:
Mr MacRae is an intellectual property lawyer, so he knows that it is not illegal to steal an idea and that the set is sufficiently different to avoid a copyright claim.
Again, Mr MacRae is quoted:
"This is how you would do it to avoid copyright infringement. You just tweak it a little bit. But it's not a good look, ethically."
I couldn't agree more with Damien. I couldn't agree more with the sentiment that was behind his original project with Aiden. As I said, I moved the motion in the House of Representatives and it was supported in a bipartisan manner, which really gave heart to Damien and Aiden that this was something that was really positive coming out of the parliament. I also pointed out that the global LEGO boss, Niels Christiansen, decided on behalf of the company not to go ahead with selling the LEGO kit due to some design issues. So Damien and Aiden revised the design and resubmitted it just late last year. It was knocked back again. But, as I said, it's just been revealed that LEGO has released its own beach lifeguard station.
It appears that, whilst LEGO is denying it—I take this from media reports; it's not directly from LEGO—it has copied the surf rescue project design. My questions to the LEGO Group are: Is this ethical? Is this moral? Is it a good look for a company to, in all but definition, steal all but an idea from a then five-year-old and his cancer-stricken father?
I point out that LEGO's own website states—and I think I may even have quoted this in my motion five years ago—that the LEGO Group's key values include 'caring'. Is it an act of socially responsible caring to act in this way? I honestly don't think so. I think many other consumers would agree that it is quite unethical. I see that has been echoed by LEGO fans in Australia and around the world.
I note that LEGO has denied that it has copied the Surf Rescue design, but again I point out that ultimately this is about a person and his son who, at one of the most challenging times in his life, just wanted to help others. 'I didn't do this to make money. I just wanted to help others.' At that time, Damien MacRae was given three months to live, and he decided to spend that time with his son on something very practical to promote cancer advocacy and awareness of melanoma and the very real dangers to the millions of Australians exposed to this type of cancer. He recognised that, if you're old enough to play with Lego, you're old enough to learn about sun safety. I implore LEGO to do the right thing and to be good ethical citizens. As I said, Australia has one of the highest rates—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:26