Pursuant to standing order 17(a), I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable members for Macarthur, Bonner, Adelaide, Clark and Mayo to be members of the Speaker's panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate those members who've just been put on the Speaker's panel. I note that it is, I think, the first time ever that two members of the crossbench have been put on the Speaker's panel. I acknowledge the member for Clark and the member for Mayo. It's a significant change and one that I think very much has the support of the House.
I move:
That standing orders 1, 2, 29, 34, 47, 55, 82, 83, 84, 85, 100 and 133 be amended, standing order 50A be adopted, and sessional order 65A be adopted for the remainder of the session, as follows:
1 Maximum speaking times
The maximum time limits that apply to debates, speeches and statements are as follows.
2 Definitions
Private Member means a Member other than the Speaker or a Minister. Crossbench Member means a Member who is neither a government Member nor an opposition Member.
29 Set meeting and adjournment times
(a) The House shall meet each year in accordance with the program of sittings for that year agreed to by the House, unless otherwise ordered and subject to standing order 30.
(b) When the House is sitting it shall meet and adjourn at the following times, subject to standing orders 30, 31 and 32:
Figure 2. House order of business
47 Motions for suspension of orders
(a) A Member may move, with or without notice, the suspension of any standing or other order of the House.
(b) If a suspension motion is moved on notice, it shall appear on the Notice Paper and may be carried by a majority of votes.
(c) If a suspension motion is moved without notice it:
(i) must be relevant to any business under discussion and seconded; and
(ii) can be carried only by an absolute majority of Members, or by a majority of Members present if agreed by the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business.
(d) Any suspension of orders shall be limited to the particular purpose of the suspension.
(e) If a motion for the suspension of orders is moved during Question Time, after the terms of the motion have been proposed by the mover, a Minister may require that further proceedings in relation to the motion take place at a later hour, as set down by the Minister.
50a Statements on significant matters
(a) A Minister may give notice of his or her intention to make a statement on a significant matter and deliver it in writing to the Clerk at the Table.
(b) The notice shall specify the day proposed for making the statement and must be signed by the Minister.
(c) Statements on significant matters may be made after prayers on a Wednesday or Thursday.
(d) After a Minister has made a statement on a significant matter, the House shall be deemed to have granted leave for the Leader of the Opposition, or Member representing, to speak on the same matter for an equal amount of time.
55 Lack of quorum
(a) When the attention of the Speaker is drawn to the state of the House and the Speaker observes that a quorum is not present, the Speaker shall count the Members present in accordance with standing order 56.
(b) On Mondays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House between 10 am and 12 noon, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House at 12 noon, if the Member then so desires.
(c) On Tuesdays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House prior to 2 pm, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House after the discussion of the matter of public importance, if the Member then so desires.
(d) On Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House at the first opportunity the next sitting day, if the Member then so desires.
(e) If a quorum is in fact present when a Member draws attention to the state of the House, the Speaker may name the Member in accordance with standing order 94(b) (sanctions against disorderly conduct).
Debate of urgent matters
82 Urgent bills
(a) A Minister may declare one or more bills to be urgent at any time.
(b) When one or more bills are declared urgent, the question—
That the bill[s] be considered urgent
must be put immediately and resolved without amendment or debate.
(c) If the question is agreed to, proceedings on the bill[s] shall follow standing order 85 (proceedings on urgent bills).
83 * * *
84 * * *
85 Proceedings on urgent bills
(a) If one or more bills have been declared urgent, the provisions of standing order 31 will not apply and a single second reading debate on the bill[s] may continue from 7.30 pm until 10 pm that sitting, or earlier if no further Members rise to speak, at which time the Speaker shall interrupt the debate and immediately adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting.
(b) After prayers on the next sitting, each bill will be considered in turn. The question on any second reading amendment and the question on the second reading shall be put without further amendment or debate.
(c) If the second reading of a bill is agreed to and any message from the Governor-General announced, the bill then to be taken as a whole during consideration in detail, if required, without debate, with any government amendments to the bill which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved together, any opposition amendments which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved together, and any amendments by crossbench Members which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved as one set per Member, with:
(i) one question to be put on all the government amendments;
(ii) one question then to be put on all opposition amendments;
(iii) separate questions then to be put on any sets of amendments circulated by crossbench Members; and
(iv) any further questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put without delay.
(d) Standing order 81, providing for the closure of a question, shall not apply to any proceedings to which this standing order applies.
(e) Any division called for during the second reading debate from 7.30 pm until 10 pm that sitting shall be deferred until the first opportunity the next sitting day, except for a division called on a motion by a Minister during this period, and, if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker shall announce that he or she will count the House at the first opportunity the next sitting day if the Member then desires.
100 Rules for questions
The following general rules apply to all questions:
(a) Questions must not be debated.
(b) A question fully answered must not be asked again.
(c) For questions regarding persons:
(i) questions must not reflect on or be critical of the character or conduct of a Member, a Senator, the Queen, the Governor-General, a State Governor, or a member of the judiciary: their conduct may only be challenged on a substantive motion; and
(ii) questions critical of the character or conduct of other persons must be in writing.
(d) Questions must not contain:
(i) statements of facts or names of persons, unless they can be authenticated and are strictly necessary to make the question intelligible;
(ii) arguments;
(iii) inferences;
(iv) imputations;
(v) insults;
(vi) ironical expressions; or
(vii) hypothetical matter.
(e) Questions must not refer to debates in the current session, or to proceedings of a committee not reported to the House.
(f) The duration of each question is limited to 30 seconds.
133 Deferred divisi ons on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays
(a) On Mondays, any division called for between the hours of 10 am and 12 noon shall be deferred until 12 noon, except for a division called on a motion moved by a Minister during this period.
(b) On Tuesdays, any division called for prior to 2 pm shall be deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance, except for a division called on a motion moved by a Minister during this period.
(c) On Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, any division called for between the hours of 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm shall be deferred until the first opportunity the next sitting day, except for a division called on a motion moved by a Minister during this period.
(d) The Speaker shall put all questions on which a division has been deferred, successively and without amendment or further debate.
[and see standing order 85 in relation to urgent bills]
SESSIONAL ORDER
65a Opportunities for crossbench Members
Consistent with the principle that the call should alternate between government and non-government Members and to enable crossbench Members to receive the call in accordance with the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House:
(a) During Question Time, priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call on the fifth, thirteenth and twenty-first questions.
(b) During each period of Members' statements in the House, priority shall be given to at least two crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 43).
(c) During each period of Members' statements in the Federation Chamber on Mondays, priority shall be given to at least three crossbench Members seeking the call (standing order 43).
(d) During each 30 minute period of Members' constituency statements in the Federation Chamber, priority shall be given to at least one crossbench Member seeking the call (standing order 193).
(e) During the grievance debate in the Federation Chamber, every second Tuesday priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 192b).
(f) During the adjournment debate in the House, on Tuesdays and Thursdays priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 31).
(g) During the adjournment debate in the Federation Chamber, every second Thursday priority shall be given to a crossbench Member seeking the call as the first speaker (standing order 191).
(h) For the matter of public importance discussion, the Speaker shall have regard to the crossbench proportion of the non-government membership of the House in selecting matters proposed (standing order 46).
Every time we come together after an election, the incoming government reviews the standing orders. This time the context is different. This time, we have all had to deal with the issues that were raised in Set the standard, the report from Kate Jenkins. There are a couple of issues there that relate directly to decisions taken yesterday and, I hope, today by the House. The first is a recommendation about the sitting calendar, asking that school holidays be avoided at all times. With the different states, that's a complex thing to do, but we have done that with the sitting plan that was adopted yesterday. The second issue is how we get through the business we need to get through without doing the absurdly late nights, including the really extreme late nights, that we have sometimes had. How do we sort that out? People, including the people we work with, not just each other, have had to be here in working conditions that are neither healthy nor safe. How do we manage to sort that out but still get through all the business and minimise the number of times that we're gagging debate? All of that has been weighed up in what is in front of you. Change is always controversial—I'm not expecting anything different—but I want to explain how we've got to the recommendations that are in front of you.
The first thing is that, if the House agrees—and I reckon I'll do okay on this one particularly—each day from 6.30 pm there will be no further divisions or quorums. This has come principally from caucus members who've brought young families to parliament. Effectively, what they've had to do every afternoon until now is, when it's time for the child to get to bed, check with the whip as to whether or not they could get a pair on that particular day. I think we can be more decent than that, and the 6.30 pm rule means that, obviously, if you're on duty for your party or you're intending to make a speech, you can't make that unless you're here. But, if people have reason to leave at 6.30 pm, there will be no quorums and no divisions each day after that. And we will plan the program to be able to deal with that. The only time it would be different to that would be if there were a suspension of standing orders, and you'd get plenty of notice if something like that were going to happen. And, with the other standing orders you'll see, I'm trying to create a situation where we don't need to suspend standing orders, where we have other ways of effectively getting release valves on different pressures. That's in response to recommendation 27 of the Jenkins review.
The other thing is that today will be the last day on which we start at 9.30. On Wednesdays and Thursdays we will now have 9 am starts. One of the things that has gradually crept up is that there are often times where there are speeches that ought be given the dignity of the House, and the start of question time is the only avenue we have to be able to do that at the moment. So there'll be a new procedure, and we'll see how it goes. On Wednesday and Thursday mornings, ministers can put forward an issue—it may be that someone notable has passed away, for example, and you wouldn't normally have speeches at the beginning of question time, but, for the dignity of the House, it's appropriate that a reference be made. There would be a speech from each side, and then there would be the normal resolution sending it to the Federation Chamber, if more people want to be able to speak on that issue. These statements won't always happen, but when they happen they'll be on Wednesdays and Thursdays. And at all times from now on we will start at 9 am rather than 9.30 am on Wednesdays and Thursdays. So those are the statements on significant matters and the changes to sitting times.
The next issue is with respect to urgent bills. I've had some conversations this morning about some aspects of this, and I suspect there'll be some debate about it. I'm very keen to hear what members put forward, to see if we can find something that works for as many people as possible, but I'll leave that debate to take its course in a few moments. Up until now the only option that was available, realistically, when a government needed to get a bill across to the Senate was that the Leader of the House walked in here, having made a call, seconds before arriving, to the Manager of Opposition Business, and moved that the question be put. Then everybody who was on the speaking list from then on suddenly discovered their chance to speak had disappeared. Everybody who'd hoped to move an amendment found that their amendment wouldn't ever be moved and that the House wouldn't even get to determine it. That's been the only process that was available when a government needed to send something across to the Senate.
There have been arguments made back and forth, which I made when I was in a different job, as to whether a bill was, in fact, urgent, and no doubt those debates will still happen. But I want there to be another method that effectively allows us to acknowledge that there are times when something is urgent. I don't want the immediate cut-off of debate to be the only option in front of us. So, what I've put forward—and I understand there'll be further discussion on this during the debate—is a concept where the House will vote that a bill be declared urgent, so it will still be a decision of the House. Once it's declared urgent, speaking times go from 15 minutes down to 10. Previously we've asked people, 'Can you shorten your speeches?' and realistically not many of us are good at shortening our speeches unless the time limit changes.
A government member interjecting—
That's right. It's meant to be a limit, not a target, but we're all guilty on this one. So the time limit would immediately go from 15 minutes down to 10, and the second reading debate on the bill would continue until it was finished, up until 10 pm that night. You would only, obviously, stay past 6.30 if you were planning to make a speech, and, because of that, some people may well drop off the list. But at least it means that, instead of it being an immediate cut-off, with no-one getting a chance to speak after that, we would have a situation where as many people as possible would get to speak. So, instead of an immediate gag, it becomes an effective one, with shorter speaking times through to 10 pm that night. The procedure that would then happen is that we would do the votes the next morning.
In terms of how you vote on amendments, the voting proposal that I'm putting forward to the House is the same one that we used some years ago on climate bills. It was used when we were in office previously and it's been used on occasions since then by the previous government. The procedure is that amendments are voted on en bloc. Effectively, if there are government amendments, they're all voted on together. If there are opposition amendments, they're all voted on together. If there are crossbench amendments, you actually can't vote on all of them together. Because they're coming from different perspectives, they could interact in a way that becomes nonsensical. You need to deal with them separately, so that is what would happen the following morning. What I put forward is that those votes happen immediately after the second reading vote on the following morning, but I understand there will be discussion about that; let's see how that debate goes. That's the concept on urgent bills. It won't happen every time, but I'm trying to minimise the number of times that I walk in here and just say, 'We need it through straightaway,' and we're here for half an hour getting angry with each other, with no escape valve where people have had a final chance to make speeches and put their views on the record. I want people to be able to put their views on the record as much as possible.
We then go to the issues relating to question time. First of all, the 45-second rule that was there for crossbench is gone. Everyone goes to 30 seconds. There is one member not here, but the member who's not here does have the status of being the Father of the House, so there are normal nuances that apply there anyway. But all questions go back to 30 seconds, as it used to be. As with all speaking times, often the time will be much briefer than that, just as answers will often be briefer than the three minutes.
We need a new way to be able to deal with the order of who gets to ask questions. The way that it has worked for the last 10 years presumes a much smaller crossbench than we now have. So what I am proposing to the House—and I know this is controversial, because I've read the media comments—is that we go back to the ordinary process of starting with a non-government question, going to a government question and then just going back and forth, but within that there will be three questions that are designated for the crossbench. If more than one crossbencher jumps at a time, it's for the Speaker to judge who jumps first, but if that's organised then obviously it will just be whoever jumps. The standing orders describe where those numbers for crossbench questions are in the total number of questions. I think it's the fifth, 13th and 21st questions in question time. In terms of non-government questions, that effectively means the third question, the seventh question and the 11th question on the non-government side. That's part of the reason why the crossbench question has been pulled back from 45 seconds to 30. It used to be that you had no chance to follow up, whereas now there are later chances. I think the argument for the 45-second question is sort of fixed by having more crossbench questions.
We also have a sessional order here that deals with other forms of the House. In every form of the House—the number of questions, speaking times, the number of speeches for adjournment and things like that—there's nothing that comes out at exactly the percentage or proportion of the crossbench of the non-government benches, so effectively the number of questions in question time is actually a bit more than is proportionate for the size of the crossbench. In return, the number of adjournment speeches and other speeches falls a little bit below the proportion of the crossbench, and that's just because you can't get the percentages coming out in an exact form.
For question time, there is a new issue that we have to deal with, which is what happens when the opposition want—as from time to time they will—to be able to suspend standing orders during question time. Last term that never resulted in speeches being made. Certainly I can say it will sometimes now result in speeches being made, but not every time. You need to do the big dramatic build-up with production values to get that sense of urgency. But, if that happens, there will be times when we allow the debate to flow.
The problem has been that, even if the government of the day decides to not let the debate occur, that then results in a series of four or five divisions—on one occasion it was six or seven because it kept getting the procedure wrong—which effectively knocks out the rest of question time. If an opposition did that and knocked out only their own questions, it would be their own call, but now if they did that it would mean that the crossbench opportunity for later questions would also be knocked out. So I'm proposing a new procedure where there would be a third option. Instead of letting the debate flow or moving that the member be no longer heard, there will be a third option that simply says, 'I require that this motion be moved straight after question time, be moved at a later moment.' So the opportunity to make a speech will still happen, but it won't happen in a way that actually prevents the crossbench from being able to ask their questions. Although, from time to time, if we accept it and we move into the full debate, that will mean that other questions are lost, I want to make sure that that's not the only option in front of us.
So with all of that I hope I have explained both what will happen under what is proposed and is on the Notice Paperand the reasons for it. I'll start with what's behind all of this. I want us to have more debates. I want us to spend less time voting on whether or not we're allowed to debate and more time having the arguments that we are paid to come here and have. There will be moments when it is all agreement and nice—and that's fine—but I am not afraid of when there are moments of disagreement. The government wants that. Those opposite have been elected to represent their constituencies too. The crossbench have been elected to represent theirs. Under these proposals we will get a lot more time for people to be able to represent the people who sent them here than we have had for a very long time in this parliament. I commend the motion to the House.
The opposition has serious concerns with these changes to the standing orders, concerns that are only compounded by the fact that the Leader of the House is using his best reasonable voice. That should always put members of the House on notice. As the great Ronald Reagan said, 'Trust, but verify.' We're very concerned about proposed standing order 85 concerning urgent bills, we're very concerned about the reduction of opposition questions and we're very concerned about the way that this has been handled. With the text of the new standing order changes made available only very late last night, here we are, only some 12 hours later, debating these very detailed provisions. This is an extremely problematic way to proceed, particularly by a government that talks about a new kinder, gentler approach to politics. When we think about the furious protests we had from the Leader of the House on many occasions over the last nine years on these matters, this is really quite extraordinary behaviour.
Let's have a look at how proposed standing order 85 dealing with urgent bills would work. The first point to make is that, if standing order 85 is adopted, if a minister declares a bill to be urgent then that has to be voted on immediately by the parliament. There is no debate by the parliament. Under this proposed standing order a minister needs merely say, 'My bill is urgent'—newsflash: having being a minister, I know that ministers regard every bill as urgent—and then that means that the parliament must immediately vote on that proposition with no debate. The standing order as drafted says specifically there is to be no debate at that time about whether it's urgent or not. There are no criteria stated which need to be satisfied and there is no requirement for the House to turn its mind to whether it's urgent on the basis of reasoned debate—simply 'a minister said so'. And, once a bill is declared urgent—and, of course, with its numbers, the government can ram it through without debate—there is an automatic guillotine on the second reading debate at 10 pm that night. The next morning there is automatically a vote on the second reading amendments and a vote on the second reading of the bill itself. And, most concerningly, there are huge changes to the consideration in detail stage. The normal process is hugely condensed—indeed, effectively gutted.
Under the way it works today, consideration in detail is a very important process. An amendment is moved and there is debate on it. Any member of the House can speak for five minutes on an amendment—that can keep going—so there's an understanding of what is involved. Then you vote on the amendment. Then you move on to the next one. This is a detailed process, along with the process of the second reading debate, in which the merits of a proposition before the House are publicly debated and canvassed and considered. It's the House doing what it ought to do. But, under what the Leader of the House is proposing, these standing orders mean that, on the whim of a minister, executive government overrides the proper function of the House of Representatives as a mechanism of accountability and scrutiny. A bill is guillotined and there is no debate and there is no opportunity for the scrutiny that should properly be the role of this parliament. What is also not at all clear is the provision in the proposed standing orders which says that divisions will be deferred unless it's a division called on a motion by a minister, which means that the government and the crossbench can't have any confidence that a minister won't come in and simply move a motion.
This approach is quite staggering, coming from a government which talks, as it does, about a new approach to politics. We can look back at what the current Prime Minister has said on many occasions in this House. In 2015 he said:
The way that legislation has always operated is for there to be proper scrutiny from all sides of the House in order to assess what the real world implications are …
In 2019 he said:
That's why you have proper parliamentary procedure. It's so you actually have analysis and you improve legislation.
That's exactly the kind of thing that this mechanism will now prevent.
When the Leader of the House, in his best reasonable tone, sounding so innocent, was explaining what he is proposing here, he said that at the moment the way it works is that the Leader of the House comes in and 'there are arguments back and forth as to whether the bill is urgent'. There are arguments back and forth—the House doing its proper job. All that will be gone under the mechanism provided by the government, because a minister need merely declare a bill is urgent. We can have no assurance at all—we can take no comfort at all—in the fine words that this will be used rarely. There's nothing in this standing order which says it will be used rarely. It will be open to the government to do this on a daily basis, and the role of the House of Representatives becomes reduced to being a mere rubber stamp for executive government. The 'rubber stamp Reps' is what this government wants to turn the House of Representatives into. Indeed, with this standing order, we'll be right up there with the Russian Duma as a toothless legislative body, based upon what this government is proposing. This from a new Prime Minister who says he wants 'a new tone for politics'. Well, let's be very clear what this new tone for politics evidently means. It means ramming bills through rapidly with virtually no debate or scrutiny, and that is utterly at odds with the claim that the Prime Minister has been making.
We also have concerns in relation to the changes dealing with question time. Under these proposals, the opposition gets only eight questions. As the Leader of the House has just said, again in his most reasonable voice, question time is a bit more than is proportionate for the crossbench. That's an admission: it is less than proportionate for the opposition. Maybe that's based on high-minded motives, or maybe it's because he has a well-founded suspicion of where there is a capacity for deep and effective scrutiny from experienced shadow ministers, and he is very keen to minimise that scrutiny and accountability. The change in the rhetoric is quite extraordinary.
I make the point that the process has been completely disgraceful. There are many pages of detailed provisions which affect the working of this House and affect the way that we function as a people's house, as a forum for accountability and scrutiny, as a way that we hold a government to account, and as a way that we test legislation, improve it and offer helpful input. But, instead, what we've seen from this government are these lengthy provisions, dropped out very late last night, now being rammed through this morning, only some 12 hours later. It has been over two months since the election. There have been many, many weeks in which the government could have shared with the opposition and the crossbench the terms of these changes to standing orders. Frankly, the sheer conduct of this is a disgrace. But it is the content which is most troubling, in the way that it materially reduces the effectiveness of the work of the House of Representatives on the sheer say-so of a minister.
I acknowledge the Leader of the House in respect to this motion and the work that has gone into it, and the consultation with the crossbench in relation to these changes. It is a sign of positive engagement with the larger crossbench that consideration has been given to the proportion of the opposition that the crossbench now constitutes. That is reflected in the elements of this motion, in particular when it comes to question time and the amendment to standing order 65A, which is set out very clearly. On behalf of Warringah, I welcome the clarification of the opportunity for crossbench members to participate in this chamber. That is good.
On the element around decreased time for questions in question time, whilst I know there is some dispute about the reduction from 45 seconds to 30 seconds by the Father of the House, the clarity is welcomed around the procedure for when questions will be available, for the timing and for ensuring question time proceeds without as many disruptions as occurred in the last parliament. I should note that in fact it was the government whilst in opposition that often disrupted question time with suspensions of standing orders to make their point. It should be noted that disruption in the House has been caused by both major parties.
In relation to the motion, I have an amendment that I understand is being circulated. I move:
(1) Omit proposed standing order 85(c), substitute:
(c) If the second reading of a bill is agreed to and any message from the Governor-General announced, the bill then to be taken as a whole during consideration in detail, if required, with any detail amendments to be moved together and the mover to speak for a maximum of five minutes, without further debate, and any government amendments to the bill which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved together, any opposition amendments which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved together, and any amendments by crossbench Members which have been circulated to be treated as if they had been moved as one set per Member, with:
(i) one question to be put on all the government amendments;
(ii) one question then to be put on all opposition amendments;
(iii) separate questions then to be put on any sets of amendments circulated by crossbench Members; and
(iv) any further questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put without delay.
I understand that the member for Melbourne will second this amendment. In terms of the substance of this amendment, it addresses the concern that this decision to amend the standing orders for declaring bills urgent bills does in fact have the effect of curtailing the opportunity for consideration in detail amendments. That is not good. It goes against the purpose of this chamber to debate provisions of legislation. That consideration in detail stage is incredibly important.
In fact, in the last parliament when the environmental protection and biodiversity conservation bill was introduced I had circulated amendments, but the now opposition, when in government, chose to suspend the standing orders to curtail that period of debate, to jump across the third reading stage and consideration in detail and to go straight to a vote. I argued at the time that it was incredibly undemocratic in curtailing the purpose of this House. There are concerns about the lack of definition from the government in this motion as to what constitutes an urgent matter. It is taken at the moment from the Manager of Government Business's comments that these are urgent issues of national significance. I would request that greater specificity of urgent matters be provided by way of undertaking.
This amendment provides that consideration in detail is not done away with when matters are considered urgent. Unlike the old procedure of suspending standing orders, it means we retain the ability to move consideration in detail amendments. Debate will simply be curtailed, and opposition members and members of the crossbench must move amendments as a block and have a limit of five minutes speaking time on those amendments. I think that is a fair compromise between urgency of a matter needing to proceed through the House to get to the other place and respecting the purpose of this place, which is that we debate legitimately the effect of a bill and are able to put consideration in detail amendments.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. In considering our position on this set of changes to the standing orders being put forward, one of the things we have to consider is: what is the counterfactual? What happens if this change is not passed? What would the standing orders otherwise provide for matters that the government considers urgent? This is where the opposition's argument is pretty disingenuous, if I can use a parliamentary term. What the standing orders provide if these amendments fail is that the government can come in and move that the question be put, and bang, we vote on it. Everyone who's on the speaking list would fall away, and if you were waiting to move amendments in the second reading stage, you would lose your chance to do that. When that happens, as in previous parliaments—and, I have to say, I lost count of the number of times we were ready to move amendments or give second reading speeches, and the people who are now sitting on the opposition benches came in and just said, 'Right, time's up; we're moving on'—we lose the right to even have a say, and we lose the right to explain why we're moving amendments.
Whilst I share a lot of the concerns about this proposal's potential for abuse, at least it gives a chance that we might be able to have a say in the second reading debate. If the amendment is accepted, it also gives us a chance to move our amendments and explain why we're moving those amendments, and then there will be a vote on that. That's not perfect, because when governments come in, as the last coalition government did, and say, 'I move that the question be put', nine times out of ten—if not more—you find the crossbenchers saying, 'No, we're going to oppose that.' I suspect that one of the things this will do is kick the can a bit further up the chain, and you might find people saying, 'Perhaps that bill is urgent, but I'm not going to vote that it's urgent, because I might lose my slot.' There's still going to be that fight. But, because it probably leaves open a slightly greater window for us to be able to have a say than we might otherwise have had—as we found out during the coalition—there's some merit in it.
I want to say two things. Firstly, it will not be guaranteed that everyone gets to have a say. There's still only until 10 pm the night before. Whilst the shortening of the speeches to 10 minutes increases the chance that everyone will get to have a go, given that we're now in a situation where there are lots of crossbenchers coming from different parts of the country and different parts of the political spectrum, who are not in a position on the government or the opposition, where one speaker could put their respective side, I would hope that, firstly, this is never used during the course of this parliament, but, if it is used, there's an understanding that that should not be at the cost of crossbenchers, who don't get a chance to put their position on the record. That's probably not something that can be built into the standing orders right now, given that we're debating these very quickly, but I hope that's something that the government and the opposition take on notice.
If we are going to be moving to this situation where there is now a limited time to speak—albeit with more speaking opportunities than if there were a gag, which is why, on balance, this is better than just moving that the question be put—there has to be some understanding that that should not come at the expense of the crossbench, especially Independents, who will each want to put their own independent position about things and may not have the chance to do that if the speaking list cuts off at 10 o'clock and they are the ones who fall behind. I speak on behalf of the Greens. I don't know if I speak on behalf of others on the crossbench; I expect I might speak on behalf of at least some. I place that there squarely now, because I think that is going to be critical to determining whether this is ultimately used in a successful way or in a way that truncates debate.
Secondly, I support the amendment moved by the member for Warringah because, otherwise, you'd have moved your amendments but, if you hadn't got the chance to speak during the second reading speech, you wouldn't have had a chance to explain why you're moving those amendments. Even though we may not get to have a debate about it, which is unfortunate, the ability to, at a minimum, say, 'This is why I want to move the amendments,' is better than what would happen if we don't pass this. Because if we don't pass this all that happens is the question is put. To that extent, I support that amendment from the member for Warringah.
It merited about 20 seconds of the Manager of Opposition Business's speech, and it came at about the eight-minute mark, but I think the opposition's real concern is that the crossbench is now going to get more questions, in recognition of the voice we have in this parliament. To that extent, we welcome the move from the government to recognise that this parliament—chosen by the Australian people—is a very different-looking parliament than we have seen before and one where crossbenchers representing different parts of the political spectrum and different parts of the country have a guaranteed right to ask questions. We should have a guaranteed right to ask questions. Question time is a critical place to hold the government to account, and one of the very clear messages from the last election is that there are other voices that want to be heard in holding the government to account and to have their issues aired. To that extent—and I appreciate that the government is moving these as a block, which I know will cause the opposition some concern—that just reflects the numbers in this parliament. All it does is it reflects the numbers in this parliament. Many people on the crossbench have sat through parliaments where our ability to interrogate the government and to have the issues that matter—not just to our constituency, but to people who voted for alternative voices right across the country—has been curtailed in the past. We have not had the opportunity in previous parliaments to ask the kinds of questions of the government that we need and to that extent I support the thrust of what is being done here, but I ask the government to take those concerns that we've raised on notice.
I'll start by saying something positive. I applaud the government for being open to amending standing orders to better reflect the numbers in this House. It is an undeniable fact that about a third of people who cast a vote in May cast their primary vote for someone other than the Labor Party or the Liberal and National parties, so I think these standing orders go some very positive way to reflecting that in the parliament, in particular with things such as questions. I would hope that with all the other areas of parliamentary business we also have our fair share of the action, so to speak.
I would also like to applaud the government for their oral undertaking this morning to further amend the matter of urgent motions to make it more workable and fairer. I think the member for Warringah has done a sterling job by getting that amendment sorted very, very quickly and I support it. If the amendment is in fact carried by the House that will go some considerable way to fixing the problems we're identifying with dealing with urgent motions and matters before the House.
I would like to take this opportunity to say I still have some outstanding concerns about how we go about dealing with urgent matters. Of course there will be urgent matters, for example, national security—perhaps some very urgent legislation to do with counterterrorism measures. Of course, there will be genuinely urgent matters. But I think it is very, very important, perhaps even more important now with this proposed amendment to standing orders, that the government—the minister or the Prime Minister or the manager of the House—comes in and makes the case for it being an urgent matter. I think it should be enshrined in the standing orders that someone from the government will always come in here and make the case and explain why something is urgent and not just simply walk in and declare something urgent. I think that will give some comfort to all members of the House.
I'm also still concerned about the amount of time for honourable members to contribute to debate. Debate will finish at 10 pm on the night of the day that something is declared urgent. It will finish at 10 pm no matter what. Even with the reduced speaking slots of 10 minutes that means there will almost certainly be some honourable members who will not get an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I see no reason why we can't be prepared to sit after 10 pm if the matter is genuinely attracting that sort of level of interest from members and other people want to speak. Sure, we should make this place more user-friendly but it should not be at the expense of this place operating properly. When something is urgent almost by definition it's a big deal. Maybe we need to sit after 10 pm and not be more concerned about getting back to a hotel for a bit of kip.
I'd also make the point that while the change which is contained within the member for Warringah's amendment—that anyone moving an amendment will be given five minutes to speak to that amendment—is good, I still think it's lamentable that other members won't be allowed to contribute to a debate about that amendment, or, in fact, to speak about matters more broadly and the bill before the House. I would ask that consideration be given on a few things: (1) that the standing orders include a mandatory requirement for an appropriate member of the government to make the case for why something is urgent. Furthermore, that somehow there be some open-mindedness in the standing orders that we might need to sit after 10 pm, and also that the matter be reviewed with an open mind to allowing other members to contribute during the third reading debate—presumably, the following morning. I would warn the government that if this change to standing orders is misused in any way, if the new government starts declaring things urgent that are not genuinely urgent, then it will stand accused of being just an echo of the previous government, which all too often—all too often!—would gag debate to bring matters on when they weren't urgent at all.
I would also take this opportunity to make the point that this idea that there won't be divisions after 6.30, unless a division is called by a minister—I think I have that right—is flawed. Particularly for us on the crossbench, how can we be sure that a minister won't walk in here and put the question unexpectedly on some matter which we might want to call a division on? Sure the division might be deferred, but we may not be here in the House to call a division that will be deferred to the next day anyway. So while that 6.30 rule is good in principle, while it's attractive at first blush, I think it is flawed in some ways, particularly as far as the crossbench goes.
The other point I would make, while I have the opportunity, is I received these amendments at approximately 8.30 this morning. I don't know what happened. I understand the opposition received them yesterday afternoon, as they should have. But what I saw this morning, on the first day of substantive business in this House, was a repeat of something that happened time and time again for the last nine years, which the then opposition railed against, the crossbench railed against and I'm railing against now. It's not good enough. We can't be given one hour to have a quick look at something and then come in here and debate it, and perhaps to divide on it. It's not how this place should work. We all know that. So let's hope it was a little administrative slip-up this morning and it doesn't happen again.
Mr Speaker, congratulations on your appointment as Speaker. I won't speak for too long in the House this morning, but I do have a couple of concerns. Largely the government amendments proposed to the standing orders have merit; however, I echo the comments by the member for Clark that we only received these this morning, which is deeply disappointing.
I would like to go to the matter of urgent bills, and some of these comments have been made by honourable members before me. I'm concerned that a minister is able to come into this place, declare something urgent and then the whole situation changes and the capacity for all of us to speak is somewhat limited. Some of us will not have the opportunity. I think that a minister, if they intend for this to be an urgent bill, should have to prosecute that argument to us.
This is my third parliament; I'm very fortunate to be returned. I do remember the previous government coming in, gagging debate and then supposedly urgent bills languishing between here and the Senate. In many cases they were never even debated or voted on in the Senate. What that did was diminish the role of all of us here. All of us have a right to speak on every piece of legislation on behalf of our communities in this place.
I do appreciate what the government is trying to do here, but I would make a couple of points. Firstly, that the minister should prosecute why it is an urgent bill. The gagging of the EPBC Act in the previous parliament showed that it wasn't an urgent bill because the bill never went anywhere in the Senate. There were members who had put forward some very good amendments who didn't even have the opportunity to prosecute their cases with respect to those amendments.
The other point I would make is that if something is considered an urgent bill and is something that would naturally be passed by the government, having the majority of votes in here, then the government members as a whole should forgo their place on the speaking list to allow the time to be given to those on the crossbench and the opposition. If it is so urgent, then just one of you should be able to speak for all of you. Otherwise, we could have a case where the government then fills their speaking spot and we're taken up to 10 pm, largely with the government all repeating each other's words. I would argue that, in those two cases, that would be somewhat of a compromise with respect to this matter.
Moreover, I would like to say to the government, thank you for many of the amendments in here, particularly recognising the size and diversity of the crossbench—for us to have our questions. But I am particularly concerned with respect to how urgent bills are declared—that it could be open for abuse; essentially every bill could be urgent in the eyes of this government, and we don't want to see that in this parliament.
Thanks to everybody for the contributions to this debate. I'm going to do something that hasn't happened in this House for a while—I'm actually going to respond to them and go through the different issues, which isn't how we've worked for a while.
First of all, with respect to the issue of when the motion is moved, before it being moved—the minister giving reasons and making the case to the House—the minister overwhelmingly will be me, and I'm very happy to give that undertaking to the House. So, I hear that point.
Opposition members interjecting—
And I hear those opposite interjecting. Don't forget that up until now all that's happened is that the entire justification has been the words 'that the question be put'. That's the entire justification that we've had. Everything in front of us now is a significant improvement on where we've been for a very long time. But I'm happy to give that undertaking.
The member for Clark also raised the 10 pm finish time. I will tell you that I originally had it unlimited when I started consultation with the crossbench on this issue and the Jenkins issues were raised with me, and the concerns about that. That's why we've landed at 10 pm. I'm just very conscious that we start taking as much heed of that report as possible, and let's see how we go. But I'm very hopeful about the 10 pm cut-off—I wanted a process that meant everyone could have their speeches, and hopefully overwhelmingly that is what will happen. You usually find in these situations that you get fewer government members; I don't think it's reasonable to expect none, but you usually do find that you get fewer government members in these situations. That's the story behind how the 10 pm cut-off came into the standing orders.
In terms of the amendment from the member for Warringah, I hear the arguments that have been made. It's not my starting point, to be honest, because I'd like to think that when we get to the next morning we just have all of the votes. But I do believe that a reasonable case has been made in the speeches that have come from the crossbench about making sure that at least the mover gets to speak. Effectively the full in-detail stage, if we had that, can go for as long as people want to keep jumping, because everyone gets more than one speech, and then we're undoing the concept of something being urgent. So, in the terms in which the amendment is being moved, I'm happy to indicate that the government will be voting in favour of that amendment.
I would also say that the added advantage of the amendment is that there will be a reporting to the House of what people are about to vote on. Given that last term we had two occasions where ministers gave speeches on the wrong bill, I think that having people being reminded of what they're about to vote on by the mover, giving the reasons, is a pretty healthy thing for the House.
An honourable member interjecting—
They rewarded him with the Treasury portfolio!
Going to the comments that were made in the debate by Manager of Opposition Business: wow! Men in Black ends with that 'Neuralyzer' thing, which lets you forget the entire movie! You didn't have the sunglasses on, clearly, because the entire nine years apparently didn't happen: the entire nine years of coming in, steamrolling debate, stopping people—with the speaking list cutting off immediately and with no-one being allowed to move any amendments whatsoever—so that a bill could then be sent to the Senate and never brought on for debate there. That was the way this place ran. So I can understand why the Manager of Opposition Business is becoming passionate about this—'How dare the situation improve in terms of debate!'—because it is about to improve. That's what these standing order changes will do.
He said, 'There'll be no debate in the House about whether or not it's urgent.' Let's just unpack that. First of all, he's saying he wants a situation where we decide something's urgent, spend an hour deciding whether or not it's urgent and, as a result of that, take an hour of debate away from the bill that the House decided is urgent. On the second thing he's suggesting there, in saying there'll be no debate on whether it's urgent—how much debate do you reckon there is when you move that the question be put? How much debate happens then? The mover doesn't give a reason; no-one's allowed to say a word, under standing orders; and then the entire debate on the bill stops. But apparently that was fine for all that time. What happens to the in-detail process? 'Oh, there won't be enough argument on the in-detail process.' There used to be none! That was how you ran the parliament. This stopped being a debating chamber. This stopped being a situation where the arguments would go back and forth—and, can I say, this length of debate on standing orders was never allowed to happen either, because by now you would have moved that the question be put! That's what would have happened.
And then he raised opposition questions. How outrageous is it that, if there are more people on the crossbench, they get more questions. Part of what he said was that I'd made an admission, where I'd said that, in proportion, it's a bit more than the exact percentage of the crossbench. I'd like to know—you can let us know—exactly how do you give the crossbench 21.62 per cent of questions? Exactly how do you do that without rounding? It's an interesting argument. I'm on to discovering how you can do that. If there's a formula you've come up with, where you take away the number you first thought of and there's an answer to it, then we can look at that at a later time. Of course, it was always going to involve rounding, and what he's really saying is that rounding up is outrageous but that rounding down would have been fine. That's exactly what he's saying here. There's no objection to any of the areas in the sessional order where the opposition gets more than its proportion of speeches, on the non-government benches, but there's outrage about questions being rounded in any way.
But I am pleased to hear that apparently we are terrified of the high quality of their questions. Just hold this thought for 2.00 pm today, because apparently by three o'clock the government will have been destroyed. It's all going to be over and it's all on the Manager of Opposition Business. That's great expectation setting, and I'm glad he's done that, but the expectations for this House have been set in a bad way for nine years. For nine years this stopped being a debating chamber. Standing orders will always be imperfect, because you're dealing with what the rules will be for debates that have not yet occurred. They'll always be imperfect. But what I can guarantee is that what's in front of us now is so much better than nine years of spending hour after hour in here voting on whether or not people were allowed to talk. That's what happened. It wasn't fair in terms of this being a debating chamber, and it certainly wasn't fair on the millions of Australians who hadn't voted for the Liberal or National parties. So now, yes, there's going to be debate, and there'll be times when the opposition make speeches that I won't particularly enjoy hearing—that's fine. That's the way this place is meant to work. I commend both the amendment and the resolution to the House.
The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister;
(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:
(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and
(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House;
(3) the committee consist of 11 members, four Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by any minority group or independent Member, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may be appointed to the committee as a substitute for a member of the committee, in respect of a particular matter or matters;
(5) substitute members have all the rights of committee members in relation to the matters for which they have been substituted;
(6) every nomination of a member, or substitute member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(7) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(8) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(9) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(10) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;
(11) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(12) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(13) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(14) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(15) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(17) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the House of Representatives Standing Committees on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs appointed during previous Parliaments;
(18) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(19) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) the Selection Committee:
(a) meeting on or after today, if necessary by teleconference, to determine the order of consideration of matters and the times allotted for debate on each item and for each Member speaking, for private Members' business and committee and delegation business, for Monday 1 August 2022;
(b) communicating its determinations to Members prior to that Monday; and
(c) reporting its determinations to the House following Prayers on Monday 1 August 2022;
(2) the Selection Committee's determinations being shown in the Notice Paper for that Monday under 'Business Accorded Priority' for the House and Federation Chamber; and
(3) in the absence of a fully constituted Selection Committee, the arrangements for private Members' business for Monday 1 August 2022 provided for in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this resolution being determined by the Speaker, Chief Government Whip and Chief Opposition Whip and reports of such determinations being treated as having been adopted by the House when they are presented.
Question agreed to.
Deputy Speaker Claydon, I congratulate you on your election to office. It was a fantastic election result. I present the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022 and the explanatory memorandum to this bill and the Jobs and Skills Australia (National Skills Commissioner Repeal) Bill 2022.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I'm honoured to be introducing the government's first bill, by introducing the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022. This bill delivers on the government's commitment to establish Jobs and Skills Australia as an independent body to provide advice on the skills and training needs of workers and employers now and in the future. This bill is a priority because skills and labour shortages have become increasingly critical in many sectors of the economy. The advice of Jobs and Skills Australia will help ensure that the economy is not held back by these shortages.
It will help guide a skills and training sector that will provide workers with choices and opportunities for secure employment because they have the right skills.
Jobs and Skills Australia will have an important role in strengthening Australia's economy by providing crucial workforce planning functions. It will undertake the workforce forecasting and prepare capacity studies for new and emerging industries and contribute to the planning for a pipeline of skilled workers.
One of the biggest challenges facing Australian employers across many sectors right now is that they are struggling to find workers with the skills needed to ensure that their enterprises are fully operational.
Skill shortages have been made worse by the pandemic, especially with the reduced skilled migration and the lack of support for temporary migrant workers during the COVID lockdowns.
The number of businesses unable to fill job vacancies is growing and is expected to dampen economic growth. In February 2022 the recruitment difficulty rate for higher skilled occupations was sitting at 67 per cent.
Australian communities are all too familiar with skills and workforce shortages in critical areas such as aged care, disability care and the childcare sectors.
The absence of planning and lack of coordinated national response to skills and labour shortages in the past 10 years have contributed to the crisis facing some sectors.
The government intends to restore tripartite cooperation and is determined that the trend over the past decade towards more insecure and low-paid and unskilled work is addressed.
Innovative sectors of our economy have also been held back by the lack of policy leadership and planning. To succeed, our emerging industries in advanced manufacturing, technology and clean energy—all critical to tackling climate change—require an increase in the supply of highly specialised skills.
These challenges for emerging industries are being experienced against a backdrop of an already-tight labour market and supply chain and related economic challenges.
The bill provides the first stage of establishing Jobs and Skills Australia and identifies the initial functions and structure of the organisation. The bill establishes an interim Jobs and Skills Australia director to commence the important work needed now and who will lead Jobs and Skills Australia through its initial establishment and the performance of its initial set of functions. To support its formation, the agency will be situated within the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations.
From inception, Jobs and Skills Australia will give effect to the government's commitment to a tripartite approach. In exercising its functions, Jobs and Skills Australia will be required to be inclusive and to genuinely consult and to work with state and territory governments and other key stakeholders.
Jobs and Skills Australia will be able to provide research, data and analysis to inform policies that boost workforce participation. Its advice will help improve workforce participation outcomes for women, Indigenous workers, older workers, workers with disabilities and other vulnerable groups.
The vocational education and training sector is a key pillar of our tertiary system and trains nearly four million Australians annually. Many of our vital industries facing critical skills shortages are reliant on our VET sector to provide a skilled workforce.
Jobs and Skills Australia will have a remit to advise on the adequacy of the VET sector and to consider the adequacies of outcomes for students engaged in training.
In the coming months, informed by the outcomes of the Jobs and Skills Summit in September this year, the government will consult industry and employer bodies, unions, education and training providers, state and territory governments and others to determine the next stage of implementing Jobs and Skills Australia, its scope, its structure and its governance.
This consultative approach will ensure that all stakeholders with an interest in skills and training benefit from the creation of Jobs and Skills Australia. Taking into consideration what we have heard, the government will introduce further legislation that sets out the full range of functions, structure and governance arrangements to establish the permanent model.
Conclusion
The advice of Jobs and Skills Australia will help build a bigger, better-trained workforce and a more productive economy.
This government supports the aspirations of all workers for secure and meaningful work, and a better future for themselves and their families.
We understand work isn't just about your pay packet. With work comes purpose and identity.
Australians who have the right skills have more job security and more job choices.
A skilled workforce is also a more productive workforce.
Learning new skills, acquiring knowledge and cultivating innovation is key to opportunity, wage growth and job security for workers, and to increasing productivity and revenue for industries.
The government understands immediate action is needed to address critical skill shortages.
Core business of this government is to create opportunities for Australians to prosper. That is why an expeditious creation of Jobs and Skills Australia is a priority for the government.
I commend this bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I'm introducing the Jobs and Skills Australia (National Skills Commissioner Repeal) Bill 2022.
This bill repeals the National Skills Commissioner Act 2020. The National Skills Commissioner has performed an important advisory function since the office was established in 2020.
However, to address the economic challenges facing Australia, we need a more strategic focus on our future workforce and skill needs now and into the future. We need genuine cooperation and collaboration amongst industry, employers, unions, state and territory governments, education and training providers, and others.
The creation of Jobs and Skills Australia will contribute to ensuring we deliver on this important goal, and repealing the National Skills Commissioner Act is a necessary part of the pathway forward.
I commend this bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It's no accident that one of the first pieces of legislation introduced by the Albanese government in the 47th Parliament is in response to one of the most urgent and pressing issues of our time—climate change.
For too long, too much time has been devoted in the newspaper columns of this country and in this place to fighting the 'climate wars'. The political infighting has seen Australia not just pause progress but go backwards, to miss the economic and jobs opportunities that come from real action on climate change.
This bill represents an opportunity for this parliament and for our country.
An opportunity to send the message at home and abroad.
Not only does Australia have a government that is getting on with the job of providing a coherent policy to accelerate investment in renewable energy, transmission and storage.
But we have a parliament that is getting on with the job as well.
This legislation is important not so much because of what it obliges governments and ministers to do, although there are significant elements of that in the bill.
But more because of the message of stable, clear, coherent and necessary policy it sends to the private sector, to private investors, when it comes to investing in renewable energy, that Australia is open for business and raring to go.
It sends a message that Australia is back as a good international citizen.
It sends a message that Australia now has a government and a parliament that wants Australia to be a renewable energy powerhouse.
The passage of this bill will be important for the message it sends:
The Albanese government's introduction of this legislation at the first opportunity also signals that we are done talking. The time for action is now.
Now we know this legislation is not the end of the work—far from it. It is simply the beginning. The real task lies in the implementation and achievement of the goals we are outlining today.
This bill is simple. Simple, yet powerful.
The bill is a solid foundation, setting clearly and firmly, in Australian law, our emissions reduction ambitions. It holds the government of the day properly accountable to the Australian parliament and the Australian people, on how it measures up to those ambitions, and how it is addressing this fundamental issue.
Firstly, the bill sets out the 2030 and 2050 emissions reduction targets, with the 2030 target of a 43 per cent emissions reduction against 2005 levels. The Powering Australia policy platform we took to the Australian people promised a 43 per cent reduction, and the policies included in that document underpin that emissions reduction. It represents an ambitious—but also achievable—goal.
I want to make an important point to the House—43 per cent is not a limit on our emissions ambition. On the contrary, as we've said repeatedly, we see 43 per cent as a floor on what our country can achieve.
We said it in our nationally determined contribution that we've already sent the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: it is our hope that our commitments and the commitments of industry, states and territories and local government will yield even greater emissions reductions in the coming decade and into the future.
I also want to make this point: 2030 is 89 months away. We do not have long to achieve these goals. We have been waiting too long, and now is the time to get on with it.
Secondly, the bill provides that the minister responsible for climate change will give an annual climate change statement to parliament.
The annual climate change statement will be tabled in parliament and will include an update on Australia's progress towards meeting those emission reduction targets, as well as on climate change policy and relevant international developments.
Thirdly, a restored Climate Change Authority will provide the minister with independent, expert advice on that annual statement—and that advice will be published in an open and transparent way.
This will ensure ongoing transparency and accountability on these matters of international significance.
The Australian community will be able to see what the independent authority thinks about the effectiveness of Australia's climate change policy, and how it is tracking towards achieving our targets.
Finally, the Climate Change Authority will provide advice on any new or updated emission reduction targets to be communicated to the UN under the Paris Agreement—and that advice will also be published. That advice will be given to the government at least once every five years.
The Climate Change Authority's advice will provide an independent, expert, authoritative assessment of Australia's contribution to global action. The Climate Change Authority will consult on the advice that it gives to government on targets, which will mean that the Australian community will be able to contribute to that advice, and it will provide an independent, expert assessment of Australia's proper contribution to global action.
The bill will be accompanied and complemented by the Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill, which will draw upon this bill to embed emission reduction targets into the objectives and functions of a range of government entities and schemes.
These are programs and agencies that are already achieving results in response to climate change. Inclusion of the targets in their functions and objects will provide an additional focus to their work, ensuring that we're all pulling in the same direction.
The bill lays the crucial foundation, upon which the policies and measures to come will be built. These policies include Rewiring the Nation, an enhanced safeguard mechanism, and Australia's first-ever electric vehicle strategy, that the Albanese government will deliver—all crucial building blocks for Australia's transition to net zero.
While the commitment to reach net zero by 2050 is a key target to be legislated by this bill, the Australian people gave us a mandate for a more meaningful 2030 target, which we have now already committed to achieve under the Paris Agreement.
I'd like to acknowledge the spirit of constructive engagement on this bill from the crossbenches of both this House and the other place.
We've been very clear: a sensible government will consult across the parliament and take on board sensible suggestions in keeping with our mandate. That has been and will continue to be our approach.
Not everyone in this House has indicated a willingness to participate in that process.
Some have indicated they will simply oppose the bill, indicating that they don't accept the message from the Australian people sent on 21 May that the time for action on climate is now.
This is disappointing.
It's also disappointing to the Australian business community, who've indicated very strongly that passing this legislation is important for business certainty.
Both the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have urged bipartisan support for the approach and targets adopted in the bill before us today.
BCA chief executive, Jennifer Westacott, said corporate Australia did not want a 'divisive parliamentary debate over the target', while ACCI chief executive Andrew McKellar said, 'The best way to promote the planning and innovation that will underlie an efficient energy transition is through legislated bipartisan support.'
But some people in this House think they know more about business than the Business Council and more about commerce than the Australian chamber of commerce.
The opposition had a choice: they could vote for progress or choose to peddle the same, discredited scare campaigns they have peddled for the last two decades. They've made that choice. It's a disappointing one. But we won't be deterred from proceeding with legislation which is important to achieving this investment.
People and history will judge a political party that has sought to keep the climate wars going and stands against the necessary framework for unleashing private sector investment.
The government has been very clear.
While this legislation is not essential for the government to embark on the policy actions we sought and received a mandate for, it is best practice.
The IPCC's 2022 Mitigation of climate change report said that climate laws enable mitigation action by signalling the direction of travel, setting targets, policies, enhancing regulatory certainty, creating focal points for social mobilisation and attracting international finance.
It will help provide the policy certainty and stability that the Australian community has called for so clearly. This in turn will help attract investment and skills that are needed for the transition to net zero.
Because the world's climate emergency is Australia's jobs opportunity.
And while we turn our back on renewable energy, the opportunities will, frankly, just go elsewhere. And we have the resources, the capability and the know-how to become a renewable energy superpower, not just in one part of Australia, but across multiple sectors of our economy. In clean energy, in battery manufacturing, in commodities, and in value-adding such commodities as aluminium, lithium, copper, cobalt and nickel.
There is a significant export market waiting for us—if we get the levers right to take advantage. That's what this bill does.
The new government's approach to climate change has been welcomed here and abroad.
Our friends and allies have, frankly, been frustrated with Australia's approach in the past and welcomed a government determined to play our role and seize the opportunities that good climate policy represents.
There is an optimistic mood that, with commitment and clear action, we can and will make a difference. The Albanese government has an agenda to do just that:
It's a comprehensive plan which sits alongside the sensible and achievable targets laid out in this bill.
The passage of this bill will send a strong signal about the priorities of this parliament.
This bill, as I said, may be simple in what it lays out—but it's significant in what it will achieve.
There are many issues about which members of this House will disagree.
But the principle of holistic action on climate should not be one of them.
Our country and our parliament have wasted long enough delaying and denying.
The time for action is now; we don't have a second to waste.
The Australian people voted for action on climate change on 21 May. Now is the time for the parliament to vote for action. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
The Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill builds on the foundation of the main Climate Change Bill, contributing to Australia's climate response and supporting net zero.
Meeting the climate challenge and realizing the opportunities presented by the transition to net zero will require coordinated efforts across government and the economy. Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reductions are supported by a range of government entities and schemes.
The Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 complements the Climate Change Bill by embedding consideration of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets into the objects and functions of the Commonwealth entities and schemes that could make the greatest contribution to reducing emissions for Australia.
These entities include the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which facilitates flows of finance into the clean energy sector; the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, known as ARENA, which encourages the uptake of renewables by providing financial assistance and investment in renewable energy technologies; and the CSIRO, undertaking invaluable research underpinning emissions reduction efforts and clean energy technologies.
The legislation for Infrastructure Australia, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and Export Finance Australia is amended to make the targets relevant to key functions, such as Infrastructure Australia's audits and infrastructure plans.
The bill updates references to international climate agreements, within the amended legislation, to reflect the adoption of the Paris Agreement. This includes referencing the purposes in article 2 of the Paris Agreement as a key consideration for the Climate Change Authority when performing its functions.
The Climate Change Bill is the bedrock foundation on which Australian climate change policy will be built. This bill will be one the first bricks laid on top of that foundation, but it won't be the last. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I'm really excited to be introducing this bill today, and particularly to follow the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, who has just presented some of the broader climate change bills to the parliament.
The introduction today of those bills by the minister, as well as this electric car discount bill today, sends an unmistakable signal to this parliament, to Australian industry and to the Australian people and beyond, that Australia now has a government which understands the economics of cleaner and cheaper and more reliable energy, and recognises the generational imperative that we have to act on climate change.
The communities that we represent recognise this as well. They have rejected the fear campaigns of the past and they have embraced action in the knowledge that the cost of inaction gets higher every day. And understanding the historic opportunities that climate change presents—climate action in particular: a future with cleaner, cheaper energy and a more resilient energy grid; a future with hundreds of thousands of new clean energy jobs leveraging our traditional strengths and creating new and growing industries as well; and a future with a climate and an environment that's been kept safe and strong and secure for the generations that follow us.
Today we take the first major steps towards that future. Australians will see this new approach right across government—and the Treasury is no exception.
We know that Australian businesses are desperate for clearer guidance on reporting the climate risks impacting their operations.
That's why we are working closely with regulators to develop a standard approach to climate disclosure for business—for a framework that is clear and credible and globally comparable.
We are signed-up supporters of the G20's ambitious sustainable finance agenda—and we are doing more work here at home, in collaboration with our regulators as well.
And, importantly, our government, with the agreement of the minister, will restore the Treasury's role in modelling climate risks and opportunities for the Australian economy—rebuilding this capacity after it was left to decay by the previous government.
Treasury modelling will help make sure we are charting a path that grabs the opportunities for growth and jobs that climate action offers. And the bill I introduce today is also about grabbing these opportunities.
It implements the Albanese government's election commitment to provide a fringe benefits tax exemption for eligible electric cars that are made available by employers for employees.
It amends the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 to provide an exemption from fringe benefits tax for this purpose.
The exemption applies to battery electric cars, hydrogen-fuel-cell electric cars and plug-in hybrid electric cars that are below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel efficient cars.
The exemption will apply to fringe benefits arising from the use or availability of an eligible electric car from 1 July 2022—provided that the car was first made available for use on or after that date.
These changes will ensure that employers providing employees with an eligible car will not have to pay fringe benefits tax on it—and the cost to employees of entering into salary sacrificing arrangements in order to lease an eligible electric car will now be less than it previously would have been.
If a model valued at about $50,000 is provided by an employer through this arrangement, our fringe benefits tax exemption would save the employer up to $9,000 a year. For individuals using a salary sacrifice arrangement to pay for the same model, their saving would be up to $4,700 a year.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (ELECTRIC CAR DISCOUNT) BILL 2022
The introduction of the Climate Change Bills, as well this Electric Car Discount Bill -
Sends an unmistakable signal to this Parliament, to the Australian people, and beyond -
That Australia now has a Government that recognises the economic and generational imperative of acting on climate change.
The communities we represent recognise this too.
They have rejected the fear campaigns of the past.
And they have embraced action.
In the knowledge that the cost of inaction gets higher every day.
And in the knowledge of the historic opportunities that climate action presents.
A future with cheaper energy bills and a more resilient energy grid.
A future with hundreds of thousands of new clean energy jobs, in new and growing industries.
And a future with a climate and environment that's been kept safe and strong for the next generation.
We now take the first major steps towards that future.
Australians will see this new approach right across government—and the Treasury space is no exception.
We know that Australian businesses are desperate for clearer guidance on reporting the climate risks impacting their operations.
That's why we are working closely with regulators to develop a standardised approach to climate disclosures for businesses—for a framework that is clear, credible and globally comparable.
We are signed up supporters of the G20's ambitious sustainable finance agenda—and we are doing more work here at home, in conversation with our regulators.
And, importantly, our Government will restore the Treasury's role in modelling climate risks and opportunities for the Australian economy—rebuilding this capacity after it was left to decay by the previous government.
Treasury modelling will help make sure we are charting a path that grabs the opportunities for growth and jobs that climate action offers.
And the Bill I introduce today is also about grabbing opportunities.
This Bill implements the Albanese Government's election commitment to provide a fringe benefits tax exemption for eligible electric cars that are made available by employers for employees.
It amends the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 to provide an exemption from fringe benefits tax for this purpose.
The exemption applies to battery electric cars, hydrogen fuel cell electric cars and plug-in hybrid electric cars that are below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel efficient cars.
The exemption will apply to fringe benefits arising from the use or availability of an eligible electric car from 1 July 2022—provided that the car was first made available for use on or after that date.
These changes will ensure that employers providing employees with an eligible electric car will not have to pay fringe benefits tax on that car—and the cost to employees of entering into salary sacrificing arrangements in order to lease an eligible electric car will now be less than it previously would have been.
If a model valued at about $50,000 is provided by an employer through this arrangement, our fringe benefits tax exemption would save the employer up to $9,000 a year. For individuals using a salary sacrifice arrangement to pay for the same model, their saving would be up to $4,700 a year.
The fringe benefit tax exemption for eligible electric cars will be implemented as an ongoing measure. It will be reviewed after three years, in light of higher rates of electric car take-up, to ensure it remains effective.
The fringe benefit tax exemption is one component of the Government's Electric Car Discount, and forms part of our Powering Australia Plan—being delivered by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy.
The Electric Car Discount also includes the removal of five per cent tariffs for eligible electric cars with a customs value below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel efficient vehicles.
The Electric Car Discount package aims to help encourage greater take-up of electric vehicles and reduce transport emissions—as part of the Government's broader climate action agenda.
These measures help reduce the upfront and ownership costs of electric cars, addressing a significant barrier to buying electric cars in Australia.
The Electric Car Discount is one of the first new initiatives in the Government's plan to improve electric vehicle uptake, with further measures to be delivered as part of the National Electric Vehicle Strategy.
This includes a $500 million investment to boost electric vehicle charging infrastructure right across Australia.
Our Government has also committed to ensuring 75 per cent of new Commonwealth fleet purchases are electric by 2025. This will increase the number of second-hand electric vehicles on the market, providing more options for consumers and driving down prices in the coming years.
The transport sector is one of the fastest-growing sources of emissions in Australia, and the stronger uptake of electric vehicles can make a substantial impact in our efforts to tackle climate change.
Yet right now, Australia lags far behind our international peers when it comes to electric vehicle use.
About 15 per cent of cars sold in the United Kingdom are electric and plug-in hybrids. In Australia, it's only about two per cent.
Obviously, we are very different countries in terms of our transport networks and needs—but even so, two per cent is much, much lower than it could be, and should be.
More and more Australians are interested in the benefits of owning an electric vehicle—but they remain unaffordable for many motorists.
There are only 10 electric and plug-in hybrid cars on the domestic market selling for less than $60,000—whereas in the UK, there are about two dozen under this price.
Because they have policies and incentives to help increase the take-up of electric vehicles.
And now, Australia does too.
Accelerating electric vehicle uptake will help pave the way for a lower-cost transition to our emissions reductions targets.
This Bill is good for motorists, good for employers and their workers, and good for climate action.
Full details of the fringe benefit tax exemption measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
The fringe benefit tax exemption for eligible electric cars will be implemented as an ongoing measure. It will be reviewed after three years, in light of higher rates of electric car take-up, to ensure that it remains effective.
The fringe benefit tax exemption is one component of the government's electric car discount, and it forms part of our Powering Australia plan. I again give the credit for that plan to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy.
The electric car discount also includes the removal of the five per cent tariff for eligible electric cars with a customs value below the luxury car tax threshold for fuel-efficient vehicles.
The package aims to help ensure and encourage greater take-up of electric vehicles and reduce our transport emissions—as part of the government's broader climate agenda.
These measures help reduce the upfront and ownership costs of electric cars, addressing a significant barrier to buying them in Australia.
It's one of the first new initiatives in the government's plan to improve electric vehicle uptake, and we'll have more to say about further measures to be delivered as part of the National Electric Vehicle Strategy.
This includes a $500 million investment to boost charging infrastructure right across Australia.
Our government has also committed to ensuring 75 per cent of new Commonwealth fleet purchases are electric by 2025. This will increase the number of second-hand electric vehicles on the market as well, providing more options for consumers and driving down prices in the coming years.
The transport sector is one of the fastest-growing sources of emissions in Australia, and the stronger uptake of EVs can make a substantial impact in our efforts to tackle climate change.
Yet right now, Australia lags far behind our international peers when it comes to EV use.
About 15 per cent of cars sold in the UK are electric and plug-in hybrids. In Australia, it's only about two per cent.
Obviously, we are very different countries in terms of our transport networks and needs—but even so, two per cent is much, much lower than it could be, and much lower than it should be.
More and more Australians are interested in the benefits of owning an electric vehicle if they can—but they are unaffordable for too many Australian motorists.
There are only 10 electric and plug-in hybrid cars on the domestic market selling for less than $60,000 at the moment—whereas in the UK, there are about two dozen under this price, because they have policies and incentives to help increase the take-up of electric cars.
And soon, with the passage of this legislation, Australia will too.
Accelerating EV uptake will help pave the way for a lower-cost transition to our emissions reduction targets.
This bill is good for motorists, it's good for employers, it's good for workers, and it's good for climate action.
Full details of the fringe benefit tax exemption measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I introduce the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022.
This bill, along with the one that I will introduce next, begins the process of returning security, dignity, quality and humanity back into aged care.
This bill puts nurses back in nursing homes.
This bill ensures more carers have more time to care.
This bill improves transparency, integrity and accountability and caps the fees paid for home care.
This bill adds to our response to the royal commission.
A royal commission that should not have been needed, for a sector that should not have been left to decay, for older Australians who should not have been left in this state of neglect.
This bill delivers on our commitments.
But it also does much more.
This morning, this government, this parliament, begins delivering on our promise.
A promise we all made upon entering this place.
A promise I made in my first speech three years ago.
A promise to ask and answer the question challenged to us by Jonas Salk—to ask ourselves every day, 'Am I being a good ancestor?'
Being a good ancestor means leaving places better than we found them. It means using the tremendous power, privilege and opportunity of being in this chamber, and indeed of being in government, for the betterment of others.
Good ancestors can spot a unique thicket in history where change becomes possible, where a gap opens up distance enough that some meaningful reform can occur.
Rarer moments still can leave things better for those who follow, while also making them better for those here with us today.
The parliament has before it one of those rare moments.
We have the opportunity and the responsibility to make the lives of our ancestors, of our parents, of our grandparents, of our oldest Australians, lives lived with care.
For me this bill is about Pat and Jack.
It is about Raff and Bec.
It is about the people who live at Emmy Monash.
It is about Cody and Teresa.
It is about Lynda and Veda.
Pat and Jack Cook met in Cairns on Christmas Day in 1949.
Pat said they were best friends from that day on. That simple. They met, they were best mates. They were married in 1951, just shy of Pat's father's plea for at least two years of courtship.
Then came the big move south to Zillmere in Brisbane's north side in the 1960s to work at the Golden Fleece petrol station and raising children from the Nudgee Orphanage.
In more recent years, Jack, living with dementia, received a home care package.
I brought the now Prime Minister to meet Pat and Jack earlier this year.
The Prime Minister and I listened to their story. What had worked well for their home care package, what had not. How the system interacted with them well and how it had not.
We promised them that, if we were lucky enough to get the support of the Australian people, we would do our best to ensure that aged care, including home care, gets better.
I visited them at the Prince Charles Hospital with the twins just after the election to give them the good news that we had won—and to renew that promise.
It's a promise not just to have the best service, the right funding and the best administration mix for a big government program.
It is a promise that is about restoring humanity to our provision of care.
A promise to be that good ancestor, to deliver what we said we'd do for everyone in all parts of aged care.
I saw Pat on Friday. We talked while my daughter Celeste admired and administered care upon Pat's collection of porcelain dolls.
I went to pay my respects. Jack, her best friend of 73 years and husband of 71, had passed away since I'd last visited them in the hospital those eight weeks earlier.
When I told her what I was going to be doing today she shared something special with me.
This is a picture of Pat and Jack on their wedding day.
It has stood proudly in their home, witnessing many happy moments over 71 years.
I am honoured that today it can now witness this parliament seizing the moment for better home care.
For Pat and especially for Jack I can advise the House that this bill will mean that the government can cap administration and management costs for people receiving home care.
Currently, approaches to charging differ across providers. While providers are required to publish prices for care and package management, there is little transparency about how these prices are set and there is no cap on the amount that can be charged.
That ends with this bill.
This bill is about Raff and Bec.
Raff has been an aged-care worker for 20 years in Sydney, alongside Bec. Both are incredibly hardworking professionals in their field of care.
Good reform starts by listening.
I met both of them at a roundtable I convened last week with the Health Services Union.
We spoke about how hard their work is, how challenging it is.
We also spoke about their sheer, bloody-minded determination to do their absolute best for those in their care.
Against the odds, within a system crumbling into crisis before a pandemic that made everything hard even harder.
Raff just managed to hold back her tears as she told me, 'These poor people deserve to be treated properly, they deserve to be respected.'
Bec pulled a 20-hour shift recently. Twenty hours.
During a COVID outbreak they were so stretched that she couldn't provide showering services to the people in their care.
To hear these two proud, caring dedicated women, not broken, but badly under pressure, was deeply moving for me.
To Bec and Raff I'm pleased to say to you that an Albanese Labor government wants to see you get a pay rise.
Within my first 20 hours as minister I wrote, with the Minister for Health and Aged Care, to the Fair Work Commission seeking leave to make a submission in the pay value case.
By 8 August the minister for industrial relations, the minister for health and myself will make that submission.
We will advocate for all workers to be valued and for their pay to reflect that.
Further, I can say that, relying on powers in the Aged Care Act, the Albanese Labor government will progress subordinate legislation in parallel with this bill to mandate more time for care.
Under that legislative instrument everyone living in a residential aged-care facility will receive an average of 200 minutes per day of care by 1 October 2023, and an average of 215 minutes of care per day by 1 October 2024.
I am working closely with providers, unions, advocates, the allied health sector and, most importantly, the people receiving and giving care, on the detail of this regulation.
Bec joins us in the gallery today, another witness to this parliament finally taking action to return care, to support some of the hardest working Australians and to start to make this system a little bit better.
It brings us to the magnificent team at Emmy Monash in Melbourne.
Two weeks ago I visited Emmy Monash with my dear friend the member for Macnamara.
For the past 12 years that aged-care home has provided nursing care around the clock.
That's what Emmy Monash's CEO, Tanya Abramzon, an amazing migrant from Ukraine, who trained as a nurse herself, just called 'a no-brainer'.
This bill takes that no-brainer idea from Emmy Monash and makes it the standard for all aged-care homes in Australia.
As the member for Macnamara and I walked and spoke with older Australians, and even joining them for some morning exercise and some light crafts, all I could think about was my thrilled anticipation that, in just a fortnight, this place would be making their standard everyone's reality.
I know that Tanya is watching us this morning online from Emmy Monash—another witness to the importance of what we are doing here today.
This bill is for registered nurse Cody, who I met two weeks ago.
Cody told me how he doesn't think that clinical staff get enough recognition for the acute services they provide in residential aged care.
He told me what I've seen myself as I visited homes around the country, from Gladstone to Melbourne to Burwood: the case load of residential aged care has changed so much from the origins as lifestyle homes with long-term stays to becoming shorter-and-shorter-term acute care, with increasingly high numbers of dementia care.
To Cody, I say: 'I hear you and I hear the voices of your fellow nurses. I hear the voices of the people in your care who are coming into residential care for acute needs and for high clinical service.'
I say to those people and to the House that schedule 1 of this bill introduces a new responsibility for approved providers of residential care and of specified kinds of flexible care.
From 1 July 2023, these providers will need to have a registered nurse onsite and on duty at each residential facility for 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The schedule includes a mechanism for exemptions or conditions to be specified in subordinate legislation.
I commenced consultation with unions, providers, advocates and people in care in late June on these measures and these exemption details will be specified following that body of work and any inquiry the Senate may choose to conduct.
Cody and his colleagues today bear witness to this reform.
This bill is for Teresa, a home care worker I met who told me to take on the royal commission report to, in her words, 'dig it up, dust it off and let's get working'.
Teresa—we could not agree more.
The government is committed to improving transparency, integrity and accountability in aged care.
The royal commission found that 'a lack of transparency is a pervasive feature of the current aged care system'.
Former Treasury secretary Ken Henry told the commission:
… the sector is not very transparent. I mean, as a client of the system, you wouldn't know the relationship between what you're paying for and how much it's costing the provider …
The government agrees.
To enact recommendation 88 of the royal commission we are not just going to expect greater transparency; we are going to mandate it.
I can inform the House that the amendments in schedule 3 will ensure that older Australians have access to more and better information on aged-care services and providers, including how much money is spent on their care.
This will empower older Australians to make more informed decisions about their care and will strengthen integrity and accountability of providers and incentivise good practice.
Every single member of parliament would have heard stories where aged care has not met our expectations.
The royal commission report is riddled with examples of people whose lives were up-ended by astronomical fees, by home care packages that were eaten up in administration costs and management charges that reduced care instead of aiding it.
Stories like Lynda Henderson from Gerringong on the New South Wales South Coast.
She told the royal commission her dear friend Veda had paid administration fees of up to 34 per cent.
She is now a fierce advocate for older Australians.
She wrote in her submission to the royal commission how Veda had been invited to share some words about her rare form of dementia with the World Health Organization.
Veda had Lynda write that, 'All I want from dementia is love, and to learn something.'
Lynda said, 'This "dementia community" is remarkable.'
How could you not agree with that?
I let Lynda know about today's bills and asked her to watch along. She bears witness to our work today in the House.
Mr Speaker, I say to you and to Lynda that schedule 2 of this bill will enable the government to reduce the high level of administration and management charges for home care.
It will remove providers' ability to charge care recipients for ceasing care—the so-called exit fees.
This bill is for Pat and Jack. It's for Raff and Bec. It's for all the team at Emmy Monash. It's for Cody and Teresa., It's for Lynda and for Veda.
The royal commission challenged us to be better and to do better.
The royal commission said this:
Every single provider should be thinking about, and talking with the older people in their care and their workforce about, what they need to do to improve their care and to make a genuine difference to the lives of older people. The rewards will be immeasurable.
The same challenge applies to government and to parliament.
The results can truly be immeasurable.
If we do more, if we listen more, if we take hold of the challenges and strive—then we can truly call ourselves good ancestors.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022.
Restoring dignity, care, accountability and humanity back into aged care starts with the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.
Reforming aged care starts by listening.
It starts by recognising that we are not the first government to be challenged to confront these issues.
This isn't the first parliament that has needed to take action on aged care.
Too many parliaments, too many governments have shunned the hard work needed to support our aged-care system.
The royal commissioners wrote:
Over the last several decades, successive Australian Governments have brought a level of ambivalence, timidity and detachment to their approach to aged care.
This government, myself included, may be many things, but we are not timid, ambivalent nor detached.
Aged care is in crisis. It has been for decades. A poor system was weak before a pandemic made it weaker.
Over the last decade we have all been warned.
Over the last decade the hazard lights have been flashing bright red.
Over the last decade our oldest Australians in residential care were pressing call buttons in the night and receiving silence.
They are crying out for a government to act.
Over the last decade there have been 23 reports, inquiries, studies, committee reports and a royal commission telling us the same story.
We must confront the missed opportunities.
We must see change.
I seek leave to table the 23 reports for the House conducted over the last nine years in aged care.
These are the reports of neglect, and these are the reports of ignoring aged-care concerns.
These are the stories of the people in care.
These are the stories of neglect, of a system in crisis, of the thousands of Australians crying out for just a little bit better, for just a little care, for just a sense of humanity.
At last. Today that work begins.
Schedule 1 of this bill relates to the new Australian National Aged Care Classification (AN-ACC) model for calculating aged-care subsidies that was endorsed by the royal commission.
Schedule 2 of the bill is a new measure that will facilitate the publication of star ratings
Schedule 3 introduces a code of conduct for the aged-care sector, as recommended by the royal commission.
Schedule 4 of this bill extends the Serious Incident Response Scheme to home care and flexible care
Schedule 5 of this bill strengthens the governance of approved providers.
Schedule 6 facilitates increased information sharing.
Schedule 7 of the bill will increase government oversight of how refundable accommodation deposits and bonds.
Schedule 8 of the bill expands the functions of a renamed Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority.
Schedule 9 of the bill will enable the implementation of an interim solution with respect to the requirement to obtain informed consent for the use of restrictive practices.
Schedule 9 to the bill also provides a limited immunity from civil or criminal liability that may arise in relation to the use of a restrictive practice where someone follows all of the requirements under Commonwealth law in relation to the use of a restrictive practice. This provision does not provide a broad immunity to negligence in respect of the use of a restrictive practice.
Aged care is an urgent priority for this government.
We have seen, we have listened and we are now acting.
I commend the bill to the House.
Firstly, is leave granted for the documents to be tabled?
Yes.
Secondly, the question now is that this bill be now read a second time. Is leave granted to continue the debate?
Yes.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. It's a pleasure to speak about a matter that's important to every single member and senator in this place. The stories we have brought to this parliament from our own electorates, from our own families and from the communities over many years were reflected in much that was presented to the royal commission which was instigated by the previous government.
The opposition supports the Albanese government in continuing our work on the fundamental and generational reform of the aged-care system to ensure that it meets the needs of senior Australians both now and into the future. And, of course, the opposition will support this bill because it mirrors the royal commission response bill that we introduced in the last parliament. And, of course, it delivers the second stage of critical aged-care reform that was commenced by our government in response to the royal commission's final report.
It is a shame that Mr Albanese and Labor have played politics with older Australians for the last six months by not facilitating the passage of these significant reforms when our bill was before the 46th Parliament. Effectively, the Labor Party are bringing back a previous bill which they appear to have held up in the previous parliament for political reasons. Delaying this significant and time-critical legislation solely for political gain is incredibly disrespectful to older Australians and their families who will benefit from these reforms. I need to point that out, because this is not new legislation; this is legislation that in effect was parked by the opposition in the previous parliament. The government's treatment of older Australians since the election has, therefore, in our view not been up to scratch. They've ceased the availability of free rapid antigen tests for aged-care homes that are experiencing an outbreak. They've backflipped on their decision not to extend critical COVID support provided by the Australian Defence Force.
Government members interjecting—
Sure, that support was provided, but the backflipping provided anxiety and uncertainty for residents and providers.
Like the coalition government's bill, this bill replaces the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument with the Australian National Aged Care Classification, or AN-ACC, residential aged-care funding model from 1 October 2022. This response to royal commission recommendation 120 represents significant funding reform for residential aged care by completing the final step in implementing the AN-ACC model.
The Albanese government promised more support for aged-care providers, but they haven't told us what this is and they haven't told us what this looks like. It's disappointing, too, that the government have chosen to remove the worker-screening regulations contained in the coalition's bill, which were important new regulatory arrangements and were supported by the sector. It's one of the few differences between this bill and the coalition government's legislation. Our worker-screening schedule responded in part to recommendation 77 of the royal commission by establishing authority for nationally consistent pre-employment screening for aged-care workers. Our legislation sought to establish a code of conduct, which would ensure that poor behaviour of approved providers, workers and governing persons is held to account. I'm glad that the government have adopted our code of conduct and subsequent amendments in this piece of legislation, but it's disappointing that the government appear to have capitulated to the unions by removing our specific schedule on worker screening. It is essential that the government stand up to the unions and implement important policies that protect the rights of our care-sector workers and allow nationally consistent databases to be established for all care workers.
Our plan was to have one database, to simplify processes for employers—including aged-care providers—making it easy for NDIS carers, aged carers and veteran carers to move between their caring roles. This would have protected residents, it would have given their families confidence, and it would have allowed providers to know that employees are fit and proper to be caring for our older Australians. Instead, Labor is delaying the commencement of this reform by excluding our schedule, just to fulfil an election commitment—a commitment which, on the face of it, appears to be a carbon copy of our regulations anyway. Put simply, what this does is delay protections for our older Australians. The government are trying to redo what has already been done. We will be keeping a close eye on further upcoming aged-care reform introduced by the government, to ensure these regulations are actually introduced and implemented so that poor conduct in the sector is held to account.
Overall, this bill has eight schedules which directly relate to the Australian government's response to the royal commission. Along with the introduction of the AN-ACC funding model, the bill allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to publish information relating to the new star rating system for all residential aged-care services and providers. The bill will also extend the Serious Incident Response Scheme from residential care to home care and to flexible care delivered in a home or community setting, in line with royal commission recommendation 100. Schedule 6 of the bill aims to provide consistent quality and safety protection for consumers and reduce regulatory burden for cross-sector providers and workers, in line with the existing regulations in the disability sector. The bill implements the second of a three-phase reform process established by our government to create a new financial and prudential monitoring, compliance and intervention framework for the aged-care sector. Finally, the bill expands the functions of the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority, responding fully or in part to recommendations 6, 11, 115 and 139 of the royal commission.
Ultimately, of course the opposition is committed to supporting the health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians. Again, our significant and time-critical legislation was delayed, and it's incredibly disrespectful of older Australians that that happened. The opposition looks forward to the Albanese government continuing the generational reform of the aged-care system for the benefit of all residents and all older Australians.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I am introducing the first legislative requirement to abolish the cashless debit card—the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022.
This bill delivers on the Albanese government's election commitment to abolish the cashless debit card and is the first product of ongoing and sincere consultation with many communities around the country.
The cashless debit card has been operating across Australia for six years.
The former government introduced the card in Ceduna in 2016 but over time it was expanded to the East Kimberley, Goldfields, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay areas, and most recently—the Northern Territory and Cape York.
The former government claimed the card would help to address some adverse behaviours relating to drug and alcohol misuse in communities, by quarantining a proportion of a person's income support.
Despite this·intention, there has never been evidence to show that the cashless debit card is delivering on this objective.
Numerous evaluations, inquiries and audits have never rendered clear, unequivocal data that demonstrated the card was working.
Just last month, the Australian National Audit Office released its latest audit on the performance of the cashless debit card, highlighting once more the lack of evidence available to demonstrate any success of the card. There were no key performance indicators, evidence or evaluation conducted to support the former government's scheme—and despite this message being delivered not once but twice by the ANAO, first in its report in 2018 and second in its report in 2022, the former government just refused to listen.
Service providers on the front line of helping those who interact with the card have been scathing about its existence.
St Vincent de Paul said the card had 'unintended and expensive consequences across government and the community, including social exclusion and stigmatisation, increased financial hardship, and the erosion of individual autonomy and dignity'.
In a policy briefing back in 2019, the group said, 'Ultimately, this is a punitive and paternalistic measure that is driven by ideology rather than evidence.'
Put simply, the cashless debit card is not delivering on its long promised outcomes. And no-one is buying it anymore—certainly not this government.
My recent consultations in Ceduna and the East Kimberley region have only reinforced the findings and views of others—as have visits to Bundaberg and Hervey Bay by my colleague the Assistant Minister for Social Services, who heard similar feedback.
I've personally been told of the tragic stories relating to the inadequacy of the cashless debit card. Stories in communities like Kununurra in the East Kimberley region where the introduction of the cashless debit card has not stopped alcohol misuse and instead encouraged workarounds which have made people worse off overall, with less money in their pockets.
We have listened to First Nations community leaders, service providers and cashless debit card participants in these communities.
And many have told us that the CDC card stigmatises them and makes their lives more difficult because they cannot access the cash economy.
In some cases it's even blocked the rent payments of users, making housing stability an extra issue they've had to face.
Users also described to me the shame and anguish the card brings—it makes them feel like they are being punished for being on welfare.
Today, our government is saying enough is enough—we are calling time on the cashless debit card.
There is a better way. And that is why the Prime Minister said removing the card would be central to his priority agenda if we were elected to government.
We are moving decisively to abolish the CDC in the first week of the new parliament.
And we're doing this in a considered and deliberate manner.
It is critical that the transition away from the cashless debit card is smooth, and people and communities continue to have access to supports that they need.
And that is exactly what this bill—transitioning participants off the card—will do.
The bill will:
Our absolute priority is to ensure participants are supported through their transition off the card in a safe and structured way.
This will be done through extensive communication and an outreach strategy so that participants are well informed about the changes and what it means for them.
Information and education sessions will be held in each cashless debit card site over the transition period with culturally appropriate information and support.
Services Australia will conduct individually targeted transitional support interviews for those who need it, or want this additional assistance, to make sure exiting participants are well informed on the options available to them. Not everyone will need this level of assistance—but this approach will ensure no-one is left behind due to being forced onto this card by the former government.
As a government we will deliver on our positive, clear plan for a future for our country guided by two fundamental principles:
No-one left behind—always ensuring that we are looking our for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our country.
And no-one held back—because we should always support aspiration and opportunity.
I want to be clear on two points. Firstly, there is no requirement after this bill passes for a CDC participant to prove anything in order to move off the card. This is a source of deep concern for many people—that currently an enormous amount of information—very private information—has to be given to Services Australia. I have to reiterate that. There will be no requirement for CDC participants, once this bill is passed, to prove anything to move off the card. Secondly, every CDC participant will be transitioned off the card once this bill passes the parliament, and the CDC will be abolished—it will no longer exist. The engagement with Services Australia is to ensure that people have the right support they need to assist them with their transition.
Where participants require continued assistance with budgeting, transferring direct debits from the cashless debit card or referrals to further support services, there will be help available, including the option for voluntary income management if they choose.
This bill is not only the first step in the transition journey away from the cashless debit card, but it is a significant milestone in in the reform of cashless welfare in Australia.
Any measure we put in place as a government we want to ensure will help the people we are assisting.
Welfare and income support should not be seen as punitive but should always return to our core principles of no-one being left behind.
As a Labor government, our government will aim to support the most vulnerable in our community and through income support, education, health, public housing and child care we will make Australia a better place than when we came into government.
Extensive community consultation will continue on the broader question of income management, to explore the future of this and other supports that are needed in communities in line with our core principles.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those community leaders who have met with me, who have spoken with me, who have given their time to express their opinions. I have listened to you and I will continue to listen to you as we move forward and make sure we work together to ensure that you have the support you need.
We will continue consulting, and listening to, a wide range of stakeholders, including our First Nations leaders, women's groups, service providers, communities and—importantly—those people receiving income support.
These diverse perspective on local needs will strongly inform our next steps. Consultation is central to everything we will do as a government. We want to ensure changes or measures we implement are actually helping.
Our focus and our objective as a government remains clear—to empower people and communities, and provide individuals in need with a range of supports that they can choose to use when, how and in a way that suits them.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill is another bill that delivers on the election commitment of the Albanese government to increase the income limits for the Commonwealth seniors health card. This measure will take effect from 20 September 2022 and will ensure that more Australians qualify for the Commonwealth seniors health card, easing some of the cost of living pressures that so many seniors are currently facing.
The Commonwealth seniors health card is available to Australian residents or special category visa holders who have reached the age pension age or veteran pension age and do not receive a social security pension or benefit or veteran service pension or income support supplement due to their income and/or assets.
The Commonwealth seniors health card provides access to Australian government health concessions including: concessional co-payments for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines; the concessional thresholds for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net and the Extended Medicare Safety Net; and bulk billed visits to a general practitioner, at the doctor's discretion.
Card holders may also be eligible for other concessions provided by state and territory governments or private businesses in areas such as public transport, ambulance services, utilities or council rates.
To qualify for the Commonwealth seniors health card, a person's adjusted taxable income, plus any deemed income from account based superannuation pensions, must not exceed the applicable income limits for the relevant tax year. Different income limits apply, depending on whether the person is single or a member of a couple. There are no asset tests for this card.
The current CSHC income limit for a single person is $57,761 per year. This bill increases that income element for singles to $90,000 a year. The single income limit also applies to a person who is a member of an illness separated couple, a member of a respite care couple, or a member of a couple whose partner is in jail.
The current Commonwealth seniors health card income limit for each member of a couple is currently $46,208 per year, or $92,416 for a couple combined. This bill increases the income limit for members of a couple to $72,000 per year, or $144,000 for a couple combined.
The amount of $639.60 will continue to be added to the income test limits for each dependent child. The dependent child amount is linked to the parenting payment single income test and will not be changed by this bill.
The Commonwealth seniors health card income test limits are indexed on 20 September each year, in line with the increases of the Consumer Price Index in the preceding 12 months to June. The increases to the income limits under this bill are equivalent to many years of annual indexation in a single step and will substitute for the annual indexation on 20 September 2022.
Annual indexation will recommence on 20 September 2023, ensuring the income limits continue to reflect cost-of-living increases into the future. The last time the income limits for the Commonwealth seniors health card were increased above indexation was in 2001, following which indexation ceased until 2014.
These changes are expected to allow more than 50,000 self-funded retirees to become newly eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card.
The Commonwealth seniors health card has been in place since 1994 as a means of providing access to health concessions for self-funded retirees.
This is a very important move that will affect the lives of many self-funded retirees to deal with the cost of health care.
The bill helps to ease the cost-of-living pressures by allowing more self-funded retirees to access the Commonwealth concessions on medical and pharmaceutical benefits, including a reduced PBS co-payment. It will lower the PBS safety net and extended Medicare safety net thresholds. For example, instead of facing a PBS co-payment of $42.50, an eligible self-funded retiree will now pay a maximum of $6.80 for any medicines listed on the PBS.
The Commonwealth seniors health card also provides access to other concessions, of course, which many states and territories provide. So this will have a significant impact on the cost of living for so many senior Australians.
The Albanese government does take the cost-of-living pressures faced by our communities seriously, and we will continue to work in these practical examples, in practical ways, to support the Australian community, particularly our older Australians living with cost-of-living pressures.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australians owe a debt of gratitude to our Australian Defence Force personnel, veterans and families, and we have a solemn duty to look after them. As a nation, Australia values their ongoing commitment to service, and it is our duty to provide support to veterans and their families as they transition from the Australian Defence Force, to enable them to continue their commitment to service in civilian life in different ways. Making sure our veterans and their families are well supported and looked after as they transition from the Australian Defence Force is an important task and responsibility of government—a solemn commitment. And that's why it is so disappointing the former Liberal-National government did not deliver on this commitment. This legislation does help deliver on this commitment to our veterans. The new Australian Labor government is committed to supporting our veterans and fixing the veterans crisis.
The unique nature of military service justifies rehabilitation and compensation arrangements specific to the needs of the military.
The government is committed to continuously improving and adapting to the needs of veterans, serving and former members and their families.
The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment (Incapacity Payments) Bill 2022 will resume access to the beneficial calculation of incapacity payments for eligible veterans.
This means that eligible veterans—those undertaking approved study under a rehabilitation plan—will again have their incapacity payments based on 100 per cent of pre-injury earnings—payments that were reduced unnecessarily due to the inaction of the previous government.
Incapacity payments are compensation paid for a loss of earnings because of physical or mental health conditions related to military service.
These payments reduce or 'step down' to 75 per cent (or sometimes a higher percentage depending on hours worked) of normal earnings after a period of 45 weeks.
However, for veterans participating in a rehabilitation plan, and in approved full-time study, their incapacity payments were not reduced after 45 weeks.
This pilot program was due to expire on 30 June 2022. While the previous government said it would extend this through to 2023, it failed to actually introduce and pass legislation to do so before the end of the last parliament. Not only has this created much uncertainty for affected veterans, but these arrangements did end on 30 June 2022. That left some 370 veterans who were studying out of pocket, copping an immediate payment reduction of up to 25 per cent.
The financial support provided by involvement in the pilot program, being the beneficial calculation of incapacity payments to veterans undertaking approved full-time study, is vital for studying veterans as they transition from military service to a rehabilitation program focused on gaining sustainable employment in the civilian workforce.
The bill will enable veterans undertaking an eligible course of study to access the beneficial arrangements for an additional year, to 30 June 2023, where the calculation of incapacity payments is based on 100 per cent of the individual's pre-injury earnings.
The bill will amend the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence Related Claims) Act 1988 to provide for all eligible veterans covered under these two schemes.
Importantly, application provisions will ensure that student veterans who should have been eligible for the higher rate of payment can receive back payments to cover the period from 1 July 2022.
We're committed to delivering a comprehensive veterans employment program to support personnel as they transition to civilian life. This is a key part of that. It's initiatives like this that not only support a veteran financially but can support a veteran's mental health as they undergo their transition from service. We have an obligation to ensure all our defence personnel are kept safe here and abroad, mentally and physically. The same goes for when they come home. This pilot program will ensure that veterans can continue their education as they transition from service, ultimately increasing their capacity and, indeed, opportunities for employment, a key predictor of success in civilian life. It will ensure they are best placed to succeed.
Our serving personnel put themselves in harm's way to protect our national interest.
We want our service personnel, veterans and families to know that Australia is proud of them and that our country will always be there for them.
These proposed changes will result in positive outcomes for many in the defence and veterans communities.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I'm sure the kids in the gallery—it's great to see kids up in the gallery again!—are going to be fascinated by the introduction of this particular bill. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 is going to provide certainty to stakeholders about their tax obligations and benefit entitlements, reduce risks to the Commonwealth associated with uncertainty in existing laws and limit the retrospective application of proposed new laws—I can see them going wild!
Schedule 1 to the bill provides an income tax exemption for qualifying grants made to primary producers and small businesses affected by Tropical Cyclone Seroja, which had a devastating impact on communities in Western Australia last year. Affected primary producers and small businesses were eligible to receive recovery grants of up to $25,000, which were activated under the Joint Commonwealth State Disaster Recovery Funding agreements of 2018. Schedule 1 makes these qualifying grants non-assessable, non-exempt income for tax purposes, assisting affected communities as they rebuild and recover.
Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First) Establishment of the Complaints Authority Act to support the practical closure of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and any other transitional arrangements associated with AFCA, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, which is the successor body of the SCT.
The AFCA Act will be amended to allow for the transfer of SCT records and documents to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for ongoing records management. It will also allow the Federal Court to remit appealed cases back to AFCA, where previously these had been remitted to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal.
Schedule 2 also introduces a rule-making power to the AFCA Act to allow the minister to prescribe matters of a transitional nature that may be required to support and effectively close the SCT.
Schedule 3 of the bill is part of a package of commitments to secure the FIFA World Cup in 2022. The bill provides an income and withholding tax exemption to FIFA and a local Australian subsidiary, confined to income in relation to the event. This will maintain Australia's strong reputation as a host for major international sporting events and in particular help promote women's sport.
Schedule 4 amends various laws in the Treasury portfolio to ensure that those laws operate in accordance with the policy intent. It will make minor policy changes to improve the administrative outcomes and remedy unintended consequences and correct technical or drafting defects. The amendments have been identified by Treasury portfolio agencies, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the policy divisions within Treasury.
Schedule 4 includes changes to the legislation that supports the modernising business registers program—a program that I had a bit to say about outside of the House in the last 24 hours. The program itself is an important economic reform that Labor supported in opposition and continues to support in government. It will consolidate over 30 business registers on a centralised and modernised business platform.
Under the current legislation, the legal transfer of all registry functions from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to the new register occurred on 22 June this year. Since coming to government we've discovered significant issues that have been affecting the delivery of this program and put it significantly behind schedule. Given these delays, the bill retrospectively defers the automatic transfer date of all functions to 1 July 2026.
The program was also well over budget. The previous government committed just under half a billion dollars for the program. Preliminary estimates suggest that full delivery of the program may cost as much as $1.5 billion—a $1 billion blowout in a core economic and commerce management program. We'll keep Australians informed as we go about the important business of managing this important program.
The amendments made to schedule 4 to this bill further the government's commitment to care for the maintenance of Treasury laws and will make it easier for Australians to comply with the current laws. Full details are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022 will ensure appointments to the Australian Human Rights Commission are made through a merit based and transparent process. This bill will contribute to the government's overarching integrity agenda and will support the commission's reaccreditation as an A-status national human rights institution, which is essential to its institutional independence, legitimacy and international credibility.
The bill legislates a merit based and transparent appointments process for members of the commission by amending relevant provisions of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, the Age Discrimination Act 2004, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. In addition the bill amends these acts to clarify that the total term of appointment for the president and commissioners is seven years, inclusive of any reappointment. The bill will also ensure consistency for president and commissioner qualification requirements.
This bill, of course, is part of our government's commitment to integrity and transparency. The bill implements the government's election commitment to restore integrity in appointments processes in the commission. Through legislating transparent and merit based selection processes, the bill strengthens the commission's institutional independence and integrity, ensuring the commission can undertake its statutory functions as an independent statutory body and engage in public debate impartially. These amendments will give the Australian public confidence in the commission, allowing any qualified Australian to put up their hand to represent their community.
If I can turn to the international accreditation of the commission, the commission's international accreditation is at risk, which has obvious implications for Australia's international reputation. The commission has been accredited as an A-status national human rights institution since 1999, when accreditation of national human rights institutions began. However, in March 2022 the Sub-Committee on Accreditation of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions deferred the commission's reaccreditation as an A-status national human rights institution on the basis that the selection and appointment processes for commissioners did not comply with the Paris Principles. The subcommittee's primary concern was three direct commissioner appointments that were made to the Human Rights Commission without a merit based and transparent selection process.
The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions accreditation process assesses a national human rights institution's compliance with internationally recognised standards. If Australia's status is downgraded to B status the commission's capacity to engage in international forums would be significantly diminished. For example, the United Nations human rights council and treaty body processes restrict access to A status national human rights institutions. Further, Australia would receive international scrutiny and criticism from across multilateral organisations and civil society.
Commission's reaccreditation has been deferred until October 2023 to provide Australia with an opportunity to address the concerns raised by the subcommittee. Accordingly, this bill responds to the concerns raised by the subcommittee to ensure that the commission can engage with international fora and continue its critical leadership role promoting the international rules-based system in our region.
The bill amends existing appointment's provisions for members of the commission to require that before making an appointment the minister must be satisfied that the selection of the appointee is the result of a merit based selection process that was publicly advertised. These amendments will require vacancies in commissioner positions or in the president's position to be advertised nationally, such as through newspapers and government websites. These legislative provisions will be supported by comprehensive policy guidelines to provide further guidance on what constitutes a merit based selection process. These amendments will remove the ability to appoint the president or commissioners directly without a merit based and publicly advertised selection process and ensure that these positions are open to all qualified members of the community.
The bill will insert amendments clarifying that the term of appointment for the president and all commissioners is for a maximum of seven years, including reappointments. This addresses a concern of the subcommittee that the relevant acts are silent on the number of times commissioners can be reappointed, creating the possibility of unlimited tenure. This amendment codifies existing practice whereby commissioners are appointed for an initial five-year term and then maybe reappointed for one or two years to complete particular projects.
If I could turn to the qualification requirements. Finally, the bill will ensure that the provision setting out the qualification requirements for the president and commissioners are consistent across the relevant acts. Unlike the other commissioners, there are no qualification requirements for the president of the commission. The bill will insert a provision requiring the president to have appropriate qualifications, knowledge or experience; to be appointed by the minister consistent with existing qualification provisions for the commissioners. However, and importantly, this will not change the distinct qualification requirements for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, which requires appointees to that position to have significant experience in the community life of First Nations people.
In conclusion, the effectiveness of our antidiscrimination system is dependent upon the proper functioning of and support for the Australian Human Rights Commission. An independent Human Rights Commission is fundamental to Australia's human rights agenda, both internationally and domestically.
This government strongly supports the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission and is committed to restoring integrity to the process of president and commissioner appointments.
This bill will support the commission's reaccreditation so that it can continue to have independent participation rights at international forums and maintain its international legitimacy and credibility. Most importantly, this bill reaffirms and supports the government's broad commitment to restoring integrity to government, as well as our commitments to the international rules-based order.
Debate adjourned.
I present the report of the Australian delegation to the 144th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly, held in Nusa Dua, Indonesia, from 20 to 24 March 2022, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
I'll say at the outset that I did not actually attend the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Nusa Dua, Indonesia. That duty and responsibility fell to Senators Hughes and O'Neill. I'm just trying to work out how long my tabling statement is going to go for. Indeed, it might go for some time—we're just sorting out business.
The overall theme of the assembly was Getting to Zero: Mobilizing Parliaments to Act on Climate Change. The assembly was attended by 778 delegates, 404 of whom were parliamentarians, representing 101 member parliaments globally. As someone who was a delegate to the Inter-Parliamentary Union on behalf of the parliament in the last term, I think it's terrific to see that international gatherings are slowly returning post COVID. Those 101 states are not the full membership of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, but they do form a critical mass.
As one of those delegates, I can say that participation in the last term of parliament was not what we were anticipating when we signed up for this duty and responsibility, because it seemed to involve staying up, during parliamentary sitting weeks, from midnight to 4 or 5 am on the iPad and engaging with people in different time zones. Needless to say, for the benefit of the international community we had our cameras turned off most of the time, except when we needed to speak, because the visuals would have been frightening.
Australia, as I said, was represented by Senator Hollie Hughes and Senator Deborah O'Neill. I thank them on behalf of the parliament, because they had to go through quarantine in Indonesia. It was certainly no luxury trip to Bali. It was actually quite a difficult thing for them to feed into their schedule, but we took the judgement as a delegation that Australia's voice had been lost from all of these international forums for two years and that it was incumbent on us to find a way to turn up and participate. So, in the lead-up to the election, the two senators took the proverbial bullet.
Senators Hughes and O'Neill both contributed to the general debate. The general assembly at the IPU holds two major debates through each of the six-monthly international conferences. I know the member for Dunkley's deeply fascinated by this.
I am!
The general debate was on climate change, and then there was an urgency debate, which, unsurprisingly, was on Ukraine. It's a pity it wasn't held after the election—Australia participating in an international forum on climate change—because we might have had a bit more to say and might have helped our international standing to recover, but it's been terrific to see the new government and the Prime Minister out there starting to repair the damage of a decade of neglect and the damage to our international relationships from a lack of action for nearly a decade on climate change.
On 23 March 2022, the assembly adopted an emergency item—submitted by our friend and neighbour New Zealand—relating to the peaceful resolution of the war in Ukraine, respecting international law, the Charter of the United Nations and territorial integrity. I understand from reading the report that there were three proposed urgent items submitted for debate and that all of those related to Ukraine. I think the New Zealand formulation provided the best space within the international community for delegates and countries to participate.
I've just got a two-minute warning from the member for Dunkley. We may be graced with someone far greater than us—you never know—at about 12.45.
You never know your luck in a big city.
Of course, a range of procedural and administrative activities occur at IPU conferences. I wouldn't say that they make gripping television, having watched a few of them, or that they're very exciting, but they are important. In accordance with usual practice, Australia also actively participated in meetings of the Twelve Plus geopolitical group, and we're also a member of the Asia-Pacific group, appropriately, although unfortunately that group didn't hold any of the general meetings or caucus meetings during the assembly. In addition to the assembly and geopolitical group meetings—and this is an important part of participation by parliamentarians—the Australian delegation held bilateral meetings with a range of delegations, including those from Britain, Indonesia, Israel, New Zealand, Poland and Timor-Leste. When I represented the parliament in late 2019 in Belgrade, Serbia, I discovered that, for many of our diplomats, the opportunity to have parliamentarians in country to participate in a number of these bilateral meetings and support DFAT in its important work was greatly appreciated. I certainly found many of the discussions very valuable, including some quite difficult discussions with people—in a more private, semiformal environment—about human rights and various differences. In addition to the assembly and group meetings, the Australian delegation, together with the delegations from Britain and New Zealand, visited the memorial for victims of the 2002 Bali bombing tragedy. They laid a wreath in their honour, which was entirely appropriate on the 20th anniversary of these tragic events.
In conclusion, the IPU is a niche but important and constructive place in international diplomacy, even if parliamentary diplomacy is not going to in and of itself change the world. Having seen the importance that many countries, both larger and smaller than ours, place on their delegations—in the one that I participated in in Belgrade and from talking with the member for Fremantle about his participation in the previous term—it did strike me that Australia really doesn't engage as extensively as perhaps we could, given our shared national interests in many of these debates. A lot of that's due to time zones, and a lot of it seems to be our view of international travel and the political backlash it receives, which isn't the case in Europe, Asia and much of the world.
We can get a lot of business done particularly with our friends in the Pacific islands, where the former government, to its credit, placed a high value on parliamentary diplomacy through parliamentary committees. This is actually a very efficient way to do it, with senior parliamentarians—delegations are usually led by presiding officers—former ministers and senior people all in the one place, so DFAT can task the delegation effectively and efficiently.
In conclusion, I do note that, traditionally, the Speaker of the House leads the delegation to the IPU when it's not a sitting week and the President of the Senate leads the delegation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I'm more than confident that the new Speaker will do us proud in giving our voice to these international forums on matters of importance.
It's been a heartwarming and exciting morning to be sitting in this chamber as part of a government that not only has introduced legislation that goes to fixing some of the big issues, both structural and cultural, in this country but also has a positive agenda for the future. We've seen this morning legislation to improve jobs and skills; to address the problems that this country faces and the world faces with climate change; to establish Australia as a renewable energy superpower; to fix the problems with aged care, by implementing the recommendations of the royal commission; to get rid of the cashless welfare card; to make it easier for seniors to access their healthcare card; and to make medicines cheaper. And there is much more to come.
We know that the Albanese government will look to a better future for everyone across the country, and I'm incredibly proud that in my local community in Dunkley we've made a number of election commitments that we will deliver on, which will improve the lives of people in my community. For example, we are going to establish a community battery in Carrum Downs, which will help 200 households have cheaper energy and play their part in reducing emissions.
We have a number of local commitments that will mean my community can access better health care. We've already delivered on the first one, which is to make the Frankston LGA a distribution priority area so that we can attract more GPs and arrest the crisis in GP access. We will establish an urgent care clinic so that people don't have to wait at Frankston Hospital for eight, 10 or 12 hours for a relatively minor injury to be addressed. And we will invest in the infrastructure that the First Peoples Health and Wellbeing needs to have its own state-of-the-art, up-to-date clinic and self-determination. We will invest in community infrastructure in Dunkley. We will invest in the Frankston and District Basketball Association stadium so we can have a first-class stadium right in our community, and we will also make sure that gymnastics has a home. We will invest in the upgrade of Emil Madsen Reserve—for football, for netball, for soccer—so that that community, particularly in Mount Eliza, have the facilities they deserve and they can be proud of. We will invest in the upgrade of Sandfield Reserve so it is a regional playground and community facility, and so the people in Carrum Downs and Skye and Frankston North will be able to go to a well-equipped, safe and beautiful community playground. We will invest in the Langwarrin Skatepark, because that's what the local young people in Langwarrin want. They want a skate park so that they can go and hang out with their mates in a safe and secure place and be proud of their community. We will invest in our local community centres, where so much is done to increase the bonds between locals and to look after people who perhaps can't access services elsewhere. Langwarrin and the Lyrebird Community Centre in Carrum Downs will have an investment from the Albanese Labor government into their childcare facilities and refurbishment of their infrastructure.
An Albanese Labor government will invest in the culture of Dunkley, of which we are so proud. We will invest in upgrading the infrastructure at our local Indigenous gathering place, Nairm Marr Djambana, so that First Nations people, who have the oldest living civilisation on the planet, and those of us who aren't First Nations people can interact in the spirit of reconciliation and the Uluru Statement from the Heart. We will invest in the Frankston arts trail, which will go from the magnificent McClelland Sculpture Park and Gallery through the wider Frankston area, including via Nairm Marr Djambana, right up to our magnificent foreshore, so that locals can be invested in and part of our arts and culture in our community.
We will make sure that our local schools have the facilities they need. Mount Eliza Secondary College is a magnificent school with great teachers and students, but it hasn't been upgraded essentially since I was born—which was a lot longer ago than I like to admit! We will invest in a new science, technology, engineering and maths centre. Patterson River Secondary College has a terrific program for students to be engaged in music. We will help them to buy musical instruments so that every child, no matter what their background is, can engage in learning music.
They are just some of the things that an Albanese Labor government will do for my community of Frankston in addition to those really important, big-picture reforms that we are also proud to have the opportunity to be a part of, and I can't wait to see it happen.
Today, our parliament begins the work of building a better future. The Australian people voted for change, and we intend to give them just that. The Governor-General has shared with all members and senators the ambitious agenda that we took to the Australian people at the election and that we received a strong mandate for, with an absolute majority in the House of Representatives. It is a plan to tackle the cost-of-living crisis facing Australian families; to get wages moving again; to make child care cheaper; to step up and act on climate change; to seize the opportunities to become a renewable energy superpower; to invest in the skills and training and apprenticeships and technology that our economy needs to grow and thrive; to help more Australians know the security of a roof over their head; to rehabilitate Australia's reputation in the region and around the world; and to bring dignity and humanity back to aged care. It is a plan as well to enrich our nation by embracing the Statement from the Heart at Uluru—to answer that gracious, patient call for unity and to enshrine a voice in our Constitution.
The great privilege, the great opportunity and the solemn responsibility of government is to turn these ambitions into actions, to convert the promises of a campaign into the progress of a nation, to write our vision for Australia's future into the laws of the land.
Labor's plan is for all Australians, and we've pledged to govern for every Australian, no matter where they live and no matter who they voted for. In the first speeches of our colleagues we've already heard the voice of modern multicultural Australia, the embrace of diversity, the march to equality that gives our nation—our democracy—greater strength. And all of us—new members and those who've been here awhile—know there is not a day to waste.
The challenges facing our economy and our country are significant indeed. The IMF is warning of growing global uncertainty, and rising inflation confirmed again today means price pain for households, making it harder for people to get by and to buy the things they need. The government understands that inflation is a challenge for the economy as a whole. We also know it puts the pressure on those who can least afford it. As the Treasurer has said, things will get worse before they get better—but they will get better, and we will work every day to make sure of that.
The challenges are significant and, more than that, they are urgent—and we are responding with urgency. This is a government that has hit the ground running. In our first two months in office we moved straightaway to back an increase in the minimum wage for 2.8 million workers. I want to say again to all those Australians, some of the heroes of the pandemic—the people who kept our economy going, cleaning hospitals, stacking shelves, facing the crisis on the front line—you deserve more than our thanks; you deserve a government that backs your right to fair pay. If I can go back and channel a much-played conversation I had during the election campaign: do I welcome the 5.2 per cent increase for minimum-wage workers? Absolutely!
Secondly, we have already put to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change our nationally determined contribution of 43 per cent by 2030. That puts Australia on the path to net zero by 2050. This week we will put that same ambition in legislation to the parliament of Australia. I say to those who are continuing to oppose that: they should listen to the electorate, because the electorate very clearly has sent a message that they want a government who acts on climate change, who puts in place an energy policy for the country.
Thirdly, when floodwaters revisited their devastation on people in Southern Queensland and New South Wales, we mobilised the ADF to work alongside state support—faster than ever before. We also got emergency payments moving to families and businesses affected—faster than ever before.
Fourthly, we've implemented the strongest-ever biosecurity measures to protect Australian livestock from the threat of foot-and-mouth disease. We acted swiftly. The minister went to Indonesia to deal with the challenges they're facing. We also took action right here in Australia, in consultation, of course, and with a position that was supported by the National Farmers Federation, the cattle industry and the livestock industry, while those opposite were busy playing politics.
Lastly, through the Quad, through NATO and the Pacific Islands Forum, through official visits to Indonesia and France and through targeted ministerial engagement, we have demonstrated to our neighbours, our partners and our allies that the new government of Australia will be a constructive partner and a trustworthy friend. They don't have to worry about sending text messages about whether it will appear. We engage in a trustworthy way, one that builds relationships. We also, of course, made the visit to Ukraine to express our solidarity with the people of Ukraine, suffering from the Russian invasion.
Now my team are seeking to bring this same energy, urgency, purpose and drive to the work of this parliament. The government is determined for this new parliament to work better than the old one. Our behaviour—all of us—is a part of that. We must strive to treat each other with respect and courtesy, to cooperate where it is possible and to disagree in good faith where it is not. Of course, we may not always meet that standard. We serve in an adversarial democracy, and this chamber can be a place for fierce and determined clashes. But we can—each of us—make the contest about substance and ideas, about the things that matter to the people and the country, rather than the trivial, the personal and the petty. Let each of us try to live up to this place's best traditions, rather than succumb to its worse habits.
The culture of what happens in this building matters too. That's why the Jenkins review is a call for all of us to make this a safer, healthier and more respectful place to work. Of course, we are already, outside this place, working on the 55 recommendations of the Respect@Work report.
Making the parliament work better also requires a program and a purpose, an agenda that will make a difference to the lives of the communities we represent and the people we have the honour of serving. Day after day, the previous government treated parliament as an arena for its political stunts: cooking up wedge issues, manufacturing points of difference, desperately seeking to find a new angle for attack. But, for all their frantic obsession with finding something to say, they rarely turned up to parliament with anything to do. As the Treasurer will detail tomorrow, the Australian economy is still counting the cost of that complacency, that culture of rorts and waste, that wasted decade of delay and denial and division, that strange self-loathing that saw parliament as a chore and government as a problem.
We are determined to be better and determined to do better. My colleagues and I want to treat every day in this job in this place in government as an opportunity to deliver for the people of Australia, to fulfil our promises and to prove worthy of the trust that the Australian people have placed in us. And that begins with the legislation that we're introducing here this week—a significant legislative agenda as outlined in the Governor-General's address to the parliament just yesterday.
Firstly, we're taking the important first steps to fix the crisis in aged care. We are committed to giving older Australians the respect, dignity, quality of life and humanity in their later years that they deserve. That starts with putting nurses back into nursing homes—something that shouldn't be a radical concept, but, apparently for those opposite, was just too hard.
We're going to make sure that Australians living in aged care can see a registered nurse in their residential facility. We know that this brings peace of mind to people, and we know also that it helps take pressure off emergency departments. On so many occasions, we know that our hospitals are full not just because of people who need to be there. Were other facilities available, like a Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, for example, or if you had a nurse in a nursing home, people could get the care where they are before issues become more acute. This is a commonsense position that was outlined very clearly in the aged-care royal commission report.
The legislation we are bringing into the parliament will also boost accountability in residential aged care and put a stop to exorbitant fees for home care. The money that the government and families put in should go to improving the quality of care for people, not boosting the profits of a few unscrupulous providers. Overwhelmingly, people in the sector are doing their absolute best and, in particular, I pay tribute to the workers in the sector who have been under such enormous pressure, particularly in recent years, but continue to look after our older Australians.
The other piece of legislation that we've introduced just this morning is the creation of Jobs and Skills Australia. This is applying the Infrastructure Australia model to how we deal with the labour market. Immigration will always play an important role in our skills provision, whether it be temporary or attracting skilled migrants to Australia. But we also need to have a plan to train Australians, because what occurred when the borders shut was, all of a sudden, the skills shortages went right through the roof. People weren't able to get the skills that they needed to operate their businesses or even just to stay open. The creation of Jobs and Skills Australia, a new statutory body, will help fill urgent gaps in our national skills base and provide a plan ahead to avoid shortages in the years to come. This is important for individuals, to give them the opportunity to better their lot in life, but it's also important for the nation.
Another piece of legislation we've introduced is to amend the Fair Work Act to make 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave part of the National Employment Standards, available to 11 million workers if they have need of it. In Australia, tragically, one woman dies at the hands of their current or former partner every 10 days. Thousands more live in pain, fearing for their safety and the safety of their children. Escaping a violent partner is a legal, logistical, financial and psychological nightmare. Worrying about missing work simply shouldn't enter into it. No woman should be held back from leaving a violent situation for fear of losing her job. This legislation will make that right, and it's just one of the measures that we will take—in addition to providing additional community workers, in addition to providing support for those in the sector who need it and in addition to providing additional funding for emergency housing. The truth is that, every night in Australia, a woman—potentially a woman with children—is turned away from a shelter because there simply isn't space, and they're forced to sleep in their car or try to sleep on a friend's couch or, worse still, return to a dangerous situation. We can do better and we must do better.
We've also introduced legislation to deal with the challenge and the opportunity of climate change. For too long, climate sceptics have dictated Australia's climate and energy policy. Nine years of delay and denial on climate policy inflicted nine years of chaos and confusion in energy policy. The legislation that we've introduced gives parliament a chance to draw a line under that. We've already updated our position for the United Nations and sent a message to the world. What that has done is open the door of international engagement. It's the price you pay for going through—you've got to leave the naughty corner, and Australia has left the naughty corner, when it comes to climate change, and we're engaging. Given what has occurred in recent years in Australia, with the bushfires, with the floods, floods and more floods—which followed, a few years earlier, of course, the drought—I can't understand how anyone in this chamber can say that we don't need to legislate for a serious position. Those opposite, at various times, took steps down the track. They actually had the Liberal party room vote for a National Energy Guarantee, not once but twice. But then, instead of implementing it, they rolled the leader. We need to do better than that. This is a serious issue, and people voted for climate action at this election.
With this legislation, the crossbenchers and the opposition and the minor parties have an opportunity to end the climate wars. We announced this policy on the first Friday of December last year. It was more than 5½ months to polling day. No-one can say that there wasn't scrutiny of the position that we put forward. No-one can say it wasn't fully costed. No-one can say there was any ambiguity about this during the election campaign. That's why, in my view, those throughout this parliament—in the House of Representatives and the Senate—have an obligation to vote for this legislation. If that doesn't convince them that that's necessary, think about how isolated they will be, given that the Business Council of Australia, who I addressed this morning here in Parliament House; the Australian Industry Group; the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; the Australian Council of Trade Unions; Greenpeace; the Australian Conservation Foundation; and the Clean Energy Council have all said they support this legislation and have called for parliament to pass this legislation. Surely everyone in this parliament can find one of those groups that they listen to, somewhere on that very broad spectrum which is there. The business community are saying very clearly that they just want the certainty that comes from this legislative change. It won't change the commitment. The commitment's done. It has already been done, witnessed by those organisations and submitted. What it will do, though, is provide some comfort and some certainty going forward, particularly for the business community.
All of that legislation is legislation we're introducing in week 1. Tomorrow, the Treasurer will deliver the economic statement to the House, ahead of the Jobs and Skills Summit we'll convene here in Parliament House in September, followed by the budget in October. People understand the tremendous difficulties of the situation that we have inherited, but I want Australians to know that we have a plan. We have a plan to help with the cost of living, a plan to get wages moving, a plan to step up and work with businesses and unions on skills shortages, and a plan to boost productivity and take pressure off family budgets, with reforms such as cheaper child care. As a government, we've now embarked on the work of building that better future we promised.
I invite the parliament to join us in this task, to cooperate in the national interest and to find constructive common purpose. Whatever our differences in political parties, we share a love of this country, and we share an extraordinary privilege to be here.
Through all the turmoil and hardship of the past few years, Australians have been magnificent. They've been brave. They've been caring. They've been resolute. The best way that we can serve the people of Australia is by striving to match those qualities that they themselves have shown: courage in the work of change, care for those in need, and resolve as we face the challenges ahead. With new hope, with new energy and with new purpose, let us take up this great task to indeed create a better future for this country.
Before I call the honourable member for Boothby, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech, and I ask the House to extend to them the usual courtesies. I give the call to the member for Boothby.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I offer my congratulations on your appointment to this role. I acknowledge that we meet today on the unceded lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, and I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. I pay my respects to other First Nations people present today and acknowledge and celebrate their cultural authority.
The electorate of Boothby, which I am honoured to represent here today, is on Kaurna Yerta, the unceded lands of the Kaurna people. Boothby is spread across the plains to the south of Tarntanyangga, which is Adelaide, from the hills to the coast, and it contains many important cultural sites in the Tjilbruke dreaming story. I pay my respects to the Kaurna people.
I'm proud to be here as part of the Albanese Labor government, which has committed to the important reconciliation work that is the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Voice. Treaty. Truth. This is unfinished business for us all. Together, we are stronger. The work of bringing us together is overdue.
I'd like to acknowledge the previous member for Boothby, Nicolle Flint, who served two terms before retiring at the 2022 election. I acknowledge her work representing the community and particularly her advocacy on the issue of treatment of women. I wish her every success in future endeavours.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to congratulate our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. I received so many contacts from across Boothby following the election. The words I heard most were 'relief' and 'hope'—hope for a better future for themselves, their children and their country, hope for a community that works together and cares about each other. Your vision—our vision—for a parliament with integrity, for an inclusive community, for the Uluru Statement from the Heart, for climate change action and for a pathway forward for those doing it tough is inspiring and worth working for. Australia is in good hands.
Like many Australians, I am a migrant. I was born in Hollywood—less glamorous than it sounds—a small town outside Birmingham in the UK. With my parents, along with my mother's parents and siblings, we all moved to Australia as ten-pound Poms in search of opportunity, and we certainly found it. I cannot imagine my family, arriving with a 20-month-old me, foresaw the opportunities that would be afforded to me and the life that I would go on to lead, let alone that I would be one day standing here in this place making this address.
We initially settled in the north-east suburbs of Adelaide. My grandfather worked on the floor of the Holden factory. My father worked as an electrical draftsman for a whitegoods manufacture and then in the public service. My younger brother was born in Adelaide, and we attended the local primary school. We were the generation that took off on the weekends on our bikes with our school friends, traversing the fields and creeks adjacent to what was then the outer suburbs of Adelaide, building cubbies and bike jumps and reappearing at dinnertime. I was the kid covered in scratches and bruises from falling out of trees or riding my bike through the scrub. It was great.
I still remember the day my brother and I came home to find my mum and dad waiting for us and they told us the worst news: dad had cancer. I was 10 years old. Then started three years of treatment. I don't know what it was like for dad; the worst of it was hidden from my brother and me. But I know that there would be days when mum and dad would head off to the hospital in the morning and they would not be home at night. Dad would be too sick to leave the hospital, and mum would have to stay and look after him. My brother and I would walk home from school and let ourselves into the house. I would help my brother do his homework. I would feed us both and lock up the house, and we'd go to bed. Mum would be home sometime during the night.
And then came the day in August 1980, a very crisp spring morning with blue skies, sunny, icy cold. I remember opening the curtains in my room and the sun shining through the window. I remember going into the kitchen to find my grandparents. I remember being sent into the living room, where my mum was sitting with my brother. My dad had died overnight. I remember the shock. As a child, I had taken for granted that, when they said his cancer was treatable, that meant he would survive.
My Irish grandparents moved in to care for us, and so I grew up with their stories. They'd tell me stories of the Blitz in Birmingham and how granddad had come home to found their house had had a direct hit. He dug through the rubble, not knowing if his wife, my granny, was alive or dead. When he got to the cupboard under the stairs, which was their bomb shelter, he found her unharmed, cradling my two-year-old uncle Tom. Granny was pregnant with my mother at that time. You were that close to not having me here.
One of the stories granny would tell me was of her own childhood in Belfast—the story of her father losing his job in the shipyards. There was no income support in those days, so my great-grandmother went scrubbing floors and pawned her wedding ring to feed the family—no shame in hard work, but my granny was horrified that her mother had had to pawn her wedding ring. The story has a happy ending: when my grandfather found work, the ring was reclaimed, and granny gave me her mother's wedding ring when my own children were born. I wear that ring here today in tribute.
That experience of poverty and of the precariousness of our family's situation drove my grandparents' commitment to education, to ensuring that their family was never so vulnerable again. My grandparents were committed Labor people. Their commitment came from their understanding of the transformative powers of public education and public health. After their experience of poverty in Northern Ireland, they wanted more for their family. Two generations on, the importance of education was drummed into me, and I became the first person in my family to go to university.
Whitlam said, 'We are all diminished as citizens when any of us are poor.' Poverty is a national waste as well as an individual waste. We are all diminished when any of us are denied proper education. The nation is poorer—a poorer economy, a poorer civilisation—because of this human and national waste. I'm not old enough to remember the Whitlam government, but his vision for our country underpins much of what I value: affordable education, affordable justice, land rights for First Nations people and women's rights. Whitlam ended the death penalty, stood up against apartheid in South Africa, established the Racial Discrimination Act and ended conscription to the Vietnam War. Importantly, his vision included affordable healthcare. My family did not have to choose whether to go broke to give my dad the best possible chance of surviving. Finances might have been tight when he died, but we did not have the crippling medical debt pushing us into bankruptcy that we see in so many countries. Good government establishes the conditions and the opportunities whereby we, all of us, can flourish individually and as a community. If it isn't about the people, if it isn't about the community, what is it about?
One of the great joys of campaigning was talking to the people of Boothby—hearing their concerns and helping them with their issues. In the hills of Blackwood and Belair I heard about climate change and bushfires. On the plains at Dover Gardens and Ascot Park I heard about the housing shortage and the insecurity of casualised labour contracts. In Warradale I heard from a couple, both working, saving like mad for a house deposit as they watched prices escalate faster than they could save. In the seaside suburb of Glenelg I heard from retirees about their fears of the legacy they were leaving their grandchildren: climate change. I heard from a man with quadriplegia who had his overnight support cut by NDIS, and another man, very distressed, who told me about his mother's last terrible months in aged care.
The very significant benefits of this wonderful country are not shared fairly. My family taught me about the importance of working hard to get ahead but also the importance of social equity. If we want to have a peaceful, cohesive society; if we want to grow our collective wealth; if we want to protect against the very real challenges heading our way, be it climate change, the pandemic or our place in the world; and if we want a strong country, it is in all of our interests that as many as possible are able to share in the benefits of our great country. Inequality is a detriment to us all.
Too often government does not create the conditions and the opportunities for all of its citizens to flourish. Indeed, it creates conditions that push some people down, hold them down and make life as difficult as it can be. It punishes them for not being enough, for not being able to overcome the disadvantage they may have been born into or may have experienced in their lives. Too often past governments have actively and deliberately pushed people into poverty.
Cost of living is one of the major issues I hear about across Boothby. While it affects almost everyone, those on a form of benefit payment, those on minimum wage and those on low fixed incomes are definitely impacted the most. There is no logic and no moral reason why the poorest and most disadvantaged should be the ones who bear the greater burden. The raising of the minimum wage is a fantastic step forward, and the addressing of casualising gig economy work conditions will make such a difference. Many of you know that I'm a long-term campaigner for the Raise the Rate campaign, and I don't step away from that. I'm also committed to addressing other forms of cost-of-living issues.
This government has inherited wicked problems: $1 trillion in debt and rising interest rates; a climate emergency and a neglected environment; the pandemic and a shortage of skilled labour; and a housing crisis in both purchase and rental markets, and in all of these issues it's important to remember that those in poverty will feel this a lot more than the rest of us. They say a rising tide lifts all boats, but not if the boat is tied down.
My recent work has been in the homelessness sector. When we think of homelessness, we are talking about the pointy end of poverty. This is the stage where people truly have nothing left, and it's hard to come back from losing everything. No-one plans to become homeless—this is not anyone's ambition growing up—yet it happens to more people than you would think. There were over 112,000 homeless at the 2016 census, and we expect that number to have risen in the 2021 census.
We always say in the sector that anyone can become homeless and, when you hear that, I know for many there's a small voice in the back of your head that says, 'Well, yes, but not me,' because we'd all like to think that the benefits that we experience are the result of good decisions that we've made and our hard work. And we like to think that because it gives us a feeling of control and safety and security. But, sadly, I'm here to tell you that it can and does happen to people exactly like you and me every day, and to people like your loved ones, your parents, your children, your siblings and your friends.
Physical illness—a cancer diagnosis, for instance—mental illness, relationship breakdown or death of a spouse, a job redundancy, injury, domestic violence: a crisis can arise unexpectedly and very quickly, and suddenly someone who thought their life was stable, secure and independent finds that they have no income coming in and they can't pay the rent. Nearly half of all South Australian women would not be able to support themselves for more than a month on savings alone, and for men it's 36 per cent. It's hard enough trying to survive on Jobseeker, let alone be the preferred tenant in an overly competitive housing market.
Doorknocking in Boothby, I came across people living in garages and squatting in derelict houses. Businesses on our premier tourist strips told me of people sleeping on benches and in doorways. Residents in some of the wealthier areas told me of giving blankets and food to people living behind the local shopping centre and to families living in cars. I've seen it, I've met them, and I can tell you truly: anyone can become homeless.
The Australia my family migrated to, the Australia that I see in my mind and that I hold close to my heart, is an Australia of opportunity, where hard work is rewarded but misfortune is not punished, where we are one community and we are a caring community. I am proud to be here as part of an Albanese Labor government, because Australia needs us to do more and be more.
I said at the beginning of my campaign that this is a 'we' campaign not a 'me' campaign, and I have so many people to thank. Labor is a movement that is bigger than the party. It's powered by the mighty union movement and supported by broader civil society. It's a movement that says that we can all share in the riches of our country, that we should all be treated with respect, that each of us, as individuals, should be valued. Our work should be valued. Our contribution to the community should be valued. We should be valued. I can't thank you all enough and I'm here to help us achieve our vision: a fair community with a better future—no-one left behind.
Particular thanks to Senator Penny Wong; Senator Karen Grogan; South Australian Deputy Premier, the Hon. Susan Close, who I think is in the gallery today; Ian Hunter MLC and Abbie Spencer for their support during the preselection process and since; members of the Boothby FEC, particularly President Aileen Croghan, Secretary Don Clancy and former president Dale Beasley for having faith in me; my campaign manager, the wonderful Tom Mooney, who worked the magic and kept me moving forwards; and the campaign team, Liz Temple, Abbie Spencer, Jo Sutton, Ella Waters, Tamsin Anspach, Nick Falcinella, Alexia Deegan, Amy Ware, Ella Shaw, Sean Hill, Cameron Smith, Patrick Stewart, Issie Martin and Elias Hallaj; and the extraordinary support and friendship of Shaun Bonett, Adrian Tisato and Leon Cermak.
I want to thank everyone involved in the South Australian union movement. So many of our unions supported me, and I particularly want to thank the United Workers Union, the Community and Public Sector Union, Australian Services Union and the SDA for their incredible support. I was truly overwhelmed by the support of so many unions and union members who dedicated countless hours to elect the first Labor member for Boothby in 73 years and a Labor government that will fight for the rights and conditions of workers. I'd particularly like to call out Gary Bullock, Jo Sutton, Abbie Spencer, Liz Temple and Ella Waters.
There were many, many volunteers who came out day after day in hail and in the middle of summer, doorknocking, phone-calling, letterboxing. Some of them are long-term volunteers, such as Julanne Sweeney, who has been volunteering for Labor since Whitlam—and I've seen the photos—many others were volunteering for the first time, moved by a sense of urgency to change the government.
My staff—all up in the gallery—Nick Falcinella, Amelia Yaron, Hannah Beadle, Alex Bond and James Dimas, are now in the process of setting up the office while providing service to the many constituents we're hearing from. A little bit like building the plane while you're flying it. And, of course, the voters of Boothby who engaged with me, talked to me, told me what mattered to them—their concerns, hopes and fears, the stories of their lives, and, of course, what they wanted from their government and their representative. I feel incredibly privileged to be entrusted with your stories, your faith and your votes, and I will work for you every day and every night.
I'd also like to thank my former employer St Vincent de Paul Society SA, its state president, Brad Hocking; national president, Claire Victory; and staff and volunteers. I'm sure that your newish CEO up and leaving to campaign for a federal seat was not in your forward plans—I don't recall seeing it on the risk register, but possibly that was my failing! I thank you for your support.
Finally, my family and friends. My mother: you provided a secure and safe home, despite the death of your beloved husband, my father. You supported my education in an era where education for girls was not a given, and while I recall that I was the perfect child I accept that it may not have always felt that way from your perspective.
To my best friend Tiffany Williams, who is in the gallery: I suspect that you think I am your support and cheerleader, but actually you're my support and cheerleader. Thank you for putting up with me being a very neglectful friend over the last 10 months.
My triplet sons, Hamish, Rory, and Jacques—also in the gallery—have adjusted well to their mother suddenly deciding to change everyone's lives by abruptly resigning from paid employment and disappearing on the campaign trail. Their enthusiasm for seeing my face on every Stobie pole in the electorate of Boothby and having their friends report back on what I've done and said hasn't failed. Thank you for your support. I love you all, and I'm putting it on the record: you're all my favourites.
And, finally, my wonderful husband, Kim. Kim and I met when we were both sitting on a not-for-profit board. We often comment that the Institute of Company Directors doesn't advertise meeting the love of your life as a benefit to volunteering on a board. And what a man to take on not only me, but my three then 15-year-old sons!
When Kim and I went on holiday to the Northern Territory last year, we had no idea that we would come back having made such a life-changing decision—for me to run for preselection for Boothby. Kim has been a constant support, a constant enthusiasm and, to my great amusement, took to door knocking like a pro. He took to letter-boxing, corfluting, and spending whole days at pre-poll and polling booths chatting to voters. Mr Speaker, if I might crave your indulgence to directly address my husband: Kim, I love our lives together. I can't thank you enough. I love you, and I truly could haven't done this without your support. In the words of the Kaurna people, 'Ngaityalya.'
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
I congratulate you, Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. I wanted to take the first opportunity I had in this new parliament to acknowledge and thank the many people in our local communities across the country who dedicate themselves to protecting vulnerable children and women from both domestic violence and sexual abuse.
As shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence, I've already met with and been working with a number of organisations. There are far too many to list in this 90-second statement, but I've working with many, from the more well-known like Anglicare to the Daniel Morcombe Foundation; Bravehearts; the Alannah & Madeline Foundation; Hearts of Purple on the Gold Coast, who specialise in innovative solutions and support for women at risk. There are, of course, thousands of individuals and organisations who work to help people in these situations, including the specialist DV lawyers who work in this field.
I want to put on the record that I am determined to work with the incoming government to help further improve support services for families experiencing violence. The coalition will always support practical programs that are centred on developing and maintaining an outcome and making a real difference.
Congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity to speak about air and sea connectivity in my electorate of Solomon. Darwin, as all honourable members know, is Australia's gateway to South-East Asia and is playing an increasingly critical role in Australia's engagement with the Indo-Pacific region and beyond, which is why I'm so disappointed in the increasing cuts by airlines to flights to and from Darwin, both within Australia and internationally, as well as the peak tourism season gouging that we've seen where Territorians are paying up to $3,000 one-way with Qantas from Darwin to Sydney. It's outrageous and it needs to be looked at.
In recent weeks we have also seen the Indonesia President, Joko Widodo, flag the importance of a Kupang—which is West Timor—Dili, Timor-Leste and Darwin route, which is something I also had the opportunity to discuss with the Indonesia government last month when we visited with the Prime Minister.
Our neighbours understand the importance of connectivity within our region. We must make the most of the opportunities that Darwin is uniquely placed to provide for all Australians and into the Indo-Pacific.
I call on our airlines to have a look at their practices and to make sure that there is no gouging, because every single Australian and tourist must have the opportunity to come to our magnificent Northern Territory.
Congratulations, Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. Last Friday 22 July I once again I joined members of our community living with fragile X syndrome, their loved ones and supporters on the steps of Launceston's town hall as it lit up in orange in support of World Fragile X Day. The genetic disorder, which is more common in boys than girls, can result in a wide range of physical, intellectual and behavioural symptoms and is the most common inherited cause of autism and intellectual disability worldwide.
For local parents Brent and Claire Colgrave, community organisations have been critical as they help their two sons, Harry and Tom, navigate life while living with the syndrome, with New Horizons Tasmania and the Mowbray Cricket Club providing a sense of connection and inclusiveness for the young men. Ms Colgrave said:
Luckily, we live in a fantastic small community in Tassie and in Launceston. These kids and these young adults, and even older adults, just want to be the same as other people. They want to feel included and loved. They don't want to be treated differently.
I understand that there is more work to be done in the areas of early diagnosis and of both early identification of people who are carrying the Fragile X gene permutation and early identification of those who have the syndrome. Further work is also needed by researchers and clinicians to identify future treatments. I look forward to working with the Fragile X Association of Australia to help advance this work where I can.
Last week in Bendigo we had a very special visitor come to our town. At the invitation of the City of Greater Bendigo, the Ukrainian ambassador to Australia visited Thales, where we manufacture the Bushmaster. He came for a specific purpose, to meet and thank the men and women who manufacture the Bushmaster.
Everyone on this side of the House and anyone in the armed services, particularly the Army, knows how important and valuable this vehicle is. It saves lives. We are very proud of its history. Its legacy is rooted in Labor governments, first from the idea when Kim Beazley was the minister, through to our government. But it was a little bit embarrassing when the visitor was in town and at Thales, because there were all these Hawkeis lined up on the lawns. The previous government left without paying the bill. There are 550 Hawkeis sitting on the lawns that our government has inherited and is now working with the company about what to do. Of course, the Ukrainian ambassador didn't miss the opportunity to say that he'd have them, that his country would welcome any extra support.
One of the things that makes me so proud was that not only did our Prime Minister visit Ukraine in his early days as Prime Minister but he was able to stand in front of an Australian-made, Bendigo-made Bushmaster when he was there.
In the last term I fought doggedly for a new single-site hospital for Albury Wodonga, lobbying the former Prime Minister and the former Treasurer and using every opportunity to keep the pressure on. I was re-elected with a mandate to keep up this fight. The new government is on notice that I will not rest until we have the hospital our growing and prosperous community deserves.
Both the current and former federal governments have spent hundreds of millions of dollars building hospitals all around the country. This government promised $200 million for the Flinders Medical Centre, matched by the South Australian government. A new hospital for Albury Wodonga must be next.
A fortnight ago, the NSW and Victorian health ministers met in Albury for the first time, starting discussions on how co-funding of this hospital could work. We saw opposite sides of politics uniting for a common cause to address an urgent need. This government needs to join them at the table. Sharing the cost of a new hospital between three parties means that all sides get below-cost infrastructure. This is a world-class deal for a world-class hospital. I look forward to inviting the state and federal ministers to meet on the border so they can see how transformational this investment could be.
It was a former Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, who was the original visionary for the Albury Wodonga cross-border partnership almost 50 years ago. This government has the chance to continue this legacy by funding this hospital.
Congratulations, Deputy Speaker Claydon. We all know just how difficult it is to get in to see the doctor, particularly in regional areas like mine in the electorate of Corangamite. My constituents constantly tell me this. They are often frustrated because they need help to overcome an illness, get a medical certificate or just get back to work as soon as possible. The Albanese government understands this frustration, and we are working on our pre-election commitment to make it easier for people in my electorate and across Australia to see a doctor sooner and closer to home. Under our government, local medical practices will now be able to recruit from a much bigger pool of doctors with the updating and extension of the distribution priority areas, the DPAs, across the nation. Put simply, this means more medical graduates and overseas trained doctors will be able to work in regional and remote areas. In my electorate, this DPA extension will have significant benefit, with DPA status now applying to Bannockburn, Torquay and Ocean Grove and across parts of the Bellarine.
I am proud our government is delivering on this election commitment. It is the first of many our Albanese government will make to strengthen our health system, and I look forward to working with my constituents and local health organisations to help make the best health outcomes possible for my electorate and across our nation.
Congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon. I would like to raise an impressive initiative that I'm proud to have operating in my electorate of Warringah. I was delighted to meet with a group of incredible young adults from Head High Disability Service's skill share this week. Head High provides an opportunity for young people living with disability to meet, connect and collaborate as they develop new skills. Through regular meet-ups, this education initiative for 17- to 26-year-olds equips participants with important skills and experience that strengthen their employment and social opportunities. It was wonderful hearing of the work experience that they have individually undertaken in our local area. I wish to acknowledge the work and dedication of Julie Ross-Edwards and the Head High team for their incredible devotion to a cause so often overlooked. It's so important that every member of our local disability community is visible, included and valued, and Head High's skill share services have taken impressive steps to ensure everybody is equipped to live to their fullest potential. I very much look forward to meeting with further groups within Warringah that are doing that really important work of ensuring people and constituents living with disabilities have the opportunity to contribute to the fullest of their capacity. We need to make sure all Australians are visible and valued in our community.
Yet again, residents of the Hawkesbury have faced catastrophic flooding, less than three months after the double-flood-whammy of March and April. This was the largest flood we've seen since 1978. As always, we are grateful to the emergency services who supported community members to evacuate safely and to access supplies when they were isolated, helped by local food charities. The volunteers and staff of the SES and the RFS, the Australian Defence Force, police, Fire and Rescue New South Wales, Resilience New South Wales and all the agencies who were involved are to be commended.
When the waters are rising, our flooding makes news, but I need people to know that the effects of the floods are far from over. There are 24 homes destroyed. Two hundred and forty-six are uninhabitable. Another 500 are damaged. Fifty-seven businesses were destroyed or damaged. People are still isolated because of damaged roads and landslides, or they have very fragile access. The environmental damage has to be seen to be believed. There are gouged-out riverbanks with unrepaired damage from previous floods compounded by this one. Farmers have silt and sand across hectares of land or land that has simply disappeared. There are dunes of sand throughout the Macdonald Valley.
Our government, from the Prime Minister down, responded fast and collaboratively, but we know that much more is needed. I want my community to know that we will not walk just because the cameras have gone.
Congratulations on your elevation, Deputy Speaker Claydon. I have indescribable gratitude for my constituents in the beautiful electorate of Moncrieff on the Gold Coast, and today I speak for the first time in this 47th Parliament as the shadow minister for early childhood education and shadow minister for youth. But I stand unwavering as the representative for Moncrieff. It's only right to begin the 47th Parliament by recognising those who've honoured me with the privilege of being their voice in this place. To you, the good people of Moncrieff, I say, 'Thank you, and my door is always yours'.
I'd like to thank the Hon. Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, for entrusting me with the responsibility of holding this government to account on issues that will affect the next generation and on policies that will shape the way our children and our grandchildren receive early education and care. To the next generation, I say: you are everything. You are the future. You are the reason we work to build a nation that is strong and that is secure. As young Australians today, it is you who will lead the Australia of tomorrow. Teachers often say they learn just as much from their students as their students learn from them, and as shadow minister for early childhood education and shadow minister for youth, I'm listening. I'm working to ensure policies that affect the next generation are in the best interests of their future and of generations to come.
N () (): Much-loved Ipswich World War II veteran Arthur Keith Pennell passed away on Sunday 24 July at the age of 96, surrounded by his family. Keith was a pillar of the local veterans community and Ipswich generally. A former citizen of the year, he served in the Australian General Transport Company and in Japan following the atomic bombing. He was a life member of the Ipswich RSL and patron of the Bundamba ANZAC Observance Committee. At the dawn services there, he recited the oath for nearly 40 years. I always attend that service every year and enjoy catching up with him for a chat.
Keith dedicated his life to supporting his fellow living veterans through volunteer work with the Ipswich Incapacitated Servicemen and Women's Association. He was a former president of the association and a pension welfare officer. It was an honour to present Keith with a commemorative medallion and certificate of commemoration at the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II in 2020.
With his passing, we've lost another connection to that great generation who grew up in the Depression and served in World War II and then rebuilt our nation post-war. It's hard to describe with words the deep respect held for Keith in the Ipswich community. I want to pass on my sincere condolences to Keith's daughter Estelle, his family and his many friends, particularly those at Bundamba at this time. I can't be at the funeral service. Vale, Keith Pennell. Thank you for your service. Lest we forget.
Sister Brigid Arthur was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for distinguished service to social welfare, particularly with asylum seekers and refugees, and to Catholic education. Bishop Philip Huggins described her as 'a beautiful soul who persisted in caring for some of humankind's most vulnerable people and does this with a practical kindness—always kindness.' In her own words, Sister Brigid said that her motivation for decades of work with refugees and asylum seekers came down to:
A certain stubbornness, probably, that there are a lot of things wrong and while we can do something about them we shouldn't give up, we should do it. I think I'm motivated by the fact that no one of us, and no one organisation or government, has the right to set up structures and adopt policies that are really cruel and that often don't recognise that the people who are being victimised by those structures and policies are quite vulnerable and need to be protected and not punished.
Unconditional love. We know what that's about with our own children; we give them unconditional love and support. But what about the unconditional love that comes from Sister Brigid? I had only known her as Sister Brigid; I didn't even know her name was Brigid Arthur. How is it that Sister Brigid can give unconditional love to the lost, the lonely, the broken, the poor, the refugees? Perhaps she even gave unconditional love to a parliamentarian walking a lonely road.
It's a privilege to be back in this place, re-elected as the member for Jagajaga. I must say if does feel like a very different parliament to our last one, no more so than yesterday when we were welcomed to country by Aunty Matilda and her son Paul. Paul House's speech powerfully challenged all of us in here to commit to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It was a challenge our Prime Minister took up yesterday and, in fact, put on to each one of us in here: seize this moment in our nation's history to make our time in this place count. I have had so many people in my community come to me and say that they support the Uluru Statement from the Heart because they understand it is a very generous offer from the First Nations people of our country. As my colleague Senator Dodson has said, it is a chance to enhance our nation.
Of course, the first step for the Uluru Statement from the Heart is a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament to ensure that First Nations people have input on decisions that are made in this place. Our government's commitment is to a referendum in our first term, and we know referendums are hard. But today I want to take up the challenge, laid down by our PM and laid down by Aunty Matilda and Paul House, to do all I can, as a member of this House, to ensure that that referendum succeeds. We can't let this moment slip by.
FMD, foot-and-mouth disease, is a terrible disease on our doorstep. Lumpy skin disease, LSD, is also a very real threat on our doorstep. Lumpy skin disease is a disease that can be carried by parasites, by insects, on the wind. Foot-and-mouth disease is a debilitating disease that creates ulcers and pussy sores on the tongues of hoofed animals—pigs, goats, the Australian cattle herd—and, if not tended to, render a beast unable to eat. They stand there drooling, eventually starving to death. They suffer the same agonising pain from ulcers and sores on their feet, which makes them unable to stand. This is a very real threat, and it's on our doorstep.
The agriculture sector in Australia was one of the two—along with the resources sector—that held up our economy through the COVID disaster. At all times we must protect your agriculture sector from this debilitating disease. Graziers are fearful for their livelihoods and for their stock and property values, and they're fearful that not enough is being done.
Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment. I know you're a person of the highest integrity and perfect for this role. For this my first speech in the 47th Parliament I want to refer to a coffee catch-up I had with some locals in a couple of my suburbs of Annerley and Tarragindi. I do this every month. I was expecting just a few people to turn up, but there were 30 or more at each of the posts. That took me and the cafe staff by surprise. I thought that people had had enough of politicians and politics, but it was actually the complete opposite. They were excited and they were full of hope. They were motivated and they were buoyed by the possibility of change that comes with the election of an Albanese Labor government. People came because they were excited that finally there was a government that not only believed in climate change but was actually getting on with the job of doing something about it. With nine years of policy vacuum behind us, there was a government in town that had real ideas and that were committed to implementing the promises we made to the people of Moreton and beyond.
This is a government that will deliver on aged-care reform, reducing emissions, protecting the environment, fixing visa processing delays, fixing the NDIS and so much more. I want to end by reflecting on what the Prime Minister said yesterday. He said that there's no middle ground when you're here in parliament. You're either going to look back with a source of pride or a source of regret. I don't want to look back with anger. I want to look back with pride in what I have achieved for the people of Moreton and for this nation
I think it's important to start the 47th Parliament on a positive note. I want to thank the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for organising a briefing just moments ago in relation to foot-and-mouth disease. In the order of 100 MPs and staff attended that briefing, which reflects the concern across the parliament, across the chambers in relation to the crisis which is developing to our north. Across regional Australia people are extremely anxious about this biosecurity crisis for our northern neighbours. As the member for Wright said earlier, the social and the economic impact of such an incursion onto home soil here in Australia would be absolutely devastating for our regional areas. Our trade reputation would be trashed.
This is an issue which has to be above politics in this place. I urge all ministers—all ministers—in this place to understand the importance of this issue, even if it's not in your portfolio. I know you have a lot of important matters in front of you. This issue is critical. You have to communicate with the Australian public more clearly on what you're doing and what additional steps you're prepared to take to keep us safe. Australians want reassurance. They want to know we're doing everything we possibly can to stop an incursion onto our home soil. If more needs to be done, everything must be on the table. If the Indonesians need more support, we have to provide it. It's much better to keep the disease away from Australian soil than to try and mitigate once it arrives. I urge the Prime Minister to consider forming a bipartisan task force to work together, to use the experience from across this chamber, to make sure we keep Australia safe.
I'm so pleased to see so many members of the press gallery and the photographers here to hear me tell the House about the amazing grade 5 and grade 6 students at Karingal Heights Primary School, who it has to be said are leading the way in looking after the environment and supporting local manufacturing. Last year they did a recycling project, working with Sebel, a furniture company, and Martogg, which is a plastics manufacturing and recycling company based in Dandenong, just to the north of my electorate of Dunkley. They worked with Martogg to learn about the circular economy and why it's so important to be able to turn waste products into useful products.
They completed projects showing how much they had taken in from the lectures and what their understanding was. They then collected plastic from home—the wrappers of their lunch, ice cream tubs, anything they could get their hands on—and took it into school. The plastics were picked up by Martogg, taken to their plant and turned into plastic granules. Those granules were then transported to Sebel and moulded into school chairs. Not long ago, I had the pleasure of being there at Karingal Heights with the students when they got their chairs. They now sit in their classroom on chairs that are made from plastic that they collected from waste.
The students at Karingal Heights in my community are ahead of the curve, and an Albanese Labor government is going to do all it can to make sure that it supports those sorts of great initiatives.
Our sporting clubs have evolved in recent years, actively driving mental health, wellness and social awareness programs, just like the 'Together' Indigenous celebration at the Warburton Millgrove Football Netball Club I was able to be part of last Saturday. I was honoured to meet proud Taungurung man Nelson Aldridge, a leader of his community, who developed the concept of the Indigenous round at his club, and the driving force behind this event. It was a privilege to hear Nelson speak so passionately about his community. I felt the true spirit of reconciliation. It's another reminder of the powerful role sporting clubs in our community can play in the wider community.
Across my electorate of Casey, sporting clubs have always been the heart of our towns, providing a safe place for young men and women and the wider community. The Warburton Millgrove Football Netball Club is an example of this, tracing its origins back 100 years. Thank you to both Mayor Jim Child and the Victorian Shadow Minister for Sport, Cindy McLeish, for attending with me. Congratulations to the president, Stephen Noonan; the vice-president, David Swankie; and the entire team down at the Warburton Millgrove Football Netball Club for holding such a significant and successful event.
Deputy Speaker Claydon, congratulations on your election to high office. Recently I had the pleasure of visiting the Emmy Monash Aged Care facility in Macnamara with the Minister for Aged Care. We were there meeting with Tanya, the CEO, who has a dedication to her craft and to her profession that brings a culture of real dedication to the residents of Emmy Monash all the way through to the staff there. One of the reasons why we were there was that Emmy Monash is one of the few aged-care facilities around this country that has 24-hour nurses, looking after our aged-care residents around the clock. These nurses are there to provide the medical care that our residents need, not so that they have to get disrupted and move into emergency departments, as is often the case, but so that they can get the medical attention that they need right there in the home.
Walking through Emmy Monash, it's pretty clear that it's not a place; it's a home. It's a home for people that is filled with love, care and dedication by those staff. The staff at Emmy Monash, like so many staff around our aged-care facilities, as I know members in this House would recognise, have made a herculean effort throughout this pandemic. They have been working under immense pressure and they are in serious circumstances, but finally the staff in our aged-care sector will have a government that has their back and that will support them and give them the much needed pay rise that they deserve.
Labor's changes to the standing orders are in direct opposition to their so-called commitment to accountability and transparency, which they have been going on about for nine years. But now the Albanese government has set up the 47th parliament to be the gag parliament. But it's no joke. Labor's new and unprecedented gag orders are designed to end parliamentary debate in order to dodge scrutiny and accountability, with ministers given unfettered and unprecedented power to enact a gag by labelling legislation urgent, without even the need for justification. The government is clearly aware of how dangerous this is; it only released these late last night. The crossbench complained they only saw the changes this morning.
The effect is that bills can be deemed urgent by a minister at any time, without debate and without any justification to the parliament. Once declared urgent, the bill is subject to an automatic guillotine. This collapses the consideration in detail phase of debate on legislation, and any amendments, government or otherwise, are moved together and voted on immediately. During his time in opposition, the now Leader of the House opined on the supposed trashing of parliamentary norms, but nothing compares to what the Albanese government has now imposed on the parliament. Labor is so far away from the so-called new tone for politics the Prime Minister supposedly wants to deliver.
Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the CFMMEU, the corrupt and criminal construction union and a significant donor—and a very successful donor—to the Prime Minister's party. Prime Minister, the CFMMEU donated $5 million to the Labor Party in the last three years and advocates for a policy which will drive up housing and building prices. The Labor Party has sided with union bosses over homebuyers, which will drive up construction costs. Why is Labor making a bad situation worse?
I thank very much the Leader of the Opposition for the question, and I congratulate him on his election as Leader of the Liberal Party. I wish him well as Leader of the Opposition and I hope he stays there for a very, very long time!
When the ABCC is abolished, the Fair Work Ombudsman will still enforce the Fair Work Act in the construction sector. We come with a very simple principle, which is: why should one worker in one sector be treated differently from workers in another sector? If people commit a crime, action should be taken by the appropriate authorities.
And we're not going to take lectures from people who, when they commit issues that see them go to the back bench, come back in leadership positions. We're not going to cop lectures from those opposite, who presided over an anything-goes attitude towards taxpayers' money over the last nine years.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In May, the Australian people voted for an Albanese Labor government with real plans to build a better future. Can the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is working towards that goal?
Thank you very much for the question. I congratulate the honourable member on her election to this parliament and I look forward to working with her and the other new members in this chamber across all sides of the parliament.
On 21 May, the Australian people voted for change, and we have hit the ground running as a new government. We haven't wasted a day. We put in the submission, as we said we would do, to say that people on the minimum wage of $20.33 an hour shouldn't go backwards. Remember during the election campaign, I held up the dollar and said that, if people on the minimum wage got a dollar increase per hour from $20.33 in their wage, then the sky wouldn't fall in. Those opposite said it would—it would wreck the whole economy. Well, we got a decision out of the Fair Work Commission of 5.2 per cent, and I'm very pleased that that occurred. We also acted very quickly, faster than any previous government has, to deal with the natural disaster of the floods that have hit Queensland and New South Wales once again. We had the ADF on the ground quicker than ever before. We had payments in people's bank accounts quicker than for any previous natural disaster. We've also worked to make sure that people get access to antivirals and their fourth shots and have promoted that in order to deal with the pandemic.
But we're also planning for the future, through legislation introduced just today, in our first week, to create Jobs and Skills Australia; legislation to fix the aged-care crisis, responding to the aged care royal commission; and legislation for our climate change target of 43 per cent by 2030, something that we've already submitted to the UNFCCC through our nationally determined contribution.
We've also worked very hard to restore our relationships around the world. The truth is that we had major problems with our relationships in the Pacific; with our European neighbours, particularly France; but also problems with the relationships with the United States and other countries. We hit the ground running very, very quickly. Indeed, on the Monday morning, we were off to the Quad leaders meeting in Tokyo, where we successfully met with President Biden and Prime Minister Kishida and Prime Minister Modi.
What we are about as a government is strength in our common purpose. We have an overriding philosophy of no-one held back and no-one left behind, and that is the program that this government will be proud to implement over this term and beyond.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, officials from the CFMMEU have been charged with thousands of offences. Has the Prime Minister met with any of the many union bosses from the CFMMEU accused of criminal behaviour, including sexual assault, harassment and rape? Yes or no?
If the member opposite has an allegation or wants to know if there's someone I've met with, he should say it.
An opposition member: He's just done so.
No, he hasn't. If he wants to name somebody and ask if I've met with them, he's perfectly entitled to. What he's not entitled to do is to engage in that sort of smear tactic, which is what that question represents.
Mr Speaker, I don't know whether this is a point of order, but that's certainly not an answer to the question. Have you met with these officials that have been charged with sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape?
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There's no point of order. I call the Prime Minister.
I've finished.
My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer update the House on the latest global and domestic economic data? What does it mean for Australia's economy, and how is the government responding?
Congratulations, Speaker, on your election and thank you to my colleague for the first question to me of this new parliament. Australians are paying a really hefty price for a decade of messed-up priorities and missed opportunities. The denial and the delay and the division hasn't been accidental; it's been deliberate from those opposite, and Australians right around the country are paying a hefty price for their economic failures. What it means is that Australians are more vulnerable now than they should be to the sort of economic turbulence that we are seeing around the world and here at home as well.
If you think about the global forecasts released by the International Monetary Fund overnight, they show that the global economy is heading down a precarious and perilous path. They have substantially downgraded their expectations for global growth. So the challenges facing the global economy are substantial, they are growing, they will be with us for some time, and they will be impacting on us here at home. The starkest evidence of that so far is the news that we got this morning about the June quarter inflation figure, the CPI, which was 6.1 per cent, the highest for some decades. What's been obvious for some time now is that we have in our economy high and rising inflation and falling real wages, and our ability to deal with some of these challenges is constrained by a budget which is absolutely heaving with a trillion dollars in Liberal debt, which we have inherited.
What those opposite have done—the member for Hume was front and centre in all of this—is bequeathed to a new government an energy crisis, a skills crisis and a cost-of-living crises. We didn't make this mess, but we take responsibility for cleaning it up. Our plan is all about making child care cheaper, making medicines cheaper and getting real wages growing again in this country, starting with the minimum wage. After a decade of stagnation, which hasn't been accidental—it's been deliberately imposed on the working people of this country by those opposite time and time again—we are seeing the consequences.
I think that what those opposite underestimate about the Australian people is that there is an appetite in the Australian community for some real talk about our economic challenges. There is a hunger, after a decade of division, for Australians to come together and meet these economic challenges, and there is an understanding that a mess that it took you lot nine years to make will take longer than nine weeks for us to clean up.
PM, you will recall your Hughenden visit, a familiarisation with HIPCo's ballot farm, through to irrigation, delivering to Australia 300 million every year, forever. In the GG's speech, the phrase 'make-money projects' sharply contrasts with the prevailing 'absorb-money projects'. PM, you're aware that Theodore's ballot irrigation created 30,000 farms, leading Queensland's ALP to win every non-metropolitan seat for 40 straight years. Could the House be assured that HIPCo, as another wonderful flagship in your—
Order! The member's time has expired. There was a question in that, but barely.
There was indeed, and I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I also thank him for his hospitality up in his electorate. I have indeed visited Hughenden, on two occasions, with the member—
And you stayed sober on all occasions.
I don't think that needed clarification from the member for Kennedy, but I thank him nonetheless for his goodwill! I did potentially get into some difficulty in the pub in Hughenden, by apparently sitting on the wrong seat, which was reserved for a very large gentleman with a hat bigger than the member for Kennedy's! But when we went there we exactly looked at infrastructure projects. This project, the Hughenden Irrigation Project, I understand, has had an initial business case that has been forwarded and will be examined by the department, as is appropriate. I also note that the Flinders Shire Council has been very supportive of the project, and I met with the mayor on a number of occasions.
That part of the world has an enormous opportunity with projects like Big Kennedy and Little Kennedy and the Kidston project, a range of renewable energy projects, a range of water projects, a range of potential irrigation projects to expand agriculture. I have had the privilege, in former capacities, of visiting there with the member for Kennedy. I know that my colleagues the minister for the environment and the minister for infrastructure will look at these projects, which fit into two categories for the minister for the environment, who will also look at them in her capacity as the minister for water.
Where we can appropriately, with the appropriate environmental protections, we should be looking at ways in which we can improve irrigation and expand our agricultural sector. It's important. Australia plays a role, and potentially will play a more important role, as food resources around the world become more scarce. We can use the fact that we are such a vast island continent to expand that, and I look forward to working constructively with the member for Kennedy on that.
I'm pleased to inform the House that we have joining us in the gallery the Hon. Annastacia Palaszczuk MP, Premier of Queensland and Minister for the Olympics, and—just as important!—the Hon. Cameron Dick, Treasurer of Queensland and Minister for Trade and Investment. In addition, in the distinguished visitors gallery we have members of the Prime Minister's family and an old friend of the Prime Minister. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you all.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Given the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Indonesia, what steps has the government taken to prevent the disease spreading to Australia and affecting our livestock industry?
Mr Speaker, can I—as it's the first time I've had the chance to do—congratulate you for your elevation to the chair, and can I thank the member for Bendigo for her question. I know many of us who represent regional and rural Australia are very exercised about this issue. This is an issue the government takes very seriously. It is why we have introduced the toughest biosecurity measures that have ever been used in Australia.
We know that FMD has been detected in over 70 countries but, of course, of immediate and pressing concern is the outbreak that is not under control in Indonesia. It's been detected in 22 of the 37 provinces. The government is taking a two-pronged approach by strengthening measures at our border but also working with our partners in the region, particularly Indonesia, to prevent an outbreak coming here to these shores. We've committed, so far, an additional $14 million in funding to strengthen Australia's prevention and preparedness for FMD and to provide immediate support to Indonesia.
In Indonesia itself, we are providing a million doses of the FMD vaccine. The government has assisted through the provision of technical support of FMD in the broader vaccination program. We also have CSIRO's Centre for Disease Preparedness working with the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture to provide laboratory support and also essential materials. We have helped the Indonesian government with signage and with biosecurity measures for outgoing Australian passengers at Denpasar airport. We're doing everything we can to support our neighbours. It is in the interests of this country that we do so and that they get this under control as quickly as possible, and we're confident that the Indonesian authorities are doing all they can.
Here in Australia, of course, we've funded additional biosecurity officers and redeployed biosecurity detector dogs to this task. We have seen the activation of biosecurity powers which have never been used before in this country. We have additional signage and distribution of flyers at major airports, deployment of sanitation mats and expanded social media campaigns, and travellers are being informed of their biosecurity responsibilities. What we know absolutely and utterly is that one of the highest risks is if people illegally import meat or dairy products. We know that we have biosecurity officers checking around certain retail outlets—at the moment, those imports have been stopped—and also checking all mail.
My message, particularly to the Australian people and particularly to those opposite, is that this is a very important task for all of us. To anyone coming in from these airports: declare, declare, declare. Absolutely make sure that you do your part to ensure that we maintain this important trade, including not jeopardising the export of this important product.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to comments he just made that the construction watchdog is a waste of taxpayer money. The watchdog is currently pursuing CFMMEU official Gerald McCrudden for allegedly pushing, shoving and verbally abusing a female health and safety manager. Does the Prime Minister seriously believe that pursuing this vile behaviour is a waste of taxpayers' money? Why is Labor making a bad situation worse?
Thanks very much for the question. I believe that if someone commits assault they should be charged with assault and dealt with. That's what I believe. I'm surprised that you don't. This seems to be a controversial issue. But I make this point.
Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
I haven't given you the call. Are you making a point of order?
Wait. Just wait. I call the Manager of Opposition Business. What is the point of order?
That is an imputation against every member on this side. The Prime Minister just said 'if you don't believe assault is a serious matter'. Of course we believe assault is a serious matter. He should withdraw that.
No, resume your seat. Manager, that is not a point of order.
The irony! The question suggested that. That was the point. The point of the question was that I wouldn't so regard that behaviour. That is precisely what I was asked, and my answer was: where someone commits a crime, they should be charged with the crime of assault if they commit assault. That's what my view was. But I'll tell you what the ABCC have spent their money on: $500,000 of taxpayers' money on an unsuccessful case brought against a union who requested that a women's toilet be available on a worksite.
Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition. Is it a point of order? If so, what is the point of order?
It is a point of order. It's on relevance, and it goes to the serious nature of the question that was put to the Prime Minister. He's not answering that, and he's choosing to belittle the question that was put. Instead of playing games and getting frustrated, he should answer the question about the harassment—
I ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat. The point of order is not relevant. The Prime Minister is answering the question and has answered the question. I ask him to continue.
The ABCC also spent over $500,000 of taxpayers' money to enforce a blanket ban on putting up stickers and posters with union logos on worksites. A whole lot of people die on worksites in the construction sector. There is massive—
What about Gerald McCrudden? Why not answer that question?
Order! The Prime Minister will continue and will be heard in silence.
I've made it very clear that, where someone commits a crime, they should be charged with it. I've never heard of this bloke. I've got no connection with him. The idea, somehow, that we're going to come in here—it says a lot about why they're sitting opposite. They could have come in here today and asked questions about inflation, the cost of living, the health pandemic or foot-and-mouth disease. They could have asked questions about a whole range of issues. And what do we get? It's back to the same old bucket that saw them have a royal commission into trade unions—into, at the time, current and former Labor leaders, effectively—and spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on what was a political pursuit.
The Federal Court said this about the ABCC for its prosecutions: it labelled them 'unnecessarily inflammatory and conducted as a blood sport'. Politics should be better than that, but I'm not surprised that the opposition isn't.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Deputy Prime Minister outline how the Albanese Labor government will deliver our next generation of submarines and what changes he is making to ensure these can be delivered?
I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your appointment to high office. I thank the member for Solomon for his question and acknowledge his service to the Australian Defence Force.
Submarines matter for an economy of our size. The potency of our defence force is going to be defined by the quality of our capabilities, and no asset that we can have will give rise to a greater question mark in any adversary's mind than a long-range-capable submarine. As we look forward, to the end of this decade and into the 2030s, increasingly that will become synonymous with a nuclear propelled submarine, which is why the Albanese government is completely committed to acquiring that capability. I can report that, in my meetings with the United States, there is an incredible shared sense of mission with them—and with the United Kingdom—in helping Australia to gain this capability. This is important, because to do this will be one of the great national projects in our history.
But that project has been made so much more difficult by the negative legacy left to us by the nine years of inept government of those opposite. In 2013, when the coalition came to power, the successor to the Collins submarine, our current capability, was due in the middle of the 2020s—this decade, in the next few years. To start with, they went off to Japan to try and have the submarines built there, and then they backed out. They then signed an agreement with France, and five years later they ripped that up. In the process, precious years were wasted, billions of dollars were spent on absolutely nothing and great offence was caused to two countries which are so important to our future. At every moment, the decision-making of those opposite was guided by their own politics. Indeed, the day on which we saw Australia's submarine capability tossed around their party room in the empty-chair challenge against Tony Abbott was perhaps the moment when a party of government in this country showed the greatest contempt for the Australian people. They spent nine years yelling at the world while doing absolutely nothing to advance our capability and our national interest. Well, this country is now under a new management. There is a serious group of people who are in charge, and we understand the challenge that we face. We know the difficult calls that are going to be made but what we can say is this: whatever we face, there is only one interest which is going to guide effort we make, the decisions we take, and that interest is the national interest, a national interest which is defined by the national security of the Australian people.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I refer to the Chief Veterinary Officer's briefing to the opposition on Thursday, where he advised that foot-and-mouth disease is uncontrolled and increasing, and to a subsequent comment from the minister for agriculture on Monday that Indonesia seems to be getting ahead of it. Who is correct, and has this confusion caused thousands of passengers to cross the border from Indonesia without proper screening and without disinfectant foot mats? Why is Labor making a bad situation worse?
I will tell you who is confused. What is your position on border closures? We have had one position put by you, one position put by all sorts of different members. What is your actual position? Again, can I say very clearly, this is an issue the government takes very seriously. We are taking the advice of the chief vet. We are taking the advice of the agriculture department. We have been rolling out sanitation mats, and I don't care who wants to take credit for that but they are there and are being put in place now. We know that this is a serious, serious threat to Australia's biosecurity, and this government have put in place the most serious measures, the most comprehensive measures, of any government that we have ever seen.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is responding to economic circumstances, helping people with cost-of-living challenges and setting Australia up for the future?
I congratulate the member for Jagajaga on her re-election to this place. Australians are worried about the cost of living. When they go to the checkout, compared with a year ago, they might have to put some goods back because they simply do not have enough cash to pay for them when the total comes up on the cash register. That is happening every day. They are worried about if they can afford to put a roof over their heads and they are worried about rising interest rates.
Indeed, we inherited a challenging economy and we didn't attempt to hide the challenges that would be ahead of us, because the RBA had already said prior to the change of government that there would be an increase in inflation and an increase in interest rates. But, of course, there are two things that impact, particularly for working people, the standard of living. One is the cost of living. The second is what their wages look like, and that is why we have a plan to lift wages, as opposed to the previous plan, where low wages were a deliberate design feature of the economy. We have a plan to deal with that. But we also have a plan to create economic growth and we want to do that in an inclusive way.
I spoke to the Business Council of Australia this morning, and they are very much looking forward to participating in the jobs and skills summit we will host in Parliament House in a bit over a month's time, because that is how you bring society together. You bring business, unions, civil society together so you can increase profits and increase wages but only if you are lifting productivity at the same time, and we have a plan to lift productivity. We have a plan to deal with clean energy, to use that clean energy to enable new industries to grow and thrive. We have a plan, through our National Reconstruction Fund, to build back stronger and to identify where we can make more things here in Australia through advanced manufacturing. We have a plan for cheaper child care and we will be introducing legislation to achieve that outcome down the track. We have a plan, of course, for cheaper medicines as well. We have a plan to make sure that Australians can fill the jobs that will be created in these new industries through the creation of Jobs and Skills Australia, through fee-free TAFE and through additional university places.
These are all important if you want a high-wage, high-productivity economy that delivers for the Australian people. That's our plan—one in which we use our common purpose in order to shape the future instead of letting the future shape us. That is the way that you build a better future, and my government is absolutely determined to do just that.
Mr Speaker, congratulations on your elevation. My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, during the campaign, Labor promised a $275 decrease in household power bills. Will the Prime Minister guarantee to the House that Australian families will see that $275 cut?
I thank the member for Hume for his question and I congratulate him on his courage in asking it! The paradox of the last government was that they were obsessed with power, but they totally failed on energy. Australian families are paying the price for that failure. Let's have a look at what happened opposite when it came to power prices.
An opposition member: Answer the question.
Order!
I was asked about power prices—okay, place your point of order.
We are only a short time in the question, so I will call the Leader of the Opposition if this is on relevance, but I will listen carefully. What is the point of order?
It's on relevance. We spent yesterday with you talking about the standards within this place. It's very clear that, in the words of Speaker Smith, given the tightness of this question, the Prime Minister needs to answer the question and restrict himself to the question.
Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The question was specific, and it mentioned 'during the campaign'. The Prime Minister is in order, and I will listen carefully to what he is saying. If you want a different answer, you'll have to ask a different question. I will call the Prime Minister, but I will be listening carefully.
And I will go directly to the campaign and what happened, because this is what happened, and this is what we didn't know was what happening while the campaign was on. But they knew. They knew about the price increase in March. What we know is that one of the previous government's final acts was to hide that energy prices would be going up in July. They were advised in March that the default market offer price—for a household in New South Wales it increased by up to 19.7 per cent, and in Queensland it was by up to 12.8 per cent. They knew about it in March, but days before the election was called, they made a conscious decision to keep the information from Australians until after the election. And who might that have been? Who might that have been? That was the member for Hume, because the member for Hume was the actual minister at the time.
What we will do is deliver an energy policy. It'll be the first one we've had in this country for a decade. They had 22 announcements and didn't deliver one.
The Prime Minister will just take his seat for a moment. We've already had one point of order on relevance. I will call the Manager of Opposition Business. I'll give you the call.
I am just making the point that he is defying your rule, Mr Speaker.
Everyone just be quiet for one second. Manager, we've had the point of order. What is your point of order?
You need to bring the Prime Minister to comply with your ruling; he is defying your ruling—
No; there is no point of order. I call the Prime Minister.
I was asked about the energy crisis, and I was asked about what happened during the campaign. What happened during the campaign was that we promised an energy policy—just one. And we will deliver it. We will deliver it through our Powering Australia Plan. Those opposite had 22 announcements and didn't deliver one. Even when the NEG, the National Energy Guarantee, went through the Liberal party room twice—it went through the Liberal party room twice!—instead of implementing the policy they just rolled their leader.
Congratulations, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. The report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety revealed the shocking neglect of our aged-care system. Can the minister advise the House on how the new government is addressing the current failings in aged care?
I thank the member for Paterson for both her question and her powerful advocacy in trying to drive up eligible Australians to get their third and fourth vaccines and you, Mr Speaker, for lending your voice to the imperative of winter vaccinations in aged care when together we visited Sinnamon Village in your electorate of Oxley a few weeks ago. It is a community in Queensland that receives some really standout representation at both the federal and state levels, may I note. We were on the ground with our mobile vaccination teams, learning from their work. Alongside your constituents John and Joan, I got my fourth dose as part of our efforts to drive vaccination rates, a focus of our winter plan in aged care.
I only regret that I can't follow that lovely team of dedicated clinical legends around the country, getting my fourth dose at every facility to drive up awareness and vaccination rates, such is my determination to leave no stone unturned in getting aged care through winter. Alas, I am advised that that would be against medical advice, and we on this side of the House actually follow the medical advice. Where are your masks?
The final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety challenged us to create a better aged-care system. It challenged us to deliver an aged-care system which gives older Australians the security, dignity and equality that they deserve, that their families and loved ones deserve and that the workforce that looks after them so tenderly deserves as well. The royal commission did not say that reform would be easy, but it did say that it would be crucial, and it mapped out the roadmap for us to do just that. The former government packed much of the roadmap into the too-hard basket and kicked it into the long grass and continued their neglect of the aged-care sector and those who rely upon it.
The royal commission asked the former government to do 148 things. The royal commission's damning report said that the former coalition government's main consideration was the minimum commitment that it could get away with. Even after that searing indictment, that clarion call of the royal commission, the former government's approach did not change. In the 17 months between receiving the final report of the royal commission and losing office, the former government implemented only six per cent of the commission's recommendations. The former government implemented only nine of 148 recommendations of the royal commission.
We in this new Labor government are not afraid of tackling the challenges before us. Earlier today, I introduced two bills to this House, one of which was the very first bill to pass this House. It was an aged-care bill, because for this government aged care is a top priority. In our first full day of parliamentary business, we have already passed—(Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Education. Minster, the recent 650 per cent increase in HECS-HELP indexation is an entirely unreasonable and, indeed, a crippling impost on a great many Australians, especially coming, as it does, so soon after the previous government's reduction of the compulsory repayment threshold. Minister, education in this country was too expensive already. Will you urgently review the indexation rate and bring some relief from the soaring cost of living to the 2.9 million Australians lumbered with a HECS-HELP debt?
I thank the member for Clark. I know, as many members of this House know, the power and the importance of education. I think the member for Clark knows that very well, as well as you do, Mr Speaker. I congratulate you on your election. I also note the comments you made yesterday about the parliament and schools program and how important that is. I'm looking forward to working with you on that.
In answer to the member for Clark's question, last year the indexation rate was 0.6 and this year it's 3.9. That's calculated and based on the CPI over the last two years. The member for Clark mentioned the cost of living. In that regard it's important to remember that HELP payments are set as a set percentage of your income. In other words, they don't go up unless your salary does. That said, the issue of affordability is important, and it will be one of the things that will be looked at by the government as part of the universities accord process.
It's important to make this point. When HECS was first introduced in 1989, fewer than eight per cent of Australians had a university degree. That percentage now stands at about 33 per cent. HECS is largely responsible for that. Amongst younger Australians that percentage is even higher. I think more than 43 per cent of younger Australians now have a university degree. But that figure hides another fact, and that is that kids from poorer families are less likely to go to preschool, less likely to finish high school and less likely to get a university degree. Where you live also matters. My friends on both sides of the House who represent regional areas will know this. About 48 per cent of young people in our major cities have a university degree, but that percentage in regional Australia is about 20 per cent. For our Indigenous brothers and sisters that percentage is even lower. Fewer than about 10 per cent of Indigenous Australians have a university degree.
We have to do something about that. I don't want us to be a country where your opportunities in life depend on your postcode, your parents or the colour of your skin. That's why this accord process is so important. Soon I'll be announcing a group of eminent Australians who will lead that work. They will look at everything, including the sorts of things I'm talking about here: access for people from low socioeconomic backgrounds and the regions and for Indigenous Australians. They will also look at transparency, regulation, employment conditions, how our universities and TAFEs work together and also the issue the member for Clark raised—the issue of affordability—and the concerns he raised in his question.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. What policy changes is the government making to ensure that seniors are not going to be forced to use the cruel cashless debit card to access their pension?
I give the call to the Minister for Social Services.
Honourable members i nterjecting—
Order! The minister will be heard in silence.
Member for Longman, I just asked the House if the minister could be heard in silence and you interjected straightaway. Can we cease interjections at least until the minister starts talking? The Minister for Social Services.
Thank you I think, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the member for Bruce for this question. I know how passionate he has been. He has been listening to the concerns of people on the cashless debit card and of course the concerns right around this country about this unfair policy. Labor wants welfare and social security to be a strong safety net that supports vulnerable Australians when they need it, and to not stigmatise them, like the former government did. That is why Labor has decisively acted to deliver on its election commitment to abolish the cashless debit card.
Earlier today I introduced legislation to start the task of dismantling the coalition's cashless debit card experiment. I want to reassure the member for Bruce that seniors will no longer have to worry that their pension might get linked with the card. No-one in this country will have to worry about it, because we are getting rid of it. We are ending the experiment of privatised welfare in this country. Of course, the cashless debit card was an ideological obsession by the former coalition government. It was imposed on communities and kept rolling out, rolling out and rolling out. Of course, it was completely—
I have, Member for Aston.
That's not true, Amanda. You know that.
I'll get to that. Of course, they imposed it on communities that did not want it and did not like it, and when the evidence came out that it wasn't working—there was no evidence to support it; there were pleas from communities to end it—what did they do? They just kept rolling it out. They put ideology before evidence. They chose arrogance over consultation. This was the defining feature of the former Morrison government.
Well, that is not what will happen under this government. The Prime Minister, during the election campaign, said that this would be a priority, if we were elected—to get rid of the cashless debit card—and we are getting on with the job. I have visited Ceduna and the East Kimberley, and the Assistant Minister for Social Services has visited Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, and we will be visiting other communities in coming weeks. We are going to listen to First Nations communities, we are going to listen to service providers and we are going to chart a way forward on what are complex, difficult social problems with real evidence based solutions, not ideology gone wrong.
My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. Can the minister inform the House as to whether he has met with any CFMEU officials regarding the abolition of the construction watchdog?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Before I answer that question, I also congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your elevation to office—a well-deserved result in the election yesterday. I indicate to the House that I've not spoken to any official of the CFMEU in relation to this matter that has been asked of me by the honourable member.
My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. Minister, what is the Albanese Labor government doing to address rising costs of living and reduce the cost of early childhood education to make it easier for mums, children and working families to get ahead?
Mr Speaker, may I also take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to the chair? I'd like to thank the member for Dunkley for her question. I know that it's an issue that the member has a lot of interest in, on behalf of the families and the children in her electorate of Dunkley. Like the member for Dunkley, many of us here on this side know that early childhood education is a vital investment in our children and, indeed, in our future. I've had the pleasure of visiting early childhood education centres with the member for Lalor and with the member for Bendigo and of seeing the real difference that good, quality early childhood education is making to families and to children.
It's an issue of deep concern to this Labor government that early childhood education costs more now than it ever has before, and that's why the Labor government took a plan for affordable and quality early childhood education to the last election. May I take this opportunity to pay heed to my predecessor in this space, the Minister for Social Services, who as the shadow minister, was the architect of Labor's plan and who continues to be a fierce advocate for early childhood education?
On this side of the chamber, we know that childcare costs are eating a bigger and bigger hole in household budgets and putting more financial strain on families. Almost 73,000 families are locked out of the childcare system because it is unaffordable. Now, that means that children are missing out on important early learning and parents—and in most cases mothers, who are the primary caregivers—are not able to work the hours they want, they're not able to progress their careers and they're not able to contribute to the household finances in the ways that they would like to.
Labor's cheaper childcare plan will make early childhood education more affordable for 1.26 million families by increasing the childcare subsidy rate. Now, a big part of that is a plan for the ACCC to design a price regulation mechanism that will drive down out-of-pocket costs for families. We've committed to a comprehensive review of the childcare sector through the Productivity Commission, with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent childcare subsidy for all families.
These reforms aren't just about the economy. They're also about increased workforce participation. They're about women being able to go back to work in the capacity in which they want to go back to work and participate in the workforce. It means that early childhood educators are valued for their vital work. But, importantly, these reforms are about ensuring all children have access to quality, affordable early learning, investing in their future and in ours.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that senior judges of the Federal Court have described the CFMEU's workplace behaviour as 'notorious' and 'an embarrassment to the trade union movement' and as displaying 'outrageous disregard' for 'Australian industrial norms'? Given the Prime Minister's decision to abolish the dedicated construction industry watchdog, would this simply make a bad situation worse and increase the cost of new schools and hospitals?
I thank the member for her question. I'm asked about the Federal Court, the CFMEU and the ABCC. This is what the Federal Court did in 2017 that I'm aware of: it blasted the ABCC for wasting time and taxpayers' money on prosecuting two CFMMEU officials for—to quote from the Federal Court decision—'having a cup of tea with a mate'. This is what Justice North of the Federal Court described it as: 'a miniscule, insignificant affair'. And then Justice North said this: 'This is all external forces that are beating up what's just a really ordinary situation that amounts to virtually nothing.' That's the Federal Court's ruling in the decision. And then this Federal Court justice, Justice North, said this: 'For goodness sake, I don't know what this inspectorate is doing.' And he went on to say this.
Order! Is the Manager of Opposition Business seeking the call? I will give you the call.
The point of order is on relevance, Mr Speaker. It was a very tightly worded question on CFMEU workplace behaviour described as 'notorious' and 'an embarrassment to the trade union movement', and the Prime Minister needs to engage with the terms of the question.
Order! The manager will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The question was specific regarding: was the Prime Minister aware of senior judges in the Federal Court? The Prime Minister is referring to that matter with his answer, so there is no point of order.
It's just extraordinary. I can't be more specific. Justice North went on to say this: that when the ABCC 'use public resources to bring the bar down to this level, it really calls into question the exercise of the discretion to proceed'. That is what they had to say at that time. The Federal Court has also dismissed the ABCC for its prosecutions, labelling them 'unnecessarily inflammatory' and 'conducted as a blood sport'. That's what the Federal Court have had to say about these actions that the member raised, and I thank her very much for her question.
Congratulations, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. Can the minister please inform the House how the Albanese Labor government will address skills shortages and improve employment opportunities and economic growth as part of its plan to strengthen vocational education and training?
I'd like to thank my friend the member for Cunningham for the question and congratulate her on election to this place. She is a fantastic community champion for the region, and I've known her for many years. It's great to see her in this place, representing her constituency.
It's true to say that people in her constituency, which includes Wollongong and that region, really understand the need to respond to the skills crisis in this country. They understand how important it is for workers and businesses to have the skills that are in demand, and so too does this government. That's why the first bill introduced by this government today was to create Jobs and Skills Australia, working with employers and unions, with state and territory governments and with training providers and others to make sure we fill the skill shortages across the labour market and across the economy. In many sectors, of course, those shortages are very acute indeed.
We have got a very big agenda when it comes to this area. We understand how important it is to our economy. We are dealing with—in fact, we've inherited—one of the largest public debts for any government, and if we're going to deal with those challenges then we have to grow the economy. The way to grow the economy, or at least one of the ways to grow the economy, is to invest in skills and training. But to invest billions of dollars of taxpayers money in this area, at state and federal levels, we need to understand those shortages. We need to understand where they are. We need to make sure we precisely anticipate the areas of emerging demands. That's why we'll create this body, working with the states and territories and working with employers and unions and others.
That's also why we're placing TAFE back at the centre of vocational training. TAFE has been under-resourced, has been unrecognised and, in many cases, has been neglected by the previous government. I just remind people of this: the first visit in Victoria made by Prime Minister Albanese after the election was to a TAFE college. That says everything about the priorities of the Prime Minister and this government about addressing these skill shortages in this country, and we need to do a lot more. There are shortages of course, and many people know where these are: there are shortages in aged care, disability care, children's services; the care industries generally are really, really in need of skills and labour. The OECD says we have the second-worst, if you like, or the second-highest labour shortage in the developed world, so this is a job that needs to be tackled immediately.
And it's not just for industry, it's not just for our economy and it's not just for employers. It's for workers. To provide them the skills that they need, that are in demand, means that they will have better secure employment going forward. We've got a big agenda. We can't wait to get down to it, and we started today by introducing that bill to the House. (Time expired.)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the government's decision to abolish the construction watchdog. Why is the government prioritising the interests of its union bosses ahead of tackling important issues in regional Australia, such as rising construction costs? Why is Labor making a bad situation worse?
I'm asked about the government's priorities, and we showed our priorities this morning with the first bills that we introduced: the clean energy target of 43 per cent by 2030, the aged-care reforms, the creation of Jobs and Skills Australia—all of the legislation that we did as well for 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave. That's where we're showing our priorities. We show our priorities through the legislation that we introduce; the opposition are showing their priorities through the questions which they're asking, and people will draw their own conclusions.
I make this point about industrial relations in the workplace. Australians must have a workplace relations system that is based on fairness, that's based on mutual trust and respect, and based on obeying the rule of law—and the rule of law should be obeyed constantly. And where there are breaches of the rule of law by either unions or employers, including in the construction industry, then the rule of law should apply.
We have a simple view though that all workers should be subject to the same laws and regulations as others. That is simply our view. It was our view when we opposed the creation of this body. It's been our view throughout.
120 years!
I wouldn't really say 20 years; I'd say since 1891. Our view has been that, in workplaces, workers deserve a fair go, and when that occurs through their representatives then unions should behave appropriately.
But they don't.
Where they don't, action should be taken. And where employers don't behave appropriately, action should be taken.
What we have seen with the ABCC, just like with the ROC, the Registered Organisations Commission, is its politicisation. Remember the whiteboard over there and the minister hiding behind it? Remember the tip-offs to the media for raids on the AWU—how did that go? How much taxpayer money was used in pursuing something that was then abandoned? My view is very clear: that all workers should be treated equally, that unions should behave properly, that employer organisations should behave properly and that there is a common interest between unions and employers, which is why they will be brought together in the Jobs and Skills Summit.
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Can the minister please outline the Albanese government's plan to take long-overdue action on climate change and how this plan will address rising energy prices and deliver more jobs.
I thank the member for Fremantle for his question and recognise his long career of advocacy and action on climate change. The Albanese government was elected to take action on climate change, and that's exactly what we've been doing. On 16 June, the Prime Minister and I notified the United Nations of the country's new climate target of 43 per cent. We were accompanied by the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group and peak climate groups representing this Prime Minister's determination to bring Australians together on this important national challenge.
We've taken other action, of course. We've put ARENA to work on the task it was created for, changing the regulations so it focuses on renewable energy—that's what the R stands for: renewable energy! We've issued regulations to reduce the amount of sulphur in our petrol, which is better for our health and environment. Internationally, I've signed an agreement with Secretary Granholm, the US Secretary of Energy, on a zero emissions task force. We will ensure, and have ensured, that the Australian carbon credit market operates with integrity and is seen to operate with integrity, which the previous government ignored. That's what we've been doing.
Of course, today was the next step. On behalf of the government, I introduced the government's climate bill. This is important. It enshrines those targets in law. It provides the framework for investment. That's what the business community wants. That's why the Business Council has called for the legislation to be passed. That's why the Chamber of Commerce and Industry has called for the legislation to be passed. They know that this is necessary. But there are some in this House who think they know more about business than the Business Council—mainly the Leader of the Opposition. Without seeing the bill, referring it to his shadow cabinet or taking it to his party room, he announced that they were against the bill. He'd heard enough—it was action on climate change, and he was against it! He'd heard enough.
This is the decade of denial and delay that they want to continue. We had 22 energy policies, and they couldn't land one. They couldn't deliver what they announced. The previous minister for energy promised almost a billion dollars of new generation. They didn't deliver one watt! The minister for energy under the previous government could not deliver enough to boil a kettle! As we've heard, on 6 April he amended the industry code for energy retailers so that they hid a 19.7 per cent energy price rise. I wonder if that had anything to do with the election called four days later! We've got a lot to do. There's been a decade of denial and delay. We haven't got a second to waste, and nor are we going to waste one.
I congratulate the Prime Minister and the government on their election, and the Treasurer, to whom I ask this question. Labor's stage 3 tax cuts will cost the public over $220 billion and give billionaires, like Clive Palmer, a $9,000-a-year handout at the taxpayer's expense. With inflation really biting, and the government saying the budget is under pressure, will you ditch these unaffordable tax cuts for billionaires and put dental into Medicare instead to help relieve the cost-of-living pressures on everyday people?
I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. I congratulate him on his re-election and I somewhat sheepishly acknowledge the election of his colleagues on the crossbench as well. As the member for Melbourne knows, the legislated tax cuts are already in the budget; they don't come in for a couple of years, and we've said that we don't intend to change that. I think our position is well known on that, as is, respectfully, the member for Melbourne's position on that.
We also should acknowledge that, when it comes to those stage 3 tax cuts, even if your idea was to prevail, that wouldn't do anything about the near-term inflation challenges that we have right now. They come in two years down the track. Yes, we have budget challenges, but right now the most important thing that we can focus on is high and rising inflation and falling real wages, and some of our choices have been constrained. So this is our priority when it comes to tax reform: first of all, the only legislation that I've introduced in this place on the first day is tax reform to make electric vehicles cheaper—and we're proud of that—working closely with the minister for climate change. That's our first priority in tax reform. But beyond that, when it comes to tax reform that helps repair the budget, the member knows that our focus is on making multinationals pay their fair share of tax, as well as some measures around tax compliance and making sure that the foreign investment regime returns some money to the budget as well. That's our priority when it comes to taxes and charges and repairing the budget.
More broadly, when it comes to budget repair, the member would be familiar with this, as is I think the whole House. Particularly the member for Hume would know all about this: we've inherited a lot of rorts and waste in the budget. What the finance minister and I are doing is going through those rorts and going through that waste to make sure that we can cut it back where we can and fund other priorities, like investments in cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy; investments in skills, which the skills minister was talking about before; and our investments in child care, which the childcare minister was talking about. When we repair the budget, we talk about taking unproductive, politically motivated spending—for which the member for Hume was a poster child!—and directing it towards more productive spending in the budget. That begins with cutting back on rorts and waste, and it includes making sure that we're investing in the things that can get the economy growing the right way. Budget repair is part of that. Responsible investment is part of that. And I think the onus is on the whole parliament—the crossbench, our side, their side of the parliament—to do what we can to try and repair the budget. We've had a decade now of rorts and waste, which has led to a trillion dollars of debt with not enough to show for it. So our efforts are directed towards making sure that every dollar that is borrowed, which now costs more to service, is actually delivering a dividend for the Australian people.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Can the minister update the House on the findings of the SIEV915 report and its implications?
I want to thank the member for Blair for his question. All of us in this House would acknowledge that this is a person who comes to work every day and acts with the utmost of integrity, and so it's no surprise to get the question from him today.
Last week the Australian government made a decision to release a report written by Secretary Mike Pezzullo into the disgraceful actions of the former government to release information about a boat arrival on election day on 21 May. This was the former government sabotaging protocols that protect Operation Sovereign Borders and protect the people in uniform who do dangerous and difficult work. One of the truly outrageous things about the secretary's report is that it details the fact that the decision was made by the former Minister for Home Affairs to release this information while the operation was on foot. This is without precedent in the history of Operation Sovereign Borders, and what it meant was that an operation that was being undertaken by Border Force and Defence Force officials was undermined by the shadow minister who now sits opposite me.
The report also details the fact that, despite the Prime Minister at the time asking the Minister for Home Affairs to release the statement herself, she chose not to do that. Instead, she put the acid on a Defence Force official, who wears uniform for our country, to make the statement for her. That was an act of cowardice. If you are going to politicise this operation, you do it yourself and you put your name to the work that you do. The shadow minister opposite had an opportunity—
Order. The member for Petrie, on a point of order. And I would invite the member to state the point of order.
Reflecting on a member. Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your position, but the minister just reflected on—
The member for Petrie will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the House on the point of order.
To the point of order, the standing order on reflections on members is a very important one. But it doesn't extend to explaining what a member in fact did. If the actions are taken to be, 'Well, that's terrible that the person did that,' and a whole lot of conclusions are drawn, that's on the member. The standing order is not there to protect members from the accurate description of what they did.
Before I rule, I call the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Speaker, the relevant standing order says:
All imputations of improper motives to a Member and all personal reflections on other Members shall be considered highly disorderly.
So it should be withdrawn—it was disorderly.
I thank the Manager. In listening to the minister carefully, she didn't reflect directly on the former minister. Standing order 90 is important. She was referring to the situation; she did not refer directly to the minister. But, if she did, I would enforce standing order 90.
She did.
Order, member for Petrie. I intend to enforce the standing orders, particularly standing order 90. In this case, the minister did not reflect directly on the member. I will listen carefully to her and to all members to ensure that standing order is enforced. I call the minister.
Mr Speaker—
Order! There is no point of order. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Speaker, with all due respect to you, I just want to take you up on the point of your recollection of what was a very clear statement by the minister. I hope that she's able to step up and clarify for you that it was in fact a direct reflection on the shadow minister. The minister, in her statement, made a comment directly in relation to the shadow minister about actions that she took that resulted in a uniformed officer et cetera. That was a direct reflection on the shadow minister.
I thank the leader. Resume your seat. I will ask the minister directly: was she reflecting on the member?
I was reflecting on the conduct of the member, Speaker. Those are two different things.
I thank the minister and I will ask her to continue with her answer.
I really invite those opposite to consider this: if you don't want to be accused of acts of cowardice, if you don't want to be—
The minister may resume her seat. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Speaker, we just heard the minister effectively say 'yes' in answer to your question.
Resume your seat. She didn't say that. The minister in continuation, directly to the question.
I'd like to say to those opposite: if you don't want to be accused of acts of cowardice and if you don't want to be accused of breaching your duty and the trust you owe to the Australian people, don't do it. Don't do what's in this report. I don't need to make it up. We've got a report here on the public record that outlines the disgraceful conduct of the former government.
The shadow minister opposite has had an opportunity to defend herself. Any of us accused of these things would come forward and apologise. But that's not what we heard. We heard a denial that the apolitical mandate of the Public Service was subverted. Wrong. It's in the report. We heard a denial that she put pressure on the Public Service. It's in the report.
I just want to close by saying this: we should not become inured to these things in our democracy. This was a disgraceful, unprecedented act that should never have happened, and those opposite stand condemned for doing it.
On that note, Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I present the Commonwealth Ombudsman's quarterly report under section 65(6) of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 for the periods 1 July to 30 September 2021, 1 October to 31 December 2021 and 1 January to 31 March 2022, and the Commonwealth Ombudsman's quarterly report under section 712F(6) of the Fair Work Act 2009 for the period 1 October to 31 December 2021.
I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports Nos 22 to 46 for 2021-22. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Documents made parliamentary papers in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
I present the following reports from committees of the 46th Parliament received by my predecessor pursuant to the standing orders: Joint Select Committee on Road Safety Driving reform: final report on the inquiry into road safety and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Interim report: inquiry into extremist movements and radicalism in Australia.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The urgent need for the Government to detail a plan to prevent rising costs in the construction sector and union lawlessness following the abolition of the construction industry watchdog.
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—
It is very telling that during question time the Prime Minister was unable to answer a question in relation to the very close affiliation between the CFMMEU and the Australian Labor Party. He was not able to answer a question with a straight answer, and it demonstrates a few things. At the moment, when Australians are facing increased electricity costs, when Australians are facing an increase in their gas prices and when Australians are facing an increase in every cost-of-living component of their household budget, this government decides as a first-order priority to bring in a policy change which will drive up inflation and drive up construction costs in this country. That is seen by this government as a higher-order priority than addressing the problems that Australian families and businesses are facing in their budgets at the moment.
It says a lot about this government that over just the last three years it, as the Labor Party, has taken over $5 million in political donations—$5 million! Now, why? Why would a union give $5 million to the Australian Labor Party? Would they ask for anything in return? Would they expect anything from the Australian Labor Party? Would they expect to be able to pull the strings of the Australian Labor Party for $5 million? I think they would, I really do. I think that's the track record. That's the history of the relationship between the CFMMEU and the Australian Labor Party. So what did they ask for the $5 million that they gave to the Australian Labor Party in just the last three years? Of course, we're talking tens of millions of dollars over the last decade or so. What did they ask for it? They asked for a policy change.
One thing you can say about the CFMMEU—sure, they're mostly union thugs, they have close relationships with bikie members, and they are before the courts on multiple counts of assault and all sorts of intimidation—is that they are very open about their intent. They are very open about providing money to the Australian Labor Party and that has now resulted in a policy change. That's what they asked for, that's what they expected, that's what they demanded from the Australian Labor Party for the $5 million and that is what this Prime Minister has delivered. This Prime Minister has changed a policy and that is going to result in high inflation and higher construction costs in this country, and he has decided that that is his highest priority in the opening days of this government. It says a lot about this government, it says a lot about the priorities and it says a lot about how the Australian Labor Party will always put the union bosses' interests ahead of the interests of the Australian public. There are countless examples before the courts that have been decided by the courts, right up to the High Court, in relation to the CFMMEU. Their conduct cannot be discounted.
The Prime Minister comes into this place and says, 'Oh, well, I want to see all workers treated equally and I want to see unions held to account.' Well, the fact is that the Australian Education Union is not representing members, teachers and university lecturers, who are before the courts on assault and intimidation charges and all sorts of corruption allegations. The reality is that the Missos union is not before the courts representing their members where there have been allegations made against those workers that they've been involved in syphoning funds, involved in corrupt practices in workplaces, breaking the arms of workers on those building sites or intimidating female workers. There has been no other union in the country since the BLF that has conducted themselves in this sort of manner. So do they stand themselves out above and beyond any other union movement? Of course they do, and it can't be dismissed by this Prime Minister just because the Labor Party received $5 million worth of donations over the course of the last three years.
It's unconscionable for the Australian Labor Party to say to builders and to tradies on worksites around the country that this sort of conduct can be condoned. They cannot stand by and passively look at the way in which the CFMMEU conduct themselves on building sites. The Australian Labor Party can't stand by. This Prime Minister can't turn a blind eye to the escalation in building costs, the cost of materials and the cost of the add-on supplement that builders need to put into their contracts to win contracts—to allow the CFMMEU to conduct themselves in the way that they do. It results in an escalation in prices for houses, for the construction of aged-care facilities, for roads, for hospitals. Who wears that cost? Is it the builder that wears that cost? Of course it's not. It's the homebuyer that's paying more for their home because of the conduct of the CFMMEU, and the Labor Party is standing shoulder to shoulder with these thugs in the union movement, facilitating that sort of behaviour.
The whole idea of the Australian Building and Construction Commission was to have a watchdog in the construction industry that could hold the CFMMEU to account, and the Australian Labor Party, because they've received $5 billion of funding from the CFMMEU, are going to abolish the ABCC, which will see an increase in the costs and prices. It will mean that those that are going into an aged-care facility will have to pay more because the cost of construction and the provision of that service cost more. You are going to see fewer transport options available to governments in my state of Queensland or in New South Wales, WA or elsewhere because you are not going to get the value for your dollar if the CFMMEU is dictating the prices that go to support their corrupt and criminal behaviour. That's the reality.
So for the Prime Minister to stand up here and say that the conduct of the CFMMEU doesn't matter defies what the courts have said in relation to the CFMMEU. Don't just take our word for it. If you look at what has happened through enforcement action undertaken by the ABCC, this is what they've undertaken: unlawful industrial action—over 1,400 breaches resulting from more than 20 cases, resulting in $3.6 million in fines against the CFMEU; coercion—over 470 breaches resulting from more than 32 cases, resulting in $5.9 million in fines; right of entry—over 300 breaches resulting from 40 cases, resulting in $4.2 million in fines; freedom of association—more than 120 breaches resulting from 15 cases, resulting in $900,000 in fines; unlawful picketing—over 20 breaches resulting from four cases, resulting in $1 million in fines; and misrepresentation—almost 30 breaches resulting from six cases, resulting in $380,000 in fines.
That is egregious enough, but, having worked in the Home Affairs space and having seen the conduct of unlawful criminal behaviour by organisations in this country, I know that the connections between outlaw motorcycle gangs—the biggest distributors of amphetamines in our country—and the CFMMEU are indisputable. The CFMMEU use the bikies as muscle and enforcement on building sites. So, as egregious as all that I just read out is, and as much as the Prime Minister says there is nothing to see here, the most concerning fact is what the Labour Party is prepared to turn a blind eye to: the treatment of women on building sites at the hands of the CFMMEU thugs. It is outrageous, and all of the sanctimony that we have from the Australian Labor Party counts for absolutely nothing. It shows the true colour of the Australian Labor Party.
The unions are back in business. The unions are back in this game, and they are dictating every move of this government. So when you see the next report from a building site of a female stop-and-go member who is just there to do a job being abused by some bikie or by some member of the CFMMEU, know that it is sanctioned by this Prime Minister. Know that the next act of assault or unlawful conduct on a building site that results in a worker being injured is the result of this Prime Minister. The union movement completely owns and operates this Labour Party.
Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker Claydon, and congratulations on your appointment.
I knew that when we came into government we wouldn't get to choose the MPI anymore, but I didn't realise they'd take requests! Of all the issues that could be raised today, it just shows that they are in one lockstep system and are exactly where they were when they were in government. They haven't learned a thing and won't learn a thing.
To have the end of that speech from the party that refused to implement the Respect@Work report is just beyond belief. To have that speech from the people who sat here voting against a positive obligation on an employer to provide a safe workplace speaks volumes about those opposite.
But I'll start with the concept of the government 's priorities. When the Leader of the Opposition wanted to say what the first priority was, he sort of missed the application on the annual wage review. He sort of missed that. He sort of didn't want to acknowledge that the first thing that happened in my portfolio was that we argued that the lowest paid workers should get a pay increase, and they got it. After all the outrage and claims that the sky would fall in, that was the first thing that we did.
And what is the first legislative action that we'll be taking? It's to introduce family and domestic violence leave, something that people have been waiting too many years for and that those opposites have voted against on too many occasions.
Going to the issues that the Leader of the Opposition has spoken about directly, he's spoken about the ABCC. He's given all these examples of criminal behaviour. There's one problem. You do know the ABCC isn't allowed to deal with criminal behaviour?
Honourable members interjecting—
It's a starting point for the debate. They only deal with civil offences; they don't deal with criminal behaviour. Criminal behaviour should be dealt with by the police, and when criminal behaviour occurs the police are the ones who should provide enforcement. But to claim that abolishing the ABCC will somehow have an impact on that is absurd. Even under their own legislation it is not allowed to deal with criminality. It has no power to conduct a criminal prosecution. That is dealt with, as it should be dealt, with by the police.
But I love their argument that this is going to drive up inflation. I never knew that the Eureka flag was inflationary. Who knew? Who knew that a safety sign, if it's got a union logo in the bottom corner, is in fact inflationary? Who knew that if an enterprise agreement contains the same job, same pay clause then somehow that's inflationary? Who knew that if you have guaranteed apprenticeships on a worksite then somehow that's inflationary? No, no, no—they're just things that people should be able to fight for. And, in all of these cases they're referring to, what those opposite also forget is that they're largely examples where the employer had agreed.
They've asked who has met with the union at different times. Of course I've met with the national secretary—I don't know why you need to ask me—because I wanted to find out about the Eureka flag case. This is a classic, the Eureka flag case—and we have the member for Ballarat here. There's nothing particularly wrong with the Eureka flag. When the Leader of the Opposition went through all the breaches of freedom of association, he counted the Eureka flag and sticker disputes. Their argument is that, if you see a Eureka flag, you're suddenly going to feel compelled to join a trade union. It's going to happen. Don't let them see a Russian flag! We don't know what will happen if flags have that sort of power! When the Eureka flag was being flown at Lendlease, Lendlease were okay with it. There was a safety sign that was telling people that when there's wet weather you shouldn't keep working outdoors; you should come inside. It had a union logo on it. Those two issues resulted in a freedom of association case.
Our view here is simple: the workers were happy with it; the employer was happy with it; what business is it of yours? Similarly, if you have an enterprise agreement and the employer is okay with having a clause that there can be a minimum number of apprenticeships for the worksite: the workers want it; the employer agrees; why have red-tape legislation standing in the way of that? Why? They don't want to refer to that. They're now looking down at their phones: tap, tap, tap, 'Quick, Advisor, is there a response to this one?' When people can agree, we think that's good. When there's an agreement between workers and an employer, we think that's good. When workers and employers can get along and reach agreements, the Liberal and National parties of this country think we should get in the way simply, we think, because it irritates them. That's what the ABCC does.
The other examples of the ABCC that they refer to are in fact breaches of the Fair Work Act that are otherwise covered by the Fair Work Ombudsman anyway. The ones that can only occur through the ABCC are largely using the procurement powers of government, and effectively you have this ridiculously complex formula where something is right or wrong—not based on an industrial law principle but based on a formula of how much Commonwealth investment there is versus the total value of the project. That's not an industrial law principle, that's not a freedom of association principle, that's not a productivity principle; that's just the red tape of an ideological former government wanting to get in the way of agreements.
Many times as part of their inflationary argument, you've heard people from that side talking about the need to do something about productivity. So I thought, 'Oh, let's have a look at the productivity figures and how they changed once the ABCC was introduced.' It came back in 2016. There are only three years of published figures since then. In 2017-18, labour productivity did move by 2.4 per cent. Do you reckon it went up or down? It went down. But, wait, there are two more years coming. We've got the second year. In 2018-19, labour productivity moved by 2.6 per cent. Do you reckon it went up or down? Down again.
A government member interjecting—
A gameshow noise—perfect! The 2019-20 figures for labour productivity were for the third year of the ABCC. If it was going to make an impact, you'd think that by the third year maybe it was doing something. In the third year there was a 2.6 per cent change in labour productivity, once again down.
The record on labour productivity is nothing to be proud of. And it's no surprise: if you create more red tape, you get in the way of agreements, and you simply transfer some prosecutions from the Fair Work Ombudsman to then be done by a more ideological body, you don't in fact solve any problems. Agreements solve problems. Bringing people together to the table is a way of solving problems. But here you've got a system on right of entry where if an employer is completely happy with a union official coming on site to meet workers without waiting for the full 48 hours—if they say, '24 hours; we're happy to have you on'—the employer gets punished for reaching an agreement with their workforce.
Those opposite have wanted to characterise the ABCC as something that it is not. The 'come in, spinner' moment of the day was the question that related to what the Federal Court has had to say. I've got to say, the quotes are extraordinary. The Federal Court blasted the ABCC for wasting time and taxpayers' money for prosecuting two CFMMEU officials for 'having a cup of tea with a mate'. It was described by the court as 'a minuscule, insignificant affair.' Described by the court: 'This is all external forces that are beating up what's just a really ordinary situation that amounts to virtually nothing.' Described by the court: 'For goodness' sake. I don't know what this inspectorate is doing.' Described by the court: 'A battleship in full steam which had difficulty turning.' Described by the court: 'The court was entitled to expect that proceedings would not be conducted as a blood sport.'
This has not been a good regulator. This is a regulator that has simply increased conflict and that has got in the way where agreements exist and where agreements are possible. If criminal matters happen, the criminal processes should deal with them, and the Fair Work Ombudsman is the more effective body to deal with civil matters.
Congratulations on your appointment, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon.
We've had a very shouty minister at the table just now. It's a long way from the family friendly parliament he was talking about this morning. I will begin where he ended. I've really only got one question. Who's protecting the women on building sites? On everything that we have asked we've had these diversions about the Eureka flag or little quotes from court cases. I will make just one quote: the High Court of Australia found that the CFMMEU was a serial offender that engaged in whatever action and made whatever threats it wished without regard to the law. That's what the High Court of Australia said about the activities that we're talking about today.
Who is protecting the women? I asked the Prime Minister in question time about a particular case. It's not very savoury, but a lot of what goes on on building sites is not very savoury. Right now, the ABCC is taking action against CFMMEU official Gerald McCrudden for pushing and shoving a female health and safety manager. When the manager accused Mr McCrudden of putting words in her mouth, he responded, 'I would never put anything in your mouth. You're disgusting.' Does the government seriously believe that this ongoing prosecution of this vile behaviour is a waste of taxpayers' money? But when I ask the question—when we ask the question—we are diverted onto these other minor matters. The government will not admit what is really going on here.
The Prime Minister has spent a lot of time talking about priorities, doing things differently, kumbaya from the rooftops. Don't look at what they say; look at what they do. Their top priority is to dismantle the ABCC, the tough cop on the beat. That's prioritising what the CFMMEU wants over what Australian workers need. It's prioritising what the CFMMEU wants over what the Australian economy needs. It's prioritising what the CFMMEU wants over what women on work sites need. My question: who's protecting the women?
Our building and construction industry is vital to job creation, but that was trivialised, even though the Master Builders Association has sounded a warning and talked about a $47 billion cost of dismantling this watchdog. There are serious economic implications. You have to wonder who the Albanese government is protecting when it abolishes the ABCC. It's not workers. It's not women. It's not the economy. It's the CFMMEU. CFMMEU donations go in and policy comes out, that's the Albanese accord. CFMMEU donations go in and policy comes out.
Two royal commissions have identified systemic unlawful behaviour in the construction industry, physical assault, verbal violence, threats, intimidation, contempt of court. Why would there not be meaningful consequences for unlawful conduct in the construction industry, whether it's by unions or employers? The ALP has received, on average, nearly $1 million a year of donations from the CFMMEU and the MUA over the past two decades. That's the Albanese accord: donations come in and policy goes out.
Across Australia we know there are more than a million people employed in the construction industry. They're building the infrastructure that our communities need. They're building hospitals. They're building schools. There are more than 400,000 small businesses in the industry and they need a system that's free from intimidation. They need a system that's free from standover deals. They need a system that prevents this competition and this incredibly bad behaviour.
Before we restored the ABCC master builders and others estimated that building costs we up to 30 per cent higher. I was here in 2011-12 when we restored the ABCC. When we got that tough cop back on the beat the days lost to union standdowns or stop works reduced by a third. It's absolutely incredible that you, as the government, cannot connect the actions that the ABCC takes with work on building sites, whether it be protection, whether it be actually doing the job, whether it be frivolous interventions by the unions.
There are numerous CFMMEU officials before the courts. In recent years $16 million of fines has been imposed. How can you say that is a waste of taxpayers' money? But that's the Albanese accord at work— (Time expired)
When the shadow minister was talking about the High Court and women and the CFMMEU was she referring to this action? 'High Court dismisses bid to fine CFMMEU over toilet request'. A five-year legal battle, that started with a union request for a women's toilet at a building site, ended on Friday when the High Court dismissed the case by the building regulator to fine the CFMMEU for wanting a women's toilet on site. Who in this case was standing up for the women on that construction site? Well, it was the CFMMEU. It was the men and women, particularly the women's officer, of that union standing up.
This is what this regulator did consistently after it was introduced by the former government. It pursued matters when workers were standing up for safety. I am shocked that the opposition would just dismiss and ignore what has happened in workplace safety under their watch and under the ABCC. Many of the breaches of right of entry that they talk about were when CFMMEU officials went on site under occupational health and safety. There had been an accident on site. A worker had lost their life. They'd died. The company had no problem with the CFMMEU official coming on site. Workers were grieving. An incident had to be set up. Yet what the ABCC did was prosecute those officials for not giving 48-hours notification that they were entering on site. It didn't just happen once or twice; it happened multiple times. When they dare to round their facts and figures and say over 300 breaches of right of entry, what right of entry are they referring to? When a fellow construction worker who happened to be an official of the CFMMEU walked on site because a mate of theirs was dying was that the right of entry that you were referring to?
It happened in my electorate. In the building of the Ulumbarrra Theatre a worker fell into the orchestra pit and was severely injured. The CFMMEU organiser raced to the site. He was mates with the worker. He went on site to assist. The ABCC came after him and prosecuted him for lack of right-of-entry notification. That is what the ABCC's priorities were. One hundred and fifty-four workers lost their lives on construction sites during the ABCC's existence. It's a tragedy if any worker does not come home at the end of the day. It is an absolute tragedy. Yet the ABCC's priorities were not about improving safety or protecting the women on those workplaces; they were about prosecuting the union officials that went on site and those officials' failure to give 24 hours notice.
It was a laughable presentation—and you can only call it a presentation by the opposition leader—to suggest that the CFMMEU will fix construction costs. Everyone in business will be falling over laughing at that suggestion, because anybody involved in business knows that the increases in building costs are due to supply chain pressures. Linked to another area, the opposition, when they were in government, boasted about planting trees to help with the timber shortage that we are now in. If they'd just planted the trees, we might have some timber to help build the homes that they're now referring to! It's got nothing to do with the wages of the workers. It's got nothing to do with the CFMMEU. The CFMMEU are not interested in fixing the prices of building products. They actually represent building product workers and want to see more of them available to go into the construction industry.
The opposition are suggesting that abolishing the ABCC will lead to inflation. Housing costs are already going up, and the ABCC exists. It's a desperate attempt by the opposition to protect a legacy that they should be embarrassed about. As the Prime Minister said today in question time, as the minister has said in his speech before, as I have demonstrated and as the other speakers on this side will demonstrate, this regulator is a waste of taxpayers' money. The former government and now opposition should be embarrassed about what it has done, not come in here trying to defend it.
Australia's construction industry is one of our most vital and important sectors. It's our construction industry that builds the shopping centres and the supermarkets that we buy our food from, the buildings that we work in and the homes in which we live. The construction industry is responsible for building the roads we drive on. They are the backbone of Australia's infrastructure and will continue to be long into the future.
The previous Liberal-National government recognised that construction is a hard industry to work in. It's laborious and it's physically demanding of many who work in it. In government, we learnt over time that unions were using their influence in the sector to bully, to harass and to intimidate Australian tradesmen—and, more importantly, tradeswomen—businesses and those who were not members of their organisations, and to effect change in their own interests. Surprise, surprise! In 2016, it was the Liberal-National government who introduced the Australian Building and Construction Commission, to be an independent and statutory authority of the Australian government, responsible for promoting understanding of and enforcing workplace relations compliance in the Australian building and construction industry. Labor's plan to abolish the ABCC will strip Australia's building and construction workers of their protection against unlawful and bad, bad behaviour, which the Leader of the Opposition outlined in his speech to parliament. Their plan to abolish the ABCC will strip Australia's building and construction workers of their protections against unlawful behaviour by unions, which was confirmed by not one but two royal commissions. However, unlike this government—those opposite—at least the Gillard and Rudd governments acknowledged the need for a specialist building regulator, even if it was ineffective.
The High Court of Australia ruled unanimously against the CFMMEU in a case about the union's lawlessness in the construction sector brought by the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC. The High Court found that the CFMMEU was a serial offender who engaged in whatever action and made whatever threats it wished without regard to the law, that it had contravened laws on approximately 150 occasions, that it was well resourced—having more than sufficient means to pay any penalty that the court might have imposed—and that it treated penalties for serious breaches of the law as just a cost of doing business. I'll repeat that: the CFMEU treated penalties for serious breaches of the law—so many of them, clearly—as just a cost of doing business.
When repeat offending by a major player in the construction industry gets so bad that our Federal Court has to ask whether there's ever been a worse recidivist in the history of the common law—and that's them commenting on the CFMEU's history of flouting the law—there is clearly a problem with the effectiveness of law that requires urgent legislative attention.
This continues on to the alleged offensive and abusive behaviour—towards who? We've highlighted this, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition also highlighted this—it is behaviour towards women in the construction industry, which is appalling and must be addressed. The real case that Mr Burke must make to the Australian people is how he plans to protect more than 150,000 women on Australian construction sites when he scraps the ABCC. If Labor is willing to abandon their position on protecting women the workplace this quickly, because of their union mates, then to what extent will Australians suffer to keep the bosses at ALP HQ and their union handlers happy?
The record of the ABCC stands up in its own right. Since the ABCC was re-established by the coalition government in December 2016 it has—let me go through the list—achieved a successful outcome in 98 of 107 cases resolved. For those opposite, that's a success rate of 91 per cent. It has prosecuted a total of 2,502 contraventions, secured over $16,423,918 in penalties and recovered $5,105,562 in wages and entitlements for 8,444 employees. And those opposite want to abolish it. It's unconscionable. As the Leader of the Opposition stood here and said, it's unconscionable that those opposite accept $5 million from their union and they want to scrap the watchdog that's looking out for the Australian people on construction sites. (Time expired)
I give the call to the member for Canberra.
Thank you, and I congratulate you on your election as Deputy Speaker.
In my first speech to parliament I talked about the need to abolish the ABCC and this disgraceful body which is an ideological witch hunt on unions and an assault on working people. The fact that the opposition, in their very first matter of public importance, choose this topic just shows the depth of the ideological obsession that they have with attacking the union movement and the workers they represent, and I'm really pleased to have this opportunity to talk about it. So, thanks to the opposition for choosing this topic today.
In the words of a Federal Court judge, the ABCC should be 'publicly exposed as having wasted public money without a proper basis for doing so'. That's exactly what this MPI gives the government the opportunity to do. Now, there's a bit of confusion about what the ABCC actually does, and it might be easier to begin by outlining what it doesn't do. Let's be clear. The ABCC isn't fighting for higher safety standards on worksites and prosecuting dodgy operators; that's what unions do. The ABCC isn't prosecuting cases of industrial manslaughter; that's the advocacy that unions are doing. The ABCC is a complete waste of taxpayer money, and all it cares about is harassing union officials, delegates and members and stirring up conflict. Only two of the 39 current ABCC legal cases involve either an underpayment to a worker or a delayed payment to a subcontractor. The other 37 cases involve union officials and delegates.
The ABCC has made an absolute art form of throwing taxpayers' money away on farcical legal cases, and I'll provide some examples. As of last year, the ABCC had spent at least $487,000 pursuing Lendlease over Eureka flags. It wasted at least $432,469 unsuccessfully pursuing the union to the High Court because they demanded a women's toilet on a Melbourne worksite. In 2018 a judge of the Federal Court slammed the ABCC for wasting taxpayers' money for pursuing union officials for having a cup of tea on a worksite. The judge said:
I hold the clear view that this is a case where the ABCC should be publicly exposed as having wasted public money without a proper basis for doing so, in my view.
Why would you care about flags on stickers on a worksite? Why are the Liberal Nationals—the former government—so obsessed with these things?
The ABCC thought that taxpayer dollars were better spent on taking this idea of a request for a women's toilet on a building site to the High Court. Luckily, the High Court laughed this out of the room. As the CFMMEU said at the time, the High Court had a greater sense of decency than the ABCC.
According to Safe Work Australia data there were 154 deaths in the construction industry from 2016 to 2020—that's 154 families who never saw their loved one come home. This is a really serious issue, which governments should be concerned about, and which this body should be concerned about. But what have they done to lower these figures? Prosecute workers for stickers on hard hats. The ABCC spent $500,000 of taxpayer money on enforcing a ban on union logos while workers were dying. It's not the ABCC that protects Australian workers, it's unions that make workplaces safer. All this watchdog does is pursue vexatious litigation to make that work harder.
The ABCC has direct responsibility for protecting construction workers from wage theft. In December they issued a press release boasting that they had recovered $1 million in underpayments for construction workers in the period between July and November 2021. But over that same five-month period the construction union recovered more than $17 million in unpaid wages and entitlements for its members.
It is time that this body was gone, and I am so proud that this is something that this newly elected Labor government will do as a priority, because we are a government that believes in workers' rights and the unions that represent those workers, and we will always be proud of that.
Congratulations on your elevation, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon.
If there was ever anything to demonstrate that Labor is all about looking after their union mates, it's their plan to abolish the Australian Building Construction Commission. Those opposite should be ashamed, because the ABCC has done some incredible work, calling out and prosecuting the very kind of behaviour that Labor continually highlights as needing to be removed from our society.
We've already heard about the countless things the ABCC was put in place to expose. We've heard about the CFMMEU official calling a female inspector crude and offensive names. We've heard about union officials making threats of sexual violence against women and spitting at female workplace inspectors and about other intimidating behaviour. It's disgusting. These kinds of behaviours are the reason why we need the ABCC.
The kind of union thuggery we've become used to seeing on sites is incredibly detrimental. Let me give you an example from my own electorate. The Townsville stadium is a fantastic project which has been great for our city and was supported when we were in government. But during the construction, we saw delays because of unlawful industrial action organised by one of the CFMMEU workers. We had situations where the CFMMEU officials visited the stadium site and spoke to a group of workers while holding copies of the template of their enterprise agreement, saying words to the effect, 'You need to make your bosses sign this.' A few months later there was another visit, which resulted in 11 subbies refusing to commence work, 15 more the next day and a similar number refusing to work two days later. The union was fined $200,000 for unlawful industrial action, with the Federal Court justice labelling it 'coercion', 'disgraceful', 'shameful', ;deplorable' and 'dismal'. These are other words that the now government has left out from the Federal Court justice.
Multiply this incident around other sites across the country, and, not only do you have workers turning up to work in fear of being coerced and bullied, you also have the cost to the economy. We rely so heavily on the construction sector. It has been a critical part of our economic recovery. Now, in these times of increasing interest rates and increasing costs of living, we can't be adding more costs to the industry. Building and construction projects all around Australia are already grappling with increasing material costs, supply shortages and lengthy delays caused by COVID. If you strip the industry of the protections that the ABCC brings, we will see more stop works and costly, unlawful industrial action, so the need to keep the ABCC is clear.
This is something that Master Builders has noted on multiple occasions. To quote the CEO:
The construction unions, particularly the CFMEU, continue to target builders, particularly small building businesses with tactics to bully, intimidate and coerce them to sign up to union deals.
Every day on building sites, construction unions threaten with tactics that cause disruption and stoppages to projects. This undermines the productivity of the industry when the economy can least afford it.
… … …
Construction activity is driving the economic recovery in communities around the country. We cannot allow the activities of construction union bullies to put that at risk.
… … …
Labor's policy to abolish the ABCC will put economic recovery at risk.
We are at risk of seeing history repeat itself. As soon as Labor abolished the ABCC in 2012, the improvements in respect for the law were almost immediately lost. After getting rid of the ABCC, the rate of disputes in the construction industry rose to approximately four times the average of all industries.
Of course, we know exactly why this is one of the first moves by the Labor government. We know that the Labor government has received donations from the CFMMEU to the tune of $16.3 million over the last 20 years. It's a lot of money. We shouldn't risk losing the ABCC for Labor Party donations.
Deputy Speaker Claydon, I'd like to briefly take this moment to congratulate you on your election as Deputy Speaker. You are my parliamentary neighbour in the Hunter, and I know the people of Newcastle will be very proud of their member. Congratulations to you.
In 12 months, it will be 40 years since the very first Hawke-Keating accord. Why am I speaking about 40 years ago? I just want to run through some of the achievements of that accord. Of course, it brought unions, workers and the government together, and it included employers in the negotiations. It established the Economic Planning Advisory Council. The accord brought about a tripartite Australian Manufacturing Council together with industry councils. The introduction of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission came about 40 years ago as a result of the Hawke-Keating accord. Increases in family income supplements for low-income families came about, as did targeted tax cuts, various tax avoidance measures, increased pensions and unemployment benefits, and the fastest employment and economic growth in the OECD. The introduction of various steel and vehicle industry plans came about in 1983 as a result of the accord. The introduction of the three per cent award superannuation and, of course, many, many other benefits came about as a result of a Labor government, 40 years ago, coming together with unions, working with employer groups and working as a sensible and forward-thinking government.
In a few short weeks the Albanese government will have a jobs summit where, once again, a sensible, mature, forward-thinking government will come together with the leaders who create jobs across this country: union officials, businesspeople—people who want Australian people to be well employed, earning a decent wage for a fair day's work and moving our nation forward.
In the intervening period of those 40 years, there has been much disappointment for Australian workers. The fact that someone would be taken to court for having a cup of tea is beyond the pale for most average Australians. They don't want their tax dollars spent on this kind of nonsense. Having a sticker on your hard hat? For goodness's sake! Most ordinary Australians would hear this and think to themselves, 'Well, I know now why an iceberg lettuce is going north of $8.' It's because taxpayers' money has been rorted and ripped off by a government that is so obsessed with the union movement.
All the Leader of the Opposition at the moment could obsess about in the first questions on the first day of a new government in nine years was bikies and union thugs. It's a repetitious and boring old record. That's all he's been talking about for nine years. Well, can I say that the people of my electorate of Paterson want more than the same old, same old from the Leader of the Opposition and the tribe that he's brought along with him to sit on the opposition benches? They want more, and this government is going to deliver more.
We are going to deliver more jobs and more training for Australian people. We heard the minister today say we are going to put TAFE front and centre of training. There are so many young people—and older people, quite frankly—who want to improve their skill set so they can avail themselves of the opportunities that are coming down the line in Australia for people with the right qualifications. We want to be part of this exciting change. We want to work with business. We want to work with the unions. We want to work with training to ensure that our people are equipped to face the challenges that are coming.
As Treasurer Chalmers outlined today, we've got a lot of challenges coming—no thanks to this mob opposite, who laid the land mines for us to try to negotiate in the first few months of government—with a gas crisis, and with the crisis that has come from them trying to hide away the electricity rises that were coming as well. But we're alive and awake, and we're agile, and we will run this show much better than them. (Time expired)
In the haze of contest this afternoon, I think there are some things we can agree on: firstly, that it's critical that Australia has a productive, prosperous and internationally competitive building industry. It's also critical that we maintain the rule of law on Australian building sites. Of course, that's why, in 2017, we re-established the ABCC.
Talking of the performance of the ABCC, since 2016 it's seen a success rate of 91 per cent. It has successfully pursued 2,502 contraventions and seen $16,423,918 in penalties. Now, that's more money than you can fly a rocket ship over, but it's eclipsed only by how much the CFMMEU or its predecessors have been fined by the ABCC and/or its predecessors since establishment, which is more than $22 million. I think it is important that we understand what is going on here. I don't profess to know about the lived experience of everyone in this place, but I'm one of very few people, I hope, in this place who has lived experience of a loved one dying on a building site, so I know deeply what that causes and the hurt it causes and how important safety on a building site is.
But let me take you to a few examples of behaviour on building sites and around building sites which I respectfully suggest to you has nothing to do with creating more and safer building sites. Amongst the material prosecutions brought by the ABCC are instances where a female official from the ABCC was threatened by a union official with being gang-raped as she inspected the site. That same official was spat at while on the site. I respectfully suggest to you that behaviour doesn't have any place on an Australian worksite or, indeed, anywhere in civil society, but it can't be defended on the basis that this is about ensuring safe worksites.
An honourable member interjecting—
No-one is doing that? Well, a CFMMEU official made three phone calls late at night to a female inspector's mobile phone. The last call was at 11.23. An anonymous flyer was circulated referring to the woman as 'a dog who wanted to be a pole dancer'. This stuff actually happens; right. It actually happens, and that's why we need a strong cop on the beat.
Now this behaviour, the CFMMEU's behaviour, has been described variously but including as a serial offender, engaging in whatever actions and making whatever threats it wishes without regard to the law. Those opposite scoff at the idea that an ABCC and having a strong cop on the beat can put downward pressure on building costs. Well, the Master Builders Association disagrees with your position. They say that is exactly what it does. Those productivity impacts, I think, are best illustrated by the period between July 2012 and December 2016, when 43,000 work days a year were lost to industrial action. Once we re-established the cop on the beat for the same four-year period between 2017 and 2022, it was 15,000 days per year. The reality is you can't hide from this.
One might wonder reasonably in the gallery or listening to the broadcast why would the Australian Labor Party come into this place and, as one of the first orders of business, abolish the ABCC? They always say to people: in politics follow the money. You are usually on the money if you are following the money.
Government members interjecting—
I said 'one of the first orders'. The reality is if you are following the money, you are close to the money, and the reality is the CFMMEU has contributed to those opposite, to their election coffers, around $1 million a year over the last five years and upwards of $20 million over the last two decades. You know, it is not what you say that matters; it is what you do. In the days after an election, you are always very conscious to go and see your most important supporters. The newly elected member for Spence in recent days has met with the CFMMEU and thanked them for their support. It says everything the people of Australia need to know about those opposite.
The Leader of the Opposition decides what goes on the MPI. He said 'let's talk about the ABCC'. That is what he says is the most important thing in Australia today that this parliament should be debating. So I am just going to declare a few things before I get into this detail that we see today, where we have seen the trap of putting ideology before evidence, because that is what this debate is really about. I want to declare a few things. Firstly, three of my brothers, a couple of nephews and my brother's partner all work in the construction industry. A few of them are carpenters.
One of my brothers actually worked on a crane that worked on this building; they have been in the construction industry for that long. When one of the cranes collapsed in the construction of this building, he was working down at the Canberra Casino and they brought their crane to lift up that crane. Sadly, another one of my brothers was working at Twin Towns, if you know where that is, right on the border between Queensland and New South Wales. In fact, the crane was in Queensland and the jib where it was picking up was in New South Wales and the crane collapsed and killed the two blokes standing right beside my other brother, my younger brother Timothy. So I know a little bit about the construction industry right now because I have brothers who work in it right now.
Just for the sake of the opposition leader, the commercial construction industry is completely different to the residential industry. Some news, some research: the CFMMEU doesn't have coverage in the residential building area. They have coverage in the big construction projects, like the Townsville casino. I just want to point that out because, if I went and saw one of my nephews working on a residential site, I could walk in with this Eureka badge or with my book with the Eureka sticker on it and that would not be a problem. But if I went to see one of my brothers or nephews working at the casino in Brisbane right now, that could be a problem—if I could get on the site, obviously. That would be a problem because that sticker is a problem. This badge is a problem at the casino site. But because of the ideological pursuits of those opposite rather than the evidence, the main evidence that we need to extract from this MPI is: has there been an improvement in construction productivity? No. As we have heard from other speakers, there's been an increase in deaths under the ABCC's watch. So let's get those facts out there right from the start.
The ABCC is not designed to deal with breaches of criminal law, as the member for Watson, the minister, pointed out right from the start—something that the Leader of the Opposition didn't seem to understand. That's what we have the police for. They will actually go out and deal with criminal behaviour that everyone on this side of the parliament, from the Prime Minister down, condemns. So you can keep dredging up fact after fact after fact. We hate that sort of behaviour. We're all members of unions and we all hate that sort of behaviour, okay? So don't try and start with that school of smear that the Leader of the Opposition started with in question time. The principal sets the tone for the school of smear. If you're going to follow that, shame on you. This parliament can be better than that. This parliament can be so much better.
I know that this sector has challenges. It's a dangerous place. I know the difference between union sites and non-union sites right in the middle of Brisbane city. You can go from one site to the next. You deal with labour hire people and what they're paid on one site and with what people are paid next door. One site is dangerous; the other is not, because unions are workers. You keep talking about unions and workers. Well, guess what: unions are workers. The Labor Party has a proud connection to the union movement. We're here because of workers. We believe in looking after workers, and letting them come home safely from a construction site is a pretty bloody good start, I say, because I've seen what happens. My little brother has never recovered from the physical injuries that happened when the crane hit him and also from the psychological damage. Sorry to name you, Tim, but you know I love you. It's a dangerous industry, and we need good strong unions doing the right thing. They should be treated the same as every other worker in every other workplace.
The discussion has now concluded.
Deputy Speaker Claydon, congratulations on your well-deserved election. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to suspend standing order 31, automatic adjournment of the House, for this sitting. By way of explanation, that's to allow all of the first speeches to go their usual course over the rest of the evening without being interrupted at 7.30.
Leave granted.
I move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) be suspended for this sitting.
Question agreed to.
Before the honourable member for Dawson is given the call, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech, and I ask the House to extend to him all of the usual courtesies.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your elevation to office. Colleagues, it is with humility and honour that I stand before you today as a member of the 47th Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. I'm a tomato farmer from Bowen, and I'm pretty happy to be here. I drive a Land Cruiser, I drink beer, I fish and I shoot—not necessarily all at the same time! I'm the first of my community to represent Dawson at the federal level. This is an achievement of which I'm immensely proud. My home sits smack bang in the middle of Dawson. The electorate runs along the coastline from Townsville to Mackay and includes 74 beautiful islands and the Great Barrier Reef. I would like to thank the people of the electorate for putting their faith in me. It is an honour and privilege, and I will not let you down.
I'm a proud National in every sense of the word. I'm a farmer by trade, raised on the land. My parents and grandparents have instilled a high standard of principles in me. We work hard and we believe in reward for effort. We also believe in a fair go for those who have a go.
Growing up I was surrounded by family. Mum and Dad worked long hours on the farm, and I spent a lot of time with my grandparents. They all had a hand in raising me—teaching me right from wrong, the importance of hard work and how to appreciate the value of a dollar. This last lesson came particularly from my dad's mum, whose first house, on a station in the Gulf, had dirt floors and no electricity, and the closest grocery store was miles from the homestead. She often told me the 'good old days' were overrated and that she enjoyed a stove that heated up at the flick of a switch.
My family taught me everything, from basic cooking and cleaning to fixing a broken-down pump to how to wield a chainsaw. I learnt to make a lot out of a little and to never take anything for granted. I learnt that with actions came consequences. I was always loved unconditionally—something I will be forever grateful for. For me, family always comes first, and I hope and pray that my wife, Raylene, and I will pass on the values my parents and grandparents taught me to my three children: Jack, Shannon and Tom.
When Mum and Dad were farming they grew several crops, including tomatoes, capsicums and chilis. We also owned the original Kensington mango orchard. That is a mango that Bowen is famous for. I've had many photos taken in front of the Big Mango, including with our own Leader of the Nationals and agricultural spokesperson, David Littleproud.
The only thing I ever wanted to be was a farmer. Dad, knowing this, had two 'must's. The first 'must' was to learn the business from the ground up. So I did. I worked as a picker, worked as a carter, drove tractors and trucks, planted out—sometimes by hand—and packed fruit in the shed; back then, that was by hand, too. And when the small crop season was over, it was time to pick and pack the famous Bowen mangoes, often in 38-degree heat. We were either out in the sun on the farm or in the shed under a hot tin roof. Picking mangoes was often an interesting experience. I say 'interesting 'in the sense that there was always something unexpected around the corner, like biting green ants, stinging wasps and the odd tree snake. As a young fella, I would often have to climb the trees to pick the fruit—I was a lot skinnier and a bit more flexible back then! Dad's second 'must' was that I get an education, and after completing grade 12 I duly enrolled to study at the University of Queensland's Gatton campus. But I was keen on the practical over the theoretical, so I deferred my studies in order to continue working on the farm.
As is often the case in life, when one door shuts, another opens, and this was true for me. The farm next door came up for sale, so I bought it with a little help from Mum and Dad—actually, a lot of help from Mum and Dad! They were keen to see me get into the business of farming. A short time later my sister and her husband, Wayne, returned to Bowen. Raylene and I formed a partnership with them to buy Mum and Dad's business, so they could put their hard work behind them and move on to retirement. We specialised in gourmet trellis tomatoes, selling them nationally and internationally. We employed 15 permanent staff and provided jobs to hundreds of casuals during the picking season.
I'll be forever grateful for my farming background. The ability to make such an important contribution as feeding our nation is one that I'm proud to boast about. The farmer of today is efficient and resourceful, their practices modernised, with their farm and equipment worth millions of dollars. The costs of fertiliser and pesticides is enormous. Anyone who thinks farmers let their products run down the drain hasn't paid one of their bills. Efficiency is a must, and nothing is wasted. Farmers are heavily invested emotionally and financially in their operations. To work the land, you must love it. Farmers do not wish to harm the environment, the land or the water surrounding them. This is the same environment that provides their livelihoods and in many cases has done so for many generations. Every family needs a farmer, and we need to start giving farmers the support they need, the respect they deserve and the right for them to farm. After all, the livestock and produce we offer is amongst the best in the world.
We need to provide good infrastructure and water security. That's why I'm totally committed to projects like Urannah Dam and Hells Gates Dam, and to raising the Burdekin Falls Dam to the full height of 14 metres. Water is the lifeblood of rural and regional Australia. Water management is more important. When you add water, everything grows—populations, economies, opportunities. To borrow a of quote from my parliamentary colleague Barnaby Joyce, 'Water is the currency and the dam is the bank.' Urannah Dam will provide a secure and affordable water supply for our current farmers and our mining industry, as well as industrial and urban users, and will secure the region's water future. Urannah also includes a pumped hydroelectric scheme, which will provide clean, green, reliable energy that can be connected straight into the north-south high-voltage grid which feeds the national network. Surely water stored at height must be one of the best batteries in the world.
I return to the journey that brought me to this place today. After 22 years of farming, I decided it was time to try something new. It was during that time that my local councillor announced his retirement, so I thought this was the opportunity to give back to the wonderful community that had given so much to me and my family. I threw my hat in the ring. I was fortunate enough to win the election. I served a year as councillor and three years as deputy mayor, and I've held the top job of Mayor of the Whitsunday Regional Council for the last six years. I cherished each opportunity and I am forever grateful to the people of the Whitsunday region for putting their faith in me. Local government is the level of government that is closest to the people. That is why I will be pushing to see the federal assistance grants to local government return to one per cent of taxation. This funding is critical to the people of rural and regional towns.
I've spoken about how I got into local government. Let me explain now how I made the leap to federal representation. Well, it's a bit of history repeating itself. When the previous member for Dawson announced his retirement, and knowing how important our region is and knowing all it has to offer, I again threw my hat into the ring. I won the right to represent the LNP as its Dawson candidate, and so began a nine-month campaign leading up to last federal election. I would like to thank the Liberal-National party members for putting their faith in me and giving me that opportunity.
The electorate of Dawson a is a powerhouse region that punches above its weight in terms of export earnings and job creation. We have the largest sugarcane industry in Australia; how sweet it is! The industry is now exploring alternative uses of sugarcane, like bioplastics and biofuels. But there is a lot more going on in my electorate. My home town of Bowen is the famous 'salad bowl' of the north. It is responsible for over half a billion dollars in horticultural products, helping feed our nation and the world. Our fishing and aquacultural industry delivers everything from live fish exports to Hong Kong to some of the tastiest Australian prawns you're ever likely to munch on. We also produce some of the best beef on the planet thanks to my electorate's cattle producers. Mackay also has a large METS sector which services the important mining industry just over the hill in Michelle Landry country, the seat of Capricornia. For anyone who doesn't understand METS, it means mining, engineering, technology and science, so there are plenty of bright cookies in my electorate. We also have other emerging industries, like Top Shelf International's agave farm, located between Proserpine and Bowen. Top Shelf is working with the University of Adelaide to create the first-of-its-kind spirits category: Australian agave. Agave is the plant that tequila is made from, so to the boys at Top Shelf—Aden, Drew, Henno and Chris—I say, 'Cheers!'
This is another great story: two brothers, Adam and James Gilmour, are literally taking on the giants of the space technology sector with their company Gilmour Space Technologies. Their team is working towards launching small satellites from their spaceport near Abbot Point just north of Bowen. The satellites can be used for earth observation and telecommunication. There is even the potential to launch Australian astronauts from this site. There is a sovereign risk if we do not support this project. I am totally supportive. We need to be brave; we need to be bold. Let's get it done.
And, of course, there's our fabulous tourism industry, which boasts Airlie Beach and the 74 beautiful Whitsunday Islands, and we are also the heart of the Great Barrier Reef. Our tourism operators are world class. Come visit. I can guarantee you'll have a good time.
Dawson delivers all of this without some of the infrastructure afforded to the capital cities. Imagine what could be achieved if we were on a level playing field. While I am the member for Dawson, I will unashamedly be pushing for our region's fair share. I will use my time in this role to continue to grow my electorate for a stronger future. I will work towards creating more reliable and affordable water, more reliable and affordable energy and more reliable and affordable communications. I'll work for more investment in infrastructure, particularly in our roads. Roads need to be functional and safe. Roads on which we can get our produce to market and bring our families home safely.
Remember how I said my grandmother loved her modern-day appliances and turning on a stove or a light with a flick of a switch? Well, I don't believe she is Robinson Crusoe. Unfortunately, we're now at a point where it is becoming unaffordable to flick that switch and reliability is in question. I cannot believe that we have some of the highest energy costs in the world. Energy policy must ensure generators from whatever source provide power 24/7. I am a supporter of all energy options, whether it be coal- or gas-fired, solar, wind, hydro or nuclear. We need to provide power to businesses and households that is reliable and affordable. For power generated only when the sun shines or when the wind blows, it should be beholden to the provider to make up the shortfall. Otherwise, the grid will be further destabilised. That's why I support a brand new, high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired power station with carbon capture and storage to ensure we keep our lights on.
I also recognise the small businesses owners, the hospitality workers and the retail workers who invest in our small towns. Having been a business owner and an employer myself, I understand the pressures and stress that come with this role. I know the responsibilities of paying your staff wages, paying the bills and just trying to make ends meet or scratch a living. These small business owners are an integral part of my region and are the backbone of our nation. I will strive to ensure that government gets out of the road of small businesses and lets them do what they do best: create more jobs.
I look forward to working with my neighbouring colleagues such as Michelle Landry in Capricornia, Phil Thompson in Herbert, Dale Last in the state seat of Burdekin and Amanda Camm in the Whitsunday state electorate. And, of course, I'll work with our local governments, like the Mackay and Whitsunday regional councils, the Burdekin Shire Council and the Townsville Regional Council. These organisations are essential to providing the services our ratepayers rely on. I know that when all three tiers of government work together, all Australians benefit.
After reflecting on my recent campaign, I would also like to thank my campaign team and the members and supporters who doorknocked, letterbox-dropped, waved signs and stood out in the elements on election day and during prepolling. I appreciate your hard work and your dedication. To the people who voted for me and who have put their trust in me, I say thank you. I could not be here without you. To the people who didn't vote for me: I'm going to work for you, too.
I would like to give special thanks to former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, Leader of the Nationals David Littleproud, Senator Susan McDonald, Michelle Landry, Keith Pitt, David Crisafulli, Senator Matthew Canavan, Phil Thompson, Shelley Argent, Sarah Jones and Lincoln Folo. And a heartfelt mention goes out to my friends Ian and Trudi-Ann, Carl, Paul, Guy and Mardi, Judy, Clare, Lyn, Warren and Chris Scanlan, and Robert Barty. Thank you.
To my grandparents, who are no longer on this earth but who, I'm sure, continue to watch me from above: you are forever in my heart. To my mum and dad, to Leanne and Wayne, to Donna and John, and, of course, to my loving wife, Raylene, and my children, Jack, Shannon and Tom: words never come easy when I speak of my family, so I simply say thank you. That's why I did it quick!
I'd like to finish off where I began. I'm a proud National in every sense of the word—a farmer, a man from the land. I'll work hard to grow a stronger future for my electorate of Dawson, I'll work hard for our country and I'll work hard for all Australians. PS—go Jeff Reibel and the mighty North Queensland Cowboys. Cheers, and thank you.
Before I call the honourable member for Brisbane, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask that the House extend to them the usual courtesies.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land that we gather on here today, the Ngunnawal people, and the traditional owners of the land of my home electorate, the Yuggera and Turrbal people. We stand on unceded land, and I hope this parliament will take powerful steps towards First Nations justice, recognition and sovereignty.
There are often pivotal moments in our lives that drive us into politics, that awaken us, that make us stand up to fight and say enough is enough. My journey to this place has not been a conventional one. I do not come from a wealthy or political family. I have spent my life up until this moment working in frontline retail and hospitality, and I have been a proud member of the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union during my time in retail. But there have been two pivotal moments for me that have shaped who I am and what my politics is. My experiences of working poverty wage jobs and my coming out as gay both impacted me deeply and forever changed how I saw the world. But who we are as people is often a product of our family and our community, so I hope you will indulge me as I tell you a bit about my family and myself.
I was born and raised in South London. My dad is a musician and a UK native who taught me the importance of compassion and provided a safe space for me to be myself. My mum moved from Rockhampton to London when she was just 16 to pursue a career in ballet. She gifted me the grit, determination and ambition that has led me to be standing before you all today. This upbringing also taught me the value of the arts to the community and to our country, for without our arts and culture what have we to defend?
I am exceptionally lucky to represent a part of this nation that enjoys a vibrant community of artists. From the powerhouse in New Farm to the festivals of Fortitude Valley and beyond, we are so lucky to have a passionate and inclusive art scene that I will support with every fibre of my being to make even bigger. The arts are an invaluable service to our community and our economy. I saw firsthand how many people's lives were impacted through my parents' work and the work of their colleagues.
My family moved to the Central Queensland town of Yeppoon in 2009. This was an immense change from South London. We experienced new and abundant wildlife, forests—sun for the first time!—and the pineapples that Yeppoon is so famous for. But the small town life was not to be forever and in 2012 I moved to Brisbane to study at the University of Queensland and have called Brisbane my home ever since.
Halfway through my studies I was offered a job in the United States with one of the biggest entertainment companies in the world. The job was to work in a frontline customer service role at a globally renowned theme park—see if you can guess where it was! The pay was very low and the hours would be very long, but it was an offer and I did not want to refuse. I had no idea just how much my life was going to change. I worked well over 40 hours a week for $7.56 an hour, the federal minimum wage at the time. It was not just the overseas workers who were on these poverty wages; it was the locals as well. Once we had paid the bills, rent and health insurance we were left with nothing and sometimes even less than that. The immense power imbalance between us as workers and the giant company we were working for was staggering. I was a disposable pawn and that was always made very clear to me.
My experience came on a head one day when I walked into the stockroom of the place I worked at and found one of my colleagues crying on the floor. I asked her what had happened, what was wrong. She was having to make the decision between whether she paid her rent or bought insulin for that month. That was a choice. Life-saving medicine or a roof over your head. It hit me all at once. This is not a society that puts people first. It values profit above all else. I could not allow that to happen in my home.
I returned to Australia in 2014 with my eyes wide open. I saw the creep of Americanisation and neoliberalism across every aspect of our society, and we have seen this come to a head in the last decade. We have been told to accept a belief system that puts people last, that tells us we are measured solely in our ability to make profit for others. We have been told to shrink ourselves, to expect nothing from the government. We have been told that somehow the wealth will trickle down. We have been waiting decades for it to trickle down to us, and it is not coming.
Wages have stagnated. Childcare costs are out of control. State schools are not funded properly. The higher education system has been gutted. Our health system is in crisis, as people wait months for access to services that they need just to survive. Climate change has been all but ignored for the existential threat that it is. Housing stress across the country is at an all-time high. In my electorate of Brisbane, over 50 per cent of the community are renters, myself included. We have seen rents increase astronomically and families pushed into homelessness as a result. With the combining stresses of housing, healthcare costs and education costs, and the increasing number of people living pay cheque to pay cheque, we have to stop. We have to say: enough is enough. People are not asking for much. Brisbane is not asking for much. People are simply asking for a government that has their back, that is on their side and that does not sell them and their futures out to the biggest corporate political donation. I am here to say that I am on your side.
As I stand in this chamber today, I acknowledge that I am just one voice and that I have a responsibility to the community of Brisbane, who sent me here; to young people across the country, who expect much of me; and to the queer community, which I am proud to be a part of. I spent my teenage years knowing I was gay and doing everything in my power to hide it. I told myself I would force myself to get married to a woman, have kids and live in the suburbs, because that was what you did. That was what you had to do. That was what was expected of me. I was lucky enough to have a very supportive family to come out to, but I spent years hiding myself because I could not see anyone in my world who was openly gay. This is so much harder than I thought it would be. I made a promise to myself once I came out: that, if I ever found myself in a public role, I would be open and proud of who I am—hence all the rainbow gear. I would be that person that I never saw growing up, because, if I can help even one person out there, my life will have been worth it.
I was lucky enough during the campaign to have received an email from a mother who told me that, after receiving a letter from me in her mailbox that just happened to mention my partner's name—Scott—her 14-year-old son wanted to donate some of his pocket money to our campaign. When she asked him why, he said he had read the letter and wanted me to win, because, if you cannot see it, you cannot be it. It is not enough to wave a rainbow flag when it is politically convenient. Our community deserves tangible legislation that protects us from discrimination and empowers us to be who we are.
I also have a responsibility to those in the Brisbane community who have lost their voices and can now never be heard. We are in a mental health crisis. The fallout from the ongoing pandemic, cuts to our health system, faltering economy and lack of substantial investment in mental health support has created a crisis that can be difficult to talk about.
A couple of weeks ago I met with a constituent, Jason. He came to me during an incredibly difficult time in his and his family's lives. To this day, I have no idea how he mustered the strength, so soon after this event, to talk about his daughter, Maya. I asked to share his story in this speech, and I am honoured to have received his permission to do so.
Maya Birch was a young woman, 24 years old, when she tragically took her life in May this year. Maya had been struggling with some anxiety and mild depression for approximately two years prior to contracting COVID-19 in January of 2020. However, the decline in her mental health following contracting COVID was rapid and extreme, as she suffered with brain fog, lack of energy and lack of motivation about life in general. Maya had difficulty getting appointments with her regular doctor, resorting to telehealth appointments that could not provide continuity of care at a time when she needed it. Her first appointment with a psychologist was conducted on the footpath outside of a clinic due to confusion and poor communication around isolation rules, leaving her feeling demoralised and in tears. It felt like there was no coordinated structure to navigate a path to recovery. Maya so often was only getting appointments through cancellation lists.
Around the beginning of April, the family hoped Maya had turned a corner. She was showing signs of improvement, engaging once again with some friends and contributing to the household responsibilities with the family pets. Maya wanted to continue to pursue work in the field she had studied for, and she applied for various positions in local veterinary practices, ultimately taking a position close to home for 30 hours per week, beginning immediately after Easter. From her first day at her new job, her anxiety level was high, feelings of inadequacies returned, and she had concerns about underperforming or, as Maya said, being an imposter. The family encouraged Maya to continue believing that if she could simply get through the first couple of months she would be okay.
On 2 May, the Labor Day public holiday in Queensland, Maya announced in tears that she could not do her job. Worried about her mental wellbeing, her father, Jason, wanted to get her out of the house. They decided to see a movie together, and then planned to visit a relative for afternoon tea before joining Jason and Jason's partner and her brother for dinner. But Maya decided she wanted to visit her niece and later go to her mum's for dinner. Following the movie, Jason let Maya know that they could work through her concerns about work, that he would support her in her decision—any decision—if she felt she could not return. Always worried, Jason asked if Maya was considering hurting herself. She confirmed that she was not contemplating it. They parted each other, saying, 'I love you.' This was the last time Jason saw his daughter alive.
Maya is just one name in a long list of people who have had their lives cut short because of government inaction. Be it cuts to aged care, health care or income support, the decisions we make in this place impact people's ability to survive. It is my job now to make sure that Maya's death was not in vain. It is my duty as the member for Brisbane to fight for my community and make sure no-one is left behind.
I am so proud to have been elected by a diverse and vibrant community to be their representative in this parliament. In our year-long campaign to win the seat, we knocked on tens of thousands of doors, made thousands of phone calls and spoke to countless people at community market stalls, protest rallies—you name it, I was there. These thousands of conversations told a story about the people of Brisbane—a story about the needs of the community. We heard about the need to address the climate crisis that we are all facing. We heard about the struggles that our communities are going through: difficulties putting food on the table, failing to seek the medical attention they need or finding themselves despondent at the accessibility to the education they want to receive. We heard from residents impacted by bad development decisions and unsustainable flight noise from Brisbane Airport. We heard from young people who didn't see themselves represented in this chamber. We heard from queer people who were desperately upset to see politicians wave rainbow flags in one moment and use their lives as a political football the next.
Eventually we saw our community's tenacity as they struggled to rebuild their lives after catastrophic flooding destroyed huge swathes of the neighbourhoods that they called home. But, when our hundreds of volunteers spoke to the people of Brisbane, we also saw them light up with hope. We saw the passion our volunteers all carried inspire community to ask for more. We spoke to people whose hope was almost lost and we asked them to send a 29-year-old gay retail worker to Canberra to fight for them. We showed them the possibility of a world where the vast wealth of our country could be used for the betterment of all of us, not just those at the top. Our message resonated with our community, and I was elected to be their representative.
I want to make it clear: I would not be standing here today if not for the passion of our volunteers who gave up countless weekends and weeknights out of their own lives to get me here. I would not be here without the people who have been putting in the work for years to build a grassroots movement dedicated to making this world a better place. There are far too many names to list in this one speech. And I cannot give enough thanks to Nathan, my campaign manager. You worked countless hours with me, kept me hopeful, kept me going and created a campaign of positivity and a campaign culture where everyone felt heard and appreciated.
I've heard many times that I'm too young for politics, that I don't seem like a politician—which is a compliment!—but it is these traits that got me here today. This election has shown that the people of this country are done with the status quo. Our parliament is becoming more and more representative of the people who vote to send us here, and I hope that my election can inspire those who are told they shouldn't be in parliament, especially young people, to get involved and to run for office, because our communities are in crisis now. They cannot wait for small targets and incremental change. This parliament needs to be brave. We need to be bold. We need to put people at the centre of policy. We need to live up to the Australia that exists in the minds of many people in this chamber but does not exist for the millions of Australians outside this Canberra bubble, because we can tackle inequality and poverty. We know what the solutions are. We have seen them here at home in years gone by and we see them in successful policies across the world. Expanding Medicare to cover dental and mental health can be done. Building enough public housing to clear waiting lists can be done. Getting to 100 per cent renewable energy by the end of this decade can be done. Making child care free and universal can be done. Restoring free uni and TAFE and wiping student debt can actually be done. The only thing standing in the way of this future is the political will for this parliament to take us there.
Before I call the honourable member for Pearce, I remind members that this is the member's first speech and I ask the House to extend to them the usual courtesies.
With reverence, I acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, the Ngunnawal and the Ngambri people of this region. I also acknowledge the Wadjuk people of the Noongar nation, which is my home. I pay my respect to elders past, present and emerging who have cared for the land, sea, rivers and waterways through songlines, traditional journey ways and a deep spiritual understanding of Mother Nature. I honour your ancient wisdom and culture. I look forward to realising this government's commitment to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart, recognising the First Nations people in the Constitution and enshrining our First Nations voice.
I stand before you in this chamber as the very proud member for Pearce. I remember regularly watching Prime Minister Bob Hawke and Treasurer Paul Keating on TV in the 1980s and the early 1990s and being very impressed with their economic reforms and their successes—not forgetting the entertaining, quick-witted delivery of Paul Keating. And here I find myself in the House of Representatives, sitting alongside the member for Bruce.
The electorate of Pearce is named in honour of Sir George Pearce, who was a proud unionist and Labor politician. I also acknowledge the previous elected members for Pearce: Fred Chaney, Judi Moylan and Christian Porter. I am proud to be the first Labor MP to hold this seat since it was proclaimed 31 years ago, and I am deeply humbled that the electors of Pearce have overwhelmingly put their individual and collective trust in me. I thank the community who supported me and who clearly articulated that the Albanese government's plan for our future is the reason we are in government. Without a voice, the community cannot be heard, and I'm grateful for the opportunity that they have granted me to be their voice and partner in Canberra—a dynamic voice to achieve improvements, and to support strategic economic growth, fiscal responsibility and integrity. I am acutely aware of this responsibility.
In thanking the electors of Pearce, I also thank the Australian Labor Party for putting their faith in me. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the many volunteers who worked tirelessly on the campaign. To WA Labor's Tim Picton and Ellie Whitaker: your considered strategy was a great advantage. Thank you to Dom Rose and team for encouragement and advice. Congratulations to Sue Lines on your election to President of the Senate. My thanks to you and your team for your support.
As a previous employee, many years ago, of the State School Teachers Union of WA, working with the then president Jeff Bateman and vice-president Jacquie Hutchinson, I remember the hard work done to achieve better working conditions for teachers. I thank Dan Caddy MLC for his advice and guidance, and Dianne Guise, former member for Wanneroo and Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, for her wisdom. The encouragement from the member for Wanneroo, Sabine Winton, the member for Burns Beach, Mark Folkard, and the member for Landsdale, Margaret Quirk—all current members—is very much appreciated. I thank my good friend the Hon. John Quigley, Western Australian Attorney-General and the member for Butler, for his encouragement. We all share a vision for the future growth of the Pearce electorate—for it to be more livable, sustainable and productive. The reliable support of Patrick Gorman, member for Perth, and Dr Anne Aly, member for Cowan, during the election campaign was significant. Thank you.
To be a member of the House of Representatives is indeed a great honour. I congratulate the 31st Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Anthony Albanese, who is a genuine visionary and who leads our nation with excellence. May your prime ministership be one of superb achievement with integrity.
To the ministers and MPs around me, I know we are here to serve our communities with vigour, to advocate for positive growth and development of our country. I have been a leader in local government, an elected member for many years and mayor for almost 12 years, patron and committee member for many community organisations and board member of eight local schools. Every single member of our community matters, and I stand shoulder to shoulder with them, understanding their challenges and opportunities, and that will be my continued commitment as the federal member for Pearce.
Our childhoods and challenges and our experiences, failures and triumphs all shape who we are. They are the threads of our lived experiences that weave together, and we continue to evolve and grow with each lived experience that we encounter. There have been significant and influential experiences in my life that define me. I was born in Manchester, England, to a loving family, some of who served in the armed forces and others who were professional footballers. I was the first-born and only surviving child of four. The deep grief and heartache my parents endured losing three of their children cannot be known unless experienced, and I saw its effect on them. My dad, Wilf, was a champion sportsman who joined the Grenadier Guards as a young man and, from there, the SAS Parachute corps. My mum was a proud Campbell, who sadly lost her dad to cancer when she was a baby. She was a strong, resilient, loving woman who kept her Scottish heritage close to her heart, and even now the sounds of bagpipes give me a warm feeling and goosebumps. Every New Year's Eve saw mum proudly wearing the Campbell tartan, waistcoat, skirt or trews. My parents passed away too early, but not before mum and dad instilled in me the importance of family and community and how the two intertwine.
I arrived in Australia in the early 1980s. With no immediate family in Australia, I took a leap of faith to the land of opportunity. A number of years later, cancer and IVF featured prominently in my life. I thank the community who supported me, lifted my spirits and encouraged me when I felt I had no fight left in me, when I was worried the cancer treatment had not worked. I thank those who gave me a huge warm community hug of love and support when I thought the IFV treatment may not have been successful, a community that was there for me during such physically and emotionally challenging times. It is the community that once again rallied behind me, supported me and effectively put me where I proudly stand today in the federal parliament, the House of Representatives.
As a breast cancer survivor, I'm acutely aware of the importance of the financial investment in good health services and progressive medical research that saves lives, for, without this investment in medical research and services, I would most likely not be here today to experience this moment. I certainly would not have had my two much-loved sons, Lee and Matthew, who are first-generation Australians, nor my adored grandchildren. I cannot imagine life without them or without my amazing husband, Pete, who is here today in the gallery—my confidante, my rock and, above all, my best friend. Thank you for your love, your patience and your unwavering support.
Our grandson Caleb was recently diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, at 10 years of age. His diagnosis has given me a true understanding of the significance of the Albanese government's election commitment for the delivery of subsidised continuous glucose monitoring products to the 130,000 type 1 diabetics, under the National Diabetes Services Scheme. This will mean so much to many Australian families.
The reason I have spoken about my experiences is that they are a reminder that we are nothing without our health. I am proud that a Labor government created Medicare, our universal healthcare system for all Australians, decades ago and that this government is protecting Medicare. Improved Medicare funding and strong support of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme will help ease cost-of-living pressures by reducing out-of-pocket experiences.
As I shared with you, my parents are sadly no longer with us. My mother-in-law and father-in-law were not able to travel to Canberra to be here today, due to their own health battles. My mother-in-law, Terri, a retired nurse, is a fierce advocate for awareness of myositis, a condition that she was diagnosed with some years ago. My father-in-law, Doug, is one of my strongest supporters. I thank them both for their unconditional love. They and many others have expressed concern about aged care and consistently talk about medical services for our seniors, who deserve respect, good food, nutrition and skilled, quality care. I am proud that this will be supported by Labor's $2.5 billion aged-care plan.
As we care for our seniors, we also care for those living with disabilities. I am a passionate patron of many community groups, including those supporting people living with disabilities. I see firsthand the positive impact of much-needed support. In the window of my office, room RG.51, is a painting by Robert Sully, a man who struggles to hold a paint brush due to his disability. His painting has come with me to Canberra. As Robert said, he always feels happy and cheerful when he sees me because he knows I care. That painting will be a daily reminder of the importance of our decision-making and its effect upon people such as Robert. By protecting the disability safety net under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, we can ensure appropriate support is provided and restore faith and trust in the NDIS. I have provided you with a snapshot of my life to enable you to understand what drives and inspires me. Purely and simply, it is supporting people to live their best life possible. It is easier for people to be their best when the fabric of our society is strong through advocacy, support and nurturing of families and communities.
The electorate of Pearce is one of the largest and fastest-growing areas in Australia, taking in 783 square kilometres. It is a population built on the values of resilience and of those who worked the land when there was no running water, no electricity and no roads. Inspired by our past, the hard work and investment of our First Nations people, pioneers and market gardeners have helped create a progressive city and have enabled our agricultural industry to prosper and be recognised as the food bowl of the north. In addition, many of our beautiful landscapes and residential gardens are a result of the local James family business, Benara Nurseries, which supplies industry, retailers, trade and wholesalers throughout Western Australia and Australia. The family owned and operated business was established in 1963 and is a key employer of many local residents. Their success story is exemplary.
I acknowledge the freemen of the City of Wanneroo: Margaret Cockman, Nick Trandos, Bill Marwick—and his wife, Bernice—Ruth Reid and also freeman Graham Edwards AM, a veterans advocate who represented the electorate of Cowan in the House of Representatives from 1998 to 2007.
The seat of Pearce is diverse and includes urban, rural and industrial land uses. Key industries include construction, manufacturing, retail trade, agriculture, education and training. Our population is diverse. The median age is 33. On average, eight babies a day are born to our local residents. Twenty per cent speak a language other than English. Forty-one per cent of the community were born overseas. During my time as Mayor of the City of Wanneroo, I was very proud to officiate at the swearing-in of over 18,000 new Australian citizens in some of the largest citizenship ceremonies in the country. These residents are among those who bring global perspectives and solutions to benefit us all.
As a country and a community, we warmly open our doors to newcomers. We welcome them as part of our neighbourhoods and extend the hands of friendship and kindness. This is the fabric of our community and the country that we support and champion. We value and respect inclusion, diversity, equality and difference. The continuing work of the many local service, charity and sporting groups in the Pearce electorate provides life-changing opportunities. These important groups can exist only with the generosity of spirit and time of volunteers. These volunteers are the engine room, the fuel, the cogs and the heartbeat of community. These formidable advocates for their neighbourhoods deserve recognition for their enduring commitment.
I acknowledge the volunteers from our local bushfire brigades, the State Emergency Services and sea rescue. They turn out whenever called to duty, with little notice, day and night, at the worst of times and in the worst of conditions. They do so willingly and repeatedly to serve and protect the safety of others. It was during a heatwave in December 2019 that we experienced the worst bushfires in the local area's history. The bushfires challenged our security, razing buildings and a national park, forcing the evacuation of homes and devastating wildlife and vegetation. While the fires were highly destructive, they could not and did not destroy the sense of community and camaraderie among us—quite the opposite: the bushfires brought out the best in people, who reached out to neighbours and offered accommodation, clothes, food and support.
This is the type of neighbourhood we live in. I am so grateful to be a part of it. As a federal government, we are funding an emergency management precinct in Pearce in recognition of the important work of emergency services and their volunteers.
Prior to being elected mayor, I worked at a local kindergarten-to-year 12 school as foundation registrar, working alongside the visionary foundation principal, Allan Shaw. At Peter Moyes Anglican Community School, in my home suburb of Mindarie, I learned so much about shared values and beliefs. I learned how the attitudes and actions of individuals can form a major element of culture. This includes reputation and how actions can impact upon it. I learned about the modelling of values to demonstrate high personal standards of behaviour. We are judged by our actions. I have learnt the explicit and conscious use of shared values and beliefs that assist with good decision-making. I stand on integrity, dignity and honesty and support the introduction of the national anti-corruption commission, which is long overdue, and Australians deserve integrity in parliament.
As the immediate past president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, deputy chair of the National Growth Areas Alliance and vice-president of the Australian Local Government Association, I thank my good friend Linda Scott, President of the Australian Local Government Association, who is here today, for her focus and hard work in local government and her personal support of myself. I acknowledge the influence that these leadership roles have had on me through time. They enabled me to advocate for judicious and tailored solutions to meet the needs of a growing area across local, state and federal forums. It is this knowledge, experience and advocacy, together with the support of the community through the Wanneroo Connect campaign, which realised $1 billion in state and federal infrastructure investment in the seat of Pearce during my time as mayor.
We acknowledge the importance of road and rail infrastructure. However, the Pearce electorate has only one 25-metre swimming pool, built more than 30 years ago, to service a large community. Local primary schools struggle to hold swimming lessons for their pupils due to congestion in swimming lanes, and for some schools there is a two-hour return journey to use existing facilities, which is totally unacceptable as it negatively impacts upon their education. I worked tirelessly with the state member for Butler, Councillor Nat Sangalli, and with the residents and our local school representatives for a number of years for the much-needed Alkimos Aquatic and Recreation Centre. Petitions containing thousands of signatures were presented as a result, and I am proud that this federal government and the WA Labor state government will help deliver this much-needed facility for the health and wellbeing of our community.
We have the emerging 1,000-hectare Neerabup Industrial Area, planned to become a leading innovation hub in addition to the established industrial area of Wangara. Neerabup will be the home for the Australian Automation and Robotics Precinct, one of the biggest development and testing facilities in the world for remote operations. It will support a range of industries, including defence, mining, agritech and space logistics. Technology moves so fast that some of the jobs people will be employed in at Neerabup have not even been invented yet. Based on current projections, this site is expected to employ more than 20,000 people. Neerabup Industrial Area will contribute significantly towards achieving WA's targets of employment self-sufficiency in the region. This will ensure our economy is future-ready and primed to be at the forefront of industries and technology, including cybersecurity, freight logistics and alternative energy. We have many greenfield development sites that will allow Pearce to lead the nation in innovation, creative place-making and economic development.
The value of local employment cannot be understated. Creating the conditions and environment for businesses to thrive so that there are more local opportunities will result in less time commuting to work and will provide the social benefit of more time to spend with families, looking after our health and enjoying our lives. The Powering Australia plan will create jobs and reduce emissions by boosting renewable energy. We should not, cannot and will not ignore climate change. The threat and reality of climate change demands decisive action. I am proud that our government has a strategy and target of achieving net zero by 2050. It is an investment in our local and global futures.
There is a lot to be proud of in the electorate of Pearce: the 32 kilometres of coastline and a natural wetland system that meanders through the electorate, the beautiful national park and lagoon, Neerabup National Park and Yellagonga Regional Park. However, we face many environmental challenges, including mitigating coastal erosion, and managing and protecting our local biodiversity. Strategic planning, foresight and innovation are required to achieve sustainability and protect our environment while our urban growth continues at such a rapid pace. Food security is a global challenge highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is a challenge we can rise to meet through effective planning and innovation to support the agribusiness industry. Ensuring a secure water supply to enable the agribusiness sector to continue to flourish will support food security, industry and maintain local jobs.
I acknowledge that our collective needs and challenges can change. That means we need to be agile and poised to act. There is enormous benefit in striving to think strategically to anticipate change, so that rather than being reactive we are proactive as we govern. Actions speak louder than words, and as leaders we look forward. Decisions made and overseen resonate, but it is the focus on the future that matters.
I have had a number of significant, life-changing moments. I am kind. I care, but I am not weak. A good leader has the strength to ensure communities and organisations thrive and succeed. Those values are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to live by all those traits and to function with passion and compassion for making people's lives better. I stand before you as a very proud member of the Albanese federal government, affectionately known as 'Team Albo'. I make this commitment to the people I represent in the electorate of Pearce: I will strive to work hard on your behalf. I will listen to you. I will advocate for you, your family, your business, health, education, environment and future. I promise to serve with all the passion, prudence, integrity, energy and resolve that I possess. To the community of Pearce: I thank you for putting your trust in me.
Before I call the honourable member for North Sydney, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech and I ask the House to extend to them the usual courtesies.
I acknowledge that we are gathered here today on the lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri, the traditional custodians of Canberra, the ACT and surrounding areas. I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging, and I look forward to being part of the parliament that finally enables voice, treaty and truth for our First Nations.
I would also like to thank the many people who have made the special effort to be here today and this afternoon. To the extraordinary Team Tink, who supported my campaign to be elected as the Independent member for North Sydney; to my family; to my friends; and to all the members of parliament who are here today: thank you. To those watching from afar: please know I feel your love and support, and I will endeavour to do you proud. I also want to acknowledge the people who are no longer here with us in body today but who have played significant roles in both my life and this campaign. These people have shaped who I am and how I approach things, and I am forever grateful for their wisdom, love and guidance. It is truly reassuring to see so many familiar faces in this room today, and it speaks volumes to the reality that getting an Independent member to Canberra is very much a reflection of the community's commitment and passion to see politics done differently.
When people first see my name, many of them find it hard to pronounce. Often they call me 'Ky-leah', but it's literally plain 'Kylie' spelt in a way that only young, optimistic parents in the seventies could ever have considered. It's not a traditional spelling, particularly not in the business circles where I've spent the majority of my career, nor here in Parliament House, but my name suits me. It's quintessentially Australian with a quirk—much like me as a current parliamentarian.
I may not be what you would traditionally expect to see in this House. I don't have party heritage and I did not aspire to be in politics as I moved through my career. But, when the community organisation North Sydney's Independent approached me to run in the recent federal election, I said yes—not because I thought we were certain to win, nor because I thought I had all the answers or any visions of grandeur; rather, I was drawn to the idea that the democratic outcome for North Sydney and our country could only be stronger if people—communities—had a genuine voice in the political debate, so their concerns and ambitions might be truly reflected in the government decisions that follow.
And so, today, I stand before you, not as a politician per se but as a proud parliamentarian elected by the people of North Sydney to ensure our community's voice is heard loud and clear. To paraphrase Sam Mostyn AO, President of Chief Executive Women:
Being a woman leader is quite different from being a male one … there are far fewer of us—and our paths tend to be different … we encounter obstacles and challenges that are often invisible to men.
Yet we are all shaped by our experiences and our values, and I wanted to share some of mine with you. In particular, there are four values that I believe have drawn me to the path I see ahead. They are community, curiosity, compassion and courage—values that have been instilled in me since my earliest days.
Reflecting on my first community: I was born and raised in the small country town of Coonabarabran in north-western New South Wales as the eldest of four children. In those days, my parents, Dell and Colin Tink, did not have much, but what they did have, and continue to have, was an extraordinary commitment to community. To many people, Coonabarabran is the place you pass through on the inland highway between Melbourne and Brisbane. But, for the first 18 years of my life, it was my world, and much of who I am today was formed in those early years—the open spaces, the clean skies, stars like you've never seen, the heat off the ground during summer and the frost that cakes your windscreen in winter. People who know me will tell you, 'You can take the girl out of the country, but you cannot take the country out of the girl.'
In a small place like this, nothing happens unless people pull together to make it so, and some of my earliest memories are of my family chipping in to help others. It was just what you did. If someone needed help, you gave what you could. If something needed fixing, you did it, never expecting anything in return. My parents raised me to have a strong sense of right and wrong and drummed into me the importance of saying what you mean and meaning what you say. Compassion, respect, reliability, personal responsibility and persistence were all things that were expected of me, and my parents modelled these behaviours daily. It wasn't about horse-trading or negotiating something better for yourself; it was about creating opportunities for everyone, and, if you happened to benefit, all the better.
When I look at the impact my parents have had on my home town from supporting everything from the local tennis club to the aero club, school canteens, pony clubs and other local community organisations, there is no doubt they have given far more than they ever looked to receive. So, today, I want to thank my mum and dad for teaching me that anything is possible, that you should never stop asking why and that being told no or, 'You can't do it that way,' is just another opportunity to find a way around a perplexing problem.
Over the last 35 years, I've worked in a number of roles across a variety of industries with all kinds of people, and I've experienced the highs and lows of pushing for positive change. Whether it was my earliest experiences advocating for tighter controls on tobacco or the work I did for better treatments for those living with HIV/AIDS, in every case, I always finished with a great sense of hope for humanity and an enduring belief in people's capacity to do amazing things when they are united behind a common purpose. Nowhere did I see this more clearly than in my work with the McGrath Foundation, where one woman's vision—that of Jane McGrath—inspired me to fight to see every family in Australia have the support of a breast care nurse to help them navigate the devastating experience of a breast cancer diagnosis. From the seed of the McGrath family's experience, in the space of six years we grew from having four nurses working in the area to having over 100, and we saw the Sydney Cricket Ground turn pink every January for the Sydney Pink Test in what has become an iconic international sporting event.
Since then, my attention has turned largely to areas related to youth, whether that was advocating to get hundreds of children released from Australian immigration detention centres or working to provide opportunities for kids living with cancer to just be kids again at Camp Quality. More recently, my focus has been on trying to build greater support for vulnerable young Australians facing mental health challenges.
I moved to Sydney early in my career, and the community of North Sydney has been my home for the past 15 years. My children have gone to school there and still go to school there, I have built and managed businesses and not-for-profits there, and I am proud to say that North Sydney is where I belong. Traditionally under the custodianship of the Cammeraygal and Wallumedegal people, the electorate of North Sydney hugs the northern shore of Sydney Harbour. It extends from Gladesville, Woolwich and Hunters Hill in the west, to Cremorne in the east and Chatswood in the north, and includes all the incredible communities in between. It is a thriving urban centre.
On the surface, North Sydney and Coonabarabran may seem like a world apart, but look a little deeper and the reality is we have the same community at our heart. From our small businesses to our sporting clubs and community groups, to our vibrant business centres, our tertiary facilities and Royal North Shore Hospital, North Sydney is a community that recognises the value of pulling together to reach better outcomes for all.
It is by no accident that the North Sydney electorate has long been a centre for environmental advocacy. Indeed, the 1916 poem, 'The Sacrifice of Balls Head', by acclaimed Australian poet Henry Lawson, is one of the earliest articulations of a conservation ethic. Written in protest against the leasing of part of the foreshore to, of all things, a coal bunkering company, the poem reads:
And strings of grimy trucks shall run
In everlasting trains
And on the cliffs where wild trees are
Shall stand the soulless cranes
To dump their grimy loads below,
Where great brown rocks are grand;
And the deep grass and wild flowers grow—
And boating couples land.
It is not lost on me that, over a hundred years later, I stand before you today and North Sydney is still facing extraordinary loss through major infrastructure works, and what seems to be the never-ending desire to see our foreshore and green spaces sacrificed to urban sprawl. Resident groups have long argued for greater protections for our green spaces. North Sydney's parks and reserves not only enhance the beauty and liveability of our area; they are also crucially important to the local wildlife populations and air quality. For too long these concerns and others were overlooked as our community's voice took a back seat to the priorities of two-party politics. Our community's concerns and ambitions were written off as the ramblings of 'pure, enlightened, woke, capital-city greenies' or, my favourite, 'inner city raving lunatics'—criticisms that we found curious initially, but which we ultimately realised were indicative of a far greater level of disconnect and basic disdain for our community.
Hear me when I say that the people of North Sydney want politics done differently. I stand before you today as the elected representative of a vibrant and diverse community that draws in people from all backgrounds and ages. We are the thinkers, the doers, the feelers, the leaders, the believers and the achievers. We see enormous challenges facing our society, our economy and our environment. We recognise that we are at a tipping point on climate, integrity, equality and—fundamentally—in politics. And we can see the potential to do better. We want our parliamentary voice to be heard for its individuality, not because we think we have all the answers or because we think we have a greater right to be heard than any other but because we believe we have something to add to the national public discourse and that something will add value. We are an electorate that values reason and consensus. We want to look at our federal parliament and see a space that reflects everything we believe we are as a country: diverse, vibrant, resilient, responsible, responsive and optimistic, a place where people listen as often as they speak and always remain open to working together to come to a point of consensus which leaves us all the stronger.
We want to see integrity restored to politics and an end to the corruption, dishonesty and discrimination that have eroded Australians' trust in democracy for over a decade. I firmly believe that, as some of the highest office holders in our land, federal parliamentarians must be held to the highest possible standard so that others may aspire to do the same. We want transparency in grant allocations and greater accountability in how our public funds are spent, including insight into how decisions about investment in major infrastructure projects like the Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link in Sydney are made and how the cumulative impacts of these projects on our natural environment are being justified. According to a study undertaken by Infrastructure Australia in 2019, the four kilometres of the M1 between the northern end of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Artarmon are the most congested road in Australia. While we know we need solutions to this issue, our community does not simply want more freeways generating pollution around our schools, aged-care facilities and homes. In the 21st century, we know we are capable of better transport solutions than ones conceived in the 1970s.
Like many other forward-looking communities across Australia, North Sydney wants innovative, smart, transparent investment in sustainable and renewable energy, and we will advocate for faster access for all to cleaner fuels and more efficient vehicles. We want faster action on climate change, led by facts, not politics. We will act on our ambition and work together across all levels of government to make the electorate of North Sydney one of the first net-zero urban energy zones in the country. On a federal level, we want our government to guide our nation to the outcomes we are desire by providing clear and reliable leadership, national coordination and support. I look forward to working with this 47th Parliament to set a vision that our nation can get behind and ensure the signals that are being sent to both the domestic and international markets show that Australia is in the business of leading a sustainable and renewable energy future. Federal government is uniquely placed to see our country from a position where no other organisation can. That oversight and power must be used to move us forward, not hold us back because of fear or a lack of bold ambition.
While North Sydney is unapologetically ambitious, we are also deeply concerned about who we are to become as a nation and believe that we must always act compassionately. The North Sydney and Lane Cove local government areas are both refugee welcome zones, and across the wider electorate there is a great deal of community support for greater equality for women, First Nations Australians and those who have sought refuge on our shores in times of immense distress. You see, we believe everyone deserves a fair go, no matter their background, and we're prepared to work hard to ensure that people have the support they need.
It is not enough to continue to spruik the idea of Australia as the lucky country—not when 30,000 people continue to reside here as part of an appalling illegal immigration legacy case load. Our current laws are preventing these people from planning beyond five- or three-year intervals. They cannot be reunited with the families they may have left behind, and yet the children who came with them know nothing of life in any other country. Indeed, they are Australian in every way, yet, because of the decisions of past governments, they are currently told they will never qualify for Australian citizenship. We've heard so much talk about the extraordinary gift that is Australia's multicultural reality and about the courage it takes to run with your family from imminent threats. I would challenge us as a parliament to strive to truly do better in the area of human rights. True refugees deserve our compassion, not our disdain.
With over 42,000 families, 185 childcare centres and schools and 25 aged-care facilities in the North Sydney area, we are also deeply aware of the need for a holistic and coordinated vision for Australian families and communities, particularly in the wake of the past two years. We need to reform and recharge our health services so that we are better equipped to adapt and respond to challenges like COVID-19 in the future.
We must look beyond what has been done to date to identify the underlying systemic issues driving phenomena like the unprecedented levels of mental distress across our country. Recent studies indicate that approximately one in five teens suffers from at least one diagnosable mental health disorder and that the teen mental health crisis continues to grow. I've spoken with experts like Professor Pat McGorry AO, Professor Ian Hickie AM, Amanda Riedel and Stephen Lewin. And I say to our parliament that this is an issue that cannot be solved by simply throwing money at it from the top down. We must do everything we can to build resilience in our children from their earliest ages and teach them how to ask tor help.
At the same time, we must build up support for those who are currently seen as the missing middle, perhaps struggling but not acute We can and must do better. I look forward to engaging further with North Sydney's young Australians, as well as the organisations that support them, to ensure that they have the building blocks they need to thrive as individuals and as community members so that they, too, may participate in working towards a better future for all.
North Sydney has long been a hub for technology, and innovation and we will work with other communities across our country to help build a strong, diversified economy for Australia, powered by well-educated and highly trained Australians. To do all this we must have courage. As a nation we need to be smart and to move beyond the dig-and-ship mentality towards one that sees us take our place as a smart and efficient manufacturing hub and a sovereign power, not only within our region but in the world.
We are living through a period of immense geopolitical turbulence, and our region needs us to focus on forming healthy relationships with those around us, based on the recognition that, while we may not always agree, we must seek to foster mutual respect and constructive dialogue with those who occupy this planet with us. This might seem like a lot of work to do, but it's the least that the people of North Sydney are looking for this federal parliament and myself as their representative to deliver.
During the last election, people working within the traditional two-party political system touted the rise of community independents as a risk to stability and predictability. They argued that we lacked ideology and that without a party structure we would descend into chaos. But that's simply not true. I don't lack ideology. The ideology that drives me now is, in fact, what fundamentally led to the creation of our Constitution. When the Australian Constitution was written, its creators were people from disparate communities spread across a vast continent who recognised that for our nation to grow and evolve we needed a framework and a common meeting place, where representatives from each community could negotiate and, by consensus, come to an agreement on the best way for us to move forward. It took eight years for our Constitution to be drafted and two more for it to be ratified, on 6 July 1900. And as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act came into effect on 1 January 1901, what was notable at the time was that nowhere in that document was there any use of the word 'party'. Our Constitution was written by the people for the people.
As North Sydney's Independent member of the 47th Parliament of Australia, I am driven by the beliefs espoused by the strong and capable people who have come before me—people like Ted Mack and Genia McCaffrey in North Sydney, whose work and advocacy we all continue to benefit from today. I'm also grateful to Cathy McGowan for reinvigorating the independent movement and, closer to me, the member for Warringah, Zali Steggall. Both have been eternally generous with their experience and advice. Only yesterday, at the opening of the parliament, the table that sits at the heart of this chamber was encircled by a formidable group of strong female Independents, each of us being sworn in as MPs and vowing to take this work forward for our communities. While we were unknown to each other prior to this experience, I cannot be prouder to be counted among you today as part of a history-making crossbench.
Ted Mack, arguably the father of Independents, said:
… government should be open to public scrutiny. That elected representatives should enable people to not only participate in all decisions that affect them but ultimately find ways to have people make decisions for themselves. That the very basis of democracy is that a decision taken by the public as a whole will be right more often than decisions taken by an elite group …
As North Sydney's Independent, I will have just two masters: my community and my conscience. My presence in Canberra will ensure our community's true voice is heard. I commit to standing for integrity, accountability and transparency, because that's what the people of North Sydney want. As I said earlier, I did not enter politics because I believe I have all the answers; I'm here for everyone who believes we can and must do better for our children and their children. I am confident that, in reclaiming our voice, North Sydney can make a compelling case for the changes and progress we want to see.
I'd like to acknowledge the members who came before me in the seat of North Sydney, including my predecessor, Trent Zimmerman, who served our community in the last two terms of government. To the amazing team who truly were the driving force behind our campaign, my ride or die: Katrina Barter, Suzy Bessell, Eleanor Docherty, Bridget O'Brien, Denise Shrivell, Kristen Lock, Jonnie Kennedy, Ann Sloan, Mary Moss, Aneka Henshaw, Dr Katherine Woodthorpe, Anthony Reed and Andrew and Renata Kaldor, you are the people I turned to almost on a daily basis for advice, support and courage when I thought I was flagging, so thank you.
I would like to especially acknowledge my children, James, Kate and Maeve, who have taught me more of this world than any other life experience. Please know that it is the thought of you, your friends and all future children that has driven me to step into this arena. I could never ask you to face into something that I was not prepared to accept responsibility for for myself. So, while I apologise in advance for what I know may sometimes be torrid times in the coming years, I want you to know I will always face you with the knowledge that I have done and will continue to do everything I can to leave this world a better place than I found it.
Margaret Mead famously said:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
It is my great honour to be the first woman to represent the people of North Sydney within our federal parliament. To the people of North Sydney: thank you. I look forward to working with and for you in the 47th parliament of Australia. Thank you.
Before I call the honourable member for Lingiari, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech, and I ask the House to extend to them the usual courtesies. That includes the members in the gallery.
I acknowledge and I pay my respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, the traditional owners and custodians of this land, to their elders past and present and to their young people, who will be the leaders of tomorrow. Awana. Awungana mamanta nee pupani, mudi intha. My Tiwi name is Mangaliliwayu. Awi ngiya-naringa, my mother; ngiya-rringani, my father; ngiya-puwi, my brothers; ngiya-ngilipi, my sisters: I pay my respects and think of you all today. To my children and my grandchildren: this is for you.
It is a great privilege and honour to have been elected as a member of the House of Representatives in the Australian Parliament, a privilege conferred on me by voters in the vast seat of Lingiari, which is about 1,348,157.94 square kilometres. It takes in the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the Territory of Christmas Island and the lion's share of the Northern Territory. I humbly thank everyone who put their confidence in me and the Australian Labor Party by giving us your vote. I also thank the many supporters and volunteers who worked on my campaign. They are too numerous to name, but they know who they are. It was a logistically challenging and exhausting journey—195 mobile booths across the bush—which I could not possibly have completed on my own, and definitely not without the assistance of the mighty trade union movement. I relied heavily on the guidance of my Indigenous Labor Party elders Minister Linda Burney and Uluru Statement from the Heart Special Envoy Pat Dodson, and the frequent companionship and collaborative assistance from my old friend and colleague from our time together in the Territory Parliament, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy.
Federal Labor showed the importance it attached to my part of the world through the visits to Lingiari made by an all-star team of frontbenchers and senior members: Penny Wong, Tanya Plibersek, Mark Butler, Catherine King, Tony Burke, Murray Watt, Brendan O'Connor, Jenny McAlister and Tim Ayres. If that's not a line-up, what is? These visits were all time-critical and difficult to arrange, and I am grateful to all involved.
I thank my family for their patience, especially my husband, David. You've been a source of strength for me over nearly 30 years of marriage. Your advice, love and support has kept me sane and balanced. I don't know if I've been able to do that to you! I so wish that my parents could have been alive with me on this day. My parents didn't have much, but they made sure that all my siblings and I—11 of us—had an education. Finally, I thank and acknowledge my predecessor, Warren Snowdon, for his dedicated service in representing the people of Lingiari for 35 years. I thank him for his strong support, advice and guidance to me, and for keeping me sane not just during the campaign but over many years of friendship.
As regards the Christmas and Cocos Islands, I want to carry on that tradition of being a Labor member who has your ear and back. These islands are strategically important to Australia, and it is vital that the Commonwealth works to support their economies and communities, in particular as regards Christmas Island. Critical infrastructure upgrades are needed to navigate the transition beyond phosphate mining. The rest of Lingiari sits in the mainland and in islands of the Northern Territory. It is an expansive land and water which is familiar to me but which still makes me stand in awe of its environmental complexities, its physical beauty across a range of different landscapes, and its capacity to sustain life and human economic activity.
The demographics of the population there are extraordinarily mixed, including in terms of age, religion and ethnic background. In the lead-up to the election campaign, I was honoured to have been invited to many cultural events within the Muslim community, and as a guest of Alice Springs locals who have migrated to Lingiari from the Indian subcontinent. The electorate also has a large number of people who have come from the Philippines, Europe and Africa. There are more, from a wide variety of other countries throughout the world, who have made Lingiari their home. They bring with them their skills and aspirations, and a desire to contribute as citizens.
But perhaps the key demographic statistic for Lingiari is that at the time of the 2016 census the population was 41.7 per cent Indigenous. In the 2021 census, the Indigenous represented 40.3 per cent of Lingiari. That is the highest percentage of any electorate in Australia. Whilst anyone elected as the member for Lingiari must, of course, champion the interests and aspirations of all constituents, the challenges and issues facing Aboriginal people and communities in Lingiari will be front of mind for me at all times. And there are significant challenges and issues to be addressed. Contrary to the way these things are sometimes presented in the media, they are not necessarily the same in each community. There is huge diversity amongst Aboriginal people and communities in Lingiari, consistent with the extensive geographical spread of people and languages, and their respective countries. From Aputula, or Finke, down near the South Australian border, to West and East Arnhem Land in the tropical north; and from Western Australia and the Queensland border, to Groote Eylandt in the gulf, the many tribes and language groups of Aboriginal people are committed to standing strong in their culture and, at the same time, engaging in the modern Australian economy.
Many groups have had the relative good fortune to have benefited from the strongest form of land rights tenure in the country. That is Commonwealth law. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, or ALRA for short, underpins permanent land ownership in Aboriginal hands while at the same time giving security of tenure for any individual or entity approved by traditional owners to get a lease. ALRA also creates the capacity for binding and mutually beneficial agreements in relation to the use of land by governments and commercial entities like mining companies. Contrary to misinformation which has been peddled by ALRA opponents over decades, the lease based land tenure system which ALRA allows for is sophisticated and robust. Lease-based land tenure systems have been adopted elsewhere in Australia, especially here in the ACT. There are other groups whose country was allocated to settlers as pastoral leases on which to run cattle, and others, again, whose land was engulfed by towns. Native title is their only option for recognition of their traditional interests in the land. There are problems with how that is working out now, but that is a topic for discussion in a different speech on a different day.
Whatever the mechanisms of recognition of traditional interests in land under Aboriginal law, whether it is ALRA or native title, every Aboriginal Territorian—every Aboriginal person from the Territory—as a stake in and a responsibility for country somewhere. In many cases it is the responsibility for two countries, the responsibility having different content and being differently nuanced depending on whether it is father's country or mother's country. As a general rule, Aboriginal people speaking for and about their own country have a greater say about it than other Aboriginal people, even if those Aboriginal people have been living there for a long time. This is the fundamental social and political truth about remote Aboriginal communities, where traditional owners are often substantially outnumbered by people from other groups. It is these kinds of complexities that will inform the establishment and operation of a voice to parliament.
I was lucky enough to have been involved as a facilitator from the start of the dialogues which led to the historic Uluru Statement from the Heart. I know full well that the initiative is not mere symbolism. I am proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government which is going to take long overdue action on this front. I came here, to this place, as a Northern Territorian. I am not just from the Territory; I am of the Territory. I don't have links or ties anywhere else, and there is no plan B or interstate retirement strategy. My mother was Tiwi, and my father, even though he was traumatically separated from his country as a child, was an Anmatyerre man. I say that I am of the Territory not only because I am an Aboriginal Territorian but also because my family history reflects the impact of past government legislation and policies on people whose displacement and resulting disorientation left them with little else but a sense that, if nothing else, they were proper Territorians. You get a sense about yourself if, like my mother, you watched the Japanese planes drop their bombs on Darwin, and then, years later, you realised you had survived being placed in a leprosarium and then raising a softball team of eight young daughters. Suddenly it's 1979 and the Territory is being granted self-government. You say to yourself: 'Self-government is for Territorians—people who come from there, people who belong there. That's my mum and dad, and that's me.'
Before self-government, the Territory was run from here—from Canberra. It was the Canberra government which brought in the Northern Territory Aboriginal Ordinance, which regulated my parents' lives from when they were born up to 1957. It was the Canberra government which brought in the Social Welfare Ordinance, which took over after that and under which they were included in a register of controlled people—or what was commonly known as a 'stud book'. So my pride in commencing in my formal role in this House of Representatives is tinged with some sadness. I'm essentially becoming part of the same government which designated both of my parents as wards of the state, the state being the Commonwealth of Australia. Now that I am here, I want to make a difference for the better life for all Territorians, but, in particular, all Aboriginal Territorians.
The election result in Lingiari was close. Voter registration and voter participation were down—the lowest in the country—especially in the bush. In the main urban areas, some of the issues from the national campaign had traction. There were concerns about crime and about fracking in the Beetaloo sub-basin. In regard to that issue, I was grateful to former shadow minister for the environment and former member for Griffith Terri Butler for confirming that I was able to give a commitment that an Albanese government would amend the EPBC Act to extend existing water rights to shale gas projects; that there would be a federal EPA; and that the scrutiny of water impacts would be independent and rigorous and not delegated to the NT government as part of a one-stop-shop arrangement. With Terri's departure from parliament, we have lost an experienced and capable fighter for the environment.
Out bush there were different issues, including housing, roads, support for arts centres, ranger programs and fallout from the intervention and the supershires local government changes, which followed a year later. There was also unfinished business to do with respecting and resourcing homelands and bringing back the old CDP. There is a common thread which runs through the issue of support for homelands, bringing back the old CDP and building a safe and successful economy in Lingiari. I'll come back to that in a moment, but first I want to say a few things about the economy.
Lingiari doesn't have a manufacturing base, and it may never host the sort of factories and infrastructure which sprang up down south last century. But we have an expansive and valuable pastoral industry, a potential renewables bonanza and a tourism sector which is brimming with potential. All these things rely on a clean environment and access to land.
As regards the pastoral industry, huge areas of the Territory—including the Barkly Region, which is some of the best cattle country in the world—are dedicated to beef production. This pastoral estate includes some Aboriginal land areas, and the building and sealing of roads in these places benefit not just the cattle stations but also the Aboriginal community living areas—communities which are spread throughout the pastoral lands like a patchwork quilt. Many Aboriginal families have had generations of workers in the cattle industry. This pathway to employment for Aboriginal people is rarer these days than it was in the early sixties, but it needs to be encouraged and promoted.
Tourism is a complex and challenging business to be in, especially in this time of evolving pandemic rules and high fuel costs. But the sheer natural beauty and remoteness of our parks and other destinations, together with the opportunity for visitors to experience and be enriched by Aboriginal culture, are enduring drawcards. The main towns—in particular Alice Springs—are experiencing labour shortages when it comes to hospitality workers, which can at times be crippling. In the medium term, I would love to see young Aboriginal people taking and holding those jobs. Who better to showcase their country to the world?
Mining has been a huge contributor to the Northern Territory economy. The large mines that started up in the seventies—uranium at Ranger, bauxite at Gove and manganese on Groote Eylandt—have wound down or are in the process of coming to the end of their working lives. What we are seeing as a likely mining opportunity for the future is the extraction of minerals which are going to be required in the new industries and technologies built on renewables. The Finniss Lithium Project south of Darwin Port is likely to be the first in that regard. When it comes to renewables, nothing could be more exciting than the massive and innovative Sun Cable solar project, which is planning to harvest solar energy from far inland in the Australian continent and then deliver it in Singapore. Taking into account both the construction phase and its working life, the main site at Powell Creek in Jingili country has the potential to galvanise the Barkly economy. I will be keenly interested to do what I can to help maximise jobs and employment pathways for Aboriginal people from Elliott and surrounding communities.
Then there's the contentious topic of gas in the Beetaloo sub-basin. The rules have been stipulated in the Pepper report, and the environmental approval bars have been set very high. If the gas projects can secure environmental approval from both the Northern Territory and the federal EPA, the next thing that will need to be addressed is offsets.
The Pepper report says that any Beetaloo gas project must be carbon neutral and that the requirement to secure this rests not just with the Northern Territory government but also with the federal government. It is a shared obligation. There is a huge opportunity for the two governments to meet this challenge in a way that will turbocharge jobs and ranger programs out bush. I'm talking about the opportunity of working together with land councils and other stakeholders to establish carbon abatement programs run by Aboriginal rangers throughout the Northern Territory. The number of jobs to be filled could be substantial, and the resulting employment opportunities and associated support funding could transform many communities. It could give them an opportunity to be involved in vitally important work—vitally important for their country and vitally important for the planet.
Lingiari is both the heartland of and the gateway to Australia. A defence presence in Lingiari is fundamental to the current and future security of our country. I mentioned previously the bombing of Darwin. It wasn't just Darwin that got hit. The Japanese strike got as far down the track as Katherine. Australia was vulnerable at the time, and the price of preserving our free and democratic way of life is continuing support of and investment in our defence forces and bases.
In Lingiari this includes the stationing of forces, including visiting US Marines, at Robertson Barracks, Bradshaw Station, Delamere bombing range and the Tindal air base near Katherine. The defence personnel who come to the Lingiari electorate often spend years there, and the maintenance and expansion of the defence force bases is an important driver for our economy. The defence force presence in Lingiari represents a conventional hard power commitment to our national security, but there is an equally important way in which the federal government can commit to our national security by focusing its attention on Lingiari. It is by preparing and implementing a comprehensive upgrade of community infrastructure in the bush and working closely with the Northern Territory government to ensure that Aboriginal communities are safe and successful. Why do I say this? It is because, for many years now, and with increasing intensity recently, the soft power dimensions of regional security rivalry have been played out throughout competing historical and cultural narratives.
There is a narrative deployed against Australia, aimed at undermining our capacity to win friends and influence neighbours in our region, which goes something like this: 'Australia is an artificial colonial construct which subjugates its Aboriginal people, does the bidding of the Americans and consists mainly of cities hugging the coastline of the eastern seaboard. It doesn't really occupy or have an effective presence in its remote hinterland.'
We know those things aren't true, but they gain traction when the public perception of everyday life out bush is recent footage and stories from Wadeye. Addressing what has happened there would be a speech on its own, but, long story short, as a nation we need to be able to present a different narrative, one which demonstrates support and resourcing for remote communities and emphasises success stories and reason for optimism.
Investing in overcoming the infrastructure deficits in central and northern Australia is not just a down payment on securing social justice; it is an investment in our national security. The same thing goes for fully funding a genuine jobs program like the old CDEP. Inculcating a culture of pride in employment in remote Aboriginal communities pays dividends that benefit all taxpayers and can help to integrate young Aboriginal people into employer organisations, including regional local government entities. Embracing a remote community revitalisation plan along these lines will enable our neighbours in Asia and the Pacific to be reassured about our credentials as a modern post-colonial nation which does not merely pay lip service to honouring its Indigenous people but actually takes real action to facilitate their progress and advancement.
Various people, including me, have been talking about the need for this sort of federal funding commitment for over 20 years. During that time many of us have used the catchphrase a 'Marshall Plan for the bush'. You could say that there was a Marshall Plan aspect to the housing and infrastructure dimension of the Stronger Futures legislation which extended it. The intervention was an exercise in bad faith and it is what I opposed. No-one was ever opposed to the extra funding.
Another aspect that continued under Stronger Futures was alcohol restrictions. I just need to quickly touch on this. I have spoken to the federal Minister for Indigenous Australians as well as the Northern Territory Chief Minister about the alcohol restrictions out bush, which were basically a bogus or a gammon recalibration of strong measures under the Northern Territory legislation which had been adopted by community elders many years before that. No significant changes arise from the lapsing of the Stronger Futures, but the application of the alcohol restrictions to town camp communities in our towns, such as Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine, was new and modestly transformational.
You can agree or disagree with the town camp alcohol restrictions which were in place. They were put there under the original intervention legislation and continued under Stronger Futures as a special measure under the Racial Discrimination Act, but you need to bear in mind that the special measures were left in place for about 14 years. When a government puts in a protective regime of that kind and leaves it in place for that long, you can't just suddenly pull the pin on it without any protection, sanctuary or plan for the vulnerable women and children whom the original measure was supposed to protect. To do that is more negligent—at the level of impact on actual lives it is tantamount to causing injury by omission. It is like pulling your forces out of Afghanistan but leaving the local workers and their dependants in harm's way on the ground without an escape plan, but that is what has happened.
I'm not saying that the town camp alcohol measures should have continued, but I am saying that, before they were allowed to lapse, many organisations and many Aboriginal people called on the former government to look at harm minimisation and that should have been properly addressed. That is the work that should have been done 12 months ago. The horse has now bolted. The new federal Labor government isn't in a position to reinstate expired legislation, and it shouldn't.
Some commentators have justified the removal of the town camp restrictions by invoking self-determination. I think that this is ridiculous and ludicrous. It is not self-determination to facilitate the non-traditional lifestyle choice of an Aboriginal drinker—usually, but not always, male—to bring takeaway alcohol into a family home even though there is an alternative option available of drinking at licensed premises. It's not self-determination for an Aboriginal family member—usually, but not always, female—to be assaulted in or near their home environment by the drinker, after intoxication turns to anger and erupts in violence. And it is certainly not self-determination for an Aboriginal child to be constantly exposed to alcohol abuse in the home and to the violence which results from it.
What is at least needed is for both governments—and I have been heartened by my conversations with the federal Minister for Indigenous Australians and the Northern Territory Chief Minister—to work out a plan to protect those innocent victims who are being swamped by waves of violence now that takeaway alcohol is getting let back into our town camps. We need to do more consultation about what happens next. It needs to be comprehensive. It needs to include a separately resourced and supported voice at the table for women in particular, victims of domestic violence. And it needs to involve listening to the advice of health experts and taking into account statistics and reporting relating to the incidence and circumstances of relevant alcohol related offending and harm.
I stand here and applaud all of the work of our hardworking and dedicated men and women who are working in the field of domestic and family violence and child protection services throughout the Lingiari electorate. In particular, I have to single out Shirleen Campbell and the other members of the Tangentyere Women's Family Safety Group. I acknowledge the emphasis they place on working with men to change their thinking and behaviour. Moving forward, targeted programs like that have to be part of the solution. It is important not to make men think that they are being pre-emptively labelled and vilified, but, in the meantime, protections need to be put in place. This is an emergency issue which needs urgent attention—not an intervention like in 2007, but for both Labor governments to work collaboratively together in order to maintain community safety and dedicate some time to work out a sustainable plan for the future. Our young people deserve no less. Ideally a consensus outcome could be achieved which will give us a road map to living with alcohol in the medium term but which maintains protection of the vulnerable in the short term.
The Prime Minister's commitment to the nation about no-one getting left behind has given me and many Aboriginal people in the Lingiari electorate hope and inspiration in being part of this Labor team. The way forward in Lingiari is for all Territorians to move forward while not letting Aboriginal families get left behind.
I would like to welcome the member for Lingiari. She is busy being congratulated by all her colleagues. It's terrific to have her as a member of the 47th Parliament. On that note, we will move to the next item of business. I give the call to the member for Bass.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would also like to add my congratulations to the newly elected member for Lingiari and congratulate her on that very fine first speech.
It's a privilege to be standing here myself with the opportunity to give an address-in-reply speech as a second term member for Bass. To have retained the seat known as the 'ejector seat of Australia' is a tremendous honour, and I thank the people of northern Tasmania for putting their faith in me to represent them for another term.
When I stood here as the new member for Bass in 2019 giving my first speech I committed to doing my utmost to repay the trust the community had put in me. I took that commitment incredibly seriously and never wavered in ensuring that I put the community first in every decision I made.
To be standing here today as the first re-elected member for Bass in more than 20 years and the first re-elected Liberal member for the electorate in more than 30 years is, I hope, a reflection in part of my promise to put the community over politics, a pledge that I will take through this term as well.
Of course, you will never please everyone all the time and in today's social media era the feedback can come in thick and fast. But I stand by the decisions that I made in the 46th Parliament, even if at times they came at a personal cost. I have learned that you are absolutely setting yourself up for failure if you try to be all things to all people. It's simply not possible and it's not what leadership looks like.
As elected representatives we should challenge ourselves to have the courage to make difficult decisions, or support difficult decisions, because it's the right thing to do and not look for the answer that is popular, politically expedient or easy.
As a nation, we are fed up with the tribal politics and political dog whistling that has permeated our politics here and overseas for the past few years, and I think that's reflected in the election result. Our communities demand more.
The Albanese government has said that they are committed to a new era of leadership with collaboration at the centre, and I sincerely hope that they will uphold this promise to the Australian people. Trust in politics and elected representatives is an increasing challenge for governments globally. I'm sure we've all heard commentary from constituents in our own communities who feel disengaged from the political process due to their feelings that all politicians are the same and that by the very nature of our job we can't be trusted. This sentiment is not new of course, but one that I feel has grown over the past few years and one which saddens me. We must look to ways to rebuild the confidence of the Australian people in their political institutions.
The establishment of a federal Integrity Commission is a good place to start. A robust commission is one that I've strongly advocated for since being elected and will send a strong message to the public that all politicians can and should be held accountable. Having worked closely with the member for Indi over the past term and consulted extensively with key stakeholders on what a proposed Integrity Commission should look like, I support the member for Indi's model and reiterate my view that the commission should function to positively promote integrity.
However, no matter the final model that is legislated this year, as Labor has promised, it has to be a true multipartisan effort. It can't be my way or the highway. The government should be looking to establish a commission that gives the Australian people no reason not to trust it.
I will also be watching with interest how the Labor government approaches the dismantling of the cashless welfare card. As I said in November 2020, when I abstained from my own party's policy legislation on making trial sites permanent, I abhor the very idea of a government program that inflicts further stigma on individuals who may already feel other or less than due to their circumstances. But, as I made clear in my speech at that time, there's a bigger challenge that lies ahead in ensuring a proper transition is in place when looking to end the program. This was the very basis of my decision to abstain from voting at the time and it's one that I stand by today. I'll be closely reviewing Labor's legislation on how they plan to support communities and how they propose to invest in long-term solutions that create sustainable and meaningful change. I feel a deep sense of responsibility to ensure that we don't just walk away after forcing more than a decade of financial control on communities who have endured these trials.
I also believe that far more work needs to be undertaken to understand and implement trauma informed responses across agencies and institutions to make some headway in achieving better outcomes for those that we're seeking to help. We should be looking to embed trauma awareness and trauma informed responses in government services across health, education, and social security systems, amongst others. It's my enduring view that trauma lies at the heart of many of the challenges Australians face, and it will only be when we recognise and respond to this that we will turn the tide, stop retraumatising people and see results.
It all comes back to communities. As parliamentarians, we should always aim for outcomes that will lift up our communities and the diverse individuals who live within our electorates, not impose limitations that will see them struggle. We often say what an immense privilege it is to be in this House, but we reflect less often on the immense responsibility to ensure that we exercise that privilege to ensure a greater future for those we represent. I will continue to remind myself of that throughout this term to deliver the best outcomes for the Northern Tasmanian community, of which I'm so proud. The first time I stood in this place, I said:
Marginal seats speak for the nation and ensure elected members aren't complacent or take their communities for granted.
If the recent election has shown us anything, it is that there is no such thing as a safe seat anymore, which I believe is a good thing for our democracy and for those who elect us to represent them.
From the time I joined local government in 2009 to being elected to the federal parliament in 2019, I've made a conscious choice to listen far more than I talk. And the best way to listen to people's stories is to go and meet them where they are, in the communities where they live. And so, since being elected, I've spent time in all corners of Northern Tasmania—suburbs and towns from Ravenswood to Riverside, Beauty Point to Beaconsfield, George Town to Gladstone, Scottsdale to Summerhill and everywhere in between—to sincerely listen to the challenges, needs, wants and desires of individuals and community organisations. Only by stopping to hear what is said to us, good and bad, can we fight for and deliver what is truly needed, and I never shy away from a difficult conversation.
In my first speech, I talked about wanting to do more to address the issues of family violence, the treatment of women in our society, and the abuse and neglect of children. The spotlight on these issues in the past three years has painfully highlighted that, while much work has been done to try and address these issues, there is still much more work to be done and such a long road ahead. This was borne out in the recommendations from the inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence in the last term of parliament, and I was pleased to participate in that. With some 90 hours of evidence given to the inquiry, including from women in my own community, there has been some effective change put in place, including a much-needed funding injection into specialised women's legal services, recognising the barriers so many women face when trying to leave a violent relationship. After working closely with frontline women's services, including Women's Legal Service Tasmania, I know how necessary increased funding is to meet the ever-rising demand for services. After more than a decade of advocacy from the legal community for a safer Family Court in Launceston, I fought for and secured the necessary funds to move the court and create a safer environment for all those who come through its doors. I note that it should be in its new location by the end of this year.
While I'm standing here today, I feel it's important for me also to acknowledge the victims-survivors affected by the current commission of inquiry into the Tasmanian government's responses to child sexual abuse in institutional settings. I commend the government for its action in setting up this inquiry, but I sincerely hope that victims-survivors who have come forward will have their voices heard and we will see necessary changes implemented. I'm determined to do what I can to keep these issues at the forefront of the national conversation, because it's clear to me that this type of abuse will continue until we see it as a systemic cultural issue. This will take sustained action for many years to come, but I'm unwavering in my commitment to use my role in this place to seek meaningful change and to elevate the voices of victims-survivors.
As was also reflected in my first speech, health remains a priority and one of the major concerns raised with me in my community, with both access and affordability to primary healthcare services as one of the biggest issues. The challenges are numerous and complex, and there is no silver bullet that will fix these challenges instantly. It would be fanciful to say otherwise. What it will take is a continued collaboration between state and federal governments, combined with significant engagement with health professionals on the front lines, to bring about the necessary changes. I'm proud to have fought for and delivered our region's first ever free walk-in adult mental health hub, which is already filling a gap for adult mental health services in our region. I'm optimistic that the $2 million in additional funding I secured to assist general practitioners in recruitment and retention of doctors will have some impact.
I'm incredibly proud of ongoing work with community stakeholders, health professionals and the state government over the past three years which led to three major commitments being made during the recent election. These were then recognised for their merit and matched by Labor. The first of these commitments will see the establishment of northern Tasmania's first dedicated medical research and innovation centre as part of the Clifford Craig Foundation. The investment of $4 million will deliver tangible results by securing the future of this iconic foundation and supporting its work in solving complex health puzzles that will have long-term health impacts for generations to come. The centre will be located at the Launceston General Hospital, right near where thousands of cancer patients enter the WP Holman Clinic for treatment each year. Since my election in 2019, I've had the pleasure of meeting and working with its team of passionate clinicians, who, under the care of its director, Dr Stan Gauden, were finalising plans on a new post-cancer survivorship care program. There was an understanding that there was a gap in supporting patients and their families after treatment had stopped. I was determined to see their pilot program come to fruition, and was incredibly pleased to secure over $580,000 as an election commitment to see this program implemented.
Lastly, but certainly not least, I was able to announce $20 million in funding for the establishment of a standalone palliative care facility—one that supporters have been advocating to establish for more than 15 years. While Labor announced $5 million for the facility, it was my work and consultation with the state government which identified that the cost would exceed that amount, and I was able to secure a written commitment from the state to undertake the clinical services which ensured the facility can and will meet the needs of the community. All three of these commitments will make a demonstrable difference to the health, quality of life and end-of-life care for our community, and will speak to the importance of turning up, listening and doing the necessary work to deliver what is required. I'm sincerely happy that Labor has acknowledged that by matching these commitments, and I will be working to ensure that those promises are delivered.
Though I could talk for much longer on the issue of health, I did want to wrap up my focus on this area by thanking the health professionals in my region. They are doctors, nurses, pharmacists, admin staff and cleaning staff, amongst others, who have worked tirelessly to keep our community safe over the past few years. I know it has been, and continues to be, physically, emotionally and mentally exhausting for so many of you, and I want to say a special thank you. You were asked to step up when so much was unknown, at a time of fear an uncertainty. You may not feel it day in and day out, but there is a whole community behind you that is incredibly grateful for your professionalism and care.
Our community of Bass has consistently reflected to me their desire for stronger action on climate change, and I will be reviewing Labor's legislation in more detail before making a decision. I will say this: my view is that we need to stop arguing about the ideology and take a pragmatic approach. I've received commentary by some who view the issue of climate action as 'too left'. However, caring for the environment is intrinsic to Liberal Party values. In fact, in our own statement of beliefs, we say, 'We believe … In preserving Australia's natural beauty and the environment for future generations.' And that's simply what I seek to do.
Like communities across the nation and the world, northern Tasmania has been through so much over the past few years. We have some immense challenges ahead. To my community I say: I will continue to be with you each step of the way, doing my best to represent you in this place. Thank you once again for putting your trust in me. But whether you voted for me or not, I strive to represent our entire community. Your views, needs and aspirations matter to me, and I want to hear them from you. We won't agree on all things, but I will always act with authenticity and integrity.
Finally, I'd like to acknowledge the enormous sacrifice that my family—my husband, Winston, and my five children, Luke, Lauren, Edith, Molly and James—continue to make so that I can do this work. When I stood here three years ago I didn't truly understand just how deep I would have to dig to be both mum and the local federal member. And I know I don't always get it right. But I hope that they know I love them tremendously and that they will be proud of the contribution I make.
When the Speaker was elected to the position yesterday he asked that members commit to better conduct in the House to ensure a better standard of politics, and it's a request that I wholeheartedly agree to uphold. Thank you.
I thank the member for Bass for her contribution and welcome her commitment to improving conduct in this House—an ambition I share.
Thanks to the member for Bass. It's always a pleasure to follow her thoughtful contributions. It really does feel like a thoughtful and different parliament that we are in, and I have really been enjoying listening to all the first speeches in this place over the past couple of days. The diversity of life experience, the diversity of thought that has come to this chamber can only make us stronger. What's also clear in all our newly elected members is the passion they have for serving their communities and for doing that while they're here. That's been a wonderful experience to be able to be part of, and I know there are still more of those contributions to come.
For me, it's an honour to be back in here, re-elected as the member for Jagajaga, and I say to my community: a very big thankyou for once again electing me and choosing me to represent you. It is a privilege that I feel every day—I will not forget—and I will do everything to work on your behalf and to make sure your lives are enriched by us being here in government in this place.
A lot of stories have come out of this election, but one of the stories I want to focus on in this speech is that story of community, because I think one of the things that people said to us in this election was that they value representatives who are connected to their community. On this I perhaps want to pick up on a narrative that I think has been slightly unfair or perhaps misrepresented in some of our media coverage. It is the idea that those of us from major parties aren't connected to our communities or in fact don't spend time with our communities. I don't want this to sound like I have a major chip on my shoulder; that's not where I'm coming from—maybe a little bit!—but I do want to acknowledge that I am here on behalf of my community and I am connected to that community. I grew up in my community, and I live there now with my children, just like so many people. I use the services. I talk to the people. That is what drives me when I am here every day.
During the election campaign there were so many opportunities for me to talk with members of my community, and I want to thank everyone who took the time to talk to me. It was clear to me that while people weren't happy with where our country was and while they were disappointed in the leadership that they were getting in this place, they did think it could be better and they wanted to engage on how it could be better. I really want to thank everyone to took the time to have that conversation with me—to not just fall into this idea that all politicians aren't that great, that there's not much we can do to make things better. Those people actually chose to stand on a street while I was standing there, on the street corner, and have a conversation with me about how things could be better. When I knocked on their doors they told me about what was important in their lives, and we had a conversation about some of the ways that I and this government might be able to make their lives better. So I'm really proud and really pleased that I'm here once again and have the opportunity to do that as part of a Labor government.
On that theme of community, I want to take this opportunity to also talk about some of the local commitments we made to Jagajaga during the election campaign, because again I think this shows that, as a federal government, we understand that we work at a number of levels and we have a number of responsibilities to communities. My community is one that has a strong medical precinct—we have the Austin Hospital, we have the Mercy Hospital for Women, we have Warringal hospital and we have the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Centre, so it's a very strong health precinct—and many people who work in health care. I want to say thank you to all of them. I know you are still doing it really tough. I know you are stretched. I know this is a really tough winter, and we've been saying 'thank you' and 'this is tough' for two years now. Please know that I hear from all of you who contact me—who explain to me what it is like at the moment to be working in our health system and the strain that is there—just as I hear from the people in my electorate who talk to me about how hard it is to access healthcare services at the moment. This is an example close to my heart, but people tell me how, when your child has a cough or a cold and needs to be seen by a doctor, the stretch is so great at the moment that the waitlists are too long.
I was particularly pleased that one of the commitments we made to Jagajaga during this election was for a Medicare urgent care clinic in Heidelberg—in that area where our Austin Hospital is currently overstretched and where the emergency department is overwhelmed, despite the absolute best efforts of the doctors and nurses who I know are working their guts out in there. They need more. They need more support. They need a government that is committed to Medicare and to a primary health system that means not all the pressure goes onto our hospitals. And that, obviously, is what a Medicare urgent care clinic is designed to do. So I'm very pleased that we have been able to make this commitment to Heidelberg, and I'm really looking forward to working with the community and with our healthcare professionals to deliver that.
Another important area in my electorate is Heidelberg Heights, which is a growing area with lots of young families moving in and enjoying the proximity to the city and to good services as well. As I said, it's just down the road from a major medical precinct. But, as a growing area, it lacks a community hub, I suppose—a community focus in terms of a place where community groups can meet and that can be used for that sort of purpose. So I was very pleased that one of the local commitments we made during the election was to redeveloping the pavilion at Shelley Park. This park supports local football clubs and it has done so for many years—it has a grand history—but it could use an update to make it a modern, fit-for-purpose facility. So I'm really pleased that we're going to help bring this pavilion into the 21st century and allow it to be opened up to more of those community groups and to the growing community in Heidelberg Heights to strengthen those community connections. The North Heidelberg Sporting Club and their president, Warren Haysom, have been very active over my first term in government in engaging with me about their vision for this community facility. Together with the Diamond Valley Superules Football Club, I'm confident they'll be going from strength to strength.
Further up the northern end of my electorate, I'm pleased to say that we will be supporting upgrades at Eltham Lower Park, again an important piece of community infrastructure in Jagajaga. Our commitment of $2 million there will kickstart the much-needed upgrade of the pavilion, which is used by the Lower Eltham Cricket Club and by the Eltham Lacrosse Club. These are both great community clubs, ably led by Stephen Stanley and Luke Kendall, respectively. I do want to say that I have had the opportunity of watching quite a few lacrosse matches over the past few months, and I never realised it was such a violent game, so I've had some new experiences there.
The funds will also help to deliver a dedicated off-leash dog park on site. I know that will be a space that will be well utilised by many people in Eltham and surrounds who need that. When we look at the infrastructure of our communities, I know in Jagajaga these open spaces—these parks—have been areas that through COVID, through periods when we have been closer to home, have been so valuable. It is one of the reasons why I'm very pleased that we've been able to make this commitment as well. The funds will help deliver some amenity upgrades—seating, revegetation and bathrooms—for people who are enjoying that park, so I'm very pleased to be able to deliver that.
My electorate is also home to the Yarra River; it is one of many electorates in Melbourne that the Yarra River flows through. A major policy that Labor took to this election was our commitment to urban rivers and catchments. That program really recognises that there's a role for the federal government in looking after our urban waterways, that it doesn't all fall on local councils and state governments and that, for the federal government, these are important parts of our infrastructure, of our communities and of our livability as well.
I'm so pleased that we'll be delivering $1.7 million for a critical project in Yarra Flats Park: the rewatering of the Annulus Billabong to support the return of birdlife and other animals and plants to the park. I do want to thank the Friends of Yarra Flats Park, particularly Andrew and Sue Lees, who have spent many years advocating for this and shown great leadership One hundred and fifty thousand dollars will go to the Friends of Edendale in Eltham North, to ramp up their efforts to plant along Diamond Creek and to manage weeds and to help enhance the biosecurity of the creek corridor. Again, I want to thank that group for their hard work on behalf of the environment in our community.
I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of Terri Butler, who was our environment and water spokesperson when we made this commitment and who I know was really passionate about this program. I'm very glad that we'll get to deliver it. I'm sorry that Terri won't be here to do that. I know that the current minister, however, will share that passion and determination.
Here we come to one of the big themes of the election: climate. My community were very clear with me—and they have been for my entire time here in the parliament—that one of the things they expect me to advocate for them here in the parliament is action on climate change. Our government has a big agenda. We've seen some of that introduced today, and that is really important legislation that will end the climate wars and mean that we get on with making this country a renewable energy superpower.
On a local level, I'm very pleased that we will also be delivering a community solar battery in the Bellfield area, as part of the 400 community batteries we are rolling out nationwide. I know people in my community are really pleased that at least one of these will be delivered locally. This battery will store energy generated by solar households during the day, and it'll draw from the stored energy at night when the sun doesn't shine, helping to reduce local power bills and lower emissions by encouraging the switch to renewables. I want to thank Banyule council for working with me on being able to commit to this project and on the work at the Bellfield Community Hub, which this community solar battery will support. I know there's interest across Jagajaga in quite a number of other locations. Rest assured, I will continue to advocate for more support under this project, but I'm very glad that we are starting with one.
I think that interest, that passion that my community is showing in this particular program, shows how ready our community is to make this switch to renewables. They are so far ahead, really, of where we have been previously in this place. They're doing the work on feasibility studies about which might be suitable sites for a battery, and then they're coming and advocating to me. Please continue to do that. I look forward to more conversations about more community batteries.
Other local commitments that are important to me and, I know, will be important to our community are: an upgrade to the Macleod College Music Academy to deliver modern facilities to inspire a new generation of young musicians in our community; an upgrade of performing art spaces at Bundoora Secondary College, which will support new digital equipment in the drama area, lighting and audiovisual equipment and building works so students have fit-for-purpose spaces to use; funding to support the L2P Himilo Community Connect driving program in Heidelberg West to make sure that more young people in my community get the experience and support they need to get their drivers licence; funding to help the Eltham Toy Library reach even more local families with discounted memberships, promotions to boost membership and upgrades to toy stock; and funding for Banyule Toy Library to help them expand their reach into the community and enable local families to access toy stock at a discount. All of these are really important local commitments. I'm so much looking forward to being able to work with our local community, with our state government and with local groups to be able to deliver on that.
Continuing my theme of community, I want to thank all the members of my community who made my campaign possible. We did run a very local campaign of engaging, of being available and of visiting many local groups. The people who did this with me, who were side by side with me in this campaign, were all local people. My state colleagues Anthony Carbines, Colin Brooks and Vicki Ward were all such great supports to me throughout my first term and through this campaign. Thanks so much to you. It's a privilege to really get to work with you on behalf of our communities.
To all of my volunteers, who got up early at train stations, who joined me on street stalls and street corners, who walked the streets of Jagajaga to knock on doors, who took time out of their evenings to call voters and speak to them about Labor's plans, who letterboxed so many houses, who set up and stood around on election day polling booths, who spent many long hours at early voting and all the other activities that ensured the campaign kept ticking: thank you for all of your passion. I would particularly like to thank those volunteers who took on leadership roles in the campaign: Jennie, Chris, Rob, Sandra, Rhonda, Gary, Katherine and Scott. I thank you all. I absolutely could not have done it without you.
And, of course, finally, to my family: there is absolutely no way I could have done it without you. To Daniel, who I think at times thought that we may have bitten off a little bit more than we could chew, with two children under four and an election campaign—I think he may have questioned my life choices and his life choices, but I always knew as we came through that he had my back, and I continue to know that and appreciate that. It's not easy to have a job that takes you away from a young family—from a family at any stage—for such a period. It is important that in this place we acknowledge the people who are at home and making that part of our lives continue to function, so thank you, Daniel.
To my parents, who stepped in when it did seem like we might be about to break, and who do all those wonderful things that grandparents do: thank you—and Daniel's parents as well. Daniel's mum is, as I speak, at my house in Melbourne supporting him to look after my children. It really does take a village to be here. My family is a very important part of that village for me, so I really appreciate the sacrifices that they make so that I can be here.
Of course, to my children, who are too young to know what mum does, just that she's in Canberra for work—'Is that your Canberra work?' my daughter asks when I say I'm going out. The election campaign did confuse her a bit because mummy was out so much but not in Canberra. For them I really hope the benefits of what I deliver in this place outweigh the difficulties of having a parent who is away for a considerable amount of time. I thank them for allowing me to do this as well. Thanks.
Deputy Speaker Claydon, I, like many others, add my congratulations to your elevation to that position. The address-in-reply by Governor-General David Hurley is good reading. It was good to listen to, and I listened to it intently. I'd like to thank him for that contribution. It's obviously a document prepared on government advice on what the government intends to do over the election period.
It seemed to me as though they were very keen to fix a myriad of problems. But I'm not all that confident that they've got all the solutions on actually how to deliver on those problems, because many of them are deep-seated and are not easy to fix. We should not suppose that governments have a magic wand. Largely, they resort to one wand: extra money; more money. But you cannot assume that money is the only solution. There are a number of areas that I'll come to in a moment where, in the past, money doesn't seem to have been the solution. It comes at a cost to the rest of the economy, and I think there are deeper reforms that need to be made in many cases.
If we take aged care for instance, and that features quite strongly in the Governor-General's address, obviously the government are passionate about aged care, and I believe the coalition are passionate about aged care—certainly I am. I am very passionate about the challenge of rural delivery of aged care, which comes at a higher cost it must be said. During our time in government we increased the regional and remote area allowance for residential aged care. I don't think we've increased it enough; I don't think we've met that divide yet, but certainly we put extra money at it, and I hope that the government will continue to address this area.
I have a number of regional nursing homes on my patch that are really struggling to make the sums work. In fact, where we have major statewide institutions delivering in regional facilities, their metropolitan operations are propping up the country facilities at the moment. It's largely a problem with the supply of the workforce, but also with the supply of the materials needed to provide aged care. Construction costs are higher; food costs are higher. All of those things are built into it.
We increased the subsidies in designated areas for registered nurses in Modified Monash Model 4 and above. It all helps, but we still have shortages. This is a very interesting number: when we took government in 2013, we took the number of homecare packages from less than 60,000 to more than 200,000. We more than tripled the number, and yet there is still a demand for more homecare packages. In overall terms, when we came to government in 2013, the budget for aged care was $13.3 billion. In 2022, it's $29.8 billion—well more than double. It comes back to my point that the government cannot just think, because they are in government, that money is a magic wand. Clearly, despite the fact we more than doubled the input into aged care over our nine years in government, it hasn't fixed all the problems. We had a royal commission that told us it hasn't fixed all the problems. I believe there is a case for reform as well as finance.
As for promising higher pay for the aged-care sector, the government are committed to providing higher wages. This is a good thing. I certainly won't argue about that. They're allocating more hours per customer, but it will come at a cost. It will come out of the budget somewhere, and somewhere down the track the Treasurer, I'm sure, will explain how that is going to be paid for.
One of the ones that I am concerned about is the government's commitment to put a registered nurse on every shift in every residential facility. That's what the Governor-General's speech says. I wonder whether the government is aware how many small facilities there are around Australia, particularly in rural Australia, where we have 10 and 12 beds in a nursing home facility. In the seat of Grey, I would have to admit that a number of these were operated by the state government and came about when we used to build hostels in proximity to hospitals. They came under common management, by the good judgement of the community at the time, and then a Labor government—you could have guessed that I suppose—took over all of those hospitals and their facilities and got rid of their hospital boards. And so it inherited this small aged-care system in places. Perhaps the new government intends to make the state governments fund those registered nurses on every shift. But I can tell you, in the small facilities it will be enormous extra cost to their operating systems at the moment. If the government is going to insist on this outcome, I insist that the government finds the money to pay these registered nurses and then explains where it's going to find the registered nurses from. There has been talk of importing registered nurses. Once again I think that might be one of those things that's easier to say than to do, but I look forward to the government's work in that area.
In Whyalla, I have a specific issue. Last year, Kindred Living, a community operated and owned facility, were forced to close one of their three nursing homes, Annie Lockwood, primarily because they couldn't staff it. Some of the costs of its operation are due to its layout at the time it was built, the 1970s. Things are done differently now. It was built for low-care delivery. Kindred Living were forced to close it. They were overwhelmed by the responsibility of running the two remaining facilities and sought someone to come in from outside and take over. I and many others absolutely welcomed the fact that Helping Hand, the Catholic based organisation, came in. They have taken on a 12-month contract, with a view to making that a permanent position in Whyalla and keeping the other two facilities open. We're short of beds in Whyalla as a result of the closure of that one facility. But that's been a good outcome. The previous government provided some millions of dollars to them to bring that facility up to standard. I'm very grateful for that. Now they are in the position of having to make a decision about whether they should continue. We're well aware that we need at least $20 million worth of investment—probably more. We need to build a new wing on the Yeltana facility. We need to get rid of the shared rooms; we certainly need to get rid of the shared bathrooms. In this post-COVID world, the idea of shared bathrooms in aged-care facilities is pretty much last week's newsletter.
During the election campaign I was very pleased to obtain a commitment from the previous government to provide $10 million to Helping Hand to bring about this capital investment and to secure their long-term management of the Whyalla facilities. I'm fully aware that the current government did not match that commitment, so I can't say they're breaking any promises, but I have spoken to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mark Butler. This is incredibly urgent. There is a round of designated funding for capital works in November. I have no idea whether that will go ahead or not under the new government. But we can't wait that long. So I'm asking the minister to step in and make the same commitment we did during the campaign to make sure that we secure Helping Hand, long term, to operate first-class services for the people of Whyalla. Without them, we have no management, and without management we have no aged-care capacity in Whyalla full stop—a community of around 22,000 people. I bring that to the attention of the House, and I will continue to bring it to the attention of the Minister for Health and Aged Care.
In the Governor-General's speech, he reaffirmed the government's commitment to implementing the Uluru statement. If the government wants support for changes to the Constitution—and I think they should be required—I think the public will require that it tells them what those changes to the Constitution will do in practical terms. I don't think the public will vote for a pig in a poke; I don't think they will vote for something that they do not understand. If a referendum question is put to me and I don't understand the outcomes of the question, I won't be voting for it either. So I think the government has a lot of work to do to tell us how the voice to parliament will work. How will it be delivered? How will the voice communicate its message to the parliament? I think this will be one of the most difficult issues, as I found when I consulted with Ken Wyatt's committee and those people who were drawing it up. Very importantly, how will the people who provide the voice to parliament be elected or appointed? As someone that has a significantly large Indigenous population and a large footprint of South Australia in my electorate, we are far from reaching a cohesive position between the different Aboriginal nations that sit within my seat. Even within their communities, they do not always provide a cohesive voice. Finding a few individuals who are going to represent the disparate families and groupings around Australia, nation groupings if you like, I think, is going to be one of the great challenges. I think it's one of the questions that the government needs to answer before it puts forward its proposal to change the Constitution.
Finally, what requirement does the parliament have to actually respond to that voice? In fact, I think the government also needs to explain what about the current system is failing where in this parliament 11 members of the 227 are Indigenous. That's 4.8 per cent of the current parliament. The Indigenous population of Australia makes up 3.2 per cent. I think the government should also explain why that is a failing. In fact, I think we should be dancing in the streets, quite frankly. We have reached this point of over-representation in the current parliament, across all parties. Aboriginal people are well represented within this parliament. They won't all agree, but then it must be said that the rest of us don't all agree a lot of the time. Not all the middle-aged white males in this place agree on issues of substance all the time—or any other grouping that you care to pick out. The fact that 11 of the current parliament are Indigenous is something that should be celebrated. It has occurred under our existing Constitution, so the need for the change in the Constitution at all is a case that I think the government will have to make.
One of the other issues raised in the Governor-General's address is climate change and the government's intention to legislate the 43 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. Firstly, I do not like the inference that sits in the government's claims that somehow the previous government was asleep at the wheel. It's just not right. We've had a 23 per cent reduction on emissions since 2005. Not many other nations in the world can better that. There are a few. We beat our Kyoto 1 commitments and our Kyoto 2 commitments. We're on track to exceed our Paris commitments by 2030, which was the 26 per cent, and, it might be said, well exceed them.
We have the biggest uptake of rooftop solar in the world. We've had construction levels on wind and solar up to, I think, four times as great as the next highest per capita nation in the world. So to somehow say the coalition were asleep at the wheel is just plain wrong.
I'm not opposed to a 43 per cent target. I think it's a good idea. Let's do it if it works. But I think we have to question how seriously many other nations in the world are taking their commitments in this area. I'm amazed at the chasm between the statements that were made in Glasgow last year and the actions since of the nations that made those statements. They've been opening up coal-fired power stations that have been in mothballs. They are building new coal-fired power stations around the world and new gas power stations and other things. It seems to me that many of these nations have made these statements knowing full well that the politicians of the day that make the statements will not be responsible for meeting the time line or the published emission line because they won't be there when that time line is reached. That's why I'm opposed to legislating 43 per cent. I'm not opposed to getting to 43 per cent.
I think we should all be aware that China is increasing its emissions each year by more than Australia's total emissions. Each year they are increasing it. And yet we have a commitment from China that they are going to stabilise on a factor of units per GDP by 2030. But, of course, their economy is going to keep growing and so will their emissions keep growing under that scenario. That is about as clear as mud, quite frankly, and I don't think the general public understand the implications of that.
My question about legislating the 43 per cent is: why would you legislate something that might clearly become the wrong target as we go along if we find that we're losing our manufacturing industry out of Australia? This document here, the Governor-General's speech, actually talks about jobs and skills and expanding our manufacturing base in Australia. I can guarantee you we will not expand our manufacturing base in Australia if our energy costs exceed those of our competitors at an increasing rate. If our competitors are not going to take notice of their commitments and the commitments of the rest of the world, that's exactly what will happen. We can hope for a good outcome, and a good outcome will be if the new renewable energy sources are cheaper than the current fossil fuel sources. That will be a great outcome, and that's when I will be applauding for the target, and we will go for it. Don't hold back! But if we find that we're losing our manufacturing industry and if we find that we're losing our jobs, maybe we ought to have a rethink about where we are, and if it's enshrined in legislation it becomes infinitely more difficult than if it were not. I'm looking forward to that debate in the coming days.
In closing, the other things in the Governor-General's speech that drew my attention are the things that weren't in it. I heard nothing, for instance, of the continued investment in our road and rail infrastructure in Australia. I have to say that the last number of years under the coalition government have been extraordinary in this area. We are cutting the costs for our industries and making them more competitive on a worldwide basis. I would have liked to hear what the new government will do about that, but it was silent. I come from a part of Australia where, sadly, we have one doctor in the area in which I live. That is one permanent doctor for 3,000 people. The complete failure of the system to deliver doctors into regional Australia is killing people. There's not a word on that issue in there.
Agriculture: it's said that Australia rides on the sheep's back. It probably no longer does that, but I could tell you agriculture is a pretty big industry in Australia and it employs a lot of people. At the moment, our people are petrified that the government is not moving quickly enough to keep foot-and-mouth disease out of Australia. I listened to the minister's remarks, and I'm assured by them, but the problem is that people are ringing my office all the time, saying, 'I just walked in from Bali and no-one said boo.' That's our concern at the moment—not what the government has said it will do—but it needs to happen. But that's an aside to the general issue that I was talking about—that this document is silent on agriculture.
I look forward to working with the government on the legislation to come, including legislation on most of the issues I have talked about, and I will be speaking to those when they come up.
I move:
That the debate be adjourned and the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Question agreed to.
As I reflected just a little while ago in my address-in-reply speech today, actively engaging with, listening to and working collaboratively with organisations and individuals leads to the delivery of much-needed projects which can and do make a demonstrable difference in the communities we represent. I'm proud of the projects delivered throughout my first term and of the diligent work undertaken over the past few years to secure funding for additional projects to roll out in this new term of parliament. The clubrooms at the Exeter Showgrounds are just one example. It is the home of a true agricultural show, which has been running for over 100 years, a hub of local cricket and football and the host of the monthly Exeter Village Markets for many months of the year. The showgrounds and the clubroom are utilised by the community year-round but have not been fit for purpose for some time.
I initially met with Show Society President Trevor Clark and other committee members in 2019 to discuss their plans for a new show and recreation centre and I continue to meet regularly with the society as they finalise the design, which will see up-to-date facilities for wider community use and will particularly cater for the rise in female sporting participation. The Tasmanian government committed $735,000 to the project and, after many months of advocacy to the then coalition government on the merits of the development, I secured the additional $1½ million needed through the Community Development Grant Program.
Over the past few years I've also worked with the Flinders Island Council on key projects, including upgrades to the airport and beginning the Safe Harbour project. After the council flagged with me the need to prioritise upgrading the airport so that it was fit for purpose and could meet the needs of the community, I worked closely with them to deliver these upgrades while looking to scale the Safe Harbour project. I fought for and earlier this year secured the additional $600,000 necessary through the Community Development Grant Program for the project, which, like the Exeter Show and Recreation Centre, will benefit their local communities. I trust that the new government will support the completion of both.
During the recent election period I was pleased that Labor acknowledged the value of three significant health projects that I've spent the last three years working on by matching my three announcements, which will deliver better health outcomes and end-of-life care for the community. The creation of northern Tasmania's first dedicated medical research and innovation centre, led by the Clifford Craig Foundation, as well as the establishment of a standalone palliative care unit after 15 years of advocacy from a determined community group and the rollout of a pilot post-cancer survivorship program from the W P Holman Clinic, will become a reality. I thank all stakeholders across three projects for working with me over the past three years to bring these projects one step closer to fruition. I look forward to working with the new government to ensure the delivery of these commitments to the community.
One of the most significant projects announced during the election that was also matched by Labor is the $70 million investment to develop a hydrogen hub in Bell Bay. As a George Town local and former mayor, I know what this hub means for the future of the town and the manufacturing precinct. I've worked closely with local industry and hydrogen industry representatives over the past few years to ensure that Bell Bay could be a site, and the establishment of a hub will create hundreds of highly skilled jobs, expand export opportunities and generate huge economic benefits for our whole community. There is so much potential with this project, and I would urge the government to begin the necessary work to get the hub off the ground.
George Town will also see the delivery of a $15 million community aquatic health and wellbeing centre, a development supported by both parties. The centre will include a 24-hour gym and fitness rooms, an indoor and outdoor pool for recreation purposes, and much-needed hydrotherapy services for the region. Importantly, the centre will also provide low-cost consulting rooms for allied health and rehabilitation services. It will enable NDIS participants to better utilise the funding packages in George Town, meaning that vulnerable members of the community can access services in the area.
Finally, the iconic Waverley woollen mills, Australia's oldest working textile mill, established in 1874, will get a new lease on life with a $6 million injection to redevelop the facility, transforming it into a state-of-the-art facility at the forefront of sustainable wool recycling. This funding, again supported by both parties, will secure 150 jobs and the future of an iconic manufacturing facility beloved by our community.
I look forward to watching these commitments roll out across northern Tasmania within this term of the government.
It's with great sadness that I rise to say a few words on the passing of the former federal member for Bendigo, my predecessor, Steve Gibbons. Steve Gibbons passed away just over a week ago. But, being Steve and his family, they chose to keep it quite quiet until they had the opportunity to inform everybody, and only late on Friday was an official statement released.
He reclaimed the seat of Bendigo for Labor back in 1998 and held it until his retirement in 2013. He was the longest-serving federal member for Bendigo, something the Labor movement in Bendigo were very proud of.
Bendigo is a federation seat. For as long as there's been a parliament, there's been a federal member for Bendigo, and Steve Gibbons is the longest serving one that we've had. It didn't happen by chance or by luck but because Gibbo worked hard. He was a character and many in this place would agree. He understood Bendigo deeply, and he was a proud Bendigonian. My friend Jacinta Allan, the state member for Bendigo East and Victoria's Deputy Premier, worked for Steve on his 1998 campaign. On his passing, she said, 'I've pretty much known Steve my entire life. My father and grandfather were involved with the Bendigo Trades Hall and so was Steve. He understood the importance of a job, of a secure source of employment, and what that meant for supporting your family and community. He had very strong Labor values around taking collective action to support Bendigo workers and their jobs.'
Steve's tagline on his campaign material was 'Fighting for Bendigo'. It was on all his corflutes and he lived up to it. People locally knew that if you had Steve in your corner, you had a chance. He'll be remembered fondly as a champion of and advocate for local manufacturing, particularly in defence and printing.
He was a champion of the Bushmaster, and I've inherited the son of the Bushmaster—the Hawkei. They were built, designed and manufactured in Bendigo by the former ADI, now Thales, and still are to this day. The site almost closed and its future was unclear, but Steve took up the fight to make sure that those jobs stayed and that vehicle continued to be made here in Bendigo. I can remember being involved in a rally that he led down the main streets with the union and Thales calling on the government to continue manufacturing Bushmasters in Bendigo.
They weren't the only jobs that he saved in his time. The Fortuna defence mapping facility faced being closed and moving back to Canberra, but Gibbo worked closely to gain local support and cross-party support and eventually convinced the then Liberal defence minister to keep the facility in Bendigo and base it at Longlea. This campaign saved 150 high-skilled local jobs. We still have the stickers on some of our materials and desks in the office—save DIGO, as it was called back then. Upon hearing of his death, the site flew the flag at half-mast in memory of him, his character and what he had done.
He fought hard for duplication of the Calder Freeway. He was vexed that the then state and federal governments had committed to funding it fifty-fifty, but, despite the promises, had not delivered. The Howard government had reneged on the deal, and Steve was not going to let that happen on his watch. He ran a long campaign until the government finally agreed to fund it.
Post politics, Steve Gibbons was never far away and nor was he silent. He loved his Twitter, particularly at question time. I wonder what he would have thought of today's question time and what he might have tweeted. He loved his guitars, he loved his classic cars and he loved talking about them. He loved rebuilding and he loved making. He also had a deep fondness and passion for animals and was an advocate for them. He was a good character that many adored. There's so much more that I could say about him, but I will close by saying this: we all share in and express our deep condolences to his wife Diane and to his family. May he rest in peace. Vale, Steve.
L () (): Congratulations on your elevation to chair of this House, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I would like reiterate my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for providing me the opportunity to serve as his shadow minister for early childhood education and youth. Supporting our young Australians is something that I've been passionate about for a very long time. The last few years have really been quite difficult for so many young people across the nation, with floods, bushfires and, of course, the COVID-19 pandemic, which we know affected so many in year 11 and year 12 and right across the education spectrum. My thoughts are with them. While I know that these devastating events have disrupted the lives of so many young Australians, it's important that we focus on ensuring that there are no longer-term impacts. It's never been more important than it is now to ensure that young Australians can access the support and services that they need, when and where they need them.
Unlike the government, our side of the chamber has always been focused on supporting young Australians, to ensure that they are engaged and that they feel empowered, whether through creating additional education and training places, through our record funding in mental health—including through various programs, such as headspace and our flagship Head to Health centres—or through arts and sports programs.
I know firsthand just how important it is that young people feel supported, feel heard and feel that they can make a difference. That's why my focus as shadow minister for youth will be on empowering young Australians and ensuring they have every opportunity to succeed no matter where they live or where they come from. I want young Australians to be able to find and pursue their passions. That's what makes a difference, whether it's music, sport, drama, learning a new skill or volunteering in their local community. These are all very meaningful engagements for young people across their young lives. I want them to feel valued. I want them to feel important and ultimately to feel happy about their lives and feel hope in their plans for the future.
I was fortunate enough to receive an opportunity from Rotary International when I was very young—about 17. I was able to be a Rotary exchange student abroad. I spent 12 months in Denmark, and it transformed my life. It was the opportunity that put my life on a different path. I thank Rotary International and still owe them a great debt of gratitude. I can't say no to them when they ask me to speak in the community! That's one of the reasons I'm so passionate about supporting young Australians and ensuring they can access the same sorts of life opportunities that I was able to access in a very large public school in South Australia—certainly not from a privileged background. We don't have to do it alone. There are thousands of other amazing organisations apart from Rotary International that offer opportunities for young people, and organisations in the community that extend fantastic work.
I'm proud to say that in Southport, in my electorate of Moncrieff, there's an organisation called MOB Academy, the Men of Business Academy. They call them the mobsters—young men who perhaps don't feel happy about their future or feel disaffected with what's happening at home or in their lives can go along to MOB Academy and finish year 11 or 12 or indeed do a Certificate III or IV. MOB Academy recently opened their new driving school, which has also come from funding across the community. It's very impressive to see what Marco Renai and his partners there at MOB Academy do and how they have assisted over 1,000 young men. The catchcry on the wall in their rooms and their foyer is 'building better men'. I really support those intervention programs that give young people—men and young girls, of course—the opportunity to build something in their lives. Their programs mix education and life skills, and they've had some fantastic outcomes with some federal government funding through the Stronger Communities Program but also from my very generous corporate community across the Gold Coast, who support those sorts of programs and particularly Men of Business. I did support it myself, but mainly it's the business community that get behind Men of Business.
Sadly, suicide remains the leading cause of death among Australians aged 15 to 24, and we need to make sure that we move forward to zero suicides and put intervention programs and mental health programs in place that help our youth moving forward. (Time expired)
Mr Speaker, it's the first time I rise with you in that seat. There are two things I will briefly indulge on. One is that there have been many times that I have been up on the second floor of this building, on the way back from the Federation Chamber or one of the committees, and, instead of going down the lift, I'd pop into your office and often be greeted with a cup of coffee and some really good advice. You are someone who many people in this place seek advice from, for good reason. The other thing that I would say, Speaker, is that your predecessor, the former member for Casey, did come into the seat to listen to the adjournment debate to get a sense of the flavour of the different members of this place. If that's something that you're also continuing, I think it's a wonderful tradition, and it's great to see you in the chair at this time of the debate this evening. And congratulations, my friend.
In Macnamara, we have had quite a campaign. We had an election, obviously. But, prior to the election, there was another campaign going on with our early childhood education centres. The city of Port Phillip is the local government area that takes in most of Macnamara, and prior to the last election I was advocating strongly that the city of Port Phillip should not shut down and sell off three crucial local early childhood centres. They, of course, are the Avenue Children's Centre, Eildon Road and the Elwood Children's Centre. These three community run centres are incredible community assets. They foster a sense of community. The petition that was circulated in our local area was signed by over 3,000 people. To give you a sense, each centre has fewer than 100 enrolments. This is something that really touched the heart of many people because they walk to these centres. The centres are local—many of them are in old houses—and they have such character, but they also build such a sense of community. And they're good. They're really good centres.
The City of Port Phillip was on a crusade to try and sell these off. I stood with many people in our local community, we protested against the council, and I was pleased that the Labor councillor in the City of Port Phillip, with the support of the Greens councillors, did put forward a motion to stop the sale. Even though that didn't quite get up, the council did resolve to look at other options. What happened then was this: conversations started with the state government. The Victorian School Building Authority have been in negotiations with the City of Port Phillip about the future of these centres as well as the other early childhood centres in the City of Port Phillip. I'm told that those negotiations are going extremely well.
I was very pleased that the former shadow minister for early childhood, the member for Kingston, when she came and met with these three centres before the last election, outlined a commitment that we would work with the City of Port Phillip to try and see a sustainable outcome for these centres, to make sure that the futures of these early childhood centres are in Macnamara and that we have a future that our kids and our families can rely on. Holding true to that commitment, one of the first calls I made when the ministry was announced was to the new minister for early childhood, the member for Cowan, to say, 'When you get a chance, please come to Macnamara and meet with the City of Port Phillip, as per our election commitment, to talk about the ways in which we can support these incredibly important local assets, these centres that build early childhood education.'
It's not just because they're great centres, they provide high-quality education and they are community assets that really are valued within Macnamara; it's also because getting good-quality, affordable child care is such an important economic measure that we need to grow the economy. When you think about inflationary pressures that we have right now, to be able to deal with supply issues is critical, and the only way we're going able to do that is if we have the very best of our workforce participating in our workplaces. Australian women are being held back predominantly by unaffordable child care, and we should address that in this country. We need to make child care more affordable, not just because it's good for our kids but also because it is absolutely critical for the health of our economy. So I want to thank the minister and the City of Port Phillip. I want to thank the mayor for his good-faith discussions. I really urge the City of Port Phillip: take a deep breath, continue on with the negotiations and think about the legacy, not of closing three valued early education centres but about the legacy of saving them. Think about what message that sends to our community and to the people that they represent and the wonderful families in Macnamara.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the kind invitation to speak. I congratulate you on your election to the office of Speaker. I think I have been here for all the Labor speakers since 1990. That means I've spent a lot of time in opposition. I fondly remember Speaker Harry Jenkins, who brought to the chair integrity, humility and humour, and I wish you all three.
I come to speak about the passing of Harry Sasse. I come not to grieve but to honour. Harry Sasse was a staffer at Liberal Party headquarters, at 104 Exhibition Street, when I first became a member of the party and became aware of these people. But perhaps I'll begin not with my words but with the words of former Premier of Victoria and president of the party Ted Baillieu. He notes that Harry was a Liberal Party professional staffer in Victoria for many, many years. For more than 20 years, Harry saw up close every aspect of the Liberal Party and its operation, but he was widely trusted. Harry was long responsible for the health and day-to-day activity of the local branch network. When Harry was in charge of the ballot box, everybody was comfortable. Everyone knew Harry. Everyone accepted his counsel. He was politically adept and always focused on the best interests of the party. Harry enjoyed the respect of all members. He had an uncanny capacity to moderate any storm, to smooth over any cracks and to calm any combatants. He and his wife also ran an early childcare business in those days. He had a long-term professional relationship with fellow staffer Frank Hangan, who, like Harry, was an unassuming and thoughtful individual.
For me, the Harry Sasses of this world, in that day, put integrity first, second and third. They were punctual. They were classic administrators. They took detail seriously. Sasse was a profoundly decent gentleman of another era. Respect, manners, dress, presentation, humour—he was a mentor to many young members like me. He was generous with his time and his counsel. Harry's pride, which was conveyed to others, was a pride in the Liberal Party and in the nation that he served. He felt responsible for Australia and its people. I met him at a time when I was young and extremely naive about politics. He was there under the tutelage of the state director at the time, John Ridley, and there were other staffers there of the same ilk, like Tony Conheady.
Australia has been blessed by men like this, men of stature and integrity, within all our political parties of bygone eras. We have the values and inspirations that we still enjoy today because of men like Harry Sasse. Vale, Harry. I honour you.
Before I begin my adjournment speech, I'd like to take this opportunity to formally welcome you, Mr Speaker, and congratulate you in your role as Speaker of the House. I am very much looking forward to serving in partnership with you as Deputy Speaker and to bringing about the necessary reforms for the Australian parliament.
Labor is indeed not wasting any time in implementing our agenda, and that is incredibly important for regions like mine—Newcastle and the Hunter region—big, carbon-intensive economic communities. My electorate absolutely voted for a change of government. They felt let down by a government that refused to actually face reality about a transition from a carbon-intensive economy across to an economy that was going to be able to diversify its base and invest in new forms of energy for the future.
My electorate of Newcastle knows—better than most, indeed—the importance of not only reaching net zero by 2050 but also, as I said, diversifying and strengthening our economy with those new renewable energies. The Labor government is going to deliver on some very significant commitments to Newcastle by investing in our people and our skills. Newcastle is blessed with a highly skilled energy workforce. We have an abundance of resources. We have industrial expertise. We have terrific and extensive rail and port infrastructure, and Newcastle and the Hunter region are poised to take full advantage of these new energy industries and, indeed, become the centre of a new energy hub—indeed, a superpower.
So Labor is investing some $82 million in a super hydrogen hub based in the port of Newcastle, which has the potential to attract some 2,500 jobs over the coming years. These are high skilled, well-paid, secure jobs that we want in our region. The Albanese Labor government is also partnering with the University of Newcastle to invest a further $16 million to build a new facility to test and invent solutions to a range of global challenges when it comes to the use of hydrogen and many of these new energy industries and technologies. The skills, techniques and technologies developed by this project at the university will enable local industry, including hydrogen investments at the port of Newcastle, to really grow to their full potential. There's a lot of thinking as to what will be required—what industry is going to need in terms of the skilled workforce but also places to test out, and to accredit and ensure safety in, the use of these new energy technologies. Of course, we've been doing this for more than a century in Newcastle with coal and the need to ensure safe practices. This comes as second nature to the people of Newcastle. I am very excited about the possibilities for Newcastle and our region in a transition and diversification of our local economy whilst we bring Australia to deliver on this commitment of net zero by 2050.
As I said, we're not wasting any time. Today, indeed, we saw the introduction of the climate change bills into this House, so the Anthony Albanese Labor government has indeed ticked off on one of those election commitments: to enshrine the nation's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 and to reach net zero by 2050 into law. The Australian people voted for this change, and indeed my electorate of Newcastle voted very strongly for it. They care deeply about this issue. For Novocastrians, this is personal. We have a lot of skin in the game. But we know that real action on climate change means more than just hitting targets. It's about forging a sustainable future for carbon-intensive regions like mine. I thank the Albanese government for pulling the head out of the sand and facing the reality ahead. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 19 :53