I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Public Sector Superannuation Salary Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 repeals paragraph 5(e) of the Superannuation (Salary) Regulations with effect from 1 July 1986 and provides that the effect of the repeal does not apply to individuals where limited circumstances are satisfied.
The changes in the bill are only relevant to current and former Commonwealth public sector civilian employees.
The default superannuation salary of a member of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme established under the Superannuation Act 1976 includes the value of any allowance that, under the regulations, is to be treated as salary under the act.
Prior to 1 March 2022 paragraph 5(e) of the regulations provided that the rent-free use of housing made available to a person by reason that they held a particular office or performed particular duties or work was an allowance that was to be treated as salary for the purpose of the act.
The value of rent-free housing as per paragraph 5(e) of the regulations flowed through to the default superannuation salary of members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme, and members of the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan and certain members of non-Commonwealth choice funds.
At the time the regulations were made in 1978, an employee's assessable income was taken to include the value of rent-free housing. With the introduction of the fringe benefits tax regime in 1986, the tax burden in relation to rent-free housing shifted from the employee to employer.
Following this change in 1986 the Commonwealth has typically not treated rent-free housing as forming part of superannuation salary and generally neither employers nor employees have made superannuation contributions that have taken into account the value of rent-free housing.
A recent case before the Federal Court has exposed differing views on the operation and scope of former paragraph 5(e) of the regulations. If the interpretation as argued by the applicants was accepted, it would have significant financial impacts for the Commonwealth and inequitable financial outcomes for differing cohorts of individuals.
Some individuals would receive an unexpected windfall increase in their superannuation benefits while others could incur potentially large unexpected debts for unpaid member contributions with little or no corresponding increase in their superannuation benefit.
These outcomes would be a consequence of the reliance by all relevant parties on a view that rent-free housing at the time it was provided did not form part of superannuation salary.
Retrospectively repealing paragraph 5(e) of the regulations will regularise the past administrative practice of Commonwealth employers and employees by effectively restoring the position with respect to rent-free housing that all relevant parties have treated as governing the Commonwealth civilian public sector superannuation schemes since 1986.
The repeal of paragraph 5(e) of the regulations will commence from 1 July 1986, the date of the introduction of the fringe benefits tax regime, and therefore regularise the change in practice that seemingly occurred after that time.
As the purpose of the retrospective repeal of paragraph 5(e) of the regulations is to regularise the longstanding practice of employees and employers, the bill makes provision for cases, if any, in which paragraph 5(e) was applied historically in particular employer relationships in a way that included the value of rent-free housing in superannuation salary.
The bill does this by excluding a limited cohort of individuals from the effect of the repeal of paragraph 5(e) of the regulations where no-one was acting pursuant to a mistake as shown from the actions of both Commonwealth employers and employees as evidenced by contributions having been made on the basis, in the period 1 July 1986 to 28 February 2022, that the value of the rent-free housing received by the employee was included in their superannuation salary.
The exclusion end date of 28 February 2022 reflects that paragraph 5(e) of the regulations was repealed with prospective effect from 1 March 2022.
I commend the bill to the House.
The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Is leave granted to continue the debate?
Leave is not granted.
There is no leave granted. I give the call to the member for Melbourne.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Leave is not granted. If I can explain why and put our position on the record to be clear about the division we will be calling, it is unusual for a bill to come to the House for a second reading with people not having time to consider it, debate happening immediately and then it goes straight to a vote. This is a bill that has financial consequences, as the minister has outlined. It is a bill that was brought to the Senate in similar circumstances yesterday and rushed through in the morning. It is not clear that there is a compelling case for urgency or that this can't be dealt with in the normal course.
I understand that, as a matter of process, it is probably the case that the government and the opposition are prepared to push this through quickly. But on bills that do have financial consequences, especially if something has been known for some time, especially where the context was carried over from the previous government, we should not be in the practice of forcing people in this House, especially when there is such a large number of crossbenchers here, to just take something at face value and push it through without the opportunity to have the usual debate. We are in a position where we don't know enough about this bill to be able to support it because the government is rushing it through.
From what the minister has said, my understanding is that this is in part about how a court interprets an enterprise agreement and what counts as salary for the purposes of superannuation. It is often the case that employees will make trade-offs in doing that and will say, 'I accept a lower wage in return for a bigger package,' and then superannuation is calculated on that whole package. If that's what's happening here, then it may be that the employees have a legitimate argument. On the other hand, it may be that there's a loophole that has been exposed, and, if we had more time to consider it, we might be in a position to agree. But given that it is being rushed through and there's been no basis put as to why it should be rushed through and, especially given that we know that this issue has been here for months and could have gone through the usual parliamentary processes, we can't support it being pushed through on the second reading. The usual practice should apply.
I understand there's a lot that the House has got to get to today, so we won't speak any further on the second reading question. We tend not to divide on the question that will now be put by the government to ensure its passage through—we've made our point about it being rushed through—but we will oppose the second reading, in large part, on process grounds because we don't think that any of us should be put in a position of having to vote on a bill that has only been introduced today when no compelling case for urgency has been made. It sets a very, very bad precedent, especially given that there were weeks in which everyone in this parliament could have been given the content of the bill, told of its significance and able to consider it with their own teams, take advice and come to a genuine position. This is bad process. It's a bad way to start the parliament, and we can't support it.
To facilitate debate, I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through all stages.
Question agreed to.
I thank the government for introducing the Public Sector Superannuation Salary Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, and I thank the Leader of the Greens for his concerns, some of which are quite legitimate. It is a very rare thing for a parliament to consider making a retrospective law, dating back to the 1980s, on something that is currently before the courts. It's very, very rare. I've been here for 15 years. This is only the second time I've seen it done. The other time was when I did it as the Assistant Treasurer five years ago. So I'm very cognisant of why assistant treasurers, who are responsible for super and tax, always get lumbered with the most contentious and difficult issues. It's why I appreciate the point the Leader of the Greens made because this is very, very unusual.
One of the reasons assistant treasurers find themselves in these positions—and the last time also dealt with superannuation—is that when laws were written back in the 1980s and 1990s many things were assumed. In the case I dealt with, the assumption was that everyone knew what a lump sum was in super. And it was not defined until people took it before a court to seek it to be defined.
We are facing a similar issue here, where, pre-FBT and in the absence of a definition—in this case, the condition of rent-free housing ostensibly for diplomats overseas, whilst not explicitly provided for, being a basis for salary for which super is on top of—public servants have sought to take it to court. That case—the Peace case, if you like—relates to potential windfall superannuation payments, as well as unexpected debts from unpaid member contributions, and is before the Federal Court. It has been taken there by three former diplomats who are claiming the value of their publicly funded rent-free housing should be included in their salary for superannuation purposes.
That is the basis of this discussion. It will potentially have an impact on the budget of somewhere between $8 billion and $11 billion. It is a serious issue, and it's why we should look at this seriously. I'd like to say from the outset that the opposition will be supporting the government, noting the irregularity and the rarity of this coming up. This issue has been considered by the government soberly and sensibly, and we thank them for that. The previous coalition government was keeping an eye on this, as a very high-risk public administration issue, prior to the election. So this is not something that is being rushed by either the coalition or the opposition when it was previously in government. This has been thought through. The bill is consistent with the former government's approach to addressing issues like this and how they're to be done.
For the benefit of the House, this issue about rent-free housing was generally not provided prior to the introduction of FBT in 1986 as it would have attracted income tax. From 1986 onwards it became commonplace that the tax burden shifted to the employer and that rent-free arrangements, unless explicitly stated, did not count as a salary for superannuation purposes. That was the generally considered view. Those views should be held to stand regardless if they were not included in instruments at the time or otherwise.
Since 1986 the Commonwealth has typically not treated rent-free housing as forming part of superannuation salary. Generally neither employers nor employees have made superannuation contributions that have taken into account the value of rent-free housing. That is how the system has run for 36 years.
I appreciate now that there is a court case and we're having to face a difficult issue whereby these issues weren't defined, but it doesn't mean that the definition wasn't implied and well understood for almost a third of a century. The applicants in the case before the Federal Court—Brendan Peace & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia and Anor, the 'Peace case'—are trying to demonstrate differing views on the operation and scope of paragraph 5(e) of the regs. They have argued for an interpretation which has not been consistent over the last third of a century. If accepted it would mean a large number of former and current Commonwealth employees, excluding the military, as the minister said, in their thousands would have the value of rent-free housing treated as salary for superannuation purposes.
I appreciate courts don't look kindly when the federal parliament intervenes mid-case retrospectively. Whilst I appreciate the court's sentiments it is this place's role to legislate, not the courts. It is the court's place to interpret legislation. If this place is not satisfied with what the other separated power, in that case the court, has done it is implied upon this place to seek to make it right. This is the basis of the discussion that we are having now. On that basis, noting it's a difficult issue, noting it is a very rare thing to do and noting it is done sensibly and soberly as it should be, the opposition will be supporting the government.
I would like to put on the public record a potential conflict of interest with regard to this legislation. Having worked for the ABC as a foreign correspondent and being posted overseas in rent-free housing in 2005 and 2006, from 2010 to 2013 in South-East Asia and from 2015 to 2019 in the United States, I would like to withdraw myself from this debate and to have it noted that if there is a division I will not be voting and I will withdraw myself from the chamber.
Similarly, I also have a conflict of interest with a family member in a similar situation, so I will also be withdrawing myself from the debate.
The question is that the bill now be read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
I will respond to a few of the points that have been made during the second reading debate. The question of urgency was raised by the Leader of the Greens. I will just make this point: the urgency is providing certainty to employees and, indeed, to litigants in the matter of the Commonwealth's intention to move in this area. No sane government could do otherwise than this parliament has done this morning. It would be intolerable.
It wasn't my intention in the course of this debate to go through the scale of the moneys involved, but the member for Fadden, in his second reading debate address, has alluded to the fact that the cost, well known to those opposite because they were considering the same matter when they were in government a few months ago, is in the order of $11 billion. To the members of the Greens I will simply make this point: that's about what we spend on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and it would well and truly pay for the cost of any proposal to introduce dental care into the Medicare Benefits Scheme. These are not small amounts of money. No sane government could do anything other than what we are proposing to do today.
I want to thank the member for Goldstein and the member for Mackellar. Although there was no legal obligation on them to do so, they honourably declared a conflict of interest in this debate. I pay tribute to the actions that they have just put themselves through by absenteeing themselves from the chamber. With those brief comments, I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The original question was that the bills be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Melbourne has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Is a division required? I will ask the clerks to ring the bell for five minutes so all members will be aware of the division. The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
The question now is that the bills be read a second time.
by leave—On behalf of the member for Curtin, I move amendments (1) and (2) in respect of the Climate Change Bill 2022, as circulated in her name:
(1) Clause 3, page 2 (before line 15), before paragraph (a), insert:
(aa) to advance an effective and progressive response to the urgent threat of climate change drawing on the best available scientific knowledge; and
(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 21), after "accountability", insert "and ambition".
The member for Curtin is, unfortunately, unable to attend today because of COVID. Clause 3 of the Climate Change Bill sets out the objects of the bill. This clause, in its current form, has been included after discussions between the crossbench and the government and is a welcome addition to the bill.
The bill in its current form sets out three objects of the bill: to set out targets, to promote accountability and to ensure that advice from the Climate Change Authority informs the settings of targets and annual climate statements.
The proposed amendment adds another object:
… to advance an effective and progressive response to the urgent threat of climate change drawing on the best available scientific knowledge …
This amendment aims to broaden the legislation beyond the setting of a number to reflect that the parliament's intention is that this legislation be an effective, symbolic start to real climate action.
This amendment clarifies the underlying climate goals of the bill, the urgency of action and a link to scientific knowledge. An acknowledgement of the object's clause of the urgency of action and a link to scientific knowledge should give business certainty that this is a new era in climate policy and that the Australian parliament has an intention to be guided by the science and to decarbonise our economy. The setting of a numerical target is the first step in this significant shift.
A related amendment is also proposed to amend clause 3(b) so that it promotes accountability and ambition to reflect that this is the start of a significant journey ahead.
Objects clauses serve a few purposes in legislation. Firstly, they provide a statement of the policy objective of the legislation that enables the parliament and the public to gauge the success of legislation in achieving its policy goals. This bill contains provision for periodic reviews of the operation of the act under clause 17. If the purpose is narrowly defined as the setting of a target and not to the underlying climate goal, reviews could be limited in scope accordingly. A review might say, 'Yes, the legislation was effective in setting a target,' irrespective of whether or not those targets were met. It would be a reasonable community expectation that the review should examine the effectiveness of the legislation in driving climate change mitigation, rather than just the setting of a target.
Secondly, objects clauses assist in statutory interpretation, especially for broadly worded provisions. Proposed sections 12, 14 and 17 contain broadly worded obligations. An objects clause that refers to the underlying climate objectives assists in ensuring that these obligations are interpreted consistently with those climate objectives and that that advice, those reports and those reviews have substance to them.
This amendment is consistent with community expectations of the government's mandate to legislate a target, making it clear that the purpose is to drive real and urgent action on climate in line with the science.
I thank the member for Kooyong, and, in her absence, I thank the member for Curtin, for this contribution. The member for Curtin is unwell and I know she would be a very strong participant in this debate if she were here.
I might just say, by way of summary, there have been a range of discussions of good faith between the government and the crossbench. As we have said publicly, where there are suggestions which are entirely in keeping with the government's mandate and approach and which make things clearer or more explicit, we are more than happy to work in good faith with the crossbench. This is one instance of a sensible suggestion to make a change in the objects, and it would be unusual for anyone to oppose such a basic object to comply and to work for the thing that's been laid out by the honourable member's amendment. The government will support it.
The question is that amendments (1) and (2) moved by the member for Kooyong on behalf of the member for Curtin be agreed to.
DANIEL () (): In respect of the Climate Change Bill 2022, I move:
(1) Clause 10, page 5 (lines 17 and 18), omit the note, substitute:
Note: The achievement of a target involves reducing Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions to a level that is at or below the target. Accordingly, nothing in subsection (1) limits Australia's ability to reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions beyond 43% below 2005 levels by 2030.
I've moved this amendment because the science says that we should be hitting at least 50 per cent, preferably 60 per cent, by 2030 to help keep global temperatures below two degrees and as close as possible to 1.5 degrees. I went to the election believing, based on modelling and evidence, that 60 per cent is a realistic target within that time frame, but I appreciate the consideration that the minister has given me and other members of the crossbench and this opportunity to move an amendment that I believe strengthens the language of this legislation.
In the course of conversations with the minister about this bill, I advocated strongly for 43 per cent to be explicitly noted as a floor, not a ceiling, when it comes to carbon emissions. This plain language is necessary I believe to prevent ambition from being thwarted, to make sure that there are no unintended consequences of this law that limit our future capacity to be brave and innovative, and to lead on climate policy. I'm pleased that the minister has indicated his readiness to accept this suggestion of the addition of a note on page 5 to make it clear that the legislation does not limit Australia's ability to reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions beyond 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. This will have some legal force, but, as the Supreme Court of Victoria has stated:
Although a note such as this forms part of the Act, it is subordinate to the substantive provisions, of which it is merely explanatory or illustrative.
Nonetheless, the amendment that I am proposing makes it clearer that there is opportunity to go beyond the 43 per cent cut in carbon emissions supported by this government.
I urge the minister to take a further look at the initial proposal when considering further legislation, but for now this is a substantial step forward. To those members of my community who wanted a more ambitious target, I say this: this bill provides a means for that ambition; without a guiding principle, it is difficult to progress. So, in my mind, this is very much a start, not a finish.
I thank the minister and the government for the collaboration, and I look forward to being ambitious and brave together. I commend this amendment to the House.
I also thank the honourable member for Goldstein for her very strong and good-faith collaboration with the government. In the NDC that has already been sent to the UNFCCC, it makes it clear that the government regards 43 per cent as a floor to our ambition, that we think that, with industry and governments—state, federal and local—working together, the country can do even better. That is explicit in the bill. The honourable member's amendment makes it even more explicit. The government is happy to support it.
The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Goldstein be agreed to.
Just to advise the House: the Federation Chamber has tried a few times to start. It goes for a couple of minutes and then there's a division. I suggest that the Federation Chamber remains suspended while this legislation is being dealt with in the House. Then, once we see how long this is taking, a decision can be made by the Presiding Officer as to whether it starts up again today.
In light of the business before the House, the Federation Chamber may resume once we have dealt with these bills. I will move on to the next amendments.
At the request of the member for Indi, I move amendments (1) and (2) to the Climate Change Bill 2022 and amendments (1) and (2) to the Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022, as circulated in her name:
(1) Clause 12, page 7 (line 18), at the end of subclause (1), add:
; and (e) the impact of the Commonwealth's climate change policies to achieve Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets on rural and regional Australia, including the social, employment and economic benefits being delivered by those policies in rural and regional Australia.
(2) Clause 15, page 9 (after line 34), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) The advice given under subsection (1) must include advice on:
(a) the social, employment and economic benefits of any new or adjusted greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and associated policies, including for rural and regional Australia; and
(b) the physical impacts of climate change on Australia, including on rural and regional Australia.
I rise on behalf of the member for Indi, who has asked that I move these amendments on her behalf. The member has provided speaking points to the amendments, which I will now read out:
I am deeply disappointed that I have tested positive for COVID and will be unable to vote in favour of this Bill in the House.
Because this is a Bill that is good for regional Australia, and which will drive the economic future of regional Australia.
This Bill sets in law a commitment that the vast majority of Australians support—that we will decarbonize our economy by the middle of the century.
And today, I seek four simple changes to make a good Bill an even better one, by inserting regional Australia at the heart of our climate policy framework.
First, I propose to amend the Climate Change Authority to make sure that Australia's climate policies boost economic, employment and social benefits for rural and regional Australia.
In the Government's Bill, the Climate Change Authority is the body charged with advising on climate targets and climate policies.
I believe that renewable energy and the new industries it will unlock could become the next goldrush for regional Australia—but only if we plan it right.
Second, I am proposing to expand the list of eligible qualifications for appointments to the Climate Change Authority.
These are the people who will be advising on Australia's targets and tracking our progress to achieving those.
We need regional voices at that table. And we need people who understand how to make renewable energy actually deliver for regional communities.
Third, my amendment requires the Minister to outline the benefits that their policies are delivering to the regions.
A key part of the Government's Bill is that the Climate Change Minister must, each year, deliver a statement to the Parliament on Australia's progress in reaching our targets and the effectiveness of our climate policies.
Under my amendment, that statement must specifically outline the social, employment, and economic benefits that those policies are delivering to the regions.
This is an accountability mechanism.
It means that no Government can get away with a climate policy that does not specifically address the unique circumstances of and opportunities for regional Australia.
And finally, my amendment requires regions to be explicitly considered when setting new emissions targets.
Under the Government's Bill, the Climate Change Authority must provide advice on any new or revised emissions targets. Under my amendment, when advising on those targets, the Authority must advise the Minister on the benefits to regional communities that a higher target would deliver, and the physical impacts of climate change on regional Australia.
This means that in three years, when the Government sets our next target for 2035, it will be forced to reckon with two facts: that climate change is damaging the regions, and that decarbonizing the economy must deliver for the regions.
It is only sensible that Australia's climate policy framework has a particular focus on the regions because we regional Australians are at the forefront of the changing climate.
We regional Australians endure the brunt of the droughts, the floods and the bushfires that are becoming increasingly intense.
And it is the regions that will host almost all of the new renewable energy, all the new transmission lines and a huge part of the new industries Australia must build to truly take advantage of the net zero economic opportunity.
This transition will happen primarily in the regions, so it only makes sense that our climate policy keeps a special focus on the regions.
I thank the Member for Mayo for moving these amendments on my behalf and I thank the Minister for Climate Change and Energy for working with me constructively to improve the Government's Bill.
The Coalition right now has a choice—to support these amendments and support regional people, or to put old politics ahead of regional people and prosperity.
I urge all Members to vote for these amendments. By putting the regions back into the centre of the climate debate, we are making this Bill something that can work for every part of our country.
I was very pleased to read that speech and put forward those amendments on behalf of the member for Indi.
I am sure the member for Indi is watching, and I am sure the whole House wishes her a speedy recovery from COVID. On behalf of the government, I appreciate the member for Indi's strong interaction with me and with the government on matters of regional affairs. The member for Mayo is a strong advocate for regions, and I am sure the member for Mayo would agree that the member for Indi is a particularly strong advocate for regions.
The member for Indi's amendments, as the member for Mayo has indicated, really do four things. They require that the annual climate change statement to the parliament made by the minister of the day include reference to regional Australia and the impacts on regional Australia and also that this be included in the advice to government by the Climate Change Authority on the setting of future targets. Also, this adds to the performance of functions and, I think, importantly, adds rural and regional development and community energy as qualifications for appointment to the Climate Change Authority. These are very sensible amendments, and I am pleased to indicate on behalf of the government that we will support them.
I would be shocked if any member opposed these. If the National Party is opposing—we will see in a few moments—the inclusion of regional affairs in these things, it would really indicate just how low this debate has fallen. I hope I am on the pessimistic side of the spectrum and that the National Party will be supporting these.
I thank the member for Indi as well as the member for Mayo for putting these amendments up. While it is well intended, unfortunately it doesn't go to the heart of the issue. In fact, as a coalition government, we put in place a structured process of review that had independence. It had an independent review by the Productivity Commission, who are better equipped to undertake these reviews than the Climate Change Authority are. This is like having the Climate Change Authority assess their own homework. Why wouldn't we have an independent authority come in and understand the economic impact on regional and rural Australia?
So to be constructive, as the National Party always are, which is at the heart of representing regional and rural Australia and understanding the impacts this will have on regional and rural Australia, we will be working through the Senate committee process to make sure that we can work constructively to get back to the core principle of independence and having transparency on what impact this will have on regional and rural Australia and those people we represent that have borne most of the bill in us meeting Kyoto and Paris, so that that burden is not unfairly put on regional and rural Australia. We will work constructively on that, but we feel that these amendments are ill equipped to ensure the security for regional and rural Australia to participate in any climate change debate.
I too thank the member for Indi for her amendments and hope she is feeling a little bit better. I also thank the member for Mayo for speaking on her behalf in the chamber. I appreciate the concern that the member for Indi has for regional communities. It's certainly a concern shared at least by everybody on this side of the chamber. I appreciate also the fact that she is seeking to protect regional communities from impacts of this bill because, rest assured, there will be impacts from this bill.
As I said in the second reading speech, it is an indictment on the government that it has utterly failed to include any safeguards in these bills and has, indeed, actively removed safeguards from the nationally determined contribution—the NDC. The coalition's 2021 NDC included a requirement for regular reviews of the impact of the government's climate change policies on regional communities, on jobs and investment, on energy prices and on agricultural land. The new Albanese Labor government have stripped all of these safeguards from the NDC. That is exactly the act that they have taken.
With respect to the amendments from the member for Indi, it is not good enough to have the Climate Change Authority do this work. The leader of the National Party is right; it is the equivalent of them marking their own homework. Worse still, it is like the minister himself marking his own homework. That's what these amendments would effectively enable. That's why we have decided, as an opposition, to also oppose this amendment. It's not good enough for a climate change policy body with a narrow field of expertise to be considering the very broad impacts that these bills would likely have on regional Australia. And so the coalition's approach in government was to have reviews conducted independently—reviews undertaken independent of government by the Productivity Commission. While I thank the member for Indi for her contribution today—I really do—the coalition will oppose these amendments. But we will explore further, through the committee process in the other place, how further safeguards can be placed around these bills.
I support the member for Indi's amendments moved by the member for Mayo. Item 1 will require the Climate Change Authority, in performing its function, to have regard to the principles such as boosting economic, employment and social benefits, including for rural and regional Australia. Item 2 will set out that appointments to the Climate Change Authority are not eligible for associate members unless the minister is satisfied that the person has rural and regional development and community energy expertise. The amendments ensure that rural and regional Australia are considered when formulating climate policy, as they will be at the forefront of the transition to net zero and climate impacts. As we are debating the consequential amendments bill, I will ask the minister: at a later date, will you extend the consideration of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets to functions of the board of Industry Innovation and Science Australia? Directions to the board by the minister, and the prescribing of programs by the minister, fall under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986.
I thank the member for Mackellar for her support of these very sensible amendments moved by the member for Indi. I am surprised that anybody would oppose such sensible amendments. In relation to the honourable member's question, the explanatory memorandum which I've tabled does indicate that there will be further review of the range of government organisations that would be impacted. As the honourable members would appreciate, we have taken the decision to change the objects and functions of a range of organisations. We've also indicated that there are a range of others that would take longer to consider. I'm happy to indicate to the House I envisage this review occurring over the next 12 months and me coming back to the House within 12 months. I am happy to indicate to the honourable member that the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 will be considered as part of that review, as will a range of other acts and organisations.
While I have the floor, a number of other members have raised issues of a similar nature, so I might take this opportunity to answer the questions they raised in their second reading debate speeches. The member for Melbourne asked about NOPSEMA. I can indicate that NOPSEMA, like other government organisations, will be considered in that review.
The member for Melbourne separately raised the matter of native forest wood biomass under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act. I am happy to have further discussions with him to better understand his concerns, as I do, in good faith, with honourable members across the parliament. I do note the regulations already include a number of protections to ensure the sustainability of any such energy sources. It has never been a significant source of certificates under the legislation; however, I am more than happy to hear any concerns the honourable member has.
The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Mayo at the request of the member for Indi be agreed to.
I move amendments (1) to (3) to the Climate Change Bill 2022 as circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 10, page 5 (line 10), omit "43%", substitute "75%".
(2) Clause 10, page 5 (line 16), omit "2050", substitute "2035, at the latest".
(3) Clause 12, page 7 (line 18), at the end of subclause (1), add:
; and (e) Australia's scope 3 emissions of greenhouse gas.
As I mentioned in my second reading speech, the government's bill is a good start. But it is deficient, seriously so, and the three amendments I've presented to the House would go some considerable way to remedying it.
Firstly, we need much more ambitious targets because what we do this decade is obviously critically important to the success or failure of Australia's response to climate change. Indeed, experts at the Climate Council tell us that net zero by 2050 is at least a decade too late. In fact—and I quote the Climate Council—this time line 'carries a strong risk of irreversible global climate disruption at levels inconsistent with maintaining well-functioning human societies'. And using the same methodology as the Climate Change Authority did in 2014, experts have calculated that the global emissions budget gives Australia only about 15 years to reach net zero.
The message could not be clearer, and when reflecting on it we need to also consider the fact that Australia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and that much of our wealth has come directly from our fossil fuel resources, which directly contribute to the problem. This economic advantage, plus our abundant natural resources, actually places us in prime position to develop renewable energy capacity and the ability to export this clean energy to the rest of the world. In other words, Australia, of all countries, can be so much more ambitious. With all this in mind, amendments (1) and (2) replace the weak targets that are currently in the bill with targets of a 75 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels by 2030 and a commitment to reach net zero by 2035 at the latest. These are science backed and equitable.
Secondly, Australia is one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels on the globe, and our own measuring and reduction of carbon emissions needs to reflect that. Indeed, since 2005 our fossil fuel exports have more than doubled, meaning that the emissions caused by other countries burning Australia's exported coal, oil and gas are more than double our total domestic emissions. This contribution to global climate pollution is significant, and it's our responsibility. Yet the current government, even while acknowledging the need to reduce our emissions at home, continues to commit to new fossil fuel exports, which will exacerbate the global climate crises—as though these are separate issues.
We simply can't pretend that even though it's Australia's policies that have led to Australian companies digging up Australian fossil fuels we simply have no responsibility for the carbon emissions released as a result. That's why amendment (3) requires that Australia's scope 3 emissions—the emissions we export overseas—be included in the minister's annual climate change statements. This would ensure that the public cannot not be misled when it comes to Australia's huge contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and puts our fossil fuel exports front and centre.
As I've said before in this place, the overall goal is to reduce the amount of carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere, and we cannot lose sight of this. This isn't a question of whether Australia must report on scope 3 emissions according to international law or whether these emissions are counted in some other country's database—no. Regardless of whether we plan to export it or burn it here, what matters is that we leave Australian coal, oil and gas in the ground—and when we do dig it up, we need to account for it. Amendment (3) requires the government to report to the parliament on what we are doing to ensure that this is the case in the future.
Time is rapidly running out to reduce emissions and to mitigate the worst of the extreme impacts of climate change. There is so much opportunity for Australia in the energy transition, and we should be taking a lead on the international stage, not sitting on our hands. Amendments (1), (2) and (3) reflect this ambition, and I call on all members to support them.
The government will not be supporting these amendments. I do not want to belabour or delay the House. I think the reasons for the government's 43 per cent target have been very explicitly explained before the election. It's the target for which we sought a mandate during the election and after the election, and we'll be sticking with that policy. For all the reasons the Prime Minister has made very clear, a mandate is something that we on this side of the House very much respect.
The question is the amendments moved by the member for Clark be disagreed to.
I move the revised Greens amendments (1) and (2) to the Climate Change Bill 2022:
(1) Clause 10, page 5 (line 10), omit "43%", substitute "at least 75%".
(2) Clause 10, page 5 (line 16), omit "2050", substitute "2035 and working towards negative emissions thereafter".
We are doing this presumably because we want to stop dangerous climate change. What we know is that the planet is like the human body: there is a narrow temperature range within which it can exist and still be healthy. If you heat up the human body too much and go beyond that acceptable range you start to get sick, organs can start to fail, systems can start to collapse. You might not know how much damage is done but you will do damage that might be irreparable. Heated up beyond that, death almost certainly follows. The planet is the same. The planet has a guardrail of acceptable temperatures, and we know what they are because that is what was signed up to in the Paris Agreement.
Scientists have made it crystal clear that, beyond two degrees of global heating, runaway climate change may become unstoppable. Feedback loops may kick in and it might be too late for our kids and grandkids to do what is necessary to fix it. They have also given us a clear indication that at two degrees, and even if we stop it going over two, we will say goodbye to the Great Barrier Reef, crops will start to fail, and in the Murray-Darling Basin you will be looking at substantial collapse in agricultural productivity during the lifetime of today's primary school students.
The Paris Agreement also says we should keep alive the hopes of limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees. That is something our Pacific Islanders are crying out for because they know that if it gets to two degrees and we don't stop at 1½ degrees, their homes will disappear. Even 1½ degrees would mean a scarier world than what we have now. It would mean certain crop failures in Australia. It would mean worse fires and floods than the ones we are seeing at the moment. We have already hit one-and-a-bit degrees and we have to stop the world heating by 1½ degrees, so if we hit two degrees, say goodbye to the Great Barrier Reef. Large parts of Australia will start to become uninhabitable if we go above that, and we may never be able to stop climate change. That is why we are doing this. We are not doing this just to have a little bit of pollution reduction; we are doing this to stop us going over the cliff.
To meet those targets, we have been told what we need to do. Unfortunately, because the coalition took us backwards for so long, we now need to move faster. When someone has made the problem worse, we need to act more quickly to fix it, not slow down. The Climate Council, the climate targets authority, our Pacific Island neighbours and the world's scientists have all said very clearly: if you want to stop global warming exceeding two degrees, you need to have at least 50 per cent cut, but if you want to limited to 1½ degrees, to give us a chance of the reef surviving and the 60,000 jobs that depend on it, to give the Pacific Islanders what they are asking for and what indeed I think this government just signed up to a couple of weeks ago when it signed up to a communique that said it was committed to limiting global heating to 1½ degrees, then you need pollution cuts of 75 per cent. That is crystal clear. That is the science. That is why we are doing this. Anything less and you are giving up on 1½ degrees.
As the member for Ryan eloquently put it yesterday, you've got to understand what Labor's targets mean. Labor's targets mean—according to the Climate Council and the Climate Targets Panel—overshooting two degrees. That's what they mean. If you think what we're now seeing is bad, with the fires and floods, Labor's targets mean it will be twice as bad. They mean twice as much heating in our planet, which will mean an exponential lift in the risk to human life and the risk to our environment. We're not doing this just to cut pollution by a little bit; we are doing this to try and stop climate change becoming a runaway chain reaction. So, the next time there are fires or floods, or when we see the Great Barrier Reef bleaching next, know that that is what Labor targets are all about. That is what they are designed to achieve: two degrees or more of heating. Climate Analytics and the Climate Council all say that. We need to do better. We need to support these amendments.
The government won't be supporting these amendments, in line with the reasons I outlined earlier in relation to the amendments moved by the honourable member for Clark. The government's position is that 43 per cent emissions reduction is the modelled impact of the results of our policies. It's what we regard as necessary to get to net zero by 2050, and it's the policy we will continue to implement.
The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Melbourne be disagreed to.
I move the amendment to the Climate Change Bill 2022 as circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 12, page 7 (line 16) to page 7 (line 18), omit paragraph (1)(d), substitute:
(d) the effectiveness of the Commonwealth's policies in contributing to the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and reducing emissions in the sectors covered by those policies.
I'd like to give some explanation to everybody here about why I've put forward this amendment. There are two changes that I'd like the government and the House to consider. The bill, as drafted, would require the minister to make an annual statement to parliament about Australia's progress in reducing emissions, relevant international developments, the government's climate change policies and the effectiveness of the government's climate change policies.
My first change would require that the statement consider, sector by sector, the impact of policies. It is important that Australians can see the progress being made by each sector of the economy and understand where climate policies are effective and where they are not. I hope this would bolster the government's sector-by-sector-specific plans, setting out targets and measures that would provide certainty for businesses, investors and other stakeholders.
My second change would require the statement to consider the effectiveness of the government's policies in general, rather than climate policy specifically. This is a subtle change but an important one. It will allow the minister, with advice from the Climate Change Authority, to consider the impact of the government's policies which may be making the emissions reduction task more difficult, such as fossil fuel subsidies. Transparency will help to inform the public debate and allow voters to take an informed view of the full cost of government policies.
I believe these changes are reasonable and sensible and will help us make progress towards emissions reduction. I hope that the government and others in this place will seriously consider supporting them.
Finally, I'd like to thank the minister and the rest of the crossbench, as well as the government, for their engagement over the bill. It's been an example of the kind of collaboration I think we need in this place. It has been respectful and cooperative and, I believe, constructive.
I'm very happy to support the amendment, and the government will support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth. She has suggested a range of ways that sectoral policies could be considered in this approach, some of which I disagree with and some of which I agree with. I appreciate her moving an amendment which I indicated we could support. I think reflecting sectorial approaches to emissions reduction, which are very important, in the minister's annual statement to parliament is a very sensible thing to do. I think the honourable member's amendment is well crafted and very supportable.
The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth be agreed to.
I move the amendment to the Climate Change Bill 2022 circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 14, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit "must publish a copy of that advice on its website.", substitute:
must:
(a) publish a copy of that advice on its website; and
(b) cause a copy of that advice to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the advice to the Minister.
The amendment I am moving today relates to part 4 of the bill, which outlines the advisory functions of the Climate Change Authority. The Climate Change Authority is charged with giving the minister advice that relates to the minister's preparation of an annual climate change statement. By amending clause 14, page 9, of the Climate Change Bill 2022 I am seeking to strengthen the parliamentary transparency over this advice. The amendment would have the effect of causing the written advice the Climate Change Authority prepares to the minister to be tabled within 15 sitting days, rather than simply being put on a website somewhere at an unspecified time, or, worse still, potentially being lost in a minister's tray.
The initial draft that was shared with me as a member of the crossbench some weeks ago relied heavily on putting parliamentary and public trust in the climate change minister to do the right thing. As I said earlier in the debate, the truth is that while that may work, in this current situation it's not good enough when it comes to legislating for sustainable, positive change. I'm very grateful to have had the opportunity to work with the minister and his team to increase the role of the parliament—all members of parliament—to increase transparency and enable greater insight into what advice has been received from where and when. This amendment is one which will help ensure our climate policy will be kept on track, regardless of which major party may be in government.
I'm very happy to support this amendment. It would always be my intention to table any advice anyway, as the honourable member knows. I accept the logic of her suggestion. I'd be surprised, frankly, if any honourable member thought that a minister shouldn't table associated advice in the House, but that's up to other honourable members to decide.
The question is that the amendment moved by the member for North Sydney be agreed to.
I move amendment (1) to the Climate Change Bill 2022 as circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 15, page 10 (after line 2), after subclause (2), insert:
(2A) The Commonwealth must only communicate a new nationally determined contribution in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement that first includes a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2035, 2040 or 2045 if:
(a) the Climate Change Authority has given advice under subsection (1) on the target; or
(b) the Minister, after consultation with the Climate Change Authority, is satisfied that the new nationally determined contribution needs to be communicated urgently to further the matters set out in Article 2 of the Paris Agreement.
Note: This requirement does not apply to adjustments of nationally determined contributions. Such adjustments must represent an enhancement of Australia's level of ambition under subsection 10(6) and advice on such adjustments may be requested under paragraph 15(1)(b).
For those who have not read that amendment, the intent of the amendment is to ensure that the future of targets and emissions budgets is informed by science—something which for far too long has not really been the source of the debate in this place. This is achieved through requiring the minister to seek the advice of the Climate Change Authority in advance of lodging a new nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement. This is important because we know the world is moving towards net zero, and we need to ensure that we are compliant with our obligations under the Paris Agreement and are focused on the ultimate goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to achieve limiting global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees as possible. This amendment also clarifies that future greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets are required for 2035, for 2040 and for 2045. This provides a very clear road map to net zero.
The note included in the amendment further reinforces that, while the new Climate Change Authority advice isn't necessarily required for adjustments to nationally determined contributions, any adjustment must represent an enhancement of ambition towards emissions reduction. This means we cannot slide backwards following any change of government, and I would call this our future insurance policy. It says that, once an NDC has been made, it cannot be amended to go backwards.
Whilst, of course, this means also that the government does not have to seek the advice of the Climate Change Authority to review its 2030 target, I would urge the government, when the evidence is in, when we see how well the international community and industry and business invest in our transition, to be more ambitious. We can send the message that we are up for more. Australians have always, on the world stage, in so many areas, punched above our weight. In sport, in industry, in business, we always manage to overachieve. So I would encourage the government, when it's possible, when advice is available, to do that.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the minister a clarifying question on the consequential amendments bill. I appreciate the minister's commitment to continue reviewing further acts for inclusion in the consequential amendments. Minister, could you please confirm that this review process will also consider strengthening the operation of the current set of amendments, such as for the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, and require, in time, a shift from 'may consider the climate change impacts' to 'must consider the climate change impacts'. Clearly, 'may' provides a huge loophole, from a legal background, for further projects to be approved and the climate impacts just ignored. 'Must' provides a much greater liability to consider climate impacts on funding and approvals and projects. It's clear that that's needed if we want to achieve the ultimate goal of the Paris Agreement of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees.
The government is happy to support this amendment. This reflects good-faith discussions. The honourable member for Warringah had a range of suggestions, some of which I had some concerns with. I thank her for amending those words and taking those concerns on board. Again, it's a sign of a parliament working well and collaboratively. I think her amendment is a very sound one. It would always be my intention, and the government's intention, to seek CCA advice for any significant change to the NDC, but this clarifies and confirms that.
In relation to the honourable member's question about the operation of the review of the consequential amendments act, I must say that from my point of view, the government's point of view, it is mainly to consider what other government organisations can and should be impacted. Of course, if there are sensible suggestions that come forward as part of that review, we would consider them in good faith.
The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Warringah be agreed to.
I move amendment (1) to the Climate Change Bill 2022, as circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 15, page 10 (after line 5), after subclause (3), insert:
(3A) The advice given under subsection (1) must include an explanation of how the greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets have taken into account the matters set out in Article 2 of the Paris Agreement, including the global goals of:
(a) holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels; and
(b) pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
If we're to prevent catastrophic climate change, we must keep global temperature rises as low as possible and not pass dangerous tipping points. The Paris Agreement recognised this reality when it set the temperature thresholds that must not be crossed. Article 2 of the Paris Agreement committed countries, including Australia, to:
… Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change …
It is these temperature goals that must inform Australia's climate targets and therefore any assessment by the Climate Change Authority of what Australia's future climate target should be, including Australia's nationally determined contribution for 2035.
In 2014 the Climate Change Authority produced its progress and targets review, which, guided by temperature thresholds, assessed what Australia's fair share of emissions reduction should be to stay within those thresholds. The Liberals then stripped the Climate Change Authority of its requirement to advise on targets. We welcome the requirement that the Climate Change Authority once again advise on emissions targets, and it is critical that it now again adopts the same approach. This amendment will ensure that when the Climate Change Authority again provides such advice, as is required in this bill, it will follow the same approach as in 2014 and be explicitly guided by the Paris Agreement's temperature goals.
The amendment does this by adding a new subclause 3A to clause 15 of the bill, stating that the advice given by the Climate Change Authority under subsection (1) of clause 15 of the bill must include an explanation of how the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets have taken into account the matters set out in article 2 of the Paris Agreement, including the global goals of (a) holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and (b) pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
The importance of the Climate Change Authority deriving Australia's target from the remaining carbon budget so as to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement is reinforced by the inadequacy of the targets offered by governments in recent times. Climate scientists, using the same methodology as the Climate Change Authority, have determined that Australia's 2030 target to stay below two degrees would be 50 per cent and to stay below 1.5 degrees would be 74 per cent. This amendment requires this methodology to be once more followed by the Climate Change Authority.
In the course of negotiations by the Greens with the government on this bill, this amendment has been agreed to by the government, and I thank the government for their agreement to the amendment. I commend the amendment to the House.
As the honourable member for Ryan said, holding temperature rises to the level well below two degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius is of course the entire reason for the efforts that the world is taking. I do agree, and the government does agree, that this should be reflected in the CCA's advice. This is a well-founded amendment, which, as the honourable member said, the government will support.
For the benefit of honourable members, this is the last amendment. Under the debate management motion there will be no third reading speeches, so I take this opportunity to thank the House for its patience. I particularly thank honourable members who've contributed. I particularly thank honourable members who pointed out that this is a good day for our country, that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy, that renewable energy is the key to reducing emissions and seizing the jobs opportunity that is the climate emergency.
The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Ryan be agreed to.
The question now is that the bills, as amended, be agreed to.
on indulgence—During the second reading amendment moved by the member for Melbourne today, I cast my vote for the noes. This was not my intention. I wish to inform the House I intended to vote with the ayes. I thank the House.
on indulgence—I share your pain, member for Kooyong. At least you've been here for about 14 days. I've been here 14 years and I've made the same mistake. For the record, I inadvertently voted in a manner I did not intend to during an earlier division. I was engaged in a very lively discussion with the member for Lyons and I simply made a mistake. I fully support the coalition's position on the climate change bills and consequential amendments, and humbly apologise to my leadership team and my colleagues for my mistake and misadventure. I congratulate the member for Lyons for his engaging and quite distracting conversational skills. It was a matter of tactical brilliance by the member for Lyons!
I propose the motion:
That the bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
I have received a message from the Senate informing the House of a proposed Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia:
I move:
(1) That the House concur in the resolution of the Senate relating to the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia; and
(2) A message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I present the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit of the 46th Parliament, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Report 492:governance in the stewardship of public resources: inquiry into Auditor-General's Reports 11, 31 and 39 (2019-20) and 2 and 9 (2020-21). The report was presented out of session in the Senate after the prorogation of the previous parliament.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The report touches on five different auditor-general's reports: Implementation of the Digital Continuity 2020 Policy;Management of Defence Housing Australia; Implementation of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) property investment strategy; Procurement of strategic water entitlements; and the much talked about Purchase of the ‘Leppington Triangle’ land for the future development of Western Sydney Airport.
I won't detain the House or bore the House by commenting on all aspects of the report, but I do want to make a couple of brief remarks on the Leppington Triangle matter, which was the subject of enormous public and parliamentary attention. It was, of course, where the former government, in their wisdom and brilliance, paid over $30 million for a piece of land that the Auditor-General found was worth $3 million. Indeed, it tied up a lot of the previous audit committee's work, dealing with rorts, waste and incompetence, be it in grant programs, procurements or, in this case, purchase of the land.
The less talked about fact, though, is not just the actual cash, the taxpayer money, that was paid for a piece of land—at 10 times its value—but also what we could well term the 'and we'll throw in free steak knives and the kitchen sink' package to incentivise an unwilling seller. It was a package of incentives. You'd love to deal with the Commonwealth if you were selling them land under these circumstances. They saw us coming from a distance. Under the former minister in the former government, the department threw in a lease, generous infrastructure provisions, a tunnel, which was uncosted, under an airport access road and changes to the master plan—in the coming decades, when they want to build another airport runway there, you can guess who's going to be on the hook to move the infrastructure; it's going to be the poor old taxpayer—as well as other sorts of works.
I want to record the important fact that it wasn't just the outrageous overpayment for the land; it was the whole package of incentives that sat around this to incentivise an unwilling seller. In the Auditor-General's words, the purchase 'fell short of ethical standards'. In my six years on the audit committee, the word 'ethics' is used so rarely in the Auditor-General's reports. I think we're going to see it used a little bit more in the ones coming through the pipeline. That's just a prophetic projection. The committee's report also agreed:
… the Department did not undertake all reasonable steps to determine what a suitable cost would be for the Government to acquire the property, to demonstrate that the price paid for the property represented an efficient, effective, economical and ethical use of public funds …
The committee found that it was just not appropriate.
In terms of the recommendation, I will just make this point, and I want to put it on the record for the parliament as someone who, in a former life, under governments of both political persuasions, did use compulsory acquisition powers as a public servant. The committee's view, and this was a bipartisan recommendation, was that, pending any systemic changes, there should be 'a clear default presumption that compulsory acquisition powers shall be used for land acquisition', that the starting point for any agencies, be it infrastructure or other departments, that want to go out and purchase land in these circumstances should be the use the compulsory acquisition powers—they should not get sucked into this incentivising an unwilling seller and end up paying vastly more than we should with taxpayers' money—and that 'off-market' voluntary acquisitions should only be used:
… when carefully justified and thoroughly documented, in which case compulsory acquisition methodology should be used as a benchmark to help ensure that a situation like the Leppington Triangle purchase does not happen again.
I think that's a really important point to note. If the compulsory acquisition powers had been used—it's a mystery. The Auditor-General could never find why the initial decision to use the compulsory acquisition powers was diverted from, but if compulsory acquisition powers had been used, we would not have had this situation. I commend the report to the House.
It should come as no surprise to the House that we will be supporting the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022, and we'll be supporting this bill because it delivers on an election commitment from the former coalition government to increase the limits for the Commonwealth seniors health card. This is good policy, and this is coalition policy, because we understand that every single dollar—especially for those Australians who are no longer working, who are in their retirement—is very important.
On 2 May the coalition announced that, if re-elected, we'd increase the income test threshold for singles from $57,761 to $90,000, to give more seniors access to the concession card, and that we would raise the couples threshold from $92,416 to $144,000.
Labor quickly adopted this coalition policy and are pretty shamelessly trying to rebrand it as their own policy here today. They won't be the first government to have done that, but they are very shamelessly doing that, with one important problem. In the first few weeks of this government, one of the hallmarks has been broken promises, and today, with this bill, we see another broken promise. The media release that Labor released very shortly after we made this announcement, said:
Labor will widen eligibility for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, in line with the Government's announcement today.
The government then being the coalition government. It went on:
We're not interested in playing politics when we see a good idea.
And—this is the great moment of irony:
Unlike the Morrison Government, we can be trusted to deliver on our announcements for older Australians and pensioners.
You have there an unequivocal adoption of the coalition policy by the Labor Party, with one problem for the government. The announcement from the coalition was that this measure would take effect from 1 July this year, from the first day of this financial year. This bill states that the measure will take effect from 20 September this year, which is more than three months later than was promised.
You see a succession of broken promises now from a very, very brief period of time in government. We've seen those opposite not willing to repeat their commitment to reduce power prices by $275—the number 275 cannot be spoken by those opposite. When you add all of that up—and here we have another bill that, in a small but significant way, breaches another pre-election commitment—it is very disappointing. Nevertheless, we will support the bill, because, even though it's later than they promised in the middle of the campaign, our view is: better late than never. And we'll never, obviously, say no to good coalition policy being adopted by the government.
Importantly, these changes, late though they are, will give an extra 50,000 older Australians access to more affordable health care and medications to help ease their cost of living. At the Commonwealth level, all cardholders are eligible for cheaper medicines and health care, and they may also be eligible for state, territory and local government savings that are often used, including for discounted rates, electricity and gas, ambulance, dental, eye care, recreation and public transport.
This coalition commitment is the first change, outside of indexation, to the income threshold of the Commonwealth seniors health card in over 20 years. Currently, more than 436,000 Australians aged over 67 who are not already receiving a pension or benefit, have a seniors health card. As I stated earlier, with the additional 50,000 that will now become available, this will mean that more than 486,000 people will become eligible, or an 11 per cent increase.
In our view, in my view and in the coalition's view, senior Australians, who have worked hard and made our country what it is today, deserve our country to recognise that effort and to recognise that we are standing on their shoulders. This is a small but important way that we can demonstrate that in a tangible way. The coalition, as I stated at the outset, will be supporting this bill, supporting good coalition policy. Good on the Labor Party for taking it on and for adopting coalition policy, but they really need to be held accountable for making sloppy promises in the election that they really have no intention of keeping. They adopted our policy holus-bolus in the campaign, saying that this would commence on 1 July. They wanted to spend a lot of time before they reconvened the parliament, which has led to this now not being available until 20 September. That's another broken promise from this government. But as I said, it's better late than never, and of course we will be supporting good coalition policy.
I rise to support this very important legislation. As the shadow minister indicated, it has the support of the opposition, and it's a realisation of a commitment that the Albanese Labor government made in relation to providing support for seniors in this country. Clearly, it's a very significant matter. As we know, there have been sufficient efforts to provide support for people. Cost-of-living pressures are such that we need to do what we can to alleviate those pressures. We have inherited probably one of the largest public debts any government in this country has inherited. It is now well over $1 trillion of debt—debt that was accumulated by the previous government, and most of which was accumulated prior to the pandemic. Whilst, of course, we supported measures by the previous government in responding to the pandemic, to support the economy, to support business and workers and the like, unfortunately I think in some part they failed. There was expenditure on rorts and other things that need to be cleaned up by this government. We want to make sure that seniors in this country are given support, and that's why we're looking to ensure that this legislation is passed. This will lift the income limit for the Commonwealth seniors health card. I disagree of course with the minister.
An honourable member interjecting—
Okay, well, I'm happy to cede to my colleague. I was speaking to ensure the flow of the House, waiting for the next speaker. I'm not sure if there's another speaker on the other side, but if my colleague is willing to finish—I will just say this, though. This important legislation. We're glad that the opposition supports it, and it will provide relief and support seniors in the country.
Over the first sitting fortnight of parliament, the Albanese Labor government has taken real action on issues that affect everyday Australians, and this particular bill will lift income limits for the Commonwealth seniors health card, seeing more self-funded retirees become eligible. The action of this bill would ease the increase in cost-of-living pressures that so many senior Australian face. It is something I am committed to in my electorate of Wills, and I know all my colleagues are on this side. In particular, this will ease the cost of concessional medicines and medical services, the importance of which we are all conscious of anyway, but even more so during the pandemic which we've experienced. This will mean an increase in the income limit to $90,000 for singles, up from $57,761, and $144,000 combined for couples, up from $92,416. This will expand access for more than 44,000 people from September this year, increasing to more than 52,000 people in the year 2026-2027. I commend the Minister for Social Services for introducing the legislation in the first sitting fortnight, showing that the Albanese Labor government understands the real cost-of-living pressures of Australians.
I also want to take this opportunity to speak more broadly to the economic concerns of retirees and senior Australians in my electorate of Wills. As an urban electorate in the heart of Melbourne's northern suburbs, Wills has seen a lot of change over the decades. More and more families, students, young professionals and emerging migrant groups have moved to the area and created the wonderfully diverse community I'm fortunate to represent. This has coincided with a significant increase in house prices and associated costs, like council rates and land taxes. Whilst homeowners accept that there are costs associated with homeownership, senior Australians are undoubtedly feeling the pinch as costs continue to rise. Whilst many of these senior Australians may have assets, likely bought decades ago at much less than their current value, they are often income poor. It's a common problem: asset wealthy, asset rich; income poor. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the southern half of my own electorate—in Brunswick and Coburg in particular.
Decades ago, back when former Prime Minister Bob Hawke represented the seat of Wills—I have illustrious predecessors—they were not the highly sought after suburbs that are now known for their cultural and economic opportunities. They were much more working class, and a much lower socioeconomic demographic was represented in those suburbs. They were working-class suburbs, effectively—and they still are to a certain extent, but were much more so 20, 30 or 40 years ago. They were home to working families and new migrants who worked exceptionally hard to give something back to their country, have a good life for themselves and their children, and set themselves up.
Like any Australian, they dreamt of owning their own home, and many of them at the time were fortunate enough to do so after decades of hard work. But today they face a situation where their home value has increased but their income has not. In fact, it has very likely declined in retirement. Now, I know what many people—in particular, younger Australians and those unable to buy their own home—may think: 'So what?' And that might be a fair response, as the prospect of homeownership remains so far out of reach and they are often met with ridicule, with suggestions such as 'Give up the avocado toast,' or, 'Don't eat kale for breakfast,' or, 'Just get a loan from your parents'—we heard that from the previous government's ministers—often coming from those on the other side of this House.
In my job as the member for Wills, I represent an electorate that is home to both a lot of young and a lot of older Australians, and I don't think their interests should always be framed as competing interests. I think that's false; it's a false dichotomy. It shouldn't be the case that we expect older Australians to be so pressured by the cost of living that their only choice is between poverty or selling their family home. For many, it's the first and only home they've ever known, the home they raised their family in, the home that they've celebrated in, the home that they have cherished memories of. They are not big developers or property magnates. They are everyday people facing the prospect of being forced out of their home. That is what is happening by stealth in many communities across the country as a lot of inner city councils continue to increase rates and fees. This is something I've raised on numerous occasions on behalf of my community, including with representations to local councils and the state governments as well. At the end of the day, these people are not asking for a free pass but for common sense and compassion that considers decades of context rather than just the challenges of the day.
At the same time, I know that when I speak to senior Australians they are often worried about the unfairness facing young people, whether it be the staggering cost of homeownership, the insecure nature of the workforce or the threat of climate change. These are such important issues, ones that the Albanese government has taken action on in the first sitting weeks of our government, including the passage today of the first genuine plan in a decade to tackle climate change. These are issues that senior Australians are talking about all the time, because it is an electorate which is compassionate, regardless of your age group, and an electorate where people do look out for one another.
When we make decisions in this place, and indeed at all levels of government, we need not pit groups of Australians against each other as if they have competing interests. The choice is not between allowing senior Australians to stay in their family home or supporting homeownership for young people. That's false. It's a false choice. The choice is about taking real action to make both a reality and to ease the cost of living and other challenges facing Australians from all walks of life and backgrounds. As the Prime Minister has said, government should be about bringing people together—less about conflict; more about getting things done. This is what we are doing by expanding access to the Commonwealth seniors health card. And it is what we will continue to do in this government, with massive investments in education, housing, renewable energy, jobs, aged care, health care and child care.
For the seniors in particular, we will freeze deeming rates at their current levels for two years, protecting around 900,000 age pensioners and other pension recipients from interest rate rises—making sure pensioners can keep more of their money in their pockets, making medicine cheaper, cutting the cost of medication on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme from the current maximum of $42.50 to $30, delivering more affordable housing so older Australians who don't own their own home won't find all their pension eaten up by rising rents, delivering 50 bulk-billed Medicare urgent care clinics. We will also put the 'care' back into aged care by ensuring registered nurses are on site 24/7. It's about improving standards of care and nutrition and ensuring better oversight of aged-care funding.
These are just some of the measures that an Albanese Labor government will take to ease the cost of living and improve the quality of life for older Australians, because older Australians deserve respect in their senior years. They deserve a government that will be on their side when it comes to easing the cost of living and accessing quality health- and aged-care services. And they deserve a government that will recognise their decades of contribution to our society and to our country by looking after them, by meeting the obligation that we have as a government to make sure that we fulfil our commitment to them, in the same way they have committed to this nation.
It is not just what we should expect in an egalitarian country like Australia; it is what we should champion as creators and passers of public policy and legislation. I know this is a priority for the Albanese Labor government. We see that today with this bill and the other legislation debated this past fortnight. I, for my part, will continue to advocate for real action that makes a positive difference for my community as we deliver a better future for all Australians, young and old.
I rise to speak in support of this bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022. This March the age pension was increased by 2.1 per cent—by $20.10 for singles, taking it up to $987 a fortnight, and by $30.20 for couples, taking it up to $1,448.80 a fortnight. While touted by the former government as the largest increase since 2013, the 2.1 per cent indexation lagged behind the Consumer Price Index trimmed mean annual inflation, which excludes large prices and falls, which increased to 2.6 per cent in December 2021.
This was the highest it has risen since 2014, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This means that cost-of-living increases are hitting age pensioners' budgets especially hard. Mayo is the oldest federal electorate by median age in South Australia and it is in the top 10 nationally. Older people in my community often share their concerns with me regarding the rising cost of rents, household expenses, council rates, power, petrol and services. The cost of health services and products are also top of the list of my constituents' concerns, whether it be the rising cost of out-of-pocket expenses for procedures and prescriptions or the diminishing number of bulk-billing doctors. In Victor Harbor, where the average age of residents is just over 60, there's not been a general practice that uniformly bulk-bills pensioner and concession cardholders for many, many years.
While costs continue to climb, this bill represents one practical way in which we can help to ease financial pressures for older Australians receiving the age pension. This bill will hopefully increase the yearly seniors health card adjusted taxable income limits, including deemed income, from $57,761 to $90,000 for a single person and from $92,416 to $144,000 for a couple. This benefit will help 50,000 self-funded retirees, who will now become eligible for the seniors health card. I've got to say that we don't talk enough in here about the challenges faced by self-funded retirees. Now they will be able to access concessional co-payments for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, for medicines' concessional thresholds, for the PBS safety nets, at the doctor's discretion, and possibly even bulk-billing when they go to see their doctor. Co-payments for senior health card holders for PBS listed medicines will be reduced to $6.80 maximum, down from $42.50, for PBS listed medicines. They'll also be provided with access to other linked concessions from state and territory governments and private organisations. So this is incredibly welcome.
This is one of many initiatives that are required to ease the financial distress experienced by many older Australians, and there is much that we can do to that end in this place. For example, earlier this week I moved a motion saying, 'Let's let pensioners work without penalty.' We know there's a huge workforce shortage in our nation, and this could be a real game changer for both employers and older Australians. National Seniors found that one in five of the pensioners they surveyed said they'd be really keen to work again. They don't want to deal with Centrelink and the low threshold, where they're effectively earning $37 a day and then having to interact with Centrelink or lose 50c from every dollar earned in their pension. There are many seniors struggling in our community. Some are self-funded retirees and some are on the pension. It's our job in here to do the very best for our older Australians.
A related issue, which I hope the minister will consider, is that, right now, when you are applying for the pension, if you are in a $5 million home somewhere in metropolitan Melbourne or Sydney, and if that is your only asset, you are eligible for the pension. However, if you are a senior Australian from rural or regional Australia, and your house is on 20 or perhaps 40 acres, there are a whole lot of rules around whether you can get the pension. Effectively, for any blocks over two hectares in size, unless you fit some criteria, the rest of that property is included as part of your assets. I don't know if too many people in here have had a small property, a farm or a farmlet. You can't make a lot of income on those remaining 15 hectares if you're on a 20-hectare property. So I would urge the government to look at the two-hectare rule and lift it to 10 hectares. It just makes good sense. How can we have that inequality, where the home people in rural Australia live in is perhaps worth a lot less money than the home of those living in inner-metropolitan regions or metropolitan cities of Australia, and yet one qualifies for the pension automatically, because that's their only asset, and the other one doesn't? I don't know where this rule came from, but two hectares is incredibly small. A lot of people in their 50s are making a tree change—perhaps they're on 20 hectares—and they get to retirement age and they don't meet the criteria. They are considered to have the ability to make an income on the rest of that property, beyond the two hectares, and therefore they miss out on the pension because of that rule. I urge the government to have a close look at that, and I will be writing to the minister accordingly.
To come back to this bill, this bill goes a long way to assisting our older Australians, and therefore I commend this bill to the House.
I also rise today to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022. This bill increases the income limit for eligibility for the health card. It really is an overdue measure, and it will benefit so many seniors right across the country. As we all know, after a decade of mismanagement and neglect under the former Liberal-Nationals government, the cost of living in this country is soaring, and the cost of health care has soared as well. In particular, the former government put primary care in crisis, with the average out-of-pocket cost for GP visits increasing by 60 per cent over the past decade. This is impacting our older Australians severely. Remember, our seniors built this country. They paid their taxes and raised their families, and they must be treated with dignity and respect. They have that with an Albanese Labor government. And it's an Albanese Labor government that will increase the income limits for the Commonwealth seniors health card. This will see more in the pockets of our seniors, because we want to help ease the costs they are currently facing. Our government went to the election with a plan for a better future for Australians, and we are delivering on that.
The Commonwealth seniors health card serves those who have reached age pension or veteran pension age but don't receive any social security benefits or payments, due to their income or assets. The card provides eligible seniors with a number of beneficial health concessions, including concessional co-payments for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines; lowered PBS safety net; extended Medicare safety net; some bulk-billed visits to the GP, at the GP's discretion; and, in some instances, other concessions, including for public transport, utilities and council rates. So there are a range of benefits.
This will assist seniors because, with the Commonwealth seniors health card, medicines under the PBS are cheaper. Medicines that might have cost $42.50 under the PBS will not exceed $6.80. The seniors health card also provides access to the lowered PBS safety net from July this year. This threshold was lowered to $244.80, allowing cardholders to receive their PBS medicines for free upon reaching the lowered threshold.
Accessing these benefits really translates into savings for our seniors, particularly with those medicines that they may access more regularly, such as blood pressure and cholesterol medications. In addition, cardholders will gain access to the extended Medicare safety net, and that means, once the threshold is met, a Medicare rebate of 80 per cent of out-of-pocket expenses for the remainder of the calendar year. That really is a fantastic move.
As I said, the seniors health card can also provide for bulk-billed visits to the GP if the GP extends that eligibility to the cardholders. What's also great about this card in some states and territories—there are variations—is that cardholders may receive discounts on their property and water rates, electricity and gas bills, ambulance costs and public transport, just to name a few. That makes a huge difference with those day-to-day costs.
This bill increases the income limit for a single person from $57,761 to $90,000 a year and, importantly, may apply to a person who is a member of an illness-separated couple or a member of a respite-care couple. For a couple, this bill increases the income limit from $92,416 combined to $144,000 combined. These changes will allow approximately 52,000 self-funded retirees and seniors to become newly eligible for the card. The new income limits will also apply to both current and future cardholders and claimants.
This bill is a very welcome cost-of-living relief for our older Australians. I know in my electorate and throughout the country this has been an issue that many have raised for so many years. The Albanese Labor government is delivering on our commitment. This will make a big difference to many seniors. We're committed to restoring affordable and accessible health care for all Australians.
The Commonwealth seniors health card has been in place since 1994 as a means of providing access to health concessions for self-funded retirees. Increasing these income limits is a very important move that will affect the lives of many self-funded retirees as they deal with the costs of health care and the cost of living. By increasing the income limits our government is taking practical steps to really ease those cost-of-living pressures. I know how much it will help people across the country and, indeed, in my electorate of Richmond. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to support the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022 because this bill delivers on an election commitment of the former coalition government to increase the income limits for the Commonwealth seniors health card. This is important to the electorate of Casey because we have 2,812 people on the Commonwealth seniors health card, 15,729 on the age pension and around 24,000 people aged over 65.
On 2 May the coalition announced their policy to increase the singles income test threshold from $57,000 to $90,000 to give more senior Australians access to the concession card. The couple threshold would also increase from $92,000 to $144,000. I heard from many of my constituents during the campaign of the need for more support for aged and seniors, so I am so glad that this policy has come through. I note that Labor quickly adopted this coalition policy during the election and they're now obviously trying to claim it as their own. But it is great that this is being delivered for senior Australians.
The measure also gives an extra 50,000 older Australians access to more affordable health care and medications to help ease cost-of-living pressures. The cards are available to Australian residents over age pension age who are not already receiving a pension and have an adjustable taxable income under the threshold.
We will of course be supporting this bill, as I said, because this was a coalition initiative, although it's disappointing to note that Labor have decided to push the start date out to 20 September. It was originally announced for July. As we know, many Australians, particularly our older Australians, are struggling with rising inflation and need support straightaway. It's another example of the current government not having a plan to help Australians today or this week. They are pushing off to September initiatives, like the jobs summit. It does not help anyone today. This initiative to support Australians should have been put in in July, but I'm glad it is coming in—better late than never.
Currently more than 436,000 Australians aged over 67 years who are not already receiving a pension or benefit will have the seniors health card. Senior Australians have worked hard to make Australia all it is today and it is important that the country takes care of them in return. This is a good policy. I only hope Labor adopts more of the coalition's policies to ease the cost-of-living pressures on seniors and, indeed, all Australians. It's another example of why this government needs an economic plan to deal with the challenges coming our way. There's increasing pressure with inflation and increasing pressure with rising interest rates. We need a plan to deal with these pressures today.
My comments will be brief. I know there are other speakers keen to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022. Labor was very clear during the election: if you vote for us, there will be no broken promises and we won't waste a minute in government. That's what we're doing. We're getting on with the job. The coalition had nine years to do this and they didn't get around to doing it. We will get around to the job of fixing the failures of the previous government.
At the election Labor committed to increasing the income limits for the Commonwealth seniors health card. This will replace the annual indexation which would otherwise occur on 20 September. It's no surprise that the cost of living is the red-hot issue in the community, and this will help with cost-of-living pressures for older Australians, including those in my electorate. This bill increases the annual income limits for Commonwealth seniors health card holders from $57,761 to $90,000 for singles and from $92,416 to $144,000 for couples. That's a substantial increase in eligibility. There will be an extra 44,000 newly-eligible CSHC holders assisted.
We're very pleased to have brought this forward to the parliament. We are very pleased that we are in government and able to get this done. It wasn't done by the previous government. It is being done by the Albanese Labor government. We are going to be helping 44,000 older Australians. They will become eligible for the benefits of the Commonwealth seniors health card. We're very pleased to get this done. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to support the coalition's election commitment to increase the income thresholds for eligibility to the Commonwealth seniors health card. It was a great day in the campaign when we announced this, and not that big a surprise when the Labor Party dramatically and rapidly said, 'We'll do that as well.' This legislation changes the eligibility income threshold to $90,000 adjusted taxable income for singles and $144,000 for couples. It is a dramatic increase in eligibility. It is estimated that nearly 50,000 people will now be eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card. Self-funded retirees are the great economic heroes of our country. They are in a position to finance, largely, their own retirement and take an enormous burden off the taxpayer by way of funding their retirement rather than needing to draw on the appropriate supports that are in place for senior Australians who are eligible. The Commonwealth seniors health card is an important indication and a practical support, and one that they deserve. It indicates to them that we value the fact that they have provisioned for their retirement and that, despite having provisioned for their retirement, they deserve some support from the government.
The last few years have been challenging for all, but particularly for self-funded retirees, given the economic turmoil and headwinds around the pandemic. I have a very significant cohort of self-funded retirees in my electorate of Sturt and a lot of them have been apprehensive about their financial circumstances. Obviously, there were dramatic issues in markets with investments that they rely on to provide for their retirement—all of their own savings. This is an excellent way of making sure that they understand how much we value them. They should be entitled to support through the Commonwealth seniors health card around pharmaceutical and medical benefits.
It is worth noting that the Commonwealth seniors health card is also used by state governments and others to provide concessions et cetera to seniors. I know that's not the case in South Australia; I am sure it is in most, if not all, other jurisdictions. Being eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card not only gives you access to medical and pharmaceutical entitlements through the Commonwealth but also provides for other concessions that can be accessed through state, territory and local governments. So it is very important.
It's disappointing that Labor have broken their promise to introduce this by 1 July. I'm sure that is particularly due to the ridiculous delay in the parliament sitting. I apologise to all of the self-funded retirees who have missed out on a fair access to this card from 1 July, but I'm hopeful that this bill will rapidly move through the House and the Senate, and that we can adopt it and give the entitlement to all. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise in support of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022. Increasing access by raising the income threshold for eligibility to receive this card will be of great benefit to many of the seniors living in the beautiful Lyne electorate. I have advocated for many changes how senior Australians can contribute to the community in their retirement, but giving them some of the financial benefits that come with access to this will be a great bonus. In my electorate, I probably have the most age pensioners and seniors of any electorate in the country. I am battled by the member of Hinkler for that honour and the member of Cowper. We have over 30,000 seniors receiving financial assistance. If you're not on a pension but you are a senior and have a fixed income, this card will be a great benefit to you.
Raising the threshold from $57,761 to $90,000 for singles and from $92,416 to $144,000 for couples is really quite a significant change that will benefit up to 44,000 new Australians who will be able to access the card. This is such a good idea that it was actually our policy in the last election, and I'm open to supporting anything that is sensible and reasonable that comes from the other side. We've also called for many other things for pensioners that are not related to this bill, but I support this bill, and I hope that the members of my electorate enjoy its rapid appearance through the due process once it gets up to the Senate.
H (—) (): I appreciate all the comments made by all sides of the chamber on this important bill. It is a timely bill and it is an important bill because it expands the number of Commonwealth seniors card recipients, who will be able to access the card from 20 September 2022. There are some concerns around the start date, and I want to put on the record that this measure requires legislation. That is why this side of the House and I have moved as quickly as we can in the first parliamentary sitting so that we can provide this relief to self-funded retirees as quickly as possible. On that note, and to get this through in a timely manner, I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Two thousand, seven hundred and twenty-eight long days: that's how many days the community of Townsville have endured a complete lack of action on youth crime since the election of the Palaszczuk state Labor government. For 2,728 long nights, people have been lying awake in their beds worried if that sound is someone trying to break into their house, steal their car keys and drive off with their car. There have been thousands of days of catch-and-release programs enabled by the revolving door of the youth justice system.
My community can't deal with this any longer. The three state Labor representatives don't answer emails, don't respond to social media and don't face the media unless they're cutting a ribbon or turning the first sod. Last week we had seven stolen cars set alight, completely destroyed by fire at the hands of young criminals. Last month a teenaged boy faced court on 15 charges, including being involved in ramming a car with passengers inside and torching a stolen car. Not only that, this teenager also attempted to carjack a woman at a local park. Was he sent to jail? No. Did he have a conviction recorded? No. The judges say they're working within their limits.
What do Labor want to do with the high crime rate that we see in Townsville? They want to raise the age of criminal responsibility. They've said it here at the federal level and they've said it at the Queensland state level. That will mean that more children like this will be committing crimes and terrorising our residents. The people of Townsville deserve better.
The recent ACCC report that Australia's east coast faces a looming gas shortage, at a time when Australia is reportedly the world's largest gas exporter and when global gas prices are at record high levels, has Australians confused, anxious and angry. It seems that the gas shortage lies in what one media story refers to as market exploitation by Australia's east coast gas cartel, made up of five multinational entities that control 85 per cent of the gas. Three of those entities, in which the major stakeholders are ConocoPhillips, Origin, Sinopec, Shell, Santos, PETRONAS and TotalEnergies, control over two-thirds of Australia's east coast gas. Of those companies, between 2015 and 2020, the last period for which figures are available, five paid zero tax and one paid minuscule tax in what would be a multibillion-dollar business sector. The distribution of the gas is dominated by the APA Group. There is no justification as to why Australians should face a gas shortage or pay exorbitant prices for an Australian resource. I call on those companies to do the right thing, show some corporate responsibility and ensure that the Australian people can buy Australian gas at affordable prices.
The single biggest issue that locals in my electorate raise with me is traffic congestion. We've had a reprieve during the lockdown years, but now it's almost as bad as ever. I've made local infrastructure my top priority locally over the last few years, and together we've achieved a lot. The Henderson Road bridge, the Lewis Road traffic lights, the Blackwood Park Road bridge and the widening of the Monash, to name a few, have now been delivered. But there are many others that I secured funding for that are still waiting to be built by the state Labor government. This includes $130 million for the Dorset Road extension and the Napoleon Road duplication, $475 million for a public transport connection to Rowville and $35 million for more car parking at Boronia and Ferntree Gully stations. Today I call on the Albanese government to work with Labor colleagues in Victoria and get these projects done. The money for these projects is there. It's locked in the federal budget. My message is: don't delay these projects any longer. People in the outer-east deserve good infrastructure as much as they do in the western suburbs, but we've not been getting the same priority from Labor. It is time to stop playing games, stop patching potholes and start building the infrastructure that is planned, that is budgeted and that is desperately needed.
I rise today to speak about the legend of Archie Roach, songman and truth-teller. He knew sadness and pain. He knew what it meant to have childhood trauma infect your whole life. He had his own personal demons and went through many bad times before he, with the help of his beloved Ruby, learnt to deal with them. But, incredibly, he used personal suffering to create heartbreakingly beautiful songs and stories that pierced the heart of the nation. 'Took the Children Away', of course, will remain embedded in our national psyche as an expression of an experience which only some families, including my own, actually experienced, but which through Archie's words and music were made intelligible to other Australians. This was done in a way which compelled empathy and which I am convinced was a vital stepping stone along the path to the apology, which could only be delivered by a Labor government and was delivered by Prime Minister Rudd in 2008. 'Took the Children Away' played loudly at the start of the Going Home Conference, attended by hundreds of Northern Territory Stolen Generations survivors, including my father, in 1994. That paved the way for the test case which followed. Archie's songbook extended to other themes and stories, and many of us will talk about it soon.
The people of Kooyong voted for integrity of every sort in every circumstance. That is the promise I made to them and it is the promise I commit to keep. I believe that if you care about integrity you care about it all of the time. You can't pick and choose when it matters to you. You can't call for transparency for your opponents and then dismiss it for yourself. It is in that context that I want to put on record my concerns about the Labor government's proposed changes to superannuation regulations which will make it harder, virtually impossible, to know how super funds are spending members' money. Sure there are broad categories of total spending, but transparency about who this money is actually going to will be lost.
It has been reported that super funds have paid $85 million to political parties in the last few years. That is an extraordinary amount of money, with the power to decide election results. We need more transparency over it, and Labor is promising less. Voters sent a message to all of us in May. They asked for sunlight in politics, for transparency. This makes money darker. This takes us backwards. This is not promoting integrity; it is the opposite.
Today I rise to offer my sincere condolences on the passing of a community icon in my electorate of Pearce. Mr Edmund Dowling, affectionately known as 'Ted', was a true gentleman who lived a full and energetic life and who brought endless amounts of joy and happiness to those around him. Ted's passion for culture and the arts was contagious. He introduced theatre and blessing of the fleet events to his beloved home town of Two Rocks in Western Australia. Ted was a tremendous supporter of our youth and encouraged them to be involved in theatre and the arts. Role models like Ted with such enthusiasm and vision are so important in helping to shape their future.
Many members of our community and visitors to the area would have had the opportunity to experience one of Ted's productions and would be able to attest to the culture and joy that he spread. Ted was a local force behind PunkerellaPantomine, Fantasy & Folklore at Fifty Fathoms, Fantastic Toyshop, Peter Pan, Castles and Cobwebs, The Hobbits, the musical Oliver and many more. Ted's family and friends describe him as a chorister, soldier, playwright and a good mate. I can say with the utmost confidence that Ted will be missed right across our community and beyond, but his legacy and the work that he influenced will continue to inspire generations of the future. Thank you, Ted Dowling. May you rest in peace.
This week is homelessness week and we have a massive housing crisis. In fact, this is one of the worst housing crises in our history. I am sure there are members across this place who are seeing tents appear in their electorates, and residents reaching out who are facing eviction. The rental crisis is reaching social layers that we have not seen before in a long time. We know that this housing crisis is the product of a political and economic system that puts the profits of banks and property investors ahead of ordinary people.
The big banks recorded $14 billion worth of profit and that was profit made from the misery, dispossession, evictions and housing stress of millions of Australians. What is deeply frustrating is that the Labor government is backing the stage 3 tax cuts, which will cost $224 billion over the next 10 years, but is only committing $10 billion to build social and affordable housing, and I think those are the broken priorities. We know that every year the social housing waitlist increases by 7,600 homes a year, and 4,000 homes a year is not nearly enough to end that waitlist. These are people's lives that we are talking about.
I will take those interjections, because if you had as much passion for people on social and affordable housing as you had about me talking about it then maybe we would fix the problem, wouldn't we? The Greens have a solution though: building a million social and affordable homes. I am proud to continue to fight for that and take the interjections from members in this place who would rather back the stage 3 tax cuts. (Time expired)
Once again, we have seen the big banks treat regional communities with absolute contempt. The Commonwealth Bank is closing its branch in Woodend plus the ATM but it did not have the decency to talk to the community and find out what our needs are. Older people and small-business owners who need to get change and pay bills can't do this in regional communities because of what has been happening in the banking sector.
The Commonwealth Bank made $8 billion in profit last year. You would think that, if you could do that, you could keep some bank branches open in communities where there is no public transport instead of expecting disabled people, elderly people and business people to travel 20 or 30 kilometres to get to the nearest branch. It's appalling that they have done this with no consultation and no input from anyone in the community.
Of course, the bank came out and said: 'It's okay. You can go to the post office and do all your bill paying there.' Our postal staff are already under stress because of the workload they are getting. The previous government tried to put Centrelink in there as well to make their jobs even harder. But the fact of the matter is that not everybody is capable of using electronic banking. The bank said, 'We have had a decrease in foot traffic over the last two years.' Yes, they have. The pandemic has caused that. Lockdowns have caused that. That is no reason to shut this branch. There is no reason that the Commonwealth Bank can't pause disclosure, speak to the community and come to a arrangement that suits everyone. So I have called on the Commonwealth Bank to pause this immediately and reverse these decisions to cut branches in regional towns.
I have the privilege of sharing representation of the northern Gold Coast with the member for Fadden. During the election campaign, the member for Fadden and I made a couple of very significant announcements for the northern Gold Coast, which is one of the fastest growing areas in Australia. I want to thank the member for Fadden for the work we have already managed to do for Exit 41, Exit 45 and Exit 49 upgrades, which are critically important.
In addition, we announced $55 million to upgrade Exit 38 at Yatala, a 50 per cent funding component of a $110 million project. This project is critical to the safety of people getting into and out of the Yatala enterprise area, which is one of the largest employment zones on the northern Gold Coast if not in South-East Queensland. At times you can have the traffic back up onto the M1, a 110-kilometre-an-hour road, for over a kilometre. It's dangerous.
The other important project is the $5 million investment in a new PCYC in conjunction with the local council and state government. The member for Fadden and I have written to the Prime Minister in support of these projects, and we look forward with anticipation to his reply.
I wish to acknowledge and celebrate with the thousands of people I met while campaigning in Hasluck who took the time to express just how important climate action is to them, as it is to me. These constituents, alongside community groups, like the Perth Hills Climate Interest Group and the Nature Reserves Preservation Group, are actively raising awareness of the need to act, as we have done in this place over the past fortnight. I am so glad our communities now have a Minister for Climate Change and Energy and a federal government that cares about climate change, listens to scientific advice and acts, as we have done today by passing the Climate Change Bill.
Where I live in Hasluck, we have experienced a 15 per cent decrease in average annual rainfall. This is our water catchment, and the decline poses significant threats to our food bowl, natural habitats and biodiversity. The sixth assessment report of the IPCC notes that human induced climate change is causing increased drought related tree mortality. This is the reality we now face. Local action is important. All community groups ask for is leadership at a national level that supports their local efforts. It is Djilba in Noongar country, the season of new life and a time of change. Hasluck voted for change and the government is delivering.
I rise today to highlight the incredible mental health initiative You Are Not Alone. Established at the end of last year, You Are Not Alone was born out of the passion and determination of Bonner constituent and year 12 Villanova College student Tom Price. Tom, along with a group of his fellow classmates, felt more needed to be done surrounding mental health for students, especially after the challenges of COVID-19. Instead of waiting for solutions, these inspirational young men took matters into their own hands and founded You Are Not Alone, which aims to help break down the stigma surrounding mental health through meaningful connections and real conversations. I am happy to say that they are already fast on their way to achieving their goal.
In June of this year, the inaugural You Are Not Alone fun run was held in Brisbane, which I had the pleasure of attending and supporting. This event raised over $37,000 for Lifeline Queensland and had over 2,000 participants. I would like to highlight what an incredible result this is, especially when considering many of the people behind this fun run are currently completing year 12. A massive congratulations to Tom and the team from You Are Not Alone. I look forward to sharing their future successes with the House.
I want to highlight the global challenge of one of the world's deadliest diseases—tuberculosis. In many countries in our region, TB is still a major disease threat. Indonesia has the second highest TB burden in the world and PNG is a hotspot for drug resistant TB. TB can be prevented with access to better diagnosis and better treatment. Technical partners such as the Burnet Institute have made an enormous contribution to public health initiatives, and The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has played a critical role in global efforts to end TB, saving more than 44 million lives over the past 20 years, including in 17.7 million in the Indo-Pacific. Australia has contributed almost $1 billion to The Global Fund since it launched, helping to make a real impact.
The pandemic has provided an important opportunity to fight TB and COVID-19 at the same time in PNG by increasing investments in common tools and health workers to fight both diseases. However, the pandemic has also reversed some gains. For the first time in over a decade, TB deaths increased in 2020. Continued support from The Global Fund will help countries in our region get the fight against these diseases back on track after the impacts of COVID-19. This is a worthy fight. It is one Australia contributes to and it's one we can win.
Rotary started with the vision of one man: Paul Harris in Chicago. He formed the Rotary Club of Chicago in 1905, so professionals with diverse backgrounds could exchange ideas and form meaningful, lifelong friendships. Over time, Rotary's reach and vision gradually extended to humanitarian service. That commitment endures today through an organisation that remains truly international. Rotary members now span the globe, working to solve problems of some of the world's most challenging problems, locally and internationally. In Casey, Rotary clubs contribute significantly to our communities. I was at Healesville Rotary to celebrate the president changeover from Michael to Vinay. It was also a special occasion for Eckhard, who was awarded the Paul Harris Fellow, one of the highest honours a Rotarian can receive, for 30 years of service.
The Rotary club of Lilydale has a rich history of 'service above self'. One f the best projects run by Lilydale Rotary is the Lilydale craft and product market, which is held on the first Sunday of every month. I was pleased to attend their changeover dinner, also in June, and see their incoming president Jenny Selway continue the great work of Madalyn Parlet. The Rotary Club of Upper Yarra welcomed new president David Chandler in July. I was honoured to be there with Mayor Jim Child to celebrate the changeover from Paul Coleman, who had served for two years as president. Congratulations and thank you to all our Rotary clubs in Casey.
It is a true privilege to be back to this place and be returned as the member for Wills. To the people of Wills, I thank you for re-electing me as your representative to be your voice in this place. To the people of Hadfield, Fawkner, Glenroy, Brunswick, Pascoe Vale, Coburg and Oak Park, thank you. Thank you to everyone who supported my campaign. To everyone who voted for another candidate, a short message: I am here to work for you as well and I want to hear about issues that matter to you, regardless of who you voted for. No matter who you voted for, I'm here to serve you and our community.
This is the first time I stand in this place as a member of the government and I know now, after a few weeks, firsthand the power of government to change the lives of people for the better. It was Labor governments that gave my migrant family a home and allowed me to get access to a quality education, and to help me contribute as an MP. In the first fortnight of this parliament, we are getting straight to work, delivering a better future for all Australians. We have already taken real action on delivering the first real action plan on climate in nearly a decade, reforming aged care, abolishing the cashless debit card and introducing domestic violence leave. This is the power of government, and I am so grateful to the people of Wills for placing their trust in me for a third term. I will keep working for you, for real action that makes a positive difference to your lives.
Today I rise to acknowledge the excellent and compassionate work of The Family Co., located in my electorate of Hughes. During the recent election campaign, I was fortunate to meet the CEO, Ms Ashleigh Daines, and learn more about The Family Co.'s initiatives. Based in Jannali, The Family Co. creates a safe and positive community where women, children, youth and families can strengthen their ability to face the challenges life throws at them and to realise their best futures. The excellent staff at The Family Co. provide both practical and emotional support to individuals and families. They work with them and they offer them education, connections, information, advocacy and referrals to other services. This is to help increase their own knowledge and help them build the confidence needed, often when they are escaping from the scourge of family and domestic violence. The Family Co. operates with compassion, integrity and courage, with an overriding commitment to the learning and growth of the women and children and families that it assists. Its programs and projects support improved communication and relationships between family members, reduce the impact of poverty and disadvantage on families, and enhance families' capacities to support the growth and development of all family members. Furthermore, The Family Co. affirms and strengthens families' social, cultural and racial identities.
There's a very special group in my electorate called Port Stephens Koalas, and next week I will be delighted to host the Minister for the Environment and Water, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, to officially open Port Stephens Koala Hospital. This special team, Port Stephens Koalas, is ably led by president Ron Land, and it includes a dedicated team of vets and very special volunteers who work tirelessly to save and rehabilitate our koalas—and the odd wombat too, I might add! They know every life matters, because, quite frankly, the koala population in New South Wales is down to around 25,000. Can you imagine if we lose koalas on our watch? It's unfathomable. That's why I'm so proud that we were able to secure $3 million to fund groundbreaking conservation and research into reproductive technologies for koalas. In addition to habitat loss and loss of genetic diversity, that is one of the key things to keeping our koalas in the wild for the long term, and this program directly addresses that problem of diversity. It's the best chance of saving koalas we've got. If you are lucky enough to visit our part of the world in Port Stephens, I encourage you to go there. (Time expired)
Deputy Speaker Claydon, congratulations on your elevation. Australians have offered a remarkable show of force at this week's Commonwealth Games in Birmingham, and the number, and the buzz of national pride, rings right across my electorate. Australia has won 46 gold medals, 38 silver medals, 39 bronze medals—123 medals in total. It is a remarkable feat, and we're not done yet.
As many of you know, my daughter is a competitive swimmer, so I've been keeping a close eye on the Australian Dolphins, a few of whom are Sunshine Coast locals. I particularly want to highlight our para-swimming team, from the record-breaking Katja Dedekind to the likes of Braedan Jason, Ruby Storm, Liam Schluter, Blake Cochrane and many more. Our para-athletes are also dominating the court, especially our wheelchair basketballers—athletes like Hannah Dodd, Lachlin Dalton, Georgia Inglis, Jake Cavanagh, Luke Pople, Amber Merritt, Ella Sabljak and Kurt Thomson. They should be very proud of their achievements this week. My electorate is home to a number of phenomenal athletes, and the Suncoast Spinners wheelchair basketball team has an iconic status in our local sporting community.
Just before I finish, I want to congratulate the Commonwealth Games for the inclusive way that they include para-sports with able-bodied sports. It's the best way to do it, and I'd encourage the Olympic Games to do exactly the same.
On 21 May my community voted to send me here to work for a better future for them and for our country. It is 75 days later, at the end of the first fortnight of this parliament, and the Albanese Labor government hasn't wasted a minute delivering on that task. As we know, huge strides have been made to restore Australia's reputation and influence on the international stage—and this is really important and critical in our region—but in these first seven days of this parliament we have hit the ground running.
We have introduced, on my count, some 20 pieces of legislation, and today this House passed the Climate Change Bill 2022. For the first time in over a decade this parliament has done something positive to address the biggest challenges and opportunities facing not just our country but the globe. This parliament has passed aged-care legislation that implements important reforms recommended by the royal commission. The Minister for Aged Care, who is sitting next to me, has pushed them through.
We haven't wasted any time. We're going to keep acting on domestic violence, climate change and health. I will be delivering for my community of Dunkley because of the privilege they have given me to be their voice here.
I rise to acknowledge the important work of the Creative Economy Taskforce and thank its 12 eminent members: Rachel Healy, John Barrington AM, Greta Bradman, Adrian Collette AM, Li Cunxin AO, Ian Kew, Fiona Menzies, Barbara Moore, Alison Page, Paul Piticco, Dan Rosen, Chris Saines CNZM and Liz Ann Macgregor. The Creative Economy Taskforce was established by me as the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts in the previous government to provide strategic advice and support to the government on the creative economy as we recovered from the effects of COVID-19 and to assist with the implementation of the coalition government's creative economy JobMaker package. Under this package there was over $500 million in additional targeted funds for the arts and entertainment sector to alleviate the effects of COVID-19. Total funding for the arts in 2021-22 reached over $1 billion, a record for Commonwealth arts funding under any government—Liberal or Labor.
I note the Minister for the Arts recently announced a new advisory body which does not include any of the eminent art leaders who have served on the Creative Economy Taskforce. Of course while I make no criticism of members of that group—indeed, I worked with a number of them in my time as the arts minister—I do think it's unfortunate that there has been no continuity here. I understand that the next meeting of the Creative Economy Taskforce will be its last. The minister has been publicly silent about the Creative Economy Taskforce. This is disappointing. It is disappointing that he could not bring himself to appoint any of these distinguished arts leaders to his new body. I reiterate my thanks to the members of the Creative Economy Taskforce for their vital contribution. (Time expired)
To paraphrase Henry Higgins, we said we'd do it and today we did. Today in this House we passed legislation for a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. I would like to pay tribute to the many climate activists and groups in my electorate: Farmers for Climate Action, the Derwent Valley catchment group and North East Bioregional Network. There are many individuals and many groups who have been calling for climate change action. Under this government they are finally receiving it.
It's a false dichotomy to say that climate change is an issue that only the inner city cares about. I represent a regional area, and they care about climate change action. In fact, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association has noted climate change to be the single biggest hurdle to agriculture achieving $100 billion by 2030. That's what the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association said on the record. So we addressed climate change with the bill today.
Today is a good day. It draws a line under nine years of chaos, disunity and wasted opportunity under the former government. This government under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, are getting the job done. I'm proud to be part of this government today. It's a great day for Australia today.
Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I move:
That the House record its deep regret at the death, on 3 April 2022, of the Honourable James Joseph Webster, a former Minister and Senator for the State of Victoria from 1964 to 1980, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
In the space of just two years, Senator Jim Webster lost a High Court case seeking an injunction against a joint sitting of parliament following the 1974 double dissolution election but won a High Court case against allegations he was in breach of section 44. He was what the papers call an outspoken backbencher and a meticulous, combative minister. Now, to mark a sometimes rugged public life, we offer the tranquil courtesy of a condolence motion in recognition of his service to our nation.
The youngest of three boys, Jim was left to work the family farm at Greenvale during the Second World War while his brothers served. In 1964, upon the death of Senator Harrie Wade, he was chosen to fill the casual vacancy—the beginning of 16 years as a senator for Victoria.
A glance at the late senator's pre-parliamentary CV reveals a seeming mass of contradictions: a delegate to the Timber Workers Union and a member of the Young Country Party; a member of the Waterside Workers Federation and the junior chamber of commerce. Some might imagine he was a mere contrarian. After all, as a newly elected senator he voted against the establishment of several committees that he then went on to serve on. But I think two words take us to the core of the paradox and the heart of the man: agrarian socialism. Jim Webster was one of those old-school Country Party representatives who believed very much in government intervention, whether it was more funding for select irrigation projects, tax breaks for timber plantations, new subsidies for rural industries or more support for tobacco growers. He knew what he believed, he knew what mattered to the people he represented, and he fought for it fiercely and frequently.
Later on, he went on to serve in the first two terms of the Fraser government, first as the Minister for Science and, after 1978, as the Minister for Science and the Environment. He had quite a record during this period. During his time in the portfolio, Kakadu was declared a national park, whaling was banned in Australian waters, new support was given to the CSIRO and progress was made in preserving the Australian Antarctic Territory, which the senator visited twice and where Webster Bay still bears his name. He had a farmer's respect for the land and an explorer's love of beautiful places.
He left the Senate in January 1980 to take up the post of Australian High Commissioner to New Zealand—four more years of service to the nation in a long life that was well lived. We honour him today and extend the respect of the parliament to his family and, in particular, to those people who knew him in the National Party. May he rest in peace.
I join the Prime Minister in his fine words honouring the life of former senator James Joseph Webster. Born in 1925 on Flinders Island, Jim moved with his farming family to the outskirts of Melbourne as a child. As a student, he ran the family farm while his older brothers served in the war, but he was prepared to serve himself, joining the Air Training Corps. He worked as a clerk in a log mill and as a tally man on Melbourne's wharves before joining his grandfather's timber, hardware and plumbing business.
He filled a vacancy in the Senate in '64 and was re-elected through the sixties and seventies and served until 1980. In his first speech, Jim spoke about the values he shared with his party: those of free enterprise and minimal government intervention. He stated:
I pray that we shall retain in this country a system whereby freedom of the individual is paramount.
Under Prime Minister Fraser, he served as the Minister for Science and the Environment. He championed Australia's research in the Antarctic, the banning of whaling in our waters, the work of the CSIRO and our film and television industries. He was Deputy Leader and then Leader of the Country Party in the Senate. He also held the positions of Deputy President of the Senate and Chairman of Committees. As the Prime Minister pointed out, after leaving office he became Australia's High Commissioner to New Zealand, before, most importantly, returning to where he started, farming the land. On behalf of the Liberal Party, I offer my heartfelt condolences to Jim's colleagues, community, friends and family, especially his four children, Simon, James, Andrew and Tim.
Can I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their fine words. On behalf of the federal National Party, we honour the memory and pay our deepest respects to the life of Jim Webster, a Victorian senator for the National/Country Party, who served for 16 years in the parliament. He passed away on 3 April this year. Jim leaves behind him an incredible and distinguished legacy. He was a former leader of our party in the Senate and a former minister for science and the environment, who served in the Fraser government.
Throughout his entire career, Jim was a faithful servant of the Country Party and the National Party and the people of regional Victoria. Born in Tasmania and moving to a farm near Melbourne when he was four years old, Jim was a keen student at Caulfield Grammar, before running the family farm while his older brothers served in World War II. It was during this time, when his father served in the Victorian parliament, that Jim became active in the Australian Country Party, which ultimately led to his nomination in 1964 to fill a casual vacancy of the Senate.
During his political career, among Jim's most significant achievements include his work for the environment and for Australia's Antarctic research efforts, establishing the national maritime science research centre in Hobart and the CSIRO's Australian Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong. Another tremendous achievement that Jim secured was his work in ending pirate whaling. He was instrumental in introducing the Indian Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
Jim's service to Australia did not end with his time in the Senate. After his resignation in 1980 followed his appointment as Australia's High Commissioner to New Zealand, a position he held for four years, before returning to farming in his home state of Victoria.
On behalf of the National Party family and this entire House, we extend our sincere condolences to Jim's loved ones, his four sons and four grandchildren, and express our heartfelt gratitude for his tireless service to Australia. May he rest in peace.
As a mark of respect to the memory of the Hon. James Joseph Webster, I ask all present to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the House.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
I inform the House of the death, on 27 July 2022, of John Gayler, a member of this House for the division of Leichhardt from 1983 to 1993. As a mark of respect to the memory of John Gayler, I invite all present to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the House.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's promise to the families of Longford, in the election of Lyons:
… we've looked at measures that make a real permanent difference to cost of living … our Powering Australia Plan … will reduce household power prices by $275.
A promise repeated at least 15 times. Will the Prime Minister apologise to Australians he has misled?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. Indeed, in Longman and in electorates right around Australia, people are struggling with high power bills, and they're higher because of the failure of those opposite, over 10 long years, to implement a policy. We stand by our plan to put more renewables in the system, which will drive down power prices. And we note that those opposite voted against lower power prices today. They voted against it again and again and again and again and again. They voted against it consistently, because one of their final acts in government was actually to hide the power price increases that were coming in on 1 July. They didn't just hide it by not telling people. They hid it by changing, through a regulation, going to the Governor-General in that the dying days of a dying government—in the dying days of a dying government they went to the GG and changed the rules so that Australians would not know, when they voted on 21 May, that there were already baked-in increases in power prices coming in on 1 July.
The Prime Minister will just take a break. The Manager of Opposition Business?
The point of order is on relevance. The people of Longford don't care about their excuses. They want to know if they're going to get the promised power price cut of $275—
Resume your seat. The Prime Minister was in order. He was talking about the commitment made. I call the Prime Minister.
Whether it was in Tasmania or whether it was in Queensland or whether in South Australia or whether in Western Australia, or whether it was in a city or a regional town, we had the same message, and that message was backed by, this morning, an alphabet soup of business leaders. These are the groups that called upon the coalition to back the legislation that went through the House of Reps earlier today: AICD, ACSI, IGCC, ACF, BCA, AIG, ACCI, ACSI, RIAA, GIA—
Opposition members interjecting—
the Minerals Council of Australia—
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on my left and right.
calling upon them to vote for certainty. That's what business wants, because—I'll give you the big tip—if business has certainty, they can invest, and it's investment in cheaper, cleaner energy that will drive down power prices.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How will the government's climate legislation help to put the climate wars behind us after a decade of climate denial and inaction?
I thank the member for Canberra for her question. On 21 May the Australian people voted for change. They voted to end the division. They voted to end the inaction and finally put the climate wars behind us. They backed our Powering Australia plan. They gave us a mandate for the 43 per cent target. And today we'll deliver on the first step of enshrining this target in law, giving our country the certainty that we need to shape the future.
On the first day that I became Labor leader I said that Australians had conflict fatigue, and on climate, rather than rally the same troops to dig a deeper trench in the same spot, I wanted us to find new allies, and new allies we have found. This is what Jennifer Westacott, the CEO of the Business Council of Australia, has said—that this legislation has 'brought Australia a step closer to ending the climate wars that have put a handbrake on progress and become a serious economic barrier.' She said:
"We welcome this legislation and the adoption of key elements of the Business Council's plan to reach net zero emissions …
"43 per cent is a sensible, achievable target which can be delivered alongside new industries and better jobs with coordinated action …
We thank the government for working with business to deliver a workable plan, reduce emissions and strengthen Australia's economic future."
Remember when the Liberal Party used to have a relationship with business? Remember that? But what we saw today was them isolated and alone, stuck in the same old trench fighting a fight that has passed them by. They were by themselves with their arms crossed, saying, 'No, no, no.' They are the coalition of yesterday and the no-alition of today, saying no to absolutely everything.
Mr Speaker, under the rulings you've made, it is not in order for the Prime Minister to engage in an unstructured sledging of this side of the House, which is what he's doing.
Order! Resume your seat. The Prime Minister is addressing the question. He's in order.
If he's offended by that, he should see what the business community are saying about them in private. He should have a chat to the National Farmers Federation, or the Australian Industry Group about manufacturing, or the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, or the Business Council of Australia about how irrelevant they have become.
I haven't always been close on all issues to those on the crossbenches, but, I tell you what, they were prepared to engage constructively and at least behave with a bit more maturity than those who jokingly call themselves the alternative— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Can the minister confirm that small businesses will see a $275 reduction in their energy bills by 2025?
I thank the member for her question. We all know, as I said in this place last week, that small businesses are facing challenges, and one of them is rising electricity prices because, of course, you didn't have the guts to tell them prior to the election that you were going to put up their electricity prices. The former minister over here actually hid, deliberately hid—made a deliberate decision not to tell small businesses that their power prices were going to increase because of your government's inaction over the last decade.
Order! The minister will resume her seat. I remind her to direct her comments through the chair.
A point of order on relevance. It was a very narrow question. It specifically asked, 'Will small business see a $275 reduction in their energy bills?'—a very narrow question.
I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to resume her seat. The minister is entitled to a preamble to the question. She's done that. I draw her to the question.
I think I've answered the question. Those opposite are the ones that hid increasing electricity prices from small businesses prior to the election.
Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and ask her to state the point of order.
Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the Labor Party's Powering Australia plan, mentioned twice already by the Prime Minister in question time, which specifically refers to $275 a year in relief.
Leave not granted.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may resume her seat. So that all members are clear, particularly new members: if a document is to be tabled, the minister must refer to that document. She didn't refer to that in an answer, so that is not a point of order.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How will the government's procurement of the new third-generation monkeypox vaccine protect Australians from the spread of monkeypox?
I thank the member for Macnamara for his question. I know he's been closely engaged with his community about the impact of the global outbreak of monkeypox here in Australia, and he's closely engaged with me as well.
It's only been 13 weeks since the first case of monkeypox outside the endemic countries in Africa, which have experienced that virus for many years, was notified in the UK. In that time more than 25,000 cases have been reported across 76 different countries outside of Africa, countries that have not experienced monkeypox before. More than 6,000 cases have been reported in the US, almost 3,000 in the UK and more than 4,000 in Spain.
This is a self-limiting illness that is usually mild to moderate, but over the past week or so we have started to see reports of deaths not only in the endemic African countries. There were also four deaths in countries that have not experienced monkeypox before. Since the first case was reported here in Australia on 19 May, 58 cases have been reported in Australia. On the day after that first report, 20 May, the Department of Health and Aged Care began negotiations with Bavarian Nordic, the company that manufactures the new third-generation vaccine for monkeypox. Since that time, there have been 27 meetings with that company in a very competitive, highly constrained global market, and I'm pleased to announce that we have secured the supply of 450,000 doses of this new state-of-the-art vaccine for Australia. That will provide not just pre-exposure protection, as a vaccine would be expected to do, but also post-exposure treatment for people who have contracted the virus.
We'll be rolling out that vaccine through state and territory clinics, and I thank the states and territories for their very constructive engagement over recent weeks. We've also been working over recent weeks to increase clinical awareness and clinical capability to identify, isolate and treat cases as quickly as possible.
I want to mention community engagement, though, because the member for Macamara has been very focused on this. It's important to say that any person can contract monkeypox, but across the world it has particularly affected gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men, so we've been closely engaged with organisations like AFAO, the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, and the clinicians at ASHM, leveraging their networks and the capability that they've built up over the last four decades to make sure that communities across Australia have maximum awareness and are able to take up the opportunities that we've been able to secure over the course of this week.
My question is to the Treasurer. ATO data shows that five of the gas industry's biggest companies paid no income tax despite having a combined income of $138 billion over the past seven years. At a time when Australian households and businesses are paying record prices for gas extracted from our reserves and sold back to us by these very companies, do you agree that your government's election promise of multinational tax reform should include a super profits tax?
Thanks very much to the member for Warringah for her question. As she alluded to in her question, the government's priority is to make sure that multinational corporations pay a fairer share of tax where they make their profits. What I hope to do in the next day or two is to release the discussion paper, which is the consultation that we committed to when it comes to the implementation of the multinational tax policies that we took to the election. They are our priority, and they will, hopefully, be implemented as we described them in the election campaign. If that consultation process brings to our attention some issues around the implementation of that promise, then obviously we will take that seriously.
In addition to that, as the member is no doubt aware, there is a big agenda around multinational taxes from the OECD, which the Americans and others have been leading. When I was with the governor of the Reserve Bank at the G20 meetings in Indonesia, one of the topics of conversation with Secretary Janet Yellen and others was about how the world can work together on the two pillars of the OECD agenda to try and make sure that we fix this problem in the global economy, and certainly in our economy, where it's too easy for multinational corporations to move their debt, or move their profits, around the world in a way that sells countries short and makes it harder for us to fund the things that we really care about, like healthcare, education and all of those federal government programs that we need to fund in the context of all of our other budget constraints. Once again—a bit like the answer to the question from another colleague in the House earlier this week, if not last week—we don't intend to go down the path that you are asking us about, but we do intend to take meaningful action on multinational tax.
My question is to the Treasurer. What role will the Jobs and Skills Summit play in addressing the challenges facing our economy and who will be involved?
I once again congratulate the fantastic member for Boothby, who joins this parliament for the first time. Before the parliament returns for the next sittings of this place, on 1 September and 2 September the Albanese Labor government will be hosting a Jobs and Skills Summit here in Canberra. This is our opportunity to bring Australians together to address the big challenges that we confront in our economy, whether it be labour shortages or skills shortages or stagnant wages. It's our opportunity to work together to create more opportunities for more people in more parts of our country.
On this side of the House we recognise that a better future relies on bringing people together, so bringing people together isn't just the aim and the guiding instinct of the Jobs and Skills Summit, it is also the aim and the guiding instinct of this government and of the Australian people that we serve. We want to ensure that there is a good, qualified worker for every business that needs one and a great, well-paid, secure job for every Australian that wants one. We want a bigger, more productive and better skilled workforce with strong and sustainable wages growth as a defining feature of our national economic success. That's why the summit will bring together workers and their unions, employers and their peak organisations, community groups, experts and other levels of government as well. And it's why this month there will be proper consultation, whether it is by portfolio or in different communities around Australia, in the lead up to the Jobs and Skills Summit. I will be doing some of that in Central Queensland next week. There is a hunger in this country for a real talk about our economic challenges, there is an appetite to work together to address them and there is a willingness in this country right now at this moment to see things through the prism of our national economic interest.
It is time for those opposite to decide whether they want to be part of the solution here or whether they want to continue to be part of the problem. Their position on this jobs summit has been characteristically confused.
My point of order is on relevance. You have given clear guidance as to when ministers may speak about this side of the House. The question was very tied to the Jobs and Skills Summit—what role, who will be involved. There was no reference to this side of the House.
The Treasurer is also talking about the end part of the question, about addressing problems facing the economy, so I will ask the Treasurer to return to the question.
In relation to who will be involved in the summit—on some days those opposite say they want to see the summit cancelled. On other days they say that they demand an invitation to the jobs summit. On 11 July they said both. It reminds me of what Groucho Marx said. Groucho Marx said he didn't want to be part of an organisation that would have him as a member. The member for Hume doesn't want to be part of a jobs summit that would have him as an attendee. That seems to be the member for Hume's position. Bringing an end this decade of division and dysfunction, conflict and complacency is what the summit is all about and that's what the government's all about as well.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The CFMMEU has given over $10 million to the Labor Party since the last watchdog was abolished. Is the Prime Minister aware of the case of a female operations manager being targeted and verbally abused to the extent that she cried, felt fearful and ill? Why does the Prime Minister keep dismissing this issue when the welfare of 150,000 women working in the construction sector is at stake?
I thank the member for Mallee for her question. As I've said repeatedly, behaviour such as that which she has described is completely unacceptable. That's why the Fair Work Ombudsman will be responsible, along with Fair Work Australia, for ensuring that industrial relations law is appropriately applied to any union or any employer. It's as simple as that.
My principle is also that all workers should be subject to the same laws and regulations as others. It's not a radical proposition that we're putting forward here. Our workplace relations system must be based upon fairness, mutual trust, respect and obeying the rule of law. That's our position. It's as simple as that. What we have from the ABCC, though, is that there's substantial commentary about how it was supposed to have improved the way that the sector might operate. We'd expect, during the period the ABCC was the regulator, for there to be improvements in labour productivity in the construction sector. You would expect that to be the case. But, if you look at the facts, in 2017-18 productivity was down by 2.4 per cent; in 2018-19 it was down by 2.6 per cent; in 2019-20 it was down by 2.6 per cent also. The ABCC is supposed to be improving the way that the sector operates, and yet we have labour productivity going down year after year after year.
You would expect, also, the issue of construction costs to be there. The construction costs of the last five years in the heavy and civil engineering sector have risen by up to 20 per cent. Of course, if you look at the total expenditure on the ABCC, since it was established—from 2016 up to this year—its total budget is some $233 million. This year alone, it was some $34 million. During that period, the ABCC boss, Nigel Hadgkiss, had to resign in 2017 because he was caught breaching the Fair Work Act himself. So we take a very clear view, which is: bad behaviour is unacceptable, full stop, of either employers or employees. Bad behaviour is unacceptable. All workers should be subject to the same laws and regulations as others.
My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering for older Australians, after a decade of neglect, and supporting workers in the aged-care sector?
I thank my friend the member for Dunkley for her question and for her tireless advocacy for older Australians in Dunkley, from Mount Eliza to Frankston to Carrum Downs, communities I know so well because she speaks about them so often in the House. I know she joins with me in our advocacy for getting cracking on aged-care reform in the House this week.
You only get one bill to be the very first bill to go through the new parliament, and that bill, for the Albanese Labor government, was aged-care reform. That's how seriously we take it. We have now delivered 17 royal commission recommendations in just our first 100 days, compared to only nine royal commission recommendations that the Morrison government achieved in 17 months. We have, therefore, endorsements from the Council on the Ageing, who said:
These bills are crucial steps in a reform process that, when fully implemented, will ensure Australia will finally enjoy the quality aged care system all older Australians deserve.
The HSU said:
For the first time there is a crack of light at the end of the tunnel.
Catholic Health Australia said that the bills really fire the starting gun on reform. The Older Persons Advocacy Network said that the bills 'represent a watershed moment for older people and their families'. Opal HealthCare said they were 'delighted to see the new bill will enshrine mandated standards'.
The most important endorsement of all is from the people who care for our older Australians. We are joined in the gallery today by Tara—you guys are going to make me cry again!—who works in residential aged care in Jimboomba and cares for Maxine and for Sylvia. Conwell joins us from Thursday Island. He works in the only residential aged-care facility on Thursday Island. Marina has joined us. She supports older generations in Perth, and she says she wants more transparency and accountability and that the actions she saw in the House this week, for the very first time, gave her hope. Rhiannon is here from South Australia. Staff shortages mean that Rhiannon has to get the older Australians in her care out of bed, showered and ready for breakfast all in only eight minutes—well, not on our watch, Rhiannon; no longer on our watch. Catherine works in home care as a community worker. She loves her job. To Tara, Conwell, Marina, Rhiannon and Catherine, on behalf of this House, I say thank you.
Our aged-care workers deserve a whole lot better, and that is why we are not done yet. Aged Care Employee Day is this Sunday, and that's why on Monday we are sending our submission to the Fair Work Commission to give aged-care workers a pay rise. We are going to do what we promised. We are going to do better by you than you ever received under nine years of neglect by the previous Morrison government. You were the focus of our first bill through the House. We are sending our submission on Monday to try and get you a pay rise, and we will continue to deliver those election commitments to keep our promise to the Australian people.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Reports in the AFR show that the CFMMEU-run super fund Cbus, a super fund chaired by the current president of the ALP, spent $11.2 million of members' retirement savings on payments to the Labor Party and unions over the last five years. Why is the government in one of its first acts moving to hide these payments from hardworking Australians?
I am asked by the shadow Treasurer a question about two things. One is about things being hidden. By the shadow Treasurer I am asked about things being hidden! Then there was a question about integrity from the shadow Treasurer! Sometimes when the tactics committee give you a question you should say, 'Maybe someone else should ask that question.' This is one of those times because, with regard to hiding information, what this political party that won 77 seats in the House of Representatives did before the election—
Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked about $11.2 million of members' retirement savings channelled to the ALP. The ALP president is the chair of the CFMMEU-run Cbus. The Prime Minister has conducted this personal attack but completely refuses to talk about these donations—
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is 40 seconds in. I will ask him to return to the question and give him the call.
I reject the assertion that's contained in the question. I reject the assertion completely. Once again, this is a slur against someone who was named, indeed, the world's greatest finance minister during the global financial crisis. The person who was Treasurer during the 30 years of consecutive economic growth that was created by the Hawke-Keating economic reforms and saw us through the global financial crisis is eminently qualified to chair a superannuation board, as he has done in very recent times.
Those opposite speak about accountability and transparency. The point is very simple: they ask about transparency. When it comes to the ABCC, we went to not just one election; we went to three elections saying that we would abolish the ABCC. I know that those opposite might find the idea unusual that you do what you said you would do during an election campaign—
and you receive a mandate for it from the Australian people to do it. That is precisely what we will do. We will go through our election commitments and we will tick them off one by one, because that is what governments of integrity do.
The member for Groom is warned.
We won't take lectures on integrity from the shadow Treasurer. Other bodies will deal with him.
The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
It's a reflection on a member, Mr Speaker. Reflections on the integrity of the shadow Treasurer are quite out of order.
I didn't hear what the Prime Minister was saying because there was too much noise on my left. If you want me to rule and hear these points of order, I need to hear what the Prime Minister is saying. I have warned the member for Groom, and the member for Barker and other members are close to it. These questions will be heard in silence. There is too much noise in the chamber.
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How will the passage of the Albanese government's Climate Change Bill address the climate wars and deliver a better future for Australian families and businesses?
The people of Macquarie know all too well the cost of climate change. The member for Macquarie knows all too well the benefits of action on climate change and I thank the member for friendship and her very, very strong climate advocacy. The passage of the Albanese government's climate bill through the House today—89 votes to 55—represents the will of the parliament and the will of the people. The Australian people voted for action on climate change and today the Albanese government delivered action on climate change. Today represents the opportunity for the parliament to stop arguing about whether to reduce emissions and to start working together on how to reduce emissions. That is what happens today. There has been broad support for the passage of the Albanese government's reforms through parliament in the lead-up to today and in the last few hours. We've seen the Business Council of Australia say:
The nation can't afford to go back to the future, we must move forward now to secure a frontier economy powered by affordable, reliable, secure and low emissions energy.
'43 per cent is a sensible, achievable target which can be delivered alongside new industries and better jobs with coordinated action.'
That's just a representative statement of the views of the business community. Unsurprising, perhaps, because from opposition we worked with the business community on our climate change policies because we want to work in partnership with people of goodwill in this parliament and beyond the parliament to get emissions down and to get jobs up. That's our plan: to get emissions down and jobs up.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have said:
This is a missed opportunity for the opposition. The announcement today demonstrates that the climate wars are over. This must act a moment of unity of purpose.
We agree with Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Some in this House think they know more about business than the Business Council and more about commerce than the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. But we don't know on this side of the House and nor do members of the crossbench, because today, 89 votes to 55, the Australian parliament spoke the will of the people. But we know the work does not end today. The work begins today. Now, we have to rewire our nation. Now, we have to ensure that our biggest emitters reduce their emissions through the safeguard mechanism. Now, we have to develop a national electric vehicle strategy and that's exactly what we will do. Now, we will roll out 400 community batteries across our country. Now, we will roll out solar banks across our country. That's what this government will do. Today does not mark the end of the work. Today, the work just gets started. We are just starting the work that the Australian people elected us to do.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. What does the minister say to the residents of South West Rocks, a small coastal community in my electorate, who will now be forced to compete with suburban Sydney to attract doctors, all because of Labor's decision to blow up the classification system for rural doctors?
I'm pleased to take another question about the ways in which this government is seeking to make it easier to see a doctor. Because the last government made cut after cut and change after change that resulted in it being harder to see a doctor—
Order! The member for O'Connor is warned.
and more expensive to see a doctor than it ever has been in the Medicare era. I'll go to the changes we made to the DPA, because in his question the member tried to compare the area he represents to Sydney. What we did with our changes to the DPA, the Distribution Priority Area, was to reverse a cut made by the former government in 2019 that removed the ability in 140 GP regions of this country to employ overseas trained doctors. They were not regions in the middle of Sydney. They were regions like the ones represented by the member for Hunter, the member for Shortland and the member for Paterson on the Central Coast, and like other regional areas in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales. The former government pretended it was the same process to recruit a doctor in the Hunter Valley as it was in Mosman. It simply isn't. I visited, time after time, GP surgeries in regional Australia that had consulting rooms that were closed and consulting rooms without a doctor.
The Leader of the National Party might scoff. They tried to run a campaign in the Hunter Valley. They obviously didn't bother visiting any GP practices in the Hunter Valley, because doctor after doctor and patient after patient—
The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting.
in that community said that because of your changes in 2019 it had never been harder to see a doctor than it was then. So we make no apology at all for reversing those cuts and—
Order! The Leader of the Nationals is warned.
for making it easier to see a doctor in the Hunter Valley, a community you pretended to represent and failed dismally. What those opposite might want to tell their communities is that—
The Leader of the Nationals will leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Maranoa then left the chamber.
Government members interjecting—
That is not something to cheer about, government members. The member for Grey, on a point of order?
Yes, Mr Speaker. The minister is constantly referring to 'you', and the—
Resume your seat. I thank the member for Grey. The minister will direct his comments through the chair. I call the minister.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I apologise to you, because I remember very clearly you supporting Labor's policies to make it easier to see a doctor right through the election campaign. But I can tell you, Mr Speaker, I was lobbied to reverse the changes the former government made to, for example, bulk-billing incentives in DPA 2 areas like the Hunter Valley. I resisted that lobbying, because I thought it was important there be continued incentives in more rural and more regional areas, including higher bulk-billing rural incentives and higher incentives under the Workforce Incentive Program. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Skills and training. How will the Albanese Labor government work to address the skills crisis it inherited and help ensure that the economy is not held back by these skill shortages?
ONNOR (—) (): I thank the member for her question and her keen interest and advocacy in tackling skills shortages in this country. Given the sheer scale of this challenge, the government has hit the ground running on this very important issue. Now, it is true to say that we didn't just inherit a massive fiscal debt; we also inherited a massive shortage when it comes to skills in the labour market. That's the reality, and, for that reason, we need to do everything we possibly can to address this problem, because, over the last decade, there has been a mismatch between investment in skills and the skills that are in demand.
So there's a lot of work to be done by this government, because, whether you look at the aged-care sector or disability care, you see skill shortages. Whether you look at advanced manufacturing or the tech industry, or hospitality, tourism and retail, there are skill shortages. There are skill shortages in the traditional trades and in personal care services. There are even shortages amongst the teachers and trainers that are needed to equip the workforce with the skills that are in demand. For that reason, we need to get on with this very quickly.
That's why, as the Treasurer said earlier in question time, we're convening the Jobs and Skills Summit, bringing together businesses large and small, unions, training providers, state and territory governments and other experts to drive this agenda and make sure we work together to deal with this problem, this shortage—in many sectors of the economy it's a crisis—that's actually being experienced in those areas. It's also why we've committed to 465,000 fee-free TAFE places. We want to put TAFE back at the centre of the VET sector in this country, finally. That is absolutely an important vehicle to bring about change.
This government understands that, for Australia to succeed and for us to maintain and improve living standards, we need to have a skilled workforce. A skilled workforce is a productive workforce. A productive workforce means a stronger economy, and it means cheaper goods and services. But, as a Labor government, we also understand this: training working people means that this provides them with the dignity and, indeed, the sense of fulfilment of having a good job, because, if you train workers in areas of demand, you provide security of employment for those workers; you provide career progression. So it's not just important for our economy. It's not just important for businesses in this country. It is critical for workers, who deserve a decent go and deserve secure work.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon His Excellency Mr Wolfgang Strohmayer, Ambassador of Austria. On behalf of the House, I extend a warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Australia is facing a cost-of-living and jobs and skills emergency. My electorate of Fowler also bears the brunt as the nation's migrant settlement city. It has had one of the highest national unemployment rates over the past decade—almost 10 per cent, which is more than double the national average. How will the Prime Minister commit to working with me to lower the unemployment rate and lower the cost of living for struggling families of Fowler?
I thank very much the member for Fowler for her question. Just last week, we had a very constructive one-on-one meeting about how the government can assist people in the Fowler electorate, around the Liverpool area in south-west Sydney, an area that I'm very familiar with. The member is quite right to point to the socioeconomic disadvantage that's there in Fowler. It has a much higher proportion of new migrants to Australia than is the average across the country. In particular, many newer groups have gone to south-west Sydney to settle and to make Australia their home.
Over a period of time, what I know is that communities like the Vietnamese community in Fowler—just like the one in Marrickville in my electorate, where I recall the member for Fowler living some years ago when we first met—have proven to be a great success. But newer communities, such as the Assyrian community—people who've fled war-torn Syria in recent times—of course require additional support, and my government is very conscious of that.
That's one of the reasons why I've encouraged the member to engage in the Jobs and Skills Summit process, to have a local forum, and I've offered the government's support to provide advice and speakers—to provide the full force of government to have local forums. That is on offer to anyone around this chamber as well. What we need to do is to work with the local business community, TAFE and the three levels of government. Today at the national cabinet I discussed with Premier Perrottet, along with other premiers, how we can make sure that, arising out of that, we give Australians more opportunities for jobs through better TAFE funding, better training and making sure that we identify those opportunities which are there.
One of the things we know is that long-term unemployment can be a scourge. In particular, I'm aware that in south-west Sydney there are large pockets of housing estates where disadvantage is entrenched. When I was asked a question the other day about social housing, I spoke about the need to have a mix of housing as well. I have raised with state premiers, as well as with local government, how we get better investment, as part of this government's commitment to our Housing Australia Future Fund and other investment vehicles, to get increased support for a mix of housing so that you don't have people growing up in communities where they can't see people that they can aspire to be one day.
I thank the member for Fowler very much for her question. I look forward to working constructively with her, and I thank her for her engagement with the government up to this point. (Time expired)
My question is to the Leader of the House. How is the government's management of the House in its first sitting fortnight delivering on Labor's vision for a better future, and how does that compare to previous parliaments?
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! I'm very keen to hear the answer, but the Manager of Opposition Business—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! When the House comes to order, I'm trying to give the Manager of Opposition Business the call. When the House is silent, I will hear from him.
Mr Speaker, question time is for ministers to be asked about the activities of the current government. You've given a ruling on this. How can this question possibly be consistent with your ruling?
The question is in order, and I call the Leader of the House, who is also a minister.
I thank the member for Lyons for asking an excellent question. It's fair to say that I like this parliament better—significantly better. One of the things that I'll say we've had, particularly if you look at the debate that happened this morning, is: how long is it in this parliament since we've had a situation where the crossbench move an amendment, the minister listens to the speech and the parliament then makes a decision based on the debate? For nine years the debate didn't even occur. For nine years the amendments weren't even allowed to be moved. And today what I saw in the parliament was a situation, finally, where different members of parliament—regardless of where they are in the chamber—brought forward their ideas, the debate mattered for the outcomes, and the parliament voted. I note there were no amendments from those opposite—no amendments from those opposite at all. As well as there being no amendments, even when they were voting 'no', there was not even any enthusiasm. It was not even as if they wanted to be here. But the procedures that have allowed us to be able to do this have changed what's possible in the parliament.
First of all, I'll pay credit. From the 35 new members, we have had 24 first speeches now, from members on this side, that side and the crossbench. It is good to have those first speeches so early in the new parliament. But what we have also achieved, against those opposite saying it would be the end of democracy, are new procedures which have allowed people to debate. For the last two nights, where previously the process would have been—
Honourable members interjecting—
The manager will take a break.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right! I'm calling the member for Wannon, and I'd ask him to state the point of order.
It's relevance. How many bills have you guillotined this week? We need that explained to us because you've been doing that—
Order. Resume your seat. Member for Wannon, that was not a point of order.
Member for Wannon: that was not a point of order, it was a question. That is not within the standing orders. And if those kinds of disruptions continue, action will be taken. The Leader of the House has the call.
The point of order might have been out of order, but it was really helpful because, in terms of the new procedures where speaking times have been dropped from 15 minutes to 10 minutes, I was about to refer to the member for Flynn. He said it was an absolutely appalling use of the guillotine that he wasn't allowed to talk for 15 minutes. He then sat down after eight minutes and four seconds with nothing more to say.
For the last two nights, member after member opposite has stood up and opened their speech by saying, 'It is outrageous that we are being silenced,' and they have continued to talk for 10 minutes about being silenced. And then they said the 10 pm cut-off is the same as a gag, that cutting it off at 10 pm means, 'We don't get to speak at all.' It's exactly the same as what they used to do, moving that the speaker be no further heard.
Well, the first time we used that procedure of the 10 pm cut-off, they ran out of speakers at 9.37 pm. Last night they ran out at 9.27 pm. The parliament's being used as it should be. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, reports in the AFR show a total of $85.5 million in payments by 51 super funds to political parties, namely the Labor Party, and associates, namely unions, over the past five years. Can the Prime Minister confirm the first act—the very first act—of his Treasury under his government was to water down transparency and accountability measures designed to give Australian super fund members visibility of how their savings are spent?
The first act of the government was actually to sit around as a cabinet and to agree to put in a submission to the Fair Work Commission to give low-wage workers a pay rise. That was the first act that we did. We said that people on $20.33 were doing it tough. So that was the first act of the government.
We've continued to implement our priorities. We will continue to implement our priorities. We were transparent before the election, just as those opposite are transparent in that they've never seen a union they didn't want to undermine, and they've seen an industry superfund that they did not want to have a royal commission into or that they didn't want to take action against.
The Prime Minister will take a short break. I call the deputy leader on a point of order.
It's on relevance, Mr Speaker. The question actually said the first act of Treasury. The Prime Minister is not addressing the question. The question said 'the first act of Treasury'. Treasury.
Opposition members interjecting—
The deputy leader will resume her seat. Order! Members on my left! The deputy leader has raised a point of order. The question—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order. I'm trying to rule on the point of order. The deputy leader raised a point of order. The question is about the first act, and I'm calling the Prime Minister, who is in order.
Thank you. I know it might come as a shock to some of those opposite that Treasury has something to do with wages and the submission to the Fair Work Commission. Treasury, including the very good Secretary to the Treasury, Steven Kennedy—someone who served the previous government, and someone who continues to serve this government—a fine public servant—knows that what we did was to put that in as our first act. That was our first act. Those opposite keep repeating the same acts over and over again, which are to stand here and just give working Australians a reminder that they've never seen a union they didn't want to undermine and that they've never seen industry super funds that they didn't want to get rid of and undermine and weaken. That is why, when they came to office, they had a royal commission into superannuation. What that found, indeed, was that industry super funds perform much better than the retail funds and that industry super funds, which those opposite have played with over and over again—the increases that were there for the super guarantee up to 12 per cent they've undermined, consistently, the whole way through. We on this side support the right of workers to have superannuation. We're pretty proud of it. We're pretty proud that it is part of Labor's legacy.
The Prime Minister will just resume his seat for a moment. I call the member for Fadden, on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, on tedious repetition, standing order 75. All we've heard is the Prime Minister tediously repeat his support for the union movement, as opposed to answering the question on the first act of his Treasury.
The Prime Minister is in order. That is not a point of order. The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?
Mr Speaker, in his answer, the Prime Minister made a dismissive gesture towards the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It was disrespectful to a senior woman parliamentarian, and I ask him to withdraw it.
I was listening closely to the Prime Minister. I didn't see anything in his answer that was disrespectful at all. If the Prime Minister had done something disrespectful, I would ask him to withdraw it, but there was nothing said. We will move on now with question time.
My question is to the Prime Minister. What work is the Albanese government doing to improve the lives of Australians and put our country on a path to a better future after a wasted decade?
I thank the member for Reid for her question and for her contribution already to the Labor government. We have hit the ground running. This is a government that promised not to waste a day, and we're certainly doing that. Our government has had a real impact on people's lives, whether it be the minimum wage increase, whether it be dealing with floods, whether it be delivering antivirals and fourth shots around the country. Our plans are to build the foundations of a better future—43 per cent reduction in our emissions, which is about creating economic opportunity; jobs and skills—the Jobs and Skills Australia legislation, which is up, and the Jobs and Skills Summit, where we'll get business, unions and civil society together to talk about how we advance; aged care, where we've already passed legislation where we've stood up for the workers—who we see today in the gallery—who need a pay increase; rebuilding relationships around the world, making us stronger at home but making us stand on our own two feet and be secure in the world.
It's not just what we do; it's how we do it. How you do it is: bringing people together by being more inclusive, something that those opposite never sought to do. They were always looking for division. We look for unity. We look for that sense of purpose and our common interests, whether it be working with business, unions and civil society on climate change, finding strength in our common purpose. Good government changed my life, and good government helps people put a roof over their head. Good government supports young people who want to learn a trade or get a degree. A good government ensures older Australians can live out their later years with dignity and respect. A good government creates opportunities for families to get ahead. A good government gets wages rising. A good government boosts productivity. A good government makes it possible for Australia to make things here again. And a good government uplifts the whole nation by advancing the interests of the nation by recognising that our history did not begin in 1788 and by recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our national birth certificate, our Constitution.
Together on economic policy, on social policy, on environmental policy, we will build a better future. We will form alliances and work with all people of goodwill, and that is what we saw when the parliament passed our climate legislation bill this morning.
In the gallery this afternoon is Louise Yaxley, who has been the ABC parliamentary bureau chief for a very long time. She has spent 28 years covering politics in this House and tomorrow she will end what has been an absolutely sensational career. Louise Yaxley is always professional, she is courteous and she is knowledgeable, and she has added to the quality of political discourse in this country through her work in the AM, PM, The World Today, ABC current affairs and ABC News programs. She is someone who is much loved across the parliament and is respected by all who have had contact with her. She brings to the profession of journalism honour, respect and integrity. I pay tribute to her on her final day, which happens to be as well the 90th anniversary of the ABC, our national broadcaster, which will be celebrated tomorrow at the ABC headquarters in Ultimo. Well done, Louise.
I join with the Prime Minister on behalf of the coalition to wish Louise all at the very best in the next phase of her life. She has been here for almost three decades, covered 10 federal elections, has provided leadership at the bureau and seen incredible changes, particularly in the technology space and the way in which the message is communicated. I think it is fair to say that this side of politics has not always agreed with the ABC but from Louise we have always got a fair hearing. I want to thank you for the professionalism and for your approach to dealing with our press secs and the queries that we have had. The engagement has been professional and it has been a credit to you and to your leadership skills.
Of course, despite all of the investigative resources at the ABC, none of the journalists up there, including those who sit with her in the gallery today, have been able to uncover the truth as to the origin of 'Penguin', her nickname. It remains a mystery to the day of her retirement, so perhaps there is an opportunity to write a story, or perhaps in her book there will be some mention of how she came about to achieve that nickname. But from all of us in this place, we wish you every good health and success into the next phase of your life.
Honourabl e members: Hear, hear!
The Birmingham Commonwealth Games has been not only an extraordinary success for the host city but a great success for Australia as well. Currently, and I do say 'currently' because of the medal tally is going over like an odometer at the moment, we have won, as before QT, 123 medals, including 46 gold. There are joyous stories everywhere we look, and breakout stars announcing themselves on the world stage as well as household names showing their class. There are five days to go but there is lots more for us to look forward to.
I want, on behalf of the parliament and all Australians, to congratulate the competitors and those people behind the scenes too—the dedicated support staff and coaches but also the proud loved ones, the mums and dads who took little Ariarne or other swimmers off to swimming training at 5 am, day after day, to make an enormous difference.
Emma McKeon has become the greatest Commonwealth Games athlete of all time, with a total of 14 gold medals, six of which were won at these games. Jess Stenson triumphed in the women's marathon but soon after embraced her teammates and fellow mums Eloise Wellings and Sinead Diver to share the moment with them. In the T53/54 wheelchair marathon, Maddie de Rozario triumphed again. Ariarne Titmus won gold and set a games record in the 400-metre freestyle. She won the treble—200, 400 and 800. Sprinter Evan O'Hanlon claimed the Australian athletics team's 200th Commonwealth Games gold medal, winning the men's T37/T38 100-metre sprint. Our oldest team member, 63-year-old lawn bowler Cheryl Lindfield, at her first Commonwealth Games, won the silver medal in the para-pairs B6-B8 with partner Serena Bonnell. The men's wheelchair basketball team won gold in the 3x3. Nina Kennedy cleared 4.6 metres to win gold in the women's pole vault. The women's rugby sevens team claimed their first ever Commonwealth Games gold medal, defeating Fiji 22-12. Paralympic swimmer Ellie Cole finished fifth in Birmingham, in her very last event before retirement—a true champion.
In coming days we look forward to the Diamonds, our women cricketers and Peter Bol in the 800-metre final. We look forward to watching these wonderful competitors who—for those who continue in sport over next four years—will be in regional Victoria when regional Victoria hosts the games in 2026. To all involved: well done.
I join the Prime Minister in congratulating our Commonwealth Games team. The most important news, of course, is that we are 20 medals ahead of England. That's a great accomplishment. I wanted to get it in, just in case it tightens over the next few days. But having 46 gold and a total of 123 medals so far is a great credit not just to the athletes but to the trainers and to their family members—all of those back here and those who have been able to travel—who have sacrificed an enormous amount, including the sacrifice that the parents made during the athletes' childhood in turning up to training regularly. It is a credit to the coaches and to all of those that have provided sponsorship. It is an incredible accomplishment not just personally but for those who love and surround those athletes.
I want to acknowledge the top four Australian individual medal winners being women, the rugby sevens win and the Australian women's cricket, netball and hockey teams, to name a few still in the medal hunt. It shows the strength of women's sport here in Australia.
I want to say thank you very much to all of those who are glued to their TVs, providing encouragement and sending messages. That is incredibly important, because I know that the athletes read those messages and are encouraged by them.
There have been amazing individual performances: Mollie O'Callaghan obviously bursting onto the world stage, and Emma McKeon's beautiful performance, winning her 18th Commonwealth Games medal. These are truly magnificent Australians who make us very proud. Sport is a great unifier and an incredible part of the fabric of Australian society. We celebrate their success to date and what will unfold between now and the closing of the games.
I move:
That leave of absence from the determination of this sitting until 24 October 2022 be given to Mr Rae for parental leave purposes.
To Sam and to his family—his partner, Zoe, and their kids, Hunny and Banji—I say: good luck with the journey ahead. It is a good thing that this parliament now recognises, across the parliament, the rights of fathers and mothers to spend time with their newborns when they come along or when they're coming along. So I very much wish Sam and all of his family all the best. We look forward to his returning after 24 October, in time for the Treasurer's budget.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Question agreed to.
I present a schedule showing the allocation to committees of annual reports of government departments and agencies. A copy of the schedule will be incorporated in the Hansard.
47th Parliament
Speakers Schedule
Allocation to Committees of Annual Reports of Government Departments and Agencies, August 2022
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Joint Standing Committee)
Aboriginal Hostels Limited
Anindilyakwa Land Council
Attorney-General's Department
Australian Fisheries Management Authority
Australian Fisheries Management Authority (Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority)
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
Central Land Council
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation
Cotton Research and Development Corporation
Dairy Australia Limited
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
Department of Education
Department of Health and Aged Care
Department of Social Services
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Director of National Parks
Indigenous Business Australia Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation IP Australia
National Indigenous Australians Agency
National Land Council
Northern Land Council
Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority
Office of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner
Outback Stores Pty Ltd
Queensland Fisheries Joint Authority
Tiwi Land Council
Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority
Torres Strait Regional Authority
Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council
Agriculture (Standing Committee)
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
Australian Fisheries Management Authority
Australian Fisheries Management Authority (Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority)
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Livestock Export Corporation Ltd
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
Bureau of Meteorology
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Cotton Research and Development Corporation
Dairy Australia Limited
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Director of National Parks
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation
Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Forest and Wood Products Council
Gene Technology Regulator
Grains Research and Development Corporation
Innovation and Science Australia
IP Australia
Murray-Darling Basin Authority
National Environment Protection Council
National Rural Advisory Council
Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority Queensland Fisheries Joint Authority
Regional Investment Corporation
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (trading as AgriFutures Australia)
Safemeat
Western Australian Fisheries Joint Authority Wine Australia
Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (Standing Committee)
Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency
Australian Energy Regulator
Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner
Australian Fisheries Management Authority
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
Australian Renewable Energy Agency
Australian Research Council
Bureau of Meteorology
Clean Energy Finance Corporation
Clean Energy Regulator
Climate Change Authority
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
Department of Education
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Director of National Parks
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation
Forest and Wood Products Council
Gene Technology Regulator Geoscience Australia
Great Artesian Basin Coordinating Committee
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Independent Scientific Committee on Wind Turbines
Innovation and Science Australia
Murray-Darling Basin Authority
National Environment Protection Council
National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority
National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority Board
National Rural Advisory Council
North Queensland Water Infrastructure Authority
Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority
Queensland Fisheries Joint Authority
Snowy Hydro Ltd
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority
Tourism Australia
Western Australian Fisheries Joint Authority
Wet Tropics Management Authority
Wine Australia
Communications and the Arts (Standing Committee)
Australia Council for the Arts
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Australian Communications and Media Authority
Australian Film, Television and Radio School
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
Australian National Maritime Museum
Australian Postal Corporation
Bundanon Trust
Classification Board and the Classification Review Board
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (Export Finance Australia)
National Archives of Australia
National Film and Sound Archive of Australia
National Gallery of Australia
National Library of Australia
National Museum of Australia
NBN Co Limited
Office of the eSafety Commissioner (part of the ACMA Annual Report)
Old Parliament House
Public Lending Right Committee
Economics (Standing Committee)
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Australian Energy Regulator
Australian Financial Complaints Authority
Australian National Audit Office
Australian Office of Financial Management
Australian Political Exchange Council
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
Australian Public Service Commission
Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Australian Statistics Advisory Council
Australian Taxation Office
Commonwealth Grants Commission
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme
Department of Finance
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Department of Health and Aged Care
Department of Home Affairs
Department of Social Services
Department of the Treasury
Foreign Investment Review Board
Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority
Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme
National Archives of Australia
National Australia Day Council Limited
National Competition Council
Payments System Board
Productivity Commission
Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan
Public Sector Superannuation Scheme
Reserve Bank of Australia
Takeovers Panel
Tourism Australia
Electoral Matters (Joint Standing Committee)
Australian Electoral Commission
Employment, Education and Training (Standing Committee)
Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency
Attorney-General's Department
Australian Building and Construction Commission
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
Australian Film, Television and Radio School
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Limited
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian National University
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
Australian Public Service Commission
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation
Comcare (incorporates Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission)
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal
Department of Education
Department of Industry, Science and Resources
Department of Social Services
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Fair Work Commission
Fair Work Ombudsman and Registered Organisations Commission Entity
Future Fund Management Agency
Indigenous Business Australia
Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation
National Archives of Australia
Remuneration Tribunal
Safe Work Australia
Seafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Authority
Services Australia
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency
Workplace Gender Equality Agency
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Joint Standing Committee)
Army Amenities Fund Company (Trustee of Army Amenities Fund and Messes Trust Fund)
Army and Air Force Canteen Service
ASC Pty Ltd (Australian Submarine Corporation)
Attorney-General's Department
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
Australian Federal Police
Australian Human Rights Commission
Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund
Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office
Australian Secret Intelligence Service
Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited
Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade)
Australian War Memorial
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal
Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme
Defence Housing Australia
Defence Services Homes Insurance Scheme Department of Defence
Department of Finance
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Department of Home Affairs
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Department of Veterans' Affairs
Director of Military Prosecutions
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (Export Finance Australia)
Inspector-General ADF
Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme
Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
Office of the Judge Advocate General and Deputy Judge Advocate Generals
Pacific Women Shaping Pacific Development Advisory Board
Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Welfare Recreational Company
Royal Australian Air Force (RAFF) Veterans Residences Trust Fund
Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund
Royal Australian Navy Central Canteens Board (incorporates Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund)
Tourism Australia
Veterans' Review Board
Health, Aged Care and Sport (Standing Committee)
Aged Care Pricing Commissioner
Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care
Australian Digital Health Agency
Australian Institute of Family Studies
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Australian National Preventive Health Agency
Australian National University
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency
Australian Research Council
Australian Sports Commission
Australian Sports Foundation Limited
Cancer Australia
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Department of Health and Aged Care
Department of Social Services
Department of Veterans' Affairs
Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Gene Technology Regulator
Hearing Australia
Independent Hospital Pricing Authority
Independent Hospital Pricing Authority Clinical Advisory Committee
Indian Ocean Territories Health Service Community Advisory Committee
National Blood Authority
National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency (National Disability Insurance Agency)
National Health and Medical Research Council
National Health Funding Body
National Mental Health Commission
NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission
Organ and Tissue Authority
Professional Services Review
Safe Work Australia
Services Australia
Sport Integrity Australia
Industry, Science and Resources (Standing Committee)
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
Australian Digital Health Agency
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian National University
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
Australian Renewable Energy Agency
Australian Research Council
Australian Skills Quality Authority (National Vocational Education and Training Regulator)
Bureau of Meteorology
Clean Energy Finance Corporation
Clean Energy Regulator
Climate Change Authority
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Cotton Research and Development Corporation
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
Department of Defence
Department of Education
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
Department of Industry, Science and Resources
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation
Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Gene Technology Regulator
Geoscience Australia
Grains Research and Development Corporation
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Independent Scientific Committee on Wind Turbines
Innovation and Science Australia
IP Australia
Murray-Darling Basin Authority
National Health and Medical Research Council
National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority
National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority Board
National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (trading as AgriFutures Australia)
Snowy Hydro Ltd
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency
Migration (Joint Standing Committee)
Australian Federal Police
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Department of Defence
Department of Finance
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Department of Health and Aged Care
Department of Home Affairs
Department of Social Services
Department of the Treasury
National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters
National Capital and External Territories, (Joint Standing Committee)
Bureau of Meteorology
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Director of National Parks
Geoscience Australia
Indian Ocean Territories Health Service Community Advisory Committee
National Capital Authority
Regional Development, Infrastructure and Transport (Standing Committee)
Airservices Australia
Australian Energy Regulator
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (Export Finance Australia)
Future Fund Management Agency
Infrastructure and Project Financing Agency
Infrastructure Australia
Innovation and Science Australia
Moorebank Intermodal Company Limited
National Capital Authority
National Faster Rail Agency
National Transport Commission
Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility
WSA Co Limited
Social Policy and Legal Affairs (Standing Committee)
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Attorney-General's Department
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity
Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
Australian Federal Police
Australian Financial Security Authority
Australian Human Rights Commission
Australian Institute of Criminology
Australian Institute of Family Studies
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Australian Law Reform Commission
Australian Livestock Export Corporation Ltd
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)
Classification Board and the Classification Review Board
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Department of Social Services
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Fair Work Commission
Family Law Council
Federal Court of Australia
Gene Technology Regulator
National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters
National Archives of Australia
Office of National Intelligence
Office of Parliamentary Counsel
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General
Workplace Gender Equality Agency
Trade & Investment Growth (Joint Standing Committee)
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Australian Naval Infrastructure Pty Ltd
Australian Office of Financial Management
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Australian Taxation Office
Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade)
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation
Commonwealth Grants Commission
Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation
Department of Finance
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Department of the Treasury
Digital Transformation Agency
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (Export Finance Australia)
Foreign Investment Review Board
Future Fund Management Agency
National Competition Council
Productivity Commission
Reserve Bank of Australia
Takeovers Panel
Tourism Australia
Attachment A: Referred reports by organisation
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fairfax proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The government's abandonment of its promise to cut power bills by $275.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
In December last year—it was the Friday after the last sitting day—the now Prime Minister and his now Minister for Climate Change and Energy had all the theatrics set in place, and they made this extraordinary announcement to the Australian people of their climate change policy if they were to win government. That climate change policy consisted not of one but of two targets. One target was a 43 per cent reduction in emissions. The other target was a $275 reduction in power bills. Two numbers: 43 and 275.
In this sitting, the first sitting of the parliament, the government had the opportunity to put its policy into a bill. Both these numbers did not appeared. Forty-three and 275—guess which of these wasn't in there? Was it the 43 or the 275?
An opposition member: I think we know.
I think we do know. The 275 was gone. This represents the first broken promise of the Albanese Labor government.
This is the first promise, and they didn't waste their time. They made sure they broke their first promise in their first sitting of parliament, a promise that goes to the heart of every living room across Australia. Every single household is copping higher power bills. Every single household knows very well that they have a new government in town that went to the people making a promise of cutting power bills, and every time they open up their power bills from now on, they will be reminded that this Albanese Labor government made them a promise that their power bills would go down and not up. This is a broken promise.
What I find extraordinary is that, despite having broken a promise to the Australian people so blatantly, despite having the Prime Minister and the minister in this place over the last two weeks confirming they have abandoned this promise to the Australian people, the Australian Labor Party's official website still claims they will deliver on that promise. Still to this day today, the Australian Labor Party are untruthfully claiming to the Australian public and to Australian businesses that they will cut their power bills.
You can look it up right now. That's what the Labor Party promises, still to this day, but the Prime Minister and the minister have refused in this place, in this chamber, to confirm that's what they're going to do. But we know they're going to abandon that promise. When they made the promise in the first place—and we've heard it from the Prime Minister already in this sitting—it was the most comprehensive economic modelling apparently ever done by any opposition. That's their claim. The $275 was based on the most comprehensive economic modelling ever done in the history, since Australian Federation, of any opposition. They are already walking away from it.
What else is going to go up?
That is exactly the question. I tell you what's going to go up: prices of a whole bunch of products and services throughout this country, especially energy-intensive companies and the products they deliver. Think of the steelworkers, those who make steel, across this country and their jobs in the foundries. Think of those who run bakeries. Think of the butchers. Think of the hairdressers. Their power bills are going up. Those opposite might laugh about those trades, but I don't laugh about those trades because they built this nation. Their power bills are going up, and the Labor Party find it funny. Do you know what's interesting, Deputy Speaker? The Labor Party's official website is still promoting the $275 reduction in power prices, but guess what website includes the Powering Australia policy, which is Labor's document, but excludes the $275?
Which one?
The minister's own department's website—they know. I don't know if they've told the minister, but they know the truth. This government, although it was elected with the promise of delivering a cut in power prices, has abandoned it, and the minister's own department knows it. That's why you do not find that $275 promise on the department's website, but the Labor Party's fine with still promoting it. That's the game they play. That's what they do.
Can we go back to the most comprehensive economic modelling ever done since Federation? I almost said 'muddling'. It would have been an interesting pun. The $275 in the spreadsheet that was done for the modelling—listen, Labor guys, who are trying to ignore it because it's really important for you to know this, colleagues—drives an assumption of 306,000 jobs. For those on the Labor benches, who do not know their own policy: in addition to making other promises, they had promised 604,000 new jobs as a result of their climate change policy. Of those, 306,000 jobs—in other words, well over half of the jobs that they have promised through their climate change policy—are predicated on the cheap power prices that they have now abandoned.
So they've abandoned the power prices, and they've cut, by over half, the number of jobs they claimed that that would deliver. This is despite the Prime Minister standing here in this sitting period, saying, 'Oh, we stand by the modelling.' The Prime Minister stands by the modelling, but can he confirm that he will deliver on the promise of a $275 cut in power prices? He can't answer it. He abandoned the promise. He abandoned the promise of power prices, and he is abandoning the promise of jobs. They go hand in hand, based on the very modelling that the Labor Party claims is the most comprehensive in the history of our nation.
One of the reasons that prices are skyrocketing at the moment, and they have been since this government was elected, is the lack of gas being poured into the Australian market.
As soon as the minister was appointed to his role, we in the opposition, in the coalition, were very clear in saying: 'Power prices are going up. You need more gas in the system. Please, minister, call an emergency meeting of gas CEOs. Get them around the table and put pressure on them. If need be, threaten to use the gas trigger, otherwise known as the ADGSM.' Guess what he did: absolutely nothing. Instead of calling a meeting with gas CEOs, do you know who he wanted to meet with? Other politicians around the country. A great, big, fat lot of good that did, didn't it—a whole bunch of politicians coming in a room, from states and territories, umming and ah-ing. Guess what tangible activity came out of that: nothing, not one thing. It took two months until, only days ago, the ACCC tabled a report that said, 'Guess what: you need to pour more gas into the market.' Two months it took until the new resources minister said: 'You know what? Maybe we should start threatening to use that gas trigger after all.' It took two months of absolute inaction.
This is why the Australian people, unfortunately, can have no confidence that the Labor government will deliver on its $275 promise, because its inaction in the domestic market will make it absolutely impossible. This is the first broken promise of the Albanese Labor government.
At the outset, I'll make it clear that I'll only be speaking for seven minutes, to allow three divisions to get done before adjournment. I want to make that clear to the House. Labor speakers, government speakers, will similarly be curtailed for the good operation of the House.
Let me start by repeating what the Prime Minister has said repeatedly over the last few days: we stand by our policy commitments, including to make power bills cheaper by increasing renewable energy in the system. We stand by our policies, and those policies are part of our broader climate and energy policy package.
The rank hypocrisy of a political party in putting forward this MPI on a day when the climate bills passed through the House of Representatives just demonstrates how irrelevant they are over there. On a historic day, when every member of this chamber—except for the Liberal and National parties—was relevant, participated in the debate, made speeches, moved amendments and contributed to helping end the climate wars, those on the other side were stuck on repeat. They were stuck on Groundhog Day and stuck on perpetuating the climate wars. In the end, what those opposite did was vote against cheaper power prices. Those opposite voted against cheaper power prices through their actions today.
That's not a surprise. You only have to look at their record in government. Whenever there was an opportunity to push power prices up, those opposite took it through their 22 energy policies—and I sadly don't have time to repeat all of them. We had the clean energy target. We had the emissions intensity policy, which lasted for 12 hours. Josh Frydenberg got up in the morning and said, 'Let's have an emissions intensity policy.' By the afternoon, he'd abandoned it. We had NEG 1, NEG 2 and NEG 3; we had UNGI; and we had my favourite—the 'big stick'. It was so effective!
What was the member for Hume's last act as energy minister? What was the member for Hume's last, pathetic, desperate act in the last days of a tawdry, sordid nine-year-old government? It was to change the law to hide an almost 20 per cent increase in power prices. It's not a surprise and is entirely characteristic of a man of that sort. It's not a surprise, because in 2019 the member for Hume, the current shadow Treasurer—we'll see how long he lasts in that role; if he keeps accepting the questions his tactics committee give him, I don't think he's going to last too long—promised that, by the end of 2021, wholesale energy prices would be $70. Well, wholesale energy prices averaged $106 by the end of 2021. Guess what they were in the month of May. Were they $70? No. Were they even $100? Had he managed to keep them stable? No. They were $341 a megawatt hour. He managed to triple it, which is good given his performance in other parts of his portfolio! This is only one small part of his and that horrible, neglectful, decadent government's history. We saw four gigawatts of energy leave the system with only one gigawatt coming in. We saw Snowy Hydro 2.0. We had Malcolm Turnbull's leather jacket moment followed up by the member for Hume, who couldn't answer a question in this House on energy without referencing his relatives, who actually made a contribution. I will pay respect to his relatives who built something at the Snowy Hydro, unlike the member for Hume. And we had $1 billion to support 3,800 megawatts of new power generation, where not one dollar was delivered and not one watt was delivered. That's a great contribution! The other side are great at wasting money, but they couldn't get the money out the door. That's how incompetent the last government were on energy policy.
Now, they're trying to wipe away the record. Apply a bit of Mr Sheen to their record to wipe it away. Wipe it away with a bit of spit and polish, a bit of Mr Sheen. The truth is they lost the election. They had their heartland wiped out. They lost their blue ribbon seats because of their obsession with the climate wars, with 22 energy policies and now they're trying to wipe it out. But, now, they're starting to think about their future. When you have just been wiped out, when you have lost your heartland, when you start thinking about the future, who do you consult? Are there some young dynamos in their party room who will drive this? Is there an energy minister about to leave parliament? Who do you get to talk about the future for the Liberal Party? John Howard.
We love John Howard.
You love him, obviously. If he's got the recipe for the future, you better get very used to sitting over there.
So you get John Howard to chart out your future and then you go to a safe spot. When you have trauma, you go to a safe place—that's natural. Their safe place is nuclear power, nuclear energy. Whenever they get in trouble, they grip it and the member for Fairfax is obsessed with it. He loves it. He's obsessed with it. What does it mean for power prices? Well, the CSIRO came out with their power price research. They found that firmed-up renewables are $46 a megawatt hour and coal is $141 a megawatt hour. If this is their grand plan, if this is their policy, if this is their vision to get relevant again, you'd think nuclear power might be cheaper than renewable energy and it might be under $41. Well, nuclear power is only $326 a megawatt hour! It's only seven times the cost of firmed-up renewables. That's a great effort.
Before we saw the member for Fairfax, I thought their lowest was the member for Hume, that that was the bottom of the barrel. Now the shadow minister for energy is really taking the cake. This is where this debate is at the moment. On the government side, we've just passed a bill that will end the climate wars, that will give investors certainty, that will allow investors to invest in the clean energy of the future, that will drive lower power prices, that will drive 604,000 new jobs. On the opposite side, they stand for higher power prices and policy irrelevance.
The Australian people deserve honesty from their Prime Minister. Before the election, the Prime Minister repeated his promise to cut electricity bills by $275 on no fewer than 15 occasions. Labor were elected on this promise to the Australian people. It was very clear. This was the Prime Minister's commitment to Australia before the election. What has happened since the election? I will tell you what has happened: the lights have gone out on the Prime Minister's commitment. In fact, do members of this House know how many times the Prime Minister has repeated this commitment since the election? Zero. The Prime Minister has not mentioned it once. In fact, he seems to be more concerned about playing politics than honouring his commitment to ease cost of living pressures for Australians. We've asked him every single day in question time, multiple times, if he is going to deliver on his commitment to the Australian people, but he has shown us very clearly that he has abandoned Australians. Much like their commitment to have a plan to tackle the cost of living, to get wages moving, to back industry and to make more things in Australia, this promise to reduce power prices is no longer. So ashamed are the government of their inability to deliver for the Australian people that they now just want us to forget. But families and businesses in my electorate of Lindsay aren't going to forget. Families who are dreading the next power bill aren't going to forget. Small businesses fighting rising costs aren't going to forget.
ABS data shows electricity prices increased on average by 12.9 per cent when Labor was last in government compared to just 0.3 per cent during the last coalition government. We've spent the best part of the last two days debating climate legislation that isn't necessary, that is simply an exercise so the Prime Minister and his government can gloat and parade around as though they have delivered meaningful results for Australians. I know one thing for sure: the coalition between Labor and the Greens on climate change will not lower power prices. It will not see a reduction in household power bills. It will only drive up the costs as the government becomes beholden to the Greens' radical climate agenda.
This broken promise from the Prime Minister, though, shouldn't surprise us. After all, this is a Prime Minister who did not know the cash rate, didn't know the unemployment rate, didn't know Australia's borders were open and didn't know his own NDIS policy. If he didn't know these important bits of information, how could anyone expect him to know how to honour a commitment to reduce power prices?
In June, the Leader of the House told Sky News:
We're behind the modelling that was there and the impact of what we're going to do, particularly through transmission that allows you to get cheaper energy on the grid.
I wonder if the member still stands by that statement today. In that same week, the Prime Minister was asked by the Weekend Australia whether the power bill cut was out the window. His response was to say:
… we are dealing with a circumstance which is a direct result of a failure to give business the certainty that they needed to invest.
This is a Prime Minister who always blames everyone else.
Meanwhile, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy is more interested in standing at the dispatch box and trialling his stand-up comedy routine than delivering power price reductions for struggling Australian families. The people of Australia are not interested in this government's jokes. It is fast becoming obvious that this government doesn't have a plan beyond empty, hollow campaign announcements.
We have a message for the Prime Minister: government is all about making tough decisions in tough circumstances and delivering what you have promised to the Australian people. The Prime Minister said it's the job of a Prime Minister to deal with the challenges that Australia faces and not to constantly blame someone else. Well, it's time, Prime Minister. It's time that you fess up to the Australian people, take responsibility and deliver those cuts in power prices that you promised during the election.
Deputy Speaker Claydon, this is the first chance I have had that wasn't a 90-second statement to congratulate you on taking this position and on your performance in our first two weeks. What a missed opportunity this MPI is. On a day when something historic has happened, when this parliament has come together and said, 'You know what—we do give a stuff about the future and we do care about what we leave for our kids and our grandkids,' we have an MPI that has no substance whatsoever. I'm going to work through a couple of the elements of it.
I am disappointed in the member for Lindsay, someone who I know values the Blue Mountains World Heritage area, that she would say that we have spent this week debating legislation that isn't necessary. People who live in the electorate of Macquarie, the neighbouring electorate, and those who live on the extended part of the river—we share rivers, the member for Lindsay and I—think this legislation is necessary because it actually has the potential to change the future of our region in a positive way.
Rather than talking about claims that there are broken promises—and I'll come to that, because there are definitely no broken promises—what I think we could have used this for is to stop arguing about whether or not we need action on climate change and to have an adult debate about the way forward. Let's talk about the different options that we now have with our commitment to a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 and look at how we get there. I know I should not have expected an adult debate from those on the other side. We've never seen one in the six years I've been here, and, clearly, nothing is going to change, even though they're now on the other side, so I mourn the missed opportunity.
I'm in awe of the Minister for International Development and the Pacific. He can remember more of the energy policies of those opposite than I possibly can. We have an absolute conviction in our commitment to make power bills cheaper, and I'm just going to give you a really simple lesson. The more energy at a cheaper price we can get into the grid, which we will rewire so it actually can get from where it's generated to where it needs to go—the more we do that; the more cheap energy there is coming in—the more that is going to be the thing that is real gold for energy prices, for manufacturers who need reliable energy at a cheaper price, for households and for small businesses. It's really simple maths, and I'm disappointed, given the intellectual firepower opposite me, that those opposite have not been able to do the maths and work it out.
But it's not going to happen in nine weeks, and let's be clear about that, so I'm very pleased to say: watch this space. We will keep our commitments because we know that renewable energy is going to be better for our entire economy.
For three years, the effects of the COVID pandemic have changed our lives, challenged our livelihoods and taken an unspeakable toll on all our loved ones and families. Today we still live through these challenging times. They're far from over, and what most Australians continue to feel is pain. The challenges haven't simply snuck up on us. They haven't jumped out in the dark overnight. Hopefully, one thing that all politicians in this nation and in this place can agree on is that we continue to face significant obstacles preventing us from resuming our treasured way of life.
In the lead-up to the May election, it was very clear to me that the most significant challenge in my electorate would be felt very long after the election was over, and that was, of course, the cost of living. Without a doubt, the cost of living for families and businesses is the No. 1 grassroots issue that is being talked about, and electors ring me every day in order to discuss it. It's what they talk about in normal conversation. It's what they talk about in the crib rooms right across the electorate of Braddon, and I'm very sure that, in that way, Braddon is very similar to other rural and regional electorates right across the nation.
Whoever won government during that election knew that managing the impact of the rising cost of living was their major and immediate challenge. When I enter the Albanese government's address, issues and answers to the cost of living crisis into any search engine, all I get is a lot of data from prior to the election. But since the election it has been radio silence. Since the election there has been very little. Alarmingly, if I search the government's pledge to cut power bills by $275, which would be a normal thing to search for, it seems that all indications are that the government is now backtracking. It is crab-walking away from this important responsibility. Instead, the measurable promise of cutting power bills by $275 by 2025 seems to have been replaced by a general statement that the government has a policy of doing 'what they can' to assist cost of living pressures—what they can.
I come from an electorate of real people, practical people—small business owners, sole traders, partnerships—people who work hard every day. They get up at four o'clock in the morning to milk the cows. They work all night to get the crops in ahead of the rain. They've taken a risk. They've borrowed money. They've employed people every day in their business. These are the people who don't discuss where the next wind farm's going or what pronoun they're going to use today. Today they're talking about how they're going to pay their power bill, which is increasing; how they're going to find that extra money; what they're going to cut out of the grocery bill in order to meet the rising costs of living and the rising interest rate; how they're going to put clothes on the backs of their kids as they go into their winter uniform; and how their little boy is going to get his new shoes so that he can go to school. These are the questions that burn in the minds of my electorate. These are the questions that they raise with me every day.
Obviously, when they raise these questions, they expect a response back. They've learnt that over the term that I have been their representative. When I give them an undertaking to get back to them, that's exactly what I do: I get back to them. I'm as good as my word, and I put it to this government that it needs to do the same. Take a leaf out of that book. If you promise the Australian people a reduction of $275 off their power bill, that is exactly what you should do, or you should explain why you're not going to do it rather than crab-walking and backing away into a tiny corner. Otherwise, rather than calling the government full of policy, electorates like mine will call the government something else: they will assume that you are full of—empty promises. The creation of 604,000 jobs, with five out of six of those new jobs being created in the regions, is a mammoth task, and we will wait and see whether this is just going to be another empty promise that will just continue to fail—
The member for Bendigo.
I guess we could forgive members of the opposition. It's a Thursday afternoon. I guess we could forgive them for being simplistic creatures and getting hung up on this one little detail of what is a very comprehensive plan, because they are a group of politicians who don't realise that a comprehensive plan lasts for more than 10 weeks or for more than two days.
If they were worth their salt and had actually read the plan that Labor took to the last election and that we're now implementing—the Powering Australia plan—they would know that how we get to the money that Australians will get back on their power bills is by implementing the plan. We need to rewire the nation. We need to build more renewable energy. We need to build community batteries. We need to work with local and state governments, with ourselves and with industry. We need to work with all the community and business stakeholders that have come on board to back our plan to get our energy grid. We need to transition it to a grid that actually helps people power themselves. We are coming from a place of neglect where the previous government did nothing. In fact, they actually did worse than nothing. Environmental vandalism is what they did—the way in which they destroyed our energy security in this country. So I guess we should be a little bit forgiving of the fact that they are stuck on one sentence.
Australians, I can tell you, have a lot more faith in their government. They know it's going to take a lot of work to rebuild our grid. The previous government failed to do things like build the interconnector in Kerang in regional Victoria, which would allow all those renewable solar energy projects around Mildura and the north-west to be built—investment waiting to happen that didn't happen because of the previous government's complete inaction. Instead they were talking about the never-never of nuclear power. Instead they were talking about funding the building of coal-fired power stations. That's how out of date the previous government were.
We know and the Australian people know that through the action we've already taken and the work we've already started—building renewable energy projects that are in the pipeline and rewiring the grid—energy bills will be cheaper, and Australians will celebrate that day. But we're in a dark place right now because of the inability of the previous government to do anything. At the end of the day maybe it's because they are really upset about the results of the last election. It has been 10 weeks. They should know, because in 10 years they failed to do anything, that it actually takes more than 10 weeks to build an interconnector in Kerang. It takes more than 10 weeks to reverse the damage of a decade. That is the reality of where we're at. We will have cheaper bills. Maybe they've just played this hand a little bit too soon, because it has only been 10 weeks since the election.
I rise to speak about a matter of public importance, the rising cost of living and Labor's scuttling of its own promise to cut power bills by $275. During the election campaign Mr Albanese visited my electorate of Dawson, in January this year, where he told local media outlets that Labor's emissions plan would see, 'a reduction in power bills, on average, of $275 by 2025'.
Labor says it was elected on a promise to create jobs, cut power bills and reduce emissions. We all know what has happened to the second part of that promise. The commitment to cut power bills is dead in the water. There is a gaping hole in the Climate Change Bill—no mention of power prices. The Prime Minister has sat on the commitment he made in my Mackay electorate in January for six months knowing that he could not keep it.
It gets worse. Labor made this commitment to the electricity consumers 15 times before election day. The Prime Minister finally confirmed he could not keep his promise in his first question time, making it clear to all Australians that this government cannot be trusted. The Albanese government is more committed to playing politics than easing the cost-of-living pressures on Australians. It goes downhill from there.
The concessions this government has made to the Greens will be ruinous for the economy. At the time of rising inflation, rising interest rates and rising living costs Labor's restrictions on the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility, Export Finance Australia and Infrastructure Australia will make it hard, if not impossible, for these agencies to recommend or provide finance and insurance projects in the energy, resources and agricultural sectors.
This is on top of the government's decision to back-pedal on its ill-advised move to scrap the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia. You know that the decision is wrong. The resources that come out of the North are the lifeblood of the Australian economy. How is this government going to fund the roads and infrastructure if it keeps squeezing the life out of the North and denying it's funding for energy, resource and agriculture products that are so vital for our export earnings? This will also deny finance to provide important regional infrastructure projects, upgrades to the freight corridors. Ports and gas pipelines will have to go begging because they won't be able to get finance. The Prime Minister promised he would not ban coal and gas projects, but that is exactly what he's doing by denying them finance. A ban by stealth is still a ban.
The Prime Minister is selling out Australians in regional areas like my electorate of Dawson. Investment in jobs will simply disappear. We have already seen power prices in the National Electricity Market more than double, and in some cases triple, compared to the same time last year. On top of that, we have a Treasurer who admits life is going to get harder and more expensive, but Australians will just have to grin and bear it. If Australians think the cost of living is high now wait until we have the government that cannot afford to pay its bills, because it is cutting off the flow of money from the North. And when it runs out Labor will just go back to its tired old playbook—raising taxes.
Unlike the coalition, this government has no plan to address rising cost-of-living pressures for the 3½ million families that have a mortgage. Our record speaks for itself. Emissions have fallen by more than 20 per cent since 2005, while our economy grew by 45 per cent. We beat our Kyoto target by 459 million tonnes. We set a credible plan to achieve— (Time expired)
Before I give the member for Solomon the call, I want to remind everyone, as much as I love a robust MPI on the last sitting day of the last fortnight, to dial it down.
I've got limited time, so I'll just summarise. I know, Member for Dawson, you're new to the chamber, but you have joined the biggest bunch of incompetents that couldn't land an energy policy after 22 tries at it. You aren't responsible for the trillion dollars of debt or the failure to establish an energy plan in any shape or form, but you've joined the mob that were, so try and get them on board, because the future of the north that we're a part of is pretty vital. The renewable energy future is really important for the north. I wasn't going to mention this, because I've got limited time, but those opposite deceived the Australian people prior to the election, and that was absolutely unforgivable. But we're on this side, as the Australian government, because the Australian people knew that we were serious about action on climate change and about the position of renewables in our energy mix into the future, and they made us the government of Australia.
I want to do a little bit of what the previous speaker did and talk a little bit about northern Australia—a different slant on it, a more positive one. I want to reflect on how important the passing of our legislation today was for my constituents. The Northern Territory is one of the hottest parts of Australia. Darwin is certainly the hottest city. We know how brutal the build-up of heat and humidity can be, and we'll cop it. Climate change is critical everywhere, but an increase in temperature will be felt acutely by us and many that live across northern Australia. I'm committed to doing my part, as part of our great government, to make sure that we are able to adapt to climate change and to maximise renewables in our system. This government is going to get on with it. We've committed to a 43 per cent reduction by 2030 and we've committed to being carbon neutral by 2050. We can't have a continuation of the ideology we had from those opposite. It's just not going to get us anywhere, so get with the program. You are on the wrong side of history.
I just want to give those opposite a bit of an idea. I went to Queensland recently and visited Barcaldine. In Barcaldine, the home of the Labor Party, where it all started, there is the Barcaldine renewable energy zone, BREZ. I recommend you go and have a look at it. As the Prime Minister said this week, up in the Territory we've got Sun Cable, which is going to be the biggest solar farm in the world. That's an exciting future to get behind. Come up and have a look.
I acknowledge your request, Deputy Speaker Claydon. This is the last MPI of the week, and I will try and dial it down. But the muse is with me a little bit here, because I've heard the most honest thing I've ever heard from Labor in my two weeks here! It's been fantastic: 'Don't worry about the cost. Don't worry about the cost. It's just a little, itsy-bitsy thing. Don't worry about it. Put it over here. Forget about it. Don't worry about the costs! You don't need to think about it.' Oh, my goodness! That's fantastic! I couldn't have done that better. I'll grab that clip later on and beam it in to Groom. Fantastic!
We have heard lots of great words from Labor. Thank you very much for your wonderful contributions. There are a couple of words they didn't say, like '$275'.
A government member: A trillion dollars in debt.
I'll get to that number, but that's a good number too. 'Two hundred and seventy-five dollars.' They can't say it. No-one could say it. It's amazing. All this opportunity to talk about this MPI, and they can't say the words, '$275'. It's a great word. Try it out. It's fantastic: 275. It's poetic. It rolls out of you. It's magnificent! It's an absolutely magnificent couple of worlds that come together. They are wonderful.
The other one is fantastic too, because I hear this often. Let's address it: a trillion dollars worth of debt, every dollar of which you agreed to.
A government member: No we didn't!
You damn did. Absolutely you did. And it would have been more debt if we had followed all of your policy suggestions, so let's go down this path.
We are a very short time into this term of government and already this government has hit the fork in the road: 'Do we do what we said we would do, or do we walk away from our commitments?' We saw the government today in question time give a wonderful Dorothy Dixer about how good they were. It was the best question we've ever seen: 'How good are Labor?' It was fantastic. Absolutely wonderful. Here we are already. We're about to go home on Thursday. We're about to go home, and Labor have already left this promise behind. They've already walked away from this. It's already gone.
We acknowledge the need for balance in a conversation on energy. That little issue of cost is important. It's an important thing. Let's be fair; Labor dabbled in balance. They dabbled. They thought about it, they had a little, modest dabble—a 'dabblet' maybe; I don't know. They thought they'd have a go at this. They said: 'Yes, absolutely. We've got this target and we're going to reduce emissions and we're going to reduce your energy bills by this much.' It really was a good start, until they got elected. It reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where he gets the hire car: 'You took the reservation; you didn't hold the reservation.' Guys, I've got to be honest. You made the commitment, and that was awesome. It was great. You made the commitment, but you've got to hold the commitment. You've got to hold it. That's the important part. That's what we're looking for. George is laughing to himself in the background over here. It's absolutely fantastic.
But this $275 is no laughing matter. It's been raised before. Today I had a text from a constituent telling me about her texts from her landlord to say rent is going up $50 a week. That's in Centenary Heights. Those are the real cost-of-living pressures we're experiencing across the country. This is what's on people's minds. Cost-of-living pressures writers are there; they are real. We're feeling it across the country. Whilst this is happening, in the light of this, this is the moment that Labor choose to flip-flop and walk away completely from their commitment. Again, $275 is a beautiful couple of words, absolutely fantastic, and they walk away from it. They said, 'Vote for us and we'll do this,' then they got elected—
An opposition member: Give him an extension!
Absolutely, I'll take the extension. But now they're at the part where they're saying: 'Yeah, nah, we're going to walk away from that. That's not what we're about.' It's been so clear. This is the best example—you know what? Maybe this isn't the best example of a flip-flop we'll get from this government. Maybe they've got ambitions to go higher. Maybe we'll see better flip-flops, but this is a pretty good one. To do this straight off the bat, to come in and do this right at the top of the order is absolutely fantastic. It sets the scene. We've talked about the kinder, gentler parliament that we we'll see here. We've talked about that, and that's good talk, but what do we see? Judge Labor not by what they say but by what they do. This is a government that flip-flops straight off the bat and walks away from its commitments. That is what this government is setting the scene for. It's a fantastic standard.
The Albanese government has been in power for less than three months, and we haven't wasted one day to act on climate change and honour our commitment to the people of Australia. The government stands by its commitment to make power bills cheaper because we have a plan to make it happen, but Rome wasn't built in a day; we have to first deal with the 10 years of the coalition's inaction on climate change, a decade of chaos and failed policies.
Today we began the march to change. Today in the chamber we passed the first real climate change bill in many, many years. It's the first step to implementing the Albanese government's mandate to take real and meaningful action to address climate change right now.
The facts are clear. Cleaner energy is cheaper energy and everyone knows that, except perhaps those sitting opposite. The CSIRO and the Australian Energy Marketer Operator's GenCost report recently released confirms wind and solar are the cheapest source of electricity generation and storage in Australia. The Albanese government knows that solar and wind are cheaper. We also know that our Powering Australia policy will see renewable energy rise to make up 82 per cent of the natural energy market by 2030. Powering Australia will deliver 604,000 jobs across our nation. The government is also investing $20 billion in upgrading the electricity grid to allow more renewables into the system to bring costs down.
Australia has the highest uptake in the world of home solar but just one in 60 households has battery storage because of the upfront costs. Up to 100,000 Australian households across the nation will benefit from those 400 community batteries, including one in Corangamite in my electorate. Community batteries offer better economies of scale than household batteries, with lower capital, installation and maintenance costs. These are just some of the mechanisms the Albanese government will use to bring down energy costs. But unlike the previous government, we will ensure that the Australian consumer will always come first.
The Albanese government supports work to prevent anticompetitive behaviour in the market being undertaken by the Australian Energy Regulator, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Energy Market Operator. By contrast, under the previous government, we had nine years of wasted opportunities, denial and delay; nine years of stop-start energy policies, with 22 energy policies abandoned; nine years of hearing from some of those opposite that climate change is not even real. We saw a government attempt to abolish and then water down the Renewable Energy Target.
The previous government constantly undermined both the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. They demonised renewable energy and disparaged large-scale battery storage as being as effective as the big prawn. Who can forget when the previous Prime Minister said electric vehicles would 'end the weekend'? We saw the previous government dragged kicking and screaming to net zero by 2050. We even know that the previous government changed the law to hide recent energy price increases of up to 19 per cent from the Australian public before the last election.
By contrast, Australia now has a government with the right policies to put downward pressure on energy prices, to make energy bills cheaper and to honour its commitment to all Australians.
There being no further speakers, the debate has concluded.
I move:
(1) Mr Gosling be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and that, in his place, Ms Chesters be appointed a member of the committee;
(2) Mr Chester be discharged from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and that, in his place, Mr Pitt be appointed a member of the committee;
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the requested amendments be agreed to.
This bill has come back to us from the Senate, and I don't intend to delay the House any longer than I absolutely need to. It is urgent that the matter be dealt with this afternoon and before the House gets up, because there are provisions within this bill that relate to tax relief for persons who received grants from the government after Tropical Cyclone Seroja. If this bill doesn't pass through the House, they'll incur a tax liability that nobody on this side of the House wants to occur.
The bill comes back to us in substantially the same form as it was presented to the House by the government, with one amendment, which I'll explain to members of the House now. It removes a long-standing exemption in our corporation laws which has existed since 1995 that exempts certain large private companies that existed prior to 1995 from public disclosure of an audited annual report to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the provision of tax data to the Australian tax office, which could then be made public.
During question time a number of questions were asked of the Prime Minister and the government which went to the importance of transparency in corporate affairs. I'd expect, given the tenor of those questions, that members of the coalition will rise and support the government in removing these exemptions from corporations and taxation law. They go to the heart of transparency. They ensure that all large private companies are treated in exactly the same way. They must present to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission an audited copy of an annual report, and they must provide certain information to the tax commissioner, which would be treated in the same way as any other private company's tax information. These are simple, straightforward amendments. They weren't in the government's original bill but they are, word for word, a reflection of amendments that Labor moved in opposition on numerous occasions.
I want to pay tribute to the work for the member for Fenner, the now assistant minister to the Treasurer, for the tireless work that he has put into ensuring that these issues were a part of public consciousness and public debate here. I also pay tribute, of course, to former senator Rex Patrick, who moved them numerous times through the course of the last parliament. I commend the bill and the amendments to the House.
While the opposition voted for the bill at second reading, and we strongly support getting on with the bill, we don't support it in its amended form. The amendments moved in the Senate by the Greens, which were not part of the original bill—let's be very clear—and which were accepted by the government, do increase red tape and compliance burden in the economy and for private companies. These are not public companies; they are private companies. It removes the regulatory certainty that's been there—which is something that those opposite ask for all the time—for a limited class of companies, and it constrains the ability for ASIC to make instruments to implement its regulatory decisions.
The other effect of this amendment is to increase red tape for Australian owned companies over their foreign owned competitors. This will mean Australian companies are put in a position where they are less competitive than their foreign competitors, at a time when we need Australian companies being as competitive as they possibly can in a brutal international and global environment. Many of these businesses know how difficult it is to compete globally and win. And winning is what we want Australian companies to do, because that creates jobs and drives investment and drives opportunity. That, of course, is the key to Australians realising their aspirations: Australian world-beaters out there on the world stage without absolutely unnecessary red tape and compliance being imposed on them.
The opposition supports reducing red tape for compliance. That's something we believe in very, very strongly for Australian companies. We want a prosperous, productive economy that can help Australian households, Australian families and Australian businesses to realise their aspirations. For these reasons, we oppose the bill as amended.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
It continues to be a concerning development of the Labor Party, walking away from a commitment that they made in the election to my constituents of Sturt and to all the people of Australia to reduce electricity prices by $275 a year. In question time, when this was repeatedly asked of the Prime Minister and other ministers, none of them committed to stand by that figure, but many of them suggested that we look at the policy they took to the election—Powering Australia. I thought I'd take the opportunity to re-read it and have a look at some of the things they claimed in that. It reminded me of some of the peculiar elements within that policy and how they suggest that they are going to achieve this $275 reduction. One in particular is this Rewiring the Nation fund that they're creating—a $20 billion fund, according to the fairly scant detail in their policy document—that they say is going to contribute towards reducing electricity prices for Australian consumers. I really do struggle to understand how that is at all possible.
Let's think about the fundamentals of how transmission works in the National Electricity Market, which Paul Keating established—let's not forget—in the early 1990s. When that market was established, we moved to a situation where consumers met the cost of every component of electricity. So, instead of the previous situations, where state and territory governments would build generation, transmission, distribution et cetera and then they would charge households—at times, political considerations would be taken into account there, and perhaps the correct market rate wasn't charged, because, for a political reason, a government didn't want to necessarily appropriately pass on electricity costs—Keating established the National Energy Market. That included, on the generation side, having a market and, on the transmission side—where you can't have a market—having a regulated asset. That was because you can't have different transmission companies competing with each other to transfer electrons from one point to the other. You've got to have a monopoly market, because you could never seriously replicate those assets that you only need one unit of. Therefore you have a regulated asset base.
The regulated asset base means that that is independently valued. In my home state, ESCOSA—the Essential Services Commission of South Australia—determine what the return should be on the value of an asset which is in a monopoly market, like transmission assets are. Owners of those assets need to achieve a fair rate of return, so ESCOSA might say: 'If your asset is worth this amount of money, this is the return that you should get on that. You also get a reasonable cost that you can charge for your transmission.' In the case of transmission, as we're discussing here, you can add that in there, and that is passed on together through that determination to the consumer—that is, the electricity consumers.
The simple reality is that if Labor are proposing to increase the value by putting another $20 billion of transmission into the total transmission network then the charge for transmission will have to increase to the consumer. That's just a mathematical reality that is impossible to refute. They are talking, in fact, of this unleashing $70-odd billion of additional transmission. Again, that is putting $70 billion of extra recoverable charges into the marketplace through transmission charges. Danny Price, from Frontier Economics, who's very highly respected by the Labor Party as an energy economist—he's someone the South Australian Labor government use regularly to undertake modelling and analysis of some of their policies—made this point very simply in April when the policy was being debated during the election campaign. It is simply impossible that, if you're putting $20 billion worth of additional transmission assets into the system, that is not going to increase the transmission charges to consumers by whatever the determined return on that asset is by the independent regulator. It's impossible for anything but that to occur.
This is one of the many significant flaws in Labor's policy, and it's why we will not see them stand by that $275 figure and say it—the Prime Minister or ministers in this place. But I tell you what: when you go to an election and you tell the Australian people that you're going to do something, and that turns out to be a lie, and, instead of power bills going down by $275, it is very likely that they will increase, then the Australian people will mete out a very tough punishment to the Labor Party for that lie. (Time expired)
I've spoken in this parliament a number of times about the concept of a wellbeing budget and why governments delivering wellbeing budgets is a progressive step not just in measuring GDP and economic growth but in measuring what matters. Some of this comes from a quote that I've used before, from Senator Robert F Kennedy way back in 1968:
… the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.
If we, as parliamentarians, are going to be part of trying to bring in policies that make life worthwhile, then we need to be able to judge, to measure, whether in fact that's what's occurring. It's why I am so pleased that Treasurer Chalmers has announced that his first budget, coming up in October, will include a new wellbeing statement. It will be aimed at measuring how Australians, how we all, are faring in our daily lives so we can better inform policy development and pursue growth, but pursue the right sort of growth, pursue economic growth that takes everyone with it, economic growth that reduces inequality, doesn't expand it.
As the Treasurer has said, Australians should judge policies against agreed markers of progress. That begins with measuring what matters—not instead of traditional economic indicators but in addition to them. GDP is important to measure, but measure what matters to people's daily lives—the impact of that GDP growth or otherwise—as well. So I'm very much looking forward to hearing the Treasurer deliver budget statement No. 4, which is going to be dedicated to a broad-ranging discussion of our options, drawing on best practice from around the world as the basis of our engagement and further development.
In Australia we used to be world leaders at measuring indicators of wellbeing, but we aren't anymore. We've been overtaken by New Zealand, by France, by many of the countries in the OECD. The UN has the Sustainable Development Goals. It is an important and worthy activity to engage in to say: 'We are going to look at what matters: mental health; child poverty; inequalities faced by our First Nations people; how the reforms and innovations of a digital age can be spread more evenly across regions and cities—people from advantaged backgrounds, people from disadvantaged backgrounds; how we are going in transitioning to a low-carbon economy; how our environment is faring.' We talk about the importance of all these things in a policy sense, but we don't do enough at the moment to hold ourselves to targets and measure our process in a transparent way and a way that this parliament can be involved in.
I want to congratulate the Treasurer for moving us in that direction. He knows this, but I remind him of how interested I am in being part of that development. I was going to talk about local sporting champions, but I've used up almost all of my time. Thank you, Speaker, and see you next time parliament sits.
TINK () (): I rise today to speak about how the deteriorating health of Australia's environment, due to the pressures of climate change, habitat loss, invasive species and pollution, is impacting my electorate of North Sydney. The North Sydney area has always been seen as the green belt around the CBD and Sydney Harbour, but the grim reality is that our green spaces are shrinking, not only across my electorate but right across the state.
TheState of the environment report published in 2021, but only released by the new environment minister last month, was a shocking read. It provided a long list of animal and plant species in decline, habitat destruction and clearing, introduced species thriving and diseases and invasive pests wreaking havoc on our land. The report is clear: our climate is changing. We're experiencing more extreme high temperatures, more bushfires and more intense rain events. Sea temperatures are also continuing to rise. Each of these factors in turn affects the liveability of our cities.
Adding to the changing climate, most major Australian cities are growing at a faster rate than other developed cities. This is driving increased urban heat, congestion, pollution and waste, with each in turn impacting our urban areas and biodiversity, green and blue spaces alike. A tree canopy cover of at least 30 per cent in a neighbourhood is needed to provide benefits such as urban cooling and resilience to heat waves, yet more than half of Sydney's councils have lost urban forest cover since 2013. The resilience and sustainability of the places we live in are being challenged.
To effectively respond to these challenges, it will be critical for all three levels of government to collaborate and take a holistic nationwide approach to developing resilient frameworks that not only sustain our cities but regenerate them. In my electorate of North Sydney, there are three major infrastructure projects for which we are not seeing effective, modern, resilient planning responses. They are the upgrade to the Warringah Freeway, the Western Harbour Tunnel and the Beaches Link. We must not take these projects individually but look at them together and understand their cumulative impacts.
The North Sydney community has been largely ignored in a rushed consultation process, and our residents are going to lose out. From the outset, these projects have been yet another example of short-term thinking, using infrastructure approaches from the 1960s to plan for tomorrow. Frustratingly, North Sydney will pay the price, with more traffic congestion on our streets, more air pollution around our schools, a loss of more than 3½ thousand trees, mangroves and sea grasses and the loss of 15,000 square metres of green space from our parks and reserves like Cammeray Park and Flat Rock Gully.
The Warringah Freeway upgrade is already underway, but, on behalf of my community, I call for the two tunnel projects to be suspended until the community can be sure that all viable alternatives have been explored and the potential impacts of these projects, as they currently exist, are mitigated. We know we need solutions. We just wonder whether we've found the right ones. To this point, I wish to thank those in this space, particularly Minister Gallagher and Minister King and their teams, for confirming that there is currently no federal funding allocated for the Western Harbour Tunnel. The absence of such funding, I would suggest, further challenges the very basis of the project.
There are also a myriad of local developments, which constituents have raised with me, that will also have a negative impact on our green canopy and our natural and cultural heritage. For example, my community is opposed to Transport for NSW's proposed linear cycle ramp on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The ramp would have a serious and deleterious effect on the national heritage value of the bridge and its curtilages, as well as the trees and green spaces in Bradfield Park North. There is an alternative solution supported by North Sydney Council, the community and many organisations, if only the levels of government involved would listen to the community.
Plans are infinitely adaptable where political and community will align. It is time we start approaching major infrastructure projects like these differently, with transparency, true community consultation, sustainability and integrity at the heart of them. These are the remedies that North Sydney is seeking, and I look forward to seeing the response from the government, the environment and this parliament. We must, and we can, do better for our environment.
I'm going to use this opportunity to thank the many members of my campaign team and volunteers who enabled history to be made in Higgins. It is an honour and a privilege to be standing here in this House as the first Labor member for Higgins. It's been a phenomenal whirlwind of 75 days, and I wanted to take this opportunity to stop and really reflect on the people and supporters who helped to get me here.
I want to thank my campaign committee who helped organise various events and supported my campaign from the very beginning to the very end while out pre-polling with me on the streets of Higgins. Some of the members of my campaign committee are Mark Warburton, Mark Giles, Carlo Buratto, Sarina Greco, David Wright, Angus Reynolds, Angus Styles, Jasmine Salas, Tom Ingham, John Stowell, Christopher Wiseman, Steven Blacker, Craig Irvine and Madeleine Sanders.
I would also like to thank my field team, who were out on the doors and the phones, and with me as we spread the message of hope and listened to people of Higgins—every day, rain, hail or shine. We knocked on thousands and thousands of doors and called on just as many people. Among my field team that I would like to recognise and thank are Tara Cunneen, Alex Mansell, Ben Chaney, Oscar Dobson, Bettina Prescott, Danielle Evans, Samuel Heckeroth, Eva Scopelliti, Nicholas Geisler, Joshua Strauss and Sean Hanna.
As always, I would not be here without the support of my colleagues in Victorian Labor, some who are candidates for the next election. Among these include Matt Fregon, Steve Dimopoulos, Nina Taylor and Wesa Chau. I thank you for sharing this journey with me.
I think everyone can agree that those who volunteer their time to the cause, any cause, are truly valuable, and I thank all the volunteers for their constant support. Without them we wouldn't have made history. Among the volunteers I would like to thank, I include Peter Wenborn, Gerald Sabel, Robyn Saltmarsh, Linda Sim, Edwina Kay, Jackson Stiles, Rodney Charls, Ian Radnell, Vickie Brous, Harsha Guneratne, Metika and Peyton Claxton, Josh Khaw, Lewis Desmond, Ken Penaluna, James Spencer, Oskar Beadell, Greg Neal, Lucy Benbow, Katrina Watson, Anne Gellatly, Richard Bouwmeester, Doug Simonds, Anthony McDonald, Deborah Chemke, Julie Ligeti, Lavan Ruban and Peter Kriesner. Thank you to all who contributed to my campaign. This is not everyone. I'm sure I've left someone off the list, and I do apologise if I cause offence. I know that I am truly grateful to be here as your member for Higgins and I do hope to do you all proud. Thank you.
Saving the best to last! Or almost last. I wish to alert the House and the nation to the nature of our electricity system and the alarming nature of the growing problems it has, particularly with the transmission and distribution system which is colloquially known as 'the grid'.
We have had built in this country a series of world-class grids, built by state governments around the country. On the east coast they've all been joined up by interconnectors and operate in a so-called market, which is actually more like a racket—a series of rules and regulations to favour variable renewable energy at the cost of an almost universally available and cheap electricity.
Increasing amounts of variable renewable energy, which by its very nature is not generated in a synchronous AC manner, is creating huge problems for the grid. If we keep going hell for leather on introducing more and more variable renewable energy with this consequent loss of system inertia, which is a very important physical capability, we will destroy our grid. All grids around the world operate on alternating current and are running at certain voltages and frequencies depending on where you are in the grid, either in the high transmission or the local distribution network. The magic number is 50 hertz, and it has to work at that frequency. With variable sources of energy, if they're coming from photovoltaics, they're converted from direct current into alternating current, and there is no inertia with that.
So the whole premise of our transition to the brave new world is actually full of a lot of major, serious electrical physics problems. We will have increasing instability in our grid, even though on paper the numbers theoretically add up. But that is because people are confused—and I fear there are a lot of bankers and bodies who've invested in this. They equate the nameplate capacity of a variable renewable setup with the actual energy delivered, whether it's a wind farm, a solar farm or someone's rooftop.
Installed capacity is not what is delivered. It depends on how much of it is available over time. For solar energy, on average—even in Australia—it's available about 22 per cent of the time. For wind, offshore wind is probably better, at closer to 35 per cent, while onshore wind is about 30 per cent. That's on average, but there are huge periods of our calendar year where those figures are actually four per cent. That's why, on average, on some beautiful, sunny, perfectly windy days it might be 50 or 60 per cent. Some days you can have a sweet spot, and the whole bang lot in a little state like South Australia, which only needs about 1,900 megawatts, can boast: 'Wow! We're 100 per cent renewable!' Yes, but electricity systems run 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
I might mention the cost. The member for Sturt mentioned it. The whole premise of the Integrated System Plan that AEMO has released relies on huge, vast overbuilds of grids going everywhere, as well as huge investment in grid-style batteries and everyone else getting batteries. But we are already seeing the voltage in the system. It's not advertised, but instead of our traditional 240-volt system it's often running on 220 volts. If we keep going at this rate, we will imminently have major city blackouts like South Australia did.
The International Energy Agency has documented this. I'm not making this up. They have an integrated system plan and they say that once you get above 10 per cent variables you will run into problems. They say it's almost impossible to maintain it regularly once you're above 30 per cent. So we've got non-generating condensers, big, huge bits of kit that are trying to mimic the effect of electrical generators coming from traditional base-load plants.
This story that variable renewable energy is the cheapest—as a standalone entity, yes, but the whole system doesn't just come from a standalone; it comes via a grid. Grid costs are going through the roof, stability is going down, and we are headed for a major calamity.
It's been a fantastic week this week. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese earlier discussed the fact that at the Birmingham Commonwealth Games we've so far tallied 123 medals, 46 of which are gold. I'm very proud to speak about five key star athletes from my seat of Spence.
Firstly, I'd like to congratulate Chris Flavel, who won a silver medal in the B6-B8 lawn bowls pairs, a fantastic result for him and his partner. We also have Lauren Mansfield, who won a bronze medal as part of the 3X3 women's basketball team. Finally, Callum Peters won his quarter-final bout in the middleweight section this morning. He's 19 years old and the youngest boxer on the Australian boxing team. I wish him all the best in his upcoming semi-final.
Further, I'd like to mention and wish best of luck to Miles Scotson, who will be competing in the men's cycling road race on Sunday, and Amanda Jade-Wellington, who is set to play in the women's T20 cricket team within the next five days.
Spence is proud, the northern suburbs are proud and South Australia, along with the rest of the country, is proud of all of your efforts in these games. I say to your families and friends: well done and congratulations on supporting your sports stars throughout their journey in these Commonwealth Games.
I'd also like to congratulate two outstanding young junior sports stars in my electorate of Spence. Young Evan Barrett is a striker playing for the Gawler Hockey Club. He's just been recently selected to play for South Australia in the 12 years and under age group at the School Sport Australia championship later this month here in Canberra.
The final star I'd like to speak about is 14-year-old Daniel Willment. He is set to take on the world later this year in November as part of the Junior Darts Corporation, or JDC, World Darts Championship to be held in Gibraltar. I wish him all the best in emulating his idols, Phil 'the Power' Taylor, 'Flying Scotsman' Gary Anderson and Peter 'Snakebite' Wright.
Well done to everyone. It's an absolute honour to represent your country or your state at any level of sport, and it's quite clear to me and to the rest of the people in the suburbs of Spence that we have a lot of depth in our sporting talent pool. I'm sure over the coming years we'll have many more representatives from our electorate. I wish them all the best.
House adjourned at 16:5 6
The COVID-19 pandemic is not over. Just yesterday, across our nation there were 41,238 new cases of COVID-19 recorded—noting that it's widely suspected that there are many more in the community going unrecorded.
A division having been called in the House of Represe ntatives—
Sitting suspended from 09:36 to 10:02
Just yesterday across our nation, there were 41,238 new cases of COVID-19 recorded, and, sadly, there are many more in the community.
The impact on our health system needs to be acknowledged. We currently have so many cases treated in hospital by incredible teams of health workers supported by incredible ancillary staff. It's important to note that statistics have names and faces. Each death is a beloved family member no longer at the dinner table. Each patient is a human being struggling for oxygen. Each healthcare worker is an exhausted nurse or blistered cleaner working on the front line.
We're yet to see the impacts of long COVID, a potentially debilitating condition which follows the acute or early phase of COVID infection. Symptoms have been shortness of breath, fatigue, fever, headaches and brain fog. There's a fear amongst many professionals that our health, welfare and disability services are underprepared to support the growing number of Australians with long COVID. This is a challenge recently acknowledged by the Minister for Health and Aged Care, and I welcome his commitment to seek advice from the experts to address long-term impacts of this virus.
There are five key requirements at a national level that have been recognised by the University of Sydney. The first is surveillance for long COVID, to track rates, symptoms, and impact on work and quality of life over time. The second is to provide better support and resources for GPs to treat long COVID in primary care. The third is more specialists for long COVID clinics for those with more complex problems. The fourth is disability supports for people whose problems have become long-lasting. The fifth is research to understand long COVID.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10 : 04 to 12:47
Today I rise to speak on the Albanese Labor government's decisive action on climate change. Our country needs desperate action, and finally we have a government that's acting. The climate wars are over. The decade of inaction is over. Our country needs this, both environmentally and economically, to drive the jobs of the future, to bring down power prices and to make our country a renewable energy superpower.
The risk of climate change is real, the science of climate change is real and the impact of climate change is real. My community on the New South Wales North Coast understands this, because we have been living it with the devastating floods that hit our region. The floods destroyed lives, livelihoods and homes. Local economies were devastated and communities heartbroken. So many people are still very traumatised following these horrific floods. We understand how real the need to take action is, because we are living it. We are living it in terms of the climate emergency. The Prime Minister made it very clear yesterday that, after a decade of inaction, the climate wars are over. Of course, the Labor government's climate bill has just passed the lower house today.
To the people of Richmond: you elected me to be your strong voice in a majority Labor government and deliver action on climate change, and we are delivering on that mandate with a plan that will reduce emissions by 43 per cent by 2030; reduce power prices and get us to net zero by 2050; and create 600,000 new jobs, with half a million of those in the regions. This is a plan supported by both business groups and environmental groups. This plan gives us the economic certainty that our economy needs. I'd like to acknowledge all those groups in my region that have worked so hard on this issue for so many years.
We've had a wasted decade of denial and inaction. At the last election, people in my electorate voted overwhelmingly for this to end. They voted for a strong government with a focus on a better future for all. They voted for a government that takes climate change seriously. They rejected all of those years of inaction by the Liberals and Nationals, who had 22 plans that didn't actually do anything. And what has been their response now? They're just pushing nuclear power. Yet again, they are pushing nuclear power, with the Leader of the Opposition announcing a review into looking at nuclear power. The fact is that nuclear power plants can be dangerous and expensive, and, of course, they use too much water and need to be located near water. I always stand with my community in firm opposition to nuclear power, and I will keep fighting this. We need investment in renewables, not nuclear. Only a Labor majority government could deliver on this vital economic and environmental reform, which our country needs—acting on climate change and ending the climate wars.
I'd like to take this opportunity to recognise the stellar contribution made by well-known Manning Valley identity Denis Hawkins OAM. He was the Chief Executive Officer of the Bushland Health Group, and he has retired after 43 years of service. Denis has overseen a massive transformation in the Bushland Health Group, a community not-for-profit organisation that delivers a broad range of services, including aged care, home care, disability care and retirement living. Denis began his career with the main roads department in 1969. Ten years later, he then went on to complete his uni studies in health administration, working in the public hospital system as an administrator, before moving back to Taree to take up an administrator role with the new Bushland Health Group, which was known as Manning Valley Senior Citizens Homes back in 1979.
Working with the board of directors, Denis has shown outstanding leadership. When you look at what he has accomplished in his time as CEO, it's second to none. From that small group, they went on to run a private hospital for a long while, but they've also developed residential aged-care facilities at Banyula Lodge, Alkira Lodge and Karingal Gardens and retirement living facilities at Jacaranda Avenue, Jarrah Place, Warrana Place, Parklands and Bushland Place. I am very proud to say they are also at the forefront of delivering a massive project on the banks of the Manning River. As the federal member, I worked with them to get a federal government grant to support the headworks—like roads, traffic lights and sewerage—for the Figtrees on the Manning project, which Bushland Health Group is delivering. It will enable subsequent further sites for Bushland Health Group to deliver retirement living complexes. It's just down the road from the Karingal Gardens residential aged-care facility. The absolute economic boost to the Manning Valley will be huge because, following them, other owners of land in that area will invest up to $500 million—that's in 2011 dollars, when this was first proposed—for more residential and commercial development in that space.
Denis, from all of us who know the work you've done in the Manning Valley for residential aged care and for general support of the community: what a fantastic career. Well done. We all salute you and your family. Enjoy your retirement.
There being no further constituency statements by honourable members, the next item of business will be called on.
It's an honour to be back. Thank you to the people of Longman for putting your faith in me to represent you in federal parliament. Thank you to all the people who helped in my campaign, in whatever capacity that was. Thank you for standing in the rain and putting up with the horrendous behaviour and the lies being told by the unions and some of the volunteers of other parties. Thank you for sticking to our values and not stooping to their level, and for behaving in a manner that I'm proud of. Thank you to my family for the sacrifices they made during the campaign.
When I first came to this place, I was determined to be a different politician. I wanted to be someone who didn't make it personal, to be someone who stuck to policy, and to be someone who focused on the needs of their community and did their best to meet those needs. I said then that, if I were to win, I wanted to win by talking things up, not by tearing other people down. Many told me I couldn't win with a positive campaign and by not bagging other people, but here I am. I'm proud to say that we ran a local campaign that didn't tear down opponents, a campaign that just contrasted the differences between the different parties, policies and results. I stuck to what we had delivered for the people of Longman and what my vision and plan for our community is. All I can promise you is more of the same.
There are so many issues and changes I'll be pushing for in this next term. The one I want to speak on today is integrity and honesty in political advertising—particularly during campaigns, when many people are more politically engaged than they normally are. I know it would surprise many in this House that many Australians just get on with their lives and don't give a second thought to politics until elections roll around.
I find it incredible that private businesses have to ensure truth in advertising, and yet political parties and politicians don't. In my retail background, if we advertised a product that was on sale and had been reduced in price, we had to substantiate the original price or there would be consequences—and rightly so. Surely the leaders of our country should be setting the example when it comes to honesty, integrity and respect.
For me, any proposed advertising, marketing or statements made by parties should have to be fact-checked, and if they are found to be false or misleading then the perpetrators of the falsehood should be forced to retract it and apologise and should face substantial fines and other consequences. When casting a vote, the Australian people deserve to be able to make a decision based on facts, not on fairytales and lies.
Here are some examples of these lies that were told in the last campaign in my electorate of Longman. We had one candidate saying they were going to keep interest rates below three per cent for five years, which, of course, no government can guarantee. We had several candidates and parties saying at a federal election that there would be no more vaccine mandates—there are no federal mandates, only state mandates—which is misleading and preys on people's emotions. We had one candidate and party saying that the coalition was going to implement the cashless debit card for age pensioners, which is a straight-out lie and caused stress and angst for our most vulnerable, all to try and win votes. It's simply disgusting.
Then there was the practice of making election promises on things that I had already announced as decisions of government. I speak of the $5 million for the Caboolture PCYC, which I announced in January this year as funded and done; the Veteran Wellbeing Centre, which I announced in April this year; and the change to the DPA status so that medical practices in Longman could recruit more GPs, which I announced I had already achieved in January and March. These were already happening. These were budget decisions of the previous coalition government, and yet this party and candidate tried to again mislead the people of Longman by making out they were going to deliver these things if they were elected.
That dishonest behaviour had no consequences. Something must change in this area. The Australian people expect it and deserve it. In closing, I say to the people of Longman and Australia: I will continue to be your voice on issues that matter to you. I will endeavour to act with honesty, integrity and respect when representing you, and I will continue to talk up our great community, and country, as long as I have the honour of doing so.
I rise in the chamber today to discuss an issue that is deeply affecting the residents of Robertson. However, this issue is absolutely not limited to Robertson; it is felt right across the country. This is not a new or recently emerging issue; this is an issue which affects us all, no matter your age, gender, ethnicity, income or postcode. This is an issue that affects people's lives each and every day. This issue is access to a general practitioner, or GP.
Time and time again in the emergency department, I saw countless patients presenting throughout the day or in the middle of the night—both adults and children—as they were unable to access a GP. Chronic illnesses like hypertension—high blood pressure—or hypercholesterolaemia—high blood cholesterol—are spiralling out of control and resulting in extreme consequences, like acute myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular accidents, more commonly known as heart attack and stroke. Diabetic patients have blood sugar levels spiralling out of control, resulting in significant micro- and macrovascular complications like retinopathy and nephropathy. All this is due to the inability to access a GP for ongoing management.
When I talk to the people of my electorate of Robertson, one of the major issues raised on the phone, when I knock on doors and when I attend street stalls is access to health care—in particular, access to a GP. The role that general practitioners undertake is vital. They provide holistic preventive care, ensuring patients do not deteriorate and end up needing critical intervention, such as the emergency department. Preventive medicine through general practice is an essential part of our healthcare system that must be supported. Preventive medicine eases the burden on our hospitals. Preventive medicine is preventive.
The inability to access a GP should not be an issue within this country, yet, sadly, it has been for quite some time, without any action being taken to rectify this escalating crisis—until now. Just weeks into the term of our new government, we've hit the ground running. We have—together with the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the members for Shortland and Dobell—announced that the entire Central Coast region will be classified as an area with a shortage of medical practitioners, known as a distribution priority area or DPA. This classification opens the available pool of doctors able to come to our region, improving access to health care for all. Labor recognises the need to improve access to health care, as, without this vital access, we fail to manage the health of our community, and the financial burden on our economy escalates dramatically.
From my time in the emergency department, I clearly recall a particular patient who could not have made the consequences—both health and economic—of failed access to primary care any clearer to me. Although I will always recall this patient as such a strong example of these consequences, she represents just one of the vast number of patients who presented each shift with an unnecessary deterioration of their overall health. This patient, a kind, friendly 67-year-old woman, had a urinary tract infection. At first she experienced only mild symptoms and sought the services of a GP for basic investigations and the likely prescription of oral antibiotics. Had she been able to access this time- and cost-effective service, her infection would likely have resolved quickly. However, she was not able to book a GP appointment for nearly three weeks, due to service availability. While she waited for her appointment, her symptoms worsened significantly and her infection became systemic, resulting in sepsis. She was rushed to the emergency department by ambulance, critically unwell. Not only did she now require the services of an ambulance and her local emergency department; she required a bed in a ward and the intensive care unit, with intensive nursing care, extensive monitoring and extensive follow-up from additional services. Unfortunately, each service—each bed in a ward—comes with a heavy price tag. How is this an effective way to manage our community's health?
Members of our community should not have to schedule to be sick. That's why Labor is making it easier to access a doctor in my home electorate of Robertson, with the establishment of an urgent care clinic. That's why we're cutting the cost of medications and expanding access to the Commonwealth seniors healthcare card.
I want to talk in this time about the youth of Wentworth and some of the issues that the youth of Wentworth are facing. There are three issues that I would like to touch on, the first being public education, the second being youth mental health and the third being housing. I speak of these issues because these were the issues that were raised most with me by parents as well as young people in Wentworth. These are some of the most crucial issues that young people face—except climate change, which I'm very delighted to say that Australia has taken a very positive step forward on this morning in this parliament.
Let me start with public education. I spent the last four years of my career working with over 200 public high schools and 40 businesses, helping young people to be prepared for the world of work, by bringing together students from education and people from business. These are wonderful schools, but you won't really find them in Wentworth, because Wentworth has only one public high school. Despite having a population of over 120,000, Wentworth has only one public high school and very limited public education choices at the high school level. That doesn't represent the desire of the Wentworth constituents. There is a high degree of public education at the primary school level, but the dearth of opportunities in public education at the high school level means that Wentworth as a community is no longer really engaging with public education at the high school level.
I think this is a significant issue, because the community of Wentworth wants educational choice. We have the most expensive schools in the country. The average year 12 fees for a private school in Wentworth are around $35,000 a year, which is out of reach for so many families. But, because there's only one public high school in the area, there is not really that education choice.
The second piece that I want to talk to is youth mental health. Again, this is a significant issue for the community of Wentworth. When I was campaigning, a young man, whom I remember very vividly, came to talk to me. He asked me, 'What are you doing for young men?' I said that I think youth mental health is probably one of the biggest issues that young people—in particular young men—face. Tears came into his eyes, and he shared his own experience: that two of his friends had committed suicide the previous year and that he himself that day was actually on his way to get some help for his own mental health. That is one of the images from the campaign that have stuck the most in my mind. I will forever remember that young man, and I will also remember those many other people I met during the campaign.
Doing some further analysis on this, and talking to experts in the area, such as Professor Hickie, I see that there is an opportunity to do more in youth mental health, particularly in a community like Wentworth. This is not just about spending more money but also about doing government better. That is what I'm seeking to represent in my role in the parliament—that it's not always just spending more money that achieves better outcomes. Certainly that is part of it, but it's actually about getting the states and the federal government working together and truly mapping where the gaps are in mental health and where this community can be better served. I'm really pleased to note that Wentworth has its own Lifeline opening up this month. That's going to give an opportunity for Wentworth volunteers to come and support young and old in mental health. I really want to congratulate Lifeline Australia and also Daisy Turnbull, who have stood up for this and are pushing it forward.
The last issue I want to raise is housing, because that is the other key issue that people raise with me in relation to young people. Parents raise it with me. They say, 'I don't know how my children are ever going to be able to afford a house.' I acknowledge what the government is doing in this space, but I think we are fundamentally missing some key actions around housing supply and around stamp duty reform. If you look at Australia's housing, we have only 400 dwellings per 1,000 people. That puts us among the lowest in the OECD. House prices went up by 140 per cent between 1990 and 2015, and the housing stock is just not increasing with our population; over that period, it just flattened. So I will be urging the government and working, in my position as a member of parliament, to seek some remedy such that we can address housing for our youth in the long term.
I may have been here in parliament for our first sittings, but my thoughts have not been very far from the flood-affected Hawkesbury residents, where anxiety about another flood is very high. And, understandably, with more rain forecast and the declaration of the Indian Ocean Dipole by the Bureau of Meteorology, people who are now facing a big job repairing, cleaning up and rebuilding after the July flood now feel overwhelmed and a bit in limbo because of these forecasts. But of course it isn't a given that a flood will occur. What should be happening, though, is there should be action being taken by the New South Wales government. They should be doing everything possible to mitigate the risk of flood—everything that they can, right now—and that includes drawing down the Warragamba Dam, reducing the level, which has stayed close to a hundred per cent for weeks, if not months. People are understandably asking the question: 'Why won't the new South Wales government just act?' It's hard to fathom the deaf ear that these calls are falling on. Again, I plead with the New South Wales Premier: 'Please listen to my community.'
We know you can't stop floods, but we also know that the conditions right now are unlike anything in memory—the soggy soils with very little ability to absorb local falls and the heavy rain forecast to fall somewhere in the coming months. I congratulate the New South Wales opposition leader, Chris Minns, and his shadow ministers Rose Jackson and Jihad Dib, who came and met with Pitt Town residents, because they are willing to act. They're also willing to look at improving the evacuation routes that places like Pitt Town so desperately need. Unfortunately, we can't wait for a New South Wales Labor government for this to happen. We really need the current New South Wales government to act on these measures. Lowering the level of the water in the existing dam, using the resources that we have right now, would allow for a buffer, and it must be something that the New South Wales government tries. If it doesn't, should we see more heavy rains, I fear the New South Wales government will find the anger in the community towards them will be almost uncontrollable.
While people are worrying about the future, though, they're also dealing with the past, and that means the clean-up and recovery. Three new grants have been made available, and there's been good collaboration between the New South Wales government and our federal government in the last few weeks. There are three new grants, including a grant for renters of 16 weeks of support, because we know you don't get back home in a matter of a fortnight. There's a new grant for rural landholders of up to $25,000 for those who are not eligible for the other funding—the primary producers grant or the small business grant. There's also, just announced, the homeowners grant of up to $25,000 for people who need to do things to get back home. I know that there's more to do, but these are fast actions to try and make the recovery from this disaster as quick and as painless as it can be. We know there is much more that needs to be done, and I'll continue to advocate for those things.
One of the really significant pieces of legislation that we passed in this sitting fortnight has been around aged care. This is an issue very close to my heart and to my community's. I want to talk through what those changes will mean. There's more to do, we're not finished with aged-care reforms. We've really only got started. One of the changes that we've made will lead to a more equitable funding approach, that means it'll better match the providers' costs in delivering care to residents than the previous government's regime did. This is going to make a difference to aged-care providers in my community.
What we'll also be expecting, and we'll be starting to see later this year, is the publishing of star ratings for all residential aged-care facilities. That'll be in place by the end of this year. It will put a spotlight on the sector and it will allow people to actually compare the quality and the safety performance. It will no longer just be gossip and word-of-mouth, people will be able to actually go and see the data. The legislation also includes measures to extend the serious incident response scheme to in-home care providers. I see this as a really significant start to the many issues that we face in fixing home care, which is such an important part of our aged-care services. All of this means greater transparency and is a really significant step forward for aged care.
Deputy Speaker Chesters, I'll begin by commending you on the admirable balancing of your role as representative for the people of Bendigo with your amazing parenting craft. I think it was clear to the House this morning that I have much to learn from your example!
I rise to speak on the very important matter of safety in the road transport industry. Road transport is Australia's deadliest industry. We see and hear the tragic stories all too often. Back in 2008, the National Transport Commission found that low rates of pay for heavy vehicle drivers were linked to dangerous road safety outcomes for those drivers, the workers across the industry, and the community more broadly. In response, the then Labor government established the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal to secure minimum pay rates for these workers and lift safety standards across the industry. However, in 2016, the then coalition government abolished the tribunal entirely. Tragically, in the six years since, over 1,000 people have lost their lives in truck crashes across the country, including 259 truck drivers.
In relevance to my electorate of Hawke, the folks of Hawke have been severely impacted by these tragic losses. Those opposite spent their decade in government letting Australian workers down across all industries. We won't waste a single moment. We won't waste the opportunity to stand up for these workers and ensure that all workplaces across Australia are safe for these workers.
Roads are the workplace of so many Australians, particularly those in Hawke. That's why I'm absolutely committed to supporting the Transport Workers Union's struggle for safe rates and better conditions for every transport worker in this country. Last week I met with a delegation from the TWU, including TWU Victoria/Tasmania Branch Secretary Mike McNess and Assistant Secretary Mem Suleyman, to discuss their campaign, and I was extremely proud to sign on to the safe rate pledge.
Our road transport workers are the backbone of our nation's supply chains. We found that during COVID. Supporting our transport industry by paying our truck drivers fairly means safer and more secure work conditions for those workers and safer roads for our community. Pressure on our nation's truck drivers has real-life consequences, and those consequences, as we know, can be disastrous. The industry is marked by alarming rates of death, injury and chronic health conditions, as well as wage theft and pressure upon workers to work under dangerous conditions.
Road transport workers, alongside all other workers, deserve the right to go home to their families at the end of the day. That is why it is so important that our government works with industry and its members to establish a clear path to safer roads. Safe rates are the key to achieving that. We need to look vertically to the wealthy clients who are squeezing supply chains from the top. The demand for low-cost transport contracts forces operators to slash rates to remain competitive, compromising the safe working conditions of those Australians who keep our nation's supply chains in operation.
We need to work alongside the Transport Workers Union to facilitate constructive collaboration between industry, clients and the workforce. We need to empower the Fair Work Commission to set minimum rates and standards for all workers engaged in employee-like work, including transport workers. This protects workers and employers alike and ensures our roads and communities are safer.
I commend Minister Tony Burke for his dedicated work on these matters. Transport workers should not be pressured to work harder, longer and faster just to make ends meet. They keep our country and our community moving. No transport worker should struggle to put food on the table or a roof over their family's heads. Every worker in Australia deserves a safe workplace, and the workplace that is Australia's roads will not be safe for our transport workers, or our communities, until the fight for safe rates succeeds.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 13 : 19