I present the following reports of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration: Report No. 25: October budget estimates 2022-23.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
I move:
That in relation to the reply by the Leader of the Opposition to the 2022-2023 Budget that standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 27 October 2022 and at that sitting, after the Leader of the Opposition completes his reply to the Budget speech, the House automatically stand adjourned until 10 am on Monday, 7 November 2022, unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent a Minister, at 2pm today, moving a motion in relation to the anniversary of the national apology to the survivors and victims of institutional child sexual abuse.
Question agreed to.
Every worker has the right to be safe at work and safe at home. This is a workplace entitlement that will save lives, that can make all the difference to workers who are experiencing family and domestic violence and need to get out. In the Senate inquiry, the committee received and considered many extremely expert and compelling submissions, but one particular case study stood out for me in the submission from the Australian Services Union, on behalf of Cynthia. It read as follows:
Going to work was the only time that I felt safe, and it gave me a chance to find help to leave my husband. He started sending me threatening texts and emails and would call my office constantly demanding to speak with me and frightening the receptionist if I didn't answer his calls.
… … …
I was constantly tired, sick and often injured. He insisted on coming to our work Christmas party and one of my colleagues made a formal complaint that he had sexually harassed her at the party. I was incredibly embarrassed. When I tried to leave him, my husband turned up at work and demanded to see me. He waited for me in the car park at night time and attacked me, pulling out most of my hair. My friends at work were terrified. My employer said 'enough'. I couldn't cope anymore and had no choice but to leave my job.
It is the stories like Cynthia's that are the reason for the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022 being the very first bill I introduced as minister for workplace relations. It's clear that this issue is widely and deeply felt in the parliament, and the community expects us to take urgent action. We heard many powerful and moving contributions during debate on this bill, including from Senator Nita Green, from Queensland, who spoke about her personal experiences with family and domestic violence as a young child. Minister Anne Aly also spoke about her personal experiences, telling the parliament there was a time in her life when she couldn't have even imagined that she would be here in this place passing such a bill. I want to thank and commend senators from the Jacqui Lambie Network for their amendments, which will provide greater comfort to members that their sensitive personal information will be handled appropriately and confidently by their employer and that they will not experience adverse consequences as a result of disclosing their circumstances. I want to thank all my colleagues from all sides for some extraordinarily powerful contributions to this bill in the discussion.
In my second reading speech for the bill I said that as a nation we can and must do better. We need a whole-of-community response, and workplaces have a key role to play as a source of critical support for people experiencing family and domestic violence. We do need to continue to consult on what needs to be done to make sure that the entitlement is implemented safely and successfully in workplaces. We've agreed that we will review the amendments in 12 months time, which will provide an opportunity to consider if the entitlement is operating effectively.
As an immediate measure, we have a small business assistance package, which will provide $3.4 million over four years. The package will deliver a range of holistic supports to help small businesses. This is to ensure small business can access the right advice at the right time to provide the best support to their employees experiencing family and domestic violence.
I want to, once again, thank and pay tribute to the advocates, frontline community sector organisations, workers and their unions who have campaigned so passionately for this reform and to all those who've experienced and are experiencing family and domestic violence. You have asked us to take action, and we are. This bill will not by itself solve the problem of family and domestic violence, but it does mean no employee in Australia will ever again be forced to make a choice between earning a wage and protecting the safety of themselves and their families. I want to acknowledge our incredible frontline workforce who strive every day to support and assist individuals and families impacted by violence. I want to acknowledge those on the floor here and in the other place, my colleagues, who have campaigned for this moment for so many years. I acknowledge you and thank you for your commitment and support for those impacted by family and domestic violence. I want to acknowledge those in our community who've lost their lives due to family and domestic violence. I recognise those we've lost, those who've survived and those who, at this very moment, still feel trapped. This bill is for you, and now we take the final parliamentary step to make it law.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
For nearly 10 years, wages were kept low as a deliberate design feature of the previous government's management of the economy.
Insecure work was encouraged, with no regard to the households crying out for security.
Institutions were established, and appointments made, with the intention of increasing conflict rather than bringing people together.
The introduction of this bill is about making a choice.
At a time when the pressures of global inflation are hitting every household, our workplace laws are simply not up to date.
Cost of living is about the gap between income and prices. No-one can seriously claim to care about the cost of living if they support continued wage stagnation. Today, inflation is running at 7.3 per cent and wages are at 2.6 per cent. Every day the impact of a decade of wage stagnation is felt by households trying to make ends meet.
The urgency of getting wages moving is most acute in feminised industries. The gender pay gap still sits at an unacceptable 14.1 per cent.
For a decade we were told low unemployment would create the hydraulic pressure which would push up wages. We now have sustained low unemployment. Yet wage growth remains unacceptably low. The hydraulic pressure is there, but there are leaks in the pipes. This bill starts to plug those leaks, so wages can start moving again.
To promote job security, to close the gender pay gap, to get wages moving—we need to change the law.
In the design of these reforms, we have deliberately focused on the needs of lower-paid and feminised workforces.
Loopholes which have hindered job security and wage growth have appeared in the Fair Work Act over the past decade.
Years ago, job security was simply defined across the economy as the difference between being a casual or a permanent employee. Job insecurity now has many faces. We see it in the gig economy, labour hire, new forms of insecurity for part-time employees, and rolling fixed-term contracts which effectively amount to a permanent probation period for employees. We see it where casual loading has not been a sufficient incentive to promote secure jobs.
All legitimate forms of employment have their place. All will continue to exist. But where there is abuse, we must curtail it. Where loopholes have arisen in legislation, we must close them.
Despite a near-record low unemployment rate of 3.5 per cent, inflation is fast outpacing wages growth and workers are falling behind.
Businesses are struggling to attract workers, and to retain those they already have.
Australia's current workplace relations framework is not working to deliver a fair go for workers, or productivity gains for employers.
The Albanese Labor government wants to see a strong economy that delivers for all Australians. We want to see more workers in good jobs: jobs with security, fair pay and proper protections. We want workers to have a pathway to a better life and businesses to thrive.
For this, we need fair, effective and up-to-date laws.
Australians have asked for change. They have asked for less conflict and fairer pay. They have asked for a better future for themselves, and for their families.
It will take time for this bill to result in improvements in workplaces and pay increases in the pockets of Australians, so we cannot waste a moment in passing it.
My department and I have consulted closely with businesses and unions in the design of these reforms. As a result of that ongoing consultation, further government amendments may be made to this bill. Discussions are well advanced with stakeholders as to how we clarify certain issues, including how to best ensure that (1) businesses and workers who already successfully negotiate single-enterprise agreements can continue to do so; (2) voting processes in relation to multi-employer agreements are fair, democratic and workable and occur at the enterprise level; (3) agreements cannot be put to a vote of employees without the agreement of employee organisations who are bargaining representatives; (4) a reasonable period of good-faith bargaining occurs before either party can resort to arbitration; (5) businesses competing on quality, on innovation and on product and service offerings, rather than wages and conditions, are able to continue to do so; and, finally, that multi-employer bargaining is not extended to industries in which it is neither appropriate nor necessary—in particular, commercial construction.
I'll now outline in detail the measures in the bill.
Gender equity
Australian women are among the most educated in the OECD; and are participating in the workforce in significant numbers. Yet over the period from 1983 to date, successive governments have only been able to close the gender pay gap by 5.1 percentage points.
Some of the most undervalued workers in our country are workers in female-dominated industries. Many are the very workers who put their health and safety on the line to guide us through the shutdown period of the pandemic. Workers in health care, aged care, disability support, early childhood education and care, the community sector, and other care and service sectors.
Work in these industries is undervalued because of unfair and discriminatory assumptions about the value of the work and the skill required to do the job.
This undervaluation is one of the biggest causes of the gender pay gap and our reforms take a number of key steps to address it.
Objects
Gender equity is at the very heart of our government's agenda; and this bill will place gender equity at the very heart of our Fair Work system—where it belongs.
Under our reforms, gender equity will be included as an overarching object of the Fair Work Act, in the modern awards objective and in the minimum wages objective.
These amendments will embed gender equity as a central goal of our workplace laws; and set a clear expectation that the Fair Work Commission must take into account the need to achieve gender equity when performing all its functions—when setting the minimum wage; when considering changes to awards; and in all other decisions it takes.
Pay equity principle and expert panels
It shouldn't be impossible for working women in undervalued industries to win a pay equity claim before the commission; but currently it is.
Our laws have placed insurmountable hurdles in the path of workers seeking equal pay over many years. Our early childhood educators, for example, were unable to win a pay rise in 2021 because they were unable to find an appropriate male comparator group. Because there is no male comparator. It's an impossible task.
The work of our early childhood educators is essential to the successful development of our children and our nation. It should be valued on its own merits, free of discriminatory assumptions based on the gender of the people who perform the work.
Over the years there have been many important milestones in the long fight to win equal pay for women: the national minimum wage and equal pay cases of 1969 and 1972; the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984; the establishment of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency in 1986, and improvements in the Fair Work Act in 2009.
The reforms in this bill are intended to reverse decades of unfair outcomes for women workers, by removing the need to find a male comparator and making clear that sex discrimination is not necessary to establish that work has been undervalued.
To support these changes to our laws, we've announced $20 million in the budget to establish a Pay Equity Expert Panel and a Care and Community Sector Expert Panel, with a dedicated research unit, in the Fair Work Commission.
These changes are further complemented by our reforms providing greater access to bargaining for lower-paid and feminised sectors through the supported bargaining stream, which will help workers to negotiate better pay and conditions for themselves.
The historic reforms in this bill are the result of decades of courageous and tireless campaigning by women workers and their unions, gender equity advocates and academics—some of whom are with us in the chamber today—who have simply refused to accept that certain types of work should be valued less by our society, simply because it is work done by women.
From the public servant Louisa Dunkley campaigning for and winning equal pay in 1895; to the factory worker Zelda D'Aprano chaining herself to the doors of Melbourne's Commonwealth building in October of 1969; to the historic victory of the Australian Services Union winning equal pay for community sector workers in 2012.
I also acknowledge the work of so many of my colleagues who have championed this reform over many years: the Minister for Women, Senator Katy Gallagher; her predecessor the member for Sydney, who made a number of the election commitments that are in this bill, and many other members of caucus—past and present.
I also acknowledge the leading work of the states, including Queensland, in developing pay equity principles on which provisions in our bill are closely modelled.
I recently visited an early childhood education centre in Brunswick East, where the director, Jane (who I understand is with us today) told me she has spent 40 years in the industry. She is incredibly passionate about her job, but struggles constantly with staffing shortages due to inadequate pay and conditions in the sector. She has been waiting for a lifetime for the essential work of her and her staff to be properly valued. She should not have to wait any longer.
Pay s ecrecy
Workers who want to have a discussion about pay equity at work should not be prohibited by their employment contracts from doing so.
This bill will prohibit pay secrecy clauses, bringing transparency to workplaces.
Critically, this bill protects workers by saying if you want to tell someone how much you are paid, that's up to you.
Prohibiting sexual harassment
Stamping out workplace sexual harassment is central to achieving safe, productive and gender equitable workplaces.
Under the previous government's laws, there was no express prohibition on sexual harassment under the Fair Work Act; and Stop Sexual Harassment Orders were only available to some workers.
We will fix these issues.
Our changes mean that whether you're a nurse in Tamworth, a plumber in Perth, or an office worker in Canberra, you can ask the Fair Work Commission to deal quickly and effectively with your complaint of sexual harassment in the Fair Work Commission—whether the harassment occurred in the past or is ongoing, or both. The new provisions also allow the Fair Work Ombudsman, to investigate and assist with compliance.
These changes send a clear message that workplace sexual harassment will not be tolerated.
These reforms fully implement recommendation 28 of the Respect@Work report, complementing the Attorney-General's proposed reforms to the Sex Discrimination Act. This bill means that all legislative changes recommended by Respect@Work are now before the parliament.
This bill also strengthens the Fair Work Act's antidiscrimination protections, bringing it into line with other Commonwealth antidiscrimination laws.
Flexible working arrangements
Too many Australians are struggling to manage their work and care responsibilities. This is damaging families, communities, and our national economy.
Women still carry the main responsibility for caring work; and are more likely to request flexible work arrangements. In order to access the flexibility they need to manage work and care, they are often forced to drop out of the workforce, or to take lower-paid or less secure employment. This plays a major role in widening the gender pay gap. We want families to have better access to flexible work, so they can better share and manage their caring responsibilities.
Under our current laws, an employee can ask for flexible work, but if their employer says no, they've got nowhere to go.
The problem is starkly illustrated by the recent report by the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, commissioned by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA), called Who cares?, which outlines the damaging collision between work, family and caring arrangements for Australia's retail, fast food and warehousing workers.
The essential contribution of these workers meant we could all access food and other necessities during lockdown periods of the pandemic.
Yet the harrowing stories in this report show these workers are stressed out, exhausted and barely able to manage their family responsibilities. Alarmingly, the report shows that the children of workers in this industry are struggling to access early childhood education and care; essential for their development and future success.
These types of stories are unacceptable.
The findings of Who cares? are supported by the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care, chaired by Senator Barbara Pocock, which finds that 'current workplace laws and cultures are not designed to recognise or support working carers, with the needs of people balancing work and care being easily ignored or overlooked'. The interim report recommends access to flexible work as a key area for reform.
Flexible working arrangements not only help parents and carers but also provide job security and an economic lifeline to employees with disability, older Australians, and workers experiencing family and domestic violence.
We will make two key changes to the law to support flexible work.
We will bring employers and employees together in workplaces in the first instance to have a genuine discussion about flexible work.
And if agreement can't be reached at the workplace level, we will give the Fair Work Commission the power to resolve the dispute.
Job s ecurity
Fixed t erm contracts
The number of workers on fixed term contracts has increased by over 50 per cent since 1998. More than half of all employees engaged on fixed term contracts are women; and more than 40 per cent of fixed term employees have been with their employer for two or more years.
This bill will limit the use of fixed term contracts for the same role beyond two years or two consecutive contracts, whichever is shorter, including renewals. If these rules are breached, the term of the contract that provides for its expiry on a set date will be of no effect, but otherwise the contract will be valid. The provisions allow employers to use fixed term contracts for legitimate purposes, while providing appropriate protections to employees.
Stronger protections for workers
The bill gives immediate effect to recommendations of the 2019 Migrant Workers' Taskforce.
Amendments I am introducing today would not have been possible without the advocacy of migrant workers and their unions.
It will now be unlawful to advertise a job for less than the applicable minimum rate.
Secondly, the bill will provide greater ability to recover unpaid entitlements, by increasing the cap on small claims under the Fair Work Act from $20,000 to $100,000. The current low threshold forces many workers to pursue pay claims through a full court process which can be expensive, time consuming and complex.
Firefighters
The bill will also fix a loophole the previous government failed to address by including ACT volunteer firefighters in the presumptive liability provisions. We will also add malignant mesothelioma to the list of presumptive cancers for firefighters, and lower the qualifying period for oesophageal cancer from 25 to 15 years.
This is unfinished business and we will continue to consult to ensure our laws provide firefighters and all first responders with better access to the compensation they deserve for work related injuries and illnesses.
I acknowledge the advocacy of Mr Brett McNamara, an ACT government firefighter, who has been lobbying for changes to the law. I also acknowledge the representations that have been made to me from all members in this place and the Senate who represent the ACT, as well the United Firefighters Union and the ACT Volunteer Brigades Association.
Reducing barriers to bargai ning
Australia's bargaining system is not working effectively and hasn't worked effectively for a long time. Bargaining delivers simpler and more tailored workplace arrangements for businesses, and an average of $601 more to workers each week, compared with those on awards.
Yet only 14.7 per cent of employees are covered by an agreement that is in date.
The bill enacts commitments I made at the Jobs and Skills Summit in September.
Reforms will remove unnecessary limitations from the existing framework. Multi-employer bargaining is already contemplated by the act through three streams—single interest, multi-employer and low paid. The problem is it isn't working.
We're not creating new streams of bargaining; we are varying the existing streams to make them work and to get wages moving.
The prohibition already in the act on pattern bargaining will remain.
Bargaining at the enterprise level delivers strong productivity benefits and is intended to remain the primary and preferred type of agreement making. For employees and employers that have not been able to access the benefits of enterprise level bargaining, these reforms will provide flexible options for reaching agreements at the multi-employer level. This is intended to deliver more equitable and inclusive wage outcomes which benefit more Australians.
A stronger role for the Fair Work Commission
The bill will allow the Fair Work Commission to resolve intractable disputes through arbitration, where there is no reasonable prospect of agreement being reached.
These changes are intended to provide a strong incentive for good-faith negotiations, reduce the time for enterprise agreements to be finalised and allow for quicker resolution of intractable disputes.
Agreement t erminations
The bill will limit the circumstances in which an agreement can be terminated by the Fair Work Commission if the application has been made by only one party, rather than by consent.
To address this challenge, when determining unilateral application for termination of agreement, the bill requires the Fair Work Commission to consider whether bargaining is underway and whether the termination would adversely affect employees' bargaining position.
The commission will have the capacity to terminate an agreement where its continued operation would pose a significant threat to the viability of the employer's business, and termination would likely reduce the potential of job losses, and the employer guarantees to pay employees the relevant termination entitlements.
Termination of z ombie a greements
The bill will return balance and fairness to the system by sunsetting enterprise agreements that are out of step with the wages and conditions provided in modern awards. It's inconceivable that in 2022 there are agreements that still exist which lock in terms and conditions back to the WorkChoices days.
Sunsetting 'zombie agreements' will mean businesses need to pay the minimum entitlements provided for in awards, to benefit workers and level the playing field.
Simplifying the b etter o ff o verall t est
We'll make the better off overall test simple, flexible and fair.
There's consensus that approval requirements for enterprise agreements are onerous, complex and unnecessarily prescriptive.
We'll make key changes to fix this.
First, the concept of 'prospective award covered employees' is removed for enterprise agreements that are not greenfield. For the majority of proposed enterprise agreements, the test will be applied in relation to actual workers, and patterns and types of work that are reasonably foreseeable.
The bill will restore the original intent of the test as a global, rather than line-by-line, comparison against the modern award.
And, thirdly, if there is a common view that the employer and union have that the agreement passes the test, the commission will give primary consideration to that view.
Finally, as an important safeguard, the bill includes a process to allow employees or their representatives to reassess the test in relation to circumstances that the commission did not have regard to at the time.
This makes sure that no worker will be worse off.
Simplifying a pproval r equirements
Building on these reforms, we'll also remove complexity by streamlining commission approval of an agreement, while retaining strong protections to ensure employees are not disadvantaged.
Initiating bargaining
In addition, to encourage employers and employees to remain within the single enterprise bargaining stream, a bargaining representative will be able to commence bargaining if no more than five years have passed since the nominal expiry date of a single enterprise agreement, and a proposed new agreement will cover the same or a similar group of employees as the earlier agreement.
Supp orted b argaining s tream
The bill will rename and remove barriers to access the existing low-paid bargaining stream, with the intention of closing the gender pay gap and improving wages and conditions in sectors such as community services, cleaning, and early childhood education and care, which have not been able to successfully bargain at the enterprise level.
Unnecessary hurdles to entry in the current low-paid stream will be replaced by a broad discretion for the Fair Work Commission to consider the prevailing rates of pay in the industry, including whether workers in the industry or sector are low paid.
The commission must also be satisfied that employers who would be covered by a supported bargaining authorisation have clearly identifiable common interests, for example, whether or not they are substantially funded, directly or indirectly, by the Commonwealth, a state or a territory.
Single- i nterest b argaining s tream
Under the existing single-interest employer authorisation stream, employers who are not franchisees need to obtain my personal permission as minister. It's unnecessary red tape.
Under our changes, employers in the single-interest stream must have clearly identifiable common interests and the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that it is in the public interest.
We want to see businesses competing on quality, on innovation, on product and service offerings—not on who can pay the lowest wage. If we are going to get wages moving, we need to stop the race to the bottom.
Cooperative b argaining s tream
The cooperative bargaining stream reframes and retains the existing multi-employer stream in the Fair Work Act; and is open to all businesses.
It's entirely voluntary. Note there's no industrial action in that stream. Conciliation and arbitration are by consent.
Bargaining assistance from the commission can be accessed on the request of the parties.
Fair w ork i nstitutions
The government is committed to fairness and integrity, and this extends to the agencies that regulate workplace relations matters.
The Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission are ineffective and discredited institutions, more concerned about prosecuting workers and their representatives than tackling rampant wage theft or addressing workplace safety, or educating and promoting good workplace relations.
This bill will abolish the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission. The Fair Work Ombudsman will be the workplace relations regulator for all industries and the general manager of the Fair Work Commission will be the regulator on registered organisations.
Conclusion
These reforms reflect our vision for a fairer, safer and more inclusive Australia.
This bill is just the start of the government's reform of workplace relations, with a second tranche next year.
This bill is for those workers, like Jane in Brunswick East, who have been waiting far too long for their work to be properly valued. This bill is for all the employers who want to treat their employees fairly without fear of being undercut by unscrupulous competitors.
This bill delivers on the government's commitment to ensure a fairer workplace relations system that provides Australians with job security, gender equity and sustainable wage growth.
This bill will not fix every problem in our workplace relations system. But it is a strong start. And it will provide a strong foundation on which we can continue to build the fairer and more equitable system Australians need, want and deserve.
There will be requests to move more slowly, to wait extra months, to pretend that there's no urgency.
As this bill proceeds through the House and the other place I ask members and senators to remember how long people have already waited.
Waited a decade while wages were kept deliberately low.
Waited generations while the gender pay gap refused to close.
Waited while children became adults and caring responsibilities collided with rosters.
Waited in insecure work for the secure job which still hasn't arrived.
These Australians have waited long enough. And while waiting they have turned up every day and done their job. It's now time we did ours and legislated for secure jobs and better pay.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I'm pleased to introduce the Education Legislation Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022.
This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act2003 to improve equality of access to higher education and support this government's commitment to building a highly skilled workforce.
The bill delivers on our election commitment to remove the 10 per cent HESS-HELP discount for students who pay upfront their student contribution amounts for Commonwealth supported places.
This was a measure that we took to the election on the principle that all students should pay the same amount for the same course, regardless of their ability to pay up front.
The measure will take effect on 1 January 2023 and is projected to save $144 million over the forward estimates.
Those savings will help to fund the extra 20,000 new university places that I announced earlier this week.
Those 20,000 extra places have been allocated to support students who are currently under-represented in our universities.
Students from poorer families.
Students from regional Australia.
Indigenous Australians.
Australians with a disability.
And students who are the first in their family to ever set foot in a university.
The bill will also extend the FEE-HELP loan fee exemption for a further 12 months.
This exemption originally commenced on 1 April 2020 as a COVID-19 financial relief measure, and will now continue through to 31 December 2022.
This will help around 30,000 full-fee-paying undergraduate students accessing FEE-HELP to study in 2022. It will also support the higher education providers where these students are enrolled.
This bill also extends FEE-HELP to eligible students who participate in the government's microcredential pilot.
The microcredential pilot encourages universities to develop and deliver industry targeted, flexible short courses as part of building a highly skilled workforce.
The bill also makes other amendments to the Higher Education Support Act to clarify and improve its operation.
It clarifies arrangements around enabling courses.
Enabling courses help prepare students for higher education study like a bachelor's degree.
The measures in this bill clarify that these enabling courses will not count toward a student's lifetime limit of Commonwealth support.
The bill also improves consistency by aligning the HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP citizenship and residency requirements for New Zealand citizens with the existing requirements for those students accessing a Commonwealth supported place.
It requires that these students be resident in Australia for the duration of their unit of study to be eligible for HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP.
The bill also strengthens administration and accountability by requiring that students seeking Commonwealth funding provide their Unique Student Identifier to their institution and the Commonwealth.
It also makes other minor technical amendments to the Higher Education Support Act and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act to improve their operation.
The measures in this bill support the government's commitment to equal access to higher education and building the skills of Australia's workforce.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022.
This bill fulfils another election commitment from the Albanese Labor Government to boost homeownership for defence members and veterans by expanding the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme eligibility criteria.
This scheme was established in 2008 by the Rudd government, and it continues to be an important retention offering by the Australian Defence Force. The scheme also has an important secondary benefit of improving home ownership levels for Defence Force members, veterans and their families.
The bill advances these objectives and it comes as housing affordability remains one of the biggest issues facing Australians.
The bill also responds to the struggles experienced by veterans communities and the role that housing can play in their greater wellbeing. We've seen with the veterans royal commission the effect that homelessness has had on the mental wellbeing of veterans throughout the country. The Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing found that safe, secure and affordable housing is fundamental to veteran wellbeing. While maintaining the retention focus, the bill makes four broad policy amendments to the scheme which look to further homeownership levels amongst serving Defence Force personnel and members of the veterans community.
Firstly, the bill expands access to the scheme by providing Defence members with access to the benefits earlier in their careers. This amendment reduces by half, the period of effective service that a Defence member must complete before they can access the scheme. The qualifying period will be reduced to two years for serving members and four years for reservists. So this means that a member of the permanent Defence Force will qualify in two years. For members of the reserves it's four years, and for a foreign service member it's two years.
To accommodate the halving of the qualifying service period, the bill similarly amends the requisite period of effective service to access each subsidy tier. There are three subsidy tiers: 40, 60 and 80 per cent of the average house price. Based on the years of effective service, the tiers determine the subsidy amount received by participants of the scheme.
The bill provides members of the permanent forces and the Reserves, as well as members who have separated from the Defence Force because of a compensable condition, with access to each subsidy tier between two and four years earlier than is currently provided by the act. And that is a great benefit to serving and veteran personnel. The amendment will provide members of the permanent forces access to tier 1 when they have less than four years of effective service, to tier 2 when they have between four and eight years of effective service and to tier 3 when they have between eight and 12 years of effective service.
Secondly, the bill allows veterans to apply for their final subsidy certificate at any time after they have separated from the Defence Force. Currently, veterans must apply to access the scheme within five years of separating from the Defence Force. Removing this limitation will ensure veterans can access the scheme at any time that suits them without feeling pressured to do so in that five-year period.
The Albanese Labor government acknowledges that the nature of military service is unique and families can be deeply affected by military service. This can include the frequency of postings throughout Australia, which has an impact on homeownership. And that's why this amendment is so vitally important, by extending to surviving partners who have similarly been impacted by the nature of their family's service within the Australian Defence Force.
Thirdly, the bill creates a power to continue paying a subsidy amount where a genuine error, mistake or accident caused all outstanding amounts due under the subsidised loan to be paid. This amendment is in response to observations by Defence that the current legislation provides little reprieve where a loan is paid down due to a genuine error, mistake or accident, and as a result the subsidised borrower stops receiving their monthly subsidy.
It's intended that this power will address scenarios including, but not limited to, where a subsidised borrower mistakenly transfers money into their loan account which results in it being paid off, or where a third party mistakenly transfers money to a subsidised borrower's loan account when it was not for the purpose of paying down the loan.
Finally, the bill provides a power to make and recover relevant payments, including overpayments, which may occur in the administration of the scheme. This technical amendment assists the scheme's administrators in efficiently processing subsidy payments. For transparency and good governance, the bill also requires the secretary to report any such payment every financial year.
The bill assists in positioning the Australian Defence Force as an employer of choice, assisting serving members and veterans to own a home, and ensuring the scheme can be administered as efficiently and beneficially as possible.
As the Australian government seeks to grow the Australian Defence Force into the future to ensure that we have the capability to defend Australians and keep them safe, a recruitment tool like this will be vitally important.
The bill is scheduled to commence on 1 January 2023. From this date, new applicants will be able to apply for a subsidy certificate under the proposed amendments. The bill will also allow applicants who are veterans to re-apply where they were previously refused a subsidy certificate because they had not completed their qualifying service period or made their application outside of the five-year post-separation limit.
For existing members of the scheme, their monthly payments may increase as they move up the subsidy tiers and additional subsidy credits applied to their subsidised loan.
Boosting the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme delivers on the Albanese Labor government's key election commitment to help more Australian Defence Force members and veterans buy their own home and give them that security associated with owning their own home. The Albanese government is improving access to homeownership for defence personnel earlier in their careers, and it means more eligible local veterans can now also access the scheme any time after they've completed their service.
This investment helps defence personnel and veterans with the cost-of-living pressures that have made it increasingly difficult to achieve the great Australian dream of homeownership. I want to thank all serving Defence Force personnel and veterans who gave the government feedback in respect of this scheme and I want to particularly mention the member for Herbert, the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, for the feedback he's given us in helping deliver this scheme. And I thank him for his service to our nation.
In conclusion, Labor created the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme, and now the Albanese Labor government is expanding. I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022 will provide greater certainty and clarity for community broadcasting licensing processes. It will support listener access to high quality and diverse community radio services as well as provide regulatory flexibility for the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
Every week, more than five million listeners tune in to more than 450 community owned and operated radio stations around the country. This includes 1.4 million listeners from non-English-speaking backgrounds listening to broadcasts in more than 100 languages.
The community broadcasting sector exists at the heart of local communities by broadcasting local news, telling local stories and providing a platform for local voices and music that is essential to a well-informed and inclusive society.
The first measure in the bill will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and clarify that the renewal process for community radio licences is not a competitive process. While this has always been the policy intent of the act, it has not been explicitly stated. This measure clarifies that, when the ACMA is considering a renewal application, it will only consider the current radio service and not a proposed new radio service.
With this amendment, the government is providing greater security and certainty to existing licensees. This will ensure existing community radio broadcasters can plan for future programming and infrastructure needs with greater certainty. However, this amendment is not intended to affect the ACMA's ability to refuse to renew a licence if it is found the current licensee is not providing a radio service that meets general community needs. As such, Australians will continue to have access to quality radio programming that reflects their interests.
The second measure clarifies the ACMA's powers to allocate new community broadcasting licences and temporary community broadcasting licences with effect from a specified future date. Currently, prospective radio stations do not have advance notice to set up broadcast infrastructure and station programming. This has meant that successful community radio licensees have sometimes taken significant time to begin their broadcasting service following the initial allocation of their licence.
This amendment will allow the ACMA to provide licensees with advance dates for the commencement of services. It will contribute to the streamlining of spectrum planning and give prospective stations the time needed to plan and make necessary preparations to have the best possible circumstances under which to begin broadcasting.
The third measure clarifies the matters the ACMA may consider when allocating a new temporary community broadcasting licence. The intent of the temporary licensing regime remains unchanged, and that is to give aspiring broadcasters access to spectrum in a fair and effective manner. However, the amendment gives the ACMA the flexibility to ascertain if a temporary licensee is not providing a quality service. The government considers this will help ensure the integrity and reputation of the community radio sector is maintained. Consequently, it should minimise the risk of poor-quality services to listeners or services that don't meet the needs of the local community.
The fourth measure will give the ACMA the discretion to limit the number of temporary community broadcasting licensees that can share a particular frequency.
It has always been the policy intent of the act to enable temporary licensees to share frequencies to assist with the sustainability of the community broadcasting sector and effective management of spectrum. However, this amendment is designed to maintain the integrity and reputation of the community broadcasting sector by giving the ACMA the flexibility to decide if a limit on a particular frequency is necessary.
The fifth measure will include deadlines by which late applications to the community broadcasting licensing process can be made. This will assist with timely processing of late applications, giving both the broadcasting applicants and the ACMA clarity about the process while safeguarding against the unintended expiry of licences. In turn, this will prevent any unnecessary disruption of radio services.
The final measure clarifies the community broadcasting licence allocation process. Currently, the ACMA has an implicit power to decide to commence a process to allocate one or more community broadcast licences, after which it must advertise for applications for those licences. The existence of an express power more clearly enables the ACMA to delegate the decision to commence the process to allocate a community broadcast licence. These amendments do not change the current arrangements in regard to the requirement to advertise for applicants, or decisions to allocate a community broadcasting licence to a particular applicant.
The government is committed to supporting the long-term sustainability of the community broadcasting sector. This is evidenced by the additional $4 million per year of ongoing funding the government is providing for the Community Broadcasting Program from 2023-24. This takes annual funding for the program to over $20 million per year.
This bill is a further step to provide certainty for community broadcasters and provide listeners around Australia with continued access to high-quality and locally relevant news, information and content.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Amendment (India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022 amends the Customs Act 1901 to implement the India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement.
India is a key strategic and economic partner for Australia and the Australian government is committed to accelerating our economic ties with this critical country. The India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement will be a very important driver for deepening our relationship.
Recent years have seen remarkable growth in the trading relationship between India and Australia, fuelled by the many complementarities between our two economies. The India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement will secure Australia's foothold in the world's fastest growing major economy and enable Australian businesses to unlock or expand their operations in a market of nearly 1½ billion consumers, with a GDP of $4.3 trillion.
The agreement represents significant new trade diversification opportunities for Australian business. From the day IA-ECTA enters into force, 85 per cent of Australian goods exports by value to India will enter without tariffs and an additional five per cent will have tariffs eliminated over periods not exceeding 10 years. This is commercially significant for up to $14.8 billion worth of Australian merchandise trade destined for the Indian market each year. The agreement will also provide certainty and support for Australian services suppliers and professionals doing business in India, currently our third-largest services export market.
The amendments contained in this bill will insert into the Customs Act new rules of origin for 'Indian originating goods' and provisions for document retention and verification for 'Australian originating goods'. The amendments will outline when imported goods may be considered to have originating status and be eligible for preferential tariff treatment. Complementary amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 will provide for the preferential rates of customs duty applicable to goods that are originating under the agreement. These will be made by the Customs Tariff Amendment (India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022.
These bills were referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) on 1 August 2022 and debate on the bills will be dependent on the advice provided in its report. It is anticipated that JSCOT will report in mid-November.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022 will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to implement the India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement, known as IA-ECTA.
The amendments contained in this bill will insert a new schedule of preferential rates of customs duty for goods that are Indian originating. Schedule 10A will be comprised of tariff subheadings for goods that have a rate of customs duty other than 'Free' at entry into force of the IA-ECTA. The goods classified to these subheadings will include tobacco, alcohol and fuel products, which will have an excise-equivalent rate of customs duty, and certain goods containing iron, steel and aluminium, which will be phased to 'Free' over approximately five years.
The bill will also amend concessional items in schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to extend concessional treatment to goods that are Indian originating.
The amendments contained in this bill complement the amendments contained in the Customs Amendment (India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Amendment (Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022 amends the Customs Act 1901, known as the Customs Act, to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, known as the agreement.
The agreement will bring both commercial and strategic benefits. The United Kingdom is the world's fifth-largest economy and our fifth-largest two-way trading partner, with A$31.8 billion in goods and services traded in 2020. The agreement will deliver preferential market access for Australia's key exports, providing important diversification opportunities and removing barriers that were impeding trade while the United Kingdom was a member of the European Union. It will also improve certainty for exporters and importers, service suppliers and investors across the whole economy.
The agreement will facilitate a strong and resilient economic recovery from COVID-19, while reducing the vulnerability of Australia's trade and investment to future crises. It will enhance Australia's economic engagement with the United Kingdom through strengthening trade rules that will help build upon our already healthy trading relationship.
The amendments contained in this bill will insert into the Customs Act the rules of origin and document retention requirements called for by the agreement. Those amendments outline when imported goods may be considered to have originating status and be eligible for preferential tariff treatment. Complementary amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 are required to provide for those preferential rates of customs duty.
The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is currently considering this agreement and is scheduled to report in mid-November. This bill is being introduced now to give parliament more time to consider the amendments required to implement this agreement.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022 will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 (the Customs Tariff Act) to implement the preferential rate of customs duty for goods determined to be United Kingdom originating. These amendments will ensure that Australia fulfils its obligations as a signatory to the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement and is prepared for the agreement to enter into force.
This bill will insert a new schedule of duty rates into the Customs Tariff Act. Schedule 15 will contain the preferential rates of customs duty for imported goods that satisfy the rules of origin that are set out in the agreement. Australia has committed to reduce the duty rate on most originating goods to 'free' over the years following the entry into force of the agreement. Excise equivalent goods, which are certain fuel, alcohol, tobacco and petroleum products, that are originating under the agreement will continue to have excise equivalent customs duties applied so they receive the same treatment as domestically produced equivalents.
These bills will also provide for the suspension of preferential tariffs for United Kingdom originating goods classified to certain subheadings of chapters 72 and 73 of schedule 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, which deal with iron and steel goods. When activated, the customs duty rate applied to these goods would be the five per cent general rate of customs duty which currently applies. The suspension will be activated when the United Kingdom global safeguard applies to Australian steel products. The United Kingdom global steel safeguard is currently in place and has been extended to 30 June 2024. The suspension, therefore, will apply from entry into force of the agreement.
The suspension of preference will end from the date that the United Kingdom safeguard ends or no longer applies to Australian steel. From this date the preferential duty rate applied to certain goods from the United Kingdom will be reduced in accordance with the rate that applies under Schedule 15.
Finally, this bill amends certain tariff concessions to maintain their scope and ensure that commitments made under the agreement are honoured.
The amendments in this bill complement the amendments in the Customs Amendment (Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022, which will amend the Customs Act 1901.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Faruqi has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and Senator Steele-John has been appointed as a member of the committee; and that Senator Babet has been appointed as a participating member of the Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
First of all, I thank all members of the House, and members of the other place as well, for their contribution to this debate. I indicate to the House that the amendments that have come back from the other place are technical amendments in relation to the operation of section 100 of the act, which were supported unanimously by all members of the other place.
The National Health Amendment (General Co-Payment) Bill 2022 amends the National Health Act 1953 to reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, PBS, general co-payment by $12.50, saving patients on out-of-pocket costs. We support the legislation, as the minister has just indicated, to reduce the cost of medicines, noting that it is the result of a copycat election promise made by Labor, following the coalition's commitment to ensuring Australians could save hundreds of dollars every year on the cost of essential and life-saving medicines.
Last night in the Senate, we supported Senator Pocock's amendment, as it seeks to make section 100 decisions under the act a legislative instrument consistent with other instruments. The coalition has a strong record of delivering affordable, life-saving medicines for all Australians, and we encourage the Albanese government to continue our policy of listing on the PBS all medicines that are recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.
Although the opposition supports reducing the cost of medicines to provide relief directly to the hip pockets of Australians, it is important to note that this is one of the very few cost-of-living relief measures the Albanese government has announced so far, and it doesn't take effect until 2023. We hope the Albanese government does not consider that their job is done on supporting Australian families with the rising cost of living. We will hold the government to account to ensure that they do not repeat the disaster of their poor economic management in 2011, when they had to stop listing new medicines on the PBS because they couldn't manage money. We support this bill as passed in the Senate.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
I'd like to thank members and senators for working together to finalise the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022. I think it's fair to say that the discussion and debate in this place and in the Senate has improved the bill. I want to thank the members for Indi and Kennedy, the Greens party, the opposition and also Senator David Pocock for their constructive engagement, for looking to find ways to improve the legislation. Whilst we had some areas of difference, in the end we reconciled those differences, and I think, as a result, we have a better piece of legislation to be enacted.
The Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022 is a very important bill. It leads to, at least in the interim, the creation of this entity, which is about providing much better advice to government and industry about the nature of the labour market, the economy and how we supply the skills that are in need.
We are going through a skills crisis. We have the tightest labour market in decades. We have skills shortages across the economy. Every industry, whether it's aged care, advanced manufacturing, traditional trades, tech industry, nurses, doctors—wherever you look, we have significant challenges in supplying the skills that are needed. I think that's particularly the case in regional Australia, in many professions and occupations.
We have a big job to do, and that's why the Prime Minister convened the Jobs and Skills Summit, which brought together employers and unions, civil society, state and territory governments. We had a very good discussion which has led to some immediate action, including, of course, the announcement of 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places next year and also the very significant reform over the next five years with the National Skills Agreement, which I hope will commence on 1 January 2024. We think that's an opportunity to ensure reform to the VET sector so it's fit for purpose, to supply the skills that businesses are crying out for, the skills that workers need so that they are in demand so they can have secure employment, so they can have career progression and so that our economy grows so that we have a more productive economy, which of course will ensure cheaper goods and services.
We're dealing with very high inflation, and we think improving productivity and reducing the costs of goods and services will, of course, be one of the ways to tackle that significant challenge. Beyond that, we're living in a globalised knowledge-based economy—a very competitive world. If we don't have a smart, innovative, skilled and knowledgeable workforce, we will be left behind. So, for all the reasons it's important for people to have great education and training, which transforms their lives, countries need a skilled workforce to ensure a good quality of life for its citizens. And that's what we want to see happen.
I want to thank all members and senators who've been very constructive in the engagement on this matter. We want to get this going very soon. We hope that will provide the advice that industry needs, government needs and the country needs to respond to this very significant challenge—namely, the skills crisis in the economy.
The opposition will be supporting the amended Jobs and Skills Australia Bill. The opposition has successfully introduced transparency into the Albanese government's key workforce agency, Jobs and Skills Australia, after working constructively with the crossbench and convincing the government to support the bar that we set with the National Skills Commission.
The opposition successfully pursued the introduction of key accountability measures into the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022 that were existing and legislative features of the National Skills Commission Act 2020. The National Skills Commission model worked and was developed and delivered following the Steven Joyce review, commissioned by the coalition government. The National Skills Commission was required to provide an annual report to the minister reflecting Australia's current, emerging and future workforce skills needs over the calendar year. This was tabled in parliament and provided important information about the state of the Australian economy. It provided accountability for government and a benchmark of performance on workforce outcomes.
Now, Labor had removed the formal requirement for the Jobs and Skills Australia director to report to parliament at all. Our support for the bill was contingent on it being reintroduced. Labor did try to water down accountability in the way in which the minister would be able to task Jobs and Skills Australia. Under Labor's legislation, directions from the minister did not even need to be given in writing, meaning there would be no formal record of what the minister tasked this important agency with. This would have been serious loss of transparency, given the minister was only able to give directions to the National Skills Commissioner by way of legislative instrument. Labor sought to reduce parliament's oversight of the directions provided to Jobs and Skills Australia. Our support for the bill was contingent on it being re-introduced. As Australia continues to face challenges across our workforce, we want Jobs and Skills Australia to succeed. To ensure it does, transparency will be vital.
So, thanks to the work of the opposition, Jobs and Skills Australia will be more transparent and therefore more effective as it spends the hard-earned tax dollars of the Australian people. We commend the amended bill to the House.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The original question was that the bill be read a second time, to which the honourable member for Moncrieff moved, as amendment, that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Griffith has moved, as an amendment to that amendment, that all words after 'reading' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Griffith be disagreed to.
The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Griffith be disagreed to.
The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Moncrieff be disagreed.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I want to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. I remind the House of the important measures that are contained within this bill. Firstly, schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022 amends the Foreign Acquisitions Takeovers Act to double the maximum financial penalties for contraventions by foreign investors of provisions that relate to residential property. The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2022 amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Act 2015 to incorporate the cumulative total of indexation to date in the legislated maximum fee cap. This will align the indexation process in the FATA Fees Act within the indexation process in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Regulations 2020.
Schedule 2 to the bill amends the taxation secrecy provisions to enable the Australian Taxation Office to share the taxation information with an Australian government agency, including states and territory governments for the purposes of administering disaster support programs. These amendments will assist Australian government agencies to address the needs of individuals and businesses significantly disrupted by a major disaster event more efficiently and more effectively. We could not have a greater reminder of the importance of these sorts of administrative measures as we approach major flood events throughout eastern Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, the northern rivers of New South Wales and South-East Queensland. We're expecting these to persist right through to January this year. Communities are on a knife edge in these areas. It is absolutely critical that relief is not only promised but delivered speedily. I encourage all members of the House to ensure that we offer no obstacle to the speedy passage of these provisions to enable the efficient operation of not only the Commonwealth government but state and territory governments in providing the relief anticipated.
Schedule 3 to the bill extends the operation of a temporary mechanism in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which allows arrangements for complying with information and documentary requirements to be ordered under Commonwealth legislation, including requirements to give information in writing and produce witness and sign documents. The temporary mechanism responded to the ongoing challenges posed by restrictions on the movement for individuals during COVID-19. In recognition of the importance of continued business transactions and government service delivery during the pandemic, this measure provides that a responsible minister may determine the provisions in Commonwealth legislation containing particular information, or documentary requirements can be varied or do not apply. A responsible minister must not exercise the power unless they are satisfied the determination is in response to circumstances relating to COVID-19. We can only hope that the measures aren't necessary, but we provide them out of an abundance of caution.
Schedule 4 to the bill, along with the Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill, sets out the income tax arrangements for foreign resident workers participating in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, otherwise known as the PALM scheme. These amendments specify that foreign resident PALM scheme workers will pay a final withholding tax of 15 per cent for each dollar of income earned under the scheme from the 2022-23 income year.
Again, it's important that all members of the House understand that in the grip of labour market shortages around the country—but particularly affecting businesses in regional Australia, including agricultural and horticultural businesses—it is absolutely critical that these measures are able to pass the House and move to the Senate so they can be moved through the Senate and into law as a matter of urgency. Fruit is rotting on trees. Crops are rotting in the ground. All of those members in this place who represent regional electorates would understand the absolute urgency of us doing whatever we can to assist farmers, horticulturalists and other primary industry employers to have access to labour, particularly seasonal overseas labour, as quickly as possible. Of course, that is made attractive if we get the taxation arrangements in place. The advantage of the PALM scheme is that it not only provides a valuable source of labour for businesses in the agricultural and horticultural sectors but also is great international relations. It is an important form of foreign remittance income for the workers and the families in the countries who are the source of that labour. So I know that all members of this House, politics aside, will share an interest in ensuring that the swift passage of these measures through the House occurs with bipartisan support.
Schedule 5 to the bill will ensure that Australians of faith have the freedom to choose a fund that invests their superannuation in line with their religious beliefs. I might not share the religious beliefs of Australians who choose to invest their superannuation in a particular fund, but I 100 per cent support their ability to choose that fund, and I don't think it should be the role of the Australian government to shut that fund down because that fund happens to operate in accordance with religious and faith based investing principles. I might not agree with them, but I will defend to my last breath, as the saying goes, their right to hold those beliefs and to invest in accordance with those beliefs. It affects an incredibly small number of funds. I can get to less than five. It affects an incredibly small number of funds, but the members of the funds and the communities who support them hold dearly their belief about being able to invest and have a fund which is available for them to have their retirement savings invested in accordance with their principles.
I'm sure those who were in this House earlier this year, prior to the May election, would understand the great passion with which this parliament and the previous parliament have debated principles of religious freedom. In the earlier debates, it was thought important by the former government that we provide certain freedoms to principals and boards of government of religious based schools to be able to act in accordance with their religious principles. Those provisions caused immense consternation within the community, but there were many members in this House—including, I understand, the member for Fadden, who will be speaking shortly in this debate—who held a very strong view during those debates about the importance of religious schools being able to operate in accordance with their religious principles. I can only assume that the member for Fadden, having held those views in previous debates on previous legislation, will hold the same passion and the same consistent line of principle and view when it comes to protecting members of certain faiths being able to invest their retirement incomes in accordance with their faith based principles, because I'm sure the member for Fadden is nothing but consistent in his approach to bills before this House.
So I thank once again all members of the House who have made a contribution to this debate. For the reasons that I have set out, whether it's the importance of securing disaster relief to families whose houses, livelihoods and families lie in the path of destruction because of seasonal weather events, or whether it's in favour of regional businesses attempting to get crops off their trees and out of the ground, or whether it's the importance of maintaining consistency of principle when adopting an approach to religious freedom, there is no reason for this House, or indeed this parliament, to delay the passage of these bills. I commend them to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (3) to Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022 presented in my name:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item.
(3) Schedule 5, page 14 (line 1) to page 19 (line 14), omit the Schedule.
There are only two groups of amendments the opposition will move, this being the first set. Amendments (1) and (3) effectively excise schedule 5 from the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022. That is the measure that allows faith based super funds to not have to meet the requirements of the benchmark that was put in place under the Your Future, Your Super legislative changes. We do that quite soberly. If we look through at the benchmark requirements that this parliament passed, it requires super funds to meet basic benchmarks of performance. If they do not, then of course they are named and they will need to inform their members that their fund is not performing to those benchmarks. If they fail a second time they are no longer able to receive contributions that are mandatory and therefore they can't be a MySuper regulated fund. This has already occurred once. Thirteen funds failed, and they all quite rightly sought to merge with other funds. Quite recently five other funds have also been named for underperformance.
It's not as if these benchmarks are onerous. In terms of Australian listed equities, the average large-scale fund will have about 15 per cent listed equities. The benchmark simply requires the super fund to meet, ostensibly, the Standard and Poor's 200 index. So if you took your money and put it into an index fund, which is a fund that just invests across the top 200 companies in Australia at the same percentages to which they are represented in the stock market and do nothing else—no active trading, nothing—that's the benchmark. It is the laziest benchmark of all if in terms of bond trading you can't meet a Bloomberg index. So they go. It's designed to ensure that your super funds aren't being ill managed or fees aren't high. The 13 funds that were named—shamed, if you like—and folded, some of them were appalling. The MUA fund was just outrageous in terms of what was going on. Quite rightly, members' money, Australians' money, is being protected by ensuring these benchmarks make these funds accountable, because super is the second-largest asset outside of Australians' homes. It's the asset that no-one pays attention to, yet it's the asset where rivers of gold flow to it under superannuation guarantee payments. Therefore setting a benchmark is appropriate. The government made an election commitment saying, 'If you're a faith-based super fund, you don't have to meet those benchmarks, because you're investing along your faith principles.' The bill says, 'If you don't meet the benchmark, we'll create another benchmark for you.'
So I sat down with APRA and said, 'If you were a faith based organisation, what percentage of the Australian stock market would you not invest in, because as a faith community you may not want to invest in munitions or alcohol or cigarettes?' The answer is two per cent. So there's two per cent of the market you ostensibly can't invest in, but suddenly that two per cent means you don't have to meet the benchmark. What the government is putting forward is saying to faith based communities: 'If you're in a faith based fund, you don't have to have as great a retirement as any other Australian, because we're going to give a leave pass to that faith based fund.' They're not going to have to meet a benchmark. 'We'll create something else for them.' APRA will create some other benchmark for them, based on what their investment strategy is.
What we're saying is that every Australian should be treated equally. Every single Australian should have the same right to a dignified retirement, and every super fund should be held to account in the same way. That is why we are moving to strike out schedule 5 to this bill—so that every Australian is treated the same way, every Australian Super fund is treated the same way, everyone can expect a dignified retirement in the same way and no-one gets a leave pass. Whether you're a person of faith, whether you believe in ESG or any other principle, the bottom line is that retirement is important, a dignified retirement is important and everyone should have the same ability to receive that.
Let me just explain to members of the House the proposition that is being put by the government, because it's important. It bears no resemblance to the characterisation that was just given to the House by the member for Fadden. What is most disappointing about what he said is that he knows full well that what he just told the House was not true. He knows full well that he just misled the House. So let me explain quite clearly what the government proposition—
The member for Fadden on a point of order?
The minister doesn't get to make an unsubstantiated allegation of that seriousness.
The member will state the point of order.
There are other forms of the House for the minister to do that.
The minister has the call.
Let me explain what the government is proposing to do and why the member for Fadden has just misled the House. There are fewer than five faith based funds in the country, and they are set up with a specific investment mandate. They say, 'If you join our fund, you can be assured that your funds are going to be invested in accordance with your religious and your faith based precepts.' Just putting the word 'Catholic' in your name does not make you a faith-based investment fund. Just putting the word 'Presbyterian' in your name does not make you a faith based fund. Putting the word 'Anglican' in your name does not make you a faith based fund. What makes you a faith-based investment fund is if your investment mandate specifically says, 'We are going to invest members' money in accordance with our faith based principles.'
Let me give you an example. If you are a member of a faith that prohibits participation in gambling or if you are a member of a faith that prohibits participation in usury—lending for an interest rate—then it is almost impossible for you to invest your funds in accordance with the principles that were just outlined by the member for Fadden, because if you invest your fund either directly or in an exchange traded fund, which is leveraged off the ASX 200, you're investing in Woolworths, NAB, the Commonwealth Bank, Coles and AHL holdings. You're invested in all of these—
What's wrong with Woolies? What have you got against Woolies?
I love Woolies. The member for Fadden asked me what I've got against Woolies. Absolutely nothing. But I'm not—
Well, if he would be quiet for just a moment, he might understand why he has just misled the House. And thickness makes a lot of noise, in the case of the member for Fadden.
Let me explain it to you. If someone is a member of one of these religions that prohibits them participating in gambling, why should we be saying to them: 'We are going to deregister your fund unless it performs in accordance with an index which assumes you invest in a gambling business, or you invest in a banking business or invest in one of these businesses which is specifically operating against the religious precepts of that community'? Now, I don't happen to hold those views; I don't happen to find those activities offensive. But I do understand that there are many members who represent communities where they do hold those principles, and they want to ensure that their life savings, their superannuation savings, are invested in accordance with those principles. I've mentioned the example of gambling. I've mentioned the example of banking. There are others.
What the member for Fadden has done is specifically mislead the House. Let me explain to the House—and the member for Fadden, who clearly doesn't understand it—how the new test will work. A faith based fund will be measured in accordance with every other fund in the country, and they can't just stick their hand up halfway through the process and say, 'By the way, we're a faith based fund.' They have to have declared, in their investment mandate, way before the measurement period, that that is indeed what they are and they are investing their money in accordance with a religious principle. If they are run through the annual performance test and they fail it, APRA will then run a second test, which will ask a very simple question: but for this fund investing its money in accordance with those religious principles— (Time expired)
I'm always amused by the Assistant Treasurer's marvellous turns of phrase. The House is very clear what the bill is seeking to do. The minister of course can't explain what secondary test APRA will do. If you fail the primary test, APRA will then devise some secondary test in line with whatever your investment mandate is. But let's understand exactly what products and sets faith based super may not want to invest in. Apparently, the Assistant Treasurer thinks that they won't want to invest in Woolies. I don't know what the government has got against Woolies—apart from a budget that passed two nights ago that does nothing for the cost of living that hurt their share price; apart from that, I don't know what you've got against Woolies.
But, in APRA's view, there's about two per cent of stocks on the ASX that wouldn't be invested in from faith based supers. Considering a super fund has about 15 per cent in domestic equities, that means: 85 per cent elsewhere. So, in terms of the total fund balance, there's about 0.5 per cent of products that that total fund couldn't invest in, and for 0.5, we should junk the benchmark designed to protect Australians—because of a measly 0.5. It doesn't stack up; it doesn't hold water. Every Australian should be assured that their fund is doing the very best they can. The benchmarks are the mere bottom of what you could possibly invest in. They set the lowest possible balance necessary. Every fund should be able to deal with it, and, if only 0.5 per cent of your total investment mandate is ineligible because of your faith base, there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be meeting the benchmark.
Let me explain how the benchmark, the secondary test, will work. If you fail the first benchmark, APRA will then conduct a very narrow, specific second test, which will ask the question: but for you investing your funds in accordance with a faith based principle, would you have failed the test? And, if the answer to that is, yes, you would've failed anyway, you're out—that is, if the faith based investment principles made no material difference to the performance outcomes of that fund, then you're still out; you have still imposed upon your fund all the rigours of the failure of that test that would apply to any other fund in the country.
If, on the other hand, the independent regulator determines, after assessing that fund, that, but for the investment in accordance with their faith based principles, the fund would have passed the test, you will not be closed down. Who are we, as a parliament, to say to those members who say, 'I want to invest in accordance with my Islamic faith,' or 'I want to invest in accordance with my Christian faith'—let's name them here, because, quite frankly, these are the two great faith groups; it will be the Islamic faith or it will be the Christian faith. Who are we to say, as a parliament, to those thousands of Australians: 'You are not entitled to have a fund available to you which will allow you to invest in accordance with your religious principles'? Understand: that is exactly what the member for Fadden is arguing.
Let's assume for a moment that the member for Fadden is right, and the test will have almost no bearing on those funds. Then you have to ask yourself: what is his problem in allowing members of a faith based community to invest their superannuation in a faith based fund? If his argument is correct, this will have no bearing on the ultimate performance outcome. What is your objection? It is nothing but politics. The thing that bells the cat on this is that the same member, when he was sitting on this side of the House, apparently thought it was more important to give a school the right to dismiss a child on the basis of their sex or gender or sexual preference, or a teacher or a principal on the basis of their sex or gender or sexual preference—they thought it was more important to enable a school to dismiss somebody on this basis—than to enable the teachers of that school or the members of that faith based community to invest their money in accordance with their faith. If we are truly to be a parliament which respects the principle of freedom of religion, surely it's got to extend beyond the schoolyard, surely it's got to extend into grown-up life as well. I put it to you that the argument by the member for Fadden is based on pure politics and is grounded in hypocrisy. All the members of this House should enable all the provisions of this bill to pass through unamended.
I'll speak to the amendments in a moment, but, just briefly: the government may want to go and check the record about the way that Labor voted when we moved to ensure that staff, as opposed to students, couldn't be discriminated against or sacked in faith based organisations, because it might not be exactly as has just been outlined by the Assistant Treasurer.
With respect to these amendments, with respect to schedule 5 and schedule 5 only, this matter is currently before a Senate inquiry. The Greens are reserving our position on schedule 5 until it gets to the Senate. Our reasoning is different to the opposition's. We do believe that there is a case, in principle, for looking at values based investment in superannuation. Indeed, you can see around the country at the moment that very, very many people want to do that, especially with respect to investment in fossil fuels, ethical investment and the like. We think that matter has not got the treatment and the understanding from the regulatory system that it deserves.
The reasons that the minister just outlined with respect to some funds could arguably apply to others as well. But schedule 5, as drafted, does not purport to address this question of values based investment more broadly. It does not purport to deal with those questions that I've raised and what might be the appropriate way of dealing with them. As such, we want to put the government on notice that it cannot rely on our support for schedule 5, as it's currently drafted, when this matter comes before the Senate. We take a different approach from the opposition, so there may be a different way through when it comes to the Senate. The opposition did not put us on notice that they would be moving these schedule 5 amendments separately today, so our position is to reserve our position until the matter comes before the Senate. It may well be that we move our own amendments with respect to schedule 5 in the Senate, given the way things are at the moment.
I just want the government to clearly understand that we cannot commit to supporting schedule 5 in its current form at the moment. We are open to seeing if that matter can be resolved before it comes to the Senate; I'm just putting that squarely on the government's radar. The matter is, as I understand it, before an inquiry, so we will wait and see the outcome of that inquiry.
The question is the amendments be disagreed to.
by leave—I move amendments (2) and (4) to Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022 in my name:
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(4) Page 19 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 6 — Annual members' meetings
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
1 Paragraph 29P(3)(b)
After "the notice", insert "the information required by section 29PAA and".
2 Paragraphs 29P(3)(c) and (d)
Before "give the notice", substitute "subject to section 29PAB,".
3 After section 29P
Insert:
29PAA Information to be included with notice
(1) If, under section 29P, the RSE licensee of a registrable superannuation entity is required to give notice of an annual members' meeting for a year of income of the entity to a member of the entity, the following information must be included with the notice:
(a) a short-form summary containing the information set out in subsection (2), which must:
(i) fit on a single page and be the only information on that page; and
(ii) be the first page of the pages of information referred to in this section;
(b) a copy of each of the following:
(i) a summary of each significant event or material change notice (if any) given under section 1017B of the Corporations Act 2001 by a trustee of the entity to a member of the entity during the 2 year period finishing at the end of the year of income;
(ii) the remuneration details that, at the time the notice is given, are required to be made publicly available under subsection 29QB(1) of this Act in relation to the entity;
(iii) if the trustee or trustees of the entity produce an annual report for the entity for the year of income—that report;
(c) if a determination made under paragraph 52(9)(a) of this Act in relation to the entity is publicly available at the time the notice is given, or must be made publicly available before the meeting is held—a copy of the determination;
(d) a copy of each of the following:
(i) the most recent periodic statement (if any) given to the member under section 1017D of the Corporations Act 2001;
(ii) the most recent information (if any)given to the member under paragraph 1017DA(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001;
(e) for each contract (if any) under which one or more payments were made, by or on behalf of the entity during the year of income, where a purpose of each payment was promoting the entity, promoting a particular view on behalf of the entity or sponsorship on behalf of the entity:
(i) the sum of all such payments that have been or are to be made under the contract during any year of income;
(ii) the name of each entity to whom such payments have been or are to be made under the contract during any year of income and, for each such entity, the sum of all such payments that have been or are to be made to the entity under the contract during any year of income;
(iii) the term of the contract;
(f) if any gifts (within the meaning of Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) were made, by or on behalf of the entity during the year of income, to another entity who, at the time of receiving the gift:
(i) was a political entity (within the meaning of that Act); or
(ii) was, or was required by that Part of that Act to be, a significant third party (within the meaning of that Part); or
(iii) was, or was required by that Part of that Act to be, an associated entity (within the meaning of that Part);
an itemised list showing each such gift and the name of the entity to whom each gift was made;
(g) if any payments were made, by or on behalf of the entity during the year of income, to another entity who, at the time of receiving the payment, was an organisation (within the meaning of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009)—an itemised list showing each such payment and the name of the entity to whom each payment was made;
(h) if any payments were made, by the entity (the main entity) during the year of income, to any of the following:
(i) a connected entity of the RSE licensee of the main entity;
(ii) an associated entity of another entity (the third party) if the third party is a connected entity of the RSE licensee of the main entity;
(iii) an entity over whom the RSE licensee of the main entity has significant influence;
(iv) an entity who has significant influence over the RSE licensee of the main entity;
(v) an entity whose key management personnel include the RSE licensee, or an executive officer of the RSE licensee, of the main entity;
(vi) an associated entity of another entity (the third party), if the RSE licensee, or an executive officer of the RSE licensee, of the main entity is a member of the key management personnel of the third party;
an itemised list showing each such payment and the name of the entity to whom each payment was made.
Note 1: Information mentioned in subparagraphs (b)(i), (ii) and (iii) must be made publicly available on the entity's website (see subsection 29QB(1)).
Note 2: The determination mentioned in paragraph (c) is to be made publicly available on the entity's website within 28 days after the determination is made (see paragraphs 52(9)(b) and (c)).
(2) The short-form summary referred to in paragraph (1)(a) must set out the following:
(a) the sum of the remuneration referred to in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), which is to be described as the aggregate remuneration expenditure relating to the entity for the year of income;
(b) the sum of the payments referred to in paragraph (1)(e) that were made during the year of income (under all contracts referred to in that paragraph), which is to be described as the aggregate promotion, marketing or sponsorship expenditure relating to the entity for the year of income;
(c) the sum of the payments referred to in paragraph (1)(f), which is to be described as the aggregate political donations relating to the entity for the year of income;
(d) the sum of the payments referred to in paragraph (1)(g), which is to be described as the aggregate industrial body payments relating to the entity for the year of income;
(e) the sum of the payments referred to in paragraph (1)(h), which is to be described as the aggregate related party payments relating to the entity for the year of income.
(3) Despite subsection (1), if any information (the extra information) referred to in paragraph (1)(b) to (h) required to be given to a member of the entity:
(a) is accessible by the member (including by being publicly available) at the time the notice of the annual members' meeting is given; or
(b) must be made so accessible before the meeting is held;
it is sufficient for the purposes of that paragraph if the information included with the notice includes details of how to access that extra information.
Note: The short-form summary referred to in paragraph (1)(a) must still be included.
(4) In this section:
associated entity has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001.
contract includes a deed.
key management personnel has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001.
29PAB How notice is to be given to members
If, under section 29P, the RSE licensee of a registrable superannuation entity is required to give notice of an annual members' meeting to the members of the entity, the RSE licensee must give the notice by:
(a) making the notice of the meetingpublicly available on the entity's website; and
(b) ensuring that the notice is readily accessible from the website at least 30 days before the meeting.
4 Application of ame ndments
The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to a notice of an annual members' meeting for a year of income for a registrable superannuation entity if:
(a) the notice is given on or after the commencement of this item; and
(b) the year of income ends on or after 30 June 2022.
Amendments (2) and (4) seek to put what was the annual member meeting notices by regulation into primary legislation. Imagine an incoming government's first act of Treasury. You would think the first act would be fairly significant. They've been out of government for nine years, and the very first act of Treasury was to water down transparency in super. That's what it was. Under the previous government's Your Future Your Super changes a range of changes came through on stapling of funds, on benchmarks, and one of those changes was that every single super fund had to report to their members, whose money it is, a breakdown of what those funds are actually spending their money on. They already produce that because it has to go to APRA. The very first act of the Treasury and its ministers—in this case the Assistant Treasurer—was to knock out the requirement for transparency in super and for disclosure as to what super funds were spending their sponsorship and support and contributions on, and for it only to be reported in the aggregate.
The Assistant Treasurer said that it was to reduce complexity of administration. But to produce an aggregate you must have it line by line anyway. There is no way to lawfully produce an aggregate without having it line by line, and funds have to report that to APRA anyway. So it's a complete fig leaf, a complete sham, an attempt by this government, which they then move regulations on, to actually say, 'We don't want the disclosure of that. We will simply have the aggregate.'
Why was this rushed through as the first act of Treasury? Apparently it was the most important thing. Not cost of living—that wasn't the most important thing of Treasury. Not looking at other areas when it comes to fiscal reform or discipline. No—it's the transparency of what super funds were spending members' money on. Now we know why it's so urgent: because the annual member meetings all start from September and October. The Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation, owned by the Commonwealth, have had their annual member meeting, and they broke down their expenditure line by line: a bit over $670,000, so everyone can see exactly what they're spending their sponsorship or support or advertising money on. Prime Super did exactly the same thing.
The first of the big super funds, Australian Super, came through. They announced $30 million in sponsorship in the aggregate, with no idea what it's for or where it goes. More importantly, the members don't have any idea where it goes. And of course over $80 million in the aggregate of co-payments, if you like, with nothing outlined of where the funds go.
The disclosure mechanisms in these regulations that the Assistant Treasurer has now overruled take away any transparency of what super funds are spending on sponsorship, support, contributions and co-payments. It has nothing to do with donations. There was never any levelling, that industry or other super funds were making donations to other political parties. This is about contributions and sponsorship and support, about saying, 'Let's be transparent to members.' So how the government's first act of Treasury was to water down transparency is simply beyond understanding. Amendments (2) and (4) moved in my name seek to take those regulations that have transparency in where member's money is being spent and put them into primary legislation so transparency can be brought back to super.
Well, the award for chutzpah goes to the member for Fadden. If there's a person in this House who is least qualified to talk about transparency, it's the member for Fadden. The people of Australia still don't know how he acquired the Greywolf shares and how he disposed of them, but he stands here and lectures the Australian Labor party and the people of this parliament on transparency. The bloke who was sacked from his last job—
Order! The minister will return to the amendments.
Context is relevant, Mr Speaker, and I accept your guidance. There is an important piece of work to be done on transparency and reporting in superannuation funds all across the country. Unfortunately, the politically motivated regulations that were introduced by the former government were all about the politics and had nothing to do with transparency. I ask the House to consider this: if there is something material that ought to be disclosed to members, would you stick it in the annual member meeting notice, or would you stick it in an annual report? Would you stick it in an annual member meeting notice that gets mailed out, or would you stick it in the annual report that is required to be disclosed to all of your members, to regulators and all the rest of it?
We want to have a discussion and reform job on reporting in superannuation, and we will do it. But it won't be motivated by the petty politics that dominated the coalition's approach to superannuation and, dare I might say, by the hypocrisy when it comes to the member for Fadden. We won't be motivated by that. We will have a reform job on transparency, but, to start, we have to undo the mess that was left by the other side. Why did we repeal the regulations put by the other side? Because they actually require funds to mislead their members. They were drafted in such an incompetent, politically motivated way, that they required funds to mislead their members, because, to report in accordance with the regulations, you would often have to double and triple count the same expenditure under various headings. So, it would appear to any member who is looking at the annual member meeting notice, trying to find the time and date of the meeting under 400 pages of documents reporting various transactions, that the same amount of money spent once had been spent like 10 times. That's what's wrong.
They were in such haste to execute a political agenda that they forgot to introduce one based on probity, one based on prudence. So we will reform the reporting arrangements for superannuation in this country, and we will do it on an even-handed basis, motivated by the best interests of members, not by the political and, might I say, the hypocritical rantings of the member for Fadden and of so many members that sit behind him. We reject the proposition.
I applaud the opposition for bringing this forward, because of all the areas that need reform in Australia—and to quote my own book, humble as I am: 'The socialist decision to put in 10 per cent compulsory superannuation? Excellent. Implementation? Disastrous.' We've gone from $70 billion a year going into the stock market, 20 years ago, to $1,700 billion going in today. A bunch of slithering Sydney suits out of Sydney universities now have control of all of the savings of Australia.
I want to put a personal note in here: my wife, she gives me a terrible time—I'm an abused husband! She informed me that her shares—I better not mention the name of the company—in her retirement fund have gone down now for three solid years. I don't know how much she's putting in. She won't tell me, but it might be $15,000 a year. But the value has gone down. Well, you're in a Ponzi scheme!
Kevin Rudd, in his latest book, said, 'The thing that most needs attention is that all of Australia's savings are going into speculation.' He quotes John Maynard Keynes as describing the stock market as a giant roulette wheel. I would call it a Ponzi scheme. If you have gone from putting in $70 billion a year to putting in $1,700 billion a year, we're just buying and selling shells to each other, and it just keeps going up. There is not a person in this House who does not know what happens at the end of a Ponzi scheme, that's for certain. Whatever else I might say about Kevin Rudd, he has got some very serious scores on the board: NDIS, the national transmission line, the best communication system in the world. But we don't need Kevin Rudd to tell us. It should not need Kevin Rudd to tell us that in 1995 60 per cent of all retirement funds went into government securities—where, of course, they should go, where they are guaranteed secure. When you retire, you want to know there is some money around to pay for your retirement. If it's going into speculation, no such guarantee exists.
The 60-40 rule was never objected to by anyone ever. But under the National Competition Policy, it was abolished, instead of the money going into development. Every inch of railway line to the mines in Queensland, every inch that delivers our aluminium, our coal, our copper, silver, lead and zinc, was built by the government out of that money. The biggest power station and the most efficient power station in the world is at Gladstone and it was built out of that money. In fact, the great edifice of the economy of Queensland was built out of that money and that money is now not there. No wonder no dams are being built. No wonder no mines are being opened up. No wonder no factories are being opened up in this country. There is no pool of money from which the infrastructure can be supplied.
So at the very least we should have a look at where it's going—traceability. But the failure of this place to deal with Australian savings going into a Ponzi scheme is a disgrace. At least, let's look at where it's going.
Transparency is important when it comes to superannuation. I draw the House's attention to an exhibit that that went to the Hayne royal commission: a KPMG review of payments made to Cbus sponsoring organisations. I am referring to a public document that was tabled and used and is publicly available. The executive summary says that Cbus members' interests are represented by the ACTU, the CFMEU, the Communications Electrical Plumbing Union, the AMWU and the Master Builders Association. It says, 'The sponsoring payments made by Cbus are governed by Cbus policies and the benefit obtained is recognised as retention of funds.
Here you have Cbus making payments to five sponsoring organisations, no others, just these five—the five who set the fund up. The report goes on to say that these funds are to be paid when an invoice is received. No other sponsorship is reported; just sponsorship to these funds. Page 2 has the payments: $1.3 million in 2010; $1.5 million in 2012—from Cbus, members money, in sponsorship payments to these union movements; in 2013 it doubles almost to $2.7 million; and drops back down to $1.8 million in 2014.
Why would sponsorship payments by a large superannuation fund using members money go to the union movement in 2013? What possibly happened in that year? Oh, I know: an election. Here you have sponsorship payments that must be paid on the receipt of an invoice—this is in a KPMG audit report that was tabled during the Hayne royal commission. These are sponsorship payments from members money must be paid to these union movements upon receipt of an invoice for sponsorship—no other payments outside of these four or five organisations—and they double in an election year. It's this sort of transparency that the Assistant Treasurer and this government thought was the most important act as the first part of Treasury. Clearly, they went through the Attorney-General's office, and the Attorney-General would have signed off on it. It would have gone through cabinet. Cabinet would have signed off on it. They have decided the very first act of Treasury in the government was to water down transparency of how members' money is spent.
The previous government didn't seek to strike out these cosy arrangements or these deals that double during election years—who would have thought? It simply was about being transparent—to actually produce the details, come forward and say, 'Here's what the expenditure is.'
The Assistant Treasurer just said then that this shouldn't be in annual member meetings notices; it should be in annual reports. Done deal, Assistant Treasurer! We'll accept that. Why don't we do a deal, as the Assistant Treasurer has just said, and have this detail line by line in the annual reports rather than annual member meetings? Accepted! Let us, together as a parliament, resolve to do exactly what the Assistant Treasurer said, because that will restore transparency and disclosure. Deal, Assistant Treasurer! Terms accepted! Let's put the breakdown of all this expenditure into the annual reports so that transparency is indeed maintained.
The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022. As we look around this great country of ours, we see an enormous history of rail right across the country that has led to, and facilitated, the development of our country over the past couple of hundred years. I think the importance of rail today is no less diminished than it has been historically and, sadly, I think that over the years we've under-appreciated the value and importance of our rail systems right across this country, particularly in our urban areas. If I look back, historically, in South-East Queensland we used to have a rail line to Southport on the Gold Coast, and that was ripped up at one stage and then we had to build a whole new line. As the member for Bowman would know, there was a line to Cleveland that terminated at Wyndham which was ripped up and which has had to be rebuilt. And the member for Bonner would well know that as well, given that it goes through his part of the world. If I have a look now at the Gold Coast line, I look at the capacity constraints that are on that. In the western part of my electorate, I look at the massive developments going on in the south-west of Logan, at Flagstone and Yarrabilba—two priority development areas that were foisted on the City of Logan by the state government but with no provision or planning for public transport infrastructure.
I'm pleased to say that, when we were in government we committed some $10 million, in partnership with the state government, who put in another $10 million—so, a total of $20 million—to another study on passenger rail in the Salisbury-to-Beaudesert corridor, which would service the west of my electorate and those two key priority development areas I just mentioned, which are in the electorate of my colleague the member for Wright. I also remember having significant discussions with the then minister around the importance of inland rail, and the importance that inland rail doesn't cannibalise that existing corridor so we can put passenger rail in it.
As I look at this bill to create the High Speed Rail Authority, it reminds me of when I first came to this place and the work that the now Prime Minister was doing—when he was Minister for Infrastructure and Transport in the former Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments—on a high-speed rail study which, in large part, identified a corridor from Brisbane to Melbourne. A number of pieces of work have been done subsequently over the years, trying to quantify the cost of such a rail system, and one of the latest figures I've seen is in the order of $140 billion. It does beg the question: how is that going to be funded? Is this another statutory body that does an enormous amount of what I think is good work? I see the minister is in the House. I believe that the purpose of this High Speed Rail Authority is first and foremost to look at a government commitment for high-speed rail between Newcastle and Sydney, which we know is a corridor that is growing enormously, the same as the south-east of Queensland is growing enormously. But the amount of money that is being provided for that—$500 million—is not even close to what would be required to facilitate that project.
If I have a look back in my home state of Queensland—and we have the member for Fisher here in the House. To the west of his electorate, he has the north coastline that runs from Brisbane all the way up to Cairns. As he would well know, one of the services that runs on that is the Tilt Train, and that is presently recognised as the fastest passenger rail train in Australia.
God help us!
I'll get to that! One of the reasons it can't run at its identified top speed is because of the quality of the rail line and, more particularly, the alignment of the rail line. What would be necessary to achieve the maximum speeds that the train is known to be able to run at would involve some significant upgrades to alignments on that line. It is one of the reasons we announced, when we were in government, the national Faster Rail Plan in 2019. One of the commitments in that was for $1.6 billion for the Brisbane-to-Sunshine-Coast extension, and a further $1.2 billion for the Brisbane-to-Gold-Coast rail upgrade, which is of particular interest to me through the upgrade of the corridor between Kuraby and Beenleigh. I'm not sure where that is in terms of funding in the budget because I—
It's still in the budget.
Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that that is contained in the budget. But if you have a look at what is required to achieve the outcomes that are sought for that project, it requires significant realignment and re-engineering of the existing corridor. In order to achieve capacity for higher speeds in our trains, the radius of the curves need to be far flatter. You can't have tight curves—that impacts the speed outcomes for the trains. That comes at an enormous cost, because a large number of resumptions are required along that corridor because it's highly developed. The corridor south of Beenleigh to the Gold Coast is relatively straightforward. It's pretty straight, so the trains can travel at or near their maximum speed.
Looking at that corridor between Newcastle and Sydney, I thank the same issue applies as the issue I raised with the Brisbane line north to Rockhampton on which the Tilt Train runs. I would argue that there is much work that could be done on that corridor in terms of straightening alignments and improving the existing alignment. That can significantly increase the speeds. It would be interesting to see what the cost of that would be, ultimately. I know that when we were in government we committed $1 billion to that potential upgrade.
I would argue that rail is critically important and will remain critically important. It goes an enormous way to reducing congestion on our roads, because we know that trains are the most efficient way to move large numbers of people quickly. So the question becomes how, through high-speed rail or even faster rail, we achieve those efficiencies and ensure—given the costs involved today in building these pieces of infrastructure, as we are seeing with the cost of Inland Rail—that the cost of tickets on those trains is affordable for commuters to use them on a regular basis to commute to and from work and other places.
I support the creation of this High-Speed Rail Authority. As I said, there has been much work done over the years. I would not like to see it become another government body that does an enormous amount of good work, as I said earlier, but doesn't achieve any practical outcomes at the end of the day, where we don't see the delivery of, at least as a starting point, faster rail in our capital cities and in our large urban areas—as opposed to high-speed rail, because there is a significant step up and differential cost between fast rail and high-speed rail. I think that if we can achieve high-quality fast rail, in the first instance, to improve the quality and timeliness of our existing services, then ultimately, maybe, at some point down the track, that leads us to introduce high-speed rail.
As I've said, I'm pleased to see that the government is building on the enormous amount of work we did in the rail space when we were in government, and I'm sure that as an opposition we'll continue to work with the government to see these outcomes realised.
Firstly, I just want to acknowledge the presence of the minister in the chamber this afternoon. I've been fighting for heavy passenger rail to come into the Sunshine Coast since I was elected to this place in 2016. I should say also that the member for Fairfax and I have been working assiduously on this. When the Sunshine Coast was first developed over a hundred years ago, people settled inland, in what is now the hinterland. The rail line was built in the hinterland. That rail line is now well over a hundred years old. From Beerburrum, it is only a single track going north, and it's interesting that that same single track going north—I want to acknowledge the former minister for infrastructure and cities, who has just walked into the chamber and who the member for Fairfax and I worked very closely with when we were in government.
The people of the Sunshine Coast have been absolutely screaming out for this project. We are the ninth-largest city in the country. We are growing exponentially. When I move around the electorate, as I often do, and hold my listening posts, infrastructure, road and rail are very constant issues that are brought up by my electorate, because at the moment there is no rail actually on the coast, unlike, say on the Gold Coast. If someone who lives on the Sunshine Coast, right on the coast, wants to jump on the train and go to Brisbane, they have to travel more than 25 minutes inland to catch a train. Over 100 years ago, that's where the settlement was. Nobody wanted to live on the coast. Everyone wanted to live in the hinterland. That's obviously changed, and we've got more than 80 per cent of our population living on the coast rather than in the hinterland, so there is a misalignment there with public transport.
One of the major problems that we have in my electorate is the lack of public transport. I also want to acknowledge the member for Fairfax, who's just walked into the chamber. It seems that everybody who's had something to do with this project is in the chamber. You know what they say: success has many parents, and failure is an orphan. But I do want to acknowledge the member for Fairfax and the work that he has done, and, of course, I acknowledge the former infrastructure minister. But do you know what? I'm going to give credit where credit is due, because the current infrastructure minister—and I hope she's not the current infrastructure minister for too long; no offence, Minister, but we'll be doing everything we can to take the job off you—has retained the $1.6 billion that the former infrastructure minister worked so hard with the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to get in the budget.
I think that for as long as I am on my two feet I'll remember where I was. I was actually having a shave, and I had a phone call from the former infrastructure minister. There I am, looking in the mirror and having a shave, and he says, 'Congratulations, Andrew: you've just got $1.6 billion in the March budget.' I think I cut myself at that point when he said that, and I said, 'Paul, did you say "billion" with a b? ' and he said, 'Andrew, that's "billion" with a b.' I knew that our hard work with the member for Fairfax had paid off, and I want to thank him and thank all those who were involved in that project, because this is a project that has been such a long time in the making.
Did you get anything built?
This is a project that has been such a long time in the making. I'll take the interjection as to whether we got anything built, because that decision was made in March of this year. For a $3.2 billion project, the member would know that these things don't happen overnight, even as the minister told ABC FM just yesterday. But this is great news for the Sunshine Coast. Whilst I'm as crook as a dog right now, I am very, very excited about this project.
But the battle's not over. There's more work to be done. Whilst the Labor government has recommitted itself to the coalition's $1.6 billion in funding, we know that our initial costings for this project were around $2.9 billion. From a cost escalation perspective, we rounded that up to $3.2 billion. The coalition put $1.6 billion on the table when we were in government, and the Labor government has now committed to that, and I thank the minister for doing so. I have to admit, Minister, there were a couple of hairy moments there when I looked through the budget on budget night. I got to page 160 and couldn't see it there. You had me going for a while. I was pretty worried. I think there are a lot of people, journalists included, who were concerned that it had been taken out, but I am very, very pleased that the government has committed to it.
But we have a sticking point, and the sticking point is this: when we were in government, the state Labor Queensland government, who really is responsible for this project—when you look at a train, you don't see 'Commonwealth Rail' on the front of it; you see 'Queensland Rail'. Queensland Rail is responsible for this project. The Queensland government is responsible for it, but we stumped up 50 per cent of the cost. But to this day, Queensland Labor has been absolutely mute on whether the current Queensland government is going to match our funding. This is absolutely inexcusable. The two local state members for the Labor Party that are in the Labor government have been absolutely absent on this issue. Whilst the member for Fairfax and I have been banging on every door, arguing for this case publicly, doing petitions and listening posts, driving awareness of this program and, quite frankly, putting pressure on our own government when we were in government and, as you would expect, putting pressure on the new Labor government to keep that funding there, I have not heard boo from either of those state Labor members. Nothing.
The people of the Sunshine Coast elect their representatives to be their voices, and they are not seeing this. Consequently, what we've seen from the Labor state government is total inaction. Come October 2024, I think the people of the Sunshine Coast, particularly in the state seat of Caloundra and the state seat of Nicklin, will have a few things to say about this. So I would encourage very strongly that those two state members get on Mark Bailey's back—Mark Bailey being the state Minister for Transport and Main Roads. The ball is fairly and squarely in the Labor state government's court.
There is now a bipartisan approach in relation to the funding of this project at a federal level. But because of state Labor's inaction on this point, how much extra is it going to cost us as a country and as a state to deliver this project? Bear in mind that we don't have a lot of time. Due to the fantastic work of the member for Fairfax when he was the PM's envoy for the Olympics and the Paralympics, we've secured those games. We know that in 2032 we are going to get an explosion of people coming to the Sunshine Coast. We are host to all sorts of games and events. Now that there is a bipartisan approach at a federal level to build this, it would be absolutely inexcusable, absolutely untenable, for the state to hold out. Does the state seriously think now that they have any cover? They have no cover. It's time for them to stump up and put up this $1.6 billion that they must commit to this project.
Turning to the bill, I want to say that I think this bill is a good thing. This bill is a good thing. I support high-speed rail. I support the establishment of an authority. I encourage the minister, to the extent that she can, when she is in discussions with Mark Bailey, to have in mind our project, the Sunshine Coast rail project, from Beerwah, Caloundra, Kawana, all the way through to the city centre in Maroochydore. Nothing less is viable; nothing less will be accepted. I encourage the minister, to the extent she can, that the design of that part of the works should be done as a high-speed project. We have a corridor that has been set aside. Very few resumptions will be required to be undertaken. The corridor was put in place 20 years ago, so it's effectively ready to go, unlike other parts of the main line, the existing line—parts around Eudlo that are like a snake because of twisting etc. The CAMCOS corridor is a relatively straight stretch of line. I encourage the minister, when she's speaking to the Queensland minister, that this section should at least be designed to be capable of carrying fast or faster rail. This is important because the speed at which the current train operates on the existing line, Minister, is 56 kilometres an hour, as an average. As I understand that that is slower than the trains used to travel when they were coal-fired locomotives.
The time has come for faster rail to the Sunshine Coast. This project will absolutely put pay to what the local council wants to do, which is to put in light rail between Caloundra and Maroochydore, not connected to Brisbane. That's what the council wants to do, but almost every one of my constituents I talk to are against light rail. When the minister was speaking to ABC Coast FM—this is not a criticism—she actually let slip and talked about light rail. I assume that was a slip of the tongue; I think it was. There is absolutely no support for light rail on the Sunshine Coast amongst my constituents and the constituents of Fairfax.
This is a great project. It's a project that we can all be very, very proud of on both sides of the House. I want to acknowledge in particular the work done by the member for Fairfax. I want to acknowledge the former minister for infrastructure and cities. If you had not had stumped up and listened to our pleas, we really wouldn't be here today and there wouldn't be pressure on the existing government to deliver the project. From the bottom of my heart, on behalf of all the members and people in Fisher and Fairfax, thank you so much.
Speaking to this, it's not so much what this does; it's the things that don't get done because this is being done. There is a fundamental difference, a world of difference, between a make-money project and an absorb-money project. I'm not denying that a ring road around Melbourne would be a good thing to happen, or a super highway and a second airport in Sydney wouldn't be good to happen. I'm not denying that what the previous speaker said wouldn't be a good thing to happen. But is this a make-money project or an absorb-money project? I would say it's a classic absorb-money project. I do not know of a single industry that will be helped or promoted by the construction of this railway line, not a single one.
I can give you a thousand examples of make-money projects. Queensland was a Cinderella state with a very, very tiny economy, an economy much smaller than South Australia's, and the making of that economy was the use of government money on make-money projects. If anyone has listened to the wonderful address by Sir Leo Hielscher—two of the four biggest bridges in Australia are quite rightly named the Sir Leo Hielscher Bridges after one of the great architects of the economic miracle which is Queensland—they will know that Queensland had no coal industry; it had a negligible copper industry; it had no aluminium industry; it was the fourth-smallest state in cattle population; it was a Cinderella state. The government built the railway line from Gladstone to nowheresville—to a post-office box on the side of the road by a station called Blackwater. A little post-office box with Blackwater written on it—that's where the railway line went! This was a make-money project. The income created by that railway line now amounts to some $50 billion a year. For an outlay of $1 billion, we get $50 billion a year for 50 years.
That has not happened in this place since I've been in here. If there is a significant make-money project that has occurred, I haven't seen it. I don't wish to denigrate the past Prime Minister—he's a friend of mine; I like him—on the building of the NBN, because I think the building of the NBN is a wonderful thing, but it's not a make-money project. There's a fundamental difference between building a railway line to Mount Isa so you can open up the biggest mineral province in the world and building a railway line to the Gold Coast. It's great for the Gold Coast people. I'm pleased for them. Good on you. But does it make money? No. It will absorb money forever. No-one would remotely expect it to pay for itself. All commuter lines are subsidised. I've never denied the right of city people to have their commuter lines subsidised, but the development of the country is being sacrificed.
I deeply regret that the minister has left the parliament, because I've had discussions with her this week on a tunnel through the range to open up the giant mineral province between Georgetown and Chillagoe. We talk about new minerals; it is the home of the new age minerals—the nickel, the cobalt, the copper, the cadmium. The home of those metals is in the Georgetown mineral fields stretching across to Chillagoe. They're all behind Cairns, but we can't get them out. We can't have a port in the gulf. It's all just flood plain in the gulf, with very shallow water, so you can't go to the gulf, and Townsville is a 2½-thousand-kilometre round trip away, but Cairns is a few hundred kilometres away. In the case of the Chillagoe field, it's less than 100km away. But we can't open it up. It was much bigger than the North West Minerals Province for nearly 100 years, but we can't open it up because we can't get the product out.
Corruption built the first railway line to Mount Isa, and I'm ashamed to admit I was then in the government—no, I wasn't, actually, but I was soon afterwards. And corruption built the second railway line to Mount Isa, when we had to duplicate it. It seems to me the only way we ever get anything of value done in the state of Queensland might be by going down the corruption trail! Whether that's true or whether that's not, the fact is that that railway line to Mount Isa cost a thousand million dollars and produces for the economy of Australia some $6 billion or $7 billion every single year. That's a make-money project as opposed to an absorb-money project.
I'm speaking against this project because if I have a choice on spending the money it's for digging a lousy little one-kilometre or two-kilometre tunnel through that range to open up that giant mineral province stretching from Mareeba right across to Georgetown, almost to the Gulf of Carpentaria and below. To open it up, we need the tunnel. Now, that's a make-money project. Every single year there would be money pouring into the coffers of the government through tax revenue, whether it's PAYE tax or whether it's company tax or whatever the hell it is.
The other thing is that I very strongly support the Greens amendment on this, because, if there is any possibility of Australia getting any monetary benefit out of this, it goes if it's not in Australia. All of our savings in Australia—and I don't think many people in this place understand this—go into superannuation. Up until 1995, 60 per cent of the superannuation moneys went into government securities, as they should. We want some sort of guarantee that the money is going to be there when we arrive at retirement age—and I'm a bit more concerned about this than other people here are, of course. Is that money going to be there? Where's the money going now? Ten per cent of Australia's income is going into the superannuation funds and, from there, it goes into speculation. It all goes into the stock market—buying and selling shares to each other, a giant Ponzi scheme. I very much share the views here of the Greens party and the other people on the crossbench. We seem to be the only people who are worried about it. Well, there are going to be a lot of people worried about it when they retire and they work out who's to blame. And I'll tell you who's to blame: people on my right, people on my left, but not the people behind me—not us.
Twenty years ago there was $70 billion going into the share market. There is now $1,700 billion going into the share market, almost every cent of it coming from your savings and my savings and every other Australians' savings. John Maynard Keynes was quoted recently by our past prime minister Kevin Rudd. Let me quote John Maynard Keynes, who may be the greatest economist in human history; he is most certainly one of the three greatest economists in human history. He described the stock market as a roulette wheel. Well, I'd describe it as a Ponzi scheme, but I'm not going to argue with you if you want to call it a roulette wheel. You tell me that some silly little young kid has slithered out of Sydney University into a union office and then slithered out of that into a superannuation board and that he knows whether we should develop the Cainozoic intrusion formation, calcitic formation, or whether we shouldn't. And, if you didn't understand what I just said—and I'm sure you don't—don't invest a cent in mining. There wouldn't be one single person on a superannuation board in Australia that would know what the hell I was talking about—not one.
What we're talking about here is putting billions of dollars into self-gratification. We have a saying in the bush: you can spend it on air-conditioning the living room or you can spend it on watering the bottom paddock. If you've got no water in the bottom paddock, you can't run any cattle there. If you put water in the paddock, you suddenly turn it into a productive resource. So you can spend it on self-indulgence, or you can spend it on development. It's whether you want to spend it on your own luxury or whether you want to give a future for your great-grandkids. That's really the decision being made here.
Well, in the last 30 years that I have been in this place, I am not aware of there having been a single developmental policy. If you lived in Cairns, you would understand the absolute necessity for digging that 1½-kilometre tunnel through a range to open up the giant, vast mineral field. We congratulate the government on giving us $210 million for the development of the new age minerals which stretch from Chillagoe through Georgetown, all the way down to Julia Creek, Cloncurry—my homeland—and Mount Isa, and it's called the North West Minerals Province. The vanadium deposits north of Julia Creek, Richmond and Hughenden stretch 200 kilometres west and then 500 kilometres south, all the way down through Winton, into the Northern Territory. They're the biggest vanadium deposits in the world. What are the new batteries made of? Vanadium. You've got one of the most red-hot minerals in existence there.
We've also got it up in the northern end, but we can't get it out. We've got no railway line and we've got no highway. We've got a little bush track—a beautiful bush track called the Kuranda Range road—and the government is putting $200 million into that. I don't criticise the federal government, because they're obviously doing it on the advice of the state government, and of course the state government is entirely based in Brisbane, nearly 3,000 kilometres away from Cairns. Half a million people live in the greater Cairns region, but we might as well be on the moon. 'The road needs fixing up, so we'll just give $200 million for the road.' The road doesn't need fixing up. Maybe the greatest minerals province on earth needs to be opened up. You keep talking about new-age minerals, well, where are they? They are almost exclusively in that zone.
The federal government, God bless them, have acknowledged that the new-age minerals are in that zone between Mount Isa and Chillagoe and Mareeba, right across North Queensland. That's where they are, but in the top half we can't get them out. In the bottom half we can go back on the railway line, which was built on corruption, as I say, the first time. And it was built on corruption the second time. The only way we could get it built was to give a $200,000 gift to each of the cabinet ministers. We had to do that in the 1920s and we had to do it again in the 1970s. Maybe it's a good form of government. I don't know. At least it gets things done.
But further north we have the situation where, with half of that mineral field, we cannot get the product out. Minister, unless we get a tunnel through the range, there is no way we can get it out. We can't go to the gulf. It is all flood plain. It's supershallow water. They tried to do that, and the boat turned over, and they lost $25 million worth. It's very, very cyclone prone as well. No-one would ever think of getting it out through the Gulf of Carpentaria. You can go to Townsville, but that would require pretty close to a 3,000-kilometre round trip—most certainly an over-2,000-kilometre round trip—by road. It's just not going to happen. No one's going to cart ore on a 2,000-kilometre round trip by road transport.
So half of the mineral field can't be opened up unless we get a tunnel through the range. A tunnel through the range would be like a tunnel from one side of Parliament House to the other side. That's a kilometre. I think we need a kilometre and a half, and no-one is arguing against me on that. We need a kilometre-and-a-half tunnel, and then we can open up the mineral province. There were people arguing in Brisbane about building that railway line, and they decided not to till they all got $200,000 put in their pocket. Every single cabinet minister took $200,000 in the 1920s. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the government's High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022. Let's be clear that this is a bill that does nothing to deliver even one kilometre of high-speed rail. In the tech sector, they call this 'vapourware'—something you announce when you have nothing substantive. Purportedly this bill establishes a High Speed Rail Authority as an independent body to advise on, plan and develop a high-speed rail system in Australia. But there is already the National Faster Rail Agency, established several years ago, with a significant body of work completed and substantial funding commitments made, as I will come back to and as the member for Fisher was referring to—because, of course, one of the projects that was developed through work by the National Faster Rail Agency was the line to the Sunshine Coast that he was speaking about.
Let's be clear, everybody loves high-speed rail. But, let us be honest, the economics of high-speed rail in Australia, normally understood to be speeds of 200 kilometres an hour, or more, are extremely challenging. How do we know that? Well, for one thing, from a study commissioned by the now Prime Minister when he was minister for infrastructure, which was conducted from 2010 to 2013. This study was not particularly glowing in it's findings. Indeed, at the time, he had this to say, referring to high-speed rail:
The reality … has a wide corridor, major tunnelling, significant noise impacts and that's before we consider the significant economic costs.
This study remains the most comprehensive analysis of the feasibility of high-speed rail in Australia, and it was undertaken from 2010 to 2013. The cost at that time was estimated to be $114 billion, in 2012 numbers, and this equates to approximately $131 billion, in current numbers, taking into account inflation. There have not been any more-detailed costings done since this time, but most credible rail experts consider that the real cost for high-speed rail from Melbourne to Brisbane would be at least $200 billion to $300 billion. Notably, while the study done from 2010 to 2013 found that, on certain, rather heroic, assumptions, high-speed rail would cover its operating costs. It would produce a return only if you assumed away the capital cost. That's a huge assumption. In other words, it's a hopelessly uneconomic project.
Another thing that the study said at the time was that operations would not commence on the Newcastle to Sydney part of the line until 2040. Almost 10 years later, that translates to 2050. It's interesting, to say the least, that the now Prime Minister made no mention of this fact when he made an announcement about Sydney to Newcastle fast rail in January this year, before the election. No mention of the fact that a study he had commissioned about high-speed rail when he last had ministerial responsibility said that, if the project started at that time it would be 2040 before operations Newcastle to Sydney would commence, meaning today it would be 2050. He was completely silent about that fact when, with a big song and dance, he made an announcement early in January in Newcastle, promising $500 million.
The fact is that the current Prime Minister had six years as minister for infrastructure to get moving on high-speed rail, should he have chosen to do so. He did nothing, and in all likelihood, we are in for a repeat performance from a Labor government and a Prime Minister that talks big when it comes to infrastructure, including high-speed rail, and yet consistently fails to deliver.
When the Prime Minister made his announcement in Newcastle, in January this year, he said that, if elected, Labor would commit $500 million towards this project in its first term. It's a little bit like somebody saying, 'I'm going to buy myself a house in Sydney, median price $1.5 million, and I'm setting aside $3,750 for that purpose, because that's the ratio. On any realistic assessment, the amount that is being set aside is as if you are saying, when buying a house with a median price of $1.5 million: 'I'm setting aside $3,750.'
Of course, if the Albanese Labor government does seriously intend to spend $200 billion to $300 billion, just exactly how they're going to pay for that? What taxes would have to arise as a result? According to the Grattan Institute, east coast high-speed rail, Melbourne to Brisbane, would cost each taxpayer $10,000 in higher taxes. You might live in Adelaide or Cairns or Darwin or Hobart or Perth and never use this high-speed rail link—that is supposedly going to be the outcome, at some point, of this authority which is being set up now, but you'd certainly pay for it, according to the analysis from the Grattan Institute.
I want to remind the House that there is a much better way, as the member for Fisher was speaking about, and that is the commitment that the coalition made and did a lot of work on the delivery of, the commitment to faster rail. What is the core idea here? The idea is to make practical upgrades to existing tracks between capital cities and surrounding regional areas, with a view to being to be able to run services at up to 140 kilometres an hour.
What sorts of practical upgrades would be involved? Well, it would be measures like replacing sharp curves with more gradual curves. Alternatively, or additionally, you could upgrade stretches of track from two to four tracks. That would allow trains to travel more quickly and frequently. Critically, it would also allow the running of both express and all-stops trains, using the four-track stretches to allow the express trains to pass the all-stops trains.
The coalition released its 20-year national Faster Rail Plan in 2019, and, at the March 2022 budget, committed a further $3.72 billion to deliver faster rail, bringing total commitments to faster rail projects to $6 billion. Now, one of the projects to which there was a commitment made was the $1.6 billion for the Brisbane to Sunshine Coast extension, as the member for Fisher was talking about. I want to emphasise this point. The extension from the existing rail line, which, as the member for Fisher rightly pointed out, travels inland, the extension from Beerwah to Maroochydore, has been planned, with the Commonwealth government working with the Queensland government, to use the CAMCOS corridor, which, thanks to some far-sighted work by the then Queensland government 20 or so years ago, has been set aside. This funding commitment has been arrived at, based upon pretty detailed planning work. Of course, critically, it will also support the Sunshine Coast—not just for its important and continuing long-term transport needs but also for Olympics needs, given there will be Olympics venues on the Sunshine Coast.
Now, one of the other commitments that was made in the 2022-23 budget was $1.12 billion for Brisbane to the Gold Coast. That is a route of approximately 90 kilometres, and, again, one of the key pieces of transport planning logic here was that, along a stretch of track of about 90 kilometres, roughly in the middle, you would upgrade from two tracks to four, and, again, there would be some straightening of lines and reduction in sharp curves and so on.
These very practical measures have significant benefits. They allow faster rail, faster and more frequent services, to be delivered, and for that to be done much more quickly than high-speed rail, which, on any view, has a very long lead time. Don't take my word for it; take the word of the study commissioned by the then Prime Minister between 2010 and 2013.
So the coalition developed, and worked to implement, a practical plan to deliver faster rail, with a particular focus on faster rail between our big cities and surrounding regional areas: Brisbane-Gold Coast, Brisbane-Sunshine Coast, Sydney-Newcastle—and I do want to come to Sydney-Newcastle, because we've heard a bit about this $500 million that is supposedly to be spent by the Labor government. It's very unclear how much of that would actually be spent on rail track or land acquisition and how much of it would be spent on establishing an authority and having plush offices, and fees for directors and advisers and all kinds of other things. But there is a sharp contrast to be drawn between that and the very specific and tangible billion dollars' worth of funding included for Sydney-Newcastle in the March budget—and again, the logic is to go from two tracks to four on a significant stretch in the middle of the Sydney to Newcastle corridor, Wyong to Tuggerah; and again, that could be delivered quickly, or certainly much more quickly than high-speed rail, and would deliver immediate and practical benefits within a reasonably foreseeable time frame.
So the coalition is certainly supportive of faster rail. It has a great capacity to improve rail services, with services that are faster, more frequent and more reliable. It has a great capacity to stimulate regional growth and to improve access to jobs and services and affordable housing. What we did was develop a practical, workable plan with specific funding commitments, working closely with state and territory governments. I have neglected to mention that we'd previously made a commitment of $2 million under the Faster Rail Plan for faster rail from Melbourne to Geelong. The focus of the coalition on these issues when in government was practical, deliverable, cost-effective measures to get an outcome.
So I have to say that I look with some scepticism at the nature of the measures that are contained in this bill. They won't deliver even one kilometre of very fast rail track. They'll set up an authority, and I'm sure it will have meetings in a range of desirable locations, and conferences and off-sites in a range of five-star hotels and so on. But the fact is that what matters in infrastructure is delivery. We know, for example, that we have a Prime Minister with a track record of talking big on infrastructure. He's talked about the second Sydney airport since the day he came into the parliament. He had all kinds of big plans for Western Sydney Airport. He was the minister for infrastructure from 2007 to 2013, and he could not get it delivered. He could not get through the trenchant, backward looking, head-in-the-sand opposition of a number of Labor MPs from Western Sydney, particularly the member for Chifley. He just could not get through that opposition. He could not get it delivered.
It took the coalition to get Western Sydney Airport underway, in 2014. It took the coalition government to make a decision to get Western Sydney Airport moving, and it took the coalition government to get us to a position where, when we left office, we handed over a project where the contracts had been let for the runway, the terminal and the landside works, and $2 billion worth of earthmoving had been done. If you want to see what $2 billion worth of earthmoving looks like, go out and take a drive along the Northern Road, which has also upgraded to four lanes all the way from Penrith to Narellan. That's one of the incidental benefits for the people of Western Sydney from the coalition government delivering on infrastructure and delivering on Western Sydney Airport.
So I say to this House that when it comes to infrastructure we do hear a lot of talk from Labor. We heard a lot of talk about the NBN—my goodness, they talked! It was fibre to the press release. When they left office, barely 51,000 premises had been delivered. Who was the minister, by the way, at the time they left office? It was the current Prime Minister. A bit of a theme there: a lot of talk, not much delivery. I say to you that this High Speed Rail Authority is perpetuation of that theme—a lot of talk, not much delivery. Look at the infrastructure record on this side of the House. With the NBN, we inherited a trainwreck of a project and we turned it around. When we left government just a few months ago, 8.4 million premises had been connected to the NBN, compared to the 51,000 connected to fixed-line NBN after six years and $6 billion from Labor. Similarly, there was practical delivery from the side of the House when it comes to faster rail, getting projects in place that won't take 30 or 40 years to make happen. By contrast, this High Speed Rail Authority is a piece of pure political window-dressing and vapourware from somebody who has made a bit of a specialty of just that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendment—
The member for Kennedy, you don't have the call.
We are allowed to speak twice.
No, you're not.
That's not correct. I've been here a lot longer than you, my friend, and I think I know a bit more about it than you.
I call the honourable minister.
I thank all members for their contributions on this High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022. I do want to acknowledge the Leader of the Nationals and the members for Higgins, Riverina, Newcastle, Sturt, Perth, Ryan, Kingsford Smith, Lyne, Fisher, Braddon, Kennedy and Forde. There are a lot of people who really love trains in this place, which is lovely to see. I thank them all very much for their very thoughtful contributions in relation to that.
This bill, of course, does establish the High Speed Rail Authority to develop, advise on and plan for the high-speed rail system in Australia. It will of course deliver on our election commitment and will plan for high-speed rail along Australia's east coast, from Melbourne to Brisbane, but in particular concentrating, in that early phase, on the connection between Sydney, the Central Coast and Newcastle. They'll be progressed as a first priority.
I want to respond to a couple of contributions, particularly that of the member for Braddon. The coalition have signalled they're supporting this bill. I understand that may not have been the position he wanted to take, but that's what's happened. Faster rail will continue. That work will absolutely continue. I do recognise how important that is. It's why I have been at pains, when I've been working with state and territory colleagues, to ensure that money for heavy rail projects in particular continues to be in the budget.
I also welcome the contribution from the member for Fisher and acknowledge his thanks for keeping that money within the budget. I also say to him that that was also at the request of the Queensland state government, so there is a commitment to the project. Obviously, there's some longer term work needed, particularly as part of the Olympics in terms of the entire public transport network and how people are going to move around. In relation to that, we want to make sure that we leave a long-term legacy for people to use the systems and the transport long after that. So I welcome that.
I particularly want to say thank you very much to the member for Ryan, for your again thoughtful contribution and your engagement with my office, respectfully and collegiately. I think that's a very good model to have when working with government. I do acknowledge the sentiments of the amendments that you have proposed. As you know, we have signalled before this that we won't be supporting them.
The purpose of the bill is simply to establish the High Speed Rail Authority as the statutory agency. Our position is that the funding, financing, construction and operation of the rail network is not for this legislation in and of itself to determine. Obviously, if you look at our record and, certainly, if you look at the Prime Minister's record, privatisation of these sorts of assets has not traditionally been something that we are keen on. Certainly, it's not for this legislation to determine, but it should be considered part of the planning work of the High Speed Rail Authority once it's actually established. The authority will be charged with advising the responsible minister on environmental matters. Those are important issues in terms of any planning, both at the federal and state level. The authority will be responsible for consulting stakeholders to ensure adequate consideration of both the environment and community interests during that consultation, and that the operation of high-speed rail network occurs as well.
The government is committed to delivering a national rail manufacturing plan as well, which is something I'm particularly proud of and keen to see happen. It will ensure more trains are actually built here in Australia by local manufacturing workers and that federal funding spent on rail projects is used to leverage those jobs within rail manufacturing in particular. I have a particular interest in that, Ballarat having a rail manufacturing workshop which I think is now almost 150 years old. That was manufacturing trains originally, but it is now continuing to service them. It's for these reasons that we won't be supporting the second reading amendment today. I acknowledge again the contribution of the member for Ryan in that process. I do again want to thank members for their contributions here.
High-speed rail opens up choices. It is not an either/or: do we do faster rail or high-speed rail? It's about saying very clearly that we know we have to do significant improvements on our rail networks in many areas, including in my own constituency. It's over a hundred years old. It was set up for people to head from regional areas to do shopping in town, in some instances. It wasn't set up as big commuter lines. We want to try to make sure that we can do that.
But being in government and having the capacity to sit on this side of the chamber is also about vision. It's about what you think the future of the country should look like. I would say to the member for Braddon that that is epitomised by his contribution. It was 'let's just do this bit'. But what's the vision for the country? What do you want the future to be? What are the settlement patterns that will open up around the east coast with high-speed rail? If the point of government is just to manage and to do a little better—that's not how we think of government. We think government is an opportunity to change and shape the nation. I understand; this is a 20-, 30-, 40-year project. But imagine what it will do for new communities, new opportunities and new settlements all along that corridor and the opportunity it will provide to change the nature of the relationship between our cities, our regions and our rural communities in a way that will allow people to live and work in the magnificent and beautiful places of Australia, one of which I happen to live in, as do many others on all sides of this place.
It will allow people to live closer to where they work and stop people having to commute so much, and it will offer choice. That's really what this bill is about. It's about a vision for the country. It's the start of a process to do the work that is needed to establish a high-speed rail authority, while we continue the important work of improving our rail network, through fast and faster rail, and continuing to work on projects like Inland Rail and others that are important to our nation. I thank all members for their contribution to this debate.
The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) as circulated in the name of the member for Maranoa together:
(1) Clause 8, page 6 (line 22), after "relevant parties", insert "(including extensive consultation with local communities)".
(2) Clause 8, page 7 (after line 17), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) In performing the functions mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), the Authority must:
(a) arrange for the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure Australia to:
(i) undertake economic assessments and cost benefit analyses; and
(ii) give the Authority a written report of each assessment and analysis; and
(b) publish a copy of each of those reports on the Authority's website within 14 days after the report is given to the Authority.
(3) Clause 16, page 11 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add:
(5) The Minister must ensure that at least one Board member is a person who is from rural or regional Australia.
(4) Clause 47, page 24 (line 5), after "plan,", insert "the requirement to give progress reports,".
(5) Page 24 (after line 15), after clause 48, insert:
48A Progress reports
(1) After the end of each progress report period, the Board must prepare a report on the performance of the Authority's functions, including the progress of:
(a) the policy development and planning mentioned in paragraph 8(1)(a); and
(b) the construction or extension of a railway mentioned in paragraph 8(1)(b) or (c).
(2) The Board must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the end of the progress report period.
(3) For the purposes of this section, progress report period means:
(a) the period of 6 months starting on the day this section commences; and
(b) each subsequent 6-month period.
Note: This section applies in addition to section 39 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with annual performance statements for Commonwealth entities).
I reserve my right to speak.
I'll just go through the amendments that are being considered and moved as a whole, and I thank the opposition for doing it that way. We won't be supporting the amendments moved by the opposition.
The first amendment goes to putting in that the authority will consult, liaise and negotiate with states and territories and other relevant parties. It is inherent that that is actually what the authority does and needs to do. It's inherent that the community will be a core part of the work of the High Speed Rail Authority. Frankly, this is in contrast to the way in which Inland Rail was done. I think there have been some pretty strong lessons learned about how you might actually engage with communities through that process.
In relation to amendment (2), Infrastructure Australia already evaluates business cases for transport infrastructure projects with an Australian government funding contribution of $250 million or over. In addition, business case evaluation reports are publicly released by Infrastructure Australia.
In relation to amendment (3), again we won't be supporting that. This is the amendment in which the opposition seeks to have at least one board member being from regional Australia. I'm not opposed to regional Australians being on boards at all, but this is an important principle here. This is a skills based board. This is billions of dollars, potentially, of taxpayer money. This is a complex engineering project as well. It is actually really important that we get the right people on the board and that we don't say that we're going to have a quota of regional people. Of course, I would love to be able to have someone who has the skills, experience and expertise. If they happen to live in regional Australia, that is absolutely a bonus, and I can certainly undertake that we will look and seek a person there. But it is actually really important that we have a skills based board. I'm often somewhat amused when we're lectured a bit over on this side. We have an affirmative action policy, and we've heard the Nats are very much opposed to that. I'm not sure having an affirmative policy or a quota for regions really is consistent with that principle when it comes to women, particularly.
Amendment (4) requires the authority to give progress reports. Information on the progress of the High Speed Rail Authority would be publicly available via its annual report and corporate plan. That is what happens with Inland Rail and with all of the other authorities that are under the portfolio already, so we don't think that's necessary. Similarly, with the final amendment that's being proposed by those opposite, again information on the progress of the High Speed Rail Authority will be publicly available via its annual report and its corporate plan. I thank people for their contributions on this bill. Who knew so many people loved trains? It's terrific to actually see people so dedicated to wanting to talk about the vision that this government has for the country to really start the process to bring high-speed rail to reality.
This is a complex, long-term project. We understand that; we're not trying to pretend otherwise. That's why the important work on fast rail and on faster rail and on building those important public transport networks continues. But, if you've got a vision for the nation, you've got a start. You hear that old adage that every journey starts with the first footstep, and this is really what this is about, but if you don't take that first step you never get to the end destination. This is really what this is about: establishing the authority, relooking at the business case, looking at the financing mechanisms, looking at the settlement policy around the areas where we want to start with high-speed rail and putting the money into the budget—which is in addition to the establishment costs of the authority, just so the member for Braddon is aware of that—so that we can make sure we've got the money available to actually get the work underway for corridor acquisition, the planning work that needs to be done and the work with the New South Wales government, in the first instance. In particular, we're looking at how we can bring better alignment with the investment of $1 billion, which is already sitting within the budget and has been maintained in the budget, to make sure that we get whatever we do in terms of faster rail in this corridor in alignment with the potential for high-speed rail well into the future.
Again, I thank everyone and say that we won't be supporting these amendments.
I rise to support the amendments moved by the member for Maranoa. I'm a firm believer in high-speed rail and its transformational impact on rural and regional Australia, particularly the potential for my region of Nicholls. We often talk about the need for high-speed rail, and we say it's a connector between capital cities in different states. But I think it's important to understand there's also the opportunity to use high-speed rail to connect regional cities and capital cities within states. Such a proposal already exists, developed by the Rail Futures Institute, and I commend their report about making Victoria a state of cities, not a city-state, to anyone who's interested in the topic.
If we don't want Australia to be a nation of megacities, we need to face up to the challenge of growing our regional cities. High-speed rail can drive not only shifts in population but access to work, education and health care. In the case of Victoria, there is an opportunity to leverage a properly built airport rail link not only to connect passengers to planes but also to be a conduit for electrified high-speed trains from regional centres in the north into Melbourne. Instead, I believe we're squandering billions on the Victorian government's suburban rail loop, a thought bubble project that the Victorian Auditor-General concluded has not been properly assessed.
It makes sense that the High Speed Rail Authority have at least one voice from regional Australia. You can't build a rail line between capital cities without running the track through regional areas, but we should aspire to do much more than that. We need high-speed rail to be a driver for regional populations and economies. It is important that those regional and rural Australians who will be impacted and who can also benefit enormously have a voice. The transparency and accountability measures proposed by the Leader of the Nationals are equally sensible. Economic assessments and cost-benefit analysis undertaken by the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure Australia will better inform all Australians.
High-speed rail has been talked about for a long time. It can be transformational, but it will also be expensive. We need to understand whether the cost-benefit equation stacks up. As such, I support the amendments moved by the Leader of the Nationals.
s CATHERINE KING (—) (): I thank the member for his contribution. I would say a couple of things. In terms of the transparency measures, there are processes now through both annual reports and corporate plans that provide the opportunity for that to occur. Again, in terms of the board, I would say very clearly: of course I would like someone with the right skills to be on there. If they happen to be a regional Australian, I think that would be a really good thing, and we'll certainly actively look to do that. But it has to be a skills based board. It is such a complex project, and I can't have a quota system, which is basically what the Nationals are proposing in relation to that. It's not something they support in any other area, which I'm amused by.
I think it's, again, important that this is not about just capital cities. In fact, the very reason that we've talked about the Central Coast and Newcastle and the importance of Sydney is that it is also about the capacity for people to go both ways. I also acknowledge that the entire project of high-speed rail is actually about opening up that east coast, providing enormous opportunities for settlement strategy right the way along—new cities, growing the cities that we've got, providing that opportunity for regional people to be able to live and work properly within regional Australia and have the dedicated services to be able to do that. Again, I thank the opposition for their contribution but respectfully say: we won't be supporting the amendments that have been moved.
The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later date.
I rise today to praise the efforts of all the volunteers and the professional services who have helped deal with the floods in Wannon. Led by the SES, they have done an absolutely magnificent job. The SES have coordinated the CFA, local councils and other community members to make sure that communities have been kept safe. In particular, I would like to thank them for their efforts in Lexton, Lake Goldsmith and Skipton. They are the communities in my electorate that have been hit the hardest by the floods, yet those communities have come together and shown their resilience and are now doing the hard, hard work to make sure that they recover from these floods.
I also plead with the Albanese Labor Government to understand how the local road network has been smashed by this flooding and by the heavy rains that have come before it and have come afterwards. If there's anything that you can do for these local communities, it's to invest in the local road network. Rather than give $2.2 billion to Dan Andrews's pet rail project, deliver that money for the regional and rural road network in Victoria.
Yesterday was 40 days since the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini whilst in custody. Widespread protests continue across Iran and the world. In Iran, the protests have been met with a deadly crackdown. Since my first speech on this matter, I've been approached by many constituents in my community who remain concerned about the brutal treatment of Iranians by the Iranian government. These protests are now about more than the death of one person. They are an uprising against a government that has lost touch with its people. These protests are about human rights, they are about women, they are about life and they are about freedom.
Our Prime Minister and foreign affairs minister have expressed in no uncertain terms Australia's condemnation of Iran's treatment of protesters and of women who are seeking non-discriminatory and fair treatment by their government. Australia has made this condemnation known directly with the Iranian embassy in Canberra, to the media, to our international counterparts and to our strong and passionate Iranian and Kurdish communities in Australia.
I cannot begin to understand the pain, the anger and the frustration of those communities in Bennelong. I have a responsibility to those in my community to continue to be your voice to the government on this matter. I stand with those who fear for their families and their homeland. I stand with the brave men and women in Iran protesting for their right to live freely and safely. Zan, zendegi, azadi—women, life, freedom.
As we stand here today, floods are right across the Parkes electorate. Moree, in particular, has been hit hard, and at the moment they're cleaning up. And, as they have done over the years, they will get on with life after the flood and get over it. But what they're not going to get over is the decision by Westpac to close the Moree branch. Westpac have been in Moree for over 150 years. Moree is one of the most highly productive agricultural shires in Australia, and some of the customers at Westpac have had, through their business, continuous family connections there since the day the branch opened in the 1870s. The Moree people are outraged, not only our elderly and our pensioners but also our businesses who rely on that branch to manage their cash flow and who are now being left out in the cold. I've written to the CEO of Westpac, and, here today, I'm calling for Westpac to reconsider this decision. The people of Moree deserve to have a branch. They have been loyal to Westpac since the day it opened, and Westpac needs to show the same loyalty back to them.
Last week, I had the privilege of representing the Minister for the Environment and Water at the 68th meeting of the International Whaling Commission. The IWC continues to be a critical and effective forum for the protection of whales and other cetaceans and for the management of aboriginal subsistence fisheries. Let's remember that, prior to the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling, there may have been fewer than 1,500 humpback whales transiting through Australian waters, and now there are tens of thousands. Earlier this year, the humpback whale was removed from our threatened species list. But we can't kid ourselves about the severe threats and risks faced by our oceans and marine biodiversity, including cetaceans.
The IWC is a forum in which Australia has played a significant leadership role. Last week, a new sustainable budget arrangement was adopted on which Australia led the preparatory work and negotiations. What's more, Australia's commissioner, Dr Nick Gales, a legend in the world of cetacean science, was elected as the vice-chair of the IWC. Our public service is one of the greatest contributors to Australia's shared wellbeing, and, while I was very glad to join the delegation last week, the hard and ultimately successful work has been done over months and years by Nick Gales, Belinda Jago, Mike Double, Adam Clark and Annie Robinson. As I said in making Australia's contribution to the plenary debate, the world needs more cooperative and collaborative efforts like the IWC. We need more efforts that operate with purpose and goodwill, in the shared interests of all people and all life on our planet.
This morning I hosted an event with the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, where I received a petition signed by 10,741 people calling on the Albanese government to provide all refugees and people seeking asylum with the right to work, study and access Medicare. As a foreign correspondent, I've witnessed not only conflict and the hardship of life in refugee camps but also the torture that is the inability to work, study and access health care. This is something that happens in places that are not signatories to the refugee convention. We are, and we must pay heed to what that means. During our labour shortage, there are thousands of refugees in Australia being denied the ability to become a part of the community. That doesn't make economic sense. I call on the government to resolve this and to act to tap this refugee resource. I seek leave to table this petition.
Has the petition been approved by the petitions committee?
It has not.
Is leave granted?
Leave is granted.
The document will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for consideration. It will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms with the standing orders.
The Albanese government has hit the ground running since coming into office. I'm proud that, despite a difficult economic environment, our government has delivered a budget to ease cost-of-living pressures. This budget delivers cheaper child care, cheaper PBS medicines, the expansion of paid parental leave to six months and more affordable housing, and it gets wages moving. We are also delivering on local commitments to people in my electorate—the Bellarine, Surf Coast, Golden Plains and Greater Geelong—with more than $180 million in funded local projects on key issues I've fought for: local roads, health, sporting and community facilities and investment in environment and clean energy. This budget proves that I'm doing just that. There is $125 million for stage 2 of the Barwon Heads Road for the rapidly growing Armstrong Creek. There is funding for Armstrong Creek headspace to ensure young people have a dedicated mental health service. There are environmental projects to address stormwater impacts on the Karaaf Wetlands and the emissions-saving community battery in Torquay. And there is funding for a mobile blackspot in St Leonards. Important sporting, community and health projects are also funded. We're doing all of this while delivering a budget that responsibly delivers cost-of-living relief.
I'd like to congratulate local legend Will Ruprecht of Mitchells Island for bringing home his first word title. He's taken out the FIM E2 EnduroGP world championship in Germany. Well done, champ. It's a massive achievement.
Another great achievement for our community was the very successful Wingham Music Festival. There were so many fantastic acts and a huge variety of market stalls. Congratulations to Donna Bellard and the whole committee. It was a great team effort.
A big shout-out also goes to the Comboyne show society for putting on the 84th Comboyne Show, despite the inclement storms, tempests and continuous rain. Well done, Rod Fisher, president, and his team of Sue Fisher, Peter Trainor, Rebecca Gilbert, Kay White, Joy Hurrell, Leonie Stephens, Donna and Ray Lance, Jeremy Kearns and Dan Latham. I also visited the Great Lakes Art Society exhibition in Forster. They have so many incredible works by local artists on display. I encourage everyone to go and have a visit. There are plenty of great works that are affordable. Congratulations to Ross Mackaway and the team of volunteers.
A huge shout-out must go to Mrs Nellie Benfield of Dungog, who is about to celebrate her 105th birthday, on 14 November. Nellie resides at RSL LifeCare in Dungog at the Lara aged-care facility and she will celebrate a milestone birthday with her daughter Denise, her son-in-law Robert Doyle of Gloucester, and many family and friends. Happy birthday, Nellie.
While people throughout the world struggle with high fuel and gas prices, global energy companies are making record profits. According to one report, the combined profits of the largest global energy companies in the first quarter of this year were close to US$100 billion. These profits ultimately come out of the pockets of people struggling to put food on the table or heat their homes in the midst of freezing winters. The situation is the same here in Australia, with the largest oil and gas companies making windfall profits and paying executives obscene salaries while paying minimal tax.
It is not acceptable that the world's largest LNG exporter, Australia, does not have sufficient gas supplies at affordable prices for domestic use, and the pathetic excuses from the industry sector simply don't pass the pub test. Australians find it farcical that, with the exception of Western Australia, where the price is around $6 per gigajoule, compared with around $26 for the rest of the country, we pay some of the highest prices in the world. Australians expect the government to hold energy companies to account, and it will be in the national interest for the government to take whatever action is necessary to ensure fair prices for all Australians for our natural resources.
This government promised a better future, yet its first budget bakes in rising costs of living and lower productivity growth. The long-term productivity growth assumption falls to 1.2 per cent, lowering real GDP by 1.75 per cent by 2032-33. A government serious about lifting productivity would drive reforms to grow Australia's digital economy, which is a key long-term driver of productivity. The coalition's Digital Economy Strategy had the goal of making Australia a top 10 data and digital economy by 2030. That strategy helped to support small businesses to go digital, to grow the digital workforce, to create homegrown tech startups and to build our digital infrastructure.
This government, by contrast, is failing. The role of minister for the digital economy, which existed under the coalition, has been erased under Labor. Minister Burke relentlessly attacks the gig economy at the behest of the unions. Labor is failing to take effective action to address the forecast employment shortfall of over 650,000 workers in the tech sector, instead imposing new union control on the industry. Supporting more women into tech roles is a key productivity measure, yet the budget abolished a $3.9 million program to support more women into tech mid-career. Tech Council of Australia chief Kate Pounder rightly labelled this a 'disappointment'. Under the Albanese govt, Australia's digital economy, innovation and potential to drive productivity and economic growth seem to be afterthoughts.
The first Albanese budget has, rightly, lifted support for veterans. Our budget tackles many of the issues people have talked to me about—improving the claims process, simplifying laws and providing better support as people shift into civilian life. It implements key recommendations from the interim royal commission report, with more than $230 million to bring on 500 new front-line staff to eliminate the compensation claims backlog—a key election promise—plus an increase in TPI payments. At a local level, my promise of a veterans and families hub for our region is funded—a $5 million election commitment. In addition, we've continued the $5 million for the Scheyville veterans families and community centre, which will provide a range of wellbeing opportunities for veterans and the community alike. I look forward to working closely with my community as we develop both these projects. Veterans have stood up for us, and in return we must look after them.
As I have said before, prior to entering this place I was a retail worker. Retail and hospitality workers know all too well the stress that has come with the pandemic—their hours can be changed at the last minute, everyone keeps getting sick, and they are working harder than ever before, all while seeing their wages stagnate and even going backwards when the previous government abolished Sunday penalty rates. These workers are tired, overworked and all too often overlooked.
On 18 October the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union coordinated the first national retail strike in Australian history. I was proud to stand in solidarity with my former colleagues as they walked off the job at the Brisbane Apple store. These workers are asking the company—worth trillions of dollars—for the most basic workplace rights: fair pay, a better work-life balance that allows them just one weekend off every now and then, and to be treated like the part-time and full-time workers they are employed as, with minimum hours and set rosters, instead of the casualised workforce they are treated as, all without receiving any casual loading. Change comes from the ground up. It was amazing to be part of this historical moment, and it was so inspiring seeing the workers in the Brisbane electorate come together and fight for and with one another.
This week's Labor budget delivered the $10 million we promised to kickstart the Western Highway upgrade. The Western Highway is the main road between Melbourne and Ballarat, and connects the towns of Ballan, Bacchus Marsh and Melton in my electorate. In fact, 77,000 vehicles travel the stretch between Melton and Caroline Springs every day. The last time the federal government upgraded this crucial road was under the last Labor government, when the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport was a bloke named Anthony Albanese.
The people of Hawke, Melton, Bacchus Marsh and Ballan are relieved to see that the Albanese government is kickstarting the Western Highway upgrade. In Tuesday's budget the government announced that we will be delivering on our commitment with a $10 million business case, the critical foundation for the remediation and upgrade works we so desperately need. I thank Minister Catherine King for her support and tireless work in ensuring that our community can get to work efficiently and home to our loved ones safely. With the population around Melton set to reach almost 450,000 by 2051, it's clear that only the Albanese Labor government will ensure that our infrastructure keeps up.
The government's credibility has been entirely destroyed over the issue of electricity prices. We know that before the election the government said 97 times that electricity prices would decline by $275. We know that after the election they stopped talking about it. The obvious question is: why did they stop talking about it? Why did they start talking about it in the first place? They started talking about it because they wanted to get elected. They thought it would be popular, and they were right. It was a popular idea to reduce electricity prices—that's why they said it 97 times. Why did they stop talking about it after the election? Because they knew it wasn't going to happen.
When the Prime Minister gave a 2,300-word speech about energy in July, how many times did he mention $275? Not once. In 2,300 words he used the word 'energy' 41 times and '$275' not once. Oddly, three days before the election—you'll see the theme of before and after—there was a big speech at the National Press Club, with everyone there, and there was $275. But when the election happened, everything changed. He wrote an op-ed in the Daily Mail about this issue, trying to reach as broad a group of people as possible. The Treasurer, in his local paper, said in the first sentence that the benefit of an Albanese government was the $275. That's what the people of my city of Logan were told. It's a shameful episode in our political history and a terrible failure of this government.
I rise to pay tribute to a great Territorian, Mr Adam Drake, who's here with us in the gallery today. In 2014 Adam founded Balanced Choice. It's an organisation that aims to improve the physical and mental health of its participants, and I've seen his work firsthand in the youth detention centre in Darwin—the way he lifts those kids up. The organisation has greatly expanded over recent times, and he's now got people all around the country, not just in state and territory government schools but in other correctional centres and in not-for-profit organisations, including in remote areas of the Territory. Balanced Choice now assists over 3,000 Territory kids. The work he's doing is fantastic. They're kicking goals and I recognise him. On Day for Daniel tomorrow, we'll recommit ourselves to serving and protecting our kids, who are our future.
HASTIE () (): During the election, Labor promised to cut power bills by $275. They said it 97 times, and yesterday the Prime Minister doubled down on how he plans to achieve the impossible. If you have renewables investment, he said, then you will have cheaper prices. But that's not what the budget says. It says power bills are set to rise by 56 per cent over the next two years. The power bills of Australian families will rise by an average of $1,000 over the next 18 months.
The truth is that the Prime Minister, Labor and the Greens cannot point to a single nation where increasing the number of solar panels and wind turbines in the energy grid has led to cheaper electricity. This week the Grattan Institute put it bluntly. Their director of energy policy, Tony Wood, told media:
It's stupid when [governments] keep saying we are going to bring prices down when they can't …
So where does that leave the Prime Minister's $275 promise? Families across Australia are already feeling the pressure of high energy bills and interest rates and the cost of living. It's time for the Prime Minister to admit what we all know deep down: his mission to make Australia one big wind and solar farm will impact regional communities and their landscapes, it will cost us money, it will cost us jobs and it will weaken our national prosperity.
Cassius Turvey died this week in hospital in Perth at the age of 15 years. He had been violently attacked while walking home from school in Middle Swan on 13 October. The death of any child is a tragedy, and this terrible event leaves our community in shock. We are witnessing an outpouring of sadness and grief, and my heart goes out to Cassius's mother and family and his friends who are directly affected.
As the matter is before the courts, it would not be appropriate to comment on the circumstances of his passing—a young man who was surrounded by a family who loved him. He went to school, he had a lawnmowing round and he attended the basketball program run by Koya Aboriginal Corporation. At the age of 11 he was invited to give an acknowledgement of country at the WA parliament. He was connected to his community, and he was ready to take on the world. Cassius's mother, Michelle, describes him as a joyous son, full of respect. His friends describe him as the one they would look up to.
I join with Minister Burney and my colleagues who stand with the Turvey family in their loss and pain. I will be attending the candlelight vigil for Cassius on Monday. Every child needs to be able to walk home safely from school.
I extend the condolences of the House to his family.
At the last election, on a hundred occasions, the Labor party committed to the Australian public that they had a plan to lower the price of energy by $275. It wasn't a theory. It wasn't something they did off the back of an envelope. They said they had a plan, they had modelling, they had an intention and they would, if they were elected by Australians, lower the price of everyone's bill by $275. Every member of the shadow team made that commitment. Every senior Labor Party figure announced it over and over and over: 'We will lower the price of bills.' Indeed, it was a cost-of-living election and, indeed, the Labor Party were successful at that election.
When it gets into government, the first opportunity that a government has to change its policy is its budget. Then, of course, we heard yesterday—or we didn't hear yesterday, according to the Treasurer—the question, 'Where is it in the budget papers—your plan to lower the price of energy by $275?' Not only did he not hear the question and get the answer wrong; he got the answer right. It is not in the budget papers. If you don't have your plan to lower the price of energy by $275 in your budget papers, you don't have a plan. If you don't have a plan, you've made a false commitment to the Australian people. As the Australian public now know, the cost of living is the No. 1 issue. Fifty per cent power price rises mean that every good and service goes up. Where is your commitment, Anthony Albanese? Two hundred and seventy-five dollars would go a long way for every family and business, and we ask you to commit to your plan.
When I was campaigning, there was nothing I heard about more commonly from Boothby residents than climate change and their distress at the lack of action on climate change. We are a wonderful electorate. We have beautiful beaches, we have wonderful rivers and environments in the middle, and we have our green, leafy hills. I'm really pleased to say that, as a result of our first budget, we are actually committing both to climate change action and to fixing our environments.
I'm really proud to say that Rewiring the Nation has been funded and we're looking forward in Boothby to having a community battery in Edwardstown, which will enable people who otherwise wouldn't be able to access renewable energy, the cheapest form of energy, to access it. That's people who might be in rental properties or in ground-floor flats or who just can't afford batteries or solar panels. We're also having some QRVs, some quick response vehicles, going to our wonderful Sturt Country Fire Service volunteers to enable them to continue their very valuable work during bushfire season, saving lives and properties. On top of that, we also have money going to urban catchments and rivers so that we can enjoy our beautiful environment in Boothby. I'm really proud of this budget. We're starting the work that should have happened a decade ago. (Time expired)
No hope, no solutions—that's the summary of this week's budget: no hope, no solutions, no grand plan, no great vision, no statement of where we're going and no great vision to get behind. But there are also a number of great disappointments in the budget this week. The first great disappointment, unfortunately not a surprise, was the $9.6 billion ripped out of regional grant programs. That doesn't surprise us, and it's also an insult. The Labor party want to call Nationals MPs, of which I'm a very proud one, pork-barrellers. That's not an insult to me. That's not an insult to a Nationals MP; that is an insult to every community member of every regional community around this country, because what the Labor Party are saying is that those communities and those people are not worthy recipients of the infrastructure spending that we've been given, whether it be sporting upgrades, cultural upgrades, roads or bridges. We're not worthy because it's pork-barrelling. Mind you, it's not pork-barrelling, apparently, to give $2 billion to a rail project in Melbourne.
The other great disappointments that have been well mentioned include $275. It's not $275 down, Speaker. Do you know what it is? It's $1,000 up. That's what the commitment is. The promise was something different. There are higher mortgage payments. The theme was: no hope, no program. (Time expired)
Earlier this week, I received a message from Brad Hazzard, the Minister for Health in New South Wales, and he gave me the courtesy of telling me that he'd be retiring after 30 years in the parliament. Brad Hazzard is someone who I regard as a friend and someone who's made an enormous contribution, particularly as the Minister for Health during the global pandemic. Brad Hazzard is someone who has always been prepared to reach across the aisle to deliver outcomes, whether that be in New South Wales or whether that be between New South Wales and the national parliament. I regard him as also being a very patient man. He waited a very, very long time to become a minister after many long years in opposition. I wish him and his family well in the future, and I thank him for the constructive relationship that we've had during my time in the national parliament.
Just briefly, on indulgence, I join with the Prime Minister's remarks and pay tribute to a great minister and a Liberal who's contributed a lot to our party but, most importantly, a considerable amount to our country. He has, during the course of COVID, like many of the health ministers around the country, confronted a very stark set of circumstances and responded with leadership. There were a number of occasions where I spoke with Minister Hazzard during the course of COVID and the governments' collective responses to it. And I wish him well in the next stage of his life. He has led a distinguished career and he has contributed a lot to the state of New South Wales and to our country.
LBANESE (—) (): I move:
That the House commemorate the anniversary of the national apology to the survivors and victims of institutional child sexual abuse.
Just over four years ago we gathered here for the national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. We heard powerful words from the Prime Minister and from my predecessor, the member for Maribyrnong. Those words needed to be said. They had to be said in this place. And they so badly needed to be heard. It was profoundly moving for all of us here and all who listened across the country—especially the survivors, their loved ones and the families of victims, and they heard the message that they should have heard so long ago: 'We hear you. We believe you.'
It was a day of tears. It was a day of relief, of love, of courage and grace. For some, it softened, even ended, the confusion and shame that had hung over their lives for too long. And, for many, it was a day when the future began to seem just a little bit more possible.
But it was also a day of ghosts and the most difficult of memories. It is easy to reach for metaphors of shadows and darkness, but much that was done—the betrayals, the destruction of trust, the abuse—was carried out brazenly. It was carried out openly. A culture that gives credence to the abusers over the abused is a culture that thrives on silence, and silence is as much at home in the light as it is in the dark.
Words break the silence, and what allowed so many words to be finally spoken was the royal commission begun by Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Never forget the courage that she showed. Never forget the criticism which she endured as a result of showing that courage at that time. However great the voices of opposition were, her compassion and determination were so much greater.
The royal commission brought a dam-burst of truth—people telling their own stories, and speaking up for those who couldn't. Out of these harrowing stories came the apology.
An apology must never be the end of the story but rather the start of a new and better chapter. I say again to victims and survivors: you have carried such a burden; you cannot be left with the weight of an empty gesture. As much as words can create turning points in our nation, they have to be a catalyst for action.
Earlier this month, the Victorian government announced a redress scheme for children abused in institutional care. On a national level, more than 600 non-government organisations have signed up to the redress scheme established following the royal commission. To date, it has received over 20,000 applications and delivered nearly 11,000 outcomes. The National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse's draft five-year strategy is open for public consultation until 13 January next year, giving everyone a say on the priority work of the national centre, to shape the vision for long-term, generational change. All Australians' state and territory governments are also committed to delivering the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse, launched one year ago. The national strategy is the first of its kind in Australia and it will drive our response as a country to better prevent and respond to child sexual abuse in all settings.
Victims and survivors of child sexual abuse are essential partners in our delivery of the national strategy, and I sincerely thank those who are already helping us bring about meaningful change. But there is so much more to be done not just in our institutions but in our families, our communities and, increasingly, online. We have to keep going because the true test for all of us as a parliament and, indeed, as a nation is whether we can one day look back on the apology as a turning point and not just a full stop. That means backing our words with meaningful and continuing action.
Yes, we'll keep coming back here and repeating the words, as we should, letting them sound through the years like a heartbeat: we hear you; we believe you. And, as we strive to keep making good on the apology with the realities of our deeds, let us go on saying it for the victims and survivors who are still with us, for those who aren't, for those who succumbed to the weight they so desperately tried to shoulder alone. For those who can still hear the words and for those that never did, we will keep on saying them: we hear you; we believe you. And the greatest power of those words will come from what we do in response.
I thank the Prime Minister for his words and certainly join with him to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.
The findings of the royal commission in 2017 were truly appalling. Tens of thousands of children had been sexually abused over 90 years in more than 4,000 institutions. An array of public and private institutions were implicated. Some leaders of these institutions prioritised protecting organisational reputations in the interests of alleged perpetrators instead of the wellbeing of an abused child or complainant. Children and parents were not believed. Complaints were not investigated. Our criminal justice and child welfare systems failed so many. Some victims felt so wretched that they, tragically, chose to end their pain by taking their own lives. So many survivors continue to live with trauma.
In hearing from the survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, the royal commission unearthed the truth. It listened to more than 8,000 stories, read more than 1,000 submitted written accounts and receive more than 42,000 phone calls. Today we applaud the exemplary work of the royal commissioners and public servants, especially those who answered the calls with a compassionate and attentive ear, and we commend those 17,000 Australians who courageously stepped forward to share their experiences and to provide evidence, reopening old wounds in the process.
I'm proud of the coalition government's record in responding to the royal commission's findings, especially the institutions we created and initiatives we implemented to combat child sexual abuse and to support victims and survivors. I commend the government for carrying on that work, especially under the National Redress Scheme.
We know that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are more likely to be victims of child abuse and sexual assault. Last week I visited the Northern Territory with Senator Jacinta Price to listen to people on the ground. While the vast majority of families of course are raising their children with love, that is not the case in all homes. Women and mothers despairingly told us about rampant child sexual abuse. What's happening on the fringe of communities is abominable. Children are sleeping during the day and missing out on classes to avoid being at home during the hours of darkness in fear of being sexually abused or assaulted.
The absolute tragedy of the stolen generations is that children were taken from safe and loving homes. Today, conversely, authorities are not removing children from homes where they are being harmed and abused. In modern Australia we respect cultural sensitivities and Indigenous connection to country, but the rights of the child are above culture and sensitivities. We all sit in this place knowing that child sexual abuse is widespread in Indigenous communities and, in some cases, it has become normalised. For too long we have been silent and supine. Imagine a 10-year-old little girl today who has been sexually abused. She might say to those in this place a decade from now: 'How could you have left me there? Why didn't you do anything to stop it?' She would be right to demand an apology. Enough, Mr Speaker. This is not about creating another stolen generation; it's about preventing a new generation from having their lives and aspirations stolen.
The national apology came to fruition because of a royal commission. In the spirit of the fourth anniversary and our enduring commitment to keep children safe, it is time for a new royal commission to examine child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities. We support immediate action from this government and from the Northern Territory government on this incredibly important issue. I thank the Prime Minister and the minister for their time earlier today. I have raised this issue and met with the Prime Minister on two occasions now and it is an issue that we continue to work on together. The coalition dedicates itself to supporting action taken by the government. There is goodwill on both sides, but this is a national issue that needs addressing now.
Debate adjourned.
E (—) (): by leave—I move:
That the following order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate:
National Apology to the Survivors and Victims of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse—Copy of motion moved by the Prime Minister—resumption of debate.
Question agreed to.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to Labor's economic plan and budget strategy available on the Labor Party's website. Page 7 of that document outlined a 5-point economic plan. The first point is, 'To cut power bills by $275 a year by 2025.' With the budget confirming this promise has been broken, will the Prime Minister admit that his economic plan is in ruins?
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my right! The Prime Minister will be heard in silence.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, which goes to energy prices and goes to what was said before the election—
97 times it was said.
The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. I just said that the Prime Minister will be heard in silence. I want to be clear today: questions will be heard in silence out of respect for the office of the person asking them; also answers will be heard in silence.
Indeed, before the election there were a range of things said. Indeed, when confronted with the fact that when in government there was a warning of a pending spike in energy prices and that the announcement was delayed until after the election, this is what the former minister for energy and now shadow Treasurer said just yesterday, 26 October: 'That was a report from the Australian Energy Regulator. It puts it out, not me and I didn't say it.' That's what he said yesterday. Well, that's interesting, because this is the very document that goes to the increase that has occurred in the default retail price, which is fed into energy prices increasing by figures around 20 per cent. He said he did not see it and did not know about it—an interesting statement. Here is the document, Default market offer prices 2022-23the final determination of May 2022. I table the document from the Australian Energy Regulator.
What about what you said—$275?
The member for Deakin will cease interjecting.
But at the same time, here is the change in the law, dated 31 March 2022.
The member for Moncrieff will cease interjecting.
The bloke who said he didn't see it, he didn't know about it—'It puts it out, not me; I didn't say it'—yesterday said this—
The Prime Minister will pause.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Members on my left and on my right, I wish to hear the Manager of Opposition Business in silence.
On relevance, he's had a two-minute preamble. You should bring him back to the topic of the question, the $275 reduction that was promised.
Thank you for your constructive feedback.
On the point of order: the question went to what was said about energy prices before the election in May 2022. My answer has gone to what was happening to energy prices in May 2022 and couldn't be more relevant to the question that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, so I'd ask you to rule against the point of order.
The Prime Minister is correct when he says that the question was about five points announced before the election. The Prime Minister is referring to the policy announcement and what was announced, so the Prime Minister is being directly relevant.
Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. Here's the regulation, the change in the law on 31 March 2022, from Angus Taylor. He said he didn't see it or know anything about it. It's two simple changes. Item 1 is:
Paragraph 17(2)(c)
Omit "1 May", substitute "the first business day after 25 May".
How subtle is that! They changed the law with a regulation in March, after Parliament couldn't disallow the change in regulation because we were going into caretaker mode. They changed it to after the election. What a farce. You have no credibility. (Time expired)
Is the Leader of the Opposition seeking the call?
I am, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has used unparliamentary language toward the shadow Treasurer, and he should be asked to withdraw it.
I didn't hear what he said. I heard someone say an unparliamentary remark on my left just minutes ago. Does the Prime Minister wish to withdraw?
Mr Speaker, that's one of the nicest things I've said about the shadow Treasurer!
Honourable members interj ecting—
Order! It's been a long week. The member for Barker can cease interjecting. When the House comes to order, I'll hear from the member for Robertson.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. How does the budget deliver on the government's commitment to improve health care after nearly a decade of cuts and neglect, and how does it compare to previous budgets?
I thank the member for Robertson for his question and for the contribution he's already making to this area as a qualified emergency physician. He knows that at the May election Labor promised to strengthen Medicare and cut the price of medicines, and this week's budget delivers on that promise. Today, legislation passed the parliament to deliver the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS. It's really not that hard to deliver to the Australian people what you said at the election you would deliver. This budget could not be more different—
Opposition members int erjecting—
Members on my left! When there is silence in the House question time will continue. There is obviously far too much noise in the chamber. I'm issuing a general warning to all members, and I will say again that I wish to hear the questions and the answers in silence.
This budget cannot be possibly more different than the first budget that the Leader of the Opposition delivered as the health minister back in 2014. His first budget, after famously promising there would be no cuts to health, was the most spectacular betrayal of Australian voters on health policy in Australian history; the most savage and heartless cuts to health care in this country that anyone can remember, all cooked up by the Leader of the Opposition. He walks away!
Our first budget delivers the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the history of the PBS. His first budget tried to raise the price of every script for every patient by as much as $5 for general patients. He tried to cut Commonwealth funding to public hospitals by $50 billion. That's jaw-dropping! $50 billion! He was so proud of it that he arranged for a special glossy brochure to be printed to boast about it to the Australian people. And famously, or infamously, he tried to slug every single Australian patient $7 for every single visit to a GP: pensioners, concession card holders. And when we blocked that vandalism in the Senate, he froze the Medicare rebate for six long years instead—a policy doubled down on by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when she was the health minister.
He cut funding to states for elective surgery. He abolished Health Workforce Australia, seeding the workforce crisis we have in the sector today. He abolished the Preventative Health Agency, which was perhaps no surprise given the attitude he brought to our world-leading reforms in plain packaging for tobacco. And he has never admitted he was wrong. He has never once admitted that he was wrong. No wonder even Tony Abbott thought he was too radical to be health minister and sacked him after 15 months. Just 15 months in the job. No wonder Australia's doctors famously voted him as the worst health minister in Australian political history.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Treasurer finally confirmed that the Labor Party misled the Australian people 97 times before the last election on their promise to reduce power bills by $275, when he admitted it wasn't in the budget after saying it was. Given the Treasurer has now apologised to one Australian over this—Charles Croucher from 9News—when will the other 26 million Australians get their apology?
I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. I reject the premise of the question. It goes to a failure, still, for those opposite to recognise that renewable energy is the cheapest form of new energy. Yesterday I spoke about the deal that was done with the Tasmanian government and what they have to say, what the Victorian government have to say as well, and I spoke about what the New South Wales Premier had to say. I agree with the statement that the cheapest, most reliable and cleanest energy on the planet is renewables. I agree with the statement that the cheapest way to deliver electricity today is not coal; it's not gas; it's certainly not nuclear. It's wind and solar backed up by pumped hydro and batteries. If you care about cheap energy and reliable energy, then you're looking at wind, solar and pumped hydro.
They are not my statements. They are the statements of Matt Kean, the New South Wales Treasurer—the deputy leader of this deputy leader's party in New South Wales.
Opposition members interjecting —
The Prime Minister will take a break. Members on my right, close to me, can cease interjecting, and I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
A point of order on relevance: why can't the Prime Minister say two hundred and—
Resume your seat. I was pretty clear yesterday about that abuse of the standing order. The deputy leader has special privileges, which he's taken advantage of. I just remind all members to state the point of order of relevance. I will take their point, but, if it continues, I will not take them anymore.
It's not just more enlightened members of the Liberal Party who recognise that the earth is round and renewables are the cheapest form of new energy; it's also the business community. This is what Jennifer Westacott said—
Opposition members inter jecting—
When they're not busy trying to expel Liberal businesspeople like Nigel Satterley, they could at least listen to them. Jennifer Westacott said this:
You'll also be paying less for your power because at the moment building new renewables is cheaper than building new coal and cleaner electricity will continue to drive down energy prices.
That is what the business community says. That is what state and territory governments say. But what do those opposite do? They pretend that the former energy minister didn't know about regulations that he was delivering to hide a determination by the Australian Energy Regulator until it just happened to be to replace 1 May with 25 May. What happened in between 1 May and 25 May? What happen? What was it? What was it? What was it that happened on 21 May? They wanted to avoid the Australian people, before they voted, knowing about the hike in energy prices that was occurring on their watch because of their failure to invest in energy. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Why is responsible budget management important in uncertain times? How is this relevant to consideration of government appropriations which are pending in the House?
Thanks to the member for Werriwa for her question. Inflation is the defining challenge in our economy, and it was the defining influence on the budget that we handed down this week. The backdrop for that budget was obviously the slowing global economy, a war in Europe and structural spending pressures on the budget. That's why the three parts of the budget strategy were so important and so right for the times that we confront together. First of all, the cost-of-living relief was provided in a way that was responsible and not reckless, because it didn't add extra pressure on inflation. Secondly, we're investing in the drivers of growth and resilience in our economy and beginning to repair some of our broken supply chains. And then, thirdly, we're starting the hard work of repairing the budget so that we can rebuild our buffers against some of the global uncertainty that we confront.
The spending restraint and budget responsibility that we saw in Tuesday night's budget would have been absolutely unrecognisable to those opposite. And let me give you two examples of that. In our budget on Tuesday night, we had $22 billion worth of savings—not a bad start.
The member for Hume is on a general warning.
The budget in March delivered from this dispatch box by my predecessor had precisely $0 in savings on the spending side of the budget—$22 billion on Tuesday, $0 in March. And then on Tuesday night we banked 99 per cent of the temporary revenue surge that we got from higher commodity prices. In the budget in March, they banked 40 per cent—so 99 per cent versus 40 per cent. No wonder they don't have enough to show for their trillion in debt. We're told today that the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech tonight about the appropriations, wants to talk about the government's economic record. He takes very seriously his responsibility as the leader of the leftovers! In doing so, he has a rolled-gold opportunity tonight to fess up for the coalition record on the economy. Let's consider it for a moment. Their record on the economy is skills shortages holding the economy back. It's stagnant wages for a decade. It's weak productivity and business investment. It's an aged-care crisis. It's a trillion dollars in debt, with nowhere near enough to show for it. And it's this energy policy chaos which is making us more vulnerable to global energy shocks. What we're seeing in our energy markets right now—the blame for that rests squarely with Vladimir Putin. But the blame for making us more vulnerable to it rests with the member for Hume.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left! The members for Barker and O'Connor are on a warning.
My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. Why does the budget contain more than $40 billion in fossil fuel subsidies, including $30 million to frack for gas in the Beetaloo basin and almost $2 billion to fund a gas export terminal in Darwin Harbour, when we are in the middle of a climate emergency?
Thank you to the member for the question. A lot of that is not directed necessarily to my portfolio and relates to other areas, but we're happy to take it on notice and we'll get back to you with some response.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the government's budget delivering for women?
I thank the member for Boothby for her question and for her advocacy. The member for Boothby, of course, stood up for the rights of women, particularly, in the roles that she played at St Vincent de Paul, and in other areas as well, looking after disadvantaged people in her electorate. This is a budget that puts equality for women at its centre. For cheaper child care and early childhood education, there is $4.6 billion over four years. This is good for families and good for children, but, importantly, it is economic reform that's good for the economy—reform that will boost productivity, boost women's workforce participation and boost their retirement incomes and, of course, act as an incentive to boost population as well. We have the biggest expansion to paid parental leave since it was introduced back in 2011—of course, by a Labor government—designed to encourage parents to share caring responsibilities more equally. We have record funding for women's safety—$1.7 billion over six years. This includes investing in an additional 500 frontline community workers and ensuring that the returns of the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund can help deliver 4,000 new homes, to put a roof over the heads of women and children fleeing violence and over the heads of older women who are at risk of homelessness. There is $100 million for crisis and transitional housing options for women and children fleeing violence. We are fully implementing the Respect@Work report, including implementing working women's centres in every single state and territory.
I note that today we have finally carried through both houses of parliament 10 days of family and domestic violence leave—an important thing so that women won't be faced with a choice of putting food on the table or staying in a violent situation. It is very important, and I thank the parliament for adopting this important measure.
Importantly as well, an overwhelming majority of the 2.7 million workers who the just-over-a-dollar-an-hour pay increase flowed through to were women—just as those women who work in the aged-care sector will benefit from our advocacy of an increase in pay. We're leading the national push to expose and close the gender pay gap. We have introduced the Respect@Work report legislation, as we have the other legislation around this.
All of this has been missing from the national stage for nearly a decade. In their first budget, of course, Tony Abbott was remarkably the Minister for the Status of Women. There was only one woman in their first cabinet. We have a majority of women in the Labor caucus—54 out of 103—a fact that we are proud of.
I'd like to inform the House that present in the gallery today are students from Fitzroy Community School in Victoria, in the electorate of the member for Wills. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you all, and I hope you are enjoying question time.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. The budget confirms that a typical family will be $2,000 worse off by Christmas, with inflation, interest rates and unemployment all forecast to go up. Given this increasing pressure on the cost of living, what specific action is the government taking to fast-track new natural gas projects? When can Australians expect to see relief?
I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. Of course, they had a shadow Treasurer even when they had a Treasurer over here. We have one Treasurer, and he's done a fantastic job. The budget has been well received by people who are economically literate. This is what Jennifer Westacott at the Business Council of Australia had to say:
Amid global economic turmoil this budget steadies the ship and sets the groundwork for reform to drive economic growth in the May budget.
This is a cautious and careful budget that avoids making our inflation problem worse.
This is a crucial first step to restoring our budget position and building our national resilience.
We welcome investments to boost productivity and participation through skills, education, childcare and expanding Paid Parental Leave.
We strongly support the government's comprehensive skills package and migration announcement.
It went on and on.
Andrew McKellar, from the ACCI, said this:
Tonight's budget is a responsible one …
This budget covers the essential elements of economic management and tackling growing cost pressures …
As the budget warns, we cannot afford to be complacent against the global headwinds of severe inflationary pressures, climbing interest rates and soaring energy prices.
… … …
Through the Powering Australia plan and funding for new energy infrastructure, the budget provides significant investment to underpin the transition to a net-zero future, that supports new opportunity for industry.
The member for Wannon will cease interjecting.
Mr Hamilton interjecting—
The member for Groom is on a warning.
We have big business supporting the budget. We have medium-sized business supporting the budget. What did COSBOA have to say? This is what COSBOA—apparently affiliates of the Australian Labor Party in small business—had to say:
This budget delivers benefits for small business owners and sole traders in four key areas, namely: improved internet connectivity, small business mental health support, cost of living improvements to childcare support, and VET & skills planning.
This is what the Master Builders—again, apparently, an affiliate of the Labor Party—had to say:
The 2022 Housing Accord announced in tonight's Budget is a welcome signal to the building and construction industry who have been crying out for action to address housing affordability barriers and supply constraints…
I've got more, Mr Speaker, but I'll wait for the next question before sharing the further endorsements from people who used to be the allies of those opposite and who they now ridicule. (Time expired)
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to clean up the defence procurement mess left by the previous government?
I thank the member for Pearce for her very important question. In coming to office, the Albanese Labor government has inherited a defence procurement mess. When those opposite were in power, there were 28 different programs that were running a total of 97 years over time. The Hunter class frigates were four years late and $15 billion over budget. The Spartan battlefield aircraft was 4½ years late and unable to fly into a battlefield. The offshore patrol vessels were a year late and the evolved Cape class patrol vessels were another year late. That's before we even start talking about submarines. When it came to defence announcements, those opposite were best-in-class. There was vaudeville, hoopla; we saw Top Gun music—it was always showtime.
The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting.
It was as if they were trying to tap-dance our adversaries into submission.
With those opposite, their strategy was to have Australia walk onto the battlefield—
Order! The Leader of the Nationals will cease interjecting.
Their strategy was to have Australia walk onto the battlefield armed with press releases. But when it came to actually delivering capability, getting the hard power equation right, those opposite were the single worst defence procurement government in our nation's history, and not least because they themselves were a picture of chaos. In nine years we had six—really seven—different defence ministers, the last of whom is sitting right there as the Leader of the Opposition. And all of this was at a time when we were facing the most precarious strategic circumstances since the Second World War. Under those opposite, Australia's lost decade could not have come at a more damaging historic moment.
Under Labor it's going to be different. We are getting back to the basics, establishing an independent project management office within Defence. We understand defence projects are large, they are complex and they don't always go right, which is why it's so important that you have objective criteria and metrics before projects are put on the Projects of Interest / Projects of Concern list. When they are, we're going to make sure that there are monthly reports to ministers so that we can get those projects back on track. In other words, we are going to actively manage defence procurement, because we get that the Defence budget is going to increase, which is why it's so important that the quality of defence expenditure is excellent—so that we can deliver value for money to taxpayers and much better capabilities which keep Australians safe.
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How many private properties will be impacted from the construction of the 28,000 kilometres in new poles and wires under the government's energy policy?
The member for Hume will cease interjecting. The member for Hume is warned. The House will come to order. The Leader of the Nationals was heard in silence. Members on my right! I will hear the minister in silence.
The Leader of the National Party refers to the ISP, the Integrated System Plan. The 28,000 kilometres figure refers to the green energy superpower scenario under the Integrated System Plan. The 10,000 kilometres is the step change scenario.
The government is getting on with implementing the ISP through the Rewiring the Nation policy. Tomorrow, the nation's energy ministers will meet and review progress in reforming the regulatory process for transmission to improve community consultation and compensation. It's a process that has been started by this government, not started by the previous government, because we want to ensure communities are consulted properly.
The minister for infrastructure will cease interjecting. I give the call to the Leader of the Nationals on a point of order.
On relevance: the question was very tight; it asked for a specific number of properties that will be impacted by the 28,000 kilometres of poles and wires.
You may resume your seat. Thank you for that. The minister is in order. He has been going for 40—
If you would let me finish, Leader of the Nationals. He's been going for 40 seconds. There was a specific question in there regarding a number, and I will ask the minister to return, when he's ready, to that part of the question. I give him the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the National Party asked me about the 28,000 kilometres, which is the green hydrogen superpower scenario. And those 28,000 kilometres are under a scenario that was prepared under the previous government.
As I said, Mr Speaker, energy ministers tomorrow will be reviewing the progress and reforming the RIT-T. We also will be hearing from the renewable energy commissioner, a federal government appointee, who has been working with the New South Wales state government and doing excellent work. Just this week they announced a new compensation regime for people impacted.
The Leader of the National Party is very concerned about social licence. I welcome his interest. I welcome his interest in the social licence of nuclear—
When the House comes to order, I'll ask the minister to address that part of the question. He's still got 1½ minutes to go. I'm listening carefully to his answer. He has three minutes to answer the question. There is no time constraint about when he has to answer. I'm listening carefully.
I raise a point of order. There's the normal rule about a point of order on direct relevance only being able to be taken once. The opposition, having already raised that, have now decided from the interjections to be shouting not at the government but, in fact, at you and about your ruling. I draw your attention to it, and in my role as Leader of the House I'd just urge that—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting.
Interject on me as hard as you want, but you don't do it to the Speaker. You don't.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left will cease interjecting! I ask the minister to return to that part of the question. I told the House that I'm listening carefully to the answer.
We'll continue to work with the renewable energy commissioner and with my state and territory colleagues, and we'll continue to oppose your plans to put nuclear reactors right across Australia, plans that don't have much community support or licence either.
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to support workers who need flexible work arrangements, particularly those in low-paid, feminised sectors?
The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill will bring our workplace laws up to date with the modern expectations of flexible work. Many members on this side, including the member for Gilmore, and some on the crossbench have had arguments in favour of trying to find better pathways for flexible work for a long time.
The way the law works at the moment is that you have a right to request flexible work, but if you make that request of your employer and the employer just says, 'No, I've got business grounds to say no,' that's the end of it. There's no right of appeal. It goes no further. The sorts of issues where flexible work hits are when someone is given a roster change and the impact of that roster change means they will now have a three-year-old whom they cannot pick up from child care. It means massive changes in people's lives if all they can do is ask, which is the only right they have, and are told no. At that moment, the only choice that faces Australians in that position is to give up the job. That's what happens. Inevitably, people then move to more-insecure work and to lower paid work, something which has been supported by the recent Senate inquiry that was chaired by Senator Barbara Pocock. It is something about which there were was a report based on an extraordinary amount of work done in the retail and fast food sector by the SDA. Members on both sides and the crossbench have been briefed on the report. The member for Goldstein, prior to coming here, was very much involved in a lot of that research. The inquiry and report went through the impact that the absence of rights on flexible work was having, particularly and disproportionately on women workers in Australia.
Introducing a right to arbitration won't mean that every one of these cases will go to arbitration. It will mean that where these decisions are being made—often in good companies but by a low level of management—not respecting people's family responsibilities, we will end up with sensible outcomes. It should not be the case that people with less-secure work, very often part-time workers, are in a situation where the only choice in front of them is to give up their job if they want to keep their caring and family responsibilities.
This is within the secure jobs, better pay bill. This is within the bill that those opposite committed to voting against before it had been introduced to the parliament. The bill is designed to get wages moving. If you support flexible workplaces, we need to change these laws so that people faced with these situations don't have to choose between those they love and keeping their job.
My question is again to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How many private properties will be impacted by the construction of the 28,000 kilometres of new poles and wires under the government's energy policy?
This is the new culture war for the leader of the National Party, and I wish him well on it. If this is the hill he chooses to die on, that's a matter for him. He's referring to the green hydrogen superpower option under the ISP, which was released while they were in office—which was released while they were the government. It's actually a document which had bipartisan support. He refers to the government's 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines. In fact we are seeking to implement the ISP step-change model, so he's talking about something completely fraudulent. Also, we are getting on with the job of better consultation, because what really matters is route selection. There are options for where the routes go. They can go on public land. They can, after appropriate community consultation and appropriate compensation, go on private land—so, I guess, could a nuclear power plant, which the leader of the National Party seems so addicted to.
My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. Minister, what has been the response to the Albanese Labor government's National Housing Accord and its reforms to address housing affordability in Australia?
I want to thank the member for Moreton for this very important question. I know that the member for Moreton has previously been on the board of the Kyabra Community Organisation that supports people into housing, so I know that he, like many people on this side of the House and others in the chamber, is deeply committed to making housing more affordable in Australia. That's why in the budget on Tuesday night we committed to addressing the cost-of-living pressures by making housing more affordable.
After nearly a decade of more inaction and neglect from those opposite, we are implementing a suite of reforms to ensure that more Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home. As Kate Colvin, who is spokesperson for Everybody's Home, said:
After almost a decade of the Coalition shirking federal responsibility on desperately needed investment in affordable rentals, the new Federal Government is showing national leadership.
Our reforms will help to address the cost-of-living pressures people are experiencing, and they are both responsible and right for the times.
The National Housing Accord has been agreed by each tier of government, by the sector, by investors and by industry, as well as community housing providers. It is a national commitment to work together to address the systemic problems in the housing market, and it will be guided by the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. Of course, it is an aspiration for one million homes from 2024 across the country. We will deliver in the budget $350 million to deliver 10,000 new, affordable homes. This will be matched by the states to deliver a further 10,000 affordable homes. It commits each tier of government to boosting the supply of new, affordable housing by streamlining land use and planning controls and other barriers to building new, affordable homes. It will also help deliver private investment, including from superannuation funds, to boost new and affordable housing.
As New South Wales Minister Roberts said, the accord will help address Australia's housing supply challenges and enable the delivery of more social and affordable housing. Indeed, he went on to say:
It recognises the importance of states and territories to expedite zoning, planning and land releases for social and affordable housing.
As the head of ACOSS said about the accord, it's 'a serious start to tackling the housing crisis'. Then we had Graham Wolfe from the HIA, who said:
Labor's first budget shows leadership to tackle Australia's housing supply and affordability challenges for all Australians.
Our housing policy and our investments are right for the times and they're right for the future, and we're going to get on with delivering more affordable homes for more Australians.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. In this week's budget, your government allocated $1.5 billion for the Middle Arm industrial zone in Darwin Harbour. Middle Arm proposes petrochemical manufacturing using gas from the Beetaloo basin. Unless that changes, this is a subsidy for the fossil fuel industries. Will you guarantee the Middle Arm precinct will not produce petrochemicals or gas based manufacturing?
Thanks very much to the member for Kooyong for her question. The Australian government invests in projects such as the Middle Arm precinct as an important way of setting up our economy for a sustainable future. Instead of funding any particular companies or particular industries, we're actually investing in common-use enabling infrastructure—we do that across industrial precincts across the country—to give all potential users in the market the opportunity to grow and thrive. This includes those able to process and export green hydrogen and energy transition components made locally.
The government is providing in the budget $1.9 billion in planned equity to support the development of Middle Arm, together with regional logistic hubs in the Northern Territory across those key transport links. That's what we're doing. This investment will enable the precinct to be globally competitive, to be sustainable—
The member for New England!
I can hear some interjections from the member for New England about that. I know that he likes this particular project, which we're very happy about.
I'm agreeing with you, Minister. I'm agreeing with you.
No, I was actually acknowledging that that's what he was doing. This investment will enable the precinct to be globally competitive and sustainable, but it will focus on low-emission hydrocarbons, green hydrogen and critical minerals processing. Demand, we know—
Point of order? I'll hear from the member for Kooyong and ask the minister to take a pause.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was hoping for an answer to my question.
Order! That is not a—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! To remind all members, that is not a point of order. The minister is being relevant.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As we know, the demand is growing for clean energy sources, and Labor's investment will help position the Northern Territory and northern Australia to actually diversify their economy and to create jobs. This investment is not a subsidy for fossil fuels. I reject that entirely. Rather, funding will go towards the infrastructure that will support users to export clean energy, critical to meet our commitment to net zero, like green hydrogen and lithium batteries that are critical to decarbonisation.
Common-user infrastructure at Middle Arm and in industrial precincts across the country, which the Commonwealth regularly invests in, is included in Infrastructure Australia's Infrastructure Priority List of nationally significant proposals, and the project is currently at the stage 2 assessment process. The Middle Arm precinct is undergoing significant environmental assessments under the Northern Territory Environment Protection Act and the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. These assessments will help understand the impact of the proposed construction. The Northern Territory government has completed or commenced over 200 investigations, including feasibility studies into land and marine development and environmental culture and heritage. This is good for the Territory, it's good for the nation, and I reject absolutely the claim of it being a fossil fuel subsidy.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! When the House comes to order, the members for New England and Riverina will cease interjecting, and so will the Minister for Resources.
My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to fix issues about affordable, quality early childhood education in Australia?
I thank the member for Reid for her question. This morning the member for Reid and I attended a breakfast with the Early Learning and Care Council of Australia. I thank Elizabeth Death, the CEO, and all the members who were present there, who engaged very constructively with us on those really important issues of access to and affordability of quality early childhood education. As the member for Reid knows, access to affordable quality early childhood education and care is not just a vital part of a child's development but also very important for our economy. That's why this Labor government has moved very quickly to make early childhood education and care more affordable for 1.26 million families across Australia.
The bill that passed this place this morning is important for children and also for parents, particularly primary caregivers—who are predominantly women—who are looking for more opportunities for work. Indeed, today is a significant day for women across Australia. We've had the release of Women's Budget Statement, the passage of the paid domestic and family violence leave bill, and the introduction of legislation to change the Fair Work Act to allow for multi-employer bargaining and to strengthen the ability of the Fair Work Commission to order pay rises for underpaid, female-dominated industries. These measures, undertaken by a Labor government, are going to have significant ramifications for the early childhood education and care workforce, who are over 90 per cent women.
This government has also made a wage growth a priority. From our first day, we successfully argued for a pay rise for the lowest-paid workers in Australia—something that those opposite opposed. Do we all remember that? And all of these reforms—every single one of them—present positive changes for the early childhood education and care sector, carrying on a Labor legacy of understanding the needs of this sector and acknowledging the importance of early childhood education. In acknowledging that importance, National Cabinet have also tasked early childhood education and care ministers with identifying and progressing priorities right across the sector, with a particular focus on workforce strategies. And while we can't fix in a number of months what those opposite destroyed over a decade, make no mistake—an Albanese Labor government is working hard to clean up the mess that they left.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In the lead up to the 2022 election, and since, the government has repeatedly cited modelling forecasting that wholesale and residential electricity prices would decrease by 18 per cent. But the government's budget tells us that Australians can expect increases in electricity and gas prices of 50 per cent and 40 per cent respectively. Will the Prime Minister now admit that the modelling Labor stood by was flawed, and so too were the government's energy policies that relied on that modelling?
I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. Indeed, we did release modelling done by RepuTex in 2021. After that occurred, of course, there was not modelling but a factual change that occurred in May 2022 from the Australian Energy Regulator that pointed to a 20 per cent increase in costs of electricity, and that flowed through to wholesale prices. There are a couple of pressures on energy prices—one, of course, is the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and the second—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Members on my left will cease interjecting.
The modelling that I was asked about occurred in 2021. If you go back to when the Russian invasion of Ukraine was—
Opposition members interjecting—
I think you'll find out. I remember, and you should recall President Zelenskyy spoke to this chamber just before my last budget reply in March of this year. The second pressure is the failure to invest. In fact, four gigs went out and one gig of energy went in. That led to a massive failure to invest.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
Three years ago, before the 2019 election, there was a promise of $1 billion towards new generation. That would have added 3,800 megawatts of new generation. Instead of four-out one-in, that would have been 4.8 in and four in. It would have made a difference. What we saw was all of the commitments: Alinta Energy in East Gippsland, Alinta Energy in Reeves Plains, Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners in Gratton, APA Group in Dandenong, Australian Industrial Energy in Port Kembla, Sunset Power and Delta Electricity in Lincoln Gap, Rise Renewables in Baroota, UPC Renewables in Armidale, BE Power Solutions in Cressbrook, Hydro Tasmania, Battery of the Nation—
The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
It's on relevance. It was a very tightly worded question about the Labor Party's modelling. He's gone to the coalition's policies an election ago. If he can't answer the question, he should simply say so and sit down.
The Prime Minister was asked a—
Alright. I call the Prime Minister.
Three years later, that's what we inherited. Three years later, not a single dollar of that was delivered. Not a dollar. There were not any megawatts; they aimed for 3,800 and they delivered zero. A big duck egg. Not one. Not one watt of new generation as a result of that announcement. Of course, that's before we go to the farcical situation of the Collinsville promise, which was never delivered either. (Time expired)
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Members on my left! When the House comes to order—
The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting while I'm talking.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. What is the Albanese Labor government's budget doing to support modern families? How will the paid parental leave policy benefit Australian families after nearly a decade of policy stagnation?
I would like to thank the member for Parramatta for that question. I am very pleased to inform the member for Parramatta that the Albanese Labor government is delivering the biggest expansion to paid parental leave since Labor introduced it in 2011.
Isn't this a stark contrast to what those opposite did with their time in government. They had no appetite to modernise the scheme to reflect how families were changing and what support they needed when bringing a new baby into the world. Instead, paid parental leave sat untouched and neglected by this coalition government. Of course, I need to be fair to those opposite because there was one big reform that they brought into the parliament—not once but twice. It was called the Fairer Paid Parental Leave Bill. That sounds very good. That sounds like a good reform. Of course, the objective of that bill was to deny mothers being able to take their government paid parental leave and their employer paid parental leave. Of course, we all remember how those mothers were characterised by those opposite. On Mother's Day, no less, it was announced by those opposite that these mothers were double dippers, rorters and fraudsters. This was an appalling way to characterise the women of Australia, who were just trying to cobble together leave so that they could maximise time with their newborn babies.
It is quite interesting—I was looking at the Hansardyou would think that those opposite would have got the message when they couldn't get support from this parliament to pass it. There was an election and then they brought it back in. They brought it back to the parliament. But I am very pleased that the parliament saw good sense and rejected that change. In stark contrast, the Albanese Labor government is extending paid parental leave by an extra six weeks. We're making it more flexible, so parents can use the time for shared care, enabling parents to best work out how to sort their arrangements. We're improving the income test to have both an individual or a couple income test. Importantly, single mothers will be able to take the full amount of time.
This is what real reform looks like. 180,000 new parents will benefit each year from our reforms, and we are doing it in a responsible way. This reform is long overdue. This reform is so important to Australian families. Families have been calling for it, and far from calling those mothers and dads double dippers, fraudsters and rorters, we will support Australian families every day of the week.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the government call together manufacturers, consumers, gas producers and electricity companies to manage the energy cost crisis. Business owners in Goldstein and elsewhere are already saying they may have to close due to energy costs, and that is before Treasury's forecast increase of 40 to 50 per cent. Prime minister, will the government intervene to bring gas prices back to a sustainable level for domestic consumers and small and large businesses before businesses begin to collapse?
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition can cease interjecting. If a member has been heard in silence on either side of the chamber we need to show respect for the person answering the question as well. I will ask the clock to be reset.
I thank the member for her question and for working constructively with the government on these issues. There is no doubt at all that many households and businesses are already doing it tough when it comes to energy prices, Russia's willingness to weaponise energy, which is what they have done, has seen coal, oil and gas prices through the roof globally. They have caused the most significant shock to global energy markets since the 1970s. In Australia, the energy market shock has been compounded by the coalition's lost decade of denial, delay and dysfunction on energy policy, the four gigawatts of dispatchable power that left the system with only one gigawatt coming in.
But we're focused on making energy clean, secure and affordable. In the budget on Tuesday night, by the Treasurer, who did such a good job he can't even get a question from those opposite, we are investing $25 billion to power Australia on cleaner, cheaper energy and reduce emissions. As well as these investments, we are taking action to secure supply reliability of electricity and gas. We have asked the ACCC to examine the code of conduct between gas suppliers and gas customers. It's voluntary to date. We have asked them to advise the government on making it mandatory, ensuring reasonable pricing and improving transparency in prices.
The budget also has a target, a $67 million package, to give the ACCC, the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Operator more powers to monitor gas supply. We are reforming the gas trigger to protect domestic supply. The way the former government set it up you could only consider it once a year. We are moving the ADGSM to quarterly consideration, and just last month a heads of agreement with east coast LNG exporters to deliver 157 petajoules to the domestic market next year, enough to cover the ACCC's forecast shortfall of 56 nearly three times over. Gas supply is not the problem: it's a decade of been inaction, denial, and delay that has left us overexposed after the invasion of Ukraine. We know that there is much more to do to clean up the mess that those opposite left, and we will do it in a way that doesn't make the inflation problem even worse.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How is the Albanese Labor government addressing nearly a decade of neglect and building a better future for our environment?
I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. She's a very keen bushwalker, and I know that she works very well with the environment groups in her electorate, including the Hunter Wetlands group. After almost a decade of neglect and vandalism of the environment by those opposite, we've got a big job to do, and that's why this Labor government invested $1.8 billion in environmental repair and restoration in this budget. This budget will protect the Great Barrier Reef. It will save our native species. It'll employ a thousand new Landcare rangers. It'll support new Indigenous protected areas and new extra Indigenous rangers.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
It'll fund the Environmental Defenders Office for the first time in nine years and clean up our urban rivers and waterways.
Of course, we've only been in government for a few months now, but in that time we've already seen the difference that a government committed to the environment can make. We've legislated a more ambitious emissions reduction target with a clear path to net zero. We are rewriting our environmental laws to better protect the environment but also to give business faster, clearer decision-making. We're establishing a new Environmental Protection Agency, a tough cop on the beat. We're determined to prevent new extinctions. We're protecting our most precious environments by expanding the amount of land and ocean under protection to 30 per cent by 2030. We've signed the Leaders Pledge for Nature. We've released the State of the environment report, something kept secret by those opposite. We're establishing a new nature repair market to reward farmers and other landholders for their work in restoring and protecting nature. We're working with the states and territories to improve our waste management and build a more circular economy, including getting rid of problem plastics.
Why won't you build more dams?
The member for Groom!
Australians care very deeply about our environment—about the plants and animals and places that make us unique—and we are determined to protect, restore and manage our natural environment, because, under the Albanese Labor government, the environment is back. I notice, by the way, a lot of interjections about dams. Why are you too gutless to ask me a question if you want to know the answers?
Order! The member for Groom will cease interjecting and is on a warning.
My question is for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I refer to his answer earlier this week on RGS, a manufacturer in my electorate that uses over 200 megawatt hours per year, which is facing an increase of around $43,000 in power bills. The default market offer, to which the minister referred in his answer, is only available to small businesses that consume less than 100 megawatt hours. So the minister did not answer my question. So I ask again: why are there such steep electricity prices facing this and many other businesses, and what is the government doing about it?
I thank the honourable member for his question. My concern goes to all businesses in Queensland and all businesses across our country. My concern goes to all households across Australia and their energy bills, because we want to work and we are working and we will work to ensure that their power prices are as low as possible, whether they're on the DMO or not. The DMO does feed into energy prices; that's a statement of fact. The former minister for energy knew that. Perhaps that's why he hid that increase from the Australian people.
In the budget, we had a choice. We could have hidden the pressure on power prices—option A, which the previous government took. We could have hidden that. Option B is to actually be upfront with the Australian people about the pressures. That's the option we took. We take the option of actually being honest with the Australian people.
Order! The minister will resume his seat. The member for Hume has been continually interjecting right throughout question time. He will leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Hume then left the chamber.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. There is a general warning. I will take action if this level of noise continues.
It's a sad outcome that the member for Hume left us. But we are concerned and we are upfront. In relation to Queensland small businesses—small and large and medium—we should care about them all. The increase in small-business prices that the member for Hume hid from the Australian people was 12.8 per cent, $705, I make no apologies for pointing that to the House and the Australian people.
Has the minister concluded his answer? I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business.
There is this repeated claim of hiding. The standing orders are very clear:
All imputations of improper motives to a Member … shall be considered highly disorderly.
That's clearly what this minister is repeatedly doing, and I suggest that it's clear—
Order! You may resume your seat. I remind the minister of the standing order, and I ask him to return to the question.
Certainly, Mr Speaker. Thank you. But the fact is the fact: the previous minister hid the facts from the Australian people. He should be ashamed of himself.
My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. How will the aged-care reforms in the budget restore dignity for older people accessing aged-care services?
I thank the member for McEwen for his question and acknowledge his work to improve aged care in his electorate, particularly working with visits to the Calvary centre and the issues that they face with respect to workforce.
After nine years of neglect, finally this nation has a budget that respects the work of older Australians and puts them first. It is a proud week for all of us on this side of the chamber that Labor has delivered a budget that puts $3.9 billion into aged-care funding. Today we passed legislation, the second aged-care reform piece of legislation in this parliament, that will deliver on our election commitments that we made to the Australian people: around-the-clock nursing care and more time for care in homes.
This budget implements 22 aged-care election commitments and 23 recommendations of the royal commission, which means that now, in just five months in office, this side of the House has delivered 37 recommendations of the royal commission—37 recommendations in five months, compared with nine recommendations in 17 months from those opposite, a truly dreadful record that you should be dreadfully ashamed of. It is about time that we act on aged care, because for almost a decade the former government disrespected aged-care recipients with budget cuts and decimated a workforce, particularly in regional and remote areas—and Lord knows we cannot progress without our aged-care workers.
I note that we've still got the Fitzroy Community School students with us here in the House this afternoon. If, for some unfathomable reason, question time has turned you off the idea of elected representative life, may I encourage you to consider a career in aged care, because we need you.
In parliament this week, we have welcomed seven proud ANMF nurses, to visit many people on this side of the House and many people on that side of the House, and two UWU aged-care workers as well. They have been meeting with parliamentarians to tell us what it is like in aged care. I know that people here would want me to acknowledge Glen, Stephanie, Sharon, Stuart, Alison, Rachel and Juliane, who came to tell us, and the frontline workers who are watching on and really hoping that we act as swiftly as we have so far. We want to say: 'Thank you for all those shifts that you did in PPE. Thank you for all those times that you came in on your day off because there was no-one else to do it. Thank you for all those times that you stopped and held a hand and checked in and cared, even though you had 67 other things that you needed to be doing. We see you and we thank you and we recognise you, and today we made laws in this place that value your work.' So did this budget, and we will continue to do that for many budgets to come.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The federal government is intending to delay $800 million of Commonwealth funding to construct the Rockhampton Ring Road by at least two years. In 2019, as shadow infrastructure minister, the Prime Minister issued a media release titled 'Rockhampton Ring Road a certainty under Labor'. Why is the Prime Minister breaking his personal guarantee to the people of Rockhampton?
I thank the member for her question. The member would know that, as infrastructure minister, there was substantial investment that went into Rockhampton roads, particularly Yeppen Floodplain, which we funded, did the planning for—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Members on my left.
'Yeppen Floodplain'; Yeppoon's a different place. And you might want to ask the member for Capricornia, because Yeppoon is on the coast, north of Rockhampton, and Yeppen Floodplain is to the south; it's the southern entry of the Bruce Highway into Rockhampton.
Queenslander! Queenslander!
Government members interjecting—
Order! Members on my right!
It says it all, because I know about Queensland roads, because, for the Bruce Highway, under John Howard's government, they put $1.3 billion in; we put $6.7 billion in, in half the time, including for the Yeppen Floodplain; including planning money for the Rockhampton Ring Road that began when Kirsten Livermore was the member for Capricornia, who campaigned for it. But, when government changed in 2013, it went on the back burner. So you were in government for almost a decade—
The member for Barker!
and you haven't dug a hole on the project. The environmental approvals aren't finished. The project was underfunded, so that, when we looked at the detail of the project, it didn't have enough money allocated to it under you. But we will get this project done, like we got the Yeppen Floodplain done, and like we got, by the way, roads to Yeppoon done as well—
Order. The member for Barker will leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Barker then left the chamber.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Order! The House will come to order.
Government members interjecting—
The House will come to order. Ministers on my right will cease interjecting!
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government providing the overdue leadership on energy policy that had been missing for nearly a decade?
I thank my friend for the question. The budget brought down by the Treasurer on Tuesday night certainly provides that leadership for energy, with $20 billion in funding for Rewiring the Nation, $2 billion for powering the nation, a quarter of a billion for community batteries, funding for our regulators and operator to implement the better regulation of energy that's been agreed with state and territory energy ministers, and much more. This is all the leadership that we are providing after a decade of denial and delay.
As I said before, the government was also faced with a choice about being honest with the Australian people, including the pressures on energy prices in the budget—being very upfront and explicit about it in the budget—or taking the alternative approach, of not being honest with the Australian people. And that, we know, has a precedent, by the member for Hume, the former minister, who, on 8 April, signed into law a regulation to delay the release of the energy price rises until after the election. Now, I understand his reasons for doing so. I understand his sensitivity. There's been a lot of commentary about election promises and power prices. And, in the 2019 election, which was won by the coalition, the member for Hume promised a 25 per cent reduction in the average wholesale energy price. That was their promise in 2019. And the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says prices went down. Wholesale prices went up, 240 per cent. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks that 's a reduction, we've got a bigger problem than I thought we had. I thought we had a big problem with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. But even closer to the election the then minister for energy was still at it. In November 2021 he promised a six per cent fall in energy prices by 2024. In November 2021—that's pretty close to the 2022 election. But of course by the time of the 2022 election wholesale prices were up 439 per cent: not down six but up 439 per cent. That is a 'missed it by that much' moment.
We know the minister hid the price rise. But the cover-up gets worse. Yesterday he was asked three times: 'Did you know this was going to happen?' Three times he said, 'No, I didn't'. He denies knowing there were energy price rises. The then minister, the member for Hume, wants the House and the Australian people to believe he signed a law change to hide a power price rise he didn't know about. He wants us to believe he didn't know that there was a price rise. So he went to all the trouble of asking his department to prepare the paperwork, sending it to the Governor-General, and he didn't know what he was doing. Did he do it with his eyes shut? Did the member for Cook do it instead? We'll add it to the dossier of dodgy documents the member for Hume is so famous for. I hope he's not working on the Leader of the Opposition's speech for tonight while he's being— (Time expired)
My question goes to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you apologise to Australians for your broken promise to deliver a $275 cut to their electricity bills, a promise you made on 97 occasions?
I thought I might get another question on infrastructure. I thought I might, but not quite. Instead, I get a question from a coalition that announced 22 different energy policies and did not land a single one. Not one. Unlike us, who put out modelling by RepuTex in 2021. Not Labor Party modelling: independent modelling from Australia's leading energy economists in 2021.
What we did, of course, was to continue to fulfil our commitment to the Rewiring the Nation program. It was there in the budget. The rewiring the nation program, as the minister for energy has pointed out, is based on the Australian Energy Market Operator's integrated systems plan of making sure that transmission was fit for purpose in the 21st century. We have been upfront about the challenges which are there, the challenges which have been created by two major issues. One, of course, is the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has had an impact on global energy prices. Apparently that has skipped the attention of the coalition. The second is the fact that we inherited such a failed position of four gigawatts of energy leaving the system but only one gigawatt going back in. It wasn't just the Liberal Party who committed to a 25 per cent reduction in the wholesale electricity price by the end of 2021 during the 2019 campaign. The National Party did the same thing.
The member for Fairfax, on a point of order?
My question went to the broken promise of $275 and whether the Prime Minister would apologise to the Australian—
It was a broad, partisan question. I am giving the call to the Prime Minister when the House comes to order.
It said very clearly that they would have a 25 per cent reduction in the average wholesale electricity price. They went through all these things that they said would happen, like Battery of the Nation, that just didn't eventuate, and their billion-dollar fund for new energy, of which zero was delivered. Not a single watt, let alone a gigawatt, was delivered as a result of this policy. Instead of that, what they also did was to go on these exercises in, basically, nonsense—spending money, including $4 million they planned and funded to the proponents, mind you, of the Collinsville coal-fired power plant.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
There were $4 million to the people who were building it, the private sector operators who were building it. They gave them $4 million. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. With the United Nations, the International Energy Agency and the world's scientists saying there can be no new investment in coal and gas if we're to meet net-zero targets, why does the budget contain $30 million to frack for gas in the Beetaloo basin? Does the Prime Minister agree with his other minister that gas is just a low-emissions hydrocarbon, and is low-emission hydrocarbon the new clean coal?
For the benefit of the House and the Leader of the Greens, the $30 million you're speaking of is from the cooperative drilling program that was a commitment under the former government. That money has been expended or is in the current use of those contracts. It goes to the question asked earlier to the minister for industry, who's not responsible for that work. This government has ended that program, and the remaining part of that funding envelope has now been returned to the budget.
MASCARENHAS () (): My question is to the Minister for Resources and Minister for Northern Australia. What is the significance of critical minerals to Australia, and what role will they play in achieving net-zero emissions?
MADELEINE KING (—) (): Thank you very much to the incoming member for Swan. Her father was a nickel miner from Kambalda, and she knows the value of the resources sector. She worked in it for many years before coming to this place. So thank you to the member for Swan.
For Australia and the world, reaching the net-zero emissions target by 2050 is absolutely impossible without the critical minerals and our extraordinary endowment of them. These minerals will be a significant part of the global journey to net-zero emissions by 2050. Without the resources sector, we simply cannot reach net zero. The world needs more minerals, not less, because these minerals are essential for these low-emissions technologies such as wind turbines, electric vehicles and battery storage. The demand around the world is growing, and growing fast.
The technical expertise and know-how of Australia's resources industry will be absolutely essential to grow the critical minerals industry and our new resources economy, and Australia is especially well placed. We are the world's largest producer of lithium, with WA being home to some of the world's largest lithium deposits at Greenbushes and Wodgina, which I was very pleased to be able to visit just the other week in the Pilbara. We're the third-largest producer of cobalt, the fifth-largest producer of nickel and the fourth-largest producer of rare earth minerals.
In the first five months since the election, this government has been pursuing Australia's critical minerals opportunities with vigour. We have agreed to a critical minerals investment partnership with India. We have signed up to the US led Minerals Security Partnership alongside Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, the EU, the UK and Sweden. Just last week in Perth I signed a critical minerals partnership with Japan in the presence of our PM and also in the presence of the Japanese Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida. I was deeply honoured to be able to welcome our Prime Minister to BHP Nickel West for the second time—maybe even the third time—and to welcome the Japanese Prime Minister there. I'm quite certain that it's probably the first time a Japanese prime minister has visited the seat of Brand and, in particular, the Nickel West refinery in Kwinana, which provides 85 per cent of its nickel to the global battery material suppliers.
This government is investing a further $50 million over three years to the Critical Minerals Development Program and $50 million to the Australian Critical Minerals R&D Hub.
It is a fact that, before the election, the government had two critical minerals strategies overseen by two resources ministers, both at the same time. Those critical minerals strategies failed to make the connection between critical minerals and the global drive to net zero. This government is reviewing that strategy. It will make that important link because we don't have our heads in the sand about the need to address climate change. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I refer the minister to the previous, coalition government's decision to build a new gas project plant at Kurri Kurri to put downward pressure on electricity prices. Labor promised to commit an additional $700 million to the project if they were elected, but that commitment was very absent from the budget. With power prices set to increase by 50 per cent under this government, why has Labor abandoned a project that will provide affordable, reliable electricity for Australians when they need it most?
I thank the honourable member for his question, but I say respectfully to him: he's completely wrong. He's completely misunderstood the budget papers if he believes that the Kurri Kurri plant is being cancelled. It is, unlike Snowy 2.0, currently on track and will be delivered. It is an on-budget matter. I think the honourable member has just completely got the wrong end of the stick.
My question is to the Minister for Skills and Training. Today the parliament passed the Jobs and Skills Australia legislation. How will Jobs and Skills Australia help tackle the skills shortage crisis the government inherited?
I'd like to thank the member for Adelaide for his question. Yes, he's absolutely right: today the parliament passed the Jobs and Skills Australia legislation. That is, of course, a commitment, an election promise, by this Prime Minister and by this government, to deliver a body that can provide the right sort of advice to ensure that we have the skills that we need in this country. What we do know is we have just inherited not only $1 trillion of debt but a massive skills deficit. It doesn't matter where you look across the economy and labour market, whatever sector of the economy it is, we have problems in terms of supply of skills. The National Skills Commission's last report said that we have almost doubled the occupations on the shortage list from 153 to 286 in 12 months, and that's why it's absolutely critical that we move very fast on this matter.
I'd like to thank the members and senators who worked with me on this legislation across the parliament. We really need to move quickly, as I say. We need to deploy every avenue we have to find the skills that our economy needs. I need to acknowledge the ministers for home affairs and immigration, who are seeking to restore skilled migration pathways that have been absolutely ruined as a result of the efforts of those opposite. I mean, they left an entire mess. Quite understandably they closed the borders, but why would they ever not support visa holders in this country so that they would leave in droves and leave a skills deficit in our economy? That's exactly what happened.
The member for Mitchell will cease interjecting.
The other thing we need to make sure we do is invest in skills in this country by providing the skills in areas of shortage. That's why we've announced 180,000 TAFE and VET fee-free places—
The member for Mitchell is on a warning.
for next year, provided in areas of acute shortage.
But there's another area that we need to consider. When you have a tight labour market, that is a very significant challenge, but it is an opportunity for us to do something that's really critical for those people that have been locked out of the labour market for too long. We have many, many Australians—people with disability, First Nations people, women enduring economic insecurity, older Australians—who suffer discrimination in trying to get a job. They probably have an opportunity, probably an opportunity of a lifetime, because of the tight labour market. And this government is going to provide the support, working with business, to make sure they get chances in this labour market. That will be our pledge. We will provide the sort of support that's needed to provide people with disabilities and First Nations people an opportunity. I'm actually visiting Tennant Creek tomorrow and I'll be in Darwin with the Chief Minister not long after that to work on these issues in the Territory. I'll be doing the same in every state and territory so that we get this right.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, following the Prime Minister's response to the member for Capricornia's question during question time, the member for Capricornia left the chamber in tears and in a state of high distress. I ask you to review the video of the Prime Minister, his response to the member for Capricornia, and review the appropriateness of the tone of that response. I simply ask the Speaker to review the video.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Members on my right and left. The House will come to order.
Member for Latrobe, I'm trying to respond to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I shall review the footage and report back.
Mr Speaker, I advised the Leader of the Opposition earlier today that I'd be making a short statement on indulgence to congratulate and send a shout-out to the Australian Wheelchair Rugby League team, which flew to London earlier this week to prepare for the Rugby League World Cup. For the first time ever the tournament fixture includes the men's, women's and wheelchair teams, so we have the Kangaroos, the Jillaroos and the Wheelaroos. I think I that sends a very powerful message about equality and about inclusion.
Members may be interested to know that, unlike Paralympic events, there are some players who live with disability while others in the team do not. It sees itself as a game for everyone. Craig Cannane started playing rugby league when he was 10 but stopped at age 19 when a motorbike accident left him a paraplegic. He assumed he would never play again. Next week will be his third World Cup and his first tournament wearing the green and gold alongside his son Corey. It will be the first time any father and son have competed at a World Cup. I want to wish Craig and Corey, captain Brad Grove, head coach Brett Clark and all the members of the Wheelaroos squad, as well as the Kangaroos and the Jillaroos, all the very best of luck.
I understand the Wheelaroos are taking on the Poms in their first game next Friday. I can't think of a better way to start a tournament than beating England in England. Representing your country on the world stage is a great honour. We know you will do Australia proud and that you will have the support of not just everyone in this chamber but all Australians.
I join with the Prime Minister in wishing the Wheelaroos all the very best. For all of us who are now searching for something to do on a Friday night or on a Sunday when the rugby league season is over, it would be nice to have a bit of content and a couple of games to be able to watch, to get us through, maybe just to string us through to the start of the next season.
We have an incredible asset in our athletes in this country. It's a very significant part of our culture, of who we are. Regardless of what sport we're talking about, we have a lot to be proud of in this country. I want to recognise all of the players for the sacrifice they've made, but importantly all their families, who have contributed in a significant way to helping them through their lives with their disabilities—in some cases disabilities acquired later in life. For all of them there is an incredible amount of respect and support across the community.
I know that in Brisbane, but across the country, there are different organisations that are dedicated to helping kids, juniors, who have a disability into sports of every type, and that is a great thing. There are kids volunteering to train, to provide mentorship, to coach, to make sure that they run the lines and be involved in providing that support and the moral support to help those kids enjoy sport as much as any other Australian child or young adult.
I join with the Prime Minister in wishing our teams all the very best in the United Kingdom, and I'm absolutely certain they can do us proud and bring home a great deal of joy. We wish them every safe travel.
Before members leave the House, I want to give a short reminder about arrangements for this evening with respect to the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech. As I outlined on Tuesday, the usual courtesies apply to the Leader of the Opposition's speech, as they did to the Treasurer's. With respect to this evening, the Leader of the Opposition will have the call and is entitled to speak without interruption. As with the Treasurer's speech on Tuesday, standing order 1 provides there is no time limit for the Leader of the Opposition's speech. The clock is used as a guide only. As I noted on Tuesday, if I'm required to make use of standing order 94(a), the member will be advised by written note. Finally, I ask all members to ensure that their guests comply with the standards of behaviour applying to the galleries, and I remind members they are responsible for their invited guests. I thank the House.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration, I present Report No. 24: annual report 2021-22.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
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 huge increases in energy prices confirmed in the budget and the government's lack of a plan to deal with these energy price increases.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
'BRIEN () (): This week's budget has confirmed something that the Prime Minister has not had the courage to say himself—that is, the Labor Party has broken a promise, a very big promise. We know that the budget was in fact littered with promises being broken. But there's one particular promise I have in mind, and it comes with a number, and that number is 275. That's right. The $275 which was promised, promised by the Labor Party, by the Prime Minister, on no fewer than 97 occasions—a reduction in household power bills by $275. What we saw in this week's budget, in black and white, was that promise being broken. It's a promise broken because we now know that power prices are set to skyrocket—electricity prices by up to 56 per cent and gas prices by 44 per cent. This is, in black and white, confirming what the Prime Minister has been too weak to say here in this chamber, despite the number of questions we on the opposition benches have been asking him. This is a broken promise to the Australian people.
But what's interesting here is that we also have a very divided cabinet within the Albanese government when it comes to how to deal with this issue. There's complete disunity among the cabinet members. We have the Prime Minister of course blaming the coalition. We have the Treasurer blaming Vladimir Putin. We have the industry minister blaming the gas companies. We have the energy minister blaming everyone bar himself, even though he's the one presiding over this mess. But the one thing they are not even talking about is how to fix the problem. They're divided only on one thing—that is, who to blame for their own broken promise; who to blame for the increase in power prices. We know—
Government members interjecting—
I take the interjections again blaming the coalition. To those opposite, those on the government benches: we recognise that your party isn't filled with people with a business background, who understand economics, so let me explain this in a different way for you. It's like watching a footy game, and no matter how messy the footy game might look—and there's no doubt the energy market looks messy at times—the most important thing is that you look at the scoreboard. You look at the scoreboard at a footy match. Under the coalition, I'll tell you what that scoreboard said. Under the coalition, that scoreboard said that power prices came down for households by eight per cent. That's what the scoreboard said—under the coalition, prices down. That scoreboard said that, for businesses, prices came down by 10 per cent. It said that, for industry, prices came down by 12 per cent. Guess what's happened. We have had a change of government. There's a new team wearing the Aussie jersey—in fact, it's the Labor Party. What does the scoreboard now say? It says prices are going up. Prices are going through the roof. What's more, their own budget confirms they're going only one way. They're going further up.
This is the budget that the Labor Party claimed would be all about the cost of living. It forgot the part where they had gone to the Australian people and the No. 1 cost-of-living issue they had spoken about was power prices. They were excluded. For those on the government benches who aren't into budgets and economics, go to Budget Paper No. 1 and look up the section called Economic Outlook. Within Economic Outlook there are some pages talking about inflation. The most common theme in that inflation section in the government's budget is the rise of energy prices. You would think that, if a government were to have the cost of living as the centrepiece of its budget, they might actually deal with the primary cause behind that inflation. They had a five-point plan on the cost of living. Guess what they excluded. They excluded energy prices—surprise, surprise! This is despite their promising households and businesses that energy prices would come down by 18 per cent. We know that in the next financial year electricity prices are going to go up by 56 per cent and gas prices are going to up by 44 per cent. This is what they have promised.
As much as the government backbenchers might giggle when the Prime Minister or the Minister for Climate Change and Energy or the Treasurer tries to dodge questions about their broken promise, I can tell you who is not laughing. The Australian people aren't laughing. What about the Australian pensioners and the Australian senior citizens who have had to go through winter and make genuine decisions about whether they eat or keep warm? What about the families who have had to make big decisions as families about the schools the kids go to? This is the feedback that my office is getting because families are struggling. This government knew it, because this government went to the Australian people and promised them it had the solutions. But it has absolutely no solutions.
There is a bigger problem than just the broken promise, but it's related to it. It is this: the Labor Party has based its entire energy policy on an economic model done by Reputex, an economic model that it stands by to this day. That $275 was a key input into all of Labor's policy suites. We know from the budget that that modelling was flawed, and nobody in the Labor Party has been able to stand and defend that model. No-one in the Labor Party can defend the economic model that says prices will come down by $275. This is a serious issue because it is that same economic model which is driving the energy minister's policies—the whole lot of them. So when we are seeing gas being removed from the capacity mechanism it is because of that flawed economic model and the minister who still believes it is going to work. When we see an ongoing demonisation of gas, despite the fact that renewables need gas as a partner, that's on this minister and flawed economic modelling. If anyone on the government benches can stand up during this MPI and explain how that economic model is not flawed, they are welcome to do so. If those opposite cannot, they are telling the Australian people that the entire suite of policies around energy is flawed. Let us not forget that when the government came into this chamber and legislated its 43 per cent reduction in emissions, one of the questions we asked as an opposition was, 'Has the department, has Treasury done economic modelling?' The answer was no. They have done no modelling. Their entire policy is based on an economic model which is flawed.
In the budget what did we see when it came to ensuring that renewables can be supported with dispatchable gas? Nothing. We saw money taken out for gas pipelines. So it's not only going to be removed from the capacity mechanism; there's less money for the pipelines. There's no encouragement for developing gas. The gas basins, whether it be in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, the Northern Territory, are being ignored by this government. But I'll tell you what they did include. An extra $10 million was put in the budget. But you know what that went to? Legal activists, lawyers—lawyers who are actually challenging gas projects.
This is what this government is doing. For every business out there that is struggling, for the Australian Workers' Union, who has told the Australian people and the government that 800,000 jobs are under threat, it is on this government, which has torn apart the policies that were working in this country, that kept the lights on, kept the prices down, kept emissions down—now they're going up—it's based on an absolute dishonesty and a broken promise.
It's always a pleasure to talk about energy policy in this parliament. Particularly this MPI that goes to energy policy plans. I'm going to give those opposite a bit of a history lesson, They seem to think the Australian people have suffered a round of amnesia in May this year. They seem to think the Australian people have forgotten about the last 9½ years of dysfunction under those opposite.
I'm glad to say the Australian people haven't forgotten. They remember the 9½ long years of chaos and dysfunction. Energy policy is the greatest example of that. Unfortunately households and businesses are experiencing the pain caused from the chaos and dysfunction right now—that chaos and dysfunction that led to 22 energy policies in 9½ years.
I've got some favourites in there. Some of them were spectacular. My favourite was Josh Frydenberg's emissions intensity scheme, a scheme so broadly supported by the then government that it lasted 14 hours. I've almost slept longer than that policy lasted as official government policy. My other favourites: three policies they had in August 2018 over 14 days: NEG 1, NEG 2 and NEG 3. What happened with NEG 3? When it became apparent that it was actually going to pass the House, it was going to be enshrined in law, what did they do? They knocked off Prime Minister Turnbull. Instead of cementing an energy policy that wasn't half bad—it wasn't great but it was a potential solution—they knifed their Prime Minister. They knocked him off and replaced him with a member for Cook.
They're some of my favourites, but I've got two that are extra special in my heart. There's the $1 billion UNGI initiative, which I think the member opposite had something to do with. It promised 3,800 megawatts of new generation. How many megawatts do you think it delivered? 2,000? 1,000? 500? Zero. Zip. Nada. Seriously. The member opposite could have pedalled on an exercise bike and produced more electricity than UNGI delivered for the Australian people at a cost of $1 billion. There's the other one that's my favourite, the leather jacket moment—Snowy Hydro 2.0. It's running 18 months late.
As a result of all this, we've seen 4,000 megawatts of power retired and only 1,000 megawatts of new energy generation come into the system. My own region of the Hunter Valley—the powerhouse of the country—has ageing power stations that have huge reliability issues. These power stations are reaching the natural end of their planned life. This is what their engineers are saying. This isn't politics. These power stations are approaching the end of their planned life, and the companies that own them have said it doesn't make economic sense to upgrade and modify them. But the truth is they're under extreme pressure now because of the coalition government's 9½ years of chaos and dysfunction.
If you want further demonstration of that, you just have to look at what went on in May 2019, when the then minister for energy, now the Shadow Treasurer, promised a cut in wholesale energy prices of 25 per cent, leading to $70 a megawatt hour of wholesale energy prices. He promised that would lead to a 17 per cent cut in retail energy prices. How did he go? Three years on, on the eve of losing the election in May 2022, instead of cutting wholesale energy prices by 25 per cent, they jacked them up by 267 per cent. Missed by that much! Instead of cutting retail energy prices by 17 per cent, retail prices went up by 19 per cent. That's the price rise that the member for Hume hid before the election in one of the most mendacious efforts I've seen in Australian political life. Not only did he hide it from the Australian people before the election but he continues to deceive and to try and hide it right now. He was interviewed by Kieran Gilbert in September and he was asked about this 19 per cent price rise. He was accused of hiding it by changing the law, by signing a regulation, and he said of Chris Bowen to Kieran Gilbert:
He's just wrong. He's talking about a report that was put out by the AER, not by the government. So he should get his facts right. The thing is, Chris Bowen's got none of these facts right.
Kieran Gilbert asked:
That wasn't at your direction, the delay?
Angus Taylor replied:
No. This is a report from the AER, not from the government.
There's only one little problem with that. There's a thing called Hansard and there's a thing called theGazette. And the Gazette has an unfortunate history of recording decisions of the executive council. I've got the regulation, the Competition and Consumer (Industry Code – Electricity Retail) Amendment (Determination) Regulations 2022, and it does literally two things.
Who signs it?
Who signs it? I'll get to that, Member for McEwen. He's stealing my lines! The member for McEwen is always at least one step ahead of me.
An opposition member interjecting
It doesn't say much for me; no, it doesn't! This regulation does two things. It literally changes two sentences in the act. It omits '1 May' and substitutes 'the first business day after 25 May'. What happened just before 25 May? What was happening then? A tiny thing called a federal election. It omits '56 days' and substitutes '30 days'. And who signed it? I think the member for McEwen knows. Who signed it? Angus Taylor, the member for Hume, the minister for energy. But, no, he didn't cause the delay! That is the level of respect that the coalition has for the Australian people. They hid the 19 per cent power price rise that was occurring under their watch.
This energy policy chaos on the other side has been occurring at the same time as Putin's illegal war in Ukraine. His illegal invasion in Ukraine is driving up gas and coal prices. So families and businesses, unfortunately, have been hit with a double whammy of Vladimir Putin and Angus Taylor, and it's an awful double whammy. In contrast, we're being upfront. We're producing strong measures to put rigour into energy policy and to attack energy prices to provide some certainty for investors. We're reforming the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism. We've put in place new heads of agreement, but, ultimately, the key to reducing pressure on power prices is increasing renewable energy in the grid. Everyone knows the cheapest form of new energy is renewable energy.
I've heard 'It's not' from the member for New England—the gift that keeps on giving. We'll drive the renewable energy into the grid through the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation fund, through $200 million for community batteries, through $100 million for community solar banks and through $62 million of energy efficiency grants from small and medium-sized enterprises. That is our policy—to drive renewable energy into the grid to put downward pressure on energy prices.
That's our policy. What's the policy of those opposite? They are the alternative government, and I'm hoping the opposition leader speaks about this tonight in his budget reply. I hope he's going to be honest with the Australian people. What's their one energy policy? Nuclear power.
Nuclear power—three syllables!
Nuclear power—that's what the member for Fairfax has in mind. That's what the member for New England is evangelical about. There are only a couple of problems with it. Firstly, it will triple the cost of power in this country, at least. Secondly, I'm yet to find a community that wants to house a nuclear power station. I've got two people opposite me who represent regions close to mine. Here's my question to the member for Page.
He's got plenty of water sources in his electorate. You need plenty of water for a nuclear power station. Does the member for Page want a nuclear power station on the North Coast? Does the member for New England want a nuclear power station in Tamworth?
He said he's happy to have one. Let the record show that the member for New England is happy to have a nuclear power station in Tamworth, or Armidale, or both, perhaps. This is the quality of debate we have from those opposite: smears, lies and policies that will put up power prices and endanger communities. That is what we're facing. Instead, we will have responsible government acting in the national interest. (Time expired)
As engaging as rigorous debate is, the level of interjections was escalating. Let's try and have a respectful debate.
I'd like to start with a quote from Baltasar Gracian, of 1601 to 1658—don't you worry about him, Mensa! One of the key issues there, he said, was that it's better to be done on price than to be done on merchandise. What's happened to the Australian people is that they were done on both by the Labor Party at the last election. They've been done on both because the most pressing issue out there right now is the cost of living. People cannot afford their power bill. They cannot afford to fuel their car through the year at the prices there are at the moment. They are struggling with their grocery bill. And each one of these—power, groceries, fuel—is attached to both domestic and international so-called 2030 legislated targets and 2050 legislated targets. If you believe in the targets, you believe these people should be poor. If you want to legislate for the targets and drive people towards it, then you are responsible for the fact of what is happening to their power bills. You are responsible for what is happening to their fuel bills. You're responsible for the fact that fertiliser prices are going up, reflected in their grocery bills.
We are seeing what's happening around the world. We know what's happening. The power crisis in the UK and in Europe did not start with the Ukraine war; it started with the wind drought in the United Kingdom, where we had tens of thousands of people who had to go and find new providers because their power contracts fell over. What we now have, what we are seeing as this crisis goes on in Europe, is the reality coming back. There are 21 coal-fired power stations now coming back online in Germany, and that has been brought forward by a minister who's a member of the Greens. Why? Because they need the power to provide the basics to people—basic dignity back into their houses and the capacity to afford to heat their houses.
We are seeing, in what is happening around the world, what will happen in Australia if we do not have a reality check and understand that there is not one developed country in the globe that has brought down power prices with wind or solar—not one. Why do people believe that we're somehow unique and that it's going to happen here? It won't. It is not going to. The facts are there for everybody to see. Look at your power bill. That is what happens when you get tied to targets. It is up to the Labor Party now. Because they are the government, they are now responsible for what happens next. What happens next is now on their shift.
What we're also seeing quite obviously is that we get a sense of ridicule from the Labor Party because we suggest nuclear. There are small modular reactors that are coming on. You want smart jobs? You want zero emissions? You want high-paying jobs? That's where the world is going. And they laugh at it. Let's look at some of the countries that are so stupid, such as the United States, France, Sweden, Argentina, China, Japan! All these people must be so stupid, because they're all developing it! Look at the companies, such as Hitachi, Westinghouse, General Electric, KEPCO, Mitsubishi, Rolls-Royce—all these silly people, all these silly countries, developing small modular reactors! And, yes, I would have one in New England. Rolls-Royce is developing one now for the city of Leeds—16 metres high, four metres wide, and it will produce enough power for the city of Leeds, over 500,000 people, with zero emissions. So one of them—16 metres high, 40 metres wide—will do 1½ Canberras. Of course I want to have that sort of technology. Of course we want it here. I want to produce it here. I want to use it here. All we are doing at the moment is digging up the rocks for other people to be clever. Let's be clever ourselves.
I started with Baltasar Gracian but I'm going to have to finish with Beyonce. I was looking at one of my favourites, 'Say my name'. But now, for the Labor Party, it's not 'Say my name'; for the Labor Party, for Australia, it's just, 'Say the number, say the number. If no-one is around you, say, "$275, I love you."' They will never say the number. It's just beyond them. 'They're acting kind of shady and they don't want to call us baby.' I think it's best summed up by Beyonce Knowles, born in Houston, Texas, in 1981 and still with us today: 'Why don't you say the things that you said to me yesterday?' You know why? Because it is not the truth. They know what the truth is. They know that their promises on power were total and utter rubbish.
s VAMVAKINOU () (): I have to confess I'm a little bit confused by the opposition's framing of this MPI, but I guess you'd have to sympathise with the opposition, because they obviously can't stand on their own record on tackling increasing energy prices, because there is no record, and there was never a plan. Listening to those opposite, you would think Australians just woke up overnight having to contend with energy bills. You would be forgiven for thinking that they weren't governing for nearly a decade and that the lights and heating in homes and the operating costs of engine rooms in factories weren't placing ever-increasing pressures on budgets under their watch. How disconnected from the realities facing ordinary Australians must they be to think that people were not calling out to those opposite for years to address the increasing cost-of-living pressures? I'm sorry to say this, and excuse the pun, but they must really have a dim view of the realities that working families and businesses across Australia have faced under their watch.
So let's enlighten those opposite. Excuse this second energy pun, but this MPI would really be laughable if it weren't speaking to such a serious and important issue that is on the minds of everyday Australians. Instead, it can only be described as shameless. This is an MPI put forward by those who were part of a government which oversaw four gigawatts of dispatchable power leaving the grid, and only one gigawatt replacing it. It's one put forward by those who, when they were in government, concealed energy price rises during the election and hid delays on major projects. The previous government, and indeed the former energy minister, the current shadow Treasurer, not only knew that electricity prices were skyrocketing; he also ordered that the information be hidden from the Australian people before the election. The member for Hume actually amended the industry code for electricity retailers to delay the release of increases in the default market offer until after the election—a whopping 19.7 per cent increase to the default market offer sneakily hidden from the Australian people. It is nothing but denials, delays and dishonesty from those opposite. On their watch, they promised $1 billion to support 3,800 megawatts of new generation over three years ago but delivered not a single dollar, not a single kilowatt.
We understand the impact that higher energy prices are having on households and businesses. After a decade of chaos and delay in domestic energy policy, working families are indeed under pressure. The Albanese Labor government is taking action to clean up the mess created by those opposite. We have a plan that is structural on both the macro and micro level. These challenges won't go away overnight, but, with the states and the private sector, we're investing $20 billion in the transmission grid, targeting 82 per cent renewables into the grid and reforming the market to reduce volatility and increase transparency for consumers.
Our $20 billion Rewiring the Nation fund is already delivering two major projects totalling $6 billion, including in my home state of Victoria. We're investing $157.9 million in energy security and reliability. We're investing $63.9 million in dispatchable storage technology. And, if you want evidence of how starved those opposite are of any outcomes from their time in office when it comes to the issue of energy prices, this investment is redirected from one of their failed programs which delivered zero megawatt capacity—zero, nil. It's a mark of shame for all of the lost years that could have been used to put this country in good shape and to face the ever-changing global circumstances. Whichever measurement you look at, whether it be megawatts, kilowatts or measured in sound policy, those opposite delivered zero, and the result, sadly, is what we are facing today.
While the world is undergoing a fundamental transformation shift in energy markets, those opposite failed, for nearly 10 long years, to prepare this country for the future. We called on them, and they ducked and weaved. In contrast, we put forward a plan, and we're getting on with the business of government. The current cost of living is a huge concern to my constituents, and the previous government's inaction did absolutely nothing to stop the escalating costs of essential resources. The only way to ensure equitable and affordable access to power in the future is through policy settings that will help develop the whole scale transition of our energy market.
Obviously, it's been budget week, and budget weeks are usually very interesting weeks in this chamber and this building, because a government of the day paints its vision about its plans for Australia moving forward and the solutions that it sees to the problems we face, while giving Australians an idea about what those are. This week, this budget has been the no hope, no solutions budget. It's been brought down by a Treasurer who, really, has been known as 'Mr Misery' since he's taken over as Treasurer, because he's been talking down our economy and talking down our communities, in the sense of what's going on, ever since the day he took over. There's no grand plan in this budget either.
There were a number of disappointments in the budget, and I think the major one would be what we're talking about today. As is well known, one of the core promises of the then opposition, now government, was that they were going to lower power prices by $275 a year. Not only did they say that, they said it on many occasions. I've got a quote here from the now defence minister, who talked about the 'rigorous modelling' and said that it was some of 'the most extensive modelling that any opposition had ever done'. So this wasn't just a figure plucked out of thin air. This was a promise of a $275 lowering of electricity prices. And, to quote again from the now Minister for Defence, he said that it was, 'rigorous modelling' and 'the most extensive modelling that any opposition had ever done'. So this wasn't an off-the-cuff thing.
What we found out in this budget, this week, is that, instead of power prices going down by $275 a year, they're actually going to go up. If you look at the percentage that they say prices are going to go up by, it will be equivalent to an increase of about $1,000 a year for a family. They said prices were going to go down by $275; they're actually going to go up by $1,000. This is a great betrayal of the Australian people, by this new government. Of course, they don't own that. They don't say, 'Gee, we got that wrong.' They make up excuses. One of their great excuses is the Ukraine war. A message to the government: the Ukraine war was going before they came into government. The supply issues and the disruption of the Ukraine war weren't something that happened after they came into government; they were going on before they came into government.
In fact, there were many members and ministers in the new government who were still saying, after they came into government, that they were going to lower prices by $275. The Prime Minister has been well quoted on all the times that he talked about it. The Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, has been quoted on it. The Leader of the House, Tony Burke, was quoted on it. The Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, was quoted saying the same things. Again, when I talk about Mr Marles, the Minister for Defence, he was saying there was rigorous modelling. To now blame the Ukraine war is hypocritical. Sure, if they came into government and the Ukraine war started afterwards and caused some issues, they might say that, but the Ukraine war started well before they came into government.
When energy prices and electricity bills go up like this, what happens? It means that inflation goes up. Because of what they're not doing, energy bills go up and inflation goes up. That is why this cost-of-living pressure is accentuating. When inflation goes up, what else is going up? Interest rates are going up. An even bigger cost to people's and families' cost-of-living pressures is not energy prices; it would actually be, for those who have a mortgage, the interest rate pressures they're feeling with their mortgage costs going up as well. Again, this is really this new government's former prime minister Julia Gillard moment, when she said:
There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.
We all remember that. Of course, she then legislated one. With this government, it's, 'We're going to lower your power bills by $275,' which has been a complete betrayal of the Australian people in what they've done in the context of that.
I was eagerly awaiting the topic of today's MPI. When it finally arrived, I was somewhat gobsmacked. Energy prices! It's an important matter most definitely, but I can only gather that the topic—heavily workshopped, I'm sure—had been through a few drafts. I'm sure that one of the originals probably made mention to 'these energy price increases of the former Liberal government's own making', but, alas, the censor's pen came out and removed those key words.
Naturally, as we all know, you can't talk about the increase in power prices without first talking about the member for Hume. I'm disappointed the member for Hume isn't in the chamber for this. I would feel so Zen if I possessed the lack of self-awareness for my actions as the member for Hume does concerning this debate. I'm sure he sleeps well, like a baby, at night. The member for Hume was the minister responsible up to the bitter end of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, the ATM government. Their stink still resonates on power prices and on the energy debate, and will continue to do so for some time to come. If I lacked the ability to feel contrition or remorse, I'd probably come into this chamber too and, without skipping a beat, gleefully criticise a government that is tasked with tackling nine years of policy inaction, obfuscation and vandalism in the energy policy space. It all comes back to the member for Hume.
You would think that one of the biggest revelations on energy policy to come out after the demise of the ATM government was that the member for Cook was secretly also responsible for the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, the secret minister for all and sundry, a fully cooked ministerial alphabet soup. Instead, we find out that, merely four days before the election was called, the member for Hume amended the industry code for electricity retailers to delay the release of increases in default market offers for New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia until after the election—until they turned off the lights on their way out. Of course, we found this out long after the election. This is their MO; it is craven and it's not one befitting someone holding high office. Now, the member for Hume is coming into this place, along with his loyal soldiers, saying that they pulled the pin from the energy price grenade as they were leaving office, and they ask us how we intend to fix their mess. It is valid to ask, sure, but I would naturally expect some more humility had this come from anyone other than a crowd that included the member for Hume. Amnesia is a wonderful thing—a wonderful trait for those in opposition. How convenient!
Unlike the member for Hume, the gift that keeps on giving truly is renewable energy. We understand the impact high energy prices are having on households and businesses. Working families are under pressure due to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and a decade of chaos and delay in domestic economic policy. The previous government oversaw four gigawatts of dispatchful power leaving the credit and only one gigawatt replacing it. These challenges won't go away overnight. With the states and private sector, we're investing $20 billion in the transmission grid, targeting 82 per cent renewables into the grid and reforming the market to reduce volatility and increase transparency for consumers. On this side, in this government, we are getting on with the job of governing. The decade of denial and delay is over, good people of Australia. The adults are back in town, and we will continue to do all we can to bring down the cost-of-living pressures for you.
'No one held back, no one left behind'—that's what Labor promised Australians earlier this year. But Labor has left every person in this country who pays a power bill behind. Try this one on for size: 'You'll be better off under a Labor government.' It sounded wrong at the time, and now they've been exposed for not having a plan, being without any solutions and failing Australians on reliable and affordable energy. On Tuesday night we all heard about the problems and no solutions. This is what Labor do—they overpromise and underdeliver. And, sadly, this won't end.
When Labor was last in government, household electricity prices doubled, and here we go again. What is becoming more and more clear is that we're in the hands of a government that has no idea. They're living a pipe dream, hoping that the feel-good solution of no more gas or coal will fix their problems. Power must be available 24/7—it must be. I don't want to be the one who has to go and tell Mrs Smith, who is lying in her hospital bed on a ventilator, 'You have to hold your breath for the next 14 hours until the sun comes up again.' Does anyone else here want to do this? I don't think so. We simply need coal and gas to be part of our future to ensure both reliable and affordable energy. At the very least, we need to be having a conversation about nuclear.
The Liberals and Nationals will look at all energy options—coal, gas, wind, solar, hydro and nuclear. We on this side of the chamber are about making sure Australians can get the cheapest electron to their households and to their business. But it seems this anti-gas, anti-coal, anti-regions, anti-small-business, anti-ag, anti-plan and anti-commitment Labor government cannot bring themselves to displease the Greens. It will be the Australian families and small businesses that have to deal with these rising costs. This Labor government is about idealism, but what it needs is a good dose of realism. They are praying that these mystical and magical ideas are going to work, but their pipedream will mean that energy will cost more and that power won't be available to the people of this country. If we don't have energy at the right price in Australia, we are going to drive industry and business offshore. We don't want to do that. It's just not right for our people.
The government had the opportunity on Tuesday night to show good faith to Aussies and come good on their promises that had them elected to run this joint. But instead the Australian people were on the receiving end of even more uncertainty. On Tuesday night, this Labor government walked away from a commitment to reduce every household's energy bill by $275, a promise that was repeated over 97 times. Then on Wednesday the Treasurer said it was in the budget. Then an hour later he said it was not in the budget. Who is running the show here?
This is a huge issue when Aussie families are doing it tough. Labor is putting us on a path where we'll probably have to choose between our aircon and being able to buy veggies. The Treasurer gave us the news that households can expect a 50 per cent increase in their energy bills and a 40 per cent increase in their gas bills. Some might suggest it could be more. With increases as devastating as this, Aussie households deserve certainty and consistency from their government. My people in Dawson should not be left second-guessing. It's been a difficult week for Australians. This government has been caught with no plan and is taking hardworking Australians down the path to unaffordable energy. Australians deserve to have electricity that is reliable, affordable and available 24/7.
I would like to start by offering my applause to the Albanese Labor government, particularly the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, for delivering a budget that builds a stronger, more resilient and more modern economy. This government was elected with a mandate to deliver immediate cost-of-living relief to the millions of Australians struggling due to the mess left behind by those on the other side of this chamber. The previous government oversaw four gigawatts of dispatchable power leaving the grid and only one gigawatt replacing that. They concealed energy price rises during the election and hid delays on major projects.
These challenges will take much more than a few months to rectify, but this government, using a collaborative approach that has become a common theme for everything we do, is working closely with the states and the private sector to ensure the Australian people have the energy system that they need and deserve. This means an investment of $20 billion in the transmission grid, targeting 82 per cent renewables into the grid and reforming the market to reduce volatility and increase transparency for consumers. It means a package of reforms to the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism.
There have been rorts which are too many to name and $1 trillion in debt. As a nation, we are also faced with crises at home and across our shores which impact our economy. First there was the global pandemic, which put severe pressure on supply chains across the world. Now we have a war in Europe due to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, which is creating havoc in energy markets around the world and pushing electricity prices higher at home. I understand the impact high energy prices are having on households and businesses, and I wish the previous government had been aware of the risk of playing games with our nation's domestic energy policy. Instead, it was left to those who did nothing but leave a decade of chaos and delay behind.
The government's policies include moving a quarterly-basis consideration, modernising energy market regulation with the states and territories and increasing the monitoring and oversight of gas markets. It means investing $157.9 million in energy security and reliability, including the National Energy Transformation Partnership to bring more renewables online faster through national significant transmission projects, better social licence outcomes and enhancing transmission and planning; investing $20 billion through the Rewiring the Nation fund; and expanding and modernising household energy performance standards. I'll tell you what the Albanese government is taking action on: cleaning up the mess created by the previous government. I can confirm that renewable energy is cheaper and moving the energy grid to 82 per cent renewable will reduce energy prices. I can confirm that the previous government, including the former energy minister, the current shadow Treasurer, not only knew that electricity prices were skyrocketing but also ordered that the information be hidden from the Australian people.
Of course we stand by our plans to reduce power prices. Just as the Australian people gave us the mandate at the election, the Australian people will judge us on what we actually deliver. Our government is delivering a $7.5 billion five-point plan that delivers targeted cost-of-living relief for households without adding to inflation. Our plan puts some money in people's pockets; boosts productivity; grows the economy; includes cheaper childcare for more than 1.2 million families; progressively expands paid parental leave to six months by 2026; produces cheaper medicine by reducing the PBS maximum co-payment to $30 a script; delivers more affordable housing; and gets wages moving again. I thank the House.
I concur with the previous speaker. The government will absolutely be judged on what they deliver for the people of Australia. From what they said in their budget last night, they're going to deliver a spectacular increase in electricity prices over the next two years. This matter of public importance was a great opportunity for members of the government because implicit in it is the suggestion that the Labor Party lied at the last election, when they said that they were going to reduce power prices by $275. If I was a member of a government that was going to honour that promise, I would have lined up speaker after speaker to say: 'No, we stand by that. We did not lie to the people of Australia during the election campaign and we stand by the commitment we made, a solemn commitment, on one of the most important things—the household budget. We stand by that commitment, and the suggestion that it will not be delivered is absolutely incorrect. We look forward to going to the next election proving that we have delivered on that promise—thus, securing support for re-election.'
Instead, what have we had from all of the speakers so far? Frankly, it was a bit too incoherent to recap. Some of them weren't even talking about electricity prices but there's not a lot of content from those opposite when it comes to defending a proposition that electricity prices are going up, having committed to the people of this country that by voting for them, they would be reducing them. I've got some advice for the Labor Party. Firstly, don't lie to people in an election campaign. Don't tell them you will reduce their electricity prices—one of the most significant things in the household budget—and then get elected and break that promise. Do not do that to people. It is absolutely disgusting. It's actually beyond politics. If we've gotten to the point where you say something like that to people and 25 million Australians say, 'Look, there's one of the two major parties—one of the two options for government—has given a commitment that if I vote for them, my bills are going to fall by $275 a year', and then you break that promise within six months, it is a disgraceful situation for politics to be in this country. Secondly, if you're the Labor Party and you did lie, come clean about it. Just come clean and say: 'Look, that's not right. We just needed to say that to get your vote and now that you've voted for us and now that we're in government, it's actually not true. We're not doing that at all. In fact, it's even better than that. Not only are we not cutting your electricity bills, we're increasing by more than 50 per cent over two years. Isn't this a funny little joke we played on you? Isn't this some great trickery?'
I hope you're all impressed and enjoying that great fraud that was committed upon the people, but stop lying about it. Tell the lie to win votes, and you'll be commensurately punished at the next election for telling that lie, and the Labor party will. But now that the election's over, let's not have this charade continuing when you handed down a budget last night that said that electricity prices are going to increase by more than 50 per cent in two years and not concede that the Labor Party's commitment at the election to reduce prices is an absolute lie.
My third piece of advice for the Labor Party is this: if the situation is as diabolical as the budget papers indicated last night, do not bury your heads in the sand and do not have members of the government come into this chamber and make all these debating points about what happened in the past. Whether or not any of those facts are true, the Labor Party were the ones who, aware of all that information, went to the last election with a commitment to reduce electricity prices, only to now say: 'It's all too hard. We've gotten into government, and it turns out this whole "running the country" thing is a little more difficult than we thought.' They are just giving up on electricity prices and handing down a budget that says, 'Electricity prices are going up, and we will also do nothing about it—absolutely nothing, except for talking about previous ministers and previous governments.'
The people of this country expect a government that understands their challenges and comes up with solutions to the problems that face this nation. The greatest problem facing this nation is clearly an out-of-control energy crisis that is going to cripple families and businesses in this country. The fact is that we've got a government that wants to say to people, 'There's a big problem, and it's not our job to solve it'. It is a great indictment upon the government, and I can't wait for the next election, because the people of Australia are going to have a lot to say about that disgraceful approach to public policy. (Time expired)
Those opposite have come in here today to try to tell us that we don't have a plan to address the issue of surging power prices which impact hard-working families like those in my electorate of Hunter, like the type of family that I grew up in. I will not stand here and be told that Labor does not understand the struggles of the working people. I will not stand here and allow that from those opposite, who like to play dress-ups and pretend they understand what it's like for the everyday Australian family to be hit with an increased energy price, when they knew it was coming.
You guys knew it was coming. Yes, they deliberately and, some may say, conveniently, hid the report when they knew that Australian households would be hit in the hip pocket by an increase in power prices. Instead of warning families in the Hunter electorate, they decided it would be better for them to keep it to themselves. They decided that warning real people about real issues that would have a real impact on their lives was less important than winning the votes of those same people who they claim to care about. Well, look how that turned out for them. I hope the seats on that side are comfy, because they sure are over here.
The opposition claim that we don't have a plan. Well, let me say something to the opposition: not only do we have a plan to address this issue but we also have the guts to acknowledge it. We have the guts to go to the Australian people and be upfront, instead of pretending we didn't know and letting it hit Australians in the face as if it came out of nowhere. What this budget has confirmed is that we don't play politics with people's lives. If you want to see a government without a plan to address an energy crisis, just cast your mind back 160 days. Yes, that's right—we've only been in government for 160 days. The issue that exists now was certainly around before the election.
The previous government oversaw four gigawatts of dispatchable power leaving the grid with only one gigawatt replacing it. The previous government hid the delays on major projects like Snowy Hydro, keeping the public in the dark on the issues that matter to them. It's like they've loosened all of the nuts and bolts on the dining-room table and then, when they've gone and sat at it, they're yelling and screaming, claiming that it was all those other ones who broke it.
How are we going to fix it, you ask? By investment, such as with $224 million for the community batteries and households solar grants programs. This will deploy 400 community-scale batteries for up to 100,000 Australian households. We've already got one that AGL has just done in the Hunter, and it's going amazingly. We'll introduce reforms to the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, which will modernise our energy market regulation with our states and territories and also increase the monitoring and oversight of the gas market.
These challenges are difficult. We know that, and we know that they won't away overnight. But it will happen. We have a plan to work with the states and the private sector. We are investing $20 billion into the transmission grid to make our energy system more reliable. We aren't sitting back and watching the world go by; we are getting out there and getting things done. We are doing the work that should have been done a decade ago. We're rewiring the nation and getting more renewable energy in the grid, instead of flip-flopping around like those opposite did for ten years. Was it 25 or 27 energy policies and plans that the previous government had in the last decade? It's hard to keep track, but it's more than my fingers and toes put together. There's no excuse for this, especially since those who play dress-ups opposite even had two energy ministers at the same time when the Prime Minister so generously offered himself to take on the portfolio as well. Surely ScoMo could have helped out his mate Angus Taylor—
The member will refer to members by their correct titles.
The member for Cook could have helped out his mate the member for Hume, the guy who wants to be Australia's Treasurer now, to come up with a solution. But no, he left it to us. It's lucky we're here for the job. The previous government left this country and our energy system behind, but our government doesn't leave anyone behind.
The time for this discussion has concluded.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (3) as circulated together.
Leave granted.
I move government amendments (1) to (3) as circulated together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 209, page 35 (line 3), omit "80F, 86, 95, 96B and 99", substitute "80, 87, 96, 100 and 104".
(2) Schedule 2, item 8, page 36 (line 20), omit "(6)", substitute "(7)".
(3) Schedule 2, item 10, page 36 (line 24), omit "(6)", substitute "(7)".
For the benefit of the House, I'm moving government amendments to the Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022. These amendments are minor technical corrections and cross-references that are necessary to ensure the bill operates as intended. In the drafting process a number of errors occurred as an oversight. Renumbering the bill will fix those. Certain references were not correctly renumbered, essentially, as the bill was changed as it was drafted. The amendments fix incorrect references to ensure the bill has intended effects. There are no other changes to aspects of the substantive portions of the bill and they don't have any financial impacts.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That Ms Chaney be appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That business intervening before notice No. 9, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the private Members' business notice relating to the disallowance of the Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Prohibition) Rules 2022 made under section 432 of the Export Control Act 2020 on 5 April 2022 and presented to the House 26 July 2022, standing in the name of the Member for Clark being called on immediately.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Prohibition) Rules 2022 made under the Export Control Act 2020 on 5 April 2022 and presented to the House on 26 July 2022, be disallowed.
The northern summer export ban for sheep was introduced in 2019, banning exports between the whole of June and the whole of September. This was a response to the 2018 McCarthy review into the conditions for the export of sheep to the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer. That McCarthy review found that a ban should apply on all shipments between May and October due to the extreme heat stress suffered by the sheep on those vessels. That review was, in turn, a consequence of the 2017 Awassi Express scandal, when about 2½ sheep perished on the Awassi Express export vessel.
I would remind all honourable members of the terrible conditions that were revealed on the Awassi Express, which were made public in 2018. Who can forget the shocking—they are genuinely shocking—images that were revealed to the public after that voyage? Sheep and lambs were literally drowning in shit and urine—terrible conditions on that vessel. Sheep were panting uncontrollably, constantly, all day and all night. They were as graphic demonstrations of animal cruelty as anyone has ever seen in this country. It was entirely reasonable that the government of the time established the McCarthy review and that, as a result of the McCarthy review, a ban was put in place on the export of sheep to the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer.
I tell all that background because it's very, very important for honourable members to understand the ban was based on expert advice and science. It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction; it wasn't some sort of emotive response to the sight of an animal suffering. It was based on expert advice and science. How, then, do we explain that in April 2022—this year!—the then coalition government made regulations which effectively reduced the live-export prohibition period during the Northern Hemisphere summer? I remind members that those regulations made by the previous government allowed Australian exporters to take sheep through the Red Sea to Israel for that two-week period from 1 to 14 June, which had been previously banned. Moreover, in terms of the ban on exporting to some Persian Gulf destinations, including Qatar—although not the major live export ports of Oman and Kuwait—live exporting was allowed to begin a week earlier, on 22 May, this year. Effectively, this means there was an 11-day reduction in the prohibition on exporting sheep to Qatar and a 14-day reduction in the prohibition on exporting sheep to Red Sea destinations.
This was such a blatant political fix in the lead-up to a federal election. In fact, the previous government implemented the changes to regulations not just before the May election this year but also before a review into the live export trade was finalised by the department. It was a political fix. The question now is: what will the new government do in response to this disallowance motion? The new government—the Labor government—of course went to the federal election with a promise—a policy—to, over time, wind up the live sheep trade to the Middle East. So you would think logically that the government will support this disallowance motion. For the government to have gone to an election with that promise and not to support this disallowance motion would be a remarkable turn of events, and it would suggest that the new government is happy to continue to walk both sides of the track when it comes to animal welfare.
The choice today is really simple and really clear. Either the government will support this disallowance motion and be pro animal welfare or the government will come in here and not support this disallowance motion and be anti animal welfare. That is the challenge confronting this government. I say 'challenge'. I don't think it should be a challenge; it should be a straightforward matter. Will the government continue to kowtow to the live animal export industry—as was the case for the previous nine years by the previous LNP government—or will the new government come in here, show some backbone, show some humanity, show that it's prepared to deliver on its election commitment to, ultimately, wind up the live animal export trade and, in the interim, do everything it can to make it more humane until it is wound up?
It begs the question: why are we continuing this trade at all? We have an abundance of evidence that the live animal export trade, including the export of beef cattle to countries throughout South-East and North Asia, that it is systemically cruel. It goes back decades. There were a number of episodes in the 1990s. I can remember clearly in 2003 the Cormo Express scandal. That vessel called the Cormo Express bobbed around like a cork around the Middle East for a total of 80 days at sea and almost 6,000 sheep perished, not to mention all of the terrible suffering experienced by the tens of thousands of sheep that fortunately did survive. Turning from sheep to beef cattle for a moment, who can forget those images on Four Corners in 2011 of the barbaric mistreatment of Australian beef cattle in Indonesian slaughterhouses and the way those unfortunate cattle were treated? Thank heavens for the Animals Australia investigators. Thank heavens for the Four Corners ABC show that shone a light on the conditions being experienced by the beef cattle in Indonesia. Who can forget, in 2012, those images on the TV of Australian sheep in Pakistan being buried alive? Australian sheep were buried alive in Pakistan because we were happy to send our sheep off to these countries—all care, no responsibility.
Then of course, there was the 2020 episode with the Al Kuwait. I remind honourable members that the situation with the Al Kuwait was that in June 2020, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment—and this is particularly relevant to this disallowance motion—granted an exemption to the northern summer live export ban which allowed approximately 35,000 sheep to be shipped into the scorching Middle East summer on the vessel Al Kuwait. The government's after-voyage report on that voyage stated that a thousand sheep were exposed to score 4 on the heat stress scale, which is the highest level on the scale. This means that those thousand sheep were panting with open mouths and tongues protruding. Score 4 had never before been recorded in one of the reports of those voyages. The reason that's relevant is that there was an exemption made to the Northern Hemisphere summer ban, and the report came back top of the scale, almost off the scale, when it came to the scientific measurements of the suffering being experienced by those Australian sheep on the Al Kuwait vessel.
How much more evidence do we need to know that the live animal export trade is cruel, systemically cruel, and the only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade? Moreover, the live export industry is simply not in Australia's economic best interests. We are shipping thousands of processing jobs overseas, even though we know there is the capacity in existing Australian abattoirs to process those sheep in our country. We just need to recruit and train more workers, providing more jobs.
The trade does not have public support. Sure, it's got the support of the National Party and the Liberal Party. Sure, it's got the support of a relatively small number of sheep and cattle producers. Sure, it's got the support of a couple of shipping companies running ships manned by foreign crews. A small number of people depend on this industry. But the opposite side of the coin is that many millions of Australians are appalled by the trade and look to the government, any government, to show some leadership, show some humanity, show some interest in animal welfare and shut it down.
We've got to stop peddling these myths that come out of the proponents for the trade. They say the animals are treated humanely. Garbage. They say that the trade is in Australia's economic self-interest. Garbage. They say that customers in the Middle East won't buy processed meat. But I remind members that, in 2019, 57 million kilograms of boxed Australian lamb and mutton was sold into the Middle East. I'll repeat that, because it's very, very telling: in 2019, 57 million kilograms of boxed lamb and mutton—processed meat—was sold into the Middle East. They love the stuff. They can't get enough of the stuff. Why don't we keep sending them more of the stuff, instead of live sheep? Because some advocates for live exports say, 'But these poor people in the Middle East don't have refrigeration.' That's racist nonsense. It's complete and utter nonsense. As long ago as 2011—11 years ago now—a survey found that almost all households in the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain had refrigeration. They live like us—probably better, many of them. They've got fridges. They're not all out in the back with a dirty big knife wanting a live sheep, to slit its throat.
There is the argument that there are religious considerations and that, due to religious beliefs, people in these countries will only buy a live animal, so that they can kill it and process it in accordance with their religious beliefs. Again, that is complete and utter nonsense. There are numerous Australian abattoirs that are halal certified. That helps to explain why, in 2019, we sent 57 million kilograms of boxed lamb and mutton into the Middle East.
I've tried many times to shut this trade down. In fact, I think at last count I've moved five private member's bills with the aim of shutting down the live animal export industry. Each and every time, my private member's bills have failed to gain the support of the Liberal Party, the National Party or the Labor Party. So imagine my delight when, before the most recent election, the Labor Party were quite clear that they support a wind-up of at least the live sheep trade to the Middle East. Well, in a matter of minutes, maybe half an hour, we'll get to see whether the Labor Party took a fair dinkum promise to that election, or whether it was hollow. We'll get to find out very, very soon whether the Labor Party genuinely cares about animal welfare and wants to eventually shut down the live trade, or whether the Labor Party does not care about animal welfare and, in fact, wants to line itself up with a couple of shipping companies and their mates, as far as this policy goes, on the opposition benches.
That'll be the measure of the new government. I know that there are a lot of very good people in the new government. There are a lot of very good people on both sides of the chamber. There are an awful lot of people who support me and support my colleagues who are overtly calling for an end to this trade. Here's your chance to make amends. I say to anyone and everyone in this place: if you care about live animal exports, if you care about the terrible cruelty being experienced by Australian sheep on stinking hot ships, going to stinking hot countries at the height of the northern summer in the Middle East, when it's 50 degrees outside, what is it on the decks of these miserable hulks? Who knows? Something well north of 50 degrees. If you care about that, I say to my colleagues on both sides of the chamber: maybe even think of this as a conscience vote and vote to disallow the reduced ban on the export of sheep to the Middle East during the northern summer.
I second the motion. I thank the member for Clark for moving this disallowance motion for the Export Control (Animals) Amendment (Northern Hemisphere Summer Prohibition) Rules 2022, made under the previous government. These rules weaken the ban on live sheep exports to most port in the Middle East during the hottest months of the Northern Hemisphere summer. Two-thirds of Australians say that they support moves to completely end the export of live animals. Ending the live animal export trade has been one of the top issues that people in my electorate have been writing to me about. Australians have been horrified at the reports of sheep under extreme heat stress enduring cruel conditions and perishing in staggering numbers during the long voyages to the Middle East. They are also horrified by the treatment of sheep upon arrival at their destination, where they are subjected to brutal methods of transport and slaughtered with practices including tendon slashing and eye gouging.
In 2018, 60 Minutes televised footage taken by the whistleblower Faisal Ullah during a voyage that resulted in the death of nearly 2,400 sheep in horrifying conditions. This footage revealed to Australians the reality of the live sheep export trade. During these voyages to the Middle East, sheep endure weeks of torturous conditions, packed tightly onto ships, forced to stand for days on end in their own urine and faeces and experiencing extreme heat stress. Those that perish decompose so quickly in the heat that some deaths can't be counted. The 60 Minutes footage shocked Australians. It shocked people in my electorate and it shocked me. Four years earlier, in 2014, even more sheep perished on a similar journey. On that journey to Qatar 4,200 sheep died in simply awful conditions.
These incidents and others led to a ban on the export of live sheep to most ports in the Middle East during the hottest four months of the Northern Hemisphere summer. The previous government shortened the length of the ban by two weeks, allowing live sheep exports to resume through the Red Sea from 1 June to 14 June. However, when considering the suffering of these animals, we should look beyond mortality rates and also consider the heat stress indicators, such as open mouth panting. The most recent Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry report, September 2022, showed that sheep on 60 per cent of voyages during the Northern Hemisphere summer demonstrated extreme behavioural and physiological responses to heat. Simply put, they are suffering, it is torture.
Rather than shortening the ban on live sheep exports, we need to transition towards ending this practice altogether, as the current government have agreed to do, although they have not yet provided a time line. We're keeping an eye on that. In this context, it makes no sense to be weakening these bans.
I also want to recognise the work done by the member for Farrer, who introduced a private member's bill in 2018 to phase out live sheep export by ship to the Middle East where the voyage last 10 days or longer. As the member for Farrer said: 'If we increase the processing capacity in Australia, we actually don't need this trade at all.' I agree with the member for Farrer. According to Pegasus Economics, the Australian live sheep export industry is in structural decline, with exports down 70 per cent since 2018. Rather than propping up this declining industry, Australia should focus on investing in our onshore processing sector. This is both more humane for livestock and better economically for Australia, with the potential to add jobs and millions of dollars to local farming communities.
However, before we investigate the full phase-out of live sheep exports, this parliament must back this disallowance motion and reinstate the original four-month ban. To do anything less is inhumane and deprives local Australian farming communities of the economic benefits of onshore processing. The member for Clark's disallowance motion, reinstating the original, full four-month ban on live sheep exports, is a step in the right direction. It is the right thing to do. It can be a springboard to help the parliament to go further and begin phasing out live sheep exports completely. I support this disallowance motion and call on the House to support it as well.
I acknowledge the member for Clark's motion and I acknowledge the conviction of the member for Clark on this issue over many years in the conversations we've had, but I ask him to open his mind. The assessment that he's made is predicated on the Awassi Express incident of 2017—I was the minister in 2018—which, I agree, was wrong, and it had to be fixed, and I fixed it.
Let me be clear about this: there needed to be significant reforms after that incident and we needed to move from a mortality methodology to an animal welfare methodology. We are the first country in the world that has moved from a mortality standard to an animal welfare standard, because of the reforms that I put in place as the minister. I'm proud of those. I'm proud of the fact that we are now making decisions. Those decisions about the northern summer that you're talking about were, in fact, decisions that I brought in with industry.
I have to acknowledge the industry. The industry put a self-imposed ban on the northern summer until the science was determined. We have continued to work on that science—on the stocking densities and the types of sheep that go over in those shoulder periods and when to stop it altogether—so much so that the decision that was made on this still precludes it in some parts of the Middle East, because it is too hot, as you've said. That has meant working with the Bureau of Meteorology and other international meteorological societies to make sure that the data is correct. We made sure about the size of the animal that goes on. In fact, even the length of the wool is determined.
You talked about a special approval being given in June 2020. That was provided only because of COVID-19. It was provided because there were 56,000 sheep sitting on a boat that was already docked and loaded. They couldn't have been taken off or they would've all been destroyed. Every one of those 56,000 sheep would have been destroyed, so the right thing to do was to reduce the number down to 36,000, using the science that we had, to make sure that we could have some hope of letting those sheep sail. That was a hard decision to make, but it was one that was thrust upon us as the result of COVID-19, because the boat was meant to sail pre the closing of that window.
Let me make this clear: this new order that I put in place before the election was predicated on the science of this northern summer and of when sheep can sail and of the quality of those sheep that can sail. When they go to the Middle East, this is a food security issue. I'm sorry to tell you that this industry is not in decline. You might want to look at ABARES. ABARES shows that it's a $107 million industry this year. It'll be $119 million next year. Let me tell you that the reason it was in decline in 2018 is that there was this little thing called a drought. If you want to come west of the divide and have a look at how agricultural production takes place, when drought hits stock numbers go down. It's not rocket science; it's agricultural production.
Let me tell you, this isn't in decline. I've been to the Middle East and I've actually seen the facilities. What we have and what we put in place—not only our government but governments before of both persuasions—was two systems. There is ASEL, which protects those animals, whether they be sheep, cattle, donkeys or anything we export live. There are standards that are set that the exporters must adhere to. Then there is ESCAS. That means when those sheep or cattle or any animal gets to another destination in country, those in-country facilities must adhere to those standards, which are Australian standards, the world's best standards. If they do not, then we simply do not send any animal to those facilities. Exporters themselves have stopped a number of facilities, particularly in cattle, immediately. In fact at one sheep facility in the Middle East, where the stockmen were using more aggressive means of getting sheep into a pen than we would have thought reasonable in Australian standards, we stopped it. But we invested in the education to make sure that those facilities were done properly.
In the Middle East it's not about refrigeration; it's about culture. I've been to a brand new facility in Kuwait City. That is to ESCAS standards, Australian standards, but it respects the cultural differences between our two countries in a respectful way, to make sure that that can be adhered to it. It's not barbaric. Those cultures are rich and should be respected, but if they can learn the ways in which we as Australians have the best animal welfare standards in the world, haven't we done a better thing for this world? Are we exporting our animal welfare standards to other countries by doing this? If you want to shut this industry off, let me tell you where the Middle East will get their sheep from: Sudan, Ethiopia, South Africa—
That's the drug dealer's defence!
Where is your moral compass? Let me ask the member for Clark, where is your moral compass? Do you value the welfare of a sheep from Australia above a sheep from the Middle East or from anywhere else in the world? Where is your moral compass? It shouldn't matter where an animal comes from; it should be treated in the best way with the best animal welfare standards in the world, and we have it. We have it and you're ignoring it. You're saying that a sheep from Sudan—
The member will address his remarks through the chair.
which is not treated in the same way, can go and be killed that way? Can be put on a boat where there are no standards about how many can go on the boat? They don't count how many go on the boat; they count how many come off it.
So let me give you a stark reality of the real world, not the ideology of a capital city, the ideology of how the world operates. This thing is not going away. This is a growing industry. This is a cultural issue that will not go away. In other markets it is around refrigeration and food security. Let me make this clear. I invested about three months of my life in cleaning this industry up. I'm proud of what I've done, but I'm proud of what the industry has done, because they came on the journey. They made sure that they got the science right, that they had the best animal welfare standards in the world. We're not going to run for cover, like cowards, and let someone else do it and not do it as well as the Australians. That's not the Australian way. We're better than that. But you don't want to be like that. You want to run, put your head in the sand and not realise that there is a reality in the world.
So we're going to continue to make sure we support this industry. It's not barbaric. One of the most important things I did was give truth and proof on those boats, independent observers. I challenge all those that condemn the live export industry: you can actually see the photos. They are not standing in urine or in faeces. In fact they are waited on between here and the Middle East. The tests are very clear. The science is very clear. In fact they are putting weight on because they are in an environment that is helping that. Even the markets in the Middle East are telling us that because we have better standards now these animals are better in terms of the condition they arrive in and the standard that they're able to provide.
You talk about public support. Let me give you a bit of six to four on public support. I've actually seen the polling on this, and it's not as cut and dried as you might think. But this shouldn't just be about public support. It should be about doing the right thing—doing the right thing for animal welfare, whether the animals are from Australia, Sudan or the Baltic states. So don't think you're virtuous and think you have some sort of moral compass that is greater than anyone else's, because there is a reality in the world that this trade will continue and it will continue to increase—in places like Qatar. Qatar, yes, does import some of our boxed and chilled meat. But I had a conversation with the Prime Minister in his own residence about the fact that he will continue to get this, whether it's from Australia or somewhere else, but he'd prefer to get it from Australia.
I'm proud of the reforms we put in place—the independent observers, the stocking densities. To think that we can just put the processing sector up is being ignorant about the reality. You can't. In fact, most of the facilities at the moment are only at about 60 per cent because they don't have the people in there to run them. So, while I respect your conviction, just understand the practical reality of the world. We've got a responsibility to stay, to get it right and to do it in the Australian way because that's the best way.
I want to acknowledge all the previous speakers. The government are committed to protecting animal welfare, and that is exactly why we are opposing this motion. At the May election, the Australian people endorsed Labor's policy to phase out the trade of live sheep by sea. In fact, in Tuesday night's budget we announced funding for the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare. We've committed to working with industry on an animal welfare strategy. We've committed to the phase-out of live sheep by sea. Labor are committed to ensuring that live animal exports are well regulated while we work with industry to transition away from the trade. Now, we were surprised to learn that the member for Clark and the Greens were seeking to move this disallowance motion today. But, if this motion were to pass, it would produce worse outcomes for animal welfare.
In April this year, amendments to the northern summer prohibition rules were made to improve the management of heat-stress risks for sheep exported in late May. The rules introduced a 10-day conditional prohibition period, preventing export to some Persian Gulf destinations, off the back of new data that showed an increased risk of heat stress during this period. This strengthens animal welfare. The rules further impose additional conditions targeted at heat-stress risk reduction that must be met during the designated period. This also strengthens animal welfare.
To disallow this instrument would force the regulators to find new, likely weaker measures to protect animal welfare. Voting for this disallowance is a bad outcome for both animal welfare and the exporters. The government's commitment to phase out the trade of live sheep by sea reflects community sentiment. Balancing community expectation and Australian industry remains a key priority for the government. That is why we will continue to support regulators to protect animal welfare as we work with industry to phase out the trade of live sheep at sea.
I rise to speak in support of the disallowance motion put forward by the member for Clark. The decision by the department of agriculture, water and the environment to partially roll back the ban on exporting sheep to the Middle East during the hottest months of the year ignores scientific evidence, ignores animal welfare and has deeply disappointed my community in Wentworth. The changes introduced by the department run contrary to the findings of the heat-stress review commissioned by the government, which identified heat-stress risk on all shipments to the Middle East that occur between May and October. Partial reversal of the June export ban will push sheep to their biological limits and could result in many deaths. The change should be reversed and the full June to September export ban reinstated.
More generally, my community in Wentworth believes strongly that we need to modernise our animal welfare laws and end live exports of sheep as soon as feasible. Research by the Alliance for Animals highlights the appalling conditions that animals are subject to on these voyages, including 24-hour lighting, 90 decibels of noise, faeces acting as bedding and inadequate dietary provisions. This is a fundamentally inhumane trade. It needs to be phased out so that we can alleviate the unnecessary suffering of millions of animals and restore our damaged animal welfare reputation.
The most important thing for the Australian community to understand is that the Albanese Labor government has made a commitment to transition out of the live sheep export trade, and we will keep that commitment. The minister has made it clear, on a number of occasions since the election, that that is what it will deliver and the minister is undertaking that work.
I acknowledge the member for Clark's consistent position and his relentless advocacy in relation to seeing the live sheep trade come to an end. It's a position, needless to say, I share. I've been part of that campaigning almost my whole life. Ninety per cent of the sheep that are involved in the live sheep export trade come from Western Australia, and they all go out of the port of Fremantle. The civil society advocacy efforts that have recognised the deeply rotten fundamental nature of this trade began in Fremantle and have continued in Fremantle over the last 30 or 40 years. The question for the Australian community and this House to consider is how that is done, and it's not done by this disallowance motion.
I want to address some of the things that the minister said before. It's not right for the minister to come into this place and try in any way to suggest that the previous government took the rotten nature of the live sheep export industry seriously. It's important to remember that it was one of the very first things the previous government did upon coming to office: it removed the inspector of live sheep or live animal exports. As a consequence of a number of changes that were made—relaxation of export conditions and animal welfare protection measures—we saw, yet again, a sequence of animal welfare atrocities, including that of the Awassi Express.
The previous government came into office and, to the detriment of everyone—to the detriment of the animals most of all but even to the detriment of the farmers who had participated in the trade—they took away, altogether, what relatively flimsy and pathetic protective measures were there. What ensued was, quite predictably, another set of animal welfare atrocities. So the fact that the minister was proud of the months that he had to spend trying to take some belated remedial action—it has to be seen in that context. Everybody who knew something about this trade knew that the sequence of terrible animal welfare circumstances would roll on, again and again—and the fact that the previous government moved as fast as it possibly could to take away the very few protections that were in place at that time only ensured that those things happened.
To the extent that there were people in Western Australia, whether they were farmers, truck drivers or feedlot operators, affected by the response, the moratorium that had to be put in place—they should level that blame where it belongs. They should level that blame on the jokers over there who came and took the brakes off, who thought that it was clever to take the relatively flimsy and pathetic protections that were in place away altogether. They took them away altogether. The result was the Awassi Express. The result was the death and suffering of thousands and thousands of sheep in the most appalling conditions. Australians have seen the truth of that. They have judged that, and the expectation is crystal clear about the lack of tolerance in the Australian community for those kinds of outcomes. There is not a sliding scale that makes animal suffering acceptable at a certain price. The kinds of animal suffering that have occurred through the live sheep export trade is abominable, and it was enabled by those opposite. The fact that tens of thousands of sheep on voyage after voyage after voyage had to go through that hangs around the necks of those opposite. And the other effects—which, frankly, aren't as important—on farmers and transport operators hang around the next of those opposite.
We have made it clear that we are going to do what has been necessary for a long time. This is not a growing industry; this is an industry in decline. You can look at the year-on-year trade in live sheep. There were about six million animals a year at the turn-of-the-century and there are now fewer than 500,000 animals. If you look at a bar graph of this trade, it is a 45-degree angle down. It has decreased in pretty much every one of those 20 years. There might be two or three where it has slightly ticked up. That's nature of this industry. It is doomed, and this government is doing the responsible thing that those opposite never had the strength, the courage or the capacity to do.
We are managing a transition that has been under way for 20 years. We're going to do that in a responsible way. We're going to do that in a consultative way. The minister has met with everybody involved, from farmers to exporters to transport operators and, of course, to the animal welfare sector and community advocates. He is moving steadily, as you've already seen this government do in a number of areas in our short life, to implement what we have committed to doing. We have committed to transitioning out of the live sheep export trade. Hallelujah! We've been waiting for that for decades. It will occur, and it will be conducted in a prudent, steady, consultative way by Minister Watt and by this Labor government. I completely understand where the member for Clark is coming from, but as my friend the member for Solomon pointed out, the actual impact of this disallowance motion would be to take away some of the measures that were put in place recently that actually improve animal welfare, and that would be counterproductive.
Going to another point that was made by the member for Maranoa, about the best practice that he claims exists, he would know well that there was a review commissioned by the former government into the summer moratorium and how it was working, but that the review was compromised. That review occurred during the COVID period, and there were supposed to be independent inspectors on every voyage, but for two entire calendar years—2020 and 2021—there was an inspector on only one of those voyages. On every single voyage, even on the so-called model voyage on the shoulder of the moratorium period, there was scientific evidence of heat stress. There was scientific evidence of heat stress, even though the government influenced the departmental settings to try to increase the chance that the heat-stress levels might be acceptable. And that didn't occur. They didn't locate the heat-stress measures on the decks where the animals were kept—the heat-stress monitors were up on the bridge, which is just utterly ridiculous.
We're not going to continue turning a blind eye to the way that this industry has actually worked. We're not going to cherrypick and use what you might describe as creative scientific assessment methods to get you the outcome that you want. We're going to look this issue and this trade clear in the face. That's what the minister has been doing. That's entirely in keeping with our commitment to manage a sensible transition out of an industry that has been in decline for 20 years, that is at death's door, that has no social licence, and that has no broader social and economic necessity. As any sensible person in Western Australia will tell you, the nutrients manager, when asked about the cessation of the trade and whether that would in fact, as some people have hysterically claimed, lead to lower sheep numbers in Western Australia, said, 'Absolutely not.' Sheep numbers in Western Australia will continue to increase because there are lots of potential markets and existing markets for sheep in Western Australia. But the live sheep trade, which has consistently produced animal welfare failures, animal welfare atrocities and a range of other serious regulatory failures, will come to an end. It should have stopped a significant time ago. Those opposite didn't have the courage to manage a sensible transition. They didn't even have the courage to keep in place half-sensible animal protection measures; they stripped them away, and we saw the Awassi Express.
You're going to get different outcomes under this government. In this area, as in almost every other area of life, you will get sensible, prudent, consultative management of a transition that has been underway for some considerable time. I can tell you that my community of Fremantle and the people of Western Australia and more broadly will welcome a properly managed end to the live sheep trade.
I am the member for Barker, in south-east South Australia, and livestock is what we do. When I say 'what we do', it's also what my family does. I say that only for this reason: too often in this debate—and, I've got to say, this debate has been occurring in this nation for a number of years—farmers are cast as the animal rights abusers. Can I tell you this: nobody in this country as a cohort spends more money on animal welfare than the Australian farming sector. Just today my family has spent over $2,000 on drench alone. Why do we do that? We do that because we care about our animals. We do that because a healthy animal is a profitable animal. I don't want this debate to ever descend into attacks on Australian farmers.
The thing we've got to say about this debate—and this is the part that advocates, activists and others can never get away from—is: if Australia doesn't export these live animals to the world, who will? I'll tell you who will: they won't be nations that have an ESCAS. They won't be nations that care about livestock when they leave their borders. Effectively what you're doing, if you push the Australian industry to effectively ban live exports, which is the long-term trajectory of those opposite, or to end it immediately, which is no doubt the call from those who sit on the crossbench, is subjecting animals to greater levels of cruelty around the world. That's the reality.
Unlike the very strict requirements imposed upon Australian exporters of live animals, that void will be filled by jurisdictions who, quite frankly, don't give a toss. When I say 'give a toss', we don't just care about animals when they leave our jurisdiction or indeed when they're on water; we take action in country. Let's pause and think about this. We take this issue so seriously that we put resources in the jurisdiction of another country to ensure the citizenry of another country meets the standards we expect. No other jurisdiction in the world does that. If you force the Australian farming sector out of these markets, do you think these markets will naturally just evaporate? Do you think that demand which has been well established and built up will just expire? No; of course it won't. We will see other countries around the world meeting this demand. They'll only be too happy to.
A bit has been made about the Awassi Express. I haven't heard yet people talk about the media reporting relating to the Awassi, and the activities and behaviour as reported for Animals Australia. Direct payments, evidence of which has been provided, were being made directly to people on those voyages. I haven't heard those opposite address these issues. We had whistleblowers saying this was an act of sabotage by activists from within Australia, to destroy this industry.
In any event, what did our nation do as a response? Well, as we've always done, we ratcheted up the protections once again. We've ratcheted up the protections to the point that voyage mortality rates during Northern Hemisphere summers are currently at 0.2 per cent of one per cent. Presumably, those who bring this matter to the attention of the House would say: 'Well, that's unacceptable! I mean, 0.2 per cent of one per cent as a mortality rate is outrageous. That's why we have deal with this through a disallowance motion.' Let me tell you this, Mr Deputy Speaker, if we could achieve an on-farm mortality rate of 0.2 per cent of one per cent across our herds or flocks, we would be so excited. We can't, because mortality, unfortunately, is something that is real when you're a livestock producer. We say that if you've got live ones then unfortunately you've got dead ones.
So let's get real. If we end this trade out of Australia it will be taken over by another jurisdiction, and what you'll be doing is imposing greater levels of cruelty on animals across the globe, which will be transported from other jurisdictions to meet demand.
I rise, in the last few minutes before we divide on this motion, to make a few comments about the live export trade and how it impacts and benefits the people of my electorate of O'Connor, where probably 70 per cent plus of sheep for the export trade come from. The balance would come from the member for Durack's electorate, which borders mine.
That trade is worth around $130 million. The supply chain employs around 3,000 people in various jobs, whether they be truck drivers working pellet mills or workers on the wharves. So it's a significant industry for Western Australia—and I want to emphasise 'Western Australia'. It is now a peculiarly Western Australian industry. We export around a million sheep out of Western Australia in any given year, and that's part of a total worldwide trade of around 10 million to 12 million animals. So we account for around 10 per cent of the world trade.
My good friend the member for Fremantle, who's one of the really decent people in this place, claimed that the industry has no social licence. I'm sorry, Member for Fremantle: the Premier of Western Australia does not support the federal Labor government's policy of phasing out the industry at some undetermined date in the future. The Premier has said quite clearly that he does not want to see eastern state MPs and politicians—he didn't say 'from inner-city electorates' but I assume that's what he meant—coming to Western Australia and telling us to close down one of our important primary industries.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I'm here today to speak in support of what is a very important trade for Western Australia. That has been illustrated very much in the last few months, when we haven't been able to find workers for our local abattoirs. We rely on Pacific island labour. I attended the Fiji Day celebrations in Albany just a couple of weeks ago and met some of the Fijians working at the local abattoir. They are the most wonderful people you could ever hope to meet, but we rely on them leaving their families and coming to Australia. Some of those young men have been here for over 12 months without seeing their families. They're desperately homesick, desperate to go home, but they're staying here to keep that abattoir going.
Even with Pacific island labour, the abattoirs are operating at around 60 per cent capacity at the moment. What does that mean for Western Australian growers? During the winter moratorium, which lasts around four months, the trade cannot continue. During that four-month period, when the abattoirs are at capacity, farmers cannot turn off their animals. That's fine this year, we're having a wonderful season in Western Australia. Those sheep that have been kept on property for up to six weeks longer than they otherwise would have been are well fed and well cared for on the grass that's growing due to the great rains we've had this season.
Deputy Speaker Goodenough, let me tell you that in previous seasons, when the rainfall hasn't been as bounteous, that would have led to a massive animal welfare issue; sheep that could not be fed and could not be maintained without significant cost would have died on property. So it's critically important that we have that live export trade as a safety valve to take that surplus stock—those sheep that cannot be processed locally—(a) to pay the farmers and to get some income for them; (b) to take the pressure off the feed on their properties; and (c) to feed our friends and trading partners in the Middle East who rely on our food and trade for their food security. It's critically important for them.
My colleagues have spoken at length about the ESCAS and how that has exported superior animal welfare standards to every part of the world where we export our animals. That's whether it be to Vietnam, China, Indonesia or, indeed, across the Middle East. Those superior standards, which match the standards adhered to in our own abattoirs and our own meat-processing plants here, have been exported to the rest of the world.
I say to the member for Clark—and he'd be aware of this—that less than 12 months ago a ship from Romania carrying 16,000 sheep in wooden cages and with no animal welfare considerations whatsoever sank in the Black Sea. It took 16,000 sheep to the bottom with it. There are no standards in those countries. The nine to 10 million live sheep that are transported around the world which don't come from Australia will continue to have no standards applied to them—
That's the drug dealer's defence!
Honourable members interjecting—
On that note, I think I can go back to my growers and tell them that that's what the member for Clark and his fellow travellers think of the farmers—the hardworking, decent and honest farmers—in my electorate—
An honourable member: Criminal drug dealers!
He has likened them to drug dealers! On that note, let's have a vote on this.
The question is that the motion be disagreed to.
During question time, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Farrer, asked me to review the response and tone of the Prime Minister in his answer to a question from the member for Capricornia. I have reviewed the footage and I can confirm the Prime Minister was answering the question from the member for Capricornia. During the answer, the Prime Minister was also directly responding to interjections from the Leader of the Opposition.
In reviewing the footage, I did not see the Prime Minister show any disrespect to the member for Capricornia. As the footage was not on the member for Capricornia for the entire response, I did not see her leave the chamber. Of the footage of the member for Capricornia that I was able to review, she appeared engaged in response to the Prime Minister.
I thank the member for Farrer for raising this matter.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 11, government business, be postponed until the next sitting.
Question agreed to.
Sitting suspended from 18:04 to 19:3 1
We live in the best country in the world. But, for millions of Australians, things aren't easy right now. You're facing increasing financial pressures, in your mortgage repayments, insurance premiums, visits to the supermarket, filling up at the petrol station, and especially in your power bills. The cost of living is skyrocketing and it may seem out of control, yet it can be kept in check—but not while this Labor government makes bad economic decisions.
Labor's budget was a missed opportunity to help you at a time when you need help. It didn't address our economic challenges or inspire confidence. It's a budget which breaks promises rather than keeps them, it's a budget which weakens Australia's financial position rather than strengthens it and it's a budget which adds to rather than alleviates your cost-of-living pressures.
Peter and Lee are pensioners from Bankstown in New South Wales. They've been with the same energy company for more than 30 years. Their bill is set to rise by $753 in just 12 months.
Kel runs a multigenerational, family-owned IGA supermarket in Mapleton in Queensland. He negotiated a commercial and industrial energy contract when the coalition was in government and power prices were much lower than they are now. Today, Kel's business is threatened as he faces an increase of $160,000 on the power bill from last year alone.
But Peter, Lee and Kel's energy costs will go up further—that much we know. Under Labor's budget, electricity prices are set to rise by more than 56 per cent and gas prices by more than 44 per cent.
Now, we all know that these are difficult times. Nations around the world are contending with economic challenges born from the pandemic and amplified by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But, thanks to the coalition government's record, the fundamentals of the Australian economy are strong. The costs of living are going up, partly due to global conditions but also due to this Labor government's bad decisions. The Treasurer said his budget makes 'hard decisions for hard times'. But I say his budget makes bad decisions, making hard times even harder for all Australians.
Now, whether you're young, whether you're raising a family or you're retired, whether you're an employee or running a business, on Tuesday the Treasurer failed to mention in his speech what Labor's budget papers reveal: everything is going up, except your wages. The cost of living, power prices, taxes, interest rates, unemployment and the deficit are going up, or will be going up, under the government's predictions. The same budget papers confirmed that real wages are forecast to go down. And this means that, by Christmas, a typical family will be $2,000 worse off under this budget. So you have every right to be anxious and disappointed, because the Prime Minister has broken his faith with you.
The job of an opposition is not to oppose for the sake of it. We don't disagree with everything in this budget, and policy must be judged on its merits. If it's good for you, we will support it. If it's bad for you, we will stand against it. So we commend several good measures in Tuesday's budget: the extension of the childcare subsidy to more Australian families; the commitment to reduce the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment, to lower the cost of medicines; the support for housing for our veterans; the initiatives to combat domestic violence; and the funding to help Australians recover from devastating floods.
Tonight, I will tell you about some of the coalition's priorities, and I will also highlight where the budget is failing you: in energy, tax relief, housing, filling job shortages, industrial relations and infrastructure in our regions. Labor's budget makes life more difficult for millions of Australians and it shows, yet again, that Labor can't manage the economy when it forms government.
There's a historical pattern of Labor creating a mess and the coalition cleaning it up. Liberal Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello inherited a damaged economy from Paul Keating's Labor government of high interest rates and unemployment. They turned the economy around, showed financial restraint, introduced reforms like the GST, and left our nation with the Future Fund. In 2013, Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Treasurer Joe Hockey inherited a broken economy from Labor's Rudd-Gillard-Rudd tenure. They commenced budget repair and prepared for a rainy day. This work was continued by Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison. By 2019, the coalition brought the budget back into balance for the first time in 11 years.
Then, of course, in 2020, COVID-19 hit. That once-in-a-generation pandemic caused the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. It was only due to our economic management, over the seven years prior to the pandemic, that we were in a strong position to implement the suite of support measures. With 20/20 hindsight, we didn't get everything right. Some of the state government lockdowns went on for far too long, and some Australians are still bearing the wounds of those lockdowns today.
But Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg's policies kept our nation afloat. JobKeeper assisted one million businesses and kept four million Australians in jobs. Our cash flow boost helped 820,000 businesses. On almost every economic and health measure, Australia was either world leading or performed better than other countries. The final budget outcome for 2021-22 revealed a $48 billion reduction in the deficit and a $115 billion reduction in debt, compared to the budget handed down in March. In just one year, from 2020-21 to 2021-22, the budget improved by over $100 billion, the largest turnaround since Federation. There are now 596,000 more Australians in jobs than before the pandemic. Other economies fared much worse than ours. The Labor government talk down our economy but could not name a single country whose position they would rather be in. They were vocal in criticising our pandemic response, but they remained silent on the fact that their own measures would have cost taxpayers an extra $81 billion, including further expanding JobKeeper and paying people to get vaccinated.
As for Labor's claim of $1 trillion of debt, even my friends at the ABC, with their Fact Check, didn't support that claim. Every democratic government around the world, left or right leaning, incurred COVID debt. Yet Australia emerged from the pandemic in an economic position the envy of most nations, with debt lower than any other major advanced economy.
So, when you hear Labor's spin and when you hear them carry on about a wasted decade, it's a distraction from the fact that this government has no economic plan. Labor will continue to misrepresent the truth until the next election, to mask their own bad decisions—most notably, their bad decisions on energy policy. In the Rudd-Gillard Labor government years, power prices rose, on average, by 12.9 per cent per year. Over nine years of coalition government, they rose, on average, by 0.3 of one per cent per year.
Six months ago, the Australian public heard the Prime Minister very clearly. He said to them that he had a plan to help with your cost-of-living pressures, especially your electricity bills. On 97 occasions he promised to you that your bills would go down by $275. In this budget, instead of going down by $275, as promised, Labor's plan will see your electricity bill go up by more than 56 per cent over the next two years. Not only that, of course, but your gas bill will go up by more than 44 per cent. Pensioners can't afford that level of increase, but it is not just pensioners; it is self-funded retirees, families and small businesses too—in fact, most Australians.
In Europe, we're hearing about people, particularly pensioners and low-income earners, having to choose between paying their power bills or putting food on the table, between heating or eating, this winter. Their electricity and gas bills are spiralling out of control. Countries are rationing power, and not just because of the invasion of Ukraine but because governments in several countries in recent years have made catastrophic energy decisions. They've turned off the secure supply of electricity and gas before the technology and system are ready for new renewable energy. Despite those warnings and lessons, this Labor government is following in the footsteps of those countries.
Investing in renewable energy, reducing emissions and doing so credibly to protect our environment is crucial, and we're committed to it. Indeed, we want a sustainable and sensible pathway to reduce our emissions. But, when the Prime Minister says to you that the sun and wind are free energy sources, your power bill tells a very different story. It's much more complicated than what the Prime Minister wants you to believe. The technology just doesn't yet exist at the scale that is needed to store renewable energy for electricity to be reliable at night or during peak periods. That is just the scientific reality. Firming up means using coal, gas, hydro, hydrogen, nuclear or batteries as an energy source or to store power when renewables aren't feeding the system. But Labor is going to phase out coal and gas before the new technology has been developed and rolled out.
The energy minister calls gas pipeline projects BS. Indeed, in this budget the government makes it harder for more gas supply, at a time when we need it most. On Tuesday night we saw the government rip up funding for gas exploration and cancel gas infrastructure projects which would eliminate shortfalls and make your bills cheaper. They handed over funding to environmental activists who want to overturn gas project approvals. Higher gas prices will be baked in for the foreseeable future, putting high-paying jobs in regional communities at risk.
Competitively priced hydrogen is at least a decade away, and the best batteries in the world today, like the Victorian Big Battery, provide only 30 minutes of power at full discharge. Labor's push for 82 per cent renewables by 2030 comes without a plan to ensure reliable baseload power. Its policies will see hundreds of billions of dollars spent on rolling out poles and high-voltage transmission wires in towns and suburbs. Labor is misleading Australians when it says it can roll out billions of dollars worth of transmission wires, cables and towers for renewable energy in just the next few years. Regional communities and farms will be carpeted with up to 28,000 kilometres of new high-voltage transmission lines. That's almost the entire coastline of mainland Australia, or the distance of travelling from Melbourne to Perth and back four times. Every dollar spent on new transmission lines will be paid for by consumers, through higher electricity bills—bills your Prime Minister promised would go down by $275.
The energy minister himself outed the reckless rush to renewables. He acknowledged that, to reach Labor's legislated 43 per cent by 2030 emissions reduction target, 40 wind turbines must be built every month and 22,000 solar panels installed every day in our country for the next eight years. These costs will considerably ramp up your power bills over coming years. So the 56 per cent hike in your electricity bill that the Treasurer never mentioned in in his speech on Tuesday is just the beginning.
As the Australian Workers Union noted, struggling manufacturers will be forced to move their operations offshore. Should that occur, there will be no net benefit to the global environment, only a net loss of Aussie jobs, income and sovereign capabilities.
Meanwhile, Canada, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK and the US are all investing in next-generation zero-emission nuclear small modular reactors. They are doing this to shore up energy security and to meet their zero-emissions targets. The UK plans to triple the size of its new-generation nuclear by 2050. The imperative to create affordable, reliable and emissions-free energy is why the coalition is seeking an intelligent conversation on the role that these new-age nuclear technologies might or might not be able to play in the energy mix.
Your cost-of-living relief is interconnected with tax relief. To help you and your families to plan and get ahead, the coalition believes in a core principle—that you should keep more of what you earn. Hardworking Australians should be awarded, and the best reward for hard work is lower taxes. Due to our tax relief in government, a person earning $90,000 paid $3,000 less tax than they did under Labor each and every year. Stage 3 of our legislated plan, lower tax for more than 10 million Australians, will simplify our tax system, abolishing the 37 per cent tax rate in its entirety and reducing the 32½ per cent tax rate to 30 per cent. It means that those earning between $45,000 and $200,000 will pay more than 30 cents in the dollar. For a hairdresser earning $60,000 a year, it means $4,400 more in your pocket; for an executive assistant earning $80,000 a year, $900 more in your pocket; for a qualified diesel mechanic earning $100,000 a year, $1,370 more in your pocket than in Labor's. For 95 per cent of workers it means a top rate of no more than 30 cents in the dollar. Our plan means that the top five per cent of income earners will pay 33 per cent of all income tax. For millions of Australians, you can work hard, take an extra shift or get a pay rise or promotion without suddenly being pushed into a higher tax bracket. Our legislative tax plan futureproofs your income. And, when your income rises over time, you won't be pushed into higher brackets or be hit by tax increases by stealth. Stage 3 tax relief comes into effect in July 2024, and, as economists have pointed out, after interest rate rises, that's when our economy will need it most. That's when Australians especially deserve it.
Labor took our tax plan to the election. Like on energy, they promised unequivocally to honour their commitment, not to reverse it. But now they're laying the groundwork to break this promise as well. This budget provides uncertainty for 10 million Australians expecting tax relief in 2024. The budget is intended to soften up Australians. It gives the government time to come up with more excuses by May of next year to tax you more. In fact, it's important to recognise—and this wasn't mentioned in the Treasurer's speech—that under Labor over four years they will collect an extra $142 billion of taxes that come from you. We know that Labor can't manage money, which means that, when they want more, they come after yours. The coalition will continue to fight for your tax relief because it's your money, not theirs.
Normally family members are here in the chamber for an event like tonight. It was great to see the Treasurer's wife and children here the other night. My teenage boys are in the middle of their exam block in Brisbane, and my wife is at home with them making sure that they're studying for their exams and not watching television. But I wanted to mention my parents, who are both unwell at the moment, unable to travel down to Canberra.
My dad, Bruce, started out as a small-business man, as a bricklayer. My mum, Ailsa, was a secretary. By the time five kids came along, of which I'm the eldest, Mum was at home raising us and doing the books for dad, but she also took in local kids as a day-care mum. My parents had a strong work ethic. They taught us to appreciate the value of money. We were raised with a lot of love and support but not much money. We lived in what is still a working-class suburb. It was a time when Labor was presiding over high interest rates and unemployment, and it was a terrible time for the building industry.
I was encouraged to get a part-time job, as many kids in my generation were—and today are. From grade 7 until I started university I worked in a local butcher shop after school and on Saturday mornings, scrubbing floors and washing up and serving at the counter. It was tough work, but it was character building, and it gave me an appreciation for many different perspectives. I saved like crazy, and one of my proudest achievements was buying my first home. It was nothing flash and a bit less than $90,000, from memory, but it was mine. Today, of course, it's much, much harder, almost impossible, for many young people to afford their first home, even with hard work, even with sacrifice and even with savings.
Tonight I recommit the coalition to assisting first home buyers by accessing their superannuation through the super homebuyers scheme. Currently, a super fund can be used to buy a residential or commercial rental property, to buy shares or even livestock. In fact, it can be used to buy almost any asset class except a home to live in. Taking money out of super before retirement is a bad investment decision unless you put the money back in before retirement. Take this example: a 30-year-old couple each withdraws $50,000 from super to help buy a home. Over a decade, the $100,000 would be worth about $188,000 had it remained in super. But, without the $100,000 from super, the first home buyers wouldn't have been able to afford their home. With access to super, they have a home to live in. If the house were sold after a decade, the $100,000 would be worth around $214,000. And if the $100,000 was reinvested back into super—as we would require—the couple would end up with a balance, from that amount, in their super when they retire of over a million dollars.
Under a coalition government we will extend the same opportunity to women who separate later in life, women with very few housing options and those who are increasingly left homeless. After all, your super is your money. This government think it's their money, something that we've seen in this budget. They want your super to invest in someone else's home, but not your own. At the same time, they want super funds to be less transparent about what they do with your money. The coalition has a strong record when it comes to getting first home buyers and single-parent families into their own homes. We support initiatives to increase the supply of housing, but the government's initiative has no detail. The Labor government has promised one million additional homes in five years, costing $10 billion. Does anyone believe that? It's Kevin Rudd-esque in design. Remember the pink batts and the school halls? They were designed when this Treasurer was the chief of staff to the then Treasurer Wayne Swan. This program has a familiarity to it. Sadly, though, this program falls into the category of wasting billions of dollars and delivering very little—exactly what Labor did when they were last in government.
Another feature of this budget not in the Treasurer's speech was that Labor has no plan to save a predicted 100,000 Australian job losses—that's what they predict over the next four years—but it plans to employ 20,000 public servants in Canberra over the next four years. Across the economy, employers are crying out for workers. In June, the coalition announced our policy to double the age and veteran service pension work bonus scheme from $300 to $600 per fortnight, or to $1,200 for couples. It's a policy to allow older Australians and veterans to work more, if they choose to do so, without losing their pension payment. It not only fills job vacancies and adds to the economy but also helps older Australians and veterans to supplement their fixed incomes and to deal with Labor's 56 per cent increase in their electricity prices. Remember, the Prime Minister swore to you those bills would go down by $275. Labor's policy is about 25 per cent less than the coalition's proposal, and right now we need more incentive in the system to get people into work, not less. We need it now because we need to mobilise a ready workforce.
Australians were hoping that in this budget there would be a lift to productivity. Instead, Labor's changes to multi-employer bargaining threaten to undermine productivity and will be a throw-back to the 1980s. Labor's changes will impose industry-wide, one-size-fits-all conditions which empower unions. Where union ultimatums are not met, however unreasonable, multiple sectors will be able to engage in crippling, economy-wide strikes where parties unaffected by disputes join in on protests. Don't take my word for this. Even Paul Keating has criticised this plan. The last time unions used industry-wide strikes to pursue sector-wide ultimatums was in 1982. In that year, unemployment reached 9.4 per cent and inflation 12.4 per cent, and two million working days were lost in industrial disputation.
We're all here in parliament to improve the lives of Australians, especially children. We're all influenced by our experience in life. As a police officer, I saw the best and the worst that society has to offer. I attended countless domestic violence incidents, and there's nothing worse than hearing calls for help from women or children as you hop out of a police car and run towards a house. I'm proud of the record funding that both sides of politics have provided to services supporting these families. The coalition will invest significantly in these family support services and also to protect women and children from sexual assault. I worked in the sex offenders squad, which has stayed with me even to this day—the horrific details of victim statements and ensuing investigations. And, as Minister for Home Affairs, in charge of the Australian Federal Police, I led the cause. I provided $70 million to establish the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. It's now internationally recognised, and works with global partners to protect our children online and off. It's estimated to have saved more than 500 children. I acknowledge Bruce and Denise Morcombe—it's Day for Daniel tomorrow, so please give generously—along with Sonya Ryan and others who have inspired us as parents to fight back against those who seek to hurt our children. They work hand in glove with the police to prevent children being harmed, and I'm honoured to have worked so closely with them for many years.
Prime Ministers require a strength of leadership to make tough decisions to keep our people and our country safe. My record in the area of child protection and the safety of women will be enduring priorities of a government I lead. The coalition has always been a strong supporter of choice, and that's why we supported increased access to child care for working families. We nearly doubled childcare investment and women's workforce participation reached record highs. Women were earning more than ever before and women's unemployment was at its lowest level since 1974—this is a record of which we are incredibly proud. But we know that we can do much more.
We'll also work with the government to combat the scourge of domestic violence in Australia. Ending violence against women and children within a generation is an ambitious but worthy goal. It's one that our nation should and must strive for, as is continuing to support those with disabilities. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is an important initiative for the most vulnerable in our society. The coalition has supported it since its inception. We cannot allow, however, this important program to become unsustainable. To do so would deprive those in most need of care. The coalition is prepared to support sensible government proposals in this place and in the Senate to strengthen the NDIS and to ensure its sustainability. This provides the structural reform of spending in the budget but, most importantly, provides certainty to people with disabilities and their families.
We celebrate our migrant story and it's a key strength of our economy. As the Minister for Border Protection I did have to make tough decisions to keep our borders secure, but I also brought in record numbers of people from India, China and many other countries. I instructed my department to undertake an operation to resettle Yazidi women, and more than 4,000 Yazidis now call Australia home—and we're proud to call them Australians. Not all Australians will know the plight of the Yazidis. These women were persecuted; many lost their lives at the hands of Islamic State. I'm incredibly proud that members of the Yazidi community are in the gallery tonight. Many of their scars will never heal. The sense of loss of their loved ones will remain with them forever. But they will be able to tell their children, their grandchildren and their great grandchildren that Australia offered them a home, that they took it and that they started a new life. And now they're a wonderful part of our country.
It was disappointing to see in Tuesday's budget that $50 million set aside for round 7 of the Safer Communities funding was cut. Earlier rounds of the program supported the safety of our multicultural communities—for example, to provide security cameras at places of worship and programs to help youth at risk. A coalition government I lead will restore that funding.
As a nation we celebrate our wonderful Indigenous history, but we need to be equally proud of our British heritage and our migrant story. Many parents from across the country are increasingly concerned about the education their children are receiving at school. Despite great teachers and record funding going into schools, government and nongovernment, our nation's literacy and numeracy levels are falling short. It's important to include studies of the environment and many other social policies in our school curriculum, but the system has allowed ideologically driven advocates too much influence over what is taught to our children. Teaching a sanitised and selective version of history and the arts, and radical gender theory, is not in our children's best interests. What is needed is a focus on making the basics a priority: reading, writing and maths; fostering a love of our country and a pride in our history and democracy, without sugar-coating the past; where the teachers lead the instruction and are supported to have orderly classrooms; and where students learn respect, discipline and how to think—not what to think. A coalition government pledges to work with families to respect and to reflect their values and perspectives in our schools.
So much of our lives are already online, be that through internet banking or sharing personal messages, videos and photos. While children and the elderly are most vulnerable, none of us is immune, and a coalition government I lead will do more to help families deal with the threats online. Our laws need to be tightened and social media companies held to account for what happens on their platforms. It needs to be a safe environment. We expect no less online than we do in the real world.
Of course, our threats aren't only online. Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine is a devastating reminder that we shouldn't take for granted our 80 years of relative peace since the end of the Second World War. As defence minister, I provided more than $285 million in support to President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine. It's a signal of our values and sends a statement to the world. We stand shoulder to shoulder with this government in providing even more support, including the announcements that were made today.
The threat of conflict in our own region, as we know, is real. As many military leaders have warned, we have to be realistic about the increasing prospect of that conflict. The AUKUS deal negotiated by Prime Minister Morrison and me will give our country the best chance of peace. It provides deterrence, not just through the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines but through collaboration with our two most important allies in the areas of artificial intelligence, space, cyber, hypersonics and the interoperability of our respective forces. With threats in the region, Labor and the coalition must be on a unity ticket. Australia must not only be a credible defence partner in the region but also ensure our men and women in uniform have the capability they need to credibly deter aggression.
Can I take this opportunity to thank the wonderful members of the ADF, along with first responders, local councillors, community leaders, volunteers and many more, for their efforts in supporting Australians and communities affected by the recent floods.
In government, we invested a record amount in our veterans, and I thank the government for continuing that investment. The number of veteran suicides in our country remains far, far too high. It is a national tragedy.
The coalition strongly supports the government's commitment to expand the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme.
One moment as defence minister I'll never forget was attending the funeral of Private Tom Halloran. Tom was 19 years old when he joined and 21 years of age in March of this year—an incredible young man with everything ahead of him and a proud digger. He took his own life on 26 April this year. Entering the chapel, Kirilly and I spoke with Tom's parents, John and Robyn, and their daughter, Annie, Tom's sister. As you can expect, they put on a brave face, but they were totally crushed. And they were looking for answers. On Tuesday this week, John gave evidence to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. I spoke to him earlier this afternoon. His family want a better system of support for our diggers. Our whole country does. I've raised some suggestions that the family have made with the Minister for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force, and I thank them for that audience. We'll work with the government to do whatever is required to turn this situation around.
Infrastructure investment drives economic growth, creates jobs, encourages investment, boosts productivity, busts congestion and supports resilient supply chains. That's why the coalition committed record funding of $120 billion for infrastructure over the next 10 years. In contrast, this government's first budget axed $2.8 billion of infrastructure projects and further delayed $6½ billion worth of projects. We will work to restore that funding in government.
We know that this government has prioritised a $2.2 billion commitment to Daniel Andrews to help with his re-election in Victoria, taking that money away from regional Victorians and regional Australians.
We will work with farmers as they face difficult struggles, because there was nothing for them in this budget. Labor's intent to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent will drive up the cost of meat at the supermarket. It's not only bad for farmers but it has just added to your grocery basket.
In conclusion, Australians will recall that, prior to the election, Prime Minister Albanese promised that he would be a leader who wouldn't run from responsibility. He promised to lead a government that steps up, does its job and doesn't always blame someone else. For all their moral posturing and for all their promises, Labor show time and again that their rhetoric in opposition never matches their actions in government. You are never better off when Labor has its hands on the budget. As an opposition, we will stand against Labor's broken promises. We will have a clearly defined positive and bold plan, ahead of the next election, to take our country forward. We will support hardworking Australians. We will support all Australians. And we will rebuild a stronger economy for your family and for our country.
Debate adjourned.
House adjourned at 20:06
Earlier this month, I was invited to attend headspace Liverpool in my electorate of Fowler to celebrate the national day of support for mental health and wellbeing of young Australians. It was great to speak to many young people in the room who shared their real experience of the impact of the unprecedented COVID lockdown measures on their mental health. Over the past 12 months, the centre has provided support to almost 5,000 young people, compared to 2,644 in other headspace centres across the country.
In terms of the psychological distress that was measured, our young people were two points higher than the nation. But, with the support of the centre, many of the young people in that room, predominantly from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, were able to manage their lives in a meaningful way. The COVID pandemic is considered one of the most isolating periods in modern history. Regardless of your stance on vaccines or the physical impacts of coronavirus, we have all experienced the effects of the pandemic on our mental health in some way.
As someone who lived through the lockdown, it's hard to describe the level of stress and anxiety that I experienced and that my community also went through. In the Fowler electorate, there's only one headspace centre, which is based in Liverpool, and the centre acknowledges that serving our large, diverse electorate, from Liverpool right across to Fairfield city, is a challenge. There are about 150 headspace centres around Australia, and, between 2021 and 2022 alone, headspace has supported more than 700,000 young Australians and has also provided 4.4 million services since its establishment in 2006.
In the recent budget announcement, the government has allocated $7.6 million for New South Wales under the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan and provided Victoria with $36.9 million, while other states and territories have been provided with single-digit figures. This allocation is not fair. For a government that claims they will make this a fair parliament and govern fairly for all Australians, providing a bulk of mental health funding for just one state is anything but fair. Mental health is a real and huge challenge for all Australians. I call on the government to form a fairer approach when it comes to issues like mental health and funding allocations.
According to Liverpool headspace, to assist young people to manage their mental health, programs such as the individual placement and support programs, or IPS, should be made available as they're paramount for good mental health outcomes. They're desperate to have the program at the centre to assist young people. I call on the government to provide this resource to Liverpool headspace.
I would like to acknowledge the many other organisations in my electorate of Fowler that play a vital role in supporting the vulnerable in our multicultural community, especially our youth.
While we were all busy with the budget this week, many communities across New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria were dealing with the impacts of flooding. In all of these communities, local government is the first port of call and the closest form of government to the community.
As a former mayor who experienced nine declared natural disasters in four years, I am very aware of the important role that local government plays in supporting their communities through these natural disasters. For my council, it was a huge financial cost to repair roads and to rebuild infrastructure. The manpower alone can cost a local government millions of dollars. Enabling local government to plan for natural disasters will save the community money and will save the government money.
This week in Cooma, in my electorate, they experienced flash flooding. The New South Wales SES Cooma-Monaro Unit, Queanbeyan and Snowy River Unit and many volunteers assisted the Cooma community with the flash flooding. I want to thank them for their hard work.
This government is working with state and territory governments to support those impacted local governments and their communities, providing practical on-ground support. More than 100 local governments are currently impacted and declared natural disaster areas, and I've been calling mayors around those three states, asking how they are. What they are asking for is to be better prepared and become more resilient to these natural disasters.
Councils in the Northern Rivers are working overtime to tackle what is estimated to be more than $700 million in damage to road infrastructure. The Richmond Valley Council, who recently prepared a response to the 2022 February and March floods, estimate that the cost will be $150 million to rebuild roads. Council engineers in the Blue Mountains estimate that repairs from land slips and road damage will exceed $400 million. In one of the hardest-hit areas, 90 per cent of Lismore City Council roads have been damaged, with the repair bill estimated at $350 million. Byron Shire estimates its repair bill at $180 million, with Tweed Shire at over $100 million.
We have begun the job of delivering the Disaster Ready Fund to help communities prepare for natural disasters. By preparing for these disasters, we can protect lives and livelihoods and lower the damage bill caused by floods, fires, and cyclones. The Albanese government will invest $1 billion over five years in disaster resilience and mitigation works across Australia through the Disaster Ready Fund. We need to build the flood levees and fire breaks, invest in community resilience programs and more, and this is exactly what the fund is designed to do: to strengthen Australia's disaster management response, including with the establishment of the National Emergency Management Agency and the establishment of the Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery. We can help our communities prepare, we can work with local governments and we can make sure we don't leave anyone behind.
I spent last Sunday on the bowling green at the Chirnside Park Country Club with a group of inspiring individuals of Bowls Gr8 for Brains. Bowls Gr8 for Brains is a not-for-profit organisation that brings together veterans, current defence personnel and frontline emergency service workers to reconnect, improve their mental health and develop bowling skills. The organisation exists to minimise the risk of self-harm and suicide through empowerment, engagement and the strengthening of relationships through participation in bowls.
It was an absolute privilege to meet the co-founder of Bowls Gr8 for Brains, Darryl Coventry, to hear his personal story and learn how Bowls Gr8 for Brains began. The organisation is a result of Darryl's own battle with mental health trauma. Darryl is an ex-police officer who overcame some major challenges in both his professional and his personal life. The work Darryl is now doing as a volunteer to improve the lives of others is truly inspiring. Bowls Gr8 for Brains all began when Darryl walked into a bowling club one day and quickly found the positive impact sporting clubs can have on mental health.
I have spoken in this chamber previously about the safe place I found through sport, and it was amazing to hear that so many others are finding that same sense of belonging through Bowls Gr8 for Brains. Those involved in Bowls Gr8 for Brains describe the group as their therapy, and for others it has literally been a lifesaver. For those who experience PTSD, bowls stimulates brain functions and helps bring the mind to the present moment. It was an honour to be asked to say a few words at the event, to thank all the volunteers who have brought this initiative together and to thank all those emergency service workers and service men and women in the room. After the formalities, I then got to see the bowlers in action. There was banter and smiles all round as Darryl, Troy, Paul, Happy and the crew battled it out on the green.
Bowls Gr8 for Brains has several venues across the country and has just launched in Victoria. They will now be playing at the Chirnside Park Country Club once a month, with each session supervised by a qualified lawn bowls coach and volunteers with experience in supporting mental health. I am delighted that the organisation is coming to Casey. I look forward to joining them on the green. Sport provides opportunities for friendship and fitness while boosting mental health.
I rise to speak on the sad passing of Peter Haffenden. The first time that I met Peter Haffenden, it was clear to me that he was an inspiring and impactful person. What was scheduled as a 30-minute visit to Melbourne's Living Museum of the West soon became a far longer discussion in relation to history, environmentalism and art and a tour around the precinct that bears testimony to Peter's intelligence, creativity, dedication and commitment to the local committee and its environment. Peter was a true polymath, with achievements in photography, journalism, history and museology. The Living Museum is just one of his many achievements, although it alone would be a worthy lifetime accomplishment for most of us.
The museum is a remarkable institution that preserves and celebrates the rich history of the Pipemakers precinct and the many phases it has been through. It does so in a way that draws in the community, engaging young and old alike through a range of mediums and interactions.
Peter's impact was reflected in the wide range of people who sought the chance to see him in his final precious weeks. I feel privileged to have been among them. In a poetic and fitting twist, many of the museum's most prized treasures were brought to Peter's house and, indeed, around his bed as a refuge from the recent floods. My thoughts are particularly with Kerrie and Phoebe during this difficult time, and also with all of those who have worked with and been inspired by Peter in his many ventures. Vale Peter Haffenden.
I also wish to pass on a message from a young person under the Raise Our Voice Australia campaign. It is from somebody in my electorate. She says:
My name is Liv … I am 15 years old and I live in the Fraser electorate.
The new parliament should close the gender pay gap.
The changes that need to take place are an increase in women's workforce participation, an increase in the minimum wage in low paid female dominated industries and extending paid parental leave both for men and women.
Australia should have no gender pay gap in the future and the stereotype of women doing the caring should be broken.
Parliament can support this by increasing women's workforce participation, increase in the minimum wage in low paid female dominated industries and extending paid parental leave for both men and women.
This change is a social issue and this is an important issue because women deserve not to be discriminated against by the gender pay gap.
Parliament can achieve this goal by an increase in women's workforce participation …
Parliament needs to take action to close the gender pay gap now.
Thank you to Liv for her message. It's very fitting that Liv has passed on this message to be read out in parliament on a day when a very important bill is literally being introduced in the main chamber as we speak. Thank you to the Raise Our Voice campaign for bringing the voices of so many young people from around Australia into parliament.
I'm so pleased to rise in the Federation Chamber today to speak about my electorate of Moncrieff, which I love deeply, and youths—the future of our great country. Last month I asked members from the Moncrieff Community Cabinet to nominate a youth representative aged between 15 and 24 to attend the Moncrieff youth roundtable in my office. On 13 October youth representatives across the electorate came together. We talked about those issues that are important to young people today. The Mission Australia Youth Survey from 2021 outlined the top 5 areas of concern for the young people of our country.
We talked about social impacts on young people and the impact of COVID-19 on their education, the interruption to that. We talked about the environment and sustainability, which is important to everybody across our great nation, everybody across the world, but in particular this is a concern for young people. We talked about their economic future. Remarkably, many of the participants actually said they hadn't spoken about this before, it's not something they'd learned about in school, and they were particularly keen to learn about how they could have a strong economic future. We talked about equality and inclusion—again, a very important concern. It was in the top 5 key areas of concern for young people. And last, but certainly not least, we talked about mental health and wellbeing. This was an area that we spent extra time on.
It was a great day, and it was a room full of insightful feedback. We talked about the lives of young people and what they wanted to do for their future and their dreams. One of the key outcomes was the establishment of a Gold Coast youth cabinet, which I'm very excited to work with. These are just a couple of comments from some of the participants. Matt, who's 17, has a strong interest in mental health. He said, through the cabinet, he was 'hoping to do some good and raise awareness for concerns the community is trying to get help with'. Kimberly, also 17, said: 'Youths are the future, we're the next generation who will guide the country and be leaders. So, if the leaders know what we're interested in and what we want to do and what we want them to do, they can work towards our issues and voice them for us.'
The Gold Coast youth cabinet will help me form the agenda for the Gold Coast youth impact summit, which we are convening on the Gold Coast next March, which will bring together 200 delegates from across the Gold Coast to talk about these five top key issues, but also provide opportunities for young people on the Gold Coast. It's my great pleasure and great honour, as the shadow minister for youth, to work with the young people of the Gold Coast about their future dreams, about their future aspirations.
Just a quick word to the youth of Australia: you are our future, and I'm very keen to work with you to make sure that you have a very strong voice on your future and the future direction of our country.
Last Friday I attended a civic event in my electorate where the keys to the city of Ipswich were presented to Ipswich State High School to acknowledge the school's historic triple title in rugby league. The school's undefeated side took out the Allan Langer Trophy, the Phil Hall Cup and the national NRL Schoolboy Cup this year and is the best school boys rugby league team in the country. Ipswich is very proud of coach, Josh Bretherton; the coaching staff; captain, Josiah Pahulu and their whole school. We are delighted for their efforts.
Ipswich is a sports-mad city and the demand for sporting infrastructure is very near and dear to my heart. This is why I was pleased to secure tens of millions of dollars in the budget handed down just a couple of days ago. I'm excited to lock in a $20 million federal commitment to upgrade the North Ipswich precinct as the first stage in developing a boutique 12,500 seat stadium to allow the venue to host NRL and A-league matches in the future. It sets up the city for a future with big licences in those areas. I call on the Ipswich City Council to honour its previous $10 million promise for the upgrade. I also call on the state government to kick in money for that project.
There's budget funding for other sporting facilities in Ipswich as well with $2 million to extend the Ipswich basketball stadium, to add an extra court and more parking and administrative facilities; $1 million to upgrade facilities at Ironbark Park to support the Ripley Valley football club, a club that is achieving so much in terms of the participation of girls and women; and $500,000 to finally upgrade the Ipswich hockey fields.
It's not all about sport. I'm thrilled to seek crucial funds in the budget for local community infrastructure. For example, there's $20,000 for a new toy library for multicultural communities in Redbank Plains as well. It's home to a growing Pasifika and African population. There's $3.5 million for a new India House cultural centre in the eastern suburbs of Ipswich, a centre for the Indian community and all of South-East Queensland. This will provide a dedicated hub for community events, programs and services, and a meeting place for various local Indian business communities and associations. The booming Ipswich and Springfield region has a large and growing South Asian population and this investment recognises the value and the needs of this vibrant community.
I'm going to take this opportunity to say happy Diwali to everyone who is celebrating the Festival of Lights. I'm looking forward to attending the Diwali celebrations at the Federation of Indian Communities Queensland tomorrow night in Brisbane in King George Square and the Brisbane BAPS temple on Sunday. Happy Diwali to everyone!
Many of my constituents in Nicholls are doing it tough at the moment. They have endured floods and suffered the agony of seeing the rising water invade their homes. An already challenging time for the people of Nicholls is made even harder by the first budget of this government. The forecasts in the budget make it clear that the cost-of-living pressures will continue to bite and a typical family will be $2,000 worse off by Christmas.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised that if he won government there would be no-one held back, no-one left behind, but in Labor's first budget 30 per cent of Australians who live in regional and rural areas, including Nicholls, have been held back and left behind in three key areas: cost of living, child care and infrastructure. Groceries are eight per cent higher, not just because of natural disasters but also due to the Labor-made disaster of scrapping the ag. visa. Our ability to grow our own food and provide high-quality, reasonably priced and locally sourced food is under pressure and it will get worse with Labor's plans to rip more irrigation water out of the Murray-Darling Basin through damaging water buybacks. It will get worse, because we can't get enough workers into agriculture. The impact of these anti-agriculture policies means more expensive food and more foreign food. Families will feel that at the check-out.
Retail electricity prices are predicted to go up by 50 per cent, while the $275 promised by Labor to reduce electricity bills is now long gone. Businesses in my electorate are staring at gas costing more than triple the current price when their contracts are renewed, which could make some manufacturing and food processing unviable. Interest rates have already gone up, and they're predicted to go up further under Labor, and more and more homeowners are facing mortgage stress.
One of the big-spending measures in Labor's budget is child care. I have no argument with cheaper child care, but you can only get cheaper child care, or child care at all, if you can find a place, and too many areas in my electorate and across rural and regional Australia are childcare deserts.
I was hoping this would be a wellbeing budget, a budget that supported vital projects in my electorate that are dealing with critical issues of workforce shortages in allied health and of entrenched disadvantage. As a result of this budget, we need to find another funding pathway for the Seymour wellbeing hub, an important project that will tackle entrenched disadvantage by improving access to health and mental health support. I'm also calling on Labor to back the new rural clinical health school, a partnership between La Trobe University and Goulburn Valley Health, to train the nurses and allied health workers we desperately need.
A lot of the projects that these things were going to be funded through have now been axed. Everyone will feel the pain of this budget, but it will hurt mostly rural and regional— (Time expired)
I rise to congratulate the talented and hardworking recipients of this year's Gorton Young Leaders Awards. Since 2009, I've been acknowledging selected year 12 students from the electorate of Gorton who have demonstrated a commitment to active public leadership within their schools and communities through these annual awards. These awards, I think, are an important way to recognise and encourage local young people beyond academic performance and to reward their efforts in giving to their communities. I'm consistently impressed with the remarkable achievements of the prize winners and the fantastic local talent who call Melbourne's west their home.
This year, we have 14 Gorton Young Leader Award winners across seven local schools in the electorate of Gorton. From the Australian International Academy in Caroline Springs, we have Pari Tawfi and Omar Eldib. From Lakeview Senior College, we have Nina Cinco and Jacob Kavanagh. From Taylors Lake Secondary College, we have Hana Ueda and Benn Parsons. From Overnewton Anglican Community College, we have Jade Hansper and Liam Armstrong. From Keilor Downs College, we have Charlie Cutajar and Tevita Loga. From the Catholic Regional College Sydenham, we have Erika Bellard and Jude Sef. And, from Southern Cross Grammar, we have Amelie Harrison and Zac Gorman.
All of these students have made significant contributions to their schools and local communities. Many are school captains or vice captains and represent their school or community officially. Some have done specific work running sports and other events, working with disadvantaged communities, helping the elderly and fundraising for various causes. These are the students people seek out for assistance. They advocate for and help others. They put others before themselves and should be commended for their efforts. I will be watching these young people closely as they become leaders of the future.
On 29 September it was reported that the Council of the Australian War Memorial had recommended an expansion for recognition of Australia's frontier wars, the violent conflicts that occurred between British soldiers and colonists and First Nations people defending their lands. This will be part of the Australian War Memorial's $550 million expansion. The council director, Brendan Nelson, said:
… the council has made a decision that we will have a much broader, a much deeper depiction and presentation of the violence committed against Indigenous people, initially by British, then by pastoralists, then by police, then by Aboriginal militia. We will have more to say about that in due course.
Mr Nelson went on to say the memorial's council decided to have a broader and deeper depiction of the violence against Aboriginal people, which he said was the duty of all cultural institutions.
As the federal member for Flynn, let me be absolutely clear that I am vehemently against this. I have been contacted by veterans who have told me they find this proposal offensive as well as numerous RSLs across the Flynn electorate with objections to the proposed inclusion. They have requested that this objection be raised at the highest level within the ranks at the national level, as they see this as a potential wedge to divide our nation. They have also said the proposed further depictions in relates to the frontier wars should be in proportion to existing representation and not diminish or outweigh the major conflicts that are depicted in the Australian War Memorial.
The Australian War Memorial was created to honour the sacrifice of Australian service men and women who have fought for their country or joined in peacekeeping operations, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have served in the ADF and who are also Australians. I completely agree that the violence perpetrated against Indigenous Australians should be appropriately displayed, but this should be through a completely separate monument or museum. I echo the comments of the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, Barnaby Joyce, that the new Ngurra facility to be built in the parliamentary triangle between Old Parliament House and the War Memorial is a 'better philosophical representation' of the issues pertinent to internal conflict. The Australian War Memorial is not a place to recognise these conflicts.
My questions to the government are: What consultation was made? Who was engaged for these proposed additions? How are the frontier wars going to be depicted? I call on the Labor government and the Australian War Memorial council to go back to the drawing board, engage with our Australian veterans and their families and hear directly what they think about this proposal.
This week the Albanese Labor government handed down its first budget, and I'm really pleased to say it is a great budget for the people of Canberra, who were neglected for so long under the former government. This is a budget that invests in the things that Australians need to build a better future. It is a good budget for families and it is a good budget for our nation. There is a lot in the budget for the people of Canberra, such as investments in infrastructure projects and other things that will benefit Canberra.
Childcare costs are a huge issue for Canberra families, and our cheaper childcare policy will see 23,200 families in the ACT better off. That includes 8,900 families in the electorate of Canberra, which I represent. It will also extend paid parental leave, giving more time to families at that important time of life when they're welcoming a new baby. Canberrans can also expect to see cheaper medicines, which will save them up to $450 per year and help them with the cost of living.
Our budget invests heavily in renewable energy, delivering the climate action that Canberrans have been calling out for for so long. It also includes some important local environmental measures—for example, a $3.2 million investment in restoring the health of our vital urban waterways. Our lakes and waterways are such a huge part of Canberra's ecosystem and Canberra life; people love our lakes and waterways. This project will help to clean the water that is coming through by naturalising a lot of the wetland areas that lead into Lake Burley Griffin and right throughout the ACT. This is a great project, and we are working with local Landcare groups and volunteers to deliver that.
We're also delivering three community batteries for the ACT, including one in Dickson, which is very much welcome. We're also investing in our light rail. Investing in public transport is really important because it gets cars off the road and gets Canberra ready for the future. This investment of $85 million will help to see stage 2 of light rail delivered.
We'll be delivering an urgent Medicare care clinic for Canberra. It's really important, as Canberra is a city with some of the lowest bulk-billing rates in the country. This will help with that and help to take pressure off our hospitals, so that is a really important announcement. We have new university places for Canberra: 345 for the ANU and the University of Canberra. Alongside our fee-free TAFE commitments, this will make education more accessible for many in the territory.
Our budget also invests in the Public Service, and this is critically important not just for Canberra but for our whole nation. We are restoring our Public Service so it can deliver the services that Australians need and can play its important role in good governance and democracy.
Australia is a vast continent which, habitually, experiences significant natural disasters such as bushfires, droughts, floods, cyclones and hail events. Evidence suggests that as our climate changes, so do the frequency and intensity of these events, bringing with them an imperative on our part to better prepare ourselves as one thing is certain: we are only moments away from the next disaster event.
This bill, the Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022, is an important and vital step in the right direction. Natural disaster resilience and risk reduction are logical and pragmatic approaches for us to take and are things that we cannot do too soon.
I've recalled the natural disaster experiences of my electorate on many occasions in this place and recently spoke of events occurring around the country. Everyone can remember the horrific summer bushfires of 2019-20. My community experienced firsthand the devastation of intense and fast-moving fires across the Adelaide Hills and Kangaroo Island.
Kangaroo Island saw the largest fire that the island had ever recorded. The fire burnt more vegetation than any other fire, at any time. The fires started on 20 December 2019 and were finally declared under control on 21 January 2020. The carnage from this event was significant. Two people lost their lives. The homes of 56 people were destroyed, along with hundreds of other buildings, including a large ecotourism facility that was damaged. Twenty-three firefighters were injured and two CFS fire trucks were damaged. The fires burnt 211,000 hectares—almost half of the island—and burnt through one of the most important ecological sites, the Flinders Chase National Park. This park is home to the endangered Kangaroo Island dunnart and the glossy black-cockatoo. The fires killed an estimated 25,000 koalas on Kangaroo Island and destroyed the habitats of numerous other animals.
In the Adelaide Hills, also on 20 December, we experienced a major fire that started at Cudlee Creek. The fire spread rapidly throughout the townships of Mount Pleasant, Springton, Palmer, Mount Torrens, Harrogate, Inglewood, Gumeracha, Lobethal and Woodside. The fire went on to burn 23,000 hectares and resulted in the death of an elderly man and the destruction of 84 homes, more than 400 outbuildings and 292 vehicles.
I've got to say, in a rural community, losing your outbuildings is nearly as bad as losing your home, because your outbuildings are how you collect all of your rainwater, and if you lose your rainwater tanks, you just can't live there. I think sometimes people in the city don't realise that when your electricity goes off in a rural community, so does your water. If you lose that infrastructure, you lose your ability to live in that home, even if the home is still standing.
In the lead-up to these fires, South Australia had experienced dangerous fire conditions with strong winds, low humidity and high temperatures for several days. Nearly the entire state recorded its highest level of accumulated Forest Fire Danger Index for December. On 20 December, the conditions were horrendous. The state had already sweltered through four days of extreme heat. A temperature of 49.9 degrees was felt on the western side of our state and it was 43.9 degrees in Adelaide. More than 200 bushfires started that day, requiring more than 1,500 firefighters to respond. Thirty-one firefighters and two police officers were injured.
While we hope these events are never repeated, they will unfortunately and inevitably challenge us again. I'd just like to say: I heard many of the speeches with respect to this bill yesterday, and I was really disappointed at how many speeches were saying really quite negative things about the previous government and the actions of the previous government. I have to say, during those fires, the former Prime Minister visited both the Adelaide Hills and Kangaroo Island. Senator McKenzie and the member for Maranoa, who were both ministers at the time, also gave support. For the long period of recovery time after the fires had gone out, all those people were only a phone call away to support my community. I would like to mention that, while the whole of the nation was on fire, it was an extraordinarily difficult job for the government of the day. I'd also like to give a shout-out to BlazeAid because BlazeAid came into my community. People who didn't even live in Mayo or South Australia stayed for months and months and helped us rebuild our fences and our lives.
Talking about the future, we know that the best defence is to prepare and reduce risk. In August I spoke to the Climate Change Bill and referenced the catastrophic flooding occurring on many parts of the east coast. At that time around $5.3 billion in claims had been lodged, according to the Insurance Council of Australia. Just weeks later again we saw flooding across much of the east coast, and that is now spreading across much of our regional centres.
Multiple La Nina cycles have resulted in successive waves of heavy rainfall events. It seems to be a daily occurrence that we're listening to this on the news. The impact of these events isn't restricted to those living in the affected regions. Hundreds of homes have been damaged, adding to the already stretched construction sector and this will be felt across much of our nation. Our vast food bowl, which all Australians rely on for fresh food, has experienced substantial temporary destruction, further adding to the cost-of-living pressures.
It's unclear from the bill how the $200 million per annum will be allocated for natural disaster resilience and risk reduction. I'm pleased that the government has moved from a reactionary to a preparatory footing. This bill is a start. Of course, I support it. I say to members who are experiencing flooding in their electorate now that the hearts of those in my community go out to your communities. I have the end of the River Murray in my electorate and I know that many in South Australia are beginning to hold their breath as we see the River Murray waters continue further downstream. I commend this bill to the House.
I am pleased to rise on the Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill 2022 and to follow the member for Mayo, who took time out today to explain to the chamber and put on the record the impact that natural disasters and the fires have had on her community. I thank her for doing so this morning and I thank her for her support for the measures in this bill.
These are preventative measures. Like with preventative health measures, this bill has an economic dividend. We know that when we spend money on preventative health we save millions of dollars as well as improve the health of millions of people. We have a healthier community and lower costs in our hospitals and to Medicare. When we spend upfront we save money at the back end. This bill is about doing the same thing in response to climate change.
We in this country can and do respond to natural disasters. We know we do so now at an increasing rate as disasters increasingly impact us. One could argue—and blind Freddy knows—that climate change means more natural disasters or, rather, more human induced disasters of the natural environment. When we say 'natural disasters' there's an implication that they are happening not because it's anyone's fault but because it's a natural disaster. For centuries we didn't blame anyone and, if we did blame someone, we blamed the gods. In this current environment and modern society we know that climate change is seeing increasing natural disasters. This bill is about ensuring that as a country we have a fund that allows us to do preventative things rather than just respond to these events. I think every Australian will welcome the government putting in place these measures.
My community, after the 1973 floods, did extensive flood mitigation, which held us in good stead last week. When the floods came through and the river rose, we didn't end up needing mass evacuations in my community, because we'd done flood mitigation decades ago. It was tested in the '83 floods, when we all gave a sigh of relief because people's homes and properties weren't inundated and we weren't cut off from other parts of Melbourne, and it was tested again last week, when the river rose higher than I've seen it for some time. It rose higher than in '83, but, because of those mitigation measures, we were all safe.
This makes sense on so many levels. We knew it was coming—science told us it was coming—and we're now seeing it with our own eyes and feeling it in our own communities, particularly with the floods in Australia that we've seen across this year. It would be wrong not to mention those communities and the impact the floods of the last 12 months have had on them, and it would be wrong not to mention the impact that the bushfires have had, across the last several years, in communities in different parts of the country.
My community has been fortunate. Grassfires have threatened my community, because we're surrounded still by the Iramoo plains, and grassfires can move very quickly, as we know from history. On multiple occasions a fire has begun at Aireys Inlet or somewhere else down the coast. It can start in a forest, spread to the grass and move very quickly, and we can wake to find Gisborne is burning. It's come through the back of my community. So grassfires are a threat that my community knows well—we know how fast they can move on a bad day for bushfires—but across the country we have seen catastrophic events in recent times. This bill is about ensuring that we have mitigation processes and that we're ready for these disasters. It's about ensuring that we put funds where they're needed—to ensure we have the people on the ground trained to do mitigation works when they need to be done, whether they be about fires, floods or cyclones.
I'm really proud to be part of a government that recognises climate change as the threat that it is to us in this country. I'm pleased to be in a government that is thoughtful and has acted, in five months and six days, to bring this bill into the House, to give confidence to the Australian people that we understand preventive measures, understand what's needed, and we won't sit on our hands while people face disaster after disaster without an adequate response, in terms of prevention, from government. I'm really pleased to stand here and speak on the bill before us today. In my community, both fires and floods have been historical things. As I've outlined, flood mitigation measures proved to be effective this time. But who knows whether they'll be effective into the future? So I would hope that, through a fund like this, my local government and the Victorian state government could work with the federal government to look at ways through which we can track the rainfall, track what might be coming in the future, to see whether more mitigation needs to happen in my community.
It would be remiss of me not to talk about those members of the Melbourne community evacuated across Maribyrnong last week. Those families woken at five o'clock in the morning with an evacuation order would absolutely have been shocked and alarmed. One of the things about Victoria, and one of the things about Melbourne, obviously, is that, with so many new families arriving from around the world, many do not have that history of knowledge. So it would have been a shock for many families that the Maribyrnong can flood like that. I know it was a shock to me when I read not this year but in previous years that Swanson Street is part of a floodplain and that, if we get big enough rains, Swanson Street floods. That's in Melbourne's CBD.
We all remember footage of floods from history, but this bill focuses people's minds clearly on what potentially could be coming. It's putting in place measures to ensure that those things are foreseen where they can be and plans are put in place. All three levels of government can work together to minimise the impact of the disasters that we know are coming while this government commits to turning back the tide on climate change. These are really important matters. I know that every community around the country is focused on these things at the moment.
I'm waiting for my phone to give me my most recent BOM flood alert because the Werribee River is one of the watch areas and has been for over a week. I know there are people and families around the country doing the same. Last Friday, my office was evacuated. The Department of Finance rang and said, 'Turn off the electricity and evacuate the office.' We are probably 30 metres from the Werribee River. You wouldn't have contemplated that that part of Werribee could flood, so it was a shock to my staff. I was busy that day and one of my sons rang me and said, 'Mum, there's an evacuation order for our street.' So I got home to find the SES knocking on doors, like they do all the time in this country for floods. These were young SES volunteers knocking on doors. They advised me and my family to move things to higher ground, to ensure that the power was turned off and that they thought that the river would peak at 6 pm that evening. This was at 12 o'clock in the afternoon.
I lived that experience with my neighbours last week, so the comfort of this piece of legislation is extraordinary. I'll leave my comments there and thank the members of the executive of the government for bringing this bill forward. I commend the bill to the House.
I would like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Emergency Response Fund Amendment (Disaster Ready Fund) Bill. The bill will implement the government's election commitment to replace the Emergency Response Fund with a dedicating ongoing natural disaster resilience and risk reduction fund, the Disaster Ready Fund. The Disaster Ready Fund will provide up to $200 million a year to mitigate the devastating impacts of natural disasters by providing funding for disaster resilience and mitigation initiatives. The bill requires that this disbursement amount be reviewed at least every five years and provides the flexibility for responsible ministers to adjust the amount via a disallowable legislative instrument if appropriate. The responsible ministers will consult with the Future Fund Board of Guardians prior to making any adjustments.
The government has agreed to fund the existing $200 million commitment from the Emergency Response Fund for 2022-23, including recovery initiatives. From 1 July 2023, the bill will amend the Emergency Response Fund Act 2019 to remove funding for recovery initiatives and focus support on the government's objective to improve Australia's disaster readiness by increasing funding for natural disaster resilience and risk reduction initiatives. Funding for natural disaster recovery efforts will continue with other dedicated Commonwealth programs.
The bill will transfer responsibility for Disaster Ready Fund expenditure to the National Emergency Management Agency, which was established on 1 September 2022. The bill will also streamline arrangements for transfers from the Disaster Ready Fund special account and make administrative improvements to the operation of the fund to make it consistent with other investment funds. Once again, I thank all members for their contribution, particularly that of my friend the member for Lalor just a few moments ago. I commend the bill to the chamber.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Page moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question unresolved.
As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188, the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill.
It is a pleasure to be in the Federation Chamber today doing what former Prime Minister Paul Keating developed it to do: to get on with government business by creating a second chamber where more House of Representatives members have more time to be heard in this place and to represent their communities. It is my absolute pleasure to rise today to support the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022 and to thank the Attorney-General, the Hon. Mark Dreyfus KC, for the work in preparing this bill for this government in such a short time. It has us here five months and six days into government, doing what we said we would do.
This bill is central to what we took to the Australian people, because it delivers, in combination with the bill that was introduced in the House this morning by the Hon. Tony Burke. That bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, is the last piece in the puzzle that delivers on all of the recommendations in the Respect@Work report. This is an extraordinary day in this place. The Respect@Work report obviously is something that was talked about a lot in the lead-up to the election and during the election campaign, and it proved a stark difference between the then government and our government in terms of attitude to the recommendations of that review. This bill that I'm speaking on today puts in most of the pieces, with the other bill introduced to the House to fully implement every recommendation from Respect@Work.
This bill is a is a significant step for preventing sexual harassment in Australian workplaces, and I stand here today and shortly will join colleagues, particularly my female colleagues, as we look at the women's budget report. So today is a good day for Australians, but it's a particularly good day for women who have fought long and hard over decades to get gender equity and to get to a place where sexual harassment stops in Australian workplaces. This bill, with its many aspects, takes us to that place today.
This bill introduces a positive duty, and this is critical to creating safe workplaces and workplaces free from sexual harassment. It creates a positive duty by amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 and the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 to provide the commission with the function of assessing and enforcing compliance with a positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act, which is recommendation 18. It replaced the object clause inserted by the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Act which stated that an object of the act is to 'achieve equality of opportunity between men and women' with an object to 'achieve substantive equality between men and women'. I think every woman in the country understands the difference in that wording.
This is a bill that creates a significant milestone. It introduces a suite of reforms that are critical for ensuring safer, respectful and more equitable workplaces for all Australians. It will significantly strengthen and clarify the legal and regulatory framework related to sexual harassment in Australia, particularly by introducing the positive duty for employers and persons conducting a business or undertaking to take reasonable, proportionate measures to eliminate sexual harassment and related conduct as far as possible. It will expand the role of the Australian Human Rights Commission in preventing sexual harassment and other forms of sexual discrimination. The bill will, as I've said, introduce a positive duty on employers and persons conducting a business or undertaking to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sex discrimination.
In passing last night I was talking to my colleague the member for Higgins. I said I was watching a television show recently and it was quite dated. I was doing a bit of retroviewing. There was a scene where a young female police officer in the course of her investigation entered a mechanic's workshop. Centrefold pictures appeared plastered around the walls. This young female police officer was confronted in her work, in having to enter that workplace in the course of her investigation, with these images. I said to the member for Higgins, 'Can you imagine if workplaces still looked like that?' It's a credit to women around this country who have worked so hard—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10 : 27 to 10 : 54
I rise to speak in support of this very important bill and also the amendment that the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Berowra, canvassed in his speech in the second reading debate. I'd like to start by thanking the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, for all of her excellent work towards this totemic report, the Respect@Work report, which was handed to government a couple of years ago. Many of the recommendations in that report have already been enacted, and, as has been indicated by the minister, this will see the last remaining recommendations from that report that require legislative implementation to occur.
I absolutely support seeing the full implementation of the recommendations from that report, and I completely respect the fact that the commissioner undertook that report and made those recommendations on the basis that, of course, they are all as equally worthy as any individual one. Having that report fully implemented will achieve what she seeks to do—and we all hope that that will indeed be the case once we've finalised the implementation of this—which is a dramatic improvement in the way in which women are treated in workplaces in this country.
When I was a member of the previous government, we went a long way to putting in place a wide range of the recommendations from the report. Equally, we did want to consult on some of the final measures, which are those that are coming before us in this bill, the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022, because we do want to make sure that employers and businesses have had the opportunity to look at what's been recommended in these final measures and put forward any sensible, constructive feedback around potential unforeseen issues that might not have been fully recognised in the compiling of the report and now this bill. We have had the opportunity to receive that feedback from a wide variety of stakeholders in the sector.
I reiterate that we absolutely support ensuring that we put in place the final recommendations of that report, and we do think there are some very constructive, but not overly significant, changes to the bill that will remove any potential unintended or unnecessary red tape and regulation for business, without in any way undermining the spirit and the purpose of the recommendations from the report. The shadow Attorney-General outlined them very eloquently in his second reading debate speech—things like perhaps recognising that the Fair Work Ombudsman is a better body for businesses to deal with rather than the Human Rights Commission on some of these matters, given they have interaction with the Fair Work Commission as it is. That would include still having the exact same powers recommended but putting them with the Fair Work Ombudsman.
A lot of small businesses in particular, with the best of intentions, have enough trouble in making sure that they are across all of their obligations and responsibilities and in making sure that they are doing the right thing when it comes to their various requirements under the Fair Work Act and other acts that they must comply with. I've got a lot of sympathy for the suggestion from those groups, which we are seeking to suggest very constructively to the government, that, if we could help businesses to not have unnecessary additional complexity and confusion around the various bodies that they have to deal with and if it is possible that the Fair Work Ombudsman could be considered to be the appropriate body for them to interact with, that would be good.
There are obviously other issues that we address in our amendments around perhaps giving a bit more certainty to businesses in understanding what their obligations are and what the thresholds and the tests should be for them when it comes to what standard they need to meet. Some of these areas have no case law, as we know, and maybe it is the case that we'll have to revisit some of these things, if our amendments are not considered, in the future if the case law goes in a certain direction that we didn't necessarily intend.
We absolutely are doing this to make sure that we are providing a very robustly safe and protected environment for women in the workplace from some of the horrendous experiences that have come out through not only the second readings in this chamber but also the submissions to consultation on the bill and, of course, the primary submissions through the work of Kate Jenkins. We want to see an outcome that makes sure that, in the future, women in this country never have to go through some of those awful experiences that were articulated in the process of the report. And it is not just women, obviously, but we understand that the extreme burden and quantity of examples put forward were from women who have suffered mistreatment and harassment in the workplace. I'm very proud to be here speaking in favour of a bill which overwhelmingly is going to address that. I think that that will be a great outcome for the workplaces of this country and great outcome for the standards that we set in our society and the culture of this nation.
I thank all in the debate for their constructiveness. I'm very pleased to support it. I hope the government will be prepared to consider the reasoning, which is coming from a place of wanting to absolutely ensure we still achieve the objective of the implementation of these final recommendations, taking into account what we believe are some very constructive and sensible suggestions from people that will have to deal with this legislation and have put forward examples where slight changes would achieve the same outcome but not put a significant burden on them from a compliance point of view. Hopefully, that is considered in good faith. Nonetheless, I absolutely support the bill. I will be very pleased to see this pass through the parliament to see the final elements of implementing the Respect@Work recommendation from Commissioner Jenkins. I think it will be a great outcome for the workplaces, culture and society of this nation. I commend the bill to the House.
Let me start off by being very clear: there is simply no place for sexual harassment of any kind in any workplace. It doesn't matter if you work for the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, an ASX 100 listed company or a fledgling startup, a school or a university, a hospital or the morgue, a coffee shop or a pub, a factory or a farm, a local fish-and-chip shop or an international burger restaurant. There is no place for sexual harassment of any kind in any workplace. You should not have to face any form of sexual harassment while you are at work. That is why the Albanese government will deliver and fully implement every recommendation on the Respect@Work report, something the Morrison government, shockingly, refused to do. This is what the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022, before the 47th Parliament, will deliver. I should point out that recommendation 28 is being progressed by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, and we in fact dealt with that earlier today.
Over the past five years, one in three people have experienced sexual harassment at work and, in not-quite-breaking news, women experience much higher rates of harassment than men. First Nations people, people with a disability and members of the LGBTQ+ community are also, on average, more likely to experience workplace sexual harassment. Everyone has the right to a safe and respectful workplace—everyone. The fact that workplaces have not been safe or respectful for so many Australians is completely unacceptable this century. I will say it again: one in three people over the last five years have experienced sexual harassment at work. That is such a truly shocking figure. Sexual harassment is by no means inevitable, and the passage of this bill will move Australia forward in our efforts to prevent workplace sexual harassment from happening in the first place.
This bill, like our first Labor budget, is also part of our important work to progress gender equality, recognising that achieving women's economic equality includes making sure women are safe at work. A national survey conducted in 2018 noted that the most commonly reported types of behaviour were sexually suggestive comments or jokes, intrusive questions about private lives, or inappropriate commentary on a person's physical appearance. Other common actions faced, mainly by women, included repeated invitations to go on dates, sexually explicit pictures, posters, or gifts, inappropriate leering, sexual gestures, indecent exposure, inappropriate physical contact and sexual harassment involving technology.
These sorts of behaviours and actions just do not have a place in modern workplaces. This isn't an episode of Mad Men or a workplace from 60 or 70 years ago where this behaviour was tolerated and often encouraged. Remember that each victim's experience of workplace sexual harassment is unique and influenced by a range of factors. We must be aware and understanding of these. This is worth remembering in your own workplace.
This bill is a significant milestone in delivering on yet another commitment from the Albanese government that we made at the last election. We said to the Australian people that there would be a suite of reforms, and they are now contained in this bill. They are critical for ensuring safe, respectful and more equitable workplaces for all Australians. This bill will significantly strengthen and clarify the legal and regulatory frameworks related to sexual harassment in Australia.
One of the key frameworks in this bill is the introduction of a positive duty for employers and persons conducting a business or an undertaking to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sexual harassment and related conduct as far as possible. That is so that responsibility resides with those in power. The assessment and enforcing compliance of this new framework will be provided by the Australian Human Rights Commission, within the Sex Discrimination Act. This was recommendation 19 of the Respect@Work report, and it also outlined that the Australian Human Rights Commission should be given powers to require the giving of information, the production of documents and the examination of witnesses, with penalties applying for non-compliance when conducting such inquiries. Recommendation 18 also outlines the measures on what is reasonable and proportionate and some of the factors considered by the commission, such as: the size of the person's business and operations, the nature and circumstances of the person's business or operations, the person's resources, the person's business and operational priorities, the practicability and the cost of the measures, and all other relevant facts and circumstances. We do need one size to fit all, but you've just got to have that individual variation.
Before the men's rights groups work themselves into a lather, I will point out that the Australian Human Rights Commission will treat a small corner store differently to a large, well-resourced multinational company. Nevertheless, at the core of this positive duty, is the need to put this issue front and centre of a business owner's mind. The responsibility resides with those who are in power in the workplace. I'm sure that all in the 47th parliament, be they new arrivals or old hands, will want all employers to stamp out that sort of abhorrent behaviour before it starts. The best way to stop certain behaviour is to be proactive and make sure it doesn't happen in the first place.
This bill will also replace the object clause inserted by the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021, which stated that an object of the act is to achieve equality of opportunity between men and women with an object to achieve substantive equality between men and women, which was actually recommendation 16 (a) of the Respect@Work report. Words are important. This is why this change is also important and directly reflects one of the recommendations from the Respect@Work report. It's important that workplaces are required to take into account individual circumstances and that disadvantages are compensated for, so that the law has equal outcomes for everyone, whether you are a woman, a man or non-binary. This concept is crucial in the workplace. It will also ensure that the provisions relating to sex based harassment in the Sex Discrimination Act extend to conduct of a demeaning nature and not just conduct of a seriously demeaning nature; expressly prohibit conduct that results in a hostile workplace environment on the basis of sex in the Sex Discrimination Act; and will remove residual barriers to enable representative bodies to continue to represent complaints in the Federal Court. It was noted within the Respect@Work report that it was crucial that unions and other representative groups be able to bring representative claims to court, delivering consistency to the existing provisions in the Australian Human Rights Commission Act that allow unions and other representative groups to bring a representative claim to the commission.
The bill will insert a costs protection provision in the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to provide greater certainty to parties during court proceedings in relation to costs. It noted in the report that one of the barriers stopping people from pursuing a sexual harassment matter in the federal jurisdiction is the risk of a costs order. This is an important inclusion as we want those affected by sexual harassment to not stop and think about whether it's worth taking further action or not based on the financial implications for them. A society that prevents access to justice because of costs is not actually a truly just society. We want people to know that, if they're victims of sexual harassment at work, they can pursue matters federally, which will now be consistent with the Fair Work Act.
It will also ensure that Commonwealth public sector organisations are also required to report to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency on its gender equality indicators. If you can't measure it, you can't see progress. As a government we want to make sure our departments are places where staff don't have to face sexual discrimination in any form. This addition will make sure each department gender equality indicator is scrutinised and can be used as a key driver for change.
Other changes the bill will make are in relation to a number of other amendments arising from changes made by the previous government's respect at work act 2021. This will provide greater consistency across the Commonwealth antidiscrimination framework and achieve the intended outcomes outlined in the Respect@Work report. Included in these changes is clarification that victimising conduct can form the basis of a civil action for unlawful discrimination under all Commonwealth antidiscrimination acts and not just the Sex Discrimination Act. This will ensure that a discrimination complaint can only be terminated for delay by the president of the commission if it is made more than 24 months after the alleged unlawful conduct took place.
The Attorney-General and his department have done an excellent job in terms of consulting with unions, business groups and a range of other interested organisations when drafting this bill. Included in discussions were the Respect@Work Council members including the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Ombudsman, Safe Work Australia, workplace safety authorities, workers compensation authorities, the Australian Council of Human Rights Agencies, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, the Kingsford Legal Centre, JobWatch and the Ai Group. Other organisations consulted included the Business Council of Australia; the Australian Institute of Company Directors; the CPSU; the SDA; Diversity Council Australia; the National Women's Safety Alliance; the national Working Women's Centres; Community Legal Centres Australia, who do incredible work; the Law Council of Australia; the Australian Women Lawyers; the Australian Discrimination Law Experts Group; the AFP; ASIO; and the Office of National Intelligence—to name but a few.
Lastly, I want to personally thank all victims-survivors who came forward to share their stories and to inform the Respect@Work report. I hope that this legislation is something you can be proud of, despite the circumstances leading up to you coming forward. I recommend this bill to the House.
I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022. The purpose of this legislation is to address sexual harassment in Australian workplaces by implementing the recommendations of the Respect@Worksexual harassmentnational inquiry report 2020, the Jenkins report. The Jenkins report found that workplace sexual harassment is prevalent and pervasive. It occurs in every industry, in every location and at every level in Australian workplaces. As Kate Jenkins herself has said, the right of workers to be free from sexual harassment is a human right, workplace right and a safety right. Hence, Ms Jenkins's recommendation that work related gendered violence and workplace sexual harassment be treated as an occupational health and safety issue.
I congratulate the government on its commitment to rapid and effective action on the recommendations of the Respect@Work report. However, there is an issue of particular concern. Recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report clearly articulates the need to ensure that fear of an adverse court order does not create a barrier to victims-survivors of workplace sexual harassment seeking access to justice. In passing this important legislation, we have to make it easier for victims of workplace sexual harassment to speak out and to receive justice. We have to ensure that employers understand their responsibility to protect their workforce and the ramifications of not doing so. The risk of adverse court orders acts as a disincentive to applicants considering pursuing their sexual harassment matters in the federal courts. The Jenkins report noted that the current practice in which costs follow the event means that applicants may be liable for the costs of both parties if they are unsuccessful. This may deter applicants from initiating court proceedings and it can present an access to justice concern, especially for vulnerable members of the community.
The Respect@Work report proposed a model based on section 570 of the Fair Work Act providing that costs may only be ordered against a party if the court is satisfied that the party instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without cause, or if the court is satisfied that a party's unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur costs. That model has not been adopted by this bill. Instead, this bill proposes a cost neutrality approach. The proposed cost neutrality provision in this bill provides that, as a default position, each party bears their own costs in an unlawful discrimination proceeding. The courts do retain discretion to depart from this default position and to make cost orders where they consider it just. In considering whether to depart from the default position the courts have to have regard to a number of factors, including the financial circumstances of the parties to the proceedings and whether any party to the proceedings has been wholly unsuccessful.
We do need cost reforms to give both applicants and respondents greater certainty in terms of the costs that they could face, while not impacting their access to legal representation. People need to know what they're committing to before making important legal decisions. However, the model proposed by the government in this bill, this cost neutrality approach, will likely have an opposite effect to that intended.
Under this model, employers found to have breached the Sex Discrimination Act will not have to pay the legal costs of the victim-survivor. Even if a victim-survivor is successful in a claim, they will have to pay their own costs. If the victim-survivor is awarded compensation—we know that damages for sexual harassment cases are traditionally quite low—this compensation may be insufficient to cover their legal costs. So a victim-survivor shown to have been wrongfully treated in the workplace could end up out of pocket for seeking recognition of that fact. They could end up in a worse financial position than they were in before they brought the claim, especially if the defendant drags out proceedings, increasing costs beyond the means of the applicant. Defendants who want to punish and wear down a woman complainant can do so. They can drag the proceedings out in the knowledge that the woman's legal expenses will increase, that she will have to meet them herself and that those costs will end up chewing up all of her compensation or most of her compensation. This not only means an unfair reduction in the compensation outcome but will also increase the trauma of those proceedings for the applicant. We know this may well occur. After all, corporations can claim tax deductions for their legal costs while victims-survivors cannot. It's inappropriate. This is wrong and it needs to be changed.
The proposed cost neutrality approach could well limit the ability of applicants to secure legal representation, because it removes the certainties for solicitors and barristers that they will recoup their fees. Even if the matter is successful, it will render it more difficult for victims-survivors to secure representation. If they engage no win no fee or other private legal services, even if they're successful in their claim, they could still be required to bear their own legal costs under the cost neutrality approach.
Legal assistance services rarely take sexual harassment cases to hearings due to resource constraints. Applicants will often have to secure private solicitors or face pressure to settle the matter prior to hearings for amounts lower than they would otherwise be entitled to. This dynamic creates a significant disparity in justice between those who have access to the means to pay for private representation and those who do not. It creates a divide between the better off and those who are less well off, hardly what we want to achieve from this important piece of legislation. We need to remove, not add to, the financial barriers for victim-survivors from marginalised communities—migrant women, First Nations women and women from the LGBTQI community—seeking justice for acts of workplace harassment and discrimination. Less financially secure applicants may well end up depending on pro bono lawyers and barristers because otherwise they'll have to cover their own costs. While under the proposed legislation the Federal Court has the discretion to make cost orders, we know that without the certainty that this will occur applicants may well be unable to secure representation.
The cost-neutrality approach will not adequately reduce the financial uncertainty faced by applicants seeking to bring sexual harassment matters to court. The mechanism proposed in this bill provides, in effect, equal protection to perpetrators and victim-survivors in circumstances where there is a vast asymmetry of power and economic advantage. The cost-neutrality approach may well act as a barrier to accessing justice for victim-survivors of harassment and discrimination. Taking a cost-neutrality approach to a relationship—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11 : 21 to 11 : 34
This cost-neutrality approach will not reduce adequately the financial uncertainty faced by applicants seeking to bring sexual harassment and sex discrimination matters to court. The mechanism proposed in the bill provides, in effect, equal protection to perpetrators and to victims-survivors in circumstances where there is a vast asymmetry of power and economic advantage. The cost-neutrality approach may act as a barrier to accessing justice for victims-survivors of harassment and discrimination. Taking a cost-neutrality approach to a relationship characterised by endemic inequality only serves to entrench that inequality.
The amendment I'm proposing to this bill offers an alternative: an equal-access approach. Under this proposal, respondents would be precluded from recovering costs against an unsuccessful claimant. Each party would bear their own costs, except where an applicant was successful—that is, where the court had found that the respondent had engaged in discriminatory conduct in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act—in which case the respondent would be liable to pay the applicant's court costs, as they should be. You should not be excused from costs when you have broken the law. People and organisations found to have engaged in sexual discrimination or harassment in breach of the law should have to pay the costs of the applicant. This will act as an incentive to change workplace cultures that permit discriminatory treatment.
This proposal will mean that victims-survivors in sexual discrimination matters can take meritorious cases to court with the confidence that, even if their case is unsuccessful, they won't be subject to an adverse cost order. The approach will ensure that victims-survivors can continue to secure solicitors and counsel willing to act on a no-win no-fee basis, as their legal team will be confident of recouping their costs if the case is successful.
Corporate respondents will be no worse off under this reform, as they're already able to claim legal costs as tax deductions. Yes, individual respondents would now be potentially liable for their own costs, even if they were successful, but it's worth noting that, in the nine years of Sex Discrimination Act cases in the Federal Court of Australia, between 2012 and 2021, most cases were brought against a corporate or government entity. Only 10 per cent of cases—seven cases in total—were brought against an individual. If this proposed reform were already in place, it would have amounted to no practical change in any cost orders made in favour of the successful respondents over the last nine years.
There are domestic and international precedents for the use of the equal-access model. An equal-access model has already been adopted domestically for whistleblowers under the Corporations Act 2001 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Act 2019. That provision requires that, where a claimant applies to the court for compensation for detrimental treatment as a result of whistleblowing activities, that claimant must not be ordered to pay the costs of another party unless the claimant has instituted those proceedings vexatiously. It doesn't exclude the respondent's ability or liability to pay the claimant's costs; that remains a matter for the court's discretion.
In introducing this change to the usual cost rule, parliament recognised:
Legal costs can be prohibitive to any person seeking compensation for damage, and the risk of being ordered to pay the costs of other parties to the proceedings may deter whistleblowers and other victims of victimisation from bringing the matter to court.
Legal costs can be prohibitive to any person seeking compensation for damage in sexual harassment cases, just as much as for whistleblowers.
South Africa uses this model. The UK has used this model. The US Supreme Court has long held that, in relation to employment discrimination claims, successful plaintiffs should be awarded costs and only subjected to adverse costs where their actions were frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation. It gives perfect sense to give those who expose sexually hostile and unsafe workplaces the same legal standing as whistleblowers. They deserve the same protections without constraints on their achievement of just outcomes.
The reform I propose will increase access to justice. People who've experienced sexual harassment and sex discrimination will be able to take their cases to court. Discriminatory behaviour will be appropriately penalised. There will be an important flow-on impact on workplace culture. Victims-survivors with meritorious claims will have more options to secure legal representation, because they'll know that if they're successful in their claim there is a guarantee that their lawyer's or barrister's costs will be paid by the other party. This model creates more equitable access to the courts by reducing financial barriers for victim-survivors from marginalised communities—migrant women, First Nations women and women from the LGBTQI community.
Each of the seven recommendations being implemented through this bill is important. All of them are long overdue. When combined, they will fundamentally change how safety, acceptance and respect are perceived in our workplaces and who is responsible for ensuring their presence and their value. I urge the government, though, to amend section 46 of this bill to protect victim-survivors, to support their right to representation and to remove the disincentive to pursuing sexual harassment matters in Federal Court.
COKER () (): The Albanese government has committed to implementing all 55 recommendations of the 2020 Respect@Work: sexual harassment national inquiry report as a matter of priority. This bill is the most significant step in fulfilling that commitment. The bill implements all but one of the remaining legislative recommendations from Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins' groundbreaking Respect@Work report. The one remaining recommendation is being progressed separately by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.
Once again I find myself standing here in this place, proudly speaking to a significant piece of reform legislation from the Albanese government. We are taking it forward, unlike the previous Morrison government, which ducked its responsibility. The Morrison government's response to this report was not only slow; it only happened following significant public pressure. It was half hearted, and, ultimately, it failed to act. The Respect@Work report is the most significant of its kind, yet the Morrison government failed to give it the respect it deserved. The Morrison government used weasel words such as 'agreed in part', 'agreed in principle' or 'noted' in response to the report's recommendations. By contrast, the Albanese Labor government is fully implementing all recommendations of the report and helping to assure Australians are safe from discrimination and harassment at work.
As the mother of two young women and as someone who has fought hard for this legislation, I am so proud that I am standing here today. Chief amongst the reforms that the bill introduces is a positive duty on employers to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate workplace sexual harassment, victimisation and sex discrimination. It also gives the Australian Human Rights Commissioner the power to enforce that duty.
The cultural shift embedded within this bill, towards governments and employers shouldering most of the burden that individuals have suffered in the workplace, is a no-brainer. Employers now have to consider sexual harassment in the workplace as both an employment and discrimination issue and a workplace health and safety issue. The Respect@Work report was an absolute watershed moment in acknowledging the impact of sexual harassment in Australian workplaces and is setting out a clear path for reform. I applaud the work of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and of the commission more generally in producing the Respect@Work report.
The commission received 460 submissions from government agencies, business groups, community bodies and, above all, victims. From September 2018 to February 2019, the commission conducted 60 consultations as part of the inquiry, with more than 600 individuals participating in all capital cities and some regional locations across Australia. The Respect@Work report is a solidly based document. I know that Commissioner Jenkins and the commission have done significant work since the report was published to implement its recommendations, including through the Respect@Work Council.
In the report, Commissioner Jenkins described sexual harassment as endemic in Australia. The report drew on 2018 survey data that found 33 per cent of people who had been in the workforce in the previous five years reported experiences of sexual harassment—39 per cent of women and 26 per cent of men. That is something we should not accept. The report highlighted that those who are most at risk are those who experience other forms of vulnerability and disadvantage. It especially mentioned Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, disabled people, LGBTQI+ people and people from ethnic, religious and racial minority groups. That is also something we should not accept. These groups are more likely to experience 'intersecting' forms of discrimination where sexual harassment reinforces a disproportionate 'burden' that also contributes to making harassment and violence harder to report. Those who experience harassment, discrimination and violence also carry the financial, career and health costs of that oppression, often without meaningful support or intervention tailored to their needs and circumstances.
Gender inequality is a key driver of sexual harassment in the workplace, which is borne out by the disproportionate impact this behaviour has on women. The Respect@Work report's recommendations proposed a whole new approach spanning government, employers and the community. The aim is to better prevent and respond to sexual harassment in the workplace and provide leadership and innovation in addressing this complex and difficult issue. Commissioner Jenkins said:
The right of workers to be free from sexual harassment is a human right, a workplace right and a safety right. This legislative reform will create a regulatory environment in Australia that is key to the realisation of that right for all Australian workers.
It must be said that this bill would not have happened without the individuals and organisations that contributed their stories, their advocacy and their expertise to inform the Respect@Work report. I commend all those organisations, but especially those brave people who told their stories.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:46 to 11:57
This bill would not have happened without the individuals and organisations who contributed their stories, their advocacy and their expertise to inform the Respect@Work report. I commend those organisations and especially the brave people who told their stories and shared their personal experiences. The report's recommendations apply across federal, state and territory governments, independent government agencies, the private sector and the community more broadly. All are driven by the same purpose: to put an end to sexual harassment and make Australian workplaces safe for all.
The broad objectives of this legislation have been welcomed across sectors. In preparing this bill there was extensive consultation, including with the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Ombudsman, Safe Work Australia and the Heads of Workplace Safety Authorities. I also include in this group the Australian Council of Trade Unions and employer groups, such as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, along with human rights and advocacy organisations, community legal centres, legal practitioners and academics. They all had something important to say, and we have acknowledged that.
The government are moving decisively to implement the outstanding legislation recommendations because we know that these changes will have an immediate and lasting impact and they will save lives. They will see new cultural norms and preventative efforts and are essential in eliminating workplace sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation, which often lead to women feeling left behind and isolated.
This suite of reforms is critical to ensuring safer, respectful and more equitable workplaces for all Australians. The bill significantly strengthens and clarifies the legal and regulative frameworks around sexual harassment in Australia. In addition to introducing a positive duty by the employer, the bill provides the commission with the power to assess and enforce compliance.
The bill inserts a new provision in the Sex Discrimination Act to prohibit conduct that subjects another person to a workplace environment that is 'hostile on the ground of sex', responding to a specific recommendation of the Respect@Work report. The report found that sexual harassment may occur where a workplace environment is sexually charged or hostile, even if the specific conduct is not directed at a particular person—conduct such as displaying obscene or pornographic materials, general sexual banter, innuendo or offensive jokes. These are things I have experienced in my own workplace history. Hopefully, these things will now no longer occur. All of these can result in people of one sex feeling unwelcome or excluded by the general environment. The existence of these environments can increase the risk of people experiencing other forms of unlawful discrimination, such as sexual harassment.
In light of this legislation, employers who are not already doing so should be reflecting on their workplace's culture and the behaviour of employees and senior leaders. We expect that. We expect that now of our senior leaders and our employers.
Open forms of sexual harassment are easily identifiable, but most subtle sexual harassment, such as crude language or sexist remarks, often goes unnoticed. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner in the Respect@Work report called on all employers to join her in creating safe, gender-equal and inclusive workplaces, no matter their industry or size. She told them that this required transparency, accountability and leadership. It would also require a shift from the current reactive model to one that requires positive action from employers. She reminded employers that ultimately a safe, harassment-free workplace is also a productive workplace.
Now is the time for all employers—government and private entities—to assess whether there is any aspect of their current culture that needs to change. Training and educating workers is an important tool to preventing sexual harassment. That means training workers at all levels of an organisation and in a form that all workers can understand.
Following the passing of this bill—hopefully—employers can anticipate receiving guidelines from the Australian Human Rights Commission which will assist them to comply with the proposed new positive duty requirements. Responsibility for implementing the Respect@Work report is shared between many, including the Australian government, independent government agencies, state and territory governments and the private sector.
The previous Morrison government failed to act. It's now up to members of this parliament to use their voice to stand up for women, for those who are being harassed in the workplace and for others who have been subjected to discrimination and to say that enough is enough. This is a groundbreaking bill. It leads on from this morning—today is a great day in the chamber—when we introduced the secure jobs, better pay legislation, which will also go further to closing the gender pay gap and to making sure that all people are treated equally and have equal opportunity in the workplace to earn an income and feel safe and secure in the workplace.
In delivering on the Albanese government's commitment to implement all the recommendations of the Respect@Work report we are doing groundbreaking work that is going to have long-term implications. I'm very proud to be part of a government that is doing so. I do hope to be celebrating the successful passing of this legislation with the women of my electorate and across our nation very soon.
I speak in support of the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022. The shocking revelations of the Respect@Work report were deeply alarming to so many Australians. It reflected toxic cultures and systemic failures that have persisted for far too long in Australian workplaces. It's time that this is resolved. I welcome this bill and its endeavours to implement meaningful change.
I previously spoke on the impacts of unacceptable delays when the former government finally began implementing the recommendations of the Respect@Work report during the last parliament. The previous legislation was a good step but it failed to legislate enough of the report's recommendations. It's so important that this parliament adequately address sexual harassment in the workplace and legislate the remaining recommendations.
I again wish to thank all of those people who came forward to share their experiences and insights with the Australian Human Rights Commission. This would not have been an easy thing to do. They should never have had to endure the harassment they faced. Their courage in coming forward is making a profound difference. I'd also like to thank the commissioner, Kate Jenkins, and her staff.
This is our opportunity to help extinguish predatory cultures in the workplace and protect Australian workers from sexual harassment and assault. Upon reviewing this legislation, it was clear to me that this bill seeks to implement improvements that are more consistent with the rights that Australians are entitled to in their workplaces: the right to equality and nondiscrimination, the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy and reputation, the right to the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health, and the right to work. Sexual harassment and lack of enforced accountability threaten all of these rights for Australian workers. That's why we need this change.
This bill addresses the significant issues raised in the Respect@Work report, the release of which corresponded with such high-profile instances and allegations of sexual harassment and assault in the workplace, including in this very building. They were incredibly shocking and led to the March4Justice and a real mobilisation around saying: 'Enough! Things need to change.' The bill implements a positive duty, which puts the onus on employers to ensure they are fostering safe and inclusive workplaces. However, we need to ensure the legal and regulatory framework is clear and considered. Employees in Australia are diverse, and therefore employers should be able to access clear guidance to best practice. I would ask the government to ensure that the new framework proposed in this bill is widely publicised so that every employer can be on the same page with these important changes. There is heightened cultural focus and there is justifiable public pressure to implement improvements, and it is our job, as elected representatives, to set the best example and take the lead in securing this vital change.
The key impacts of this legislation across the proposed eight schedules—and I'm pleased to see some of these positive recommendations—include the prohibition of conduct that subjects a person to a hostile workplace environment on the grounds of sex; the introduction of a positive duty on employers to eliminate unlawful discrimination, including sexual harassment; allowing the Australian Human Rights Commission to conduct inquiries into systemic unlawful discrimination or suspected unlawful discrimination; and extending the period of time between the alleged incident and the lodging of a complaint.
When I spoke to the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021 in the last parliament, I pushed the former government on their hesitation to implement more of the recommendations from the report, so I'm pleased to see this government, in this bill, pick up what was left out of the previous government's legislation. This bill goes further and is a far stronger approach to tackling this pressing issue.
Many are wondering about the employer's responsibility and positive duty. One of the key changes in this bill, and probably one of the most contentious, is the introduction of a positive duty on employers to ensure workplaces are safe and free from sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is not a women's issue; it is a societal issue. Workplace harassment is not inevitable; it is preventable. This needs to be a collective effort between employers, employees, customers and clients to ensure everyone is being protected from sexual harassment. It is through the fostering of accountability measures and steps to educate each other that this long-persistent problem can finally start to be resolved. I'm pleased to see the inclusion of schedule 2, which pertains to positive duty as a legal and regulatory framework for an employer's responsibility for keeping their staff safe from harassment.
This issue is not confined only to instances of harassment between colleagues. Employees, especially those who work in industries where alcohol is served, need to feel safe in their roles with customers as well. Hospitality venues in my electorate generally have a high turnover of young staff who are earning money doing night shifts while finding their feet in young adulthood. My office has heard instances of young workers being harassed by intoxicated patrons, sometimes on a regular basis by the same offenders. Ask-to-leave actions or temporary bans from venues do not solve the root of the problem.
I fear there's also an existing perspective that, if a patron is a reliable contributor to the fiscal intake of a business, their behaviour may be dismissed with words like 'he doesn't mean any harm' or 'he's just from another time'. That misogynistic behaviour that allows this conduct to occur is not acceptable, and it needs to be adequately reprimanded. The safety and wellbeing of staff must be prioritised by employers. Employers need to be held accountable for how they deal with harassment claims. These claims must always be taken seriously and investigated properly, with meaningful actions taken to prevent them from happening again. This is the positive duty that is outlined in this bill, and failure to act accordingly would see employers held accountable.
I know there is always that incredible tension in the fears of an employee complaining of a situation—the fear of how that will impact their employment status, especially when the complaint might have serious implications for where they work. It's so incredibly important that the legislative framework be established to ensure there is a strong protective environment in which complaints can be brought forward. The right to a safe and secure workplace really is something that should go with employees' rights.
It's so important in particular where workers experience sexual harassment that they're supported by their employer. The phrases 'they don't mean any harm' and 'they're just from another time' are just not good enough. We simply cannot allow sexual harassment conduct to continue or to occur. The excuses are what have maintained this behaviour in the workplace for far too long. It is no excuse to be of another generation or not understand the complications or what is wrong with this behaviour. Harassment can have significant impacts on a person's health and wellbeing, and mental health aftercare may be needed to work through some of these impacts. When I attended the March4Justice in the last parliament on the grounds in front of parliament, it was quite amazing walking through the crowd of so many women of all ages, all cultural and ethnic backgrounds, sharing their stories and talking of events and incidents that had occurred to them, realising just how common it was and just how much there was a need for change.
I note that the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation has raised concerns with the lack of definition of what constitutes positive-duty guidelines and their lack of enforceability and oversight. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation made a submission to the Senate committee inquiry into the bill, and their submission states:
Section 35A of the Bill provides the Commission with functions in relation to the positive duty. Those duties include the preparation and publishing of guidelines for complying with the positive duty, however the guidelines themselves are not enforceable.
The ANMF considers that unless these guidelines are enforceable, there will be uncertainty in relation to what constitutes compliance with the positive duty.
With a legal background and knowing the litigation process in our courts, I urge the government to take on board that submission and ensure the positive-duty guidelines are clear for employers. This is an incredibly important framework and a key component to tackling this issue. It's vitally important that there is clarity in what is expected of employers. We cannot afford uncertainty and confusion. We need to ensure it is done properly.
One of the key concerns and one that will be the focus of a number of amendments in the consideration in detail stage is the allocation of costs. The cost-neutrality approach, as outlined in this bill, will implement a default position whereby each party will be responsible for covering their own legal costs should a workplace harassment claim be brought before the courts. We know cost is often a serious hurdle to employees bringing forward a complaint, so I do welcome the changes the bill provides in relation to the allocation of cost. I note, though, that there is capacity for special costs orders to be made in the event of conduct by a defendant, for example, to unnecessarily extend or have onerous interim applications within proceedings and cause a complainant to incur unnecessary costs.
I know some groups are concerned that this remains a barrier to justice for plaintiffs who simply don't have the resources to fund legal representation and hence are severely disadvantaged in proceedings or mediation, especially against larger businesses or corporations with vastly greater legal resources. I'd like to urge the government to look into this issue, especially when it may be a question of making legal aid available in the way it is in the family law system.
While I support this idea that each party bears its own costs—I am very familiar with it from a family law point of view—I am not in support of some of the amendments being proposed, and I would urge the government to look at this issue. We have to have a system where people have access to justice and cost is not a barrier to being able to bring forward an action for harassment in the workplace. I support the approach outlined in the bill, which provides for 'own costs'—where each party bears their own costs—but gives the judge discretion to overturn own-cost rulings in the event of vexatious claims, similar to what is provided for in the family law system. I believe that will lead to a reasonable balance and improve the situation at the moment.
I would ask the government to consider an amendment that I am intending to move around inclusive language. This is a strong bill. However, I believe an even more holistic approach is needed in schedule 8 to ensure improvements are equitable throughout the national workforce. I believe that the language currently in place in the Sex Discrimination Act allows employers to make room for instances of exclusion.
Our workplaces, especially with the younger generations coming through, are diverse and dynamic. LGBTQI+ Australians often have their experiences regarding sexual harassment under-reported. Gender association is changing, and we have to recognise that young people don't want to be defined by gender norms. But this legislation is worded in the old-school way; it is still stuck in the past. Schedule 8 seeks to change the wording to 'substantive equality' for men and women. I believe it is an objective of the Sex Discrimination Act to achieve substantive equality for everyone, irrespective of gender or sexual orientation, rather than simply for 'men and women', as it is currently written. Modern legislation should reflect modern Australia. I will therefore be putting forward a motion to amend this wording to ensure our diverse workforce is protected equally in this bill and that all generations see themselves and recognise themselves in the bill and the language the government is using.
I'm pleased to see the inclusion of the seven important recommendations of the Respect@Work report in this bill and I commend the government for putting this on their agenda so early in the term. Sexual harassment is not a women's issue; it is a societal issue. Workplace harassment is not inevitable. Every Australian has the right to feel safe from harassment in their workplace. I urge the government to think about the language being used: reflect modern Australia and use inclusive language. Sexual harassment and assault can have severe and lasting impacts on a person's self-worth and emotional health. I look forward to the implementation of this bill and the eradication of harassment and discrimination based on sex in Australia's workplaces. I commend this bill to the House.
The Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022 will make a big difference in the lives of many Australians because everyone deserves to feel safe and be safe in their workplace. Regardless of where you are, the type of work you do, who you work with or how often you work, you should have the reassurance and the certainty that you are safe from harassment and other forms of behaviour that just have no place in our workplaces.
This is not currently the case, and we hear of far too many instances of sexual harassment in our workplaces. It's an issue that too many Australians come up against during their working lives, and we've waited a long time for this legislation. As someone who in the last parliament advocated for the previous government to get on and implement the recommendations of the Respect@Work report, I am so pleased to be standing here today as this government gets on with doing that work.
The Respect@Work report, which was delivered by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins in March 2020, found that 33 per cent of people who'd been in the workforce in the preceding five-year period had experienced workplace sexual harassment. They're terrible statistics—that's four in 10 working women, and one in four working men. The statistics show that gender inequality is a significant factor in many instances of sexual harassment in the workplace. This fact is borne out by figures showing that women are much more likely to experience sexual harassment in their place of work compared to men.
So many women have stories—they've shared them with me—of feeling disempowered and feeling unsure about how they can take forward a complaint about inappropriate behaviour that they just should not have faced in their workplace. We know that the current laws have not been up to dealing with this, and this bill goes to addressing that issue. Those women should not be confused. They should not feel like there's nowhere for them to go. They should not feel like it's too hard to prove that something happened. It shouldn't be brushed off by saying, 'That bloke didn't quite get it; he's a little bit oldschool.' None of these things are appropriate. None of them are acceptable. Everyone should be safe in their workplace.
An important part of this bill is recognising what isn't working now. The Respect@Work report found that the existing frameworks relating to workplace sexual harassment are complex, difficult to navigate, focus on reacting rather than preventing, and place too much of a burden on the individual experiencing the harassment to make a complaint. It shouldn't be up to the victim to do all the work here to get the outcome that they need and deserve.
Ending sexual harassment at work is our goal, and this is achievable. This bill is a big step forward and will make a difference to the lives of many working Australians. It was ignored for far too long by the previous government. I think one of the reasons why so many women around Australia felt let down by the previous government was that they didn't adequately respond to this report. In fact, it sat on a shelf for years until it got looked at a bit but not enough.
Again, I say to all the women who have shared with me their stories of having to put up with this type of behaviour, of feeling like there is nowhere for them to go because the paths open to them aren't going to actually deal with this sort of behaviour: this bill is for you, and it will make a difference. The government does have a role to play in making workplaces safe. We can set the direction, and we can help improve the practices of workplaces that might be falling short.
It's also appropriate to acknowledge here that the workplaces we as parliamentarians work in and operate have also fallen short far too many times. Through another body of work from Kate Jenkins, the Set the standard report, we know that that has absolutely been the case in this building. We also know that we're on the way to raising the standard of behaviour and improving the structures that govern our parliamentary workplaces. As we do this work in the broader community, we also must not forget that there is a lot of work for us to do in this place and across all the places that we as parliamentarians work in. We mustn't take that work for granted. It's something that all of us have to be involved in and dedicated to.
This bill implements seven changes recommended by Kate Jenkins to achieve our goal of ending sexual harassment in the workplace. The biggest change, and the one that I think will make the most difference in people's lives, is that there will now be a positive duty on employers to take reasonable measures to eliminate sex discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation as much as possible. While there's a role for everyone to play in making workplaces safe, we're saying with this bill that there's a responsibility on employers to be setting the standard. They are generally the people best placed to be preventing discrimination and harassment within a workforce. This bill places this principle front and centre. It will ensure that employers are proactive in making their workplace a safe environment and will hopefully help to avoid the conditions that create a toxic workplace by not putting the onus on the employee to think: 'Do I have a pathway to report this? What might I have been doing wrong? Did I just respond to that person in the wrong way?' It's not on the employee. It is a responsibility of the employer to make sure that the workplace is free of sexual harassment. This bill recognises that merely looking for remedies for misconduct will not deliver the changes we need to see in workplaces. It is accepted practice that employers have responsibilities to their employees, particularly on issues like workplace health and safety. What we're doing with this bill is complementing those well-established practices, particularly the idea that employers are required to ensure that their employees' physical and psychological health and safety are maintained.
This bill will also strengthen the arm of the Australian Human Rights Commission and provide it with new functions to assess and enforce compliance with the new positive duty on employers. The commission will have the ability to give compliance notices to employers that are found not to be meeting their obligations to their employees. This will assist employers in making sure they are taking the steps they must to make their workplaces safer. Safe workplaces are actually good for all of us. They're good for workers, they're good for bosses and they're good for all of us who use the services or goods of that workplace. They are a win-win-win for our entire community.
The Respect@Work report noted, amongst other issues, that hostile workplace environments increase the risk of someone experiencing unlawful discrimination, including sexual harassment. The bill will change part of the Sex Discrimination Act to prohibit conduct that results in an offensive, intimidating and humiliating environment for people of one sex.
The act will also be amended to state that one of its aims is to achieve substantive equality between men and women. Concerns raised during the consultation on Commissioner Jenkins's report included the uncertainty that applicants face when seeking to resolve their complaints through the courts. So, through this bill, the government will deliver a costs-protection provision, reflecting one of the report's recommendations and helping to give greater certainty to parties about the costs they may face if they are heading towards legal action.
We also know that giving light to what's happening in workplaces will help to make a difference. That's why this bill will require the Commonwealth public sector to report against six gender equality indicators, contributing to what will become a growing body of data that will help to improve our understanding of gender inequality in workplaces.
I do want to take this opportunity to thank the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, and acknowledge her work both with the Respect@Work report and with the report that she did for this parliament. They are both incredibly important pieces of work that really are helping us get to a different place in this country—helping us make sure that our workplaces are the types of workplaces that everyone would want to work in and can feel safe working in. Again, I pay tribute to the effort and thought that she has brought into these important reforms.
I also want to acknowledge the input and advocacy, over many, many years, from individuals and organisations who've kept up the pressure and the attention on these issues. I know that their contribution has been reflected first in the commissioner's report and in the findings and the recommendations, and it has now been reflected in everything that has come since, including in this bill.
Sexual harassment can be devastating for those people who experience it. It is something that we know can occur in any industry and any profession, but it just should not occur. That it continues to be a pervasive issue in workplaces demonstrates the need for those of us who are here as lawmakers to rethink all of these things—to look at how these laws are working more effectively to help stop sexual harassment in workplaces. This bill represents part of the shift we need to make, and it follows the leadership of the Respect@Work report. This bill tells workers across Australia that they deserve to be safe at work. It tells workers across a workplace that sexual harassment should not be put up with or ignored. It is preventable, and we can make a change for the better that helps to put it to an end.
This bill is a really important step forward. With its passage through the parliament, soon we will finally have implemented the recommendations of the Respect@Work report in full—alongside, of course, the bill introduced by Minister Burke this morning in the House. That bill, again, goes to some important issues around addressing gender inequality in our workplaces. It's such important work that this parliament and this government are getting on with doing. This bill demonstrates that our government is delivering the changes that people voted for. We are delivering on the promise we made to Australian women that their voices would be heard in this place and that the changes needed in our workplaces, in our homes and across our country would be acted on. I'm very proud that this government has brought this bill forward and I commend it to the House.
I'm pleased to speak on this bill, the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022, the direct consequence of the Respect@Work report and the behaviour that led to it. Safe and respectful workplaces aren't just a moral issue. Having a safe and respectful workplace is fundamental to increasing women's participation in the labour force, their career progression and fulfilment and their future economic security. Having a safe and respectful workplace is as much an economic imperative as it is a moral and a social one.
The statistics around sexual harassment paint a depressing picture. It's a pervasive issue in Australian workplaces that affects people across all industries, at all levels and in all locations, from Goldstein to Brisbane, Perth and Hobart. Some encouraging news is that it's now being talked about seriously, given more than lip service, and it's starting to be seen as a serious problem that needs addressing with more legislative clout.
In March 2020, the Australian Human Rights Commission released the Respect@Work report. It found that sexual harassment is a common experience. In 2018, one in three Australian workers had experienced workplace sexual harassment in the last five years, up from one in five in 2012. The current system places the onus on the victim to complain, yet only 17 per cent of the people who reported being sexually harassed at work in the commission's national survey made a complaint. Sexual harassment happens in all workplaces, including rural, regional and metropolitan settings, as well as small, medium and large workplaces. Workplace sexual harassment has a high cost. As well as having a devastating and profound impact on individuals, Deloitte Access Economics estimated that workplace sexual harassment cost the Australian economy $3.8 billion in 2018.
The Respect@Work report concluded that the existing frameworks are complex, difficult to navigate and overly reactive, rather than focused on prevention, and place a significant burden on individuals who experience harassment to make a complaint. The report recommended several legislative amendments to strengthen and clarify the legal and regulatory frameworks relating to sexual harassment and made 55 recommendations. This bill would implement seven of them.
The cornerstone reform is the introduction of a positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act that would require employers to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sex discrimination, including sexual harassment and victimisation. The bill also expands the role of the commission by providing it with new powers to monitor and enforce compliance with the positive duty, including the ability to give compliance notices. The introduction of a positive duty and the ability of the commission to enforce that duty is a significant move. It's a turning-point moment that should finally start to shift the burden of sexual harassment from individuals to employers.
Under the current complaints based legislative framework, the onus is on people who experience the harassment to make the complaint. But, as the 17 per cent figure tells you, most people choose not to lodge a complaint because they fear the impact that complaining will have on their reputation, career prospects and relationships within their community or industry. Given that significant numbers of sexual harassment incidents go unreported and are therefore not investigated, requiring employers to proactively identify and take action to eliminate harassment at work is a critical first step in making workplaces safer for everyone. A positive duty will be a powerful tool in promoting broad systemic and cultural change around sex discrimination and sexual and sex based harassment in the workplace. It will incentivise employers to address the systemic drivers of harassment and help prevent it occurring in the first place.
However, as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, noted in her opening statement to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill on 15 October this year:
… the legislative response to Respect@Work will also create some inconsistencies in coverage both within the Sex Discrimination Act and across the federal discrimination laws. The introduction of a positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act is an excellent reform and may be seen as a pilot for the other acts.
Let's talk about that. Everyone deserves respect at work. While there is much to commend, the scope of this bill does not extend the same protections to everyone who is protected under federal discrimination law or even everyone who is protected under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.
LGBTQIA+ people, among others, are being left out of the protections offered by this bill. In its submission to the Senate inquiry, Equality Australia argued that the positive duty to eliminate discrimination should apply to all protected attributes under the Sex Discrimination Act, including sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. This would ensure consistency and coherence in federal discrimination law and ensure that all protections in the Sex Discrimination Act apply equally to people regardless of their gender, sexual orientation or sex characteristics.
A 2021 survey by Women of Colour Australia illustrates the systemic barriers and structural inequities women of colour face. A total of 543 women of colour completed the survey, with 60 per cent saying they face ongoing discrimination in their workplace. Respondents also identified that the most pressing issues facing women of colour in Australian workplaces are the combination of racism, sexism and organisations engaging in tokenism, rather than real and meaningful action. Therefore, for any national workplace reform that aims to tackle sex discrimination and harassment to be successful it must be underpinned by an intersectional approach that addresses multiple intersecting systems of oppression and discrimination.
There are also other areas of federal discrimination laws that require pressing attention and reform. In its paper 'Free & equal: a reform agenda for federal discrimination laws,' in December 2021, the commission notes:
… Australia was a world leader on discrimination protections when the Racial Discrimination Act (Cth) was introduced in 1975… The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) were also considered international best practice at the time they were introduced.
However, what was best practice in the second half of the 20th century is not so in the 21st century. Australia has fallen behind other comparable jurisdictions in the protection against discrimination and the transformation that has occurred in those jurisdictions in advancing equality.
For this reason, the commission says that Australia's discrimination laws 'are now in urgent need of renewal'.
The introduction of a positive duty into the Sex Discrimination Act is an excellent reform that places the onus firmly on employers to get their house in order. No-one should feel unsafe or uncomfortable in their place of work. This shouldn't stop with the Sex Discrimination Act. This should be a springboard for further change. There is a place for a positive duty to eliminate discrimination in all federal discrimination laws: the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Age Discrimination Act 2004.
The people of Goldstein support equality. I urge the government to undertake a comprehensive review of its federal discrimination laws as a matter of priority.
All Australians have the right to feel safe at work, to feel safe from the threat of injury or death, to feel safe from physical or psychological intimidation and to feel safe from sexual harassment. The Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022 brings us closer to eliminating sexual harassment in the workplace.
Sexual harassment is an increasing blight on Australian workplaces. According to a 2018 national survey conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission one in three people had experienced workplace sexual harassment in the preceding five years. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders people, people with a disability and the LGBTIQ community this number is higher. And for women more broadly 39 per cent had experienced sexual harassment in their workplace. This represents a definite increase from previous national surveys. In 2003, just 11 per cent of people had experienced workplace sexual harassment. The Respect@Work report, overseen by Kate Jenkins, detailed the significant amount of work that needs to be done to make our workplaces safer, particularly for women. The report highlights how Australia has fallen behind when it comes to preventing and responding to workplace sexual harassment, and provides recommendations on what can be done to fix this. The Albanese Labor government made a commitment to fully implement the recommendations of the Respect@Work report. This is something the previous government failed to do, so now it is up to our government to finish the job and help protect Australians from workplace sexual harassment.
This bill implements the remaining legislative recommendations from the Respect@Work report, with the exception of recommendation 28. Recommendation 28, which calls for a review into the fair work system to define and expressly prohibit sexual harassment, will be progressed separately by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. The reforms included in this bill are another example of this government fulfilling its election promises. They are vital to helping stamp out workplace sexual harassment and to making our workplaces more respectful and equitable for all Australians.
The changes greatly strengthen and clarify our legal frameworks relating to sexual harassment. The amendments cover the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, The Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Age Discrimination Act 2004. They implement seven of the remaining Respect@Work report recommendations, with our government allocating $10.5 million in our budget for their implementation.
We are also implementing recommendation 17, which called for an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act to introduce positive duty on all employers to implement reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sex discrimination, sexual and sex based harassment, hostile work environments and victimisation. To assist with this, we have committed via $5.8 million in our first budget for the Human Rights Commission to educate employers on this new duty, and $2.6 million has been allocated to facilitate a process for disclosing historic sexual harassment incidences. This will support victims-survivors and identify improvements to be made. A further $2.1 million has been provided to ensure that the commission is the central point of contact for workplace rights information and provides a coordinated referral service.
We are implementing recommendation 18, which advised that the Australian Human Rights Commission be given the function of assessing compliance with the employer's positive duty and enforcement. We are replacing language in the respect at work act of 2021. This will ensure that an object of the act is to achieve substantive equality between men and women. This was listed as recommendation 16 (a). We are broadening the provisions relating to sex based harassment in the Sex Discrimination Act to ensure that conduct of a demeaning nature is covered, not just conduct of a seriously demeaning nature. We are also amending the Sex Discrimination Act to specifically prohibit conduct that contributes to a hostile working environment on the basis of sex. We are strengthening the Australian Human Rights Commission to have the capacity to inquire into systemic unlawful discrimination. We are removing barriers that inhibit representative bodies from continuing representative complaints in the Federal Court. The bill also inserts a cost protection provision in the Australian Human Rights Commission Act. This will provide greater cost certainty to parties during court proceedings. And we are ensuring that the Commonwealth public sector is also required to report to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency on gender equality.
With the respect at work bill, our government is making workplaces safer for all Australians. We are taking action to prevent workplace sexual harassment. The Respect@Work report provides great insight into the face of workplace sexual harassment in Australia. The majority of employment related sexual harassment complaints are made by women. In 2017- 2018, 68 per cent of complaints received by the Australian Human Rights Commission were from women. The Respect@Work report also provided immense details on the contributing factors to workplace sexual harassment.
We also know that disparities in power are vital to our understanding of the causes of sexual harassment. This is reflected in the testimony of those who have been victims of sexual harassment. Many reported that the defining feature of the harassment was a lack of power compared to the harasser, and gender continues to be the primary power imbalance affecting sexual harassment. This can be compounded by other power imbalances, including racial differences, disability, sexual orientation, visa status and economic vulnerabilities. We also know that workplace culture and social norms are an important contributing factor.
To ensure victims have a voice, it is important to ensure that there is trust in complaints processes and a genuine perception of freedom from repercussions. Victims need to feel safe in reporting their harassment and also need the confidence that the issue will be addressed appropriately. The changes we are introducing today reflect the reality that it is everyone's responsibility to work towards eliminating workplace sexual harassment. For young people, the threat is heightened, particularly for young women, who have the combined vulnerabilities of inexperience, age, gender and unequal employment. This is made worse by higher rates of casual work and a lack of understanding of workplace rights. It is so important, particularly for young people and migrant workers, that their workplace rights are communicated and respected.
The union movement has always been there for workers, to educate and support them and to help minimise power imbalances. I know that because I have spent much of my working life here in this building as a staff representative and I have been a lead delegate for the United Services Union. I have supported many staff members who have experienced discrimination and/or fallen victim to power imbalances here in our workplace.
In my local community in the Illawarra, the number of young people of working age is higher than both the New South Wales and the national average, and this can leave them vulnerable to workplace harassment, sexual harassment and discrimination. Many of these young workers are employed casually in the retail and hospitality sectors. Our community is also a culturally and linguistically diverse one, which represents another potential vulnerability.
I speak today on this bill because I want my community to feel safe at their jobs. I want mums and dads in our region to feel confident that their children are being treated appropriately at work, and I want young people and women in particular to have a positive first step into the workplace, without the threat of harassment or discrimination. With this bill, the Albanese Labor government is taking a significant step towards honouring another election commitment, a commitment to fully implement the recommendations of the Respect@Work report. It's a major step forward in eliminating workplace sexual harassment. I have spent my working life fighting for working people. I have seen firsthand the devastation that workplace harassment and sexual harassment can cause to victims-survivors. We can and we must do better.
I would also like to thank Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins for her work on this report and on the report into the parliament. The Jenkins report led to the establishment of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service here in the building, a service that I as a staff member and as a staff representative have used. I have also recommended this service to other staff. And I have used it myself to help my development as a new employer here in the building. The staff at the PWSS are professional and caring, and it is one of the best developments that I have seen in my 30 years in this building. It will help to create a safer and more respectful workplace here.
With this bill, we step closer to a future of safe and respectful workplaces. I commend the bill to the House.
I welcome the government's commitment to the full suite of the Respect@Work recommendations. I thank the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, for her good work in setting set out a comprehensive, practical and targeted suite of reforms to address the pervasive problem of sex based discrimination in Australian workplaces.
These recommendations are the product of many interviews and consultations with survivors, business owners, government, unions, NGOs, lawyers and others. They represent a holistic plan to address discrimination and structural inequalities faced by women to relieve the burden on victims and ultimately make workplaces safe for them. The recommendations were designed as an integrated package, but the previous government opted to cherrypick the recommendations it supported. The Greens' response, led by Senator Larissa Waters, called this out and condemned the approach.
The Greens are pleased to see the government recognise the need to finish the job and implement the report in full. The Senate inquiry into this bill is ongoing, and we may propose amendments in the Senate after that investigation is complete. However, we acknowledge that this bill is a welcome and overdue reform to make workplaces safe and respectful for everyone.
Every person has the right to a safe workplace, and these changes are urgently needed to protect women from the disproportionate levels of harassment and lack of protection they experience. The national sexual harassment survey found that nearly 40 per cent of women had been harassed at work, and many do not report their experiences for fear of reprisal or lack of confidence that any action will be taken. We also know that according to the Diversity Council Australia's 2018 report Out at Work Australian LGBTQI+ workers are almost 50 per cent more likely to have experienced harassment and/or discrimination in the past year than their non-LGBTQI+ counterparts. An alternative report found that six in 10 queer people in Australia had experienced verbal homophobic abuse in the workplace, while two in 10 had experienced physical violence. We know many queer workers lose their jobs when they come out as gay, and more than 17 per cent of participants felt that their careers had probably been restricted because of their sexual orientation.
Transgender and gender-diverse employees said that being deliberately misgendered and subjected to invasive questioning about their medical history was commonplace within the workforce. Startlingly, 64 per cent of the bullying and harassment reported came from the employee's immediate manager or other senior leaders within their organisation, while 28 per cent came from within their immediate team. It comes as no shock that only one in three LGBTQI+ people are out to everyone with whom they work. For trans and gender-diverse people, it's only one in five.
I understand that the member for Wentworth will be moving amendments to extend provisions that prevent the creation of a hostile work environment beyond sexual harassment and discrimination to cover all areas of discrimination. Putting the onus on changing workplace culture and creating safe work environments means it does not fall to individual employees, often victimised and worn down, to take action. LGBTQI+ employees need to feel safe at work always. We will support the proposed amendments.
The Respect@Work report recommendations focus primarily on women's experience of harassment, and action on that issue is critical. I also believe that the same protections could be implemented for the queer community, who also bear the burden of discrimination and harassment in workplaces in Australia.
An unwanted hand on the knee or on the small of the back and a lewd comment are familiar encounters for many, if not most, women some time in their lives. Workplaces are meant to be professional and safe. For too many people, especially women, they are a battleground characterised by unwanted advances and microaggressions underpinned by unequal power dynamics, with women often silenced because of their status. According to the national inquiry into sexual harassment, almost two in five Australian women said that they have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. Although women are overrepresented, sexual harassment also affects men, with 26 per cent of men in the previous five years also experiencing sexual harassment.
However, gender is not the only lens. Vulnerability, no matter the context, is always intersectional. The national inquiry confirmed the playbook of intersectional disadvantage: people of younger age, who are gender diverse, of First Nations ancestry, with disability and from culturally diverse backgrounds were more at risk.
Aside from the profound personal impacts, what are the wider ramifications? In dollar terms, it was $3.8 billion, according to Deloitte Australia, in 2018. Women don't live in isolation. They live in communities and are often also the primary caregiver. How has this corrosive behaviour affected children? The Stop it at the Start campaign published a compilation of stories from children this year and it paints an enlightening picture. Olivia, 12, from Tasmania said:
There are so many young women and girls out that that feel worthless because of the way they are treated. I want to change the future of respect for all females of the world and make them feel like they belong. No girl or woman deserves to be treated so awfully.
Henry, 10 years old from Queensland, said:
Respect is a symbol of kindness. To respect women, we need to respect them in our words, our hearts and our minds.
That's wisdom from the mouths of babes. Young Australians clearly have a sophisticated and empathetic understanding of this issue. We need to catch up.
This is why the Albanese government is taking decisive action to combat sexual harassment in the Australian workplace by implementing all recommendations of the Respect@Work report. As you know, this report made 55 recommendations. This bill will implement seven of those recommendations and a number of related amendments to strengthen and clarify the legal framework around workplace sexual harassment. The bill has a strong focus on prevention and education—missing links, which, for too long, have placed an undue burden on victims to remedy misconduct that is actually rooted in cultural and systemic factors within organisations. When egregious acts of misconduct occur, it should be an opportunity—an opportunity for organisations to really scrutinise their culture, because these events are rarely isolated.
The bill will insert a new provision into the Sex Discrimination Act to prohibit conduct that results in an offensive, intimidating and humiliating environment for people. Sexually charged or hostile workplaces are fertile grounds for sexual harassment taking hold. Porn, trash talk, innuendo or dirty jokes can make people feel unwelcome, threatened or excluded. This provision provides clarity to employers on their obligations in creating a safe and respectful workplace. The cornerstone of this bill is to create a positive duty, to put the onus back on businesses and employers to do the right thing, to be proactive in their workplace and to prevent discrimination and harassment from taking hold in the first place. Waiting to act after the fact is not okay; it's not adequate. In fact, it's costly. So we are moving away from a reactive approach to a preventative stand.
The Human Rights Commission will work collaboratively with business to provide guidelines and education as to how to implement this report, and there will be a time lag of 12 months to enable businesses to actually implement and learn how to do this. So we're not abandoning businesses. We're going to be helping them. Representative bodies such as unions or professional societies will be able to progress a complaint to the Federal Court. Currently, if a complaint is not resolved at the commission stage of conciliation, it stalls. It dies. This amendment removes this procedural roadblock. Legal proceedings are costly and can impact access to justice. This is why we are introducing cost protections, so that applicants have greater certainty. We will ensure that victimisation can form the basis of both civil and criminal causes of action. We will extend the period also for when a complaint can be raised from six to 24 months in the Sex Discrimination Act, in line with other anti-discrimination laws in our country.
Gender inequality is a key driver of sexual harassment in the workplace, and it disproportionately affects women. To the female PhD student, who was threatened with a loss of career by a male supervisor if she did not sleep with him, we see you. To the woman who was stalked by a male colleague and ended up on anti-anxiety medications after dealing with this man, and then also dealing with the fallout at her workplace, we see you. This legislation was too late for these women, but it will help prevent many more cases like these. Many businesses are leading the way. It's time we dragged the others into the modern era. Workplace harassment affects individuals, families and communities. It is a drag on our productivity, innovation and economy. From a purely economic perspective, it's just bad for business. For too long, the onus has been on women to come forward and put their careers, relationships and their entire lives on the line when they speak up. I am proud that the Albanese government recognises that there is nothing wrong with women. We are determined to fix the structures and let our women thrive. I commend this bill to the House.
Sitting s uspended from 12:59 to 16:00
I rise to speak on the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022. This is the second piece of legislation in this place to implement recommendations made in the Respect@Work report. The report was the culmination of the landmark national inquiry, which took place under the former coalition government, into sexual harassment in Australian workplaces. The first piece of legislation went through the 46th Australian Parliament in the winter of 2021. In the main, the Sex Discrimination Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021 implemented those recommendations in the Respect@Work report that were within the purview of the Australian government.
As the Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, rightfully said in his second reading speech last month:
The Respect@Work report was a watershed moment in recognising the impact of sexual harassment in Australian workplaces …
That report found that one-third of all people had experienced workplace sexual harassment in the preceding five years, and, in the case of women, that was around 40 per cent. As my friend the member for Berowra said in the debate on Tuesday, the latest national survey on sexual harassment will be released within weeks and we can only hope, given the national attention that has rightly been paid to this issue in recent years, that the statistics will show some sign of improvement.
But, of course, sexual harassment in the workplace is not an affliction of recent years. Any woman in this place will be able to recite at least one or two stories of unwelcome physical interest, inappropriate conversations, the well-meaning but slightly leering affection. For many in this place, as well as others outside this place, it can be a daily occurrence. It is not always physical. Sometimes it is situational: sexually explicit posters on the wall or suggestive pictures on a screensaver. Sometimes it is clothed in jest, as though that makes it less offensive, suggestive comments and poorly worded jokes of a sexual or intimate nature.
It took the Respect@Work report and a series of public and private debates both external to and within this place to galvanise support across the parliament to implement the 55 recommendations of the report. The report was released in March 2020 and by March 2021 we had all had a gutful, as the member for McPherson so succinctly put it around that time. It was a time for change and the work of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, and her team at the Australian Human Rights Commission was to be the agent for change.
There is possibly no more capable captain of change than Kate Jenkins. I first met Kate 25 years ago, and I consider her a friend, a mentor and an inspiration. At that stage, Kate was a young partner at Freehill, Hollingdale and Page, and had built a significant commercial legal practice from scratch in equal opportunity law, among other areas, related to employment. Kate was, in this respect, as were many others, ahead of her time. A number of Australia's leading law firms set up similar practices in years to follow, but never to the same level of success and respect that Kate had achieved in corporate circles by the mid-1990s.
After 20 years in legal practice, where she could see the impact she had had across so many of Australia's ASX 200 companies, Kate took some persuading to leave the private sector to take up the stewardship of Victoria's Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission. In that capacity she led the independent review into sex discrimination, sexual harassment and predatory behaviour within the Victoria Police.
As an aside, I reflect on a meeting I had a few weeks ago in my electorate at the beautiful mechanics hall in Somerville with a remarkable group of people from across the Mornington Peninsula to discuss issues of family violence and sexual assault. This group included members of No to Violence, Sexual Assault Services Victoria, and Safe and Equal. I'm greatly indebted to them for the time that they gave me and the passion and determination with which they described their work with their clients, and the broader community involved in addressing sexual assault and family violence across my electorate. In this regard I'm also indebted to Rosie Batty, with whom I spent a few hours recently in my electorate office. Rosie is a powerful advocate with an acute understanding of disadvantage and the barriers many women face in getting the help that they need.
Over those few hours at the mechanics hall I talked at length with our local support professionals and counsellors about the experience particularly of women navigating a complicated group of services, as well as the persistent unmet needs for services that assist families suffering from violence and the victims of sexual assault. However, one remarkable observation from all in the room was that, while things were not perfect, their experience with the Victorian police had been exceptionally positive. The training that the police get is excellent. It has improved out of this world. I heard it said over and over. This is in part due to Kate Jenkins's work during her time at the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.
After a few years in Victoria Kate joined the Australian government, taking up the Sex Discrimination Commissioner role at the Australian Human Rights Commission in April 2016—again not without some encouragement perhaps, because she felt there was still more to be done in Victoria. In taking up this national role she followed in the steps of a string of great Australian women, leaders and reformers in their field—among them household names: Elizabeth Broderick, Pru Goward and Quentin Bryce—but I suspect Kate's legacy will be the one we talk most about in this place, in the Australian media, in our workplaces and in our universities for decades to come.
Kate's work on the National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces and her report Respect@Work will stand the test of time. Her subsequent work in this place through her direct engagement, as well as her team's, with leaders, members of parliament, members of parliament staff, as well as the thousands who work—some might say live—in this place, in this system, has been nothing short of revolutionary.
We all owe Kate a debt of gratitude, and none so more than I do. You see Kate taught me how to be an employment, industrial relations and equal opportunity lawyer. In early 2001, after a somewhat colourful departure from this place, Kate brought me into Freehills and shared with me the already substantive knowledge and wisdom she had garnered not just in equal opportunity law but also in legal practice, industrial relations, employment law and building a business from scratch. There was no better boss, no better backer and no better buddy. So there are few in this place more proud than I am to see the stamp that Kate Jenkins will leave on Australian public life and, more importantly, in each and every workplace.
What Kate taught me as a leader and equal opportunity lawyer at that time served me well in the many years I would later spend in senior public policy roles and political life, both in this place on the blue carpet and in government in Victoria. Every time I encountered an unwelcome yet hopeful advance, an inopportune declaration of affection, I had Kate's annual Freehills Christmas party instructions, as well as a ready-to-hand lecture on the ill-advised nature of a relationship between superiors and subordinates, which I have applied liberally since.
This brings me to the provisions of this bill and our debate in this place today. As with much of the good legislation coming before us in this place at this time, this bill follows the work of the former coalition government, particularly under the early stewardship of my friend the former member for Higgins, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer. The bill implements the seven remaining recommendations of the Respect@Work report that were not fully implemented in the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Bill 2021. In February this year the coalition had started consultation on the outstanding recommendations, so the bill should not be scratched up just on the list of achievements of the new government. This is one we share, and in that I'm being generous. So the bill comes to this place with the support of the coalition in many—indeed, most—aspects. The member for Berowra has flagged a small number of amendments, largely designed to ensure that Australia's small businesses are able to understand and comply with their obligations under the act once operational.
The bill requires workplaces to proactively create an environment in which sexual harassment and discrimination is not tolerated. Workplaces need to actively make sure they provide a safe environment for their employees. The bill requires employers to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment. Importantly, the bill also includes a 12-month delay in the commencement of enforcement provisions in relation to the positive duty to avoid a workplace environment which is hostile on the ground of sex. While we are all impatient to see a hostility-free workplace, this 12-month period is necessary to ensure businesses across the breadth of the nation can be informed of their responsibilities and take the necessary action to meet them. While we have all now been trained to within an inch of our political lives in this place about our workplace responsibilities, and not before time, this work has not occurred to the same extent outside this building. We cannot assume such training and preparedness forms part of business as usual across the Australian small business ecosystem.
In my own part of this great nation, the Mornington Peninsula, businesses are running hard. Most are operating at 50 to 60 per cent of their capacity due to a lack of staff. Many of them are in bringing workers from overseas for our summer season, which sees our population surge by around 100,000 residents over January. Our busy working summers are a beautiful melting pot of different employment experiences and, in some cases, practices. Our small business sector will need time to ready itself for the new positive duty.
This bill is the subject of a Senate committee inquiry which will report next week. No doubt the needs and preparedness of business, especially small business, will be examined in full by that committee. Our modest amendments go to ensuring the bill's new provisions can be implemented with best effect to remove hostility from all workplaces.
I thank the member for Berowra for the time he has given me in discussing the intent, impact and operation of the coalition's amendments. As he said in his second reading speech on this bill earlier this week, 'There is no place for sexual harassment in Australian society or Australian workplaces.' I add it has been thus for decades, since women took their place in the Australian workforce. There is no excuse anymore. We have all been through too much.
One of the Albanese Labor government's commitments was, of course, to implement the recommendations of the Australian Human Rights Commission's 2020 Respect@Work report and to introduce a positive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment as a priority. The bill implements all remaining legislative recommendations from the Respect@Work report. The exception from this bill is recommendation 28, which Minister Burke is progressing separately.
This piece of legislation is the result of decades of advocacy by women's organisations, which began calling for laws to combat gender based discrimination in the seventies. Almost 40 years ago, in 1984, this parliament legislated the Sex Discrimination Act, which prohibited sexual harassment at work. However, as Australia's Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins noted in her Respect@Work report:
… the rate of change has been disappointingly slow. Australia now lags behind other countries in preventing and responding to sexual harassment.
A 2018 survey by the commission found that one in three people had experienced sexual harassment at work. Two in five women, 39 per cent; and one in four men, 26 per cent, were subjected to this reprehensible act. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were even more likely to be sexually harassed at work. The Jenkins report recommended a new model to fix our broken regulatory system that is clearly not fit for purpose and not protecting people.
The report's 55 recommendations included calls for a national survey every four years; developing a national evidence base on sexual harassment; recognising it as a form of gender based violence; school based training on respectful relationships; establishing a workplace sexual harassment council; legislating an objective of substantive equality between women and men, rather than equality of opportunity; creating a positive duty on employers to eliminate sex discrimination; giving the commission a broad inquiry function and enforcement powers to examine witnesses; requiring ASX limited companies to report on cases; and funding to re-establish working women's centres. At the last election, Labor committed to fully implementing all recommendations of the Respect@Work report.
I personally was very committed to lobbying for and ensuring funding for the NT Working Women's Centre. It is something I have done for years, and I've seen firsthand the positive impacts that they have. The Northern Territory represents a unique and often complex environment for working women that can leave them more vulnerable to harassment. The NT Working Women's Centre reported that 30 per cent of their clients came from culturally and linguistically diverse communities; 16 per cent identified as living with a disability; 11 per cent were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander First Nations women; and 56 per cent were from regional, rural or remote communities. The centre is the only service provider in the NT that provides holistic support to women experiencing issues in the workplace. I thank them for and congratulate them on their ongoing work representing and assisting Territory women.
While sexual harassment in the workplace is a very serious issue, the NT Working Women's Centre also provides services to women experiencing other workplace issues such as discrimination, bullying and harassment, and the impacts of domestic and family violence. For many women working in the Northern Territory, maintaining employment is critical because they might have limited options finding another job—even if they wanted to. Some of the obstacles include living in a regional or remote area with very few work opportunities; visa restrictions that are tied to specific employers or regions; family responsibilities, including caring for relatives; and cultural or community links and obligations.
I am delighted that we have been able to provide more support for women at work by extending our funding for these services. The Albanese Labor government is proud to equip the Australian Human Rights Commission in the fight against the national scourge that is sexual harassment in the workplace. This bill realises the government's election commitment to fully implement the recommendations of the Respect@Work report, something I note that the previous government did not do. After commissioning the work in 2018, the Morrison government ignored the final report for over a year, leaving it to gather dust on the desk of the former attorney-general. You do have to wonder why that may have been. It simply should not have taken this long.
The Sex Discrimination Commissioner herself described the former government's weak response to her report as a 'missed opportunity'. The former coalition government eventually presented a bill to parliament in response to this report, but that was nowhere near strong enough to deliver the legislative changes proposed by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. In A roadmap for respect, the current opposition was unclear on whether it even supported the positive duty recommendation in the report, which would make it a duty for employers to monitor and prevent sexual harassment at work.
In this bill, the Albanese Labor government is proposing reforms that are critical for ensuring safer, respectful and more equitable workplaces for all Australians. This Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022 updates a suite of legislation: the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Age Discrimination Act 2004.
Following recommendation 17, the bill introduces in the Sex Discrimination Act a positive duty on employers to eliminate sex discrimination, sexual and sex based harassment, hostile work environments and victimisation. Employers will be responsible for protecting workers from, for deterring against and for reporting on these odious acts. Following recommendation 18, the bill gives the commission the function of assessing and enforcing compliance with the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act. This legislation, in other words, equips the commission with the powers it needs to hold accountable anyone who sexually harasses a colleague and anyone who covers up for them.
Following recommendation 16a, the bill replaces a clause stating that an object of the act was to achieve 'equality of opportunity between men and women' with a new object to 'achieve substantive equality between men and women'. This is a major reform, and it raises our collective aim to achieve full equality between men and women. That's an objective this government is very proud to advance.
Following recommendation 16b, the bill ensures that the provisions relating to sex based harassment in the Sex Discrimination Act extend to conduct of a demeaning nature—not just to conduct of a 'seriously' demeaning nature. That will lower the threshold for reporting harassment so that all levels of toxic work cultures can be exposed to the light of day and sanitised.
These are not small reforms or mere tinkering with legislation. These are profound changes which have the potential to leave workplaces across the country a lot safer for everyone. Sexual harassment doesn't just affect those two-in-five women and one-in-four men, although it affects them for life due to trauma. Sexual harassment affects workplaces from small businesses up to large corporations and, in turn, the productivity of our economy. But, most of all, it tarnishes our self-respect as a nation and shakes our belief that all Australians can walk this land and work in workplaces safely. Freedom from harm shouldn't be a dream. Respect at work is a right—not a privilege for only some of us. Again, in finishing, I want to thank all of those working in this space to get us safer workplaces, because everyone deserves to feel safe at work.
The Respect@Work report shone a deeply troubling light on the culture within Australian workplaces. For some, the findings were surprising. For many of us here today, they were anything but. As the Attorney-General acknowledged in his second reading speech, sexual harassment is a serious and pervasive issue in Australia. It affects all of our industries and our professions. It's endemic across our workplaces, and for too long it has been accepted by society. When we could've chosen to act, we have turned away and ignored the problem.
Our country's inaction is borne out in facts. One-in-three people experienced sexual harassment at their workplace in the last five years. Amongst those people, almost half had experienced harassment previously at the same workplace, and yet only one-in-five of those people sought support or advice. The foundations of the Respect@Work report are the lived experiences of thousands of Australian women in the workplace. It's the stories of our mums and daughters, of our best friends and our old friends and of our colleagues and our communities. It's the display of pornographic material in our offices, the unwanted sexual advance at the Christmas party and the offensive and derogatory comments that masquerade as so-called banter.
The recent election may well have been about climate, but it's also been about women. Women in Wentworth and around the country are saying, 'Enough is enough.' Women in Wentworth and around the country stood up and demanded a response to the harassment, to the abuse and to the inequity of women across Australia, who have been subjugated for too long. They returned me and a record number of other women to this place to deliver that change.
As I speak in support of this bill today, I stand on their shoulders. I stand side by side with many thousands of survivors of sexual harassment and discrimination across this country, because enough is enough. That is why I'm delighted to speak on the bill today. This is a bill that prohibits conduct which subjects a person to a hostile work environment on the grounds of their sex. This is a bill that places a positive duty on employers to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex. This is a bill that empowers the Australian Human Rights Commission to conduct inquiries into systemic and unlawful discrimination and to support businesses to make work environments in Australia a safer place. I congratulate the government on its commitment to implementing the recommendations of the Respect@Work report and on its decision to prioritise this issue in the early months of their government.
The women of this country have spoken, and I'm glad the government is finally listening. However, we cannot allow the speed of change that is necessary to lead this legislation, which limits the ability of survivors to seek legal recourse. The cost provisions in the bill introduce what is known as a 'cost-neutrality approach'. As a default position, this means that in an unlawful discrimination proceeding each party would bear their own costs. There's an appealing logic to a cost-neutrality approach, and certainly it was my first instinct to support it. However, failing to reward successful applications with a favourable costs order may deter those with a meritorious claim from coming forward. This is because there is significant risk that a survivor's own legal costs will be higher than any compensation awarded. As currently drafted the bill gives an incentive for well-funded defendants to draw out proceedings against less-well-funded plaintiffs, adding to the trauma that survivors already are facing. When only 17 per cent of people experiencing sexual harassment make a formal complaint, we cannot afford to add further barriers to stop people coming forward. I know that this bill has been drafted with the best of intentions, and therefore I urge the government to work with the crossbench to consider options for costs that ensure equal access to justice for those who experienced harassment or discrimination.
But there's another key concern for me: why this bill fails LGBTQ people. It is, sadly, not just women who experience harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Unfortunately, many of those in the LGBTQ community are also badly affected, and governments of all stripes have for many years failed to address this. The discrimination and harassment experienced by the LGBTQ community in Australia is borne out by shocking findings in our country's largest-ever survey of the community, conducted in 2020. This survey found that six in 10 LGBTQ people felt that they had been unfairly treated to some degree in the last year because of their sexual orientation. This figure is even higher for people who are trans or gender diverse. Even worse, around 25 per cent of LGBTQ people have experienced sexual harassment in the past year, including being spat at or receiving an offensive gesture. In the workplace there is significant ongoing discrimination. A Human Rights Commission report found that 62 per cent of LGBTQ people felt they were unable to disclose their sexual orientation in the workplace despite wanting to and that there are higher rates of workplace sexual harassment among LGBTQ people compared to those who identify as straight or heterosexual.
Behind these statistics is an appalling lived experience for many thousands of ordinary Australians: people who are afraid to bring their whole selves to work, because they're afraid of what their co-workers might say; people who stayed quiet when they were harassed, because they think no-one will believe them; people who came to me in floods of tears during the election campaign, because of the abuse they had received due to the overt politicisation of issues around trans rights.
The point is that nobody should be subject to conduct in the workplace which is offensive, which is intimidating or which is humiliating, regardless of whether that conduct relates to their sex, to their sexual orientation, to their gender identity or to any other protected attribute. However, in this noble pursuit of swiftly implementing the remaining findings of the Respect@Work report, this bill does not provide appropriate protections for LGBTQ communities. Hostile-environment provisions, which are critical to defining and preventing the types of harassment that have characterised our workplaces for too long, do not extend to hostility relating to somebody's sexuality. By extension, the positive duty placed on employers by this bill is limited to pretending discrimination but only on the basis of sex. In both of these cases, this means the provisions of the bill do not reflect the full range of characteristics that are protected under the Sex Discrimination Act or the characteristics that are protected under similar discrimination laws such as the Racial Discrimination Act. We have an opportunity to put this right, to improve the bill before the House and to have a safe space at work not just for women but for people regardless of their identity.
On proposed changes to the bill, there are two ways that these can be done. First, the government can, and should, amend the bill so that the provisions relating to hostile workplace environments on the grounds of sex are expanded to include all attributes that are protected under the Sex Discrimination Act. This includes hostility on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and whether someone is pregnant or breastfeeding. The government should also consider whether it's necessary to amend other federal discrimination laws, such as the Racial Discrimination Act, for the same reason.
Second, the government should extend the positive duty on employers in the same way such that it reflects the discrimination laws to which they are already subject. As currently written, the bill only requires employers to prevent unlawful sex discrimination and not other forms of unlawful discrimination. Now is the opportunity to address the intersectionality of discriminatory practices and to create a safe work environment for all, which is certainly the ambition of this parliament. I will be moving amendments in relation to both of these areas and I call on the government and the opposition to support them. Harmonising the provisions in this bill across different protected characteristics makes sense for those who it protects, but it also make sense for business. Some firms I speak to already have the measures detailed in this bill in place and they feel legislation is now catching up with industry good practice. Others acknowledge there is much more work to do and they are keen to get on with the job.
However, what is not helpful for businesses is a piecemeal approach to legislation that leaves them with a complex array of requirements that are inconsistent across discrimination, corporate and work health and safety laws. This has unfortunately been the approach to this legislation across many areas by many governments for many years. It has left them, many of whom care deeply about doing the right thing, scratching their heads and trying to understand whether they are compliant or not with all the different types of legislation that apply differently in different circumstances.
So I urge the government to consider how they can expand the provisions of this bill to ensure they consistently address discrimination across all protected characteristics, whether that be gender, sexual orientation, disability or race. To support business with the implementation, I urge the Human Rights Commission to draw up regulations and guidance supporting this bill that, to the greatest extent possible, reflect a consistent approach with existing work health and safety requirements. This is a landmark piece of legislation for women across Australia. I urge the government to ensure that this is also a landmark piece of legislation for LGBTQ people in Australia and those suffering discrimination.
The Respect@Work report investigated sexual harassment in Australian workplaces. Harassment, assault and abuse can have a lasting effect on survivors, and I recognise that days like today in particular are highly distressing. My thoughts at this time are with the victim-survivors of assault right across the country.
Last year, I voiced to the House my hope for what legitimate action on this issue could look like. At the time, millions of women across Australia watched and waited for the previous government to act. To no-one's surprise, the former government buried this report. When the election came, women across Australia demanded change. They helped change the government because they wanted action. They wanted to be heard and they wanted their concerns addressed by the lawmakers of their own country.
We now have a new Labor government, a government that has been listening to women, a government that is taking action to legislate some very long-fought-for justice for women. The 18-month national inquiry, led by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins, provided an opportunity for thousands of Australians to share their stories—stories of suffering, stories of pain and stories of harassment and assault that Australians have faced at work, including in this very building we stand in today. The walls of Parliament House hold countless stories, many of which came to light and were heard as part of this report. I want to acknowledge the strength, bravery and courage of all who came forward and contributed to this report. The horrific stories that were bravely shared signified courage and showed Australians that sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual assault are very much prevalent in our workplaces. They occur at every level, in every industry and in every profession across the nation.
I want to thank Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins and her staff at the Human Rights Commission for their tireless work in handing down this report. We appreciate you. I would also like to acknowledge the work of my colleagues the Minister for the Environment and Water and the now Deputy Speaker and member for Newcastle. They promised Australian women that a Labor government would see the implementation of all 55 recommendations of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's Respect@Work report.
Last year 100,000 women across Australia took part in the March for Justice to have their voices heard. That march took place in the shadow of the revolution and reform that was brought about by women in the 1970s. That is how long women have been waiting for action like this.
Then we had a Prime Minister and a government who refused to even walk out the front door to listen to 10,000 women and supporters who were demanding respect at work on the lawns of Parliament House. Today we have a new government that is acting. The Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill marks a significant step towards fulfilling the government's commitment to implementing the recommendations of the Respect@Work report as a matter of priority. This bill fully implements seven recommendations, including all legislative recommendations, barring the inclusion of a prohibition on sexual harassment in the Fair Work Act 2009, which the minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is working on separately.
Every single person has the right to be safe, respected and valued in their workplace. Sexual harassment is not inevitable. It is preventable. We want Australians to know that no matter what you do or where you work, you should feel safe. We want to set the standard for the world to see. Being safe means that whatever your role and whatever you do, you are treated with fairness and respect. This includes ensuring that sporting participants are safe on and off the field. I am yet to find anyone who can assure me that Australian sporting institutions are safe. Just look at what we have had in the past three years. From the findings in Swimming Australia's review of the treatment of female swimmers, the appalling allegations regarding treatment of Indigenous players, to the Australian Human Rights Commission's shocking report into the culture of gymnastics, with review after review after review we have heard horrific stories.
The independent review into gymnastics, conducted by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins, was no exception. The review heard athletes' experiences of misconduct, bullying, abuse, harassment and assault. It is past time that we collectively acknowledged the systemic issues that undermine and underpin the sports we love—the abuse of power, assault and harassment. I acknowledge the athletes that have come forward with their stories and respect their courage, but, too often, they find it difficult to speak up in the face of intense competition and the power of the Australian sporting dream. In my new role as the Minister for Sport, I bear the responsibility to act. So I have set out to make a contribution that progresses integrity and equality within our wide world of sport, and to help provide a voice to those who feel unheard.
The Albanese Labor government has now created a new Safety in Sport Division to be part of Sport Integrity Australia. This division will have focus on abuses of power, discrimination and vilification. It will include a key measure to expand SIA's existing 1300 hotline to allow for anonymous reporting of abuse in sport. The anonymous hotline can be used by anyone in sport, past or present, who feels the need to be heard and who seeks support. This will help inform the government's policy so we can continue to act and develop policy to keep athletes safe in their workplace.
The Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill is crucial to ensuring our workplaces are environments where respect is automatic and treating people with humanity is the bare minimum. For too long, workplaces, including Parliament House, treated people without care, without respect and without dignity. Two in five women, or 39 per cent, and one in four men, or 26 per cent, have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. This is a societal issue that every Australian and every Australian workplace can help address.
I am proud to see that the Albanese government is moving decisively to implement the outstanding recommendations of the Respect@Work report. The implementation of these recommendations will change lives. They will have an immediate impact in setting a standard to help in eliminating workplace sexual harassment discrimination and victimisation.
The Respect@Work report shone a light on the scale of workplace sexual harassment, something that we've become all too familiar with in this place, sadly. In her landmark report, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, set out a comprehensive, practical and targeted suite of reforms to tackle the problem. Those recommendations were the product of many interviews and consultations with survivors, business owners, governments, unions, NGOs, lawyers and others. They represented a holistic plan to address discrimination and structural inequalities, to relieve the burden on victims and to make workplaces safe. The recommendations were designed as an integrated package, but the previous government opted to cherrypick the recommendations that it supported. We called it out at the time, and we're pleased to see this government recognise that they need to finish the job and implement the report in full.
The Senate inquiry into this bill, the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022, is ongoing, and we may propose amendments in the Senate after that investigation is complete. However, we acknowledge that this bill is a welcome and overdue reform to make workplaces safe and respectful for everyone. We're pleased that the objectives of this will be supported by giving additional funding to the Australian Human Rights Commission. This will allow the Human Rights Commission to undertake its extra powers and duties and provide funding for the national network of Working Women's Centres to provide practical advice and support to employees experiencing harassment.
The bill has a number of important provisions. Schedule 2 imposes positive duties on employers to maintain a safe workplace and gives the AHRC powers to investigate compliance with the duty. The positive duty was the centrepiece of the Respect@Work report. Eliminating workplace sexual harassment will take a big cultural shift. A positive duty to create and maintain a safe workplace is the best way to achieve that. It shifts the focus away from individual employees having to report bad behaviour and individual employers taking an ad hoc approach on what to do about it. Instead, it requires employers to proactively prevent discrimination and harassment in their workplace.
The previous government and some members of the business community maintained that the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act was not needed as workplace health and safety laws already include duties to ensure workplace safety. However, that duty is clearly not working. If it was, we wouldn't be seeing more than one-third of workers experiencing sexual harassment. Without a positive duty, we are stuck with the current reactive, adversarial victim complaint approach that has failed so many people—mostly women, people of colour, people with disability or queer folk.
The bill also gives the Human Rights Commission broad powers to investigate where a workplace is suspected of not meeting its positive duties. Employers are issued with show-cause notice, provided advice about what is needed to meet the duty and given an opportunity to set out a plan for what they'll do. The commission can accept voluntary enforceable undertakings from businesses that commit businesses to improvements. This is an approach that has worked well for other offences monitored by the AHRC. Where the employer 's response is inadequate, the commission may seek orders requiring actions to be taken. The emphasis is on supporting employers to be better employers, with a compliance and enforcement framework that allows strong action to be taken where employers don't lift their game.
Schedule 1 is also important because it focuses on hostile workplace environments. It prohibits a person subjecting another person to a workplace environment that is hostile on the grounds of sex. It calls for express prohibition of creating or facilitating a hostile environment in which sex based harassment is excused, ignored or even encouraged. Complementing the positive duty, this recommendation takes a workplace-level approach to cultural change.
Sexual harassment is more likely to occur where a workplace environment is sexually charged or hostile even if the conduct is not directed at a particular person—for example, on mine sites where women are habitually given menial tasks and where predatory behaviour is ignored; in hospitality businesses where women are expected to wear skimpy clothing and put up with lecherous customers; and in lunch rooms where sexist, racist or homophobic jokes are told or laughed at by senior staff.
The AHRC's 2018 national survey of sexual harassment found significantly higher rates of harassment in the fast-food and retail industries, particularly for young women. This schedule provides a clear obligation on employers and staff to identify cultures, work practices, uniforms and office set-ups that could create an environment in which harassment is facilitated, condoned or ignored.
Schedule 3 of this bill investigates systemic discrimination. Again, this schedule recognises that addressing sexual harassment issues at a systemic level will relieve the burden on individual workers to pursue complaints and will encourage cultural change. These changes allow the Human Rights Commission to have a look at systemic problems and practices. Examining systemic behaviour across a sector or a workplace helps to identify root causes of the discrimination affecting many employees, rather than asking one person to stand up to their boss directly and run the gauntlet of the legal system and risk their reputation, their mental health and their job.
Schedule 4 outlines representative actions by unions on behalf of those affected. Many workers want the harassment to stop but they don't want to be named as a victim. They don't want to go through a court process and the emotional and financial costs involved. Representative applications by unions in the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court will provide a mechanism for genuine cases to be heard and employees to get justice without the same personal cost.
Schedule 5 of the bill details the cost protections for complainants. It recognises that financial risks are a significant barrier to workers making complaints. The Women's Legal Centre ACT has said:
Many women worry that they will not be believed and will be forced to pay the other side's legal fees. In the case of large businesses and government departments, these fees can be so significant that the average person would face financial ruin. It's no surprise many women decide not to take this gamble.
The decision to make a complaint against someone in your workplace will always be difficult.
On this matter of costs, the member for Kooyong, Dr Ryan, has proposed amendments to instead introduce an equal access model that protects a complaint against an adverse costs order, other than when they've acted vexatiously, but allows them to be awarded costs when they succeed. The prospect of costs will help attract pro bono legal support and remove the cost risks. This is, as I understand it, also a provision that applies in whistleblower legislation. The Greens support the member for Kooyong's amendments. We hope the government accepts them.
This bill is otherwise a very good bill. Some other matters might come out during the Senate inquiry that we may initiate in the Senate. I hope the government has heard our support for this bill and our commendation of the government for introducing it. But this costs provision is important, and I don't think the government has got it quite right.
At the moment, as I understand it, in these kinds of claims if a complainant is successful then the other side will pay their costs. At the moment that allows for a large number of people to access the system in a way that they otherwise wouldn't. They wouldn't be able to do it. They can engage lawyers, and those lawyers can look at the claim and work out if it is likely to be successful. If so, they can then litigate the matter on behalf of the complainant and get a good outcome in the knowledge that the complainant won't be forced to bear the total of their own lawyer's costs. In other words, if the complainant has a good claim that they have been discriminated against or have suffered then they can go to court with legal representation knowing that the other side will have to pay their costs if it is a good claim and they win.
The government is proposing to shift that so that complainants now have to bear their own costs. The problem with that is that in some instances that may in fact make it unviable for someone to get a lawyer and pursue their claim. I understand the reason for the government doing this. They're saying that they're worried about a complainant thinking: 'What if I lose? Will I be ordered to pay costs? Will I have to meet my employer's costs as well?' But I think the government has gone too far because by saying that everyone just bears their own costs in this might actually discourage people from raising it, because they might go to a lawyer and get advice that they have a good claim but the legal fees will eat up the whole claim. So a lawyer could say, 'Yes, you have good claim under this new legislation, but now, because of the change made by the government, you have to cover your own costs, and I'm sorry to tell you that your own costs are going to eat up a substantial amount of what we're likely to achieve.'
A way of making sure that people feel comfortable about coming forward and not fear having to pay their employer's costs if they lose but still maintaining the integrity of the system is to do what the member for Kooyong is proposing—that is, to include an amendment that protects a complainant and says, 'You will not be liable for your own legal costs unless you act vexatiously.' If you bring a complaint in good faith—this is the member for Kooyong's amendment, which we support—and you're not being vexatious, you would have a shield and know you won't have to pay costs. Even if you lose, you won't have to pay costs, but, if you win, the other side will have to pay your costs because they committed something that was wrong. That's the kind of provision and protection that applies to whistleblowers in other legislation so whistleblowers have the confidence to come forward knowing they're not going to suffer a financial penalty. So long as they're not acting vexatiously or maliciously, they're not going to be asked to pay costs even if it's looked at and it's determined, 'It doesn't quite meet the test, but it was a good-faith claim.'
I urge the government to reconsider this question of costs, because I think it may have an effect opposite to what the government is proposing. It may actually discourage people's ability to get legal representation to follow these complaints through, because it will increase the likelihood that lawyers will say to some people: 'Yes, you've got a good claim. Yes, you have been harassed, but, I'm sorry, the amount we're going to be able to recover compared with what you're going to have to pay in lawyer fees now may not make it worth your while, because the government changed the law.' I don't think it's the government's intention to discourage people from bringing good-faith complaints, but I think that would potentially be the effect of it unless the member for Kooyong's amendment succeeds. If it doesn't succeed here, we'll be pursuing in the Senate. I think that, through the Senate inquiry, the government is going to hear that it would potentially have the effect of deterring complaints from being brought.
I hope the government takes that suggestion in good faith and considers it, because what we're asking is to bring it in line with, say, whistleblower protection. This is someone who is blowing the whistle on sexual harassment or misconduct. They should be entitled to have their day in court and they shouldn't be turned away from doing it as a result of the government changing the law in a way that makes it no longer financially viable for them to do. I hope the government will consider the member for Kooyong's amendment and also the Greens amendment when it gets to the Senate if they don't accept it in the House.
Finally, schedule 6 extends the Workplace Gender Equality Agency reporting powers to the Commonwealth public sector. Measuring data and monitoring progress is key to closing the gender pay gap that persists across all industries. The Greens have long called for reporting obligations to apply to the public sector and to private-sector companies with more than 50 employees. We are pleased to see the bill extends these obligations to the Commonwealth public sector and continue to push for robust and transparent reporting across more workplaces and across more measures.
The Greens support this bill. We welcome the decision of the government to refrain from cherry-picking the recommendations of the Respect@Work report—as the previous government sought to—and to pass a law which can finally start to address these pervasive issues across our workplaces. We will continue to pursue relevant amendments in the Senate and support the member for Kooyong's amendment, but we will support this bill in the House.
I rise today in support of the government's Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022. This government is serious about equality for women from all walks of life. No longer are women largely excluded from the decision-making and priority-setting positions of government. I'm so proud to serve with so many experienced Labor women—women who have blazed trails in this place for future generations to follow. I'm proud to be part of an intake of new members of parliament that comprises more female members than ever and is more diverse in ways that mean we better represent the communities we serve.
One of the important things to come of this hard-fought greater representation of women is that the concerns and experiences of women won't be overlooked. This is not to say that there aren't many good men who are also aware of and determined to address gender equality, and I'm also proud to serve amongst them. But, with that many women at the table—that many women so rich in experience, knowledge and passion—the concerns and experience of women won't be bumped for other priorities. You have only to look at this government's priorities since taking office to see this. This morning 10 days paid domestic violence leave for all workers was legislated. The Minister for Women and Minister for Finance, Katy Gallagher, presented the government's women's budget statement. In the House of Representatives chamber this morning, the minister for industrial relations, Tony Burke, introduced the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. That bill implements the sole remaining recommendation of the landmark Respect@Work report not covered by this current bill I'm speaking to today. It will empower workers in predominantly feminised industries to more effectively argue for what they deserve: wages commensurate with the important work that they do. So it's absolutely crystal clear that the interests of women are at the heart of what this government does.
When I was 18 years old, at my very first job in a very large government department in Adelaide the workshops had pictures of naked women cut from girly magazines on the wall in my view, in public view. As an 18-year-old girl straight from school—a girls' school—and a new employee, I would walk into the workshops full of older men in their place of work with these pictures on the wall. To say it was uncomfortable is an understatement. Then, working as a waitress during university, I was harassed physically and verbally by patrons in a family restaurant on an ongoing basis. We'd like to think that this sort of thing is in the past, but then in working in the women's services sector I heard stories from women whose lives were changed devastatingly by sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace in our current time.
This bill implements the remaining legislative recommendations of the Australian Human Rights Commission's 2020 Respect@Work: sexual harassment national inquiry report. As Australia's Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins tells us in the Respect@Work report, Australia once led the way globally in tackling sexual harassment. Indeed, even before the federal Sex Discrimination Act in 1984 specifically prohibited sexual harassment at work, my home state of South Australia had introduced protections against discrimination on the basis of sex in 1975. Yet the Respect@Work report found that Australia's legislative framework for responding to sexual harassment is now out of date and lags behind other countries.
Indeed, the Human Rights Commission's most recent widely conducted survey of the national experience of sexual harassment found that sexual harassment in Australian workplaces is widespread and pervasive. According to their survey, one in three people had experienced sexual harassment at work in the past five years. Breaking this down by gender, two in five women and one in four men had experienced harassment at work. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were more likely to have been harassed than non-Indigenous people, and we know that there are additional barriers and challenges that people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and members of the LBGTQI+ community face when targeted with harassment. So this bill forms part of the government's response to this challenge.
In substance, the bill introduces a positive duty on employers and people running a business to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sex discrimination, sexual and sex based harassment, hostile work environments and victimisation as far as possible. The bill provides the Human Rights Commission with the function of assessing and enforcing compliance with a positive duty. Crucially, the bill also makes a significant alteration to the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Act 2021, passed by the previous government. It replaces a section which stated it was an object of the act 'to achieve equal opportunity between men and women' with an object 'to achieve substantive equality between men and women'.
The bill also expressly prohibits conduct that results in a hostile work environment on the basis of sex and ensures Commonwealth public sector organisations are also required to report to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency on its gender equality indicators. In totality, this bill should go a long way towards ensuring safer, respectful and more equitable workplaces for all Australians. No-one should be made to feel unsafe or unwelcome at their place of work. It's simply not right.
Of course, there remains much work to be done. Sexual harassment, as with most gender based violence, is really about power. It's about the power of one person to carry out their will regardless of the impact on others, to make another person feel the power imbalance that exists between them; it diminishes, humiliates and silences victims; and we know that it remains the case that too often too many workplaces are characterised by structural, entrenched power imbalances between men and women. So wherever we see gender inequalities in our society—and let's be honest, we find them everywhere—we must redouble our efforts to eliminate these inequalities.
We remember the thousands of women who marched on Parliament House and more than 40 other sites around Australia, and we remember the Prime Minister who would not go out to meet them, would not go out to hear their concerns. This, and the way we heard how women were treated in this place, is one of the reasons I decided run for the seat of Boothby. When I campaigned I heard from so many women—women and men, but mostly women—about their terrible experiences. We must redouble our efforts to eliminate these inequalities because they cause real harm. Enough is enough.
Debate adjourned.
As a first-term member, my first experience of budget week has been a whirlwind filled with trials and tribulations. These are trying times for all Australians, but especially for low- and middle-income households like those my electorate of Fowler. These are the people I represent, and I would like to take a moment to voice their perspective.
We're seeing the low- and middle-income tax offset for workers earning up to $126,000 a year being scrapped, leaving ordinary, hardworking Australians out of pocket by up to $1,500. Yet we have also seen this government provide a $9,000 tax cut to people earning $200,000 and over. Under these stage 3 tax cuts someone in my electorate earning the median income of $65,000 will see a measly $500 tax cut. Moreover, these tax cuts will cost the government $243 billion.
If the government thinks this is fair or helping working-class Australians, this goes to show just how out of touch they are. It is incomprehensible that this tax cut would be maintained while rental stress and soaring energy prices are left untouched. I was hopeful that the budget would better consider families and small business in my electorate of Fowler who need government support the most. However, I was sorely disappointed.
This budget has plenty of plans for the future, plenty of buzzwords and plenty of headlines, but few outcomes outside of political grandstanding. We now have a new Housing Accord that's supposed to build one million new homes to ease the rental crisis, yet the tab is mostly being picked up by superannuation and other private sector groups with no obvious plan of how goals will be achieved. Making matters worse, we're apparently meant to rely on the renowned 'good nature' and 'altruism' of developers for these houses to be built swiftly and soundly. And the plan, if it happens at all, won't come into effect for another year. The housing and rental crisis is happening now, and my community of Fowler, in particular, is feeling the pain.
Even if the government can deliver on this housing promise, people need more than just a house. They need transport, they need parklands for their children, they need schools and hospitals, and they need jobs nearby. Despite a growing population in south-west Sydney, it was not until recently, due to the Western Sydney airport, that the former government collaborated with local and state governments to fill the infrastructure gap. While these infrastructure projects are a state responsibility, federal funding drives them. I therefore call on the government to consider the importance of funding long-term projects in areas like Fowler.
Energy prices remain a major concern for the people of my electorate and Australians at large, with electricity prices set to rise by 30 to 50 per cent. The government has committed to a $20 billion long-term plan, in Rewiring the Nation; however, the outrageous energy price hike we're witnessing requires immediate attention and solutions. The government somewhat acknowledged this in providing $67 million to modernise energy market regulation and improve the functioning of the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism. However, this will not alleviate price pressures in the short term, and I implore the government to consider reappropriating a small portion of the money from the Powering Australia plan to help low-income households now.
In keeping with this, I would like to again call for the government to consider extending the 22c fuel excise cut. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the majority of my electorate of Fowler and in surrounding electorates families and businesses rely on their cars to drive to work and must also drive their children and elderly parents around. Reinstating this fuel excise cut would not be inflationary and would assist millions of hardworking Australians. To wealthy Australians, a 22c per litre saving may sound small, but in Fowler, which has the sixth-lowest median weekly family income in the country, this saving is incredibly important.
Compounding the issues faced by low-income families is the fact that there has been a consistent lack of funding for amenities and public transport in Western Sydney, forcing families to consume more fuel. Here I would like to again point out that the government can afford a $9,000 tax cut for wealthy Australians but cannot provide a 22c per litre fuel excise cut that would greatly help low-income families.
In sum, this week held much promise. It was an opportunity for this government and the Treasurer to make tough decisions and reach out to show their support for low-income households, the Australians truly battling through tough times. Instead, what we saw was an inversion of the usual budget phrase of 'decisions taken but not yet announced' to 'decisions announced but not yet taken'. I therefore ask this government to consider the forgotten families of Fowler and those who are struggling the most, and to consider their plight in the present moment, not just in the future.
PERRETT () (): by leave—In Moreton electorate we recently honoured a number of local legends at my annual Moreton Volunteer Awards. These awards have become an important feature of the community calendar, an important reminder that we are not just individuals living in the same geographic location; we're a community working together. Unfortunately, we had to postpone our celebration earlier this year due to an outbreak of COVID, so I was very pleased to belatedly celebrate our wonderful 2021 recipients.
At the Wellers Hill Bowls Club I was joined by local state members the Hon. Mark Bailey MP, Peter Russo MP and Jess Pugh MP as well as by Nicole Johnston, councillor for Brisbane City Council's Tennyson Ward. Edward and his committee at Wellers Hill very generously allowed us to use their premises without charge. The Wellers Hill club do this in recognition of volunteerism in our community. People should go and have a meal there on weekends to support them. The food's great and the beer's even better.
The Moreton Volunteer Awards honour the hard work and volunteer spirit that is alive and well in Brisbane's southside. The recipients are outstanding representatives of people who care, people who step up, people who just know what needs to be done for their fellow Australians. The work they do varies, but each of them changes lives and makes those lives better. By their quiet example day after day they are signalling to the rest of us how to treat our neighbours.
Here are the recipients of the Moreton Volunteer Awards: Kigen Ahe, Leah Lang, Sue Nunn, Elizabeth Pu and Jack Wei, from St David's Neighbourhood Centre, whom I got to present awards to in person outside of Wellers Hill; John Brown and Jim Pascoe from Oxley Men's Shed; Jeff Brunne and Larissa Deake, from the Annerley Junction Festival Committee, who oversaw the biggest Junction Fest ever; and Mimi Chang, Benjamin Chen and Jessie Liu, from the Taiwan Women's League of Queensland. I've known Benjamin Chen for 20-plus years. He's an absolute legend.
Awards also went to Shou Men Chen and Kathy Yuen, from the Australian Cantonese Association; Hei (Hugo) Chen, from the Chinese Fraternity Association of Queensland Incorporated; Elizabeth Cohen-Rogers from Runcorn State High School P? Richard Copland, John Quak and Andrew Trail, from Community Plus+ at Yeronga; Michael Crosby, from the Normanby Hounds Rugby League Football Club; Leonie Crowe, from the Brisbane Dog Training Club; Jitendra Deo, a local community leader; Cheryl Desmarais, from the Ekibin Lions Club; Desley Griffiths, from Brisbane Vintage and Collectables; Rachna Gupta, a local charity fundraiser; and John Hogan and Phil Kyle, from the Sherwood Indooroopilly RSL Sub Branch.
John Hogan is actually 94 years old and has spent a lifetime volunteering for his church, the Sherwood Neighbourhood Centre and, over the past decade, the Oxley Men's Shed. He's the founding member and inaugural president of the Oxley Men's Shed. John was instrumental in working with the Brisbane City Council, St John's Church and the community to find a home for, build an executive for and establish the shed way back in 2011. John is an extraordinary ambassador for the Oxley Men's Shed and is a quiet champion supporting our local community.
I commend Teresa Howkins from the Sherwood branch of Australian War Widows; Geoff Ivett and Molly Neville from Sherwood District Meals on Wheels; Sophie Julian from the Sherwood Community Festival committee; and Dave Kent, Mary Lou Simpson and Noel Standfast from the Oxley Creek Catchment Association. I particularly mention Noel Standfast because he's from my hometown of St George.
I commend June McNicol. I particularly want to shout her out. She's a founding member and valued volunteer at Yeronga Meals on Wheels. June served as secretary of the Yeronga Meals on Wheels from its inception in 1971—'71!—and remained onboard until it merged with Southside Meals on Wheels in 2021. For over 50 years, June has dedicated her time to the Meals on Wheels mission to support the elderly within our community and reduce the risk of social isolation. While doing so, June has remained forward thinking and has adapted to change as needed, to ensure the organisation's ongoing success. As you can imagine, she's not the youngest person in the community, either!
I commend Modabera Popal from the Mashal-e Irfan Afghan Language School; Lila Pratap, the founder of the Damini Women's Association of Queensland; Karen Ramsey from the Sunnybank Rugby Union Club; Bruce Riddell, treasurer of the Annerley Baptist Church, who do great work with homeless people and on other matters; Ram Sumer from the Indian Senior Citizen Association; and Leigh Windsor from the Sherwood Neighbourhood Centre, who did so much during the recent floods in February.
Thank you to all of the recipients for making our community such a wonderful place and for giving so much back to my community of Moreton on the south side of Brisbane.
Thank you to the member of Moreton for running through those amazing volunteers that we all have in our communities. It's great to see them recognised.
Labor's first budget in nine years is another blow to regional and remote communities still recovering from the pandemic. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised that no-one would be held back and no-one would be left behind under an Albanese government. With Labor's first budget, 30 per cent of Australians who live in regional areas, including my entire electorate of O'Connor, have been left behind in four key areas. These four neglected areas are cost of living, child care, infrastructure and community care.
The first neglected area of cost of living is set to get worse under this budget. Where the coalition's budget earlier this year decisively dealt with this issue through measures such as halving the fuel excise for six months, Labor's budget will set the average family back by at least $2,000 by Christmas. Groceries will cost eight per cent more, not just because of natural disasters but also thanks to a Labor-made disaster in scrapping the ag visa. Supply has been slashed because farmers and processors are only working at 60 per cent capacity. In O'Connor and across the rest of the country, this has put upward pressure on families at the checkout. It's a double whammy for families in my electorate, many of whom are farming families who, in the coming months, will struggle to harvest all their crops thank to the shortage of workers.
Turning to child care—or a lack thereof—Labor's budget has turned its back on families desperate to find childcare places in O'Connor. While the Treasurer announced $4.7 billion in childcare measures, he could not create one new childcare place, leaving families no better off. Labor has put the needs of regional families last, refusing to increase the availability of desperately needed childcare places and centres in regional areas.
Labor has also axed the Building Better Regions Fund. Across O'Connor, more than 20 community groups and local councils lodged applications for round 6 of the program. They spent much time, money and energy and many resources in doing so. Scrapping this highly successful program mid-round is heartbreaking for those applicants. Over the past five years, Building Better Regions has supported more than 50 community building projects across O'Connor. These include the very popular Esperance Jetty project, upgrades to Niels Hansen Basketball Stadium, in Kalgoorlie-Boulder and extensive works at Middleton Beach allowing for significant investment in a hotel development in the precinct. Without the Building Better Regions Fund, infrastructure renewal in regional communities will stagnate, while projects in Labor's metropolitan heartland are prioritised.
In the lower South-West I welcomed a reported commitment that $39.7 million previously budged by the coalition for water security would stay in WA and not vanish into consolidated revenue. I've written to the Minister for the Environment and Water urging her to quarantine that money for water security measures now that the WA Labor government has decided not to proceed with the Southern Forests Irrigation Scheme. Unfortunately, the minister is yet to reply to me, but news reports today that the money will stay WA is a welcome development, and I will hold the minister to that.
With regard to community care, in a bizarre move federal Labor will blow $217 million over four years on scrapping the cashless debit card. That works out to $13½ thousand per participant in the trial. In the Goldfields working age welfare recipients had 80 per cent of their payments placed onto a visa debit card, with the remaining 20 per cent available to be withdrawn as cash. An early evaluation of the card showed that 41 per cent of surveyed participants who drank alcohol reported drinking less frequently, 48 per cent of surveyed participants who used drugs reported using drugs less frequently and, surprisingly enough, 48 per cent of those who gambled before the trial reported gambling less often.
Meanwhile, Warren-Blackwood constituents will be disappointed that the budget claiming to allocate $4.2 million to support regional headspace centres—health minister Mark Butler has informed the Blackwood Youth Action group that Labor will reverse the coalition's pre-election promise of a headspace dedicated to that district. I will keep working with the Blackwood Youth Action group towards achieving a headspace service in the district.
In a further blow, in the middle of the show season, the budget will not proceed with round 2 of the Regional Agricultural Show Development Grants Program. It's also scrapping funding for the Agricultural Show and Field Days Program. Abolishing these programs is bad news for our Ag. societies who are still recovering from the economic hit of the pandemic. Cuts are proof of the contempt which Labor has for regional and remote Australia— (Time expired)
This week the Albanese Labor government handed down our budget. I want to begin by acknowledging role of the Public Service in delivering that budget. As a former Treasury official, I know the incredibly long hours and stressful work that can go into that over many weeks and months. I want to thank everyone who has been involved in that: the people working at Treasury, at Finance, at Prime Minister & Cabinet; and all the portfolio agencies involved in making the budget happen. This is a huge piece of work, from the advice on the proposals through to getting the documents ready. Then, as this budget is legislated and begins, it is the Public Service who will implement those programs and deliver those services. They are critically important to the services that Australians need every day and also to the proper functioning of our government and our democracy. It's the frank and fearless advice that is provided by the Australian Public Service. I'm very proud that a Labor government has made restoring the Public Service part of this budget. I'm incredibly proud, as the member for Canberra, to represent so many people that work in the Australian Public Service in my electorate.
Our budget includes $72.9 million to rebuild the Australian Public Service and deliver on our ambitious and enduring reform plans. This investment consists of $25 million for our capability reinvestment fund, $7.1 million over two years to deliver net zero emissions in the APS by 2030 and $48.8 million to deliver the APS reform agenda of the Albanese Labor government. These investments include 7,564 positions in the Public Service so that we can deliver the services that the Australian people and businesses require. This is incredibly important. Under this government the insult to the Public Service and the lack of respect for the important role that they play ends. The Canberra bashing ends, the bashing of the Australian Public Service ends. The respect for those people, their professionalism, their expertise and their critical role in service delivery and in policy making gets, again, the respect it deserves.
As I said, I have worked as a public servant in the Treasury. My father spent most of his career in the Public Service, and I've of course worked with public servants through other parts of my work. I want to acknowledge that these are some of the hardest working, most dedicated people in our community, and it's time they got the respect that they deserved. People go into the Public Service because they care about policy issues, they care about the Australian public and they care about service delivery. And they work very hard. Over the last decade, under the previous government, they have been neglected and have experienced cuts. There has been a lot of wasteful spending on consultancies that should have gone into building the capability of the APS. We will see that end under this new Albanese Labor government.
The positions that will be added as part of this budget include 31 extra positions for the National Archives of Australia and 30 extra positions for the National Library of Australia. Our national institutions, again, were absolutely neglected under the previous government, and these institutions belong not just to Canberra but to our whole nation. The Archives and the Library provide an incredibly important role in preserving our history and making it available to Australians, so I'm really pleased that they have been part of this announcement.
I'd like to run through some of the important work that these positions will allow to happen. The measures in the budget include 653 jobs in the Department of Veterans' Affairs to help address delays and long wait times for veterans; 296 jobs in the NDIA and 225 jobs in the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to see people with disabilities and their families get the support they need; 921 jobs in the Department of Home Affairs, which will be critical in addressing visa backlogs and in reuniting families after years of waiting in limbo; and over 1,200 jobs in the ATO, which will ensure that the agency can better address the growing issue of multinational tax avoidance.
I could go on, but I'm running out of time. I want to say thank you to our Public Service. As a government, we absolutely respect you and your important role.
Let's not mince our words. Labor's budget fails regional Australians. It fails the people of Mallee, my people. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised that, if he won government, there would be no-one held back and no-one left behind. But, in Labor's first budget, the 30 per cent of Australians who live in regional and rural areas have been held back and left behind in key areas: the cost of living, child care, small business, agriculture and infrastructure.
The price of groceries is already up eight per cent. It's easy to point the finger at natural disasters, but Labor's scrapping of the ag visa, which I personally fought so hard for, has had a marked effect. We need 172,000 workers now. Supply has been slashed because farmers and processors are limited to just 60 per cent capacity due to workforce shortages, which has ultimately put prices up at the check-out. Does Labor even know what farmers do? Energy prices are already up 20 per cent this year and are predicted to rise a further 30 per cent next year, while the $275 saving promised by Labor to reduce electricity bills is now dead. That was something they promised 97 times pre-election. Interest rates and inflation are up and are predicted to go up further under Labor, ripping hundreds of dollars out of households each month. That's hundreds of dollars that would put food on the table, keep the lights on or safeguard the future of our regional families.
In Mallee, I know child care is a huge issue. We have a childcare desert, with seven towns where there is no child care and long waitlists in others. While Labor has announced $4.7 billion in childcare measures, it will not create one new additional childcare place, leaving regional and rural families no better off. They have gone for subsidies over service. Affordability of child care is not the issue in Mallee; it is accessibility. I have seven towns in dire need of childcare facilities. Parents there are not crying out for a subsidy. They tell me they actually need bricks and mortar and a workforce so that they can go back to work. Birchip needs child care, Boort needs child care and Cohuna needs child care. Murtoa, Pyramid Hill, Rainbow and Wedderburn all need child care. In other towns, there are waitlists as long as my arm. One centre in Mildura has a waitlist of 200. That is 200 families who cannot add their skills to the workforce even though they want to. Labor needs to offer a solution.
Another failure by Labor is the direct cut of vital funding streams for regional Australia. Multibillion-dollar programs have been scrapped, including the Energy Security and Regional Development Plan, the Regional Accelerator Program, the Community Development Grants Program and the Building Better Regions Fund. These programs supported regional councils that do not have the income streams that urban centres have and therefore do not have the capacity to build local infrastructure critical to their communities. Without the funding, there are no new sporting facilities, no regional health education opportunities and no tourism park redevelopments. Labor's solution is to slash that funding, which is now nowhere near enough. Regional Australians deserve better; they deserve a federal government that cares.
While the regions are forgotten, Labor will give $2.2 billion to Dan Andrews for his election campaign in the form of the Suburban Rail Loop. But there is nothing to see here! Labor have perfected pork barrelling while hypocritically pointing the finger at us. Labor have broken the promises they made to all Australians and in particular to regional Australians. They have broken the hearts and will break the bank balances of regional and rural families. Treasurer Chalmers keeps talking about families around the kitchen table, but it has proven to be just that—talk. Labor has abandoned families in regional communities and cast a shadow over their futures.
In the 159 days since I have been the federal member for Holt, one of the issues that have been particularly prominent is the blockages in visa processing. Nine years of ifs, buts and cuts by the former coalition government meant that the slimmed down Department of Home Affairs was struggling to keep up with constituent demand. One million visa applications were decaying in the in-tray on 21 May 2022.
What amuses me is not just the incompetence of our predecessors but simply the inhumane approach they took towards people whose futures were left uncertain. I am proud they are no longer in government and I am certain millions of people across Australia agree with me. In less than six months since taking office, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Andrew Giles, has gotten on with providing certainty to those who have been left in the lurch for years. In such a short span of time, the visa backlog has reduced to roughly 800,000—a decrease of 20 per cent. We are determined to reduce this number as quickly and as efficiently as possible without forgoing the diligence with which each application is assessed. The additional investment of $36.1 million to hire 500 surge staff over the next few months to process Australia's crippling backlog is a refreshing change, one that I'm sure many in my electorate of Holt and across the nation are proud of.
This backlog affects everyone: partners, parents, children, refugees, skilled migrants, and even their entire families and communities. I have met constituents whose marriages were at risk because the couple could not be together; their partner visa was yet to be processed, sometimes even seven years after making an application. I have met people who have never lived under the same roof as their children. This backlog must go, and the work to make it disappear is well and truly underway. We cannot, as lawmakers, but more importantly as humans, continue to let the lives of these people hang in uncertainty.
This issue affects migrants from every corner of the world, with those communities facing persecution being most affected, because, for them, this backlog is literally a matter of life and death. Among them are the Hazara community, a minority who originate from Afghanistan, many of whom call my electorate of Holt their home.
I would first like to express my heartfelt condolences for the 52 people, mostly girls, whose lives were drastically cut short due to a horribly shameful act of terrorism. This act on young, blossoming Hazara students at the Kaaj Higher Educational Centre in Kabul is deeply saddening. It is the most recent in a long list of acts of persecution against the Hazara people—acts which have intensified since the Taliban's takeover a year ago. The Albanese government continue to condemn these deplorable acts targeting the Hazara community in Afghanistan. We support calls from the international community that those responsible must be brought to justice. My message is simple: everyone, regardless of age, gender or belief, deserves the right to live in peace. The marginalisation and the discrimination of the Hazara population must stop.
The unprecedented humanitarian and economic crisis in Afghanistan has posed a steep risk to not only food and health care but even the lives of people. I commend the efforts of several Afghan and Australian organisations for their work in assisting Afghanistan during these times of need. I extend my thoughts and prayers to the Afghan people, particularly the Hazara community, which deserves to be free of persecution. I am pleased that Australia has committed $141 million in humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan, including $20 million for internally displaced people in Afghanistan and neighbouring countries hosting Afghan refugees.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:3 2