I present report No. 9 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private member's business on Monday 6 March 2023. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 14 February 2023.
2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 14 February 2023, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 6 March 2023, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINE SS
Notices
1 DR SCAMPS: To present a Bill for an Act to establish a framework for transparent and quality public appointments, and to establish Independent Selection Panels and the Office of the Public Appointments Commissioner, and for related purposes. (Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2023)
(Notice given 14 February 2023.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 MS STEGGALL: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) Australia has signed the Global Methane Pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030;
(b) methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere and is over 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20 year period;
(c) the fossil fuel sector accounts for nearly 40 per cent of Australia's methane emissions; and
(d) the International Energy Agency highlights that methane emissions from oil and gas are some of the easiest to abate; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) enact effective national methane regulations to limit venting and flaring of gas;
(b) implement best practice regulations from the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership; and
(c) use the Safeguard Mechanism and other legislative pathways to drive methane capture.
(Notice given 14 February 2023.)
Time allotted 30 minutes.
Speech time limits
Ms Steggall 5 minutes.
Other Members 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined t hat consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
3 MS MURPHY: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the Government is:
(a) taking responsible and decisive action to take some of the edge off energy price rises; and
(b) responding to the energy price rise the previous Minister for Energy hid from the Australian people during the election; and
(2) acknowledges:
(a) that recent energy price rise forecasts were lower than previously predicted; and
(b) power prices are lower than they otherwise would be because of the steps the Government is taking.
(Notice given 14 February 2023.)
Time allotted 40 minutes.
Speech time limits
Ms Murphy 5 minutes.
Other Members 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
4 MR VAN MANEN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that every 31 minutes someone in Australia is diagnosed with blood cancer, many of whom will require a lifesaving blood stem cell transplant, with:
(a) a greater success seen when utilising transplants from the bone marrow of younger donors, particularly men aged 18 to 35 years;
(b) patients more likely to find a donor match with those who share a similar ethnic background;
(c) 30 per cent of patients finding a match within their family, and 70 per cent needing to find an unrelated donor through the Australian Donor Registry; and
(d) a shortage of donors, so that 80 per cent of Australian patients will require a donation from an overseas donor;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) blood donations are currently the main avenue for individuals to join the blood stem cell donor registry in Australia, while cheek swab testing, primarily used overseas, makes the process quicker, easier, and far less intrusive;
(b) dependency on foreign donations has halved in nations that utilise cheek swab testing, whereas Australia's dependency has increased;
(c) cheek swab testing increases the rate of domestic donations, saving countless lives in the process; and
(d) the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry's program, Strength to Give, demonstrated that cheek swab testing was a viable, cost-effective method of increasing Australia's donor pool; and
(3) calls on the Government to work with organisations, such as the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry, to remove the legislative and regulatory impediments that are currently preventing a nationwide rollout of cheek swab-based donor enrolment and to deliver awareness campaigns to assist in increasing the rate of blood stem cell donations, particularly from Australia men aged 18 to 35 years.
(Notice given 7 February 2023.)
Time allotted remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.
Speech time limits
Mr van Manen 5 minutes.
Other Members 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE M EMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR HOGAN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the importance of providing appropriate protections for Australian businesses investing overseas; and
(b) that Australia has negotiated Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses over the past 30 years in investment treaties and free trade agreements;
(2) acknowledges that Australian companies investing in foreign countries have used ISDS clauses to protect their investments from being taken over by foreign governments;
(3) recalls that:
(a) free trade agreement negotiations came to a standstill under the Government of Prime Minister Gillard arising from the refusal to include ISDS clauses in these agreements; and
(b) it took the re-election of the Coalition Government to get Australia's trade policy back on track; and
(4) recognises that the current Government's decision to once again scrap ISDS clauses in new free trade agreements and renegotiate them in existing ones shows that the unions are controlling the Government and putting Australia's trade gains at risk.
(Notice given 24 November 2022.)
Time allotted 40 minutes.
Speech time limits
Mr Hogan 5 minutes.
Other Members 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
2 MS SITOU: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the extraordinary contribution teachers, principals and school support staff make to our students and the future of Australia;
(2) recognises we face a critical and unprecedented teacher shortage that will have consequences across our society; and
(3) notes the measures the Government has already taken to attract, train and retain teachers.
(Notice given 14 Febru ary 2023.)
Time allotted 40 minutes.
Speech time limits
Ms Sitou 5 minutes.
Other Members 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day .
3 MR THOMPSON: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes with great distress that:
(a) there were 18,925 victim-survivors of child sexual assault reported in Australia in 2021;
(b) this accounts for almost two-thirds (61 per cent) of reported victim-survivors of all ages that year; and
(c) 67 per cent of sexual assaults occurred at residential locations;
(2) applauds the work of the former Government to implement mandatory minimum sentencing and other measures for child sex offenders through the passing of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019; and
(3) calls on the Government to implement, in conjunction with state and territory governments, a National Child Sex Offender Register to be a single point of truth to make public the identities, offences and residential addresses of convicted child sex offenders for the purpose of keeping Australian children safe.
(Notice given 13 February 2023.)
Time allotted 30 minutes.
Speech time limits
Mr Tho mpson 5 minutes.
Other Members 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
4 MR GEORGANAS: To move:
That this House:
(1) observes it is one year since Russia's 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine;
(2) deplores the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which continues a pattern of illegal and immoral aggression against Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, which has resulted in a toll of destruction, many thousands of human casualties, and the displacement of over 14 million Ukrainians;
(3) condemns:
(a) acts by Russia aimed at destroying the national, cultural, religious, and democratic institutions of the Ukrainian people and Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity; and
(b) Russia for violating international law, noting the clear evidence of war crimes being committed against the Ukrainian people;
(4) notes Australia continues to stand with Ukraine against Russian aggression and has provided Ukraine with military and humanitarian support, as well as refuge for displaced people, and will continue to do so; and
(5) reaffirms the 11th Emergency Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which also condemned, deplored, and expressed grave concern over attacks on civilian populations and infrastructure, and reiterates its demand that Russia withdraw from Ukraine's recognised sovereign territory.
(Notice given 14 February 2023.)
Time allotted remaining priv ate Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.
Speech time limits
Mr Georganas 5 minutes.
Other Members 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices — continued
5 MR BUCHHOLZ: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the role that the Australian Parliament House Sports Club, under the stewardship of Andy Turnbull, plays in promoting sport, fostering international relations development and friendship as part of a worldwide movement;
(2) notes the:
(a) Australian Parliament House Sports Club is part of a global network which connects with like-minded democracies and unites the world through sport, such as the cricket team visiting the United Kingdom and the rugby team visiting France this year;
(b) combined health benefits, both physical and mental, that sport supports, especially in the workplace, by encouraging participation in sport for people of all abilities with a view to improving fitness, health and enjoyment; and
(c) professional and bi-partisan manner, in which the Australian Parliament House Sports Club conducts itself; and
(3) acknowledges that sport is a true global unifier and a successful vehicle for diplomacy, through inclusiveness, gender equity and the participation of people of all abilities.
(Notice given 13 February 2023.)
Time allotted 30 minutes.
Speech time limits
Mr Buchholz 5 minutes.
Other Members 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
6 MR BURNS: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes the 6.9 per cent increase in Australian antisemitic incidents logged in the Australian community in the reporting year ending in 2022, on top of the 35 per cent increase over the 2020-2021 reporting period, and recognises:
(a) the broad commitment to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), holocaust remembrance and combatting antisemitism;
(b) the embrace of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism by governments and institutions around the world;
(c) that governments and institutions have also embraced parallel definitions of islamophobia; and
(d) that the IHRA definition is about framing what constitutes antisemitism, and not about singling out one form of discrimination over another; and
(2) reaffirms its commitment to the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.
(Notice given 13 February 2023.)
Time allotted 30 minutes.
Speech time limits
Mr Burns 5 minutes.
Other Members 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
7 MS WATSON-BROWN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes the Government's plan for $254 billion Stage 3 tax cuts for billionaires and politicians while flagging austerity measures in the upcoming Budget; and
(2) calls on the Government to scrap their unfair Stage 3 tax cuts in the upcoming Budget and instead deliver real cost of living relief by getting dental and mental health into Medicare, making childcare free, and addressing the housing and rental crisis, including by doubling rent assistance.
(Notice given 14 February 2023.)
Time allotted 20 minut es.
Speech time limits
Ms Watson-Brown 5 minutes.
Other Members 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
8 MS TEMPLEMAN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Government has launched Revive: A Place for Every Story, A Story for Every Place (Revive), Australia's new National Cultural Policy that will set the course for Australia's arts, entertainment and cultural sector for the next five years;
(b) Revive comes after a decade of wilful neglect and funding cuts for the arts and entertainment sector;
(c) Revive is built on five pillars and puts First Nations first—recognising and respecting the crucial place of these stories at the heart of our arts and culture; and
(d) in implementing Revive, the Government will:
(i) reverse the former Government's cuts to the Australia Council for the Arts;
(ii) establish Creative Australia and create four new bodies: Music Australia, Writers Australia, First Nations First body and a Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces;
(iii) almost double the Regional Arts Fund;
(iv) introduce quotas for Australian content on digital streaming platforms; and
(v) legislate to ban fake First Nations' art; and
(2) acknowledges Revive will bring drive, direction, and vision back to the $17 billion arts industry which employs an estimated 400,000 Australians.
(Notice given 8 February 2023.)
Time allotted 25 minutes.
Speech time limits
Ms Templeman 5 minutes.
Other Members 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
9 MR MCCORMACK: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes the Coalition's strong track record of delivering for Pacific Island economies through the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) Scheme, which has been instrumental in setting up Pacific workers and farmers for success;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) there are currently 35,000 PALM workers in Australia; and
(b) during the COVID-19 pandemic, the former Government managed to double the PALM Scheme from 12,500 to 25,000 participants, which furthered Pacific economies and ensured Australian food security; and
(3) recognises that this recent additional growth is due to the previous Government's streamlining of the Pacific Labour Scheme, which ensured a more efficient and safer PALM Scheme, in turn benefitting both workers and farmers.
(Notice given 8 February 2023.)
Time allotted 40 minutes.
Speech time limits
Mr McCormack 5 minutes.
Other Members 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
10 MS STANLEY: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Australian Labor Party established the National Broadband Network (NBN) Co in 2009;
(b) the NBN Co was established to connect all Australians with fast, accessible and reliable broadband;
(c) the former Government's move to a multi-technology mix, using the copper broadband network, resulted in reduced broadband speeds, less reliability and increased costs to NBN Co; and
(d) businesses and everyday Australians require fast and reliable broadband to operate;
(2) acknowledges that the:
(a) use of the copper broadband network has delayed access to fast and reliable broadband;
(b) existing broadband infrastructure requires upgrading due to the former Government's use of copper technology;
(c) Government committed $2.4 billion in the October 2022-2023 budget to expand full-fibre access to an additional 1.5 million premises by late 2025, including 660,000 in regional Australia; and
(d) Government will continue to ensure all Australians can have access to fast and reliable broadband; and
(3) further notes that Australian families deserve access to internet that is affordable and meets the needs of small business, education, and recreation.
(Notice given 14 February 2023.)
Time allotted remaining priv ate Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm.
Speech time limits
Ms Stanley 5 minutes.
Other Members 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.
THE HON D. M. DICK MP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
15 February 2023
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This is the first in a series of bills that will support the implementation of Australia's National Cultural Policy—Revive. This first bill amends the Australia Council Act 2013 to support the implementation of the National Cultural Policy. The bill will allow the Australia Council to operate under the name Creative Australia. There will be a time later when we introduce legislation to establish Creative Australia as a new body in its own right, but this bill will expand the functions of the Australia Council to support the upcoming establishment of the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces, Music Australia, Writers Australia and the First Nations First body. This bill delivers on our election commitment to transfer the functions of Creative Partnerships Australia to the Australia Council.
Since 1975, the Australia Council has been the principal Commonwealth arts investment and advisory body, with a strong profile in the arts sector. It supports and promotes creative arts practice that is recognised nationally and internationally, and provides research and advocacy on issues affecting the sector.
Establishing Creative Australia is the centrepiece of the government's National Cultural Policy. It will strengthen the capacity of the Australia Council, provide for greater strategic oversight and engagement across the sector, and ensure that funding decisions continue to be made on the basis of artistic merit and at arms-length from government. It will also include the establishment of independent bodies and funds for First Nations arts and culture, for contemporary music and for writers, as well as a centre for arts and entertainment workers.
The implementation of the Australia Council reforms under the National Cultural Policy will be staged to allow for necessary consultation across the sector; however there are a number of elements that require implementation from 1 July which are covered in this bill.
The bill provides for the Australia Council to operate under the name Creative Australia as an interim measure. Additional functions in this bill will also enable the Australia Council to commence work on the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces and Music Australia. A follow-up bill will be introduced later this year to establish Creative Australia as a new organisation and to formally establish Music Australia and the Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces within it. These bodies will be critical in building partnerships and expertise that will both support artists directly and benefit Australian audiences. Consultation within the sector will continue, and will inform legislation. It's important that we get the legislation right so we can open up the government's principal arts funding body to more areas of the creative economy while increasing core funding.
The Centre for Arts and Entertainment Workplaces will work with artists, industry workers and employers to raise and maintain standards, remuneration and safety for all art forms and arts organisations, and to ensure matters are referred to relevant authorities, as appropriate. The centre will ensure that, under cultural policy, such companies not adhering to these standards will be prevented from receiving government funding.
Music Australia will support the Australian music industry to grow, including through strategic initiatives and industry partnerships, research, training and skills development and export promotion.
The bill will also provide authority for Creative Australia to deliver the functions of Creative Partnerships Australia, including to attract and recognise public sector, private sector, philanthropic and commercial support for, and investment in, the arts, and to undertake research on the same. The transfer will leverage Creative Australia's expertise and bring together arts philanthropy and arts funding within one entity. It will create synergies between public and private partnerships, as well as government, philanthropic and commercial investment. This increased access to private sector funding for the arts will maximise the impact of public investment and support a sustainable arts sector.
The bill also allows Creative Australia to assume responsibility for the Australian Cultural Fund, from 1 July 2023, including all donations made into the fund prior to the transfer. The Australian Cultural Fund is an important mechanism used by Creative Partnerships Australia to deliver its objectives to grow the culture of giving to arts and culture, bringing donors, businesses, artists and arts organisations together.
Through this legislation Creative Australia will assume responsibility to assist Australian artists and arts organisations to attract and maintain support from donors and businesses, diversifying their sources of revenue and to encourage and celebrate innovation and excellence in giving to, and partnerships with, the arts and cultural sector.
This bill includes transitional elements to support a smooth transfer of functions and to ensure continuity of business between Creative Partnerships Australia and Creative Australia. These transitional elements will cover the transfer of assets, liabilities, records and staff entitlements and will ensure that at the time of transfer, employees of Creative Partnerships Australia will be taken to be Creative Australia employees and receive equivalent accrued entitlements to benefits.
This government's committed to improving the quality of Commonwealth investment in the arts sector, and to strengthening and streamlining access to support including for artists and arts organisations. A properly resourced Creative Australia is key to delivering on this commitment. The transfer of the functions of, and funding for, Creative Partnerships Australia to Creative Australia will align with this objective. As will the expanded functions and new funding of $199 million over four years from 2023-24, announced as part of the National Cultural Policy.
Timely passage of this bill will allow these initiatives to commence from 1 July this year, for the broader benefit of the artists and arts organisations.
Further details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum, and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The death by suicide of any Australian is a tragedy.
Unfortunately, the rate of suicide among our veteran community is significantly higher than across the broader Australian community.
That is why the government strongly supported calls to establish the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide while in opposition, and why we are acting swiftly in response to the findings and recommendations made by the royal commission in its interim report.
It is critical the royal commission hears from the broadest possible range of people who have stories or experiences relating to defence and veteran suicide. Individuals need to have the confidence that they can safely share these with the royal commission.
It is particularly important that people who have not yet engaged with the royal commission due to concerns about protecting their sensitive or personal information are encouraged to do so.
This bill will make important amendments to the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to establish greater protections of certain sensitive information. The amendments will ensure people can engage with the royal commission knowing that any information of a sensitive, personal or confidential nature they disclose can be protected during and after the life of the royal commission. This in turn will expand the information available to the royal commission on which to base its findings and recommendations.
The royal commission's interim report
The government welcomed the royal commission's interim report, which was released on 11 August 2022 and is available on the royal commission's website.
The interim report made 13 recommendations requiring urgent and immediate attention.
This bill will implement recommendation 6(1) of the interim report.
Existing confidentiality protections in the Royal Commissions Act
The Royal Commissions Act already contains strong protections which ensure that sensitive information given to the royal commission can be kept confidential.
People can already share their experiences with the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide through private sessions. These allow information to be shared with the royal commission in a trauma-informed and less formal setting than a hearing, and there are significant protections in place regarding the use and disclosure of information given in private sessions, which apply both during a royal commission's inquiries and after it has concluded.
The royal commission is also able to use pseudonyms in public hearings and published material, and it is able to issue non-publication directions, which prevent the publication of sensitive information.
These protections are important mechanisms to ensure that information shared with a royal commission on a confidential basis will be treated confidentially. The amendments contained in this bill extend those protections.
New confidentiality protections in the bill
Due to the nature of this royal commission's inquiries, information that serving and ex-serving members of the Australian Defence Force, and their families, wish to share with the royal commission is often sensitive and highly personal.
The royal commission has made extensive use of private sessions as a way for people to share information in a confidential and trauma-informed way, having held over 250 private sessions to date.
People have also provided and will continue to provide sensitive information to the royal commission outside of private sessions, with an expectation that it will be treated confidentially. For example, individuals may provide confidential written statements or accounts to the royal commission, or may share information with a staff member supporting the royal commission's work during an interview.
It is appropriate and important that information provided in this way is protected in the same way as information given in a private session.
New clause 6OQ, which this bill would insert into the Royal Commissions Act, will provide that certain information provided to the royal commission outside of a private session is protected in the same way as it would if it was given in a private session, if the royal commission treats that information as confidential at all times.
The confidentiality protections in the bill would mean that:
The protections established by this bill would be available to any person who wishes to provide information to the Royal Commission about their experience or the experience of another person. This includes not just serving Australian Defence Force members, but also, for example, ex-serving members or family members.
These new protections will give people assurance that if they have sensitive information to provide to the royal commission, such as highly personal accounts of their experiences or that of their loved ones, they will be able to do so in the knowledge that it can be kept confidential, even long after the inquiry has ended.
New clause 6OQ has been modelled on existing section 6OP, which was enacted in September 2021 and established equivalent protections for the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. The introduction of section 6OP was sought, and subsequently welcomed, by the disability royal commission and its stakeholders. In its interim report, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide considered it appropriate and desirable that this same framework be made available to it, and the government agrees.
Consultation with stakeholders
In developing this legislation, the government has been mindful of the importance of consulting the section of the community that will benefit from these amendments.
The government has consulted with:
There was strong support for the proposed amendments from the royal commission and among these stakeholder groups. The royal commission and stakeholder groups noted the deeply personal nature of the information that people wish to share with the royal commission, and the importance of being able to do so safely and confidentially.
The government is taking swift and comprehensive action in response to other recommendations of the interim report. For instance:
In the federal budget, the government committed substantial funding to progressing responses to the recommendations in the royal commission's interim report, as well as significant funding of other measures devoted to providing long-term benefits for defence personnel, veterans and families. The government is committed to providing practical supports to support to defence personnel, veterans and families to ensure a better future for the veteran community.
Conclusion
The government wants people to come forward and share their stories and experience with the royal commission. This is crucial to ensuring the royal commission is able to obtain as much information as possible to inform its inquiries and support its ultimate findings and recommendations.
The government recognises that in order for that to happen, people need to feel confident that any sensitive information they share, including highly personal accounts or experiences, will be kept confidential if it is communicated on that basis.
The royal commission recommended introducing similar protections to those legislated for the Disability Royal Commission in 2021.
The government agrees that these protections should be legislated as a matter of priority. This is why the government has introduced this bill.
The measures in this bill have been the subject of careful consideration by the government and consultation with the royal commission and key stakeholders who will benefit from the new protections it will introduce. There is strong support for the protections proposed in the bill to be in place as swiftly as possible.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
This bill puts an end to a sorry saga in Australian contemporary politics. The passing of the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 will see an end to what was shocking to most Australians. Australia woke to the knowledge that, unbeknownst to the public, unbeknownst to members of his own government, unbeknownst to members of the opposition, the former prime minister Scott Morrison had, between March 2020 and May 2021, been appointed by the Governor-General to administer five portfolios in addition to his appointment to administer the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. There may be those who think this has been some kind of blip on the radar, but we are here with legislation in the chamber because of the serious nature of this. It needs to be corrected. We need to take action to protect our democratic conventions. It is a very sorry day to be in the parliament and to be part of having to protect our democracy in this way.
I note the presence of the member for McPherson and thank her for her response on becoming aware of this situation, because of course there were those in the then government who were sorely put upon in this process as well as those members of the opposition, those members of the crossbench and the public of Australia. It was a shocking thing to discover that our parliamentary conventions had been undermined, had been trashed, by a former prime minister.
It is with some reflection that I think of the actions that have been taken since. We had Solicitor-General's advice to say that what had occurred was incorrect. We had the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Attorney-General establish an inquiry into the appointment of the former prime minister to administer multiple departments which was led by former High Court justice the Honourable Justice Virginia Bell AC, with a final report provided to government on 25 November 2022, which finds us here, looking at legislation to ensure that this could not occur again; that our system of government, our system of parliament, our system of cabinet government could not be undermined in this way again.
It's not something that we can assume a quick fix and move on. It did create a moment where we have to pause and consider the slippery slope of the actions that were taken by the former prime minister and what a slope it put us on. The parliamentarians who sit in this place are elected to represent our communities. Let's face, we are a collection in the House of Representatives of 151 different individuals from all parts of this great country sent here to represent our communities. We participate in our democracy and, in good faith, we come here.
A parliament runs with procedures, with standing orders and with all of those things that are changeable by the parliament within the confines of the parliament. But above and beyond are the democratic conventions that this place depends upon for the smooth running of our country, that we depend upon to know that we have a truly representative democracy. Our democracy had been undermined is what we've found has occurred.
I am reminded, reflecting in preparation to speak on this bill, of the situation we find ourselves in now with a new government. I have great comfort in knowing that we have a prime minister who has served decades in this place, who is first a parliamentarian, a former Leader of the House, a former minister of the Crown and a current prime minister. He is imbued with respect for the parliament, respect for standing orders, respect for procedures and, most importantly, respect for our conventions and for our democracy. One of the first acts of this Prime Minister has been to act to protect that democracy, to right the axis and to say that our representative democracy is at the heart of this country and is something that should and will be protected. That's what this bill does; it puts an end to that sorry saga.
We've heard lots of speakers from around the country speak in what is, I would suggest, the Australian way. We take something serious and, to come to terms with it, sometimes look to humour, and there's been a lot of humour about secret ministries. There's been a lot of humour about a prime minister who didn't discuss these things with his own cabinet or with members of the government but went behind the scenes to create this scenario. It is the Australian way to create humour about that, and we can now smile and talk about five secret ministries. But the fact of the matter is that our democracy was being actively undermined when the former Prime Minister was also the Minister for Health; the Minister for Finance; the minister for industry, science, energy and resources; the Minister for Home Affairs; and the Treasurer, unbeknownst to anyone in this House and unbeknownst to the Australian public.
I note with interest that, since the beginning of the 47th Parliament, the member for Cook has spoken twice in this chamber, where he still sits as a member of our representative democracy. He spoke on the death of the Queen and he spoke in defence of himself in a censure motion. I note with interest that, in the 47th Parliament, a lot of legislation has gone through this House. In the health portfolio, there have been five pieces of legislation; in Finance, eight; in Industry, Science and Resources, one; in Home Affairs, four; and, in Treasury, 11. The member for Cook has not risen from his seat to speak on any of those for which he had sworn himself in as a minister in the 46th Parliament. There's legislation before us now that comes under those portfolios. The member for Cook has not risen from his seat once to speak on any of those pieces of legislation.
It is a sad day for our democracy that we are having to take action to protect convention—because our democracy relies on convention, and our democracy is the most precious thing this country has. In the outer west of Melbourne, in the suburb of Point Cook, there are people from 82 different countries living in the Point Cook community of which I represent a small part, and, across the city of Wyndham, that figure stands—suburbs with 80-plus people coming from around the world. And our democracy is the most important thing they come to share in. The fact that in this place and in our time we had a prime minister who was prepared to undermine that democracy, to have himself sworn into ministries secretly, in a trashing of the conventions of this place, is a sad day for our democracy—a very sad day. It's a sad day for the Australian public. It's a sad day for me, when I'll be at a school in my electorate on Friday where children will want to talk to me about our great democracy and about my role in it as their member for Lalor. I won't dwell on this with those children, because I hope this will be the last time our country will see a prime minister prepared to trash conventions in this way.
The other irony that many in the chamber have spoken about is that, in all of those ministries, there was one action taken, and that was in June 2022, obviously, around PEP-11. I heard from colleagues who said that, through the last term, the thought of that project going ahead was something that distressed their communities, and people actively campaigned on it. So it is astonishing that it was in this one portfolio that former prime minister Morrison chose to act, and chose to act in such a way that it has now raised the issue again for those communities, so they are going through another term of stress about this project. Of course, this government will ensure that proper processes are followed to deal with that issue, as will the New South Wales government. I quote Minister King, who said that she assures Australians that any decision she takes as federal Minister for Resources will always be based on sound evidence and in accordance with the law. But the fact of the matter is we are dealing with something again because the former prime minister chose to act in a way that was a breach of our convention and now those communities face that again.
The passing of this legislation will fix something once, but I know all of us on this side are hoping that it is a salutary lesson to all parliamentarians about the respect that is due this place, the respect that is due to convention and the respect that is due to the Australian public to deal honestly and openly with them and to ensure that we go through the election processes and for the Australian public to have the assurance that what happens from that day forward for each government is conducted by people who respect our democracy and respect convention.
I will finish by mentioning the fact that it was not just those on this side who were upset, mortified and horrified when we found that this had been the case. There are three former Liberal prime ministers who have condemned this conduct. John Howard said:
I don't think he should have done that, I don't think there was any need to do it, and I wouldn't have.
Let's take those phrases one at a time. The justification is that there was a pandemic and a crisis. Former prime minister Howard said, 'I don't think there was any need to do it.' Former prime minister Howard is correct. Former prime minister Tony Abbott said:
I'm not going to defend what was done … it is just highly unconventional, highly unorthodox and shouldn't have happened.
Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said:
This is sinister stuff. This is a secret government.
He also said:
… this is one of the most appalling things I have ever heard of in our federal government. I mean, the idea that a prime minister would be sworn into other ministries, secretly, is incredible.
Those wrongs will be righted when this legislation passes the House and laws will be put into place to ensure that this sorry saga can't be repeated by any prime minister in Australia's future. But it is a sad day when we need to do this, because respect for convention should drive all parliamentarians elected to this place. Respect for our democracy and respect for the Australian people should be what drives us. None of us should be seeking to undermine those conventions. None of us should be seeking to game the system, as it were.
I will leave my comments there and hope that we can look forward. I know in this government we can look forward to a government that respects convention.
PAYNE () (): I'm pleased to speak today on this Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022, which is part of the government's response to the inquiry led by former High Court justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC into the sorry events under the former government that came to light in August last year where the former prime minister, the Member for Cook, had secretly sworn himself into several ministries—namely, Health; Finance; Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; Treasury; and Home Affairs—on top of his appointment to administer, of course, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
This was an unthinkable breach of trust of his own ministers, this parliament and, most importantly and most concerningly, of the Australian people, who were not aware of this. They did not know that the Prime Minister was also sworn in to administer these critically important portfolios. It is a sorry day for our democracy when we have to have this discussion. This parliament was right to censure the former prime minister, the member for Cook, earlier this year, because this should never have happened. This should never have happened because people who are elected to this place to represent their communities and, even more so, the people who are appointed to ministries and to be Prime Minister of this country should have at their heart a respect for democracy and for conventions of our system that enable ministers, governments and members to be held accountable.
To be honest, I don't take pleasure in giving a speech like this. I don't take pleasure in again looking at the behaviour of the former Prime Minister and what an absolute disgrace it was for the people of this country to have a prime minister who consistently showed disrespect for the conventions of this place and its operations, and a complete contempt for the accountability that was required of a prime minister—a consistent failure to take responsibility for just about anything. We saw that in his response to the censure motion. Still there was no apology, there was no acceptance that it was the wrong thing to do and that it should never have happened—in fact, perhaps, it was the media's fault for not asking specifically if he had sworn himself secretly into other ministries.
I'm proud that we are a government, and that we have a prime minister, that takes these conventions seriously and respects the role of this parliament, which is essentially about the representation of the people of Australia, each of their electorates, in this place. It should be incumbent on us that people have put their trust in us to represent them, their needs and the issues that concern them in this place. That is what it should very simply be about for each of us here. The idea that this could happen—the idea that a prime minister could breach the trust of his very own colleagues, the very people he appointed to be in charge of those critical portfolios, that he could do this behind their backs—and for that to be secret from the parliament and the public is, frankly, disgraceful and unthinkable.
This bill is an important step, an important part of our government's response to the Bell inquiry, to ensure this never happens again. Essentially this bill will mean that when the Governor-General has appointed someone to a portfolio or made a change to that or revoked one of those positions this will be made public as soon as possible. That is a very important thing, and I am very pleased to speak in support of this today. Essentially, if the parliament does not know that someone is responsible for a portfolio, how can it hold that person to account? It can't. And how can a minister perform their role with any kind of integrity when they don't know the Prime Minister is also sworn into that role and does not trust them, which is an important part of the conventions and the way the Westminster system operates. This was an incredible thing that happened, and a sad, sorry chapter of Australian history. I'm pleased that this bill marks a quick response to this. We don't ever want to see this happen again.
The Bell inquiry was not a political witch-hunt. It was about finding out how this was able to happen, who knew about it and why it was able to happen, and how we can put things in place so that it never happens again—which is what this bill is part of doing.
When these matters came to light in August, they were referred to the Solicitor-General, Dr Stephen Donaghue KC. It was clear from his advice:
… the principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined—
by the actions of the former government. As I say, a sad and sorry chapter of Australian history—one that will never happen again because we are putting in place additional checks and balances to ensure it can't.
It's little wonder that trust in our democracy is at all-time lows. That is very sad for most of us in this place who take democracy very seriously, for most of us in this place who are here because we believe in the power of democracy, of representation, of this parliament and of governments to make changes for the lives of Australians. That is why most people want to be in parliament and want to work for those changes on behalf of their constituents. The fact that a Prime Minister of this country had such disregard for those very principles was shocking. I know that this would never happen under our Prime Minister and our government, but we are looking to the future and are putting in place things that will prevent this ever happening again.
Some former prime ministers responded when they were asked how this could have happened. The reasoning was that we were in a crisis—the COVID-19 pandemic. It was an unprecedented time, but things have happened before that have meant that prime ministers and ministers have needed to be sworn in urgently. It can absolutely happen. It never required a Prime Minister to be secretly sworn in to other portfolios at the same time as being Prime Minister. That does not explain this at all. When asked about this, former prime minister John Howard said:
I don't think he should have done that. I don't think there was any need to do it, and I wouldn't have.
Former prime minister Tony Abbott said:
I'm just not going to defend what was done. It is just highly unconventional, highly unorthodox and shouldn't have happened.
Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said:
This is sinister stuff. This is secret government. This is one of the most appalling things I've ever heard in our federal government. I mean, the idea that a Prime Minister would be sworn in to other ministries secretly is incredible.
We are pleased that the opposition support this change, because it is an important one. That is an important acknowledgement. As I said, I don't take great pleasure in raking over again the disregard of the former Prime Minister, the member for Cook, for the office of Prime Minister and this parliament. I think I spent more than enough time last term talking about these issues. Frankly, as a member of this parliament and as an Australian, it shocked me that time and time again he just failed to see his responsibility for the issues that were facing Australians. This is an incredible expression of that. I'm very pleased that our government has introduced this bill and is taking steps to ensure that this parliament and the office of Prime Minister and ministries will continue to be accountable and that the Australian public will know when changes are made.
What unusual times we live in that this parliament has need for a bill such as the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 to protect the sheer fabric of Australian democracy, all because of the actions of a former Prime Minister. It feels a bit sad really that these things should have to be placed into law like this after, it might be fair to say, the current laws had operated effectively until the election of the Morrison government.
We all accept that the pandemic was an unusual time. We have not seen anything like it in our lifetime—that is absolutely for sure. There were definitely calls for some extreme and perhaps unusual measures. It was a difficult time for many people, and absolutely there were challenges involved in the Australian people's trust of government. We needed to bring our country along with us for the journey and to explain to everyone why extreme measures were necessary and why the government was taking unusual steps to protect our broader community. Trust was at the core of this. It was essential to its success.
On the whole, Labor, who were in opposition for the height of the pandemic, supported the government in these measures. We worked constructively and were determined to put the health and wellbeing of Australia ahead of political interests. We did that. We were clear about why. We made constructive suggestions when they were necessary, but, on the whole, we didn't get in the way. Trust in government's ability to handle this crisis was paramount. The health and safety of the community were paramount. But we were there, as an opposition is meant to be in our democracy, to hold the government to account when it was necessary, to ask the hard questions of responsible ministers and to make sure that these extraordinary measures were in fact in the best interests of the Australian people.
But, as it turns out, it is pretty hard to hold responsible ministers to account when you don't know who they are, when you have been deceived by the guy in charge, who couldn't trust the ministers his own party appointed to do their jobs—who didn't even trust them enough to tell them that he had usurped their responsibilities and that he, in fact, was now the one in charge, a dictator extraordinaire. Democracy be damned! Accountability be damned! There was an ego to be stroked. There simply is no way to put this more delicately: the acts of the member for Cook were an unforgivable, reprehensible betrayal of the Australian public. Each and every person in this country who put their faith in government to steer them through one of the most difficult periods in recent history was deceived.
Our democracy is based on a cabinet, an Executive Council. The Westminster system of government does not have one single head of parliament, one single dictator or guy in charge. When we go to the polls, we don't vote for a single person. Our Constitution does not allow for power to be concentrated in the hands of one person. We vote for a team of trustworthy individuals, who stand up and tell our community what they stand for, what they will do and how they will do it. Our chamber, here, in this place, allows for a challenging of those ideas by other elected, trustworthy individuals, to get the truth—to allow for examination and scrutiny—so that that team of individuals can justify their decisions to the ones who ultimately hold the power: the voters.
But that system of government was undermined, torn apart and cast aside by the former Prime Minister, for reasons that—as Virginia Bell, AC, said, following her inquiry into these appointments—were 'not easy to understand' and were unnecessary. There was absolutely no need for it. It's one of many aspects of this whole saga that are simply flabbergasting: why do it? Ministers can be appointed in a matter of minutes. There was no threat. There was no gap that needed to be filled by a power-hungry prime minister. Not only that, but three of the appointments had absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic whatsoever; they were simply because the Prime Minister wanted the power, which he chose to exercise to overrule those who he helped put in charge. He wanted the power to say to them, when he felt the time was right, 'No, thanks; we'll do it my way,' blindsiding those who didn't even know he could do it—not to mention the fact that the departments didn't even know he was in charge; so how could they possibly be advising him? He was one guy, making the decisions he wanted, on a whim, on the fly, because he felt like it.
The seat of Gilmore on the New South Wales South Coast is no stranger to high-flying visits from Liberal ministers. We have hosted the former Prime Minister on many occasions. Those opposite have really had trouble letting go of the fact that they lost a formerly safe Liberal seat to a TAFE teacher, a farmer's daughter and—oh yes, worst of all—a member of the Labor Party. That last one really hurt—not just once, but twice. They are still licking their wounds on that one. So they regularly ride into town to remind people what they definitely aren't missing.
I can't help but reflect on the member for Cook's visit to Nowra in my electorate in April last year, as the election campaign kicked off. His words at the time seem a little ironic now, at best, and decidedly deceptive, now that we know what we know. The media wanted to know if Australians were tired of him, implying that that was why he might lose the election. Spoiler alert: he did—thanks in no small part to the very sensible people of Gilmore. But I digress. His answer I will quote: 'It's not about any individual. It's not about me.' That's interesting—not about any individual. But what we didn't know at the time was that this particular individual had actually been in charge of five portfolios on top of his prime ministerial responsibilities for the previous two years. He was in charge of the Health; Finance; Treasury; Home Affairs and Industry, Science, Energy and Resources portfolios, appointed not all at once but over a year, not all in a hurry but in a calculated way, in a secret way, but we had no idea—not even his own ministers did.
This wasn't his only visit to the seat of Gilmore during this whole sordid secret ministries affair. Like I said, he enjoyed popping by and often had very warm greetings, like his infamous visit to Cobargo, just down the road, in the wake of the bushfires or when he was greeted by ukulele singers in Hawaiian shirts. Our community are no fools when it comes to fly-in fly-out visits from a politician who, as he said, doesn't hold a hose, even if we didn't know that he did hold five secret ministries. Perhaps if during one of these visits we as members of the public and of this parliament had been aware that the member for Cook was not only Prime Minister but also the Minister for Health, we might have asked him what he was doing to resolve our GP crisis, which was spiralling out of control. We might have asked him why he, as the minister responsible, was not stepping in to reinstate bulk-billed video-telehealth psychiatry consultations that he, as the minister responsible, had seen ripped away from regional and rural Australia—a budget cut that surely the secret Minister for Health and secret Treasurer had a hand in and could fix with the stroke of his pen. We might have asked why he, as the minister responsible, had refused to deliver on his commitment to a radiation therapy centre for the Eurobodalla. We might have asked him what he, as the minister responsible, was doing to fix our neglected aged-care system. The secret minister for Finance and secret Treasurer in charge of the purse strings surely could have done something to fix this. The list goes on and on.
But we were denied the opportunity to quiz this secret minister on the decisions he ultimately held responsibility for because we were denied the knowledge that he didn't trust his own cabinet. We were denied the knowledge that he had no faith in our democratic system. We were denied the opportunity for full and frank scrutiny of the actions of people responsible for our public administration. He should be ashamed. Mr 'No Responsibility' doesn't hold a hose, doesn't have the answers. It's not about him sitting on a beach in Hawaii sipping cocktails while my South Coast burns or swanning about the Shoalhaven Heads Hotel trying to pass himself off as a local while deceiving everyone around him, even his own ministers—a blight on our democracy smashing the trust of every single voter, shaking the very fabric of our democracy.
The Albanese government will do everything it can to ensure that this can never happen again. A loophole that only a very shaky character would exploit will be closed with this bill. We will not allow this abuse of power to happen again. The Australian people are entitled to know who is administering our government departments. We are entitled to know who comprises our executive and what offices they hold. Local people in my electorate deserve transparent and accountable government, and only Labor will give that to them. Democracy is not a given. It is something we must fight to protect. We must preserve it at every opportunity and protect it from those who wish to undermine it. We don't want an Australian Donald Trump. We say no, we will not allow it.
The government has accepted all of Ms Bell's recommendations. We have listened to the advice of the Solicitor-General. The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 requires the Official Secretary to the Governor-General to publicly publish advice that the Governor-General has appointed a minister of the Commonwealth because the Australian people deserve to know without delay who is in charge of our public institutions. I hope that this will go some way to restoring the trust of our community in government that was so horribly eroded by the actions of the former Liberal Prime Minister. That is on top of our commitment to establish a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. I am proud to say that that bill is now law, and it wouldn't have happened without the Albanese government.
The Liberals will never want true accountability, true transparency. They have too much to hide, like political allocations of disaster recovery funding, political allocations of community infrastructure grants, secret ministries and dodgy dealings. That is what you get with the Liberals. Only Labor will set that straight and make sure that it can't happen, or that, if it does, there are consequences. We said we would establish a corruption watchdog with teeth, and we have. Transparency, integrity and accountability are at the heart of good governance. That is what the Albanese government is delivering. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
One of the most heartbreaking phone calls you can have as a member of parliament is from a woman fleeing a domestic violence situation—someone leaving their home with literally nothing more than the clothes on their back and their children, calling your electorate office and asking for assistance to get into emergency housing. Unfortunately, the prospect of that person getting into housing quickly is quite dim. If you look at the public housing waiting list in New South Wales, you'll see that the ordinary waiting list to get into public housing is anywhere between eight and 10 years. For emergency accommodation it's two years. We can certainly assist someone in getting into a homeless shelter, or the department will put them up in hotel accommodation, but that will last only a couple of weeks and then they're at the whim of the private rental market. We know that if a person is leaving a violent relationship they may have relied on their partner for financial support. If they're trying to look after a couple of kids, it's a difficult circumstance for anyone to be in, and the private rental market offers no assistance whatsoever.
Rents have been increasing at a dramatic rate in most cities and towns across the country. They increased by 13.8 per cent between June 2021 and June 2022. The number of Australians facing housing stress—and that is defined as a household with more than 30 per cent of household income devoted to paying either rent or a mortgage—has increased dramatically in recent years. For owners, the prospects are just as bleak. Many Australians now have significant mortgages that they've had to take out to get into the homeownership market in Australia. Of course, we know that interest rates, determined independently by the RBA, have been increasing in recent times and are forecast to increase further. The government knows and understands that this is putting enormous pressure on household budgets and on relationships and families across the country.
Housing is a fundamental human right. In a wealthy nation like Australia, all Australian citizens can expect access to a reasonable, affordable roof over their heads. Australians want governments that are willing to ensure that they have policies in place to provide that basic necessity of life, and that is the purpose of this bill. This is an investment in ensuring that the Australian government has the policy settings in place to provide all Australians with access to reasonable and affordable housing.
Unfortunately, the approach of coalition governments has been that they shouldn't intervene in housing markets, that we should be able to let the market rip and that that would produce efficient and fair outcomes. We all know that that is not the case. The market has not resolved the housing affordability issue in Australia, and anyone who thinks that the market can is living in a dream.
In fact, many coalition state governments—and I'm speaking, of course, of the one in New South Wales—have gone the opposite way. They've actually sold off public housing, particularly in areas around Sydney, so that the stock of public housing in Sydney is actually being reduced and people are being evicted from properties, which in many cases they have lived in for many, many years, and finding themselves either homeless or at the whims of the private rental market. That is unfair.
At a federal level, the former Liberal government cancelled a lot of projects that were put in place by the Rudd and Gillard governments to provide housing assistance for Australians. The National Rental Affordability Scheme was cancelled. The project that the Rudd government launched to build more public housing as a stimulus project and as part of the recovery from the global financial crisis—a project that that provided jobs and roofs over heads for people on low incomes—was, of course, cancelled. Many of the affordable housing measures that were put in place by the former Labor government were cancelled as well. The former government went back to that old coalition philosophy of letting the market rip, and as a result Australia now faces a housing affordability crisis.
This government will not stand by and allow a situation where Australians increasingly cannot afford a roof over their heads, where they struggle with rental stress or housing stress and, unfortunately, where growing numbers of Australians are couch-surfing, living in cars or living on the streets. We want to reduce the rate of homelessness. We want to make housing more affordable. We want to increase housing supply to ensure that we can achieve those goals, and this bill represents the government actively promoting policies to ensure that we have an increase in the stock of housing supply into the future.
The Housing Australia Future Fund will provide a $10 billion investment in housing construction into the future. The fund will be established and will operate in a similar manner to other sovereign funds administered by the Commonwealth. The investment returns will be invested in building additional housing stock—both public housing and affordable housing. The government is also committed to ensuring that we're building more housing specifically for veterans who've served our nation. Returns from the fund will provide a $30 million investment over five years to build housing and fund services for veterans who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. That initiative will provide sustainable funding to increase the housing supply and improve services for veterans.
These initiatives are still in their early design stage, but they're a priority for our government, and we're in consultation with key stakeholders to implement them as soon as possible. We're working hard to address that issue of homelessness. We also need to ensure that there are stronger linkages between providers, services, and Australians and new resources for veterans and for housing providers that are tailored to the experience of veterans' homelessness. I had the great fortune of launching this week Working with Veterans: A Toolkit for Community Housing Organisations. It is a joint initiative between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Community Housing Industry Association. Those new resources will strengthen referral pathways between providers, DVA, Open Arms and other ex-service organisations to help set an industry standard for providing housing service to veterans. As the peak body representing 170 not-for-profit community housing providers, CHIA's knowledge and connection to providers across Australia will ensure that that toolkit is up to date, relevant and linked to industry.
We know that too many veterans, unfortunately, are turning to DVA, Open Arms and government for support. It's hoped that these new resources will help address some of those trends. They complement efforts in this package to build housing and fund services for veterans who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. We know that, once someone becomes homeless, unfortunately, many other doors close. Finding a job becomes much harder. Financial strain increases. Getting access to basic essentials such as food, water, and health care becomes a struggle, and it can become a vicious cycle.
We need to make sure that we're providing more support not only for veterans who find themselves in these situations but for Australians more broadly. And that is what this bill is all about. It represents the Albanese Labor government's commitment to ensure that this government does all it can to provide that fundamental, basic human right that Australians need and deserve and should expect from government—a reasonably priced roof over their heads for themselves and their families. That is, importantly, what this particular bill will help us build into the future.
Congratulations to the government for making this housing legislation package a priority. We need a long-term solution to a problem that's developed over many decades. There are supply and structural challenges all along the housing continuum, from crisis accommodation, to social and community housing, to rental housing, to affordable housing and to homeownership. Having access to safe, stable accommodation contributes to the health and vitality of society, allowing people to experience safety and security, engage in school and work, and be active members of society. At the acute end of the continuum, safe housing is a prerequisite for successful support on a range of complex issues, including mental health, drugs and alcohol, and family breakdown.
Before 2022, I spent five years working in community services and saw firsthand the impact of insecure housing on the lives of people who are dealing with complex challenges. I witnessed the way losing secure housing can send people into a spiral: relationship breakdown, social isolation and mental ill health. People living with housing stress—that is, spending more than 30 per cent of their income on housing—live with the worry that they may not be able to sustain their housing. Even in my electorate of Curtin, which is relatively well off, 13 per cent of homeowners and 28 per cent of renters live with housing stress.
Research shows that housing is something that people take for granted until it's threatened. It's not something people say they value until they have experienced it being at risk. More than 9,000 Western Australians are currently experiencing homelessness on any given night, and more than 4,100 people access specialist homelessness services every day in Western Australia. In WA, there were more than 19,000 households on the social housing waitlist, including 4,000 priority applicants, in July 2022—19,000 households. These numbers have been steadily increasing since 2019. The average wait time for a social home is currently 113 weeks. In WA there's a current unmet need of 39,000 social and 19,000 affordable homes. On our current trajectory this will double in the next 15 years. The WA eligibility requirements for social housing are tougher than those in other states, so this probably masks a greater need.
The WA rental market is experiencing a critical shortage of supply. Rental vacancy rates have been sitting below one per cent in Perth and across many of our regions for 20 consecutive months. We would describe a balanced market as being between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent. There has been a 26 per cent increase in rental prices in Perth over two years to July 2022, which is terrifying for the third of my electorate who rent.
These statistics provide some context for the government's housing package. The government's commitment to 20,000 affordable homes and 10,000 social housing homes would meet the current need for WA only, which is about 10 per cent of the national population. It's clearly a good start and a bigger investment in housing supply than we've seen for a while.
The model being proposed for the Housing Australia Future Fund may well be an efficient use of capital if it has the desired effect of stimulating the ongoing growth of social and affordable housing supply. If the structure works, it will at least put in place something that can be added to in the future. To ensure that it does this, it will need to provide community housing providers and other institutional landlords with certainty. There's some work to be done on this.
Firstly, it needs to clearly define 'affordable housing' to clarify that the intent is that this is rental housing aimed at low-income earners. Secondly, it is not clear whether the annual distribution cap of $50 million also operates as a floor. It would provide greater certainty for the market if it was clear that $50 million will be distributed each year, even in years with poor returns. By indicating that government will dip into general revenue if required, investors will know their returns are secure, which would stimulate investment in housing. That's not an amendment that can be made in the House, but I encourage the Senate to consider it.
Similarly, the National Housing Accord, a shared ambition to build one million homes over five years, depends a huge amount on the state and private capital. I fear that it might be more aspirational than realistic. I hope that the WA government will rise to the challenge set by the Commonwealth government to address the housing issues in my home state.
The government guarantee for NHFIC bonds is currently close to its cap. Although default almost never happens, reviewing the cap on total bond finance annually would provide some certainty to community housing providers that they will continue to have access to low-cost capital. Certainly, a long-term commitment to housing is required to smooth out construction cycles. When we are at the peak of the economic cycle, we have the money but not the tradies. When we are at the trough of the economic cycle, we don't have the money.
A welcome part of the housing legislation package is the establishment of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. This independent statutory body can take a long-term view and identify the ongoing need and the most efficient funding models. It will be important that the members of the council act in the overall interest of the country, rather than defending different parts of the housing industry. It will also be important that the council has full independence. Housing a secretariat in Treasury may undermine this and its independence may be better served by being part of Housing Australia. This would give Housing Australia a strategic and research role, rather than just a delivery role.
There are also some issues with the transparency of the process of allocating funds to the states through the COAG Reform Fund. To avoid this being used in a discretionary way to meet other purposes, this allocation should be done through a transparent tender process with clear criteria so funds are allocated according to need and according to where they can be leveraged through co-investment by states.
Reviewing the effectiveness of the package after two years would also be wise. Its success depends significantly on the response from states and the market, and settings may need to be adjusted, especially after the national housing and homelessness plan is finalised and the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement is renegotiated. At that stage, we are likely to have a clearer picture of the need.
Is the housing legislation package enough? Probably not. A $10 billion commitment pales in comparison to the $290 billion the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation said would be required over the next two decades to meet the current and projected shortfall. Research from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute has also argued that an additional 727,000 social housing dwellings are required by 2036 nationwide or an annual average growth of 5.5 per cent to meet future projected need. The 20,000 houses over this period will only meet three per cent of that need. The Grattan Institute advocated the establishment of a $20 billion fund, providing an upfront gap subsidy, as opposed to an annual gap payment. So it's likely to not be enough, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. I'm generally not in favour of borrowing money to spend, but in this case there is such a need for housing in Australia that it should be prioritised, and the Housing Australia Future Fund may be an efficient way to access additional capital for housing by providing acceptable and secure returns on investment.
There are a number of issues that will need to be addressed in implementation, with significant weight probably falling on the new national housing supply and affordability council to provide independent advice on need. In the meantime, I commend the government for committing to start to address this fundamental need.
ROST () (): Members in this place will likely be familiar with my background, working in the homelessness sector as CEO of Catherine House, a women's homelessness service in Adelaide, and as CEO of Vinnies SA, including homelessness services for men and a domestic violence refuge for women and their children escaping domestic violence. I was also co-chair of the Adelaide Zero Project, which brought together all of the homelessness and housing services in the Adelaide CBD to work together to end rough sleeping. So I know a little bit about the homelessness and housing market, and I know a little bit about what works to resolve homelessness.
It should surprise no-one that the answer to homelessness is more housing—specifically, social and affordable housing. It should also surprise no-one that the best way to reduce the homelessness rate is to make sure that, when you are putting people into housing, you aren't pushing others into homelessness. We have a chronic and severe shortage of housing in this country. We have a supply problem. We also have an affordability problem, but we have a supply problem, and of course these two things are not unrelated. It isn't made any better by Airbnbs; in fact, in some areas this vacancy rate has caused significant shortage in the permanent rental market. But overall we have a shortage of housing stock that we need to address.
It is well known in this place that the fastest-growing cohort of people experiencing homelessness are women over the age of 55. Well, we used to say over 55; I think we say over 45 now. And I know this is well known because I hear people from all sides talking about it. No-one can pretend that they don't know how acute this is out there.
The Housing Australia Future Fund, which these bills will establish, will include $100 million for victims-survivors of family and domestic violence and those at risk. This includes older women, who, by the time they leave, often have no money, no superannuation, no resources and no place to go. In Australia, a third of people who seek assistance for homelessness cite family violence as their main reason for needing help from DV and homelessness services like those I used to run. At Catherine House, which is a homelessness service, not a DV-specific service, it was actually more like 50 per cent.
According to a report from feminist trailblazer and researcher Dr Anne Summers titled The choice: violence or poverty, on average, 9,000 survivors of domestic violence become homeless every year. Alarmingly, 7,700 survivors return to their abuser each year. On average, it takes a woman seven goes to leave. From my experience, the threat or reality of financial destitution and homelessness is a key driving force behind this shocking statistic. And this is on top of the many thousands we don't know about, who haven't left in the first place, often because they don't have the financial resources to escape safely, without ending up on the streets. That's just one reason why this bill is so important. This bill specifically carves out $100 million to build homes for victims-survivors of family and domestic violence and those at risk.
And, for all the rhetoric I hear about caring about women escaping domestic violence and caring about older women experiencing homelessness and older women in poverty, when the crunch comes and there's a bill before us to improve the lot of these very women they profess to care about, those opposite and the Greens tell us they will vote against it.
Another area I hear a lot about from those opposite is how much they care about veterans—those who have served our country and need our support, back in the community. We know that veterans are another cohort who have a higher risk of homelessness. Adelaide Zero Project have a specific focus on veteran homelessness. I have a number of fantastic organisations in Boothby that assist veterans experiencing a range of issues, including the Veteran Wellbeing Centre in Daw Park, which is a number of state funded and not-for-profit agencies providing a one-stop shop; the William Kibby VC Veterans Shed, where coordinator Barry Heffernan is unbelievably committed to helping veterans resolve whatever issues they might be having; and of course the RSLs.
Today I will mention the Andrew Russell Veteran Living centre, part of RSL Care SA, run by Nathan Klinge. This not-for-profit centre provides live-in emergency accommodation for veterans experiencing homelessness and helps them resolve the issues that brought them into homelessness and then find a housing outcome. The Andrew Russell Veteran Living Centre just achieved a milestone that is both heartwarming and shocking: 20,000 nights of emergency accommodation to veterans in South Australia. They do an amazing job, but it's really sad that this sort of service is needed to that extent. Of course, key to them being able to do their job is getting housing outcomes for the veterans who come to them; finding permanent housing outcomes for veterans so that, after one person has left, the next homeless veteran can come through their doors and find a safe place to sleep.
Organisations like this have long been calling for much greater investment in social and affordable housing. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill carves out $30 million of the fund to build housing and fund specialist services for veterans experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. Why would you vote against it? We need more social and affordable housing as a matter of priority.
Taken together, these bills are first step in implementing our election commitment to establish the Housing Australia Future Fund. This is the most significant investment in new social and affordable housing in a generation. It's needed. We have a housing supply problem, particularly at the bottom of the market, the social and affordable market. Everyone in this place can surely agree that action is needed to combat the housing pressures that too many Australians face after 10 years of dithering, 10 years of delay. I know it. I was one of those lobbying a deaf and uncaring government over that decade. Finally we are taking action. It's action designed for the long term, to have a generational impact.
The Albanese government understands safe and affordable understand safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of all Australians. Far too many Australians are being hit by growing rents. Far too many Australians are struggling to buy a home. Sadly, far too many Australians are facing or experiencing homelessness. That's why we have an ambitious housing reform agenda to ensure more Australians have a safe, affordable place to call home. The housing legislation package is a comprehensive suite of measures to get more social, affordable homes on the ground. It enables the most significant Australian government investment in housing in a generation.
I would ask those opposite and those on the crossbench: if you care about the community, about those experiencing homelessness or housing stress, about women escaping domestic violence, about veterans who have served our country, about remote Aboriginal communities, about frontline workers, then vote for the bill. Vote for this bill that will increase supply at the bottom of the market for those groups who most need it. If you support women escaping violence, vote for the bill. If you support veterans experiencing homelessness, vote for the bill. If you support frontline workers, vote for the bill. If you support remote Aboriginal communities, vote for the bill. By your actions you shall be known. Now is not the time to play political pointscoring with people's safety, their futures and their lives. Now is not the time to be negative for negative's sake. Now is not the time to throw away good in the pursuit of an unachievable perfect or to make a political point. People need housing. We have a supply problem. We have an affordability problem. This is the start of addressing that problem. I commend the bills to the House.
The government had an opportunity in their budget last year to directly fund all kinds of measures they might like to in regard to housing. Instead, what we have before us is a bill—the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023—that is effectively a conjuring trick, a sort of tricky accountant's way of making a commitment to do something, miraculously without costing the government any money whatsoever. We on this side of the chamber view that with a great deal of scepticism.
I'll come to that in a moment, but I want to start by making some broad comments about housing. In the last parliament, I served on the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, which was chaired by the former member for Mackellar, and participated in an inquiry into the issue of housing affordability in this country. I commend the findings of the report of that inquiry to this House. It's certainly a very significant challenge for all of us to grapple with as policymakers: how do we make the Australian dream of homeownership attainable for all those who want it, particularly younger people, who at the moment are finding it almost impossible to get into the housing market? Indeed, the supply challenges—which even the government in this debate seem to now concede, though that wasn't necessarily the position of Labor members participating in that inquiry—are significant. They relate to all levels of government and a whole range of other factors, and they are certainly things that I wish we had the opportunity to address in debates in this chamber. Instead of that, we're debating this bill.
Increasingly the data, including the recent census, is showing us that people are taking longer and longer to save to get into the housing market. I find that those on the Left of politics in some ways are not so much against people not getting the financial independence of homeownership. I think that there is a school of thought in our politics that it is good for big government if people are kept out of the economic independence of owning their own home. If people are resigned to renting for the rest of their lives, maybe that'll mean they'll vote for a lot more government to look after them because they won't have the independence to look after themselves.
The greatest legacy of the Menzies era was the transformation of people's economic futures through their ability to get into the housing market, own their own home and therefore be in control of their own economic destiny and their own future. It's absolutely fundamental to the political philosophy of the party I'm so proudly a member of to give people that individual empowerment and choice and make sure that they are in control of their own destiny and do not have to rely on some government. That is fundamental to the differences between those of us on this side of the House and those who are putting forward this proposal that purportedly has something to do with helping people with housing.
As I say, the particular measures that the government are saying will be supported by this bill are a separate point and a separate debate that could be had. There are no doubt worthy things that the government say they're going to spend money on through this bill, but they could have done all that through a budget appropriation. You could be spending X hundred million dollars a year on those sorts of measures if you want to, but you would have to account for it properly in the budget. You'd have to say, 'Hey, you know, we're spending this amount of extra money on these worthy initiatives, because that's what it should be spent on.' That would mean the government would have to either run a higher deficit, increase taxes or cut expenditure somewhere else. If they were serious, they'd be prepared to take on those serious challenges that befall a government and particularly a treasurer when putting together a budget.
Instead we have this trickery of saying, 'Well, we're going to borrow money at a certain rate, invest it and make more from it than we will pay for the debt that we will have encumbered ourselves with, and that miraculously creates a pool of funds that we can then spend on all these housing initiatives.' Imagine if you extrapolated that to the entirety of government expenditure. If this model works, why don't we just go and borrow many, many trillions of dollars, invest those trillions of dollars so brilliantly that we make more money from the investment than the cost of that capital, and use that to finance the entirety of government? We can get rid of all taxes. We don't need to tax people anymore. We can just choose how much money we borrow and therefore, by a miraculous outcome, how much money the government will earn on the gap between the return on investing that money and the cost of borrowing that money, and we can do absolutely everything that we want. We could achieve absolutely everything.
What a breakthrough revelation moment we are having here: let's just borrow an indiscriminate amount of money and earn more on it than what it cost us to borrow and pay for all of government—it's completely farcical. But that is what the proposition is in this bill. And that is fundamentally why we, of course, as responsible economic managers in the coalition, don't support it. It's actually frightening, because this bill literally says, 'Let's just go and borrow $10 billion, put it on the government balance sheet as debt and give it to the Future Fund.' Of course, they'll definitely make a higher return from it than the cost of borrowing it. Beyond question, apparently, that will happen—forever. Then the gap is what we get to spend on all these things that we're not prepared to put in the budget and finance through the usual budget processes. What economic cowardice that is and what economic recklessness that is. There is no way that we could possibly stand by and support the government doing this.
Without reflecting on anyone in the Future Fund—they've done a great job over the last years and decades, led very ably by a former member of this House—we know the chair of the Future Fund has already made some very candid comments about the future risk profile of the funds that they have under management and the general economic outlook. We know that interest rates are going up. The government's borrowing rate is increasing, and we've got no idea where the terminus of that is going to be.
What we're going through right now with this rapid escalation in interest rates is a great lesson—and maybe, to be fair, to be slightly charitable to the government, when they made the decision for this cowboy policy, it was before the experience of the last 12 months, and how dramatically markets can shift, and particularly how dramatically debt markets versus equity markets can change. The orthodoxy of the past decade with regard to the cost of capital and the return on capital is completely out the window right now with what's happening in markets of all forms. So the assumptions and the laziness of this when it was announced by the then opposition leader are completely different today than they would have been when it was conceived.
Whilst I don't tend to encourage people breaking election promises, despite the fact the government should be appropriately held to account for making a reckless promise, this is the kind of promise they absolutely should break. It is frightening looking at what is happening in some of the markets that we were assuming were going to behave in a certain way into the future. Far from making the sort of return that we believed this would—last year it would have lost money; things could only get worse into the future—borrowing money at more than four per cent and just assuming that that money invested can return better than that is not the outlook that we would say exists with any sort of certainty whatsoever. And, whilst we of course don't hope for it to occur, the risk is higher than ever right now for all sorts of funds under management having negative returns in the near future.
We're asked in this debate in this chamber to authorise borrowing $10 billion on this promise. The speakers in favour of it are talking about how they're going to spend the money. Well, let's talk about whether there will be any money—or, worse still, whether we're going to be borrowing an amount of money and the return on it goes backwards. So, in an effort to spend money on housing, we instead have the real likelihood of borrowing money and having the cost of the negative return on that hitting our budget and things going backwards. And that is really frightening. Once we borrow this $10 billion, unlike some of the mistakes that we might anticipate the government making, this is a very difficult hole to dig our way out of. Once we've borrowed that money, it needs to be paid back; we need to meet the interest servicing charges on it.
Maybe, for the government, $10 billion isn't a lot of money. Well, there are a lot of households out there who are struggling to pay mortgages, utility bills and grocery bills. People are making awful decisions—like no longer buying fresh vegetables but buying frozen vegetables because they're cheaper—because they've got to make those changes in their household budget. Those people think that $10 billion is a lot of money. Being cavalier with it, and just assuming that you can borrow it—apparently, with no risk whatsoever—and make a higher return than the bond rate, is completely ridiculous and completely reckless. And it's absolutely lazy policymaking.
We are very open-minded to all kinds of sensible investments, in the housing crisis that we've got. They're not as simple as reflected in the commentary around this bill. Nonetheless, this is a very important topic. For the people speaking for this to hurl criticism suggesting that we don't support appropriately investing in housing for veterans or victims of family domestic violence is obviously ludicrous and a disgusting and an appalling allegation with no basis whatsoever.
And that's not what this bill is about. This bill is about just assuming that you can borrow money, get a better return on it than the cost of it, and then use the money, instead of actually making strong, sensible decisions, within the normal processes of budgetary decision-making, to say: 'Housing is important enough for us to carve out a certain amount of money, against all the other priorities we've got around revenue raising, expenditure and deficit reduction, so that we are going to invest, each year, hundreds of millions of dollars in these housing initiatives.'
The government hasn't been prepared to do that. Instead, they've come up with this tricky accounting which says that there's this free money you can create just by miraculously borrowing, earning more on it and therefore spending the gap. Well, we will find out, of course, if this bill passes the parliament, what the actuals end up being there. But it is a great fear of mine that we now have seeping into the political culture this sort of Whitlamesque attitude to Commonwealth finances, where there are no consequences for borrowing money and all of our problems can be solved by all this complete accounting trickery.
If we brought this approach to the challenges of government, then we would be incurring trillions and trillions of dollars of debt and assuming that we could just get a standard return on that and pay for the entirety of government. That is completely fanciful. Obviously, there is no way that you could operate government finances like that.
The gutlessness of not being prepared to put real money into this problem—to create this sort of fictitious revenue stream that is not based on anything other than hope—is completely cowardly. And I would call on the government to properly resource, in the budget proper, expenditure on housing that they believe is going to make a difference. Then we will look at those proposals and determine our own position on them.
I look forward to the very comprehensive policy position that we will take to the next election around helping people to buy their own home and get out of the trap that Labor want them to be in, of perpetually renting and being reliant on government, rather than having their own economic independence. And that's the aspiration of Australians: they want their economic independence. They don't want to be owned and controlled by government.
But this bill is nothing to do with specific measures around housing. It is a complete cop-out. It is absolutely cowardly. It is saying: 'We're not prepared to make tough decisions within the budgetary framework, so instead we'll come up with this magic-pudding economics of borrowing money and earning more than the cost of it, and then we can spend that money.' We have to stand up to this, right here, right now. And that is why I urge the House not to support the second reading of this bill.
I thank the member for Sturt. The question is that the amendment be disagreed to, and I call the member for Gough Whitlam's old seat, Werriwa!
Thank you, Deputy Speaker Freelander. I am very proud to be the representative for Werriwa!
I rise to make my contribution on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. It's interesting, reflecting on the contributions of other members, just how often it has to be a Labor government who makes the decisions to ensure that citizens of this country are looked after and have housing as a right—it is a human right for everyone in this country. Unfortunately, the constituents of Werriwa are acutely aware of the consequences of inaction by federal and state Liberal governments over the last 10 years and what that's meant for housing affordability and availability.
Werriwa's suburbs often make the list of the top 10 suburbs in New South Wales for mortgage and rental stress. My friend the member for Macarthur unfortunately also has suburbs on that list. That's why our community voted for the Albanese government's comprehensive housing plan at the election. This bill is another tranche of policies to start the repair of the housing market and make housing available to all Australians. Australians deserve access to safe and affordable housing. We know that as cost-of-living pressures mount Australians are being hit by increasing rents and growing mortgage rates, and many are struggling to buy a home. This has led to increased homelessness throughout the country.
There are now approximately 116,000 Australians experiencing homelessness. According to a recent report by Launch Housing, conducted by the University of New South Wales and the University of Queensland, the number of those accessing specialist homelessness services has increased by eight per cent since 2017. The fastest-growing groups accessing services are First Nations Australians and people with mental illness, with those groups growing by over 20 per cent. Housing affordability stress is increasingly becoming a reason why people are accessing homelessness services. The Albanese government understands how important it is to have affordable, suitable housing so that people are safe and can then access education and employment. To live without the stress of where they will sleep and what happens next is necessary to enjoy and live life well.
We have already implemented the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which has helped more than 1,600 Australians into homeownership. We reached a landmark national housing accord with a shared ambition to build over one million well-located homes from 2024, with an additional $350 million of Commonwealth funding that will be equally matched by the states to deliver 10,000 affordable homes. We widened the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, which has up to $575 million available to invest in social and affordable housing. We're developing a national housing and homelessness plan to set short-, medium- and long-term goals to improve housing outcomes across the state. We're implementing the help-to-buy program to help Australians into houses sooner. And we've only been in government eight months.
The Albanese government and the Minister for Housing understand the importance and need to move quickly to meet the challenges of the housing affordability and availability crisis. These bills are the next step in this plan. Our government understands that a housing crisis is not just a social crisis; it also has wide-ranging economic consequences. The more pressure in the housing market, the further away workers must move from their place of employment, the harder it becomes for businesses to hire and the less disposable income people have overall. More importantly, it's less time they have with their families and in their communities, lowering their standard of living. It has serious ramifications for the Australian economy as well as the social fabric of our country. Australia prides itself on being a fair and egalitarian country, but can we really say that while thousands of Australians are facing homelessness, are homeless or are living in social housing that is in urgent need of repair?
In my community, I constantly receive calls from constituents about long waiting lists for social housing. Social housing is there to support the most vulnerable, and both federal and state governments have a responsibility to support Australians in their most difficult times. In south-west Sydney, due to the limitations of state and federal governments, social housing waiting lists are up to 20 years long—that's two generations. Rentals are impossible to find, expensive and in disrepair.
These bills are designed to deliver on that responsibility and to deliver on our 2022 election promises. This legislation will set up the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion fund that will be invested, with the returns to fund social and affordable housing. These returns will help deliver our government's commitment to 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the first five years of its operation, 20,000 of which will be social housing, with 4,000 allocated for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence as well as older women at risk of homelessness. The remaining 10,000 will be affordable housing for our front-line workers, who have worked tirelessly and selflessly during the difficult past few years. The fund's returns will also provide $200 million over the next five years to address housing needs in remote and Indigenous communities and $100 million for crisis and transitional housing for women and children impacted by domestic violence. The fund will be required to undergo a review every five years to assess the impact it's having on Australian housing needs.
Australia is facing a huge challenge, and the Albanese government understands this. The Housing Australia Future Fund is one step in addressing the systematic issues in housing, but we also understand that the issue must be approached from multiple directions, and the government is prepared to use all of those options to help solve the issue. The legislation will establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, which will be an independent statutory advisory body. Such a body is necessary to provide independent expert advice to the government and the minister on housing supply and how affordability and supply can be improved. The council will provide advice on the allocation of returns from the Housing Australia Future Fund. It will also help the Commonwealth play a leadership role in addressing the housing challenges facing Australia.
While many aspects of social housing are the responsibilities of state and territory governments, the federal government can play a role in facilitating and improving housing outcomes. The Albanese government has maintained a strong culture of collaboration with the state and territory governments, from disaster funding to health, energy and cost of living. Housing will be no exception. We will work and have worked to maximise the impact of all levels of government to improve the lives of Australians. The council is set to be established on 1 July this year, but an interim non-statutory council has already been established so the important work can begin.
Australians expect the Albanese government to act on this issue, and we are delivering, from the measures that we've already delivered in the last eight months to this legislation. The work to ensure social and affordable housing is accessible by all Australians does not stop, and the Albanese government will continue to tackle the issue. I commend the bills to the House.
I rise to speak on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. I think every person in this place knows the housing crisis in our country is one of the most pressing issues of our time. The lack of affordable housing is adversely affecting the lives of many people in the cities and, very much, in the regions, including in my electorate of Mayo. It is a crisis that continues to grow without abatement, thwarting the ability of communities to grow and prosper. The financial burden stemming from this crisis is forcing generations into a life without homeownership, entrenching intergenerational poverty and furthering the equity divide across our country. It's hard to believe that, when I was a young woman, homeownership was a real and tangible goal, and that goal has gone. My three children really don't expect to own a home of their own. It's just not in their vision. They're educated. And yet, when I was the age of my oldest child, who is 23, I had already owned one home and I was building a second. It's just extraordinary what we've done in, really, one generation.
The government's commitment to 30,000 new social and affordable dwellings over the next five years is a step in the right direction, but I must say I don't think it goes far enough. And there's one chink in the armour, which I'm going to talk about. I'm concerned that before we actually get to those houses we're going to be in a far worse position, because unfortunately the 30,000 dwellings that have been committed to will barely replenish the National Rental Affordability Scheme, NRAS. This is going to expire, and many of its homes are going to age out before we have new homes built. We're talking about publicly available data. Around 24,000 homes are expected to age out from mid-2022 and nearly 18,000 homes from June this year.
I have raised this directly with the minister. I think there's an assumption that those NRAS properties will somehow stay in the social and affordable housing bubble. I think it's really quite bullish to assume that and we could be in for some rocky waters. If we're serious about affordable housing, we need to retain these homes; otherwise we don't have a net gain. The population has increased and the pressures on households are far more acute now than, say, a decade ago, and that's before we've even considered the needs of the 162,000 people who are on the social housing list.
I think this proposal is excellent. I've got to say a big part of the problem we're trying to fix now is because around nine years ago—I think it was in the 2014 budget—we had a cut to NRAS. We weren't building any more houses, so, wherever participants were on their 10-year contract, those arrangements were going to age out. We haven't had any new housing stock, and in subsequent years we have largely had policies that have increased the demand side of housing without addressing the supply side. It's really frustrating, and none of this is an issue that has been created in the last year. We're talking about a decade of public policy that has got us to the place we are now. So, with respect to NRAS, I would say to the government: if you have contracts in place that will age out over the next couple of years and if you have willing owners of those properties—the properties are not all sitting with NGOs—why won't you have the conversations and see if you can extend those contracts for five years or so?
With trepidation, our nation is openly discussing the impossible increases in the cost of living and the very real risk of increasing household debt. One thing that I don't think we're talking enough about is the mortgage cliff that is coming this year for so many homeowners, particularly homeowners in the first two or three years of their mortgage who locked in interest rates through to this year because of the Reserve Bank's announcements that there would be no movement on interest rates until 2024. My goodness, how wrong we were there! In my community there's real concern about people moving off their fixed rates and onto the current rates. With the most recent announcement by the Reserve Bank that we're potentially going to see more interest rate rises, there's a real fear of a recession. Analysis by KPMG suggests that approximately 800,000 loans taken out by people who took advantage of the record low fixed interest rates in 2020 and 2021 will be hit with a mortgage repayment cliff. As I said, many of these loans were taken out on the advice of our own Reserve Bank governor, but we have an impending financial disaster of proportions not seen in our recent history. In fact, I was watching a video last night where people were comparing the current situation to 1990. I was a young person in 1990; I was just 18 years of age. I remember those huge interest rates and many people selling their home because they just couldn't afford the mortgage repayments.
The concern now, though, is that the value of houses compared to people's annual income has skyrocketed. It doesn't matter where you are in Australia. When I was a young woman house values were around three times the average salary. We're now seeing in Australia in many places it is more than 10 times. We're going to get to a point where many people can't afford to sell because their house has dropped in value and is lower than the mortgage that they owe. It's going to be a terrible time for so many. This is an issue we desperately need to address.
The analysis shows that mums and dads around the country are facing an average annual interest rate increase of $16,500. Further interest rate increases will only exacerbate this problem, and they're expected to cost the economy $20 billion.
In my own electorate there was a huge population increase between 2016 and 2021, with over 33,000 people moving into my electorate, including more than 10,000 additional families moving into the area. We welcome these people with open arms, but this has made rental access incredibly difficult and rental payments have risen to close to 50 per cent of the weekly median income. This just isn't sustainable.
The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund is a good start, but it cannot be the endgame. While these aims are positive, I do want to ensure that the regions are not left behind, as social and affordable housing programs have historically favoured metropolitan areas. Research has shown that the lack of housing in the regions is causing significant productivity losses and community pain. I will continue to urge all levels of government to ensure we have resources for affordable housing to help address homelessness and I urge the federal government to increase rental assistance and provide more federal funding for social housing support, particularly in the regions.
People are wanting to take jobs on Kangaroo Island and businesses there are desperate to hire, but there's nowhere to house people—nowhere at all. The Housing Australia Future Fund is an important step in the right direction and, equally, it is important to require the fund to allocate funding proportionate to the percentage of Australians who live in regional or remote Australia, which is currently 18 per cent.
I support these bills. This can't be the only thing we do. I think we need to work with mum-and-dad investors as well to see whether there's a way that we can have some sort of partnership with those people who want to build individual affordable houses rather than this just being large NGOs who are delivering affordable housing. We have a housing crisis right around Australia. It is felt by families, by older Australians and certainly by young people, who feel that they have been robbed of the Australian dream.
We've been in the midst of a housing crisis for far too long in this country. Right now people are struggling to find an affordable roof over their head, whether that's buying a home or renting a home. It should not be this hard for people in Australia to find a place to live. It is beyond time for action and for real partnerships across all levels of government, industry and community to solve this problem. That's what this suite of housing legislation goes to today—to solving this problem.
We're a great country, but it is to our shame that homelessness is increasing in this country. We must do better to leave nobody behind. This reform is about making sure we don't leave people behind and building a better future for everyone, which is of course what the Albanese Labor government committed to do when we were elected.
There are many young families and students living in my electorate of Chisholm. They are enrolled at Monash and Deakin universities. They are desperately worried about where they will live, particularly as we see the return of international students to our community. The housing crisis is acutely felt by particular cohorts in my community. I'm looking forward to seeing more houses built so that people are able to enjoy the time they spend at university and spend in my community.
People raise with me the issue of needing good, affordable housing all the time. It is really important to me, and I'm so glad that these bills are actually doing something about this problem, which we have seen grow over time. A few months ago I welcomed the Treasurer to Chisholm and I introduced him to the Ashburton, Ashwood and Chadstone Public Tenants Group and the Ashwood Chadstone Partnership Group, which includes charities, service providers, Neighbourhood Houses and local councils. We had a really wonderful roundtable to discuss what we need to do together to ensure we have resilient communities and to make sure that we are providing homes for people who need them, especially those who are marginalised in the community or who might find accessing housing more difficult for a range of reasons, such as escaping family and domestic violence. The housing accord and this local roundtable was a really significant moment for my community and for our nation.
Our government understands that safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of Australians. We have seen growing rents, the struggle to buy a home and the increase of homelessness. This is an ambitious reform. This is about making sure Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home. This housing legislation package is a comprehensive suite of measures to build more social and affordable homes. It enables one of the most significant Australian government investments in housing in a generation, and we are not wasting a moment in doing what we can to build the houses that people in our communities desperately need.
These bills implement our commitment to establish the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to provide a stream of funding to ensure there is a pipeline of new social and affordable housing for Australians in need. This will transform the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation into Housing Australia as the national home for key housing programs and expand its activities. These bills establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent advice to government on ways to increase housing supply and affordability.
These commitments are part of our broader housing reform agenda. We have reached our landmark National Housing Accord, which is a shared ambition to build a million well-located homes over five years from 2024, with $350 million as well in additional Commonwealth funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes over five years from 2024, matched by the states with another 10,000 homes.
We have widened the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and made up to $575 million immediately available to invest in social and affordable housing. We are developing a national housing and homelessness plan to set short-, medium- and long-term goals to improve housing outcomes across Australia. The help-to-buy program will reduce the cost of buying a home and help people into a home sooner.
To solve the problem of housing affordability and the shortfall in supply of housing in this country requires action. That is what these bills go to. We are taking responsibility for people in our communities by making sure we have a vision for not just now and the medium term but the long term of this country. I am really pleased and proud to support these bills today.
Y (—) (): I rise to speak on these three bills—the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. The opposition have announced that we will be supporting the latter two, so I will be confining my comments to the first of these three bills, the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill, because I think it raises quite a number of issues that I'm not sure that we know the answers to.
Homeownership in Australia, I think, is the foundation—the bricks and the mortar—on which our society was built. The aspiration of owning a home in Australia has been one of the foundation stones—the ability for people to raise families on a suburban block where their kids can kick the football around. I accept block sizes are getting much smaller nowadays, but a man's house is his castle—all those cliches you can use in a debate like this, which I think really go to the Australian success story and one of the reasons our Australian society is so successful. Millions of Australians have raised their children, their families, on that block of land and in that house, and hundreds of thousands of Australians have used the equity in that house as the stepping stone into business, to found a new enterprise.
One of the great regrets I have about the remote Indigenous communities that I have in my electorate is that, because it's community land, they can't own their own houses, and they are condemned, in a way, to rental accommodation at the moment. They can't own their own house, which means they are unable to talk to a bank and say: 'What's my house worth? Can I build a hairdressing shop down the street or whatever?' I know that is getting off the debate, but it is linked to this idea that homeownership is a secure source of wealth on which to build your life.
I think this bill gives up a bit on that dream of homeownership and says, 'Well, actually what we need is rental accommodation.' It doesn't specifically say that, but it seems to me to be leading down that line of saying, 'Give up on the aspirations.' It's really hard for a worker, a family or someone on welfare to be in rental accommodation, pay the rent every week and raise the deposit for a home so they can actually turn those rental payments into payments to pay down their loan and eventually own their house. I would prefer that there be more emphasis on getting people into their own homes than on getting them into other people's homes.
Of course, in the last three years of government, we helped 300,000 people to get into their houses, so their payments each week or each month go to actually paying off their houses. One of these programs, of course, was the homeowners scheme, but it isn't the only one that helps people down that pathway. I think that's quite a remarkable achievement.
It's worth recalling that at the beginning of the COVID virus there were many predictions by economists around Australia that the Australian housing market was going to collapse because we were going to stop the immigration program, we would have empty houses everywhere and builders would be out of work—all those things. Sure, the government stepped in and made a difference there with the new homeowners scheme. but there was something that all the economists missed—or all the ones I was reading, at least. Five hundred thousand Australians decided to come home, because Australia looked a pretty safe place to be. They were right. Largely these were expats. They came back, and they were cashed up, and they soaked up a lot of the housing stock. I fully accept that we have real difficulties in Australian society today. I expect, though, that there will be a new wave of Aussies who will go overseas to live for a period of time and actually come out of the housing market over the next five years. I think that should be part of the consideration of all of these things.
One of the things I'm always concerned about is mission creep. This is something that happens at the Commonwealth level so often, and this is the perfect instance. Social housing and welfare housing—low-income housing—have clearly been the responsibility of state governments, just as state schools and state hospitals have been the responsibility of state governments. But increasingly, on both sides of politics, when the Commonwealth has seen the states failing in their duty, we've stepped in, and guess what—what's the next thing? We own the problem. Increasingly that's what we're doing with housing as well. We step in because states have largely gotten out of social housing. In my own state of South Australia we had a premier for 26½ years, Sir Thomas Playford. He invested heavily in the South Australian Housing Trust. He built places like Elizabeth, like Whyalla. There was a whole lot of Housing Trust homes going on. Over the years successive governments of both political persuasions—even though in South Australia, sadly, I must report, it is nearly always the Labor Party; they seem to be the party of government in South Australia—have sold off the housing stock. They have exited the scene and turned around and said to the Commonwealth, 'You have to help us out.'
I accept there is a problem and that we have been there before the current government but this is really upping the ante. This bill is now saying that the Commonwealth will go out and borrow $10 billion and start trickling that back into supporting social housing. Firstly, on the issue of that $10 billion, it is worth remarking that, in the period I have been in this parliament, which is over 15 years now, we used to be talking about millions but now we are talking about billions. It is almost as if the numbers in front of them haven't changed. There are a thousand implications in talking about millions and billions. It is a thousand times as much. Ten billion dollars is $10,000 million. That is a lot of loot. It has a ring to it. I see the member for Durack nodding. It has a ring to it of the hollow men: '$3 billion won't do it; perhaps $5 billion; I know, let's go for $10 billion; we'll go right over the top'. I think there is a bit of over exuberance going on here.
Another concern is that governments of both political persuasions have indulged in this pathway of going off budget by saying that we are buying an asset, so we are borrowing money but we own an asset now and that doesn't need to be in the budget. The most spectacular example of that would be the NBN, but it is probably a fair assumption that the Commonwealth owns a fair kind of asset there. Generally speaking, these off-budget expenditures to acquire assets which are income earning are physical assets that you can sort of touch and feel. You can see what it is worth and, if you don't like it, you can sell it off. I don't think that is the case with this Future Housing Fund. We are borrowing money at the government bond rate, which currently is 3.8 per cent, close to four per cent—that is, $400 million a year. That will probably be locked in for 10 years despite whichever way borrowing rates go and depending on when the money is borrowed, of course, and that is a liquid scene.
The concept of giving it to the Australia Future Fund to invest is good. My colleagues have made the point that the Future Fund is up and down and lost 3.7 per cent last year. But it has had a pretty good track record and, from my point of view, that is not unreasonable place to park that money. Why would you borrow money to park money? That is a little odd; I'm not sure about that. Basically the government is asking us to take a bet that the Future Fund performance will exceed the borrowing rate.
Another concern I have in this issue is the erosion of the real-dollar value. Currently the inflation rate is 7.8 per cent. If you are going to lose $400,000—we don't know what the Future Fund is going to do—and then devalue the pool by 7.8 per cent, by the time we get to the end of the year, virtually nothing will have been spent and we will already be down below $9 billion. I point out that $9 billion is $1,000 million less than $10 billion. These are big sums. It is a policy that is leading us in a couple of wrong directions. It is leading us away from home ownership. It is letting the states off the hook. The states will, presumably, line up for this money, and they will put it where they see best—for either the good of the people or their political advantage. Consequently, the Commonwealth has just given them a pool of money to use for their purposes. That's why I believe there are enough concerns in this area for me to not support the bill—that we go along this pathway of propping up state governments, that we give up on the idea of Australian homeownership. I think that's the most central point.
Government policy should be about owning the keys, getting your own keys to your own door, your own life or your family and the ability to build a net wealth for the foundations of your family. It's one of the reasons the Liberal Party is in favour of people being able to borrow against their superannuation. In your superannuation you can invest in anyone else's house but your own. That seems preposterous to me. The proposal that we put forward before the last election would require someone, if they had drawn down on their superannuation fund, to actually pay that fund back if they sold the house. I think that was very, very good policy. I am very wary of people tapping into their superannuation fund for other reasons—to fund a European trip, the retiling of the bathroom or whatever it might be—but investing in the bricks and mortar of a house, history will tell you, is one of the best investments you will ever make. I think the proposal of drawing down on superannuation has great merit. I think we would be far wiser in this parliament if we were pursuing that now rather than this proposal. I will be opposing the bills.
I rise to speak on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills. I listened intently to the member for Grey's contribution, and I thank him for it. It is extraordinary, however, that, faced with the housing affordability crisis, his answer is: 'What about mission creep? Mission creep is something that we need to consider.' We on this side of the House recognise that the housing affordability crisis we are in at the moment requires all levels of government to work together. While the problem is complex, it ought not be intractable. That's the key here—not to be concerned about mission creep but to be working with all levels of government to make sure that people can afford their own home. It is extraordinary to hear from those opposite their concern about Commonwealth funding in this space when they were willing to find people's renovations to their homes and now they are unwilling to help fund people getting into their first home.
My parents worked hard, saved up and were able to buy a house four years after arriving in this country. They still live there today. It's a modest three-bedroom townhouse. They never had enough money to renovate it, so the tiles in the bathroom are very, very retro. While my childhood home won't win any design awards, it was important to us. It was the foundation on which the success of my family was built. It gave us the security, stability and a sense of community. That is the importance of a place to call home.
It's not unique to my family; housing is the bedrock of the lives of so many people in Australia. I would like to quote from the Productivity Commission report into housing released in August last year:
Housing is a basic human need and is central to our physical and mental health and quality of life.
But we know it homeownership is getting harder and harder for so many people. The great Australian dream is becoming just a pipedream. The challenges of paying a mortgage are felt most acutely in electorates like mine in Sydney; 24.8 per cent of households in Reid are in mortgage stress—that is, their mortgage repayments are above 30 per cent of their household income. That is significantly more than the rest of Australia, which sits at 14½ per cent. These figures are from 2021, before the current interest rate rises.
While the story around house prices is what fills newspaper columns, it's rents that really reflect the cost of housing. I quote again from the Productivity Commission report:
About a quarter of Australians rent in the private market. More Australians are renting, for more of their lives, than in the past.
Year on year, rents in my electorate are rising. In Lidcombe they're up 12.2 per cent, in Homebush they're up 13 per cent and in Breakfast Point they're up 16 per cent. Housing is chewing up more and more of household income. And, when it comes to social and affordable housing, in New South Wales the need is acute. There are more than 51,000 applicants on the waitlist, with 6,500 applicants given priority status. That's 6,500 priority applicants left waiting. They are the most vulnerable: women and children fleeing domestic violence, and people with disabilities. For those not deemed a priority, they're expected waiting time is more than 10 years. Imagine waiting 10 years for a place to call home.
The housing affordability crisis has been around for a long time. I am going to quote from Jason Falinski, the former member for Mackellar:
… home ownership, one of the building blocks of Australian society, has been falling for the last 30 years. In my view, this represents an urgent moral call for action by governments of all levels to restore the Australian dream for this generation and the ones that follow.
He didn't see this as mission creep; he saw this as something that was core to what the Commonwealth and state governments ought to be doing. And he said this in 2021: 'Here are some points I think we can all agree on in this place. Secure and quality housing is important for everyone's wellbeing. We are in a housing affordability crisis.' And, finally: 'This crisis has been brewing for many years.'
So, if we can agree on these points, the question is: what did those opposite do when they were in power for nine years? The short answer: nothing. In fact, they actively worked to make the situation worse. The Abbott government abolished the National Housing Supply Council. The council, established in 2008 under the Rudd Labor government, was there to monitor housing demand, supply and affordability in Australia. It gave us a better understanding of the problem. That council and those insights—now gone. Those opposite also failed to convene a meeting of the state and territory ministers in five years. We know how important it is that states, territories and the Commonwealth work together to address housing affordability. But those opposite could not get on board.
In Australia we have major iconic infrastructure: the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Opera House, the Snowy Hydro scheme. We are a country obsessed with major infrastructure projects. Well, I want this to be the next major infrastructure project: social and affordable housing. The Albanese Labor government has been unashamedly ambitious with our housing policy. Our housing policy sees social and affordable housing as a key plank to solving the housing affordability crisis. That's the difference when you have a government that recognises housing equity as being important. It's good for those who need to access social housing—for women and children fleeing domestic violence; for older women, who are increasingly facing homelessness; for our veterans; for First Nations families; for those with disabilities.
We have established the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. The returns on the fund will build 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the fund's first five years, including 4,000 homes for women and children impacted by domestic violence, or older women at risk of homelessness. In an historic deal, we are working with states, territories and the private sector to build more homes. We have set an ambitious target of one million homes by the end of decade. This is big, nation-building stuff that will transform the lives of so many.
In September last year, the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Julie Collins, came to Burwood in my electorate to meet with community housing providers, local council and organisations assisting the homeless. I want to thank the organisations for participating in that roundtable: Burwood Community Welfare Services, St Paul's Parish, St Vincent de Paul Society, Bridge Housing, Women's and Girls' Emergency Centre, Eurella and Burwood Council. Many of the participants said it was the first time they had an opportunity to speak about the challenges with housing affordability and homelessness with a federal minister. I'm grateful to the minister for taking the time to meet with the community. This is a government that cares. It is one that is listening and acting to address the housing affordability crisis.
In my home town of Charters Towers, it once took my wife 15 minutes and cost her $14 to do a subdivision. You could buy a piece of land in Charters Towers for $7,000. We were in a town of 16,000 people and were under the mining act. The only process was to walk in to the clerk of the court and ask, and for him to say: 'Yes, I agree to the subdivision,' or, 'No, I don't,' and that was the end of it. The net result of this was that you could buy a piece of land in Charters Towers for $7,000. Then the incoming Labor government said: 'We can't have this sort of irresponsibility!' So, in 1992, two years after the much-maligned Bjelke-Petersen government fell—was wiped out—the gruesome regime of processing was imposed upon us.
It was referred to, I might add, by no less than the Treasurer of the Parliament of Australia in his budget speech, where he said: 'Affordability is the major issue confronting this nation. Housing is the major element that is occasioning this problem, and the problem is caused by regulatory impositions,' and I and my honourable colleague from Tasmania were both sitting here saying, 'Hear, hear!' and we said that continuously throughout his speech, which was pretty rare for either of us. Then he reached his penultimate comment, saying that he was going to deal with this problem by putting an authority in, and we both burst out laughing. Our honourable colleague from the Adelaide area asked, 'Why are you laughing?' and we said: 'Because you've just put another tier in! You've got five tiers and processes you've got to go through now. Well, there's just been another process put in there!'
It is my land! There was the Magna Carta. No less a person than Archbishop Langton, under William, his colleague, the Regent, who said: 'It is your land; the government has no right to interfere.' So, if I want to cut my land up into tiny little parcels, that's my business. It's nothing to do with the government.
The government has every right to say: 'Well, you can't get any services to it,' but that isn't going to upset people a lot, because most of the people in North Queensland have a big tank and can supply their own water, and they can put solar panels on their roof and put batteries in, and say: 'Too bad! We don't need your electricity anymore. We don't need your water anymore.' And of course any enlightened regime would allow for septic tanks in backyards. Everyone in Cloncurry—and everyone in every town in North Queensland—had those, up until about 50 years ago, and I can't ever remember a complaint along those lines.
So the answer is there. The answer is simple. It is to give back to the people the powers that you have taken off them. Those powers were given to us in no less a document than the Magna Carta itself, in the homeland of it. And if there is a reason why the Anglos and the Europeans have skipped 100 years ahead of the rest of the world—they're not ahead now, but, for well over 200 years, they were ahead of the rest of the world—it was because they had a concept called property: privately owned, freehold property.
I would refer everybody in this House to the works of Hernando de Soto, the World Bank economist, who should have got the Nobel Prize but didn't. He said, 'Why are Egypt, the Philippines and Peru the three poorest countries on earth?' This is not a bloke to be taken lightly. His cousin heads up Rio, the second-biggest mining company on earth and amongst the top 20 biggest companies on earth. He himself is a senior economist with the World Bank. We don't exactly laugh at people like this. He said that it was because of the simple fact that you can't get a freehold title in any of those countries. It will take you 6½ years and 237 processes, many of which will require a lawyer, so effectively you can't get a freehold title.
I am very familiar with this concept because, when I went out and asked my blackfella mates, my brother cousins, what they wanted—3½ million acres of 30-inch rainfall land, not much of that in Australia—surprise, surprise, they wanted freehold title, inalienable freehold title, the same as everyone else on earth. And, 33 years since that legislation was abolished by the ALP government—I repeat: by the ALP government—there has not been a scintilla of effort to restore their rights to a freehold title. The net result of that is that the death rate has nearly trebled in all of those communities, because they took away market gardens as well. Not only did the socialists take away your source of fruit and vegetables, but also they took away your right to be able to put a fruit and vegetable farm in.
I want to talk about the Liberals now. It's very hard not to look at that terrible, evil word that we use to describe the annihilation of people on earth. We've had many examples of that: Adolf Hitler, the Turks against the Armenians, the British against the South Africans. But, in the Torres Strait, the Liberal government banned fruit and vegetable gardens. Well, I just don't know what word you'd used to describe it if you don't use that ugly word. How would you describe it? Those people have no way of getting fresh fruit and vegetables from Cairns up to every island—there are 28 islands in the Torres Strait—on a fortnightly basis. Since our fruit and vegetables in the Far North go to Brisbane and back again, and take another two weeks to get to the islands, there are no fresh fruit and vegetables. But that didn't worry them because they all had their own fruit and vegetable gardens in the backyard. I had 300 meals up there, and I can't remember ever touching a skerrick of food from the mainland or from anywhere else. It was all locally grown food. You took that right away from them. And you took their right to commercial dinghy fishing away from them. Maybe there's some other name that's not as bad as 'genocide', and I'd like you to suggest that I use it, because I don't want to use the word 'genocide', and yet I can't think of any other word to describe what was done there. It was exactly the same as what the British did in the concentration camps to the women and children in South Africa: 'Oh, we'll just deprive them of food. Don't do anything else. Just deprive them of food and medical treatment. She'll be right. They'll be gone.'
In North Queensland, in Charters Towers, we were doing a block of land for $7,000. It's an hour's drive from Townsville. I dare say, if you live in Sydney, you won't get anywhere in an hour, so you might as well live in Charters Towers. Townsville is a city, effectively, of 300,000 people—as big as Canberra. There are all mod cons there. Everything you want is there. It's an hour away. And we can provide land for $7,000. That was what we were doing until, as the Treasurer rightly pointed out, the government regime of requirements was imposed upon those people.
If you say there were some problems in that administration, I was a member of parliament there for 20 years and I never got a single complaint. We were selling land for $7,000 a block. Our right to do that was taken away from us so we could get in line with the rest of Australia, and the price of land in Charters Towers went from $7,000 to $142,000. Congratulations, Mr ALP Government of Queensland! What a fantastic success story. Your add-ons, making all your consultants in Brisbane super rich, which had never been needed in the 200-year history of the town and had never been called for, were imposed on them by you. They shot the price up from $7,000 to $142,000. I'm not one for exaggeration, I hope. The market has settled back down to about $45,000 a block, which is where it sits today. It should be $7,000 a block. Why isn't it?
A teacher rang up yesterday. He is sleeping on a verandah. They gave him an umbrella. So he sleeps on a verandah with an umbrella in one of the coldest parts of Australia, the Atherton Tableland, and he pays $300 a week for the privilege of sitting on a verandah with an umbrella. This is in a land where from Atherton across to the Indian Ocean there's nobody living. You could drop a line of atomic bombs from Atherton all the way across to Robe River, if you like, or wherever you want to point out on the west coast of Western Australia, and you wouldn't kill anyone, because there's no-one living there. So why are we paying this extraordinary price? The biggest land developer in North Queensland, Sir Robert Norman, said: 'Mate, I'm out of it. I haven't got enough years in my life to do the next subdivision.' So where we desperately need housing we can't get it. There is a second, small, element. We need high-speed, dual-lane, spoke roads and the speed raised to 125 kilometres an hour.
Outside of Cairns is Mission Beach. For two years in a row it has been voted one of the four most beautiful places on Earth. It has crystal clear waterfalls, no crocodiles, beaches 100 metres wide, coral at low tide, jungle right down to the beach. This truly is paradise. Why aren't there people living there? Go back to the restrictions placed on subdivisions by the government. That's why people aren't living there. Unless, somewhere, we can find an Alexander the Great to cut the Gordian knot, this situation in Australia will continue.
My daughter had a cubicle. I measured it. It was roughly the size of our toilet room in our home, and she was paying $300 a week for it. There's a bloke paying $300 a week for a verandah space with an umbrella in a country that's empty, in a country where, if you move more than a hundred kilometres from the coast, there is virtually no-one living. There are 1.2 million people living on a continent the size of Brazil or the United States. It is bigger than Europe and almost as big as China. It is bigger than India. There are only 1.2 million people living there, and yet you're charging people. You will not let them buy a piece of land under $140,000 anywhere in this country, and it's your fault.
Don't tell me you're going to have an authority. Walk into this place and pass laws saying that if it's my piece of land I can cut it into whatever I bloody well like, because it's my land, and Archbishop Langton and William, the regent of England, put that on paper and made it law that it's my land.
The great jurist Coke—as you pronounce his name—in 1676, I think it was, said 'An Englishman's home is his castle'. His house, ever so humble, may the wind blow through it, the winds flap in the breeze, the door open and shut in a gust, be it ever so humble. Even the King of England himself shall not set foot upon the portals without the permission of the law—meaning an Englishman's home is his castle.
The Albanese Labor government's comprehensive housing legislation package is so important. The reason is because safe, secure and affordable housing is central to the dignity of every person in this country. We all know how Australians are struggling across the nation when it comes to housing. In my electorate of Richmond, people are struggling every day. We have a rental crisis. We have a housing affordability crisis—
Do something about it.
We are doing something about it. We have a homelessness crisis and it is getting worse all the time. People are struggling with rising rents—they are struggling to even find a rental—and struggling with rising interest rates. Young people are struggling to buy their first home, and so many are struggling with homelessness. I see that struggle every day, particularly frontline workers telling me they cannot access housing.
On a point of order: I claim to have been misrepresented.
Now is not the time to make that point of order.
People in my electorate are struggling every day with the housing, homelessness and the rental affordability crisis. Following our devastating floods almost a year ago, there is still so much damage and so much destruction in our community. Almost a year on, people are living in their cars, unable to find accommodation anywhere. This is why this legislation is so vitally important. I am incredibly proud to be part of a government that is acting on that because it is a crisis and it needs to be addressed. That is why we are introducing these three bills before the House today, to implement our entire package.
These bills are a comprehensive suite of measures to build more social and affordable housing. It is one of the most significant investments in an entire generation to look at fixing this massive problem we have right across the country. At the centre of all of this is the Housing Australia Future Fund. It is one aspect of our commitment to improving housing supply and affordability. Central to that is increasing the supply of social and affordable housing and investing more in acute housing needs. In the first five years of operation, the fund will help build 30,000 social and affordable houses. Twenty thousand of these homes will be specifically for social housing, and 4,000 will be allocated for women and children fleeing domestic violence and for older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness. Also, the additional 10,000 homes will be for affordable housing—so vitally important—accessible to our frontline workers such as police, teachers, cleaners, all those people who worked so hard during the pandemic. Our frontline workers need to access housing.
As the Assistant Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, I cannot begin to describe how important it is to have these 4,000 homes for women and children fleeing domestic violence. This is incredibly urgent and indeed lifesaving. We know that domestic and family violence is one of the main reasons that women and children have to leave their homes. Between 2020 and 2021, 42 per cent of all clients who presented to a specialist homelessness service reported they were escaping family and domestic violence. This makes domestic and family violence the most common reason given for homelessness. That is why we need those 4,000 homes, to provide that long-term housing. As I said, we need those affordable homes for our frontline workers as well.
This is such an important, incredibly urgent, absolutely urgent, agenda that we have to have in place. It is for those reasons that I am absolutely outraged that so many across from us are opposing this bill. It is in fact shameful, very shameful that we see Liberal and National party opposing it, particularly the National Party because, for the regions, it is another example of how destructive the National Party is. I've said many times in this place that National Party choices hurt. Well, this really hurts. In my region, after the devastation of the floods, you cannot find affordable housing, you cannot find a rental and people are homeless and living in their cars—and what does the National Party come in here and do? They vote against it. That's exactly what they're going to do; they've said they'll be voting against it, voting against supporting people in our community who are desperate to access decent housing. It is reprehensible and absolutely shameful.
People in the community know. They have been saying it: 'How can the National Party walk away from the regions, from rural Australia?' That's exactly what they are doing in opposing this bill. They were in government for over a decade and did nothing in terms of addressing any of these issues. They created the crisis. And now they're shamefully opposing our action, our commitment, to fix it. I challenge any of those National Party members to come to my region and explain why they're doing it, explain to people why they're not assisting them finding a house, explain why they're not assisting people who are homeless and sleeping in their cars. You come and look them in the eye and tell them why you will not support them. It is absolutely shameful.
We are also seeing posturing from the Greens, who are saying they're opposing it. Supposedly housing is a priority for them, yet they're threatening to oppose it. That is just outrageous! It's just like the CPRS all over again. They need to rethink this and need to support what we are doing to ensure that people can find affordable and accessible housing.
This is desperate, this is urgent and I encourage all members to rethink this and support our bills. People need to find decent housing. It is an absolute human right to ensure they have dignity and access to housing. I very proudly commend all these bills to the House.
I rise to speak on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and the associated bills. I'm lucky enough, in Melbourne, to have the electorate that has the highest number of public housing residents, from the last time we looked at the statistics. In that electorate, one of the things we deal with day after day, in our office, is people who can't get into public housing, who have been on the waiting list for years and who are told, even though they're homeless, even though they're couch surfing, even though they might be women just about to give birth, there is no place for them in public housing. When you look at the rental market, you find there is zero chance of renting near your family or your friends or where you work or study because rents in the private market have grown seven times faster than wages. People are in crisis.
When you're faced with this housing crisis, where you can't get into public housing because governments haven't built public housing and where you can't get into the private market because rents are going through the roof, it takes a particular kind of genius to come up with a policy that will see the waiting list longer at the end than it is now. We've got a shortage at the moment of 640,000 social and affordable homes in this country—a shortage that is set to grow by 75,000 in five years—and a proposal that says we're supposedly going to finance the construction of 30,000 over five years, which means the shortage of affordable and social housing will continue to grow under this policy. This policy is one that bakes in the problem getting worse.
It's not even a promise to spend money on housing. This is a gamble of $10 billion of public money being put into the stock market in the hope that some of that might find its way back into building housing. It's not a $10 billion investment in housing; it's a $10 billion gamble on the stock market with a spending cap on housing. We've heard from the government that somehow this is going to result in $500 million a year. What people need to know is what the government is doing is taking public money, putting it over for a gamble on the stock market and hoping that that generates some money to be spent on public housing. Last year, if this proposal had gone ahead, it would have actually lost money; the investment in the future fund would have actually lost money. There is no requirement in this legislation that a dollar be spent per year on social and affordable housing. If money is made after gambling on the stock market, then it may come in. Last year there were zero dollars. It was negative; it made a loss. Separately, in a time of crisis they've put a cap on how much they're going to spend. Even if the fund makes a greater return, they've limited how much they're going to spend. And it's not even indexed. In other words, even if more money is made available, they've locked in a steady decline, a steady cut, on how much will be spent on social and affordable housing.
Spending on social and affordable housing and building new public housing in this country shouldn't be dependent on the whims of the stock market. Imagine if we did that with schools and hospitals. Imagine if the government said: 'I'm sorry. We can't find funds to build new public schools this year because the stock market made a loss.' There would be an outcry, and rightly so. Spending on public, social and affordable housing should be treated the same way as spending on public schools and on public health. We need a mind shift in this country where the government says, 'Whether you find a roof over your head isn't dependent on whether the stock market has made money this year; it is a basic right.' The government shouldn't come to the parliament in a time of crisis and say, 'We want a cap on how much we're going to spend on social and affordable housing.'
There is a massive problem here, including for renters, but there's nothing in here for renters in the private market, who are seeing rents grow by seven times as much as wages. There's nothing in here. The government has failed to understand that a shift has gone on in Australian society. Now more people are renting and they are finding it impossible to get a place to rent near where they work or study. There's nothing in here to address out-of-control spiralling rents. We need to start taking seriously the position that renters find themselves in. Renters need to stop being treated like second-class citizens and ignored by governments. It is time for more rights for renters, but there's nothing in this package for renters.
Freezing rent increases and doubling Commonwealth rent assistance would go a huge way to relieving the stress that renters find themselves in. The government has brought forward a bill that says that at the end of the bill, if the bill is implemented, the problem will be worse and the gap will be bigger than it is now. It ignores renters. The government has nothing for renters who find themselves in crisis right now. What does the government have for renters who are watching spiralling rents and can't find a secure roof over their head? Zero; there is zero in these bills for renters right now.
The opposition have said no to these bills, but we're saying to the government, 'Do better.' We're saying to the government, 'Put some real money into housing and guarantee that it is going to flow so that we start to make the problem better, not worse, as these bills are proposing to do.' We're saying to the government: 'Do better for renters. Double Commonwealth rent assistance. Work to freeze rents across the country for the next two years, like happened in some places during the pandemic.' During the pandemic, governments, including in Victoria, understood that we were in a crisis. There is now a rental crisis that people are facing. The government needs to step in and stop rents spiralling out of control.
With over 20 per cent of First Nations people living in overcrowded homes, a $1 billion capital investment will help address the shocking inequality in housing outcomes in this country. That could be part of what the government is putting forward. Ultimately, the Greens are fighting on behalf of the millions of people that this bill leaves behind. Whether they're homeless, whether they're stuck on public or social housing waiting lists or whether they're struggling to pay the rent, we will fight to make sure that Labor does not forget them, because at the moment they are not helped by this bill.
So the opposition will say no and the Greens will say: 'Do better. Have something in this bill that addresses the real crisis that renters find themselves in. Let's look at First Nations housing. Let's make sure we spend some real money, not just have a gamble on the stock market and then cap how much is going to be spent and, in some years, spend nothing at all.' These are real proposals that will help fix the problem, not see the problem get worse. That is the fundamental problem with the approach the government is taking: if this bill is passed as it is, the problem will get worse than it is now. The problem will be worse than it is now at the end of the next few years.
People are looking to members of this parliament to work together to fix the massive rental crisis that people are in, not to pass a policy that bakes in the problem getting worse. We'll continue to work with the government over the coming weeks to make this better, because people need it to be better. Renters need it to be better, First Nations communities need it to be better—everyone who is struggling to afford to put a roof over their head needs this government to do better.
I've heard some twisted logic in this place before, but the member for Melbourne has tied himself in knots in his remarks. It beggars belief that the Greens would come into this place and say that we need more housing and do it by threatening to stop the construction of 20,000 social housing homes. It beggars belief that the Greens say the answer to the need for more housing is to deny the construction of 4,000 domestic violence places around our country—it beggars belief!
I've heard threats from all sides of politics in the past, but there is no way that the Greens are going to vote against this bill. If they do, they will have to explain that to women and children who are constantly missing out, who are being turned away from shelters. They will have to explain to women who are trying to leave situations of unimaginable danger and violence in their own homes that the Greens didn't think it was up to their lofty standards to support the construction of 4,000 extra dwellings around the country. Spare me! We are, I would hope, united in wanting to see safety for Australian women and children, wherever they are around this country. But, in coming here and lecturing us that the answer is not to support the construction of 4,000 domestic violence homes and 20,000 social housing homes, the Greens are using some of the most twisted and ridiculous logic I have ever heard.
We know that those opposite have an ideological bent against federal involvement in the construction of social housing. We know that because over the last decade that those opposite were in power they time and time again refused to support the construction of social housing. Throughout history, when the Labor Party has been in government at a federal level the federal government has funded the construction of social housing. Curtin and Chifley did it post World War II. Whitlam made one of the largest investments in social housing. The Hawke and Keating governments invested in social housing. The Rudd and Gillard governments—under the then Minister for Housing, now Minister for the Environment, the member for Sydney—made massive investments in social housing.
It shouldn't matter what political colour the government of Australia is. All governments should be investing in the provision of social housing, and I'm proud that the bill before the House, the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, is the single largest contribution to social housing a federal government has made in well over a decade. It will construct 20,000 homes, 4,000 of which will be allocated to women and children leaving domestic violence situations and to women on low incomes. It will also construct 10,000 affordable homes.
It is not the only work going on around the country. We'll also be working with states and territories and superannuation funds in the Housing Accord that the Treasurer announced in the budget. It comes as part of a big suite of reforms that we are doing to get the federal government back to the table around the provision of housing. It's not the only thing, but it is a crucial step forward. We know that those opposite have an ideological bent against support for and construction of social housing by federal governments. It is nothing but ideology. But we on this side of the House understand the importance of a safe and secure roof over one's head, and every single Australian deserves a safe and secure roof.
So I say to this House that this is a big step forward. This is a good bill, and I congratulate the Minister for Housing and also the Minister for Education, who was the shadow minister for housing and helped design this policy. This policy will help thousands of Australians. This policy that we are debating will mean that literally thousands of women and children are not turned away from domestic violence shelters. This policy means that nurses and other frontline workers, like police and cleaners, will have an affordable home to live in. This policy will get the federal government back into the provision of housing in Australia.
If those opposite don't want to be on this side of history, that's a matter for them, and it has always been their ideological bent. But to the Greens: for goodness sake, you cannot call yourselves serious about supporting those in social housing by denying them 20,000 social homes. You cannot call yourselves serious about protecting women and children by denying 4,000 women and children—on a single night—a safe place to go. That is not how you progress things.
I hope that all members of this place support this bill and that we take a giant leap forward in the provision of social housing and the provision of safe and secure housing for Australians, who deserve it.
I rise to speak on this housing legislation with a mix of support and concern. Several months in, we have one of those rare opportunities to debate legislation which the Labor Party actually prepared themselves, under the guise of their own policies. It is a rare situation because it isn't a carbon copy of coalition policy. And we can tell that it's not coalition policy, because, while those opposite speak about unlocking opportunities for young people and supporting those in need of housing support, these bills do not deliver that. That is the mark of a Labor government: pledges, platitudes and promises, and then dithering, delays and nondeliveries. In fact, I've been on my feet in this place and said, 'Labor, what do they do? They promise you the world. And what do they give you? They give you an atlas.'
In a moment I'll address each of the bills individually, but I want to show the contrast between the coalition's approach to housing and that of this government. During our last three years in government, the coalition's housing policies supported more than 300,000 Australians in the purchase of a home. Let me say that again. In the last term of a coalition government, more than 300,000 Australians were assisted in the purchase of a home.
We on this side of the House believe in the Menzies tradition of the great Australian dream of trying to enable as many Australians as humanly possible to afford to buy their own home, and we had some terrific policies, like the Home Guarantee Scheme. And I should point out that the former Assistant Treasurer and now shadow housing minister did an absolutely sterling job when he was the minister in those portfolios. The Home Guarantee Scheme supported eligible home buyers to purchase a new or existing home with a deposit as low as five per cent. As most of us would know, you ordinarily need a loan-to-value ratio of 80 to 20. So you need a 20 per cent deposit. When we, the coalition, were in government, our policy enabled people to buy their own home through the federal government effectively guaranteeing the performance of that 15 per cent. It enabled people to get in with as little as a five per cent deposit. Most young people will tell you that their biggest impediment to buying a home is saving a sufficient deposit. The coalition government's policy in our home guarantee program answered that problem. Over 10,400 Queenslanders benefited from this scheme, and 52 per cent were women and 20 per cent were essential workers, such as teachers and nurses.
We all know that housing is a huge problem in this country. For a country that is so incredibly huge, one almost finds it incredible that housing could be such a problem. But supply is one of the biggest problems that we have, and so is red tape. Many of those supply and red-tape issues are driven by state planning instruments and local governments. But, as I said, 10,400 Queenslanders benefited from this home guarantee program. Fifty-two per cent were women and 20 per cent were essential workers.
The Family Home Guarantee went even better. The Family Home Guarantee empowered single-parent families with children to buy their first home or to re-enter the housing market with a deposit as low as two per cent. This was a scheme which delivered real outcomes for the long-term financial security and housing security of single-parent families. Just like many young people would say their biggest impediment was their inability to raise a deposit of 20 per cent, single parents, who often struggle financially to make ends meet, find it very, very, difficult to save up that deposit. With the Family Home Guarantee, the coalition government provided meaningful support to people who were in difficult positions. Eighty-five per cent of the recipients of the Family Home Guarantee were single mums.
We didn't just talk the talk on delivering for Australians; we delivered. That is what good governments do. Through the First Home Super Saver Scheme, we helped 27,600 first home buyers accelerate their deposits through super, recognising that their super is their money. Everybody would remember the HomeBuilder program. I can remember being on the other side in this place when the then minister for housing introduced the necessary legislation to kick off the HomeBuilder program. The now Treasurer, who was the then the shadow Treasurer, stood here and said, 'This program will never work.' The now Treasurer lambasted the HomeBuilder program and said it would never work.
Coming from the building industry, I had building industry colleagues and friends coming to me and pleading with me in about March or April 2020 that we needed to do something to spur the construction industry along because they were facing an economic cliff in around August of 2020. Their contracts were drying up. To his credit, the now shadow Assistant Treasurer, in conjunction with industry bodies, came up with the HomeBuilder program. We were able to support 30,000 Queenslanders into building their homes under this package—homes in new estates like Baringa, Nirimba, Palmview and Bokrina in the electorate of Fisher—through HomeBuilder alone. This was terrific, not just providing homes for people but providing unbelievably successful economic stimulus during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a $120 billion boost to the economy, supporting nearly 375,000 full-time jobs. The now Treasurer, who is responsible for guiding this country through difficult economic times, stood up here in the chamber and said it would never work.
Even in opposition today, we are pushing for housing reform. We have announced our super home buyer scheme which will allow first home buyers to invest up to 40 per cent of their superannuation, up to a maximum of $50,000, to help with the purchase of their first home. That is what a coalition government does. Those opposite just don't get it, do they? They don't get that it's people's own money. The current government think they know better.
Terrible policy!
I will take the interjection, because they think that superannuation is the plaything of the Labor Party, and it's not; it's people's hard-earned money. For great programs like this that enable people to get out of the rent race and buy their own first home, this is a good policy. This is what a coalition government will do. It's what we have done. We back aspirational Australians. We back Australians who want to ensure that their families have a better quality of life. This policy will help build the economy. It makes the Australian dream a reality for the many, not the privileged few.
After nine years of good government, record investment, reform and real outcomes for everyday Australians, the housing sector came through the challenges of COVID-19 and a global financial crisis, yet Labor appears intent on dismantling our good work. Let's take a look at the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023. This is a bill which will require $10 billion of Commonwealth government borrowing. It will cost the Commonwealth as much as $400 million a year in interest servicing costs—and that's at today's rate, and we all know what's happening with rates. That's $400 million per year on interest. Imagine where that money could be better spent.
Now is not the time to plunge our country into unnecessary debt to fund a social policy experiment. Increased borrowing at this rate will only increase inflationary pressures on mums and dads right now. The more this government spends, the more inflationary pressures it places upon the economy. That will see more interest rate rises. Some 800,000 fixed-rate mortgages are about to become variable-rate mortgages. When those fixed-rate loans expire, the average Australian will be paying $16,000 more in mortgage payments. That is a circumstance many Australians are in now. The cost of living is incredibly difficult on family budgets; putting aside mortgage repayments, there are increases in transport costs, energy costs and food costs. Everybody is feeling it. But how many average Australian families are going to be able to afford—in many cases overnight—to pay an additional $16,000 a year in interest payments? Labor is already out of its depth in attempting to address the cost-of-living crisis facing Australians and their businesses, and this bill will only make it worse.
There is a lack of detail in this bill. Once again, this government is attempting to implement a significant reform without providing Australians with the information that they need and deserve. This has become an ongoing trend. Crucial questions that go to the heart of the Australian economy and the Australian ethos cannot be left unanswered. There's no investment mandate that has been released by this government, meaning that scrutiny and information about the fund's capability are restricted. This means that the legislation is essentially just a shell. It is empty. It is vacuous, like this government's entire housing policy agenda. The bill promises to address social housing, affordable housing and acute housing, but it absolutely fails to define what those three terms mean. Despite the bill providing a five-year review time frame and limits of annual drawdowns, there are no performance criteria and no details about the review mechanism. Once again, we're being asked to vote on a bill without detail. It is Labor creating policy on the run. Once again they are building the aircraft as it's running down the runway.
On these two issues alone, the Australian people would expect the coalition to vote against this bill. But, when you put it into the context of the government's housing agenda, the false promises and failures would cast doubt even in the minds of those who lent Labor their vote at the last election. After nine months in office, I ask the government: Where are the 30,000 new social and affordable homes that you promised? Where is your Help to Buy program that you said would commence on 1 January 2023? What are you doing to address supply chain shortages for building materials? How are you supporting the interstate and international migration of skilled workforces for construction? What are you doing about increasing rents, which have grown by 10.2 per cent, setting a new record? (Time expired)
The Albanese government understands safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of Australians. It's something I understand personally, as do the Minister for Housing and the Prime Minister. The three of us are all housos. We grew up in housing commission properties, and we're proud of it. Public housing gave my family more than just a roof over our heads. It gave us a safe place to call home. It supported a young migrant family as we worked hard to build a life in Australia. It gave us the security to allow my sister and me to pursue education and give back to our country, which gave us so much. That is what safe and avoidable housing means. It means dignity. It means opportunity. Too many Australians are being hit by rising rents and mortgage payments; too many Australians are struggling to buy a home; and, sadly, too many Australian are facing or experiencing homelessness. That's why we have an ambitious housing reform agenda: to ensure more Australians have a safe and affordable place to call home.
This housing package is a comprehensive suite of measures to build more social and affordable houses. It is one of the most significant Australian government investments in housing in a generation. The legislation—the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills—implements the government's commitments to establish a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to provide a stream of funding to ensure there is a pipeline of new social and affordable housing for Australians in need. It's 30,000 new homes, $200 million for acute housing needs in Indigenous communities; $30 million for veterans who are experiencing homelessness; and a $575 million injection into the National Housing Infrastructure Facility for immediate use for social and affordable housing. It's also about transforming the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation into Housing Australia, as the national home for key housing programs, to expand its activities. It's also about establishing the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent advice to government on ways to increase housing supply and affordability.
All these commitments are part of the government's broader housing reform agenda, which includes: the landmark National Housing Accord—a shared ambition to build one million well-located homes over five years from 2024; $350 million in additional Commonwealth funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes over five years from 2024 matched by the states with another 10,000 homes; widening the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, with $575 million immediately available to invest in social and affordable housing; developing the national housing and homelessness plan to set short, medium and long-term goals to improve housing outcomes across Australia; implementing the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which has already helped more than 1,600 Australians into home ownership; and the Help to Buy program, which will reduce the cost of buying a home and help people into a home sooner.
The government has expanded all of these efforts in a focus to address the housing crisis and ease the cost of living. But what about those on the other side who we have heard from? It was not enough for the previous coalition government to discontinue the National Rental Affordability Scheme. It was not enough of the previous coalition government to abolish the National Housing Supply Council. They claimed that housing was a state issue yet they couldn't bring together state and territory housing ministers for the last five years. They couldn't even do that for five years. Now they are lining up to oppose this critical $10 billion investment in affordable housing. This is at a time when Australians are struggling with increasing rents, increasing mortgage payments and increasing house prices, at a time when we as a government are taking real action on these issues after nine long years of wasted time under their zero leadership—zero.
It is not just the Libs. I hear that the unholy alliance between the Greens political party and the Liberals might be back. I hope not. It seems that if the Greens want to make an enemy of the good, which is part of their MO, they might seek to sink the $10 billion investment in affordable housing. That is not coming into this place to build, to be constructive; it is coming into this place to wreck. I'm shocked they might be happy to join the coalition in opposing this bill. The simple truth for the Greens party is that they talk big on housing, but the rubber hits the road here when they vote on the reality of impacting millions of Australian and their access to housing. We will negotiate with them as we always do. We will even, in good faith, negotiate with the opposition if they are willing to talk about amendments. I urge the Greens not to join up with the coalition to kill this bill.
Just two months ago the member for Melbourne, the Leader of the Greens—he is not here—sent a message to supporters asking them to think about the homeless and those struggling to pay the rent over Christmas. Did he talk about the Greens Party's support for the government's public housing investment? No. He told people that if they really care about the homeless, they should donate to the Greens political party.
The Albanese government won't use housing stress to shake down people for money. We won't promise false hope with failed policies, and we won't stand here and play political games like those on the other side and some of those on the crossbench who may oppose this bill. I hope they don't. I hope the minor parties, the Greens and crossbenchers, understand the importance of this. I hold out that hope, even though I know that there are many, many local councillors from the Greens, for example, who have opposed public and affordable housing in their local council decisions. I know this is the case in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. Where public and social and affordable housing is desperately needed, there has been opposition by Greens councillors. I hope that is not replicated here in the parliament of Australia.
I hope the Greens don't team up with the coalition to threaten billions of dollars of critical investment in public housing. Because if they decide to make perfect the enemy of good and they don't get what they want on amendments in good faith negotiation, for example, and they team up with those on the other side and oppose this bill, they will go down in ignominy. They will be going against millions of people that this bill will help, millions of Australians. These are people fleeing domestic violence. These are people who fought for our country and served. These are First Nations Australians who live in remote areas. These are people who need a home, so I ask the opposition to reconsider their position. I ask the Greens political party to work with us and the crossbenchers to invest and implement these critical reforms that are so needed for so many Australians. What are we here for if not to serve them in that capacity, in good faith? Work with us to provide the national leadership to address housing affordability across Australia.
There was some interesting reading for members of this House and the Senate over summer. A lot of that was courtesy of the Treasurer, and I'd like to come back to this because it matters in this debate. We're here debating the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. But all of these bills contribute to the larger, bigger picture and the focus of this government, and it's important to analyse and look at the focus of this government and the consequences of that.
Many have spoken about homeownership as a core value for the Liberal Party, and it is, I submit, a core value for this nation. There's a reason that one of the most popular and well loved movies in Australia is The Castlebecause our home is our castle, and it is a place to raise a family and it is a place to have security and to have a good life.
Indeed, for Robert Menzies, who my seat is named after, that was his No. 1 ambition for this nation—that every family has a home to call their own. It his seminal speech 'The forgotten people', Menzies emphatically laid out the manifold centrality of this. He said:
The home is the foundation of sanity and sobriety; it is the indispensable condition of continuity; its health determines the health of society as a whole.
And he said a home is your castle, so he was before his time, making sure that this was something that would go down in Australian history.
Many have spoken about the difficulty for young people to get into a home, and this bill does nothing to address that. It should be not a partisan issue but something that's of concern to every party because the path to homeownership has become harder. Again, this bill does nothing to help that.
Homeowners, or households, are a group that are paying a larger share of their income in interest than they did in the 1980s, despite the fall in rates. We hear the horror stories from our parents about what the 1990s were like, and I remember those stories. I remember seeing those bills. Indeed, my father still has a clip of what the interest rates were in the 1990s.
You should've seen it in the 1970s!
I'm not so old as to have seen it in the 1970s, to take the interjection! But when you look at those bills in the 1990s—that is etched into the psyche of people who can remember that. But homeowners now have larger debts, and it's important to assess them relative to both their income and their assets. As rates go up, they are still not near those levels of the 1980s and 1990s. But house prices, relative to income, are twice what they were a generation ago, and access to finance is harder—and it's getting harder all the time because of the decisions that are being made in this place and by this government. So we can accept as a statement of fact that the path to owning your own home is more difficult now than it ever has been. Young people are getting squeezed in many different ways. Interest rates are high and getting higher. House prices are dropping off, but they're still extraordinarily high.
When we look at the average family or the average house—and I'd like to single out millennials. I think I just skip the millennial generation; I'm of that long-forgotten generation, generation X. Millennials are our largest generation. If you wanted to buy, say, a $650,000 apartment in Melbourne—it's not a house. It's hard to get a house for that money. The mean price for a house is closer to a million dollars in many suburbs of Melbourne, and it goes up the closer you get to where you work in the city. But let's say you're on a salary of $70,000 or $72,000, which is often what graduates are on—forgetting all the debts that you owe after going to university—and you're an office manager or you have an administrative job. For that $650,000 apartment, it would take you 15 years and seven months to save a 20 per cent deposit. It's no wonder that many people give up, no wonder that so many people, particularly within a certain radius of our capital cities, are saying that homeownership is beyond them. The journey to homeownership has become an ultramarathon, if not a never-ending one, because that timeframe keeps getting pushed out. Purchasing power has not kept up with exploding property prices. Saving for a deposit on the average home in Sydney, where the member for Bennelong is from, is even worse. It would take many, many more years to save for the average apartment or the average house in Sydney.
We need to do more for young people. This bill won't do that. In fact, it will have an adverse affect on that aspiration. We know from the IMF that off-budget spending of $45 billion will have a detrimental impact on the economy. We know that interest rates must move in tune with fiscal policy. The Reserve Bank is independent and it has a role. The Reserve Bank is in this house this week—before the Senate today and before the House Standing Committee on Economics, which I'm a member of, as is the member for Bennelong. There is an important role for that independence and accountability to this place, but we must never forget the important role played by the people on the government benches, the important role in fiscal policy. You cannot have one foot on the brake and one foot on the accelerator. For every extra $6 billion of off-budget spending there is potentially a quarter of a percentage point rise to the cash rate. What will $45 billion do? And this bill is a key part of that $45 billion.
We have to ask what are the priorities of the Labor Party in bringing this forward, and that means we have to ask what are the priorities of the Treasurer. Many in this chamber and in the media have spoken about the Treasurer's essay. There are some wonderful parts about what the Treasurer is actually interested in. I enjoyed reading his essay, and I commend him for putting pen to paper. It is important that we hear from the executive members in long-form essay, because we get to see what is important to them. It's an essay long on cliches that I haven't seen since my undergraduate days but short on economics and short on a vision for a better future for younger Australians, and for younger Australians buying their own home. The Treasurer seeks to criticise neoliberalism without defining it. It's a dog whistle to his own party. It's a dog whistle to serve his own aspirations for further promotion. He talks about the Washington consensus and pooh-poohs it, but he doesn't define it and doesn't say which part about it he is criticising. He doesn't say which parts were a source of wealth and dragged millions, if not billions, of people out of poverty in the world. He goes back to the energy shocks of the 1970s and gives us a history lesson. But he then says some really concerning things: 'If we could redesign markets for investments in social purposes.' We all want better social outcomes in this country, but when somebody says 'redesign markets', and that someone is the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, we should be concerned. When that someone also talks about making sure that the allocation of capital has a government intervention, we should be concerned, because that person is not talking about redesigning capitalism. That person is talking about criticising it.
I could go on with all the different parts of the essay. Many of them have been repeated, including noting that 'We'—being the Labor government—'will renew and revitalise the Productivity Commission and renovate the Reserve Bank of Australia.' I'm sure the Treasurer isn't talking about a lick of paint or doing up that building in Sydney, which I urge you to go and visit, if you can. No, he's talking about something more insidious, and it is quite disturbing. When the Treasurer says it's not just our economic institutions that need renewing and restructuring but the way our markets allocate and arrange capital as well, I get concerned.
When I finished the essay, I wondered what else the Treasurer had written. He wrote a PhD thesis; he has a doctorate. I'll save everyone the time of looking at it. The doctorate is called 'Brawler Statesman'. That's a perfect title not just for Paul Keating but for the culture of the Labor Party. We see the Labor Party come in here one day and speak in hushed tones about our veterans and in hushed tones about how there is a unity ticket on foreign policy and defence. That's the statesman in some of you, and I commend you for it. Then, on other days, the brawler is on. The brawler comes in and shoots invective about how this side doesn't care about veterans and doesn't care about defence and national security. That's what we saw yesterday. The heart of this Labor Party is a contradiction. You don't know what you're going to get from one day to the next. It is a bipolar party that one day is a statesman and one day is a brawler, and we don't know who will come in on a particular day.
Let's look at this thesis. Here are the titles of the chapters. Chapter 1 is 'Brawler statesman'. The subchapter is 'Revisiting prime ministerial power'. I'd like to take you to a part of that. In the 'Outlines, aims and arguments' section, the Treasurer said:
The aim of the dissertation, therefore, is to isolate the power relationships central to the governing task and to draw some conclusions about the levers of power available to Keating specifically and then, more broadly, to Australian prime ministers in general.
It's to study the levers of power.
Chapter 2 is 'Prime ministerial leadership'. Again the focus is on power and the power debate. Chapter 3 is 'Leading Labor', which talks about the factions. Chapter 4 is 'Controlling cabinet'. You'll notice that there isn't any reference here to actual economics, values or having a better nation. Then there's 'Governing from the centre'.
What about a reference to housing?
I can see no reference to housing. In the chapter 'Throwing grenades' there is a section 'Us and them'. Again this is the brawler in the Labor Party—the fighting tories cliche you hear in the corridors of this place. 'I love fighting tories. I love fighting Liberals'—that's the brawler in the Labor Party. The Treasurer focused a whole chapter on throwing grenades. 'Throwing grenades'—what a great chapter title.
I thought that now we're up to chapter 7 we might actually get something of substance. It's called 'Painting the big picture'. There's 'The high grade drip', 'The rhetorical Prime Minister' and 'Striding the international stage'. Chapter 8 is 'Pressing the flesh', and then you're finished.
That's a whole insight into what the Treasurer is actually focused on. It's a focus on power—how power is obtained, how power is used and how it takes an individual from sitting as Treasurer to sitting as Prime Minister and leader in that seat. That is what the Treasurer is focused on. In all of the speeches about the people this bill will supposedly back there's a bit of statesman, but it's about being a brawler. If you were truly coming in here with your statesman hat on, you would recognise that these off-budget bills are hurting Australians. They are stopping Australians from actually getting into the housing market. This $10 billion bill will do nothing to get young Australian families into their own home.
I'd like to take it back to my seat. In my seat, mortgage repayments are 30 per cent of household income. Compare that to the nationwide average of 14.5 per cent. So in my seat there is enormous mortgage stress and enormous concern about what this government is doing to lever fiscal policy to reduce inflation and to reduce the pressure on them.
This bill sounds great and has great objectives, but it won't achieve those objectives, except one—that is, it will help the Treasurer's focus on his own objectives for power. It will hurt Australians by putting pressure on inflation and, therefore, interest rates. It's pushing more work from this place, from the ministerial wing, down to the Reserve Bank. Then they say, 'Oh, well, it's an independent Reserve Bank.' The Reserve Bank is independent, but it's getting more and more in its in-tray because of the work that's not being done by this frontbench. We oppose this bill because it does nothing to help struggling families throughout this nation.
When I talk to people throughout my electorate of Bennelong, one of the most common things I hear is their concern about the cost of housing. Locals are worried about renting and about transitioning from rental homes to homeownership, and those who own their own homes are worried about where their kids will live. Locals are facing growing rents. They're priced out of the housing market due to high prices.
That is why it is so critical to have an ambitious and strong housing reform agenda. We know that the market is failing to provide affordable rental properties and affordable homes to buy. The Albanese Labor government knows that having a safe and affordable place to call home is central to the security and dignity of Australians, and that's why this bill, the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, and the associated bills are so important.
Before coming to this place I had the great pleasure of serving my community as a councillor for 10 years, five of which I was mayor. Those issues I outlined before were present back then as well. The lack of affordable housing not only in the city of Ryde, which forms part of Bennelong, but also right across metropolitan cities and across the country is at crisis point. It was then and it continues to be now. The housing market continues to fail households, especially those on very low, low and moderate incomes.
In 2011, 7,450 key worker households in Ryde were in need of affordable priced housing. It's estimated that by 2031 the Ryde LGA will need 10,700 affordable housing dwellings for key workers. In my time there we put together a clear vision for affordable housing. We did the work and we lodged the planning proposal to deliver these much-needed homes. More than three years after we submitted this important work, this planning proposal—the first of its kind in New South Wales— to the state government, the Liberals refused it. They even had the gall to say the planning proposal was ahead of its time. Well, when is the time? When is the time to deliver on affordable housing?
I'm not surprised the Liberals are opposing these bills today because they always oppose efforts to increase affordable housing. When former Premier Berejiklian, in New South Wales, became Premier she said affordable housing was 'the biggest issue'. Then, years later, they knocked back real and tangible efforts by the council I led to deliver that affordable housing. You hear in their speeches here today—I've been here for the last 20 minutes—that they all say they love affordable housing and they want to work to deliver it, but when the rubber hits the road, when the policy hits their desks, they vote against it. It's in their DNA to oppose affordable housing, so I'm not surprised they're here today coming up with all sorts of reasons to oppose it.
But I am surprised about the wild and outrageous criticisms from the Greens on this critical legislation. Again, we see the far right and the far left coming together to oppose a policy that Australians voted for. I say to the Greens, led by the member for Griffith—and to all his comrades who seem to be taking his lead—that the opportunities presented by these bills are too great to play politics with. These bills are a policy that was taken to the 2022 election—one that Australians voted for and that will establish the much-needed step of a housing future fund. It'll create a source of funds in perpetuity for social and affordable housing to be built. It has the potential to deliver 30,000 new social and affordable homes back into this community. Further, it will address the acute housing needs of our most vulnerable communities and provide $200 million for the improvement of housing in Indigenous communities, $100 million for housing options for women and children impacted by family and domestic violence, and a further $30 million for veterans.
If the Greens join with the Liberals and vote down these bills, they will be hurting those in our community who need them most. If the Greens join with the Liberals to vote down these bills, they will be stopping the federal government from taking a much-needed leadership role in the provision of affordable housing. I know from experience that one level of government cannot do this alone; you need all levels of government working together. This is the opportunity for the federal government to finally take a lead on the delivery of social and affordable housing. As a council we had the most ambitious affordable housing proposal in New South Wales, and the Liberals knocked it back.
We haven't had a federal government that cares about social and affordable housing for a long, long time. Everyone in this place needs to back this bill so that finally we can get that leadership started, because every level of government needs to be involved. There's nothing more important than a safe, affordable place to call home. To those in this place, particularly the Greens: don't put that at risk; stop the baseless and shallow attacks and work with the government to make housing in this country more affordable and more accessible.
I move:
That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"notes that:
(1) Australia currently has a shortage of 640,000 social and affordable homes, and that shortage is projected to increase by 75,000 homes over the next five years, which means the government's plan to build 30,000 homes over five years will see the situation get worse;
(2) this bill does nothing to help the millions of renters struggling with skyrocketing rents and record low vacancy rates;
(3) this bill locks in a $500 million per year spending cap on housing, which will see a real term cut in spending every year; and
(4) if the government truly wanted to solve the housing crisis, they could:
(a) help renters by doubling Commonwealth Rent Assistance and putting a plan to freeze rent increases on the National Cabinet agenda;
(b) phase out negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts; and
(c) invest directly in building one million well-designed public homes, enough to not just clear the wait lists, but also provide affordable housing to the teachers, nurses, aged care workers, cleaners and others locked out of the housing market."
Australia is facing one of the worst housing crises in our history. There are 2.7 million people in rental stress. With interest rates rising, the RBA predicts that soon 1.5 million households won't be earning enough to cover their mortgage and pay for essentials. Homelessness is on the rise. We've heard stories of families living in cars and parents losing custody of their children because they can't find a home that they can afford to rent. But even these numbers and stories don't do enough to describe the depth and scale of the housing crisis.
Labor's plan is to invest $10 billion on the stock market via the housing fund and use the returns to invest in housing. Let's be very clear: this is not a $10 billion investment in housing; it's a $10 billion gamble on the stock market where the volatile returns are invested in housing. Indeed, if Labor had established this plan last year, the year the Future Fund lost 1.2 per cent, the housing fund would have actually lost $120 million. This is a plan that gambles with the lives of people who desperately need an affordable, secure roof over their head. This is a plan that gambles housing funding on the same market that broke the housing system in the first place. We would never accept subjecting funding for schools and hospitals to the success or failure of an investment in the stock market, so why is Labor forcing people in desperate need of public and social housing to rely on the chaotic stock market that last year lost 1.2 per cent for the Future Fund?
Even in the very best case scenario, where the fund earns a return, it's not at all clear that Labor's plan will reach their own abysmal targets. They now keep saying 'a potential 30,000 homes' or 'up to 30,000 homes'. That's probably because, with the cost of constructing a social home at around $300,000, $500 million a year for five years could directly fund via capital only 8,000 homes, not 30,000. Labor has still not detailed exactly how the $500 million per year will actually fund the construction of 30,000 homes. Parliament doesn't even have that detail, yet we're expected to vote on this set of bills this week.
Even if the fund somehow reaches this target, we will still see the housing crisis get worse. That is what the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill will does—it will see the housing crisis get worse in five years time. Currently, there is a shortage of 640,000 social and affordable homes, and that figure is set to grow by 75,000 over the next five years. Under this bill, Labor's plan is to build, at most, 30,000 affordable homes over the same five years. That will see a bigger shortage than there is now. That's close to 700,000 households—millions of people—that Labor has abandoned to poverty, housing stress, homelessness and rotting on social housing waiting lists around the country. These people include hundreds of thousands of women and children, many in domestic violence situations, and single parents struggling on low wages, unable to afford to buy a house and paying, sometimes, over 50 per cent of their income on rent.
This bill caps spending on housing at $500 million per year without indexation. It means there will be a real turn cut in housing spend. In fact, over the next 10 years, there will be a cumulative cut of $515 million in real-time spending on housing.
The reality of the scale of the crisis has already been made clear by the government's own National Housing Finance Investment Corporation, which has said that, in order to meet the shortfall of social and affordable homes, over the next 20 years Australia needs to build 891,000 homes. That's 45,000 homes per year. To put that into perspective, Labor's absolute best goal is 6,000 homes a year. In short, Labor's centrepiece housing legislation locks in permanent real term cuts to housing funding, does nothing for renters and will see the shortage of social and affordable housing grow and the housing crisis get worse. That's the reality of this bill as it stands: more homelessness, more people waiting longer for social housing, more renters unable to find an affordable place to live, and less money spent on housing every year.
To blindly support a housing package that will see the housing crisis get worse without scrutiny or negotiation would be an abdication of our responsibility to the millions of people crying out for a good, affordable home. The Greens have made clear a set of negotiating aims, including a minimum of $5 billion invested in social and affordable housing every year, indexed to inflation and removing the $500 million cap; a national plan for renters, including the Prime Minister putting a national rent freeze on the National Cabinet agenda and an immediate doubling of Commonwealth rent assistance; a $1 billion investment in remote Aboriginal housing, not the $200 million over five years that has been proposed by Labor. In fact, a lot of experts, when they talk about the shortage of remote Aboriginal housing, say that in the Northern Territory alone we need $2.8 billion of investment. All housing through the fund should meet minimum inclusive design standards, including the silver standard for accessibility.
All the Greens want to do is work constructively with the government to take a housing package that currently will see the housing crisis get worse and at least turn it into a plan that starts to improve the situation. The Greens want to negotiate on behalf of the millions of Australians screwed over by a housing system that generates massive profits for banks and property developers and higher rents and mortgages and financial stress for everyone else. We just saw the Commonwealth Bank announce a record profit in the same year that millions of Australians are struggling to cover their mortgages and rents. The response to all of these requests and critiques from some Labor MPs in the House is: 'Too bad. We would rather use this as an opportunity to bash the Greens and play some of the lowest common denominator politics you can imagine.'
The federal government has frozen rent increases before, and they can do it again. While Commonwealth rent assistance is a flawed scheme, up to one-third of private renters access Commonwealth rent assistance, so doubling it to a maximum of $400 a fortnight will provide immediate and real relief for 1.5 million rental households. That is money directly into the pockets of renters, and something the federal government could do right now.
To put $5 billion per year in context, next year alone the government will spend $12 billion in tax concessions for the super wealthy property investors via negative gearing and capital gains, while they remain committed to pending a quarter of a trillion dollars on the stage 3 tax cuts that will see every politician in this place receive an extra $9,000 a year. There is money in this budget to spend on an incredibly modest ask of $5 billion a year on social and affordable housing. It's quite breathtaking to watch some Labor MPs so passionately oppose the idea that we should invest even such a modest amount on public, community and affordable housing. How this can be defended, I have absolutely no idea.
When it comes to building public housing, the government claims that it is constrained by a shortage of materials and skills, but it is clear that we are going to see a decline in private construction over the next few years. Indeed, between September 2021 in September 2022 there was an over 20 per cent decline in new construction activity for housing. Approvals for private dwellings have been in sharp decline for the past 12 months, with further declines expected this year. This will leave a surplus of materials and skills that should be put to work building public, community and affordable housing.
While the Greens have made modest proposals for the basis of negotiations, it is beyond frustrating to know that Labor won't even come close to contemplating the structural reforms that we actually need to tackle the housing crisis. Beyond phasing out negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions, freezing rent increases and stopping the RBA from imposing unnecessary pain on millions of mortgage holders, now is exactly the time to seize this opportunity to use those excess skills and materials to embark on an ambitious program of building hundreds of thousands of well-designed, affordable public homes to be rented not just to the most vulnerable but to the nurses, teachers, cleaners, aged-care workers, young working families, pensioners—whoever needs a good home. Rather than outsourcing and privatising housing, the federal government could establish a proper federal housing authority that builds and rents housing to workers from all walks of life. A program like this could see medium-density designs with integrated childcare centres, rooftop gardens, and spacious, well-ventilated and well-insulated homes that stay cool in summer and warm in winter. Land could be preserved for public parks and community facilities. With rents capped at 25 per cent of income for low-income households, higher-income households could be charged rents calculated based on the cost of construction, ensuring a steady source of income to be reinvested in more public and affordable housing. In fact, similar models in Austria and the Netherlands have seen internationally renowned housing systems flourish. There is absolutely no reason why we can't do this in Australia as well.
Instead, Labor's response is to revive a housing system almost explicitly designed to generate profit for banks and property developers regardless of the human cost. Indeed, the Treasurer's so-called Housing Accord seems entirely aimed at relaxing planning and zoning laws, when all that will do is make more money for banks and developers. Labor's housing package will see the continuation of this policy.
In fact, what we have seen over the last few decades is a continued decline in social housing as a proportion of total housing stock, and that will continue under this package. Social housing as a proportion of total housing in Australia has already declined from just seven per cent to 3.7 per cent over the past few decades. That's right: only 3.7 per cent of housing in Australia is social housing. Under Labor's plan, this will drop to 3.3 per cent. This is being accelerated by the $157 billion Labor will spend in tax concessions for property investors via negative gearing and capital gains tax, while the so-called Housing Accord aims to hand more power to property developers and banks at precisely the time when we should be taking power out of their hands.
There are broader consequences of this policy as well. A deliberate government policy to outsource the provision of housing and the construction of our cities and towns to property developers and banks has seen the proliferation of destructive urban sprawl on the one hand and unsustainable overdevelopment on the other. Property developers and their political allies in the Labor and Liberal party present us with a false choice between urban sprawl and overdevelopment because it suits their financial interests.
There is, of course, an alternative. In Vienna, a city I have visited, which has a population density 10 times as great as that of some of our major capital cities, the construction of the city is led by a series of design and social principles. There are consistent wide open parks, public spaces and integrated public transport. Building heights are limited to five storeys, and 60 per cent of residents live in some form of rent controlled social housing. Because of this, teachers, lawyers, professors and engineers, as well as low-income residents, live and pay rent in social housing. Because of the income generated by this system, the entire system generates enough revenue that is reinvested back into housing. Rather than rents and mortgages being paid to private investors, banks and property developers, the money is paid directly to the city government and community housing providers. From walking around that city, as I have done, it's entirely clear that something similar could be achieved in Australia.
This is the future the Greens are fighting for. This is what we are pushing for. But we are acutely aware that both Labor and the Liberals would viciously oppose a housing system that has worked wonderfully well around the world, so instead we have come to the table with modest, reasonable negotiating aims that will ensure the housing crisis, at the very least, doesn't get worse.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve the right to speak.
I rise to speak today in support of this incredibly important legislation—the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills—that will make a huge difference to the lives of Australians. I am incredibly proud to be part of a Labor government who are again delivering on an election commitment central to what we took to the last election, and that was about the importance of housing to the dignity, security, health and prosperity of all people. That is why this was such an important part of the platform we took to the last election and we are delivering on it with urgency in this place.
I would hope that this would be something that every member of this House would be supporting, because I think that every member of this House, if they're engaging with their electorate, would be hearing about the struggles that Australians are having with housing: housing costs, homelessness and high rents. I certainly hear a lot about that in my electorate of Canberra, right here, where we have some of the highest rents in the country and very high housing prices.
As I said, Labor understands how central housing is to people's lives. We have already unlocked up to $575 million from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to invest in new social and affordable homes. Despite being in government for less than one year, we have already helped more than 1,700 Australians buy their first home through the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, which was only introduced in October. I want to congratulate Minister Collins on her important work in this vital space. She has clearly hit the ground running.
We must be clear here, this is a matter of urgency, because for many Australians, the great Australian dream of owning their own home is just that—a dream—and far out of reach. Sadly, too many Australians are facing or experiencing homelessness, and we need to do much better on this. That is why Labor's ambitious housing reform agenda is so important and long overdue, because Australians deserve to have a safe and affordable place to call home. For 10 years we have watched as this crisis has got worse and those opposite floundered. The best solution they could come up with was to force first homebuyers to raid their superannuation to put down that ever-growing deposit, a policy which would increase demand without increasing supply. That was not the correct approach.
When Labor won the election, we promised we wouldn't waste a day in government and we haven't wasted time in delivering on this ambitious housing agenda. The housing legislation package will build more social and affordable homes. It will increase supply. It will be the most significant Australian government investment in housing in a generation and that is why it is remarkable that anyone in this place is not supportive of it. The legislation implements the government's commitment to establish the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund to guarantee a pipeline of new social and affordable housing for Australians in need. It will transform the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation into Housing Australia as the national home for key housing programs and expand its activities. It will establish the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to provide independent advice to government on ways to increase housing supply and affordability. These commitments are part of our broader housing reform agenda.
We have already reached the landmark National Housing Accord, a shared ambition to build one million well-located homes from 2024, with $350 million in additional Commonwealth funding to deliver 10,000 affordable homes from 2024, matched by the states with another 10,000 homes. We have widened the remit of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility with up to $575 million immediately available to invest in social and affordable housing; and are developing a national housing and homelessness plan to set short, medium, and long-term goals to improve housing outcomes across Australia. This is an incredibly important piece of this puzzle, a long-term strategy, and something we didn't see under a decade of the previous government. We have implemented the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee and we are implementing the Help to Buy program, which will reduce the cost of buying a home and help more people into a home sooner.
These reforms are going to end a decade of neglect that got us into this position. We need urgent action on the housing crisis. As I said, every member of this House should be supporting this legislation and that is what their constituents who are battling with the cost of housing in Australia today would want them to do.
Let me share the story of Kelly as reported by the ABC Tasmania just a few days ago. Kelly and her assistance dog, Ned, have been living in a tent at a caravan park in regional Tasmania for the past six months after being notified that the rent on her home would increase. Staying in the property became unaffordable. 'Rather than blacklist myself, so to speak, putting myself in a situation [where] I would get into financial strife, I didn't renew the lease,' she said. Kelly works 15 hours a fortnight, receives the disability pension and has been on the priority housing list since the middle last year. Despite the hardships of living in a tent, it is equally hard knowing she is not the only one. 'It's quite common practice. You say you're in a tent and like, it's not a big thing anymore, because it's becoming so normalised, unfortunately,' she said.
Just this week a man came into my office desperate for help in finding a place to live for him and his three children. He has been on the priority housing list for 18 months and is currently in short-term accommodation. Two weeks ago I sat with a woman in my electorate office. I will call her Lisa. Lisa is also living with her young daughter in short-term accommodation after moving out of her home to escape her controlling partner, walking out with just the clothes on her back. A week before that, a young woman, eight months pregnant, walked into my electorate office distressed at having nowhere to sleep that night. Yesterday there was an email from a constituent who has family members living in a tent on her property as they have nowhere else to go. This email was shortly followed by another one, this time from a mother of three who, while on the waiting list for housing, is also living in a tent with her three teenage children: 'My kids and I are just not safe at all and I just don't know what to do anymore.'
These are just a handful of the numerous cases that are raised in my office day after day and week after week, in the midst of a social and affordable housing crisis in Tasmania and particularly in my electorate of Bass. It's not just confined to Launceston and surrounding suburbs; I encounter it in rural areas, from Scottsdale to my home town of George Town and the beautiful but remote Flinders Island. We shouldn't have to see people leaving the towns they grew up in, where they're connected to family and their communities, because they can't access housing. Many tourism and hospitality businesses in some of our rural and regional tourist hotspots are also struggling to recruit and retain employees as there is simply nowhere for them to live. When I am out and about in my electorate, it is one of the top issues raised with me time and again, consistently up there with health and, recently, cost of living—all closely connected issues. The rise of electricity prices, grocery costs and interest rates is a triple threat, and I know everyone in here is seeing the impact in their electorates. There are too many like Kelly who simply cannot afford the increase in rental prices and are left with nowhere else to go.
Just last week Magnolia Place, a refuge for women and children escaping domestic and family violence, officially launched 15 new self-contained units. This project has been more than 20 years in the making and is one that I was proud to play a role in funding through the previous coalition government. But, as I acknowledged at the time, demand still far outweighs supply and, particularly for those seeking transition accommodation, there is an acute need now for these to be built. As I meet with constituents who have been waiting for more than a year and a half for somewhere to live or are couch surfing while pregnant, due to lack of social or affordable housing, how can I in good conscience say to them that I commit to doing what I can to help them and then turn around and vote against a policy that, though flawed, may help?
We are in the midst of a social and affordable housing crisis. In 2022, just last year, the 12-month average to receive housing across the state was around 66.6 per cent, compared with 58.9 per cent a year earlier. According to data published by Everybody's Home, Bass has the highest proportion of people waiting for social housing in the state, at around 6.2 per cent.
There are undoubtedly holes in what the government has proposed, which I will address further on, but, at its core, it is a step forward towards providing more Australians—Tasmanians, mums and dads, women escaping family and domestic violence, older Australians and younger people—with a roof over their head. I can't stand here as an elected representative and make a choice to ignore their needs. The housing crisis cannot be solved by one level of government on its own, and I firmly believe a coordinated, integrated and collaborative approach from all three levels of government is the best chance we have to create a long-term, sustainable solution. I always view my role in this place as that: how can I use the privilege I have here to be part of the solution?
I believe this bill further builds on the foundations of what the coalition government has achieved. Gains were made through the establishment of our National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, which will soon be known as Housing Australia. We helped fund more than 21,000 social and affordable homes. The establishment of the NHFIC also created an Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, providing cheaper and longer-term finance to registered community housing providers. Since its launch it has delivered $2.9 billion of low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings. Additionally, it unlocked 6,900 social, affordable and market dwellings, through our $1 billion infrastructure facility, to make housing supply more responsive to demand.
I'm proud that, just a few years ago, I stood with the member for Deakin as he announced the abolishment of $150 million in Tasmanian government debt, with the requirement that the state government redirect all scheduled repayments to programs that increase access to social housing, reduce homelessness and improve housing supply across the state. This work is well underway, but more is needed.
I commend the state government on their creation last year of Homes Tasmania, a dedicated housing authority responsible for delivering improved housing services and increasing the supply of social and affordable housing across the state. Homes Tasmania is playing a key role in the state government's strategy to deliver 10,000 new social and affordable homes by 2032.
This legislation has been cautiously welcomed by stakeholders in the state. Centacare Evolve Housing's CEO, Ben Wilson, said that the initiative will foster greater cooperation between state and federal governments, the construction industry and community housing providers, in order to tackle the issues of housing and homelessness.
However, there are still a number of questions, as raised by others in this chamber, that I would like to see answered. There are significant gaps in detail on how the funding will be delivered. As it appears now, all states would be competing for funding, without clear criteria or process. It's also important that there is enough flexibility in the process for proposals to be considered on their merits in addressing community need, and I call on the minister to be more forthcoming with this information. I also support the member for Goldstein's call for the government to clarify how they will commit to the fund if there is a shortfall. As an elected representative for a regional and rural area, I, like the member for Indi, want to see the specific needs of regional and remote Australia addressed through the bill.
Many questions remain, and I am hopeful that the minister will continue to work to address these issues, and I'm optimistic that this bill may be further improved in the Senate. I will continue to monitor and respond accordingly.
But, when it comes to the lives of northern Tasmanians, now is not the time to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As the government, you are expected to solve these issues, and I'm not going to get in the way. But supporting you does not get you off the hook if you don't deliver what is promised through this bill. I will act in good faith, but I will be holding you to account to ensure that you have delivered what it is that you have promised.
Security is a prerequisite to prosperity. Foundational to security is having a roof over your head. This is acutely known by our Prime Minister, who grew up in precarious circumstances himself in social housing, and by our housing minister, Julie Collins, who speaks quietly of the trauma associated with her period of homelessness. Their lived experience, plus the growing backlog of Australians seeking homeownership, or, at the minimum, shelter, after a wasted decade, is what is driving our determination to act.
The problem is of such magnitude that many of my young constituents in Higgins have given up on the prospect of homeownership. Rather than homeownership being a right, it has become an aspiration—and it is receding like a mirage in the desert. My constituents are resigned to joining the 42 per cent of people in Higgins who rent.
In Higgins, rented units make up 29 per cent of dwellings—well above the nine per cent nationally. And rent is not trivial. It ranges from $386 in Murrumbeena, $395 in Carnegie, $411 in Windsor, $415 in South Yarra and $421 per week in Armadale and Prahran, to a whopping $590 in Kooyong—well above the greater Melbourne median of $390. According to the 2021 Census, 27 per cent of renters in Higgins are experiencing renter stress, paying 30 per cent of their income or more towards rent. And rents have gone up since then, pushing more of my constituents into renter stress. In the 18 months to February this year, rent increased across the board in these suburbs, the increases ranging from 7.1 per cent in Armadale to 12.5 per cent in South Yarra.
Getting a foot into the housing market has become a pipedream for young people, not only in Higgins but across Australia. In the highest-renting suburbs in Higgins, this is what median house prices are doing. As of February last year, 2022, median house prices were as follows: Armadale and South Yarra, $2 million—median; Prahran, $1.8 million; Carnegie and Murrumbeena, $1.7 million; and Windsor, $1.6 million. They have been going north for the past five years in these suburbs—the same suburbs, incidentally, with the highest numbers of renters. And why wouldn't people want to buy in these areas, with their village feel, proximity to public transport and amenity, vibrant shopping strips and restaurants? My constituents keep flocking to them. With every year, house prices stretch further away.
Amanda's daughter is a nurse, a few years out, who is trying to get into the housing market. She is a doer and a saver, having put away $100,000 in savings since she worked as a teenager at McDonald's. Remarkable. She works near a big city hospital and justifiably wants to live near where she works. Those late shifts plus the emergency asks when no-one else is available demand that she drop everything and come to work to serve her community. Despite doing everything right, Amanda's daughter is struggling. Amanda's daughter's story is tailor-made to some of the solutions we are offering. Or is it the other way around—that our proposals are tailor-made to her predicament?
It starts with the Housing Australia Future Fund, a $10 billion investment to build 30,000 social and affordable homes over five years, which interlocks with the National Housing Accord. The latter, led by our Treasurer, commits us, in partnership with the states and territories, industry, super funds and construction, to build a million homes over five years from 2024. Managed by the Future Fund guardians, some of whom live in my electorate, the Housing Australia Future Fund will plough returns from the $10 billion invested back into building social and affordable housing. Ten thousand homes will be allocated to essential workers like Amanda's daughter, a nurse, but also to other workers like police—people we simply cannot live without. An additional 4,000 homes will be earmarked for vulnerable Australians, like women fleeing domestic violence, and older Australians. The fastest growing group of homeless Australians are women over the age of 55, who find themselves marooned, without a place to call home, when their circumstances change due to relationship breakdown, job loss or bereavement. Indeed, in Australia, 7,500 women around the country return to violent partners because they have nowhere else to go. Urgency is further heightened, of course, by the pandemic, which has exacerbated domestic violence.
Women fleeing family violence are one particularly desperate group, but there are others covered by our fund, including veterans who have fallen through the cracks, who have been allocated $30 million, and First Peoples in remote communities, living in a state of disrepair and squalor, who have been allocated $200 million over the next five years. The fund will target people living on the edge, either in the throes of homelessness or at risk. We want to pull them back from that edge so that they can stabilise their lives and move forwards. It's a preventative measure, like a handbrake that stops the slide into hopelessness and dysfunction.
Domestic violence, a shortfall of affordable housing, unemployment, mental illness, family breakdown and substance misuse contribute to homelessness. Often, as a doctor, I would say, 'There but for the grace of God go I,' because I often came across patients—people who had pretty standard, what we would call 'normal lives', living in suburbia—who had fallen on hard times. This had destabilised them and sent them on a downward spiral. They ended up washing up on my ward. Living in a car or couch surfing means that homelessness can be hidden from plain sight.
The shame of defeat weighs heavily on homeless people as they spin their wheels in search of enduring shelter. That's why we have established the interim National Housing Supply and Affordability Council—to provide independent advice to government on options. One of the council's key tasks will be to advise us on the National Housing and Homelessness Plan, a plan to deal with homelessness. Given planning and zoning is not the remit of the Commonwealth, our government has fulsomely engaged with the states and territories, holding three meetings with our state counterparts to ensure that we are all pulling in the same direction. We have rejected the divisive federal-state antics that were the signature of the previous government, because the scale and the severity of the problem is too great.
In Higgins, Prahran was a hotspot for homelessness for the duration of the time that I worked at the Alfred, and this was where I picked up most of my patients, and they're still there. A national homelessness plan is long overdue after a wasted decade, where people like my patients fell further behind. Given the urgency of the situation, with families living in tents in parts of Australia, we cannot wait for the fund to start paying out, which is why we have unlocked $575 million from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to get going. For my constituents with itchy feet, the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee may appeal. Launched three months ahead of time by our government, it has already helped 1,600 Australians into homes in the regions. They are living the dream, but it's also easing pressure on the rental market.
We accept this suite of proposals is a start, and calls for more ambition are legitimate. More ambition means more construction workers, more materials, more boots on the ground, industry expertise—all of which are in dire short supply. In Victoria, major construction projects like the Suburban Rail Loop, Big Build, level crossing removals and hospitals have added further constraints on the work force. This is where our free TAFE courses targeting urgent skills like construction kick in. I need my constituents and others around Australia who may be searching for options to check out the offerings at their local TAFE. In my electorate it's Holmesglen, and it's a fantastic place—a happy place of learning linked to career pathways that I have visited many times.
The magnitude of the housing crisis is the clarion call to action which successive Liberal-Nationals governments failed to heed. We in the Albanese government are geared for action on this front because a home, as I said in my maiden speech, is like the warmth of a million suns. Let's bring our people out of the shadows and into the light. I commend the bills to the House.
I rise to speak on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and the associated bills. I'm happy to rise and speak on housing because housing is an issue not just in one particular place but right around the country. As the former Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services, I drilled down into this space and worked with housing ministers across this space.
We looked at the homelessness rates—and I'm eagerly waiting for the current Minister for Housing to release the results of the 2021 census. The previous census, in 2016, showed there were a couple of areas of homelessness that actually improved but there were three areas that got particularly worse. The areas that got particularly worse were in overcrowding, which is commonplace in other parts of the world. If you go and live in some of the Pacific islands, with our neighbours, it's not uncommon for people to all sleep in one room. Here it's classed as homelessness, where you get a lot of people in severe overcrowding. That is one of the fastest-growing areas in Australia, and it'll be interesting to see the results there. I note that we gave the Western Australian government a payment to help with this. Do you know how much housing they built? None—absolutely none. They spent all the money on roads and infrastructure, which was a real shame.
The other area that is of particular concern is around domestic violence. That area has one of the fastest-growing rates of homelessness as well. With this bill the government wants to build 700 new homes, I think, for women and children escaping DV. But the former Morrison government built 6,000 places for women and children escaping domestic violence. The minister for social services at the time—I was working under her as the assistant minister—and I picked out those 6,000 places, including in the member for Solomon's electorate through the Salvation Army up in Darwin; we built some safe places. I'd be interested to know from the member for Solomon whether they are built yet; I haven't had the chance to get up there since that announcement. There were other places in Victoria and New South Wales where the coalition government did some really good work with that $60 million safe places package.
The other thing the coalition government did really well was support first home buyers. We helped 300,000 people into their first home. The Liberal and Nationals parties want people to own their own homes. That's why we put into place the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which the Labor government, in opposition at the time, voted against. It's also why we did the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, which was really important as well. That has helped so many first home buyers right around the country. There are over 300,000 more people in their own homes now because of the coalition government. It was a very important policy.
We also helped community housing providers through NHFIC. The current shadow minister, Mr Sukkar, did some great work with NHFIC to open up opportunities for community housing providers all around the country. In particular, New South Wales took advantage of that the most.
In summing up, I would be interested to see those results in relation to the 2021 census, particularly around boarding houses—whether that has reduced. I want to commend the former Labor minister up there who worked with me to send letters to boarding house providers in Queensland to try and reduce the level of homelessness in Queensland around boarding houses.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may resume at a later hour, and, if the member's speech was interrupted, he will be granted leave to continue when the debate is resumed.
There is something very special about the communities in Mallee. It is the spirit of camaraderie and belonging that makes me incredibly proud to be their representative.
Last week I visited Nhill, a town of nearly 2,500 people situated halfway between Adelaide and Melbourne. I was there to open the Nhill Lawn Tennis Club's new clubrooms, which I was delighted to be able to deliver funding for under the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program in the previous government. The event and the town epitomise a true sense of community—a sense of belonging which was on full display. The club lost their old clubrooms in a windstorm in 2019, but they have built back better, and last week was a celebration of that.
It was great to hear from the club president, Simon Dufty, about how the new clubhouse is evidence of the health and spirit of the community. Evidence of that spirit is in the story of the late Len Mulhallen. His legacy will be part of the club's story in perpetuity, as he bequeathed funds to the club which meant so much to him and to his community. Speaking to his daughter, Jenny, and son-in-law, Alex, at the opening, I found it easy to share their pride, a reflection of the pride Len had in his club. Congratulations to the Nhill Lawn Tennis Club.
On 8 December last year, the world lost the wonderful Bill Burford, a great bloke who made a significant contribution to the St Vincent de Paul Society in the Northern Territory for more than 20 years. A faith-filled Catholic man, he was the NT president of Vinnie's from 2002 to 2008, but he remained on the council after that and is remembered for working hard to heal divisions when they occurred. He was a valued voice, he was wise and he was a mentor to many. Our deepest condolences to Mary, their six children and their grandchildren.
I also want to pay my respects to the Reverend Canon Pat Williams, who died this month at age 88 after 50 years of service to the Anglican Church. She's been described as a living saint and an all-round wonderful person. She was one of the first women to be ordained a deacon and then a priest in the Anglican Church in the Northern Territory. Condolences to Pat's family as well.
Bill Burford and Pat Williams lived out the words of the gospel in their deeds, in their actions and in their good works. They are sorely missed by our community. They did so much for our community. May they rest in eternal peace.
I rise today to reflect on the horrific incident that 10 years ago shook and is still shaking my region to the core. That is the senseless and callous murder of Shandee Blackburn. On the weekend I attended the Remembering Shandee event at Harrup Park in Mackay. Many of our community stood together to remember and honour Shandee and to be a loud collective voice screaming no against violence. It was a privilege to stand with Shandee's family and friends, along with Hedley Thomas, the creator of the Australian podcast Shandee's Story, and forensic biologist Kirsty Wright, who played vital roles in exposing the failings of the Queensland health department's forensic laboratory, which was found to have mishandled evidence, triggering a DNA inquiry. Through the brave work of Hedley and Kirsty, thousands of victims of serious crime who were previously told no DNA had been detected now have another shot at justice. The dedication and persistence of Shandee's mother, Vicki, and sister, Shannah, have created change for Queensland victims. They have taken their pain and pushed for justice not just for Shandee but for all Queensland victims of crime who suffered misconduct by the Queensland forensic laboratory. On behalf of all Queenslanders, we thank Vicki and Shannah for their courage and conviction. We are truly sorry for your loss.
For years in this place I've been one of many voices advocating for targeted sanctions on regimes committing egregious human rights abuses. Magnitsky laws were passed in 2021, with bipartisan support, and the Albanese government is putting them to use. It's imposed targeted financial sanctions and travel bans on individuals and entities responsible for human rights abuses in Myanmar and Iran. The Australian government announced sanctions on 16 members of the Myanmar military regime's governing State Administration Council, key individuals directly responsible for the coup two years ago. Two Myanmar military controlled commercial entities, Myanma Economic Public Holdings Limited and Myanmar Economic Corporation, will also be subject to targeted financial sanctions. Over the past few years Australia, ASEAN and international partners have repeatedly called on the Myanmar military junta to restore democracy. Despite these calls, the regime has continued its antidemocratic actions against the people of Myanmar. The military regime has killed thousands of innocent civilians. Estimates are of 3,000 people killed and 17,000 people arbitrarily arrested.
The Australian government is also imposing Magnitsky-style sanctions on 16 Iranian individuals and one Iranian entity. This includes senior law enforcement, political and military figures in the IRGC and the Basij Cooperative Foundation. We're joining our partners to impose additional targeted sanctions on four Iranian individuals who have been involved in the production and supply of drones to Russia. Australia stands with the people of Myanmar, the people of Iran and the people of Ukraine.
I rise on behalf of the Australian Youth Affairs Coalition, who tell me that, according to a recent survey, cost of living is the leading concern amongst Australians aged 16 to 25, with one young person saying: 'I am unable to attend appointments due to how expensive they've been lately. My mental health has never been worse, yet I am still unable to get help because of these prices.' It's shameful that in Australia, one of the richest countries in the world, it is unaffordable for young people to get the help they need, that young people are struggling with high rents making it extremely difficult to find a place to live. On top of that they are struggling to pay back HECS-HELP debts that are increasing due to high inflation, leaving them avoiding visits to the doctor because it's just too expensive. Addressing cost-of-living pressures faced by young people needs to be an urgent priority for the government. This can be achieved by supporting young people to find secure employment, raising youth allowances so that people aren't living below the poverty line, addressing the rental crisis and ensuring everyone can afford to visit the doctor whenever they need to. Put simply: more, much more, must be done to promote the wellbeing and future of our young people.
I think we need to acknowledge and thank the Minister for the Environment and Water for her pioneering decision to refuse Clive Palmer's coalmine last week. Clive Palmer's coalmine was to be 10 kilometres from the Great Barrier Reef. This project could have had unacceptable and irreparable impacts on the groundwater and fresh water in the area. Furthermore, it could have caused irreversible damage to potentially fragile seagrass meadows that feed dugongs and provide breeding grounds for fish just off the coast. This government went to the election with a strong commitment to fix the nine years of neglect of the Liberals towards the environment and climate change. I know that, for my electorate of Bennelong, environmental issues were at the top of their minds when they voted last May. This is the first time a minister has used this power, and I thank her for it. She could not ignore the potential environmental impacts of a project like this and the genuine risk of pollution and irreversible damage to the Great Barrier Reef. The reef is not only a crucial and fragile ecosystem, but it is an incredibly important part of our national economy. More than $6 billion annually is contributed to the economy from the reef, and around 64,000 jobs are created by it. This decision not only benefits our environment, but it also benefits all those small-business owners who rely upon a healthy and vibrant Great Barrier Reef. Under this government and under this minister, the environment is back on the agenda, and Bennelong welcomes it.
Last Saturday I spent the morning listening to residents of Kirribilli, Milsons Point and McMahons Point. These areas are known for their heritage cottages and jacaranda trees, but what is less known is that they are among the most densely populated areas in Sydney, a small space with no less than 29 high-rise buildings. Almost every person who spoke to me was concerned about an imminent Transport for NSW project. The construction of a cycleway on the north-west end of the Sydney Harbour Bridge literally has residents and the local council tearing their hair out. No-one begrudges those wishing to use active transport being able to easily navigate the bridge—safe cycling infrastructure is vital—but the reality is that Transport for NSW's design will lead to a loss of green space, have a significant impact on pedestrians and deface the beauty of the bridge.
In good faith, and at significant personal expense, the community pulled together to commission an alternative design for the ramp. The design minimised the impact on the community whilst still enabling freer movement for cyclists. The local council has endorsed the design. The locals believe it is a good compromise. But Transport for NSW will not entertain it. Today, I speak for all those who live in my community who are frustrated by what appears to be a complete bureaucratic brick wall.
The best outcomes for our community will be facilitated when all major stakeholders come together around a mutually beneficial and wanted project. We can have that with this bike ramp project, but it requires Transport for NSW to take a step back and be truly prepared to engage in an active conversation.
Many constituents of Werriwa come from Turkiye and Syria, and I am privileged to know so many of them and call them my friends. They have been deeply affected by the earthquake and aftershocks that struck the region on 6 February. The enormity of the disaster is difficult to imagine. In less than a week, over a million people have been left homeless in the depths of winter and more than 41,000 are dead. Moreover, 13 million people are estimated to be affected across Turkiye. Unfortunately, casualties are expected to continue to climb. I extend my sincere condolences to all those affected in Turkiye and Syria and thank those in our community who are organising aid. I also offer them my condolences for the friends and family they have lost.
Australia has promised $10 million in humanitarian assistance and has sent an Australian disaster assistance response team. I wish all the Australian search and rescue members all the best and thank them for their service and their volunteerism. I know it is going to be an incredibly tough time for so many in my community and communities across Australia. We stand with you from this parliament. I encourage all Australians that want to help to donate to the Australian Council for International Development member organisations the Australian Red Cross or UNICEF. Both have launched appeals.
I rise today to draw attention to the escalating social dysfunction in the Goldfields region of my electorate following the withdrawal of the cashless debit card. The Minister for Social Services, Amanda Rishworth, has blamed issues being experienced in the Kimberley CDC site on recent flooding events. Well, Minister, there's been no rainfall in the Goldfields, just a tsunami of alcohol fuelled violence sweeping Leonora, Laverton and the city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. The minister attributes this to out-of-towners rather than locals who can now spend their entire welfare payment on booze should they choose.
This same minister announced the abolition of the card without any community consultation and has never visited to see any of its benefits. Her assistant minister accuses the coalition of failing communities like these when it comes to domestic violence funding. Yet, while the coalition funded the Goldfields Indigenous Housing Organisation's expansion of family violence housing, the Albanese government failed to honour a coalition commitment to build a similar facility in Leonora.
Minister Rishworth has publicly denounced the $160 million spent by the coalition on the entire cashless debit card scheme. But the Prime Minister spent a couple of hours in Alice Springs and announced a $250 million support package for their alcohol affected communities. I call on Mr Albanese to come to the Goldfields and support my communities, who are suffering alcohol related social harm caused by withdrawal of the cashless debit card.
I rise in the chamber today to acknowledge the 24 recipients in my electorate of Robertson who have been successful in receiving funding through the Albanese Labor government's Local Sporting Champions program round 3. The Local Sporting Champions program provides funding of between $500 and $750 to coaches, officials and competitors aged 12 to 18 participating in state, national or international championships. This funding assists participants in covering the costs associated with travelling to and attending these events.
Sport brings our communities together and provides many benefits, including physical strength and mental clarity. I know that each one of these successful recipients will represent the Central Coast, New South Wales and Australia outstandingly. I wish each one of my recipients all the very best and success in their sporting endeavours. They include: Olivia Edwards, Luke Hughes, Jet Florimo, Ebony Nash, Owen Nash, Marlee Przybyla, Leilani Gee, Byron Benson, Miles Greenwood, Jessica Majsak, Jodie Mead, Zach Visconti, Ronnie Jordan, Eleanor Shervington, Davara Marshall, Lucy Marshall, Sunny McRae, Felix Mitchell, Lachlan Ireland, Amber-Skye Stevenson, Olivia Eurell, Kai Hodson and Emily Rose. These successful recipients will compete at championships involving ice skating, water polo, lifesaving, sailing, canoeing and swimming. It is fantastic, and I look forward to hearing about all of your sporting successes and I look forward to catching up with you after all these events.
Up in the gallery is my father, Oliver Wolahan, and his younger brother and my uncle, Ivor Wolahan, who's visiting from England. At a different time, they would have been joined by their elder brother, my uncle Canice Wolahan. Canice was a Vietnam veteran—in the US Navy. He was married to Paula, and they had two children: Guy, who worked in Victoria Police as a bomb disposal technician, and his daughter, Alexandra, who works in the United Kingdom. Canice, sadly, died on 7 November 2021. He visited Australia on many occasions, and I'm sure he would have been up there with you. We miss him, and I know he was loved.
Also someone who should be sitting up in the gallery is Angela Crawley. Angela Crawley was my aunt through marriage, Ivor's wife. Angela is fondly remembered by our family. My mum takes credit for Ivor meeting Angela. Angela's family came from St Helens in England. She came to babysit us on many occasions, and I think there she caught the eye of my uncle Ivor. Ivor now has settled in St Helens with his wonderful daughters, Lily and Alice. You always were the fun uncle, Ivor. Angela meant a great deal to all of us, as we know she did to you. She was loved, she will be missed, and we know she will live on through your beautiful daughters and your beautiful family.
In my community of Dunkley we have a fantastic support group called Hear Together Australia, led by Sandi Grace and many other awesome volunteers and disability advocates. Hear Together Australia welcomes families with children who are deaf or who have hearing loss. In Australia, three to six children in every thousand have some degree of hearing loss. For a variety of reasons, children who are deaf or hard of hearing often feel disconnected and suffer from anxiety and depression in greater numbers than the hearing community. Hear Together Australia in my community is tackling these issues by creating avenues of re-connection and understanding, as well as providing education centred on inclusion and acceptance.
So I was very pleased that the group received support through the Dunkley Stronger Communities Program to purchase a sound-field system that is being used by children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Members can link to the sound field via their own personal hearing aids. It has done wonders to enhance the inclusivity of their regular meet-ups, events and camps, and I thank them for sending me some photos recently to show me what they're doing. I know that the group is about to head off on their first camp for 2023, and members are looking forward to spending time with their beautiful community of young people and using the assistance of technology. I hope they all have a really great time.
Caboolture Indoor Sports Centre has been around for over 25 years, first starting on Morayfield Road, next to the Caboolture tenpin bowling, before moving to its larger current location on Lear Jet Drive in Caboolture. On weekends and school holidays, families enjoy 'inflatable world', where kids can jump and climb without fear of injury, while locals enjoy sports during the week such as beach volleyball, indoor netball, indoor soccer and, my personal favourite, indoor cricket. Most Tuesday nights when I'm not in Canberra I'll be running around with the team I play in, comprising players with ages ranging from 15 to 54—and I'll leave it up to you to work out where I fit into that, Deputy Speaker! I give a shout-out to the boys, who went down in the grand final on Wednesday night: well done on a great season, fellas.
Recently the centre went through a change of ownership, with long-time owner Tony Joyce, or Joycey, as we fondly know him, selling the centre to Stephen Mogg, who also owns two other indoor sports centres, one located right here in Canberra. We wish Tony all the best in his future endeavours, and we wish Stephen great success and we welcome him to the Longman community. Stephen has made a commitment to the local community to invest in the centre to upgrade equipment and facilities, which is a demonstration of his confidence in the people of Longman and their reputation for supporting local businesses.
No matter if you're young or old, male or female, if you're looking for a bit of great fun and a good way to get fit, or you just want to bowl a bouncer at your local member, come on down to Caboolture Indoor Sports Centre.
Western Sydney airport is a welcome financial and infrastructure boost to New South Wales, particularly to south-western Sydney and, even more particularly, to my electorate of Macarthur. However, the benefits of this project are set to be hampered if the airport is to open without a heavy-rail link connecting it to Macarthur. The need for this is backed up by Infrastructure Australia, who note the importance of heavy rail to the airport as vital for the airport's success. Heavy rail will allow constant round-the-clock movement of passengers, workers and cargo between the airport and the booming suburbs of Macarthur and the surrounding regions, as well as connections to Kingsford Smith airport, to the Moorebank intermodal freight depot and to all the new suburbs popping up around Macarthur.
Unfortunately, the New South Wales government is only committing to a light-rail link between our region and Western Sydney airport. This is bad planning. It is not good enough and it will not serve the needs of Macarthur and its booming suburbs. It's a serious mistake that has long-term implications, owing to the lack of vision by the Perrottet government and by the previous Morrison government federally.
There is a sign at Oran Park that says: 'Proposed railway station'. Unfortunately, it's been there for many years, and not a sod has been turned, and this is a disgrace and a shame.
Good planning is what we need. Good planning will benefit the citizens of Macarthur, which is the most rapidly-growing electorate in New South Wales and Australia. We need planning certainty and proper planning.
Just a short time ago, I attended the launch of Parliamentary Friends of Melanoma and Skin Cancer Awareness. There I got to hear many of the stories of people who are living with melanoma and skin cancer, and also stories of those people who had undergone some significant treatment.
While we all love our sunburnt country, we don't love the fact that Australia has the highest rate of melanoma in the world. Melanoma is the third-most-common cancer in Australia and is the most common cancer in those aged 20 to 39. Last year, it was expected that over 17,000 new cases would be diagnosed.
Summer officially finishes in a few short weeks, and there will have been hundreds of thousands of Australians who got sunburnt in recent months. So it's worth repeating the sun safety message: 'Slip, slop, slap, seek and slide'—slip on some sun-protective clothing, slop on some sunscreen, slap on a hat, seek shade and slide on sunglasses. Sun protection is required when the UV index is three and above, which is all year round in Queensland and can even be from as early as 7.20 am in summer.
I've long been an advocate for sun safety, and I encourage everyone who's listening to be forever vigilant. Have regular skin checks and see your doctor if you notice any changes in between checks.
A single tax cut was all it took to fire the gun on the EV race in Australia. Since the Albanese government waived FBT and import duties on select EVs last year—a tax cut which the 'party of low taxes' opposed—Australians have burst out of the blocks with unprecedented EV uptake. Sales are up 87 per cent, a boom in demand that is testament to a government that is honouring its promises to decarbonise transport and make EVs more affordable. And it can't happen too soon, with irritation at the bowser sending more and more Australians straight into the EV showroom.
After a decade of policy neglect and lack of vision, Australians can't afford to fall any further behind in the EV race. We are investing half a billion dollars towards a national EV strategy, to ensure charging stations every 150 kilometres and to spur investment in future fuels like green hydrogen.
In Higgins, we'll be early adopters of EVs. I'm already seeing increasing numbers of EVs on our roads since I came to office. I invite you, my constituents, to join me at my EV forum at Malvern Town Hall on 24 March, where you can hear from BYD, Mercedes, BMW, Polestar, Nissan and, of course, Hyundai. Come and meet the makers.
'You are not what was done to you'—this is the motto of Enterprising Aardvark, a local, free, not-for-profit, counselling service for people in Northern Tasmania who have experienced complex early-childhood trauma and sexual assault, as well as those people who care for them and support them. Enterprising Aardvark was launched by Rachel and Lisa, who both have backgrounds in sexual assault and family violence counselling. 'Six years ago, after noticing a gap in services, we decided it would be useful to support people, particularly people who have more complex reactions to trauma. They may have had long-term trauma from a young age and been retraumatized over the years,' Lisa said.
Beyond offering free therapeutic services for young children, adolescents and adults, they also offer consultancy, training and supervision for professionals. Their work in the community has been rightly recognised, taking out a prestigious award for excellence in community service in 2021. Their approach centres around the belief that, most often, people just want the opportunity to be heard and believed. 'Everyone has their own unique circumstances but a lot of adults who are childhood survivors of sexual assault have found that they are not able to get a service that is right for them,' Rachel said. Funded solely by donations and fundraisers, Rachel and Lisa operate part-time but their impact has been tremendous, working with over 300 people and providing more than 1,500 hours of free counselling a year. I want to thank Rachel and Lisa for their dedication to continuing to support Northern Tasmanians who have experienced childhood trauma.
Last October I met with one my constituents Chris Stoker. Chris is a lovely bloke who told me a horrible story about his time as a student at Brisbane Boys Grammar School during the tenure of school counsellor Kevin Lynch. Lynch left a trail of devastation at both Brisbane Boys Grammar and St Paul's. This monster sexually abused multiple students at both schools, one of those being Chris. Mr Lynch was later charged with nine offences but committed suicide the next day. At the time of Mr Lynch's employment, then principal Dr Maxwell Howell knowingly allowed modifications to the school counsellor's office to include blacked-out windows, deadlocked entry and exit doors, and a traffic light and intercom system to control entry to the office.
The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse found:
We find that in 1981 BQH told Dr Howell that Mr Lynch had sexually abused his son BQJ. Dr Howell did not investigate the allegations and did not report the matter to the police or the board of trustees. In not doing so, he failed in his obligations to protect the safety and wellbeing of the students.
To make matters worse, Dr Howell also provided a glowing reference for Kevin Lynch despite being well aware of numerous allegations against him. Consequently, this monster then moved his abuse onto new students at St Paul's. My constituent Chris Stoker knows that he will never see justice because Mr Lynch and Dr Howell are both dead. However, what Chris wants is for Mr Howell to be removed from the records as a past Member of the Order of Australia, so I call on the Governor-General to remove any reference of Dr Howell from the honours list. He does not belong there. I seek leave to table a document showing Dr Howell still on the list as receiving— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Yes.
At the last federal election, Labor promised life would be cheaper under them yet interest rates, petrol prices, gas and grocery bills continue to go up, and it is clear that this Labor government has no real plan to bring them down. Now, early childhood education costs are going up, with the latest CPI data showing costs increased by a whopping 4.5 per cent in December 2022. That is the largest quarterly increase outside the reversal of COVID measures since 2007. Fees are rising, with one major provider increasing fees last month. It is only a matter of time before other providers follow suit.
Labor promised Australian families they would reduce out-of-pocket costs for early childhood education without fuelling inflation and yet ,with costs increasing, families deserve to know how much of their extra subsidy will be immediately lost to higher fees. It is clear this government has no idea what they are doing when it comes to policy. They have no plan to address rising fees, no plan to address concerns raised by educators and no plan on how to address the increasing lack of access to services faced by more than nine million Australians. The Albanese government has had eight months to address the rising cost of living and they have done nothing. Labor said it had a plan. Its budget shows there is no plan. Australian families deserve to know why they always pay more under Labor. (Time expired)
It is Bunuru season in Noongar country. Simply, that means it is hot. For the area of Ellenbrook, which is also where my electorate office is located, it is a long trip to the beach. But I am very happy to report today that the residents of this area and surrounds of this booming community will finally get their swimming pool. Thanks to the support of the McGowan government and our very own Minister Catherine King, we will get a 50-metre pool, a 25-metre pool, a kiddy play area, hydrotherapy and more. Finally, it will be delivered because what we committed to we will deliver. Absolutely, the communities of Caversham, of Ellenbrook, of Brabham, of Aveley finally will be able to have their children participate in swimming activities like kids all around the country get to enjoy. Kids will be sending text messages to their mums and dads at the end of every day to say, 'Pick me up from the pool, please,' because we will have delivered on a commitment that is over a decade old—a failure of the previous government to work successfully with the state government and the City of Swan to be able to get this pool delivered. It's a big change for my community because we have come to the table with the money, we've listened to the community and what they are actually asking for and we're on the way to delivering it. All being well, it's going to be in the METRONET precinct—the Ellenbrook Station as well—to make it possible to get there with no problems at all. It's an absolute pleasure to be able to work closely with the McGowan government, with Rita Saffioti, the Minister for Infrastructure and Jessica Shaw MLA to make it happen. (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded.
It's a great honour to welcome Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau here to the Australian parliament from Vanuatu. I ask members to give him a welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Sir, you, your delegation and your ministers are very welcome visitors here today. You were greeted at the front of Parliament House by me, the Leader of the Opposition and other dignitaries here this morning. This is the first time a prime minister of Vanuatu has made an official visit here since 2018. Today we were able to make great progress on some of our shared priorities, including progressing sectors such as infrastructure, cybersecurity, trade and agriculture. Australia and Vanuatu are longstanding friends. We are partners—equal partners—guided by mutual respect and a shared commitment to a prosperous, peaceful and resilient Pacific. On Vanuatu's independence in 1980, Australia was proud to gift the Parliament of Vanuatu with it's Speaker 's chair, an enduring symbol of the democratic values that we share.
Last December, Senator Wong led an Australian bipartisan delegation to visit Vanuatu, where they were warmly welcomed by you, Prime Minister. On that visit, Minister Wong and Prime Minister Kalsakau signed our landmark bilateral security agreement. One of the things that we've agreed in the Pacific Islands Forum is that we in the Pacific need to secure our own region here, and the Pacific family needs to look after each other. The agreement recognises that Australia's and Vanuatu's security interests are deeply intertwined, and it lays out a framework for strengthening our partnership even further. Today we committed to ratifying that agreement, and I look forward to bipartisan support in this parliament to ratify that security agreement.
I recognise and commend the Prime Minister for his longstanding leadership in pushing for increased global action on climate change, which we spoke about again here this morning. Once again, I thank you, Prime Minister, for joining us here today, and wish you a very warm, Australian welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
on indulgence—I thank the Prime Minister for those words and join with him in welcoming you, Prime Minister Kalsakau, and your delegation. We had the opportunity of meeting earlier today, and it was wonderful to see you in person after having met last time across the video screen, as was the case in many of our interactions over the course of the last couple of years. The dedication and leadership that you've shown to your country and the capacity that you have to steer your country through good times and bad is something that we acknowledge and applaud today.
As the Prime Minister rightly points out, we hope that you and your delegation—particularly the minister for commerce, the minister for agriculture and the other distinguished guests in your party—can take back a message that there is a bipartisan position of support for Vanuatu. We are absolutely determined to make sure that we can continue that friendship and strength. I had a great deal of pride to stand and meet with you and your delegation this morning in the forecourt of Parliament House. It's an honour afforded our most special friends and guests, and it was extended to you by way of decision of the Prime Minister. That demonstrates, I think, the level of respect that we have for you, personally. I want to say thank you very much for your work as Deputy Prime Minister and for the way in which you were able to work with us. During my time as Minister for Defence we signed an agreement. We had very important business to conduct in a contested region.
Last night, many of us here attended a fine speech given by Ambassador Yamagami at the Japanese residence, followed by a fine speech by the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister for trade and others who were there—former prime ministers Morrison and Abbott. It demonstrated the links in our region and the desire for closer cooperation and relationships. That was on display last night as it has been today.
I extend every welcome to you, and we look forward very much to strengthening and deepening the relationship in many bilateral ways, such as our work during the course of COVID. I pay tribute to former prime minister Morrison. You were kind enough in our bilateral meeting today to raise the issue of the vaccines that Australia was able to provide to your country, which provided support in a very difficult period for your country and for the world of course. It was instinctive that we would provide that support. We were determined to see that support delivered in a timely way, and that is what transpired.
Thank you, again, for being here and for making the effort to travel to our country. All Australians look forward at any opportunity to visiting you in Vanuatu. I give a shout-out on behalf of the commerce minister. To all of those Australians looking at booking a holiday: make sure you start googling Vanuatu straightaway. Thank you so much.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the fact that over the last 30 years to 2022 the cash rate has been 1.3 percentage points higher under Labor than under the coalition. Interest rates are always higher under Labor. Under this Prime Minister there have been eight rate rises in eight consecutive meetings of the Reserve Bank of Australia board. No wonder there is such pressure on the Reserve Bank governor. When will the Prime Minister announce a plan to deal with the rising inflation problem in this country, which is fuelling higher interest rates? Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor? (Time expired)
Order! The Treasurer will cease interjecting. I want to remind all members: when questions are being asked, that is not the time to interject, and when ministers are on their feet before they answer questions, it is not the time to interject.
I'm asked a very broad ranging question about the history of interest rates. I can inform the Leader of the Opposition that I have done some research about the history of interest rates. I can inform him—
Have you researched what the cash rate is yet?
The member for Deakin will cease interjecting. I want to deal with the member for Deakin.
The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting while I'm speaking. The member for Deakin has been continually interjecting every day in question time. This is not an excuse to yell when the Prime Minister has begun his answer. I want to be crystal-clear about behaviour today. I give the call to the Prime Minister.
Notwithstanding the Leader of the Opposition's interest in my university assays, I can provide more for him later today. I remember back in 2004, when the Howard government's slogan at the election was 'Keeping interest rates low'. I remember that well. But then they made the fatal mistake of appointing the opposition leader as the Assistant Treasurer in 2006. At that time, when he was appointed, the cash rate was 5.5 per cent. But then the Reserve Bank met on 3 May 2006, up 0.25 per cent; on 2 August 2006, up 0.25 per cent; on 8 November 2006—you guessed it—up 0.25 per cent. On 8 August 2007, do you think it went up or down? Hands up who think it went up? Hands up who think it went down. You're right. But then there's more. On 7 November 2007 did it go up or down? Hands up those who think it went up. Does anyone think it went down? No—6.75 per cent. Today the rate is 3.35 per cent. Is 6.75 higher or lower than 3.35? It sounds higher to me.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Deputy Prime Minister, how will the Defence Strategic Review help prepare Australia to effectively respond to the changing regional and global strategic environment and ensure Defence's capability and structure are fit for purpose?
MARLES (—) (): I thank the member for her question and acknowledge her commitment to Australia's defence and also acknowledge the poignancy of asking a question about Australia's strategic posture on the 81st anniversary of the fall of Singapore. Yesterday the government received the Defence strategic review from Sir Angus Houston and Professor Stephen Smith. It is a fundamentally important document. It runs to 157 pages in length. It contains 108 recommendations, many of which will obviously be classified.
More importantly, the Defence strategic review articulates a new strategic posture for our nation. With apologies to those from the past for the crude simplification, over many decades Australia's strategic posture has been centred on the defence of the continent, being a significant actor within our region and being a good global citizen—if you like, three concentric circles. This frame has served us very well over a very long period of time, but, quite obviously, in 2023 this is no longer fit for purpose, because today we live in a globalised networked world where, as a trading island nation, so much of our national income is dependent upon trade, so any potential adversary can do our country enormous damage without ever having to set foot upon our shores. So our national interest lies in having a clear set of international rules of the road, around trade and around freedom of navigation—the global rules based order—along with having the capability to hold any potential adversary at risk much further from our shores. In order to achieve both of these objectives we need a defence force that has the capacity for impactful projection across the full spectrum of proportionate responses.
The theory is important, but what is absolutely critical is that we now build a defence force that has the capacity in its specific platforms and people to be able to achieve this strategic posture. This is exactly what the Defence strategic review examines. Time will tell, but I believe this document will be a blueprint for defence thinking for many decades to come. The government will consider the review over the weeks ahead before we release an unclassified version of the review, along with the government's response to it. Far from being the culmination of a process, this is really the beginning of a new era in strategic thought, which will build a strategic posture for our country, which will protect our national interests, protect our way of life and keep Australians safe.
My question is to the Minister for Defence. At 4.01 pm the minister tweeted a photo of himself and the Prime Minister receiving the Defence strategic review. At 9.42 last night, reports emerged in the media outlining recommendations contained in the DSR. Can the minister explain how highly classified information about Australia's national security ended up in the Australian within a matter of hours?
I thank the member for his question. It is not going to surprise members of this House that there is speculation around the Defence Strategic Review. The only thing that you've read in the newspaper is that speculation. Now, the facts which are on the public record are the facts as I presented them in the answer to the previous question. And it genuinely surprises me that, on a matter as significant as this, the Opposition would be sharing in the speculation of the press.
My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. How will the National Reconstruction Fund help Australia respond to national challenges, and what obstacles are there to achieving this?
If you want to see a champion for manufacturing, particularly in our regions, look right there—thank you very much for the question, knowing how important it is for regional communities to be able to have access to great manufacturing jobs. From our point of view, obviously we all went through a very seismic event with the pandemic, impacting on the ability to get the goods that we needed at the time we needed them most. We are determined to learn the lessons from the pandemic, address those supply chain issues, and, through the process, be able to tackle inflation and put downward pressure on interest rates.
The $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, which will be independently run, will focus on a number of priority areas that will address some of the challenges that we have. There are seven priority areas, evidence based, to help futureproof our economy following the pandemic. The priority areas themselves were informed by CSIRO work, particularly the COVID-19:recovery and resilience report, which identified opportunities for Australian businesses to leverage science and technology, to drive economic recovery and resilience, and to realise positive economic impacts, starting right now. We are looking at setting up priority areas—for instance, value-add in resources; value-add in agriculture; renewables and low-emissions technologies; medical science; transport; emerging capabilities—for example, defence—and things like quantum, AI and robotics. And there are targeted investments within there too, driving value-add in resources—for example, batteries—and being able to also see medical manufacturing emerge.
I'm asked about obstacles. Well, you know—I mean, the time we discovered that they actually had any opposition was the dummy spit trajectory through the Australian, which told us that they weren't supporting it. We listened to the shadow minister's response to the legislation. The shadow minister apparently took umbrage that I wore black tie—I bust out the black tie twice a year and I'm a Kardashian! Apparently, also, I was accused of being ambitious. Have you looked around? This is not exactly Australia's pre-eminent greenhouse for shrinking violets. There are a few ambitious people around. I tell you what we are ambitious for: Australian people, Australian manufacturing. We're ambitious that this will be a country that creates good jobs, a lot of jobs, and builds on our know-how and, particularly in regional Australia, opens up opportunity, and in remote Australia as well. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Recent research indicates it would cost $12 billion over the next seven years to provide fair incentives to help all Australian households electrify. By electrifying, households would save in the order of $3,000 to $5,000 a year. Treasurer, last year alone you spent $12 billion on subsidising fossil fuels. Will you redirect this funding away from fossil fuels and instead spend it on helping Australian households reduce their cost of living?
I thank the member for North Sydney for her question and for her interest in what I think is a really important objective that we as a government share with the member for North Sydney, which is trying to get people's power bills down. One of the reasons why we have already set aside $1½ billion dollars is that we understand that a big part of the pressures on families is coming from higher energy bills. So we want to do something about that in the near term. We also want to do something about that in the medium term and in the longer term.
The minister for energy, the Prime Minister and others have flagged that we do have an interest in helping households get their power bills down by investing in better ways to get cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy into their homes. As the Prime Minister said the other day, we are interested in doing that by incentivising people, rather than compelling people. We think that's an important part of the issues that we are thinking through. We share that objective with the member for North Sydney and with other members of the crossbench. I think on our side of the House everyone is interested in how we do that.
Financial help in the near term and help for families, pensioners and households making the necessary changes in the medium term are all important parts of our plan. We are happy to work with the member for North Sydney as we finalise it.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the government's commitment to the National Reconstruction Fund, the Housing Australia Future Fund and the safeguard mechanism delivering on its election commitments? How are these policies being received by stakeholders, and is there any opposition?
I thank the member for Fremantle for his question which goes to the fact that the Australian people voted for change on 21 May last year. They voted for a government to implement the Housing Australia Future Fund, to implement the National Reconstruction Fund and to implement a fair dinkum version of the safeguard mechanism, which was, of course, designed by the Abbott government.
They voted for a government that would invest, firstly, in affordable housing for veterans and frontline workers and 4,000 households of women and children fleeing domestic violence. I am pleased that the member for Bass has announced her support for this program. I don't know why anyone would stand in the way of increased investment in social and affordable housing for Australian people, including the most vulnerable people in our community.
They also voted for a government that would invest in Australian manufacturing—secure jobs, new industries and making our future here. We know from the pandemic that Australia needs more resilience. We need to make sure that we deal with supply chain issues. It's one of the issues that is feeding inflation in this country. We know that a majority of these jobs through the National Reconstruction Fund will be created in regional Australia, and that is why it is worthy of support as well.
But they also voted for a government that would end the climate wars, that would move Australia forward. Our plan to fix the safeguard mechanism has been endorsed by industry and business—Origin, Rio Tinto, Shell, Woodside, the BCA, the Australian Industry Group, ACCI, the National Farmers Federation and the Minerals Council.
I am also asked if there is any opposition to these plans. On every issue, whether it be manufacturing, whether it be housing or whether it be dealing with the challenge of climate change, those opposite have just one answer. The coalition have become the 'no-alition' once again, saying no with no improvements—
Order! I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Speaker, you have previously ruled on the use of that term the Prime Minister used and he should be asked to withdraw it.
I will ask the Prime Minister to continue with his answer and not to refer to the coalition except as 'the coalition'.
I will if they stop saying no! They are certainly not a 'yes-alition'—they are certainly not that—because they say no to housing, they say no to secure jobs, they say no to manufacturing and they are saying no to the safeguard mechanism regardless of the fact that people out there are saying that it should be supported. They want the next decade to be like the last decade, with climate wars, with delays, with denial. We have positive plans for Australia. I say this: if you've got no plans of your own, just get out of the way.
Government members: Hear, hear!
Order! I would like to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in absolute silence.
My question is to the Prime Minister. A Canstar consumer survey has found 59 per cent of people cite the cost of groceries, rent, electricity, gas, interest rates or petrol as their No. 1 concern for 2023. After nine months in office, the Prime Minister doesn't have a single policy to put downward pressure on interest rates. Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor?
I thank the member for her question. I'd say to her: go and have a look at the evidence today of the Reserve Bank governor or the head of Treasury. They spoke about the fact that our plans are actually making a difference.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left will cease interjecting.
Senator Canavan very helpfully asked the RBA governor the following question today: 'Just on the energy side of things, how much has the disruption in energy flows resulting from the war in Ukraine contributed to inflation over the past year?' The governor said this: 'Substantially. At one point the price of petrol, at the annual rate, was up 30 per cent. That makes a big difference. The sky-high prices of gas and coal in Europe flowed back into our domestic market. That's been a first-order issue. But it hasn't just been energy; it has been food and a lot of the supply chains. It's worked its way through. The more positive story here is that we're through the worst of that.'
Those opposite who are opposing positive plans like the National Reconstruction Fund—and the governor has also spoken about how supply chain issues were contributing to inflation—are standing in the way of solutions to these issues. It's just extraordinary. The same opposition came when we brought forward our energy price relief plan to this parliament in December. Those opposite voted against $1½ billion in relief that was designed in a way, in partnership with and with advice from Treasury, to make sure—
The Prime Minister will pause. I will hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. I'd ask her to state the point of order.
On relevance: the core part of the question went to interest rates, and the Prime Minister hasn't mentioned the core part of the question.
Resume your seat. It was about households, about the Labor government's policies of nine months and about interest rates. There were many components to the question. I appreciate the deputy may have one important part of the question, but the Prime Minister is being relevant to the whole question. I give him the call.
Thanks, Mr Speaker. We know that there are inflationary pressures in the economy, and that is what interest rates are related to—inflation. There's a relationship between the two. I would have thought that was pretty obvious. That is what the evidence today has said.
That is why we have put in place our three-part plan of relief, repair and restraint, making sure that we provide relief, that we provide repair to issues like supply chains and the skills crisis, and also that we have restraint when it comes to fiscal policy so that fiscal policy is working in concert with monetary policy. That is the plan that we are putting forward, a plant that is constructive, a plant that is positive. Those opposite have nothing to say except one word, 'No,' to everything that is put forward.
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government reforming the safeguard mechanism to ensure Australia's biggest emitters contribute a fair share of emissions reductions? What are the consequences of uncertainty in energy and climate policy?
Thanks to my friend the member for Higgins for that question. What a passionate advocate for the values of the people of Higgins she is! What a contribution she's made in her time in this chamber so far!
This government went to the election promising to reform the safeguard mechanism, to reduce emissions from a sector which represents 28 per cent of Australia's emissions. We're talking about reducing emissions by 205 million tonnes by 2030. So this is a big and important deal, and it's also important for industry to provide certainty and to provide stability.
The member for Fairfax will cease interjecting.
That's why this reform has been backed by the Business Council, the Australian Industry Group and ACCI, who have all released statements calling for this package to pass the parliament. So industry certainty is key.
But I'll tell you what is not industry certainty: that's flipping positions between last year and this year. Yesterday the shadow Treasurer was asking the Prime Minister about something he'd said in 2006. Well, in 2021, the member for Hume was backing safeguard crediting—not that long ago. In 2021, the member for Hume said:
The new Safeguard Crediting Mechanism would provide an incentive to businesses to reduce their energy costs and emissions by undertaking transformative projects.
That's exactly what we are proposing in the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill.
Industry certainty is also important when it comes to downward pressure on prices. That's why we intervened in December to act on energy prices. This is important for households and small business, but it's also important for big business and industries, because big industrial producers are also big energy users. That's why the Aluminium Council backed our intervention, saying, 'The council welcomes the actions of the government to meaningfully address gas prices in the short term and medium as a stepping stone to a long-term solution.' So the opposition cry crocodile tears about big industry, but they weren't there for big industry last December, when the government was acting.
The Leader of the Nationals will cease yelling.
We know they voted against it. The shadow minister issued a press release on certainty on 1 February, and he accused us and said our energy intervention was disastrous. Then he complained it was too late; he said we should have acted sooner. So it was disastrous and too late. Then he said it was rushed. So, in one press release, he said it was bad, too soon and too late. They can't get certainty in one press release. He made more sense in Hiroshima, where he issued a video saying, 'Hiroshima—what can we learn from nuclear?' It made more sense. He was on the world's worst Contiki tour, promoting nuclear in Fukushima and Hiroshima, and he made more sense then than he does defending their policy certainty, which is completely non-existent. (Time expired)
Government members interjecting—
Order! Members on my right!
The minister for industry!
The member for Fairfax! I can hear every word you're saying. You do not need to yell. Trust me. Order! I want to hear from the member for Hume.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Under this Prime Minister, interest rates have increased at the fastest rate since the Reserve Bank began targeting inflation. By how much does the current inflation rate exceed the RBA's target?
I'll begin, and then I'll give the Treasurer a crack, because he deserves a go. I lead a cabinet government in the best traditions of the great Bob Hawke, and that's why we have ministers: so they can do their job.
What's the answer, Albo?
The member for Hume has asked his question.
Our plan to deal with the inflation challenge within the economy is relief, repair, restraint: providing responsible cost-of-living relief; repairing our broken supply chains, which have been made worse by their actions opposite; but also—
Opposition members interjecting—
Come on!
The Prime Minister will pause, and he's 45 seconds into his answer.
Resume your seat. No, there's no point of order.
Thanks, Mr Speaker—and, of course, showing spending restraint in the economy. I pay tribute to the Treasurer and the finance minister in the other place, who do such a fantastic job of making sure that we put together a responsible budget last October and there'll be another one in May. I ask the Treasurer to add.
I think if the shadow Treasurer needs us to tell him the inflation rate of 7.8 per cent and the target rate of 2.3 per cent then we've got even bigger problems than we thought. Old mate over here needs the most simple concepts explained to him very slowly. And that's what we're happy to do over and over again. The reason why the member for Hume didn't ask me this question is that he knows that last week I was tuning in, as I always do, watching Kieran Gilbert on Sky interviewing the shadow Treasurer, and he was asked by Kieran Gilbert on Sky last Tuesday—Kieran pointed out to him, as we have from time to time, that interest rates started going up on their watch. We've also pointed out that interest rates were more than twice what they are now when the Leader of the Opposition was the Assistant Treasurer. But I was watching Kieran talk to the member for Hume last Tuesday, and Kieran said, 'But you did see interest rates go up on your watch,' and the member for Hume said, 'Well, you saw a 0.1 per cent increase in May.' The only problem with that is that it's completely and absolutely wrong. Apart from that fact that he got wrong, the rest of it was right! He was asked about May. In May, when those opposite were in office, interest rates went up by 25 basis points. I think everybody on this side of the House understands that. The shadow Treasurer does not have a clue. He does not have a clue, and that's why he doesn't ask me the question, because he knows I'm watching Kieran Gilbert talking to the member for Hume and he knows that the member for Hume dropped an absolute clanger on Kieran's show last week. The shadow Treasurer of this country, the guy that wants to be the Treasurer of this country, doesn't even know how much interest rates— (Time expired)
Honourab le members interjecting—
Minister for Home Affairs, I can hear every word from you. You don't need to yell that out. When the House comes to order and there is complete silence, I'll hear from the member for Macarthur.
My question is to the Treasurer. Why are the Albanese Labor government's climate change policies part of the government's economic plan, and are there any barriers to their progress?
Thank you to the wonderful member for his question. He understands, just like we all understand on this side of the House, that good climate change policy is good economic policy. That's because we understand that the future of this economy will be increasingly powered by cleaner, cheaper, more reliable and increasingly renewable energy. We understand that. We also understand that, for too long in this country, the opportunities of an economy powered by that cleaner and cheaper energy have gone begging while we've had this ridiculous war over climate change policy, which we want to bring to an end. We're doing that—we want to bring that climate change war to an end—because we understand that the economic imperative for acting on climate change is great, and that's why cleaner and cheaper energy is such a central part of our economic plan. It's why we legislated our emissions reduction target. I pay tribute to the minister. It's why we're progressing our Powering Australia plan and the Powering the Regions Fund. It's why we've got an agenda for climate risk disclosure and sustainable finance as well, and it's why we are determined to deliver a safeguard mechanism, so that we can end the policy uncertainty, provide a credible pathway to net zero and give business and industry the confidence that they tell us that they need to invest.
Making this transition is absolutely crucial for the future of our economy, for creating new jobs in new industries but also for leveraging our traditional economic strengths and for providing that investment certainty. That's why the business community, as the Prime Minister said a moment ago, and Australia's big employers are begging this parliament to support the passage of the safeguards legislation. The Business Council have done a heap of work, including this great report in 2021, and we commend them for it. They told this parliament to get on with it. The chamber of commerce have said that, for the sake of certainty, this must pass the parliament. The Australian Industry Group say that it is strongly in everyone's interest to pass it, and they are right: it is in everyone's interest. For the future of our economy and our climate and our country, it's incumbent on every member of this parliament to set aside self-interest and act in the national interest and pass the safeguards legislation.
By standing in the way of this progress, the Leader of the Opposition is standing in the way of investment, industry and jobs. He is showing himself to be a more destructive version of Tony Abbott and a more divisive version of the member for Cook. Nothing would make those opposite happier than to waste another decade bluing about climate change policy while the economic opportunities go begging. We have a plan for climate change because we want to make that a central part of our economic plan as well. For too long Australians have paid too hefty a price for the failures of those opposite to get behind sensible policy, like the safeguard mechanism, in the interests of our economy.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has failed to deliver his promised $275 cut to electricity prices. The Prime Minister has also failed to deliver the financial support he promised families last year. Can the Prime Minister advise the House how many more Australians will be forced onto hardship programs with their electricity retailer as a result of the government's delay in providing any financial support? Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor?
I thank the member for Mallee for her question, which can, essentially, be summed up as 'why aren't you doing what I voted against earlier?' That's basically what I'm being asked here.
Opposition members interjecting—
Why did you vote against it?
The Treasurer will cease interjecting.
What they voted against was $1½ billion dollars of relief, and now they're complaining that it's not being delivered early enough. But that was the gist of the question.
Those opposite voted against $1½ billion dollars in direct fuel relief and they voted against price caps. The member for Hume hid the price rises before the election and then misled Australians about it. They took four gigawatts out of the system and only put one gigawatt back. They had 22 energy policies and didn't land one. And then they come in here and say, 'Why isn't it all fixed?' It reminds me, as someone who is a dog lover, of someone who comes home and finds bits of the cushions everywhere. There are bits which have been torn out and they're all over the lounge room. They're all over the kitchen and they're down the corridor. And they look at their pooch and they go, 'What's gone on here?' And the pooch looks back, with those eyes, saying 'Look at the mess you've made!'
Fair dinkum! You did nothing for 10 years. You voted against it when we had a plan, and then you come in here and say, 'Why didn't you do it earlier?'
My question is to the Minister for Resources. Minister, how will the safeguard mechanism bring certainty to the resource sector? And are there any threats to this certainty?
I thank the member for Lingiari for her question, and for her commitment to the resources sector. I am asked by her about certainty in that sector and threats to it.
For 10 long years, as you know, Mr Speaker, our resources sector was consistently let down by the former government, now those opposite. Those opposite denied climate change and any action on it. And what did they fail to do? They failed to realise that Australia's resources sector is absolutely essential to Australia reaching—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! There minister will pause for a moment. I cannot hear a word she is saying.
Lucky you!
Order! The Leader of the Opposition! I give the call to the minister, and I ask her to be relevant to the question.
As I was saying, those opposite, when in government, failed to realise that Australia's resources sector will be essential to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, and not only for Australia but for the world. Without the resources sector in this country, the world will not reach a global ambition of net zero emissions by 2050.
Now, I'm asked about the threat to certainty in this sector. Well, it lies opposite—there it is. Such is their disregard for the resources sector that they shuffled the resources minister out of cabinet. This is the largest export industry of this country, and they shuffled the minister out of there so the member for New England could get a promotion and a couple of extra staff. What a legacy! What a legacy for you guys!
We remember everyone else's legacy in this House as well, don't we? We remember what the Greens did in 2009, when they failed to support the CPRS. What they did was: they teamed up with the Liberals and the Nationals opposite to make sure there was no action on climate change, nearly 13 years ago. So, all of those opposite—and I take the crossbenchers out of that—that is your legacy and the uncertainty you bring to the resources sector in this country. You are driving yourselves into the past, reigniting the climate wars. The people of this country elected this government earlier, last year, because they wanted an end to the uncertainty you've created for the whole nation, for our economy and for our resources sector.
The Leader of the Nationals is warned.
I will ask—
Okay—thanks very much, Leader of the Nationals. What does Woodside say about this scheme?
The Leader of the Nationals is warned.
What do they say about reform to the safeguard mechanism? Well, they say it will:
… support a reduction in Australian emissions, as well as encourage businesses and industries to further innovate and adopt smarter practices and technologies in line with our collective emissions reduction targets.
Look, they only employ 5,000 people—what would they know! But this is what they support.
Everyone is accountable in this place—just like the 215 high emitters will be accountable for reducing their emissions under the safeguard mechanism. Everyone is accountable. You're going to be accountable for your vote—those opposite, pardon me, Mr Speaker, are going to be accountable for their vote on the safeguard mechanism, as are the Greens. We know this is how we will deliver low emissions and a cleaner— (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! There is far too much noise. Members on my right, banging on desks is highly disorderly.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Members on my left.
Honourable members interjecting—
When the House comes to order and when there is complete silence—I want to hear every word from the member for Kennedy, and I give him the call.
Prime Minister, banks in Australia's towns are closing. Treasurers Keating, Hockey and Swan averred the majors will always be underwritten by government. Will you support North Queensland's industrial leadership in proposing a North Queensland postal bank, initiated by the KAP?
I note the curious inconsistency of two Liberal senators, who, in power, sacked Holgate, the person actually creating a people's bank. Out of power, the two want to 'look into it'! Churchill observed: 'Looking into it, you'll only see yourself. How extraordinarily narcissistic!'
There was definitely a question in there. I'm not sure about the end of the statement. But I give the call to the Prime Minister.
I thank the member for Kennedy, not just for the question but for his genuine commitment on these issues of services for people in his electorate. Of course, bank closures in regional communities is a very real issue out there, and I can inform the member that the Treasurer met the chair of the ACCC just today, on this issue. Indeed, as well, we look forward to the findings of the report from the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's inquiry into bank closures outside of metropolitan areas.
The member raises the issue of Australia Post, and that is certainly one of the options which is there. Aussie post already plays a big role. In the 2022 financial year, they processed around 14½ million transactions, with over 3½ thousand post offices currently providing banking services across the country.
I know that this was an issue that Christine Holgate—who was mentioned in the question and I think a fine person—was advancing, before the former government took action on the floor of this chamber to remove her, in part, of course, challenged by the inconsistency of the members that you raise. One thing about the member for Kennedy, whether you agree with all of his views or not—and on some of his views I agree and on some I do not—is that he's fair dinkum, unlike the great pretenders he refers to, the LNP senators out there who've discovered this issue. After 10 years of government and doing nothing about it, they have discovered it. One of them, of course, is famous for wearing hi-vis in his backyard for media conferences and doing something that no coalminer would do, which is to smear coaldust on his face for the photo op. The member for Kennedy is fair dinkum, unlike the pretenders over there in the Senate, who pretend they care about regional Australia but never actually stand up for it.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. Action on climate change is a crucial part of protecting, managing and restoring Australia's environment. What will the impact on our environment be if this necessary action continues to be delayed?
I want to thank the member for Canberra for her question, because she knows, and she is representing her constituents when she says, that climate change is already having a devastating effect on our natural environment, including through more frequent and more extreme natural disasters. Those communities that are cleaning up after floods right now will never be the same, just as those communities that have lived through bushfires, like the 2019-20 bushfires, will remember forever the lives lost, the homes lost and the regional economies devastated. These weren't just human disasters; these were ecological bombs ripping through our natural environment. With those bushfires, we're talking about three billion animals that died or were displaced from their homes. We're talking about 80 per cent—as the member for Macquarie knows—of the Blue Mountains area burnt to the ground. More than half of the Gondwana forests also were lost in those bushfires. We can't afford to relive the past decade of inaction, when Liberal governments simply gave up on our environment, blocking action on climate change, sabotaging the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, ignoring the extinction crisis and pretending that the mass bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef wasn't happening.
This is no surprise coming from the Liberals and Nationals—they've never pretended to care about the environment—but I think that Greens voters would actually be shocked to see Greens members of parliament getting ready to sit next to Peter Dutton and Barnaby Joyce to vote against action on climate change. They would be shocked to see the Greens voting with the Liberals and Nationals against a safeguard mechanism.
The member for Petrie is seeking the call on a point of order?
Thanks, Mr Speaker. I would ask the minister to refer to members, including the Leader of the Opposition, by their correct title.
I remind all members, under standing orders, to refer to members by their titles.
Yes. I will in future. Thank you. As well as lining up to vote with the Liberals and the Nationals against a credible pathway to net zero emissions, they're also shaping up to vote against more affordable housing. They're also shaping up to vote against the National Reconstruction Fund, and we know that voting against a national reconstruction fund is a vote against 'made in Australia'.
When the Greens and the Liberals voted together to stop the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, we saw higher emissions for longer. I urge this parliament not to make the same mistake again, because we cannot afford another decade of inaction on carbon pollution. Our environment can't cope with that.
The member for Lyons is warned.
My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs—there you are back there! I refer to the Labor government's recent decision—
I will just ask the shadow minister to start his question again.
My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer to the Labor government's recent decision which now allows public servants to boycott the Anzac Day public holiday and substitute it for another day of leave, out of protest. Does the minister agree with this decision, and were veterans organisations consulted about it?
I thank the member for his question. As I am sure the member very well knows, to be able to facilitate the many commemorative events that happen here in Canberra at the Australian War Memorial, as well as the events that occur on the Western Front and those events that occur in Anzac Cove every year, except when disturbed by COVID, many public servants are engaged to have to work on those days so that we as a country can properly commemorate those that have served our country in uniform on those very important days.
Do you agree or not?
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting immediately.
As it relates to public servants more broadly, of course, he would have to direct his question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Public Service.
My question is to the stupendous Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. What is been the public feedback on the Albanese government's landmark $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund? Mm-hmm.
Order! The member for Bruce will state that question without any other extra things in the question, with the minister's full title and no comment at the end.
No adjectives, Mr Speaker, anymore.
Get on with the question.
My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness. What has been the public feedback on the Albanese government's landmark $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund?
I thank the member for Bruce for his question. I know that he has been a strong advocate for more social and affordable housing in his own electorate, both as a member in this place and also previously in local government. Indeed, the Albanese government was elected with a plan to help tackle the country's housing challenges—challenges that have not appeared overnight but have been there in the economy for some time. Indeed, in relation to our plan to establish a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, we have legislation in the parliament to actually establish it—the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing by a federal government in more than a decade. We want to get on and deliver this package of legislation.
But before we introduced our legislation, of course, we consulted. We consulted experts, practitioners, academics, local councils, states and territories. We did the work to make sure we got it right. And the feedback is this fund is welcome and it is needed. Indeed, the Kate Colvin, the CEO of Homelessness Australia, has said, 'Can I start by saying how important the fund is as a new mechanism to provide resources for social and affordable housing?' Mike Zorbas, from the Property Council, said the legislation 'is an important first step to get government working together with industry to bridge the national housing deficit and stimulate new supply that Australia desperately needs'. National Shelter has said, 'We cannot afford to have the Housing Australia Future Fund fail.'
Importantly, our plans are achievable. Indeed, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute said, 'What the government is doing is setting ambitious targets'—and they are ambitious targets, but they're also achievable targets. The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will make a real difference to people's lives. Of course, the member for Bass, on the other side, has acknowledged this. Most people on that side want to vote no to most social and affordable housing. But the member Bass said: 'As the government, you are expected to solve these issues, and I'm not going to get in the way.' I acknowledge the member for Bass for saying that, as I acknowledge members of the crossbench, who have been participating in the debate. They of course want more social and affordable housing in their electorates. But I say to those opposite who are not supporting this fund: how are you going to talk to the public in your electorate who want more social and affordable housing? To those people that need homes in your electorate, to people who are on the public housing list in your electorate, what are you going to say—that you came in here and you voted no to more social and affordable housing for those that need it most.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Sportsbet donated to the shadow minister about to become the minister responsible for online gambling, and the gambling industry has extended hospitality to the minister ever since. Sure, disclosures have been met, but clearly the practice is morally wrong and breaches 3.21 and 3.22 of the ministerial code of conduct. PM, what's to be done about it, or is the government's and the opposition's silence the return on millions of dollars of gambling donations?
I thank the member for his question, but it's pretty hard to argue there's silence when you're asking me a question in question time. I make that point to the member for Clark. My government is committed to donations reform. We're committed to increasing transparency, lowering disclosure thresholds and increasing the timeliness of disclosures, and the member will have the opportunity to vote on that during this term. The Special Minister of State has asked the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to inquire into and report on the 2022 federal election, and that is one of the measures that they've been asked to look at.
My government, including the Minister for Communications, is committed to harm minimisation. We're delivering a national self-exclusion register, BetStop—
The Prime Minister will pause. I'll hear from the member for Clark on a point of order.
Speaker, on relevance: the question very clearly goes to sections 3.21 and 3.22 of the ministerial code of conduct.
The question was also about a broad issue which the Prime Minister is directly answering. He is in order, and I give him the call.
I note that in the member's question he referred to matters prior to the election. But we're delivering a national self-exclusion register, BetStop; we're progressing work around the classification of video games with gambling-like features; we're responding to recommendations from the parliamentary inquiry into the use of credit cards in online gambling; we're holding a parliamentary inquiry into online gambling, including the impacts of gambling advertising on children; and we're implementing the national consumer protection framework, including the changed guidelines that we have introduced for messaging in advertising.
My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting regional communities to rebuild following a natural disaster, and how does this approach compare to the previous government?
I want to thank the member for the question and acknowledge the fantastic work she did during disaster response but also recovery, so much of which she doesn't spruik because our communities don't need it spruiked.
We know natural disasters have changed the lives of many Australians. Communities have been impacted across the country by floods, by fires and by cyclones and adverse weather events. Those communities really don't need to be used as political pawns, and we have seen time and time again those opposite do exactly that. Unbelievably, the New South Wales Auditor-General has now found that the New South Wales government has followed in the Morrison government's footsteps: colour coded spreadsheets which dudded local communities—a decision by all cabinet members of the New South Wales Liberal and Nationals government.
The minister will resume her seat, and I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Speaker, the actions of the New South Wales government are not within the minister's responsibilities, and she ought to be directed back to the question.
On the point of order I'll hear from the Leader of the House.
To the point of order: the minister is responding to how federal money was used. It is about how federal money was used and the question specifically asked for how the approach of this government compares to that of the previous government.
I don't uphold the point of order. I was dealing with a matter with the member for Hume at the time, so I didn't hear exactly what the minister was saying and full—
The member for Barker is warned. Do not speak when I'm ruling on a point of order. I don't know how many times I have to say it. I ask the minister to make sure she is relevant to the question. I'll be listening carefully to what she says. I give her the call.
We know the Morrison government showed absolute arrogance and disregard for communities that suffered catastrophic events. During a natural disaster, the thing communities need to know is that the government has their back.
The minister will resume her seat. The member for Groom will withdraw that statement immediately.
I withdraw.
I give the call to the minister.
We on this side of the House have communities' back because we are delivering transparency and integrity when it comes to funding. We won't waste regional dollars on inner-city swimming pools. I don't know where those opposite—those regional champions—were when our regional dollars went to the North Sydney pool. Where was the outrage?
We on this side of the House are helping our regions to recover, to rebuild and to grow. We've committed $1 billion in regional funding programs, which will have clear application criteria and transparent assessment processes. We've increased jobs with our $1.9 billion Powering the Regions Fund. We've prioritised access to Commonwealth supported university places for regional Australians. We're delivering 180,000 fee-free TAFE places in 2023 alone and we're wiping the HELP debt of nurse practitioners and GPs who practise in our rural and remote communities. We're investing $1 billion over five years for disaster risk reduction and resilience. We're delivering $656 million in our better connectivity plan for the regions. We've introduced our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, dealing with the housing crisis in the regions left by those opposite. We'll establish the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund because the lesson learnt from the pandemic is that we need to build more things here. Do you know what? That will strengthen our regional communities. Perhaps you should get on board and vote for it. The Albanese government will continue to clean up the mess from those opposite, will implement funding and will deliver it to those who need it when they need it.
Before I call the member for New England, I advise that joining us in the gallery today is former senator and former minister the Hon. Chris Evans. A warm welcome to you.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister overturn his government's recent decision that now allows public servants to boycott the Anzac Day public holiday and substitute it for another day of leave out of protest?
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
The question goes to workplace relations issues. I'll go through that. First of all in terms of Anzac Day, we are in a room of 151 representatives, all of whom take Anzac Day incredibly seriously and all of whom on both sides have direct relationships with veterans, and we as a government share the view that every other member in this place shares about the significance and the importance of Anzac Day. For the entire nine years of the last government, a flexibility provision applied in a series of workplaces around the country—a provision for almost the entire nine years of the previous government—
The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting immediately.
You'll find that businesses around the country have provisions where individual workers can choose a different day, to switch days of public holidays, not as an issue of protest but as an issue of flexibility, which has worked for employers and employees across all public holidays around the country. If those opposite believe that those rules that have been in place for their entire nine years, if those opposite believe that those rules that are asked for by employers to be in agreements all around the country, if they want to draw a line under that because they think there is some sort of culture war to raise questions where none should be asked then they may well want to go down that path. But for their nine years, the same provisions applied.
My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. How is the Albanese Labor government cleaning up the coalition's mess in the NDIS after the former government allowed NDIS participants to languish in hospital when they were medically ready for discharge?
As all members of the House would know, when the NDIS works well it is life changing, but when it goes poorly it can be traumatic for participants. The fact of the matter is, at the last election, there were real problems with the NDIS, and all members deal with that. It was flawed, with red tape and ballooning costs. But there was no worse problem than bed blocking, when people with disability eligible for the NDIS medically fit for discharge couldn't leave hospital because there was no place for them to go. There were extremely long waiting times between when someone was medically fit for discharge and when they could actually get out.
The Victorian hospital authority calculated that before the last election there were about 160 days between when a NDIS participant was medically fit to be discharged and when they could be helped. That is too long. The reality is that this was costing the hospital system—it was blocking the beds—and was a very poor outcome for NDIS participants. We promised before the last election to cut the waiting times between being fit for discharge and discharge and we have—promises made, promises kept. We have cut the red tape, we have put more people in to help wrangle the issues and we have also given greater delegation to people closer to the hospitals.
I've had the ability to visit hospitals in Western Australia, in Canberra and the Alfred campus at Caulfield. They have marvellous staff and resilient patients. The good news is the waiting time, which was 160 days before the election, on average is now down to 33 days. The AMA calculates that this is saving the hospital system already somewhere between $205 million and $584 million—that is, in the order of half a billion dollars. It is good for the hospitals, good for people who need to access hospital beds and it is fantastic for people with disability who have been kept waiting longer than they otherwise should have.
What I say to Australians with disability and people who love them is: this is only the beginning. The NDIS represents what is best about Australia. It is about helping others who are in trouble. It is about not leaving anyone behind. If we can't look after people with profound disability and their families, what kind of country are we? We are lucky enough to be able to not exclude from opportunity in this country people with disability. We all should be proud of the NDIS. Shoulder to shoulder with Medicare, it is one of the best purposes we use our tax dollars for. Under this government, the NDIS will enable Australians, regardless of their impairment, to have lives of dignity and control, to have lives where they can make a contribution to community, a life of improved health, and that is our purpose.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
TAYLOR () (): I wish to make a personal explanation.
Do you claim to have been misrepresented?
Most grievously.
You may proceed.
In question time today, the Prime Minister incorrectly stated that when I was energy minister we took 'four gigawatts out of the system and only put one back'. He has made similar claims in the past. This is plainly false. According to the Clean Energy Regulator, from 2019 to 2021 more than 18 gigawatts of new capacity was installed in each of those years. It was a stronger outcome than the entirety of the last Labor government.
I seek to make a personal explanation.
Do you claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes, in a stranger but similar way to yesterday.
You may proceed.
The notice that I referred to as having misrepresented me yesterday has today reappeared not in the name of the Manager of Opposition Business but in the name of the member for Flinders. The misrepresentation I referred to yesterday has been corrected and a new one has been added. It says that the arts funding which I personally announced is lower than the record funding of the previous government of $1 million. While yesterday's figure where it stated that I had delivered $60 billion a year was untrue, I can assure the House that the record is larger than what they claim as their record $1 million.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
That the House recognise that faster action on climate change is one of the most effective ways of insulating households against rising costs of living.
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—
Australians from all walks of life are facing a cost-of-living crunch. Residents in my electorate of North Sydney are amongst them, with rising costs of mortgages and rents, food and groceries, energy and gas bills and petrol. Some of the most vulnerable in our committee still can't afford the energy they need. Too many people are depriving themselves of energy by taking fewer showers, cooking less, not heating or cooling their homes or going without food, medicine and other essentials to pay energy bills. It is clear that business as usual is not good enough for households and families.
At the same time, as a nation we are facing a climate crisis. Sea levels are rising, the arctic is melting, coral reefs are dying, oceans are acidifying and forests are burning. It is clear that business as usual is not good enough for our planet.
A solution to these dual challenges is available if we step up to grab it. The solution is to electrify everything. Renewable energy solutions are becoming cheaper, more reliable and more efficient every day. Our current reliance on fossil fuels is unsustainable and harmful to the planet, which is why we have to change the way we produce and consume energy. Every year the decision to transition to ever cheaper renewables becomes a financially beneficial decision for more and more households. The average Australian household that switches from fossil fuels to electricity and efficient electric devices for transport, cooking and heating experiences benefits on three fronts. Firstly, annual household energy emissions decrease from 11 tonnes to zero tonnes. Secondly, daily energy usage reduces by about two-thirds, from 102 kilowatts per hour to 37 kilowatts per hour. Thirdly, households save around $3,000 to $5,000 dollars per year. These savings are so important for families struggling with rising inflation and the cost-of-living crisis.
The question then becomes: how can we in this place ensure the maximum number of households across Australia benefit from these cost savings? We can learn much from the Inflation Reduction Act which was passed last year in America. The Inflation Reduction Act is a spending bill. It isn't so much a question of new legislation as it is a question of redirecting funds, mostly through tax credits. It includes taxpayer funded incentives to turbocharge investment in renewable energy and electrification. This spending stretches across households, businesses, large-scale energy supply projects and industries like green hydrogen. Crucially, it is called the Inflation Reduction Act. It is an act designed to achieve mass electrification and climate benefits all while reducing inflation. For example, fossil fuel prices rise at approximately the rate of inflation. With these increases, Australian households are forecast to be spending $9,500 on energy per year by 2050. If that same household was electrified, it could expect to be paying one-third of that per year—a third!
The Inflation Reduction Act shows that investing in electrification will help to reduce cost of living and inflation. It marks a step-change in the global transition to a decarbonised economy. It establishes America as a magnet for clean energy investment, technology and workers, all of whom are making a beeline for a country which has signalled its readiness to lead the world in the energy transition.
America's example highlights how much more we could be doing in Australia. If we don't step up our investment in electrification, we may find ourselves the losers in a rapidly accelerating global race for the labour, material and money needed to decarbonise. So what would investment in an inflation reduction act look like in Australia? Models run by Rewiring Australia show that an overall investment by government of around $12 billion over the 2020s would finance electrification of all suitable households with electric devices and electric vehicles. Importantly, this investment would also generate energy bill savings in the order of $3,000 to $5,000 per household per year in 2030. This spending could be achieved through a variety of measures—for example, grants to low-income households for energy efficient upgrades and renewable installation.
Another measure which could be rolled out in my electorate of North Sydney is an electrification pilot. Our community is ready to allow market design, grid integration and new business models such as community ownership to be tested so it can be rolled out more broadly. Other measures might also include directions to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to allocate funds towards electrifying both households and businesses in the form of zero interest loans.
There is much more Australia can do to match the scale of investment made by America in the Inflation Reduction Act. It's clear our efforts to reduce emissions and lower the cost of living go hand in hand. Electrification is the key, and I urge the government to commit strongly to the ambitious measures I have described. I'd like to cede the remainder of my time to the member for Indi.
For too long, debate around action on climate change in this country has focused on how much it would cost. Members of the coalition and the media have said time and time again that we can't afford to take action on climate change, that we can't afford to lower emissions. We know in fact that the opposite is true. As a society, as a country, as a planet, we cannot afford to allow climate change to continue unchecked. We also know actions that contribute to reducing emissions will also have a direct impact on reducing the cost of living for our households. It makes sense on every level to take action on climate change, especially when it comes to helping Australians cope with the rising cost of living.
Climate change is already affecting our lives and our household budgets in ways we didn't realise at a glance. The floods we experienced in Australia last year had a significant impact on the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables both in the effect on farms and in the effect on logistics. Prices soared; we all saw $12 lettuces, and that was just the start. The Australia-wide average cost of fruit and vegetables spiked by four per cent over a three-month quarter, shifting $153 million in costs onto Australian households.
We also know that extreme weather events, which are becoming more frequent and more severe due to climate change, have an impact on our health. A study by the Climate and Health Alliance in 2020 found people who were poor, homeless or otherwise disadvantaged, people living in poor quality housing and people living in regional and remote areas were at more risk of health impacts from climate change. The costs of responding to and managing the health impacts of climate change are yet another squeeze on the cost of living.
The most obvious way in which climate change is affecting the cost of living is in our electricity and gas bills. Both have increased in the past 12 months, as we hear constantly from our constituents and in this place, but gas has increased much, much more. The rising cost of electricity and gas is one of the biggest contributors to the rising cost of electricity and the cost of living in my electorate of Indi. Wodonga is in the top 30 postcodes in the state for forced electricity disconnections; in fact, regional areas make up 40 per cent of forced disconnections in Victoria even though we only make up 25 per cent of the population. Costs are high and reliability is also a challenge, especially in rural areas at the edge of the grid—and I have several of them, in the towns of Corryong, Euroa and Mansfield. Brownouts and blackouts are regular and much more frequent than in major cities.
As we are faced with hotter days and nights and more extreme weather, the demand on the electricity grid is set to increase. But there are simple ways—the member for North Sydney has talked about some already—to address reliability and cost and to reduce emissions and stress on the grid at the same time. We have the technology and we also have policies that are ready to go. It's simple! Well, it's not particularly simple. But there are some straightforward things that the minister sitting here right now could do. The first step would be to get households off gas and switch to high-efficiency electric versions of appliances. No-interest loans are operating in many places around the world; they're operating right here in the ACT. I encourage the government: make the switch and help low-income households get high-value electric appliances.
The government say they don't want to mandate these changes. Then don't. Incentivise them, through low-interest loans or no-interest loans.
We need our Australian families to install home batteries, but they're mighty expensive. So I put to government last year—and I will put it you again—that a move which could unlock household savings is to make home batteries cheaper. In the last parliament, I introduced the cheaper home batteries bill to do exactly this. It's a simple change that would extend the small-scale renewable energy scheme to include batteries as well as solar panels. I say to the minister: this is a really good idea, and you should do it. Australians have taken up solar like nowhere else in the world, and they would take up these batteries too. Household and community batteries are the next step to realise solar's full potential, keep the cost of energy down, increase reliability and reduce stress on the grid.
We know the problem, we've got some solutions and we have ways to do it. I say to the minister, and I say to the government: I know you're on board with these ideas—I know you are. We have people all over the nation just champing at the bit to do these things. Help us along; it's an incentive, and I say that to you now. I say that to the members here on this side of the House, actually—people from rural and regional Australia. You should jump on this. This is a good one for us. Don't hold back. The cost of living is the single most important thing we are trying to face right now, in addition to grappling with a climate emergency. We have many complex bills before the House. We're dealing with them— (Time expired)
I thank the member for North Sydney for—I'm sure in collaboration with her colleagues—submitting this matter of public importance, and it is important. It is worthy of the House's time to discuss the issues that have been raised. I agree with much of what my honourable friends have said in the last 10 minutes or so.
For too long, this country has been bedevilled by an argument, put by some in politics and in media, that action on climate change and action on renewable energy might be a good idea but comes at the cost of the economy. It's always been a myth; it's always been a lie. But it's never been more of a myth and a lie than today. As the cost of renewable energy has fallen and the cost of storage is falling, it is the case that renewable energy is the answer to our challenges, not the cause of them. The member for New England's not too happy with me saying this. He doesn't agree. He's entitled to seek the call to put his case that he doesn't believe that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. But, the fact of the matter is, it is. Not only is it the cheapest form of energy, but it is the answer in many senses to the energy trilemma.
It's not.
The member for New England says it isn't, but I'll refer him to the CSIRO and the International Energy Agency. He apparently knows better than them. I know the member for New England is a passionate advocate of small modular reactors and nuclear power. He's welcome to seek the call.
At the moment, I have the call, and I'm going to use it to point out that there's an energy trilemma which faces every government around the world. That trilemma is how to reduce prices, increase security and reduce emissions, and, in every single instance, renewable energy is the way to do it. Renewable energy is the cheapest way, as I've said. The International Energy Agency has said so. It's not traditionally an organisation famous for its radicalism, I must say, but it's a very good organisation. I met with the director general and senior executives of the International Energy Agency just two weeks ago, and they pointed out that utility-scale solar PV and onshore wind are the cheapest options for new electricity generation in the significant majority of countries worldwide. It is the case not just in Australia but around the world.
Of course, we have the GenCost report, a collaboration between the CSIRO and AEMO, which has found consistently for several years that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy and that nuclear energy is by far the most expensive form of energy, and that's particularly the case in Australia, where we don't have a nuclear industry of any scale, and where scaling it up would come at a very significant cost.
The member for New England natters away in defence of nuclear energy. He can explain his costings. He can explain how much his 80 small modular reactors, spread around Australia, will cost, and where they'll be, before the next election. I look forward to it. I welcome the debate very much. But he's wrong. He's just dead wrong on all of these questions.
In Europe at the moment, of course, they're in the midst of an energy crisis—a real energy crisis. And some deniers and delayers in this House, in the other place and elsewhere say this is the fault of renewable energy. Again, that is an utter myth. I will tell you what the problem in Europe is: overreliance on a fossil fuel from one country. It's overreliance on gas from Russia, which has been turned off. Europe is in fact doubling down on its renewable energy plans: increasing its renewable energy investments and increasing its ambition. That's what it's doing, because it knows that's the answer. And I know that the policies that this government has put in place are good when it comes to the energy trilemma that we're facing, and all my colleague energy ministers around the world know the same thing. In relation to government policies, I'm going to touch on some of the matters that the honourable members on the crossbench have raised in their speeches.
I'm pleased, but not yet satisfied, with the work that the government has done in our first nine months. We have a lot more to do, but I'm pleased with what we've done so far. I'm pleased that the passage of the Climate Change Act through both houses of parliament, supported by the government and by most of the crossbench—no support from the opposition—has engendered the renewable energy certainty that has seen a massive uplift in interest in investment in Australia. Right around the world, big investors tell me that it's the passage of the act which is the key to their decision to invest more in renewable energy generation in Australia; it has been a vital step.
The other thing I'm satisfied with is our progress on rewiring the nation, because there's no transition without transmission. We have managed to strike agreements with the governments of Victoria, Tasmania and New South Wales. There's a lot more to do, but the projects that we have agreed on with those three governments are vital. I mention particularly the Marinus Link, which was talked about by the previous government for years but which they made absolutely no progress on doing. We will build the second and third links between Tasmania and the mainland, which will be the key to unlocking the renewable energy potential of Tasmania. It is already at 100 per cent renewables and it can get to 200 per cent renewables. But it won't get to 200 per cent renewables if they have nowhere to exported to—that is the mainland—so they need the extra connections. So I'm pleased with that.
We also have more to do in relation to the announcement made just before Christmas by me and every single state and territory energy minister around the country—and I recognise the contribution of all of them. If you come to an energy ministers meeting—and I'll be honest; I'll be very frank with the House—you would have trouble working out who is Labor, who is Liberal or who is Green. All three are represented around the table, but we all have the same approach—getting the policies right to encourage renewable energy investment.
Again, the previous government talked about a thing called the Capacity Investment Scheme for years. They talked about it—they were 'gunna'. They were gunna do it. They kept saying they were going to do it because it was important. Well, it was important, but they never could deliver it. We delivered it last year. The capacity investment mechanism will unleash billions of dollars of investment in renewable energy, and many gigawatts of renewable energy generation, right across the country by a contract for difference regime agreed between the states and territories.
I'm going to take the interjection by the member for New England. He asked me what's happening in McMahon with renewable energy. People in McMahon know that renewable energy is cheaper and, guess what? So many of them are putting solar panels on their roofs, sport! That's what they know. They understand economics better than you do, champ! They understand that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. You're a climate change denier who stands in the way of progress. You have done so for your entire time in this parliament, and you'll be called out for it! You're one of Dutton's deniers, who sit there and whinge about renewable energy, and you should be ashamed of your blocking of progress over the years. You've been a big part of the problem in this country for the last 20 years and I'm glad that you'll be nowhere near any policy responsibility anymore, and ever will be again! You've been a block on progress on climate change action in this country!
I'm going to address the matters raised by the honourable members in relation to electrification. I agree with most of what they said in this regard: the US Inflation Reduction Act is a very good thing for the planet. It's a massive investment in renewable energy generation, and it's good that the United States, which is one of the biggest emitters in the world, has stepped up to the plate after four years of denial. The Biden administration, to its credit, has got through their Senate a very substantial package. Again, it's one of the main things I talk about with my international colleagues—how we're going to respond to the Inflation Reduction Act. We have to see that it's an addition to investment in renewable energy, not a distortion of investment in renewable energy—that it actually adds to the capacity of the world and doesn't attract investment to the United States at the expense of others.
We're in a good position in Australia: because we have a free trade agreement with the United States, we have concessions under the Inflation Reduction Act which mean that processing of critical minerals and manufacturing in Australia are treated in a very similar way to what happens in the United States. That's a very good thing. Europe doesn't have that advantage. They do not have a free trade agreement with the United States. They are very concerned about that. That is a matter of public record. We will, and I will, continue to work with the United States, with Secretary Granholm and with Special Envoy Kerry, on making sure that Australia maximises its opportunities under the Inflation Reduction Act. That will continue to be a focus of the government.
Honourable members have raised electrification. That's a very important point. The Prime Minister and I have made it clear we are working on an electrification and energy efficiency package, the National Energy Performance Strategy. I have asked my assistant minister, Senator McAllister, who has a very fine policy brain, to take carriage of developing that package for recommendation to the government, and we will continue to do that work. What we want to do is provide choices to families. This is about choice.
The member for Indi said that the government doesn't want to mandate it. She's quite right: we will not mandate it. This is an attack invented by the opposition. There was an opposition member on a TV network in the evening a few weeks ago saying, 'Chris Bowen's plan is to break into your house and steal your gas cooktop.' I can confirm this is not accurate. I'm not qualified. I'm not a gas fitter. I can't do the work. I'm nowhere near adept enough. And it is not our policy. We actually believe in giving people choices, real choices, and helping them with those choices by financial support. With electric vehicles, for example, we want people on low incomes, medium incomes and high incomes to have the chance to buy an electric vehicle. We will not see them be the preserve of only those who are wealthy. We want to see everybody with the right to take them up, and our National Electric Vehicle Strategy will make big strides. I'm pleased that electric vehicle sales are up 87 per cent under this government. But we've got a lot more work to do, and we will continue to work on the packages and plans that we can put forward to the Australian people, while the opposition continue with their nattering negativism and their climate change denial. (Time expired)
I was the minister for electricity in Queensland when we had the cheapest electricity in the world, by a long way. We had a reserved resource policy, with the much-maligned Country Party Bjelke-Petersen government. You did not get the coal unless you gave us free coal for our power stations. That's a serious reserved resource policy. We didn't let them walk all over the top of us, so we had the cheapest power in the world. It was $674. The incoming ALP government continued that for three years and then signed up to the free market National Competition Policy agreement, and the price shot through the roof. So don't let the conservatives say that it was the Greens that put the price through the roof. It was the free marketeers that put the price through the roof.
But also don't let the lily pad lefties tell us that it was all the fault of the free market, because that's not true either, because it continued to rise. For 11 straight years it was $674. There was no justification for increasing it. When we had to build a new power station, I said, 'Beggar that; I'm not doing that and putting the price up,' so we decided we were going to put solar hot-water systems on every government house in Queensland, which meant I didn't have to build another power station. That's the history of Queensland. It went from $674 to $3,300 per user. If you are trying to find out what it is today, I wish you well. The last survey we took was of all of our staff and their relatives and how much each of them was paying, and it was over $3,000. They weren't paying $674. There is no justification for them paying more than $674.
Unlike everybody else in this House, I happen to know plenty about solar panels. I, in fact, was the first person in Australia to put a standalone system in, in the Torres Strait. The energy for the world came out of the opening ceremony, and I think we got the prize for science in that year—before most of you were born, 1983. But I'm a mining man, and I wanted to process and produce the solar panels here in Australia. But you must understand that your spirals separate—no energy required—but then you've got to put it under electromagnets on a conveyor belt, and they use a huge amount of electricity to clean the iron filings out. But then you've got to crush it. Silica is the second-hardest element on Earth. It's not a lot of fun to crush, I can tell you, and it's enormously costly in terms of energy and price. After you've crushed it, then you've got to smelt it. There's only one way we know on the planet to smelt. You have to have heat. Where do you get the heat from? You can get it from coal or you can get it from burning trees. I don't care what you do, but that's what you've got to do.
If you think you're going to save—and this is the magical answer, when they're only going to last 20 years. If you burn up all of that energy in producing them—well, it is a terrific solution for a new suburb up in the middle of nowhere. For Normanton, it is terrifically good. For the Torres Strait, it is terrifically good. But please don't see this as the answer. You're supposed to clean them every nine days and, really they should follow the sun every day. No panels that I know of in Australia track. They should but they don't. No-one cleans their panels, but they should. How often do you clean your windscreen? Once a fortnight you press a button and squirt water on your windscreen. That's what you should be doing to get your solar panels working properly.
I want a reduction because I represent the barrier reef, and there are very serious problems that will arise in the ocean if we increase CO2 at its present rate, but I honestly can't see a single thing that you are doing that will reduce emissions. If you think putting in solar panels is going to reduce emissions, I am sorry. I know what I'm talking about and I disagree with you. I disagree with you strongly. If you're talking about wind farms, yes, I'm a terrific supporter of the proposal in Newman. I'm most certainly not a supporter of putting them in the middle of the jungle in north Kelly.
Please listen to me. Mike Kelly was no fool. He was a colonel in the army and was Kevin Rudd's right-hand man. His family own and run Bega. They've been dairy farming this country for 260 years and they are knowledgeable people— (Time expired)
I'm grateful to the member for North Sydney for the topic of today's MPI debate. It's a really important conversation to have. It shouldn't really be a matter of debate that climate action and cost pressure relief are intimately connected. Sensible economic management and action on climate change are two sides of the same coin.
The Minister for Climate Change and Energy earlier was talking about the false duality and false dichotomy that took hold in this country, as perpetrated by those opposite, that taking action on climate change was somehow at odds with our best economic future. The reality is that those two things are intimately and inextricably connected. They go to the real trilemma that the minister talked about. We want lower prices when it comes to energy, we want more-secure and more-resilient energy systems and we want to reduce carbon emissions. The answer to all three of those things lies in the same direction. That's precisely why, eight months in, this government have taken a number of steps in that direction, and we have more ahead of us. It's why the Labor Party has been making that argument and taking actions of that kind, whenever it has had the chance, for almost all of the 21st century.
The part of the conversation we can't have on this topic in this House is best represented by all those empty benches opposite. Sadly, the Liberal and National parties still are in denial about the reality of climate change and about the true nature of the economic and energy system transformation that the globe is experiencing and that Australia has to be a part of. Without taking that kind of action, there is only going to be social, economic and environmental harm on a very significant scale, and Australia will be one of the countries most affected by every aspect of that—socially, economically and environmentally.
There are cost pressures in Australia right now. We all know that. It is worth thinking about who is at the sharpest end of those cost pressures. It is people on low and fixed incomes, typically younger people but also pensioners, single parents and people in outer metropolitan regions and in rural and regional Australia. That's why we are providing relief as part of what we are doing and we are undertaking broader policy and program repair.
An aspect of that is going particularly to those who are most affected. Within some of the programs we've mentioned, there's $100 million dedicated to ensuring that 25,000 low-income households receive access to solar energy. That's a big issue in Australia. We have seen record penetration of home solar, but it's mostly concentrated amongst those who are fortunate enough to own their own homes. People who are renters and particularly people in social housing haven't had the benefit of that technology, and we need to make measures to make sure they get to enjoy the cost benefits of solar energy and storage.
Similarly, we put $1.9 billion into the Powering the Regions Fund because we know that regional Australia needs that kind of investment because it will be especially affected by climate change and because those communities are generally among the lower socioeconomic communities in Australia. It's bizarre when you have their representatives in the National Party effectively, by their actions, seeking to condemn people in rural, regional and remote Australia to being second-class citizens when it comes to access to the cheapest, cleanest, most efficient form of energy.
The reality is that people are experiencing these cost-of-living pressures today because the coalition government was an economic basket case. Nine years with no national energy policy. Nine years of pretending climate change was some kind of bizarre international communist plot. Nine years of ignoring all of the evidence staring us in the face that supported what experts had been saying—that Australia was particularly vulnerable to extreme weather and that we had particular advantages to be gained and benefits to be achieved by getting on with being part of the renewable energy transition.
That's exactly what this government is going to do. Eight months in, we have legislated an improved target, we have dedicated funds through Rewiring the Nation and Powering the Regions, and we have introduced tax reductions when it comes to electric vehicles. All of those things in eight months. So I say to young Australians in particular—because there is a significant portion of the community that didn't get a chance to vote for this government but will get a chance to vote in elections to come—that they should be thinking about the direction we're going in and they should be voting in favour of the progress we are now making towards being a renewable energy superpower.
It's no secret that families across Australia are doing it tough. Inflation is running at close to eight per cent and interest rates are rising. Energy prices are a well-documented driver of this cost-of-living squeeze, with the average electricity price expected to rise by 23 per cent this year. Our reliance on expensive fossil fuels is the root cause of this. While the sun hasn't got more expensive and the wind hasn't got more expensive, coal and gas prices have skyrocketed because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and Australian families are paying the price.
The silver lining is that faster action on climate change can permanently lower power bills across the country. In Australia we are indeed the lucky country—lucky because we have access to the cheapest home electricity in the world, rooftop solar, which can deliver electricity prices as low as three cents per kilowatt hour. That means that electrifying our households and powering them with Australian sunshine is an unparalleled opportunity to address the cost-of-living crisis for good. By switching out expensive gas appliances for more efficient electric alternatives, like heat pumps and electric stovetops, Australian households could cut their energy use in half. If these appliances were powered by rooftop solar with a backup battery in the garage, the average household in my electorate could save over $3,000 per year on their energy bills. At the same time as saving money, they would also be going into zero emissions. Rewiring Australia's estimate is that if we could add that up across Australia's 10 million households, we could cut over 40 per cent of emissions in the domestic economy and save more than $300 billion between now and 2035. That's cost-of-living relief and great climate policy.
As the CEO of Sydney Renewable Power Company, I saw firsthand the impact that cheap rooftop solar can have on energy bills and emissions. There are so many examples from across my community in Wentworth, from Nick in Bondi, who electrified his house with solar and saw his power bills plummet as a result; to Bronte Public School, who now save $6,000 a year because of the 100-panel solar array on their roof. But to seize this opportunity we need government to make it easier to get off expensive gas and to make it easier for families to overcome the upfront costs of clean technologies.
In supporting household electrification, we need more than a one-size-fits-all policy that works for detached houses in the suburbs but doesn't provide support for those living in high-density urban areas, because people living in apartments and people who are renting—often young people—are most exposed to this fossil fuel price crisis. Finder's latest Consumer Sentiment Tracker shows that those in Gen Z and Gen Y face electricity bills that are up to 26 per cent higher than for those aged 60-plus. That's partly because, if you're a young person in an apartment, you probably don't have access to rooftop solar. If you're renting, you're reliant on your landlord to install it for you. If you're fortunate enough to own your own flat, perhaps you can't afford it, and, if you can, you're faced with a dizzying array of regulations when you try to get together with the strata committee to make that change. That's the situation facing many people in Wentworth, where 60 per cent of homes are apartments and 45 per cent are rented. Nearly 40 per cent of the adults are under 40. That same situation is facing nearly three million Australian households across the country who live in rental properties.
So the government needs to be ambitious in pursuing the electrification opportunity, and it needs to ensure that this is an opportunity available to all. May's budget is a chance to seize this opportunity. The government's budget package must include direct incentives for households to electrify, in the form of either concessionary finance or tax incentives. The government must broaden the remit of its existing solar banks program so that strata managers and owners corporations can access zero-interest loans to install shared solar on apartment rooftops, and it must kick off a process of regulatory reform to break the barriers facing renters who can't access rooftop solar, including developing a national framework to share power bill savings between landlords and renters. If the government is serious about climate and about cost-of-living relief, May's budget must be the time it seizes the electrification opportunity.
I rise in support of this matter of public importance. Indeed it is true that faster action on climate change is going to provide assistance to households when it comes to cost-of-living pressures both in the short term and, of course, in the long-term. I think it's worth noting that this government has indeed been taking faster action when it comes to climate change, at warp speed compared to the decade that we've come out of. I want to step through a few of the levels on which this has been undertaken.
The first is the big picture, the framework. This government undertook, as one of its first priorities, to set up a global framework so that our society and our economy can undertake the massive transition that they need to over the decades ahead. What did that look like? It looked like legislating a net-zero target by 2050, something the previous government had been unwilling to do. It looked like a 43 per cent target by 2030 in legislation. That was something that this economy needed. That was something that investors needed. So, at the highest level, our government, as an absolute priority, took action that was a decade too late.
This government has also, in doing that, provided certainty for investors. As everybody who knows about this challenge that our economy is facing knows, this is going to take a massive investment over a long period of time. It's going to take massive investment by government, by the private sector in this country and by international investors looking to Australia as an opportunity. I had the opportunity, while on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics last term, to talk to international investors from right around the globe, including BlackRock and international pension funds. They said to us that they wanted more certainty in Australia's regulatory environment. This is not some parochial or local issue. International investors were pointing the way, and this government, again belatedly, has provided that long-term signal to investors, and investors are now acting on that signal. As the minister indicated, investment is flowing into renewables.
We can also look at something that is already before the parliament, the safeguard mechanism, which is going to deal with something like 28 per cent of emissions and going to deal with over 200 of our largest emitters. As has been discussed already today and was a key focus in question time, this very parliament is going to need to deal with that particular reform. We need to strengthen the safeguard mechanism, and any parties in this chamber or in the other chamber that don't vote for it are going to be holding back this economy and holding back our society from making the transition that it needs to. All of the experts, the scientists, the business leaders, the investors—AIG, BCA, ACCI—all say the safeguard mechanism needs the reforms that this government is putting forward. As speakers on this side have indicated, those who vote against it will be held to account.
The third layer is that we are acting faster because the sooner you start in this massive task that we have to undertake as a country and as a globe, the better. All of the best modelling we can look at such as the Stern report, modelling by Ross Garnaut and all the integrated assessment models that combine economic modelling with the best science and climate modelling say that the longer you leave it, the harder the task becomes, the more painful it becomes for the environment, the more painful it becomes for households, and higher is the cost of the transition. All of the models agree on that. That is why wasting 10 years has been so bad for our economy, so bad for our society, so bad for our environment. Now we are where we are. We have wasted that decade because the previous government had its head in the sand. But we need to take action now and that is exactly what the government is doing.
The final thing I will talk about is that we need to fund appropriate mechanisms, whether it be investing in new technology—the CEFC—whether it be investing in rewiring the nation—so critical to enabling the massive investment in large-scale renewables—this government will be unlocking $20 billion for that massive investment. But it is even things like, at the local community level in regional areas, the $1 billion in the natural Disaster Ready Fund. That is significant. If we look at the Roma community, a massive reduction in insurance premiums is being enjoyed by the community after a levy was built to deal with the heightened risk of natural disasters. This government is putting $2 million a year into that. That will roll out and make a real difference in communities, not only protecting them but also reducing their insurance bills.
As this motion states, acting on climate change faster, which is exactly what this government is doing, is going to help households deal with cost-of-living pressures. We have already undertaken a lot of action, but there are things in front of this parliament right now that people in this chamber need to think about and vote for.
Faster action on climate change means no new coal and gas; that is a no-brainer. But it also means designing the infrastructure for the lives that we share, for the places we live, work and play to truly sustain life and reduce the costs to the planet and to people. We are in a climate crisis and a cost-of-living crisis. With good design, I believe we can tackle these dual challenges together, and some great opportunities present themselves.
Brisbane will be hosting the Olympics in 2032. The government often talks about the Olympics leaving a positive legacy. What a remarkable opportunity this would be to create, to demonstrate a model of an Australian sustainable city, a city that fosters sustainable living, affordability and access to housing, to public and active transport and to clean energy. There are so many great possibilities. For example, well-designed sustainable athletes' villages could, post Olympics, provide social and affordable housing that we so desperately need. Our public transport system could be upgraded to a better and wider service, providing good access for all on a free and frequent electrified network. We could create new green spines and link public parkland with major gathering places and shade trees to mitigate urban heat island effects and cool our ever-heating city. We could build neighbourhood clean energy hubs so all business premises and dwellings including rental properties could access clean energy. We could ensure that we optimise utilisation of existing sporting facilities, well connected with efficient public and active transport networks.
These are not radical propositions; they are sensible, value-for-money ideas. Other Olympic host cities have achieved long-term community benefit. That is what we need in Queensland to leverage this huge Olympic expenditure to provide a long-term positive legacy for our city and for people, not a short-term sugar hit boost to the development industry, who, I have to say, are salivating over the opportunities for them.
There are many examples of unnecessary works that will neither assist the community nor progress the sustainability of the city. The most contentious is the Gabba, the planned centrepiece stadium. We know that the main principles of sustainable resources are reduce, re-use and recycle, and it's very concerning that the current plan is to demolish an existing 40,000-seat stadium to build a new 48,000-seat stadium. If the federal government progresses with plans to help fund this, the community will lose out, with the tragic loss, for example, of the adjacent East Brisbane State School and Raymond Park. Spending $2.5 billion for 8,000 extra seats for a two-week sporting event, with the loss of a school and park, does not stack up. This is not value for money; in fact, it's a hugely irresponsible waste of public funds at a time when schools and hospitals across the country are suffering from chronic underfunding, public transport is not up to scratch and we have a cost-of-living and housing crisis. And the government is still insisting on $250 billion worth of stage 3 tax cuts for the wealthy. That's bad business, that's poor planning, and there has been no consultation.
There's speculation in the media now that there might be a plan to ring fence this project from federal funds so that the federal government can distance itself while throwing money at the Olympics. If true, that's an admission that the federal government knows this is a bad deal, so why not share this reasoning with the people of Queensland or, better yet, use the Olympic funding to leverage good, sustainable design to benefit the community and the climate? The community does have a right to know what's going on, and that's why the Senate has ordered the government to tell us.
A remarkable opportunity presents itself right now to deal with these dual and interrelated crises of climate change and cost of living through clever design, creating sustainable, accessible cities and environments. Australia is a wealthy country with abundant natural resources and we are well placed to do this, so let's harness our collective will and our hearts and smarts to design the best solutions. Our very future depends on it.
LAND () (): What we have here today—and I thank the member for North Sydney—is a really sensible and important topic for this parliament to discuss. It is one, I think, that shows we have moved beyond the damage and destruction that unfortunately have characterised conversations around energy in this country for the last decade, which has been a real shame. Here we can see that it is possible in this parliament, under the Albanese Labor government, for us to take action on energy prices and relieve cost-of-living pressures on households as well as to make meaningful investments for the future in renewable energy. We've seen such action from this government already, only eight months in, and what a difference it has made. Not only are households now having some of the sting removed from the hit they've faced due to the war in Ukraine; they're also seeing historic investment in renewable energy.
I would ask those opposite to reflect on whose interests they are serving when they stand in the way of help for households at a really difficult time for many in terms of cost-of-living pressures, and when we don't have much time to take meaningful action on climate change. Everything we've put forward that is sensible, that helps people, has been opposed by those opposite, even after they had the opportunity over the last decade to do something good for this country. It is unbelievable. Not only have they stood in the way of meaningful action on climate change and on the rising costs of energy that we're seeing in the short term; they're also refusing to invest in the technologies of the future through the National Reconstruction Fund. On numerous occasions in this place I've urged those opposite to reconsider their opposition. I do so again. I urge them to think about the best interests of this country, because that's what we on this side of the House are doing. This is an invitation for them to join us and show that some things are above politics. Rebuilding this country, making sure that we protect this planet, making sure that households don't have to experience the kinds of pressures they have been—those things should be above politics. Those things should be the very reason any of us decides to enter this place.
I think every Australian—certainly the Australians in my electorate of Chisholm—expects and deserves better. That's the message we received on 21 May—that people expect and deserve better. I think of all the different groups in my electorate of Chisholm—the community groups, the tomorrow movement and the youth activists, the local branch of the ACF and the baby boomers for climate action. I think of all those groups I have met with over the last 18 months. It's been a real pleasure to hear such support for the Albanese Labor government's plan to do something about climate change.
We are investing in Rewiring the Nation. That's going to make sure we have better energy in this country. That will drive down prices, too, because we know, as we have heard time and time again from the minister and on this side of the House, clean energy is the cheapest form of energy. We are already seeing record renewables since we have been in government. In the fourth quarter of last year we produced almost 20 per cent of total generation in the grid from wind and grid-scale solar. That is something we as a country should be very proud of. We should be very excited about it.
But these things don't just happen. They happen because governments decide to do the right thing and decide not to just play cheap politics with things as important as our planet's future and the future of our communities. This is not short-term thinking from this government. Yes, we took action in the short term to relieve some of the pressures from energy prices on families, but we are doing what really matters in the long term, too, to make sure we have a long, better future.
Fast action on climate change is one of the most effective ways of insulating households against rising costs of living. By 2030, Australian families could save $5,000 per year by replacing current cars with EVs, switching their natural gas heating systems to electric heat pumps and furnishing their electricity with solar from their rooftops. If this shift is embraced now, we could keep track of emissions trajectories in line with our commitment to the Paris Agreement. The largest portion of our domestic emissions comes from our households, some 42.2 per cent.
In the US, the Inflation Reduction Act dedicates a great proportion of the funding available to electrification of households and development of technology. We know that the EU is also working on similar legislation. Australia needs to match these commitments with government initiatives to bring down the cost of living, address climate change and drive economic growth through the transition. We have heard quite a few excuses and mitigating words, but we haven't seen that commitment. That's what needed because it takes time. Let's get real: there is a race on. The rest of the world is racing with the US around attracting investment and making sure they have that share and are involved in that process of electrifying households. We are simply going to be left behind if we stick with just the current policies. We must do this.
We know that there are emerging global supply chains that we need to be part of. If members of the government want to talk about the National Reconstruction Fund then that has to be part of the emerging global supply chains around electrifying households. When I asked the Prime Minister about this in question time a few weeks ago, he blustered that he won't mandate for households what they use. Let's be real: no-one is talking about mandating. We are talking about leadership and incentivising. To be clear, governments from both sides were already mandating households through building codes. They mandate a connection to gas. It costs great amounts for households to get off a gas connection. So let's be really clear to the Australian public about what is actually being mandated at the moment.
We know green building standards are desperately needed here. We know inefficient infrastructure accounts for a significant proportion of Australia's emissions. We need to improve building standards to maximise efficiency of household insulation and energy systems. State governments have started to step up to create a sustainable built environment. We know that 50 per cent of the building stock that we will have in 2050 will be built between now and 2050. So our building codes are incredibly relevant to the standard of household and residential stock we have by 2050. The other half of that building stock is existing now and so urgently needs retrofitting, and that is part of what we're urging the government to do. The ACT government is about to mandate that all new homes must meet minimum standards for roof insulation, and it has already passed legislation to prevent new homes being connected to gas. I urge other governments to follow suit. The lack of standardisation across all states is preventing substantial gains in reduction of our national emissions. We need to mandate improved thermal performance in all new homes as a national standard. That would be a highly effective way of creating a more sustainable urban environment.
We need to at least halve our emissions by 2030. Let's get real: the 43 per cent that was legislated by the government is a minimal political standard. If we want a hope of sticking to 1.5 degrees, we need to at least halve our emissions by 2030. To do that, we can electrify household appliances and machines and pair this with the production of clean electricity to power them, with a clear road map to emissions reduction and a safer climate.
Over time we know we can assist households with the absolutely rising costs of living through doing this. So, whilst we have this debate in the media and accusations towards the Reserve Bank, there is an action the government can take. You can take our policy that will reduce inflation and assist households with costs of living. We must electrify homes, and that is an investment of some $12 billion, but it will pay off. And we need to invest in storage. I'll be introducing a private member's bill to mandate a REST—a renewable energy storage target. Do you know that, if we provide batteries for one in five households that have rooftop solar, we will already achieve 30 per cent of our storage needs? So there are solutions, we can do it, but we do need political will from the government.
The cost of living has increased significantly in recent years, and these pressures continue to burden households across our great nation. Many families are struggling to keep up with the rising cost of essential goods and services, including energy. Energy prices are a significant contributor to this problem, and it is essential that we take action to address this issue.
As we all know, energy prices have been steadily increasing over the past year, due to circumstances that occur once in a generation, and nearly a decade of the coalition's incompetence. This has put a significant strain on household budgets. In fact, families in my electorate of Holt and across the country have been forced to choose between heating their homes, putting food on the table or paying their bills. I am proud to support a government that is fully across the difficulties faced by everyday Australians and that has been proactive in tackling these challenges.
Since being elected seven months ago, the Albanese Labor government has put the task of easing cost-of-living pressures at front and centre of its priorities in the immediate future. Families having it tough, like many in my electorate, want a solution which will help them meet the cost of the next billing cycle and the billing cycles after that. Energy companies have the responsibility to provide affordable energy to consumers. However, it is clear that the pricing model that was in place was not working for most households.
As elected representatives, we have a duty to hold energy companies to account and to ensure that we are acting in the best interests of consumers. This means working with stakeholders across the sector to find ways to reduce energy costs and pass on these lower costs to consumers. By taking urgent action to shield Australian families and businesses from the worst of these energy price spikes, by introducing our energy price relief plan, the Albanese Labor government has taken a significant step towards this goal. The plan limits coal and gas prices, provides targeted energy bill relief for households and businesses, and invests in cleaner and cheaper and more reliable energy for the future. Treasury analysis demonstrates that the large electricity price increases forecast by the energy market for 2023 have dropped significantly since the announcement of the plan, including by 34 per cent in my home state of Victoria. This is a sign that the government's policy will help in sheltering consumers from the worst of the price increases that were forecast.
Our focus on delivering immediate price relief for Australian families is supplemented by this government's unwavering focus on increasing the share of renewables within this country's energy mix. Renewable energy is receiving record high investment under the Albanese Labor government, and for good reason. Not only is it better for the environment but also it can be significantly cheaper than traditional fossil fuel sources. By investing in renewable energy we can help to lower energy prices and reduce the cost of living for families across the country. Not only is renewable energy good for the environment but also it will help to stabilise energy prices in the long run. It is a long-term solution to the issue and, as the technology improves, it will become more cost-effective.
Renewable energy is the future, and I am proud the Albanese Labor government has been prioritising investment in renewables from the beginning of its term. This will not only help to ease the cost-of-living pressures on households but also secure our energy future. Australians know that higher power prices are a direct result of a year of Russian aggression and the coalition's aversion to investing in renewable energy. It is unfortunate that the coalition continue to make the same mistake in opposition by voting to make power bills for families hundreds of dollars higher than they need to be. Thankfully, adults are in charge. I am very confident Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, will continue to deliver people-friendly policies for people across this nation.
The discussion has now concluded.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to speak on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and the two associated bills, which, for simplification, I'll refer to generally as the housing bill. During the election campaign last year in my electorate of Hughes, the biggest issue was the cost of living. The second-biggest issue was housing affordability. This was a priority and concern for young people as well as for their parents and their grandparents, concerned that their children and their grandchildren would be unable to purchase or even rent a home of their own within my electorate.
In my first speech in this place, I spoke of my commitment to addressing housing affordability. My policy framework around this issue arises from my personal ideology as well as lessons learnt from a 25-year legal career spent in planning, property and environmental law, working both for and in the private and public sectors. Ideologically, my commitment to liberalism, civilised capitalism, unleashes the power of the individual and their enterprise while always providing a safety net for those who, despite their best efforts, are unable to cope. This applies to my approach on housing policy.
At the federal government level, we need to facilitate an environment where we as a country deliver broader housing choices and a system that provides greater security of tenure such as longer-term leases for our most vulnerable, many of whom are Australian children and our returned veterans. The greater the number of Australians that own their own home, the greater the ability of governments to facilitate social and emergency housing.
Having spent my former career working in and around the housing sector—including in local government, which is at the coalface of development of planning policy—I say: as well-intentioned as this bill may well be, it will not address the housing crisis. It is unlikely to deliver a single extra dwelling in Australia. This housing bill is not a $10 billion pledge to build houses. This is not a bill to house Australians. This is a bill that establishes a fund. The bill is proposing that the proceeds from the fund will enable the federal government to build 30,000 new houses. It proposes an additional $330 million for ongoing maintenance and repair of acute housing for Indigenous Australians, victims of family violence and veterans.
Again, this sounds like a solution to the crisis. However, it is far from it. First, there is the failure to define key terms in the bill. What is the definition of 'social housing'? What is the definition of 'affordable housing'? What is the definition of 'acute housing'? The bill also omits a major part of the housing affordability problems. It leaves out private homeownership—ways that the federal government can influence, empower and incentivise private homeownership. On the housing continuum, as more Australians own their own home they move out of the private rental market, which in turn frees up supplies for others to move into this space—therefore allowing more resources to be directed to social and emergency housing. Widespread ownership reduces wealth inequality, improves mental health and childhood outcomes, reduces extremism and provides stability for democratic institutions.
Australia's rate of homeownership has been declining since the baby boomer generation bought their homes. At the moment, homeownership amongst Australians under the age of 40 is at levels not seen since 1947. Being able to afford a home is becoming harder and harder for younger Australians. Leaving private homeownership out of its housing policy means the Labor government has failed to understand the way the housing sector in this country works. After nine months in office, the government's housing agenda is in tatters.
On the face of it, allocating $10 billion to build houses sounds like a solution to Australia's housing crisis. The proposition, however, is that the government first borrows the $10 billion, invests that $10 billion and then uses any return on investment to assist with housing. Of course, the underlying assumption is that the interest gained will be greater than the interest paid. This is lazy and irresponsible economics. The fund provides no certainty as to future returns. It is wholly reliant on the financial performance of the fund's investments in equities and other financial products. Furthermore, increased government borrowing will only add to inflationary pressures in the economy, leading again to higher interest rates. In fact, the IMF has already warned the government that the proliferation of such funds should always be avoided. This is economic trickery and lazy policymaking. It is a fictitious revenue scheme. It does not represent real spending on housing. These are the reasons that I do not support this bill.
Furthermore, the government has not addressed the underlying issues around housing affordability. It is disappointing that the Labor government has been intellectually lazy and, by these bills, demonstrated its failure to understand the drivers behind housing in Australia; its failure to understand how the various state planning systems feed into the national system; and its failure to empower local governments to deliver at a local level. After nine months, the government's housing policy demonstrates that it is bereft of ideas and unable to even commence the process to address our housing shortage.
The Labor government had the opportunity to develop sound policy based on the recent report of the parliamentary inquiry into housing affordability and supply in Australia. Headed The Australian dream, the report identified the underlying issues leading to housing affordability. They are: a lack of supply of housing stock; oppressive state and local planning restrictions, as well as taxes; and the difficulty—indeed, almost the impossibility—for most first-home buyers in Australia to save the deposit. The recommendations that came out of the report were considered, clear and concise. They've set forward a clear path for a good policy to be developed for housing affordability. In that regard, I commend the speech earlier today in this place by the member for Sturt, who sat on that committee.
Australia has more usable land than any other continent in the world outside of the penguins of the South Pole. We have one of the least densely populated countries in the world, with some of the highest average weekly earnings and one of the highest minimum wages in the world. Housing should be easily accessible and affordable. However, with an underlying lack of supply of land, housing has become almost impossible for many Australians.
The federal government can and should incentivise state and local governments to increase urban density in appropriate locations using an empowered community framework such as those which are being rolled out throughout Europe. State and local governments can create more density in appropriate locations—specifically those well serviced by underused transport infrastructure. This should be done by allowing local communities to negotiate for higher densities in return for better infrastructure and more convenience and in a way that protects and preserves the character of surrounding areas. The objective of policies such as these is to ensure that communities are open to higher-density experience, an uplift in value and improved infrastructure.
Planning policies also need to be addressed. The federal government can provide incentive payments to state and local governments to encourage the adoption of better planning and property administration policies. Cutting through the red tape of planning is essential for the provision of more dwellings. Some analysis has shown that, in some places in Australia, planning restrictions are responsible for up to 67 per cent of the cost of housing. Analysis from Finland has shown that increasing housing supply benefits those on low incomes the most. Flexible planning systems like those in Texas are driving economic growth through lower levels of traffic congestion and more efficient allocation of how land is used. This has led to companies such as Tesla, Facebook and Intel leaving California for Texas. Planning reforms in Tokyo saw homelessness reduced by 80 per cent over 10 years, while highly regulated planning systems in San Francisco have seen the emergence of tent cities with people who cannot find homes. There is, therefore, abundant evidence that planning restrictions substantially boost the cost of housing. The federal government has the tools available to incentivise state and local governments to introduce and implement better planning policies. That was, again, an opportunity lost in this housing bill.
Land use policy is primarily the responsibility of state and local governments. Nevertheless, the Australian government can and should play a useful role in coordination, guiding and improving incentives to other governments. Specifically it should provide financial assistance to state and local governments to encourage better planning policy as well as administration of that policy. We should reward better planning policy administration—for example, the streamlining of approvals or bringing infrastructure contributions in line with social costs such as value capture and sharing. Government policy could institute a grant system that pays states and localities for delivering more housing supply and affordable housing. Grants could be in the form of cash or infrastructure. Again, this has been a missed opportunity in this legislation.
Local and state taxes and charges are passed on to home purchasers. This is substantially increasing the cost of housing. In New South Wales they are inappropriately called 'developer contributions'. They are not paid for by developers. They are, however, just a tax imposed on a first home buyer or a home purchaser. The largest barrier to entry for young Australians is saving for the deposit. On all the various measures, the time it takes a worker on an average wage to save for a deposit has increased, from a period that could be measured in months to one that can now be measured in decades.
The Labor government has again missed an opportunity in its housing policy and bill—to allow first home buyers to use their superannuation balance as collateral for a home, without using the funds themselves as a deposit. This again was one of the very sensible recommendations from the Australian dream report, which has been wilfully ignored by this government. The greater the number of Australians that own their own home, the greater the ability of governments to facilitate social and emergency housing. The intention of this bill may be to facilitate social and emergency housing; however, for all of the reasons I've just outlined, it will not.
What has always happened in the housing space is that, when a government has an intention to fund social and affordable housing, it sets up a program, funds that program and then, through recurrent expenditure, funds whatever it is it wants to fund. That is not what is being done here. This is a blatant attempt to try to keep this fund off the budget's bottom line. In that being done, there is absolutely no certainty that any money will ever—certainly not in this term of government—go to the intended recipients.
I have outlined many alternatives available to the federal government if it wishes to apply some intellectual rigour to addressing the housing affordability crisis through real and practical solutions. The government, through its housing policy and these bills, has demonstrated that it does not. This is a fiscally irresponsible bill. It may be well intentioned; however, it is lazy economics and will not produce the outcomes that it seeks. For the reasons stated, I oppose this bill.
PENDER () (): I'm pleased that we're dealing with the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills today. Though I have some concerns with the way the government is approaching this, I'm glad that the parliament will be doing more to support those who rely on affordable and social housing.
My own community in Wentworth is one where the cost of housing is forcing many people and families out of the area. This includes many people who are not able to work and who rely on government support, and also many people who work in the area. It genuinely saddens me that some teachers at our schools, nurses in our hospitals and health clinics, and defence personnel at HMAS Watson and the Victoria Barracks aren't able to live where they want to in our electorate. I recently met with Kate Timmins from the B Miles Women's Foundation. This is a foundation that helps prevent women from falling into homelessness and helps resolve and prevent homelessness. She told me heartbreaking stories of nurses in my electorate who are sleeping in cars or sleeping in caves—it's hard to believe, but this has actually happened in this local area—because they cannot afford to pay their rent. It is absolutely catastrophic and a terrible blight our community.
I welcome this bill and I hope that it does is much good as the minister promises. But, as I said, I do have some concerns, particularly with regard to off-budget spending. This concern is not limited to the Housing Australia Future Fund; it also relates to National Reconstruction Fund and the Rewiring the Nation fund, which collectively account for $45 billion in public money that will be invested and expended off-budget. It relates to the existing off-budget investment vehicles, including the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Northern Australia Investment Facility and the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific.
While there may be legitimate policy reasons for an entity to sit outside the Commonwealth budget, it is also legitimate that there are appropriate standards of transparency, oversight and accountability in place. I believe that the existing standards are inadequate and it would be preferable if action were taken in this parliament to establish a joint committee which would oversee off-budget spending, approve new off-budget vehicles, and ensure these organisations are operating efficiently and reporting effectively, and that appropriate appointments are made to boards and executive positions. I believe a committee like this would improve the accountability of off-budget entities and raise the unfortunately low standards of oversight and transparency that we have for them.
I also want to emphasise that action on affordable housing is not the same as action on housing affordability. Affordability is an issue of deep concern to Australians right across the country now, from Wentworth to Wanneroo. It's a concern that young people never know if they will ever be able to afford their own homes. I was walking up the street the other day in Wentworth and a young man approached me. We were talking about his circumstances, the election and things, and he said that he and his partner were moving overseas. They had well-paying jobs, but they just did not believe, even with a dual income and well-paying jobs, that they could ever buy a house in the area they wanted to live in, and they felt there were greater opportunities in the USA. These are people actually working for the public sector, in jobs that make a real difference to the area. It's not just the young people who are concerned about this; I hear this as much from parents and grandparents who are concerned that their children and grandchildren will not have the same opportunities as they did when they were growing up.
The sad truth is that we have seen very little substantive action on housing affordability by either major party for many years. It is not because this industry was complex or because there is uncertainty about the right policies or instruments. We know what the problems are. We have known for many years, and it's not complicated. If the number of people wanting to buy homes increases faster than the number of homes available does, the prices will rise. If that problem persists over years and decades, as it has, then homes will be ever less affordable. The economic and social consequences of this are varied and extend well beyond homeownership. It means that young people must save for longer to afford a deposit, mortgages are larger, and households are more sensitive to changes in interest rates. There is also convincing evidence that people defer having a family until they have secured a deposit and a home. They are less likely to have children, and those who do tend to have smaller families. Australia's falling fertility rate is of real concern to anyone who thinks about the long-term future of our country, and limited housing is one of the most important drivers.
Expensive housing also means that people are less willing to change jobs if it means a long commute or having to sell the family home or relocate to another city or state. People are giving up opportunities for higher wages, and our economy is forgoing to benefits of greater productivity because housing is simply too expensive.
It also means people are less willing to take a chance and start a new business, even if they've got a great idea, because it's just too risky when you need to service a large mortgage. People put it off. They say they'll pursue their dream once their mortgage is paid down and they're in a better financial position. Those that take the next step and explore the financials of establishing a new business are often deterred when they see the cost of commercial and industrial space. It's not just residential real estate that is eye-wateringly expensive. It's no wonder that Australia's rate of startups is so much lower than it should be.
Expensive housing also means that a great number of people aren't able to live where they want to live. Lots of Australians work in CBDs but live outside the CBDs and have long daily commutes. Sometimes that is a choice; people want to live near their families or near the beach, or want an acreage. But often it is not. Long commutes are carbon intensive. Urban sprawl is carbon intensive. The infrastructure to support communities spread out over huge suburban areas is carbon intensive. Forcing people to live further away from where they want to be has awful consequences for our environment.
And expensive housing produces inequality. Those Australians whose parents own a home, whose parents let them live rent free while saving for a deposit or whose parents run a 'bank of mum and dad' all have a tremendous generational advantage. It's an advantage that works against people who are smart, hardworking and talented but don't have the financial backing that some others do, and, when they're bidding for the same properties, it can make the difference between who wins and who loses.
This has been a long list, but I think it's vitally important to recognise that housing affordability is one of the most important issues facing our country, and the answer to this problem is, on balance, more supply. I agree with those who say that state and local governments are more directly responsible for alleviating supply constraints than the federal government. That is true. But it's also true that they're not acting, in many cases, and those who are acting aren't doing it fast enough, which is why we want the federal government to take a leadership role on this.
I commend the government for the Housing Accord because I think this is absolutely a step in the right direction, but I want the government to go further. It should provide significant financial incentives to encourage other levels of government to adopt policies that grow the housing pipeline, especially in areas of high demand and closer to links, with walkable streets, cycleways and public transport. It should work with the states to remove taxes that stop housing mobility, such as stamp duty, and replace that tax with land tax, which would be more efficient and more effective and a better way of ensuring that people can move between housing, which is so important for labour mobility. And it needs to raise its ambition in terms of the number of houses that need to be built in this country, because one million houses is absolutely not enough. It's a big number, but if we are going to get to an OECD average of houses or dwellings per thousand people then we need to have more houses—and we need to be building more houses. That is how we will create long-term affordable housing.
The productivity benefits of this would be enormous and largely, if not entirely, offset the fiscal impact. I believe the Treasurer should also ask the Productivity Commission to undertake an inquiry into what supply policies would have the largest impact and what the potential financial implications would be.
The failures in housing are a drag on population growth, a drag on economic growth, a drag on labour mobility, a drag on innovation, a major driver of our carbon-intensive travel and an intractable source of inequality within and across generations. Now is the time to act.
With rapidly rising interest rates, housing affordability is an issue on everyone's mind—of all generations. People in my electorate of Warringah are feeling the pinch, with huge mortgages and expensive rents. The nine consecutive interest rate rises are biting families in my electorate and in many areas around Australia. This has a huge impact throughout society. The string of natural disasters intensified by the climate crisis over the last few years has exacerbated housing stress, making the need for urgent housing support clear. With recession looming and inflation rising, adding to cost-of-living concerns, the issue of social and affordable housing is becoming increasingly acute.
In Sydney, in the last 12 months, average rents have increased by 10.2 per cent. There are 500 homeless people in Warringah and 1,300 in need of social housing. Nearly 120,000 Australians are without a home every night. Support networks on the Northern Beaches are overwhelmed by the influx of people needing housing assistance. As a result, they're finding it hard to rehouse people on the beaches and are relocating some people to areas where they lose their family and community support systems, which compounds the trauma of becoming unhoused. The median weekly rent in Warringah is just so high that it really has an enormous impact.
So what this bill does—and I welcome the government's initiative with this bill—is going to have some effect. But I worry about its efficacy in providing the level of support that constituents and other Australians need. I commend the efforts of the government in securing the support of the states and territories in implementing this reform and the commitment from the private sector to make contributions to the fund. However, I question whether the direct investment from government will be sufficient to derive the scale of returns expected. A recent independent review conducted by the Australian government found that an investment of around $290 billion would be required over the next two decades to meet the shortfall in housing options. This bill creates a $10 billion fund, the objective of which is to build 20,000 social and 10,000 affordable homes over the next five years. It will also provide $200 million for maintenance and repair of Indigenous housing and $100 million for crisis accommodation and domestic violence housing.
Beyond this, there is a strategy to address broader needs in the housing system and change the government's housing bodies in Australia. There are some concerns, nevertheless. There are integrity concerns with this bill, regarding the independence of the Housing Australia board. There are also concerns about the funding model, which only provides for outright grants, leaving it subject to rorting. We need the governance of the fund to be truly independent and keep the grant money directed to where it's needed most. While there is an obvious need in electorates with lower socioeconomic profiles than, for example, Warringah, I would remind the government of the need to support those providing essential services in electorates with higher-priced property markets, which prohibit service providers such as nurses, teachers and childcare workers from living and working in those areas.
On local advocacy, I'd like to pay tribute to a constituent of mine who has deep personal experience with homelessness and is now a vocal advocate in this space. Sarah's story emphasises the need for investment in this space to drive an increase in productivity across the economy. Sarah was one of the 100 children and other people who appeared before the Burdekin inquiry into youth homelessness in the late 1980s. She was homeless between the ages of 14 and 22. The events that led her to homelessness had a dramatic effect on her life trajectory. She wrote:
I didn't finish high school and haven't had the same career options that my high-school peers had, which limited me to low paying jobs, when I was eventually able to overcome enough of the trauma to even get a job. Being in low paying jobs has left me in housing stress, which has directly impacted on my productivity and participation as an adult, and left me at risk of multiple points of re-entry into homelessness. One of them has been, due to domestic violence my children and I were left at risk of homelessness at the end of 2018.
She frequently compares herself to a classmate at school who is now a minister of the New South Wales government. Sarah believes that, were it not for the trauma and homelessness she suffered in her early years, her trajectory and opportunities would have been vastly different, and it's very hard to dispute that. Sarah's story of overcoming the pain of homelessness underscores the fact that having access to a safe and stable home is a human necessity. Her white paper, which she shared with government in advance of the Jobs and Skills Summit last year, outlines many of the solutions that have been proposed in this legislation. So I'm incredibly proud of her advocacy and her courage in telling her story in a compelling and direct way.
We do have other issues to tackle and other policy solutions. I've met with various groups, including the Constellation Project, where one of my constituents is representing the lived experience of homeless people in a collaborative approach to solving homelessness. The project is being driven by the Australian Red Cross, the Centre for Social Impact, Mission Australia and PwC Australia, seeking innovative approaches to addressing the issue. They are advocating the creation of more homes through a variety of methods, including the development of mandatory inclusion zoning, which mandates that new developments must factor in a proportion of affordable housing to address supply. While the minister may claim that this is a state issue, I would argue that the funding agreements attached to this fund could drive improvements in zoning laws and development approvals. I would also urge the government to consider an emphasis on driving efficiency and the electrification of households through this fund. We know that addressing these issues drives down the cost of living in power bills, and those in social and affordable housing are the least able to make the investment required to lower their cost-of-living costs through electrification.
Another group doing great work in my electorate are Social Ventures Australia. They have argued for a doubling of the rate of Commonwealth rent assistance to provide a higher rate of return to affordable housing developers. This could also be a targeted measure to address groups at greatest risk of homelessness, such as women over 55, who are the fastest-growing group in this category. We really should pause and consider that, because it is shameful on all of us that that generation of carers that have given so much as mothers or as wives or partners and as daughters are left as the fastest-growing group in our society facing homelessness. It's quite outrageous. Adopting the measures and special consideration of housing for women over 55 is incredibly important. Some of these measures will also lift up and provide support to those who are so vulnerable and have difficulty accessing the housing market.
I have been told by a number of service providers one of the barriers to entry to even just a rental market is often being able to access the rental bond. If someone has been homeless, they may find themselves in a position to meet rent obligations but not able to meet a rental bond, so looking outside the box, starting to think about more and additional policies to assist people breaking that cycle of homelessness is incredibly important.
There are so many issues that really need addressing beyond this bill when it comes to housing affordability and access to affordable housing. We have a rental crisis in Australia. There are communities around the country that simply do not have any accessible properties for rent. We also have a situation where the common norm is very short rental periods. We don't have a system like other countries, like in Europe, where you may have long-term rents or you have more rental protections. This is something the government does need to look at as well, to be able to create some housing security for so many vulnerable people in our community.
So I support this bill but I urge the government to guarantee the integrity of the board—it must be independent—and ensure the transparency of funding agreements. Again, after too many programs have been rorted, it is imperative that this be a program that is not rorted. I urge the government to leverage the funding agreements to drive improvements in the quality of housing that we're talking about—housing electrification—and drive mandatory inclusion zoning in developments. There are many more tools to improve access to affordable housing in Australia.
Our government believes that every Australian deserves the security of a roof over their head. It's something that's essential to people's quality of life. We know that a home to call your own, whether or not you own it, is about more than just a place to sleep. It gives you confidence, a sense of stability, a feeling of connection to your community. I know that because I've lived it. My journey to this place and to the high office that I hold in part began with the council housing I lived in, where my mother was born in 1936. My family were the first inhabitants and had moved in some years earlier when they were built. The Sydney City Council changed hands, conservatives got control and tried to sell our home where my mum was born and where she died after 65 years in the one home. I got involved in a campaign there in Camperdown with local residents; I was still at school. We collected a petition, we had a rent strike and we organised to defend what was our home. Then on Pyrmont Bridge Road, in Camperdown, it was the only housing of any sort anywhere near that area. Opposite was the children's hospital. On one corner was the Weston's biscuit factory. On the other corner was Grace Bros storage. At the back was McNulty's, a foundry. It was an industrial and health district. Just around the corner—and people who read this in Hansard will have to ask someone older what this is!—was something called Kodak. That is why I support this legislation. Without public housing, without that security and that sense of community which was there, I wouldn't be here.
I announced that our government would create the Housing Australia Future Fund in my budget reply in May 2021, when opposition leaders actually came out with policies and positive agendas. So more than a year before the election we outlined this policy. Our plan to build 30,000 social and affordable homes was an important part of our campaign for government. It was at the heart of the positive change that Australians voted for. The government has a clear mandate to establish the Housing Australia Future Fund. Just as importantly, the nation has a clear need for it. Not only will this legislation create the fund; it will also create an important reform, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, which I announced on that night as well.
How do we work with state and territory governments, with local government, to open up the supply of housing to deal with land release and land issues? How do we make sure, when we do that, that infrastructure comes before, not after? That happens all too often as our suburbs spread, and we don't give thought to the need for schools and health facilities and recreational facilities in all those communities. In the northern suburbs of Perth, in the Pearce electorate, where I was just last week with the member for Pearce, there is a great example of a railway station being built with a pool as part of the facilities, with offices and housing around, before the community are living around there—best practice by the McGowan government. I want to see that replicated around the country.
This piece of legislation shouldn't be seen in isolation. It's about how our cities function and how our regions function. It's about how this will work with the National Housing Accord we've come up with, working with the Master Builders Association, working with others. It's about, as well, the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement that will be negotiated between the Commonwealth and the states and territories.
I've seen some figures plucked out of the air for how many houses should be built, as if there's not a Commonwealth state housing agreement, as if states and territories aren't doing anything either by themselves or, in future, with the cooperation of a federal government. It works, as well, with the National Housing and Homelessness Plan that the government will be putting in place, with the $100 million we've put in place for emergency housing.
I say to the whole of this parliament—the crossbenchers as well as those opposite in the aptly titled opposition: you should think through the implications behind opposing this legislation because it's beyond my comprehension how you can do that. There is a national need for more affordable housing. There's a need to help frontline workers live closer to where they work. There's a clear and urgent national need for more safe housing for women and children fleeing violent homes. This policy of quarantining 4,000 of these homes works with the 500 additional community service workers we've announced as well, as well as for emergency housing. Why that would be opposed is beyond my comprehension.
Tonight, like every night, women's crisis services across Australia will have to tell women, and perhaps women with children, fleeing partners who are violent that they simply cannot accommodate them. They'll be forced to sleep in their car or, worse, go back to a dangerous situation. When we've seen tragedy hit and women lose their lives I've sometimes heard the statement made, 'Why didn't they leave that relationship?' Because quite often they had nowhere to go, and that is a hard truth.
Passing this legislation will provide 4,000 homes built for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence and for older women on low incomes at risk of homelessness. It will provide a $100 million investment in crisis and transitional housing. It will provide $30 million to build housing and fund specialist services for veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. It has been reported that a survey done in Sydney showed that one in 10 people sleeping rough on the streets of Sydney have worn the uniform of our great nation. They deserve better than that. We need to do better than that.
We also have to do better for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in remote communities, who currently endure some of the worst housing standards in the world. Passing this legislation will deliver $200 million to repair, improve and maintain housing in remote Indigenous communities.
This is the opportunity that the Housing Australia Future Fund represents—more affordable housing for frontline workers, more housing stock for the nation, more safe accommodation for women fleeing family violence, more support for veterans at risk of homelessness and more investment in remote communities. But let's be clear that, in order for that to happen, this legislation has to pass the House of Representatives and has to pass the Senate. The parliament isn't a debating society. It's not a consequence-free environment, and people need to be held to account. You're determined to vote against this and somehow say that this is a defeat for the government. It's not; it's a defeat for people who need a secure roof over their head.
I've heard people say—and I've seen some figures bandied around—'Why not commit $5 billion a year rather than $500 million a year?' I say: 'Why stop there? Why not $50 billion, $500 billion or $1 trillion?' Because it's just a fantasy.
The member for Griffith will cease interjecting.
We have in this country supply chain shortages when it comes to timber being available.
Government members interjecting—
Order! Members on my right.
We have skill shortages in this country as well. The idea that you would pass legislation knowing that you can't possibly achieve the outcome is the ultimate self-indulgence, the ultimate virtue-signalling, which will not have an impact at all. If you vote against this legislation, you are voting against funding. I'm all for in this parliament being consultative and constructive. We always have been prepared to consider constructive amendments and ideas—whether that be from the opposition or the crossbench—because that's the inclusive form of parliament that I want to operate. But let's not just chuck out figures from the back of envelopes or written on coasters because they're higher, and higher is always better. Let's actually have policy that's serious, policy that will make a difference and policy that will make a start on making an enormous difference.
In terms of our policy going forward, if people vote against this legislation and the legislation is not carried, then people should own that decision. They should own the fact that it will reduce housing supply in this country, and rents are a product of demand and supply. It will mean that women and children escaping domestic violence will have less opportunity to have somewhere to go, it will mean veterans will get less support and it will damage the work the government is doing on closing the gap. Be prepared to say that you had the chance to help and you chose to say no. That's the choice on this vote.
We will be proudly voting to build more homes for Australians. I congratulate the Minister for Housing on the work that she has done, and I congratulate Jason Clare, the member for Blaxland, for the work that he did in developing this important policy. But I also congratulate all those organisations who have worked with us on this policy. I joined Shelter as an organisation while I was still at school. I've been active in many of those housing based organisations for my entire political life. I bring to the position of Prime Minister, a position that I'm proud to hold, an absolute commitment to do whatever I can to increase the supply of social and affordable housing. We will always try to do more into the future. For goodness sake, don't vote against this legislation out of spite or ego or—
A government member: Vanity!
or vanity, because people who need this legislation deserve better than that. So I do commend the bill to the House, and I ask the parliament to vote for it. I ask the whole of the parliament to vote for it, because it is doing the right thing—not the perfect thing but the right thing—by Australians.
Whilst there was much in the Prime Minister's contribution that I could genuinely agree with, I don't for one minute believe that the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill, as it's currently proposed, will achieve many, if any, of those outcomes. We see frequently from those opposite a vast gap between their rhetoric and the reality of what is achieved on the ground.
In my electorate, which is one of the fastest-growing electorates in Australia, I see an enormous amount of building of housing and infrastructure. That being said, housing availability for those on low incomes or in difficult situations remains a difficulty, and it is certainly an issue that needs to be resolved. But I don't believe that this bill will achieve that. I actually believe that it will add to the problems that we already see with the affordability of housing from a building perspective. Any tradesman I speak to at the moment has more work than they can poke a stick at, and they can charge virtually any price they like when they are asked to give a quote. If we add a huge number of new houses to the current situation, that problem is only going to get worse, and the more expensive property becomes to build, the less value we are going to get from the limited funds that this fund will actually provide.
This fund is not a $10 billion investment in housing. This fund, at best, is maybe a $400 million annual investment in housing, but, less the interest cost, might not be more than $100 million. And if you have a poor year on the investment portfolio, where are those additional funds coming from? If the government is genuine about what it wants to do with these funds to achieve the outcome in the housing sector of providing social and affordable housing, then may I suggest to the government that it doesn't borrow this money and that it uses the budget balance sheet to achieve that funding envelope, as is currently done with most housing programs. In that regard, I think it's worth reflecting on the record of the coalition government, because that's exactly what the coalition government did—and, I think, to a large degree, with great success.
Our record in government is that we provided support for homeownership. I believe that homeownership is the fundamental basis for assisting people to create wealth and stability in their lives over time, and, as I said, there is much in the Prime Minister's contribution that I would agree with, as to those sentiments. We want people to be able to own their own home sooner, and our actions in government proved this. Over our last three years in government, the coalition's housing policy supported more than 300,000 Australians to purchase their own home. The coalition also supported more than 21,000 social and affordable homes through the establishment of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, soon to be renamed Housing Australia.
When it came to first home buyers, the coalition was their biggest supporter. First home buyers reached their highest level for nearly 15 years, with the number of first home buyers rising from approximately 100,000 when we came to office to nearly 180,000 in our last full financial year in government. We did this through a number of key measures. The coalition supported more than 60,000 first home buyers and single-parent families into homeownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme. The scheme consisted of the first home loan deposit scheme, the new home guarantee, and the Family Home Guarantee and the regional home guarantee, with deposits of as little as five per cent and two per cent respectively. Fifty-two per cent of the 60,000 guarantees issued were taken up by women—well above the market average of 41 per cent of women entering into homeownership. One in five guarantees issued went to essential workers, of whom almost 35 per cent were nurses and 34 per cent were teachers. Eighty-five per cent of Family Home Guarantees were used by single mothers.
We also understand the value for young people of being able to use their superannuation to assist in a home purchase. After all, it is their money. By establishing the First Home Super Saver Scheme, we helped 27,600 first home buyers to accelerate their deposit savings through superannuation. Although we are no longer in government, our commitment to first home buyers has been reiterated, with a commitment to the super home buyer scheme which will allow first home buyers to invest up to 40 per cent of their superannuation, up to a maximum of $50,000, to help with the purchase of their first home.
When it came to homeownership, the coalition also established the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation. It was established to operate two key activities: the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, a billion-dollar perpetual facility financing critical housing-related infrastructure to speed up the supply of new housing through the provision of loans and grants and the making of investments; and the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator, providing cheaper and longer-term finance to registered community housing providers. The NHFIC has been a landmark coalition achievement, and, since its creation, has delivered $2.9 billion of low-cost loans to community housing providers to support 15,000 social and affordable dwellings, saving $470 million in interest payments to be reinvested in more affordable housing. It has unlocked 6,900 social and affordable market dwellings through the coalition's $1 billion infrastructure facility, to make housing supply more responsive to demand. It has also protected the residential construction industry, with more than 137 HomeBuilder applications generating $120 billion of economic activity.
It is evident from the facts just shared with the House that the coalition government has a sound, sensible and well-considered track record in providing support to assist Australians to get into their own home. As I said in my opening remarks, I believe it is critically important that we continue to achieve that. But I do not for one minute believe that this bill, as it is currently structured and in what it proposes to do, will get anywhere near achieving the figures that I've just outlined. As I said to the minister earlier, I want to see more housing in my electorate but I don't believe this bill will achieve it.
Sadly, I don't believe that this Labor government's housing policy, after promising the world to Australians, will deliver what is proposed. We'll see the number of first home buyers dramatically decrease. We'll see very few, if any, of the 30,000 new social and affordable homes ever started. Rents will continue to increase. Now they want to add further fuel to the inflationary flame through the upward pressure on interest rates that this policy will generate. These consequences follow a common thread through many areas of the government's policy and their history over the years, and it is this: their rhetoric never matches the implementation of what they've proposed to do. It is the coalition, with its track record, that I would ask the government to consider emulating, because it has generated real and tangible benefits for Australians right across this country. I oppose this bill.
Firstly, I want to thank everybody in the chamber who has contributed to this debate. There have been a lot of speakers on it, and some of them have engaged in a very constructive manner over these three bills.
The three bills that form the housing legislative package are a significant step in implementing the government's ambitious housing reform agenda, which will help support improved access to safe, secure and affordable housing for Australians. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 establishes the Housing Australia Future Fund. Returns from the fund will help build 30,000 new social and affordable dwellings over its first five years as well as helping to address acute housing needs for some of our most at-need citizens.
The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 establishes the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council as an independent statutory advisory body. The council will help inform the Commonwealth's approach to housing policy by delivering independent advice to the government on housing supply and affordability. Establishing the council will ensure that the Commonwealth can play a leadership role in improving housing supply and affordability.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 renames the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation as Housing Australia and expands its activities to support the delivery of social and affordable dwellings under the Housing Australia Future Fund. It also establishes an annual review mechanism for the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and provides certainty to the community housing sector by extending Housing Australia's legislated Commonwealth guarantee until 30 June 2028.
On this side of the House we know just how critical this package of legislation is. It delivers on the commitments that we made to the Australian people to deliver more social and affordable housing. It will make a real difference for Australians across the country who are trying to find a place to call home. And we know why this is needed, because the experts are telling us. Kate Colvin, CEO of Homelessness Australia, has said: 'Can I start by saying how important the fund is as a new mechanism to provide resources for social and affordable housing. It is a great turnaround that the federal government is back in the business and taking responsibility.' National Shelter has said, 'Great to see the Housing Australia Future Fund legislation introduced,' and 'We cannot afford to have the Housing Australia Future Fund fail.' Mike Zorbas from the Property Council said:
The legislation … is an important first step to get government working together with industry to bridge the national housing deficit and stimulate new supply that Australia desperately needs.
Importantly, our plans are achievable. As the managing director of Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute said, 'What the government is doing is setting ambitious targets, and they are ambitious targets. But they are also achievable targets.'
But, sadly, what we've heard from some opposite is that they're planning to stand in the way of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023. It is shameful that they're preparing to stand in the way of the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade; shameful that they're saying no to building more homes for women fleeing family and domestic violence and for older women at risk of homelessness; shameful that they're saying no to building more homes for veterans who are facing homelessness; and shameful that they're saying no to more homes for the people in need right across the country. I want to remind them that Hansard records how you vote. It will record your name. You will have to own the decision. You have to be prepared to go back to your communities and account for your actions, as I said today. You need to look people in the eye and say that you put politics first. Tell your communities you said no to helping those that need it most.
After a wasted decade of little action under the former government of those opposite, they clearly have learnt nothing. But we on this side of the House have been listening—listening to Australians who are facing rising rents, listening to the heartbreaking stories of older women and veterans at risk of homelessness, and listening to Australians for whom homeownership is now out of reach. But we're not just listening; we're acting. As I said when I introduced these bills into the parliament, this is the start of an enduring promise from the federal government that more Australians should have a safe and affordable place to call home. We're keeping faith with that promise that we made to the Australian people.
I am pleased that the bill will receive support from many of the crossbenchers and, I understand, from the member for Bass. They understand how crucial these bills are. I welcome the foreshadowed amendments, including from the member for Indi, and I'll continue to have discussions about how this package of reforms will benefit regional Australia. The issues that the member for Indi and others in this House have raised will be the subject of further consideration in the other place or through the draft investment mandate. I want to work with everyone in this place who wants to see more homes on the ground for Australians who need it most, and I look forward to continuing discussions on how we achieve this.
This package represents a significant step forward in implementing the government's ambitious housing agenda, establishing the frameworks and the long-term commitments needed to deliver better housing outcomes for Australians. I commend these bills to the House.
The question is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Griffith be disagreed to.
The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fowler be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that this bill be now read a second time.
There is a series of amendments that the Greens will be moving to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill today. This seems to have caused a remarkable amount of passion—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The member will resume his seat. There is far too much noise in the chamber. Out of respect, I will reset the clock for the member for Griffith.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) together:
(1) Clause 2A, page 2 (line 19), at the end of paragraph (b), add "(so that, by 2050, social housing represents 10% of Australian dwellings)".
(2) Page 8 (after line 20), after clause 4, insert:
4A References to affordable housing
To avoid doubt, a reference in this Act to affordable housing includes a reference to:
(a) rental housing; and
(b) housing that costs no more than 30% of income for the bottom 40% of households by income.
(3) Clause 18, page 18 (lines 22 and 23), omit subclause (7), substitute:
(7) A grant under subsection (1) must not be made to a person or body unless the person or body:
(a) is one of the following:
(i) a body politic;
(ii) a non-profit organisation;
(iii) a partnership, if at least one of the partners is an entity mentioned in subparagraph (i) or (ii); and
(b) has applied for the grant.
(4) Clause 56, page 43 (after line 9), at the end of the clause, add:
The Finance Minister must give 6-monthly reports to Parliament about the operation of the Housing Australia Future Fund.
(5) Page 44 (after line 16), at the end of Part 7, add:
59 A Reports to Parliament about Housing Australia Future Fund
(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Finance Minister must prepare a report about the operation of the Housing Australia Future Fund during the period.
(2) The report for a reporting period must include information about the following:
(a) housing outcomes achieved during the period, including the type and location of housing delivered;
(b) progress on housing projects not yet completed;
(c) grants made under section 18 during the period, including:
(i) the amount of each grant; and
(ii) the recipient of each grant; and
(iii) the housing projects to which each grant relates, including the number of social, affordable and other houses it will deliver; and
(iv) the decision-making criteria used in making the grant;
(d) amounts transferred from the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account to the Housing Australia Future Fund Payments Special Account and the COAG Reform Fund during the period, including:
(i) the grants to which the amounts relate; and
(ii) the amount of each grant; and
(iii) the recipient of each grant; and
(iv) the housing projects to which each grant relates, including the number of social, affordable and other houses it will deliver; and
(v) the decision-making criteria used in making the grant.
(3) The Finance Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is prepared.
(4) For the purposes of this section, reporting period means:
(a) the period of 6 months beginning on the day this section commences; and
(b) each subsequent 6-month period.
(6) Clause 65, page 47 (line 20) to page 48 (line 29), omit the clause, substitute:
65 Periodic reviews of the operation of this Act
(1) The Housing Minister must cause independent reviews to be conducted of the operation of this Act.
(2) The person or persons who conduct the review must give the Housing Minister a written report of the review that includes information about the following:
(a) progress towards meeting the target of delivering 30,000 social and affordable homes during the first 5 years of the operation of this Act;
(b) whether the operation of this Act has increased the proportion of social and affordable housing in Australia, including progress towards meeting the target of social housing representing 10% of Australian dwellings by 2050;
(c) the adequacy and appropriateness of:
(i) the total value of the Housing Australia Future Fund; and
(ii) the annual limit on amounts debited from the Housing Australia Future Fund Special Account, as set out in section 36.
(3) The Housing Minister must cause a copy of a report under subsection (2) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the review is completed.
(4) The first review under subsection (1) must be completed within 2 years after the commencement of this Act.
(5) Each subsequent review under subsection (1) must be completed within 2 years after the completion of the previous review.
(6) For the purposes of subsections (3), (4) and (5), a review is completed when the report of the review is given to the Housing Minister under subsection (2).
The Greens are moving a series of amendments to this deeply flawed Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. Again, it is genuinely remarkable to listen to all of this hatred from this side of the House. Let's go through the amendments. We want to introduce a target that 10 per cent of all Australian dwellings by 2050 are social housing. Let's be clear about this. How often have you said you want to negotiate in good faith? How often? Is this your idea of negotiating in good faith? It's your way or the highway, and your way is hundreds of thousands of people stuck on the social housing waitlists, homeless and unable to afford rental housing. How dare you. Let's have a little bit of a history lesson—
Order! The member will resume his seat. This debate will not continue in this manner. Members who are not in their seat are interjecting, which is highly disorderly, and could be named if this continues. The member for Griffith will be heard in silence. If members wish to interject, they shall do from their seats and their seats only.
Thanks, Mr Speaker. The first amendment is to enshrine in the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill increasing the proportion of social housing to 10 per cent of Australian dwellings by 2050. This will ensure that the act is measured against total housing need and the progress it makes towards increasing social housing stock, rather than only against the government's own targets that, frankly, will see the shortage of social and affordable housing get worse. Australia, at its peak, achieved about a seven per cent target of social housing as a proportion of total housing stock. Best practice around the world in countries like Austria and the Netherlands have seen their proportion of social housing reach up to 20 per cent of total housing stock. A 10 per cent target by 2050 would require Australia to build over a million social and affordable homes Australia over that period. That is eminently achievable. It's been achieved by countries around the world. That's the only way we're going to tackle the social housing need.
I noted that the Prime Minister, in his remarks, said that people have been throwing figures around. The figure that we rely on has been produced by the National Housing Finance Investment Corporation, the government's own body, which said that we needed over 840,000 social and affordable homes over the next 20 years. That's not the Greens' figure. That's not the figure of any part of the housing sector. That is the government's own figure. That means that there need to be at least 45,000 social homes built every year to address the massive shortfall in housing over the next 20 years. That's the government's figure. So that amendment will ensure that that's actually enshrined in the Housing Australian Future Fund Bill.
The second thing we want to do—and it is remarkable that it caused so much passion on this side of the House—is actually define what 'affordable housing' is. I do not know how you can have a bill that purports to build affordable housing without defining what 'affordable housing' is. The definition that we want inserted in the bill is to define affordable housing as:
(a) rental housing; and
(b) housing that costs no more than 30% of income for the bottom 40% of households by income.
There are some out there who try to define 'affordable housing', and certainly we've seen this from property developers, and you can be sure that under this bill, if it is unamended, this is what will happen. Developers will claim, 'When we offer a rental apartment at 80 per cent of market rent, that's affordable.' Of course, that is completely inadequate when rents have already gone up over 20 per cent, if not more, over the last 12 months alone and recent reports in the media suggest that we're actually due for even higher rent increases going into this year. Ensuring that we have a definition of 'affordable housing' in the bill ensures that this bill actually works towards building social and affordable housing, not some dodgy property-developer-led rubbish about 80 per cent of the market rate that actually does nothing to affect or deal with the housing crisis.
In the third amendment, we move to limit recipients of grants from the fund to governments or non-profit organisations or partnerships that governments or non-profit organisations are members of. This is crucial to ensure that property developers don't come along, access money in this fund and claim they're going to build so-called affordable housing when, in reality, there will be public funds going towards the profits of property developers.
Fourth—and again it is remarkable that this has caused so much passion—we're asking that the responsible minister be required to report six-monthly to parliament on the funding, outlining: the housing outcomes achieved by type and location; progress of housing projects not yet completed; details on grants allocated, including recipient, type of recipient, details of housing project, and decision-making criteria; reporting on money allocated by the COAG— (Time expired)
I thank the member for Griffith for moving those amendments. The government has sought to engage in a cooperative way with the Greens party on the critical legislation to help get more social and affordable homes on the ground. I note that the member for Griffith has flagged, along with the amendments before the House, further amendments that may come in the Senate, as well as additional matters. I have offered, for the member for Griffith along with other members of this place, to engage on any amendments that may improve the housing legislative package, and I want to thank people for their engagement to date.
I'm pleased that we will be able to support some amendments that are coming through, but I want to be clear that we do not support these particular amendments that have been moved. We don't believe that they improve the legislation. But we do want to continue to work with the Greens party, through the Senate consideration, to consider amendments that may improve the bills.
I would like to say that our commitments are ambitious but targeted. They're phased to deal with the capacity constraints in the construction sector, and they're designed to implement processes to fund the right projects in the right places. It is critical that the structure of the fund that we have designed has been deliberate. We understand that people have differing views and claims about that. But we want to get on and get the fund done. Creating a fund that delivers ongoing returns will protect it from whims of future governments. We believe that the fund will generate returns over the long term which will allow it to provide the annual disbursements to deliver a secure pipeline of funding for social and affordable housing in Australia, and that will provide certainty to the community housing providers and the scale of investment that will be required for new contributions to social and affordable housing, particularly from institutional investors who may be interested in this asset class.
The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (8), as circulated in my name, together:
(1) Clause 2A, page 2 (after line 17), at the end of paragraph (a), add:
(v) people in regional, rural and remote Australia; and
(2) Clause 2A, page 2 (line 19), at the end of paragraph (b), add "(including critical enabling infrastructure for new social and affordable housing in regional, rural and remote Australia)".
(3) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 12), after the definition of constitutional corporation, insert:
critical enabling infrastructure, for new social or affordable housing, means:
(a) infrastructure critical to support the new housing, including new or upgraded infrastructure for services such as water, sewerage, electricity, telecommunications or transportation; or
(b) site remediation works relating to the new housing, including the removal of hazardous waste or contaminated material.
(4) Clause 4, page 7 (after line 28), after the definition of realise, insert:
regional, rural and remote Australia means an area that is classified as inner regional Australia, outer regional Australia, remote Australia or very remote Australia under the Remoteness Structure described in:
(a) the document titled "Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 5—Remoteness Structure, July 2016", published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as amended from time to time; or
(b) the most recent replacement of the document referred to in paragraph (a) that is published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as amended from time to time.
Note: The Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 5—Remoteness Structure, July 2016 could in 2023 be viewed on the Australian Bureau of Statistics website (https://www.abs.gov.au).
(5) Page 8 (after line 20), after clause 4, insert:
4A References to affordable housing
To avoid doubt, a reference in this Act to affordable housing includes a reference to:
(a) affordable rental housing; and
(b) critical enabling infrastructure for new affordable housing in regional, rural and remote Australia.
4B References to social housing
To avoid doubt, a reference in this Act to social housing includes a reference to critical enabling infrastructure for new social housing in regional, rural and remote Australia.
(6) Clause 18, page 18 (line 7), after "Note", insert "1".
(7) Clause 18, page 18 (line 7), at the end of subclause (1), add:
Note 2: The reference in this subsection to a person includes a reference to a body politic (see subsection 2C(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901) which means that a grant may be made to a local government body.
(8) Clause 65, page 47 (after line 31), after subparagraph (2)(b)(iii), insert:
and (iv) housing needs in regional, rural and remote Australia;
This bill is important to the people of Australia and is important to the people of Indi. In my electorate we are experiencing an unprecedented housing crisis. Since the pandemic, house prices and rental prices are the highest I've ever seen in my 30-plus years of living in the district. Low-income people are trying to find places to live in a market they can no longer afford. The waitlists for priority housing have blown out, and we do not have the social and affordable housing supply to meet the demand.
Today I seek simple changes across three areas to make a good bill a better one. First, my amendments will make sure that regional, rural and remote Australia are explicitly considered by the Housing Australia Future Fund. The previous government promised to spend $1 billion to help us unlock housing supply. They spent less than 25 per cent of that money, and none of it came to my electorate of Indi—and very little came to regional Australia. There was no dedicated consideration of the dire housing needs in regional Australia. That's unacceptable.
I don't want to see rural, regional and remote Australia forgotten. My amendments will ensure they are not, by adding that an object of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill includes providing a funding mechanism for the acute housing needs of Australians living in regional, rural and remote areas. Any reviews of the act must also consider the extent to which the fund is meeting housing needs in regional Australia so we know if the funds are actually going there or not.
The second area my amendments address is critical enabling infrastructure. This area must be explicitly considered if we're going to fix housing supply. This government has the ambitious goal of building tens of thousands of new homes but I struggle to see how it's going to fulfil this election promise if it doesn't specifically invest in critical enabling infrastructure, like a functioning sewerage system or drainage system—infrastructure that communities like Wangaratta and Benalla desperately need to fix but don't have the money to do so on their own. My amendments will add that as an object of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill—an object to fund critical enabling infrastructure for social and affordable housing in regional Australia. It will clarify that any references to increasing social and affordable housing include funding the critical enabling infrastructure necessary for fully realising this goal.
My amendments will also clarify that local governments can receive grants under the Housing Australia Future Fund. Local governments, often partnering with community housing providers, are the key enablers of the critical infrastructure communities need, from parks and sportsgrounds to lighting and drainage. I thank the minister for the meeting I had with her today about this. While I was there, I also discussed with her my proposal for a regional housing infrastructure fund. This is a creative, dedicated $2 billion fund to directly address the need for all types of housing in regional areas, including medium-density housing and social housing. I look forward to many more discussions with the minister on this policy, and I'll be talking about it so much that I'll probably wear out the carpet on the way to her office!
The third area my amendments address is rental housing. My amendments clarify that affordable housing means affordable rental housing. For a long time we've prioritised giving Australians the opportunity of homeownership. Homeownership isn't within everybody's reach. We need to create safe, comfortable, affordable, long-term rental houses. To date, we haven't done so. A rental report released by Domain this year found that, in the last 12 months, three of the top five local government areas with the highest rent increases in Victoria are in my electorate of Indi—Strathbogie, Indigo and Alpine. I want to make sure that affordable rental housing is front and centre.
These are simple amendments and they should not be controversial. When the government proudly talks about building 30,000 social and affordable homes within five years, the housing needs of regional, rural and remote areas must not be forgotten. I urge my fellow members of parliament to support me in passing these amendments.
I strongly back the member for Indi in this initiative and applaud her for seeing a very big hole in this legislation. We would like the minister to seriously consider what we're saying. Without the member for Indi's amendments, I think we'll be left out completely.
We have to accept that to buy a house in Brisbane, Newcastle, Sydney or Melbourne the average price is over $130,000. Clearly that is the heart of the problem, but that doesn't mean that in the city of Atherton, where the Lions Club is building housing for the people there—there is a school teacher I mentioned earlier today, paying $300 a week for a place on a verandah with an umbrella in Atherton.
There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that democracy is not fair, it is not just; it is the will of the majority, and that may be anything but fair and just. In this case, you will watch the minority get everything and the majority get left out as usual. So I absolutely applaud the member for Indi for seeing a hole in this legislation, and I plead with the government to understand that they need this clause in the legislation.
I want to thank the member for Indi and the other crossbenchers, and obviously the member for Kennedy. We do understand and want to protect the interests of people in rural and regional Australia; we share them. We want to make sure that key workers in regional areas and regional towns across the country can get access to affordable housing. We know how serious this issue really can be. As I said to the member for Indi today, we got it at every single roundtable in the lead-up to the Jobs and Skills Summit, but it was particularly a big issue in regional areas. We do understand. It's one of the reasons why we brought forward the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, for instance, in terms of getting people into their first homes, and now more than 1,700 Australians are there under that scheme.
We do think this legislation will address housing in regional, rural and remote Australia. As I indicated to the member for Indi, whilst we won't be supporting the amendments she's making to the Housing Australia Future Fund, we do want to support some of the amendments, particularly in relation to the Housing Supply and Affordability Council. In the Senate and the Senate committee process, we want to look at how we make sure that rural and regional Australia get their fair share from the fund, because we do want to make sure that all Australians, no matter where they live, get access to safe and affordable housing.
The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
(1) Clause 65, page 48 (line 24), omit "2028", substitute "2025".
I would like to thank the minister for giving me the opportunity to talk with her about this bill. I had hoped that the request to have the review period shortened would have been taken on board. This amendment to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill ensures there is a timely review process in which we should be able to see the effectiveness of the bill in two years, not five years. Not every piece of legislation is perfect. Sometimes we get the processes wrong.
I thank PowerHousing Australia, St George Community Housing, Hume Housing and Evolve Housing for their consultation with me on the bill. As PowerHousing and Evolve Housing have rightly pointed out, housing funds can get misappropriated and used for the wrong reasons. They pointed to the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which was aimed at mum and dad investors but was ultimately taken advantage of by private development companies. Due to the loopholes, the scheme has gained a bad reputation when it really needed adjusting so it could ultimately benefit the most needy and vulnerable whilst supporting mum and dad investors.
While the scheme wasn't perfect, the end of the scheme could mean that 36,000 houses will no longer provide subsidised rent for tenants and will most likely be sold or rented out at a higher price. This will result in 36,000 families who could be left out in the lurch. I reiterate that Evolve Housing told me in my consultation for this bill: 'Even if the stars align and we miraculously get the 36,000 properties in the next five years, the net impact will be close to zero without the NRAS.' This is just one example of poorly regulated policies from a decade ago that are impacting families today. In my conversations with the Urban Development Institute of Australia, they recommended a one-year review process, but after discussion with you and your office, Minister, we believe this could be far too short. I completely appreciate it will take some time to set this fund up and have it ready for community-housing providers to access. Yes, I agree we need to have housing solutions not just for now but for the future, but we need to make sure we get this right before there are unintended consequences that could ultimately impact the most vulnerable in our communities.
While I understand that these houses are very unlikely to be built within a two-year period, we are talking about a huge sum of money, $10 billion, that the government is putting aside for this bill. It's only fair that we can closely analyse the allocation of funds in the next two years, particularly as it pertains to grants and if there is ministerial discretion involved. A review after five years could see many things go wrong, and by that point it will too late.
I indicate to the member for Fowler that, as she has been advised, we will not be supporting these amendments. There will be transparency around grants. There will be transparency around all of the things that Housing Australia funds. We have been clear about the fact that we want to make sure that there are reports about what is being funded through the disbursements that will come each year under the fund. I don't think there is a need to review it after two years—we do think that it needs time to be up and running—but there will be transparency along the way through Housing Australia publishing the list of where things are going and through the government and relevant ministers also publishing it.
The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fowler be disagreed to.
I move:
(1) Clause 18, page 18 (after line 25), at the end of the clause, add:
(9) The proportion of grants made under subsection (1) or (3) during a financial year that are grants in relation to acute housing needs, social housing and affordable housing in regional, rural and remote areas of Australia must be equivalent to the proportion of the Australian population that live in those areas based on the most recently available census data.
This amendment is pretty simple. One in five of us live in regional Australia; at least one in five of these homes should be in regional Australia. Too many of the decisions we make in this place very much favour the capital cities, and I see in my electorate and I see in regional Australia more generally that there is a huge need for housing. Down on the south coast of my electorate, we're talking about vacancy rates of less than one per cent. We need to make sure that a share of this money is going across regional Australia—just an equitable share. That's where the need is so great and that is where people are so isolated.
When I drive home from the bottom part of my electorate, I drive past cars that I know have families in them. There are families hidden in the forest, and they're at the back of churches. It is a chronic issue. Yes, it is in the metropolitan areas as well; I know that. But we don't have the services in the regions when it comes to homelessness services. Our people are told they have to go to the capital cities if they need those services. And getting there is another thing, let alone the fact that they're leaving behind everything that they know.
So this is really about equity. I'm particularly calling out to the Nationals, who say that they're here for regional Australia. You might not like the bill in general, but I would ask you to support regional Australia with respect to this bill and make sure that we in the regions get a fair share of this investment.
In America, they have 'redlining'. Five per cent of all banking has to go into redlined areas, which are basically the slum areas of the cities. And all of the rural areas of America are redlined, so they have to get five per cent of the banking. In Australia, it's just the opposite.
In all of inland North Queensland, the banks will lend no money for housing, full stop. You could put 90 per cent in, and they still wouldn't give you some money for a house, let alone for some business venture or agricultural venture. Is there discrimination in Australia? Too bloody right there is. If you're in a city area, you get the money from the bank. If you're in a country area, you can't. The Americans' democracy works so much better than ours, and here is a classic example of it: five per cent of all banking has to go into redlined areas.
We will be moving an amendment, and I think there will be widespread support from the crossbenchers. The great tragedy, of course, is that the Country Party was formed for exactly this purpose, and they serve that purpose never—never. It's just the opposite. So we would like the government to start thinking about redlining, because we are discriminated against.
If you want a graphic example of this, there are a million people living in North Queensland, my own land, and there are over a million people, about a million and a half, living in Brisbane. Brisbane has 29 kilometres of tunnels; we have none and we're not likely to get any. Now, why do they get 29 kilometres of tunnels and we can't get one at all? I don't mind if I get less than them, but I get none at all. We don't get anything at all.
Our situation is that 60,000 people live over there, and it takes them an hour and a half to get to the hospital, the CBD and the port. And they can't get to the port with heavy transport, so a great mineral province, with five of Australia's six greatest rivers, cannot be used for anything at all because we can't get the product out. The gulf is a flood plain; you can't possibly take product out through the Gulf of Carpentaria. If you want to get it out, you have to go through Charters Towers, which is south of Townsville, on a 2,000-kilometre round trip. Every single mining company that I've known that has opened up in that area has gone broke for that very reason. All we're asking for is $1,000 million for a tunnel, and they've spent $40,000 million on tunnels in Brisbane. I could give you a hundred other examples but I will rest there. I remind the House that in rural Australia the banks will not lend money. The great creator of the Labor Party, and arguably this nation, 'Red Ted' Theodore, one of the first things he did was introduce the state bank. When the great Labor Party of those days got into this place, the first thing they did was introduce the people's bank. We haven't got it, and—boy, oh, boy—are we getting the rough end of the pineapple because of that.
I won't detain the House too much. I just wish to stand in support of my rural, regional and remote colleagues here on the crossbench because it really is up to the members of the crossbench here to push forward with representation for what we need out in rural and regional Australia. It bodes well to listen carefully to what the member for Kennedy has to say. He reminds us of our history. Sometimes he reminds us of things we don't care to think about. But right now he has just reminded us of some of our history and the difficulties that rural, remote and regional Australians face when they're trying to get finance, when they're trying to establish themselves with fundamental infrastructure. Again, I would call on my colleagues over here from the National Party representing rural and regional Australia, have a think about this. You know, if we haven't got the fundamental infrastructure to house our people, to ensure that we have the roads, that we have the hospitals, that we have the telecommunications, we cannot thrive. Housing is fundamental to that. I back in what the member for Mayo has to say and I remind people that rural, regional and remote Australia must never be forgotten when we are investing in this great nation.
I do want to indicate to the member for Mayo that we're not supporting her amendment but we do understand the principle in which she's moving it. We do agree that we need to make sure that regional towns, particularly, and remote areas of Australia do get access to the fund. We will be looking at the best ways to do that. It might not be through primary legislation; it might be through the investment mandate. We do want to explore in the Senate the best way to do that. As I indicated earlier, we will be supporting some of the member for Indi's amendments to the supply council in terms of geographical disbursement.
The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:
(1) Clause 2A, page 2 (line 19), at the end of paragraph (b), add "(so that, by 2050, social housing represents 10% of Australian dwellings)".
(2) Page 8 (after line 20), after clause 4, insert:
4A References to affordable housing
To avoid doubt, a reference in this Act to affordable housing includes a reference to:
(a) rental housing; and
(b) housing that costs no more than 30% of income for the bottom 40% of households by income.
(3) Clause 18, page 18 (lines 22 and 23), omit subclause (7), substitute:
(7) A grant under subsection (1) must not be made to a person or body unless the person or body:
(a) is one of the following:
(i) a body politic;
(ii) a non-profit organisation;
(iii) a partnership, if at least one of the partners is an entity mentioned in subparagraph (i) or (ii); and
(b) has applied for the grant.
(4) Clause 56, page 43 (after line 9), at the end of the clause, add:
The Finance Minister must give 6-monthly reports to Parliament about the operation of the Housing Australia Future Fund.
The Greens have a series of concerns with the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council and a series of amendments to seek to address some of these concerns.
Firstly, we want to amend the bill to ensure that parliament can request research from the national supply and affordability council. We don't think it's adequate that only the minister can request research or that it seeks to conduct research independently. We think that this should be a research body. If it is going to be independent, then having the minister, or the government, be the only arm of parliament able to request research seems inappropriate.
Secondly, we want to make sure that the board is actually genuinely representative of Australian society. So we are moving to amend the bill to ensure that the Housing Supply and Affordability Council must include representatives from the social housing and homelessness sectors and must include representation from First Nations people, housing organisations, low income households, people with lived experience of homelessness, and social housing residents. We also want to make sure that it cannot include individuals with significant links to property development or to the banking sector. The Greens were disappointed to see the interim council include a previous former CEO of Mirvac, a major property developer. We believe that property developers as well as bankers already wield far too much power over the political system. Indeed, in my home state of Queensland, property developer donations have been prohibited precisely because of the undue influence that they wield over the political process. Again, we have defenders of the property developers over there. I'm sure that members of your electorate would be keen to hear about that.
Third, we want to make sure that we enshrine a target in the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council and that includes making sure that it reports on meeting the target of 10 per cent of the housing stock as social housing by 2050 in line with our amendments to the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. We also want to ensure that housing data and analysis, with the exception of direct advice to government produced by the supply and affordability council, is made publicly available. We think that is entirely consistent with a council that is meant to be leading and providing independent advice to the public and to government. We think it is only right that a taxpayer funded institution such as this one reports to members of the public as well, not just to members of the government.
We also want to make sure that the board membership, as I have mentioned before, includes a broad representation from across society. We think these are reasonable amendments. Including First Nations people on the board, including people with lived experience of homelessness, poverty and housing stress is entirely consistent with getting a good outcome and good advice for the government from the public. We think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that solving the housing crisis is not going to be achieved by relying on the advice of people who created the housing crisis in the first place. The enormous profits that are generated in our current housing system towards the big banks and property developers is part of the problem. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia just reported a record $5.3 billion profit, partly off the back of accruing enormous profits off mortgage holders going into further and further financial stress. We think a supply and affordability council independent of the financial interests that are currently making people 's lives so miserable is entirely reasonable and we strongly compel the government to accept these amendments.
I indicate that the government won't be supporting these amendments. We need to be careful that the supply and affordability council membership is based on skills. It is about a skills based board; it is not intended to be a representative board. We have said in the legislation that we do think that it should take into consideration some of the issues that have been raised. But it really is about being a skills based board and we want it to have the skills necessary to do the important task that we are asking of it.
I would also say to the member for Griffith: when it comes to having property developers on the council, I am concerned that he is having some sort of a go at the interim council and its appointments. I would say to him that the people we have selected, we think, are appropriate people to be on the board. I would also say to him that most of the community housing providers need to partner with somebody to build the developments and they are often property developers.
I share the views of the Greens on this issue very strongly, actually. But it is a long ball for the property developers. Some of them are really excellent people, but I would agree that the vast bulk of them fall into an entirely different category. For those that watch late-night television, the story of Juanita Nielsen, need I say more? They just said, 'Oh well, she is holding things up, so get rid of her.' The most prominent people in Australia were involved as property developers. I tread with great caution and I share the views of the Greens on this issue but don't exclude all of them when some of them are really excellent people. If you want to bring down the price of housing then you want a massive flow of housing blocks onto the market. Both in Cairns and in Townsville, I could weep blood. Part of my electorate, Bushland Beach—bushland!—now has five kilometres where you can walk from roof to roof. You will never be able to put in a pot plant. There is not enough room at the edge of the house to put a pot plant or a tree or anything, on either side or at the front or back of the house. Clearly, what they are creating is slum dwellings to make developers rich. You have to say: why did those councils agree to that? I've been around a long time. Where you see clearly a huge amount of smoke, you will find fire, and I just want to cry when I see out there the creation of slums.
But there are good guys who will go out there and give you a thousand blocks of land onto the market at a fairly reasonable, competitive price, and that is where the government is failing completely. They don't understand supply and demand. You are not increasing the supply. No less a person than the Treasurer himself put it perfectly. Affordability is about housing. Housing is about the regulatory impositions upon land. I quote the Treasurer of Australia in his budget speech. Well, I don't see any solutions here. Please, Minister: if you give us a tiny bit of money, we will give you 200,000 blocks in North Queensland for under $40,000, and you can live adjacent to Mission Beach, which for two years in a row has been voted one of the four most beautiful places on earth. We can give you land in that area.
It is a matter of supply and demand, and you are addressing the demand but you're not addressing supply. There is nothing—not a single iota of initiative here—that addresses the issue of supply. I, like my honourable colleague in the Greens over here, would be extremely cynical. I have to say I don't come here to make political points as such, but the Labor Party has an absolutely dreadful history, and I belonged to a party where we weren't exactly great heroes either, so I'll say that in conclusion. We strongly endorse the sentiments expressed.
The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) and (7) as circulated in my name together:
(1) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 4), after the definition of Chair, insert:
critical enabling infrastructure, for new social or affordable housing, means:
(a) infrastructure critical to support the new housing, including new or upgraded infrastructure for services such as water, sewerage, electricity, telecommunications or transportation; or
(b) site remediation works relating to the new housing, including the removal of hazardous waste or contaminated material.
(2) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 13), after the definition of member, insert:
regional, rural and remote Australia means an area that is classified as inner regional Australia, outer regional Australia, remote Australia or very remote Australia under the Remoteness Structure described in:
(a) the document titled "Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 5—Remoteness Structure, July 2016", published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as amended from time to time; or
(b) the most recent replacement of the document referred to in paragraph (a) that is published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as amended from time to time.
Note: The Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 5—Remoteness Structure, July 2016 could in 2023 be viewed on the Australian Bureau of Statistics website (https://www.abs.gov.au).
(3) Clause 9, page 5 (after line 25), after paragraph (1)(b), insert:
(ba) to advise the Minister on matters relating to housing supply and affordability in regional, rural and remote Australia;
(4) Clause 9, page 6 (line 7), after "homelessness", insert ", critical enabling infrastructure for new social and affordable housing".
(7) Clause 22, page 13 (after line 29), after subclause (3), insert:
(3A) Despite subsection (3), at least one of the appointed members must have:
(a) substantial experience, expertise or qualifications; and
(b) significant standing;
in relation to housing needs in regional, rural and remote Australia.
As I've said, the previous government's National Housing Infrastructure Facility manifestly failed to build much-needed houses. No funding was directed specifically towards regional Australia—or to rural or remote Australia—in the way that we needed it to happen, and I don't want to see a situation like this again. I will keep working until I see government funds for housing go to where they are desperately needed: regional Australia.
The council's role is to advise the government on how the Housing Australia Future Fund should be distributed and to assist them in making well-informed decisions. The amendments circulated add two additional functions to the council: first, to advise the minister on housing supply and affordability in regional, rural, remote and Australia; and, second, to include critical enabling infrastructure when it's monitoring conditions that impact housing supply. I've said a lot about that already. I won't go over it. But, if the government are not receiving advice on these areas, they won't know where the problems are and they won't know to how to fix them.
I've said again and again that we can't fix housing supply if we don't fix critical enabling infrastructure. My amendments put regional, rural and remote Australia and critical enabling infrastructure on the council's agenda and, therefore, on the government's agenda. Again I call on all members of the House, most particularly members from rural, regional, and remote Australia—I note that the member for Bass gets this and has been thinking about these things and has been voting accordingly. I call on all members—sincerely, I do—to have a think about who you're representing and make sure that the regions truly get their fair share of this important legislation.
Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I thank you for this opportunity to speak, and I call on the minister to support these amendments.
I rise to support the member for Indi's amendments. They're very sensible amendments. It's very hard, unless you live it, to actually properly, truly represent or provide advice, and that's why it's critical that on this council there be people who truly live and know what it's like to live in regional, rural and remote Australia. Housing needs are very different, particularly when we get into remote Australia, but the pressures on housing are also different in regional Australia. I talked earlier today about the fact that we don't have the public transport infrastructure. In lots of places in my electorate, people rely entirely on rainwater for their house and are on septic. We just don't have the infrastructure and resources that are readily available elsewhere. People in here talk about gas. My goodness, I don't think there's a place in my electorate where gas is mainlined. If you want gas, it's in a bottle. So if we're to look at all of the resources that are needed with housing, it's really critical that we have people from rural and regional Australia who know it, who get it and who live it to be part of this council so as to ensure that this council represents all Australians.
ER () (): The most extraordinary success story in housing was in Queensland. That story starts with Greg Wallace, a First Australian and one of the Rosendales from Hope Vale. He introduced Work for the Dole, and 60 Minutes, the first time they ever did a follow-up story in the history of the program, got a huge watching audience. Greg got Work for the Dole going. Gerhardt Pearson, Noely Pearson's brother, rang me up and said, 'Why don't we use the dole labour to build the houses?' I thought, 'I can't believe this.' I rang up Gerry Hand, who I think was the federal minister. He said, 'That didn't come from you, Katter. It's too smart for you.' Yes, all right, well, it didn't! The federal government agreed to it, and we cut the price of housing more than clean in half. We were flying in whitefella crews from Brisbane and from Cairns and Townsville. We had to pay for their accommodation, their flights in and out, living-away-from-home allowance—meals and accommodation was huge—and the cost of flying them in and out. We were doing that when we had people living there who could do the job. I doubted whether they could do the job, but I didn't have any power. The boys on the ground, First Australians, had the power, not me, so I had to go with it. Then Donnie Fraser rang me. His son, Troy Fraser, is an extraordinary, wonderful person. Troy is the CEO at Doomadgee these days and did a wonderful job running the rugby league up there. Donnie, rang me up and said, 'Why don't we make the concrete blocks? ' I think I used a rather crude phrase to him on the telephone, and we argued for a bit. I said, 'You can have one of these things—they're 80,000 bucks—and see how it goes. That's all you're getting.' Anyway, it was so successful we put eight in strategic locations. We cut the price of housing to about one-third of what it had been. Now, I shouldn't say 'we', because I had nothing to do with it. Each of those decisions was made by the people themselves. There's a wonderful book out, The Colonial Fantasythe whitefellas are never going to get it right. This was a classic case of it. When the whitefellas were running it, we were building 60 or 70 houses a year. When the blackfellas took it over, we were doing 300 a year!
So I make the point to you, Minister, that the way that you are building houses in remote Australia is costing the earth. If you'll just listen to the local people that live up there, whether they're blackfellas or whitefellas, you'll be able to cut very dramatically the cost of a house. We had enough money to build 400 houses in that six-year time frame. I think we built over 2,000 houses. So more power to the boys in the peninsula.
I did want to indicate to people, as I'd indicated before, that we do acknowledge the intent of these amendments. We're not going to be agreeing to these amendments, but we are willing to support some of the other amendments from the member for Indi and look, again, in the Senate process at how we make sure that regional and rural Australia get their fair share.
I'd also indicate that, in terms of the enabling infrastructure, there is the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, and we have obviously widened the remit of that to allow social and affordable housing, and that still includes all the enabling legislation.
I just want to put on record my appreciation, and the appreciation, I think, of all the crossbenchers, for the honourable member for Indi. She does the hard yards here. We can back her up, but she's doing the hard yards and the leadership here, and we very much appreciate the work she does.
The question is that the amendments be disagreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until the first opportunity on the next sitting day. The debate on this item is therefore adjourned until that time.
HAINES () (): by leave—I move amendments (5) and (6), as circulated in my name, together:
(5) Clause 9, page 7 (after line 2), at the end of paragraph (2)(c), add:
(ix) geographical location;
(6) Clause 22, page 13 (after line 22), after paragraph (2)(j), insert:
(ja) regional, rural and remote housing policy;
My amendments will ensure that at least one member of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council has demonstrated and relevant experience or expertise on housing needs in regional, rural and remote Australia. Ensuring a member of this council has expert knowledge on the particular housing needs of regional, rural and remote Australia is crucial if we're going to address this housing crisis. We need to hear about the experiences, the challenges and the know-how of regional Australians. Otherwise, we're at the risk of another government policy on housing that does nothing for rural, regional and remote Australians. We need a truly representative council if the government is going to distribute the fund equitably and in the areas that need it most. These amendments that I put to the House today are one small way that we can ensure this.
My amendments will also make sure that the council considers the impacts of geographical location on housing supply, affordability and demand. Living in regional or remote areas of Australia presents challenges that are different from the cities, and we've heard a lot about that today. Incomes are lower, rates are lower, land availability is different, and the types of houses that we need are different.
I want to thank the minister for the way that she has engaged with me on all of the amendments I've put forward today. And I understand that she will be supporting these amendments. We'll continue working with them, and with her department. I thank her staff as well. I want to make sure—and I know my colleagues here want to make sure as well—that regional, rural and remote Australia is at the forefront of good, sensible housing policy.
I do want to indicate to members of this place that we will be supporting these amendments. I think that it will allow the regions to be highlighted for them to have to take into account geographical location. I also would like to say that I appreciate that the member for Indi has moved these amendments, and it is a shame that some of them haven't come from some of the people that purport to support regional Australia. But, as a party that does, on our side of the House we do want to support these amendments.
I just want to refer again to the most successful house-building operation in Australian history. The other two people involved were the heads of the department, Eric Law and Lester Rosendahl, who was one of the famous Rosendahl family. Eric Law, from Cherbourg, was very high up in the education department. He was deputy principal of the biggest high school in Queensland and was an outstanding rugby league player, as was his cousin Steve Renouf. Those two decided that all houses would be built by exclusively First Australian labour. Not only was I not in favour of this but I was very much against it, because about 30 per cent of those people can't read or write and about 30 per cent of them can't speak English. And they're going to build the houses, are they? I emphasise the point that I had nothing to do with any of these decisions. The people themselves made that decision, and Rosendahl and Law were backing themselves in on a very controversial decision, to impose upon all of the councils in Queensland that houses would be built by exclusively local blackfella labour, not whitefella. That was the fifth rung in the ladder of creating the greatest success story in the nation's history, from where I sit.
Question agreed to.
I move the amendment circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 22, page 13 (lines 26 to 29), omit subclause (3), substitute:
(3) In appointing members, the Minister must ensure that:
(a) the appointed members collectively have an appropriate balance of qualifications, skills or experience in the fields mentioned in subsection (2); and
(b) at least 1 appointed member is a representative of the Community Housing Provider sector; and
(c) consideration is given to appointing members who have personal experience of social and affordable housing; and
(d) there is gender and cultural diversity within the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council.
Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the minister's efforts in ensuring that there is a diversity of experience across the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. I agree with the minister that we should have a board with diverse skills and experience, but it must obviously have people with firsthand experience of community and social housing. It is therefore incredibly disappointing that the government won't be mandating a community housing provider representative. Without the government's mandate, the idea that it will happen—it just won't. To some extent I agree with the member for Griffith about the representation on the council, but co-investment from property developers and CHPs is crucial to the social housing sector.
I was raised in housing commission housing and lived in it from the time I arrived in Australia in 1979 until the time I got married in 1992. My sisters and I worked hard to try and break the intergenerational cycles that are all too common within the social and public housing sector, especially for single-parent households. In the last few decades, having worked as a local journalist for the Fairfield Champion and the Liverpool Champion, then becoming a Fairfield councillor and now a representative of the Fowler electorate, it has been very challenging to see an increase in the number of people, men and women, in my electorate of Fowler pleading for help to get support to have a home. It's really shocking to hear stories of people who have waited 20 years plus just to get into social and affordable housing. From people with disabilities to women fleeing from domestic violence, it has been truly difficult to witness and hear from them and feel helpless that, as an elected representative, I can't do more. As my colleague the member for North Sydney said yesterday, it's not just a house; it's a home.
I know all too well the importance of a safety net to help the vulnerable and needy, so I commend the work the minister is doing in having an ambitious aim to create 30,000 homes in five years. However, the council which is supposed to advise the minister on the housing needs of the country needs to also be representative of the people that it is serving. I've previously outlined the important work that community housing providers do. They not only provide a roof over people's heads, but many, such as those in my electorate of Fowler from Hume housing and St George housing, also offer individuals and families programs to help them rehabilitate from drug addiction, to upskill in their work and to gain long-term employment to break the poverty cycle. That's why I strongly urge the government to have people on the board who have had firsthand experience of social and affordable housing and to mandate a community housing provider representative who has on-the-ground experience of what it's like to run such services and programs.
We don't want men in suits from highly affluent suburbs who are networked and connected to the establishment to be the only ones shaping and informing the minister's ideas and thinking. These so-called experts will only be experts at knowing what to say and how to present themselves, and will be too detached from what's happening on the ground to be making decisions that affect the vulnerable. I have seen these professional boards filled with well-intentioned goals, yet many of these boards and body councils often do not have diversity of talent and lived experiences from the community.
I hope the government, in reforming this space, does not stack the board with union delegates and other associates, just like the previous government stacked the NHFIC board with some of their closest mates. We want to encourage consistent and collaborative delivery approaches across Australia and learn lessons from people who have had lived experience of the sector.
I rise to indicate we will support the amendment from the member for Fowler to the bill. One of the things the former coalition government did in establishing the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, soon to be renamed Housing Australia, was designate a spot on the board for a representative from a community housing provider because we sought to put community housing providers at the centre of what we did through that landmark achievement of the coalition government. So, similar to that, we see merit in the amendment moved by the member for Fowler to ensure that this crucially important sector, community housing providers—who, I think everyone in this House would agree, are able to get more out of every dollar than any other organisation, particularly state and territory treasuries—is represented on the council. It is a very worthy idea, and that's the reason why we'll support this amendment.
I rise to indicate the government is not supporting this amendment. We understand the intent behind it, but we believe the current provisions adequately cover this. On page 13, section 22(2) suggests people cannot be appointed unless the minister is satisfied that the person has:
(a) substantial experience, expertise or qualifications; and
(b) significant standing;
in at least one of the following fields:
(c) economics;
(d) development;
(e) planning;
(f) residential construction;
(g) demography;
(h) social housing;
(i) social policy;
(j) housing and homelessness policy;
(l) the housing needs of Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders;
(k) regulation, taxation or government policy relating to housing.
We think it's adequately covered. The member would be aware that the current deputy chair of the interim council has the experience she's talking about.
The question is that the amendment be disagreed to. A division is required. In accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until the first opportunity the next sitting day.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 7, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
I'm really grateful to be able to speak in continuance here on the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 and reflect on why it is so important that we establish a National Reconstruction Fund. We get one chance to rebuild after the kind of crisis we have seen with the COVID-19 pandemic and the lessons we learned there around the precarity of supply chains in Australia. We must seize this opportunity. I am really genuinely disappointed that those opposite won't support the National Reconstruction Fund. It isn't too late. They can change their minds. I wish that they would back in Australian manufacturing in the same way that we will on this side of the House. This should be bipartisan. I'm baffled. It is inexplicable why the coalition won't support the community in relation to investing in manufacturing, but then again, as we saw with automanufacturing, this is not an area that the coalition seem to have much interest in supporting.
We saw what happened during the very worst parts of the COVID-19 pandemic—and we are still in a pandemic, of course—when we had no sovereign capability in manufacturing and when supply chains were terribly disrupted through border closures. This was a moment for our country to reflect and learn lessons to make sure that we can do what is needed to be resilient and self-sufficient. We have learned that lesson. We saw what happened. We don't want that to happen again. We are implementing the change we need.
I have had a lot of conversations about this in my electorate. I have some big universities—Monash University and Deakin University—in my electorate. They are doing amazing things in terms of technologies of the future in a range of different sectors, including the pharmaceutical and medical technology, defence and renewable energy spaces. All of those areas will be backed in by the National Reconstruction Fund priority areas.
I have spoken to many businesses in my electorate, including Textron Systems in Notting Hill and Stryker in Mount Waverley, about the National Reconstruction Fund. There really is excitement and relief that there's a commitment from government in this country to revive manufacturing in Australia, to support the companies who are already here so that their businesses can grow and thrive and also to encourage more businesses in an ecosystem and environment such as in my electorate so we can create the high-wage, high-skilled jobs in this country that we really need. We need to do this in order to grow our nation's wealth. We need to do this to make sure that we have good, secure, well-paid jobs in Australia.
This is a good bill that will do great things for our nation. This is a good plan for our country. We can rebuild our country to be a place that is sufficient, resilient and more secure. That's what the National Reconstruction Fund is about. It would be nice if those opposite didn't just say no to everything. What we are seeing in this debate is that this is not a contest of ideas about how manufacturing can be supported in Australia. There is none of that. There is no constructive plan from those opposite, no vision, no imagination, no hope and no support for people in our communities across Australia who want to have a thriving manufacturing industry here.
We are putting forward a plan that is forward-thinking. It is about building a prosperous nation. It is about growing our wealth. Those opposite are just saying no—no to good, secure jobs, no to a strong economy and no to a more secure Australia. I find it quite unbelievable. I'm not sure what kinds of conversations those opposite are having in their communities around what's happening with the National Reconstruction Fund and why they are not interested in stimulating the economy or in growing our nation's wealth and creating jobs of the future, but I personally would find it very difficult to have conversations in my community if I were walking away from something as important as this for our country's future.
Advanced manufacturing has a huge multiplier effect. We know this. This is a fact. Manufacturing acts as an anchor for businesses across supply chains, and that's one of the many reasons that the loss of automanufacturing and the decline of manufacturing under the previous government was so devastating. It wasn't just about Toyota or the other car companies; it was about all of the different parts of the supply chain that were engaged in the manufacture of those automobiles.
Through revitalising manufacturing in this country, particularly high-tech advanced manufacturing, we can once again realise the positive impacts throughout the economy, stimulating and driving the development of business, with—and this is a really extraordinary figure—multiplier effects of 10 to one in some high-tech manufacturing sectors. So each dollar we invest reaps much larger returns.
This is a historic, remarkable moment for our nation to go down this path. I remember the many conversations I had throughout the election campaign, and I'm sure many people in this place had conversations with their communities about disrupted supply chains and the fact that we just could not make things here. I remember the distress in conversations with people when they couldn't get medicines in Australia or when they remembered the kinds of great jobs that used to exist. I see scoffing from those opposite, but we're talking about a shortage of infant paracetamol that took place during the pandemic, and I don't think that is funny. Parents were really distressed, during one of the greatest public health crises of our time, that their children weren't able to get pain relief. Those opposite might find that funny; I don't.
I remember when I spoke to people in the electorate about the great kinds of jobs that used to exist in manufacturing. They could support families on those jobs. They had reliable hours and good wages. People in my community remember that Australia. They want that kind of security of work and the kind of high-quality wages that they can support a family on again. People in this country want us to be better at local supply. They were horrified at the state of things during the earlier parts of the pandemic.
Australians know that the National Reconstruction Fund is a way to boost our economy, not just to recover but to rebuild and to be a stronger nation than we were before. We, the Albanese Labor government, were elected on a mandate to drive this transformation of Australian industry and revive our ability to make world-class products in Australia. Manufacturing matters because it creates full-time, meaningful work and secure jobs. We're focusing on high-quality jobs because that means more well-paid and secure jobs.
The $15 billion of the National Reconstruction Fund is a key to support, diversify and transform Australia's industry and to create sustainable, well-paying jobs—those jobs of the future. The NRF, the National Reconstruction Fund, will provide finance to drive investments in seven priority areas of the Australian economy. These leverage Australia's natural and competitive strengths, support the development of strategically important industries and shore up supply chains. Those seven priority areas are value-add in resources; value-add in the agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors; transport; medical science; renewables and low-emission technologies; defence capability; and other enabling capabilities. I know that a lot of the businesses in my electorate, particularly around the Monash Technology Precinct, are really looking forward to seeing what can be possible with the support of a federal government that backs these industries in. There are so many businesses and researchers at the universities already doing incredible work. This is just about enabling them to do more of that to expand the footprint they have in our community; to create those good, secure jobs; and to join with leaders in pharmaceuticals like Moderna and Pfizer in my electorate to create that hub, that ecosystem, where we're generating new ideas, new technologies and wealth for our communities and for our country.
I'm really pleased that we're getting this work done. It was a priority of ours going into the election campaign and, of course, into government. We're not wasting any time before getting it done. Our communities expect this kind of reform of us, especially as we rebuild after the devastating period of the pandemic. I really urge those opposite to reconsider, because I genuinely think this is going to be good for all of our communities—your electorates as well as mine.
r PIKE () (): Another week, another big market intervention from this government! As if the government's radical IR laws, sneaky new carbon tax and investment-killing gas price caps weren't enough of a drag on employment, business confidence and investment, this time Labor proposes a poorly conceived and hugely expensive $15 billion cash splash in the manufacturing sector. It is a sector that the government claim to champion, yet they also seem to have no regard for the real factors that are holding back Australia's manufacturing potential: uncompetitive and ever-escalating energy prices.
If the government are genuine about supporting Australian industry, they need only look at our record in government to see some great examples of targeted, practical policies that will actually do the job. Look no further than the coalition's $2.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy, Mr Deputy Speaker. This was a clear and effective strategy which sought to strengthen our sovereign manufacturing capability, and it delivered, under the previous government, with more than 200 individual projects right across the country.
Compared to the coalition's approach, not only is what the current Labor government proposes in the provisions of this bill excessively expensive, coming in at six times the cost, but, even more critically, its design and proposed execution are rife with problems. Before I point out many of those problems in my contribution this evening, I want to make one point about the government's default approach. Labor's time-honoured approach, once they identify something they want to do something about, is usually a heavy-handed, emotionally charged—as we saw this evening—direct intervention done on a whim, and to hell with the consequences.
We saw this many times during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. One example was an overnight decision to intervene in the live cattle market by banning exports. It was an emotional response to a TV show which resulted in unimaginable cost to the industry and to the families and communities who depend upon it for their existence. We've seen it in the government's rushed response to escalating energy prices, where they've taken the policy approach of price controls—a policy straight out of the playbook of 1980s Argentina. It killed investment there and it is killing investment here. I fear we're straying into similar territory today, where an arrogant government will tell our manufacturers what they need rather than addressing the broader economic challenges that confront them and what they actually want. We all want a strong manufacturing sector in this country but it is in the how that the differences emerge. In the context of this bill, the coalition do have serious concerns and we cannot support this bill in its current form.
The Albanese government's National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023 is an ideologically driven interventionist approach that does a cruel disservice to their stated aim. It is their inexperience in government—or perhaps it's their deplorable track record of public policy design—that does the real damage. If the primary aim of the NRFC is to effectively reinvigorate Australian manufacturing capability then there are fundamental flaws in the design of the NRFC and the way it operates that will doom it to failure. Once created by the measures in this bill, Labor's NRFC is set to suck vast sums of money from almost everywhere and spray them in any direction the government sees fit. There are no criteria to identify genuine need or evidence of strategic alignment when it comes to this bill; neither are any priority areas or investment policy parameters identified in the bill. Such important considerations are conspicuously left out as beyond the scope of the bill. Instead, the parameters that will determine the investment decisions of the NRFC will be at the absolute discretion of the government or, more specifically, left to the minister's judgement to define.
The coalition also has significant concerns about the fiscal irresponsibility of this government. The bill fails a critical test of financial stewardship by securing without further recourse to this parliament an eye-watering $15 billion in funding. This is many times the cost of the coalition's equivalent Modern Manufacturing Strategy. This deliberate design provides an initial $5 billion appropriation with assent to this bill, while a further $10 billion is made available to the government at any time, without additional parliamentary approval. Fifteen billion dollars is a huge amount of money, and this parliament will simply hand it over to an untested scheme with the passage of this bill.
This feature means that important questions of priority areas, investment parameters, senior appointments and the $10 billion in additional future funding will effectively bypass the authority and scrutiny of this parliament. History shows that such a cavalier approach to public policy rarely ends well, especially when it comes with a $15 billion price tag. Such flagrant overreach risks rampant waste, poor investment outcomes, a proliferation of pet projects—try to say that three times fast, Deputy Speaker!—and potential pork-barrelling on a horrendous scale. And it all happens thanks to a flawed design which places such risks well beyond the limited capacity of the NRFC to control.
Beyond its flawed design, the NRFC also risks failure because it ignores the major economic problems which transcend the investments it makes. To put it another way: without addressing skyrocketing energy prices, labour market shortages and disrupted supply chains, any large-scale government spending to stimulate manufacturing will almost certainly be in vain. The minister can call that 'a significant step in rebuilding Australia's industrial capacity' if he likes, but I call it false hope. It is false hope, grounded in poor policy from a bad government.
Of course, it is also important to point out that this parliament will have limited oversight of how this vast sum will be spent and the value to taxpayers of that investment. This bill effectively deals this parliament out of the equation when it comes to ensuring sound manufacturing policy that actually assists the industry.
The Albanese government did have the opportunity, in the October budget, to correct its policy settings to meet the challenge of underlying economic problems. It is deeply troubling to a great many Australians that critical underlying problems, such as the current cost-of-living crisis, are problems that this hapless Labor government has little willingness, and even less ability, to solve.
However, the failings of this bill do not end there. We have serious concerns for the underlying funding model itself. This is because Labor's approach shifts from competitive grant programs with robust tested processes, under the coalition, to the Australian government directly intervening to acquire equity and offer loans with dubious security provisions, under this funding plan.
The potential for adverse unintended consequences with this approach is, of course, very high. Adverse consequences could include risks associated with investment distortion—including the crowding-out of private investment and venture capital to small enterprises and start-ups. If that isn't the case, then the viability of investments that fail to attract private investment should be questioned, which, in turn, begs the further question: why should the Australian government risk being the lender of last resort?
One more negative consequence of Labor's direct investment strategy is the almost certain erosion of business confidence and investment certainty. Heavy-handed government that shifts national priorities on a whim—or with priorities that are too vague, thanks to poor policy design or ideological dogma—only serves to undermine confidence. And where confidence goes, investment capital and innovation soon follow.
Beyond the potential for $15 billion of taxpayers' money to be washed down the drain, there is also the equally precious commodity of lost time. It may take years to correct all the mistakes and deliver appropriate support through reliable mechanisms to where it is so desperately needed. This is only more lost time for Australian manufacturers, and it's time that many don't have.
It's important to consider some of the comments that many of the stakeholders have made in relation to this bill. The Australian Banking Association's submission to the department's consultation noted that:
… banks already invest in many of the priority areas identified by the consultation paper, such as renewables, transport and defence. Investments in priority areas, as proposed, would be better suited towards the beginning of their lifecycle, such as during the research and development or commercialisation phases of a project or business, where it is more difficult for banks to manage the risk profile.
Orica's submission noted that:
We understand the NRF will provide finance in the form of loans, guarantees and equity and will not provide grants. In our experience, and one which is likely shared by other large companies, is that banks generally provide more competitive lending rates for debt financing than that offered by government.
This bill is not addressing what specific industries want or need. Providing excessive and unsustainable public funding without addressing the underlying economic limitations on growth is pointless, self-defeating and it's irresponsible. The government has stooped to a new low today—or yesterday, in fact—relegating Australia's allies in our key defence pact, AUKUS, into a bargaining chip into the debate around this rushed bill.
I want to make a point about the debate surrounding the bill that's been very troubling. AUKUS, of course, is our tremendous new partnership with the United States and the United Kingdom and it should be above politics. But unfortunately, in the last couple of days we've seen that the Labor government is not content to allow this to remain above the political fray. This government has stooped to a new low by relegating Australia's allies and our key defence pact into a bargaining chip to try to sell this bill. It's an act of desperation, unfortunately, from Labor, and it makes clear that the NRF isn't about national security; it is all about politics. When Ed Husic introduced the national reconstruction fund bill he didn't mention the words 'AUKUS' or 'national security' once. He didn't mention it a single time. Yet yesterday, in the press, they're trying to make out that this bill is somehow central to our global alliances. It's complete madness. This is a desperate, desperate politics from a desperate government.
If the NRF is all about national security then why did Labor cut the space industry out of its priorities for this bill? And if Labor are so concerned about defence manufacturing, why have they held up millions of dollars in funding for critical defence manufacturing projects funded through the Modern Manufacturing Strategy? This desperate intervention from Labor politicises the landmark AUKUS partnership, undermining Australia's cornerstone national security agreement. It is particularly concerning to see the Albanese government linking the NRF to such a critical security pact when they will rely on the support of the Greens to pass this bill through the Senate.
Labor putting the NRF into the same conversation as AUKUS is simply dumb policy. It is dumb politics too, and good luck explaining to the Greens that they should back the bill for the sake of AUKUS. If this is such a key national security imperative, as Labor say, then they need to immediately rule out mandating union board members and mandating union agreements for the condition of entry into the fund, because we know several unions joined many anti-AUKUS protests over recent months. The Albanese government has failed to rule out radical union demands as they rush through their National Reconstruction Fund. We saw yesterday that the unions are already waiting with their list of demands about how this whole system will work. They're rushing the bill through because the Albanese government want a blank cheque, and this bill will put in place Labor-picked boards to oversee $15 billion of taxpayer funds on Labor-picked priorities.
The bill hasn't passed yet, but the media are already reporting that unions are ready with their list of demands. Yesterday we saw in the media that they want a third of board positions hand-picked by the Council of Trade Unions, determined to get access to the funding, of course, and—another kicker—they want enterprise agreements with unions as a precondition to make an application to this stream of funding. This essentially enshrines compulsory unionism to be a successful applicant and this is, of course, a massive throwback to pre-1980s Labor policy.
I'll conclude with this point: the Labor Party first committed to a $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund while in opposition, with an announcement on 15 November 2021 that hailed the NRF as the first step in Labor's plan to rebuild Australia's industrial base. Labor's 2021 announcement then went on to say that the NRF would unlock potential private investment of more than $30 billion. Well, how exciting. We should have thought of that, given their onward slide to the left on the political spectrum, with one of the most interventionist approaches seen from any Australian government in decades. But here's the thing: the bill establishing the NRF does not include any requirement for co-contributions of financial recipients or any private investment in NRF funded projects. It's too expensive, it's too opaque, it's too risky, and it asks way too much of the Australian taxpayer.
Debate interrupted.
I want to pay tribute tonight to the member for Menzies, the member for Casey, Senator Chandler and all other colleagues across the House and in the other place who have championed the cause of human rights in Iran. As the member for Berowra, with a significant Persian community, I want to pay tribute to the members of our diaspora who have bravely led the movement here and in other diaspora communities around the world to draw the attention of those in power to the injustices committed by the Iranian regime.
On Tuesday in my address on the anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations, I spoke about the journey of our country and the integral part that simple actions of extraordinary people have played in driving change. I recorded the walk of Jimmy Clements and John Noble to the opening of Old Parliament House in 1927, and the 1938 march of that great Yorta Yorta man William Cooper, who, after Kristallnacht, protested outside the German consulate. Martin Luther King wrote from a Birmingham jail:
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.
Long before Martin Luther King, William Cooper understood and shared our interconnectedness. In a democracy like ours, we celebrate what Alexis de Tocqueville observed when people band together to advance some truth or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example. In a democracy like ours, we celebrate free speech by bringing a free media into this building so that power is held to account.
Political action and free speech can be confronting because they create calls to change. Over the past year we've seen this sort of political action in the waves of protest in Iran—protests for freedom, protests for liberty, protests for equality. I want to state clearly my admiration for the young people who are standing for freedom and liberty, young men and women of Iran who are risking it all. To them I say: you're part of a great tradition that extends through much of human history. You may live under the sword of fear, but you are counted among the champions of liberty.
Persians are a timeless and ancient people, with a nation that has experienced war and revolution. We witness now the future seeking freedom from the past, where the young are seeking to free themselves from the cult-like madness that has gripped the old for over 40 years. For decades this madness has been expressed against the very existence of the only democracy in the Middle East, the state of Israel, and our great friend and ally the United States. That madness has metastasised and is now expressed against the citizens of their own republic.
Many years ago the great American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke of the four freedoms, the four freedoms that underpin human dignity: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Freedom from fear—that's what the Iranian people are standing against. The fear felt by children jailed for who their parents are or for expressing ideas that are different, the fear felt by women who walk alone or who wish to cut their hair, the fear felt by a person who identifies as LGBTI and fears jail and death, the fear of being labelled a heretic for a misspoken word or a deeply held faith belief; the fear of surreptitiously being recorded and having daily conversations monitored, and the fear of a justice system—if you can call it that—expressed through abductions, torture, secret trials and death penalties.
The Iranian regime is a criminal regime. Iran might have a coat of arms, a flag, uniforms and a passport accepted in fewer and fewer countries, but they act no differently than the terrorists who dispense their version of justice from the barrel of a gun on the back of a Toyota truck. Iran's crimes against their own people have destroyed the resemblance of legitimacy. That's why I support moves to make Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps listed as a proscribed terrorist organisation. The IRGC are feared; they operate at home and abroad. The Australian Signals Directorate has confirmed that guard affiliated actors have targeted Australian organisations with ransomware attacks. They're a known supporter of listed organisations such as Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Syria. The repeated actions of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps rob them of any governmental legitimacy.
I understand questions have been raised that part 5.3 of the Criminal Code makes the listing of the IRGC difficult. These are not insignificant issues, and I appreciate the sensitivities. But tonight, as shadow Attorney-General, I want to put on record and say to the government that we are open to working with them to support amendments to the Criminal Code that would address those difficulties. I am confident, working together, we can list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation.
The lesson of 2022 and 2023 in Iran and in Ukraine and elsewhere around the world is that we should stand with those who are defending liberty and flying the flag of freedom.
Yesterday the member for Page and I, along with Melina Morrison, the CEO of the Business Council for Co-operatives and Mutuals, launched Parliamentary Friends of Cooperatives and Mutuals. Co-ops and mutuals are member based organisations that trade for surplus to fulfil their purpose. Their members are at the centre of their enterprise. Maybe you think you don't know any of these businesses, but 80 per cent of Australians are members of at least one, and many are a member of more than one—I turn out to be a member of four of them. They account for seven to eight per cent of GDP.
What sorts of businesses are we talking about? They include superannuation funds; motoring services like RACQ, RAA and NRMA; banking services like ME Bank, Beyond Bank and credit unions; agricultural co-ops; health insurance, like Health Partners; disability services like Kudos Services in Adelaide; health services; housing co-ops; arts co-ops; and aged-care co-ops. There are also 170 First Nations cooperatives across Australia, ranging from health and aged care to arts, primary produce and banking, just to name a few. The largest co-op in Australia is grain co-op CBH, and one of the largest, internationally, is Rabobank.
By entering into a cooperative arrangement, small businesses, primary producers and individual members can achieve much bigger and better outcomes than they could by themselves. Co-ops and mutuals are a great win-win for members, and they're an important part of our economy.
One of my fond memories of my childhood was participating in the Tea Tree Gully gymnastics club. As they say, gymnastics teaches skills for life. For instance, the skills I learned that gymnastics came in very handy when I was aged about five and a very large and very overly friendly hand-reared steer at my grandparents' farm ran at me, no doubt wanting to be patted. The steer was a lot bigger than me, and I got spooked and ran at the barbed wire fence. I got both hands on the wooden fence post and straddle jumped the fence, shredding the inside of my tracksuit pants on both legs—but I landed the jump safely on the other side.
This is the story I told the Gymnastics South Australia's awards dinner last night. Gymnastics includes kinder gym, rhythmic gymnastics, artistic gymnastics, tumbling, circus skills—a shout-out to my friends at Circobats—sport aerobics, sport acrobatics, trampoline sports and gym for all. More than 45,000 people across South Australia participate in gymnastics in some way, from toddlers attending kinder gym to learn gross motor skills through to people in their 80s and 90s. Of course, none of this could be achieved without the many coaches, volunteers, officials, families and other supporters.
Gymnastics is not just fun and good for escaping rogue farm animals; it is good for strength, flexibility, balance and gross motor skills. In fact, it's so good that AFL teams often use it as a strength-building exercise. In this place and in the wider community we're all aware of the importance of community sporting groups for fitness, mental health and community connection. Sporting clubs, largely run by volunteers, are part of what binds our community together, giving people the opportunity to meet their neighbours and community and have some fun.
There are at least 16 gymnastics clubs in Boothby and five kinder gyms. On Saturday night, clubs from across South Australia attended the awards night, some travelling from as far as the Eyre Peninsula, Mount Gambier and the Riverland. Many congratulations to all of the individual, coach, team and club award winners from kinder gym through to elite athletes competing on the international stage. A particular congratulations goes to the Mitcham Rhythmic Gymnastics Club, who adapted a performance featuring ball, ribbon and hoop to a much smaller environment and didn't take out any of us.
Gymnastics South Australia advise me that they have awarded me a 10 for my straddle jump, but I don't think that's an official score. Thank you.
When I travel through the Flynn electorate, lack of childcare workers and accessibility issues are among the most frequently raised issues. In the 2022-23 budget, Labor announced a $4.7 billion childcare package over four years, which will lift the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent for families for the first child in care; increase childcare subsidy rates for every family earning less than $530,000 in household income with one child in care; keep higher childcare subsidy rates for the second and additional children in care; and extend increased subsidy to outside school hours care.
However, not one single dollar of this $4.7 billion package will go to creating more childcare places or addressing chronic workforce shortages in rural, regional, and remote Australia. Labor's plan is all about cheaper child care for metropolitan families. In my electorate of Flynn, many families cannot find a childcare place for their child. This is preventing parents from returning to work sooner. Our communities need availability and accessibility, not just affordability. There are 36 childcare providers in the Flynn electorate, offering a maximum of 2,419 childcare places.
Labor's plan states that Indigenous children will be able to access 36 hours of subsidised child care per fortnight from July 2023. Woorabinda and Eidsvold, with large First Nations Indigenous populations, do not have any childcare options available. How can every Indigenous child be given 36 hours per fortnight where no child care exists?
Labor is not lifting a finger or spending a cent on improving childcare accessibility for the bush. Recent data suggests there are around 20,000 early educator vacancies run the country. Goodstart Early Learning predicts an additional 9,000 educators will be needed on top of current vacancies under this policy come 1 July, and yet Labor cannot tell us where or how they plan to find these additional educators. Centres are capping enrolments, closing rooms and asking children to stay home. I've spoken to families stuck on waiting lists and unable to work because there are no places for their children. Labor is willing to spend $4.7 billion on early learning, yet not a single dollar will go towards creating new places for children who need it most.
In my electorate of Flynn, there are no childcare vacancies in Boyne Island, Gayndah, Mount Morgan, Mundubbera or Wondai. There are also childcare centres is Agnes Water, Emerald and even Gladstone that do not have any vacancies at all. Many families in regional Australia have no access to care, which begs the question: without educators and without access, how can Labor's policy deliver for families and children in rural and regional areas? What is the point of having lower out-of-pocket costs when you can't get your child into a place? Labor has no plan to address this, and it is clear they are just making it up as they go along. Seventy-five per cent of Australians in regional, rural and remote communities live in a childcare desert, with three children competing for every place available. Instead of taking action to improve access to childcare for rural Australians, Labor is spending billions subsidising childcare costs for millionaire families in big metropolitan cities.
In September of 2022 I wrote to the Treasurer about increasing community concerns around the lack of child care in the electorate of Flynn, especially in our more rural regions, and the financial barriers when entering the sector and establishing family day care. The Labor government must look into what the industry groups are proposing. In January 2022 Family Day Care Australia lodged a submission to Treasury on behalf of their members. The budget submission outlined the case for four key funding priorities that are not only pivotal in ensuring long-term viability of family day care but which also represent an appropriate and equitable allocation of funding for a sector to support sustainable growth.
As the federal member for Flynn, I wish to continue to work with stakeholders, organisations and government to form practical solutions to address these problems. What we need is availability and accessibility as well as affordability.
Tonight I wish to discuss robodebt. I take the advice from before about not coming to conclusions given the royal commission is underway, but I think it is important that we look at some of the history of this in this place. Back on 13 February 2017, I moved a motion in the House calling on the government to basically come clean and condemning the then Minister for Human Services for his failure to respond to growing community concern and calling on the then Prime Minister to intervene to halt the system and fix it before age pensioners and those with disabilities were also terrorised with a debt they might not owe. That was in 2017, five years ago. I said to the House:
This has been like one of those mail scams where thousands of fake invoices are mailed out or emailed and, if even just a handful of people pay up without checking whether they are real, it nets a tidy profit for the scammers.
A Senate inquiry, initiated by Labor, then went on to look into the issue, and I'm pleased to say we now have a royal commission initiated to look into the who, why, where, when and how of this disgraceful scheme that is a stain on this nation's character.
You don't need the conclusion of a royal commission—because there's been a $1.8 billion settlement—to know that many thousands of Australians have been adversely affected by this. Of course, we'll wait for the findings of the royal commission before we go further on that. But the royal commission has been conducting public hearings over recent weeks. It's been absolutely gut-wrenching to watch it and to listen to the evidence. Finally, we may get to the bottom of how this was perpetrated on the Australian people.
We already know that the scheme unlawfully claimed almost $2 billion in payments from 433,000 people, many of them low-income Australians who had no capacity to pay. Imagine getting a notice in the mail, saying, 'You owe the Australian government money and you must pay it back,' and you know you don't owe it but you just have no facility to challenge it. People paid up because people trusted the government to get it right. They trusted the government, and their own government was stealing from them. It was absolutely disgraceful.
A report from the Ombudsman and two separate Senate inquiries reached the same conclusion. Time and again, it was found there was a lack of fairness with the calculation of debt, that the scheme targeted vulnerable people and that it was causing widespread harm.
In 20 November 2020, the former government agreed to settle a class action lawsuit out of court and the following year a final settlement of $1.8 billion was approved by Justice Bernard Murphy, who described the program as a 'shameful chapter' in Australia's social security history. Shameful, indeed. The former government had the audacity to send debt notices to innocent Australians for money they did not owe, stealing the money of their own citizens, some of them the most vulnerable citizens in the country. Imagine the shock, anxiety and trauma caused by receiving a debt notice from the Commonwealth, with all the power and symbolism of the Commonwealth, with that crest on it, for thousands of dollars for a debt you do not owe, cannot repay and have no way of disproving. It was absolutely heartless, and the tragic outcomes are well documented.
There's been evidence to the royal commission that one young man, Rhys Cauzzo, took his life aged 28 after reportedly being told he owed $18,000 and being contacted by an external debt collection agency. There was a second case of a woman being sent a robodebt letter even though inquiries later showed—I'm getting this report from the Guardian newspaper—there was no possibility she could have owed a debt to the government. The commission was told that, under the robodebt scheme's processes, a woman may have been required to seek pay information from the same employer where she had been bullied. A loved one subsequently reported that she had taken her own life, attributing this in part to the stress caused by the letter. It is a shameful chapter in Australia's history. I urge anybody listening to this broadcast to check out Laura Tingle's piece on 3 February, which goes into detail about the sorts of actions that need to be taken to make sure this shameful thing can never happen again.
In the few seconds left, I draw the House's attention to the comments of members of this place. The member for Fairfax said in 2017 that robodebt was 'a normal, responsible process'. He's now on the opposition frontbench. The member for Banks said robodebt was 'appropriate and sensible'. He's also on the opposition frontbench. They should be held accountable for their comments and for their support for this disgraceful— (Time expired)
I rise to speak tonight on the cost-of-living pressures facing Australians and, in particular, people in my community in Western Sydney. I recently met with the CEO of Christ Mission Possible and senior pastor of the Rock Christian Community, Martin Beckett, in my Penrith office. Christ Mission Possible is located in Kingswood, in my Lindsay electorate. It is a charity that provides food and accommodation, particularly for people experiencing homelessness. Each week, they support over 7,000 people with essential food items. They provide over 1,500 meals each week. Every year, they provide crisis temporary accommodation to over 1,200 people.
Martin and I spoke about the challenges people are facing in Western Sydney—in particular, due to food insecurity and cost-of-living pressures. Martin tells me that now most of the people coming through the doors to collect hampers of food and groceries aren't people sleeping rough. They are pensioners, retirees and families. The decision of whether to pay the rent or the mortgage or to use electricity, against putting food on the table, is very real in Western Sydney.
Hearings of the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living are revealing the real crunch Australians are facing with higher prices and higher mortgages leaving more families struggling to put food on the table and purchase essentials. This is impacting people right across Australia, including renters.
I want to talk further about some of the points from the Reserve Bank and their estimation that 800,000 Australian households will move off their low fixed mortgage rates this year. This is going to put real pressure on the pockets of those households, particularly in Western Sydney, where we see mortgage stress as a real issue. A Sydney Morning Herald article titled 'The Sydney marginal seats most exposed to rising interest rates' last year noted Western Sydney seats in the top three, including Lindsay. It said 42.6 per cent of Lindsay residents with a mortgage were in financial stress. After the non-stop rate rises seen under this Labor Treasurer, financial stress is now soaring. The RBA governor has confirmed more rate rises are on the way, which will cause even more pain before inflation, hopefully, gets under control.
Kate Colvin of Everybody's Home told news.com.au last year that, after this Labor government came to office, 'outer Western Sydney will be particularly hard hit by these rises'. The ABC covered this issue in the second half of last year, with an online story titled 'Western Sydney home owners bear the brunt of interest rate hikes, as mortgage repayments squeeze budgets'. In this article, the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue's Adam Leto spoke about mortgage stress being a factor for years to come and the anxiety that can come from the risk of losing your house. These aren't just stories in newspapers; these are real people, with real lives, with real issues because of the cost-of-living pressures that are impacting every Australian right now. That also includes an impact on their mental health.
As shadow assistant minister for mental health and suicide prevention, I am particularly concerned that, despite the significant ongoing, persistent pressures on the Labor government, they are just not listening when it comes to the slashing of Medicare-funded psychology sessions, which have been cut in half, from 20 to 10. The former coalition government doubled the number of Medicare-subsidised sessions available, through the Better Access initiative. Serious mental health issues are often at their highest two to three years after a crisis, a pandemic or a disaster, which is why it is absolutely vital that vulnerable Australians now experiencing the additional impact of cost-of-living pressures have continued access to the psychology sessions that they clearly need.
Flooding has caused devastation across my community multiple times over the last few years, and I hear from locals about how they're struggling. The pandemic has caused wreckage to businesses and livelihoods, and this is causing mental health issues still today. The independent evaluation of the Better Access initiative recommended:
… the additional 10 sessions should continue to be made available and should be targeted towards those with more complex mental health needs.
The Labor government needs to listen to the mental health professionals and provide the services Australians need, because this cost-of-living crisis is impacting people right across Western Sydney. They can't afford to see a psychologist. During a cost-of-living crisis, it is extraordinary that the Labor government would force Australians to pay more for their mental health. They need to do something. They need to listen to every single Australian and every single psychologist in this country.
I might remind the member for Lindsay that she was directly responsible for those cuts. It was her government that did that, not us.
Tomorrow will be the 40th anniversary of the Ash Wednesday bushfires, considered to be some of the deadliest fires in Australia's history. On that day, 40 years ago tomorrow, 180 fires tore through large parts of Victoria and South Australia, including our community of McEwen. It is a tragedy that seared itself into the memories of all Victorians. I remember being a young boy living in Broadmeadows, having just turned 15 at the time, and how the sky turned orange. We could not see through the smoke, the ash and the embers coming forward. We weren't anywhere near the fire front—we were kilometres away—but we could still smell it, and it still impacted our families and our households. This was the smoke that enveloped the entire state.
For electorates like McEwen, anniversaries like this are incredibly important, and, sadly, they come all too often. We have had 75 per cent of the electorate burnt over the past 40 years, and it has suffered in every major bushfire season. Our communities are shaped by fires we have experienced, as we have been brought together in shared trauma and then the shared path to recovery. We all know the devastating effects of fires and we rally around those who have been affected. Earlier this week, I had the honour of introducing a motion to the House commemorating the Black Saturday bushfires and the awful impact they had on our communities. But, before Black Saturday, there were the Australia Day fires, the Kinglake fires and, of course, Ash Wednesday.
Ash Wednesday was a result of months of the driest conditions on record at the time. Romsey firefighter Ralph Hermann described how the grass would crackle when you walked on it and the soil and the air were so dry. It was a tinderbox ready to explode, and that it did. Graham Simpson, then a fire brigade captain at Cockatoo CFA, explained the pain in his stomach when he felt the wind change and heard those fire sirens ring out. In the drought-stricken landscape, the fire tore through it, with places like Macedon catching fire as people attempted to escape. Seventy-five people lost their lives that day. Some were found having tried to escape the fast-moving fires. Others had been defending their homes.
Of the 75 people who died, 14 were Victorian CFA firefighters and three were South Australian firefighters. I want to pay tribute to the Panton Hill CFA crew who lost their lives in the service of the McEwen community: Bill Marsden, Peter Singleton, Maurice Atkinson, Stuart Duff and Neville Jeffery—people whose names should never be forgotten for what they were prepared to do as volunteers. On the eve of this anniversary, I encourage members of our community to visit the Panton Hill Memorial, where their names have been immortalised due to their service to the community. We should take this anniversary as a reminder of those who put themselves in the line of danger every day.
I've talked before in this place about the bravery and heroism of our firefighters—the volunteers who step up, the average Australians who become heroes to protect communities. Ash Wednesday came after a long campaign by the CFA, which had responded to 3,200 fires during the period. A lot of the volunteers' families remember their loved ones being gone up to two to three weeks fighting fires—two to three weeks of giving everything to protect not only their own communities but the communities across the state. Our volunteers gave everything for weeks to protect average Victorians, and they have done so ever since, whether it's in the Black Saturday fires or the Black Summer fires or every fire in between.
We also know that events like these are not just over when the last fire is put out. Over 3,700 hundred buildings were destroyed or damaged, and 2,545 individuals and families lost their homes. The recovery cost then was at $400 million. This kind of event is something that stays in communities' minds for years to come. The fire burned itself not just into the landscape but into the collective consciousness of our communities. In Woodend, for example, 250 people sought shelter on the oval. Later, in response to all the damage, temporary housing was set up on the oval. Some people were forced to stay there for up to two years.
Tomorrow will be a hard day for so many members of our community, including those in, and those who have served in, the CFA. So my thoughts are with all those who were affected by these fires—to all those who will find it that bit harder to get out of bed tomorrow, to all those who had to rebuild from the ground up and to all those remembering the mates they have lost. In our communities of McEwen, we can stand together and be proud of the resilience and the ability to come together when our friends, our neighbours and our communities are in need.
House adjourned at 19:59
We're six months into the robodebt royal commission and I share the fury of the many Australians who are watching the inquiry unfold, but I also applaud the brave Centrelink recipients who've taken the stand to share how the dodgy data-matching system destroyed their lives. Like the pensioner who said the trauma of receiving a $65,000 debt notice will stay with her forever. Another, a single mum, gave evidence she was so sleep deprived from the stress of receiving a debt notice that she contemplated driving her car into a tree.
Sadly, these stories are all too familiar to me, as my office took hundreds of calls and emails from people who'd received threatening letters demanding they repay Centrelink or face prosecution. Repeatedly, people recounted their futile attempts to seek an explanation of their alleged debt, despite spending countless hours on the phone to Centrelink.
We now understand that most Services Australia staff didn't know themselves how the income-averaging system worked, and some staff who knew the scheme wasn't working properly were silenced by senior staff. Thankfully the royal commission has confirmed where the responsibility for this disastrous scheme lies, that Centrelink staff were taking their instructions from the top, directed by the department to do whatever it took to claw back money from clients. In turn, senior staff were taking instructions from the government. Frankly, this was loan shark behaviour from our elected officials and some of the highest-paid bureaucrats in Australia.
Evidence from the hearings has also established that senior management and former government ministers dodged warnings the scheme could be illegal, making this one of the worst cases of maladministration in our history. And yet, shockingly, very little remorse has been expressed for the suffering caused. It's no wonder the Australian public has so little faith in government nowadays.
Even more shockingly, I continue to be contacted by constituents who have received irregular debt notices from Centrelink. One constituent tells me she recently received a $60,000 debt notice in her myGov account with no explanation as to how the debt was calculated. And an older couple in my electorate told me they couldn't get a simple question answered about their age pension for months, despite visiting a Centrelink office several times.
Australians must have access to an effective income support system and be treated with respect and dignity when accessing government services. The royal commission presents an opportunity for the government to reset the social services system and to introduce much needed systemic reforms to Centrelink. I urge the minister to continue to do whatever it takes to achieve this.
We're all painfully aware that last week south-eastern Turkiye and northern Syria were devastated by a 7.8 magnitude earthquake, which was phenomenal. As that news came through, we knew what impact that would have. Since then, it has just been tragedy upon tragedy. It is just too staggering to comprehend that, as of this morning, 40,000 lives have been lost in both Syria and Turkiye.
The community I'm proud to represent in Chifley has a lot of people from Turkish and Syrian backgrounds who've made Australia their home. We are saddened not just for the people in Turkiye and Syria, but also feel for them as they go through this humanitarian crisis. Behind the numbers we see on the news is the human tragedy, there are the lives that are forever changed. People who are grieving the loss of their loved ones, who have lost their homes, are scrambling to save whatever's left in those freezing conditions.
We want to extend our condolences, if we may, to those who've lost family and friends during a very tragic event. We extend our thanks to the tens of thousands of rescuers, including the 72 Australian emergency personnel. They've landed in Turkiye. The rescue specialists, medical staff and engineers are bringing 22 metric tons of equipment, including first aid supplies, cameras and underground listening equipment to help them search for survivors.
I want to commend organisations in our area for the work that they're doing to help out in this time of need, in particular the Western Sydney Turkish Islamic Cultural Centre in Mount Druitt, who are doing some extraordinary work in helping in whatever way they can and providing a centre where people can drop in and deliver essential items that they want to deliver. They're calling out for other donations to aid impacted communities. As part of their humanitarian efforts, the centre is going to be holding fundraising stall at the mosque this Friday in Mount Druitt.
Some of the images from this devastating situation have been really hard to watch, like the dad holding on to the hand of his daughter who lost their life, crushed by some of that rubble. We all feel this and we just want them to know that we've seen it, we know what they're going through and we're there to help them at this time of crisis. We are very grateful to everyone who was there giving a helping hand at that truly terrible time.
It's a privilege to rise today to speak about some of the significant achievers in my electorate in the Australia Day honours. Australia Day, of course, is widely celebrated in Mitchell and in north-west and Western Sydney. Whether reflecting on Australia's history or marking our successes as a modern nation, it is a well-received and supported day. To all the residents who achieved Australia Day honours I want to pay particular tribute, starting with Mrs Rosemary Derwin AM, for her services to the Girl Guides for over 35 years in New South Wales, United Nations Women, the Kenthurst Rural Fire Service and involvement in our community organisations in Mitchell, including the Hills Community Medical Equipment Pool, a fantastic service that provides medical equipment to many needy people; her Anglican Church; and, of course, the White Ribbon campaign.
There was the late John Moxon AM. His family, of course, are so proud of his service to community health and people with physical disability. He worked for many years in the Parramatta City Council Access Advisory Committee and was a well-known figure in Parramatta, and for the Physical Disability Council of New South Wales and Physical Disability Australia, where he was a founding member. He helped people with spinal cord injuries, working with Spinal Cord Injuries Australia and People with Disability Australia, and, of course, he did so many other things. It's very difficult in this time to remark on the life of the late John Moxon.
Mrs Jacqueline Dominish OAM was recognised for her service to health administration. She was in the Ministry of Health for about 20 years and worked very hard in health, whether it was in the UK or in New South Wales for over 10 years. We thank her for her service.
Andrew Golgini received the Australian Corrections Medal. He pioneered forensic cleaning in corrections during COVID, a very difficult time for corrections facilities around Australia managing prisoners through a very difficult medical pandemic. He was instrumental in ensuring COVID wasn't as bad as it could be within corrections facilities.
I want to pay particular tribute to Mark Harris PSM for his outstanding public service to education. He drives outcomes at Auburn North Public School. He's been a teacher for 40 years, 20 of them as principal at Auburn. He's a bedrock in the Auburn community. He lives in my electorate and works so hard for the kids from socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. The education minister has written to us, noting to all colleagues that there are very few teachers nominated for awards each year, and I'm very proud to have one from my electorate in the Australia Day honours this year. Mark Harris is an outstanding educator and person who works so hard for the community of Auburn. I welcome the education minister's call for all of us to nominate more teachers to make sure that there are more honours awarded in the Australia Day Awards to teachers around the country.
I also want to commemorate and acknowledge all of the Australia Day Award winners from the Hills Shire councils, which has some great community groups. In particular this year, there is the Hills SES unit. The last few years have been some of the hardest in the unit's history, as they have been around the country. They are a volunteer based organisation all through the north-west, dealing with the bushfires in the Hawkesbury for a long time, visiting the floods in Lismore and doing everything they can all around the country. It is welcome, and I commend the Hills SES for their great service to Australia.
Earlier this month I had the opportunity to represent Minister Husic at the official opening of the upgrade to the University of Tasmania's Greenhill Observatory, in my electorate, alongside Mr Enrico Palermo, Head of the Australian Space Agency, and Professor Rufus Black, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania. The Australian government, through the Australian Space Agency, supported the upgrade of the University of Tasmania spacecraft tracking and communication facilities with a $1.2 million grant under the Space Infrastructure Fund. I'm very proud that my electorate is host to what is one of Australia's most advanced space-tracking facilities. Tasmania's southern latitudes, clear skies, low population density and proximity to Antarctica have enabled Tasmanian researchers to become leaders in radioastronomy, space tracking and space-human life sciences.
Tasmania has globally recognised expertise in space domain awareness, spacecraft tracking and communications, and it's only getting busier up there. Last year there were 180 rocket launches into orbit—44 more than in 2021. SpaceX's Starlink network alone has more than 3,300 operation satellites. Since 2020 it has had to recalibrate trajectories 26,000 times to prevent collisions with other objects. It's just that sort of communication required that the University of Tasmania's Greenhill Observatory will be part of. The upgrade allows it to communicate with satellites to do that sort of recalibration. The advancement of this critical infrastructure will expand Tasmania's space research and commercial opportunities and boost the way Tasmania collaborates across industry research and government and internationally.
Space technologies can play an important role in growing our economy and developing skills and technologies that help Australians every day. This is just the type of innovation and technological advancement in industry that will be supported by the National Reconstruction Fund. The NRF will assist Australian industry, particularly in the regions, to seize new growth opportunities by providing finance for projects that add value, improve productivity and support transformation. It'll drive investment in key areas of the economy, value-adding resources in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, transport, medical science, renewables, low-emission technologies, defence and other enabling capabilities. I congratulate the University of Tasmania and the Australian Space Agency on the opening of the upgrade to the Greenhill Observatory. I look forward to seeing what other innovations and transformations will emerge from Tasmanian industry and Tasmanian tech with the support of the NRF. Live long and prosper!
I acknowledge and congratulate members of my community who received awards at the recent Australia Day Awards in Lismore. Colin Cameron received an OAM for services to broadcast media and to the community. Sophia Watt was named Lismore Citizen of the Year for her commitment to community by delivering thousands of meals to flood-affected members and by coordinating community volunteers and fundraising. That was a massive effort, and I thank and give congratulations to Sophie. Naomi Moran was named the Aboriginal Citizen of the Year for leadership in flood recovery by setting up a disaster recovery hub at the Koori Mail building. Ron Weir was awarded the Services in Community (Individual) Award for his 70-plus years of devotion to various community groups and over 40 years as club president and district governor of the Rotary Club—congratulations Ron. The Services in the Community (Group) Award went to the Love for Lismore Heart Space, which created a safe and welcoming environment for people to heal from the flooding natural disasters. The under-16's Far North Coast Baseball team was awarded the sports team award for winning the New South Wales Country Championships title in 2022 despite not playing a regular-season game at their ground due to flood damage at the Albert Park complex—an amazing effort. Joshua Herne was awarded the Senior Sportsperson Award for continuing to commit and excel despite losing his home and business in last year's devastating floods. Lachlan O'Sullivan was made Junior Sportsperson of the Year for his dedication and commitment across four sports as well as volunteering for umpiring and coaching. Thank you and congratulations to all of those winners.
I congratulate community members who were recognised at the recent Bonalbo Australia Day Awards. Citizen of the Year went to Paddy Kirkley, who does an enormous amount of volunteer work. She organises local competitions for the community, helps schools as secretary of the Bonalbo CWA and helped establish the Bonalbo Food Pantry. The achievement of Creative Arts Person of the Year went to Graeme Waldron for his artistic body of work that has won multiple art exhibitions, and for contributing to the Bonalbo art scene. The Community Organisation/Event of the Year Award went to the Art Alliance, who organise free workshops. The Young Citizen of the Year went to Alex Hampson, who developed an app to link youth to local support services. Congratulations to all those award winners.
I congratulate and acknowledge members of my community who received Australia Day Awards in the Ballina Shire Council area. Kerrie Gray received an OAM for services to the community—congratulations, Kerrie. Citizens of the Year were Rex and Di Farrell, captain and crewmember of the Wardell Rural Fire Service. Rex and Di showed an outstanding commitment to the Wardell community during February 2022 floods by assisting with rescues, setting up emergency evacuation centres and continuing assistance in the weeks and following months. I thank them for their efforts.
Sydney is dressed up and ready to celebrate the arrival of WorldPride this weekend. WorldPride is the largest LGBTQIA+ festival on earth, and this year, for the very first time, it's leaving the Northern Hemisphere and travelling down under. Over half a million people are tipped to visit Sydney, bringing with them $100 million of spending money. After a few very difficult years for local tourism, this is great news. Visitors will be staying in our fantastic hotels, eating at our wonderful restaurants and visiting our sites all over Sydney.
Held over three weeks, WorldPride offers something for everybody: an opening night concert with Kylie Minogue and Charli XCX; the world's largest-ever human rights conference on LGBTQIA+ issues; 17 different competitions, including the World Gay Boxing Championships; the Pride March over Sydney Harbour Bridge; the opening of the Qtopia museum in Darlinghurst—and I really want to give a shout-out to the people who are behind Qtopia because they're doing an amazing job in getting this museum project up and running; Fair Day in Victoria Park this Sunday; and, of course, the 45th annual Mardi Gras Parade down Oxford Street. I've had the real pleasure of attending well over 20 Mardi Gras parades, and I can say it's a fantastic night every time.
It's been a really wonderful thing to watch the Mardi Gras Parade grow over time and watch people embrace it in larger and larger numbers over the years, to the point where it's now the second-largest event in the Sydney calendar—after the New Year's Eve fireworks. These festivals and parades are a lot of fun, but they're more than just a party. They grew out of struggle and a continuing campaign for equality. In particular, they tell young Australians—in particular, those who might be worried about their sexuality—that there is a place for them in modern Australia. So just by existing, these events save lives. It doesn't matter who you love and it doesn't matter what your family looks like, how you dress or how you run your private life, as long as you are kind and respectful to other people. In the end, we're all human beings equally worthy of love and happiness. If you are part of the celebration, please look after yourselves and look after your friends. As WorldPride comes to town, there is something for all of us to celebrate.
I want to send a special message out to a young lady called Abbie Kelly, who's from Broken Hill. She'll be there with her Rainbow Shoelace Project, and she's a great example of a young person growing up in regional Australia who has decided to engage in activism to support other young people in her local community and around Australia. I know that Abbie will have a great time visiting Sydney and promoting the Rainbow Shoelace Project.
My home of Toowoomba is grieving the death of Mr Robert Brown, at the age of 75, earlier this week. Mr Brown died of injuries sustained in an attack that took place in broad daylight outside the Grand Central Shopping Centre. Footage shows his young attacker, with great cowardice, violently shoving Mr Brown from behind—his frail body hitting the road face first and never moving again—before the young attacker then steals Mr Brown's backpack from his lifeless body.
What happened has become an all-too-common story in Toowoomba: a stolen car and a police chase through our city. We've lived with this crime wave for too long. Everyone I know in Toowoomba knows someone who's had their house broken into, had a car stolen or been confronted by a gang of youths in our public spaces. But now things have escalated again. Last night, a 16-year-old received gunshot wounds—again, in broad daylight and in the centre of our city. An 18-year-old has been charged. This is unacceptable.
Our beautiful city, until only recently a place where families moved to for its safe, easy and happy lifestyle, is now under threat. Something beautiful has been taken away from us. The Toowoomba Chronicle has given voice to our anger, starting its Enough is Enough campaign, calling for the Premier to come to Toowoomba to hear us and help us. In the pandemic, the Premier saw fit to come to our city and tell us she was keeping us safe. It appears safety only mattered to her when there was a headline to grab.
The Premier won't be coming to Toowoomba City Hall this Wednesday. It's been arranged for her to attend, but, unfortunately, she's only sending up her ministers and minions, failing the people of Toowoomba in our hour of need. She is our Premier. She's a premier for all of Queensland, and she's a premier for our town of Toowoomba too. She needs to be there, and there is still time for her to change her mind. I hope she will.
We need her to commit to three things: to make breach of bail an offence again, to make detention no longer the last resort for magistrates and to introduce tougher minimum sentences rather than the existing tougher maximum sentences, which she talks about and which are almost never used. I don't want to see more kids in detention; no-one does. I just want to see fewer kids committing these barbaric crimes.
This has shocked our community. It's been a terrible series of events. But I don't want the final words on Robert Brown in this place to be of him as the victim. I'd rather remember him as a photographer who loved to take shots around Grand Central, capturing the built environment of Toowoomba as it passed through our beautiful seasonal tones—the faces of our city's happy children reflected in his lens and in his own smile. He was a man who would sit and, in his soft voice, while holding your hand, talk about his photography as if nothing in the world was worth even another passing care. May he rest in peace.
At the start of February, I had the pleasure of visiting Gorokan Public School, along with Dr Gordon Reid and Minister Jason Clare. Gorokan Public is a caring, tight-knit community, which is why it was a delight to have it as the location to announce the Albanese government's Student Wellbeing Boost bounce back program. The program will invest a little over $200 million this year to help young people at every single school across the country. That will boil down to an average of $20,000 per school to support students' wellbeing and mental health.
At Gorokan, school principal, Jesmond Zammit, said the student leaders, including school captains, Vienna Duke and Elijah Graham, would work with the P&C and the wider school community to come up with ideas for how the funding could best be used. The money could assist students from their kitchen garden to visit the Royal Easter Show this year. The school, under the leadership of teacher Kelly King, entered the Royal Easter Show for the first time last year, where they were very proud to be awarded a third-place ribbon. The students at Gorokan have grown amazing produce and would love the opportunity to see the fruits of their labour at the show.
COVID has been hard on students, teachers and school communities. Good mental health and wellbeing have a significant impact on young people's engagement with education and their learning outcomes in the classroom. These funds will allow schools to have a flexible approach to determining what works in their community and give them ways in which they can engage and improve students' lives at home, in the playground and in the classroom. Principal Zammit said of the funding, 'The school's bounce back is a timely and welcome government initiative that will greatly support student wellbeing across all Australian schools.' He went on to say: 'In my school, parents and carers will be provided with the opportunity to share their thoughts as to how this additional funding can best meet the needs of their children so as to target the specific needs of students in our school community. The impact of the pandemic on the wellbeing of children has been significant, and having the additional resources to support them to bounce back is such a major win for the children of our country.'
I want to take this opportunity to thank Principal Jesmond Zammit; the kitchen garden program lead, teacher Kelly King, who does an absolutely brilliant job; and all of the students and teachers at Gorokan Public for making Dr Gordon Reid, the member for Robertson, Minister Jason Clare and I so very welcome at their school. And I want to congratulate all the students on their amazing success at the Royal Easter Show last year in being awarded a bronze ribbon on their first time. I'm really excited about what this schoolkids' bounce back will mean. It will mean local communities making decisions about what best meets the kids' needs in their communities.
We live in a time right now, especially with issues coming before us such as the referendum for the Voice, where governments say: 'You've got to trust us. Can't you see that what you're doing is being divisive and that what we say is the truth?' I want to give just one example from the electorate of New England. We get a clear statement of what is said, which then turns out to be something that is just not the truth. It is just not the way it was put forward. And it's much smaller, but it matters to our electorate.
Ms Laura Hughes, who was the Labor candidate for New England, said in her own media release:
Labor has already made two significant local announcements in this campaign which will go ahead if an Albanese government is elected, regardless of the result in New England.
That's quite clear. She continues:
Labor has committed to establishing an Urgent Care Clinic to relieve pressure on the Tamworth hospital and $58,000 to establish more crisis accommodation for 52 families escaping domestic violence, including four staff to support these families through their crisis.
They said it: 'Labor has committed'. There is nothing vague about that at all. Let's test the honesty of this statement. That's just one.
In Senate estimates, the question has been asked. It was asked by Victorian Senator Bridget McKenzie:
Can the Department advise whether either be Investing in Our Communities or Priority Community Infrastructure Program are delivering the Government's election commitment to establish more crisis accommodation for 52 families escaping domestic violence in the New England electorate, costing $580,000?
That's an absolute clear repeat of what the Labor Party promised. Here is the answer:
The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts has no record of any commitments to crisis accommodation projects being delivered by our department in the local government area within the New England region.
That's a clear example, that you can't trust the Labor government. Don't fall for the trap. Don't listen to the rhetoric. Just understand the facts. What they say and what they do, and their ultimate purpose, are distant islands from one another.
For the chamber today, I want to highlight the absolutely amazing job the Albanese Labor government is doing in the health space. First, I want to talk about medication affordability, something I know all too well as an emergency department doctor, people rationing their medications every second or third day, making those chronic illnesses become acute exacerbations, with people ending up in our emergency departments and much, much worse.
Take, for example, blood thinning medications. We have an arrhythmia of the heart, a clot forms and a stroke occurs. That medication is apixaban. It's a blood thinner and is used in the prevention of stroke. That's now being lowered, as a result of Labor's medication policies. There are other medications, for conditions like diabetes or asthma, which, if taken on a regular basis, can prevent acute exacerbations.
I also want to highlight our further health commitments to strengthen Medicare and take pressure off our hospitals and GPs through urgent care centres. If you're too sick to the GP but not sick enough for the emergency department, normally you don't have anywhere to go—and you haven't had anywhere to go, for the past 10 years, under those opposite. They haven't been bulk-billed. There's been nowhere to go. Under an Albanese Labor government, there's going to be an urgent care centre. If you're too sick for the GP but not sick enough for the emergency department, there are extended operating hours for both adults and children—and, most importantly, it's going to be bulk-billed. That's really important for patient access, not just in my community on the Central Coast but in places like the member for Macnamara's electorate. It's really, really important that we improve patient access for Australians right across the country.
I'm so proud that the Albanese Labor government has committed two urgent care clinics, one in Robertson and one in Dobell, for the people of the Central Coast. It's absolutely vital that we ensure patients get to see a doctor when they need to see a doctor for those issues. It's been such a shame and, I'd say, disappointing that over the last 10 years there hasn't been a focus on health care, there hasn't been a focus on disability and there hasn't been a focus on aged care.
I can tell you now, Deputy Speaker Claydon and those in the chamber today, that there is a focus on those care sectors of our nation. We are focused on reform in aged care, we are focused on reforming disability in the NDIS and we are focused on reform in the health space because it's important, because it matters to everyone. It matters to each and every person, right across this country, that they get access to good health care, good aged care and good disability support.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
During the election campaign, right across the electorate of Robertson, up in Dobell in the north and right across the nation, we had constituents talking about multiple different issues, from health care to aged care. But, more importantly, they continually brought up issues surrounding corruption and issues surrounding integrity, which our government, the Albanese Labor government, is absolutely committed to reform. We are delivering long-overdue reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act to ensure that Australia has a best-practice whistleblowing framework for the public sector, which will support the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
The Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 will implement the key recommendations of the 2016 review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act by Mr Philip Moss AM and parliamentary committee reports: to improve protections for public sector whistleblowers and witnesses; to focus the disclosure scheme on wrongdoing, such as fraud and corruption; to make the scheme easier for agencies to administer; to clarify the coverage of the Public Interest Disclosure Act; and to enhance oversight of the scheme by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
I think it's important that we do focus on improving protections for public sector whistleblowers and witnesses. That's a big issue that's been discussed through the parliament. It's a big issue that's discussed in my community, on the Central Coast in Robertson, when we're doorknocking, when we're phone banking and when we have our mobile offices. It's part of that broader issue of integrity and holding government to account.
This bill will strengthen protections for public sector whistleblowers by expanding protections in the act to those who could make a disclosure. It will expand the types of detriment covered by the reprisal protections to encompass a broader range of harm that whistleblowers may suffer when reporting wrongdoing and corruption. It will also expand immunities for persons who witness wrongdoing to be equivalent to the immunities for whistleblowers.
To focus the scheme on significant integrity wrongdoing is consistent with the Moss review. The bill will remove personal work-related conduct from the scope of disclosable conduct under the act. This approach is not to suggest that agencies should ignore other forms of wrongdoing or workplace conflict, but it recognises that there are other frameworks better suited to dealing with such conduct, such as performance management or disciplinary conduct procedures. Whistleblowers will still be able to report personal work-related conduct under the Public Interest Disclosure Act if it amounts to reprisal action or is of such nature that it would undermine public confidence in an agency or have other significant implications for an agency.
We need to make the scheme easier for agencies to administer. Agencies are going to be given more flexibility in how they handle disclosures. This will ensure that conduct disclosures are investigated under the appropriate law or power, including by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The bill will also facilitate improved information sharing between agencies in relation to disclosures through the removal of the general secrecy offence in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. And just to clarify the coverage of the Public Interest Disclosure Act: consistent again with the recommendations of the Moss review, the bill will expressly exclude staff employed or engaged under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act from the scope of the Public Interest Disclosure Scheme to reflect the original intention of the legislation.
The Albanese Labor government supports appropriate whistleblower protections being provided to parliamentary staff and has taken the first step to delivering this outcome through the protections provided in the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation for disclosures of corrupt conduct. The government will also consider whether other protections are appropriate for parliamentary staff who report misconduct in the context of implementing relevant recommendations in Set the standard: report on the independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplacesin particular, the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission.
We're also looking to enhance oversight of the disclosure scheme by the Ombudsman and the IGIS. The bill will enhance oversight of the scheme by the Ombudsman and the IGIS to ensure that agencies' administration of the scheme is effectively scrutinised. Agencies will be required to provide a copy of every investigation report to either the Ombudsman or the IGIS, as appropriate, and to respond to any recommendations that the relevant oversight agency makes in relation to the report. The bill would also implement recommendations 10 and 11 of the report on press freedom by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, to ensure urgent disclosures from intelligence agencies reach the IGIS as soon as possible and to provide for biannual mandatory reporting of statistics to the parliament on all public interest disclosures.
I'll just go into how the interaction's going to occur with the NACC, the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The bill will deliver immediate improvements to the public sector whistleblowing scheme that will be in place before the National Anti-Corruption Commission commences. Any reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act would be reflected in the NACC legislation through consequential amendments, as required, to ensure that the two regiments remain consistent and provide strong protections for whistleblowers.
Furthermore, this bill represents the first stage of a significant package of public sector whistleblowing reform. Following the passage of the bill, the government will commence a second stage of that reform, which will include public consultation on an exposure draft bill that redrafts the Public Interest Disclosure Act to address the underlying complexity of the scheme and also provide effective and accessible protections to public sector whistleblowers, and there'll also be a discussion paper on whether we need to establish a whistleblower protection authority or commissioner.
With that, this bill will make priority amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act to support the government's commitment to ensuring that Australia has effective frameworks to protect whistleblowers. In doing so, this bill reinforces our commitment to restoring integrity and reinforces our government's commitment to the rule of law—something that was missing for the last 10 years under the former coalition government and something we are committed to.
I'm pleased to stand in support of the amendments in the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022. Whistleblowers are part of society's alarm and self-repair system. They bring attention to problems before they become damaging. They play an important role in identifying and calling out misconduct and harm to consumers and our community. We have a fine history of declarations of conscience in this country. Australian whistleblowers have spoken out about police corruption and unlawful actions by our military forces, about child abuse in our churches, about corporate mismanagement and malfeasance, about environmental damage by corporates, about corruption and appointments in public office, and about misuse of public funds. To quote Edmund Burke:
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing.
Although whistleblowers benefit us all, many suffer for their efforts as a result of ostracism, harassment, demotion or blacklisting in the workforce. There's bountiful evidence that many whistleblowers experience financial losses and stress. Many report an increased risk of relationship breakdown and of health problems. My colleague in this House the member for Clark has spoken about the great cost of whistleblowing to him. He said:
Blowing the whistle cost me a great job … I struggled to find work and had little income for years. It was the right thing to do and I don't regret it. But no one telling the truth should be made to suffer.
To add insult to injury, many people find it hard to effect change in the area that they speak out about. The treatment of whistleblowers is often a double disaster for our society. Capable and courageous individuals can be attacked, and sometimes destroyed, while the original problems are not addressed but left to fester.
Put simply, our whistleblower laws in Australia are not working. In 2019 the Federal Court pronounced them 'technical, obtuse and intractable'. The Australian Human Rights Commission recently reported that whistleblowers in this country do not feel supported, that their concerns are not properly addressed and that they've experienced reprisals because they brought forward their concerns.
We urgently need updated whistleblower laws to support the work—the important work—of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It is to be expected that much of the work referred to the NACC will derive from information provided by whistleblowers, so we do have to be ready to protect and to support them. It's hard to imagine that the ongoing criminal prosecutions of David McBride and Richard Boyle aren't having a significant deterrent effect on other people who might think about speaking out. People have to be able to refer matters to government or to draw them to public attention without fear of reprisal.
Just this week, we were told that the government's prosecution of Bernard Collaery has cost this country $5.5 million. We've heard from independent investigations, like the Brereton war crimes report previously, of the need for the Australian Defence Force to protect and empower whistleblowers, and yet David McBride is the only person being prosecuted for his efforts—the only individual yet to face prosecution as a result of the Brereton report, despite the severity of many of the offences identified at that time.
This bill reflects only the first stage of the changes that we need from this government to improve our whistleblower protections. The recommendations of the 2016 Moss review are well overdue. This bill will implement only 21 of the 33 recommendations of the Moss review. The Attorney-General has signalled that, following the passage of this bill, the government will commence a second stage of reform, which will include public consultation on further reforms to address the underlying complexity of our Whistleblower Protection Scheme. The government has to address urgently a number of other gaps in this bill, including: what will be done to shore up whistleblower immunities from civil and criminal liability? What obligations will there be upon employers to protect their employees when they choose to speak up? How might non-public-sector whistleblowers be supported and protected? Will the protections in the Corporations Act be augmented?
I remain very concerned that, even with the amendments proposed in this bill, whistleblowers will still be required to make their way through a very complicated and challenging legal system, so I echo the calls of my colleague the member for Indi, who has called repeatedly for the establishment of an independent whistleblower commission authority or protection. Such a commission would provide practical legal support to whistleblowers and it would enforce the protections available to them. It could act as an independent voice for those who otherwise face serious repercussions when they choose or feel compelled to speak out. To quote my colleague the member for Clark again: 'An anticorruption whistleblower protection commission would revolutionise whistleblowing in this country. It will ensure that the NACC can succeed in helping to address Australia's integrity deficit.'
The government has flagged its intention to consult about the need for such a commission. I urge it to proceed with that as a matter of urgency. I also commend the work of the Centre for Public Integrity and of Transparency International Australia in championing the establishment of such a commission. Consultation on these sorts of reforms by government with expert stakeholders and the general public will ensure that we have a best practice scheme. I congratulate the Attorney-General on starting to address whistleblower protections after so many years of neglect. This bill is an essential step towards strengthening the government's integrity framework, but I do urge the government to commit to implementing all of the reforms necessary to bring Australia at least in line with international standards, if not with world's best practice.
I also rise today to speak in favour of the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022. In doing so, I wish to commend all those from across the parliament who are interested in improving trust and transparency in government. Long overdue reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act, such as those outlined in this bill, put Australia on the path to a best practice whistleblowing framework for the public sector. But we recognise that there is more work to do and we commit to working closely with stakeholders to do so after the passage of these reforms.
The formation of this framework will also support the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which will develop Australia's comprehensive approach to corruption and ensure better transparency and integrity in government. This bill will implement key recommendations of the 2016 review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act by Mr Philip Moss, also known as the Moss review, as well as subsequent recommendations of parliamentary committee reports. It's disappointing that the previous government did not value implementation of the review's recommendations.
Broadly, these recommendations can be broken down into five areas. Firstly, this bill will improve protections for public sector whistleblowers and witnesses. Secondly, under this bill the disclosure scheme will focus on addressing wrongdoing, such as fraud and corruption. Thirdly, this bill will make the scheme easier for agencies to administer. Fourthly, it will clarify the coverage of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Finally, this bill will enhance the oversight of the scheme by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, or IGIS.
This bill will strengthen protections for public sector whistleblowers by expanding protections in the act to those who make a disclosure. It will also expand the types of detriment covered by the reprisal protections to encompass a broader range of harm that whistleblowers may suffer when reporting wrongdoing and corruption. Additionally, this bill will expand immunities for persons who witness wrongdoing to be equivalent to the immunities for whistleblowers. The Attorney-General has continually said that he has a longstanding commitment to whistleblowers, and this bill actions that commitment.
This bill will focus the disclosure scheme on significant integrity wrongdoing. Consistent with the Moss review, the bill will remove personal work related conduct from the scope of disclosable conduct under the act. However, it's important to note that this approach does not suggest that agencies should ignore other forms of wrongdoing or workplace conflict. It does, however, recognise that there are other frameworks that are better suited to dealing with such conduct, such as performance management and disciplinary conduct processes. Whistleblowers will still be able to report personal work related conduct under the Public Interest Disclosure Act if it amounts to reprisal action or if it is of such a nature that it would undermine public confidence in an agency or have other significant implications for an agency. As the Attorney-General has made clear, we need to make sure that people who see wrongdoing, maladministration or corruption can report it to their superiors, and if they don't get action then they should be able to go public with their concerns and be protected against reprisal.
That's the important thing about whistleblower protection. We need to get these laws right, because we all know it's an important part of the integrity ecosystem. It's an important part of good public service administration that people can make complaints and that the government deals with those complaints appropriately with this legislation.
This leads me onto how this bill makes the disclosure scheme easier for agencies to administer. Agencies will now be given more flexibility in how they handle disclosures. This will ensure that the conduct being disclosed is investigated under the appropriate law or power, including by the NACC. The bill will also facilitate enhanced information sharing between agencies in relation to disclosures for the removal of the general secrecy offence in the Public Interest Disclosure Act.
The Moss review identified a need to clarify the coverage of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. To achieve this, the bill will be consistent with the recommendations of the Moss review and will expressly exclude staff who are employed or engaged under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 from the scope of the public interest disclosure scheme, which will reflect the original intention of the legislation. The government supports appropriate whistleblower protections being provided to parliamentary staff and has taken the first steps in delivering this outcome through the protections provided in the NACC legislation for disclosures of corrupt conduct.
The government will also consider whether other protections are appropriate for parliamentary staff who report misconduct in the context of implementing relevant recommendations in the Set the standard report on the independent review of Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces—in particular, the establishment of the independent parliamentary standards commission.
The bill will also work on enhancing oversight of the scheme by the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to ensure the administration of the scheme by agencies is effectively scrutinised. Agencies will now be required to provide a copy of every investigation report to either the ombudsman or the IGIS, as appropriate, and to respond to any recommendations that the relevant oversight agency makes in relation to the report.
Furthermore, this bill would also implement recommendations 10 and 11 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report on press freedom to ensure urgent disclosures in intelligence agencies reach the IGIS as soon as possible and to provide for biannual mandatory reporting of statistics on all public interest disclosures to the parliament.
To complement the government's approach to corruption and integrity, this bill has been designed to support the NACC. With the implementation of this bill, the public sector whistleblower scheme will enjoy immediate improvements, well before the commencement of the NACC in mid-2023. Any reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act would be reflected in the NACC legislation through consequential amendments as required, to ensure the two regimes remain consistent and provide strong protections for whistleblowers.
This bill delivers comprehensive reforms to the public-sector whistleblowing scheme. The bill represents the first stage of a significant package of public-sector whistleblowing reform. Following passage of this bill, the government will commence a second stage of reform, which will include: public consultation on an exposure draft bill that redrafts the Public Interest Disclosure Act to address the underlying complexity of the scheme and to provide effective and accessible protections to public-sector whistleblowers; and a discussion paper on whether there is a need to establish a whistleblower protection authority or commissioner, as raised by many stakeholders and also members in this debate.
The bill will make priority amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act to support the government's commitment to ensuring Australia has effective frameworks to protect whistleblowers. In doing so, the bill reinforces our commitment to restoring integrity in government and the rule of law. Deputy Speaker Payne, like yourself, I represent a large number of public servants in my electorate, the electorate of Bean. I did so prior to coming to this place in my work as an industrial officer in the union movement, particularly working with organisations that represented workers in the public sector. I have had the great privilege of working with people of great integrity who, at times, have needed to shine a light on public-sector maladministration or corruption. The need for greater whistleblower protection and the ongoing need for integrity reform is clear to me, and it's a privilege to speak on a bill that is part of greater moves to address those issues.
There is still work to be done, but already reforms in the first year of the Albanese government have led to an improvement in our global corruption perceptions ranking, as the latest Transparency International data shows. This bill, and the commitment to further whistleblower work, strengthens our approach to good, ethical government. I commend the work of the Attorney-General and I commend this bill the House.
I welcome the intentions behind this legislation, and I strongly believe that enhanced protections for whistleblowers must be through the parliament in time for them to be in operation when the National Anti-Corruption Commission begins its work later this year. I welcome the Attorney-General's confidence that this will be the case.
I do remain of the view that these protections should have been part of the corruption commission legislation, and I still believe that serious consideration needs to be given to a whistleblower commission or agency. The form of that is up for discussion. It could, for example, be attached to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office. I understand, but don't entirely agree, with the Attorney-General's view that making it the responsibility of a deputy commissioner of the NACC, as proposed by the member for Indi, would lead to confusion of roles.
However it's done, though, it's overdue. Make no mistake, the government's commitment to the establishment of a national anticorruption commission was a watershed moment in this place. It means that, for the first time, the Commonwealth will have caught up with the states in addressing the dodgy behaviour we've seen, especially over the last decade but going back to the actions of both complexions in the last century.
But, without complementary protections, the NACC risks being one-legged stool. As Justice Griffiths of the Federal Court said in a judgement in 2019 regarding an unsuccessful application by a whistleblower from within this building with regard to the Public Interest Disclosure Act:
The legislation might more accurately be described as technical, obtuse and intractable.
The previous government's raids on the home of journalist Annika Smethurst and the head office of the ABC, my former employer, had a chilling effect on legitimate investigative journalism. That appears, though, to have been the intent. But, as we've seen repeatedly in recent years, sunlight has been the best disinfectant, as the cliche goes, for governments across the country and of all stripes. As the Attorney-General said from opposition two years ago in response to a Senate report on press freedom:
Labor believes journalists should never face the prospect of being charged, or even jailed, just for doing their jobs;
Law enforcement agencies should never be raiding journalists just because they are embarrassing the government.
As a former journalist and foreign correspondent, I completely agree.
Whistleblowers underpin a lot of public interest journalism. Without whistleblowers, much of the hard-hitting journalism that we watch, listen to and read would never be published. This is a critical consideration in an environment of depleting trust in government and institutions and fragmenting democracy.
Federal whistleblowing law for public and private sector whistleblowers recognises the importance of the intersection between the media and whistleblowers by explicitly providing for whistleblowers to go to the media lawfully. But, despite the best intentions of the Attorney-General, who developed and introduced this act in 2013, the law is not working as well as it might. The ongoing prosecutions of Richard Boyle and David McBride provide the evidence. Here are two whistleblowers who spoke up about wrongdoing internally. Their concerns weren't addressed and so, in what they thought was compliance with the law, they went public to the ABC. Arguably because of the complexity of the act that we are discussing, both men are now on trial for doing what they thought was right and lawful in speaking to the media.
The Attorney-General recognised the need for regular review of his original for regular review of his original act by providing for a review after its first five years of operation. Very fortunately, that review went ahead in 2016 under a coalition Attorney-General and was conducted by the former head of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Philip Moss. In consultation with the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Mr Moss produced an authoritative report in 2016 with 16 major recommendations for updating the act. But nothing happened except, thanks to the Audit Office, we did learn about the Leppington Triangle deal, in which land was procured for Sydney's second airport under a dodgy deal at grossly inflated prices. Speaking of which, I do hope the Attorney-General takes note of recommendation 4 of the Senate enquiry, which I referred to earlier. The report, supported by all Labor senators at the time, recommended providing additional resources to the Audit Office so that work on such issues could be expedited without undermining or delaying its other important work.
We also found out about colour-coded spreadsheets. The Attorney-General says he is implementing the important recommendations of the Moss review except for those rendered redundant by the passage of time. Fair enough; a lot of water has either passed or frozen under the bridge over seven years. But anticorruption advocates argue it's not quite that simple. Transparency International, the Human Rights Law Centre and Griffith University's Centre for Governance and Public Policy welcome these amendments generally but argue that the amendments only address one recommendation in full and four in part from the roadmap outlining 21 actions needed to return Australia to global best practice for protecting whistleblowers. In particular, they are concerned, as I am, about the question of the intersection between whistleblowers and journalists and the vulnerability of both under the current regime.
I would like, therefore, to propose amendments to section 26 of the PID Act to add clarity and symbolic statutory recognition of the importance of journalists to whistleblowing. I have discussed this with the Attorney-General, and I know he has reservations about this. But such a definition, and what I am proposing, are not exclusive. The media is going through what I would say is a permanent revolution as the digital revolution rolls on. There are bloggers, there are websites and there are citizen journalists who are doing great work in holding the powerful to account. It's not my intention with my proposed amendments to make journalists the exclusive preserve of this important work of the fourth estate—whistleblowers would still be able to go where they will—but my amendments would enhance the protections for both reporters and whistleblowers.
I would therefore suggest inserting the definition from the Corporations Act into the PID Act. It reads:
journalist means a person who is working in a professional capacity as a journalist for any of the following:
(a) a newspaper or magazine;
(b) a radio or television broadcasting service;
(c) an electronic service (including a service provided through the internet) that:
(i) is operated on a commercial basis, or operated by a body that provides a national broadcasting service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992); and
(ii) is similar to a newspaper, magazine or radio or television broadcast.
There has been criticism of this law for its lack of clarity. It's not a law that's user-friendly, as the Federal Court judgement I cited earlier demonstrates. The amendments seek to signpost to whistleblowers that journalists are an avenue to whom they can speak in appropriate circumstances.
The remainder of the text of my amendments seek to improve the operation of the external and emergency disclosure provisions, to act as a safeguard when whistleblowers don't tick all the highly technical boxes that they're currently required to but where their whistleblowing is in the public interest. As I have said, two are currently on trial; these provisions would provide an additional layer of certainty. While the Attorney-General would argue that it's difficult to define 'journalist' in this modern world, I would argue that if it's good enough for the Corporations Act then it's even more important here. Indeed, in an environment of disinformation, defining what a journalist is could be argued to be more important than ever, on a broader level.
I would also argue that the cases of Boyle and McBride show that other avenues often throw up roadblocks, and worse. I appreciate the consideration given to me and to the other crossbenchers by the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General's office as we address this important second leg of these anticorruption reforms. These amendments are a genuine attempt to address the scope of his intentions.
I'm pleased to stand today to support the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review] Bill 2022, which means the Commonwealth public sector whistleblower protection regime—largely set out in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. This bill implements 21 of the 33 recommendations of the 2016 Moss review, and recommendations from two other inquiries, into the adequacy of whistleblower laws.
As an Independent member of parliament, I was sent to this place to fight for integrity in government. This battle is never over, but sometimes we take important steps forward—however modest—and today is one of those days. Last month, we had some positive news for integrity: Australia has stopped its slide down the annual Corruption Perceptions Index after decades of decline. In fact, we've turned it around. From a record low in 2021, last year we reported a two-point increase which lifted our global ranking from 18 to 13. The reason was the enactment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which so many people in this place, and outside it, campaigned on for over a decade.
I've been concerned about our declining position in the corruption league table since I came to this place. That's because integrity isn't an esoteric concept or a concern of the privileged. From Bright to Byawatha, people stop me in the street and tell me, 'Don't give up on fighting corruption in politics.' Whistleblowers play an integral role in fighting corruption and maintaining integrity in our government. By protecting people when they report suspected wrongdoing, we encourage transparency and proper conduct, and we discourage fraud, corruption and waste of public funds.
In exchange, whistleblowers should have legal protections against reprisal actions and immunity from liability. That's the promise that we give them in return for the risks they take. Whistleblowers should not suffer because they tell the truth, but that's what we see, time and time again. We have a system of inadequate protections which leave people exposed, victimised and prosecuted, when they should be celebrated for their bravery. It's no secret that our whistleblower protection laws are unfit for purpose. As we just heard from the member for Goldstein, Justice Griffiths of the Federal Court, in 2019, described the Public Interest Disclosure Act—and it's worth repeating this—as 'technical, obtuse and intractable'. Once, Australia's whistleblower protection laws set the international standard. They've since become out of date and inconsistent. The reforms in this bill are long overdue.
These reforms are especially urgent to lay the groundwork for the new National Anti-Corruption Commission and to support disclosures of corrupt conduct to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. In order for the commission to do its job, we need to guarantee that those who report corrupt conduct have the strongest possible protections in exchange. It's public servants, officials and employees who know what's really going on. They're the single most important way in which wrongdoing will be brought to light, and that's why it is critical that these reforms are enforced before the NACC opens its doors in mid-2023.
These reforms are the first of two sets to the Public Interest Disclosure Act, and the Attorney-General has promised that, following the passage of this bill, the government will commence a second stage of further and broader reforms to the act. In particular, I welcome the Attorney-General's commitment to an exposure draft process on the next stage of reforms and a discussion paper on the proposal for a whistleblower protection authority or commissioner—this is really important. It was a key pillar of my 2020 proposal for an integrity commission, and consideration of this proposal was supported by the advisory report from the joint select committee examining the NACC bill.
There is much to be commended in this bill. I support the provisions that enable the NACC to fulfil its function to investigate serious or systemic corruption, such as providing officers with greater discretion to refer appropriate matters to the NACC for investigation. This provides greater flexibility to agencies in how they handle disclosures and makes sure the matter is dealt with by the most appropriate agency. I also support the expansion of the definition of 'detriment' so that a whistleblower is now protected from the full spectrum of potential reprisals. Reprisal actions such as reputational or financial damage, any form of discrimination and harassment or psychological harm will now be covered, bringing this into line with the protections of the Corporations Act. I welcome the positive duty on principal officers of Commonwealth agencies to support public disclosures and witnesses as well as supporting whistleblowers on their staff. This is important to create a pro-integrity and pro-disclosure culture across the government.
I would, however, urge the government to consider the concerns raised by the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission about the impact of excluding MOP(S) Act staff from making protected disclosures. I urge them to consider concerns about removing disclosures relating to personal work-related disputes and conduct from the scope of disclosable conduct. Stakeholders have raised concerns that this will result in blanket exclusions from protection, if it includes a workplace element. According to research, about half of whistleblowing cases involve some kind of work-related conduct. The drafting of this section may result in it being misinterpreted, to the detriment of whistleblowers, and this should be considered.
Yet, there is still much to do to ensure whistleblower protection laws can be effectively administered and offer best-practice protections. The priority among these is the establishment of a whistleblower protection commissioner. Whistleblower protection laws are complex. Smart and well-intentioned people who want to report misconduct may find the laws hard to navigate—indeed, we know they do. When facing uncertainty, they may decide the safest path is to stay quiet, and that's not what we want. In the cases of David McBride and Richard Boyle, we've seen the worst result: two whistleblowers, who believed they were doing the right thing and following the rules, only to find themselves prosecuted. We can't have that.
An independent whistleblower protection commissioner would support public and private sector whistleblowers who are navigating the legal system. It would ensure that whistleblowing laws work in practice. It would be a one-stop shop for practical advice, assistance and guidance for whistleblowers. It would conduct independent investigations into detrimental actions and enforce legal protections when internal procedures of other agencies fail, and it would assist other agencies to uphold their own internal processes, championing best practice, because that's what we want. A whistleblower protection commissioner would bring profile and authority to this important function. They put it on the agenda and shift the conversation.
Another important area for reform is immunities from prosecution. There are currently significant legal gaps and uncertainties about what immunity is available to whistleblowers from civil, criminal and administrative liability. Legal reform of these immunities is necessary to ensure legal actions, whether they be civil or criminal, do not drag out for years. We also need to streamline protection for non-government whistleblowers by creating a single law which covers them all. Currently, Australian private and not-for-profit sector organisations are subject to incomplete and inconsistent whistleblower protections laws. For example, unions, aged-care providers and National Disability Insurance Scheme whistleblowers are all subject to different laws, and some of these are out of date. A single consolidated law for all private and not-for-profit sector whistleblowers is necessary, with consistency between public and private sectors where possible.
The job of improving whistleblower protections is far from done. I would encourage the Attorney-General, his hardworking staff and department to have regard to the landmark report Protecting Australia's whistleblowers: the federal roadmap, from Griffith University, the Human Rights Law Centre and Transparency International Australia, as it is a checklist for the next tranche of reforms.
The implementation of these reforms, especially in how it relates to the work of the NACC, is a key concern of mine. On Monday I was appointed to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and today I was honoured to be elected as deputy chair of this committee. The parliamentary joint committee will consider proposed recommendations for the appointment of the commissioner, deputy commissioner and inspector. It will ensure that these positions are accountable to parliament by monitoring and reviewing their performance, examining investigation and annual reports, examining trends and changes in corruption, and reporting to parliament. It will inquire into any question in connection with the committee's functions referred by the parliament and report back. It will review the NACC's budget and finances and report to both houses of parliament on the sufficiency of the NACC's resourcing to effectively perform its functions.
This parliamentary committee is an important mechanism for the oversight of the NACC. It needs to be strong and independent. As a member of this committee, I will use my considerable position to make sure that the NACC delivers on the promise it made—we made—to the Australian people: that it is robust and adequately funded; that appointments are not politicised; that, as much as appropriate, the committee and the NACC are accountable, transparent and open to scrutiny; that these reforms and the ones to follow work in practice; and that whistleblowers are getting the protection they deserve, which allows them to come forward and expose corruption.
As a parliamentarian I can't rest, and I will not rest, until I know that whistleblowers have the strongest possible protections. We owe it to them, to the taxpayers and to the public good to make the path clear. Let's close the loopholes, let's fix the system and let's give these brave whistleblowers the protections they are entitled to.
I applaud the government for finally beginning the long process of deep reform of federal whistleblower legislation. It's lamentable that little was done in this policy area during the previous nine years, although I note that the bill before us is very modest and it largely goes to technical changes to dovetail the Public Interest Disclosure Act with the legislation for the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
In other words, there is much more work to be done, and I am impressed by the commitment of the Attorney-General to do that work. But, heavens, it's a lot of work to be done. Indeed, the report released by Griffith University, the Human Rights Law Centre and Transparency International Australia highlights 21 areas of reform needed to achieve effective Commonwealth whistleblower protections across the public, private and not-for-profit sectors. This bill implements only one of those 21 areas in full. The bill does implement four reforms in part, which may actually weaken whistleblower protection in practice. The report goes on to say that more is needed to be done to implement those four recommendations in full, for example by ensuring a 'no wrong doors' approach, increasing powers and resources for training and oversight, enhancing information sharing and the ability to access support, and excluding solely individual employment grievances.
I would add to that report a number of other areas where the government does need to act decisively during this term of parliament. As has been mentioned by other members already, we do need to establish a whistleblower protection commissioner. We do need to extend the Public Interest Disclosure Act to all public officials, including all anticorruption whistleblowers, parliamentary and court staff. We need to provide protection for private-sector whistleblowers by reforming the Corporations Act. This isn't just about the PID Act; we also need to go further with the Corporation Act and the provisions that have been made to that act in recent years for the private sector. We also need legal reform of immunities from prosecution from civil, criminal and administrative liability for whistleblowers, and we need to enforce a positive duty on all employers to protect whistleblowers.
I would add that, in parallel with the reform of the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the Corporations Act, we also need to ensure we have effective media freedom laws. It's one thing for a whistleblower to speak up and do their best to speak truth to power, but those complaints or allegations will go unheard by the community unless the media can safely report those concerns so that the whole community knows what's going on.
Why is this so important? It's so important because whistleblowers are, obviously, an essential component of a healthy democracy. They are an essential component or aid to establishing good governance and good public administration. Unless we encourage, protect and support people who see misconduct or see maladministration or see incompetence, unless we encourage them to speak up, then we will never know about the corruption or maladministration or incompetence. So we need to give them every support we possibly can.
When thinking about the role of these whistleblowers, I reflect on some of the whistleblowers that we've had over the last 20 years or so and the good they have done for this country. For example, in the mid-2000s we would never have learned of the malpractice and misconduct of Dr Patel at Bundaberg Hospital unless the brave whistleblower Toni Hoffman had spoken up. And she did speak up and talked about Dr Patel and what was going on. She did speak up and talked about the refusal of senior hospital staff to act. We only learned about that, and a stop was only put on Dr Patel's practice, because of a whistleblower. There was no other reason.
Similarly, in 2007, we learned of serious security flaws at Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport. We only learned of them because of the brave whistleblower Allan Kessing, who, as a customs official, had written several reports a few years earlier identifying the security holes at Sydney Airport, reports that went totally unheeded and were not acted on. So, eventually, he did speak up.
But Toni Hoffman and Alan Kessing are both good examples of the downside of speaking up. When Toni Hoffman spoke up, she was treated like a leper by Queensland Health. When Allan Kessing spoke up about Sydney Airport, he was prosecuted. In fact, at one stage he faced two years jail for speaking up—for doing the right thing and acting in the public interest. Mercifully, he only received a nine-month suspended sentence. But, frankly, Allan Kessing should not have received a suspended sentence; he should have been applauded as a hero and received, perhaps, some sort of award through the Order of Australia.
What about Witness K? We would never have known that the Australian Secret Intelligence Service had bugged the East Timor parliament building in 2004 if Witness K hadn't spoken up—spoken up internally, spoken up by going to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, spoken up by going to his equally brave lawyer, Bernard Collaery. But what happened to Witness K? Was he lauded as a hero? Did he receive some medal? No. He got a three-month suspended sentence for speaking up, for acting in the public interest, for doing the right thing.
There have already been comments in this place about David McBride, an Army lawyer. We would not have known about the allegations of war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan if David McBride hadn't spoken up. Is he applauded or lauded as a hero? Is he looking at getting an AM or an AO or an AC? No. He's in the court—for speaking up and doing the right thing, for speaking truth to power, acting in the public interest.
Richard Boyle is facing 24 charges for revealing misconduct in the ATO. Why isn't Richard Boyle being lauded a hero? Why isn't he getting an AM or an AO or an AC or an A-something? Why is he before the courts? The problem is, in this country, we have almost a cultural aversion to whistleblowers. They're tall poppies. They're attention seekers. They're not team players. No wonder, in this country, with most high-profile whistleblowers it ends in tears. No wonder, in this country, there are countless whistleblowers at lower levels—of the federal Public Service, perhaps in local or state government, or perhaps in the private sector, in little or big companies all around the country.
I'll tell you what happens to those people. More often than not, they don't end up as heroes. They don't even get a mention here, because I've never even heard of them. They've never even made the media. These are the people who are ignored. They're ridiculed, they're marginalised, they're forced out of their jobs, they're sacked, they're prosecuted and they're sued. They become unemployable in their sector, they lose their jobs, they lose their families and, sadly, sometimes they even lose their lives.
Compare that to, say, the United States. In 2002, in TIME magazine's 'Persons of the year' there were three whistleblowers: Sherron Watkins, Cynthia Cooper and FBI special agent Coleen Rowley. They were on the cover of the magazine for whistleblowing about financial fraud at Enron and WorldCom and failures in the FBI before 9/11. That's how whistleblowers should be treated. They should be on the front cover of the magazine. They should be treated as heroes.
What we should be doing in this place, through you, Deputy Speaker—and the Attorney-General is in the House now. I do applaud the Attorney-General. I have a lot of confidence in his commitment to deep reform of the Public Interest Disclosure Act during this term of parliament. I take this opportunity to remind the Attorney-General he must not stop there. We also need deep reform of the Corporations Act. We also need those media freedom laws I've referred to, because what good are a whistleblower's allegations unless those allegations can be ventilated publicly and tested in the court of public opinion and people can learn all about them?
I'm a bit reluctant to talk about my own whistleblowing episode. In fact, for most people, you probably can't remember it anymore or weren't even born. In 2003 I was working at the Office of National Assessments, now the Office of National Intelligence, and I spoke up. I resigned and went to the media about the fraudulent case for the invasion of Iraq. Interestingly, there were no whistleblower protections for me then. Even these days, with the current Public Interest Disclosure Act, there is zero protection for someone like me, in the security services, for speaking up. That has got to be remedied. No matter where you are in the broad Public Service, including the security services, including the Australian intelligence community, if you are witness to misconduct you must be encouraged to speak up, and protected and supported if you do.
I don't want to see repeats of what happened to me, were I instantly lost a job I loved. There were a lot of financial and personal downsides. Heavens, at one stage, the Prime Minister's staff were working the press gallery, saying I was mentally unhinged and didn't know anything about Iraq. I don't want that repeated. And through you, Deputy Speaker, to the Attorney-General: We can take steps to ensure that it isn't repeated. I would hope that I acted in the public interest and helped to inform the community about the fraudulent case for war—weapons of mass destruction and so on.
I'll finish my remarks there. I do applaud the government for moving on this. I encourage them to move very strongly. I encourage them to be guided by reports like that report I referred to by Griffith University, the Human Rights Law Centre and Transparency International Australia, which highlighted 21 areas of reform needed and made clear that this modest bill before the House today goes to only one of those 21 areas. I can understand why the government is rushing through this bill—so that legislation dovetails with the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act. But let's not pause after this. Let's go hard. And I'd be very keen to work with the government to provide whatever insights I can to assist them with this very important act.
We don't want, in the future, people like Alan Kessing to be having a nine-month suspended sentence. We don't want people like Toni Hoffman, albeit a state official, to be treated like a leper. We don't want people like Witness K to be having a three-month suspended sentence. We don't want people like David McBride or Richard Boyle to be facing court. We want the whistleblowers that we have authority over and responsibility for to have their concerns addressed and for those people to be supported and safeguarded—and I guarantee that this country will be a much better place for it,
I rise to speak on the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022, acknowledging that, once again, a large proportion of what has been brought before us today stems from coalition policy. At the outset I want to acknowledge those who work exceptionally hard to keep Australians safe through our counterterror, intelligence and national security agencies. The wider community will probably never know the sort of work they do to keep Australians safe. I also want to acknowledge the hard work of our Public Service. As a person who came from small business, I really didn't understand the hard work that many, if not the vast bulk, of our public servants actually performed until I was intimately involved with them. As a small business operator I suppose you always have that cavalier approach to public servants—the view that they start at 9 am and knock off at 5 pm. But having now worked very closely with both the Queensland and the Commonwealth Public Service, I can say very strongly that the Public Service is full of very hardworking, diligent operators who are committed to working for the benefit of their fellow Australians, and I commend them for the work they do.
In government, the coalition led significant reforms to the way our intelligence community and law enforcement agencies operate, with record funding and outstanding results. However, while both sides of the House have worked to equip our agencies to contend with emerging threats and advancing technology, the accountability mechanisms have acquired modernisation in line with the same threats, technologies and community expectations. The coalition has taken the imperative to modernise this space very seriously, which is why we're working with the government on this bill, which is very similar to the legislation we brought into this place when we were in government. In that sense, much of the bill is uncontroversial. However the bill is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
The bill amends the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013, or the PID Act, which allows public officials to disclose wrongdoing in the Commonwealth government sector and facilitates their investigation. This act had bipartisan support and allows a public official to make internal public interest disclosures to any supervisor, an authorised officer in an agency, the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. When we talk about authorised officers, we're referring to the head of an agency or someone appointed in writing to receive those disclosures. In a narrow range of circumstances, public interest disclosures can be made externally, but usually only after an internal disclosure is made.
The act also sets out that agencies are obliged to investigate a matter in relation to such a disclosure. The point of this kind of statute is that someone making a disclosure ought to receive protection from reprisals and civil, criminal or administrative liability when they disclose disclosable conduct, such as fraud, serious misconduct, corruption or minor wrongdoing which meets the threshold. It is, in essence, whistleblower legislation.
The importance of this legislation is driven home by one of the best recent examples, which was in relation to the DNA lab in Queensland—it's a great example. The entire criminal justice system in Queensland was pretty much predicated, in serious offences, upon evidence being tested at this DNA lab. The terrific work done by Walter Sofronoff KC in his report into that DNA lab found absolute, systemic failures. He made 123 recommendations. It is a blight on the Queensland criminal justice system and it is a blight on the Queensland government that the DNA lab was left to some appalling circumstances of management. It has, unbelievably, resulted in travesties of justice where many people may never see justice. Many people who may have committed offences may never be brought to justice.
This bill, which amends the PID Act, is a very good example of the importance of protecting whistleblowers. We know that many whistleblowers do not feel adequately protected under the current act. I'm probably conflating two different issues; my concern is specifically in relation to the DNA lab in Queensland, and I should make it very clear that this is a piece of Commonwealth legislation and that I'm not seeking to draw any comparison between that and Queensland, or to conflate the two. But there is a very salient lesson here: when whistleblowers don't feel as though they're adequately protected, or don't want to be whistleblowers, and so then don't make those complaints, then bad things can happen as a result. I think I know the Attorney-General well enough to say that those sorts of issues would weigh very heavily on his mind, as they should for the senior law officer of the Commonwealth.
In relation to the bill in question, there are concerns currently, as I said, that whistleblowers don't feel supported. They feel that their disclosures have not been taken seriously and, in some instances, they have experienced reprisals. At the agency level it's been found that the procedures are unclear or overly complex, and that the kinds of disclosable conduct are too broad. This disincentivises the disclosure of relevant conduct. As a result of these issues, the previous coalition government invited Philip Moss to offer recommendations in his statutory review. There were two joint parliamentary committees, and they offered their recommendations.
The bill in question today largely implements the recommendations from a series of reports, which were agreed to, agreed to in part or agreed to in principle by the previous coalition government. In particular, the bill implements 21 of 33 of the recommendations made by Philip Moss in his 2016 review of the act. It also implements the recommendations from the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Service's Whistleblower protections report in 2017, and it implements recommendations from the parliamentary joint committee inquiry into press freedoms in 2020. This includes the removal of personal work-related conduct from the PID Act, unless that conduct relates to system wrongdoing or reprisal action.
The bill provides increased flexibility as to how disclosures are handled. It also extends the protections from reprisals to witnesses and those who may not yet have made but have proposed to make or could make a disclosure. The bill includes new information sharing provisions. It allows other investigative agencies to be informed about matters within their remit. These changes have come about in response to the Moss review recommendations. They address a known problem in the PID Act whereby the secrecy offence unnecessarily hampers agencies' ability to respond to wrongdoing in their own organisation. They allow smaller agencies to refer a disclosure to the portfolio department, avoiding tying up small bodies in investigative red tape. The coalition supported these recommendations in its response to the Moss review, and I welcome this bill's changes to the PID Act.
We all have an interest in ensuring that wrongdoing in the public service is not only identified but addressed and, perhaps even more importantly, prevented. Strong whistleblower legislation will affect people who are maybe on the cusp, thinking, 'Should I do this wrongdoing or shouldn't I?' If they know that the colleagues that they work with have appropriate protections to be able to bring that wrongdoing to the attention of appropriate authorities then the intent must be that they won't then go and perform those acts of wrongdoing.
We've all taken seats in this place, in this parliament, to make a commitment to fostering our democratic institutions. The people who elected us here expect nothing short of our utmost integrity, and they also expect nothing short of those who earn money on the public coin: our public servants. They expect our public servants also to be doing the right thing. They also expect us and our public service to call out wrongdoing. This is about a culture of trust and ensuring confidence in our system of government. It's about protecting the rights of those who have committed themselves to the public service. May we never forget that important duty as members of this place. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise today to speak on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2022. This is an important piece of reform that strengthens our whistleblower protections. It reforms the current scheme, which in 2019 was labelled 'technical, obtuse and intractable' by a Federal Court judge. Why is this so important? Obviously, it is to encourage and enable more whistleblowers to call out wrongdoing and services but also because these are essential to the operation of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which will soon be underway and for which we passed legislation only a few months ago.
Why is this so important? The big difference with the model of the National Anti-Corruption Commission that was passed by this government, as opposed to the one proposed by the Morrison government, is independent referral pathways for allegations or concerns about wrongdoings. This is where whistleblowers play such a huge role, because they have the ability to identify, be privy to information and raise the alarm about and awareness of those wrongdoings. Without protections though, they then face retribution from government and face prosecutions. I should say it was very commendable that one of the earliest actions of the government was, in fact, to drop the prosecution of Bernard Collaery.
There are, of course, still many cases on foot. The most prominent, of course, is Julian Assange, who has been languishing for much too long without any real active engagement in obtaining his release. There are also McBride and a number of others. It is really important for us as a society to have whistleblower protections because they play an intrinsic role in anticorruption, ensuring that Public Service decisions are made for the good and that there isn't a corruption of processes.
As many have outlined, this bill gives effect to longstanding recommendations and improvements to the act. It will: give greater flexibility in the way that agencies handle a public interest disclosure, including information sharing, so that disclosure can be investigated by the most appropriate agency; increase protection for disclosers; give witnesses the same protections as disclosers; provide greater oversight of the scheme by the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security; allow disclosures to be investigated under another law or power, including—welcomely—the National Anti-Corruption Commission; and remove personal work-related conduct from the Public Interest Disclosure scheme unless it relates to systematic wrongdoing or is reprisal action for a disclosure. These changes are welcome and will deliver immediate improvements to whistleblower protections. They respond to many of the concerns and recommendations made on the 2016 Moss Review of the act. I note for members of the now opposition that for so many years it was in their power to make these amendments much sooner, and I think it would have been to the benefit of Australians to have had those amendments and recommendations made.
I welcome the fact that the government has committed to a comprehensive review and potential redraft of the Public Interest Disclosure Act to address the complexity of the scheme. I urge the government in conducting that review to consider the implementation of a whistleblower protection authority, as advocated for strongly by the member for Indi, the member for Clark, and Transparency International Australia—among others. The Human Rights Law Centre said that these reforms are an important first step—however, there are large technical changes to make on administrative improvements, and the reforms don't yet address the fundamental issues with the law. We need a comprehensive reform of the legislation to address private sector, public sector and media whistleblower protections. AJ Brown of Griffith University points out that our laws are still very reliant on whistleblowers having the legal resources and the money to be able to go to court and fight for their own protection. This puts a very onerous responsibility on them when, as a society, we benefit from their courage and bravery in becoming whistleblowers because they alert us to wrongdoing and corruption. A whistleblower protection authority would aim to address that gap.
In conclusion, I welcome this reform. I commend the Attorney-General for taking on these recommendations and urge the government to expedite its review of the legislation to ensure protection for whistleblowers in the future. I take this opportunity to again urge the government to act on the case of Julian Assange. It has been way too long. It is intractable, I appreciate that, but there must be a way to resolve that issue—and in relation to McBride as well. We need to have a situation where it is the alleged wrongdoing that is prosecuted, not the whistleblowers.
I thank members for their contribution to the debate on the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill. As I said when I introduced this bill, the Albanese government is committed to restoring trust and integrity in government, and an effective public sector whistleblowing framework is essential in achieving this.
The bill is only the first stage of a process to comprehensively reform the Public Interest Disclosure Act to restore it to a best-practice whistleblowing framework, but it is an important first stage. This bill contains priority amendments to the act to implement long-overdue recommendations from the 2016 review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 conducted by former integrity commissioner Mr Philip Moss AM, the 2017 whistleblower protections report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, and the 2020 report of the inquiry into the impact of the exercise law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
These amendments will make immediate and significant improvements to the act to improve protections for both disclosers and witnesses; to focus the act on integrity wrongdoing, such as fraud and corruption; to enhance oversight of the scheme by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security; and to make the act easier for agencies to administer and for disclosers to engage with. The bill will also amend the National Anti-Corruption Commission legislation to ensure that the whistleblower protections in that framework remain closely aligned with those in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. These improvements are intended to be in place before the National Anti-Corruption Commission commences its operations in mid-2023.
With this bill, the Albanese government is taking an important first step in improving Australia's whistleblowing framework for the public sector. The legislation will strengthen protections for public sector whistleblowers and, in doing so, will support our broader efforts to restore integrity in government. The government recognises that some time has now passed since the recommendations of the Moss review and parliamentary committees were made and that the introduction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission will be a significant change to the Commonwealth's integrity framework.
Following the passage of this bill, the government will commence a second stage of reform. This will include public consultation on comprehensively redrafting the act to address the underlying complexity of the scheme and to provide effective and accessible protections to public-sector whistleblowers, and a discussion paper on whether there is a need to establish a whistleblower protection authority or commissioner. This staged approach to reform will allow sufficient time to closely examine what reforms may be required to ensure Australia has a best practice framework to protect whistleblowers beyond those recommended by the Moss review and parliamentary committees. Consultation on these further reforms will ensure they are not only shaped by users of the Public Interest Disclosure Act across government but also informed by experts and the general public to ensure Australia has a best practice scheme.
The Albanese government is committed not just to reforming the public sector whistleblowing framework but also to ensuring that it remains effective. That is why the government has included provision for a further statutory review of the act in five years time as a mechanism to address issues that may come to light through the practical operation of the legislation. It is, of course, my intention to bring forward legislation to implement the second stage of reforms well before that time, following consultation on the exposure draft legislation and discussion paper this year. Nevertheless, this review provision is a marker of the government's enduring commitment to integrity and accountability, and to maintaining public trust in government.
Throughout this debate we've heard a broad consensus on the importance of a strong and effective public sector whistleblowing framework. We've also heard differing views on some aspects of the legislation. It should be clear to all that the government is committed to ensuring the effectiveness of these reforms and of the public sector whistleblowing framework more broadly. We look forward to receiving the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the bill, and we'll consider any recommendations it may make, as well as issues raised by members in this debate. While there's been support for this bill as a welcome step in improving whistleblower protections, issues raised during the debate, such as the need to establish a whistleblower protection commissioner or authority, will also be considered as part of the proposed stage 2 reform process that I've outlined.
Australians rightly expect honesty, accountability and integrity in government. With this bill, the Albanese government is taking an important first step in improving Australia's whistleblowing framework for the public sector. It will contribute directly to the important work of the National Anti-Corruption Commission by making immediate amendments to strengthen protections for whistleblowers. It will complement the work the Minister for Finance and I are doing to ensure Commonwealth agencies take measures to prevent, detect and deal with corruption by creating new requirements in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014. And it will complement the work we are doing to restore trust and confidence in Australia's administrative review framework by ensuring that public officials can blow the whistle on maladministration, fraud and corruption in government. The bill will strengthen public sector whistleblower protections and, in doing so, will support our efforts to restore integrity in government. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
DANIEL () (): by leave—I move:
(1) Schedule 1, item 36, page 24 (before line 8), before the definition of provides assistance, insert:
journalist means a person who is working in a professional capacity as a journalist for any of the following:
(a) a newspaper or magazine;
(b) a radio or television broadcasting service;
(c) an electronic service (including a service provided through the internet) that:
(i) is operated on a commercial basis, or operated by a body that provides a national broadcasting service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992); and
(ii) is similar to a newspaper, magazine or radio or television broadcast.
(2) Schedule 1, page 30 (after line 20), after item 50, insert:
50A Paragraph 26(1)(c)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(c) either:
(i) in the case of an item other than items 2 and 3—all the further requirements set out in column 3 of the item are met; or
(ii) in the case of items 2 and 3—all the further requirements set out in column 3 of the item are met or the disclosure is otherwise reasonable and in the public interest, having regard to all of the circumstances.
50B Subsection 26(1) (table item 2, column 2)
After "Any person", insert ", including a journalist,".
50C Subsection 26(1) (t able item 2, column 3, paragraph (c))
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(c) Any of the following apply:
(i) a disclosure investigation relating to the internal disclosure was conducted (whether or not under Part 3) and the discloser believes on reasonable grounds that the investigation was inadequate;
(ii) a disclosure investigation relating to the internal disclosure was conducted (whether or not under Part 3) and the discloser believes on reasonable grounds that the response to the investigation was inadequate;
(iii) this Act requires an action relating to the internal disclosure to be taken, including but not limited to a decision regarding the allocation or investigation of the disclosure and that action has either not been taken or not been completed within a required time limit.
50D Subsection 26(1) (table item 2, column 3, paragraphs (e) and (i))
Repeal the paragraphs.
50E Subsection 26(1) (table item 3, column 2)
After "Any person", insert ", including a journalist,".
50F Subsection 26(3)
Repeal the subsection.
I foreshadowed to the House that I planned to move amendments to this legislation during consideration in detail. I'm moving them on advice from experts who have been engaged in promoting whistleblower protections for years. I did raise the particular issue of journalist protections in discussions with the Attorney-General, and I appreciate his counsel and his reservations, but I still think that there is a particular question of the intersection between whistleblowers and journalists, and the vulnerability for both under the current regime, even under this proposed amended act.
I'm proposing amendments to section 26 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, to add clarity and statutory recognition of the importance of journalists to whistleblowing. What I'm proposing is not exclusive. The media are going through a permanent revolution as the digital revolution rolls on. There are bloggers, websites and citizen journalists who are doing great work in holding the powerful to account. It's not my intention with the amendments to make journalists the exclusive preserve of this important work of the fourth estate, and the advice to me is that they would not be.
Whistleblowers would still be able to go where they will, but my amendments would enhance the protections for both reporters and whistleblowers. Part of my amendments insert the definition from the Corporations Act into the Public Interest Disclosure Act which reads as follows:
j ournalist means a person who is working in a professional capacity as a journalist for any of the following:
(a) a newspaper or magazine;
(b) a radio or television broadcasting service;
(c) an electronic service (including a service provided through the internet) that:
(i) is operated on a commercial basis, or operated by a body that provides a national broadcasting service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992); and
(ii) is similar to a newspaper, magazine or radio or television broadcast.
There has been criticism of this law for its lack of clarity. It's not a law that's user-friendly, as the Federal Court judgement that I cited earlier today demonstrates. This amendment seeks to signpost to whistleblowers that journalists are an avenue to whom they can speak up in appropriate circumstances, especially if they hit roadblocks when they try to make internal reports.
The remainder of my amendments seek to improve the operation of the external and emergency disclosure provisions. Critically, my amendments will add a safeguard when whistleblowers do not tick all the highly technical boxes that they're currently required to but where their whistleblowing is in the public interest. And it will protect the journalists as well that they talk to. Two whistleblowers are currently on trial, and these provisions will provide an additional layer of certainty in cases like these. While the Attorney-General would argue that 'journalist' in this modern world is difficult to define, I would argue that if it's good enough for the Corporations Act then it's even more important here. I would also argue that the cases of Boyle and McBride show that other avenues to disclosure are often closed. Thank you to the Attorney-General for the consideration.
I want to make clear that these amendments are not supported. The amendments go to, largely, the external disclosure provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which will be carefully considered as part of the stage 2 reform process that I've outlined both in introducing the bill and in summing up, which I just did a moment ago.
I'd say, more generally, that there's a real question about even the possibility of defining a 'journalist' in legislation, given the transformation that's occurring and which the member Goldstein has correctly acknowledged is occurring. One of the reasons why, when the Public Interest Disclosure Act was passed in 2013, we did not include a definition of journalist was that very difficultly, which was apparent even then in 2013. Of course, we'll look, as part of the stage 2 reform process, at the matter that is dealt with in this proposed amendment, and perhaps it's going to be an ongoing discussion between the government and the member for Goldstein. I thank her for raising the matter, but it's not supported before the House at this time.
Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
CHANEY ( ) ( ): I rise to speak in response to the 15th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations and the introduction of the latest Closing the Gap implementation plan. I'm not going to reiterate the statistics about Aboriginal disadvantage, which remain shocking. Instead, I want to share what I've learned about why investing and building relationships and respect is important and practical and what I think we have to learn from Aboriginal culture in relation to the apology and the Voice.
Just after the apology, I was Manager of Aboriginal Affairs at Wesfarmers. It was a steep learning curve about Aboriginal history and culture, guided by some wonderfully wise Noongar leaders. Like so many others, the more I learned about Aboriginal history and culture, the more I realised I didn't know. I had a number of moments on my cultural awareness journey that were characterised by the feeling of having the rug pulled out from underneath me—moments when I realised that all I confidently believed to be true was a bit shaky. It made me question so many of my own assumptions.
Here's an example. The Noongar people in the south-west of WA recognise six seasons during the year. They see the weather, plants and animals change every year through this cycle of six seasons: from Makuru, fertility; Djilba, conception; Kambarang, birth; Birak, childhood; Bunuru, adolescence; Djeran, maturity; and back to Makuru, fertility, again.
After I'd been working with Aboriginal people for a while, I heard from someone—and I can't remember who—about how they saw the same cycle applied to everything, even project management and social change. As a former management consultant, I loved a good framework, so I found this fascinating. They said that every project followed the same cycle of life, from fertility to conception, birth, childhood, adolescence and maturity. I remember Noongar people chuckling about how non-Indigenous people always want to rush to the season of birth and start a new project before investing the time in fertility and conception. This, they said, was the reason Wadjela projects often failed. They didn't spend time building the strong foundation of respect and relationships before diving in.
How could something be successful if you haven't done the work to truly listen to and understand each other and work out together what it is you want to achieve? It's as ridiculous as Married at First Sight or, even worse, starting with the birth of a child together. For me, this was so insightful. It made me look very differently at various projects, especially projects aimed at solving problems for Aboriginal people.
Marking 15 years since we acknowledged a difficult part of our history gives us the opportunity to think in longer time frames, not 60,000-year time frames but at least decades. The apology created a fertile space to acknowledge our history and redefine our common direction. Now, the Uluru statement is a generous invitation to invest the time in listening and understanding. It's an acknowledgement that we are in the season of makuru, the season of fertility. We have the ideas, but we're not yet ready to implement them.
There is of course pressure to address the very urgent issue we see around the country, whether in Alice Springs or Banksia Hill Detention Centre. This is urgent and we must try, but we are doing it again: we're jumping to the season of birth, because it's urgent. We can and we must do two things at once. The reality is that we don't know how to fix the shocking issues in many of our communities. We have tried many things and, largely, they have not worked. Governments are not good at relinquishing control, and even if the idea of partnership and shared control is appealing, in reality our systems resist it. It's hard for politicians to admit they don't have the answers.
First Nations people don't necessarily have all of the answers either, but the statistics in our annual Closing the gap report mean that we must face the fact that we are more likely to find the answers by listening. We need to build a strong foundation, a foundation of commitment and openness. We won't get the Voice model exactly right the first time. It might take years to iterate and refine it. Freezing the model in 2023 would be a mistake. We need to retain the flexibility to continue to improve it through our parliament. But if we are committed to the concept of a voice in our Constitution, we are committed to continuing to try, and we are committed to continuing to listen.
We can show that we have learned something from the longest continuing culture in the world. We have learned about long-term thinking and the importance of listening and understanding. This lesson can be a gift from the ancient cultures that are truly Australian. There are so many ways we can apply this lesson to how we think about our world. Without the Voice, I suspect we will be here and another 15 years wondering why all the effort and money we have invested in projects designed in Canberra by politicians and public servants aren't working. Through the Voice, let's invest in building relationships and respect. Let's invest in listening and learning. Let's commit, in our Constitution, to continuing to try to get it right together.
There are moments in time and events that become embedded in our memories—moments of profound personal or public importance that sometimes change our outlook on life, that may bring an era to an end or that may herald a new direction. The national apology delivered by former prime minister Kevin Rudd on 13 February 2008 was one such moment. It brought an end to decades of disgraceful denial and terrible injustices perpetrated against Australia's Indigenous people. The apology brought dignity and respect to people who, since white settlement, had been discriminated against and disadvantaged. For most Australians it brought a divided nation together. It was one of the most significant and meaningful acts of our national parliament, I believe, since federation over 100 years earlier.
On Monday morning, as I watched the film clips of that memorable day, which I was fortunate enough to attend, it reinforced in my mind the historical significance of 13 of February 2008. The faces of those people present, both inside this building and outside, picked up by the cameras said it all. It just showed the impact it had on their lives. It was significant not because it rectified all of the wrongs of the past, or that it would fix all of the problems and disadvantages that still exist, but because it signalled a new approach to dealing with the unfinished business that needed to be resolved. It gave hope to the tens of thousands of Indigenous people—and, equally to many, many other Australians who, for so long, were looking for answers—but particularly for the Indigenous people who had suffered throughout all of that time.
All of that was put into context in another captivating speech by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Unlike his 2008 speech, which was made in the chamber, the speech on Monday was made in the Great Hall and will never be recorded in Hansard. My personal view is that it should be recorded in Hansard. I will not propose that we incorporate it today, because I have not spoken to members of the opposition about that. But certainly I would encourage anyone who is listening to my remarks today to read Kevin Rudd's speech—a speech entitled 'The arc of history bending slowly towards justice'. It was not only a speech that I believe outlined the process of white settlement in this country and Indigenous disadvantage and how we have slowly tried to change that. It also talked about the future and where we need to go.
It has taken 235 years to address many of the injustices faced by Australia's First Nations people. Yes, we still have a long way to go. And can I say, with respect to that, that the proposed Voice to Parliament, as Kevin Rudd quite rightly pointed out—which will be an advisory body to parliament—is I believe another slow step towards the justice and equality that need to be addressed here in Australia.
I want to talk briefly about a couple of other matters. I note that the Leader of the Opposition is calling for another royal commission as his alternative proposal to the Voice. In 1987 the government of the day instigated the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. That commission ended up with 339 recommendations. Of those recommendations, only 64 have been adopted or carried through with. That commission was headed by Elliott Johnston, a Supreme Court judge from South Australia, with the support of Pat Dodson, now a senator in this place.
Elliott Johnston was someone I knew well. Years later, he addressed a forum in the city of Salisbury. I had asked him to come along and address a forum on Indigenous matters in respect of his role as the commissioner of that inquiry. We heard directly from him about many of the issues he had heard of in his inquiry and about his own frustration that the recommendations he had put forward had not been followed through with. It is now some three decades later, and those recommendations have still not all been adopted. So, I stress this point. Royal commissions are important. They certainly bring to a head the very issues that we need to deal with. But they don't always resolve them. It takes governments who want to embrace the recommendations and follow through with them to do that.
The subsequent royal commission led to the Bringing them home report and was headed by Sir Ronald Wilson and, interestingly, supported by Mick Dodson. That report was presented to parliament in April 1997. Immediately upon its being presented to parliament I contacted Sir Ronald Wilson and asked him to address a forum, again in the city of Salisbury, on his findings and his work on that commission. He agreed, and he came out here. In fact, it was his first public appearance since presenting the report to parliament. I heard directly from Sir Ronald Wilson about his inquiry. He talked about how it nearly brought him to tears as he was listening to the evidence being presented to him about the injustices in the course of the inquiry.
That report was handed down in April 1997—again, a quarter of a century ago. Have we embraced and adopted, in the spirit intended, all those recommendations? My answer is that no, we have not. Whilst I understand the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that we need another royal commission, I say to the members of this place: it's not a royal commission we need. I think we all know what the issues are that need to be addressed. We need a parliament that is prepared to move forward with the recommendations that have been presented to this parliament in the past, and with respect to other inquiries that have been made by members of this parliament, and deal with those very issues and get on with adopting the recommendations. That is what we need to do.
I believe the Voice to Parliament, as Kevin Rudd quite rightly said, an advisory body, is another step towards doing exactly that. The 15-year anniversary was also a reminder of the unfinished business that we as a parliament have to deal with. I commend the minister's statement to the House.
I acknowledge that we meeting on Ngunnawal and Ngambri territory. I also acknowledge the Wiradjuri people who are the custodians of the Riverina electorate that I proudly serve in this place. I acknowledge two proud Wiradjuri elders, Aunty Kath Withers and Aunty Isabel Reid, who recently, on the eve of Australia Day, were awarded a prestigious Walk of Honour in Wagga Wagga, which means they will have a plaque in the main street, Baylis Street. Forevermore, people will be able to look at that plaque, acknowledge what they have done—not just for the Indigenous community, not just for Wiradjuri people, but for Wagga Wagga and beyond—with their efforts, with their advocacy, to build a better community.
I want to also acknowledge Kyle Yanner. Kyle is a mayor at Mornington Island in the Gulf of Carpentaria. I met him in June 2021. In February 2023 that community still does not have a water park, water feature or swimming pool for its 1,200 or so residents, many of whom are young, many of whom are mere children. In this day and age, I find that a complete disgrace, the fact that a community of that size—and in the gulf, where it gets very hot not just in summer months—doesn't have a water facility they can call their own.
They put an application in as part of the Building Better Regions Fund, that now defunct program whereby regional electorates were given funding. Mornington Island is part of the Leichhardt electorate, so it's a long, long way from the Riverina and Central West I represent. But I gave those people a commitment that we would get them a water park, and I remain committed to that. I have seen the now Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government on a number of occasions to push the case for Mornington Island, to push the case for Councillor Yanner and his community, and I will continue to do so. I will harp on about it until we get an outcome.
We talk about Closing the Gap and the National Apology to the Stolen Generation. Many people quote Aboriginal dialect and Torres Strait Islander dialect, and anecdotal incidents themselves. That's all well and good; that's all fine. But it's not just what we do in this place, and it's not just those apologies we make, it's what we do out in our electorates and it's the funding we deliver for communities, such as Mornington Island, which make a real difference. It's all well and good to say, 'I'm sorry,' and to do welcome to country and all of that, but it's the real, practical difference that we can make as politicians, as parliamentarians, as legislators, that those people out there are seeking. They don't want our apologies and, quite frankly, our welcomes to country. They want a swimming pool, so they can swim in it during summer. They want real, practical determinations and outcomes. That's the most we can do.
I was just at a press conference with National Party and LNP colleagues about banking services. Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price made a very good point, about how you see the chief executive officers—very well-paid, I might add—of our major banks getting all woke and wanting to work on Australia Day yet not wanting to have branches in regional communities, where a high proportion of the population are Indigenous people. It's not good enough that the bank CEOs can withdraw those services while at the same time gadding around their boardroom tables, expressing their sorrow and expressing welcomes to country. They do that on the one hand, but at the same time pull out banking services to remote Indigenous communities. It's just remarkable that this can happen. As Senator Nampijinpa Price said, on their letterheads and e-mails there are welcomes to country and they are expressing what particular Aboriginal territory they are writing their emails from. Yet, at the same time, those e-mails are closing banking services in regional and remote communities, which is really disadvantageous to our Aboriginal populations.
Fifteen years ago, former prime minister Rudd issued an apology. That was a good thing, and I know the effort that has been made since then to close the gap. We've gone a long way. Have we gone far enough? No, not at all. I must pay tribute to former senator Nigel Scullion from the Northern Territory, a former colleague of the member for Wide Bay and of mine, for the efforts he went to make sure that Aboriginal people, whenever there was infrastructure being built, were going to be trained up and working on those particular projects and in those particular programs. That is a real, meaningful and practical way that we can close the gap—giving Aboriginal people that incentive, that hope and that income.
I know that when I was the infrastructure minister and we were looking at Inland Rail and Snowy 2.0, so many Indigenous people said to me at the time that it was so good for their communities and their people, because, in many cases, whether it was the Parkes-Narromine section of Inland Rai or what they were doing at Cabramurra or Tumut or Talbingo for Snowy Hydro, it was the first job some of those Aboriginal people had had. And it was not only about Aboriginal people having their first job; indeed, Aboriginal small businesses were able to tap into and gain procurement through the process. They were being given a hand up, for sure, but they needed it, and it made such a difference to them. I know of some firms that expanded multiple times to be able to cater for, provide the ballast or hospitality for the workers and the like for Inland Rail. The one-stop shop that was opened in Parkes had a number of Indigenous people walk through the door and come out with a job—with hope and with prospects for the future. That's what it's all about. With the Parkes to Narromine section, there were many jobs created from that for Indigenous people alone. That was fantastic.
In Defence, the Defence Indigenous employment program provides a five-month residential course focusing on six key areas with Indigenous mentors at Kapooka: military skills, language, physical fitness, cultural appreciation, leadership and development. It has been highly successful in getting Indigenous people into Defence. I don't think we've gone anywhere near enough in our recognition of the efforts that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have made as soldiers and in other services in the defence and protection of our nation. That service is a good thing.
Charles Sturt University, which started in my hometown of Wagga Wagga, has an aim of employing at least three per cent of their workforce as Aboriginal staff. Three per cent might not sound like much, but it's a good start. And at least by making the assurance they will do that, it's a long way, perhaps, from where many other tertiary institutions have been in the past. This progress is a good thing.
I also want to say that it cuts both ways. I know there was a diabolical interview on 2GB yesterday where Sydney councillor Yvonne Weldon got on there to talk about rubbish bin collection. She started off by expressing the view that it was a great day—14 February—because it was the anniversary of the death of James Cook in 1779. Thankfully, the interviewer, Chris O'Keefe, just cut her off, and so he should have. It does cut both ways. It's all well and good to be talking about things that are good for her mob, but it's not good to talk about those sorts of things which are just beyond reprehensible. I'm glad that the interviewer cut her short and told her that it wasn't acceptable, that it was demeaning and that it shouldn't have occurred.
This is an important anniversary. The Stolen Generations need to be recognised, apologies need to be given and we need to do more on closing the gap. I acknowledge the motion and I acknowledge the fine words of both the Prime Minister and the opposition leader on this motion.
I too acknowledge the Ngunnawal and the Ngambri people, and the Larrakia people, the traditional owners of my electorate. I spoke with a Larrakia elder this morning who is in Parliament House talking to people about the reality of the voice and what it will do—the powerful, practical advantage in having a formalised voice. For any member of the parliament who wants to speak with her and learn from her wisdom and perspective, I'm certainly happy to organise that.
It was also good to catch up with my mate Kevin Rudd while he was here in the building over the last couple of days. I remember well 13 February 2008, when he made a formal apology on behalf of the nation to Australia's Indigenous peoples. The apology was particularly made to the Stolen Generations and their families and communities for laws and policies which had inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss. It was incredibly moving to join members of the Stolen Generations on Monday morning for the 15th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations.
Last week our government and the Northern Territory government announced a landmark package for Central Australia to improve community safety, to tackle alcohol-related harm and to provide more opportunities, particularly for young people, in our Red Centre. In addressing the past decade's decline in investment and services, we will invest in a plan for improved community safety and cohesion, job creation, investing in families, improving school attendance and school completion through caring for culture and country, and preventing and addressing the issues caused by fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD. Hopefully, more honourable members are starting to learn about how damaging that particular disorder is. In addition, the Closing the Gap implementation plan is our plan to work with First Nations organisations and communities, and all levels of government, to make serious progress on closing the gap in life outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Sadly, the latest annual report on closing the gap shows that the gap in many measures is not closing—or at least not fast enough—and on some measures it is, regrettably, going backwards. We see encouraging progress, like more babies being born with a healthy birth weight, more children enrolled in preschool and higher numbers of high school graduations, but we also see a disappointing lack of progress in a number of other areas, including the amount of children in out-of-home care—not with their parents or their kin but in out-of-home care—and the adult and child imprisonment rates, which are, frankly, a blight on our nation.
Our 2023 implementation plan invests almost half a billion dollars towards closing the gap, and includes but is not limited to $150 million over four years to target First Nations water infrastructure through the National Water Grid Fund, providing save and reliable water for remote and regional Indigenous communities. I can tell you that in the Northern Territory there are some communities that do not have safe and reliable water. There's $111 million for a one-year partnership with the Northern Territory government to accelerate the building of new housing in remote areas so that we can address the problem of overcrowding, which in remote communities leads to really bad health and social outcomes. There's almost $12 million over two years for the national strategy for food security in First Nations communities so that we can make essential foods more affordable and more accessible, particularly in that remote community context. And, yes, in the Northern Territory there are communities that do not have a good standard of accessible and affordable daily needs as far as food security goes.
We'll continue funding—$68.6 million over two years—for family violence and prevention legal service providers that deliver that vital legal and nonlegal support to women and children experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence. Almost $22 million over five years will be spent to support families through seven place-based, trauma-aware and culturally responsive healing programs for those impacted by family violence or at risk of engagement with child protection services and being taken into out-of-home care. We want to keep families together. If they can't be with their parents, we want to keep them with kin. We know that's when they'll be their healthiest, happiest and safest.
There's also $38.4 million over four years to boost on country education for First Nations students, and this includes junior rangers and greater access to culturally appropriate learning. Again, we know the kids will develop educationally and spiritually in a more healthy way if they are connected to their culture. There's also $21.6 million to support quality boarding school accommodation for rural and remote students for an additional year.
Closing the gap is a top priority of the Albanese Labor federal government. We will only build a better future for all Australians if we take serious action to address the inequalities that we see in our land. Our measures will be designed and delivered in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians because the best solutions, and this is the foundation of the Voice and why it's so important, come from the people on the ground who know what's needed and feed that advice through their representatives to inform our work in this place.
As we reflect on reconciliation, it's important that we recall that the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which is now six years old, is a culmination of years of discussion, consultation and hard work by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Establishing a Voice is essential in helping us close the gap. It will further enhance the strength of First Nations voices in the development of laws and policies that will affect them. Recognition is the 'what', the Voice is the 'how' that recognition will see practical changes. It's not a funding body, it's not a third chamber of parliament, it won't run programs, it won't have a veto. It's about recognition of our continent, our ancient continent, and the First Nations people, and for that to be recognised in the birth certificate of our nation.
Reconciliation is a national journey that we must all embark on together, but it's also one of individual learning and growth. In the time remaining I will reflect a little bit on my journey of reconciliation, my personal story and what I've learned along the way. My father, John, worked with blind people in a leprosarium in Derby, Western Australia, and that's how we as a family, how us kids growing up first got to understand the magic nature of this longest-surviving culture on Earth.
A little bit after that, I went and stayed with some friends of ours on a mission. It was a little bit inland from Geraldton, in a place that was called the Tardun kids home. I had an experience there, on the ground, with kids my own age. I saw the anger in them about the way that they and their families had been taken off their land. It was a real eye-opener. As a young fella, I felt at the time that I was seen as being responsible somehow, as a non-Indigenous kid, for what happened to them.
It made me step back for a while, until I became a Territorian and started living in the Territory. I saw people like the legendary Northern Territory football player Michael Long, who got up one day and started walking to Canberra to force John Howard to start caring about Indigenous people and the shocking states that they were living in around our nation. He was not necessarily a Labor man; Michael Long just wanted some justice and wanted the suicides to stop. He walked from Melbourne to Canberra, and I joined him on the road and learned from the elders, particularly from the Gunditjmara. I got an understanding of history and the 15-year war that the Gunditjmara fought for their own lands.
It's a humbling thing to learn from them. I learnt more later on in my career, and I'm always happy to talk to honourable members about my experiences and what I learned about First Nations people in our nation.
The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I've had the great honour of being elected to this place since 2013, and that's when the former government took office and formed the 44th Parliament. So for my first nine years in this place, I knew nothing but the government benches. I took great pride in delivering for communities right across Barker over those first three terms in parliament, and I've done so by lobbying like-minded colleagues within government.
It's self-evident, but in 2022 all of that changed. In 2022 the coalition had brought this country through a great economic challenge of our time: a global pandemic. We steered the ship through the storm and came out in quite remarkable shape. In May 2022 we were experiencing economic recovery on almost every measure: economic growth, debt levels, fatality rates and vaccines. Australia's recovery was leading the world. Despite the pandemic, there were 1.9 million more Australians in jobs than there were when the coalition came to government in 2013. Australia's unemployment rate was at the equal-lowest level in nearly 50 years—below four per cent.
Nevertheless, the Australian people cast their votes, and the coalition moved to the opposition benches—quite unfamiliar to me, but I remain grateful to the Australian democratic system of government. Unlike some others in this building, albeit in the other chamber, I've got a deep respect for this parliament and our nation. However, that's not to say that this democratically elected government isn't without its flaws. I won't even go into the Australian Electoral Commission's annual returns for the last year, which showed that unions gave those opposite a whopping $16.7 million in donations. I'll let others make their own conclusions about that contribution. I'll stick to the policy disappointments that Labor have delivered in their first nine months. Nine months is long enough to bring new life into the world, and yet the Labor government opposite can't even deliver an election promise in that time. It's quite astonishing.
The Kingston South East community was ecstatic to learn that a commitment I made during the election campaign to deliver funding for a new childcare facility in that area was matched by Labor. But, after nine long months, they're still yet to receive a funding agreement. In fact, they haven't even received an email from the minister confirming that the funding is on track, despite having repeatedly asked for it. Nine months is a long time to wait for an email. The minister has been on a Zoom call with them, confirming it's all good, but that's not good enough. This needs to be committed to immediately.
Let's move to the very popular Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. Of course, when we left office, we committed to phase 3A—$500 million—of that program. Those opposite upped the ante during the campaign, as they tended to want to, and said, 'No, no—we'll allocate $750 million to this program.' Yet we've heard in recent days that it's in fact the $500 million that local governments can rely on. As for the $250 million—'Well, that'll come at some point in the future. We haven't worked on the guidelines.' It's been nine months and there are no guidelines. We're not serious, are we? This stuff can be worked over very quickly. Nine months is a very long time. It's almost as if this delay is deliberate.
While I'm talking about infrastructure, which is a personal passion of mine, in this term of parliament I'm going to take on the role of assistant shadow minister for infrastructure and transport. I'm incredibly honoured to be asked to undertake that role by the Leader of the Opposition and the broader coalition team. As someone who drives 100,000 kilometres a year, mostly on rural roads, just to get to work as a local member, I understand the importance of our road network. I understand the need to get goods to market on behalf of Australians and the national economy. The coalition came to government in 2013 committing to build the roads of the 21st century and, over the ensuing 8½ years, invested record sums in infrastructure projects right across the nation, helping to drive economic growth and prosperity.
The challenge for those opposite is to maintain that momentum. So far, it's been disappointing, to say the least. The October budget pulled funding from programs like the Building Better Regions fund while simultaneously referring to infrastructure investments in metropolitan Adelaide as projects in regional Australia. Good regional infrastructure—be it road, rail, energy or communications technology—underpins the efficient movement of ideas, funds, energy, people and goods, and it's critical to competing in a global market. It's disappointing but perhaps not surprising that, to fund Labor's election promises, the government has taken a knife to infrastructure and regional development programs. For South Australian road and infrastructure projects, this government's first budget allocates a measly $46 million a year over the next decade in new funding. In contrast, the previous coalition government budgeted $741.9 million more than Labor on South Australia's road investment under the Infrastructure Investment Program across the forward estimates.
Communications is probably the issue raised most consistently with me in my electorate. Not a day goes by that I don't have a constituent come to me and complain that they can't make a mobile phone call. The coalition government's highly successful initiative to improve mobile communications in rural and regional areas delivered 1,270 new mobile base stations across Australia, including 30 in my electorate of Barker. That's a fantastic start, but there's much more to do. Recently the infrastructure minister announced the opening of a $40 million improved mobile coverage round to deliver Labor's election commitments to fund mobile network operators and infrastructure providers to deploy new mobile infrastructure assets across 54 target locations across Australia. But the devil is always in the detail. Firstly, of those 54 locations, none were in Barker, which is a disappointment to me and my constituents in communities like Sherlock, who have had to face bushfires up close and personal, and in communities like Maaoupe, who are lobbying very hard to resolve their mobile connectivity issues. In fact, when you look at the list in a bit more detail, it quickly dawns on you that those 54 target locations find themselves in two categories: firstly, Labor seats, and secondly, marginal target Labor seats. This is pork-barrelling 2.0. Those opposite riled against that, yet their first action in government in the telecommunications space is to say, 'Those who represent 95 per cent of the landmass of this country, in this place, can see less than a small portion of the funding allocated otherwise.'
Another key initiative of the coalition government was to keep communities and jobs at the heart of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. That's gone in this budget, too. The former coalition put a stop to buybacks, empowering local communities to improve their stretch of the river and boosting the economic outlook of their towns and businesses. Labor took office and, in just a few months, reversed the policy direction on water, to the detriment of river communities. Before the election, Labor refused to rule out returning to a policy of water buybacks. The October budget confirmed that the recovery of the additional 450 gigalitres is back on the table, but the funding detail is—I quote—'not for publication'. So much for a new, more transparent government!
The Murray-Darling Basin is home to 2.6 million Australians who rely on the river to generate economic activity, provide local jobs and generate $24 billion of agricultural output each year. We know, from previous experience, that buybacks kill those communities, and that's why we vowed in government to rule out buybacks. But those opposite have ruled them right back in. For the community of Renmark in my electorate, their irrigation effort amounts to approximately 32 gigalitres per annum, but the recovery target, by way of buybacks, for South Australia would also be roughly 32 gigs. Those of you living in the Riverland, or in South Australia more broadly, imagine a South Australia without all of the irrigation effort that comes out of the Renmark irrigation district.
Those opposite complain about us raising the cost-of-living issue in this place, as if we should keep schtum about that issue, but Australians are raising it on a daily basis. What do you think taking 32 gigs out of the South Australian irrigation effort would do to the cost of fresh fruit and vegetables in supermarkets? What happens when you constrain supply? Make no mistake, if you take water out of a horticultural business, you will constrain supply, because no-one's invented a way to produce the same amount with less water, even with the efficiencies that we've already attained in 2023. What happens when you constrain supply? You bump up prices. You drive them right up through the roof. The other alternative, of course, is that we import fresh fruit and vegetables from other jurisdictions.
So those opposite, as they pursue their campaign for buybacks at all costs in the river corridor, are effectively saying to the Australian people: 'We want one of two things to happen. We want you to pay more for fresh fruit and vegetables when you are standing at the checkout, or, alternatively, we want you to buy foreign fruit and vegetables when you get to that checkout.' Now, I tell you what, it might not sound like it, but, when we stood up and said no to buybacks, we were saying, 'We're backing Aussie horticulturalists to provide good-value fruit and veg at our supermarkets and for those products to be grown and processed in Australia.'
Labor clearly doesn't understand how hard it is to see a doctor in our regional communities. It's a complex issue and one that doesn't have a silver-bullet fix. But it's been widely acknowledged in this country that there's a distribution problem when it comes to GPs, not a shortage. The coalition was working on it. We'd by no means fixed the problem, but we were putting in place some really good incentives—which have been continued, thankfully—around HECS waivers for graduates and encouraging more students to study in our regions, which we know makes it more likely they'll work in the regions after graduation.
But what did Labor do as soon as they came to government? They changed the distribution priority area, the DPA classification. The DPA classification identifies locations in Australia where there's a shortage of GPs or medical practitioners and ensures that overseas doctors coming to Australia are prioritised into those regions. It makes sense. If we're going to bring overseas doctors to Australia then we want them working in areas where there is a known shortage. Upon coming to government, Labor wasted no time in changing the system to increase the supply of GPs in urban areas, but that came at the expense of regional areas. While at a national level we all talk about Australians now finding that the average out-of-pocket visit to a GP costs $60, we can't even find a GP in the regions. Labor was elected on platform of strengthening Medicare, but all we've experienced is a weakening of the Medicare system. After all, without a GP to see, Medicare becomes irrelevant. We've seen 70 telehealth services cut out of Medicare, we've seen our mental health rebates slashed in half and we've been promised urgent-care clinics, but we don't even know where they'll be. It reminds me a lot of those GP super clinics that were built, except nobody could find GPs to work in them.
Meanwhile, the nation's Treasurer is busily spending the Christmas holidays theorising and developing an essay on his personal views about capitalism—'Capitalism 2.0' I suppose we could call it—while, in the real world, Australians are being hurt by the rising cost of living. Australia has the highest rate of inflation right now that it's had in 33 years. With more than two in three fixed-rate loans, that is close to 800,000, set to roll onto variable interest rates this year and ongoing variable rate rises, families with a mortgage are looking at a really tough outlook.
I hate to be negative, but the last nine months have been an incredible disappointment, not just to me but to the broader Australian public. I think they are experiencing some serious buyer's remorse. It's been eye-opening for me as I experience for the first time sitting in this place from opposition. As a nation, we are in worse shape economically than we've been in years. For regional communities, it's very clear that Labor either don't care or don't understand, or perhaps it's a little from column A and a little from column B. They certainly don't appreciate the powerhouse of economic output that our regions can be if appropriate policy settings are in place.
I do want to end this speech on a positive note. The last nine months have shown me that, even in opposition, I remain committed to and passionate about the work I do. I haven't lost my passion for wanting to serve the nation in our federal parliament, nor have I lost my passion for wanting to improve our regions and communities right across Barker. If there's one thing residents of Barker have learned about me over nine years, it's that I don't quit. I work hard day in, day out, and I'm looking forward to continuing to do so. I'm incredibly humbled that they have seen fit to send me to this place again as the member for Barker, and I'm intending to make every single moment in this place count. For this and to those who supported me at the election, I want to say a very big thankyou. And I want to thank the incredible support team who allow me to do what I do.
Briefly, on indulgence, to my wife and children for all the hours, days and weeks I spend away: thank you for your love and understanding. To my staff, who've always had my back and who go above and beyond for the people of Barker with as much passion and drive as I hope I show, can I say: thank you very much. Finally, and very importantly, I thank the team of Liberal Party supporters, volunteers and members without whom I, quite frankly, wouldn't be standing here today. Election campaigns are difficult things, and, when you run an election campaign across an area the size of Croatia, you need a massive team to get it done. Over 1,000 members are directly supporting me across the electorate. I want to say that, every day that I get up and fight hard in the interests of the people of Barker, I am thinking about all those people who support me and push me along to make sure that we can get a better deal for the electorate.
It's always difficult to go to names, but I thank the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, who served as my campaign coordinator on almost every occasion that I've sought election. I would like to thank Lachlan Haynes, Ben Hood, Michelle Hill—the list goes on and on—Greg O'Brien, and everyone who supported the campaign in Barker.
In 2016 I was re-elected, and we enjoyed a margin of four per cent. In the two elections since then we've been able to take that margin north of 16 per cent. Now, I treat the electorate, the seat, as though it's on a wafer-thin margin. I know no other way. But it is a testament to the team—my staff, the volunteers—that we've been able to create a situation whereby Barker is now the electorate in the House that enjoys the strongest margin on behalf of the Liberal Party. As I said, we will treat the electorate as though it's on a wafer-thin margin. But I think it's a testament to those people—those volunteers, those members of my staff—that we've been able to achieve that margin. I look forward to continuing to fight on behalf of everyone who lives in the greatest electorate on Earth.
I hope those opposite will heed the calls. We need a strong and resilient Australia, one that backs regional Australia and does it in a meaningful way, if we want a strong economy and better lifestyles for all Australians. I thank the House.
As we return to parliament in this new year I'd like to begin this contribution by saying thank you to the good people of Greenway for putting their faith in me once again to represent them in this place. There can be no higher honour than to represent the people from the community that has been your life. Western Sydney has always been my home. I grew up in Lalor Park, attended St Bernadette's school, played netball at the local Blacktown courts and went to high school at Our Lady of Mercy Parramatta. That's why representing Greenway since 2010 isn't just political for me; it's personal. And it brings me such joy to say that, with more than 20 per cent of the frontbench in the Albanese government now from Western Sydney, there has never been more representation for Western Sydney in the federal cabinet then there is right now.
Of course, last year was a challenging one for many constituents in my electorate. The floods that hit north-west Sydney in June and July and earlier in the year had a devastating impact on our community. Families were upended when they had to be evacuated, homes were damaged and destroyed, livestock was relocated and possessions were ruined. For some people in our electorate, this wasn't the first or second flooding event that year; it was the third. But, as always, our community came together.
The Blacktown and Hawkesbury SES volunteers bravely evacuated residents and livestock on the front line. They answered phones around the clock and helped residents out. Sue, Angela, Warren, Alex, Vanessa and Sharon from the Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre provided crucial support to Greenway residents, from helping them navigate how to get government assistance to sourcing and delivering new furniture for households that needed it. The Ahmadiyya mosque in Marsden Park sent volunteers to help flood-relief efforts. There was an abundance of donations for those who needed them, including everyday necessities going to places like the Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre for distribution. Facebook groups were filled with community members offering food, transport and other forms of support to their neighbours.
I'm proud to say that his is what Greenway residents do in challenging times: We help one another, and this time was no exception. What did differ this time was how the government responded to this disaster. The Albanese government acted swiftly to respond to flood victims and give them the help they so desperately needed. By mid-July almost 528,000 people who had been affected by the severe storms and flooding in New South Wales had already received more than $436 million in Australian government disaster assistance. And businesses and households across 42 local government areas in New South Wales, including the Blacktown LGA, became eligible to access additional rental support payments and rural landowner grants. This fast, significant response acknowledged the experiences of our electorate and beyond during this extremely trying time. It's certainly a response that makes clear how the Albanese government cares for Australians.
The budget that was announced in October of last year—this government's first budget—demonstrated our dedication to creating a better future for all Australians. I'm so pleased to say that the budget contained a range of commitments to improve the overall quality of life for Australians, including those living in Western Sydney. When COVID lockdowns hit, the people of Western Sydney were unfairly confined to a five-kilometre radius, and during this time it became clear that many families didn't have the local infrastructure they needed. As our region continues to grow, with suburbs like Riverstone expect to increase by 318 per cent by 2040, we need to ensure families have sufficient local infrastructure. This is where the Greenway Better Local Living Plan comes in. It's a plan designed by Greenway families through a series of surveys and outreach for Greenway families. We listened closely to local residents, who asked for a more playful, safer and more diverse selection of local infrastructure.
Our commitments, as promised prior to the election, include new and upgraded play spaces across Schofields, Tallawong, Riverstone and Grantham Farm; fencing to make existing play spaces safer in the areas of Parklea, Seven Hills, Lalor Park, Quakers Hill and Kings Langley; a new and exciting community water play area in Schofield for those hot summer days; and district-scale walking trails in Lalor Park, Quakers Hill and Grantham Farm to help better connect residents into local active transport networks. As a mum of two young girls myself, I understand that parents want to provide the very best opportunity to their, children and these commitments are all about improving the quality of life for families in Greenway.
Another commitment designed to do just that is the north-west Sydney roads package. The Albanese government has committed $75 million to finalise planning and commence the initial construction of Bandon Road and Richmond Road in the north-west growth corridor. We are also taking the politics out of infrastructure planning Western Sydney by establishing expert panel to look at the regions needs. This is an important long-term project for the north-west Sydney community. Residence, particularly in Riverstone and surrounds, have been crying out for action by the New South Wales government for over a decade. I look forward to keeping our north-west Sydney community updated throughout this process.
In 2023 the Albanese government is working hard to deliver for the Australian people. During our first six months in government, we passed more than 60 bills in the parliament and delivered an increase in the minimum wage and a pay rise for aged-care workers, cheaper child care and 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave. We also convened the Jobs and Skills Summit, established Jobs and Skills Australia, expanded the Commonwealth seniors health card, established a royal commission into robodebt, advanced a voice to parliament, repaired our international relations, established the National Anti-Corruption Commission and passed legislation to get wages moving.
This new year, the Albanese government will continue to deliver the positive change of Australians voted for. We won't waste a day. We're staying focused on easing pressure on families and helping Australians manage their budgets. Cheaper medicines took effect on 1 January, making life a little easier for Australians who rely on prescriptions. Cheaper child care will benefit 1.2 million families from 1 July. We know that this will help ease financial stress for families across the country and is also a vital productivity measure. There are now 180,000 fee-free TAFE places available to tackle skills shortages and help more Australians train for good, better-paying jobs. We are bringing people together to tackle the challenges in front of us today as well as making lasting reforms that build a better future. At the heart of our approach is making sure Australians have the economic security they need to live the lives they aspire to.
On that point, in just a few weeks the good people of New South Wales will be given the opportunity to vote for a fresh start with the Chris Minns New South Wales Labour government. In north-west Sydney we have a handful of hardworking locals who are dedicated to delivering the best for their community. For the seat of Riverstone we have Warren Kirby, a local business owner who wants to deliver better for this part of Sydney, from better supporting small businesses to ensuring that crucial infrastructure like hospitals are accessible and adequate for local residents. Sameer Pandey, in the seat of Winston Hills, has been delivering for his community for years as a councillor in the City of Parramatta. He is passionate about delivering the best outcomes for constituents through improved investments in health and education, and through more responsible economic management. And Alex Karki, Labor's candidate for Kellyville, is determined to do better for New South Wales households and to tackle the housing crisis through creating a centralised agency for housing, abolishing stamp duty for first homebuyers and protecting tenants from eviction. I know that under the leadership of Chris Minns and Prue Car, and alongside great local representatives like Stephen Bali and Hugh McDermott, these candidates would be a great addition to the New South Wales Labor team.
In reflecting on last year, I'd like to finish this speech by saying thank you. With all its challenges, we still have a lot to celebrate when we look back on 2022: from finally getting a new mobile tower in The Ponds approved, with construction starting only a few weeks ago, to forcing the New South Wales Liberal government to change course and include an emergency department at the new Rouse Hill Hospital through our grassroots campaign. And we raised over a thousand dollars for breast cancer awareness at my annual Pink Breakfast Morning Tea.
None of this could have happened without the good people of Greenway. I want to thank the community groups and organisations that have kept our electorate going in the toughest of times. They include: the Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre; St Clements Anglican Church in Lalor Park; the Blacktown STRIDE Safe Space; the various Lions clubs, Rotary clubs and other community clubs across the electorate; the Harman Foundation, which only on Saturday night celebrated its 10th anniversary; the Gurdwara Sahib Glenwood Sikh Temple; and Hands & Feet in Kings Park, and so many more.
As so many local residents know, the essentials of Greenway can probably be summed up in just three words: quality of life. That means ensuring that our area has the infrastructure it needs, be that through the improved roads that I mentioned, to ensure that we have the best facilities for families. These include local parks and recreation spaces, which, on face value, might not sound like much. But, as I mentioned, at a time when we had a five-kilometre movement limit during lockdowns, it was astounding to learn that there were some local residents in new estates in north-west Sydney who had no infrastructure within five kilometres. This adversely impacted not only on the way that they were living but also on their mental health and that of their children. It is astounding to think that in the 21st century we have that level of disparity when it comes to these essential community facilities. As I said, the way in which Greenway residents responded by letting their local council, state members and myself, as their federal member, know what they needed, and to have that reflected in a cooperative approach to getting these facilities approved and constructed, has been a great thing. I certainly look forward to the coming months and years, that as these approvals are given and as those partnerships roll out that infrastructure we see a definite improvement in the quality of life for local residents in Greenway.
I also mentioned the case of the mobile tower at The Ponds. This was an application that had been sitting waiting for years. It was scheduled to be built on community land, which required approval, ultimately, from the New South Wales government. It was through a sustained effort by local residents, and also by ensuring that we got the carriers on board that we had the necessary approvals in place, that we finally got this construction happening—it was a long time coming. When you have people living in new estates, and they rightfully expect that they will have mobile services, along with water, electricity and sewerage, then you realise that this is essential infrastructure that so many people rely on. People rely on it for their small businesses, their children rely on it for studying at home and people rely on it in safety situations as well. So we look forward to this tower being completed and the benefits of that connectivity being felt right throughout The Ponds.
And, of course, there is the issue of other essential infrastructure that people expect when they move into a new suburb. Schools in north-west Sydney have been overflowing. We have had situations where, within even one or two years, local schools that have been built have all of a sudden had just about their entire car parks and playgrounds overtaken by demountables because insufficient planning was put in place to cater for the education needs of those children. This is simply not good enough.
We see this happening again the case of Rouse Hill Hospital, which has been promised by the New South Wales Liberals at two successive elections. At the site right now all we have is fencing and bunting. Again, this has been a community campaign that has demanded not only that this hospital be built but also that it be built with an emergency department. It is absolutely inefficient to think that by constructing a new hospital in such a growth area, and by saving money by not building it with an emergency department, this is somehow a good thing. This was a community campaign where people got on board and demanded action in this area, and I look forward to this being delivered.
Lastly, I thank the real heroes of the operation: not only local branch members but also supporters and so many members of the community who have been there for the last 13 years through successive elections, including in 2022. Above all else, I wish to thank my dear family. I thank my husband, Michael, who is a partner in a national law firm and has somehow managed to keep the show growing throughout these 13 years, and certainly the last 11, in which we've been parents. I thank my two children: my beautiful Octavia, who is about to turn 11, and Aurelia, who has just turned six. Both of them are facing big aspects of their lives this year, with Octavia going into year 6 and Aurelia going into year 1. I could not ask for smarter, more loving, more dedicated and funnier children. They are the absolute light of my life and of Michael's life. The fact is, they have known nothing other than mum trying to get re-elected. But, like the troupers they are, they always come together and help out. I say a very special thank you to Michael, Octavia and Aurelia.
A very big thank you goes to my favourite constituent, Frank Rowland, my dad. Dad just turned 91, but he has always been so proud to put a poster of me in his front yard. He has always been so proud to be there supporting all my endeavours in my legal career, in my political life and now in my ministry. I say a very special thank you to Frank Rowland for that. Dad has been the cornerstone of my life, and I think for every daughter her dad is her first love, so I thank him from the bottom of my heart. I also thank my extended family, who have always helped out. My mother-in-law and father-in-law, Sue and Sam Chaaya, my in-laws Sandra, Charlie, Myrna and George, who always come together and bring people together to help out with the campaign. These things don't just happen by themselves; you need volunteers to do every part of it. I don't think enough people understand the level of commitment that is given by family in these situations.
One of the most important things is to remember at all times the great principle that this Albanese government stands for—that is, equality of opportunity for everyone irrespective of where they live or what they earn. This government was elected on a platform to deliver for everyone, to be a government for all Australians. That is why we are absolutely committed in the communications portfolio to ensuring that everyone has the equality of access that they need in the communication space. That includes everything from mobile services to a better National Broadband Network, to ensuring, as we are at the moment with our review of the antisiphoning list, that people have the opportunity to view iconic sporting events as they would expect.
In this space, we are also looking forward. There are new technologies that are emerging in every space, including low earth-orbiting satellites, for example, and the difference they can make in rural, regional and remote Australia. All this points to a government that is looking to the future and to the challenges both in a regulatory sense and, most importantly, in those three words: quality of life. We are looking for quality of life for all Australians and how we can make that better.
As we move forward into finishing the first full year of the Albanese Labor government, moving into the second year, we can rest assured that these principles will always be guiding ones. As the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, 'There is no-one held back, but also no-one left behind.' That is the commitment I continue to bring to the good people of Greenway with great gratitude and looking towards a brighter future.
It's a privilege to rise in this chamber again and to be here in this place. I thank the people of Mitchell and the communities of north-west Sydney that I represent in the suburbs of my electorate—hard-working families and businesses—aspirational area that it is, for supporting me again to be their representative here. I commit to them again, in this term of parliament, to fight very hard to get a government that does stand for their values, a government that understands what its essential core business is, what governments should be doing for them, which is providing a safe and free society and a place where people can earn a living, do well for themselves and their families and get ahead—the kind of aspiration that all Australians seek and the opportunities that should be afforded to them as Australians.
Obviously today we face a society where government has been asked to do more and more of the work, of the tasks, that in the past it may not have been asked to do. Certainly during the pandemic, as part of the then Morrison government, the government was asked to do an extraordinary amount of things that it may not ordinarily have been asked to do. There's no doubt that, after that period of great disruption—upheaval of society, of our economy, of governments, of international trade, of the entire world through a one-in-100-year pandemic—things have been disrupted and people have lent on the government more.
What the future is about is what philosophy will continue to dominate from a government point of view, whether the government will continue to be asked to do the things that people can do for themselves, and business and society can do for themselves, or whether we'll go back to more normal operations wherein we rely on the productivity, the intelligence, the capacity and the capability of our individual citizens, of our communities, of the social and voluntary structures that make up our society. I know, as a member of the Liberal Party, a great party that represents those traditions, we'll be advocating, in the long term, for those values to return and to make sure that government focuses on the things that it should be doing and no more, and working to make our society safer, freer and fairer for all Australians.
When you examine the record of the previous government over the whole 10 years, that was certainly what we were doing. A pandemic of course changed the narrative for Australian history, changed the course of Australian history in ways that will be felt for a long time. It was a fact that the government had delivered a balanced budget result for the first time in a long time, getting under control the mismanagement of Labor in previous governments, and had forecasted and projected surplus budgets for the forward years. Returning the budget to surplus; paying down the debt; getting on with what a good Liberal-National government would be doing. It isn't an understatement to say that the greatest upheaval in 100 years changed the course of Australian government history and our society's course, meaning that those surpluses would no longer be delivered.
The budget had to be used to buttress society. The electorate made its judgement on that at the election; but I do note that they judged no major political party as worthy of more support than at the 2019 election, including the Australian Labor Party, which lost the primary vote, at a lower rate, but had less votes than it did at the 2019 election. The same with the Liberal Party; the same with other parties. People were upset at the outcome of a very difficult period, and understandably nothing was perfect from the state government level or the federal government level and there is no manual. Some people say you can have a manual for this, but I think a manual written in 1920, in the middle of the Spanish flu, wouldn't really help a government in 2019 with what it had to do given the developments and advancements in hospitals, in communications, in the internet—all of the things that we know have advanced in 100 years. I'm sure, if there is another pandemic in 100 years, a manual written now may not be of great assistance to those people in the future attempting to tackle something so severe.
The government did have its faults. It certainly had to govern through one of the most difficult periods of its time. I think it will be well regarded by Australians, in the future, about its success in managing our society through the pandemic. We pay tribute to the work of all the departments here in Canberra. I worked closely in several portfolios with those public servants. I've thanked them before but I thank them again for their dedicated service. Government was required to do more. It was a national emergency—it was an international emergency, a national emergency, a health emergency—and of course government got asked to do more. It was asked do things it had never done before and it did them reasonably well, considering the pressures.
The future is different. When you think about what the election was fought on—the economy—cost of living was already publicly known as the No. 1 issue. Since the last election, the cost of living has become an even greater pressure on the average household budget, on families of every income level, on people who have lesser assets and money and on people who have more. The strain has been felt by the entire community. What's important is that a government understands—in every fibre of its being, when it's going to those cabinet rooms, making decisions, bringing legislation before the parliament—that cost of living is about the general prosperity of every single Australian.
I'm not persuaded that the Albanese government really does understand this in every fibre of its being so far. It's approach to government spending, its approach to policy-making, would indicate that it feels that now is the time to launch into large amounts of government spending, in various different ways, that we simply can't afford. The approach also says that we should be doing more and more as a government, not focusing on the essential tasks of government that really need improvement and aren't being done well.
Listen to the rhetoric of this government's health minister. He says the health system has been destroyed by a decade of inaction. That's high rhetoric, but he's clearly ignorant of the fact that the pandemic strained our health and aged-care systems in ways they'd never been tested before. Even with record funding from the previous coalition government they are under strain. Health is a very important sector. It does require government focus.
The government, in its agenda, is revealing it lacks a fundamental understanding of how the economy functions, what the role of government is and what government should be doing about the inflationary crisis and the cost-of-living crisis we are facing. It's certainly—coming from a conservative side of politics—important that the government gets its house in order, its books in order, its spending in order. A lot of the crisis has been created by successive waves of inflationary pressure. That's been from the simple inflating of the money supply, through quantitative easing over many decades, to more government spending at record levels that we've seen society spend before and, whatever society you point to, government borrowing at record levels. This is part of the reason we're facing an inflationary crisis. An important part is for government to get its house in order, to tackle this.
Policies add to this problem and continue to add to it through different facets, and the way our economy is structured certainly won't help. It was revealing that one of the first acts of the Albanese government was in industrial relations. They've returned to a model of industrial relations which says that the government—essentially, they're trying to advocate; the Prime Minister says this all the time, that the government secured a wage increase for someone—sets people's wages, that the government has a role in setting people's wages. This is fundamentally not the system.
For the Australian Labor Party to communicate regularly to the public that it's the government that sets wages, or it's a function of the government to set wages, is fundamentally incorrect. It's not even our current system under the Fair Work system or the operation of it. They went further than just suggesting that they were going to be increasing wages in various sectors and they had secured those wages, which were properly, under our system, judgements for the Fair Work Commission. They also decided that now—at the single most difficult inflationary and cost-of-living crisis period—was the time to restrict our industrial relations systems and return to pattern bargaining.
It's a phrase that many Australians will be unfamiliar with. Pattern bargaining is where sectors that are totally unrelated to other sectors decide to go on strike or argue for better pay and conditions, and other sectors have to wear the impact, the pain and the cost, of the pattern bargaining. This is an archaic feature of our industrial relations system that goes back to an era that doesn't exist anymore.
The Labor government has proposed, as one of its first acts, to return to pattern bargaining. It will include family owned businesses—millions of family, small and medium enterprises—in a system of pattern bargaining that has nothing to do with their sector of productivity, their goods and services to the economy. To say that you would somehow be affected by wage claims in other sectors, in other businesses and other companies is a retrograde step. I have no hesitation in saying that it was a huge surprise to the productive economy that the Labor Party immediately moved to pull the handbrake on industrial relations, strangle the flexibility of small and medium enterprises and tie them to the archaic system from 30 or 40 years ago of pattern bargaining. It will represent a great cost imposition on business. There's no doubt that by constraining industrial relations at this time, they remove flexibility for business right at the time when they need more flexibility in their ability to employ and their ability to manage their businesses. This is exactly the wrong time for this agenda, and it will have super-high costs. Those costs will add to our inflationary crisis.
We have supply and labour shortages at the moment, and, ultimately—no doubt—if we don't do things to encourage and stimulate job creation and productivity in our economy, and grow the pie instead of just focusing on the redistribution of it, we will suffer. It's very much a Liberal-National premise that we will take policies and bring forward policies that will grow productivity and grow our economy, not just focus on this Labor obsession with endlessly redistributing what other people create. We must focus on that growth of our economy and the business environment so that people can grow and create jobs.
I think that for the Labor Party to bring forward an industrial relations agenda that the public didn't agree to was sneaky; it was retrograde. I think any fair-minded observer of a takeback to our industrial relations system to 30 or 40 years ago will observe that that is a very ideological obsession in the middle of a very difficult pragmatic crisis for our economy, and it doesn't bode well.
Of course, there are other things that the government is doing that we object to. Certainly, straightaway, I think people can see the agenda in relation to our tax system and the way government spends money. Off-budget spending can be clever in an accounting sense, but government spending is government spending. It will have an impact on our borrowing costs, it will have an impact on our interest bill and it will have an impact on the amount and volume of money that is being spent by the government. We'll have more to say about those funds that are being set up.
But I think the seminal issue coming up for the government in this budget will be the stage 3 tax cuts, and these are much maligned in the commentary that is going around at the moment. The trick is in the name, and I'd say to all colleagues that stage 3 implies that stage 1 and stage 2 of our tax reform have already gone through and been implemented, and that this is a totality of a fair package. Stage 3 is for the broad middle class and another improvement to our tax system. It removes the inflationary and hard-hitting notion of bracket creep, which was the most inflationary pressure before inflation started taking off. Bracket creep is something that has to be avoided; it adds extreme pressure on households. The stage 3 changes have been legislated and, hopefully, the government is still committing to them, or potentially aspiring to them—we're not quite certain; I haven't checked what day it is. But hopefully it is dedicated to keeping its election promise to the Australian people. These changes are important too.
People are focused on saying, 'This will be a cost to the budget,' but the cost to the budget is actually a return to the budgets of families and individuals in their income tax, and to their family and business structures. Again, the central premise between us on this question of stage 3 tax cuts is: do people and businesses know better how to spend their money and in more productive ways than the government, or does the government know? Of course, the Greens will say: 'Well, we know. We, the Greens, know better than the government about how to spend every dollar—better than every other person in the country.' That is simply an argument I reject. The Labor Party is also dedicated to the view that they know better what the priorities are and how better to spend that money.
We take the view that that money in the economy will generate much more productivity and generate the ability for people to get ahead, to manage their own budget and expenditure and to make choices about their lifestyle—and choices are very important in the economy. So we remain committed to the stage 3 tax cuts because they are the third part of a very comprehensive reform plan that lowers taxes in Australia and lowers the complexity of bracket creep. It reduces reliance, and sets up Australia for less reliance, on income tax, which, we all agree—even Labor, I think—is an over-relied-on tax in Australia. This is the solution. It was legislated and agreed to by the Labor Party, and I say to them that they must deliver on this commitment that they made at the last election. I call on them to deliver that for the broad middle class of Australia and the future of Australia, because less reliance on income tax and less income tax taken off people and their incomes is going to be better for society and better for every household.
These are the critical questions that face us in the future, and, still, there are other things I'd point to in Western Sydney, where the government achieved well above and beyond the expectations of people in Western Sydney. People knew that, and you could see that in some of the results of the election. The commitment of the government, for the first time, to the second Sydney airport, the Nancy-Bird Walton Airport—an international airport which will operate in Western Sydney—was, and still is, opposed by Labor MPs in this chamber: the member for Chifley, notably; the member for Macquarie, who was just here; and the member for Macarthur. This is a fantastic future airport for Sydney that's currently being constructed, with the roads, rail, metro and everything going to it, and which will have tens of thousands of jobs attached to it. There is a huge commercial precinct attached to it and a manufacturing precinct—advanced manufacturing, defence manufacturing. They're all of the things you would do in setting up a modern airport to provide jobs, apprenticeships and long-term, sustainable employment for people and young people in Western Sydney.
So for members from Western Sydney to (1) oppose the airport and (2) continually oppose the airport, especially coming from a low-socioeconomic-demographic electorate—I've said to the member for Chifley, 'How do you look one of the lowest and most disadvantaged electorates in the country in the eye and say, "I oppose a jobs-generating and great proposal, like the second Sydney airport"?' It's nowhere near his electorate, I must say: it's in the south-west of Sydney, and it will generate opportunities and jobs for his community for decades. But he still opposes that airport. I give the Prime Minister the credibility his due: he has always supported the second Sydney airport, and he has integrity in his position on this. But his own members still continue to say to Western Sydney: 'We don't need an airport that's currently being built and that generates the jobs that we will need.'
The member for Chifley is the minister for industry; he lectures to us every day about manufacturing, and yet we have a huge manufacturing and advanced manufacturing precinct attached to this project. Where does he think the manufacturing that he's talking about is going to go? It's a very sad not-in-my-backyard approach from the minister for industry, who's lecturing us on why we need more industry. The second Sydney airport will provide the sites for so much opportunity and advancement for industry in advanced manufacturing that he should be recanting his previous position, and his current position, of opposing this airport, and he should be embracing the opportunity that this represents. It's another achievement by a coalition government that will set up Sydney, our city and, of course, one of the largest economies in Australia—New South Wales—for a long time to come.
I also want to pay tribute to the work that has been done over many years by the New South Wales coalition government. The member for Greenway made some observations here about the New South Wales government, but she neglected to mention that on the weekend the coalition agreed to fund the business case for the missing link that will go from my electorate, through her electorate and join Rouse Hill with St Marys on the Metro that will go to Sydney's second airport—which her colleagues oppose. This is a fantastic announcement, because that Metro line being finished and combined with the other Metro components will complete Sydney, make Sydney work again and provide the infrastructure we need to make our city work properly. The fact that not a word of it escaped her mouth is disappointing. She would understand how great this is.
I note that Chris Minns and the Labor Party are not yet committing to finishing the Metro network in Sydney that would connect the second Sydney airport to all the rest of Sydney. I can't fathom why an opposition wouldn't simply agree to the coalition government's forward-looking proposal on infrastructure, which is going to get people to and from the airport. It's an obvious and simple thing to do. Given it runs through the member for Greenway's electorate and that I respect her views, I'd welcome her to come forward and join me in welcoming that announcement from the coalition government. It's time for us to put partisanship aside and get this missing link done.
I also want to thank everyone who supported me at the last election. I had great support from very professional officers, who I've thanked before; from people who've worked for me over many years in either a ministerial capacity or in my electorate office, and also from all of those community groups who worked so hard to get us through the pandemic.
As a minister, one of the greatest times that I had in the middle of the pandemic was visiting the workers at ResMed, in my electorate—a great Australian start-up, now a global multinational, that manufactures medical devices. It's a great global company now, but still headquartered in Australia. Even through the costs and the difficulties, they still remain dedicated to Australia. Early on in the pandemic, these workers worked shifts throughout weeks and months to produce ventilators and to help Australia be set up. It was a real privilege to meet the workforce there, to engage with them and to see the enthusiasm and the great Aussie spirit that they had brought to this extremely difficult set of work arrangements. They put aside their personal benefit, and they worked in shifts around the clock for weeks and months. It was a real privilege to take former minister Hunt there and spend a day with the workers. I thank them, and I thank everyone who contributed so much to so many during such a difficult time.
Debate interrupted.
Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 16:00
by leave—When I was interrupted during my address in reply in the House of Representatives chamber, I was speaking about how proud I am to be part of a government that is abolishing temporary protection visas. I said that this is a great act of restoring humanity to our refugee and migration program. But also, for many refugees who've been sort of sitting around here on temporary protection visas for more than a decade, it helps unlock the potential and the untapped skills that they have in order to address our broader critical skills shortages and to assist in increasing our economic growth. So, improving our migration settings, when delivered properly, will help support higher productivity and wages. It's good for the economy. It's also good for our community.
I also want to touch on the ever-growing issues of mental health and the affliction of addiction in our community. We've seen the recent report by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which showed that, tragically, issues relating to mental health and wellbeing are the leading cause of death, especially for young people. I want to take the opportunity to commend the efforts of my colleagues the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mark Butler, and the Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, Emma McBride. I'm looking forward to working with both ministers on delivering a range of mental health support measures that are important to my community.
In my community there are strong partnerships which have seen grassroots-led programs that have had an extraordinary impact on the mental health and wellbeing of local people. I want to commend the work of the team at the Muslim Youth, Adult and Families Program, who have built a fantastic model which harnesses the expertise of organisations within the mental health and drug and alcohol sector, along with the resources of the community, to deliver evidence based intervention for members of our community. The program's strength lies in its being led by Islamic community partner MyCentre Multicultural Youth Centre. Funded through the North Western Melbourne Primary Health Network, it is delivered in partnership with mainstream service providers, including Odyssey House Victoria as the lead agency, the Salvation Army, the Self Help Addiction Resource Centre, and youth support and advocacy services.
Its success rests with the program's ability to engage with families in support of individuals who are experiencing alcohol and drug related issues. Now in its fifth year, the program also includes a medical clinic that is open to the public regardless of faith and background and that specialises in meeting the needs of a community that has traditionally been disengaged from accessing mental health and addiction support services. I want to acknowledge the work of Abu Hamza and the great team at MyCentre in my electorate for their significant work in this area. I want to also acknowledge Abdiaziz Farah and Bryan Ambrosius from Odyssey House, Masi Masiyane from the Salvation Army, and Brad Pearce from the North West Melbourne Primary Health Network.
These grassroots culturally nuanced services are exactly the types of programs we need in order to tackle the real issues out there in our communities related to mental health and addiction disorders. That is why I also stand in strong support of a program called the Crossing, a project proposal for Victoria's first worker-led rehabilitation outpatient and outreach services, led by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union's Victorian branch and the Health and Community Services Union. This life-changing project goes to the heart of addressing issues around mental health and addiction in the workforce. I recently met with a delegation of workers here in Canberra who delivered firsthand accounts of the toll that mental health concerns are having in workplaces right across Australia.
The numbers are truly devastating and seem to only ever become apparent once an issue boils over and its severity is increased. Often the impact of addiction and mental health struggles becomes apparent at the acute stages of affliction, which is why both workplace support and early interventions are so critical. Once workers are provided with safe, trusted avenues of support, the inflow of requests for mental health support carries its own momentum. People are willing to seek out help if they don't have to jump through hurdles, which is hard enough for any one of us out there in the community.
When mental health and addiction support services become as accessible to the community as alcohol, drugs and gambling are, then we can truly begin to turn this issue on its head and make some significant progress. That's why the emphasis on worker-led programs is of fundamental importance. It opens avenues and spaces where people spend most of their daily lives—that is, their workplaces—and, importantly, helps alleviate the stress and weight of the challenge being carried by families alone through workmates and communities. They all do it collectively, and it’s a great model for getting results. We've seen the flow-on effects as a result of the absence of such services in my community. I'm sure you have in your own community, Deputy Speaker. The issue of availability of appropriate services is a very serious one. Family domestic violence, unemployment, homelessness and crime are all issues that go to the core of disengagement and distress in our communities.
From purely a cost-benefit analysis, initiatives such as these speak for themselves. But the real impact is the long-term effect on people, on their families and on the community. What starts off as an individual issue easily becomes an intergenerational problem, right down the line and throughout the community. We know this, we've seen it and we need to do something about it. If anyone in this House needs evidence of the proposal's potential, we need look no further than Foundation House in New South Wales with its worker-led rehabilitation, outpatient and outreach service.
I want to commend the work of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Victorian branch, and the Health and Community Services Union for leading this amazing social justice initiative in strong partnership with other trade unions and Odyssey House Victoria. In particular, I want to acknowledge the efforts of the state secretary, Tony Mavromatis, and the assistant state secretary, Tony Piccolo, from the AMWU for their strong commitment and advocacy. Without them, this project would not be getting off the ground.
I want to acknowledge the state secretary of HACSU, Paul Healy, and Stephanie Thuesen, for their tireless efforts and commitment, and Dr Stefan Gruenert, the CEO of Odyssey House Victoria. They are working together because they strongly believe they have a model that will deliver results to the community. I want to thank them for their efforts and thank them for what drives them—that is, their compassion and determination to help others in the community. Working people require such leadership, in this space, and the campaign initiative delivers strongly for workers and communities right across Victoria. I'm determined to help support these projects and assist in their continued advocacy for social justice and see that this project comes to life in my home state of Victoria.
The Albanese Labor government has had a strong start to what is a very strong and bold reform agenda. We've certainly hit the ground running and demonstrated the approach and the values that will shape this government and this 47th Parliament. There's a lot of work to do, we all know this, and I look forward to working with everyone in my community, especially, to raise the issues that impact on their lives and to respond in a way that helps shape and inform strong policies. I do that through my parliamentary roles. I look forward to contributing to the agenda of the 47th Parliament.
I've been in this place for quite a while. I began by saying many thank yous to the wonderful people who have supported me over the years as the federal member for Calwell. I have watched my community grow incredibly in the time that I have been up here. It still largely remains a community that has settled great waves of refugees. We've certainly done that in settling refugees from Iraq and Syria. We have established migrant communities. We have new and emerging communities from the subcontinent. Indeed, we have one of the largest Sri Lankan, Indian and Pakistani communities in Victoria. It continues to be the great reflection of Australian migration and multiculturalism. Those communities have made a great contribution to this country. They will continue to make a great contribution.
I want to pause for a moment and speak about an event that I attended last Friday night in Broadmeadows. It was a vigil for the earthquake victims in Turkiye and Syria, expected already to have surpassed some 35,000 lives lost. My local Islamic community, Milli Gorus, and their fundraising arm, Hasene, organised a vigil last Friday night. I attended. There were some 1,000 people present. They came to mourn the loss of people in Turkiye and Syria. Some member of my community have lost family there. More importantly, they also came together to make donations, to raise funds, in order to provide—at this time, people just want to help. If they can't help in a physical way, they are generous in their hearts and they contribute financially.
Hasene has raised a lot of money and will continue to raise a lot of money for the people of Turkiye and Syria. It is one of those devastating natural disasters, one that is not often seen but that has an incredible impact, even in our country, because of the diaspora and because of the relationships that they have with family and friends back home. The Australian government has in the first instance given $10 million of humanitarian aid, seven of which will go to Turkiye and three to Syria through the Red Crescent and through the Red Cross. We've also sent technical assistance and emergency services assistance. I'm pretty sure that in the days and weeks and months as this tragedy continues to unfold, our thoughts, our community's thoughts and our country's thoughts will be with the people who went to bed one evening not knowing what was about to happen to them. Within that tragedy, there have been great moments of miracles of babies surviving and the tragedies like the father who held onto his daughter's hand while he waited for her to be removed after she'd been crushed in the earthquake. These are the stories that hit hard.
I thank the emergency services. It's not only our people who have gone over there but also the emergency services of all countries in the entire region rushed to the aid of Turkiye and Syria. What it does show is that, ultimately, when you strip aside who we are, what language we speak, what faith we have and what colour we are, we have a shared humanity. Humanity rises to its best at times of such great disasters. At the moment, we are seeing the best of humanity, and that should inspire us. My condolences go out to all those who have lost family and friends, and I hope to be able to help in any way that I can, through the Australian government, to assist in the days, weeks and months ahead.
I extend my congratulations to the member for Calwell for her contribution this afternoon and outline that she is doing a magnificent job for her community. I concur with many of the comments that she made and can see the pride that she is doing in her community for her community. I think that her comments were brilliant.
I also extend my community's best wishes to those in Turkiye and Syria with the earthquakes. We extend our best wishes and we will also going into some fundraising efforts, no doubt, when I return to the electorate. I had UNICEF in my office this morning as the Co-Chair of the Parliamentary Association for UNICEF. We talked about the excellent efforts they are putting in, how terribly bad the situation is, and the great work that UNICEF is doing with water, food and providing safe spaces for children, particularly those who have been pulled out of the wreckage and who have lost their families. I thank the member for Calwell for that contribution. I concur and agree with many of the points you made.
Every single day it really is an honour to stand here in this place. It's a great privilege to represent the good people of my electorate of Moncrieff. The last three years have been probably some of the most difficult in living history, and we faced significant challenges that we've never really faced before. We had bushfires, floods and COVID-19, and yet Australians didn't falter. Australians remained strong and we came together as a community to support each other through some of the hardest times our country has ever seen. Australians indeed are strong. We had natural disasters and we had a pandemic that we all would like to forget but that we've learned now to live with.
As I look back at my time during the last term in government, I'm proud of the incredible work that the coalition did to protect the lives and livelihoods of Australians. If we cast our minds back, it was actually about this time during the term that COVID hit and the government had to pivot to manage the problems that our country faced and the grave crisis that was coming towards us.
The creation of JobKeeper and the JobSeeker increase ensured that millions of Australians could continue to pay their bills, keep the doors of their businesses open, keep their employees employed, put food on the table and of course, ultimately, support their families. It was a difficult time for so many across our country. It kept businesses afloat and employers connected to their workers during some of the worst economic times our country has faced. At the height of COVID, I had about 10,500 small businesses on JobKeeper, which was about double what most electorates across the country got. It was about $335 million in JobKeeper alone, give or take, that kept my electorate going. Those business people still say thank you when I walk down Cavill Avenue, when I walk through Surfers Paradise, when I walk through Broadbeach. Owners still come out and say, 'Thank you for what the Morrison government did during the pandemic.'
We delivered a $600 million business and tourism package in conjunction with the state government. My Gold Coast neighbours, the members for McPherson and Fadden, and I strongly advocated for this in Canberra. It allowed tens of thousands of businesses, including those border communities there on the Tweed, to keep their doors open, their businesses operating, their staff employed and their very important hopes intact.
We delivered a $1.2 billion tourism package to drive economic recovery in pandemic hit industries and regions, including 800,000 half-price tickets to 15 different destinations across the country—including about 200,000 airfares into the Gold Coast. I remember at the time, when the Gold Coast Airport closed, they were midway through a $500 million upgrade to the terminal. That work is now finished, but it was certainly a desperate time, and a very uncertain time, when the airport closed. The coalition government provided certainty through JobKeeper, through the cashflow boost and through these other incentives, including a $94.6 million support package for Australian zoos and aquariums. That fed the dolphins at Sea World—it cost $1,000 a week to feed one dolphin—the tigers at Dreamworld and of course the koalas at Currumbin. I'm proud of the Moncrieff community and the work that we did together to support one another.
In March 2020, I established the Moncrieff Community Cabinet, which brought together community organisations and faith groups to support and navigate the pandemic. The first meeting that we had was on a phone hook-up—there was no video at that point because it was right at the very, very beginning of the pandemic. I wanted to be connected to my community groups and faith groups to make sure that we had a road forward. The community cabinet has continued on the other side of COVID up to today. There are some 22 members now. It's a platform for organisations to stay connected. They work together and they support one another to achieve fantastic outcomes for our community and beyond—including raising funds and delivering goods down to the Lismore flood victims, and up to Brisbane as well. We weren't impacted on the Gold Coast by the floods and so we were able to help them.
I just want to talk about some of those community cabinet members. As I said, there are 22 representatives in the Moncrieff Community Cabinet: two chambers of commerce; four state MPs; five faith groups, including the Anglican Reverend Jim Raistrick, who does a fantastic job. We have St John's Crisis Centre in Surfers Paradise, which was so important as an emergency relief provider during COVID. It does such an amazing job.
We also have Father Raymond from the Greek Orthodox Church. The church also did a drive during the floods and sent some relief down to those in Lismore who were suffering. We have the Sikh community, who have a marvellous temple out in Nerang. Goodness me, they made hundreds and hundreds of meals every day to help those who needed extra help but couldn't leave their homes during COVID. The Islamic Society, who also do great work, is represented by Hussain Baba on the Moncrieff Community Cabinet. They've done great work in feeding the community—particularly those of Islamic faith, but also others more broadly. We also have the Jewish Rabbi Adi Cohen as part of the Moncrieff Community Cabinet, and I note the fantastic work that his church does.
We have not-for-profit organisations there too. Volunteering Gold Coast is on the community cabinet. They do amazing work. Karen Phillips, the 2018 Gold Coast Citizen of the Year is also on the Moncrieff Community Cabinet. If you don't know Karen on the Gold Coast, you're not worth knowing, because she knows absolutely everybody and she's a heavy lifter in our community. Andy Rajapakse was the district governor of Rotary International and is also on the community cabinet. Mokh Singh, from the Sikh community, is as well, as is Cornelia Babbage OAM, from Multicultural Families Organisation, who has done great work and worked so hard through COVID. Anna Zubac, from The Migrant Centre, did such important work to look after refugee migrants. There is Yas Matbouly, from Serving Our People, a great charity on the Gold Coast, and Marco Renai, from Men of Business Academy, which helps youth who are at risk of entering the juvenile justice system get through year 11 and year 12 and produces very fine men. 'Building better men' is their motto, and it's a fantastic intervention program that really does get results program that really does get results for young people. As the shadow minister for youth, I have keen, continuing interest in what they do at Men of Business in Southport. I don't think I've forgotten anyone. Pushpinder Oberoi recently has joined, representing the Indian community, and he recently received a medal from the Prime Minister of India for his work between Australia and India. I have a fantastic GOPIO community on the Gold Coast that he also represents. The Baha'i faith is also represented on the Moncrieff Community Cabinet.
Shortly after establishing the Moncrieff Community Cabinet, I established the City Heart Taskforce and delivered the REIMAGINE Gold Coast job skills and industry forums 2020 and 2021, which set the scene for the future of job skills and industry on the Gold Coast, looking at innovation, looking at workforce—looking at the areas that are now top of mind. The City Heart Taskforce convened as the first and only think tank on the Gold Coast and brought together leaders from key sectors across small business, tourism, events, education, construction, manufacturing arts and sports. Now we've added the key pillar of sustainability and environment to the City Heart Taskforce and its 12 members. I paid tribute to one of our members, Matthew Schneider, whom we lost, in this very place last sitting week. Matt will be sorely missed on the City Heart Taskforce in our regular meetings.
We developed a cohesive framework with outcome focused strategies to hasten our recovery from the pandemic, create job opportunities and rebuild, simply, our city heart. Now we focus on stewarding industry and business to parameters and requirements around net zero and Labor's new IR laws, which will negatively impact business, and they need to be aware of that. I was proud to deliver for our local community during COVID-19 the $596,400 upgrade to the Nerang Community Bowls Club as part of the Building Better Regions Fund. That fund, as we know, has now been scrapped by the Albanese government, but in its time it insured that the club could continue to serve its many local members and the wider constituency and community for the good people of Nerang. I attended the opening just before Christmas, and it's been truly transformative in the clubhouse. It is a very nice environment indeed to have a beer and talk to those who live in the Nerang community.
I would also like to thank those in my community, who I won't name, who helped form the committees that worked through all the applications for funding rounds for local sporting champions, volunteer grants, the Stronger Communities grants and the Safer Communities grants. These are very serious rounds of grant funding that help communities to be safer and deliver better facilities for our communities, and I was very pleased to work on committees that I formed; we were able to work out where the funding is to go.
But it wasn't just the hard work of government or community and industry leaders that got us through the pandemic, it was also the hard work of our front-line workers, who kept our country in a strong position. It was nurses, GPs, aged-care workers, early childhood educators, teachers, ADF personnel, retail workers, truck drivers and so many more. They worked around the clock to ensure that Australians could continue to access essential medicines, groceries and support when they needed it.
I remember the early days of the pandemic, watching as COVID-19 turned countries absolutely on their heads. Those countries still struggle today towards economic recovery. The pandemic caused untold sadness and emotion as countries like Italy faced skyrocketing death tolls, the bodies of loved ones filling the streets. It wasn't that long ago. I remember when it gripped India, and a shortage of ventilators sent their hospitals into chaos. We all remember those news stories. I pay tribute to former health minister Greg Hunt and the job that he did in that role. As he used to say, there were many countries who looked towards Australia during COVID and wished they'd been in our position. And although thousands of Australians lost their lives during COVID, many thousands were saved due to the hard work, dedication and quick decision-making of the coalition government, our health experts and, of course, the wider community.
As we chart our way out of the pandemic, we find ourselves in a better position than many countries around the world. The coalition's record of strong fiscal management, which I outlined at the beginning, meant that we were able to provide billions in economic support during the bushfires, the pandemics and the floods. But the pandemic has left a changed world in uncertain times, there's no doubt. Rising inflation, interest rates, fuel and energy prices—everybody knows that these cost more. Everyday items continue to increase. Breakfast at your local cafe is expensive. The cost of living for Australian families no doubt is going through the roof.
While we know that Labor has never been good with money, it's never been more crucial that this Labor government does not fall into its usual traps. We need to make sure that it spends Australians' taxes where Australians need it most. And let's not forget—the last time Labor was in government, spending got so out of control it had to stop paying for essential things Australians needed, like medicines. But with the cost of living set to increase further and with interest rates continuing to rise, the government needs to ensure that it is doing all it can to reduce those pressures for everyday Australians. What we've seen from the government so far has been all talk and not much action. As the opposition, we'll work tirelessly to hold it to account on all the promises it's made over the nine years that it was in opposition.
They made promises like cheaper child care for all Australians. Since coming to opposition, I've been appointed as the shadow minister for early childhood education, and I'm very proud of the coalition's record in this space. We undertook the biggest reforms in over 40 years, which saw 1.2 million more children in care. Over 280,000 more children are in early childhood education because of those reforms of which I'm so proud. I pay tribute to the former minister Alan Tudge for the work that he did.
The women's workforce participation rate was at an historic record high when we left office. We left the place in pretty good shape—women's workforce participation was 62.3 per cent. When Labor left office last time, it was 58.7 per cent. We'll see how the participation rate goes after we've seen the effects of the $4.7 billion cheaper child care bill, which, I remind the Prime Minister, we did support. We did highlight the flaws in that bill with an amendment, but we did support cheaper child care for families. I think he said earlier today in the chamber that we didn't support it. Well, we did support it, so I would like to correct the record on that.
During the last election, the government made a number of big promises to make child care cheaper. They committed $4.7 billion to increase subsidies for families earning a combined $530,000. That's $4.7 billion, and not a single dollar will increase the places in early learning centres across the country. There are no new places across the country. While the opposition supports more access to care for working families, we've also raised a number of concerns, including that there are no plans to increase access, no plans to address current workforce shortages and no plans to address thin markets and what we know as 'child care deserts'. Providers are closing their books, they're capping their enrolments and they're asking parents to keep their children at home, because there are simply not enough places. What's the government going to do to ensure there are more places for children? They're not doing anything in this space, which begs the question: what is the benefit of offering higher subsidies to more families if those families can't actually access child care? What is the point of doing that?
I'm not the only one who wants to know the answer. The many families I've spoken to in regional, rural and remote Australia want to know the answer, too. My coalition colleagues want to know the answer. Families in Barker, Mallee, Forrest and Grey want to know what the government is doing to increase access to child care. In my own regional urban electorate, I saw 400 on a waiting list at one of the centres that I visited recently. These are just some of the electorates across Australia that have a large number of childcare deserts, where there is no access at all.
I'm going to move forward now and spend some time on my Moncrieff Community Cabinet. I congratulate all of those on the cabinet for the work that they've done. I want to put some thank you's into to this speech. I want to acknowledge the many who supported Moncrieff at the last election. I thank the Moncrieff federal divisional council of the Liberal and National parties for your ongoing support and tireless campaigning as blue soldiers on the ground during pre-poll and on election day. I thank the chairman, Viv Grayson, for four years of service. His wife, Di, is the treasurer. Gail Copely is the vice-chair, whose birthday it is today, actually. Happy birthday, Gail! Sue Lipp is the secretary. In May 2022, when we were all faced with relentless wild weather and rain, my first thought when I woke up that morning was for the volunteers putting up bunting and signs in the very, very heavy rain. It was an awful day, all day, on election day, but they were there, putting up signs. You all did so much work, and I'm grateful for your individual and your collective efforts, and for your unwavering loyalty to the party and of course to the office of the member of Moncrieff.
To my party, indeed, I owe it all. To my whole team: thank you all so much for what you do every day—for your patience, for your loyalty and for your dedication to the good people Moncrieff, and also for supporting the member for Moncrieff here in Canberra every sitting week.
To finish, to the great people of Moncrieff—who have now been elevated from the 'good people' to the 'great people' of Moncrieff!—thank you once again for choosing me to be your voice in our federal parliament. I truly love my community and it’s a role that I will never, ever take for granted. I remain deeply humbled by you support. Most importantly, I promise to put your needs before all else. That is my pledge to you.
As always, it's an honour to speak in this place. It's particularly special today to deliver this address-in-reply speech, my first as a government member. I'd like to take this opportunity to celebrate my electorate, the regions within it and the very good people of Lyons, who it is my absolute privilege to represent today and every day as their federal member.
As every regional MP in this place knows, there's nothing like a good old-fashioned country show to bring the community together, and I was lucky enough to attend several towards the end of last year. The locals are always out in force at the Westbury Show, and last year's turnout was no different. This annual agricultural show is the oldest in Tasmania, now in its 159th year, having returned with a vengeance post COVID. Westbury Show has all the classic elements you need for a good show: woodchopping, equestrian, show dogs, machinery and, of course, show bags and plenty of places to get a dagwood dog. It has some distinctly unique elements, like the community scarecrow competition, the pet parade and the fancy dressed lamb competition, that make it such a special event. I spent a fantastic day talking to constituents—the weather was glorious—and checking out everything Westbury Show has to offer. As one of the sponsors of the homecraft section, the ladies committee really outdid themselves. I congratulate Westbury Agricultural Society and all its members on another successful event and look forward to celebrating 160 years this year.
The Sunday of the same weekend was an equally gorgeous day in southern Tasmania, perfect weather for enjoying the Brighton Show, which is one of the best country shows in Tassie. In my opinion, it has absolutely overtaken the Hobart show as the pre-eminent southern experience. The Labor tent was one of the most popular stops for those doing the rounds of the Pontville Recreation Grounds. But I can't take all the credit; they weren't there for me. The presence of my two newest family members, Gus and Wolfie, our new miniature dachshund puppies, may have had something to do with the crowds of kids who swarmed our tent. The car show was, as always, a big hit the locals, as was the baby show, the dog high jump, and my personal favourite, the miniature goats. President Geoff Jackson and the entire Brighton Show committee did a fantastic job, as always, over a multi-day show. I, along with the entire Brighton community, am very grateful for their hard work in putting together such a fantastic show every year.
Show season is one of my favourite times of year in my electorate. I also attended the last ag show in Lyons for 2023: Deloraine Show, which was a great day, as always. I'm a very proud sponsor of the sheep section at Deloraine, and it was a pleasure to present ribbons to the winning sheep. I'm particularly looking forward to the Koonya Garlic Festival next weekend, way down there on the Tasman Peninsula; the Kempton Festival on 19 February; and the Bream Creek Show in March, all of which are very popular community events. I would urge anyone listening to this broadcast to get down to Tasmania and attend these fantastic shows.
I recently had the opportunity to represent the Minister for Early Childhood Education and Minister for Youth at the 2023 Australian of the Year Awards for Tasmania. It was a privilege to be in the room and to hear the wonderful stories of these remarkable Tasmanians. I congratulate John Kamara, Tasmania's Australian of the Year; Dr Frances Donaldson, Tasmanian Senior Australian of the Year; Meriam Daoui, Young Australian of the Year for Tasmania; and my personal favourite—because he's in Lyons!—Keith Parker, Australian Local Hero for Tasmania. I'd like to take a moment to tell you a little more about Keith.
Keith is from Sheffield, in the north-west of my electorate. He's a volunteer ambulance officer and Army Reserve ammunition technical officer, which I know that the member for Braddon, who is sitting opposite, will take an interest in, being a veteran himself. Keith specialised in explosive ordnance for his entire army career, serving overseas and assisting the UN on several occasions. When he's not on reserve duty, Keith is saving lives in Sheffield as a volunteer ambulance officer. Since 2011, he has donated an average of 1,500 hours a year, and he is often the first responder if no paramedics are available.
It really is volunteers like Keith who are the lifeblood of our rural and regional communities. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Keith and, indeed, to recognise all community volunteers across Lyons. Our first responder and State Emergency Service volunteers deserve an extra shout-out, having been working overtime in the face of storms and flooding across Tasmania in the last few months, particularly in the Kempton, Break O'Day and Meander Valley municipalities. And I'll give a shout out to the member for Braddon; I note that his community of Latrobe was also affected. A big thank you to all for their tireless hard work and dedication to their communities.
One of the great joys of my role as the member for Lyons, amongst many others, is being able to support the work and achievements of so many people and organisations across the electorate. Whether it's through grant funding, a donation or volunteering my time at the footy club canteen, it's just one way that I can acknowledge the great things being done in my patch. For example, I recently had a great visit to the Swansea RSL, which received a Veteran and Community grant through the Department of Veterans' Affairs to upgrade the kitchen at the RSL. A big thank you to Garry and Julie for the invitation; to Gwyneth, Iris, Judy and Rhonda from the women's auxiliary, who gave me a tour of the new facilities; and to RSL members for the very warm welcome that I received. And it was an absolutely busy day; the Swansea RSL was just absolutely pumping! The new kitchen and accessibility upgrades will ensure the sustainability of the club for years to come, as well is contributing to the health and wellbeing of club members and the community more broadly. So well done to Garry and Peter, the RSL members who spent about 1,200 volunteer hours and the project. It's really hard yakka actually doing that work, and it was a mammoth effort.
I also need to give a shout-out to the volunteers at Wildcare Cradle Mountain for the work they do with the Parks and Wildlife Service to help protect and conserve the iconic Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park in Tasmania's north-west. Recently, Wildcare Cradle Mountain received a volunteer grant which was used to purchase safety gear and high-vis vests for its members. I know this equipment is being put to good use, and the team certainly looked the part at their recent training and information day.
I was also very pleased to be able to support Brighton Food Hub with the donation of a prize towards its upcoming raffle. The Brighton Food Hub is an amazing initiative in the Brighton municipality. It is 100 per cent community owned and operated, and it provides affordable staple grocery and household items to anyone in the community who needs them. Sadly, that need has grown over recent years and, frankly, shows little sign of slowing, while we battle global inflation and cost-of-living pressures.
Christine, the President of the Brighton Community Food Hub, cares deeply about her local community, as do all of her volunteers. She has long been an advocate for the northern suburbs of Hobart. I commend Christine, Vice-President Geoff and the entire team at Brighton Community Food Hub for their incredible commitment and care towards the Brighton community. I look forward to my upcoming volunteer shift at the food hub in a few weeks time. On food hub days down there at the civic centre, you wouldn't believe it. It's like an army mess hall. It's an amazing job that they do.
Recently I had the pleasure of being on the barbecue alongside Alan Briggs, his family and volunteers at Tassie's Cure Brain Cancer Golf Day at the Bagdad Community Golf Club. This is an annual event in memory of Alan's son Rickie and to raise funds to support the Cure Brain Cancer Foundation and its mission to rapidly improve brain cancer survival and vision to ultimately find a cure. Once again, Alan, Justin and the volunteers behind Tassie's CBC Golf Day put on a thoroughly enjoyable event, with a fantastic amount of support from the local community. I've never failed to be amazed by the generosity, perseverance and dedication of organisations like Swansea RSL Club, Wildcare Cradle Mountain and Brighton Community Food Hub and those involved in events like Tassie's CBC Golf Day, as well as so, so many more across Lyons. Congratulations to them all.
The young people of Lyons are truly a talented bunch, and I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of their recent sporting achievements from across the electorate: Axl from Penna, who plays for Strike Soccer School and has represented Tasmania at the National Club Futsal Championships, which was held in Sydney in January; Leuca from Deloraine, who won silver in the double mini trampoline event at the world gymnastics cup in Portugal in June 2022 and represented Australia in November at the world age gymnasts championships in Bulgaria; Hayley from Dromedary, who competed at the Australian Gymnastics Championships in May last year, coming 10th in her age group for level 8 women's artistic gymnastics in Australia—an awesome achievement for her first Australian championships; and Hudson from Lower Barrington, who represented Tasmania on the state team at the National Cross Country Championships, held in Adelaide in August 2022.
I also give a big congrats to the Tasmanian under-13 girls netball team, who dominated—I must emphasise that; they dominated—at the Combined Australian Netball Association Championships in Queensland. Three team members were from my electorate: Molly from Sorell, Shakoda from Orielton and Millie from Dodges Ferry. The team won eight out of their nine games and went on to win their grand final, making history as the first under-13 Tassie team to do so. Well done, girls.
Thank you, Member for Braddon, I'll take that interjection. I'm also the proud sponsor of many teams and clubs across Lyons. There are too many to mention them all here now, but I did want to quickly acknowledge the South East United Football Club and the success of its Sorell Summer Sixes tournament and the fact that the St Helens Football Club has just announced that they are fielding a senior women's team this season.
As you can see, there is much to celebrate across my electorate. I remain honoured to serve the people of my electorate in this place—people who are warm, resilient, welcoming and, when necessary, tough. In my first speech to the House of Representatives back in 2016, I remarked that I knew I had the best job in the world as the member for Lyons, and this remains very much the case today. I thank the electorate for placing their trust in me once again to continue advocating for them as a member of the Albanese Labor government. It's a privilege and an honour that I never take for granted, and I thank them every day.
It's now been several months since the good people of Berowra put their trust in me again to be their representative in this place. I want to thank them for doing me this enormous honour of being their representative. I always try to do my best to represent the interests of our community and advocate for the beautiful and unique place in which we live.
These three years are going to be very significant years for Australians, as they will be for the people of Berowra. We're still emerging from COVID, from some events that we don't fully understand and from a way of life we never want to have to return to. How we emerge, and the sorts of decisions that we make, are going to shape our future. In my electorate, there are some particularly pressing challenges that the government must not forget, simply because the headlines have moved on to new topics. There are significant parts of the community, particularly those communities along the Hawkesbury River, that are still rebuilding from disaster. Three floods in two years takes a toll on any community, and the Hawkesbury River communities in my electorate have faced a lot. The Hawkesbury River communities are filled with family homes, turf farms, orchards, and waterski and caravan parks. There are also those integral hubs that exist in small communities, like Wisemans Ferry with its bowling club, its Men's Shed and its RFS, all of which have been repeatedly devastated by those flooding events.
Many of the people who live on the river speak of their lineage with pride. There are many Australians living on the river who can actually trace their lineage back to the early days of European settlement along the Hawkesbury. By early July last year, when residents, businesses and community organisations had really only just got back on their feet from February's floods, the Hawkesbury flooded again. This time it flooded with levels rising to the sort of thing we hadn't seen for over 30 years.
I want to acknowledge the amazing rescue and recovery efforts, and our first responders in this regard are really truly amazing, given how often our community leans on them. The SES in the Hills shire are led by Andrew Turner, and, in the Hornsby shire, they're led by James Logan. From the RFS, I particularly want to pay tribute to the work of Glen McCartney, the district manager of the Hills District RFS. Stan Montgomery, Ian Francis, John Turnbull, Gary Chatman and Rod Derriman all lead the various brigades in and around the Hawkesbury area of my electorate. Michael Lathlean from the Hills Shire Council deserves a special mention as well, for the coordination efforts that he provides in these times of disaster, as does Superintendent Darrin Batchelor from the Hills Police Area Command.
I was pleased to be able to take the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, on a fireboat crew with people from the Wisemans Ferry RFS to survey the devastation shortly after the July floods, and to better appreciate the needs of our community. I showed her firsthand both the force of the river and the damage that the flood left in its wake. We spoke to residents who'd been cut-off during the floods and were only just beginning the arduous clean-up.
Sadly, the floods in my community were not without fatalities. There was a day when I was visiting the Sackville North brigade, to go and survey the damage, and, unfortunately, we weren't able to go out and survey it, because they got an emergency call that there'd been a helicopter crash in South Maroota. We lost Carl Hearps, a much-loved member of our community, during a routine flight checking flood development. I offered my condolences to his wife, Anne, his family and everyone who worked with him. He was an amazing person, and it's a reminder of the way in which people engaged in emergency services put themselves in harm's way, whether they're volunteers or paid employees, or whether they're providing auxiliary assistance, as Carl was doing. They put themselves in uncomfortable situations so the rest of our community can get on with their lives.
I want to talk about some of the people who were affected by these flooding events in our community, because some of the people are really quite unique and demonstrate a real spirit that I think is what the Berowra electorate is all about. I met Terry, a diesel mechanic, who had a caravan in one of the caravan parks at Riviera. When I saw the devastation of his caravan, the way it had been absolutely splattered with mud, he was trying to wash everything out with his family. At first instance, you would look at the caravan and think, 'This is a big mess.' But what you realise over time is that this caravan wasn't just a building to Terry; it was a slice of paradise for him. It was a place his family comes every year to enjoy and where they went to waterski. In that sense, it wasn't just a caravan that he had there and that he'd built and added onto over time; it was a place of family memories. To see those places destroyed, to see them so badly affected, was very moving for me, as it was for anybody who encountered people who had lost so much in those disasters.
I admire the resilience of business owners in the area, given that, for many of them, this was the third time they were cleaning up. I'm talking about people like Chris, the manager of Cliftonville Lodge Resort; Tony, who owned and operated Riviera for many years; and the amazing—I call her marvellous—Margaret Pratt and Barry Roberts, from the Wisemans Ferry Bowling Club, which has been such a hub and has not been spared its own issues as a result of the flooding. Despite this, they shared their gratitude for the emergency services personnel, cleaned up as best they could and then moved on quickly to help others.
I heard stories of heroism, strength and community solidarity during the flood. At its peak, more than 700 personnel from the various agencies in the Hawkesbury communities were carrying out rescue-and-recovery missions every day as needed. I think of the wonderful Adrian Acheson, the presidents of the Wisemans Ferry Men's Shed, whose shed was completely totalled by the force of the river on two of the three occasions. He was given a pail of paint and, rather than using it to clean up the shed, he donated it to members of the community who'd lost everything and were trying to clean up their houses. Members of the Men's Shed also ensured that locals were supported to rebuild, and that's of the sort of communities that those river communities are. For some, seven months on, the floods are just a memory. But for many people in my electorate the floods have left a permanent mark. We must not forget what these communities have been through or the extra support they continue to need in order to mitigate the damage of future weather events.
Another challenge in my electorate which I have spoken about many times in this place and which became particularly difficult in recent years is the need for much better telecommunications infrastructure in the Berowra electorate. In good times, telecommunications connect us with our work, our studies, our family and our friends. In bad times, telecommunications are a matter of life and death. We especially depend on good telecommunications connections when they're related to health or during emergencies and disasters. Any failure of connection increases the level of distress exponentially and increases the possibility of fatality.
In Berowra, Australia's telco companies have a history of grossly failing our community. Members of my community too often find their phones completely ineffective in the many dead spots across the Berowra electorate but particularly in the Hawkesbury River area. Some of the low-lying communities I visited experience poor connection on good days and had no connection at all during last year's floods. It was many days before telco companies restored their connections. In the meantime, houses were submerged, cars were swept away and people needed rescuing.
In emergencies, as an everyday life, Australians deserve proper connection that the telcos promise and that residents pay for. Last year, under the coalition government's Peri-Urban Mobile Program—a program that I advocated for to try to help communities like mine deal with the appalling state of telecommunications—I secured federal funding for improved telecommunications, with three new towers serving the areas of Annangrove, Hornsby Heights, Mount Colah and Galston. This is an important step forward, but it has to be only the beginning. The investment is a step in the right direction, though.
Last year I wrote to and met with the incoming Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, bringing to her attention the poor state of communications in our electorate so that we might ensure that our community acquires the level of telco coverage that we need. I was also pleased to host the then shadow minister for communications, Sarah Henderson, to the electorate. She had a chance to meet with a number of residents whose lives are impacted daily by inadequate telecommunications.
We met with Blake Buchanan from Kenthurst, who's unable to get NBN cable or fixed wireless and struggles with kids at home, especially during lockdown and home-schooling. We met Peter Paton from Annangrove. The internet issues that he had affected the whole street, and several neighbours came to Mr Paton's house to meet with us. We met with Don and Joy Montgomery of Annangrove, an elderly couple who have unreliable phone connections and have in the past experienced difficulty trying to get an ambulance when Don was needing help in an emergency. We met with Emad Hanna of Kenthurst. Dr Hanna struggled with telehealth during the lockdown due to poor internet. At home they've got a Telstra antenna on their roof and still they're unable to get a signal in certain parts of their house. I've asked Minister Rowland to visit the electorate so that she, too, can experience firsthand the challenges faced by so many Australians in Berowra.
I want to talk about some of the issues I was fighting for during the election campaign. During the campaign I fought for our communities to receive funding for projects they needed in order to gain upgrades—projects that would have been funded had we been returned to government, like the upgrade to Campbell Park at West Pennant Hills and Hunt Reserve in Mount Colah and the completion of the San Giorgio Association community facilities at Kenthurst. But the Labor government is not proceeding with any of these projects. Despite this, I will keep fighting for the delivery of these and other community projects, because the Berowra community deserves no less. I will also keep fighting in our community for better traffic conditions, for more housing affordability for young families whose families have lived in the community for generations and who want to live close to their parents and their grandparents, and for policies to address cost of living, because they are the things that people in my community are talking to me about.
I want to take a moment to thank those people who played a role in Berowra in the last election campaign. As a member of parliament, you can't do this alone; you are only here because of the wonderful support—in my case from the Berowra FEC and the Berowra Liberal Party. I particularly want to thank Peter Reed, my campaign manager; Warren Waddell, who was the assistant campaign manager; Warwick Puldon, who ran the volunteer effort; and the various people who ran different parts of the campaign: Graham Bateman, Daryl Beech, Sallianne McClelland, Phil Hare, Berenice Walker, Sreeni Pillamarri, David Williams and Helen McNamee. Their work was absolutely fantastic.
I am supported in Berowra by a terrific federal conference and, over the course of the last term, by Maria Kovacic. I am delighted that Maria has gone on to bigger and better things and is now the state president of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party, bringing the same sense that she brought to the role in Berowra and the same strong leadership in preparing our state division for, hopefully, a successful result in the coming state election. I want to thank our new president, Michael McAuley; Tom Green, my secretary; Peter Reed, the treasurer; and Helen McNamee and Warren Waddell, our vice presidents.
I also want to acknowledge the people who have worked with me and who have helped me to serve our community over the course of the last term. My office has been led by Annette McHugh and Sarah Greenbaum. Other people who made a huge effort in my office over that period include: Tonia Watson, Jack Abadi, Karolina Pultsiniski, Annie Phillips, Tracey Barracliffe, Mike Morrow, Carmen Martuuk, Charlene Comparit, Kimberley Lai, Jasper McCrindle and the amazing volunteers, Penny Becchio, Daryl Beech and the man I call our 'Young Liberal', Ed Glasby, who in a month turns 90—showing that you're never too old to get involved. They really are a magnificent team.
Unfortunately, in the period since the election I've lost some people that are very dear to me and without whose support I wouldn't be here. I wanted to take a moment to reflect on them and their contributions to the community. On 23 May last year we lost Valerie Smith. To anyone who knew her, Valerie was the epitome of stoicism. After having had three children, Valerie lost her husband. Val was determined to provide her young children with the best life she could. Caroline Miller, her best mate, said that Val's guiding philosophy was 'don't be a victim, be a solution'. And so she was.
As a single parent who worked hard to put her kids through school and university, her caring instincts didn't wane when her children left the nest. She was an active member of the Annangrove Progress Association and a major figure in the Sydney Society for Scottish History. In many respects, she was a mother figure to much of the Annangrove community. She had a property on Annangrove Road with orange trees and vegetables and a horse paddock. When she got too old to work on the farm, she turned to a new project. She would buy hundreds of mason jars. Members of the community would donate fruit and veggies, and Val would process them into marmalade, jam and relish that she'd then donate to the local school, the Kenthurst Rotary Club, the Annangrove Progress Association, Dural Probus and, indeed, anyone in the community that Val knew was struggling. Her Scottish roots made her whisky marmalade a particular community favourite.
I want to acknowledge that Val was a pillar of the community of Scottish Australians and was very proud of that, and we often talked about Scottish history. In fact, today I am wearing a tie that she bought for me and wanted me to wear in this place, which is the official Australian tartan. I'm wearing it in memory of Valerie. She was a stalwart of the Kenthurst Annangrove branch of the Liberal Party. She was never short of good advice and wise counsel, and to her family and friends may her memory be a blessing.
In 2022 we also lost Jack Oliver. After working as a mechanical engineer in England in his early years, Jack and his wife, Irene, moved to Australia to start their life together. They worked hard and bought a small house and a little land in Maroota where they settled into the community. When they outgrew the Maroota property, they moved to Annangrove, where they became long-standing members of the Annangrove Progress Association. Jack could fix practically anything. He was the go-to Mr Fixit of the community, with a smile and a good chat at every time. He was a great volunteer in our community, too. Whether it was setting up for community events, Easter celebrations, ANZAC Day or Christmas, no job was ever too demanding. Like Valerie, Jack was also a stalwart of the Kenthurst Annangrove branch of the Liberal Party, and my condolences go particularly to his lovely wife, Irene.
Two very special people were lost within a few weeks of each other, and that had a particular impact on my life and the lives of the broader community. I speak of Patricia and David Barnett. On 13 May we lost Patty. She was a wonderful stalwart of our community, a remarkable mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. Born on 13 March 1938 in Warrawee, she attended school at Kincoppal, Elizabeth Bay, and studied at the University of Sydney for her BA in English literature, including a scholarship in her final year.
In 1958 Patty married David, and it was a marriage that lasted more than 63 years. They had five children, who described her both as their mother and their friend. She joined the P&Cs of her children's schools and was engaged in the community. Despite raising five children, Patty never stopped learning. She was a great linguist, master in four languages, and taught English as a second language at Sydney Technical College for 35 years.
Later in life she achieved a masters degree in education at the University of New England while working full time. She was elected for two consecutive terms as an alderman, as it then was, on the Ku-ring-gai Council. An instinctive citizen of the world, she collected friends and fostered a sense of community around her. After retirement she continued to contribute, with voluntary service at Launceston Waterbird Haven, 2MBS FM, Lifeline and the Rostrum club. Patty had an amazingly commanding speaking voice. It was one of those voices you would kill to have. She put it to great effect for all her years on radio.
She was a founding and long-serving secretary of the Fox Valley branch of the Liberal Party. Patty was always hugely welcoming of me and encouraging of my activities, both in the party, in this place and in the broader community. It was Patty and David who got Joanna and me involved in Lifeline. Patty used to run the book fairs, particularly the children's book fairs, and that began a very significant association in my life with Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury.
When Patty passed away, she was surrounded by her family and the many friends she'd acquired over her 85 years. Sadly, only a few months later, Patty's husband, David, also passed away, on 3 August last year. To those who knew David, he was a man of integrity, intelligence and resilience. He had a remarkable career as an architect. Buildings like the National Library in Canberra, the New South Wales state parliamentary offices, Westmead Hospital additions and the now demolished Sydney Football Stadium are part of the work that he did. Yet nothing was more important to him than his family.
In 1981, he too was elected as an alderman on the Ku-ring-gai Council. He brought a spirit of generosity in his building knowledge to the service of his community for the next 17 years. He served as deputy mayor in 1995 and 1996. He, like Patty, was a founding member of the Fox Valley branch of the Liberal Party and also an office bearer. He was a long-serving member of the Liberal Party—except for three weeks, when he resigned, having lost a state preselection. Our party is better for David's contributions over the years. Like Patty, he was deeply involved in the wider community, the Royal Commonwealth Society, Killara tennis, Ku-ring-gai Male Choir, Rostrum and the Launceston Waterbird Haven. Patty and David are survived by their five children, 10 grandchildren and five great-grandchildren. May both of their memories be a blessing.
The Reverend Canon David Claydon passed away on 28 July 2022. His life story was extraordinary. David never knew his parents. They were killed in Jerusalem while he was a newborn. There was a social worker, Lora Claydon, who stumbled across him at the Bethlehem baby orphanage. It is really quite a remarkable Christian story, in that sense. He had neither a name nor a birth date, yet she knew in an instant that she must provide him with a family. She adopted David as his aunt and he took her last name.
When he was about four he contracted measles, deteriorating to a critical condition and while hospitalised in Jerusalem. There, he met a pastor who shared with him the story of God 's love for all creatures great and small. At this epiphany, David devoted his life to the church.
Lora, a missionary, moved around a lot and David had a wide experience of life. He married his wife, Robyn, in 1961 and they put down roots in my community and served the Anglican Church in Australia for 60 years. David was the minister at the St Matthew's Anglican Church at West Pennant Hills, before he became the federal director of the Christian Missionary Society.
He's been a friend to my family for three generations. He had a genuine kindness, humanity and humility and would often come to see me about persecuted Christians from the Middle East. I took him to see the member for Banks, then migration minister, I acknowledge in the chamber today. To his wife, Robyn, and his family, may David's memory be a blessing.
I mention these particular people because they are special to me. But they are remarkable examples of the wonderful people that we have in the Berowra electorate. They are the sorts of people I am delighted to represent and serve in this parliament, and I thank them for their trust.
I'm proud that the Albanese Labor government is delivering for the Northern Territory after only nine months in office, and if you take into account the summer break it's pretty good going. At the last budget, the government made good on its election commitments, across the Northern Territory, with funding allocated to much-needed projects, as promised. Almost $2.5 billion has been committed for NT infrastructure, with $740 million invested in sealing more of the Tanami and Central Arnhem roads to improve safety, travel times, freight efficiency, connectivity for those communities, flood immunity, safety, and social and economic development. There has been $440 million committed in equity financing for planned regional logistics hubs in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs—right up the track of the Territory.
Territorians will also see $332 million go to a strategic roads package to bring better economic and social opportunities to remote and regional communities right across the Northern Territory. In my electorate of Solomon, we have announced $1.5 billion in federal equity financing for the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct near Darwin. This project, which is focused on assisting emerging clean-energy industries, will also help our nation find new export opportunities for green hydrogen and critical minerals, and environmentally sustainable jobs. In Palmerston, $11.6 million will fund an Indigenous health facility for the Danila Dilba Health Service. This was one of my key priorities. If we're serious about closing the gap, we need to have culturally appropriate health services, which we know are proven to make a difference. Another big priority for me was a youth engagement hub. We no longer have the Youth Shack in the northern suburbs of my electorate, and $5 million will fund a brand-new, fit-for-purpose youth engagement hub co-designed with young people. We didn't forget about senior Territorians, with $1 million allocated to a men's shed that will be very centrally placed in the Marrara precinct. This joins a $3.6 million commitment to the Scott Palmer Services Centre, which I've spoken about many times in this place. It will support veterans and first responders that are either homeless or at risk of homelessness.
There is much more by way of us fulfilling our promises to my community, Territorians and those around the country where those promises were made. Whether it be for our businesses, our students, our young people, our fishers, our veterans, our first responders or our multicultural communities, the Albanese government is delivering for Darwin, for Palmerston—my electorate—and for the rest of the Northern Territory. I am so proud of Labor's big vision for our nation in this budget. Like those commitments that I just articulated, they are good for our nation. A stronger Northern Australia means more secure Australia.
I want to spend some time talking about a vital social and economic priority—that is, early childhood care and education. Labor's cheaper child care is a good example, among many others, of how Territorians benefit from the budget. The government is investing $4.7 billion over four years from 2022-23 to make early childhood education and care more affordable for Australian families. The government's reforms will mean that 96 per cent of Australian families with children in care will be better off, and that other four per cent will be no worse off. As all parents know, child care is one of the biggest budget-busters for working families. The national daily average cost of child care is $120 a day—that's huge, over $600 per week. It's a national story that reverberates across my electorate and the Territory as well. But in Darwin's CBD, care can jump up to $141 a day, or $700 a week—that's massive—and a fifth of the people in Darwin live in what is called a childcare desert, making it almost impossible to secure a spot. Nationally, 35 per cent of Australians live in a childcare desert such as this. That figure is 86 per cent for regional residents of the Northern Territory—meaning almost nine out of 10 people are struggling to afford child care.
In the Top End town of Katherine, ably represented by my friend the member for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour, six children compete for every available spot in care. Also in the electorate of the member for Lingiari, in the Barkly region, further south, 11 children vie for every spot. That becomes impossible for families. That's forcing these families to make tough decisions about their participation in the paid workforce, and that has a big impact on the national economy because we're in the middle of a worker shortage, as all honourable members know.
Further south, in Alice Springs, Benecia Acevedo had to wait 18 months to get her son, Xavier, into child care. That's despite joining a waiting list while he was still in the womb. Before he was even born, he was on a waitlist. She said:
I have been very lucky … I have friends who have deferred going back to work for up to three years.
Those parts of the country representing total childcare deserts, with less than 0.3 places per child, overwhelmingly cover regional areas of the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia. As Hannah Matthews and Peter Hurley of the University of Victoria recently noted in The Conversation: 'Of the 1.1 million Australians with no access to centre based day care within a 25-minute drive, almost all are outside major cities.' This is a frustrating situation for these parents living in regional Australia and is, frankly, not acceptable. It's even less acceptable for women because we know women are disproportionately affected by a lack of access to childcare. It is still overwhelmingly women who decide not to return to work, because childcare costs are too high or they can't secure a spot for their children. This is an equity issue as well as an economic one. Women like Territorian Maddie Staff feel pressure to work, which makes child care a necessity, not a nice thing to have. She recently said in an ABC interview:
Realistically, I need to go back to work. I only have 12 weeks maternity leave and with rent prices and the cost of living in Katherine, it is just not feasible for me to be a stay-at-home mum.
In the worst case, she considered leaving the Territory entirely.
This knock-on economic effect of the childcare drought is felt in regional areas right across our nation, and it's contributing to our difficulties in facilitating keeping people in our regions, where they would otherwise prefer to be. It's holding back our regional economies both in the Northern Territory and nationally. That is why, from July 2023 this year, the Albanese Labour government, our government, will alleviate this pressure by lifting the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent for families with an income under $80,000 per annum and increasing subsidy rates for families earning less than $530,000 per annum. People might say that is a high figure, but, just like publicly available health care and publicly available schools, early childhood education is a part of what we should be providing to Australians. The government will keep the higher subsidy rate for families with multiple children aged five and under. Our plan for cheaper child care will make child care more affordable to around 1.26 million Australian families. No family will be worse off. As I said before, 96 per cent of families who use child care will be better off.
These are real benefits for Australian families, particularly with the cost-of-living pressures families are experiencing. A family on a combined income of $120,000 with one child in care will save $1,780 in the first year of this plan. Childcare costs have increased by 41 per cent over the previous eight years, and that's a burden to many Australian families already struggling to make ends meet. According to the ABS, last year 73,000 people who wanted to work didn't look for work, because they couldn't make childcare costs work for them and their families. That's unacceptable with the workforce shortages that we've got.
Cheaper child care supports parents and carers, especially women, to enter the workforce or increase their workforce participation. It creates opportunities for thousands of skilled workers currently locked out of our economy. To attract and retain these workers, our childcare plan also entitles providers to discount fees for early childhood education and care workers. I'm particularly proud that this reform provides additional support to First Nations children and families accessing early childhood education and care, which is a massive deal for families in the Northern Territory.
To help close the gap in educational outcomes for First Nations children, our plan provides for 36 hours of subsidised early education and care per fortnight. Nationally, currently only 4.3 per cent of children in early education and care identify as Indigenous, despite being 6.1 per cent of the population of children in those early years. That's not good enough. We need to do better. In the Territory that figure is of course much higher. These simple changes will benefit around 6,600 First Nations families, boosting the hours of subsidised care Indigenous children are eligible to access. This is important if we are going to close the gap. This is vital. In 2021, the percentage assessed as developmentally on track went backwards for the first time. We need to turn this around as soon as possible.
The Albanese government has also introduced reforms to help get more Indigenous children into early education. We know that access to high-quality early education and care can massively impact a child's readiness for school, and that's why our policy is good social policy and good economic policy. It's good for addressing youth unemployment, which is such a big issue across many parts of Northern Australia. Our policies are the right ones to set up Indigenous kids for a brighter future. As the Minister for Indigenous Australians, the member for Barton, said:
Getting Indigenous children into early education will benefit them for the rest of their lives. It will make a difference to Indigenous children across our country.
The government will also invest $10.2 million to establish the Early Childhood Care and Development Policy Partnership between the Australian and the state and territory governments and Indigenous representatives. The partnership will be co-chaired by the Secretariat of National and Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, or SNAICC, as it's abbreviated. They do a great job. It will help drive the development of community-led policies and programs that Indigenous families need for their children to thrive. Our plan is good for mums, it's good for all parents and it's good for First Australians. It provides cost-of-living relief as well as integrating more parents who want to do paid work into the workforce. This is a signature Labor reform, which the Australian people supported at the election and which the early childhood and care sector also supports.
I'm proud that at this election, won by this side of the House, the federal Labor Albanese government made clear funding commitments to the Territory that the Albanese government is already honouring only nine months into our term. Ours is a government that does what it says—that delivers for the Northern Territory. We get the Northern Territory, we care about it and we are delivering for it and for Australia.
With my remaining time I would also like to pay tribute to our heroes in the education sector. Last Friday, 10 February, I attended a mass to open the school year at the Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School in Palmerston. I'd like to acknowledge the school's principal, Stephen Versteegh, and its deputy principal, Rebecca Evans, who I think just may be the NT's first First Nations principal-and-deputy-principal team. It's quite remarkable—a real sign of progress. I would particularly like to highlight the amazing work of Margie Flynn, a staff member who has been with the Catholic education system in the Northern Territory for over 50 years. That's absolutely extraordinary. She's very active in the parishes and regularly visits the women's prison. Margaret went to school at St Mary's in Darwin, which in those days went to the equivalent of year 10. After finishing the last two years of boarding school in Adelaide, she trained as a teacher. She started at Bathurst Island, which is part of the Tiwi Islands, where she spent 10 years teaching. When Margaret came back to Darwin, she taught at St Mary's and the Holy Spirit Catholic Primary School in Casuarina and then spent 30 years at O'Loughlin Catholic College as well as working at the Catholic education office. She worked alongside the late, great Dr Michael Bowden OAM and his son, the long-time principal—until just recently—Rhett Bowden. He's now principal over on the Tiwi Islands.
Margie was a classroom teacher, a teacher-librarian and college chaplain. She served students and her fellow staff, with very few breaks, from 1969 through to December, just a few months ago. What a humbling example of a life of service Margie is for all of us! When I spoke with her at the mass to open the year at Sacred Heart in Palmerston, she said she was still going to continue to help out at O'Loughlin and on the Tiwi Islands. It's a great credit to her.
I have always respected teachers, and have reflected on one this week—one of our best teachers from Darwin, Henry Gray, who was awarded an Order of Australia Medal in the Australia Day honours list. One of my younger brothers is also a teacher, and I know the difference that he makes; I've heard that from parents themselves. He has worked in primary school education in Alice Springs, in Broome and in Nhulunbuy in Arnhem Land, and he is now making a difference to young Victorians in lower socioeconomic area schools.
I also know the difference that our children's teachers make. Our kids, Sally and Frankie, are doing pretty well in school. Their biggest teacher, though, is their mum, my wife, Kate. I thank her for that and for the love and guidance she provides to them, and also the rock that she is in our family when I spend such a long part of the year down here. I always love getting across to the kids' school when I can and thanking the teachers for the excellent work that they do. I encourage young Australians to get into teaching, because teachers have a massive role in bringing through our next generation of Australians as they face the challenges of the future.
Daily, I am in awe of the incredible talent, passion and determination of Territorians from all walks of life. It's my great honour to represent them and to keep delivering for them. We hold a special place in the life of our nation, being the capital of northern Australia and being at the fulcrum of the Indian and Pacific oceans—also, having, as we do, Timor-Leste, where I've spent a lot of time, and Indonesia as our close neighbours. It is a humbling role to represent our great city, which withstood serious enemy attacks in the Second World War and the incredible force of nature that Cyclone Tracy and other cyclones and natural disasters have been in the past—and will continue to be in the future.
We are the forward operating base for our nation. We've all looked forward to the release of the Defence strategic review, to see where we will take our relationships with our allies and security partners, and the role that Darwin will inevitably play when it comes to making sure that our region is peaceful into the future and is secure. That's the greatest role that we have as a government. As a member of the executive, I take that work very seriously and also in making sure that our veterans and first responders are looked after. I want to make sure that every Territorian has what they need to reach their full potential. As I've gone into some detail about just now, that includes making sure that our families are supported and that our kids have the best care and education possible so that they can reach their potential. A big role as part of that belongs to our teachers, and I salute them today. I thank the House for its time.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 17:24 to 17:48
It's great to have this opportunity in the address in reply to focus on a number of tremendous community organisations in the Banks electorate and to reflect on not only the responsibility we have as local members but also the opportunity to help people who are the very best of us. I want to start out with a project that's gone over many years. It genuinely has been a privilege to be involved in this project and hopefully play a role in its ultimate success. It's a very serious story and it's a very sad story, but it is something from which something positive has ultimately come, which I'll come to in a moment.
Nearly seven years ago now I met the Cusumano family. The Cusumano family experienced the most immense tragedy. In 1995 Angelo Cusumano was working at his video game store, The Gamesmen, located in Penshurst in my electorate, and whilst working in his store he was murdered. His son, Angelo Jr, was 13 at the time, and he witnessed his father's murder. One cannot possibly imagine the trauma that Angelo has been through.
In 2016, I became aware of an organisation called Grace's Place. Angelo, along with a number of other people who as children had family members become victims of homicide, had a very big idea. The idea was that children whose families had been the victims of homicide should have somewhere to go, someone to talk to, someone to support them, and somewhere to stay and get support and counselling. It had never been done anywhere in the world. Over time, I met a number of other people who were involved in the organisation, including Kathryn Szyszka, who was the sister of Anita Cobby. I also met Martha Jabour, who is the Executive Director of the Homicide Victims Support Group and a remarkable Australian who has provided incredible support to, sadly, dozens and dozens of families who have had one of their loved ones taken away by murder. When we met back in 2016, Angelo, his mother, Mary, Kathryn, Martha and a number of others outlined what they wanted to do, which was to build a residential facility where kids could go if their families had been victims of homicide. It was a very big idea and had never been done anywhere in the world.
To its great credit, Blacktown Council in Sydney donated some land, and that was the first step. But in order to build this facility we needed about $10 million, which is a lot of money. The idea I had was that what Angelo and the families were really advocating for was a mental health support facility, because that's what it was. I was able to get Greg Hunt, then the health minister, to come to the electorate and meet with Angelo, Mary, Martha and Kathryn, and it was a very emotional meeting where the families set out what Grace's Place would mean to them. Greg Hunt committed, pretty much in that meeting, to helping make Grace's Place happen. A little while after that, we got a commitment of $6 million from the federal government, the New South Wales government put in about $3 million, and at that point Grace's Place was going to happen.
Over the following years, the project occurred. We had COVID, weather delays and all of the issues that you confront with these big construction projects. In November I was able to attend the opening of Grace's Place, and to see the impact it had on the families—I've mentioned the families that I have mostly worked with, but there are many other families involved as well—and to see their pride at the opening of Grace's Place was a really special thing. I thank the person who took on my most recent role—Emma McBride, the member for Dobell and the Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention—who opened the facility. The New South Wales government was there, represented by the Attorney General, and the New South Wales government has done a wonderful job.
Now, Grace's Place is up and running. It is such a sad thing that there is a need for Grace's Place, but the sad reality is that there is a need. Through the incredible vision, compassion and hard work of the families, Grace's Place now exists, and what we hope is that in time this idea will be put in place elsewhere, and potentially in other countries. This is a world-first facility, and it's going to provide a lot of support to a lot of children. The person who is going to be most responsible for the leadership of Grace's Place is Martha Jabour, who for decades has been an absolute rock for families, particularly in New South Wales, who have been through this most awful circumstance. To Martha, Angelo, Mary, Kathryn and all of the families who have been involved, it's a wonderful thing that you've done. I think that many people would struggle to lift themselves, to stick at it and to work for years and years and years on such a project. Angelo has spoken publicly about how working on the project makes him constantly talk about and confront the issues that he remembers from when he was 13 years old. To have the strength to do that is just unbelievable, and I'm very pleased to have played a small part. Long may Grace's Place help young people in our nation.
I want to highlight a number of community organisations in the Banks electorate who in the past 12 months have been doing wonderful, wonderful things. I'm fortunate to have a tremendously diverse electorate—we're one of the most multicultural electorates in Australia. We have people from all backgrounds, walks of life, faiths, sexualities—all walks of life—and it's wonderful to be able to acknowledge some of them today. Tony Lee runs a great organisation called ELITE Table Tennis. My electorate has one of the biggest table tennis communities in Australia. Some years ago we hosted the national tournament at Hurstville. Tony does a terrific job with ELITE Table Tennis. It was great, before Christmas, to go down to Blakehurst High School and present awards to some of the kids that have excelled at ELITE Table Tennis this year. I thank Tony for everything he does at ELITE Table Tennis.
We have a very artistic electorate, and there are a great number of groups that celebrate the arts, be that in painting, music, dance or a range of different things. One of the great organisations is called Creative Arts, based in Hurstville. Rhondda Yiao runs Creative Arts, and does a terrific job. The quality of some of the artwork is incredible. I have zero artistic capacity, so when I see the work that some of these kids are doing—as young as five or six, right up to the HSC students who produce really thought-provoking and beautiful work—it is quite remarkable. It was terrific to get down there in November to see Rhondda and to acknowledge the success of Creative Arts. It has been a tough time for small businesses in the arts sector over the last couple of years with COVID, and it was good to see that so many of the kids were back on the premises.
Community radio is a very important part of our community, and in my new role as shadow communications minister I look forward to working with the community radio sector. Recently, I visited Connect FM, formerly known as 2BACR, which is based in Padstow in my electorate and which services the broader Bankstown-Canterbury community. Connect FM is absolutely central to so many people in our community—there are multicultural programs and great music programs, and even shows that specialise in things like motorsport and various other sporting activities. I thank Julie-Anne Munns and George Sinnis for their hospitality on the day—it was terrific to visit Connect FM and I thank them for their terrific work.
In the Banks electorate we are very fortunate to have our own writers group in Oatley. Oatley has a proud history in Australian literature, and a number of prominent Australian writers have been from Oatley, so it's fitting that Oatley has its own writers group. Late last year they published an anthology of short stories, generally with a theme around crime and mystery, so to speak. It was terrific to attend the launch event for the publication. It was good to see Bill Keats and Fiona Johnston from Oatley Writers' Group in the anthology. I particularly want to the editor, Helen Armstrong, who basically edited the entire anthology. It's a great group and we had some really interesting conversations about writing. It's a wonderful skill to have. The calibre of the stories in the anthology is fantastic, and I really appreciated the opportunity to learn more about the book on that day.
VIEW clubs exist all around Australia, and they're associated with the Smith Family. In particular, VIEW clubs support young people, particularly girls, in education. There's a social element to VIEW clubs; that's a lot of fun for the members, and it's great to see the camaraderie and friendship that people form at VIEW clubs. But there's a serious purpose too, because VIEW clubs support the education of girls, and there are few activities that are more noble than that. It was really good to attend the Lugarno VIEW Club Christmas lunch this year, held at the Lantern Club at Roselands. Val Colyer, the president, was there in fine form, entertaining everyone, as always. It was great to learn more about the Smith Family's relationship with VIEW clubs on that day. I should acknowledge, as well, that in addition to the Lugarno VIEW Club we have the East Hills VIEW Club, which meets at the Revesby Workers' Club. To the VIEW Clubs of Australia: thank you for what you do and thank you for the support you provide to the education of girls.
Sing Australia has been providing musical joy to the Banks community for a very long time now. For many years, John and Toni Darcy have been the driving force behind Sing Australia at Peakhurst, recently joined by Sue Allison, who has recently taken on the role of president. She is doing a fantastic job. Sing Australia does a big concert every year in the hall at Peakhurst South Primary School. This year it was great to see everyone back in full voice. For obvious reasons, for the last couple of years it wasn't really possible to hold big concerts and singing events. But this year it was, and it was a really joyful night. There would have been at least a couple of hundred people there. The choir itself would have had at least 70 participants on the night. It was nice to be able to sing along to the limited extent that I have the ability to do so! Thank you to Sing Australia and thank you to John and Toni—wonderful people. Thank you to Sue, as well, for your leadership and for everything you do in the community.
The men's shed movement has made a lot of difference to the lives of many men around Australia and it has also made a big difference to the people who help. I'm very fortunate to have a number of men's sheds in my electorate, and none is more active than the East Hills Men's Shed. I have to say that they have one of the best locations you could possibly get for a men's shed: it's in the Georges River National Park, down at the bottom of The River Road in Revesby. It's a former parks and wildlife shed in which heavy equipment and other things were stored. That means it's a really big shed. The equipment that the gentlemen from East Hills Men's Shed have in there is fantastic and allows them to do so many good things. They help schools and create different things to support people in their homes. They recently did some work creating ramps near the house of a family which has a child with special needs. They've done iPad holders for the schools and they've built community gardens at our schools. They do so many great things. Brian Barrett, who has been the President for a number of years, is doing a fantastic job. The Christmas party was a typically enjoyable and relaxed function, and I want to thank Brian and everyone involved in the East Hills Men's Shed.
The abacus is a very ancient piece of technology. In the Banks electorate, we're fortunate to have one of Australia's—in fact, I suspect it may be Australia's only—leading exponent of the craft of the abacus. The Elias Abacus and Mental Arithmetic Centre, based in Penshurst, is brilliantly led by Victor Yu. Every year, the kids from Elias Abacus compete in international competitions. These have been based all around the world. Of course, with COVID in the last couple of years, those have been virtual. Victor and the team are really looking forward to those happening on premises in the future, where hundreds of thousands of kids from around the world gather and show their skills with the abacus.
The kids from Elias Abacus school have won gold medal after gold medal at these international competitions. It's a wonderful thing, not only because of the arithmetic skills that one learns from the abacus but also because of the great cultural resonance of the abacus, an ancient device and something that helps many of the kids at Elias Abacus to learn more about their cultural heritage and to have fun at the same time. So to Victor and everyone at Elias Abacus, thanks so much for what you do.
We've got a very strong rugby league community in the Banks electorate, spread across both Bankstown and St George. The East Hills Bulldogs are really important. I note that the member for Hinkler has picked up on the Bulldogs, and he's right to, because the East Hills Bulldogs have actually been around for longer than the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs and have a very close relationship with the club. There have been many players over the years who have come up from East Hills and have ultimately gone on to represent the senior NRL club.
East Hills Rugby League Football Club is very fortunate to have Rowan Brown as its president. Rowan is very passionate about league and, at the risk of embarrassing him, he runs a very substantial and successful business. For someone of his skills and capacity and, frankly, for someone who is as busy as he is to take the time out in a volunteer capacity to run the East Hills Bulldogs is a great testament to Rowan. Just before Christmas, I attended the awards day at the East Hills Hotel, and it was really nice to be able to acknowledge the success of the players during the year.
Marist Catholic College Penshurst is certainly one of the fastest growing and largest schools in the Banks electorate. A number of years ago, the school made the decision to—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 18:07 to 18:18
Marist Catholic College Penshurst is one of the fastest-growing and largest schools anywhere in the Banks electorate, and some years ago the school made a couple of big decisions. One was to become a co-ed school—it previously was a boys-only school—and the other was to go from a school that stopped at year 10 to one that went up to years 11 and 12. On top of that, it opened a brand-new campus at South Hurstville.
As you can see, there's been a lot happening at Marist Penshurst, which for many years was led by Principal Ray Martin. Mr Martin has recently moved to another school, and Connie Frino, who has been at the school for many years, has now taken on the role of principal. I want to acknowledge their great contribution and also Robert Shashati, from the P&F, who very graciously hosted me when I visited back in November. To everyone at Marist Penshurst: thanks for your great contribution to our community.
I'd like to begin by making some observations about some community groups in Fraser that are led by youth and are producing great benefits for other youth, who are often in a very vulnerable situation.
The first organisation that I'd like to make mention of is the Tigrayan Youth Association. There are approximately 5,000 members of the Tigrayan community in Victoria and many of those individuals live in Fraser. Last November, I attended the Tigrayan exhibition at Parliament House in Canberra. It was a very deeply moving experience, in which there was photographic evidence and a range of cultural artefacts that paid tribute to the suffering of many individuals and communities in Tigray. They indicated not just the incredible suffering of people in that part of the world due to a long and ongoing civil war but the fact that so many people in my electorate and the community around Melbourne's north-west are suffering as well. This is, in part, because so many people either know of what their relatives and friends are going through in Tigray or, often, don't know what people are going through or whether they are okay. It's a very deeply disturbing situation.
The Tigrayan Youth Association organised a three-day event, in my electorate, which showcased the vibrant culture of that part of the world. It was a very uplifting event. It included a performance showing courtship all the way through to marriage, universal experiences, and it was very moving and at times amusing. It included shared stories from their elders in a documentary called Tarek Time. It also included a soccer tournament and a wellness seminar.
Despite the stress that so many people in that community are feeling, it was incredible to see the positivity with which those young people came together. As with any event of its size, it would have taken many countless hours of volunteers and people on the committee of the Tigrayan Youth Association to successfully bring that event to fruition. What struck me was that so many young people were taking the initiative to help people in my electorate, the Fraser community, but, more broadly, across Melbourne. I'm sure that people back in their homeland are benefiting also from the positive efforts that young people in my electorate are undertaking. That's one example.
Another example is Endeavour Youth Australia. I congratulate the efforts of the entire organisation and the committee that puts in so much time. But I single out Mohamed Semra, who was a nominee for the Victorian Young Australian of the Year and also received the Victoria Young Voltaire Human Rights Award.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 18:23 to 18:33
So, I was speaking about Mohamed Semra and his role in Endeavour Youth Australia. Mohamed Semra is somebody who became famous in 2015 when a video that he had created went viral. It was a video of himself and a number of his friends, all of African descent, I might say, who were denied entry into an Apple store, presumably because they were under suspicion, notwithstanding the fact that there was no evidence. The video in fact went so viral that Apple's CEO Tim Cook apologised and called it unacceptable. And stores around the world, starting in Australia, engaged in retraining as a result of the consciousness-raising exercise that Mohamed had led. This was, according to Mohamed, an everyday experience, but he used his initiative to make it a positive, and he created a network where a lot of his friends, and people that he then became associated with, became advocates against racism, particularly towards young African-Australians.
The organisation that he then helped to create and put so much energy into now undertakes so many positive activities, such as activities in schools to help young people deal with the unconscious biases that so often affect them. They also create sporting events, and, indeed, I was recently at a futsal tournament, which Endeavour Youth Australia had helped to organise. It was a wonderful event, an incredibly vibrant event. As I was presenting the winning women's team with the trophy, I said to those in attendance that it felt like it was the final of the World Cup, given that it had gone into extra time. A very, very exciting overtime led to a deserving winner, but both teams certainly deserved a trophy. It was a remarkable feat of athleticism, fair play and competitiveness.
It was a really positive day, where a couple of dozen teams of young girls and boys, from right around Melbourne's west, competed, and it was an example to me, again, of young people taking the initiative and creating something very positive. I know, from having talked to people at that event and at other events that the organisation has organised, that it has provided a lot of support for kids who often find themselves very isolated.
I also wanted to talk about the National Reconstruction Fund and to talk about, in particular, the ways in which it's going to affect and benefit the communities of Melbourne's west and north, communities that have historically relied so much on manufacturing. I think it's worth noting the broader context which motivated the creation of the National Reconstruction Fund. It's one of the principal election commitments in the economic space that we took to the last election, and which was so resoundingly supported by the community. If you look at Australia's economic history over recent decades, there has been a long-term decline in manufacturing as a share of GDP. This is something which a number of advanced economies have experienced, but it's certainly one of the important pieces of context.
The other piece of context that I think is relevant is that, like a lot of advanced economies, Australia has seen a hollowing out, in a number of sectors, of jobs with what you might call 'middle skills'. This has created a gap in secure, well-paid jobs that used to exist decades ago in our economy, but which are increasingly not there. I would say that another trend and very important motivator for the National Reconstruction Fund—it's another long-term trend that the Australian economy has experienced—is that we are much better at basic research. We are much better at the early-stage aspects of research than we are at commercialisation. This has meant that we've lost a lot of opportunities in the manufacturing sector, in particular, for businesses that have a great idea and that have innovated, to take it from a small venture to the next level, to the level where it's on a global scale, where it's exporting and where it's creating hundreds or thousands of jobs. We have some examples of companies that have managed to bridge that divide—CSL, Cochlear and there are others—but, when you look right across manufacturing, it has remained an issue that we have struggled to deal with.
Then there are some shorter-term issues that, in opposition, we grappled with from a policy perspective, but which also contributed to the rationale for the National Reconstruction Fund. One issue was that supply chains were hit very hard by COVID, and it made Australia, but also a lot of other small and medium economies, think hard about their economic resilience. There were many products that we weren't able to produce for ourselves at short notice. There was some greater flexibility over the medium term, but there were a number of things that we couldn't produce for ourselves at short notice, which highlighted the vulnerability that our economy felt.
Also related to COVID, but probably also a trend that has accelerated after COVID, is what you might call the decoupling or the derisking of supply chains around the world, where different kinds of products with particularly complicated supply chains are now seeing different supply chains emerge, so that there isn't a single supply chain and risk factor there, particularly with some products in light of global international relations concerns or security concerns. That's another trend which has made it even more imperative for Australia to think about the resilience of our supply chains and why the National Reconstruction Fund is so important.
The other issue that I think is critical is that we are at a junction, as an economy, where it is critical that we do better when it comes to value add. Some people talk about this in terms of the complexity of our economy and, in particular, our manufacturing sector—our manufacturing sector or our advanced manufacturing sector. I think about it also in terms of productivity growth. What I would like to see is the National Reconstruction Fund help to drive productivity growth in the manufacturing sector in particular, and more broadly. Paul Krugman once said, 'Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run it's almost everything.' I look at the National Reconstruction Fund in that context as well.
There are a range of rationales and policy underpinnings of the National Reconstruction Fund. We have manufacturing in need of more support. We have manufacturing not doing as much as it could, both for our economy and our society when it comes to commercialisation. And, post-COVID, we have a real need to boost the resilience of our economy—both from an economic perspective but also from a national security perspective. This will add to our resilience but—I am confident—it will also add to our productively growth over the long run, which is so important to wages growth and so important to our standard of living.
The National Reconstruction Fund is being debated in this building right at this moment, and we have a situation where the opposition and the Greens are threatening to not support this. I want to speak about the importance of this for Fraser. Indeed, there are a number of businesses in Fraser that, to me, highlight the importance of this and highlight why it's important for everyday workers and why it's so important for giving them greater opportunities in the workplace.
One example is Luus Industries, which I visited in June 2022, shortly after the election, with Senator Tim Ayres, the Assistant Minister for Manufacturing. This is a company that's been around for about 25 years. I think this year might be their 25th anniversary. It employs 65 people in my electorate. It manufactures professional industrial kitchen equipment for restaurants and hotels right around the country. It has gone through significant growth in recent years. It uses very innovative manufacturing and design, and is an example of a company that does make very high-end and high-quality industrial kitchen equipment, but is also involved in the design. So it's that end-to-end manufacturing that it embodies. I might say that, when I did visit that company, celebrity chef Adam Liaw was there as part of the Australia Made campaign and managed to cook something at very short notice, which was very dramatic and made it onto television. Luus Industries is an example of a company that has done so well, and it is an example of a company where one wonders how much blue sky there is. If it were to be given assistance through the National Reconstruction Fund, how much more could be achieved?
Another one in the advanced manufacturing space is Bell Environmental, which I visited in February 2021, with the now Minister for Industry and Science. This is a company based in North Sunshine. It originally started as a small pump service business in 1964. It's been around for a long time and has a very, very strong and proven track record. It's about to celebrate its 60th anniversary next year. It's a designer and manufacturer of emergency response vehicles, such as SES vehicles and fire trucks. With the closure of manufacturing plants like Ford, Bell Environmental has taken on many manufacturing workers across Melbourne's west and is an example of how companies like Bell, manufacturing in the advanced manufacturing space, can give people the opportunity as Australia moves up the value chain.
These are two examples of companies that fit within the remit of the National Reconstruction Fund. If you look at the priority areas of the National Reconstruction Fund, you see renewables and low emissions technologies; medical science; transport; value-add in agricultural, forestry and fisheries; value-add in resources; defence capability; and enabling capabilities. It demonstrates how much potential there is for this fund. Enabling companies to grow, giving them access to capital where it otherwise might not have arisen, gives you a sense of how much potential there is for this to produce benefits right across the economy, in particular in an electorate like mine, where there are opportunities for jobs right across the skills spectrum and the opportunity for people to learn skills on the job and to have career progression.
Manufacturing has always been important in the electorate of Fraser, in the community that it represents. Indeed, my electorate office is located in the historic suburb of Sunshine, where the key Harvester High Court decision on a living wage was prompted by the Sunshine Harvester Works in 1906. That manufacturing plant was one of the largest manufacturing plants in Australia at the time and was a world-leading manufacturer of that type of equipment. The High Court decision, of course, laid the foundations of a lot of the thinking and policy around a basic living wage and what it meant to have a decent industrial relations system, which has remained in this country, fortunately, for decades since that time. It remains one of the underpinnings of why, for people who have low-skill or low-wage jobs, our industrial relations system provides them with a decent living standard and decent, secure conditions at work. We must always remember that we need to put act those key humane, fair underpinnings of our system.
A Harvester Oration occurs every year. It was actually started by my colleague Tim Watts, the member for Gellibrand, when the Harvester site was in his seat. Boundary changes have since meant that it's now in Fraser, but we jointly host that each year. I was very pleased that Senator Katy Gallagher was able to deliver the Harvester Oration this year. She gave an absolutely wonderful speech about gender inequality and also spoke about some of the key priorities this government has in industrial relations, harking back to the Harvester decision and how some of its key tenets of fairness remain so important today.
The Harvester Oration has been around for a few years now, and I note that earlier deliverers of the oration include Anthony Albanese, now the Prime Minister, of course; and Bill Kelty; and Wayne Swan. So it has a storied past, and we were very lucky to have Katy Gallagher deliver that this year. It's been eight months of this government, and we have prioritised much-needed industrial relations reforms, which have delivered really important protections for people in giving them more secure work.
The National Reconstruction Fund, as I said, is something that I think is timely for the manufacturing sector and all of the related areas that the National Reconstruction Fund will touch: manufacturing but also our defence industry, our clean tech industry—all of these different parts of our economy will benefit from this fund. It is very timely in terms of both the long-term trends that our economy is experiencing with the need for us to do better at commercialisation and offering people opportunities right up and down the skills profile and also to build a more resilient post COVID economy. So I'll be very glad to see that initiative pass both chambers, hopefully, this week.
It gives me great pleasure to rise tonight as we give our 20-minute orations about a whole range of issues that apparently are the address-in-reply. The first thing I'd like to say, just being here, is something I brought up in my maiden speech back in the Senate—back in 2005. That was a long time ago. Why on earth don't we have electronic voting in this parliament? Why are we still in the Dark Ages? They're talking about changing the Constitution, but they won't change the most basic thing. When we walk into the chamber we should be able to vote electronically. You could do it on your phone, look up at the screen and go: 'Oh yeah, that's me, the member for New England, Barnaby Joyce. I'm with the ayes.' Or: 'I'm with the noes. That's what I'm supposed to be. Thank you very much; out I go.' If you make a mistake, you can say: 'Oh, that's not what I want. I'll clear it, change it and put it back where—'
In the United States they have electronic voting, and their democracy seems to work alright. In the United Kingdom they walk in through a gate, and that seems to work alright. But we go through this process. Why? I'm sitting here in the Federation Chamber, they shut it down, everybody goes down there and it's about eight minutes—it's absolutely absurd. The day will come when I leave here, and I hope that we've somehow managed to make our way into the 21st century. Having two people as whips—this is an absurdity. If someone has got a huge objection about their vote because they think it was wrong, I'm sure they could bring it up just like they can now.
Now, let's go back to more mundane matters. It was a great honour, obviously, from the people of New England, who I serve and who I love, for me to get the great opportunity to be returned in New England. We got a two per cent swing to us from the previous election. As a person who grew up there and lives there, and as my family is there and all my children were born there, it's about having a plan for what you want to do for the area. Our plan, unfortunately, does not really align with the Labor Party's, the Greens' or the teals' plans. I've brought that up in this chamber just recently when discussing the Labor Party candidate, Laura Hughes. The promises that the Labor Party made—and there were several locked in, regardless of who won the election—they reneged on. You can't trust them. You can't believe them. So when they tell you about such things as the Voice, and that there's nothing to worry about, borrow from what they've actually done. Be very, very worried. When they say, 'Trust us about the Voice,' say, 'Yeah, like we had to trust you about the $275 electricity cuts.' And now there's this perverse, ridiculous scenario where they say, 'We're going to promise you that, at some time in the future, power prices will still be rising, but they won't rise as much.' What on earth does that mean? That is something for Peter Pan, that speech!
I was down below and we had the member for McMahon. I can understand why he loves solar mirrors. I understand why this guy loves mirrors.
Ah! It was just mirrors.
He loves mirrors! It's amazing. They've got all this virtuous stuff, but do you know where they don't want a wind tower? They don't want a wind tower in the centre of McMahon.
Or Manly!
They don't want it in Manly, as the member for Hinkler said. They would work absolutely perfectly in Middle Head. You could make your virtue signal to everyone on the ferries as they're coming across. They would say: 'There are the virtuous people of the seat of Warringah, and there's their small wind farm. There are only three or four towers there—there they are!' You could have a couple on North Head. That'd be a real virtue. But, of course, it's not virtue they're selling—it's hypocrisy, because they want the pain for someone else.
You know what the member for McMahon said? 'Well, we're building more Marinus Links to bring power across from Tasmania, and that's why we're pro-renewable.' You know where the power comes from in Tasmania? It's not from solar or from wind. It's from hydroelectricity. And I've got no problems with that. It's just that the Labor Party doesn't believe in building dams. In fact, regarding all the money that I, the member for Hinkler and others in the Nationals went out and fought for—and got—the first decision Labor made was to get rid of that money for dams. What the member for McMahon—that very colourful, well-dressed, handsomeyoung fellow down there—said is that there's a form of renewables that works, and it is hydroelectricity. But, because they're held captive by the Greens, the Labor Party does not build dams that actually generate hydro.
Now, if you want to build hydroelectric dams then go ahead with Hells Gate and Urannah. Go ahead with Dungowan. Put a hydro plant on every dam around Australia—knock yourself out! It's true: it's a great source of power. This is part of a culture change that myself, the member for Hinkler and others are trying to bring about—to try to get a sense of reality back into what we're doing. The reason we need baseload power at 50 hertz—whether you believe in global warming or don't believe in global warming, sort of believe it, kind of believe in it or are emphatic about it, you had better believe in physics—is that if you do not have the grid at 50 hertz it collapses. If it's too high, it collapses. If it's too low, it collapses. As vastly more proficient people than me in this have said, it's like balancing the electricity pencil on the tip of your finger. It has to have constant pressure on each side to keep it there. What renewables do is jump up and down on either side of the pencil and the pencil falls off.
It's not only that: what we also see in New England of course—and we have a vision for New England and that's how we vote—was about the New England Highway, which is the corridor of commerce bringing people from Sydney up to South-East Queensland. Remember that from the top of New England, the top of my seat, I can see the glow of the lights of Brisbane. The seat next to me in the north-east goes into the suburbs of Brisbane. So the New England Highway is a great connector, and one big part of the New England Highway is the Tenterfield bypass. We've done Bolivia Hill—we did that in government. But Tenterfield: at 40 kilometres an hour, a truck with flammable liquid crashed just down the road from my office. If that had blown up people would have died. We have to get these trucks out of Tenterfield so that we can make sure that the New England Highway can continue with a speed of at least 80 kilometres an hour all through its length: that's our goal.
We've done the Scone bypass, the Bolivia Hill realignment and we're working towards it, but if the Tenterfield bypass is delayed then that's actually a delay on commerce. It's one of the big connectors between the City of Sydney and that huge city called South-East Queensland—it's one big city, to be quite frank. So we've got to work on that.
We also have a vision in the New England to have veterinary, pest, plant and animal chemicals—the regulatory capacity for those. That's one of the reasons that we brought the APVMA up to Armidale—so it could become a centre of excellence. We were starting a school of international regulatory science there and actually bringing people from all around the world. People in Thailand and Indonesia aren't dopey; they say, 'If it works for you, it works for us.' If we have one centre that does all of this together then we can basically have a bulk-booking on the regulation of chemicals. Armidale was the perfect place to do it because there's the University of New England and the rural science students, and it does all the monitoring for the sugarcane in Queensland and a lot of that. There's sugarcane to the north and in the Northern Rivers; there's the cattle industry and the wool industry; and the cotton industry out at Narrabri. There's the wheat industry and the grain industry. All those industries are there and so the people who actually regulate these chemicals don't live in a silo in Canberra but could actually live where the farmers live. That's very, very important to get that proper cross-fertilisation of ideas. We were starting the process of doing something that was going to be really substantial for the City of Armidale and also incredibly good for Australia, but the Labor Party knocked that on the head. No, they don't believe in that. I don't know where their vision is but they don't believe in that vision.
The Labor Party also talks about wanting high-paying manufacturing jobs, and that's a great idea. Don't we all? One of the great opportunities for high-paying jobs is for us to go into the small modular reactor industry, where all the other parts of the globe are going except us. Except us! Argentina, Canada, the United States, China, Japan, Scandinavia, Czechoslovakia, the United Kingdom, France, the United Arab Emirates, South Africa, but not us—not us! So we're going to get left behind on these jobs, that really will pay well. People always try this puerile debate, saying, 'Do you want a small modular reactor in your area?' Well, yes, I do. Honestly, with 16 metres high and 14 metres wide, you could have it on the family's plates.
It would be a lot better than the wind towers they're putting up. We're going to have more structures, over 230 metres high, around the town of Walcha, a town of 2,000 people, than the Sydney CBD. How popular do you think that idea is? For every one of those wind towers, going to environmental things, there's one raptor death per year. If there were 520 wind towers around Walcha, there would be 520 eagle deaths a year. That's on the environmental part, but that's just where you want to look. It is a ridiculous form of technology, which is going to be outdated so soon. Do you know who's responsible for pulling those wind towers down? It ain't the state government. It's not the federal government. It's not the people who put them up. It's the person who owns the land: the farmer. The cost quoted to me of pulling down one wind tower was between $500,000 and $700,000. It's much cheaper to put them up than to pull them down—you need specialised cranes for specialised outcomes.
But that's not something that we hear from the member for McMahon or the minister for the environment. We don't hear him talking about this problem. We don't hear him talking about the fact that this is creating so much friction in regional areas. And this is why he is such a great asset for us, because I can tell you that the member for McMahon is hellishly unpopular, in the way that he is egotistical and seems not have a discerning understanding of the other side of the argument.
Under our new Labor government, we've also managed to lose so many other things that were great for New England: vital projects applied for in round 6 of the Building Better Regions Fund, which have been scrapped altogether: an aquatic centre for Inverell; funding for the New England Regional Art Museum's Howard Hinton display; Oxley lookout; Oxley skywalk; and Tamworth town pool. All these things have been lost. Apparently, when you get something in a regional area, it's pork-barrelling. I just listened to the television, and they were talking about $750 million or something in Sydney for a new fish market. Good luck and God bless them. That's a lot of money for a building that sells fish.
What we do in regional areas is turn on the news every night and, because it always comes out of Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne, we see all the things that Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth get. But we don't see the things that Tamworth, Armidale, Orange and, many times, Newcastle get. When we go in to bat for them, the only thing they come back to us with is that delivering for regional areas is pork-barrelling. No, that's us trying to get a fair share.
If you take the capital infrastructure per square kilometre in an urban environment such as Sydney and compare it to the public capital infrastructure in an environment such as—I don't know—Tennant Creek, Sydney wins. Stand on a big building, and you'll see multiple public hospitals, multiple high schools and public trains—they've got the whole lot. That's why now, and in the past—and it's great to see the member for Lingiari here—we're going to fight for things for Tennant Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs. Do you know what they said? They said it's pork-barrelling. Well, it's not. It's trying to bring fairness, and it's trying to bring equivalence. Yes, you ruffle feathers when you do it because you've got to. Otherwise, you just don't get anything.
There's one good thing that I'm happy we are continuing along with, and—it's a classic one—that's the Outback Way, through Boulia, Alice and Laverton. It's a very important piece of infrastructure. I'll tell you about what people said on my own side. They were screaming at me, saying: 'What on earth do we want this for? Why are you getting this? No-one lives there.' And I said, 'No-one ever will unless we build this infrastructure to get this road sealed.' I also said, 'By the way, people do live there—just not many people.' People do live in Boulia, people do live in Laverton, people do live in Alice and people do live in these areas. The way we bring a full economic opportunity for them is to have sealed roads so the tourists go through, so the critical minerals can go out, so we can keep Mount Isa going with the capacity to process critical minerals there and so we can give people opportunities.
But we can't get any opportunities unless we seal the road. A third sealed road across Australia is not a bad idea! It's taken us long enough just to do two of them. The third one is not a bad idea. It's great to see the member for Lingiari here. I hope that's something we keep firing up—and get ready for the same pushback I got on that, with them saying, 'We'll just kick it into the long grass for a while and wait a little longer.' No, no, no, it's happening. It's got to happen. These are the sorts of things that make our nation stronger.
A few people got Australia Day awards, and I think it's really important to acknowledge them. Anzac Day, which I know the member for Herbert is very aware of, is to represent those who have paid the supreme sacrifice and served our nation in a military context. It's incredibly important. Australia Day is incredibly important for those who do it in a civil context, that they get proper recognition. They might not have gone to war or worn the uniform but they've spent so much of their lives working for others. One of the reasons to go to Australia Day is to recognise these people and to and say thank you. They do stuff, for no payment, just because they think it makes Australia a better place.
Robbie Sefton AM is one. You see her in town. She works for so many—she's been with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Smarter Regions CRCs, High Performance Soils, Watertrust Australia, headspace and on the panel for independent assessment of the Murray-Darling Basin. She's done so many things, and every time you see Robbie she's such a pleasant, happy person who just seems to do these jobs and then take on the next task, and does that as well.
There's Kevin Clifton. He's done a lot of work. Kevin's a strong Rotary member. His work around Tamworth has been—whether it's the Tamworth South Public School or anything else, he's always there. He's a former principal, and he's done so much strong work for his local area. Dr Phil Hungerford does emergency medicine. He's a great doctor, well respected, and he's well earned his award. Wilfred MacBeth, down at Quirindi, earned an award for the work he's done in so many community music activities, entertainment and at a retirement village in Quirindi. He planted over 3,000 trees for wildlife corridors. Janette Berman was awarded. She's in education at the University of Melbourne and the University of New England. Deni McKenzie was awarded for her services around, especially, Uralla and Armidale, Armidale Care for Seniors, Climate Action Armidale, Progressive Cinema and McCrossins Mill.
I'm not saying for a second that all these people would vote for me, but I'll tell you what: they've done so much for their communities and they need to be recognised. These people have done all these things by just working for their communities. They all have their beliefs, in where Australia is supposed to go, and they put their shoulder to the wheel and they work for us.
Rosemary Curtis was awarded for her work with the Indigenous community of Glen Innes. I had a yarn to Rosemary. She's been so good, involved in Pathfinders, National Parks, the NAIDOC Week committee, the Glen Innes local Aboriginal Lands Council, and was an Aboriginal community liaison officer. She worked at the Glen Innes High School. Rosemary is one of these people, in the community of Glen Innes, where they see their job as advancing the prospects and the future of the Aboriginal people in her area. In that area, they refer to themselves as Aboriginal. They always pull me up and say, 'It's A day, not I day.'
We've got Judith Ward who has done so much work, especially in education. And there's Preston Campbell. He and I went up to the Territory for a bit, with people tied up with the king browns. He's a good fella, a Tingha boy. The work he's doing with Aboriginal communities—he's never forgotten where he came from, in Tingha. He's just a good bloke, and to recognise the work that he's done is so important.
That's, for me, Australia Day, to say to these people, 'Thank you.' We should do that. In life, there are some people who just chuck papers out the window of a car. I don't know why they do it, but they do it. There are some people who just complain about people who chuck papers out the window of a car, and they don't really help much. Then you've got the marvellous people who make Australia strong, the ones who stop the car, get out, pick the papers up and make the place look better. That is what we recognise in these awards.
I'm very pleased to make my contribution to the debate on the address-in-reply, which is in response to the election result. Though it has taken many months to get to my turn, as this debate is one that most people want to speak on, it is nonetheless an important speech to make and I'm very pleased to have the opportunity. The address-in-reply debate is the one in which the new members of the parliament give their very first speeches, and I acknowledge the wonderful speeches by many of my new colleagues elected this term, including the new member for Lingiari, who is here in the chamber. What an amazing range of perspectives, aspirations, and great ideas and values we heard from the new class of 2022 in those speeches!
In the election last year, the Australian people made it very clear that they wanted a change. They wanted a government that was committed to listening to and addressing the needs of the Australian people, and to working for a better future. That is why many of us joined the Labor Party—it's certainly why I joined the Labor Party. I wanted to be part of the movement that has made the differences for the people of Australia, the governments that have done the reforms and the hard work that deliver opportunities for Australians. Already, since the election in May last year, we have made so much progress in that direction on many of the things that we took to the election. Just before coming to make this speech, we passed through the House our legislation on starting the Housing Australia Future Fund, because we know that housing is so central to the health, dignity and prosperity of Australians, and that so many Australians—not least my constituents here in Canberra—are struggling with housing costs at the moment. We have made medicines cheaper for many Australians who are struggling to afford these essentials. We have delivered 10 days of paid domestic violence leave. We have made recommendations that have led to an increase in the minimum wage and also an increase for aged-care workers that was much-needed. We have begin much-overdue climate action, which is something that I know is absolutely top of the list for the people of Canberra, and one of the most important things that we need to address. I'm incredibly proud of the things that we have so far achieved and that we will continue to achieve and work on in this government. There was also the establishment of a National Anti-Corruption Commission, which I know is so important. So many people at the moment are concerned about accountability and the integrity of parliament and politicians, so it is a really important change.
In this address-in-reply debate, I also want to reflect personally on my re-election as the member for Canberra, and to thank everyone who put their trust in me to represent them in this place. This is not something that I take for granted or take lightly; that responsibility weighs very heavily on me, and I want to continue to make my very best effort to listen to the things that matter to you, and to advocate for our city and our community in this place. As part of that, I have established the Canberra Forum, which is a deliberative democracy panel—an Australian first, actually—run by democracyCo. In this model, 40 randomly selected Canberrans are debating a range of issues, and I have committed to bring their recommendations on the topics they choose into this place, and to advocate in the parliament and in our Labor caucus. At the point we're at, the issues that they are looking at are climate change, issues around equity of access to services and issues around community voices being heard in politics. Ill refine those topics further, but I'm so proud to represent a community for whom these things are so top of mind—very altruistic issues that affect not just our local community but our nation and our world. I'll be very proud to continue to advocate on those sorts of issues in this place.
I also want to take the opportunity to thank everyone who supported my campaign: my wonderful staff, Karen, Hamish, Mick, Radmila and Andrew, for all the work they did, and also all the Labor members and other volunteers who gave their time so generously to support the campaign in the seat of Canberra. The conversations they had were very important in gaining people's support. It is those conversations all around the country that change governments and change the country. So, thank you to all those volunteers who supported Labor out there.
Your first speech to the parliament is definitely a very important one and one that you may have thought about your whole life, in one sense. I sort of see it as an opportunity for the member to talk about the things that have driven them to be in this place and the things they are committed to advocating on. Also, in writing mine, I saw it very much as a promise to my electorate of the things that I would always advocate on as well as a promise to myself that those are the things I will never see as less important as long as I have the great privilege and opportunity to be in this place. So, I want to take this opportunity to restate my commitment on some of those issues.
Issues that were key to my speech were climate action, and I've been proud to advocate and am now very proud to be a part of a government that is actually delivering on that action. I have spent so many speeches in the last term crying out for action on climate change, which my constituents are so very active on. I thank them for all their advocacy as well.
But the issues that really drove me to want to be in parliament are issues around social justice and poverty and inequality. My background is an economist who began in analysing poverty and inequality at NATSEM, the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, looking at the impacts on households and individuals of policy, particularly social security policy and tax policy. I've also always been a very active volunteer in the community space in Canberra and when I lived in Sydney, and I've spent a lot of time talking with people who were experiencing disadvantage in our community. Something that is very important to me and that I always want to be talking about in this place is the importance of our social security system and the fact that it is the most powerful tool that governments have for addressing poverty and inequality—that when we have an adequate social safety net it says so much about our society.
We claim that we are an egalitarian society, and mostly we are. I would say that Australians do want to see everyone getting a fair go, and they don't like to see people suffering because of bad luck, because they don't have a job or because, for whatever reason, they are doing it tough. And I think Australians want to see governments supporting people in our community who can't always support themselves through work. When the COVID pandemic began we saw a very powerful example of this. Through the coronavirus supplement, income support payments, including JobSeeker, were increased, and we saw poverty actually go down as we entered our first recession in decades. Where we would have expected poverty to explode as a result, we actually saw poverty go down and, anecdotally, we saw the difference it made to people's lives as they could do things they hadn't been able to do for a very long time, like buy healthy foods, like go and get a haircut or new clothes, or whatever it was. Since then, we have not seen a significant permanent increase to that payment, and poverty persists in Australia at significant levels.
Around one in eight people in Australia are in poverty, including around one in six children. I think that, as a nation, this is something we can do more to address. This is something that Australians want to get behind. But it has taken many years, and we have not seen the action we need to increase the unemployment benefit. I think it's safe to say that various campaigns have been going on to increase the unemployment benefit—formerly Newstart, now JobSeeker—for at least 20 years or, certainly, as long as I have been in the social policy space. We know that this is one of the most powerful things that a government can do to get people out of poverty.
I talked about former prime minister Bob Hawke in my first speech. He did many wonderful things for this country that are celebrated, but his commitment that by 1990 no Australian child would live in poverty is something that is often ridiculed. What is less known is that a bunch of changes that he then made to the social security system and to child support actually reduced child poverty by around 80 per cent. Such is the power of the social security system.
Under the Gillard government, Labor also very proudly increased the age pension and lifted around a million pensioners out of poverty. This is a wonderful thing. I think it's important to note as well that people on low incomes actually spend the greatest proportion of their incomes, so, when we invest in giving these people on income support payments an increase such as with the coronavirus supplement, that money goes straight back into the economy because they are buying their essentials.
I want to note as well, as someone who does have a background in poverty analysis, that there is a lot of discussion about poverty. Poverty essentially has two meanings. In the sense of the lived experience of poverty, poverty is going without. Poverty is being failed by our system. Poverty, as one person put it to me, is choosing between baby food and tampons. But often what we're talking about in poverty is poverty lines and rates that are decided based on the distribution of income more broadly, and I think the meaning of that can be lost a little bit. It's not necessarily the best measure of what people need to have a decent standard of living. It is a reflection of the broader distribution of incomes—normally half of the median or average income for a particular type of household such as a single person, a couple or a couple with children.
It's not as simple as saying—well, frankly I feel it is as simple as saying that we don't want Australians to be living in poverty. I think that is something that most in the community would agree with. It's not as simple as saying that the rate should be at the poverty line, because the poverty line is a somewhat arbitrary measure. These are things that really need to be looked at with regard to a range of things such as the minimum wage and other social security payments. For example, there's long been the pension. The age pension is for someone who is likely to be on that payment for life, whereas an unemployment benefit is essentially meant to be for people in between jobs, so there is a rationale for why that might be a higher payment than a short-term payment.
We also have a problem if people are spending many years on the JobSeeker payment. It is supposed to be a payment to cover a gap in between jobs. We do have relatively low unemployment at the moment, and, therefore, some people on the payment might have particular barriers as to why they're finding it very, very hard to find a job. Based on that, I feel that we should probably look at whether that is in fact the best payment for them, or perhaps they should be on a more permanent or a different type of payment. I also feel that people in the community are concerned about mutual obligations for people receiving a JobSeeker payment which are too punitive and can make it difficult for them to get to the objective of finding a job.
I think that these are discussions that we as a nation need to have, about whether we are happy for one in eight Australians, and one in six children, to live in poverty, or whether these are things that we really want to see addressed as a priority. As I say, this is something my constituents raise with me a lot, too. Particularly in Canberra, there's a view that Canberra is a relatively well-off place, which is true. We do have high average-incomes and low unemployment. But it makes it a very difficult place to be poor. When I talk to the community services in my electorate, it's clear that the demand on them is absolutely increasing, and they're seeing new groups of people seeking that support that they haven't seen before.
These community groups run by the generous donations and volunteer time of community members are, in many ways, filling a gap in the social safety net. Something that really sticks in my mind was when I was told by someone at a local service at St John's Care—who do incredible work here in Canberra—that sometimes the best thing they can give someone is money to register their car so that they can continue sleeping in it. I think that we can do a lot better than that. I hope, as a nation, we can do a lot better than that, here in our nation's capital and around the country.
That is not an isolated story. I hear many stories like that from these hardworking community organisations. I do hope that as a nation we continue a discussion about poverty, about inequality and about what governments can do about these things, and, personally, I commit to continuing to talk about these issues as long as I'm in this place.
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:28