I stand to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. At the start of my contribution, I foreshadow that I intend to move a second reading amendment to this bill, so I will now move:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government has disrespected older Australians, their families and aged care providers due to their political restriction of the passage of similar legislation in the last Parliament when they were in Opposition".
The opposition will support this bill. The reason that we will support this bill is that we believe that the continuing work that was started by the previous coalition government is absolutely fundamental and generational in its reform of the aged-care system to ensure it meets the needs of older Australians, both now and into the future. And we're going to support this bill not just because it mirrors the royal commission response that we introduced last parliament but also because it delivers a very critical second stage of the reform package which was commenced by our government in response to the royal commission's final report.
In the introduction and debate on this particular bill that we had put forward in the last parliament, the provisions that were contained in the bill were absolutely essential in terms of the speedy response to the royal commission recommendations and the ability of the aged-care sector to move forward as quickly as possible to address many of the concerns that were raised by the royal commission. But at the time, Senator Rex Patrick, who is no longer in this place, moved an amendment in relation to the requirement for aged-care facilities to have nurses on site at all times. They moved an amendment that required nurses to be on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week by 2022.
Now we know very, very clearly that access to nurses in all of our care settings has been extremely difficult. At the time, the now Prime Minister of Australia, when asked by a journalist, 'It does take a long time to train people as nurses,' Mr Albanese responded: 'Of course it does. But that is why you need planning and commitment to do it.' The journalist then said, 'But that sounds like a long-term thing, not something you can solve tomorrow, doesn't it?' Mr Albanese responded, 'You cannot find a nurse tomorrow. That is the truth.' Mr Albanese said this in February 2022, and yet in April 2022 he and those opposite voted to force aged-care facilities to have 24/7 nurses by 2022, against the recommendation of the royal commission. In doing so, they allowed the bill, which was so important to addressing the reforms in the royal commission report, to lapse, and so aged-care providers and older Australians were left in limbo for six months for political gain by those that are now in government.
It is absolutely disgusting to consider that Mr Albanese and Labor would have played politics with older Australians for the last six months by not facilitating the passage of this bill in the 46th Parliament when they could have—by delaying this critical legislation solely for the purpose of political gain. I can see no other reason, because they had absolutely no intention and never did—because they know they can't—to have 24/7 nurses in aged-care facilities by 2022. They then made a commitment sometime later to do it by 2023. We'll see when they bring their next bill into this place whether they're actually going to honour that commitment, because, sadly, I believe, and I think most Australians believe, that there is absolutely no chance that that particular provision will be able to be delivered for Australia.
The government's treatment of older Australians since the election has been nothing short of disappointing. There is the fact that we've ceased the provision of rapid antigen tests into aged-care facilities that are experiencing outbreaks, and then there was the embarrassing backflip we saw around the decision to extend ADF personnel support to our frontline workers in aged-care facilities, which they had intended to no longer continue.
Mr Albanese and the government promised, and continued to promise during the election campaign, more support for aged-care providers, and so far, I have to say, we haven't seen a lot for it apart from rhetorical flourish. But it's also disappointing that in the particular piece of legislation that is before us the government has chosen to remove the worker-screening regulations contained in the coalition's bill which was before this place in the 46th Parliament, because they were such important regulations and were, in consultation with the sector, supported by the sector. This is one of the few differences, I might say, between this bill and the coalition's legislation in the 46th Parliament, with the exclusion of the change of dates, which obviously had to occur because of the six-month delay in putting these really important reforms into this place.
Our worker-screening schedule responded to recommendation 77 of the royal commission and established an authority for nationally consistent pre-employment screening for aged-care workers. You would think that that would seem like a pretty sensible thing to do. Our legislation sought to establish a code of conduct which would have ensured that poor behaviour of approved providers, workers and governing persons was held to account. I'm glad the government has adopted our code of conduct and the subsequent amendments in this piece of legislation. But, as I said, it's disappointing that the government has capitulated—one would suggest probably to the unions—by removing our specific schedule on worker screening. It's absolutely essential that this government stands up to the unions and implements important policies to protect the rights of our aged-care sector workers and allow a nationally consistent database to be established for the care workers in ensuring the interests of all Australians and making sure older Australians have confidence in our aged-care sector.
Our plan was to have one database to simplify processes for employers, including aged-care providers, making it easier for NDIS carers, aged carers and veteran carers to move between their caring roles. This would have protected residents and allowed employers to know their employees are fit and proper to be caring for older Australians. Instead, Labor is delaying the commencement of this particular reform by excluding the schedule just to, I would imagine, fulfil an election commitment on what appears to be, on the face of it, a carbon copy of our regulations anyway. Put simply, this delays protections for older Australians. They are trying to redo what has already been done. We will be keeping a very close eye on further upcoming aged-care reforms that are going to be introduced by the Albanese government to ensure the legislation and regulations are introduced and implemented so that poor conduct in the sector is held to account and ultimately stopped.
Overall, this bill has nine schedules which directly relate to the Australian government's response to the royal commission. This bill, like the coalition's bill, replaces the outdated aged-care funding instrument from 1 October this year with the Australian National Aged Care Classification, or AN-ACC, residential aged-care funding model. This responds to the royal commission's recommendation 120 and represents a significant funding reform for residential aged care by completing the final step in the implementation of the model. Along with the introduction of the AN-ACC funding model, the bill permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to publish information relating to the new star-rating system for all aged-care service providers. This will allow families and future aged-care residents to make an informed decision about which aged-care provider will be the best fit for their needs.
The bill will also extend the Serious Incident Response Scheme from residential home care to home care and flexible care delivered in home and community settings, in line with royal commission recommendation 100. Under the scheme, providers of in-home care services will be required to identify, record, manage and resolve all incidents that occur. This will provide further transparency and protection for aged care. Schedule 6 of the bill aims to provide consistent quality and safety protections for consumers and reduce regulatory burden for cross-sector providers and workers, in line with existing regulations in the disability sector. Additionally, the bill implements the second of a three-phase reform process established by our government to create a new financial and prudential monitoring compliance and intervention framework for the aged-care sector. Finally, the bill expands the functions of the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority, responding to recommendations 6, 11, 115 and 139 of the royal commission.
The opposition is absolutely committed to supporting the health, the safety and the wellbeing of older Australians. That is why we made, whilst we were in government, a massive commitment to the implementation of the recommendations of the royal commission, with $19.1 billion committed by our government at the time to support the implementation of these recommendations. When in government, we were extremely disappointed that the opposition sought to play politics with this time-critical legislation that is before the chamber today. I think it shows extraordinary disrespect and the extent to which the Labor Party is prepared to go to get itself into office, and that it would use older Australians as a pawn in that particular play. So the opposition absolutely implores those opposite to continue our generational reform that we had put forward. We also implore those opposite to please put the interests of our aged-care sector and particularly our older Australians who rely so heavily on it at the centre of what you do going forward, because clearly you did not do that in the past. So make sure that everything you do in your endeavours to continue our reforms to improve our aged-care sector is done in a way that supports older Australians and not yourselves, and we will support you. We will support this bill but, in the process of doing so, we will seek to amend it to make sure that the interests of older Australians are fulfilled.
Thank you, Deputy President, and congratulations on your elevation to the position of Deputy President. I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. I have to say, I have been waiting 10 long years for this moment. To be on the government benches with a bill that we as Labor senators and as a Labor government introduced is a really proud moment. I have watched nine failed aged-care ministers stand in this place and argue on many occasions that the sector was not in need of reform and, yet again, already we have the opposition trying to rewrite the history.
It was Minister Butler who started these reforms with Living Longer Living Better. That was the foundation for reforming the aged-care sector in this country but it was interrupted by the election of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments, who stalled on every occasion until they finally had to call a royal commission into their own failings. Already in this debate the shadow minister is trying to rewrite history. We will put the facts on the table because we know on this side of the chamber who started this reform and who tried to block it for 10 long years. In fact, many of those ministers oversaw this crisis in aged care. They had report after report gathering dust in those nine ministers' offices while this sector was deteriorating.
In opposition, I put question after question to the countless ministers, including the former minister, Richard Colbeck, from my home state, who was an absolute failure in the responsibility he had. He let down older Australians. He always had the view that there was nothing to see, nothing to hear here. That was his attitude to reform. I don't want anyone to forget that it was the former Prime Minister Scott Morrison who broke the hearts of older Australians when he oversaw this ongoing crisis in this important sector. He made a solemn commitment to fix the sector but he didn't—another election failure. I, as did others, called for the royal commission into this sector, but it was the former government that waited and waited and denied and denied the necessity to have a royal commission when they finally had to cave-in because of their own failings.
During the royal commission, Australians were devastated by the evidence provided and the government's response. So, yesterday in the other place and now today, the Albanese government is putting aged-care reform on the agenda of the Australian government. This is a momentous moment in our nation's history. The Albanese Labor government does this with an absolute commitment to older Australians living within residential aged care and those receiving care in their own homes. Every older Australian deserves love and care in their older years. They deserve quality care in residential aged care or in their own home. It doesn't really matter whether you are in a residential aged-care home or whether you are receiving care in your own home, you deserve time with your carers. You deserve to have someone to be able to sit and engage with you, to hold your hand. You deserve to feel wanted, needed and, most importantly, you need to be respected.
Labor took to the election a commitment to 24/7 access to registered nurses in the aged-care sector homes in this country, and we will implement this. We stand by this. It already happens in my home state of Tasmania, so, ultimately, we can deliver on this commitment.
Ultimately this bill is about respect for older Australians and what they have contributed to our country. This is a bill which will return security, dignity, quality and humanity back to the aged-care sector. I acknowledge all the work that has gone into this bill. It has been, as I said, years in the making. I note the efforts of Minister Wells—and I congratulate her on her appointment—and Minister Butler to bring this bill to the parliament during this first week of the 47th Parliament. And the former shadow minister Shayne Neumann and I would like to acknowledge the Prime Minister for showing such leadership in this area.
I would like to make some comments in relation to the former shadow minister Shayne Neumann. I loved the time I spent working with him. He had a commitment to listen and learn from the sector and from older Australians what sort of reform we needed going forward. As Minister Wells said yesterday in the other place, reforming aged care starts by listening. Australians have been hearing for far too long about the horror stories overseen by the former government. But Labor has always been listening and advocating. Too many parliaments have overseen this and done nothing. As I said, there was almost 10 years of neglect under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments. Labor understands this. We understand the concerns of older Australians and their families, because older Australians have been crying out for action and for reform. Well, no longer will you have to be ignored by a federal government, because we hear you. Most importantly, we see you, and we, as the Australian government, will take the action that is necessary to reform this sector.
Today shows what a high-order priority aged-care reform has within the Albanese government. I note that there has also been extensive consultation with unions, aged-care workers, providers and residents to ensure their experiences are considered in the implementation of this bill. The sector is informed. They have also been listening and they must continue to listen to ensure that we get it right. This is beholden not only on the government but also on the sector, the unions, the workers. Having walked in the shoes of aged-care workers on many occasions during my time in this place, I must say there is no more committed workforce in this country than those who work in the aged-care sector. I take my hat off to them each and every day, because they front up to care for some of the most vulnerable and frail Australians and they do it with respect. But they, in turn, need to have that respect. They need to be paid an appropriate salary. They need to know that their work is respected by the government and by the community.
We know the amount of extensive consultation that was undertaken during the royal commission. The department has also undertaken significant consultation on each of the measures in this bill and the recommendations from the royal commission. This includes consultation with older Australians and their families, advocates, peak bodies, state and territory governments, providers and the general public. Furthermore, the measures in this bill, aside from schedule 2, were previously considered by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, and a number of stakeholders made submissions to that inquiry. As the assistant shadow minister for aged care several years ago, I was in the privileged position of seeing firsthand all the wonderful people living and working in this sector. I visited countless residential aged-care homes across the country. I walked in the shoes of the aged-care workers. I know what these people do each and every day. I witnessed the best of aged care and, at times, I witnessed the worst. I believe that this bill will be the start of genuine reform in this sector. I want to acknowledge all the hardworking people who work in this sector. As I said, those workers need our respect, they need our support and they need to be remunerated appropriately so that we can keep the very best people working in this sector, because our older Australians deserve nothing less. Every Australian deserves dignity in care, and, in particular, during their final years they deserve the best care a rich nation such as ours can give them, so this is the beginning of a long journey to reform the aged care sector.
The Albanese government's Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill implements a series of urgent funding, quality and safety reforms, including in response to several recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety's final report, Care, dignity and respect. The bill implements nine time-critical aged-care measures, including a series of reforms that respond to several recommendations of the final report of the royal commission. The measures will introduce a new aged-care subsidy calculation; provide a legislative basis for the star ratings system; introduce a code of conduct and banning order scheme; extend the Serious Incident Response Scheme to aged care delivered in home settings; strengthen the governance of approved providers; enhance information sharing across related sectors; increase financial and prudential oversight; broaden the functions of the renamed Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority; address issues with the informed consent arrangements in respect of the use of restrictive practices in residential aged care; and develop a new comprehensive workers registration scheme, with criminal history checks continuing to apply in the meantime.
The last element I just mentioned is something which I campaigned for in opposition for many years. If we are to improve the quality of care within the sector, we must ensure the best people with the best intentions work in this sector. There is no point introducing this bill without such an intention, and this element will ensure an aged-care worker who is not up to the job cannot leave one aged-care home and start working in another aged-care home in a neighbouring suburb. I am firmly of the view that this element in this bill will work well to ensure the right people are attracted to the sector. The bill replaces the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument, ACFI, with a new model for calculating aged-care subsidies called the Australian National Aged Care Classification model, which has been developed in consultation with the aged-care sector and consumer groups. Since April 2021, residential aged-care recipients have been progressively assessed and classified under the AN-ACC, and the funding under the new model will commence on 1 October 2022.
Importantly, the bill includes several measures that will provide additional protections directly to older Australians. These protections cannot be delayed any longer. For far too long, a lack of protection for residents has allowed much of the reported abuse. Consequently the Serious Incident Response Scheme will be expanded to establish obligations on approved providers of home care and flexible care in a community setting to report and to respond to incidents and to take actions to prevent incidents from recurring. For far too long, too many aged-care homes have not been adequately monitored. A new code of conduct will set high standards of behaviour for aged-care workers, approved providers and governing persons of approved providers to ensure that they are delivering aged care in a way that is safe, competent and respectful.
All of these matters addressed in this bill will go a long way, as I said from the outset, to start the real reform in this sector. But what we have to do is support those workers in aged care, we have to support the providers and, most importantly, we have to return to the days when we respected older Australians in this country and ensure that they get the care that they so desperately need and that they deserve. You can't allow the sector to not put the care and the interests of older Australians first and foremost. This is going to take a lot of money, but what it's really going to take is a will to reform this sector and a will to support the workers to give them the opportunity to keep the best possible people in aged care. We have to attract nurses back to aged care. Those nurses who work in aged care know that the work that they do is so important, so we have to find a way to provide additional nurses not only for our aged-care sector but right across this country. We have to ensure that we have access to the very best general practitioners in our communities in residential care.
I commend Minister Wells and Minister Butler and, of course, the Prime Minister for taking the first step to re-establishing the best aged-care sector in the world, because we deserve nothing less and older Australians deserve nothing less, and they have the support of this government.
The health, the wellbeing and the rights of older Australians are absolutely critical, and our aged-care systems so often in recent years have failed them, and that's been an indictment of Australian society. It's no surprise that the state of aged care has been a focus of government for a number of years now, which is reflected in the attention rightly given to the royal commission—in fact, the circumstances that led to the royal commission coming into being—and its recommendations, and the focus that both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party and us as Greens and the crossbench put on aged care during the election, because it's very clear that something needs to change. The system is broken.
The Australian Greens believe that the federal government has to play an absolutely central role in the provision, the regulation and the support of aged-care services. We believe that older Australians, their carers and their families should have the right to choose appropriate and affordable care services that meet their needs and maintain their dignity, their independence and their quality of life. So, of course, we want to see a high-quality aged-care system characterised by quality support, quality nursing and personal care; safe and comfortable surroundings for older people, whether in residential, home or hospital care; and for this to be what everybody gets—to not have people falling through the cracks, to not have providers that aren't meeting these standards.
Older Australians have got a right to freedom from discrimination and freedom from violence, a right to social security, a right to work and a right to health, and we want to see and enable a paradigm shift towards seeing older people as rights-holders and as active contributors to society. We need a human rights approach to aged care, and we feel that the regulatory framework underpinning aged care must be based on the human rights of older Australians and acknowledge the interdependence and the interconnectedness of those rights. Under a rights based approach, older people would be guaranteed access to the level of care and support that they are assessed as needing.
Now, of course, we are hoping that the complete right of the Aged Care Act that is going to begin this year is going to reflect this human rights based approach and is going to have this total reconsideration of the paradigm that we hold older Australians and aged care in. Clearly, what we are debating today, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022, is not that. It's an interim measure. It's a bill that is implementing some urgent recommendations from the royal commission, but it is just an interim measure. And we also know that it is largely the same bill that the previous government brought to the previous parliament. It was interesting to hear Senator Ruston talking about the delay of that bill. It was a bit of a rewriting of history, because I remember that that bill actually got through the Senate. It had been through the House and it had gotten through the Senate with an amendment that said 'required—24/7 nurses in aged-care homes', because the majority of the Senate felt that that was an important provision to be in place. And then the government chose to not take that amendment through the House. So it was the previous government that blocked the adoption of aged-care legislation at the end of the previous parliament.
The bill that we are looking at today is pretty much the same as the previous government's approach. We are really grateful that there have been some amendments to it. I'm very grateful to the previous government that they adopted most of the Greens amendments in the final version that went before the last parliament. We have also, after discussions and negotiations with the Minister for Aged Care over the last month, had some other measures that the Greens were very concerned about adopted in this new legislation. We are particularly pleased that the government has removed the previous schedule 2 on screening checks, because there was clearly a lot more work that needed to be done on the issue of screening checks for aged-care workers. It's a very important measure to make sure that the people who are providing aged-care services are able to be relied upon to be the most quality people possible, but there were some big issues with the screening checks as they were previously outlined in schedule 2.
There are other areas, in particular, where we feel that this bill should go further, but we recognise that it is an interim approach. We also know that it's in the context of further legislation that the government is going to be bringing before the parliament, that is also being introduced. That legislation is going to go off to committee to implement the measures that were in their election commitments, particularly around workforce and making sure that the care being provided is of the highest quality and that there is transparency of information on where aged-care providers are spending their money. We look forward to having a thorough interrogation of that bill and to see that bill pass through the parliament as well. But, similarly, both of those are just going to be interim measures before the required full rewrite of the Aged Care Act.
A critical change, of course, in this bill compared with our current aged-care legislation is the introduction of the Australian National Aged Care Classification, or AN-ACC. My predecessor, Rachel Siewert, worked really closely with the sector, highlighting the problems with the previous instrument, the Aged Care Funding Instrument, which is no longer fit for purpose. Overall, we are broadly supporting this bill, but we have two major concerns with it as it stands. One is the lack of mandatory requirements for the provision of allied health services under the new AN-ACC funding model. Allied health services like physiotherapy play a vital role in maintaining the wellbeing of older Australians. Without adequate access to allied health services, many residents of aged care and many people receiving home support would not be able to adequately manage their pain or reduce their risk of falls. Physiotherapy, for example, has been shown to decrease falls by 55 per cent. Under the previous funding model, the provision of allied health services, or a certain amount of allied health services, was mandatory. It is now no longer mandatory under the AN-ACC. The allied health professionals that I have spoken to are extremely concerned. We know that it is so important for older people to get those services as they require them—and physio, for example, is critical.
I've been messaging with my family as to how we can manage the care of my mother. She's currently in respite care after a fall at home three weeks ago. She broke two ribs. She spent a week in hospital. She's now had a week in respite care. She's hopefully going to be able to come home after that second week in respite care. So my sisters and my brother and I are trying to manage who can stay overnight with her over the coming months and what the long-term future for mum living at home by herself is. She was receiving physiotherapy but not enough. Clearly, there is a problem with the system. It's also incredibly complex to access care, even if it is theoretically available, even when you've got a family, like we have, of five siblings who are all doing our part to sort out the bits of care that mum is entitled to. Actually making it happen can be incredibly difficult. I think about the people who haven't got that level of family support, who are trying to manage their care packages pretty much on their own and not getting the support they need. The importance of allied health services to older people's quality of life was recognised by the royal commission, which recommended that residential aged care should include a level of allied health appropriate to each person's needs.
But, of course, it is not only people's access to it that we're concerned about; we are also concerned about the fact that there's a widespread shortage of allied health workers in aged care. According to the Australian Physiotherapy Council there was a shortage of 6,000 physiotherapists even before the pandemic. Without the provision of guaranteed funding for allied health services in aged care, this shortage of essential services could substantially increase. I've heard from allied health professionals and their representatives, who fear the worst for their industry and for the older people who need their services. One physiotherapist expressed to me that the lack of guaranteed funding for allied health in the AN-ACC model would be the death of allied health. If we want to improve the quality of services for older Australians in earnest, we must ensure that they've got adequate access to critical services, like allied health, and we have to make sure that allied health is funded properly.
In my discussions with the minister over the last weeks, it was clear that changes are needed but that in terms of what's going to happen and what the best model for ensuring that those allied health services are provided there is further consultation required with the sector. We acknowledge that there were problems with the previous funding model. We also think there are problems with this current funding model. So we will be supporting this legislation on this problem with allied health on the basis that there is still more work to be done on guaranteeing allied health services for older Australians.
The other really big concern that we have, which is reflected in the second reading amendment I'm going to be moving and also in a substantive amendment, is in relation to schedule 9 of this bill regarding restrictive practice. Let me start by revisiting the important work of the royal commission on this issue. In their final report, they noted that restrictive practices are:
… activities or interventions, either physical or pharmacological, that restrict a person's free movement or ability to make decisions. Where this occurs without clear justification and clinical indication, we consider this to be abuse.
They said that not only do restrictive practices have questionable success in minimising changed behaviours but they can result in serious physical and psychological harm, potentially increasing health complications and in some cases causing death. They also set out a clear pathway in recommendation 17. They said:
… the use of restrictive practices in aged care must be based on an independent expert assessment and subject to ongoing reporting and monitoring. The amendments should reflect the overall principle that people receiving aged care should be equally protected from restrictive practices as other members of the community.
When the previous Liberal government introduced changes through the previous bill, we welcomed the amendments that would reduce restrictive practices but were concerned that they didn't go as far as they should towards implementing the recommendations of the royal commission. As my former colleague Senator Siewert wrote in her additional comments to that legislation:
However, we believe the new regulations do not go far enough and do not fully implement the Royal Commission's recommendations on restrictive practices.
… … …
While the regulations require approved health practitioners to approve the use of restrictive practices, it is unclear whether these health practitioners will need to be independent of the aged care facility and provider. As a result, aged care providers will be able to use their in-house health practitioners to approve the use of restrictive practices.
In this legislation, we are assured that there are going to be some changes in terms of the hierarchy of a substitute decision-maker, and we understand that there are substitute decision-makers for if the older person is not able to give consent, which in these cases they would not be able to. We understand the concerns that the government is grappling with—that state and territory legislation is overall responsible for determining who alternative decision-makers would be. In some states and territories, that framework does not exist. So we understand that in subordinate legislation we are going to get a hierarchy of decision-makers. We understand that it is going to have to be done in accordance with a behavioural care plan. But this is all in subordinate legislation. We are basically having to take it all on trust.
It's easy to talk about principles, laws and regulations as though they're abstract frameworks, but they're not. They are matters of people's lives. The use of antipsychotic medication in aged-care facilities was identified by the royal commission as a significant problem. Post the royal commission, the statistics say that it's still continuing. I'm running out of time, but I want to share some case studies with you about people who have died because of the use of chemical restraints. According to the March 2022 residential aged-care quality indicators, as many as one in five aged-care residents are still receiving antipsychotics in 2022. So we are still really concerned.
In terms of schedule 9, we are willing to take on trust that, yes, okay, the subordinate legislation is going to better outline who the alternative decision-maker is to be, setting up that hierarchy. But the bit that we are particularly concerned about, also in schedule 9, is that, following this framework, any aged-care provider doing that would have immunity from prosecution if anyone wanted to take action against them about inappropriate use of restrictive practices. This is totally inappropriate. It is totally using a sledgehammer for a problem about which I have not been able to get any justification as to why immunity from prosecution is required. So I will be moving an amendment to address this, to remove that part of schedule 9, because I think it's a really important issue in a bill that otherwise is making steps forward to improve the quality of aged care for our older Australians.
I listened closely there to Senator Rice, and I think what is apparent looking around the chamber—and certainly I'm in exactly the same boat as Senator Rice, with elderly parents—is that lots of us are struggling with this in our daily lives, in that we are dealing with it remotely. I have a mother who has been in high-needs aged care for over three years after eight years of dementia, and a father that, unfortunately, is following, and to navigate and negotiate your way through this is difficult. It is devastating and fraught at the best of times, even with the best of intentions and a supportive family. So I am pleased that we are seeing as much reform as we can to the aged-care sector coming through, and that we're making it easier for families, who quite often have to deal with this, as at times it is the elderly parents that aren't really that attuned to what is actually happening around them and it is the adult children that are left, then, to negotiate this system for them.
I guess, in one way, it's good that Labor's first aged-care bill is almost a mirror image of what was put forward under the former government in the last parliament and does directly relate to our response to the royal commission. But, again, what's incredibly devastating for families like ours that are going through this is that Mr Albanese was prepared to play politics on this issue. He was prepared to sit on his hands, he was prepared to block this legislation being implemented and he was prepared to look at the amendment of former Senator Patrick that was requiring 24/7 nurses with an exemption for rural and regional centres. For those of us that have an interest in rural and regional Australia, what was being proposed would have seen nurses leave aged-care facilities in rural and regional areas because they would have been required to be staffing metropolitan facilities. Now, on this side of the chamber, we actually respect rural and regional Australians and believe that they have equal rights to those that live in metropolitan areas. But we know that those opposite, who are now the government, do not see rural and regional Australia in the same light.
There are two things, though, that were recommended by the royal commission but will no longer be part of this reform. One is workers-screening regulations. We actually believe that people that go to work in these facilities should be working them correctly. They should go with the right intent, they should be qualified and they should be able to deliver the services that elderly Australians require. The other thing that's going to be missing is a legislated star-rating system. As we've talked about, for those of us that are facing the challenges—looking for facilities, looking at options for our parents—being able to see how a facility performs in a very simple way would actually be of benefit for a lot of families.
But, again, this isn't about making it easier for families looking at aged-care options. This is about appeasing union mates and making sure that the unions are all up to speed, all happy, and that the paymasters are being served. So we will be keeping a very, very close eye on what sorts of reforms this government is now looking to put in place, because it should always be about the people going into these facilities and not about the politics, not about the unions and not about appeasing those that demand the most from you because they pay for you.
What we've seen is a delay to this significant legislation. It's disrespectful. It's disrespectful to all Australians. It's disrespectful to older Australians. It is absolutely disgraceful that you sat on your hands, that you refused to support this bill in opposition, but now your first bill almost directly mirrors our legislation. The funny thing is, though—and we saw it yesterday in question time—the complete lack of ability to be across a brief, the complete lack of understanding. Government is hard, people. You actually have to do things now. Lucky for you there was legislation drafted. You've just made a couple of changes here and there and watered it down a bit where it suited you. But, thankfully, someone had written something.
What's going to happen, I think, and what we'll continue to see as time goes on—and we saw it from Senator Watt's performance yesterday in question time: absolutely no comprehension; he couldn't even give a number—is a reaching back to the coalition government, with the Labor Party looking at legislation and saying: 'How did they do it? We don't know what we're doing. We're not across our brief. We don't understand how to actually govern.' It's a little bit interesting when you see those who were very, very good when they sat on this side of the chamber—they had lots of things to say, lots of interjections, lots of commentary—go to the other side of the chamber, where they're actually supposed to do work; they're actually supposed to govern for all Australians, including elderly Australians, including farmers. Those opposite now in government are supposed to actually work for Australians, to make sure that this country is running and to keep Australians safe, whether it's from foot-and-mouth disease, whether it's elderly Australians in aged care. You actually have to make decisions. You actually have to be across your brief. You actually have to understand the detail. You have to understand that there are impacts on everyday Australians when you go and legislate emissions reduction targets, create a lawyers' picnic, remove any responsibility from yourselves and tie Australia's economy up in more and more red tape, green tape and any other padlock you can manage to find, to ensure that Australia is put at an economic disadvantage internationally because, you know, it makes you feel good shutting down every coal-fired power station in this country.
We've got the Greens here. They need to ring their mates in Germany. They understand how things work. They understand that people in their country want to see the lights on. They want to put their dishwashers on. They want to make sure their fridge is still running. But those opposite are more interested in virtue signalling, in shrouding themselves in wokeness, which is really just an opportunity to be mean, to be rude. I think we saw that last night after the outstanding speech by Senator Price, when those opposite—those who deemed it worth even attending the chamber—couldn't bring themselves to even stand up. If they'd noticed the courtesy prior to that, those of us on this side of the chamber gave Senator Stewart's speech the recognition it deserved—not those opposite.
Point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: I would draw the attention of the current speaker to the fact that we are actually on the aged care and other legislation amendment bill, and I ask you to draw her back to that point.
Senator Hughes, I think Senator Urquhart is correct. We are here debating the aged care and other legislation amendment bill, and, if you could focus your comments on that, that would be appreciated.
Well, we would like to see a focus on aged care, because that includes aged care in Indigenous communities. We have Senator Price here, who understands the importance of proper legislation around Indigenous communities—not virtue signalling, not the paternalistic Greens looking at Senator Price last night like she didn't know what she was talking about. They couldn't even bring themselves to stand up. Senator Price understands that Indigenous aged-care facilities would not be included in some of these regulations because of all the different little exemptions that are required. Those opposite seem to think that they know what's best, because they'll tell them what's best. They'll tell them what they need to be doing and how they need to perform. They don't take advice from those on the ground, whether it's with aged-care reform, where they're just taking our legislation, or whether it's turning around and removing the cashless debit card, where we're going to see humbugging, domestic violence, access to alcohol—all of these things—come back, because they don't know how to govern. They don't know how to make decisions for the benefit of Australians. What they know is how to virtue signal. What they know is how to completely drag down everyday Australians, to upset the family budget, to make it harder for families to get into aged care and to make it harder for families to navigate the system. That's all those opposite want to do.
But why are we surprised? We can look at some of the things which they could have done to continue to support the aged-care sector but have chosen not to. Those opposite, now in government—who purport, and who have always purported, that they are the bastions of care and that they are the bastions of supporting people and looking after people—at the first available opportunity ceased access to the rapid antigen tests for aged-care homes. So, whilst on this side of the chamber they were happy to squawk about the requirements for rapid antigen tests—hilariously, at a time when the Premier of WA had actually made them illegal, but never let the facts get in the way of a good screech across the chamber, as Senator Watt knows only too well—at the first opportunity they removed access to free rapid antigen tests for aged-care homes as outbreaks were occurring.
Now there's another thing that they did as soon as they could get in. We know those opposite, now in government, actually really don't—and they never have—support our defence forces or the work that they do; at every opportunity they look to cut defence spending. The Defence Force has actually provided critical support to those in the aged-care sector throughout the COVID pandemic. But of course those opposite get into government and the first thing they do is remove that support—get rid of the Australian Defence Force assisting in aged care.
Where we are is the situation where they don't know how to write legislation, so they've just pretty much picked up what we put forward before. They've gone out to their union mates and asked them, 'How can we help you?' It wasn't, 'How can we help older Australians?' or 'How can we help families?' It was, 'Hey, union mates, how can we help you?' So the first thing they do is to remove the schedule that requires worker screening. To every Australian out there whose parents are subjected to workers who are not up to speed, who don't have good intent and who don't have the ability to look after your elderly parents, you only need to look to those now sitting on the government benches—over there on the treasury bench. It was never about you and your family, it was never about you and your parents; it was always, and always will be, about their union mates.
tor URQUHART (—) (): I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. I was told a story recently about the elderly mother of a friend who was moved into the secure ward of an aged-care facility and who had a fast-developing dementia. The family chose the facility because it had a good program of activities tailored to the needs of dementia sufferers. They stretched the family finances as far as they could to do this because they wanted their mother to have the best possible care. Like so many people in their position, they had to clean out and sell the family home—the only significant asset that their mother owned—to pay for that care.
Their mother's dementia first manifested in a loss of language. Over time she completely lost all her words. Communication of any kind became a constant struggle, except when the music therapist came to visit the aged-care home and played her guitar. Then she could sing: songs from the war years, songs from her childhood, songs ingrained in her memory many years earlier. That clearly gave her great pleasure. There is increasing scientific evidence that music seems to be robust and to withstand the effects of neurodegenerative decline and other acquired brain injuries. Neuropsychologist Catherine Loveday wrote back in 2016:
One key finding is that music is a particularly good cue for autobiographical memories—these are memories that reinforce our sense of identity and play a hugely significant role in how we connect socially and emotionally with those that are close to us. Tunes that we first encountered between early adolescence and our late 20s seem to be particularly evocative.
For this woman's family to discover that they could hear their mum's voice again and to see clearly how much joy the singing brought her was an incredible revelation.
But, soon after, the aged-care home had a massive round of cost cutting, and the contract with the music therapist was not renewed. And, with no-one to play the tunes and encourage her, their mother fell silent. Her physical needs continued to be met. She was cared for by a dedicated staff who did their absolute best to ensure that she was clean, she was fed and she was comfortable, but her voice was no longer heard.
On a new roster after the cost cutting, the staff were far too time poor to even put on a CD for her to listen to or to regularly take the dirty plates and cups out of her room after meals. Then, in what were clearly further savings measures, the menus were changed, and the meals presented to residents became far less appetising. Residents' dietary preferences went completely out the window. Despite all the notes and the records on the file of my friend's mother, she was regularly served meals of fish. She had always hated fish and, when she had a voice, had always made that very clear.
The night that my friend's mother passed away, there was a nurse on duty who could deliver the medication and particularly the pain relief that their mother needed. As my friend said, that was so important. I shudder to think what that night would have been like if that nurse had not been there. 'Surely there should be a nurse on every shift?' was the question.
That all happened over 10 years ago, but the warning signs were clearly there. Over that decade, the problems in our aged-care system continued to mount to the point of crisis. Over the last two years, the COVID-19 pandemic has served to emphasise and to highlight the weaknesses and flaws in the system and actually worsen the crisis, a crisis that is crying out to be addressed.
So this government, the Albanese Labor government, has taken on the task of restoring dignity, care, accountability and humanity to aged care, and it is because we must. The passage of this bill before us, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022, is a critical step in reforming the aged-care sector. The urgency to do this is not simply based on people like me hearing stories from friends with parents in care, as devastatingly sad as they may be. A royal commission has formally heard the testimony and seen the evidence that reform is desperately needed. This is the evidence the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety has enshrined in its reports.
The royal commission hearings presented mounting evidence of systemic flaws and inadequate care. The commissioners absolutely nailed it when they gave their interim report released in 2019 the title Neglect, just one word which summed up the terrible state of the system. The Australian people were shocked and at times horrified by the evidence the interim report presented. Neglectthat is what it presented. Then, when the final report entitled Care, Dignity and Respect was released in 2021, the royal commissioners called for a fundamental reform of the aged-care system. They said:
The extent of substandard care in Australia's aged care system reflects both poor quality on the part of some aged care providers and fundamental systemic flaws with the way the Australian aged care system is designed and governed. People receiving aged care deserve better. The Australian community is entitled to expect better.
And the Australian community is absolutely entitled to expect better. Well, this government has listened closely, and the bill before us starts us on the road to better. This reform can't come quickly enough. As the Minister for Aged Care, the Hon. Anika Wells MP, has said in the other place:
Too many parliaments, too many governments have shunned the hard work needed to support our aged-care system. … Over the last decade there have been 23 reports, inquiries, studies, committee reports and a royal commission telling us the same story.
It is a story of neglect and of government ignoring aged-care concerns. They represent many, many missed opportunities. The previous speaker, Senator Hughes, spoke about how we had picked up the previous government's bill, but Neglect, those 23 reports, those inquiries and those studies were all on the previous government's watch. We must not miss this opportunity, and there is a lot of work to do before we get to effect meaningful change.
This bill begins that work. It amends aged-care law and other legislation to implement a series of urgent funding, quality and safety measures, several of which were recommended by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Schedule 1 of the bill relates to the new Australian National Aged Care Classification, AN-ACC, the model for calculating aged-care subsidies that was endorsed by the royal commission. Schedule 2 of the bill is a new measure that will facilitate the publication of star ratings. Schedule 3 introduces a code of conduct for the aged-care sector, as recommended by the royal commission. Schedule 4 of the bill extends the Serious Incident Response Scheme to home care and flexible care. Schedule 5 of this bill strengthens the governance of approved providers. Schedule 6 facilitates increased information-sharing. Schedule 7 of the bill will increase government oversight of how refundable accommodation deposits and bonds are used. Schedule 8 of the bill expands the functions of a renamed Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority.
Schedule 9 of the bill will enable the implementation of an interim solution with respect to the requirement to obtain informed consent for the use of restrictive practices. Schedule 9 to the bill also provides a limited immunity from civil or criminal liability that may arise in relation to the use of a restrictive practice, where someone follows all of the requirements under Commonwealth law in relation to the use of a restrictive practice. This provision does not provide a broad immunity to negligence in respect of the use of a restrictive practice.
The bill replaces the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument with a new model for calculating aged-care subsidies, called the Australian National Aged Care Classification model, which has been developed in consultation with the aged-care sector and consumer groups. Since April 2021, residential aged-care recipients have been progressively assessed and classified under the AN-ACC, and funding under the new model will commence this year, on 1 October.
Importantly, the bill includes several measures that will provide additional protections directly to older Australians—protections which cannot be delayed any longer. The Serious Incident Response Scheme, SIRS, will be expanded to establish obligations for approved providers of home care and flexible care in a community setting to report on and respond to incidents and take action to prevent incidents from recurring. A new code of conduct will set high standards of behaviour for aged-care workers, approved providers and governing persons of approved providers to ensure they are delivering aged care in a way that is safe, competent and respectful. Improved information-sharing between care and support sector regulators will enable proactive monitoring of cross-sector risks and will better protect consumers and participants from harm. An interim solution for the provision of consent to the use of restrictive practices will also be established while state and territory consent arrangements are reconsidered.
The bill also includes a series of measures that provide greater transparency and accountability of providers. Star ratings will be published for all residential aged-care services on My Aged Care by the end of 2022. Star ratings will enable senior Australians and their families and carers to make informed decisions about their aged care. From 1 December 2022, approved providers and their governing bodies will be required to meet new responsibilities that will improve governance. Approved providers will be required to notify the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission of changes to key personnel, and the current disqualified-individual arrangements will be replaced with a broader suitability test. Amendments will also be made to increase financial and prudential oversight in respect of refundable accommodation deposits and bonds. The functions of a renamed Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority will be expanded to include the provision of advice on healthcare and aged-care pricing and costing. This bill makes a series of important changes that will improve the health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians and will assist older Australians and their families to understand the quality of care and the operations of providers. As I said, there is a long road of reform, and there is much more to do.
The husband of a local aged-care worker regularly calls my office in Davenport. He's incredibly worried about his wife, who is on the brink of burnout. Every week, she is pressured to work a lot of extra shifts, often on her days off. She often arrives at work to find there aren't enough other staff to work with her to safely provide the care that is needed in a timely fashion. She loves her job. She loves caring for vulnerable older Australians but is seriously considering leaving the industry. It is a story that I'm sure all of us have heard, and I hear it constantly from workers in the aged-care sector. Coupled with that is an intense concern about the family finances, as they struggle every week to make ends meet on her low wage. There are thousands of families and thousands of workers in this country in this same situation, and that should not be the case.
Above all, we must ensure that the voices of those in aged care are heard, and those are the residents and the people working in the aged-care system. Our elders deserve dignity and respect in their later years, and, when their voices fall silent, we must do everything we can to support them to sing again. I commend this bill to the members of this chamber, and I hope that all the members in this chamber will join us on the road to reform the aged-care sector.
This is not my first speech, but I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about aged care. There are few policy areas that are as heartbreaking as aged care. We've all seen the stories of older Australians suffering in our nation's aged-care facilities. Over the past few years there have been many reports of people being neglected, receiving inadequate care and inadequate nutrition, and in some cases left to die in the very places charged with caring for them.
The people of the ACT speak to me frequently about their concerns about aged care and their hopes for creating a high standard of care for older Australians. The 148 recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety are the road map for creating this high standard. That's why my community has asked that I do all I can to ensure the recommendations are implemented as quickly as possible—so that we can build an aged-care system that puts people and their wellbeing and safety first.
It is great to see that this is the first bill that we're being charged to consider, and I'm glad to play my part in seeing it become law. While this bill is for transitional arrangements, the changes are urgent and desperately needed. However, this bill should not be beyond a measure of some simple scrutiny. While I thank the minister, her staff and her department for engaging early and providing high-level briefings, a single day to get across the detail contained within these 147 pages is not enough. We cannot properly do our work here in the house of review if we are not given the time to view the details, consult with our communities and reach out to experts. I hope the time lines placed on this bill are an exception and not the rule, and, where fast time frames are needed, I would encourage the government to do us the courtesy of releasing an exposure draft. However, I do recognise how important it is to pass this bill and the reforms within it and to put in place codes of conducts and clear up the governance arrangements of aged-care providers.
I will not slow down this bill's consideration, but I do want to briefly touch on a few points. I've heard concerns about how the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority will work. After the bill is passed, the pricing authority will have the dual responsibility for setting the prices for healthcare services delivered in public hospitals and for services delivered in the aged-care system. However, unlike for healthcare services, when the pricing authority determines a price for delivering services in aged care, it will not be binding. They will only be able to advise the minister on pricing matters. Stakeholders have raised with me that they feel uncomfortable that the government could potentially veto the prices determined by the pricing authority. I would encourage the government to provide assurances to the sector that this won't be the case and that the prices set will cover the actual costs of delivering aged-care services.
Secondly, I would like to touch on the workforce. All of our systems of care are built on people. There is a hefty task ahead in creating both the funding model and the care workforce needed to ensure older Australians receive the highest standard of care they so desperately need. I'm pleased to see the government is moving ahead quickly with new laws that will require a registered nurse on site at every aged-care facility 24/7. But I'm concerned about our nation's ability to find the workforce and attract workers to the aged-care sector. I've seen in the news just this morning that hundreds of aged-care providers are likely to seek exemptions from the 24/7 requirement as they predict difficulties in being able to fill the shifts.
I've recently spoken with the Australian College of Nursing, who reminded me that the nursing workforce across the country is burnt out. The ANMF echoed the sentiment. Across back-to-back disasters, from the Black Summer to the recent floods to the multiyear global pandemic, nurses have been on our frontline, there to care for us in our times of need. It's my understanding that some nurses haven't been able to take their annual leave for over a year and a half. The most recent modelling I could find shows a projected shortfall of 85,000 nurses by 2025 and 123,000 by 2030. Nurses are leaving the workforce, limiting the pool of talent we have to supply the aged-care sector. But, more importantly, why would nurses leave any role to work in the aged-care sector, which is notoriously poorly paid? We need to ensure there is at least parity for nurses working in aged care with their colleagues in other parts of our health system. I know many work in aged care for the love of it, but we should not rely on this grace to ensure the sector is appropriately staffed.
These reforms are a great first step. However, I would encourage all of us to remain vigilant and to keep inquiring over this term of parliament on the state of our aged-care system.
I too rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. Firstly, I would like to point out the contrast between those opposite and the Albanese Labor government, because the contrast could not be clearer on the aged-care crisis. The former Liberal-National government neglected our aged-care system, and they did that for almost a decade. It was a system that was already in crisis before the pandemic started. It was a crisis that those opposite, when they were in government, chose to ignore until and unless it was politically convenient for them to finally address it. They claimed that their response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was a once-in-a-generation change to the sector. But actually it was a once-in-a-generation disgrace—a once-in-a-generation kick in the guts to dedicated aged-care workers, who deserve so much better, so much more, from their government.
We on the government benches know that good, secure jobs need to be at the heart of any response to the aged-care crisis. But the only thing at the heart of the response from those opposite when they were in government was delay. The only thing at the heart of their response when they were in government was neglect. Their bill to address some of the very critical areas of the aged-care system, which this bill also seeks to address, was introduced to the parliament in September 2021, but it wasn't until the final hours before the election that those opposite remembered it even existed. That was the level of priority that those opposite put on fixing the aged-care crisis. It wasn't until the final hours before the election that they remembered that their homework was due on the aged-care royal commission, and they didn't even get it done. What a disgrace. But what more did Australians expect from the previous government? When it comes to aged care, those opposite have never taken any responsibility. They've never acted with any sense of urgency.
This stands in stark contrast to the Albanese Labor government who, in our first week of the new 47th Parliament, are taking action that those opposite failed to take to protect the aged-care system. We have wasted absolutely no time when it comes to fixing the aged-care crisis. In our very first week in this new parliament we have introduced two bills to fix the crisis in this sector and deliver on our commitment to the Australian people that we will put the care, the dignity and respect back into the aged-care system.
This bill before the chamber implements a number of urgent reforms to funding, to quality and to safety in our aged-care sector. It introduces a new aged-care subsidy calculation as well as a code of conduct and banning order scheme. This bill extends the Serious Incident Response Scheme to aged care delivered in home settings and it addresses issues with the informed consent arrangements with respect to the use of restrictive practices in aged care. This bill strengthens the governance of approved providers and increases financial and prudential oversight. It enhances information-sharing across related sectors to enable proactive monitoring of cross-sector risks. All of this is about better protecting consumers and participants from harm.
This bill broadens the functions of the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority to include the provision of advice on healthcare and aged-care pricing and costing. This very important legislation that we are introducing in our first week as the Albanese government in the first week of the 47th Parliament will also improve transparency and accountability of providers by introducing a star rating system. That will be published for all residential aged-care services on My Aged Care by the end of 2022. That is a commitment that we made when we were in opposition, and we are getting on with it—hitting the ground running—and implementing it in government, because people want to see greater transparency and greater accountability amongst providers who are tasked with caring for our nation's most vulnerable elders and who receive federal funding to do that critical work. What the Australian people want to see is greater accountability and transparency when it comes to providers' actions with federal funding and when it comes to their actions in caring for our most vulnerable elders. As I said, information on the star rating system will be published for everyone to see by the end of 2022. That will allow senior Australians, their families and their carers to make informed decisions about their aged care. It will allow them to see how providers are performing and how they're using federal funds to provide quality care.
A number of the measures in this bill were included in the previous government's lapsed legislation. These are measures that we agreed with and that we recognised needed to be delivered. But, unlike the delayed and half-baked legislation that those opposite put forward that ignored the recommendations from the royal commission and ignored the real experts—our aged-care workers—our legislation will make serious improvements to the quality of care in the aged-care sector. Our legislation will ensure workers have their skills recognised and are given the opportunity to develop their careers. We'll do that by implementing a national registration scheme. That national registration scheme is part of the professionalisation of the aged-care workforce and it's a recommendation that I know aged-care workers around the country welcomed. It's a recommendation that was made in the royal commission's final report, recommendation 77. Lauren Hutchins from the Health Services Union told us that workers want this registration scheme. She said:
…we support a … registration scheme that actually invests in workers, in their professional development and in ongoing training, and that it's understood that it's an ongoing requirement of the job and acknowledged by the government as such.
Ms Hutchins went on to say that workers 'want their skills recognised and they want the opportunity to develop and participate in training.'
The Albanese government recognise the skill required to provide high-quality care in aged care, and with this bill we will deliver the ongoing training and professional development that these workers deserve, because we know that it is the aged-care workforce who are at the heart of our aged-care system and we know that there is no solution to the aged-care crisis without good, secure jobs for workers. You cannot provide quality aged-care services in this country without dealing with the workforce crisis that is at the core of our care crisis. Our aged-care workers have been telling us for far too long that they want to do a good job, that they value the residents who are in their care but that they just don't have the time that they need to care for the residents with the level of professionalism that they want.
We have a revolving door of aged-care workers in this country because the job is so undervalued. This is a job that needs to be professionalised. Aged-care workers need to be valued and recognised for their work. They need to be paid more. They need better training. This bill starts to recognise the value that we need to put on aged-care workers with this registration scheme. We know that there is no solution to the aged-care crisis without valuing the workforce, and our work here on fixing the aged-care crisis is just beginning this week.
In the last parliament, the Senate Select Committee on Job Security heard absolutely damning evidence of the prevalence and impact of insecure work in the aged-care sector. We heard that job insecurity and chronic low pay are the primary reasons that the sector is unable to meet its workforce and quality-of-care needs, and we heard that right from the coalface of the aged-care sector, from aged-care worker to aged-care worker who came and gave evidence about the conditions that they faced in aged care in Australia. We heard that over-reliance on insecure work practices has become an absolute business model in aged care. It's a business model which means that workers are left desperate, with little choice but to accept work across multiple employers to make ends meet. It's a business model which detrimentally impacts the quality of care for vulnerable people in the aged-care sector.
We heard from Ray Collins from the Health Workers Union, who told the committee at hearings in Victoria:
… it suits the business model to keep me as a worker lean and mean. You give me the minimal hours you can give me. You manipulate the hours and the workers to suit your dollar needs, not your care needs …
This is not how aged care should be run here in Australia today. Aged care should be run on the basis of good, secure jobs for the incredibly important aged-care workers who are the heart and the soul of our aged-care system. But insecure work is way too prevalent in aged care, and it takes the form of low pay and low-hour, part-time contracts. This is a system that provides flexibility for employers at the expense of the aged-care workforce. We heard too many stories from aged-care workers who are hired on part-time contracts with guaranteed hours as low as one or two hours per week, and any hours over that are just not guaranteed. Any extra hours that the workers are given don't attract overtime or penalty rates.
And then there's the issue of chronic low pay—low pay which, we heard, is a result of systematic undervaluation of care work as unskilled women's work. We heard from Professor Charlesworth, from RMIT University, who explained how gender discrimination has led to undervaluation and work insecurity in aged care:
This gendered nature of job insecurity is underpinned by a lack of value accorded to the work and the workers who perform it, which draws on a view of aged care as something women do for free and are therefore unskilled and is therefore not quite work.
This system of chronic low pay and low-hour contracts leaves workers desperate, in a constant limbo, not knowing how many hours they will work each week, not knowing whether they'll be able to afford to pay their bills and unable to properly plan their lives.
We also heard from workers across the sector about the impacts of insecure work on their health and on their families. Anu Singh, an aged-care worker and member of the United Workers Union, told the committee:
… apprehension, self-doubt, stress, unscheduled, instability. For me, these words altogether define the job insecurity that we actually go through all the time.
Taking jobs with low wages and a lack of stable hours is not a choice that workers are making, because it isn't a choice in aged care today. Insecure jobs are, all too often, all that's on offer for these workers. And without good, secure jobs, we aren't able to attract new workers to this critical sector.
There is a lot of work to do to fix the crisis in aged care. And what we know is that the workforce is front and centre in the aged-care crisis. One of the aspects of this legislation before the chamber is a very important registration system—recommendation 77 of the royal commission into aged care. It's one step that we can take to start aged-care workers on the journey to professionalisation. That's what the workers need and it's what the residents in their care need. This is a job that is providing the most important care in our society—care to our most vulnerable elders. What aged-care workers need is the support of their government, and that is absolutely what they will get from the Albanese Labor government.
I rise with pleasure to make a contribution to the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022—as has been indicated by other speakers in the chamber, an important piece of legislation. As has been noted on a number of occasions, it is essentially the same legislation that came to this chamber prior to the election, and, as Senator Rice quite rightly pointed out, was amended in this place—but with one amendment, which the then government didn't feel was responsible, which was an amendment moved by Senator Patrick for immediate 24/7 nurses in aged care. The reason we didn't accept that recommendation was it wasn't feasible and it wasn't responsible—not that we didn't support the concept of 24/7 nurses in aged care; we said that we did in our response to the royal commission. But it wasn't possible to make that occur straightaway.
That's why this legislation didn't complete in the last parliament. It should have completed in the last parliament, and the effect of the politics that was played by the previous opposition, the now government, is that important reforms to the aged-care sector have been delayed. That is the effect of the actions of the now government with respect to this legislation. It is important legislation. Aged-care providers have been delayed in having legislated certainty with respect to AN-ACC. AN-ACC is a game changer with respect to the funding of the aged-care sector in this country. It is the mechanism by which the resources can and will be made available to ensure, as we all want, that senior Australians can be cared for with respect, care and dignity—which is the title of the final report of the royal commission.
Many speakers have indicated the various elements of the bill, so I'm not going to concentrate on them all. But there are a couple of things that I think are extremely important, so I will focus on those. There are nine schedules in the legislation, and there was one schedule that was removed from the previous bill, which went to workforce screening and registration. I find it really difficult to accept and understand why that schedule was removed. The design of the workforce registration program was to make it as easy as possible, to prevent duplication, to make it as cost-effective as possible and to have a workforce registration scheme that worked across the entire care sector. The workforce registration scheme that the previous government wanted to put in place was the one that was being used for NDIS. It's already there. Why do we need to design a new workforce registration scheme? It's already being used across the country for workers in the NDIS. I go to Family Based Care in Burnie. They are providers of home care, they are providers of the NDIS and they are providers of veterans' care. Why should they have more than one workforce registration scheme within their business? They incur additional cost, and, as the principal funders of aged care in this country, the taxpayers bear that additional cost.
So, when the government's looking at their systems and where they might find efficiencies in the way that they operate, perhaps they could look at what the previous government was trying to achieve with the workforce registration program. It's something that's already there. Why do we need to build a new one? We don't. In fact, it would provide efficiency in the operation of our aged-care sector. There are about 4,000 senior Australians in residential aged care who qualify for NDIS. Those providers that have those residents who qualify for NDIS already have to have their workforce registered under the NDIS workforce registration scheme. Why should they have two? Why should we impose that cost—that duplication of effort and administration—on the Australian taxpayer by designing another one? Why would we do that? It doesn't make sense. The government should reintroduce the previous provisions that we had in this bill to ensure efficiency and ease of operation of business, so that this sector—the whole care sector—can operate so much more efficiently and cost-effectively in the interests of senior Australians, but, more importantly, in the interests of the Australian community, who are paying for this.
One of the new measures in the bill is the star rating system. That was slated to occur within the same time frame in the legislation, so I welcome the inclusion of the star rating system within this legislation. It was set to occur anyway, so it should happen. This does progress the legislation.
The other change that's been made, and this one genuinely concerns me, is in relation to governance. Schedule 5 introduces new government responsibilities for approved providers regarding membership of their governing bodies and the establishment of new advisory bodies on measures to improve leadership and culture. This is something that's not often talked about with respect to reform of the aged-care sector, but it is one of the most important things. If the corporate governance of an organisation isn't right, if the culture within an organisation isn't right, that has a direct impact on the quality of care that's being provided. We learnt some very, very hard lessons over the last two or three years through COVID, but can I say to you quite honestly and earnestly: one of the major lessons we learnt was that, if the clinical leadership and the corporate governance in an aged-care service were not good, the outcomes with respect to managing a COVID outbreak and managing the quality of care were bad for residents. So the element of this particular measure that concerns me the most is the exemption that has been put into this schedule for all Aboriginal community controlled health organisations. My question is: 'Why do the residents of an ACCHO deserve a lower level of corporate governance than every other Australian in aged care in this country?' It is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that this government is proposing to impose a lower level of corporate governance on ACCHOs than they will impose on every other aged-care provider.
We heard in this place yesterday two powerful speeches from two proud Indigenous Australians, both of whom care for their communities. I think it was a historic day. I think it was probably the first time that we've seen two first speeches from two proud First Nations women—a historic day. Yet, the next day, this government takes backwards the protection of Indigenous Australians in residential aged care by providing an exemption on governance.
What a joke!
It's actually true, if you were prepared—
An honourable senator interjecting—
It's not in your talking points, I know. I know it's not in your talking points, but you're not prepared to tell Australians that this is the case. It's a disgrace that you believe that Indigenous Australians deserve a lower level of corporate governance over their care than everybody else. I would urge you all to go back to your minister and request that that provision be put back into the legislation. It should be. This is not a political point; this is a point with respect to the care of Indigenous Australians in residential aged care. They deserve the same governance.
As I've said, the quality of corporate governance and the quality of clinical governance in residential aged care have a direct correlation to the quality of care that is delivered to the people within those facilities. That is why we're all here. That is why we are debating this. We can argue over the politics of what happened before and after the election, and we will do that, but let's not forget that it was the coalition that called the royal commission, with all of the pain that it brought us as a government at the time. We called the royal commission, with all of the pain that it caused us. We have responded to every single recommendation from that royal commission. The then government responded to every single recommendation over 12 months ago, in the budget last year.
The new government has not yet responded to one of those recommendations. Where is the government's response to the royal commission? There is none. They announced a five-point plan in their address-in-reply—a five-point plan that started unwinding within 24 hours. It was supposed to include 24/7 nurses. We hear in the media this morning that there are now exemptions from that because the government has come to the realisation—which we already knew—that the implementation of that was an issue because of the supply of workforce. The plan included a promise for a pay rise which wasn't within the budgeted amount that they said it was. They don't know where the nurses are coming from, they don't know how many they need, and they haven't yet told us how much they're going to cost. I'll be interested to see whether it's in the economic statement this afternoon. We certainly expect to see it in the budget.
This piece of legislation is the second tranche of legislation in support of reforms out of the royal commission. It's not the first, as the government would like you to believe. It is the second piece of legislation that supports those reforms. It is an important piece of legislation. It should pass this place. But for the very reasons that I've mentioned in my contribution today, government members should go back and talk to their minister about protecting Indigenous Australians in ACCHO managed aged-care facilities around this country. They ought to go back and talk about a workforce registration program that already exists, rather than kowtowing to their union leaders, and save the sector some money and also save the taxpayers some money in the process, because it was a sensible and smart reform.
Thank you, Senator Colbeck. The time for this debate has now expired. You will be in continuation when the matter comes back.
I present the second report of the 2022 Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 2 OF 2022
28 July 2022
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)
Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)
Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)
Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)
Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)
Senator Ralph Babet
Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm
Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher
Senator Tammy Tyrrell
Senator David Pocock
Secretary: Tim Bryant
02 6277 3020
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 2 OF 2022
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 27 July 2022 at 7.31 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the provisions of the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 August 2022 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Climate Change Bill 2022 and the Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 August 2022 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 February 2023 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) the Fair Work Amendment (Equal Pay for Equal Work) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 October 2022 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(e) the provisions of the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022 and the Jobs and Skills Australia (National Skills Commissioner Repeal) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(f) the provisions of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 August 2022; and
(g) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 September 2022 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
(Anne Urquhart)
Chair
28 July 2022
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
P roposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Aged Care Amendment (ImplementingCare Reform) Bill 2022
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Substantive Bill
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Many Commonwealth and Aged Care Providers Unions
Employment providers
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
16/8/2022
Possible reporting date:
31/8/2022
(signed)
Wendy Askew
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committe e
Name of bill:
Climate Change Bill 2022 Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bi11•2022
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Substantive Bill
Wide ranging consultations are required
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
31/8/22
(signed)
Wendy Askew
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill 2021
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To hear from stakeholders, experts and community on the Bill, and the impacts of clearing of critical habitat.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Environmental stakeholders and experts.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications References Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
October
Possible reporting date:
8 February 2023
(signed)
Nick McKim
Appendix 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a comm i ttee
Name of bill:
Fair Work Amendment (Equal Pay for Equal Work) Bill 2022
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Raises important issues which should be the subject of inquiry
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Workers who have experienced hardship and unfair treatment under labour hire contracts in a public hearing in the Hunter Valley
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Education and Employment Legislation Committee.
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
24th October 2022
(signed)
Senator Malcolm Roberts
Appendix 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022 Jobs and Skills Australia (National Skills Commissioner Repeal) Bill 2022
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Substantive Bill
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s}:
16/8/2022
Possible reporting date:
23/9/2022
(signed)
Wendy Askew
Appendix 6
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Substantive Bill
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
21/9/22
Possible reporting date:
(signed)
Wendy Askew
I move:
That the report be adopted.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add:
"and, in respect of the provisions of the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill 2022 and the Jobs and Skills Australia (National Skills Commissioner Repeal) Bill 2022, the Education and Employment Legislation Committee report by 23 September 2022".
Has that amendment been circulated?
Yes.
Senator McKim, were you seeking the call?
Yes, I was. I want to make a few observations about that amendment in the debate. From the Australian Greens' point of view, we're not too sure what the fuss is about, here, in terms of Labor's position, and we will be supporting the opposition's amendment.
Eight weeks is not a particularly long period for an inquiry. These bills create an important agency, and it's important that we get this agency right. The Senate absolutely needs to do its job here. We make the very reasonable observation that the government has a jobs summit coming up on 1 and 2 September. Obviously that's a really important summit, and we want to understand what the outcomes are from that really important jobs summit in time for those outcomes to be fed into the committee's considerations and, ultimately, the deliberations of the Senate around this legislation. We believe that the outcomes of the jobs summit should have the capacity to help shape Jobs and Skills Australia, the agency established by this legislation.
I want to make a couple of very quick and preliminary observations on Jobs and Skills Australia as proposed in this legislation. There is no mechanism beyond a consultation mechanism for stakeholders' voices to be heard and acted on, and we do note this is a big step backwards from previous Australian Labor Party machinery that has empowered and resourced diverse sectoral voices at the table. We also note that the advice parameters appear, as a preliminary assessment, to be very narrowly focused around data and analysis.
We want this inquiry to have the capacity to consider and explore those issues and any other issues that stakeholders bring up. Jobs and Skills Australia will be a critical agency and the Senate has to get it right. The Greens believe that an inquiry that reports, as is proposed by the opposition, on 23 September strikes the right balance between getting it done and making sure it's done right.
This was an issue we discussed last night that we weren't able to reach agreement on. The government's preferred position is that we refer, but with a reporting date so that we can start considering this bill during the September sittings. We would facilitate briefings and the opportunities for crossbenchers and the opposition to discuss that legislation with ministers, but our preference is to have this legislation ready to debate in September. We don't think it is that complex, actually, to establish Jobs and Skills Australia. It is a key commitment of ours that we took to the election, and we want to get cracking on it.
If the committee doesn't report until the end of September, then we potentially won't be able to program this in the October sittings, when we have the budget and then budget estimates. Then we're leaving this right until the end of the year, when we have a range of other priorities, before we're able to establish this agency. I think, if the committee wants the referral, then the committee should get to work between now and the next sitting. It's a month. You can conduct a pretty reasonable inquiry in a month's time.
That is certainly the government's preference. I can see from contributions from others, though, that we don't have the numbers to stop that referral to the 28th, but our strong preference would be that people consider dealing with this as soon as possible so the legislation is available for debate in this chamber in the September sittings.
The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Dodson for today for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:
Senators Canavan, Hume and Liddle, for 28 July 2022, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That—
(a) general business notice of motion No. 9 be considered during general business today; and
(b) the following bills be considered at the time for private senators' bills on Monday 1 August 2022:
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020; and
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 to change the committee from the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, and I inform the chamber that Senator Sterle will also be co-sponsoring the motion.
Leave granted.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Sterle, move the motion as amended:
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 October 2022:
a. the adequacy of Australia's biosecurity measures and response preparedness, in particular with respect to foot-and-mouth disease and varroa mite;
b. response to and implementation of previous reports into biosecurity; and any related matters.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Foot and mouth disease entering Australia is a clear and present threat to Australia's livestock industry, family farms and the world's protein supply. I do not believe Minister Watt is handling FMD well. One Nation wants an inquiry, not a cover-up. We acknowledge Senator Whish-Wilson and others who have worked with Senator Ciccone to modify this. We would not support the original motion, but we will support this amended motion.
Why would you refer FMD to a government controlled legislation committee unless the intent were to cover up? Minister Watt is out of his depth. Yesterday in question time, Senator Watt replied to my foot-and-mouth-disease questions with responses that may have misled the public and the Senate. When admitting to having one million FMD vaccines produced and stored in the UK, Minister Watt said that vaccines could not be produced until we know the strain involved. What are the vaccines in the UK? And he said that he knows the Indonesian strain. I look forward to a proper inquiry to get to the bottom of this.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
In recognition of the impact of foot-and-mouth disease on our rural and regional communities, particularly on our livestock industries and supply chains, I'd like to thank the chamber for the collaborative work that has gone on with the crossbench, with the Greens and with the Labor Party to send this inquiry to the appropriate Senate committee, which is the rural and regional affairs references committee.
We note that the terms of reference are not as broad as we would have liked in the references moved by Senator Canavan and other rural and regional senators in this place, but we do note in the reference from Senator Ciccone that part 3 states 'any related matters'. So I'm just flagging to Senators Ciccone and Sterle that the matters raised in Senator Canavan's terms of reference will be pursued in the committee under that part of the motion.
I seek leave to make a very short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Greens would also like to put on the record our thanks for a collaborative approach to this, and also for the inclusion of varroa mite—the infestation which of course has got a lot of beekeepers and the honey industry very concerned right around the country. It's also, we believe, a matter of national significance, and that can be examined as part of a broader biosecurity references committee through rural and regional affairs.
So we'd like to thank the chamber. This is what the Australian people voted for: a collaborative, constructive approach to dealing with the major challenges that we face in this country.
I'm just going to make a statement before I put the motion. I advise senators that due to an error in the Notice Paper, Senator Ciccone's notice is not shown in full. The correct notice has been circulated in the chamber and included on the Dynamic Red. Senator McKenzie.
At the request of Senator Canavan I withdraw his reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee about foot and mouth, varroa mite and, obviously, lumpy skin disease, recognising that the committee will be investigating those matters as a result of the previous inquiry.
The question now is that the motion as moved by Senator Ciccone be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.
(2) That the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the stage reached in the 46th Parliament.
Question agreed to.
PRESIDENT (): I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.
by leave—I move:
That senators be appointed to committees as follows:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs — Joint Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senators Dodson, Stewart and Thorpe
Appropriations, Staffing and Security — Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senators Ciccone, McAllister and Marielle Smith
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity — Joint Statutory Committee —
Appointed—Senators Bilyk and White
Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings — Joint Statutory Committee —
Appointed—Senator Stewart
Community Affairs Legislation Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Pratt, Marielle Smith and Urquhart
Participating members: Senators Babet, Bilyk, Ciccone, Dodson, Green, Grogan, O'Neill, Payman, Polley, Sheldon, Sterle, Stewart, Walsh and White
Community Affairs References Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Pratt and Marielle Smith
Participating members: Senators Babet, Bilyk, Ciccone, Dodson, Green, Grogan, O'Neill, Payman, Polley, Sheldon, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart, Walsh and White
Corporations and Financial Services — Joint Statutory Committee —
Appointed—Senators O'Neill and Pratt
Economics Legislation Committee —
Appointed—
Senators O'Neill, Stewart and Walsh
Participating members: Senators Babet, Bilyk, Ciccone, Dodson, Green, Grogan, Payman, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Urquhart and White
Economics References Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Stewart and Walsh
Participating members: Senators Babet, Bilyk, Ciccone, Dodson, Green, Grogan, O'Neill, Payman, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Urquhart and White
Education and Employment Legislation Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Grogan, Payman and Sheldon
Participating members: Senators Babet, Bilyk, Ciccone, Dodson, Green, O'Neill, Polley, Pratt, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart, Walsh and White
Education and Employment References Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Payman and Sheldon
Participating members: Senators Babet, Bilyk, Ciccone, Dodson, Green, Grogan, O'Neill, Polley, Pratt, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart, Walsh and White
Electoral Matters — Joint Standing Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Grogan and Marielle Smith
Participating members [for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into the 2022 election]: Senators Allman-Payne, Bilyk, Ciccone, Cox, Dodson, Faruqi, Green, Hanson-Young, McKim, O'Neill, Payman, Barbara Pocock, Polley, Pratt, Rice, Sheldon, Shoebridge, Steele-John, Sterle, Stewart, Thorpe, Urquhart, Walsh, White and Whish-Wilson
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Bilyk, Grogan and Payman
Participating members: Senators Babet, Ciccone, Dodson, Green, O'Neill, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart, Walsh and White
Environment and Communications References Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Bilyk and Grogan
Participating members: Senators Babet, Ciccone, Dodson, Green, O'Neill, Payman, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart, Walsh and White
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Pratt, Sheldon and Stewart
Participating members: Senators Babet, Bilyk, Ciccone, Dodson, Green, Grogan, O'Neill, Payman, Polley, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Urquhart, Walsh and White
Finance and Public Administration References Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Pratt and Stewart
Participating members: Senators Babet, Bilyk, Ciccone, Dodson, Green, Grogan, O'Neill, Payman, Polley, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Urquhart, Walsh and White
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Ciccone, Green and White
Participating members: Senators Babet, Bilyk, Dodson, Grogan, O'Neill, Payman, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart and Walsh
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Ciccone and Green
Participating members: Senators Babet, Bilyk, Dodson, Grogan, O'Neill, Payman, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart, Walsh and White
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade — Joint Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senators Ciccone, Green, Payman, O'Neill and Sheldon
House — Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senators Ciccone and Urquhart
Human Rights — Joint Statutory Committee —
Appointed—Senators Grogan and Stewart
Implementation of the National Redress Scheme — Joint Standing Committee —
Appointed [contingent on the appointment of the committee]—
Senators Rice and White
Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Bilyk, Ciccone, Cox, Dodson, Faruqi, Green, Grogan, Hanson-Young, McKim, O'Neill, Payman, Barbara Pocock, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Shoebridge, Marielle Smith, Steele-John, Sterle, Stewart, Thorpe, Urquhart, Walsh, Waters and Whish-Wilson
Law Enforcement — Joint Statutory Committee —
Appointed—Senators Polley and Walsh
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Ciccone, Green and Polley
Participating members: Senators Babet, Bilyk, Dodson, Grogan, O'Neill, Payman, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart, Walsh and White
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Green and Polley
Participating members: Senators Babet, Bilyk, Ciccone, Dodson, Grogan, O'Neill, Payman, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart, Walsh and White
Migration — Joint Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senators Ciccone, McKim and Payman
National Capital and External Territories — Joint Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senators McCarthy and Polley
National Disability Insurance Scheme — Joint Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senators Steele-John, Stewart and Urquhart
Parliamentary Library — Joint Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senators Bilyk, Sterle and White
Parliamentary Standards — Joint Select Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Ayres, Brown, Ciccone and Faruqi
Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Bilyk, Cox, Dodson, Green, Grogan, Hanson-Young, McKim, O'Neill, Payman, Barbara Pocock, Polley, Pratt, Rice, Sheldon, Shoebridge, Marielle Smith, Steele-John, Sterle, Stewart, Thorpe, Urquhart, Walsh, Waters, White and Whish-Wilson
Privileges — Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senators O'Neill, Polley, Urquhart and Walsh
Procedure — Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senators Chisholm, Gallagher and Urquhart
Public Accounts and Audit — Joint Statutory Committee —
Appointed—Senators Bilyk, Grogan and Sheldon
Public Works — Joint Statutory Committee —
Appointed—Senator Payman
Publications — Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senators Brown, Payman and Polley
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legisla tion Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Polley, Sterle and White
Participating members: Senators Babet, Bilyk, Ciccone, Dodson, Green, Grogan, O'Neill, Payman, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Stewart, Urquhart, and Walsh
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transpor t References Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Sterle and White
Participating members: Senators Babet, Bilyk, Ciccone, Dodson, Green, Grogan, O'Neill, Payman, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Stewart, Urquhart, and Walsh
Scrutiny of Bills — Standing Comm ittee —
Appointed—Senators Ciccone, Sheldon and Walsh
Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation — Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senators Bilyk, Pratt and White
Senators' Interests — Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senators Ayres, Sterle and Urquhart
Trade and Investment Growth — Joint Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senators Cox, Polley and Walsh
Treaties — Joint Standing Committee —
Appointed—Senators Ciccone, Cox, Green and O'Neill
Question agreed to.
As I indicated previously during my presentation, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 is an important piece of legislation. It's the second tranche of legislation in support of the reforms proposed by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. We will have Labor senators popping up and rewriting the history of progressing reform of the aged-care sector. But, as we've discussed, this legislation is essentially the same, except for a couple of points, to legislation that should have been passed prior to the election. The only thing that Labor has done at this point in time is delay the reform process, unfortunately, because there is no disagreement on either side of the chamber here that this is important.
That's why we called the royal commission. That's why we put up this piece of legislation. That's why I've made the comments that I have made. My comments are not about politics. They're about ensuring that senior Australians in residential aged care in this country get the care that they deserve, as proposed by the royal commission. So the government need to put back in the workforce registration scheme, which is the NDIS workforce registration system. They need to make sure that Indigenous Australians in aged care are protected in the same way that every other Australian in residential aged care is protected. They deserve no less. It's a very unfortunate omission. I don't understand why the government has made it. Maybe the Aboriginal community controlled organisations asked for it, but this reform is about the people receiving care. The providers will ask for a lot of things. We should be looking through the providers to the people in residential aged care. They are the ones that this is about. They are the ones who are important.
Unfortunately, the government are actually even winding back their own election commitments, because now, with the responsibility of government, they're realising the logistics and the realities of having to deliver those things.
Before I get to my prepared remarks, I want to go to the commentary that we've just received from the former Minister for Aged Care, who seeks in his speech today to absolve himself and three terms of Liberal government from an abomination that manifests itself in Australian aged care. That weak contribution was an excuse. It was as good as saying 'the dog ate my homework' to a teacher. No responsibility was taken by the former government. He says, 'I don't understand.' We knew he didn't understand; he couldn't answer questions here in the chamber. The performance of that minister and the department that was supposed to be supporting him failed the Australian people year after year. He admitted that this is the second bit of legislation. Well, we're getting to this legislation as a new government because the former government failed to do the job of government. They failed to do what Australians need us to do.
I see people here in this chamber. If we're all lucky, we're going to get to be aged. If we're all lucky, we love people who are aged. There is no government responsible for aged care other than the federal government. For nine long, long years Australians buried their family members. They buried people who died in aged care. They suffered watching the struggle of people in aged care because the former government didn't do what Australians expected them to do. They didn't care. They didn't pay attention properly. They didn't consult. We heard Senator Colbeck before saying something about the Aboriginal population and that it's well that we celebrate contributions by two amazing women who have been elected to the parliament. It's a privilege, whether you sit on that side in opposition, whether you sit on the crossbench or whether you sit here in government, as my colleague Senator Jana Stewart is going to. It's a privilege to sit here. But the privilege gives you the opportunity and the responsibility to consult properly with groups.
In a throwaway line, the former minister said, 'Well, maybe the ACCHOs called for it,' that maybe the Aboriginal people called for this change, and he dismissed it. That's what we saw from them in government for nine years—a litany of excuses. He wants to play politics with this, because the truth is that report after report after report after report, from the moment that Tony Abbott was elected, through the prime ministership of—who was the next one? You've got to remember. There were three in a row. Who was the second one?
Turnbull.
Turnbull. And then we had Mr Morrison. All three of them have to take responsibility for having failed to respond to any of those reports. And then Senator Colbeck said, 'We instituted the royal commission'—because he had no choice. It became so apparent how disgraceful the situation was that they actually had to go ahead with a royal commission. But they'd already had 20 reports before that. Talk to anybody, talk to any Australian who has had any interaction with aged care in the last 10 to 15 years, and certainly in the last nine, and they will tell you that it was a disaster.
So I want to say to the Australian people who, in the most recent election, voted for a range of reasons to bring to bear this Albanese Labor government: thank you for the trust you place in us. There were many people, millions of you, who voted for all sorts of reasons. To those who voted primarily, from their experience of aged care, for the change that they know is needed for this country for aged care, I say: thank you for giving us your vote; thank you for supporting the delivery of an Albanese Labor government; thank you for enabling us to change the ministry, to get on with the proper job of delivering for this country.
We are here doing our job so that Australians can get on with their lives. That's what they expect of us. That's what you expect of us: to show up, to take it seriously, to listen to the truth about what's really happening in our country and to respond wisely and carefully with the taxpayers' dollars that come here—to look after not just the loud and strong, whose voices echo through these chambers, but the weak and vulnerable, who are desperate for a government that will give them the essential care that they need. We're doing it by bringing this bill, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022, to this place. There's been so much delay. There can be no further delay. The sort of tinkering that we just heard from Senator Colbeck gives a bit of a hint of some of the games that they might want to play. It's over for those who are sitting there in opposition. You had nine years to sort it out. Don't muck around. Don't get in the way. Even in the consideration of business, we've got delay in attending to other matters. Australians deserve better than delay and game playing. We need to get on with the job of fixing the messes that the former government left behind.
There is indeed a crisis in our aged-care system. Many of you would have seen the 'Who cares?' Four Corners investigation. That was aired in 2018—2018! Think about the suffering. Think about the grief; the loss; the suffering; the hurt; the mental health challenges; and the despair of people working in aged care and of families engaged in aged care. It's been four years since that report on the telly that opened the eyes of all Australians to the horrifying picture that lay behind the doors of aged-care centres in Australia, where profit-taking and profit-making took precedence over care. It's hard to actually say, to speak into the record the descriptions of, what we saw there: ants and maggots crawling over weeping wounds; dirty bandages that hadn't been changed in days; disgusting and putrid food being served; mistreatment; assaults; abuse—that was what was described. And we saw it.
I congratulate the fourth estate and Four Corners for putting that on the television, as confronting as it was—because the previous government hid the truth. The Liberal-National Party government, under those three leaders, misled the Australian people. They hid from the Australian people what their agencies knew. And they did nothing about it. That's why this is a late clean-up of a mess, but it's the first opportunity that Labor has had to do anything about it.
The Four Corners report itself pointed out:
In the responses we received from across the country it's clear that hurt comes in many forms … not just the horrific tales that have captured headlines but every day stories of neglect and inattention, poor quality food, lack of personal care, boredom and heart-breaking loneliness.
The royal commission went on to even further expose the disgraceful state of the reality lived by some of our finest Australians who've found themselves in aged care. The interim report of the royal commission was a single-word title, and it describes the reality that this government—this new, Albanese government—will make the effort to correct. That title was Neglectand that's what happens when a government doesn't do its job.
So here we are with the legislation. We're up for the task. You trusted us. You gave us your vote. We are doing what we said we would, with multiple pieces of legislation to fulfil the commitments that Labor made to the Australian people that were put into the House yesterday. This is the first one that we're getting to debate here, and I'm very proud that it's about aged care, because, if we don't care for the aged, who've given so much to our country, what sort of country are we? Not the country I know we can be; not the country that you want us to be; not the country we need to be for the people we love and care about.
So this bill is going to do a range of things. If you were here when Senator Colbeck was making his contribution, he talked about different schedules. It all sounds a bit like gobbledegook sometimes, when you don't actually sit in the Senate all day and listen to it, but schedules are the bits of the bill that are going to do things.
This is what this bill is going to do. It's going to introduce a new aged-care subsidy calculation, because that's about money. The money is not working properly in this sector. We have to make Australian taxpayers' money work properly and deliver the care that is required. Currently it's not working. We need to provide a legislative basis for a star rating system, and I would like to say some more about that if time allows me. We are going to introduce a code of conduct, because some people don't seem to know what to do. And we will have a banning-order scheme. We are going to extend the Serious Incident Response Scheme to aged care delivered in home settings. We are going to strengthen the governance of approved providers, because too many dodgy operators got away with doing the wrong thing for way too long. We are going to enhance information sharing across related sectors so that information moves properly with people, particularly between the health sector and the aged-care sector. We're going to increase financial and prudential oversight. It makes me livid when I hear Liberal and National Party members in particular talk as if they've got everything economic sorted. They definitely haven't. The economics of this haven't worked. We need to make this system work so much better to deliver. We're going to broaden the function of the renamed Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority. We will also address issues with the informed consent arrangements with respect to the use of restrictive practices in residential aged care.
I just want to speak in the time remaining to me on what a couple of these critical elements in these schedules in the bill are going to do. I've talked about the terrible circumstances in which too many young Australians found themselves in aged care. I want to speak particularly to the establishment of a safer and more accountable system for our elderly residents. We will not delay in doing this. That's why we have made it the first order of business. The bill must not lapse. I urge all senators from all parties who have been elected here to get on board with Labor and get this done. It's appropriate that this bill pass as soon as possible.
We are going to change the existing but outdated aged-care funding instrument. This will create a new model for calculating aged-care subsidies. It's called the AN-ACC, the Australian National Aged Care Classification. That model is set to commence on 1 October 2022. We're doing this as fast as we possibly can—responsibly but quickly.
With regard to some of those appalling images that, for those who saw the Four Corners report, will be with us forever, the Serious Incident Response Scheme is going to be expanded. It will be expanded in a way that will establish obligations for providers of home care and flexible care in community settings to report and respond to incidents and to take action to prevent those events from recurring.
This isn't rocket science, but the former government delayed bringing these things in. We have to close the gaps that existed previously in the system. I'm sure, like me, you agree that accountability through all aspects of our aged-care system has to be fundamental, observed and enforced. We are determined to bring the care back to aged care.
Today as we speak to the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill and the government's proposed legislative response to the royal commission into aged care, we have before us a great opportunity to get on with fixing the problems created by the former government in aged care. We are here to amend aged-care law to implement a series of urgent funding, quality and safety reforms. This includes, as we know, a number of really important recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.
That commission can only be described as giving an absolute picture of a national disgrace—the absolute disgrace that the former government allowed aged care in our nation to become. It allowed it to absolutely deteriorate, to the enormous detriment of the lives of thousands of older Australians depending on care and their carers, both family and paid, in the aged-care sector, and broader families and communities.
I think all Australians have, over the last year or so, come into contact in one way or another with the significant atrocities that older Australians suffered at the neglectful hand of the Morrison government, so much so that the royal commission itself saw fit to name its interim report Neglect. This came after many years of the former government's attacks on and budget cuts to our aged-care system. It was an approach by the Morrison government, those now in opposition, and this is part of the reason they were sent there. It was a pattern of behaviour, policy approach and lack of attention that systematically endangered and harmed older Australians who were the grit of building our nation. They paid their taxes, worked hard and raised their families. The least we can do as a nation is offer dignity and respect in the care that people receive as they move into frailer years where they need that care. No-one wants to be in aged care. It's an absolute last resort, so there are pressures on and tensions in families to keep their loved ones at home and for partners who are also ageing to keep their partners at home. In the case of my own family, people who have retired are now caring in their retirement for their very elderly parents, who don't want to be in aged care because of this systemic neglect.
It's worth remembering as we discuss this legislation before us today that this royal commission began as far back as 2018 and delivered an interim report in 2019. What you can see from this between 2019 and the final report, evident in the last few years in this place, is that of the horrors that were exposed by the report in 2019—which is the purpose of issuing an interim report, so governments, aged care providers and communities can get on, respond and start to take action—none had been addressed in the final report of the royal commission. It's a really telling reflection on the final report, abandonment and neglect being its major themes. So let's not forget that those over the aisle from us now presided over this neglect and abandonment, and they presided over it during the course of the COVID pandemic, when of course the vulnerabilities of people in aged care became even more profound.
Had action been taken back in 2018 and 2019 when the royal commission was started—you know, normally governments recognise that, when they're under so much attack and pressure that they need to call a royal commission into something, that's the time to start actually getting on and fixing it. When things are so bad you need a royal commission to do something, it shouldn't be the case that you then say, 'Well, we can't possibly act now on these very urgent issues, because we need to see what the royal commission says.' Honestly, in the case of an issue that is live, where people are suffering harm and damage every day, the important thing to do is get on with reforms and put a stop to that harm as quickly as possible. It's kind of why we, here now in the very first week of convening ourselves as a Labor government in this parliament, have this legislation before us, because we recognise that it's urgent.
The abandonment of the last government led to people being put in really difficult situations, worse situations than they had to be. Our former Prime Minister seemed to have been banking on an exhausted collective national amnesia as to his failings to act on these issues—in yet another term, post-2019, of ignoring vulnerable Australians. The former PM, as we know, had previously been the Minister for Social Services and was the Treasurer who cut $2 billion from aged care, leading to this disaster. In so many areas of the public policy failure that we've seen from the previous government, cuts like this were the most common weapon in a dwindling arsenal of what was a neglectful and ineffective government.
But the Australian public have spoken. They have changed the government, and the message that we got—and we knew it all along because we had been fighting the government on these issues—was that Australians have said that the quality and safety of our aged-care system is of the utmost importance, which we intend to deliver on prioritising. The last government failed in its final days to bring forward any bill related to fixing the crisis in our aged-care system. This bill addresses that. It's more reflective of the recommendations of the royal commission's report. We have a bill before us that is already dangerously late in terms of responding to a damning royal commission that has implored us to increase funding to our aged-care sector. But, as I said, we as a Labor government have done this as urgently as possible.
I recognise that this bill is largely the same as the previous government's Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021, but it is significantly improved. I also note the government had ample time to introduce such measures into this place. If you look at the legislative agenda that they pursued during 2020-21, there's no reason that this agenda could not have been dealt with then.
In this bill we are requiring a qualified registered nurse to be on site at every residential aged-care home 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is absolutely critical. When you look at the issues in our health system nationally, state government health hospital systems are under significant pressure. We have ambulances ramping at hospitals. We've got emergency departments trying to get patients admitted. And we've got patients who have come from aged-care homes, who are inside the hospital as they've needed urgent care, who are waiting in the hospital to go back to their aged-care service but can't go because there is an inadequate level of supervision and care from a registered nurse on site 24 hours a day. It's important to recognise that, while many people in our aged-care services might be physically healthy but have dementia or other challenges that mean they need to be there, others have physical ailments which make it difficult to be at home, and many others are this close to being in and out of hospital. But being in and out of hospital doesn't actually help them live as healthily and as happily as they can in an aged-care facility, because that kind of dislocation and movement doesn't support their health. What does support their health is having that access to a quality aged-care service, and quality supervision and support with a registered nurse inside their aged-care facility.
The former government ignored the royal commission's recommendation that nursing homes should have a registered nurse on site, so the legislation before us delivers on what was Labor's election commitment to stop the rorting of home-care fees by placing a cap on how much can be charged in administration and management fees. These are two key platforms that Labor have taken forward and that we have consulted on. We have worked with unions, we have worked with people who care for people in aged care, we have worked with their families, and we have worked with the whole sector to ensure that we are able to deliver what are incredibly important reforms, reforms that the last government ignored and refused to prioritise.
A Labor government wants to be confident that the precious money that comes out of people's pensions, that might even come out of the equity of the family home, to pay for that care is going directly to care and not to the bottom line of corporate providers. These improvements, we believe, reflect in a much better way the recommendations of the royal commission. We have a new code of conduct to set high standards of behaviour for providers. We are looking to improve communication between care and support sectors so that regulators can do their jobs and supervise risks in facilities and a lot more.
I have kind of rattled on without getting to one of the things that I really wanted to outline today. Amina Schipp has been a constituent of mine. She bravely told me her mother's story about how unqualified staff dispensed and administered drugs and shared medication soon after placing her mother in an aged-care home. The home did not get a doctor quickly. There was a lack of urgency in getting a doctor. She had a major fall, a number of unreported falls and then her mother passed away. Those complaints had already been made to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission before her mother passed away and nothing was done. This is why Amina has been so angry at the last government, and I want to be accountable to her and people like her. (Time expired)
I also rise today to make a contribution to the debate on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. But, before I do, this is my first opportunity to acknowledge our new President, Senator Lines. I want to congratulate you on your appointment. I think it is a historic moment for our party and for our chamber and I know we are in very good hands with your leadership and stewardship of this very important institution of the Senate.
This is the first piece of legislation I get an opportunity to speak on in the 47th parliament and I am so pleased that the first piece of legislation we are considering is on aged care. I think aged care would be one of the issues I spoke most about during the 46th Parliament because during that time we were confronted with the absolute worst of what happens when an entire part of our carer economy in aged care is left in neglect, and a crisis rained down upon it. The pandemic was horrific for aged care. Still there are many, many challenges in the sector as a result of the pandemic. But it was made worse than it needed to be because of the neglect that predated that crisis, the neglect that has existed within the sector for many, many years—ignored, not dealt with, not addressed. This is our first opportunity to deal with a piece of legislation in this chamber, and thank goodness we are dealing with aged care.
This bill is, of course, just the first step in our government's work to fix the aged-care crisis. We know that that fix won't happen overnight, and of course not everything in this crisis can be fixed by one piece of legislation. This is a sector that has suffered neglect for years and was downright failed by our previous government. But this bill—and the fact that it's the first piece of legislation that we are debating here—is a really important start. I want to commend Anika Wells, the member for Lilley, for her tireless work, since she was sworn in as our new Minister for Aged Care, to make sure that she could bring this bill to the parliament, that it was treated with the urgency that it deserves. I wish that minister every success in what I know is her genuine and dedicated focus on fixing the aged-care crisis.
This bill contains a number of important measures. It seeks to implement a new Australian National Aged Care Classification funding model, replacing the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument, offering more equitable funding, better matched to providers' costs in delivering the care residents need. There will be a new star-rating system that will see the Department of Health and Aged Care publish a comparison rating for all residential aged-care services by the end of 2022. There will be an extension to the Serious Incident Response Scheme to all in-home care providers to increase protection for older Australians from preventable incidents, abuse and neglect. The bill establishes a new code of conduct for approved providers, their workforce and governing persons, setting minimum standards of behaviour. The bill implements new provider governance and reporting arrangements to improve transparency and accountability and it will improve information sharing between the aged-care, disability support and veterans care sectors, to harmonise the regulation of care. This bill, at its core, is about restoring dignity, care, accountability and humanity back into aged care, and this is where we must start. This is where we rightfully start.
The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety's interim report was called Neglect. It found that the Australian aged-care system had failed to meet the needs of its older and vulnerable citizens. It found that the system didn't deliver uniformly safe and quality care and that there was unkindness, a lack of caring, towards older people and, in too many instances, neglect of our older Australians. It found systemic problems in the aged-care system that require urgent fundamental reform and redesign. The final report, which gave the recommendations that this bill is based on and seeks to start addressing and implementing, stated that the aged-care system has been under prolonged stress and has reached crisis point. Of course, the COVID-19 pandemic only extended that. It made things worse. It added an unprecedented pressure to a system already buckling under strain. Aged care was in crisis. It still is in crisis. It was a poor system before the pandemic, with the pandemic only weakening it further.
Over the last decade, we've seen 23 reports, inquiries, studies, committee reports and then the royal commission. The story never changed. It's not like one of these reports was the standout moment where we said, 'Oh gosh, there's a problem here.' All of these reports told us the same thing. All of these reports were pointing to the crisis unfolding before us, a crisis which we have seen amplified and worsened over recent years.
I am so proud to be part of a government not afraid to confront this crisis head-on. I sat in this chamber many times during the 46th Parliament as we had debates around wording and semantics, with the government defending the use of particular words—not debates on the substance of what was happening in aged care, not debates on substantive pieces of legislation that the government was bringing before this chamber which would enable us to get the big process of reform started, but political debates. Like so many things in the Morrison government, aged care was turned into a political football. It was about defending on their failures, deflecting on their failures, rather than getting to the work which needed to be done. I don't pretend the work ahead is easy; I don't think anyone in this chamber would pretend that the work is easy. It's going to be really hard to fix this crisis. But I hope we can all agree that it matters, that it's urgent, and I hope—in the Prime Minister's spirit of a better parliament—we can work together to get this done.
This matters for South Australians, for my constituents, for the people I represent—South Australians like Noleen Hausler, who has been fighting for reform since 2015 when a camera she had hidden in her father's aged-care facility revealed horrific abuse. It was a sight no daughter should ever have to see of her beloved father. In her evidence to the royal commission Noleen spoke of her shock when she saw the visual images—her heart racing, her hands shaking. What a dreadful thing. What a dreadful thing to witness of someone you love. For Noleen, for everyone who gave evidence to that royal commission, I am sure there would have been hope at the end—hope that, by giving that evidence, by sharing those painful stories, that fear and that sadness of what happened to the people they loved, change would come. And the slowness of that change has failed them. It's let them down. They bravely told their stories and they've been let down.
Of course, this South Australian family wasn't alone. We heard countless stories which would shake any reasonable person to their core. We heard from carers who told of the pressure they felt to spend little time with their residents, choosing between supporting residents most at risk, leaving some residents behind who they wanted to give care to but couldn't—ad hoc care, staff at breaking point and stretched to the limit, residents and families who felt abandoned and let down by the places they entrusted to care for people they loved. What a heartbreaking thing. You send the person you love into care, hoping that that's what they will receive, and instead of care, instead of compassion and kindness, your loved one gets failed in the most horrific way.
So many South Australians have been let down by a system in crisis, a system reeling under extreme strain. They're feeling this, I know. I speak to them all the time, not just the residents in aged care, who I've had the privilege to visit, but the workforce trying to support them and care for them—workers like Donna, an aged-care worker in Adelaide who absolutely loves her job. She loves the people she cares for. She loves the people she works with. But she's under an extraordinary amount of pressure because this system is in crisis.
I've spoken to another young aged-care worker in Adelaide who stumbled into aged care by accident and fell in love with the sector, fell in love with caring for people, fell in love with what the nurses were doing and how to show tenderness and kindness to people in need. She loved it so much that she's now studying health at university, wanting to give back in a healthcare setting. And she would love to go to aged care again, but she just cannot bring herself to do it because the conditions of her work and the strain that that sector is under mean she just doesn't feel like she's up to returning to that sector. This is a young person who could make a tremendous difference but whose contribution has been lost because the system has failed so many.
I've spoken to workers in Adelaide East, just a few months ago, who were working really hard every day to support their residents but couldn't give them the attention they deserved. A nurse in regional South Australia spoke of the difficulty in accessing a RN, as there wasn't always one on site—something we're going to fix—and how that hurt when there wasn't that care for residents when they were in need. And I've heard from residents who love their support workers—the people in their clinics caring for them, providing entertainment for them, activities, cooking for them. They absolutely adore the workers in aged care. But who can see the struggle this workforce is under as well, who want relief for the people who care for them?
All of these South Australian stories stay with me every day—the stories of dedication and compassion, and the stories, sadly, of abuse and of neglect. They stay with me and they come in here, into this chamber, and they're the stories I think about when we debate legislation like this, and that's what this legislation is seeking to do—to put security, dignity, quality and humanity back into aged care, to do better by these South Australians. It builds on our broader plans for aged care, our serious plans for aged care. We made this a centre of our election commitments because we know how much it matters to every single Australian, not just those with loved ones in aged care.
If each of us is lucky enough to get old, many of us will find ourselves in aged care. Many of us will find ourselves making really difficult decisions about care for people we love. We need to fix this. We need to fix this urgently. Our policies will ensure qualified nurses are onsite 24 hours a day, seven days a week, increasing the pipeline of registered nurses into aged-care facilities and, importantly, helping clear so many unnecessary trips to emergency departments, a particular issue in regional areas. We want to see a real pay increase for workers, a boost in workforce numbers, more training places and university places to support and grow and build that workforce and, importantly, a mandated average of 215 minutes of care being given to those in aged care. These are really important measures. They are measures which will change the face of aged care.
This bill is a really important first step. It's not every step. We won't pass this piece of legislation and see a dramatic turnaround in what's happening in aged care. But the dedication of this government—the fact is that this is the first piece of legislation we are dealing with—I think, is testament to how seriously Minister Butler, Minister Wells and, of course, our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, take this crisis and their role in tackling it. That's something we didn't see in this parliament, and I don't think any of us could really, honestly reflect on the way aged care was treated in the last parliament with any sense of pride.
This is our moment to get the real piece of reform done: to do the hard work, the scary things, to not let people down, to not let down our elderly, our older Australians, who have done so much for our nation—who have built our nation—and are in aged care and need the support of this chamber, of this Senate and of our government. It's our opportunity to say to those workers who have been through so much, particularly during the pandemic: 'We value you and we're going to try to get this fixed.' This is about not letting down Australians—Australians who have been horrified by what's happening in aged care—many of whom, dare I say, feel scared about what their future looks like if we don't fix this crisis.
I am proud to be a part of this work and I am proud of my government for not being afraid to confront the enormity of it. I look forward to the support of this chamber. Let the 47th Parliament be better in the way it deals with aged care. Let us be the parliament that fixes this crisis and restores dignity, humanity and care to those Australians who so desperately need it.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill No. 2. I appreciate where Senator Smith is coming from. I share Senator Smith's absolute admiration for our aged-care workforce and her heartfelt sympathy with the families of aged-care residents who have been mistreated and for the gaps that have been created over time. But I do not accept the premise that it was the former coalition government's fault. I also don't accept the premise that the former coalition government failed in aged care nor, as Senator Smith declared, that we treated aged care as a political football. Indeed, it was the former coalition government that initiated the royal commission, which then made 142 recommendations. The former coalition government diligently reviewed those and prepared a response, including accepting 135 of the recommendations wholly or in part. Of those, 126 were accepted in principle, 12 were subject to further consideration or were noted, and four were noted as supporting an alternative approach. Only six recommendations were not accepted. It was also the former coalition government that worked hard to ensure that the budget for aged care was extended and extra funds were provided, and it was the former coalition government that basically drafted this legislation that we are presented with today.
Certainly, declaring that it was our government that treated aged care as a political football completely ignores the fact that Mr Albanese was happy to let aged-care providers and older Australians remain in a state of complete uncertainty—a state of limbo—for six months, just so he could play political games, delaying the implementation of many of the important recommendations of the royal commission, which are contained in this bill that we are debating today. Now that he's in government, Mr Albanese has realised that these reforms need to be pursued, and now he's trying to push them through, when they could have been passed in April. By playing politics with older Australians for six months and by not facilitating the passage of this bill in the last parliament, Mr Albanese delayed significant and time-critical legislation purely for political gain—purely so that we can stand here today and listen to Senator Polley say that former minister Senator Colbeck was an abject failure and hear Senator Smith say that our former coalition government treated aged care as a political football, completely denying all of the steps that the former coalition government actually took to address aged-care issues, even prior to the final royal commission report.
Let's not ignore the fact that in 2012-13, under the previous Labor government, there were only just over 60,000 home-care packages available in the aged-care sector. By the time of the last election, this had increased to 275,597 home-care packages. We all know that many of our older people would much rather stay at home than go to a residential facility. If we can keep them at home, enable them to keep their dignity and make sure they are looked after, they tend to have a much more positive experience. We also made sure, in February, that we recognised the significant contribution our aged-care workforce had made, particularly during the COVID pandemic. In February, we announced a workforce bonus of up to $800 for all eligible aged-care workers, and it was estimated that about 265,000 workers benefited from that.
Our government certainly did not treat aged care as a political football. Our government was absolutely committed to delivering on the royal commission recommendations. This legislation we are debating today forms the second step of what we had developed, which was a five-year implementation plan, underpinned by five pillars: the home-care packages that I've just discussed; residential aged-care services and sustainability; looking to improve and simplify residential aged-care services; and access. That is essentially what this bill helps to deliver on today. Then we also wanted to look at residential aged-care quality and safety—and I will be looking with interest at what the new government does in those areas—as well as supporting the workforce and growing a better skilled-care workforce. Because for all of what Senator Marielle Smith said before about supporting the workforce, needing to recognise their contribution, and needing to give them better pay and conditions, that's not in today's bill, so we shouldn't pretend that we are delivering those outcomes.
We also need stronger governance in the aged-care sector, some of which is in this bill and some of which needs further work. I hope that the new government will work with the opposition to ensure that aged care is not treated as a partisan football, as it was in the past when we saw the six-month delay by Mr Albanese in opposition. But now he's in government we will not stand in the way of this bill, because we're not going to play those same games. We're not going to turn it back into a partisan football.
This legislation is basically just a revised version of our legislation that we introduced nearly six months ago. There are really only two key changes from the original version of the bill that we introduced: one is the removal of the aged-care workers' screening regulation, and the other is the removal of the enshrining of the star-rating system in legislation. The clause about the workers' screening regulations sought to establish a nationally consistent pre-employment screening for aged-care workers. Now, that pre-employment screening was not—as has been claimed—a punishment. It was actually about protecting aged-care residents, providing consistency and establishing a good baseline. It was an important arrangement in response to recommendation 77 of the royal commission, and it prevented unsuitable workers from entering or remaining in the aged-care sector. We in opposition will be keeping a very close eye on what further reforms come forward about this key recommendation to prevent poor conduct in the sector and protect residents. We will be watching very closely to see what is brought forward, because it's our view that, by removing the workers' screening regulations, the government has basically acquiesced to the unions. They've capitulated to the unions. We would call on the government and say: stand up to the unions. Implement good policies that protect both the residents and the workforce, and allow a nationally consistent database to be established for all care workers. It gives our residents in aged-care communities—those that we care for in their twilight years—certainty that they are being looked after by the best.
While I have the call, I want to express my dismay that the government has ceased the availability of free rapid antigen tests for aged-care homes during COVID. The timing is absolutely remarkable. When the COVID pandemic first hit we saw significant outbreaks in aged-care facilities—and, unfortunately, we saw some untimely deaths in those facilities. However, when we look at the numbers of what's going on now that we're not in the peak of COVID hysteria, now that COVID has almost become endemic and people are treating it as part of their day-to-day lives, we see the number of deaths linked to COVID in aged-care facilities are higher than they were during the first and second waves. In fact, according to the Australian government website on the Department of Health and Aged Care, my calculations are that there have been 883 deaths in aged-care facilities between May—just prior to the election—and 22 July. That's 883. Yet free rapid antigen testing has been ceased.
There are currently over 1,000 active outbreaks of COVID in aged-care facilities across the nation. That is a higher number than ever was seen in the first and second waves. From this opposition, they absolutely tried to crucify the coalition government of the time for perceived failures in rolling out personal protective equipment, in rolling out vaccinations, in rolling out rapid antigen tests. Yet it is now in government that they see fit to cancel rapid antigen tests for aged-care facilities, right when deaths are higher than they've ever been, right when active cases in aged-care facilities are higher than they've ever been. So where is the consistency with what the government said in opposition and what they are implementing in government? It beggars belief.
Ultimately, the opposition will not play games with this legislation. We will be supporting it for the health and the safety and the wellbeing of our older Australians. We will not delay the time-critical legislation just to play games, as was done by the opposition. And we implore the Albanese government to continue our generational reform of the aged-care system for the benefit of all residents. I commend this bill to the House.
This is the first chance I've had to talk in the chamber following the election result and the sitting of the new parliament. Nothing brings home the responsibility more, for what my party confronts now that we are in government, than fixing the crisis that we were left in aged care. So it is fitting that this is the first bit of legislation that we have before us in the Senate.
It also reinforces, for me, the challenge that we face as a government and the faith that the Australian people have put in us to do that, and also the people who are responsible for that. The member for Lilley happens to be my local member and has taken on the responsibility as minister in this area. It's an important job, it's one that I am more than confident she is up to and it's one where she has started so well. I get the sense, from the travel that she has done and the consultation that she has undertaken, that it has all been of an urgent nature, but it is the work that is required to get legislation like this right, and it is important legislation that we are talking about today.
I note the contribution from some of those opposite and the former minister. They're trying to recreate the history around why a royal commission was called into aged care, and trying to take credit for it by saying it was one of the things that only they were able to do. It's important we don't lose sight of what the motivations were behind the former Prime Minister when he called that royal commission. If you go back, it was not long after former Prime Minister Morrison rolled Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister and he called a royal commission.
It was one of the first moves we saw from 'Scotty from marketing' that we were to become used to. He called this royal commission not because he wanted to fix the aged-care crisis. All he wanted to do was move it beyond that election cycle, which was due in about six months time. So what did he do?
He called a royal commission not because he wanted to fix the challenges but because he wanted to avoid taking responsibility before the 2019 election. That was his motivation in that, and it became a theme for the former Prime Minister. It was obviously one that cost them at the election. It was the first sign of someone who wanted to avoid responsibility—who didn't want to take on the job as Prime Minister and actually do the hard work of reform that was needed.
We saw that aged care was in crisis before 2019, but it was really laid bare how bad it was and what a significant crisis it was when COVID hit, with the devastation that we saw in many parts of the country with residents in aged care and the lack of ability of those policies to respond to ensure that those elderly Australians who were in those residences were treated with the dignity and respect that they deserved.
I think there's a lot of contrast between the current government and the former government. In the agenda for the Albanese Labor government, what we want to deliver on and how we acknowledge the challenges that we're facing—whether it be aged care or whether it be the economy, as we're seeing from the Treasurer in the other place right now—we're being upfront with the Australian people. We are actually saying what the challenges that we are confronting are and what steps we are taking to fix these problems.
There's a real stark contrast between Minister Wells and what we saw from former Minister Colbeck. In his performance in question time in the previous parliament, he would try and give this air of confidence—'Everything's under control, we're dealing with it, we're doing these things, and it's all going to be okay'—when the reality on the ground was different. We all received correspondence in our offices or dealt with people, I'm sure, who would be able to tell you their heartfelt stories of what they were confronting for an elderly relative or a friend who they cared for so deeply. In contrast, the current minister is someone who has acknowledged that there is a crisis in aged care; has said what the steps are that need to be taken to fix it; has been out there in aged-care homes every week since the minister was appointed; and has outlined a clear reform agenda, building on what we took to the election but also responding to the immediate impacts of what the nation is confronting with COVID at the same time and particularly in nursing homes.
We know about the 23 reports. We know about the royal commission. But we see the stark difference in government now, with a minister, a Prime Minister and a government that are actually taking on the challenge in aged care and doing the things that are necessary to ensure that we can provide long-term reform and that the aged-care system is one that Australians can be proud of, so that those Australians who have relatives or friends in aged care can know that there is a robust system that is going to look after those people.
The Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022, which the government is introducing, is to respond to the decade of neglect under the previous government. They failed to implement all the recommendations of the royal commission report that was titled Neglect. As Minister Wells said in the other place yesterday, there have been 23 reports, inquiries, studies, committee reports and a royal commission which all told us consistently the same thing. There has been a decade of inaction for a system that is in crisis, one that needed support and that received nothing from the previous government.
The bill shows the priority of this government is to act on aged care. It was something that the Prime Minister talked about consistently for the last term of opposition but also something that was a focus point for the now-government during the election campaign. We are delivering on our promise to the Australian people to treat older Australians with the respect that they deserve. We know the role that older Australians have played in building this country, working hard to contribute to society, and they deserve that dignity and respect as they get later in life. For many years, the previous government showed that reforming and fixing aged care was not the high priority that it should be. You only need to look at the performance of the former minister and compare that to what we are seeing from the current Albanese Labor government. The contrast could not be more stark.
During the campaign, I met with aged-care workers and workers in aged care through parts of regional Queensland, and they told me firsthand the significant challenges in this sector and what years of lack of support has meant to them and what it has meant to people living in those facilities. Some of the workers I met with have been working in aged care for decades, and I was happy to convey our thanks, as a senator for Queensland, for the work that they have been doing. These people are really committed to the care of elderly Australians.
This bill will implement a series of urgent funding, quality and safety measures, many of which were recommended by the royal commission. The legislation will introduce several key measures that will ensure older Australians are protected, measures that have been delayed for too long under the previous government, including the Serious Incident Response Scheme, which will be expanded to establish obligations on approved providers of home care and flexible care in a community setting, to report and respond to incidents, and to take action to prevent incidents from reoccurring.
A new code of conduct will set high standards of behaviour for aged-care workers, approved providers and governing persons of approved providers to ensure they are delivering aged care in a way that is safe, competent and respectful. Improved information sharing between care and support sector regulators will enable proactive monitoring of cross-sector risks and better protection of consumers and participants from harm. An interim solution for the provision of consent to the use of restrictive practices will also be established while state and territory consent arrangements are reconsidered. The bill will also increase transparency and accountability for providers as well.
The legislation has the important support of many organisations in the sector. The Council on the Ageing said:
These Bills are crucial steps in a reform process that when fully implemented will ensure Australia will finally enjoy the quality aged care system all older Australians deserve … and to have them introduced today is testament to the fact that Aged Care Minister Anika Wells, strongly supported by Health and Aged Care Minister Mark Butler, has hit the ground running in her new portfolio.
The Health Services Union said:
Our industry will not be fixed overnight and will require significantly greater resources. But we are confident Minister Wells is headed in the right direction.
For too long, the aged care system has exploited the time and goodwill of an underpaid, insecurely employed workforce largely made up of women. For the first time there is a crack of light at the end of the tunnel.
Catholic Health Australia has said:
Legislation introduced today really fires the starting gun on reform. This is long overdue and our members welcome the fact that the Albanese Government is serious about improving care for the elderly … in our society.
Opal Healthcare said:
We are delighted to see the new bill will enshrine mandated standards for all aged care providers, including the requirement for all care communities across Australia to have a registered nurse on duty 24-hours a day.
That's something, by the way, that the former minister took umbrage with, and that was one of the reasons why this legislation has been delayed—because of an amendment that the previous Labor opposition was able to get passed in the Senate requiring that, which is why they delayed actually passing this legislation in the previous parliament.
So this legislation is an important first step in turning around the neglect that we have seen over the last 10 years. Anthony Albanese as Prime Minister is committed to it, and I'm confident in the ability of Minister Wells to take the steps necessary so that all Australians can retire in dignity and comfort, which is what they deserve. This is an important part of the incoming government's agenda. It's something on which we made a series of promises, and it's something that we are absolutely committed to delivering, and I expect the Australian people will be holding us to account.
The performance of the previous minister and the fact that he is still trying to create this myth about not only the role that he played previously, whether it be the royal commission, as I highlighted at the start, but also his attack during his speech just then on the treatment of Aboriginal community-controlled organisations as part of this legislation, is quite disgraceful. For him to try to suggest that these changes are going to result in a lower standard of care for elderly Aboriginal Australians is a disgraceful thing for him to suggest in this parliament. A key part of closing the gap that the previous government paid lip-service to is about ensuring that those Aboriginal controlled organisations actually take the responsibility for improving those standards themselves, whether it be in health, the community sector or in aged care. So for him to try and allude that this is going to in some way result in standards slipping is a disgraceful thing for the previous minister, given his status, to actually do. I just wanted to ensure that that was on the record and not let this myth be created—like those opposite are trying to do on royal commissions and on other things—that this isn't something that we haven't thought of. We have confidence in those community organisations to do the right thing by their communities, which is exactly what this government is about.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 and take this opportunity to commend Minister Wells for bringing this to the Senate and to the House, showing not only the priority that we place on all of our election commitments, which we will be pushing forward over this term of the parliamentary cycle, but also the priority we place on our elders. We talk about our children as being vulnerable and we know we must look after them, but we also have to look after our elders. Certainly in the First Nations way of life our elders are critical. We saw throughout the pandemic the fear that most Australians felt but, in particular, elderly Australians—and who still feel it today, because the pandemic is not over. We are living with this pandemic, and it is our elders who are incredibly vulnerable.
I recently visited Nhulunbuy, in north-east Arnhem Land, and had the opportunity to work with some of the Yolngu elders there and seek their advice and their wisdom as to what we need to do in terms of our aged care and caring for our elders. It was wonderful to be able to spend some time with Carers NT and to see the launch of the Djaka'mi facility in eastern Arnhem Land. In the Yolgnu language 'Djaka'mi' means to care, and it's certainly a fitting name for this initiative. The work of Carers NT at Djaka'mi supports both NDIS disability participants and aged-care clients to be supported on country in Nhulunbuy. They employ local people who bring their language, culture and connection. It also provides an opportunity for respite for the elders in a place that's safe, and their families and carers know that they can take some time and leave their loved ones with people that they trust.
Many elderly Territorians have died hundreds of kilometres away from their community, away from their homelands, their country and their families. I say this from a very realistic point of view due to the geography of places like the Northern Territory and indeed places across northern Australia and Western Australia where we are such a great big country. First Nations people largely want to live connected closely to their country, and sometimes those hospital services, those aged care services and indeed most government services are not as close as we would think they could be in places like Darwin and Alice Springs. So most people travel where they have to for the care that they require.
Good, dignified aged care depends on listening to elderly Australians and what they want no matter where they are in the country, and this facility is what good, dignified care looks like. It changes lives. If we can see great care provided in a remote part of the Northern Territory like Nhulunbuy with this particular service, we can and should see it done elsewhere.
And, as Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health, I will just highlight that the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety recommended that the government:
… ensure that the new aged care system makes specific and adequate provision for the diverse and changing needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people …
I'm incredibly pleased to highlight here to the Senate that the Australian government is investing $106 million in providing face-to-face support for older First Nations people and $115 million in building culturally safe aged-care facilities. I met with elders in north-east Arnhem Land and with Djaka'mi, which is a not-for-profit community-based organisation dedicated to improving the lives of family carers living in that part of the country.
We know that, through this particular bill, the Albanese Labor government's commitment crosses a broad cross-section, in terms of seeing the aged-care sector across Australia improve quite dramatically, and I just want to go through some of those points. One of the things that I know has really, really raised the hopes of many families is the fact that we want to increase the average minimum care time per resident per day and introduce a mandate that requires all residential aged-care facilities to have a registered nurse onsite 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This will deliver on the government's election commitment to put more nurses back into nursing homes, giving carers—the loved ones who care for their loved ones and their elders—more time to care. From July 2023 our government is mandating the requirement for a registered nurse to be onsite at all times. This commitment directly responds to recommendation 86.5 of the royal commission and will be delivered one year earlier than was recommended.
Aged care is everyone's business. This piece of legislation promises much of what we took to the election, and we know that that critical need is one that we recognise has been ignored and neglected for way too long. This was evident in the Out of sight, out of mind report that we saw in the previous term. The new Australian National Aged Care Classification, AN-ACC, funding model will replace the outdated Aged Care Funding Instrument in October, offering more equitable funding that is better matched to providers' costs in delivering the care residents need. Aged-care providers shouldn't be expected to walk alone, and our government is committed to supporting them appropriately. The star rating system will see the Department of Health and Aged Care publish a comparison rating for all residential aged-care services. This will support older Australians, their loved ones and their representatives in being able to compare services and able to make more informed choices about their aged care, and that's important. Why should we think that, as you grow older, you have less choice and less ability to make decisions about the kind of care you want? We recognise that this is pivotal to the dignity and care not only of our elders but also to the families who look after them and the general carers who are part of that network.
Reforms will also see the extension of the Serious Incident Response Scheme to all in-home care providers, meaning increased protection for older Australians from preventable incidents, abuse and neglect. I, like many of you here, and certainly many Australians, was horrified by the heartbreaking stories of abuse and neglect coming out of aged-care settings. For too long there were no mandatory incident-reporting requirements for providers of home care or flexible care delivered in a home and community setting. This meant that there was no oversight of allegations of abuse and neglect of older Australians receiving care in their own homes. And how tragic is that: to be in your own home and to experience that neglect and abuse, and be able to do nothing about it? This change is absolutely overdue, and it's critical we denounce abuse and neglect and not simply leave it out of sight and out of mind.
I'm also pleased to see the introduction of a new code of conduct for approved providers, their workforce and governing persons, setting minimum standards of behaviour to ensure older Australians receive care in a safe, competent and respectful manner. New provider governance and reporting arrangements due to begin at the end of this year will improve transparency and mean greater accountability on providers to better focus on the needs of older Australians receiving care. First steps will also be taken towards harmonising regulation of care and to support providers across the aged-care, disability support and veterans' care sectors by improving information-sharing between the bodies that regulate these sectors.
I not only commend Minister Wells I also commend Minister Butler and the Prime Minister for their swift action to work on fixing this system. The status quo of neglect over the past decade simply has not been good enough. I also commend all of those elderly Australians, their carers and the workers who provided their stories, and conveyed the reality of aged care in this country to the royal commission. These changes, among many others, will build on our promise to deliver security, dignity, quality and humanity in care for every older Australian across the aged-care system.
In my portfolio area, as Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health, I'm also very conscious, as we talk about the aged-care sector—and I know that previous speakers have spoken about First Nations organisations and the Aboriginal health sector—to point out that one of the priority areas which I will focus on as well captures the aged-care sector: those patients who are on renal dialysis. We have a significant number of the First Nations population receiving dialysis, many of whom—but not all, some of them are quite young—are in the aged-care sector, with extra needs and requiring support.
I can speak from experience in the Northern Territory, where families leave their community to go to renal dialysis in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine or Darwin. Some of them receive that care on country or at home, and that, combined with the need to have a reliable and supportive aged-care nursing home nearby is also absolutely essential for those clients in particular. That's because renal disease is one of the greatest diseases that impacts on First Nations people in our regional and remote areas of Australia in particular. Highlighted by those geographical distances is the need for access to a clean and reliable water supply for the dialysis machines and also the ability to have resources on country, should people want to stay there for their care.
These are questions that I ask as I travel around Australia, talking about health, First Nations health and access, as we look at this from the perspective of what kind of care our elders require. So I'm enormously pleased that our government has brought this bill forward. I will certainly be following very closely the significant policy announcements that we've made in relation to aged care and in the health sector generally. I commend the bill to the Senate.
The coalition is committed to ensuring that the government stick to their election promises and their supposed commitment to aged care, because, so far, their performance towards aged care has been woeful. COVID is rampant in the aged-care community, and they don't have the slightest idea what to do about it. Almost 5,000 Australians have passed away from COVID-19 since 31 May 2022, and as of 22 July 2022 there were 9,537 active COVID-19 cases and 1,013 active outbreaks in residential aged-care facilities across Australia. Worse, there have been 2,187 reported deaths, in 2022, in aged-care facilities.
What is this government doing about it? Nothing. For the entirety of the pandemic, while this government was in opposition, they mischaracterised the coalition's performance on aged care. Now, when they have the opportunity—and, indeed, the duty—to act on their words, they're doing absolutely nothing. Senator Gallagher, on 8 February, said in this chamber:
There are problems in aged care, where the situation is so dire, with thousands infected with COVID, hundreds dying and staff not able to perform their jobs.
What is she saying now?
On that same day, Senator Watt—who was vocal, almost every day, in picking on our minister at the time—said that an aged-care facility was 'in complete meltdown', with deaths, from COVID, of 15 aged-care residents, and 182 residents and staff testing positive for COVID.
They're a lot lower than the numbers we're seeing right now in aged care. And what's this government doing? I could go on and pull many—probably hundreds, if not thousands—transcripts out of Hansard from the previous years and find pretty much any one of the Labor senators over there commenting on how bad the COVID outbreak was and how more needed to be done. However, the fact of the matter is, there are currently more cases, more deaths and more outbreaks in aged-care facilities than ever before.
The silence coming from the Labor Party is deafening. The Prime Minister is silent. The health minister is silent. The aged-care minister is silent. In fact, the whole Labor Party is silent—because they're embarrassed. Now that they actually have to try and solve the problem, all they can come up with is silence and hope that no-one notices. Instead of acting on their promises of registered nurses on site 24/7 hours a day, seven days a week, more carers with more time to care, a pay rise for aged-care workers, better food for residents and dollars going to aged care, they are delivering a revised version of the previous coalition government's legislation, the aged care and other legislation amendment royal commission response bill 2021, which, of course, as opposition, we support.
The health, safety and wellbeing of senior Australians is of the utmost importance to the coalition, and we are committed to ensuring that our generational changes of the aged-care system continue on from the 46th Parliament into the 47th Parliament. However, it is astounding that, after all their talk in opposition, the nine years that they had to work on legislation, and all the promises they made coming into the election, their first move is to introduce a bill developed by the coalition. Good on you, guys!
I don't blame them, because our record on aged care is excellent, and if they want good ideas they only have to look at what the coalition achieved and how we responded to the problems that were occurring in the aged-care sector at the time. When we were in government, our formal response to the royal commission's final report was to accept, or accept in principle, 126 of the 148 recommendations. This is because we listened to the experiences of the Australians who gave evidence to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and took decisive action to implement the recommendations with the reforms to deliver vital services, improved quality of care and viability of the aged-care sector. In the 2022-23 budget, we delivered funding for aged-care reform of $522 million, and that built on the funding of $18.3 billion committed in the 2021-22 budget and the 2021-22 MYEFO. This brought the total investment by the coalition in response to the final report of the royal commission to more than $19.1 billion.
As I mentioned before, this legislation is a revised version of the previous coalition government's legislation: the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2021. That makes you wonder why, if the government now supports this, they delayed the passage of this bill for six months while in opposition? I think you can pretty much guess the answer, because there is only one answer. The government, when in opposition, was willing to play politics at the expense of our elderly Australians, solely for political gain, which, personally, I find absolutely disgusting. When we were in government, we outlined clearly the importance of this legislation and the Labor Party clearly now agrees with us, since this bill is before us today. The government should be absolutely ashamed of themselves and of their conduct. By delaying the passage of this bill by six months and then backflipping on their position—which, as we know, they could do at Commonwealth or probably Olympic level these days—to introduce it as soon as they are in government shows that they are more concerned with political gain than with improving the lives of elderly Australians.
Collectively, this legislation forms the second step in the previous coalition government's five-year reform agenda through the five reform pillars: home care, residential aged-care services and sustainability; residential aged-care quality and safety; workforce; and governance. However, a key change from the original bill progressed in the 46th Parliament is removal of the worker screening regulations contained in schedule 2, which sought to establish nationally consistent pre-employment screening for aged-care workers. These were important new regulatory arrangements that responded in part to recommendation 77 of the royal commission. They prevented, and were designed to prevent, unsuitable workers from entering or remaining in the aged-care sector. So it is disappointing, to say the very least, that the government has now decided to remove these protections from the bill. Why would you remove those protections for our elderly?
The coalition is still committed to supporting Australians as they age, ensuring that they are afforded the dignity and the respect that they deserve in their later years of life, so we will support this bill. Unlike those opposite, we will not toy with the lives of elderly Australians simply for political gain. We will, however, continue to keep an eye on the government to ensure that they are acting in the best interests of elderly Australians and to ensure that they continue the coalition's work of delivering the reforms that are so needed, as outlined in the royal commission.
I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. I'd like to begin by commending the new government on the important decisions that have been made in bringing forward this bill—particularly the Minister for Aged Care, Anika Wells—as a matter of urgency so early in the government's period of being newly elected.
The former government was handed the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety in February 2021. That's almost 18 months ago. In fact, it is almost three years since the royal commission's interim report was tabled. It doesn't sound like it was a matter of urgency for the former government, regardless of what Senator Van just put to the Senate and to the Australian people. The title of the report summed up the state of the industry in just one word, all those 18 months ago, which this previous government failed to act on—'neglect', neglect to expose. The royal commission concluded residents were left languishing with maggots crawling in infected wounds—it took the previous government 18 months to still not respond. Residents were left sitting or lying in their own faeces—that wasn't enough to get them to do anything in 18 months. Dreadful food, hydration and oral health, leading to widespread malnutrition and excruciating dental pain—they still did nothing for 18 months. Widespread use of physical restraints and sedatives on residents not for their safety but to make them easier to manage—and they did nothing in 18 months. There were 4,013 allegations of physical sexual assault of aged-care residents in just one year—and they could still do nothing for 18 months. The royal commission made 148 recommendations. The sheer volume and breadth of recommendations is reflective of how bad things were allowed to get. It demonstrates how urgently the reforms in this bill are required.
This bill will improve the health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians. Schedule 1 provides for the Australian National Aged Care Classification model for calculating aged-care subsidies. Schedule 2 facilitates the publication of star ratings, which will enable senior Australians, and their families, to make informed decisions about their aged care. Schedule 3 introduces the code of conduct for the aged-care sector. Schedule 4 extends the Serious Incident Response Scheme to approved providers of home care and flexible care. Schedule 5 strengthens the governance of approved providers. Schedule 6 facilitates increased information sharing between care and support sector regulators. Schedule 7 of the bill will increase financial and prudential oversight in respect of refundable accommodation deposits and bonds. Schedule 8 of this bill expands the functions of the renamed Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority. And Schedule 9 enables an interim solution with respect to the requirement to obtain informed consent for the use of restrictive practices.
The content of this bill clearly demonstrates that, under this new government, aged care is finally an urgent priority. Of course there's another aged-care bill making its way through the House currently which legislates Labor's commitment to 24/7-hour nurses in aged-care homes—a royal commission recommendation that was ignored by the last government. That bill will also enable the government to cap the fees charged by home-care providers, among other important reforms that I look forward to debating next week. I commend the urgency with which this government and the minister have acted to bring forward critical reforms. After 18 months of inaction and delay we finally have decisive action for our older Australians.
Of course, there is also much more to be done. I'm speaking particularly about the conditions suffered by aged-care workers. The former government has allowed a situation where aged-care workers are second-class citizens—a situation where, I'm certain, they would never want a member of their family working in the conditions experienced by aged-care workers. Through the Select Committee on Job Security, I heard firsthand from aged-care workers across Australia about these very issues. There are inadequate time and resources for staff to adequately care for each resident. Anu Singh, an aged-care worker in Melbourne, said:
The worst thing that I've gone through is that, at the workplace where I used to work, we used to have two carers for 15 to 20 residents, and they just gave us a time frame of 20 minutes. In those 20 minutes, we used to wake up our residents, who were about 90 years old, and do showering, toileting, dressing and undressing; tidy up their rooms; make their beds; and then take them slowly to their dining. Can you imagine doing all this just for yourself in 20 minutes? Well, we did that with our residents. We had to push ourselves. We don't just push ourselves physically. We are mentally stressed and emotionally broken.
And for that physical, mental and emotional strain, what do aged-care workers get in return? They get insecure work, usually part-time contracts with few, if any, guaranteed hours. They are required to be available for a shift any day of the week at just a few hours' notice. They never know how much money they earn in a week. They don't know if they can pay the bills or their rent. They can't make any personal plans or financial commitments. And on top of all that, they are some of the lowest-paid workers in the country.
Tracy Colbert, another aged-care worker, told us during the inquiry:
I work permanent part-time hours. I would love to have permanent hours. I don't know from one week to the next how I'm going to afford to pay for all of my living expenses. There are workers that only get five hours a day. They can't live and support their families … I've had a lot of friends that have left the sector because they just can't afford to make a living, and some of them had two or three jobs.
She also said:
We only get $22 an hour, so I have to work weekends, for low money. I do 11-hour days on a weekend, away from my family, to be able to support them. I've had a lot of friends that have left the sector because they just can't afford to make a living, and some of them had two or three jobs.
The disgusting reality is that this has become the norm in aged care. The people we depend on to look after senior citizens are being treated in a way that borders on contempt. Sheree Clarke, a nurse from Queensland, said:
When my mother went through cancer, I couldn't tell her that I would support her to her cancer appointments, because, if you're not available to pick up a shift, they don't offer you that shift the next time.
How disgusting is that? She went on to say: 'The people we rely on to care for our parents and grandparents are put in a position where they can't care for their own families.' Under the former government, this became the norm for aged-care workers. Nine in 10 aged-care workers are on casual or part-time contracts. Those part-time contracts usually have so few guaranteed hours, they are just casual contracts without casual loading, and that is the reality for 90 per cent of aged-care workers.
Somehow, that isn't the worst of it. In aged care and the NDIS, there are bottom-feeding platforms—gig platforms, like Mable—which have a business model based on paying workers below the minimum wage. As the Health Services Union's Lauren Hutchins told the job security inquiry these platforms:
are a combination of Tinder and Uber. You put your profile out there and people with disabilities or their carers then make a decision based on the information that is provided.
Mable told the job security inquiry that their workers can earn hourly wages as low as $25. The Mable workers are engaged as contractors, which means $25 is without superannuation. It's without any paid leave or any loading in lieu of paid leave. It's without any penalty rates. It's without consideration of any costs incurred by Mable workers travelling to home-care appointments. The fact is, when you strip all those costs out, Mable workers are paid only a fraction of the national minimum wage, let alone earnings anywhere near the award minimum for workers. And, if you let Mable grow in aged care, as the previous government did, we'll have aged-care workers living in their cars. We'll have aged-care workers having to skip meals to make ends meet. We will see the quality of care provided to senior Australians go into freefall.
And what did the former government do in response to the threat posed by Mable? They gave them $7.2 million to provide surge workforce in aged-care homes during the early waves of the pandemic. The former government paid Mable, a company that pays workers below the minimum wage, $7.2 million. And how did they go? Well, Mable's service quality was so woeful that they were hauled before the aged-care royal commission. Anglicare, which owned a facility in Penrith where Mable provided workers, told the royal commission: 'It quickly became apparent the staff that Mable could provide did not have the skills and qualifications that were needed.' That is what the Australian taxpayer paid Mable $7.2 million for: a workforce that was underpaid, exploited and incapable of providing the service that was required. What an utter boondoggle! Unbelievable! For much of the last year, Mable was being spruiked on the NDIA's website as a preferred provider!
So how did they even get there? Perhaps we need to look at Mable's owners and board, courtesy of reporting by Crikey. We know that, to our great shock and surprise, this dodgy outfit that exploits workers and got millions from the former government—surprise, surprise!—is owned and operated by donors to and associates of the New South Wales Liberal Party, such as the prominent Liberal fundraiser Matthew Playfair, prominent Liberal donor Lucinda Aboud and Liberal Party Double Bay branch vice president Ray Whitten. Here we see how the disgusting sausage gets made: mates of the New South Wales Liberals pile money into an outfit that underpays aged-care workers and disability workers and doesn't provide a service. The Liberal government pays them $7.2 million to provide care that is so bad it earns them a spot in the aged-care royal commission. Yet Senator Hughes comes into this building regularly and sings Mable's praises at every given opportunity. And—surprise, surprise!—when the royal commission recommended that these shonks shouldn't be used in aged care, the former government did not accept the recommendation!
This whole Mable saga encapsulates everything wrong with the former government. I'm glad that at least the Productivity Commission is now reviewing that issue, because there is a broad consensus that gig platforms—not all gig platforms, but gig platforms like Mable—are not conducive to an acceptable quality of care in aged care and disability care. That is the position of unions involved in the industry. That is the position of sector employers like Anglicare. That is the position of the Australian Medical Association. That is the position of numerous academics who made submissions to the Productivity Commission and to the job security committee. And that is the position of the aged-care royal commission.
So I again commend this new government for moving so quickly to introduce these reforms, and I look forward to the report of the Productivity Commission, because we need to end the scam being perpetrated by Mable and others with the support of the Liberal Party.
Well, we've heard evidence from the royal commission; I just want to read out a section of it. One of the submissions told the aged-care royal commission:
My father told me that when the man entered his room, he told the man to leave his room. The man then hit my father over his head several times with a plastic doll, resulting in a small cut to my father's forehead, bruising across the bridge of his nose and defensive bruising on his forearms. There were no staff around at the time the incident occurred.
Another said:
My 71 year old husband is a resident in aged care because of advanced Parkinson's disease. On the night of December 31 2018 he was horrifically sexually abused by 2 night duty staff …
Yet another told the royal commission: 'What I do know for absolute sure now is that Mum, who three weeks ago waited in anticipation for family to arrive and spent every day talking, laughing, reminiscing and going on outings and being engaged with life, is now drugged to the eyeballs.'
I think of my own family's experience in aged care, which at best is variable. My wonderful father-in-law, a terrific bloke struck by the ravages of Alzheimer's disease, a former Telstra liney who could tell you a story about every little country town and every bit of Telstra infrastructure throughout the Hunter Valley, in his years in aged care, his wife—my wife's mother—spent every daytime hour with him, making sure that he got fed and making sure that he got cleaned. The staff in that centre were really good people, but they did not have the resources that they needed. They did not have the staff they needed. They could not fulfil their responsibility. I remember the effort that my wife's mother put into Peter's care.
These are snippets of stories from the royal commission itself, but they are elements of the lives of every Australian family who's had somebody in aged care. The bravery of families, friends, carers in the system, advocates, peak bodies, the unions and others who submitted to the royal commission meant that it laid bare just how broken the aged-care system is. 'Shocking', 'alarming', 'harrowing' and 'a source of national shame' are just some of the ways the final report into aged care described it.
In the face of this mounting evidence, you would have thought that the previous government would have acted urgently on the 148 recommendations contained in the report. Well, you would be wrong. Consistent with their track record on so many issues, the Morrison government sat on their hands. They turned their backs on aged-care reform and on older Australians. The COVID-19 pandemic, of course, made this so much worse. It exacerbated the pressure on the system, in which a largely female, underpaid aged-care workforce was already under incredible strain. Almost a year after the final report was handed down, in March 2021, former Prime Minister Morrison called in the ADF to fill worker shortages in the sector—a year of inactivity and then called in the ADF. There was a year of policy failure, trying to fill the skills shortages, and then they relied upon our men and women in uniform to try and fill the gap. You can't help but think how different the COVID crisis in aged care would have been if the Morrison government had acted with some sense of urgency. Some of the backbenchers on the other side still don't believe that the COVID crisis was real, so perhaps that played a role in the government's dysfunction. At the time, Lynelle Briggs, one of the commissioners, said that the government should have heeded the warnings about the sector's longstanding workforce challenges much sooner.
Putting dignity, respect and humanity front and centre underpins our approach, the new Albanese government's approach, to fixing a broken system. We've introduced in the Senate a key piece of aged-care legislation, delivering on our promise to ensure older Australians receive the higher quality care that every single one of them deserves. Older Australians deserve a government that cares. Older Australians deserve a government that will do what it says that it's going to do and delivers on the promises to have the standard of care that each of them deserve. Bandaid solutions won't work. We have to be honest about the scale of the problem and the kinds of steps that will be required to fix it.
Comprehensive legislative action, delivered with the urgency that Australians deserve, will make a difference. The bill that's been introduced will introduce a new Australian national aged-care classification funding model which will replace the outdated aged-care funding instrument in October 2022. More equitable funding, matched to providers' costs will make a big difference in delivering the care that residents need.
The star-rating system will see the Department of Health and Aged Care publish a comparison rating for all residential aged-care services by the end of 2022. The extension of the—
Senator Ayres, it's now 1.30, a hard marker. You'll be in continuation when we come back to this legislation.
I rise in this place this afternoon to address a particular issue, and that is the disjointed reporting and the use of language under the general theme of 'an aggressive China'. We see an awful lot of articles in the newspapers—of course, newspapers and other media, our main way of receiving information—where we have US generals, many, many of them, admirals and other officials coming to this country and warning of the progress that China has made in relation to its military capability: how it now has the largest army, the largest navy, the largest maritime militia and the largest sub strategic rocket force that the world has ever seen.
China is out there, bullying and dominating, according to these many people, particularly in the western Pacific, and it's much more aggressive. We see nuclear powered torpedoes and we shake our heads in amazement. We think about the extraordinary technology, because we will get nuclear powered submarines in 20 years time but, all of a sudden, China has nuclear torpedoes. And they're saying that in 10 years time they'll have nuclear torpedoes. Speaker Pelosi, of course, wants to go to Taiwan, and if you want a trigger for a bad thing to happen then it seems to me that's a pretty good trigger.
But one by one these things are of vague interest. Put them together and they are absolutely terrifying. It's a beautiful use of language if we talk about the 'massive failure of deterrence'. But what really is the massive failure of deterrence? The massive failure of deterrence is what is commonly referred to as 'war'—that's the massive failure of deterrence. It's quite a simple word, but the next question we have to ask is, 'What are we doing about it?' (Time expired)
It's a great honour to be appointed Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery. Whether it's floods, bushfires or storms, when natural disasters hit Australians look to us to work collaboratively and urgently with state and local governments in their hour of greatest need. Australians all believe that we should be rebuilding their lives and communities, and building them back better and more resilient.
I've started receiving briefings, and listening to stakeholders from recently impacted disaster regions. There is a lot of optimism about what a change of government will mean for disaster recovery, but there is also a lot of frustration and scepticism, given these communities' experience with the former government—a former government which withheld disaster relief funding and which, after being pressured to finally provide support, excluded communities in Labor-held seats. This is disgusting. There was our former prime minister, who snuck off to Hawaii during the Black Summer bushfires and the now opposition leader, who made jokes about our Pacific neighbours suffering from rising sea levels.
This is the former government that appointed the former National President of the Liberal Party, Shane Stone, as our disaster recovery agency chief, despite having no experience in disaster recovery. Mr Stone's main contribution to the role was to insult flood victims, suggesting it was their own fault for living in areas prone to flooding. There's a lot of work to be done—
That's not true!
Senator McGrath! Senator Sheldon, resume your seat. Senator Scarr, are you taking a point of order?
Madam Acting Deputy President, my point of order is that there are gross reflections being made on a former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and I would suggest to my colleague that he should withdraw.
Because he's not a current chief minister, it's technically not contrary to the rules. But, Senator Sheldon, it would assist the smooth running of the chamber if you withdrew.
Chair, I would really prefer not to withdraw those comments, because they were an accurate description of what actually was said by Shane Stone.
You're disgraceful. You're just a mud-chucker; that's all you are.
Excuse me, Senator McGrath. Could you stop interjecting. Senator Sheldon, just continue your speech, in that case.
And, of course, despite having no experience in disaster recovery, Mr Stone's main contribution to the role was to insult flood victims, suggesting it was their own fault for living in areas prone to flooding. So there is a lot of work to do to restore faith—
Senator McGrath, please stop yelling and interjecting. It's disorderly. Senator McDonald?
My point of order is that that is grossly inaccurate, Mr Stone having managed the north-west flood recovery to the very great satisfaction of those people.
There is no point of order. Senator Sheldon, you have nine seconds left.
So there is a lot of work to do to restore the faith of communities and undo the damage of the last government, but we are hitting the ground running and making a difference.
Please note that this is not my first speech. Public school teachers are some of the hardest-working people in Australia. Throughout the pandemic, they have been beacons of reliability, dedication and compassion, working for the benefit of our kids in some of the most challenging teaching and learning conditions in living memory. The unshakeable positivity of the teaching profession under these circumstances is admirable. They deserve our thanks. But they deserve more than just our thanks. Public school teachers deserve better conditions and a pay rise.
I understand the value of the work that public school teachers do and I also recognise the complexity of their work. I have been a teacher for almost 30 years, and, immediately prior to joining the Senate, I was a teacher and a head of department at Gladstone State High School. I have seen firsthand how the current system is failing our public school teachers and their students. I have seen firsthand the ever-increasing pressures placed on teachers and the lack of funding to meet the challenges of more and more work with less and less time.
We need an approach to education in this country that values our public school teachers and empowers them to do what they do best without the additional burdens of operating in a system that is consistently underfunded and creates excessive workloads. Teaching conditions are learning conditions, and public money should be for public schools. My message to teachers is this: I am in your corner; you deserve better conditions and a pay rise, and we will work hard to make sure you get them.
The last time Labor was in government, it delivered no funding for mobile base stations—not a dollar for new or upgraded mobile infrastructure—and delivered the NBN to just 51,000 users. Its performance was abysmal. In setting out the Labor government's priorities for this term in the Governor-General's speech, mobile communications did not even get a mention—not one word. This is shameful.
Mobile connectivity is critical infrastructure, and that is why when we were in government we funded more than 1,200 mobile base stations and delivered more than a thousand new or upgraded base stations. This keeps families, students and small businesses connected, and of course this is also critical infrastructure when it comes to times of emergency, such as during bushfires, particularly in rural and regional communities. We get this. Labor did not.
Incredibly, Labor failed to back the Peri-Urban Mobile Program before the election, and it was only after very substantial advocacy from coalition MPs and senators that Labor reversed its position and backed round 1, to deliver 66 projects around Australia. I congratulate Aaron Violi. We went to Casey, and in less than 24 hours the Minister for Communications reversed Labor's position. But there's still the extension of the PUMP program. That is supporting peri-urban areas in regional major cities—Wollongong, Geelong, Gosford, Newcastle, Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, Townsville, Cairns, Darwin and Canberra. We committed $78.5 million. There's not a cent from Labor. This decision needs to be reversed.
enator GROGAN () (): I rise today to recognise the role of education in strengthening our democracy and to celebrate the efforts of teachers throughout the state, my state of South Australia, to promote a sound understanding of democracy in our school system.
To fully participate in our democratic process, people need to understand how it works, which is why it's so inspiring to see teachers in my home state delivering excellent education, teaching their students how this parliament works, how elections work, how votes are undertaken and what role they can play in being part of that. So at the start of this parliament, which is the sunrise after the election, I am filled with great hope.
I had an excellent visit with a school, St Paul Lutheran School, in Blair Athol just a few months ago. They invited me to go and talk to them because their students were studying exactly that: democracy, government, elections, voting and Australian history. As part of that, they were setting up their own political parties within the classroom and working out what the key issues for them would be, and they sent me a range of letters, that each of the students had put together, outlining what they wanted to see change. A number of them were about school uniforms. We had some dog parks. It also ranged to issues of taxing and social services.
They were very impressive letters, from a group of year 5 students from Blair Athol. They asked amazingly deep questions, which were a little confronting but an awful lot of fun. So I would like to recognise the extraordinary job that some of our teachers do in ensuring their students can participate fully and understand our democratic process. (Time expired)
This is not my first speech. I'll need a teensy little bit more than just a couple of minutes for that. But I couldn't pass up a chance to stand up here and say a big thank you thank all the people who worked so hard to get me into this place. I never thought, in a million years, that I would be a Senator. I'm not a politician. I'm a normal person, a Tasmanian. I'm an Ulvie girl who's lived in the same place on the north-west coast of Tassie for 25 years, with my beautiful partner, Tim, and our silly dog and our boys. And as proud as I am to be here, that's what I'm most proud of.
I love our state. I love who we are as Tasmanians. I cannot wait to bring a little piece of our community up into this place, just like Jacqui does every time she steps in here, because that's what Tasmanians deserve. We need people in parliament who are here for us. People who get us. People who know what it's like to live in a state like ours with all the absolutely amazing, fantastic, gorgeous bits and all the problems too.
So can I please say a big thank you to everyone who got me here. Thank you to the volunteers, the donors, the people who chucked up signs in their front yards and took them down for us after the big day, too. Thank you to Bruce, who brought me soup and went out of his way to get our signs up. Thank you to Sam, who went all the way to Bunnings just to get me a snag. Thank you to Katherine, who stood out in the rain for hours at the pre-poll booth in Burnie. Thank you to Frannie for the banana cake and coffee and all of the good support.
There are so many people who made this happen. But the clock's running down and I can't thank you all. You know who you are. You made this happen. You got us here. Our community, our people. We're breaking into this place because of the work you're doing. And this is just the start.
Senator Tyrrell, it wasn't your first speech but it was a very good speech. It was very gracious, and I'm sure you'll do your party proud and continue Senator Lambie's great work, especially in relation to veterans.
On 28 July 2022 the Deputy Premier of Queensland, Steven Miles, announced that the Wellcamp quarantine facility would be closed from 1 August 2022. In the announcement there was absolutely no reference whatsoever to the cost of the facility. What was the cost? The cost of this facility was $223.5 million, a staggering $325,000 for every person who used that facility, at a time when there is chronic homelessness in this country and in my home state of Queensland—a dearth, a shortage, of housing assets. I checked on the internet. That equates to something like the cost of 5,437 apartments or houses currently on the market in Queensland—5½ thousand residences you could buy with that $223.5 million. It is the worst example of pandemic politics that I have seen.
This facility was doomed from the start. Why? It wasn't near an international passenger airport. It wasn't near where most of the hospitals in the south-east corner are located. And the Commonwealth was building the Pinkenba facility. This was rank politics—putting politics before people. In October 2024, in the next Queensland election— (Time expired)
Earlier this week I wasn't able to make a contribution on the passing of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, but I just want to make a very short contribution right now. Like everyone in this place and right throughout the nation, I was shocked to hear of the assassination of Shinzo Abe. It was a very dark moment for democracy and looms large over those of us who are committed to representative government and the rule of law. Abe was one of Australia's strongest allies on an increasingly fraught international stage, particularly in our region, in the Pacific.
I recently had the opportunity to attend the Rim of the Pacific Exercise, as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, and I had the pleasure of speaking to the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, particularly Rear Admiral Hirata, the vice commander of RIMPAC. Japan's participation in this exercise was a very strong reminder of the positive influence that Shinzo Abe has had in bolstering Japan's positive and peaceful influence in our region. I continue to work with the Japanese people. No doubt there will be a parliamentary friendship group of Japan in Australia, and I look forward to being part of that.
All democratic nations are better off for Shinzo Abe's efforts. Abe's death must be taken as a reminder that we cannot take peace and democracy for granted, and we must all recommit to ourselves and to the people to defend our values, to defend our institutions, from these cowardly acts of violence, these acts of terrorism. I am sure everyone else in this chamber joins me in grieving for Abe's family and the people of Japan.
This is not my first speech. A new parliament is a chance for new politics, and voters have told us loud and clear that the old two-party system that delivered for the big end of town, while making everybody else wait, is no longer working. But we are already seeing worrying signs. We are already seeing who the new government plan to work for and who's going to be left behind. They're already working to ram through over $200 billion in stage 3 tax cuts, delivering for the rich at the expense of the many. They're pushing through 114 new coal and gas projects, blatantly ignoring the demands of the millions who voted for climate action. They are already ignoring the 15-month waiting list for public dental care, forcing people to wait until an emergency to get their teeth fixed. They're dismissing exploding inflation and the cost-of-living crisis. They're telling workers—workers!—to wait for a living wage while they hand out billions of public money to fossil fuel corporations and the big end of town. They are ignoring the six million people who access social support payments—a quarter of the country—who are being forced to choose between rent and groceries each week. Those people can't wait. They're abandoning young people, who are being forced into casual work, who won't ever own a home or who are facing decades of debt just to get an education. They're being told to wait by the Albanese government. Millions of people across the country voted for a new parliament, for new hope, and not so they could be told to wait. Today we are here with a record 16 Greens senators and MPs, and we're telling the Albanese government that the only restraint on delivering for good—for delivering now—is the scale of its ambition.
This is not my first speech. I was very pleased to hear the Attorney-General has stopped the prosecution of Bernard Collaery. The Attorney-General's action ended the unjust prosecution of a man who blew the whistle on the disgraceful attempt by the Australian government in 2004 to defraud the impoverished people of Timor-Leste of their oil and gas resources by spying on their sea boundary negotiating team. They were spying on what were supposed to be good-faith negotiations.
Regrettably, the end of the Collaery trial isn't the end of excessive and unjustified state secrecy in our courts and tribunals. Today, there's another secret proceeding happening in the Melbourne office of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The matter relates to a request to the National Archives for access to a 22-year-old cabinet submission relating to the Timor Gap negotiating strategy of the Howard government. The applicant, former Senator for South Australia Rex Patrick, wants full disclosure of Mr Howard's and Mr Downer's dirty dealings. But this Labor government is happy to have a secrecy certificate applied to the proceedings. Mr Patrick is fighting against the government's refusal to release historical documents, but he's not allowed to see the documents and is being prevented from hearing the government's arguments. He has both hands tied behind his back.
The secrecy around the Howard government's attempts to steal Timor-Leste's oil and gas has to end. Australians want full disclosure. The Timorese want that too, and while secrecy continues there will be an elephant in the room when our officials meet with theirs. As His Excellency Xanana Guzmao said in the AAT proceedings, 'Continued secrecy creates a sense of suspicion and impropriety, and cannot remain a feature of'— (Time expired)
Brave farmers in the Netherlands are protesting their government's draconian and tyrannical climate policies and, through peaceful protests, they're defending their livelihoods and their liberty. They deserve our support. They're standing up for their own country and everyone who opposes the elitist, globalist agenda being imposed on people throughout the world. The Dutch government, led by the World Economic Forum, is imposing a climate agenda that will result in thousands of farmers having to forfeit their land all because their government says that cows and soil are contributing to climate change. This is all in accordance with the United Nations 2030 agenda for sustainable development. These actions will do nothing more than transfer wealth and property from the hands of hardworking people into the hands of the already ultrawealthy elites. This is a weaponisation of fear, falsehoods and threats.
The Labor government in this country is now seeking to pursue its own reckless emissions policy, with Mr Albanese referring to climate change as a 'national security issue', a bizarre and nonsensical claim, unless he means that climate policies weaken us and make us more vulnerable to outside threats like the Chinese Communist Party, in which case I agree. There's no way to achieve these reductions without transforming society in ways that will cause many Australians, including farmers, to lose their livelihoods.
How long before the Australian government tells Australian farmers they're not allowed to work? Good, hardworking people have had enough of these senseless, arbitrary government intrusions into their lives, and they're standing their ground. Whether these are the Dutch farmers or the Canadian truckers, freedom-loving people are peacefully holding the line. And if the Australian government pushes further with the 2030 agenda in this country, then, God willing, Australians will need to start speaking up.
As servants to the people of Queensland—or our states—and Australia, we have a sworn duty to tell the people the truth rather than what people would like to hear. Responding to fabricated narratives from predatory billionaires and their mouthpiece media is not honest government. Legitimising fairytales is not honest government. We live in an age where feelings are the new facts, when facts are conspiracy theories. Successive parliaments let this happen. We were elected to lead, not to follow. I always vote the facts, not the narrative, and I will continue to do so. Too many others in here do not. As a result, the next decade may be the worst in our history for freedom, opportunity and personal wealth.
With a change of government we have a chance to choose what is right over what is expedient. Is Prime Minister Albanese capable of accepting that challenge? Time will tell. I sincerely wish the incoming government well and offer my support where that support is merited. Will the Nationals and Liberals learn from this election and return to their roots, representing farmers, families and aspirational Australians? Time will tell. I certainly hope so. Nothing will serve Australia better than making the next election an old-fashioned battle of ideas.
In the last election, the lack of vision from both major parties left voters underwhelmed and disappointed. The focus groups fine-tuned bland policies into a bland sameness, leaving voters uninspired. One Nation is ready to begin the debate of ideas that will carry our beautiful nation and all within it forward to a future of freedom and abundance. We will be more focused on generating and endorsing the visionary ideas our nation needs for future prosperity, where families and personal responsibility are ascendant over collectivism and oppression, where Australians' interests are placed ahead of foreign globalist interests, where we have one world made of many countries, not one country made of many worlds. We have one flag. We are one community. We are one nation.
OCOCK () (): I note this is not my first speech. On Tuesday, we were welcomed to country and parliament in a powerful and beautiful ceremony. So many Australians want to tell the truth about our history and move to treaties and a more powerful voice for First Nations, but our work has to be more than words. We have to make sure that we do no fresh harm.
In this light, as I speak, one of South Australia's First Nations communities, the Barngarla people, are in the Federal Court arguing against the plan to put Australia's low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste on Barngarla land near Kimba. We talk about voice. The Barngarla people's voices have not been heard in this decision. They've been ignored and they were excluded from the local ballot on this matter, but they have been clear to a person that they do not want this dump on their country. They want to protect their country, country they spent 21 years winning native title for. They are now in court opposed by this government, which is pursuing the previous government's terrible decision. They are arguing against a fleet of lawyers to be heard and to be listened to. If we're serious about the Uluru statement, about addressing the hurts of the past, then we cannot layer new hurt on old.
For a people who experienced generations of fallout from British nuclear tests at Maralinga, like members of the Barngarla community have, we must not now add new insult to injury. There is not broad support in South Australia for this dump, and most South Australians have had no say over its siting. We must listen to the Barngarla people. There are different solutions available to this government—better solutions. The new government must find another way, a way that ensures we don't just make speeches about truth-telling while adding new injury today.
I rise to remind the Labor Party that northern Australia matters. It matters to me, to my coalition colleagues and to the 1.3 million people who call it home. On 2 June I said I feared the installation of a Labor government would herald the sunset for northern Australia. I hope to be wrong, but on the very first day of this new parliament Labor abolished the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia and has thrown the region's future under a cloud. Only people who don't appreciate both the potential and the challenges of the north would make such a decision, thinking that northern issues are just the same as southern issues. The arrogance and ignorance of this attitude is truly breathtaking.
We in the north pay more, and in many parts we can't make a mobile phone call. Our children's schooling is hampered by slow internet. The Bruce Highway is cut off by every heavy rain event. We have unsealed roads that isolate communities for months in the wet season. But despite all of this, through sheer will, attitude and hard work, the north protects, feeds, clothes and enriches the whole country. The Australian resources sector, much of which is based in the north, poured $39 billion in royalties and taxes into government coffers in 2020-21 and added $390 billion to our economy, funding roads, schools and hospitals used by all Australians. Our northern beef industry is worth more than $5 billion, and more than 90 per cent of our bananas, mangoes, sugar cane, winter tomatoes and other horticulture are grown north of the Tropic of Capricorn.
All these people and these critical industries are relying on Labor to look out for them, but they've been abandoned at the very first step. Under the coalition government, we built momentum for developing the North, and I'll be moving a motion in the Senate that the committee be re-established and give the North the specialised focus and policymaking it deserves. (Time expired)
We will now move to question time.
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt. Yesterday in question time, when pressured on how many passengers have walked through sanitised foot mats, the minister said:
A hundred per cent of passengers have been walking through sanitised foot mats.
The minister has clearly misled the Senate. In fact, tens of thousands of passengers have disembarked from Bali since the outbreak in Bali on 5 July and the installation of the foot mats only this week without footwear being disinfected. I wrote to the minister informing him of this misleading statement yesterday, and he still has not taken the opportunity to correct the record and make a ministerial explanation to the Senate.
Honourable senators interjecting—
When will the minister do the honourable thing and correct the record to the Senate?
Before I call the minister, I am going to ask that you respect the senator asking the questions and not interject and that you listen to the minister's response.
Well, that's a pretty sad way for this question time to start out today, given that I think on three or four occasions yesterday I actually answered the question that you are asking. I have received a letter from you, which I have signed a response to. You may have even received it by now.
Well, maybe talk to your office, but we certainly have signed off a response. I will confirm yet again—I'm probably up to five times, six times, seven times—that 100 per cent of passengers who have returned to Australia from Indonesia since the foot mats were in place on Monday and Tuesday—
Honourable senators interjecting—
That's what I said. That's what I said.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order!
Wow! Is this what you've become? Is this what you've become?
Minister, resume your seat.
Order! Senator Ayres!
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Birmingham!
Order! Senator Ayres, I had just called the Senate to order and you interjected. I would appreciate you following my order, when I call for order, that you do not interject. Senator Watt, please continue.
It is rather interesting that it is only since the election and their going into the opposition that the opposition have become interested in foot mats, because, of course, this outbreak reached Indonesia on 9 May. What did the opposition do about foot mats or biosecurity zones or any of the things that we've done in response to the outbreak? Well, I'll tell you what they did. The former minister, Mr Littleproud, when the outbreak reached—oh, come on!
Minister, resume your seat. Senator Brockman, a point of order?
On relevance. And, oh, come on, Senator Watt, answer the question. Do not attack the opposition.
Senator Brockman, just a moment, please. I'm not quite clear what your point of order is. Can you go directly—
I'll come to you, Senator Wong.
I apologise for responding to Senator Watt's interjection; however, I was making a point of order on direct relevance. This is not an opportunity to attack the opposition or previous government policy.
Thank you, Senator Brockman. Resume your seat.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Wong and Minister Watt! The question was about foot mats. The minister was directly referring to foot mats. As you know, I cannot—
Minister Watt, I haven't called you. I cannot direct a minister on how to answer a question, but he is being directly relevant to the question, which was about foot mats.
He misled the Senate!
Order! Senator McGrath. Let's allow the minister to continue the answer. Minister.
As I was saying, I am pleased the opposition has become interested in foot mats, because when this outbreak reached Indonesia on 9 May, what did the former Minister for Agriculture Mr Littleproud do? Did he introduce foot mats? Did he introduce a biosecurity response? No. Do you know what he did? He sent a tweet! He sent a tweet; that is the only thing Minister Littleproud did at the time. And then he didn't say anything until 6 July.
Senator McKenzie?
Madam President, this is actually a grave matter that this minister—
Senator McKenzie, what is the point of order?
on the first day hasn't been—
Senator McKenzie what's your point of order?
Direct relevance.
Thank you.
This minister has misled the Senate—
Senator McKenzie—
and is not dealing with it in his question.
Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Minister Watt, there was a direct question about mats. I was giving you some latitude, but please get to the directness of the question.
Thank you, President. I have lost count of the number of times I have now answered this question. I did it repeatedly yesterday, again today and in a letter today. Former Minister Littleproud was not the only person to say nothing about foot mats or the outbreak until it got to Bali. We heard nothing from Senator McKenzie until 19 July. She didn't comment once when it got to Indonesia. (Time expired)
Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question.
ator McKENZIE (—) (): I refer Senator Watt to his statement to the Senate yesterday that Australia has:
… approximately one million vaccines available to us in a stockpile and they are available within one week's notice.
Given this fact, why won't vaccines be delivered to Indonesia, which is going through an uncontrollable outbreak, for more than four weeks, as first advised, and not arriving until August, as you informed the Senate?
Senator Wong.
I rise on a point of order, President. I'd ask you to rule as to whether that's in fact supplementary to the primary question. If the minister wishes to answer, obviously, it's a matter for him, but that is not, in my submission, a supplementary to the primary question.
Thank you, Senator Wong. Senator Birmingham?
President, on the point of order: both the question and the supplementary question relate to the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Indonesia. Both of them relate to answers given by Senator Watt in question time yesterday on the same related issue. It is demonstrably a supplementary question to the primary question, and you should rule Senator Wong's point of order out of order.
Thank you, Senator Birmingham, I'll take some advice. Given there has been different views expressed by Minister Wong and Senator Birmingham, I'm advised that the question is broad enough to allow that first supplementary. But I will review the Hansard and, if necessary, come back to the Senate with an answer. I invite the minister to respond.
Thank you, President. I'm happy to take the question. It seems that the opposition—
But you're not going to answer it, though, are you?
Senator McGrath! Senator Brockman?
President, it's direct relevance. The minister cannot start an answer with 'the opposition'. I mean, that is a significant—
Senator Brockman, resume your seat.
That—
Senator Brockman! I have asked you to resume your seat. Order! The senator has just commenced his answer, so we will see where he goes in the next breath. He has barely said two words. Minister.
Thank you, President. As I was saying: we have ordered vaccines for Australia and we have them in a vaccine bank to ensure that we are properly prepared for a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, should it reach Australia. The former minister's question goes to Indonesian vaccines. Now, I know this might come as a surprise to the opposition, because it's something they never practiced when they were in government, but, when you work with other countries, you need to do it cooperatively. You actually need to develop a partnership relationship as opposed to the kind of relationship your government cultivated with our friends in South-East Asia and the Pacific.
So, when the Prime Minister was in Indonesia—where he was very well received, I might point out—he offered assistance in the form of vaccines to the Indonesian government. At that point in time, they decided to pursue their own interests. We have since, as a result of my visit, offered a million, and they're coming. (Time expired)
Senator McKenzie, a second supplementary?
Yesterday, the minister said, 'Biosecurity officers will not only be deployed into airports; they will be deployed into mail centres' as well. How many of the 18 new biosecurity officers are currently operational at mail centres? Which mail centres are they, and what is their specific foot-and-mouth disease passenger intervention task?
I anticipated I might get a question about this, because it came up yesterday.
Because you didn't answer it last time.
Would you like the answer?
Thank you. Interjections across the chamber are disorderly. Please continue answering the question, Minister Watt.
My intention, as is normal practice, is to answer the questions that I took on notice yesterday at the end of question time today, which is what many ministers on your side of the chamber have done.
The answer is that my announcement was that our new funding, funding that your government, when you were in power, did not commit and did not implement, will deliver 18 new biosecurity officers. They are currently being recruited, and, in the meantime, we have employed 65 contractors and 10 other officers. Again, I make the point that every action we have taken—sanitation foot mats, biosecurity response zones, extra biosecurity officers—were never taken by your government when this outbreak got to Indonesia. All you did was send tweets.
Minister Watt, resume your seat. Senator McGrath, I have asked politely on a number of occasions that you not interject. Please desist with the interjections. They are disorderly. Thank you, Minister.
It's no wonder, with this calibre of debate, that industry is backing the government. (Time expired)
Senator McGrath, I directed you just then not to interject, and the minute the minister got up you interjected again.
It's not a debate. Senator McGrath, it is not a debate with me. It's a direct request. I'm asking you to stop being disorderly.
If I may, President, in relation to your previous point of order, I just wanted to refer you to Odgers'and I do this also so that the opposition can be aware of the position of the government. In relation to the use of supplementary questions, President McClelland made a statement in which he said:
… supplementary questions are appropriate only for the purposes of elucidating information arising from the original question and answer. They are not appropriate for the purpose of introducing additional or new material or proposing a new question, even though such a question might be related to the subject matter of the original question.
Whilst I do note that there have been some changes in standing orders since that time, I would ask you, perhaps subsequent to question time, to consider that.
Whilst undertaking that review, I would encourage you to look back at past consideration of questions that were asked. I think you will find that, in terms of the relationship between the question that is asked and the supplementary questions, oftentimes that relationship relates very specifically to the subject matter and the flow of the small issues related to those subjects. In this case, the discussion of foot mats and the discussion of vaccines being supplied to Indonesia clearly all relate to the foot-and-mouth outbreak and are following the very common practice since the process of having a primary question and two supplementary questions was introduced into the Senate.
I thank both leaders for those comments. As I said, I'll review the Hansard and come back to the Senate if necessary.
On a point of order, I'll just very briefly observe, President, that we are chewing up a lot of time at the moment. Question time yesterday had a very small number of questions asked and time was consumed by excessive points of order. I just simply ask senators, including Senator Wong and Senator Birmingham, to consider the passage of time while they are making their points of order.
Senator McKim, I can reassure you that, during this current debate and points of order, the clock has been stopped.
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Can the ministers advise the Senate on the state of the economy following the Treasurer's economic statement today?
I thank Senator Green for her interest in the economic situation across Australia and the Treasurer's ministerial statement that he made earlier today. It's true that we are facing a very challenging set of economic circumstances, both domestically and internationally, and the Treasurer in his address to the House of Representatives today delivered that message but also importantly the message that the Australian economy is growing but that there are some challenges that need to be managed in the near term. We have been upfront with Australians about that since coming to government, and we will continue to be upfront and honest as new challenges emerge.
Today, in the latest update of Treasury forecasts, the Treasurer outlined that economic growth has been revised down by half a percentage point for the next three years. Inflation is expected to peak at 7¾ per cent by the end of the year, and the inflation challenge will obviously have an impact on the outlook for real wages and real wages growth. The forecasts also show with inflation and with real wages it will get worse before it gets better but that it will get better. The current expectation is that inflation will indeed get worse this year, moderate next year and normalise the year after. The Treasury forecasts also show that real wages are expected to stabilise mid next year before growing again in 2023-24.
When it comes to the budget, the final results for the 2021-22 financial year are likely to show a better-than-expected improved outcome compared to what was released at PEFO. However, temporary factors like supply chain disruption, capacity constraints and extreme weather have delayed some spending, and low unemployment and volatile commodity prices boosted revenue. The short-, medium- and longer term pressures on the budget are— (Time expired)
Senator Green, a first supplementary question?
Can the minister advise how these challenges in the economy are impacting on Australians?
I thank Senator Green. We absolutely understand the impact that this is having on Australians and Australian households. It's why we are being really upfront with the Australian public. It's because Australians are up for that. They want honest government. They don't want a government of spin, pretending things are fine when they're not. They want a government that understands the challenges they're facing—that household budgets are stretched, that bills are going up and that wages aren't matching that. They've had 10 years of stagnant wages growth, at best. They've had nine years of a government of missed opportunities and wrong priorities. This government is going to be clear about what the challenges are and clear about the plan to manage those challenges and to help households deal with that. But we are not going to pretend that nine years of neglect and poor government can be reversed overnight. (Time expired)
Senator Green, a second supplementary question?
What are the government's plans to deal with these challenges?
Opposition senators interjecting—
President, I know responding to interjections is disorderly, but from the interjections I have managed to hear whilst I've been talking those opposite will be interested in the answer to this question. Despite what those opposite say, we do have a plan to deal with the economic challenges we face. Part of the plan is to deal with the waste and rorts that they had riddled through their budget—billions of dollars of waste and rorts, pork barrelling, the buying of seats and the buying of votes. That's part of our plan as we reorganise and reprioritise the budget. We have concrete plans—child care, cheaper medicines, cheaper and cleaner energy. We've got plans to grow wages—you get that; grow wages, not hold wages back which is what you did—and invest in skills and make sure that our people are ready for the jobs of the future. This is what a responsible government should have been doing for the past 10 years and what we're going to do now. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Youth, Senator Watt. On Tuesday night, on the 7.30 program, the Prime Minister said, 'We intend to honour our promises.' The Prime Minister promised on 3 December last year that Labor's policy 'will see electricity prices fall from the current level of $275 per household by 2025'. Minister, with young Australians impacted by cost-of-living pressures, will the government honour this promise?
President, I do question whether that's an appropriate question for me—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! Please resume your seat, Minister. Minister Wong?
Point of order in terms of the addressing of a question to a minister: I understand that the opposition used the word 'youth'. The policy which was referred to in the question is not within Minister Watt's portfolio; it's within Minister Bowen's portfolio, and that would be the appropriate minister—who is the minister representing that? It's me, I think!
Senator Birmingham, on a point of order?
Very briefly, mindful of Senator McKim's observation: the question didn't reference a specific policy. The question referenced the promises of the now government and the now Prime Minister, and it referenced those promises in the context of cost-of-living pressures specific to young Australians. Senator Watt represents the Minister for Youth in this place and therefore should answer questions relevant to young Australians.
Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I think Senator Watt is comfortable to take the question? Minister Watt, I'm going to ask Senator Wong to confirm who the repping minister for the Minister for Youth is. Minister Wong, I'm just wishing to ascertain that the repping minister for this question is Minister Watt?
If the minister wishes to—I was actually trying to be helpful to the opposition—
Opposition senators interjecting—
I know—believe it or not! I'm very happy—
Opposition senators interjecting—
If I could finish my sentence? I was just going to say: if you want to readdress the question to the appropriate minister, I will take the question. If you wish to persist with it to Minister Watt, it's a matter for him to answer.
I think at this point there's been no redirection from Senator Chandler, so I invite Minister Watt to respond to the question.
I'm always happy to talk about our plan to bring down energy prices and your utter failure to do so in the 10 years that you were in government. Unlike the opposition, the government has a plan. It's probably one of the reasons we won the election—that we actually have a plan going forward to bring down power prices in the way that we promised. The best thing about that is that at the same time not only will our plan bring down power prices, something that you were incapable of doing over 10 years; it will also bring down emissions, something you didn't believe in doing for 10 years let alone achieve. And we will create over 500,000 or 600,000-odd jobs—there are so many I can't remember the exact figure; that's how many jobs we will intend to create—including five out of six in regional Australia.
Our plan will help young people with their power prices. Our plan to lift wages will help young people, especially because of the number of young workers who work in industries like hospitality, retail and minimum wage jobs. What did those people get from a Labor government? They got a government that supported a wage rise—something you weren't prepared to do for the 10 years you were in government. Our policies will bring down youth prices, something you couldn't do—
Minister, resume your seat. Senator Birmingham?
President, a point of order on the question of direct relevance. Indeed, in the previous point of order, I commented—and I highlighted the fact—that the question didn't ask specifically about a policy of the government. It asked about a promise made by the now Prime Minister. That promise was that Labor's policy will see electricity prices fall from the current level by $275 for households by 2025.
Senator Birmingham, what's the point of order?
The question is: is the government going to honour that promise? Senator Watt is not addressing that precise promise—
Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senator Wong.
On the point of order: this is precisely why the opposition should have readdressed the question. He's responding—
No, no. He is not the minister representing the minister responsible for the policy position.
On the point of order raised by Senator Birmingham, I noted that—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has raised a point of order on the question which I am seeking to respond to. On the point of order, the minister is being relevant. It talked about electricity, it talked about promises and it talked about bringing prices down and young people. In my view, the minister has been relevant. Minister Watt, please continue.
Thank you, President. We have every intention of delivering all of our election commitments, whether it be this one or any other commitment that we made, such as getting rid of the ABCC; establishing an anti-corruption commission—something you didn't do for the last three years; and lifting minimum wages, which is something that has already happened under this government and which, as I say, benefits younger people as well. I might just note that not only did the former government fail to do anything about power prices in the 10 years that it was in government, it had the hide in the run-up to an election to actually hide from the Australian public how much those power prices were rising, because this mob over here will be the people who will be always remembered for hiding the increase in the default market offer price, which has increased power prices in New South Wales alone by up to 19 per cent— (Time expired)
Senator Chandler, your first supplementary?
Minister, with cost-of-living pressures faced by young Australians travelling to work and study, will the government extend the reduction in the fuel excise?
Sorry—
'Will the government extend the fuel excise'.
The number of interjections means it was impossible to hear that question. Could I ask for it to be—
Senator Watt, direct it to me. If you require the question to be repeated, then simply ask me.
President, would you mind having the question repeated? It was impossible to hear due to the interjections.
Senator Chandler.
Madam President, I can oblige. Minister, with cost-of-living pressures faced by young Australians travelling to work and study, will the government extend the reduction in the fuel excise?
Senator Wong, is there a point of order?
Point of order: wrong minister and not a supplementary question.
Senator Birmingham—and then I'll come to you, Senator McKim.
Equally, briefly, the question relates to young Australians. The minister is the Minister representing the Minister for Youth. The question relates to cost-of-living pressures, as did the primary question.
I'm going to respond to that point of order. As I said, there's already—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Just resume your seat, Minister.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! There is a question before the chair on supplementaries. In the same way that I have agreed to look at that previous question, we will look at this question and whether it relates to the primary question. If it doesn't, we'll report back to the Senate. Senator McKim.
Thank you, President. My question is to the minister—
Sorry, Senator McKim, I thought you were rising on a point of order.
No, I'm trying to ask a question.
We will get to you. Thank you. Resume your seat.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator McKim, resume your seat. Thank you.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator McKim, resume your seat! I advise the Senate that the question asked by Senator Chandler has been directed to Minister Watt, and he can answer it only within the broad depth of his policy area. I think he had some time left, but I will check—yes. Senator Watt.
Well, unlike the opposition, this government cares about young people. But as to the specifics of this question, I refer them to the responsible minister.
Senator McGrath, Senator Chandler is entitled to have silence while she asks her question. Senator Chandler, a second supplementary?
Thank you, Madam President—
Order, Senator Wong. Senator Chandler, please continue.
The ABS confirmed yesterday that inflation has risen to 6.1 per cent, the highest level in 20 years. When can young Australians expect the government to provide specific details on measures to help them with cost-of-living pressures?
With the greatest of respect, I think that is a question that is appropriately directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Youth, which is why I'm happy to give you an answer. Again, unlike the opposition—
Senator McGrath, take a breath, please.
Unlike the opposition, this government does care about young people. It has a minister in place with programs for young people, and the best thing that we have already done, in the short time that we have been in power, for young people is to ensure that they got an increase to the minimum wage, because of the sheer number of young workers who are on the minimum wage—something that the opposition consistently refused to do. Remember how low wages were a deliberate design feature of the Australian economy under this mob? No wonder they lost the election, and no wonder young voters refused to vote for them in droves.
There are two ways that you can deal with cost of living. One way is by bringing down costs—and that is what we fully intend to do with the promises that we have put in place. The second way you can do it is by lifting wages. And everyone knows that will only happen under a Labor government; it will never happen under you mob.
Thank you, Minister Watt. The time has expired. Senator McKim.
We will try again, and finally. My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher—and, Minister, congratulations on your ministerial appointments. Two weeks ago, the Australia Institute released research which showed that rising profits, not rising wages, are a primary driver of inflation in Australia. Earlier this week, former ACCC chair Mr Rod Sims observed that, in times of high inflation, companies in concentrated markets—which many Australian markets are—can use their market power to increase prices at a higher rate than their costs are increasing and further exacerbate inflation. Does your government accept that corporate profiteering is a primary driver of inflation in Australia? And, if so, what are you going to do about it?
I thank Senator McKim for the question. There's no doubt that rising inflation is the most significant economic challenge that Australians are facing across the economy. In terms of the drivers of that, I think we saw, as to yesterday's inflation figures from the APS, the main drivers behind that were dwelling costs and rising fuel costs; they were the major contributors to that.
We have been very clear about our response to that. There are some things that we can do. Some it is out of our control, in relation to some of the international pressures that are coming from China and from the war in Ukraine—or China's COVID strategy and the war in Ukraine. They are definitely having impacts here locally.
Domestically, where there have been floods and some of those natural disasters, we've seen some supply chain disruptions which are flowing on to higher costs for households. The position that we have taken is that, in order to respond to those, we need to assist households with long-term policy responses which support lowering costs: so, on power prices; childcare; investing in skills; getting wages moving—they're the things that this government wants to do to deal with the reality of households dealing with rising costs and rising interest rates which are hitting households so hard. That's the focus of Dr Chalmers and I, as we work together to put forward our budget in October, but also, over the longer term, how we deal with some of the higher inflation and higher-than-expected inflationary impacts that we're seeing across the economy.
Thank you, Senator Gallagher. Senator McKim, a first supplementary?
Minister, the Treasurer has just told Australians that, because inflation is rising, they should brace for higher unemployment and further real wage cuts. But the Treasurer said nothing about what corporations who are earning record profits should brace for. Why is the government telling those who can least afford it to brace for yet more pain yet we are hearing nothing at all from the Treasurer about what the profiteering corporations should brace for?
What you saw from the ministerial statement is a very honest assessment from the Treasurer about what households are experiencing now and what they can expect in the future. This is part of the different approach that we are taking in comparison to the approach of the previous government, where it was all about spin, short solutions and political fixes. The assessment today in the ministerial statement—and it will be followed up in the October budget—is giving people the best and latest information available to the government about what we expect to happen over the next year, which will be updated, of course, in October.
I understand the point that Senator McKim is making, but the approach that this government is taking is about pulling people together and working with each other to deal with some of the challenges. It's no longer the divisive game that has been played in politics about those that have and those that have not. (Time expired)
Senator McKim, a second supplementary question?
Minister, given corporate profits are at record highs, why has your government ruled out introducing a corporate super profits tax or taxes which could fund cost-of-living relief by providing high-quality free public services to Australians, such as free child care, truly free public education, and putting dental into Medicare and helping Australians address the cost-of-living crisis?
The government's position is that we will work with the private sector, with business and with community groups—right across the board. We don't want to divide. We don't want to point the finger between the haves and have-nots and point the blame at anyone. We are dealing with significant economic challenges right now. Households are feeling it. There is no such thing as free money, Senator McKim. There is no such thing as free money going anywhere—that you can just do this and it will be just that. It doesn't work. We are dealing with these economic challenges that are thrown at us. As households are trying to find extra dollars, we are looking across our budget at ways we can re-prioritise and reinvest to deal with some of these cost-of-living pressures. But we are going to be honest about it and we are going to work across the community and business to make sure that we get these decisions right. And we're going to do what we said we were going to do before the election. (Time expired)
It gives me great pleasure to ask a question of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt. Minister, the emergence and rapid spread of foot-and-mouth disease in Indonesia has heightened public and industry interest. FMD is a potentially devastating threat to our economy and our industry and would cost billions of dollars. Can the minister please outline to the Senate the biosecurity measures that have been strengthened and introduced in Australia by the minister and the Albanese government to protect Australia from an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease?
Thank you, Senator Ciccone. I know that agriculture in general and particularly this outbreak are of great concern to you. So I appreciate you asking a question asking for the facts of the situation. The Albanese government is taking the threat of foot-and-mouth disease very seriously. That is why we have introduced the toughest biosecurity measures that have ever been introduced in Australia, based on expert biosecurity advice. I am pleased to say that, as a result of these measures, Australia remains foot-and-mouth disease free. You might not know that based on what you are hearing from the opposition, but we remain foot-and-mouth disease free. And long may it stay that way because an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Australia would have a devastating impact on our economy and on the livelihoods of thousands of Australians.
In direct response to the spread of foot-and-mouth disease to Indonesia and in particular to Bali, we have strengthened biosecurity measures beyond those that were in place under the former government to protect Australia from a foot-and-mouth disease incursion. These include, for the first time ever, wide-scale deployment of sanitation foot mats in every international airport in Australia and, for the first time ever, the declaration of biosecurity response zones in all Australian international airports. These things have never been done by any Australian government, despite the fact that we currently have 70 foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks around the world. There are so many measures that I don't have time to go through them, but that is just a start on the types of things that we are doing in addition to risk-profiling 100 per cent of passengers returning from Indonesia and screening all mail and freight items coming from Indonesia and China.
So it's no surprise that those measures have been backed in so strongly by the livestock industry. For instance, Jason Strong, from Meat and Livestock Australia, says the federal government's response to date has been 'very coordinated and collaborative'. Patrick Hutchinson, from the Australian Meat Industry Council, has said 'AMIC is very supportive of the Australian government's measured response.' Fiona Simson, from the NFF, has said the same thing. There are innumerable comments from industry. (Time expired)
Senator Ciccone, a first supplementary question?
I really thank the minister for that comprehensive and detailed answer to my question. In addition to the recent outbreak in Indonesia—as you mentioned in your answer, Minister—there are outbreaks in over 70 countries around the world. But what assistance have you and this government provided to our friends and neighbours in Indonesia to assist them to manage the outbreak?
Thank you, Senator Ciccone. Foot-and-mouth disease obviously is heavily impacting Indonesia and its economy right now. Again, I might say that it was impacting Indonesia prior to the election of this government and prior to the introduction of the measures that we have put in place. With this government's assistance, Indonesian authorities are doing many things to get the outbreak under control. On 15 July I announced a $14 million biosecurity package to bolster Australia's front-line technical defence and provide more technical support for countries currently battling foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease. Of course, that followed the visit that I undertook to Indonesia to meet with Indonesian ministers about how we could assist.
Again, it's no wonder then that so many industry representatives have praised the government for what we've done and it's no wonder that so many industry representatives have criticised commentary about this issue which has been more political than anything else. Ian McColl, from the New South Wales Farmers Association, says, 'I see some people out there using this outbreak as a weapon to further their own ends, and frankly it's pretty disappointing.' I wonder who he could be talking about.
Thank you, Minister Watt. Senator Ciccone, a second supplementary?
It's very clear that foot-and-mouth disease, along with other diseases and pests, poses a major risk to Australian agriculture. So my last question to the minister today is: could you please outline to the Senate how the government's response to biosecurity threats differs from that of the previous government?
Thank you, Senator Ciccone—a very, very good question. The coalition are full of ideas now that they're in opposition, but when they were in power they didn't implement any of the measures that we have put in place, despite the fact that this outbreak got to Indonesia on their watch. This government has done more on biosecurity in nine weeks than that lot did in nine years. Everyone, from the National Farmers Federation to the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association and AgForce in Queensland, is supporting the government and criticising the opposition. Mr McColl, from the NSW Farmers Association, had more to say:
Farmers have argued for stronger, sustainably-funded biosecurity systems for years – this isn't something that's just happened overnight.
… Fanning the flames of fear will not help one little bit.
Who could be fanning the flames? I wonder who could be doing that. Oh, Deidre Chambers—she's over there! He's over there! Every single person on the opposition benches is fanning the flames of concern, is letting down farmers and is endangering our international trade. (Time expired)
My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. I'm just going to be really sensitive here. It is about domestic violence. My heart goes out to you people. But there will be questions that we need to ask to make sure that we can get these policy settings correct. Senator, respectfully, I want to know how your government's proposal to introduce 10 days domestic violence leave will work in practice, so my first question is this: will employees have to tell their bosses that they are a victim of domestic violence in order to claim domestic violence leave?
Thanks, Senator Lambie, for a really important question. I do realise that this is a very sensitive issue that, frankly, affects many people in this chamber, let alone the wider community, and I'm very proud of the fact that our government is introducing legislation to provide domestic and family violence leave for the first time in this country. It's something that many people have needed for a long time. I'm proud that we have introduced that legislation and I look forward to wide support of that legislation.
As you would understand, I'm not the responsible minister. I am the representing minister and I'm very happy to obtain specific answers to your questions. They're very valuable and worthwhile questions, and I don't want to give you the wrong information. But I'll provide you with that information as soon as I possibly can.
Senator Lambie, a first supplementary?
Minister, it's common for employers to ask their workers to show a medical certificate for their sick leave. What evidence will employees have to give their employer to claim domestic violence leave?
Again, thank you, Senator Lambie. Again, not being the responsible minister, I will have to come back to you with specific answers to those questions. But I can assure you that this government does take the privacy of victims of domestic violence very seriously. I'm sure that Minister Burke, who's responsible for this legislation, has contemplated these issues and is working with stakeholders around them. I'll certainly encourage him to continue doing so. But again, if you wouldn't mind, I could come back to you with some specific answers to those questions.
A second supplementary, Senator Lambie?
Lastly, will employees have to work in their job for a certain period of time before they can get access to that leave, and, if so, for how long?
Thank you, Senator Lambie. Again, I'll need to take the detail of those questions on notice and come back to you as quickly as I can. If there's anything I can do as the repping minister to facilitate further discussion with you and your team, I'd be more than happy to do so.
Senator Nampijinpa Price, I believe this is your first question. Welcome.
Thank you, Madam President. My question is to Senator Farrell, the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. The sites of the current CDC income support programs were put in place at the request of the communities in which they operate. Can the minister advise which of these communities and their community leaders were consulted by the minister prior to the Labor Party making the decision to scrap the cashless debit card, and which of these leaders and communities supported that decision?
I thank the senator for her question and note that it is her first question. Good luck for your time here in the Senate.
This is an issue that the government has been dealing with—in particular, the Minister for Social Services, Amanda Rishworth. Of course, legislation was introduced into the parliament, the lower house, this week to end the process of the cashless debit card.
Because you didn't do your homework. You didn't go and talk to the communities.
I'll take that interjection, Senator Lambie, because I am aware that the minister did in fact consult very widely—
Rubbish.
with all of the communities—
Do you want to have a debate over that?
You've interjected, Senator Lambie, and I'm trying to answer the question as you've interjected. I'm personally aware of a number of visits that Minister Rishworth made to these communities. I can tell you that Minister Rishworth visited Ceduna in South Australia, and she talked to the community there about these issues—
Madam President, on a point of order on relevance: the question was very specific—about the consultations that took place before the decision was made. I would ask the senator to make sure when he is responding to that question that he doesn't mislead the Senate, because I believe he may be referring to consultations or engagements that occurred after the decision was made.
I remind Minister Farrell of the question: Senator Nampijinpa Price asked which communities requested coming off the CDC and which communities were consulted.
I want to be clear that those discussions that took place did take place after the election, but they took place— (Time expired)
Senator Nampijinpa Price, a first supplementary question?
Will the government guarantee that the rates of crime, including domestic violence, child neglect, and alcohol and drug fuelled violence, will not increase after the removal of this important social support program?
I thank the senator for her question. There obviously are serious issues in a range of communities in this country, but what we know from the evidence of the 17,000 or so people who were on the cashless debit card is that it wasn't solving the problems that it was alleged would be fixed by this cashless debit card. Labor could not have been clearer. The Labor Party could not have been clearer about what its policy was in the lead-up to the last election. We made—
President, a point of order on direct relevance: the question wasn't asking what the government's policy was prior to the election. The question was specifically about the consequences of the legislation the government has introduced to abolish the cashless debit card and specifically asking the minister whether or not the government can give a guarantee that the rates of crime, domestic violence, child neglect et cetera will not increase.
Senator Birmingham, as you are aware, I can't direct a minister to answer a question. Certainly, Minister Farrell did talk about the evidence and proof and so on, so he was, in my view, being relevant to the question. I ask Minister Farrell to continue.
The reality is that there was no evidence whatsoever that the cashless debit card was— (Time expired)
Senator Nampijinpa Price, a second supplementary question?
Is the government intending to remove compulsory income management from the Northern Territory?
No.
Senator Babet, I believe this is also your first question. Congratulations.
Yes, it is; thank you, President. My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister update the Senate on what the government is going to do to reduce the $963 billion of national debt?
I thank Senator Babet for the question, his first question in this place. The senator is right to point out that we face a significant challenge managing the almost $1 trillion—it will hit $1 trillion next financial year—of Liberal debt that has been left for this government to manage.
That's not true!
It is true. There's $1 trillion of Liberal debt—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Ayres!
that is left in the budget to manage. There's debt going out into the future. Whilst those opposite would like to say that this is all a result of the pandemic, the former government had doubled the debt before the pandemic hit. Let's not forget that. Their fiscal vandals had done the damage before the pandemic hit, and now we are all going to be paying the price for it—and the cost of servicing that debt is increasing and increasing rapidly.
We've seen the latest figures from the Treasurer that some of that cost of servicing debt is going to exceed programs that currently pay for the childcare subsidy, higher education—those types of programs run by the Commonwealth government. The cost of servicing debt is going to exceed those. That's the situation we're in and that's why the work we're doing, Senator Babet, going through the budget line by line, is to see where sensible savings can be made so that we can reduce that debt over time.
It is one of the key challenges facing us as we work through the Expenditure Review Committee to make sure that we can deal with some of those challenges over time, and servicing debt and managing the debt is a really important part of strong, responsible budget management.
Senator Babet, a first supplementary?
Inflation has just risen to a horrifying figure of 6.1 per cent—absolutely huge. The cost of electricity is a component of CPI. What is the government's plan to reduce the cost of electricity?
I thank the senator for the question. The Labor government went to the last election with a plan known as the Powering Australia plan. That involves setting up rewiring Australia, which is a fund—
Well, we have to modernise the grid. I won't interject to Senator Rennick, but, in case he hadn't noticed, we need to work out how to get more renewables into the grid so we that can lower power prices, something that you guys failed to do over years and years. We need to grab the opportunities that are going to come with modernising the electricity grid so that it can take in more renewables—good for lowering our emissions and lowering power prices.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The cheapest energy is renewable energy, and we can't get it into the grid because you guys did nothing. So that is what we'll do. (Time expired)
Order! Senator Brown. I'll call all senators to order. This is Senator Babet's first set of questions. He has the right to ask them in silence and hear the answers in silence. Second supplementary, Senator Babet?
The RBA has increased the cash rate, which has triggered an increase in home loan rates. What's the government's plan to help the millions of Australians who will experience hardship as a result of not being able to meet their ever-increasing mortgage repayments?
I thank the senator for the question. And it's an important question because it's about how households manage with increasing costs not just from mortgages but from going to the shops, filling their cars up—the prices of everything are going up.
The areas that we think we can make the most difference as a government—obviously there are the short-term additional payments that were made through the former government's budget, which are still going through the system. But where we believe the most responsible investments can be made to support households so that they can manage some of these costs are by trying to lower power prices, lower childcare costs, getting wages moving and dealing with some of the supply chain blockages and disruption that we've seen. That's actually the areas where we, as a government, can make a difference. I think everybody understands the challenges that people are facing and that they can't be fixed overnight, but we're a responsible government that's going to make those investments to help over the longer term.
My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. Australian exporters are struggling with the combined impact of 10 years of neglect on the world stage and the additional challenges of the pandemic. Can the minister advise how the newly announced Export Supply Chain Service will help our Australian food and beverage exporters navigate some of these challenges?
I thank Senator Smith, one of the very many good young women on this side of the chamber, for that question. There's no doubt that some Australian exporters have done it really tough as a result of the neglect by the previous government, the worsening conditions during the pandemic as well as Russia's terrible war on the Ukraine. Exporters are critical to our economy, and they deserve a government who will stand with them and ensure that they get the support they need to thrive. To this end, last week in Brisbane, I announced the establishment of a new service to help Australian food and beverage exporters navigate global supply chains.
One of the biggest ongoing challenges for Australian exporters is getting their produce to international customers. Over the past few years, the freight environment has changed irreversibly. There's no doubt that the supply chains we see today are very different to the supply chains that we saw prior to the pandemic. To help these exporters navigate these complexities, the Australian government has established the Export Supply Chain Service. Under this new service, Australian exporters, state and territory governments, and industry bodies will have access to information and insights on supply chain issues. It will give Australian exporters the information and the insights that they need to inform their decision-making and navigate what have become very complex supply chain issues.
Throughout the pandemic, many Australian businesses have demonstrated ingenuity and grit in response to ongoing trade disruptions. With the aid of the Australian government, they will continue to do so. (Time expired)
Senator Marielle Smith, a supplementary question?
As we work to restore our international reputation, what is the minister hearing from Australian exporters and businesses about how the new service will support their recovery?
I was fortunate enough last week to attend the Brisbane Markets—
Hear, hear!
Yes, it's a lovely set of markets. I visited a company called JH Leavy. This is a company that exports a whole range of produce overseas. In fact, you might like to know, Senator Birmingham, that I saw them exporting some navel oranges from Waikerie into the—
Senator Ruston approves! This little company working out of the Brisbane Markets exports all over the world and, like all the other companies that export these great Australian products, they have been suffering through this pandemic. (Time expired)
Senator Marielle Smith, a supplementary question?
Can the minister advise what other actions the Albanese government is taking to facilitate and support trade opportunities for Australian businesses after a decade of inaction?
I congratulate Senator Marielle Smith for taking an interest in trade, which the opposite side doesn't seem to be at all interested in. The Albanese government is supporting Australian businesses because—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Well, let's talk about wine exports. You completely let down every single exporter of wine in this country, let me tell you. One of the reasons you lost this last election is you didn't understand what you were doing to Australian exporters in meat, in crayfish, in wine or in barley. None of those industries got any support from your government. But we are committed to repairing the damage that you did to this country and to those exporters, and we're going do it.
President, I'd like to move an extension, but instead I will ask that further questions be placed on notice.
President, on the review of questions that you undertook earlier, I note that it was first raised in relation to questions from Senator McKenzie to Senator Watt regarding foot-and-mouth disease, and that those questions went through related issues of foot mats, vaccines and biosecurity officers. As you undertake that review I would encourage you, while noting that I believe all these questions are in order, to look equally at the question from Senator Ciccone on the same topic of foot-and-mouth disease, which went through domestic measures and then separately asked about assistance to Indonesia and the actions of the previous government. I think you will find there's a consistency there. I would contend that they are all in order.
Thank you, Senator Birmingham. We'll take particular notice.
I advise the chamber that I have additional information to provide in response to questions I took on notice during question time yesterday, and, as is the custom, I will provide those answers.
In response to the question I took on notice from Senator McGrath, as I advised the chamber yesterday, on the week commencing 11 July, 23,600 passengers arrived from Indonesia by air with 90 per cent of those travellers coming in from Bali.
In answer to the question I took on notice from Senator Birmingham, I advise as follows. On 15 July, as part of the government's $14 million funding package to strengthen Australia's prevention and preparedness for foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease, we announced 18 new biosecurity officers would be employed at our mail centres and airports. The increase in biosecurity officers has been added to an already running biosecurity officer recruitment program, and this program will be finalised by the end of September 2022. Officers will then be trained and deployed to Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Darwin, Cairns and Adelaide. In the meantime, my department is bringing on an additional 65 contractors and 10 team leaders to assist with biosecurity efforts at our international airports and mail centres. New contractors began in both Sydney and Melbourne on Monday.
In answer to the question I took on notice from Senator Roberts, the exact number of doses held in the vaccine bank is considered confidential information in the interest of national security, including to protect against bioterrorism threats. We hold enough vaccine doses, I am advised, to cover at least the first four months of a disease response, which then provides time to order more vaccines should they be required. The vaccine manufacturer prioritises the production of vaccines for countries that are experiencing a disease outbreak, hence the priority being given to Indonesia at the moment.
Finally, in answer to the question I took on notice from Senator Cash, stakeholders were consulted about the government's plan to abolish the ABCC on the following dates since the election. On 17 June this year, a meeting was held with the CFMEU construction division. On 21 June this year, a Zoom meeting was held with the AWU national executive. On 29 June, a meeting was held with the ACTU. On 5 July, a meeting was held of Commonwealth, state and territory ministers with responsibility for workplace relations. On 19 July, a meeting was held of the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council at Parliament House. I'm advised that at this meeting, the minister informed stakeholders, 'The building code will be amended to ensure that workers in building and construction are subject to the same rules as those in other industries.'
Council members include representatives from the Housing Industry Association, Ms Melissa Adler; the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Scott Barklamb and Andrew McKellar; the ACTU, Sally McManus, Michele O'Neill, Scott Connolly and Liam O'Brien; the Business Council of Australia, Ben Davies; the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, Gerard Dwyer; the Australian Resources and Energy Employer Association, Steve Knott; the National Farmers Federation, Ben Rogers; the United Workers Union, Joanne Schofield; Master Builders Australia, Denita Wawn; and the Australian Industry Group, Stephen Smith.
I move:
That the Senate take note of answers by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Watt, to questions asked today.
Well, today was a masterclass by a minister who has clearly still got his training wheels on. This is a minister who is way out of his depth. I've got a lot of experience with this man. For the last three years, whenever we've done interviews together, this guy has done nothing but throw smear and mud. He hasn't been able to answer any questions. We just got a long list of answers then from the questions that he took on notice yesterday because he is not around the detail. He is not around the detail. He doesn't take the livestock industry seriously in this country, and it's not surprising. He grew up in inner-city Brisbane. He went to a posh inner-city school. He's never gone any further west than the Oxley pub!
He knows nothing about agriculture in this country. And let me tell you: the livestock industry in this country is the backbone of this country. It's not just beef. It's sheep and it's pigs. It's cattle and camels, and also all the wild feral animals. So if foot-and-mouth gets out—we've got wild pigs roaming around out in the regions—this will be very hard to contain.
Of course, what Senator Watt doesn't realise—he likes to blame the previous government for not doing anything—is that foot-and-mouth only got into Indonesia on 9 May, but the key part of it is that it only got into Bali on 5 July. That is after Labor took government. That is a classic example of spin by Senator Watt. Now, as he just pointed out, 90 per cent of the traffic that comes from Indonesia is from Bali. So that is why the previous government didn't do anything, in terms of not having to do anything—there was no serious outbreak until it got to Bali. But when you've got travellers going over to Bali and coming back—90 per cent of the people coming back are basically not thinking of foot-and-mouth; you don't expect to when you go to Bali; that's not the first thing on your mind—Senator Watt tries to downplay just how serious this issue is.
Let me tell you this: if foot-and-mouth gets into this country, it will be very serious. Every farm within a three-kilometre radius of where a foot-and-mouth outbreak is diagnosed will have to have all of their livestock destroyed on the spot. And if that continues, we will see the devastation of our livestock. That is not a laughing matter, and that is something that Senator Watt should be taking more seriously, and we know that he's not because his good colleague here, Senator Ayres, pointed out that they took a long time to even have any foot mats. They didn't have any foot mats. So he's taken a long time to respond. He's only bringing on 18 extra biosecurity staff. That is not enough when you've got 90 per cent of 323,000—about 300,000 people—coming from Bali. How on earth are 18 extra security officers going to actually make sure that we trap foot-and-mouth in this country?
The other thing that I want to talk about is the fact that the Labor Party think that they are going to look after our youth. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Labor Party have a long history of destroying the dreams and aspirations of our young people. There's no greater example of that than the introduction of superannuation in this country. Right now, our young children who are on low incomes are having 10 per cent of their income taken from them. It's just now jumped to 10½ per cent in the last month, and Labor want to take it to 12 per cent. But that's not enough, because in a second term, if they get in, they're already talking about lifting it to 15 per cent. Now, I fail to see how that's going to help our young people deal with the cost of living. They are ripping money out of young people's pockets and giving it to their mates in the industry super funds and their rivers of gold.
This is why they won't do anything about the corporate sector either. It is because the Labor Party today is the party of the big end of town, and never ever forget that. They've marched through the bureaucracy. They've marched through the corporations. They love big business. This is the party of big business, and they've just been ripping the fees—over $30 billion in fees—out of hardworking Australians every year, and this is why they go paralytic whenever you talk about touching superannuation. It's not your money. You should give that money back to the young people and let them pay off their mortgages. But, you see, they don't want that, because the industry funds own over 20 per cent of the banks in this country. They want to rip off our young people both ways: through bank fees and interest and through superannuation fees.
I also rise to make broad and wild statements about the questions asked today of Senator Watt. It's wideranging, yes, because having such a broad remit here is quite good. The first thing, just to be really clear, is the manner in which this debate has rolled on over the last two days. There has been the asking of questions and no sense of wanting to hear the answers at all. On the foot mats: it's very clear they were decided upon by the minister. They were announced by the minister. They were commissioned by the minister. And they were then installed. They were installed on Monday. The numbers given were appropriate numbers.
I think the entire approach here has been wild—I appreciate that the opposition may be suffering with quite a lot of grief at the moment, but the behaviour—
We're okay!
Okay, that's lovely; glad to hear it! It's important!
The number of people returning from Indonesia since the outbreak was answered the previous day, and the updated numbers based on following questions were also answered. If you're actually looking for a genuine investigation of what's happening with this critical issue, then you should potentially improve your questions, listen to the answers and bring further questions on from there.
Senator Rennick, a point of order?
She's not addressing the question. We're not here to get lessons on how to put questions to the ministers. If you could ask her to stay pertinent to the actual relevant questions.
I appreciate the point of order, but I believe Senator Grogan is relevant. There's a fair bit of latitude in this part of the day.
If we're talking about the facts here, we have introduced the toughest biosecurity measures ever used in Australia. We have remained calm and focused on maintaining strict biosecurity quarantine protocols to keep this virus out of Australia, which is what we intend to do, which is what we will do with the measures that have been put in place.
We have strengthened the biosecurity measures. We have a $14 million biosecurity package. We have deployed sanitised foot mats, as we've discussed. We have additional frontline resources at the airports and in mail centres. We have enhanced the mail profiling and inspections. We have added biosecurity officers boarding planes on arrival. We have increased the information flow. Everything is being done to make sure that this issue is being managed and that we will not have an outbreak in this country. We have the support of the major stakeholders, who also believe that we are dealing with this appropriately. So I don't think that there's room for the opposition to be looking at this situation as a joke, as a shouting match. There are facts here. The facts are fully available. We are taking appropriate action and this country will remain safe. Our relationship with our international friends and partners is something that the Labor Party has worked very hard on, and has made fundamental improvements in, in the last number of weeks since it took government.
I would also range to the issue of the questions from Senator Chandler around young people. At the point at which Senator Chandler started asking her questions, and all the yelling and shouting and heckling was going on, the entire gallery was full of school students. I'm pretty confident that the kind of behaviour they saw in this chamber is not the behaviour that they would be allowed to get away with at home or in the classroom. Heckling is something that goes on every question time, but not listening to the answers is not something that I believe we did.
I will also take you to the fact that when we're talking about the economic future of young people, and the situation they find themselves in, we have experienced a decade of energy policy paralysis. That is why we have got issues with our energy prices. We have spent a decade under the previous government with the wrong investments in skills and local manufacturing capacity. We have not boosted the jobs of the future. We have not invested in our young people. We have not provided them with appropriate training to build their careers and foster a positive future for themselves. This country, under the previous government, just totally put those young people aside and did not provide them with the opportunities that they deserve.
I rise to continue taking note of answers given by Minister Watt. As somebody who has been involved in the agriculture industry all of my life and received hundreds of representations from farmers and graziers across this country every week since the discovery of foot-and-mouth disease in Bali, I share the industry's concern about the politicisation of this discussion. I called early for greater steps to be taken in the response not because I was interested in a political outcome but because I was urged by industry—by farmers and by graziers—to provide a sense of urgency to both the department and the government. They were incredibly distressed about the impending risk to their herd and their farmers' and graziers' mental health and about the impact on consumers and on the cost of food.
We all know what the impact of both foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease arriving in this country would be. We don't need to continue that discussion, because it is too horrific to think about. When foot-and-mouth disease arrived in the UK in 2001, it spread the length of that country. Contaminated meat came in on an airline food tray and was fed to pigs. It travelled the length of the country within days. It got into Ireland and then spread with the export of animals to France and the Netherlands. This all happened within such a short time frame that the contamination and quarantine zones resulted in the destruction of six million head of sheep and cattle. The impact on farmers, butchers, truck drivers and consumers still lives with them today. It was desperation.
So the response that the opposition has had has not been, as has been suggested, a political one but one of sheer desperation in ensuring that the government is making a proportionate response to the risk. That is our job. Our job is to ensure that we represent our industries and that the response is suitable.
I have to tell you that it's now week 4 since the discovery of foot-and-mouth disease in Bali. Indonesia is a completely different country because there are a lot more pigs than in other countries that you travel to and they are a superconductor of foot-and-mouth disease. It grows quickly and spreads easily amongst that herd. Also 25 per cent of the 143,000 Australians who travelled to Bali last month stayed in a private residence where the ladies who might be cooking for that family or that household might return from caring for their sick animals at six o'clock in the morning and cook a meal for the Australian family before they get on a plane back to this country at, say, eight o'clock in the morning. So the risk profile is very different. That is why the previous government, like this government, was watching the risks as identified by the department. But we are now in a different situation.
I acknowledge the measures that have been introduced by this government, but I do have to, once again, point out that it has been too slow. The foot mats that are in place contain citric acid. Normally contact with citric acid to kill foot-and-mouth disease or a virus like that would take 30 minutes. We are asking people to walk across the mat, shaking the dirt from their shoes, hopefully killing the virus as the dirt falls on the mat. It doesn't address the entirety of their shoe. It doesn't address the other footwear and clothes that they have in their suitcases.
We have also been asking that all food that comes into the country be dumped in big food tubs the way it is when going into the Northern Territory or New Zealand because that is a proportionate response to the risk to this nation. We're also flagging that the response and the money being spent, $14 million, on vaccines going into Indonesia and Papua New Guinea is not enough. It is not fast enough. It is not proportionate. That is the job we will continue to carry out.
Deputy President McLachlan, this is my first opportunity to congratulate you on your role. I would like to take it. I was getting a bit worried about the lack of South Australian representation in this chamber, so it's very pleasing to see you in the chair. There are not enough South Australians in that central area of the chamber, I would say!
Thank you for your kind words.
I was really, really pleased to hear the sudden interest from the other side today in youth policy in Australia, particularly in the economic impacts for youth. I do wonder if, if the opposition hadn't abolished the Youth Advisory Council, if perhaps they would have fewer questions and more answers around what young people in Australia are thinking and needing and wanting from their government. I'm very pleased to let the opposition know that, under a federal Labor government, a thoughtful, detailed youth policy is back. We're going to have a new youth engagement model. We're going to have a fantastic Minister for Youth in Anne Aly. So, for all those questions which went unanswered for you during government because you abolished the advisory board, there's really great news: young people finally have a seat at the table again, just as they should.
Senator Farrell referred to me as a young person today, and whilst I don't take any issues with that—at the age of 35, it's nice to still be called young!—I will be respectful of those Australians who are actually within the government's definition of young. I won't speak on their behalf or for them, but I will advocate for their interests.
When this lot opposite were in government, we saw intergenerational theft, when young people were forced to raid their superannuation accounts during the pandemic—intergenerational theft targeting the people in our country with the lowest balances of superannuation. They were forced to raid that. Do you think they will ever get that back? Do you think they will ever catch up from that act of intergenerational theft? They will not.
Young people in Australia are doing it really tough, and they've been saddled with the burden of $1 trillion worth of debt from the former government. They were saddled with a former government who had stagnant wages as a design flaw of its economy—unlike the Labor government, which has already advocated for an increase in the minimum wage which will make a real difference in young people's lives. Young people bear the burden of failures of government more than any other group in our society. They have to deal with it for the longest. When I was elected to parliament, I made a vow to stand up for children and to stand up for young people, and that's exactly what I am doing.
I am so proud to be part of a government with fairness at the heart of all of our plans—with concern for the next generation at the heart of all of our plans. We never stop thinking about the next generation. We've got some great policies for them. We've got fee-free TAFE—what an excellent policy if you're a young person. There are 465,000 fee-free places, including 45,000 new places. My stepdad is a TAFE teacher. We've seen firsthand how amazing TAFE can be and the opportunities it has for young people from the dedicated and passionate workforce which delivers it. For those kids who want to go to university—we know university is not everything, but for some kids that's the thing which will unlock their dreams, their potential and their future—$481.7 million will go to deliver 20,000 extra university places. This is unlike the former government, which made it more expensive and more difficult for young people to go to university.
If you want to hear about a positive agenda for young people, I could go on more. I'll take an extension of time. I'm really pleased you're interested.
I'm so glad you're back, Senator Rennick! It's so great to have your engagement back. I think the only time I've been named in the Senate before was in response to an interjection from you, but I promise to behave myself this time. It's nice to have you back. I know it's been a bit tough, but it's nice to have you and your interjections back.
Young people can trust that our government will never forget them. In every way we consider and design policy, we take seriously our responsibility as custodians for the next generation. Our responsibility, our heartfelt belief which defines all of us as Labor people, is to leave this nation better for the generations that come after us. That is core to every single person who sits on this side of the chamber. It is our reason for being and our reason for being Labor. We care about the next generation. We will make Australia better for them, because we're in it for them and not for ourselves. It's great to have you back, Senator Rennick!
Sorry about that, Mr Deputy President. I was just enjoying Senator Rennick's interjections—which are always disorderly, I would remind Senator Rennick.
I too rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Watt. At the beginning, I will note the very thoughtful contribution of Senator McDonald. Like Senator McDonald, I too come from a farming background and, like Senator McDonald, I care deeply about the agricultural industries of Australia. As Senator McDonald said, we in this place are reflecting on the level of concern we are hearing from our agricultural communities that under threat from foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease and the response that is currently occurring.
Senator Watt was sworn in from 1 June. Yes, foot-and-mouth disease was present in Indonesia when Senator Watt was sworn in. But, in July, foot-and-mouth disease reached Bali, a full month after Senator Watt was sworn in. The number of arrivals from Bali to Perth in the month of July was around 17,000 people—17,000 individual passengers returning to Perth airport from Bali. From the evidence given and the dates publicly available as to when foot baths, foot cleaning, became available in the airport, there were two days of foot cleaning available in the airport. That means—and I'll be generous—that around 1,500 or, at best, 2,000 passengers had access to those foot baths. So we had 17,000 passengers arriving back in Perth in the month of July and, at best, around 2,000 of them had access to foot baths at a time when—probably for all that time—foot-and-mouth disease was present in Bali.
Foot-and-mouth disease was only detected in Bali, I believe, on 6 or 7 July. However, everybody knows that the presence of foot-and-mouth disease would predate the actual date of declaration. So we effectively had a full month, with more than a month of warning before that, of Senator Watt being the minister, and around 15,000 individual passengers returned on planes from Bali to Perth and there were no foot baths and no increased level of inspection. Anecdotally—and I know you cannot rely on anecdotes in this place; you need hard evidence—I have spoken to numerous people who went through the airport returning from Bali in that period who ticked a box saying that they had been to a farm, who ticked a box saying they had been to rural areas, and who received no additional inspection—no additional inspection and no additional precautions to take footwear out of bags, to examine it for dirt and to look for potentially contaminated products in luggage. So you had people doing the right thing and declaring—Australians care deeply about agriculture—and then nothing happens.
The other thing that worries those on our side is when you have a state Labor minister downplaying the serious threat of foot-and-mouth disease and saying, 'Oh, it could make milk and meat cheaper.' Have we heard one word out of the federal minister for agriculture on that topic? Have we heard one word from Minister Watt, the minister for agriculture, the minister who is responsible for protecting the agricultural industries of Australia? Did he repudiate that state Labor minister? There was not a word, and yet this is the state Labor minister who the minister said, in his own words, yesterday that he is relying on to manage biosecurity.
Question agreed to.
enator McKIM (—) (): I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to corporate profits.
I want to start by making the point that in all three of my questions—the primary question, the first supplementary and the second supplementary questions—despite my explicitly referring to the issue of corporate profits and specifically asking about the issue of corporate profits, Senator Gallagher could not bring herself to say the words 'corporate profit' in any of her responses to my questions. The facts are these: corporate profits in Australia are at record highs—they are soaring and they have never been higher—and corporate profits are significantly contributing to inflation and they are significantly contributing, therefore, to the cost-of-living pressures facing ordinary Australians.
In the House today, the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, gave a long speech telling Australians that they should brace themselves for hard times ahead. He told Australians to brace themselves for higher unemployment and for their real wages to go backwards—or, I should say, to continue to go backwards. And he warned us to brace ourselves for those things because interest rates are going up. It was a speech heavy on the hand-wringing, heavy on the old 'we don't want to gloss over the glaring issues' schtick and heavy on the old 'we can't bury the bad news' schtick. It was the Treasurer doing his best ashen faced routine. But what was most striking about his speech was what he didn't mention, and what he didn't mention is that corporate profits are soaring. Corporate profits are at record highs, and a record high rate of Australia's income is being siphoned off by private capital. And not once did the Treasurer mention that these record-high corporate profits are actually a primary driver of inflation in Australia. That is a critical point, and it's a point that the Treasurer didn't make today in his speech in the other place, and it's a point that the Minister for Finance, the minister in this place representing the Treasurer, refused three times to acknowledge today.
Two weeks ago, the Australia Institute released research which showed that Australia is at the beginning of a price profit spiral. Their analysis found it is rising profits, not rising costs or rising wages, that are driving Australia's inflation. The executive director of the Australia Institute, Richard Denniss, made the obvious point. He said:
While workers are being asked to make sacrifices in the name of controlling inflation, the data makes it clear that it is the corporate sector that needs to tighten its belt.
Earlier this week, former ACCC chair Rod Sims said that one of the ways that big corporations can help fuel inflation is that, 'when there is high inflation, dominant firms often realise they can increase prices above any cost rises because consumers will be more accepting of this'. In other words, when inflation is running hot, corporations with market power, which many Australian corporations have, use this as cover for profiteering. This is fundamental stuff, obvious stuff.
By all accounts, next week the RBA will again increase interest rates, and this is going to hurt the most those who live below the poverty line, as always; renters, as always; and new home owners, many of whom bought because they believed the Governor of the RBA when he said rates weren't likely to move until 2024. But these people who are about to feel the pain because inflation is running hot have had little or nothing to do with causing inflation to run hot. Instead of giving corporate Australia a free pass, the Treasurer should be telling corporate Australia to brace itself for a superprofits tax. We need a super profits tax in this country to raise $460 billion in revenue so that we can do things like free child care and put dental and mental into Medicare to address the cost-of-living crisis.
Question agreed to.
Honourable senators, it is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 3 April 2022 of the Hon. James Joseph Webster, a Senator for the state of Victoria from 1964 to 1980.
Deputy President, I think this might be the first time you have been in the chair for me to have an opportunity to congratulate you on your very fine election.
Another South Australian!
We're taking over, you'll have to be careful! You'll have to watch it!
This is my melancholy duty, on behalf of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong: by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its sorrow at the death, on 3 April 2022, of the Honourable James Joseph Webster, former senator for Victoria and Minister for Science and the Environment, places on record its gratitude of his service to the Parliament and the nation and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
I rise on behalf of the government to express our condolences following the passing of a former senator and minister, the Hon. James Joseph Webster, at the ripe old age of 96. As I begin, I wish to convey the government's condolences to his family and friends.
Born in Tasmania in 1925—specifically, on Flinders Island in the Bass Strait—James Webster spent his first years there before his family moved to a farm near Melbourne. After completing school, with two brothers at the war, he remained at home to manage the farm and serve in the Air Training Corps before training in business and accountancy. After gaining some experience in other environments, he would join a timber, hardware and plumbing business founded by his grandfather that also undertook significant civil engineering projects.
As I read the entry for James Webster in The Biographical Dictionary of the Australian Senate, I was greatly encouraged. Following World War II, and prior to joining the family business, he joined a firm of timber merchants and became a delegate to the Australian Timber Workers' Union, which, if I'm not mistaken, was a union that Senator Wong once worked for—and I'm just getting a nod: that is correct. Later, he worked as a tallyman on the wharves and became a member of the Waterside Workers' Federation—another terrific organisation. What a sad thing that such a servant of the labour movement has passed away, I thought. So I was shocked to discover that when James Webster first entered the Senate, when he filled a casual vacancy in 1964, he was a member of the Country Party. He would go on to serve in the Senate as a member of that party until 1990. I cannot help but think that the Nationals today would be better served if they had more members from trade union backgrounds!
He was also an elder of the Presbyterian church at the age of 21, the same denomination in which the father of former Labor senator John Button served as a moderator. But, in truth, James Webster had a strong Country Party pedigree, with his father briefly representing the party in the Victorian Legislative Assembly, and himself joining as a member of the Young Country Party. He would later serve on the party's federal council. Entering the Senate, he spoke of how grateful he was to have the Country Party's support, and especially reflected on its policies 'aimed at maintaining a free-enterprise community with a minimum of control'. Given party leader Sir John 'Blackjack' McEwen was the foremost defender of the tariff wall, as trade minister now, I found those comments a little surprising.
Like so many in his party, Webster walked both sides of the street, speaking about the importance of economic liberalism while staunchly advocating for government support for all manner of projects and schemes. Not much has changed. Bringing his business experience to the Senate meant he was interested in economic issues combined with an emphasis on the breadth of Australia's wealth created by primary industries. He spoke about the importance of recognising and supporting this. These latter comments are sentiments that I would endorse.
When Webster was born his father was chairman of the local butter factory, so it was no wonder he lined up against the forces of margarine, which he thought would break the Australian dairy industry. Interestingly, in his first speech he also reflected on the growing availability of television and the need to ensure the production of Australian content. His support of the Australian film and television industry was something he would continue right throughout his career.
He became embroiled in the coalition opposition's relentless constitutional attacks on the Whitlam government by seeking a High Court injunction to inhibit the joint sitting of both houses of parliament under section 57 of the Constitution following the 1974 simultaneous dissolution. The court did not find in his favour. Later, he found himself in the High Court for reasons not of his choosing, as his ongoing involvement in the familial timber and hardware business was called into question after it was awarded government contracts. The High Court found that his arrangements were not in breach of section 44 of the Constitution. This was a fortunate outcome for James Webster, not least because he was to become a minister in the Fraser government following Labor's defeat in 1975.
James Webster served as a Minister for Science from 1975 until 1979, just before his retirement. In 1978 the environment was added to his ministerial responsibilities. He was fortunate to serve at a time at which there was great support within the government—and externally—for the advancement of scientific and environmental matters. Some of his signature achievements include multilateral progress in the Antarctic, a place in which he took a strong personal interest. He visited the South Pole on two occasions, and Webster Bay, in the Australian territorial section of the continent, is named in his honour. He oversaw the restructuring of the CSIRO, having a strong appreciation for its role in supporting rural industry. Kakadu was declared a national park during his time as minister. Whaling was banned in Australian waters. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority came under federal control when Prime Minister Fraser placed a ban on petroleum exploration on the reef. The latter resolved an issue that had been the source of some difficulty for the minister and within the government.
Concurrent with his time as minister, Webster was leader of the party in the Senate, having served as deputy leader in opposition during the term of the Whitlam government—intriguingly, at the same time as he was serving as Deputy President of the Senate and chair of committees. Faced with the prospect of a difficult election in 1980, James Webster offered to leave the Senate ahead of the election and became the High Commissioner to New Zealand, a post in which he would serve for four years.
James Webster was at times a contradiction: a business person who represented the Country Party; a farmer who became an environmental minister. Perhaps this is simply an illustration of the importance of a breadth of experience and ability for seeing different perspectives. This is something we can all take on board as we reflect on his life and service. The government expresses our condolences following the passing of the Hon. James Joseph Webster, and we convey our sympathies to his family and those who knew him well.
In the Senate leader's office of the National Party here in Parliament House hangs a two-metre parchment scroll honouring the service of every National Party senator for the past century. Almost exactly at midpoint on that scroll of five-dozen senators is former senator Jim Webster, who served as my predecessor, as a Victorian Country Party senator, the leader of our party in the Senate from 1976 until his resignation in 1980. Today the Senate records its deep regret at the death on 3 April 2022 of the former senator and places on the record our appreciation for his service to parliament and the nation and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Jim Webster served in the Australian Senate from 1964 to 1980, representing initially the then Australian Country Party and from 1975 the National Country Party. He was Deputy President of the Senate for a period of almost two years, from early 1974 to the end of 1975, including a period as Acting President. Jim was the Minister for Science and later the Minister for Science and the Environment for the Fraser government. He's remembered as an enthusiastic minister, relishing the new roles of science and the environment that had not been previously held by the Country Party. His achievements include most notably his work for the environment, for Australia's Antarctic research efforts, establishing the national marine science research centre in Hobart and the CSIRO's Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong, which provided a world-class facility for the safe handling of exotic animal diseases, and his support for the fledgeling Australian film industry. One of the great achievements of Senator Webster was his work in ending pirate whaling. Often in the National Party, and previously the Country Party, as Senator Farrell has noted, what seems like being a contradiction is simply challenging stereotypes. And I don't think it's anything unusual for National Party or former Country Party senators to care about their environment and, when they have the opportunity as ministers in this place, to make pragmatic changes to our environmental system and efforts. He was instrumental in introducing the Indian Ocean whale sanctuary. Greens senators please take note: we want to achieve actual environmental outcomes, not merely virtue signalling.
I wish to place on the record to the Senate a brief account of Senator Webster's formative years. Jim's family moved from Tasmania to a farm near Melbourne when he was four years old, and later, whilst a student at Caulfield Grammar, he found himself running the family farm whilst his older brothers served in World War II. In what was a clear desire to serve his country, Jim joined the Air Training Corps in Essendon, achieving air crew status. After the war and further study primarily in accounting, Jim joined a firm of timber merchants and became a delegate of the Australian Timber Workers Union—we love our forestry industry. Stints as a clerk at the log mill and as a tallyman on the Melbourne wharves, where he joined the Waterside Workers Federation, made for an interesting background, which could have put him on a path for a different seat in the Senate. He was an elder at the age of 21 in the Presbyterian Church of Victoria, whilst also active in the junior chamber of commerce and Rotary Club of Caulfield, and he was a member of the West Brighton Club, which amongst its members included one RG Menzies.
Jim's father had served three years in the Victorian parliament, and Jim became active in the Australian Country Party, ultimately leading to his nomination in 1964 to fill a casual vacancy in the Senate. Reports suggest Jim was very much reflective of the breed of fresh-faced senators keen to put their stamp on this chamber, becoming a member of many committees and vocal in support of rural and regional areas of Victoria and more broadly across Australia. The dairy industry was the focus of perhaps his strongest and fiercest support, with Jim explaining to anyone who'd listen in the margarine industry that was seeking to break the Australian dairy sector. He rallied against dubious advertising of the margarine industry, such that one Labor senator referred to him as 'the honourable senator for margarine'.
Jim had a particular interest in Papua New Guinea, having earlier been active in the then territory through the national YMCA movement. Jim once sailed a 50-foot yacht from Melbourne to Rabaul and had walked over much of PNG and New Britain over the course of his many visits. He advocated strongly for PNG's independence, but his prerequisite was for a sound economic base to be established before independence.
Jim became embroiled in events which ended in the dismissal. He was one of two senators who asked the High Court of Australia to stop a joint sitting of both houses voting on a group of bills that had been the catalyst for the 1974 double-dissolution election. The bid failed, with the court ruling that the government of the day could stockpile bills that failed to pass the Senate before proceeding to a double-dissolution election.
He did survive another engagement over his pecuniary interests in the family business and also survived pressure from Liberal members to resign over oil drilling in the Great Barrier Reef. He was also pivotal in ministerial service.
Jim also strongly encouraged Australian involvement in Antarctica, from a national sovereign interest perspective, and backed an agreement negotiated with the United States and New Zealand for a cooperative air transport system to Antarctica. He twice visited bases and the South Pole, and his commitment to the continent is recognised with Webster Bay in the Australian Antarctic Territory being named in his honour.
Jim's service to Australia did not end with his time in the Senate. He resigned in 1980 and became Australia's High Commissioner to New Zealand, a position he held for four years before returning to farming and business in his beloved home state of Victoria.
On behalf of the opposition and the Australian Senate and the Victorian Nationals, to Jim's loved ones, his four sons and four grandchildren, I extend our gratitude for his service to a thankful nation and a grateful party. Our sincerest condolences.
Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence.
I present additional information received by committees relating to estimates.
by leave—I present a non-conforming position relating to the suspension of Workforce Australia payment cut-offs, from 31,425 signatories, which I understand has been agreed to by the whips.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report entitled The performance and integrity of Australia's administrative review system.
This is not my first speech. It's a basic principle of law that decisions should be made on the merits of the case and by applying the law to the evidence and the evidence to the law. It is pretty clear not just from this document but from other material in the public domain that the AAT is failing on this principle. It is also a basic principle of good governance—or it should be—that appointments, particularly appointments to senior and influential positions, are made on merit. The AAT, in its current form, is failing on that principle.
The outcome of a case shouldn't depend on which tribunal member hears it; it should depend upon the facts and the law. But, in the AAT, it does depend on which member you draw. Research published in the Saturday Paper examined more than 18,600 AAT decisions in relation to protection visas. This ranged over a more than five-year period from 1 January 2015 until mid-May 2020. What did that research show? It showed that, of members who had considered more than 50 cases—so the analysis was done only where there was a statistically sufficient sample—one member did not find in favour of a single person seeking protection. Not one case!
Fifteen members found in favour of less than five per cent of the cases that came in front of them, while three members approved more than half and one member approved some 86 per cent of cases.
It's hard to imagine what it would be like to be a person seeking protection from this country, after often receiving appalling mistreatment from the country they've fled from, to come to a country that's meant to be under rule of law and that protects human rights. You finally get to the tribunal. You rock up to court after, sometimes, two or three years of delay, and when you get to the court your lawyer turns around and says, 'Well, actually, do you know what? You can't win this case.' You've got nought per cent chance of winning this case. And it's not about the facts. It's not about the law. It's because you've drawn Joe Bloggs, who's going to slot you. And he or she does it every single time. That's not a justice system, that's a lottery.
The Grattan Institute's analysis of the AAT gives some insight into why this is happening. It showed that, of the 320 members of the tribunal that it had reviewed at that time, 22 per cent had an overt and direct political affiliation. Of course, you add to that the spray of appointments that the former coalition government made as it was heading out the door, lucrative gifts to very senior mates, and you can see just how politically skewed the AAT has now become. And jobs for the mates compounds the other injustices that people before the AAT have.
In a submission from the AAT—and credit to them for, at least, giving it a go and putting in a further submission—in response to the issue about merit based appointments, they say that the AAT supports merit based appointments; it's just that no such system exists. It is the most politically slanted tribunal in the country.
The coalition's election-eve handout delivered a lucrative senior member position—paid more than the President, is my understanding, of this place—to former New South Wales Liberal minister Pru Goward as well as appointing a former Scott Morrison chief of staff and four other now members of the AAT with direct and overt links to the former coalition government. That's not about justice. It will do nothing to reduce the continued backlogs of the AAT. It's just more jobs for the mates. And it's at the cost of the litigants who appear in front of that tribunal, and it's at the cost of the integrity of the justice system.
Senator Shoebridge, would you resume your seat for a moment, thank you. On a point of order, Senator Scarr?
On a point of order. I've been listening very closely to the senator in the context of—
What is the point of order?
standing order 193(3)—
Yes.
in relation to senators not imputing improper motives to judicial officers, in particular. I was listening very carefully, and I think the senator crossed the line when he referred to Pru Goward and to another judicial officer by name. I would ask him to withdraw those reflections of improper motives.
Thank you very much, Senator Scarr. I have been listening very carefully, and I do acknowledge that there were some comments that were negative about the AAT. I don't know that they were mentioned in the context of those particular names simultaneously. Nonetheless, I believe it would be of assistance to the chamber if you were to withdraw, Senator Shoebridge.
Could I speak to the point of order?
Yes, you have the call.
I was impugning the motives of the government that made the appointment, which I maintain. But, to make it clear, I am in no way impugning, and, to the extent there was any imputation—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI DENT: If you could hold it there, Senator Shoebridge.
taken, I withdraw any imputation against the member.
Thank you, just hold on. I want to be clear. This is not a time for debate. But you have the option to make a point of order, and now you have declared that you are withdrawing. Is that correct?
I want to make it clear that I withdraw any imputation against the member.
You don't need to make a speech about it in this place. Just 'I withdraw' will suffice. If you could do that for me, Senator Shoebridge, that would be very helpful.
Indeed, I withdraw any imputation against the member.
Thank you. You may continue your remarks. You have 33 seconds remaining.
It is clear that the AAT is cooked. It is clear that it is one of the most highly politicised tribunals in the country, if not the most politicised tribunal in the country, and this is largely as a result of 10 years of overtly politicised appointments by the former coalition government. It is the task of this parliament and the new government to reverse this, not just for the individuals but for the status— (Time expired)
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
In speaking to this report today, I'm very happy to be able to summarise for the chamber the key findings of the NDIS joint standing committee's work for the previous parliament. It's a committee that I have been proud to serve on for the last three or four years. It has done some incredible work, working alongside and enabled by the disability community, particularly in relation to pushing back against some of the very worst ideas brought forth by the previous government.
Alongside the disability community, the Greens have been calling—during the course of the committee's time and in response to the recommendations that it formulated after engaging deeply and authentically with disabled people—for transformative changes to the NDIS. The Greens call for an acknowledgement of these simple truths: that disabled people should be able to access, under the NDIS, every single support that we need to live a good life; and that that is exactly what the NDIS was created to do. It was created to provide disabled people with access to the supports and services that we need to live a good life, in recognition of our national obligations under international law and, on a deeper level, in recognition of the collective community responsibility to work together to bring down the barriers of structural ableism that exist in our society.
As we can see clearly laid out in the summary report of the committee, the previous Morrison government tore constantly at the NDIS. They tore at the NDIS, tore at disabled people and sought to shut us out, to kick us off, to cut our plans and to force us into the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As my colleague Senator Shoebridge has just drawn our collective attention to, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is cooked, is stacked and is now, in so many ways, no longer fit for purpose and in urgent need of complete revamp and reform. Indeed, in its dying days, the government and the agency leadership colluded together to basically transform the Administrative Appeals Tribunal into a final and impassable wall, which disabled people and their families found it almost impossible to get over or get under.
People were forced to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to defend their rights to supports and services which they had been receiving for many years. When, finally, a day for a hearing would come or a date would be set, the agency would settle, because they knew they didn't have any case. They were just attempting to defeat the legitimate claim of disabled people and their supporters to access services, so that they didn't have to continue to provide those supports and services. They were fighting an administrative war of attrition against disabled people.
The solution to so many of these problems is twofold. First, we must recognise clearly what brought us to this moment. Now, the NDIS was created 10 years ago, thanks to the collective campaigning of disabled people, our families, our supporters and our allies. Community organising and community activism brought the NDIS into creation to fulfil the obligation to provide services and supports to disabled people so that we can live our lives equal and free in Australian society. At that key moment and juncture, disabled people, having delivered the change, were too often shut out of the implementation, and the decentring of disabled voices in bureaucratic processes and in policy creation is a key part of what has led to the brokenness of so much of the NDIS as we see it today.
But it is not unsalvageable. By giving it the appropriate resources, by ensuring everyone in it has thorough anti-ablism training, by ensuring that disabled people are empowered to lead as the CEO, as the chair, on the board, in senior management—these are the ways that we will fix the NDIS. These are the reforms that the Greens will continue to work with the disability community to see achieved, as well as ending discriminatory age capping within the scheme.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that government mismanagement of COVID has fuelled rampant inflation, has created a debt blowout, has destroyed jobs, businesses and families and has created a two-tier society. Louis Pasteur, the famed 19th century microbiologist, said that individuals, communities and nations expect governments to use all the available tools of science and public policy to combat the threat of infectious disease. And where such tools are lacking or poorly used, responsible leaders are expected to take action, plugging the gaps and enhancing execution. Australia's COVID-19 response, as we reeled from failure to disaster, was neither enhancing nor focused on plugging gaps.
As our cost of living and mortgage costs spiral, we must ensure that the poor planning, failures and uncontrolled government spending never happen again—we must. Labor went through COVID-19 and meekly agreed with the Liberals and Nationals. Instead of standing up for Australia, Labor hid behind their state health bureaucrats' decisions. When state government decisions, based on poor research and unproven vaccines, steamrolled our freedoms and rights, Labor and the unions did nothing to protect us or our freedom of choice. Labor states are not fixing ambulance waiting times or ramping. Australians are now unsure if they can trust their healthcare system to protect them when and where they need help.
We must have a detailed forensic analysis of what went right and what went wrong. We must show the people we have learned from the COVID mismanagement. Early on we were told there was no need for masks. Later we heard this was because the government did not have enough masks in stock for us. Then the injections that were forced upon us still left the aged and the vulnerable at risk, and injected people are now dying. There was no real COVID plan; there still is no real COVID plan. The politicians and bureaucrats just had a template for forming layers of committees to protect themselves from accountability. Look at the fake national cabinet and its secret decisions.
Madam Acting Deputy President O'Neill, I refer you to the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 report and recommendation 17:
The committee recommends that a Royal Commission be established to examine Australia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic to inform preparedness for future COVID-19 waves and future pandemics.
What happened? Why do we need a royal commission? It is because only a royal commission is likely to have the power necessary to compel the expert health advice Australian governments relied on to justify and implement pandemic measures. Much of this advice has been hidden from the Australian people, and we're starting to find out why it's been hidden. We need a royal commission because this inquiry must be completely transparent to the Australian public. Failing to learn from our mistakes means that Australia will be just as unprepared next time as we were this time and more people will die—needlessly die.
There have been so many errors of judgement during COVID—for example, government taking recommendations from medical bureaucrats without considering the economic impact on jobs and businesses, which cost more lives; lockdowns, border closures and business failures; rampant conflicts of interest with big pharma; putting pressure on doctors to comply instead of caring for patients; school closures and the impact on our mental health; cancer and cardiac patients being barred from hospital, and treatments that led to a rise in mortality; people being denied treatment; the mismanagement of hotel quarantine and the construction of expensive facilities far too late to be used for COVID; regulations that introduced a terrible and devastating new 'no jab, no job' society; and more.
The question of whether a person died of or with COVID is meaningless to a grieving family. If we had protected our aged and vulnerable better, fewer would have died and the rest of us could have got back to work sooner. Australians want to know that we will never have another COVID debacle. We cannot afford the cost in dollars, jobs or human lives. Australians must come together as one community, as one nation, to tell Labor we want the royal commission the Senate committee inquiry recommended and that Labor chaired.
Today we need safe jobs, affordable housing and rentals. We need tax reform, we need a less complex industrial relations system and we need cheap sustainable energy. COVID-19 mismanagement must not become Labor's excuse for letting Australians down on these other important issues. I call on all present in the Senate to support our request for a royal commission on behalf of the Australian people.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to note the Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee report, 489th reportDefence major projects. Firstly, I note that this is not my first speech. With inflation at record levels and a cost-of-living crisis hitting everyday Australians and when this government is telling workers to wait for a living wage, why can we always find money to increase spending on weapons and war? The major projects report is an annual review of the Department of Defence's equipment acquisitions. We need to see more transparency and more accountability regarding the extraordinary amount of our public wealth that is spent on the military. Defence acquisition expenditure is ramping up. In 2021-22 there was in fact a $2.1 billion increase in acquisition spending on the previous year, and the government have committed yet a further increase next year as they pledge to spend more than two per cent on Australia's GDP on defence. Indeed, during the election campaign, the only difference between the Labor Party and the coalition on defence was who was going to promise to outspend the other.
We are now being told to prepare for an austerity budget and to brace for cuts that will hurt everyday Australians. But has the defence establishment been warned to brace for a budget cut? Well, no; quite the opposite. But what do they do with the money that we give them? This report and the report that follows make quite disturbing reading. As at 30 June last year, the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, or CASG, within Defence was managing 161 government approved major acquisition projects and 13, what they describe as, minor projects, with a collective cost of $121. 6 billion—well a collective cost as at the time that report was written, because we know it's blown out since.
When you look at Defence's capacity to deliver that, it makes sad, sad reading. The 2019-20 MPR foreshadows delays across all projects of some 507 months. That is a collective delay of 42 years. In the latest MPR, the forecast is still a staggering 405 months or a collective delay of some 34 years. That's the value for money we're getting from the defence establishment. And the cost, once approved, is blowing out to an extraordinary degree. When we look at the 2019-20 report referenced in this Public Accounts and Audit committee report we can see that the cost blowout of just the acquisitions program, just the acquisitions of Defence and just the cost blowout, was $24.2 billion. That's just how much it was above budget. That's enough to fully fund our education system and to cancel about a third of HECS debt, and that's just the cost blowout. In the most recent report the cost blowout is sitting at $18.3 billion, or a 31 per cent variance on the budget, nearly a third more than what they initially said, and if you go back year on year there's not a single year where the variance wasn't multiple billions of dollars above the initial estimate. Yet we keep going to Defence, the same broken institution when it comes to this budgeting, and asking them how much money they need. They keep giving us a figure and every single time it's wrong, every single time it's lowballed and we're caught in the middle of these major acquisition projects paying billions and billions more than what the Defence establishment initially said—every single time.
Surely at some point we will learn. Surely at some point we will apply genuine rigour to this extraordinary expenditure of our public wealth on weapons and war. In fact there's a lot more to see here, but the truth is the Labor and the Liberal parties don't want us to see it. Why can we always find the money to increase spending on weapons and wars that kill children, destroy countries and destroy communities? Well, the answer is simple: it's that both major parties have agreed to do this and to deliver the report and not even debate it, not even question a $20 billion blowout from Defence, not even raise a ripple in this chamber. But for this contribution it would've gone through in silence. Well, it's time that ended. It's time we applied a blowtorch to this extraordinary agree of expenditure of our public wealth on weapons and war. It's time we did more than just comfortably agree to give the military whatever they want, and the Greens are up to that job.
On behalf of the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, I table a ministerial statement on the economy, and I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to the document.
Leave granted.
I am tabling the Treasurer's ministerial statement on the economy, which the Treasurer presented in the House of Representatives today. As the Treasurer said, Australians know that this government has changed hands at a time of instability, uncertainty and volatility around the world and at home. We want to be upfront with the Australian people about the international factors that buffet us and the domestic, economic and budget pressures that we are working through. We also know that Australians are already experiencing the consequences of these circumstances every day. We recognise that Australian families are under pressure. You see it when you go to the shops, when you fill up at the bowser or when your bills arrive.
The Liberals and the Nationals gave this country a wasted decade. Instead of investing in the Australian people, they invested in waste and rorts, missed opportunities and messed-up priorities, and fixing that mess is going to take time. But despite all these challenges we know this is also a period of great opportunity for Australia. We are already at work on our main task to build a stronger and more resilient economy. It's an economy that will be powered by cheaper, cleaner, more reliable energy and with Australians workers that have the right skills in secure jobs with decent wages that grow strongly and sustainably, and this is our chance to build a better future for all Australians.
As the Treasurer outlined in his statement, the Australian economy is growing but so are the challenges. Some are homegrown; some come from around the world, and to that extent Australia is not alone. The global picture is complex, and the outlook is confronting. The International Monetary Fund this week significantly downgraded the outlook for global growth in both 2022 and 2023. China's strict COVID-containment measures have had a substantial impact on their output and have made existing supply chain disruptions more severe. Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine has undermined energy and food security and increased global prices.
In his statement, the Treasurer outlined new economic forecasts from the Treasury. These forecasts better reflect the economic circumstances, such as higher inflation and slowing global growth, that our government is dealing with. The Treasurer announced these forecasts well ahead of the October budget because, as a government, we consider that Australians deserve to know where our country is positioned.
There are couple of issues in the Treasurer's speech that I want to draw attention to, particularly around inflation and around the budget. While the Australian economy is outperforming much of the world, high inflation is impacting on Australian living standards in an environment where workers are not getting the wage rises to match the price rises. In the pre-election forecast, inflation was expected to peak at 4¼ per cent. It's now 6.1 per cent through the year to June and is now forecast to peak at 7¾ per cent in the December quarter this year. As the Treasurer has said, the current expectation is that inflation will get worse this year, moderate next year and normalise the year after. Higher interest rates combined with the global slowdown will impact on economic growth here in Australia. The revised economic outcomes and forecasts are expected to cut half a percentage point from growth for the last financial year, this financial year and the next financial year. So, instead of 4¼ per cent growth in real GDP last year, as estimated before the election, it is expected to be 3¾ per cent in 2021-72. Instead of 3½ per cent this year, it has been revised to three per cent, and next year, instead of 2½ per cent growth, we are looking at two per cent. It's largely driven by weaker consumption on the back of higher inflation and interest rates.
So, yes, the economy is growing, but there are challenges ahead. We have been upfront about those challenges that we have inherited, and that includes the trillion dollars of debt left by the previous government. We know that the government's last ditch re-election budget is chock-full of waste and rorts, with a series of expiring measures. We also know that there are long-term demographic challenges that come with critical and necessary spending.
I want to make a comment on the final budget outcome for 2021-22, which will be published soon. It's likely to show a dramatically better than expected outcome for a few reasons. Temporary factors like supply chain disruptions, capacity constraints and extreme weather delayed some spending, while low unemployment and volatile commodity prices boosted revenue. These are temporary factors, and we know that the short-, medium- and longer term pressures on the budget remain and are more pronounced.
You will see a full set of fiscal forecasts in the October budget, but the additional impacts of COVID related expenditure are already costing the budget an extra $1.6 billion this year. We also expect government payments to be around $30 billion higher over the forward estimates than forecast pre election because of issues like inflation and wage expectations. We also have a growing debt burden, left by the former government. It's at the highest level as a share of the economy since the aftermath of the Second World War, with deficits that stretch beyond a decade. That debt burden is growing heavier due to the impact of higher interest rates on repayments. Let us not forget that the former government was a government that, even before the pandemic, had more than doubled gross debt.
We want our budget in October to be about high-quality investments in the right priorities. We are already working on our audit of waste and rorts. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance are going through the budget, line by line, to ensure that our spending is about building value. The budget will be an opportunity to deliver the commitments that the Australian people voted for in May. While we recognise that our choices are constrained by the fiscal situation, we have an economic plan to lift the speed limit on the economy. It is a plan with three elements. The first is to address the cost-of-living pressures, like cutting childcare costs and the costs of medicines on the PBS by up to $12.50 per script. The second is to grow wages over time. We have already demonstrated our commitment to successfully arguing for a decent pay rise for the lowest paid. The third is to strengthen supply chains and deal with the supply side of the inflation challenge, like investing in cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy and addressing skills and labour shortages.
The economic statement today paints a challenging and confronting picture, but, as the Treasurer has said, the growing pressures on the economy and the country don't make our election commitments less important; they make them far more crucial. This is our opportunity. It is our opportunity to build a better future for our country and for future generations.
Like the minister, I seek leave to make a short statement on the ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
I thank the Senate. This economic statement, or so-called economic statement, tabled and delivered by the Treasurer in the other place, is a demonstration that this is a government that has no plan. It's a government big on promises and big on platitudes, that, as the Treasurer himself acknowledged, sought to 'paint a picture' today of those promises and platitudes. But it has no plan. It's a government that, through the election campaign, talked a big game. Through the election campaign, it promised that wages would be higher, growth would be higher and interest rates would be lower—that all of these things would magically materialise if we just had a Labor government. Nine weeks ago they were promising that they had all of the answers and all of the solutions.
But what's been delivered in today's statement? It's an economic statement that lays the foundation for the government to break all of those promises—to not deliver upon the commitments and the promises that they made. Throughout the statement, the Treasurer says that it's 'complex'; it's 'difficult'; there are 'pressures' and 'problems'; 'it will take time' and there are 'challenges'; they're all the Treasurer's words. He offers no solutions in the statement, no plan and no announcements—just a series of complaints that it's tough.
Well, yes. Government is tough. We were upfront, through the election campaign, that there were real challenges for Australia that were faced as a result of a range of different global circumstances.
But Mr Chalmers, Mr Albanese and those on the other side endlessly stated that they had, apparently, the answers to the challenges. Well, where are they? Where are those answers when you look at today's statement? It offers nothing other than a downgrading of those promises. Instead of wages being higher, as the Labor Party promised going into the election, Mr Chalmers delivered a statement today showing real wages would be lower. Instead of growth being higher—as Labor endlessly said and as Mr Chalmers went into the election indicating—now there's a statement showing that growth will be lower. And, of course, instead of interest rates being lower, as Labor emphasised throughout the election, they now acknowledge that interest rates will be higher.
Labor said during the election that the cost of living was the biggest issue. One of the areas where they promised a solution was an explicit promise by the Prime Minister to take $275 off household electricity bills. And now? There's no commitment to that promise anymore. When asked directly, the government fudges its way around the $275 commitment. They fudge; they dodge; they refuse to repeat that. Clearly they don't expect there will be any relief from electricity prices. The $275 promise was designed to go on election material, not to be delivered in government.
On wages, the government now says they have to wait some years. It's not what they were saying during the election campaign when they were promising real wages growth all the time under a Labor government. Now they say it will take years.
At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Labor Party, in opposition, said that unemployment would be the key measure of the coalition government's success in managing the economic impacts of that global health crisis. And we delivered on that unemployment benchmark—something foreign, it seems, to this government. Under our government, unemployment hit a near-50-year low: 3.9 per cent when we left office. The Labor Party had set a benchmark, and we well and truly met and exceeded that benchmark in terms of creating jobs and driving down unemployment, laying the foundation for the most recent 3½ per cent unemployment rate recorded.
But what's the commitment from the government now? Well, today's statement shows they expect unemployment to deteriorate: they expect unemployment to go back up—just as they seem to expect that power prices will be higher, not lower; growth will be lower, not higher; and interest rates will be higher, not lower. This is a government that clearly has come to office on a litany of vague promises and aspirations. But now the Treasurer is starting to try to lay the foundation for a budget that he will hand down in a couple of months time, where he's indicating that he expects things to be difficult. And governing is difficult, as we have always acknowledged, but this government needs to try to live up to the rhetoric that it laid out in the election campaign.
This government will be held to account for what they've said about wages, what they've said about interest rates, what they've said about questions like spending, because only one party went to the election campaign with savings that exceeded their spending promises—the Liberal and National parties. The Labor Party went into the election campaign promising more spending and much more that they didn't account for. Let's see, in future budgets, when the Labor Party says that they want to tackle debt and deficit, whether that spending comes down or goes up, because if they are to deliver on their promises then it's only going one way, and that's going to be up, and that's going to mean a higher deficit and higher debts in the future.
There was, of course, one acknowledgement through the Treasurer's comments today of the previous government's work—that is, that the final budget outcome for 2021-22 will be dramatically better than expected. That's an admission of the coalition's budget management, an admission that our conservative economic forecasts in our budgets and our strong plans for growth have delivered outcomes exceeding expectations: unemployment lower than we had forecast; growth delivered through our term in government exceeding, usually, the budget forecasts in recent years; and a budget outcome much stronger than had been forecast. That's what a good government does. This government, based on today's statement, leaves little hope of it emulating such outcomes.
Congratulations, Acting Deputy President Sterle, on your swearing in today. It's good to see you back in this place. I just want to take this opportunity to make a couple of remarks as well—
I'm sorry, Senator Ciccone.
I was making my remarks by leave, Acting Deputy President.
Sorry, Senator Birmingham, I was too busy taking all the accolades. It's not very often people speak nicely to people around here, and I was soaking it up. Sorry, you need to seek leave—
Sorry, I'm moving to take note of the ministerial—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI DENT: My apologies.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the ministerial statement.
Today we heard a very grim picture of the economy from the Treasurer, particularly when it comes to the very point around inflation. That 6.1 per cent inflation figure revealed yesterday was not unexpected, but that doesn't make it any easier for Australian families who are already struggling with the costs of living at the moment and the soaring costs of living, not just in the last couple of months since we've been in government but for the last couple of years under the coalition government. If we do not combat inflation, if we don't take it seriously and we continue to undermine the living standards and the pay and conditions of Australian workers, there will be further economic pain for many, many families. That's why we are seeing central banks all around the world raising interest rates, using the powers at their disposal to take action on inflation. But this is tough for all Australian families—increasing mortgage repayments and increasing the cost of servicing debt more broadly. And every extra dollar that Australian families have to find to service their mortgage is a dollar that they can't use to buy the essentials and pay the bills, the essentials and the bills that are getting more and more expensive every day.
This is the insidious spiral of inflation. The inflation that makes these rates increases necessary has been exacerbated by the decade-long lack of investment in our skills and training in our TAFEs and in our universities. Making things here in this country, our domestic manufacturing sector, has been decimated—all thanks to the previous coalition government, after the last nine-and-a-bit years. They failed on skills, energy and ensuring that we had a very strong sovereign capability when it came to manufacturing.
The Treasurer provided a look under the hood of the Australian economy, and it was sobering. There are a number of international factors that are impacting Australia's economy. China's response to its COVID outbreaks has significantly constrained the productivity capacity of its economy, putting further pressure on an already fragile supply chain around the world. Russia's unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine has also undermined energy and food security and put upward pressure on the price of essential goods. We've seen global economic forecasts cut this week, and it's expected that the revised domestic forecast will cut half a per cent from growth for the last financial year, this financial year and the one after. This is a result of high interest rates combined with the global economic slowdown. And with the coalition leaving a trillion dollars of debt, these high interest rates are having a significant impact on the government's balance sheet. The Treasurer has stated that interest rate repayments on the coalition's debt will be the single largest expense of the government—more expensive than Medicare, more expensive than the NDIS, more expensive than education.
There is no doubt that these are significant challenges. But I appreciate that we have a Treasurer, and indeed a government, that is being upfront with the Australian people. Jim Chalmers didn't stand up and say, 'Everything is rosy, it's all great and no-one should worry.' This is in stark contrast to the approach that we saw under the previous administration, who, just a couple of months ago, were on the campaign trail bragging about their economic management ability, suggesting that Australians should be grateful that they had a coalition government. Well, unfortunately, this doesn't match up with the reality of our Australian economy. That's been all just spin—short-term slogans designed for the re-election of a government that was tired. Fortunately, for members on this side of the Senate, Australians saw right through the Liberal and National parties.
The budget that the Albanese Labor government has inherited was and seems to be bursting with some waste and rorts—and we are intent on cleaning that up—hidden mismanagement and low-quality spending, and, again, a trillion dollars of debt with not enough to show for it. Government spending should be measured against how effectively it supports the services and the projects that Australians rely on, not measured against how many votes it can win at the next election. The times that we live in are tough, and each extra dollar that government spends is becoming a lot more expensive as interest rates rise. We simply cannot afford the political ideologue of the previous government and their wastes and their rorts.
I want to draw the Senate's attention to the Treasurer's comments on wages. There have been some commentators—and politicians, for that matter—who have suggested that rising wages are somehow a major contributor to inflation and that the primary focus of the federal government should be on constraining wage growth. This suggestion does not stand up to scrutiny, in my opinion. We are experiencing soaring inflation despite real wage growth averaging just 0.1 per cent for the past decade. That was largely due to the previous government's policy of deliberately keeping wage growth low. This is not the policy of this government, of the Albanese Labor government, and we saw that when we first came in. One of the very first acts of Prime Minister Albanese was to ensure that the government put a submission to the Fair Work Commission asking that those on the lowest wages in this country get a pay rise. It is more urgent than ever that we get wages moving again so that working families have the ability to keep up with inflating prices of essential goods and services—prices that are determined by dozens of different economic factors, not just wages.
We should not indulge those who want to continue constraining wages and making it tough for workers to get ahead, let alone keep up with the soaring cost of living. This is a shallow idea that has been pushed by those who want to see the economic policies of the previous government continue. This is not what Labor stands for: we are tackling these challenges because Australian families need a government that is on their side. They do not need more of the awful economic management that we have seen in the past decade.
It's important to note that our government does not see the tough economic times ahead as a cause for delaying or scrapping our election commitments. In fact, the economic plan that we took to the election is now required more urgently than ever. We must invest in our childcare sector, ensuring that there is cheaper child care, ensuring that there are people at the front line who can provide that essential service—predominantly for women, so they can also get back into the workforce and add to our productivity in this economy. We must bring down the cost of medicines to provide the cost-of-living relief that so many pensioners and seniors have been calling for, for some time. We must take the speed limits off our economy by investing more in accessible TAFE and our universities: two great areas of government that we should put more money into, not less, investing in our children, in our students and in the future leaders of this country.
We also have to invest in cleaner and cheaper energy, and in growing advanced manufacturing. That's been the crucial part, or the missing link, I think, in this place for some time. I've spoken at length about how we need to invest more in our manufacturing sector, not relying on overseas products but making much of that here in this country. And we must be responsible in how we go about repairing our budget, by tackling the coalition's mismanagement, their waste and their rorts but also the missed opportunities. There were many missed opportunities over the 9½ years, and this work is already underway through our audit of waste and rorts.
There are many reasons to be optimistic, and the Treasurer also outlined them today. Australians have a government that is on their side, that backs them. To be honest, we'll be ensuring that we get the best value for money when it comes to our budget that we'll hand down later this year in October. We are committed to working not just with them but for them to build a better future. The Treasurer noted that the character of the Australian people is our greatest resource: our ability to come together to confront those challenges and overcome them. So Australians should be confident that, while there are tough times ahead, we will get through them. (Time expired)
Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, I also offer my congratulations on your swearing-in as a senator today. This place would not be the same for your absence! You add a great deal to it in every way.
Thank you.
I'm perplexed: Senator Ciccone, who I have a very high regard for, talked about a concern for costs. I'll quote him: he said, 'Each extra dollar government spends is becoming more expensive.' And I agree—I agree: each extra dollar that government spends is becoming more expensive. So I'm perplexed as to why it is, at the start of this government, that it's taking action to first gut the powers of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and then to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which is the cop on the beat of our construction sites across this country. If you want to save costs, if you want to maximise every single dollar of government infrastructure spending to build our hospitals, to build our schools and to build our roads, you need a cop on the beat in terms of our construction sites.
I want to quote a release put out by the Australian Industry Group this week. The title is, 'Gutting of Building Code'—and that is what the industrial relations minister is proposing to do—'a backwards step for safety and the fight against bullying & intimidation.' And I quote Innes Willox, the chief executive of national employer association Australian Industry Group. These are his words not mine. He said:
It is a backwards step for the fight against bullying and intimidation and will add costs—
the costs which, apparently, the government's so concerned about—
and delays to vital community infrastructure—
the community infrastructure which is to be provided for the people of this country—
such as roads, hospitals and schools.
That's what's being proposed. And the issue we're dealing with is the unlawful activity of the CFMMEU on our construction sites.
Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, I know you were a proud member, and no doubt still are, of a trade union in this country. My father was a member of a trade union. My mother was a member of a trade union. My sister was a member of a trade union. I have great respect for Senator Walsh, sitting opposite, who was a senior official of United Voice union. I have a great respect for many members sitting opposite who have held senior positions in the Australian labour movement. But I do not have respect for the lawless activity undertaken by the CFMMEU on construction sites in this country, and I am baffled as to why the Australian Labor Party wants to protect the construction division of the CFMMEU, absolutely baffled.
I'm going to refer to a number of very confronting incidents that the CFMMEU has engaged with on construction sites. Bear in mind, the Australian government, the Labor government, is saying, 'We don't need a cop on the beat,' on our construction sites. Just listen to this roll call of shame, of the conduct of the CFMMEU on our construction sites, and you be the judge. Let all those listening be the judge as to whether or not there's an issue, in terms of the unlawful behaviour of the CFMMEU. Some of these examples are confronting. As someone who's dealt in a previous life with trade unionists, the trade union movement, I don't think they're representative of 99 per cent of the trade union movement. The issue is we've got a problem, in this country, with the construction division of the CFMMEU.
Let me give you some examples. A CFMMEU official was jailed for assault. He had once told a female inspector—this is a woman working on our construction sites. I think we should be promoting our construction sites as a place for women to work. This is what he said to that lady, someone's wife, someone's daughter, someone's niece. He said she was an '—expletive, expletive—' asking her if she had brought kneepads, as 'You are going to be—expletive, expletive, expletive—dogs all day.' We don't have a problem in our construction work sites with the CFMMEU?
Here is another example. The Courier Mail, a paper in my state, revealed that a CFMMEU official allegedly barked like a dog at a female health and safety consultant on a Gold Coast construction site and said, 'Go on, off you go you—expletive—dog—expletive. Go get your police.' He allegedly called her an '—expletive—dog—expletive—' twice more that day. We don't have a problem on our constructive sites? We don't have a problem with the CFMMEU?
You see, the Australian Labor Party—in the minister's announcement, when he said he was going to gut the ABCC of its watchdog powers, with respect to our construction sites, he couldn't even bear to mention the CFMMEU. He didn't even mention their names. They are ashamed of the CFMMEU. Yet officials of the CFMMEU sit around their national executive table and donate millions and millions and millions of dollars to those sitting opposite and their political causes.
I'll give you another example. It just gets worse—and I've got pages of this stuff. It is appalling. In another visit, a female inspector was called an '—expletive, expletive—' and 'a dog' by union officials while she was doing her job. How's this one? A CFMMEU delegate was accused of harassing the daughter of a builder—so not just the person on the construction site, their family!
I've actually spoken to people working in construction sites who've had to live with the stress created by CFMMEU construction officials trespassing and unlawfully invading construction sites and taking photographs of their cars' plates—the number plates on their personal vehicles. That's the sort of thing the CFMMEU construction division does, and you're defending them. It's disgraceful. You can't even mention their name—in this case, the builder's daughter.
You have heard our Prime Minister say: 'It's all trivial. It's all about the stickers and flags.' No, it's not. It's about someone's daughter, it's about someone's wife, it's about someone's niece. This is what happened to her. The CFMMEU picketers were accused of harassing the daughter of the builder when she entered the site in her car by commenting on her breasts and bottom and making an 'ooh' sounded her. They allegedly called her a daddy's girl, a blonde bimbo, et cetera. Here's another case: a CFMMEU official made three phone calls late at night to a female inspector's mobile phone. The last call logged at 11.23 pm. An anonymous flyer was then circulated, referring to the woman as a dog who wanted to be a pole dancer. These are the cases—example after example after example.
What does our High Court say about the CFMMEU construction division? What does our High Court say? This judgement was released on 13 April 2022. Our High Court—not a politician; our High Court—was unanimous in a judgement. This is what our High Court said about the CFMMEU construction division:
… the Full Court's approach in this case is apt to undermine the primacy of deterrence as the objective of the civil penalty regime in the Act is amply demonstrated once regard is had to the failure of previous penalties to have any deterrent effect on the CFMMEU's repeated contraventions of s 349(1) of the Act. The … CFMMEU has continued to breach s 349(1), steadfastly resistant to previous attempts to enforce compliance by civil penalties fixed at less than the permitted maximum, is a compelling indication that the penalties previously imposed have not been taken seriously because they were insufficient to outweigh the benefits flowing unlawfully to the contravenor from adherence to the "no ticket, no start" policy.
That is, the policy that they intimidate people off construction sites unless they are a member of the CFMMEU. Don't we believe in freedom of association in this country? This is what the High Court says:
To the contrary, the CFMMEU's continuing defiance of s 349(1) indicates that it regards the penalties previously imposed as an "acceptable cost of doing business".
Those opposite talk about cost. The CFMMEU regards breaching the laws of this land as a cost of doing business.
Why are you standing up and defending this lawless union which is a contaminant on our construction worksites? It baffles me. We will shine a bright light on the unlawful conduct of the CFMMEU, whose members sit on your national executive, every day until the next federal election.
I rise to take note of the ministerial statement on the economy delivered by the Treasurer earlier today. This is a time for us to be honest with the Australian people about the challenges ahead, and it's time for us to be honest about the opportunities that also lie ahead as we work together to meet those challenges head-on. Australians don't need us to tell them that times are tough. They don't need to track inflation figures to know that everything that they need in their daily lives is costing more—food, petrol, electricity. What they do need is to be part of a discussion with their government on the way forward, to have their voices heard, to know that the people that they put into this parliament will use every lever available to government to help them not just get through this period but do better into the future.
On the Labor team, on the government benches, that is exactly what we will do: listen, act and govern in the interest of everyday Australians. It's exactly what we have always done, because on this side of the chamber we bring the stories of the people who hold up our economy day in, day out. Right here, to the floor of this parliament, we bring into the policies that we create the stories and experiences of the essential workers of Australia who hold up this country. These are the people we're thinking of as we chart a path forward through difficult times because, as the Prime Minister says, we believe in an economy that works for people, and not the other way around. We know it's these Australians who have the least room to move when their wages don't go up but the price of everything else does. That is the reality too many Australians have experienced over the last nine years of the former government, and it is a reality which is hitting people hard right now.
Today the Treasurer outlined the pressures that are bearing down on all of us and most particularly on our lowest-paid workers, who have little buffer to protect them. I commend him for being honest with the Australian people, and I commend him for fronting up to the seriousness of these times, because, as he said today, problems don't solve themselves. A decade of inaction on the fundamentals of our economy—a wasted decade—by those on the other side has proven exactly that. Imagine if we were hitting these tough times today with an economy in the shape it should have been in, given we are one of the wealthiest countries in this world. Imagine if wages had not been flat for a decade. Imagine if those low wages had not been a deliberate design feature of their economy. Imagine if more people were secure in their jobs. Imagine if we had a stronger and more diversified economy. Imagine if that economy had a big strong manufacturing sector, making us less reliant on global supply chains. Imagine if the previous government had led a renewables revolution in this country and made us less vulnerable, rather than more vulnerable, to global shocks, less vulnerable to global gas prices and less vulnerable to skyrocketing global petrol prices. Imagine if they had invested in the skills which people need and which businesses are crying out for. Imagine if they had invested in social housing. Imagine if they had used their budgets to build this country up, instead of loading it down with a trillion dollars of debt with nothing to show for it. Just imagine!
Now it is up to us on the government benches to work hard and work fast to make the changes that should have started a decade ago. That is exactly what we will do, and it's exactly what we have already started doing. We have already started to get wages moving in this country for our most essential workers. The Prime Minister said during the election campaign that he supported a minimum wage pay rise that kept pace with inflation, so one of his first acts was to write to the Fair Work Commission to support that claim. The 5.2 per cent boost to the pay packets of our lowest-paid workers that resulted from that would just not have happened if Anthony Albanese had not been elected Prime Minister. But now, because Australians have voted for change, we can get to work and start bolstering our economy and repairing the damage that those on the other side have done. We can get to work and start implementing our plan to support the Australian people in better and more secure lives; to build resilience into our economy by powering that economy with cleaner, cheaper, more reliable energy; to support workers and businesses to have the right skills for today's jobs; to make more of what we need right here in Australia; and to offer more and different job opportunities to the next generation to strengthen and diversify our economy and to build our sovereign capacity to provide for ourselves.
We can now get to work to build a more resilient care economy too, recognising, as the former government refused to, that our care economy will be more efficient at caring for our children, our elderly and people with disabilities when those—mostly women—who perform that work are properly recognised. I spoke of essential workers who hold up our economy: the cleaners, the drivers, the hospo workers, the retail workers and so many more. Our care economy workers don't hold up only the economy; they hold up the sky for the people that they care for. When we properly value those workers, our society and our economy will be all the stronger for it.
I want to share with you just a few of the stories of essential workers I bring with me today to this parliament—the people I'm thinking about as we confront the challenges outlined by the Treasurer today. Sheree has worked in aged care for more than 20 years on insecure part-time contracts. She can't convince a real estate agent to give her a lease, she can't convince a bank to give her a home loan and sometimes she doesn't earn enough just to meet her own basic needs. She found herself living in temporary accommodation in a caravan park. She told me: 'As a low-income worker, I am not alone here. Where I live, most people are low-income, insecure workers.'
Mahali is a farm worker from my home state of Victoria, and she shared how she and her fellow workers are paid as little as $10 an hour to pick fruit, lettuce and herbs by contractors in this country. She and her co-workers are terrified of speaking out for fear of being reported to Immigration. And just this morning I met with Jenny and her two amazing children. Jenny is an NTEU member and an academic at Melbourne University. Despite working at the university for a number of years, Jenny is employed on a casual contract with no security of income. Her daughter suffers from epilepsy and her son from autism. She can't afford the medical appointments and education support that her children need. Jenny told me today, 'Sometimes I go without food just so my kids can eat.'
I ask you again to imagine if we had not wasted a decade not addressing the challenges that these people face. Imagine if the previous government had not led an economy based on low wages, on insecure jobs and on outright wage theft. As it stands today, we know that people like Sheree, Mahali and Jenny are making tough decisions in their own household budgets. As a government, we will have to as well, but we won't step back from the commitments we made to the Australian people to build a stronger economy that works for all. As the Treasurer said, we'll get on with the job, building an economy as resilient as the Australian people themselves. We'll get our economy moving and lift people up along with it. We'll invest in the people of this country. We'll invest in their potential, and we'll build a strong, more diverse and more resilient economy that Australians will be proud of.
Senator Walsh is right: when Australian families sit down tonight at their kitchen tables, they will have to use their imagination, because Dr Chalmers, the member for Rankin, the new Labor Treasurer, has not presented them with a plan. As Australian families gather tonight to think about how they plan for rising levels of inflation in this country, guess what they do? They do it in the absence of knowing what the government's plan is.
It's been 10 weeks since the election, and we had an economic statement today which, by Labor's Speaker's own admission in the House of Representatives, was a political statement. It was not a ministerial statement and did not meet the requirements of the House of Representatives standing orders.
We need a plan in this country to deal with rising levels of inflation. We need a plan in this country to deal with productivity reform. We need a plan in this country to deal with cost-of-living pressures. We need a plan in this country that will address labour shortages. We need a plan in this country that will deal with our own domestic supply issues. There was no plan. A few days ago, Dr Chalmers said he wanted to use today's occasion to paint a picture. Well, this country does not need Dr Chalmers to be van Gogh. What this country needs is an architect who will build an economic plan.
The foundations that were left to Labor were strong: a historically low unemployment rate—Senator Ayres, are you laughing about the low level of unemployment in this country? I thought you were a union man. There is no plan. Australians gather tonight in their homes having no idea what comes next.
The time for the debate has expired.
Question agreed to.
What an excellent motion this is from my friend Senator Ruston. I hope that the Senate supports it, and I stand today in this place firmly on the record with my support for it. I'm actually impressed at the Australian Labor Party here: their lack of shame on this topic is genuinely unmatched. I thought that we would see the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, stripped slowly of its power, but what they're doing is they are approaching this with a full head of steam. How wrong was I to think that they might do this slowly!
The members and senators of the Albanese government were not even sworn in yet when we saw Tony Burke, the minister, and Prime Minister—
Senator, I would remind you to use the correct titles of people from the other place.
Thank you. I understood as I said it. The minister and the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, and the rest of the union hacks in the government gave their masters the payoff. They're already crab walking away from their promises to the Australian public, but their promises to the union movement—to the CFMMEU, in particular—are standing firm. They are very strong on their support of that. They're not crab walking away from their commitments in relation to supporting their mates in the CFMMEU. Is anyone here really surprised?
The government have no plan, as we just heard from my colleague Senator Smith. They have no plan to deal with inflation. They have no plan, indeed, to deal with the cost-of-living pressures. We heard yesterday from Minister Watt that they have no plan in relation to the foot-and-mouth disease. They have no plan for the Australian people, but what they do have is a plan to enable the lawlessness of the CFMMEU to continue in this country. Before, we heard Senator Paul Scarr speak about gross examples of lawlessness and gross examples of abuse that have taken place on many worksites across this country. That has been found to be true even, indeed, through the court of law. The government have a fully formed plan, however, to hand the CFMMEU a free rein on building sites again, an unbelievable and yet somehow totally unsurprising set of priorities from the ALP. When it comes to the union movement, it seems that actually crime really does pay.
But don't get me wrong: I'm not saying this to be flippant. Just yesterday it was reported in the Daily Telegraph that the ABCC is seeking a six-figure fine against the CFMMEU for breaking laws in New South Wales during a highway upgrade, a nice little saving for that union if the ABCC is abolished in time. A nice little saving. Maybe that's part of the government's economic plan—make sure the unions don't have to incur these costs. As we know, as was found, as they've said, this sort of behaviour and getting penalties is just a cost of doing business—the cost of inflicting all sorts of turmoil in construction workplaces across Australia. They're prepared to pay the penalties so that they can continue with that line of work.
On the day after the announcement of the ABCC's abolition, a CFMMEU official was called out for the appalling abuse and intimidation of workers. It becomes clearer and clearer that the ALP don't actually stand up for workers. They don't stand up for workers; they stand up for unions, unions that cover less than one in 10 private sector employees. Workers don't want to be physically intimidated while they're at work. They don't want to be abused when they're at work. But the Australian Labor Party is stripping back the very watchdog that is working to prevent this abuse. Shame on them! Some of those opposite seem to put more effort into protecting white-collar workers from mean words than they do from protecting blue collar workers from actual thugs.
You know who is standing up for workers? The ABCC. While the union runs around raking up fines and disrupting workplaces, the ABCC has, since 2016, when it was re-established, recovered over $5 million in unpaid wages and entitlements for construction workers. Funny, you'd think that would be the sort of thing a union should be doing. But the ABCC has secured over $13½ million in progress claims for subcontractors, and this is only since 2019. Prime Minister Albanese and Labor talk a big game on wage theft, but they voted against our bill in the last government to criminalise wage theft and now they want to abolish the ABCC, who have recovered millions of dollars in wages and entitlements for Australian workers.
I don't actually have time today in this contribution to go over all of the egregious examples of the CFMMEU's abuse of power and abuse of people. If I focused only on the last few weeks, I wouldn't even have time! But I do want to quote the head of the ACTU, Sally McManus. Famously—or infamously, I should say—she said in 2017 that she doesn't see a problem with breaking the law if the law is unjust. She said this in 2017, at which time the CFMMEU had faced only 118 separate proceedings in courts across Australia. That number, sadly, is far higher today. But Labor are intent on making sure that the unions go unpunished for their wrongdoings.
The union movement sees legal fees and fines, as I said, as a cost of doing business, not to mention the thuggery that happens on site. In recent years, over $16 million in fines have been imposed on the CFMMEU. Judges have observed that these penalties are not enough for a union that treats them like parking tickets. Of the 1,661 contraventions of industrial law brought against the CFMMEU, 91 per cent were upheld. Clearly, this body is not being frivolous, as those opposite like to put it; they have a genuine role to play. John Setka's construction division of the CFMMEU is so toxic that even other unions are trying to distance themselves from it. Both the mining and energy division and the manufacturing division are trying to leave the union. I don't know why the Labor Party pay such attention to the CFMMEU. Frankly, they don't seem to care about construction, forestry, mining or energy very much. But, for whatever reason, they do still pay attention to that union. Perhaps it's because the CFMMEU has, over the last 20 years, provided the Labor Party with more than $16.3 million in donations.
This motion speaks of the importance of the construction industry. It's a very important industry, directly employing 1.15 million Australians and supporting hundreds of thousands more. It directly contributes nearly 10 per cent of Australia's economy and in terms of GDP it's Australia's fifth-largest industry. A recent report produced by EY and commissioned by the Master Builders Association found—are those opposite listening?—that the abolition of the ABCC would mean an increase in labour costs of 8.8 per cent, with reduced worker productivity of 9.3 per cent. On a day when we have had an economic statement from the Treasurer talking about the grey clouds and the serious impacts that are happening right now in our country on the economy, you would think the last thing you would want to do is put a further handbrake on a section of the economy that is actually very large and very important. It's important for the productivity of this nation. You wouldn't think that you would be doing anything to put a handbrake on it. But this is going to result in around $35 billion of output reduction for the industry to 2030. The total economic loss from the ABCC's abolition was estimated at $47.5 billion. These aren't our figures. EY and the Master Builders Association commissioned the work that found this. The costs overruns from the construction industry will spill over into other sectors—all their suppliers and everyone that feeds into them. The lower economic growth and market falls in productivity will result in 4,000 fewer jobs being available than otherwise would be. The report found that there is a major risk of delays and that these delays could occur immediately after the abolition of the ABCC. Working days lost went from 24,000 in 2011-12 to 89,000 in 2012-13 when Bill Shorten abolished the ABCC. That's what happened.
Senator, I'll just remind you again to use people's titles from the other place.
Yes, indeed, I apologise—when Mr Shorten was the minister. The costs of critical infrastructure also rose astronomically, with crucial projects such as hospitals and schools costing up to 30 per cent more. We want to see a good many new schools and hospitals and these things built around the country, but if you're adding to the cost of delivery in providing that infrastructure and providing those services, then what sort of impact are you going to have? Are you going to increase the cost? Are you going to be able to do less of it? Inversely, when the ABCC existed previously under the Howard government it was found that the economic and the industrial performance of the building and construction sector improved significantly. A 2013 report found that this productivity rise was in the order of 16 per cent and represented a $7½ billion-a-year saving, while also significantly reducing working days lost through industrial action. These productivity gains flatlined again in 2012 after the Gillard government abolished the commission.
This correlation is very clear. When the building industry has a dedicated watchdog, productivity increases and the economy and the workers benefit. When that watchdog is abolished, productivity fails. It falls. Industrial action increases, and it is inevitably the workers—who the great Labor Party say that they represent and that the unions represent—well, they're not standing with them here in this term of this parliament if this is what they're going to do: abolish the ABCC. This is not to mention the taxpayers, who fund a lot of these projects—the construction projects across the country. The increase in the price and the inflationary impact of that upon the economy is drastic. So, strangely, this abolition seems to coincide with the election of Labor governments. Every time we see it: the costs go up.
The core regulatory functions of the ABCC stem from a total of four royal commissions, one parliamentary inquiry and a parliamentary report. It was found over and over again that a dedicated oversight body for the construction industry was required. And even the 2009 report instigated by the Gillard government found that issues remained in the sector. It opined that extraordinary laws were still required, given the extent of lawlessness on building sites in Victoria and Western Australia. But now, without review, without an inquiry and without consultation—except of course with the CFMMEU—Labor are going to pare back the ABCC just as far as they can.
The building and construction industry is too important to hand over wholesale to the union movement. It employs far too many people. It has too big a slice of the Australian economy: too much of our national economy depends on its productivity and depends on its efficiency, and the Labor Party are prepared to just hand it over to the lawlessness that we see in the CFMMEU. We know that if the ABCC is abolished we will see cost overruns and delays, largely brought about by easily predictable illegal industrial action that will likely go unpunished. We on this side of the house don't want to see this. We want to see a well-regulated and efficient building industry that is safe for the workers and which sees the unions operating legally. But, sadly, what we're seeing in the 10 weeks of this government so far is that they don't stand with the workers. They don't actually stand, indeed, with efficiency in the economy. Those opposite oppose this, but I want to encourage everyone here, if they have the courage, to stand and support this motion.
Senator Ayres, you have a very short period of time.
It's been an interesting week, watching the Liberals and Nationals dealing with the flogging that they got just a few weeks ago, running with the least-popular Prime Minister in Australian history and with the worst government since the government of Billy McMahon. What are they rabbiting on about this week? The ABCC; hyperpoliticising foot-and-mouth disease—not in the national interest; and lord knows what else, taking us backwards on climate and energy. Like Talleyrand said of the Bourbon regime, these guys have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. They have a long, long way to go before they'll ever grace this side of the parliament again, and I look forward to more inane contributions like the one we've just seen. (Time expired)
The time for the debate has expired.
On 19 July the 2021 State of the environment report was released. The report was provided to the Minister for the Environment last year, in 2021, which is when it should have been provided, but was not released; it sat on the previous minister's desk for six months. The first page of the report explains that the state and the trend of the environment in Australia are poor and deteriorating, and the further details of the report are deeply, deeply disturbing. Erosion, deforestation, loss of species, poor water quality, mass coral bleaching—all of these things writ large in this report.
The major findings of the 2021 State of the environment report paint a troubling picture of inaction and neglect by the former government. In Australia we now have more foreign plant species than we have native plant species. Australia has lost more mammal species than any other continent. Ocean and land temperatures are rising, and all of this was not dealt with in any way under the previous government. We are one of the top 15 global emitters.
The change in government that we have seen in the last few months brings an opportunity to start to address the alarming findings in this report. We owe it to ourselves, to our community, to the global community and to our future generations to protect the environment. The Albanese government will begin the process of reforming our environmental laws to ensure that they set clear and measurable targets and provide certainty for community and for business. We will establish an environmental protection agency. We will set a goal of protecting 30 per cent of our land and our oceans by 2030.
The State of the environment report painted a particularly concerning picture for those of us in South Australia—specifically the condition of the Murray-Darling Basin, a river system that is the lifeblood of South Australia. In 2019 the Murray-Darling experienced its lowest water level on record due to drought, overuse and climate change. With rainfall at 70 to 80 per cent below normal in 2018 and 2019 we saw a situation where more than one million fish died and many bird populations declined. And to make matters worse the former government delivered only two gigalitres out of the promised 450 gigalitres of water. These were conditions in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The previous government spent nine years obfuscating and ignoring this plan, with no intention or action to find that important 448 gigalitres of water by 2024. This has a huge impact for Australia, and particularly South Australia because we sit at the bottom of that river system. Environmentalists, farmers and communities are all reliant on the river, and they can coexist. The binary debate that is frequently peddled about the choice between the environment and the agricultural sector is false. If the river's health fails, then the farms fail and the communities crumble. This is not about agriculture versus environmental issues; it is about all of us coming together to find the solution to ensure the health of that river.
Thankfully, an Albanese Labor government is wholly committed to delivering the 450 gigalitres of water. We know that this is going to be difficult, but we will deliver this flow. Our plan to safeguard the Murray-Darling will hold the Basin Plan and lay the groundwork for the basin's future. We will increase compliance and improve monitoring of the Murray-Darling Basin. We will not accept river water theft as a given. We will restore transparency, integrity and confidence in water markets and in the management of those markets. We will increase First Nations ownership and we will update the science that informed the Basin Plan at the time it was created. We have a plan for Australia, we have a plan for South Australia, and under an Albanese government, under the watchful eye of Minister Plibersek— (Time expired)
Australia's native forests are unique and beautiful. They are the home of so many of our iconic and our threatened species, like the koala and the walert, the Leadbeater's possum. They are country for traditional owners and they're a source of inspiration and solace for a multitude of people. Protecting our native forests is also one of the most effective ways to tackle the climate crisis. A study published in the journal Nature last year found that old-growth forests, among other ecosystems, are absolutely critical stores of carbon and that, if we disturb them, if we log them, if we clear them, it could jeopardise any effort to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. And in that study were Australian forests, front and centre, that the study showed needed to be protected.
There was a recent study in Tasmania by the Tree Projects that revealed that protecting native forests could provide $2.6 billion worth of carbon sequestration by 2050. Just by not logging our native forests, we could make massive inroads into sequestering carbon and helping tackle the climate crisis. This study also showed up the problems with our current carbon accounting and how it's failing us—that, basically, our carbon measurements with regard to native forests are failing. We don't provide public data that shows how much carbon our forests are actually soaking up. The data only gives net values, so it's subtracting the amount of carbon that is lost by logging and deforestation. I've written to Ministers Plibersek and Watt, calling on them to measure and to publish the data that really shows how much protecting our native forests from logging would contribute to tackling the climate crisis.
The evidence is clear. We must protective our native forests or we are contributing to a climate catastrophe. Yet native forest logging continues to recklessly destroy these wonderful carbon sinks which are also wildlife homes, water suppliers and places of amazing inspiration and beauty.
And it's not as if this destruction is occurring by some dodgy, underhand practice undertaken by shady outfits. No, it's completely planned, managed—or should I say mismanaged—and subsidised by state and federal governments. Native forest logging will never be sustainable. It destroys First Nations country and totem species. It wrecks habitat and it robs future generations of their right to enjoy the beauty of our incredible old forests.
Under our logging laws, the regional forest agreements—which are agreements between the state and federal governments—logging operations are given a special exemption from Australia's national environment protection law, a law that's supposed to protect threatened species and the places we love. What that means is that the regulation and the protection of our forests is left to state governments, and that, even if they break the law and destroy the forest habitats of threatened species, as recent court cases have, sadly, revealed, logging is permitted to continue. Our totally inadequate logging laws mean—the courts have shown—that this logging is still legal, even if we're destroying absolutely threatened species, like Leadbeater's possums and greater gliders, which have recently been uplisted to 'endangered'.
Concerned citizens, scientists and community groups have shown that in Victoria, VicForests, the Victorian government owned logging company, has been responsible for widespread illegal harvesting, destruction of habitats and alleged spying on conservationists, and that company is currently involved in almost a dozen legal proceedings regarding its activities. The system is broken and our native forests are being left unprotected. Yet the Victorian government is attempting to pass legislation that infringes upon forest defenders', traditional owners' and the community's ability to protest and their ability to access and defend our forests. If passed, this bill would mean that people defending Victoria's forests from this destruction could be imprisoned for up to a year or receive up to $21,000 in fines.
Similar anti-protest laws have been introduced in Tasmania's and New South Wales's parliaments. These laws will prevent traditional owners from protecting their country and their totems, which rely on the forest to survive. The laws will restrict the work of wildlife carers and citizen scientists, who are critical to understanding and caring for our native flora and fauna. The penalties imposed by these anti-protest laws are extraordinarily harsh for these peaceful and nonviolent protesters, who just want to protect our forests.
In the lead-up to the 2019 election, even before the economic devastation from the COVID-19 pandemic, former Labor leader Bill Shorten stated: 'Everything is going up except your wages.' After three further years of inaction by the Morrison Liberal government, Labor leader Anthony Albanese echoed the exact same concerns in the lead-up to the 2022 election, stating: 'Workers deserve more than our thanks. They deserve a pay rise.' On 3 June 2022, 11 days after being sworn in, Prime Minister Albanese submitted to the Fair Work Commission for a minimum pay rise of at least 5.1 per cent for the Australian workers. On 15 June, it was announced that an increase to the minimum wage of 5.2 per cent—that's $1.05 per hour—would come into effect on 1 July, to be slightly above the rate of inflation. For those workers on award minimum wages, a 4.6 per cent increase for those earning above $869.60 per week, and a minimum of $40 per week for those earning $869.60 or below per week, came into place. This is now law—a proud reform, because Labor will always stand up for working Australians.
While some business groups and the Australian Chamber of Commerce have expressed concern about further stresses being put on businesses due to the increase, the Prime Minister, Iain Ross of the Fair Work Commission and Sally McManus of the Australian Council of Trade Unions have all assured the Australian people that the minimum wage increase will not adversely affect the economy. This is good policy.
During the Liberals' nine year reign in Australia, the government had ample opportunities to increase the national minimum wage to be in accordance with inflation. But they did nothing, as on so many issues that they just left in abeyance.
It is no secret that the cost of living in Australia is spiralling out of control. While the inflation rate should sit between two and three per cent, it is currently at 5.1 per cent and the Reserve Bank of Australia estimates that it will hit seven per cent by Christmas. So, as the Prime Minister has said, this minimum wage increase is just the beginning of our Labor government's plans for financially securing all Australians in these turbulent economic circumstances.
There are so many issues contributing to inflation, but wage growth is not one of them. What our newly elected Albanese Labor government understands better than any Liberal government of the past nine years is that wages must rise in accordance with inflation for Australians to be able to afford the cost of living. The prices of groceries, fuel, rent and houses move a lot faster than the rate of real wage increases, and one of the biggest culprits of inflated cost of living is electricity. Labor is addressing this cost-of-living pressure. Under Labor's Rewiring the Nation plan, $20 billion will be invested in the partial rebuilding and modernisation of the electrical grid. This investment will help to ease the cost of electricity bills, as well as helping to further futureproof the grid for the use of electric vehicles, boosting the economy by upwards of $40 billion and creating thousands of jobs in construction.
This latest increase in the national minimum wage of $1.05 per hour proves that, as the Prime Minister said during the election campaign, Labor cares. Labor cares about workers. Labor cares about the cost of living. Labor cares about people. In just 10 weeks, Labor has cared enough to make meaningful changes to improve people's lives. After all, that is why we are gathered in this place: to improve the lives of all Australians—unlike those now in opposition, who had almost a decade to support Australian workers and to tackle the decrease in wages of Australian workers. But they did nothing, because they had no plan. They had no vision. You can tell from the very short week we've had in this place how they are trying to rewrite history. I have no doubt that the next contribution that will be made in this chamber by a senator from the opposition will continue to try to rewrite history. (Time expired)
I reject the assertion just made by the senator opposite. I'm interested in the facts. I'm interested in the fact that the new Labor Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland has already had a very poor start in standing up for Australians who need mobile connectivity, particularly in rural and regional Australia. As I spoke about in the chamber earlier today, the minister was forced to reverse the Albanese Labor government's opposition to round 1 of the Peri-Urban Mobile Program—the PUMP program—to which the coalition government delivered $28.2 million for 66 new and upgraded mobile base stations in the outer suburbs of major cities across the country.
I say to Senator Polley, there's no rewriting of history. We're interested in delivering, and when it was clear that the current minister and the Labor opposition—as it was then—failed to commit to this program I was very, very proud to join the hardworking, newly elected Liberal member for Casey to talk in his electorate about the importance of mobile connectivity. There were two PUMP projects delivered in Silvan and Menzies Creek. Less than 24 hours after we made that visit—surprise, surprise!—the minister suddenly reversed Labor's position and announced that Labor will deliver the 66 PUMP projects around the country. What a coincidence that might have been!
I commend in particular the Liberal member for Longman, who wrote to the minister asking for an update on the PUMP projects in his electorate. I think it reflects very poorly on Labor that it did not recognise the importance of standing up for mobile connectivity in communities and peri-urban areas of Australia's major cities, as it is so critical for growing jobs, businesses and families, as well as for providing vital connectivity during bushfires and other emergency situations.
Now we need to know the timeline: when will these PUMP projects be delivered? When will these upgrades be switched on? After the success of round 1, the coalition committed a significant $78.5 million to round 2 of PUMP to fix black spots and deliver vital communications upgrades to the peri-urban areas of regional cities, including Geelong, Wollongong, Gosford, Newcastle, the Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast, Townsville, Cairns, Darwin and Canberra. This investment is just as critical, but where is the minister? Where is the minister on this $78.5 million? Where is Labor? There has been not one word from the Labor members for Corangamite, Corio, Cunningham, Newcastle or Solomon. Shame on Labor for not recognising that peri-urban areas in major regional cities deserve this investment. I condemn the Labor—
You're being ridiculous!
I'll take the interjection—I'm being ridiculous for standing up for regional cities, which have been totally ignored.
Senator Pratt, I will take the interjection, because when you were last in government zero funding was delivered to mobile towers—not one dollar. Labor has absolutely no credibility. To make things worse, the new Minister for Communications—the member for Greenway in Western Sydney—can't even stand up for the people of Western Sydney, axing a funding program for job-creating 5G technology projects. Labor's decision to discontinue the successful Australian 5G innovation initiative is an absolute kick in the guts for tech jobs and for our digital economy. I join with my good friend Senator Payne, a warrior for Western Sydney, in condemning this decision that is a callous attack on jobs and the digital economy.
I call on the Minister for Communications to reverse this decision of $20 million stripped out by Labor's razor gang. She's shown no ticker in standing up to Labor's razor gang. This is a vital project, a vital program, for tech jobs, for innovation and for small businesses. I call on the minister to reverse this terrible decision and reinstate this program.
Senate adjourned at 17:50