Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Saturday I was privileged to open the new wing, which is the expansion of Tuia Lodge, a community-managed aged-care facility in Donnybrook in my electorate of Forrest. The Commonwealth government invested $2.76 million in this project, and the local community and the Tuia Lodge Committee have added $1.4 million to make this project a success. It is a great partnership between the committee, the community and the Commonwealth, and I congratulate all those who were a part such a wonderful project. In particular, I want to mention Mr Lui Tuia and the Donnybrook Aged Care Committee, who have been absolutely resolute and steadfast in their support, and magnificent in their actions to make this project happen. The Donnybrook Community, led by Lui and the committee, have been fundraising for the Lodge for decades.

There are two critical times in our life when we need support from the community, from family and from the government—that is, in childhood, as we grow and are educated, and when we are aged and needing care. Hubert Humphrey was a Vice President of the United States in the sixties, and he said in his final speech, words that were taken from others who went before him, like Ghandi:

The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.

Those words are equally valid today, and no more so than in a small regional centre like Donnybrook. Country towns should not have to see their elderly go off to a major regional centre for care—it is not good for the resident, it is not good for the families and it is certainly not good for the community. We need to encourage families to maintain their bonds with their elderly relatives, and not simply see them go off to another major regional area, and potentially limit the amount of time that they can be in touch with their relatives. It makes it very difficult for the family.

As we know, our senior citizens are an absolute asset and we must be sure that they can be reached by us all. Keeping families close enough to be in contact is critical to the welfare of not only the elderly citizen but also all of the family members.

The other issue is that people must remember that when we go into an aged-care facility, we are actually swapping one home for another. When we go into a facility, this becomes our home. That is why having the community around to assist and care for us in that environment is so important, because most of us want to spend whatever days that we have left in the company of those that know us best—who we have perhaps grown up with, who we have lived with all our lives, and even community members who have known us throughout our lives and who are there as volunteers, as they are in this community of Donnybrook.

Tuia Lodge has so many volunteers who fundraise. Donnybrook is a shining example. The local community recognise the growing need for aged-care services and they took personal and community responsibility to provide that within their community for their people. With such passionate and wise leadership of Lui Tuia and the commitment of the Donnybrook community, they have worked tirelessly to build their capacity to support aged care within their community.

Tuia Lodge was born out of this environment. It has not been easy. It has taken an awfully long time and it has grown over the years, but this is a community that has looked after itself and its vulnerable members. It has not simply waited for somebody else or a government, for instance, to do the hard work—they have done it themselves. That is why this is such a special facility.

I congratulate Lui and his committee, and the entire community of Donnybrook who have contributed in so many different ways—whether it was buying a raffle ticket or helping out on a cake stall—this has been an outstanding outcome, and this latest expansion is just part of that. Some contributed by buying a brick in the previous expansion, and I recognised so many names there. Every dollar counts in aged care in small communities.

Of course, across Australia we have seen community managed aged-care facilities often whither, mainly because often those communities have become completely reliant on government to provide those services, and as a result most regional aged-care centres are now owned or managed by large corporations. But it does not have to be that way. Donnybrook is the beacon. This small community, this small caring community shows how such communities can manage if they are really dedicated.

What also matters to the people who live in that community are the people who look after them. I wanted to mention Keryn, the manager at Tuia Lodge. She provides so many personal touches and cares about each of those residents as if they were her own. Those of us who have loved ones in aged care want to know that those we love are being loved, and that is exactly what Keryn and her team do for the residents in Tuia Lodge. It is the most beautiful place, and it is special because of the love and care that is provided by Keryn and her staff and all of that army of volunteers who help out.

There are many different forms of aged care, and we also see right throughout the broader Donnybrook community a range of people who come in as volunteers to Tuia Lodge in so many ways. On the weekend there were so many people there for the opening, and so many people who not only had residents into Tuia Lodge, but those who for many years had worked as part of the original fundraising and management committees and those who felt a real connection or who had loved ones within Tuia Lodge. The new wing is a beautiful area that has ensuites. They have a long waiting list and their services are in great demand. But it is not just the building that is in demand; it is the level of care that is provided. That is what Tuia Lodge offers.

It is really a credit to Lui Tuia and to his team. I really want to focus on the efforts of Lui and his wife Helen. There was great tribute paid to Lui at the opening of this particular part, and people actually gave him a standing ovation which touched him and his wife very much. It is very fitting because Lui has put his heart and soul into Tui Lodge and done an extraordinary job over many years. Yes, he has had a whole raft of community members and various committee members and those who fundraise tirelessly, but one of the best things about this particular centre is that it is for the community and by the community.

I think living in small rural and regional towns, often when you get to later in life it is very difficult to find the care that you need. To be able to live in a really small community like Donnybrook and yet have access to such great quality aged care is a real tribute to the community itself. Again, it is being brought about by extraordinary leadership and there are very few people in Australia who would know more about aged care and the aged-care system and the challenges facing aged care than Lui Tuia. He is at the lodge almost on a daily basis. Whatever needs doing, he will be there to do it, along with his family and, as I said, a whole raft of amazing volunteers of all age groups.

They were there on Saturday, providing a wonderful afternoon tea for all of the visitors. They are constantly available for any help that Tuia Lodge needs. I really want to commend the whole community of Donnybrook—all of the volunteers and everyone who has done anything to support Tuia Lodge and who will continue to do so. I encourage each and every one of them to continue their efforts to make sure that what is offered at Tuia Lodge now continues to be offered into the longer term, for all of the residents and for the benefit of the whole community.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have spoken in this place many times about the China free trade agreement. I have outlined, in some detail, the benefits that will come to my electorate and to Australia at large. To our exporters, lower tariffs will mean that more Australian businesses will have access to lucrative and ever- growing Chinese markets. For the Northern Territory this will mean beef, seafood, fresh fruit and vegetable producers and our mining and energy producers will see the barriers come down in front of them. It means our service providers, in time, will be able to compete on a level playing field in one of the world's largest single markets.

Consumers and businesses will understand, by now, that lower tariffs on imports mean that the manufactured goods we buy from China will be cheaper. And, very importantly, workers should understand, by now, that the visa system that we have in place to manage the Australian labour market will remain unchanged. Even if the unions are screaming otherwise, the 457 visa system will not be changed. People who have been following the debate will know that any worker coming to Australia from China—or, in fact, any other country that we have a free trade agreement with, be it Korea, Japan, the United States or Chile—will not be displacing an Australian worker. Any worker coming in from overseas will have to demonstrate their skills and competencies. The free-trade agreements may change the method of the test, but not the principle. Despite the fact that all this information is in the public domain and despite the 18th century rhetoric of 'floods of Chinese workers' that the CFMEU and the MUA have been spruiking, people now understand that is simply not the case.

The public is waking up to these union lies. This debate has been run, and there is a general understanding that the sort of agreement we are entering into with China is already in place with dozens of other countries. In fact, some of them are nearly identical agreements which were introduced by Labor governments. Chile, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand and the United States—we have free trade agreements in place with all of these nations. Some of these agreements went through while Labor was in government, but all of them went through this parliament with general bipartisan support.

Despite all this, the disgusting scare campaign funded and administered by the trade union movement continues. And, in what I am sure they will tell you is a coincidence, it continues in marginal seats which Labor hope to win at the next federal election. I see my colleague, the member for Robertson, in here. She also has been a victim of some of this scare campaigning by the unions.

This campaign has sunk to a new low. Last week, Australian unions began circulating a pamphlet through union channels in Darwin and Palmerston. It appeared on the Facebook pages of union staffers and a Labor-aligned local government aldermen or councillor. When I checked this morning, similar information was posted on the Australian Unions website. This information I am referring to is an invitation to all union members to attend a debate on the merits of the China free trade agreement. The proposed debate is supposed to be held at a community hall in Palmerston between an Australian Manufacturing Workers Union representative and myself.

I have no problem with debates, because we do that here in this place; it is how we test ideas and how we formulate policy. The problem I have with this proposed debate is that the unions invited the entire union membership base at the Top End before they even considered asking me. The first I heard about this was when one of my local aldermen, who is Labor aligned, had publicity on her Facebook page saying: 'Come along and see this debate. Come and get the facts.' How can you have a debate when the other person is not even going to be there? This is not an attempt by the unions to stage a debate. This is another union stunt. I know that it is a stunt because the member for Robertson has also had exactly the same thing happen in her electorate, and so has the member for Dobell. There was not even any consultation with us as to whether or not we were available.

They just decided to stage this absolutely disgusting rally, this supposed debate of merits, and all they are trying to do is rally up the trade sector to support the union movement, so that one of their organisers can get up there and say: 'We're here but Natasha Griggs is not here. Lucy Wicks is not here and Karen McNamara is not here because they don't care.' What a load of rubbish. You actually need to make sure that people are available before you put out the advertising. As far as I am concerned, the unions are not going to have me debating this sort of rubbish with them, because it is not a real debate. They are staging another stunt. As I said, my message to the unions, who are pouring their membership fees into marginal seat campaigns across the country, is this: if you want a debate on the China free trade agreement or any other topic, bring it on—but make sure that it is a proper debate. That is what this place was built for. We have been debating the China free trade agreement in this building for several months, and it is a debate that the unions are losing. Over the course of those months, the misinformation your puppets on the opposition frontbenches have been sprouting has been tested and it has been found lacking. The ideas that you have put forward through your Labor appointees have been debated and they have been found to be unsound. Many of the things that the unions have said in their advertising and via their puppets on the opposition frontbenches are simply not true, and I think people have actually cottoned onto that.

The unions are supposed to be representing their good members. They are supposed to be the advocates for workers' rights and conditions. That is a noble cause, but they have strayed so far from their path. How can they look into the eyes of the members they represent and tell them that their membership funds are being used for a set of coordinated stunts to support their allies' political aspirations? How can they tell the people they represent that the fees they are using, which are supposed to pay for their advocacy and protection, are instead being channelled into 21 marginal seats to try to change the government?

This debate has already happened. Here in this place, questions have been asked about the free trade agreement and those questions have been answered. Arguments from those opposite have been put forward and have opposed the China free trade agreement, but those arguments from Labor have not stood up. We have seen the union movement, for reasons I do not understand, lashing out at agreements that will create jobs and wealth and opportunities for all Australians. Now that the Australian public have seen through their untruths, their exaggerations and their outright lies, they are now, in desperation, staging these stunts. They could not win the debate in here, so they have taken their bat and ball and they are going home.

To those of you involved in this, you can stack an audience and you can create an echo chamber of your own opinion, but you cannot call it a debate. Debates are what happen here in this chamber. Debates have two sides involved. This is not a debate; it is a farce. Let me say loud and clear, here on the public record, that I will have no part of it. I will not be a party to any Labor or union stunts. In the Territory, I will leave those stunts up to Senator Peris and her Labor staffer who is contesting the election with me when it comes up next year. I think that they need to focus on making sure that they represent the people, because I know what Territorians want. Territorians can see through these lies. They can see. They want a government that is going to create jobs, and that is what we are doing.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 24 September, the newly appointed Minister for Women, Senator Michaelia Cash, was asked on ABC Radio National whether the coalition government's recent announcements of a range of measures aimed to combat family violence would make up for $12 million of drastic cuts to community legal centres in 2017—almost fully one-third of their Commonwealth funding. In what could only be described as patronising and disrespectful comments, the senator stated:

It concerns me that there continues to be a false and misleading campaign of misinformation. It does disappoint me that there continues to be this myth perpetrated that there were funding cuts. The cuts never came into being.

For this government to accuse community legal centres of leading a false and misleading campaign of misinformation is really beyond the pale. It really does go to show just how arrogant this government is and just how arrogant this new Prime Minister is. The senator's comments demonstrate a complete lack of respect for the critical work conducted at community legal centres all across the country. They highlight what millions of Australians across the country already know: the government is out of touch and has no regard for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable of our society.

The Abbott-Turnbull government have presided over the most swingeing cuts to legal assistance services in many years. Now, apparently, they not only deny their appalling record on this issue but they actually have the audacity to attack those who point it out. There are four Commonwealth funded institutions providing legal assistance across Australia: community legal centres, legal aid commissions, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, and family violence prevention legal services. Each is critically important to ensuring access to justice for all Australians, not simply those wealthy enough to afford it. It is self-evident that, in a civilised prosperous nation like ours, justice must be available to the many and not the few. As I have said in the past, a right only able to be enforced by the wealthy is really nothing more than an arbitrary privilege.

Thanks to cabinet leaks earlier this year amid the disunity of the Liberal government, we now know that the Attorney-General Senator Brandis spoke grandiosely in cabinet of his role to:

… stand for the rule of law.

It is encouraging that the senator appears to understand what Sir Anthony Mason referred to as:

… a responsibility of the first importance.

However, I would remind the Attorney-General that his deeds must match his rhetoric. In the words of former Federal Court judge the honourable Kevin Lindgren:

The rule of law and a strong independent judiciary are empty ideals if people cannot access the courts.

Ensuring that the most vulnerable in our society can access justice is a cause particularly close to my heart. As Attorney-General, I was proud to have expanded funding for legal assistance services by $52.3 million over four years as part of the 2013-14 federal budget. But it is clear that Senator Brandis and the government do not share my respect and appreciation for the importance of legal assistance services. In one of his first decisions as Attorney-General, Senator Brandis slashed $43.1 million from legal assistance services and community legal centres. He cut $10 million from environment defenders offices, $9.6 million from CLCs more broadly, $13.4 million from ATSILs, $6.5 million from legal aid commissions and $3.6 million from FVPLSs.

The government went even further in last year's horror budget. They cut another $6 million from CLCs and $15 million from legal aid. Then, in the 2015 budget and in the new national partnership agreement that this government negotiated with the states, the Commonwealth ripped another $12 million from CLCs, a cut conveniently scheduled to fall on the community legal centres just after the next election. Senator Cash has accused community legal centres of being 'misleading'. But it is the senator who is misleading, not those working hard on the front line. Senator Cash insists that her government's 'cuts never came into being'. She should talk to lawyers and staff working on the front line. She should go and visit those centres where programs have been cut. She should talk to the clients who have been turned away—and there is only more to come.

In 2017, legal assistance funding in Australia is due to fall off a cliff, with funding to community legal centres falling from around $42 million to around $30 million—a total drop of around $12 million. Peter Noble, the chief executive of ARC Justice, who oversees the Loddon Campaspe Community Legal Centre in Bendigo and the Goulburn Valley Community Legal Centre in Shepparton, has correctly observed:

Whichever way you look at it, $12m will come out of the budget of community legal centres nationally from July 2017. Whether you want to call it non-renewable funding or a cut, that doesn't matter in my books, and it won't matter to women in court who receive our help.

Everywhere around Australia when I have visited community legal centres I have heard a similar message to that expressed by Peter Noble of the Loddon Campaspe Community Legal Centre. It is a story of cuts that have produced staff losses. It is a story of cuts that have produced a drop in the services provided to our community. This is coming at a time when the government is saying that it wants to support extra services in relation to family violence. I know, and community legal centres across Australia know, that a large proportion of their work is directly bound up with family violence services and this government needs to reconsider the cut—what the community legal centres sector describes as 'funding falling off a cliff in 2017'—that it is going to inflict. 'Funding falling off a cliff in 2017', a cut of about a third of the funding that is made available by the Commonwealth for community legal centres, is not consistent with providing support for extra services for family violence. In fact it is the reverse. It is a failure to recognise the immensely important work that is done by community legal centres in this area.

If Senator Brandis is serious about standing up for the rule of law, I urge him to repudiate Senator Cash's comments and to commit to properly funding vital access to justice services. If Prime Minister Turnbull is serious about 'respecting the people's intelligence' and leading a consensual, consultative government, I urge him to discipline Senator Cash for her insulting comments and engage in a constructive dialogue with a legal assistance sector that simply wants to have its voice heard.

On that last point of having its voice heard: while the government is reconsidering, as it should, the cuts that it is planning to inflict on the community legal centre sector from 2017 onwards, it ought to be reflecting on and removing the gag that it has imposed on community legal centres in the national partnership agreement that it has negotiated with the states. It is entirely wrong for a Commonwealth government to seek to remove entirely the role that community legal centres have played for many years in making their voice heard for law reform and making suggestions to governments as to appropriate changes that can be made to the law—changes that can, in effect, remove the need for legal advice for thousands and thousands of people. That is why we need to hear from community legal centres, which are often best placed to make comments to government about what is appropriate law reform.

So, not only should the government be reconsidering the cuts it is seeking to inflict on community legal centres and not only should the government stop pretending that there were no cuts but it is about time it removed the gag it is seeking to impose on community legal centres in the form of the national partnership terms. (Time expired)