Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been just over one year since the Albanese Labor government was sworn into office. We've been getting to work, repairing our global reputation and diversifying our trade. While we've seen good progress, we continue to operate in a challenging global environment, but more trade, not less, is a key part of how we build the secure and stable economic future we all want. More trade means more well-paying jobs, more national income and more opportunities for businesses and workers. Trade helps enable the economic strength and resilience that, alongside defence and diplomacy, are central to our national power.

In March this year Australia recorded a $15 billion trade surplus. A trade surplus means Australian exporters are doing well, and when exporters do well, so does our budget. Our decision to return 80 per cent of revenue upgrades, including those from strong export earnings, back to the budget helps us pay back the trillion dollars of debt we inherited from the coalition.

Trade translates into jobs. One in four Australian jobs is connected to trade. The pandemic restrictions demonstrated that the movement of people holds the same strategic and economic value as a movement of goods and services. That's why in tourism, one of our largest services exports pre-COVID, we're supporting the return of international visitors. The government continues to invest in a range of initiatives that will support the sustainable growth of the visitor economy. The budget included more than $260 million of new funding in our iconic national parks, such as Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta, to support tourism, conservation and cultural heritage activities; up to $3.4 billion over 10 years of investment in world-class infrastructure for the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games; and a $535 million investment in our national collecting institutions, strengthening Australia's cultural infrastructure, which is a key pillar of the government's new cultural policy. We're also providing an additional $204 million to the Great Barrier Reef, delivering on our election commitment to spend a record $1.2 billion to protect, manage and restore the reef in Queensland. The Great Barrier Reef is one of Australia's top tourist destinations, which is why, as part of our record investment, we have launched the $15.1 million Great Barrier Reef Tourism Reef Protection Initiative. These are just some of the measures in the 2023-24 budget that will support tourism and the attractions and events that bring international visitors to our shores. Of course, we're continuing to deliver the $48 million package announced in the October 2022 budget, which is designed to help bring international visitors back, strengthen the industry workforce and support quality tourism products.

Over the years ahead, we know that international trade, including our visitor economy, must continue to be a driver of Australian prosperity. Our government is working hard to share the benefits of that prosperity as widely as possible through the community. One of our biggest priorities has been to stabilise our relationship with China, Australia's largest trading partner. We want a stable and prosperous trading relationship and the full resumption of trade. Visits to China by the Prime Minister, followed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Trade and Tourism, are showing promising signs of progress. Australia and China have agreed to step up dialogue under our existing free trade agreement to resolve the outstanding trade impediments. China recently announced it would resume imports of Australian timber, as well as stone fruit. That follows positive developments in coal, cotton, and copper ores and concentrates. We want to see all remaining trade impediments removed as soon as possible. As a Western Australian, that is also very important for the people who fish for crayfish off the coast of Western Australia.

At the same time, overreliance on any single trading partner comes with risks, so our government is actively pursuing a trade diversification agenda, including by entering new and comprehensive free trade agreements. Just last month the Australia-UK FTA entered into force, with 99 per cent of Australian goods now entering the UK completely tariff free. Negotiations are moving swiftly to boost our trade agreement with India, the largest growing economy in the world, with a market of 1.4 billion people. And the Minister for Trade and Tourism has just returned from Europe following intensive negotiations on the Australia-Europe free trade agreement. This new trade deal means growth, investment, jobs and higher wages.

We're also deepening our engagement with South-East Asia, including through our Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040. We've also committed $31.9 million in developing the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. That will include key trade and economic partners across seven ASEAN nations, India, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Fiji and the United States. It's a very important initiative and will help advance Australia's trade and economic interests, including in digital and green trade and strengthening regional supply chains. IPEF is important to Australia's geo-economic interests and the key trade and economic agreement that will bring the United States well back into the Indo-Pacific region. We are a safe, reliable and trusted trade partner.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to focus on the foreign affairs side of this consideration in detail. It's on a very serious matter: Russia's illegal, abhorrent and appalling invasion of Ukraine. I've got a series of questions that I would like the government to answer. First of all is: why is there no additional funding for humanitarian support for Ukraine in this budget? Senate estimates hearings were told by DFAT that the coalition government, in March last year, was the last government to provide any funding for humanitarian support for Ukraine. Why aren't the government providing that support?

The second question is: why hasn't the government joined the other 60 nations who have reopened an embassy in Kyiv? What is the government waiting for? Sixty nations have opened embassies in Kyiv, and yet we are still waiting for the Australian embassy to open. Why? Let's get real about this.

The third question I'd like answered is: why hasn't the government issued a single sanction against Russia under Australia's Magnitsky cyber sanctions arrangements? We know that Australia joined the UK and US in February last year in publicly attributing cyberattacks against Ukraine to the Russian main intelligence unit. More than 15 months later, DFAT confirmed to estimates hearings last week that the government is still yet to issue a single sanction using the Magnitsky cyber sanctions. What is going on? Why won't you act?

The fourth question that I would like to ask is: does the government think that Australians and Ukrainians deserve to be informed on the Australian government's long-term strategic plan for Australia's support for Ukraine? Why hasn't the government made any commitment on this? Where is your plan to continue to help Ukraine? Does the government understand that there is a major offensive going on at the moment by Ukraine against the Russians and that what the Ukrainians want is some sort of long-term plan and commitment from the Australian government to help and support in that regard? In particular, when will the government announce their military support for Ukraine, or is the government waiting for a photo opportunity at the upcoming NATO summit? Is that what is driving this government when it comes to support for Ukraine? When will we get some answers to these questions?

The United States this week authorised the 40th draw-down for Ukraine, which will deliver US$325 million worth of military assistance. Why aren't we contributing and why aren't we joining forces with the US to provide that military assistance? We know that the Ukrainian community here in Australia want the government to act. They've written to the government and asked them to act, yet they are drawing absolute blanks from the government. And if they are waiting, and waiting needlessly, because there is going to be some sort of photo opportunity at NATO, is beyond the pale, considering what is going on, on the ground, at this very moment. What we want to see from the government is some transparency. Why aren't you providing the humanitarian support? Why aren't you using your cyber Magnitsky sanctions to take on the Russians? Why aren't you opening the embassy in Kyiv? Why aren't you providing and announcing that military assistance for Ukraine at this moment? They are the questions that all Australians want answered, that the Ukrainian communities here in Australia want answered, yet they are drawing complete blanks, and no-one can understand why. The war continues. It is incredibly important for the West, for democracies, that we defeat the Russians on the ground. This illegal and abhorrent invasion needs to be tackled head-on because the message it would send across the world would be that this type of behaviour will never ever be tolerated by the West and that we will fight it to the nth degree.

I am looking forward to the responses from the government to these questions. That is what consideration in detail is all about, and I am looking forward to the minister, who is standing up now, to answer these questions.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor has long advocated deeper Australian engagement with the Pacific. We see Australia as being part of the Pacific family, a Pacific family with shared values, a shared history and with shared challenges and shared opportunities. Many countries in the Pacific have faced longstanding challenges such as economic underdevelopment, geographic isolation and environmental pressures on the Blue Pacific Ocean that sustains us all. These issues are now exacerbated by new challenges like the aftermath of the COVID pandemic, the profound threat that climate change poses to low-lying island states and countries which are vulnerable to extreme weather events, as well as new security challenges like transnational crime, cyber threats, environmental and resource security and a dynamic geopolitical environment.

The Australian government wants to tackle these challenges in a genuine partnership with Pacific countries and their regional institutions, a genuine partnership where we listen, show respect and take action. That is why ministers, including the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and I, have engaged extensively with our Pacific counterparts.

This government came to office with the most comprehensive Pacific package taken to an election by an Australian political party. In our first year in office we have made significant progress in implementing these policies. We are addressing Pacific development challenges by boosting Australian official development assistance for Pacific countries by $900 million over four years from 2022-23. Under this year's budget, Australia will provide $1.9 billion in official development assistance to the Pacific in 2023-24. That makes us by far the region's biggest development partner.

Australia's aid investments materially improve the lives of people in Pacific countries. They support economic growth, improve health and education, tackle issues like gender equality and improve the lives of people with disabilities. We are addressing the region's climate change challenges through a new Pacific infrastructure financing partnership to support climate adaptation and infrastructure projects. We are amplifying Pacific voices' international climate change negotiations by bidding to co-host a 2026 United Nations climate conference with our Pacific partners and by supporting Vanuatu's request for an International Court of Justice advisory opinion on climate change. We are addressing Pacific economic challenges by expanding and improving the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme, which allows Pacific Islanders to come to work in Australia. When we came to government in May '22, there were 24,496 farm workers in Australia. That number had grown to 38,180 by April 2023, an increase of 55 per cent.

In addition, in our first year the Albanese government has also addressed Pacific security challenges. We have doubled funding for aerial surveillance under the Pacific Maritime Security Program to help tackle illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. We have established a new Australia Pacific Defence School to provide training for members of Pacific defence and security forces.

Australia's priority is to ensure the blue Pacific remains peaceful, prosperous and equipped to respond to the challenges of our times. That is why the May budget has built on the policies implemented over the last year with a new whole-of-government Pacific package. This package includes $370.8 million over four years to continue expanding and improving the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility program. These new PALM measures will deliver improved skills for farmworkers, country liaison workers and stronger worker protections and compliance operations in Australia. The May budget also includes a further $1.4 billion over four years to support the Pacific family first approach to peace and security, which has been embraced by Pacific Island Forum leaders. These Pacific security measures will support delivery of security infrastructure and maritime security, capabilities and sustainment. They will boost the Australian Federal Police's partnership with the Pacific family to support Pacific law enforcement and criminal justice initiatives, and the budget will provide additional support for Pacific cyberresilience. The May budget will also improve Australian cultural links with the Pacific by expanding access to Australian media content, boosting media connections through the Indo-Pacific broadcasting strategy and building on our shared love of sport.

The Albanese government is investing in the long-term security of our region and responding to Pacific priorities. We are bringing new energy, new resources and new policies to help build a more secure region and a stronger and more united Pacific family.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I make an observation before I start? The Labor government said they would respect parliamentary process and would be more transparent and more open with all these lovely words. But a lot of things they have done in the parliament since coming to government have been exactly the opposite, consideration in detail being one of those things. Consideration in detail when we were in government was respected as a debate and as a robust process where people would ask questions and the minister would hang around and answer them. Under the Labor government this has become a bit of a debacle.

To go to the issue of trade, I invite one of the four Labor members opposite me to mention the words 'coal, gas and iron ore' together in a sentence and say what economic and trading powerhouses those three industries are. Those industries have funded the budget surplus that was mentioned. Those three powerhouse industries in round figures are around $100 billion industries, and the royalties they pay are high, as we saw in the Queensland government's budget yesterday. Those industries pay royalties and taxes, and the workers in those industries pay taxes as they earn, so they are economic powerhouses for this country. But the Treasurer in his budget speech could not even mention the word ''coal', the word 'gas' or the words 'iron ore'. He just talked about 'the things that we sell overseas'. He couldn't even bring himself to say what they were, although, as we know, old Labor loved these industries. Your predecessors loved them, and you guys have turned your back on blue-collar workers in those industries and want to shut half of them down.

My first question is that I would love one of those four opposite to get up when they speak in the next 25 minutes and congratulate and thank the blue-collar workers in those industries. And why don't they speak? We know it's because Labor these days has turned into a lot of inner-city trendies, and they do not like those industries. I encourage one of them to have the courage to get up and thank the workers in those industries, which, as I said, are the economic powerhouse of our country right now. The other major thing going on is that in government we did free trade agreements, which lifted the amount of goods and services carried by FTAs when we came to government in 2013 from about 25 per cent to nearly 80 per cent when we left government, once you take into account both the UK deal and the India deal we did just before we left government. Again, those free trade agreements are the other things that are driving the economic powerhouse that we now are.

There was one major deal left to do, and that is the European Union deal. Labor members were laughing earlier, so I would like someone to address this next question as well.

We have geographical indicators that some of the sectors of our economy don't want to be given up, so I ask someone opposite to pay this process in the parliament respect and answer this question: is the government considering grandfathering the use of GIs, including prosecco? It was mentioned in Senate estimates that that may be looked at. Now, the prosecco industry have told me they don't want grandfathering to be considered. It causes a lot of distortions in the market, and they want the right to trade with those names even if they were to sell a business or expand a business. Again, to pay this process respect, I would like one of you opposite to get up and answer that question. Are you ruling out free trade agreements grandfathering GIs such as the words 'prosecco', 'feta' and others?

Labor have never been good at free trade agreements—half of them don't really believe in them—so I also ask that you not sell out our farmers. In most deals that are done, there is complete liberalisation of access for things like beef, sheepmeat, dairy and sugar. We're not talking quotas here; we're talking complete liberalisation. I ask someone opposite, if they're going to pay this process any due respect: are you aiming for complete liberalisation in those deals? One thing we had with the EU people in negotiations was critical minerals like lithium, which are very important to them. We should not be blinking. We should be getting a good deal for those people. Again, is someone happy to use coal, gas and iron ore in a sentence, and are you ruling out grandfathering GIs? It'd be nice to get a specific answer to a question.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no better way to strengthen security, stability and regional prosperity than through properly designed, delivered development assistance, which of course depends on a skilful and properly supported Australian aid program. Dollar for dollar, we achieve more in building peace and avoiding conflict, in promoting good government and fair trade through development assistance, than by any other means.

Every sensible person knows that. There was a quite unsensible person who just left this place. That's why it's so welcome that the Albanese government is returning Australia to its historical role as a focused and supportive development partner after a decade in which that role and responsibility were stupidly and callously abandoned.

The former coalition government started its life by inflicting the most savage and senseless funding cuts to Australia's aid program in living memory. One of their first acts was to dissolve our standalone development assistance agency, which, as anyone could imagine, had a seriously negative impact on the expertise, knowledge and culture that had accumulated over years and which had been the basis of an aid program that was independently rated as world-leading. At the outset, the coalition cut $1 billion, or approximately 20 per cent, from our ODA program. The 2015-16 budget saw the largest cut to Australia's aid program in our history. Over the life of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, $11.8 billion was scandalously pulled out of development assistance. For a government that ran up a trillion dollars in debt and was incapable of prudence or restraint, the billions they ripped out of our aid program remains one of the largest spending cuts they achieved.

In 2010, while a conservative Cameron government in the UK made it clear that they wouldn't seek to balance the books on the backs of the poorest people, the former coalition government delivered a sequence of deficits and a mountain of debt while also inflicting deeply harmful cuts on the poorest people in our region and the robodebt debacle on the poorest and most vulnerable Australians. And what did those cuts mean? They meant that fewer lives were saved. They meant that hundreds of thousands of people suffered aching poverty that could have been alleviated, including poverty in the form of disease, dirty water and malnutrition, which have a particularly acute and lasting impact on the lives of children and young mothers. They meant that our standing in our Pacific and South-East Asian region suffered as neighbours saw us withdraw support and heard the coalition government denying and even joking about the impacts of climate change.

For all those reasons, it was no surprise that, by the end of the Morrison government, we'd begun to face the consequences of that deterioration in Australia's regional standing. It was no surprise that Australia was no longer seen as the reliable and responsive partner of choice. We shouldn't have been surprised when there was preparedness by countries that face acute development challenges to consider support from other places, including through agreements with China that would have seriously compromised the open and self-determining character of the Pacific.

Australia can and should be an influential middle power not just in our region but especially in our region. The Albanese government sees that clearly. The government and the minister, who is here with us tonight, recognise that our national interests and our national values should be projected through all the features of our engagement with the wider world, through diplomacy, defence, development assistance and fair trade. That's why the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong; the assistant minister, the member for Gellibrand; and the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, the member for Shortland—in addition to, of course, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—have turned themselves inside out to re-engage with our regional neighbours and to re-engage with the wider world.

That's why this first budget of the Albanese Labor government is providing the single biggest increase to the development assistance budget since 2011-12. It's because we know there needs to be a long-term rebuild of our aid program. We're committed to year-on-year growth in the ODA budget. We're investing $37 million in expanding DFAT's capability to provide an ambitious, effective, targeted and responsible development program. We are increasing funding to the Pacific and to South-East Asia, and we're making sure there is a strong focus on climate change, on women, on people with disability and on regional and global health.

Why do we do this? We do this because it's absolutely in our national interest. It will make Australia safer. It will contribute to a more stable and more prosperous region. But it's also the right thing to do. It's an expression of our values as a nation—that we'll always look to lift up those who face tough circumstances and who face aching disadvantage.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

CK () (): The Pacific Australia Labor Mobility scheme was established under the coalition government and has proven successful not only for helping Australia but also in helping Pacific countries. Through that mutual benefit, it has strengthened our ties and brought countries closer together. I'm pleased to see the government agrees this scheme is a good idea and has announced it will devote more than $370 million to expanding the scheme to build on what we began. I would like to ask the minister how he believes the scheme can expand at pace and what safeguards are in place to ensure quantity is not sacrificed for quality.

I ask this because I have grave concerns the Labor government is racing ahead on many avenues without doing due diligence. Many of the policies they've rushed through in the past 12 months across various portfolios might initially conjure up warm and fuzzy feelings and photo opportunities but in actuality are having dire consequences. The superficiality of their governing style demonstrates a breathtaking lack of depth of thought, analysis and long vision and is completely devoid of nuance and complexity.

A prime example of this is the reforms to the PALM scheme. They have taken a perfectly good scheme—which, yes, should always be improved and finessed—and they have butchered it to such an extent that farmers are now threatening to boycott the program altogether. Under Labor, farmers would have to pay Pacific workers for a minimum of 30 hours a week every week. It might sound nice to those in the inner city. It might sound like good policy, but what the government is failing to get is that ultimately these jobs are seasonal. They are weather dependent. Farmers during a harvest might work a 12-hour day and the next day be stuck inside. The PALM scheme must remain flexible to that, which is why the 30 hours averaged over eight weeks proved popular. The changes to the scheme were clearly made without adequate consultation with our stakeholders. Industry has loudly said the myriad changes to the scheme are no longer workable. My question to the minister is: will the government go back to the drawing board and re-engage with stakeholders to find a better solution? I would also like to know if each Pacific country involved with PALM has been supportive of the reforms.

On remittance, remaining on the Pacific, I do want to speak to the vital and positive impact the PALM scheme has in workers' home countries. According to the World Bank figures, 44 per cent of Tonga's gross domestic product is made up by remittance sent home by those working abroad. In Samoa it's 30 per cent, in Vanuatu it's 21 per cent and in Fiji it's nine per cent. Roughly 15 per cent of each migrant worker's pay cheque is sent back home, with Australian government figures suggesting this amount could be as high as 40 per cent. The problem is that about 10 per cent of that amount is then lost in foreign exchange, meaning that tens of millions of dollars that could be going back to the Pacific are not. Many banks will argue there are zero upfront fees charged to the individual, but what we see is a hefty slice of the pie taken through inflated exchange rates. My question to the government is: other than a box-ticking website, what is the government really doing to address the lack of transparency banks are providing to hardworking Pacific Islanders?

Finally, I come to official development assistance. In Labor's 2021 national platform it said:

Labor will, over time, achieve a funding target for the international development program of at least 0.5% of gross national income.

In the May 2023 budget analysis by well-respected academic Stephen Howes, he said ODA/GNI:

… has now fallen to 0.19%, and with indexation and economic growth continuing at its projected 2025-26 level (2.75%), Australia's ODA/GNI ratio will fall to below 0.14% over the next decade.

Also in Labor's 2021 national platform, it said:

Labor will increase aid as a percentage of gross national income every year that we are in office, starting with our first budget

The Australian Council for International Development said:

While ACFID notes the Government's efforts in rebuilding the development program, there is no denying that Australia's overall performance as a donor is lagging …

Australia's ODA to GNI percentage in 2022-23 was 0.20 percent. This coming year, it will fall to 0.19 percent—which represents a historic low.

In the May 2023 budget the government published a commitment to $8.6 billion in new and additional ODA over 10 years, starting from 2026-27. This goes well beyond the four-year forwards published by Treasury. My question to the government is: how can it actually forecast to 2036-37 when there are so many variables at play? Is this simply a ploy to make the government appear more generous than it really is? I would appreciate, respectfully, an answer to those questions from the minister.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a longstanding Labor tradition to anchor Australia's identity and find our security in our immediate region. This recognises the essential facts of who we are and where we are. At the last census in 2021, 17.4 per cent of our population identified as having Asian ancestry. This represented a seven per cent increase in just five years. In the 2006 census, it was 10.4 per cent, and now it's 17.4 per cent in just five years. That's massive. Asian-Australians make a formidable contribution across our nation's boardrooms, businesses and other organisations. This government is proud to count among its leaders the first Malaysian-Australian Foreign Minister, Senator Penny Wong, as well as other outstanding Asian-Australians in this parliament.

Our Foreign Minister has reinvigorated our relationships by visiting every ASEAN country—except Myanmar, for obvious reasons—and every Pacific Islands Forum member in our first year of government. Australia is also a part of Asia by virtue of our strategic reality. We are an Indo-Pacific country at the confluence of the Indian and Pacific oceans. We are a founding member of APEC and of the East Asia Summit, and we were ASEAN's first dialogue partner. We have close strategic partners in Japan, Indonesia, India, the Philippines, Singapore and others across our region.

I was stoked to assist in strengthening these partnerships recently at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, where I accompanied the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister earlier this month. Representing Australia on an important regional stage was a reminder of the importance of building Asian literacy here at home. Sadly, we have gone backwards domestically in the teaching of Asian languages. The teaching of Bahasa Indonesia in particular has, very regrettably, been in net decline in Australian universities in recent years. Only 755 students learn Indonesian in Australian highschools, and that's down 50 per cent on a decade ago. This decline should be urgently stemmed and reversed. I learned Bahasa Indonesia at the Australian National University and then in the Army, and I regularly use it in meetings with Indonesian stakeholders in the course of my duties both in the parliament and around the country and region. Even a few words in the language of another culture signals enormous respect. I'm nowhere near fluent, but at the Shangri-La Dialogue my Bahasa was acknowledged by an Indonesian minister. So it is noticed and it is appreciated.

Sports diplomacy is another key tool for fashioning strong, endurable relationships within the region. During my recent visit to New Zealand and Samoa, two big rugby-loving countries, I raised the importance of deepening sports-diplomacy initiatives in the Pacific in meetings, and there was great interest in this. When I briefly met Fiji's Prime Minister Rabuka, during his visit to New Zealand last week, I invited him, humbly, to participate in the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup in late August in Paris. He is going to be over there watching the Fijian national team, obviously. Sport is a language we share with our Pacific family, and it's not just rugby union but other sports as well: rugby league and many others.

DFAT is leading this national effort with PacificAus Sports. This is an investment of $15.6 million non-ODA and $2.5 million ODA per annum. It aims to strengthen regional sporting connections and create new opportunities for Pacific athletes. And Team Up is a $6 million ODA per annum program involving over 60 partners, delivering sport for development programs across 13 sports in Fiji, Nauru, PNG, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu. It focuses on gender, disability, leadership and governance.

Arts diplomacy is another area where we can do more, and I'd like to highlight, in the seconds remaining, the Bali Artists Camp which has involved, over a period of time, Balinese artists coming to the Northern Territory and Aboriginal Territorians going to Bali. So cultural diplomacy and sports diplomacy are incredibly strong.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask: where is the Minister for Home Affairs? I find this deeply disappointing. I've been a member of this place for seven years, and for six of those years, I've got to say, the minister fronted and responded to questions. We had a previous assistant minister here. He did not respond to any of the questions from this side of the House, and now we have another assistant minister here. With the greatest of respect, the Minister for Home Affairs should be here to hear this. I hope that we have the minister here when we continue this tomorrow. It was the same earlier today with respect to health; we did not have the Minister for Health and Aged Care or the Minister for Aged Care attending.

I would like to raise a couple of issues that are of concern to my electorate. We are in a housing crisis. I think that is very well known. My community is quite concerned that we have more than 331 households who are already experiencing rental stress, and vacancies in my electorate are less than 0.5 per cent in many areas. Yet we know, from the budget, that there is going to be increased pressure because overseas net migration is predicted to increase by 650,000 people over the next two financial years. I'm well known, and on the record in this place, for supporting the refugee intake and, in fact, looking to having it increased, but what we're going to see, with 650,000 new people coming over a two-year period, is that the challenges we're having with housing are only going to be exacerbated. And the hardship that that's going to place on Australians is going to be enormous. It's quite a foolish thing to do at this time when we have such a shocking vacancy rate in Australia. The budget does provide for funding for return to levels of migration at the lower end of 190,000 people per year, but when we're talking about 650,000 over the next two years the inflationary pressures that that will cause will be enormous. We've already had 12 consecutive rate rises, and I can't see how Australians are expected to cope with this. What commitment can the government give that its immigration intake will not add to inflationary pressures and will not, consequently, affect the availability of housing?

I'd like to talk about the ACCC and the oversight of the airline industry. Under direction from the Australian government, the ACCC has been monitoring and reporting on the domestic airline industry over the last three years. This arrangement expires in June this year. This is despite continued poor performance in arrival times, cancellations and above-average airfares and despite record profits. International airfares remain 50 per cent higher on average than in 2019. Domestic fares remain 17 per cent higher in nominal terms than at the same time in 2019. It's not surprising, when 94 per cent of all domestic travel is undertaken by the Qantas group and Virgin Australia, a duopoly of epic proportions. Will the government continue the ACCC oversight of the airline industry? If not, what measures will the government implement to ensure consumers can be confident of a competitive airline sector?

I'd also like to briefly touch upon skilled migration and the effect on the Pacific nations. I'm a big supporter of the PALM scheme. I've met with many people from Vanuatu and Fiji in my community. The Pacific engagement visa is an important program, but there is a great concern that there is a brain drain with that when we are offering permanent residency to people and they're not returning to their communities, after spending time in Australia, with greater skills and experience. So my question to the government is: is this a concern you have? Many feel that this is potentially an unintended consequence of the program. How will the government provide the necessary assistance to our Pacific neighbours to accommodate for the loss of skills through this and similar programs? Thank you.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know that Australia lives in challenging times. Strategic competition in our region, the Indo-Pacific, is increasing, and domains that were previously considered separate—economic, diplomatic, strategic, military—are converging. Events in our region and beyond have shown, as well, that peace is not a guarantee and will become harder to maintain in the future. The Albanese government, though, is working to shape a region that is stable, peaceful, prosperous and predictable; a region where sovereignty is protected, where countries can make their own choices, where no country dominates and no country is dominated; and, importantly, a region that is governed by rules, norms and international law.

A region like this doesn't just emerge on its own. It requires active investment from all countries in the region, including Australia. It requires diplomacy. It requires us to build our defence capability and our ability to contribute to collective security in our region. It requires strengthening Australia's economic security, building our resilience, our sovereign capabilities, at home. The Albanese government is deploying all elements of our national power to make Australia stronger at home and more influential in the world. We won't be content to be mere commentators, mere spectators, to the changes going on around Australia. We're engaging to shape the world around us, and our budget makes responsible investments to mitigate the threats that we face and to seize the opportunities that are presented to us.

Since coming into office, the Albanese government has worked to rectify a decade of underfunding and resourcing neglect at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The previous government failed to ensure long-term resourcing for our diplomatic capability. A wasted decade saw Australia's diplomatic footprint shrink at the worst possible time. The previous government also failed to provide ongoing funding for critical aspects of our diplomacy and national security, to the detriment of the national interest. The previous government provided no ongoing funding for the interim mission in Afghanistan, for overseas leases of embassies, for the foreign arrangements scheme and for many more. And what did their failure leave us with? A slew of commitments with none of the funding needed to deliver them. Australians deserved better.

I'm proud of our efforts to restore both the capability and the leadership of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We've brought the department back into the centre of government decision-making and of Australia's engagement with the world, where it belongs. We're investing in our diplomats. They are our people on the ground, who put our foreign policy into action. Our budget will better enable Australia's diplomatic network to shape the region and advance our interests. So, in this increasingly contested environment, the Albanese government is investing to lift the capability of our diplomats in the Indo-Pacific. I wish that all Australians could see the enormous capability of our people across our diplomatic network. I'm privileged in my role as Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs to have seen Australian diplomats at work in dozens of countries, and I wish all Australians could see them. They'd be so proud of the people representing us and the capabilities that they have. They are our frontline of engagement with the world.

Our diplomats are our instruments of influence, and they've achieved a lot in the last year. Our diplomats worked around the clock to help Australians and their families returned home from the conflict in Sudan. They successfully assisted over 300 Australians and their families to evacuate from a very dangerous civil conflict. They successfully advocated and worked to bring Professor Sean Turnell back to Australia after 21 months of unjust detention in Myanmar. As we speak, they are working tirelessly at all hours of every day to provide consular support to Australians who face difficult situations overseas. Our diplomats have worked and continue to work with partners around the world to respond to Russia's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine, to counter Russian lies and to deliver justice for Ukraine and its people. Our Australian Passport Office staff have successfully resolved the backlog of passport applications that we inherited from the failure and the lack of planning of the previous government. Passport processing rates are back to what they were before the COVID pandemic.

Our diplomats advance Australia's interest in every corner of the globe. That's why the Albanese government will continue to invest in our diplomats. We will continue to advance our interests around the world, shape the region that Australia exists in and build a region that's peaceful, prosperous and secure—a region that operate on rules, norms and international law, a region where all countries, including countries like Australia, exercise their sovereignty and their own choices, because if we don't do it, other countries will.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:32