Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When we came to government, DVA, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, was chronically underfunded. That's why this budget, handed down by the Treasurer a few weeks ago, is a further example of the Albanese Labor government's commitment to making sure that our veterans and their families get the support and benefits not only that they need but that they deserve.

When we came to government, some 42,000 claims with the Department of Veterans' Affairs had not even been allocated to somebody within the department to look at. That backlog was causing anguish and distress for our veterans and their families. It meant that claims were taking years to assess and years to process. As the member for Calare, the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the former government, pointed out, this was because the former government was 'only prioritising funding that had a political advantage', which points out the complete lack of faith and the complete lack of support that the previous government had for veterans and the way in which they didn't prioritise what they needed.

When we go back to what we inherited and what that meant for processing times, it meant that, for an initial liability claim under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—this is one of the three pieces of legislation that supports our veterans' entitlements system—which is the most common claim that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has to deal with, it was taking on average 332 days just to allocate the claim for somebody to look at. It meant that the total processing time was some 441 days.

In our first budget in government, in October 2022, we funded an additional 500 staff for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. In this budget, handed down just a few weeks ago, we funded an additional 141 permanent staff for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This is because we're not just committed to getting rid of the backlog; we're committed to making sure that we keep it gone and that we bring down processing times.

Now we're able to show that all claims that are lodged with the Department of Veterans' Affairs will be looked at by somebody within 14 days, and that's averaging, since December, at just six. It also means that, when we look at the time from December through to the end of April, we are averaging a total processing time of just 60 days. That's down from 441 days to just 60 days.

Of course, thousands of veterans have had to wait longer than that because their claims were stuck in that backlog that we inherited from the previous government, but we have now eradicated that backlog. Those claims are being processed. Some of those claims are taking time to process because, as you would expect, things have evolved over quite a while in their claims and in their conditions—in the years that their claims were sitting in that backlog. So further information has been required and further tests need to be undertaken, but we're getting about doing that job.

We also saw a situation which made this problem worse where a third of the people involved in processing claims were labour hire. For them it meant they had no job security, which also meant that they would leave frequently—understandably. But, when it takes six months to train a delegate, that continual churn of labour hire was inhibiting the effectiveness of the department. Now there are just 10 labour hire personnel in all of claims processing. That means we are a much more effective team. Processing this backlog means that veterans are getting what they need and deserve. That means that in this budget we are spending an additional $6.5 billion on benefits and support going to veterans and families, and we don't shy away from that; that is a good thing.

But the reason for that is the built-up demand of veterans and families not getting the support they should have received if the department had been properly resourced by the previous government. Yet the Leader of the Opposition, in his budget reply speech, said that we should be cutting back on this expenditure, that we should be cutting back on these staff numbers that are actually there to make sure veterans and families get what they need and deserve. Shame.

Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To all those who continue to serve—our veterans and your families—the freedoms we enjoy today are on the back of hard-fought battles, wars and sacrifice you have made. On Anzac Day we say, 'Lest we forget' and we reaffirm that we will never forget those who have been killed in battle, died in training or succumbed to the war within back here on home soil. On Remembrance Day we say, 'The guns fell silent.' But the guns haven't been silent since. In natural disasters—fires, floods, cyclones—our brave men and women are there, and in peacekeeping missions: East Timor, Fiji, the Solomon Islands; our brave men and women are there. And in combat operations—world wars, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan.—our brave men and women are there.

And it's not good enough when, on Anzac Day or Remembrance Day, politicians run to the first person they see who is in uniform or has medals on their chest to get a photo, post it on social media, then set and forget. There is so much more that needs to be done and so much action that needs to happen—because it won't be people in this place who will find themselves on the battlefield; it'll be our brave men and women, who will stand side by side with our allies, with the Australian flag on their shoulder and there will to win, with their country behind them. They know there is no substitute for victory and that second best means death on the battlefield. They need a government that stands up for them, a government that stands beside them and, most importantly, a government that has their back. Sadly, we have not seen that from this Labor government.

I'll give two examples. A Chinese naval ship deployed its sonar against Australian Navy divers, injuring them. What did the defence minister or the Prime Minister do? Nothing. Only days after this event, the Prime Minister of Australia met with Xi Jinping. Did he raise this? Did he stand up for our service men and women? No. Did he say, 'We will not put up with this anymore; this is an act of aggression'? No; he didn't. Fast-forward just a couple of months later. A Chinese fighter jet fired its flares on an Australian Navy helicopter. Experts have said that if these flares had hit this helicopter it would have had to ditch in the water or crash. A few things happen when a helicopter crashes in water. It normally hits at speed. It goes upside down quickly, and it sinks at about six metres per second. This could have been catastrophic for our people. Did the defence minister or the Prime Minister pick up the phone and call Xi Jinping or the defence minister of China? No; they didn't—once again, not standing up for our people. We heard words from the defence minister like, 'Oh, well; that was unprofessional.' Well, thanks, genius! We know it was unprofessional, but they put the lives of our people in danger. You should have been more strong and should have publicly said, 'We will not put up with this; this is an act of aggression'—stand up for our people.

We've seen more failure from this defence minister when it comes to cutting LAND 400 Phase 3, from 450 armoured vehicles to 129. Did you speak to the end user about this, or did you just look at the bottom line and slash it? The minister's nodding his head, but no, you didn't, because you announced on Kapyong Day, which is 3RAR's most sacred day, who would get these infantry fighting vehicles, and they knew nothing about it. You're speaking to the wrong people. You're making cuts where you shouldn't. You're not talking to the end user. You're more worried about what the generals say here in Canberra.

And we saw yesterday an absolute debacle of a defence policy coming from the Minister for Defence Personnel and Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who's clearly not across his brief. He had to get his dad, Richard Marles, to come out and mop it up for him! You said, 'People from Five Eyes, the Pacific and every other nation can join our ADF.' Well, it turns out that's not the case.

You're not across your brief, and there are so many questions that need to be answered. One of these questions is: when will the government provide a meaningful increase in Defence spending, an increase that comes now, not buried beyond the forward estimates, to ensure the ADF is ready to face up to the current threat? The continual mismanagement of our ADF by this government has reverberated through all of our communities. The DSR did not say, 'Get rid of the south to bolster the north.' The DSR did not say, 'Cut money from Army to fund AUKUS.' You need to do better; you need to put the Australian Defence Force before your own personal interests.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My electorate of Macquarie has an active veterans community, and we have both Richmond and Glenbrook RAF bases. This budget provides around $30 million for additional airfield maintenance work at the Richmond base, which will be home to the growing fleet of Hercs following our announcement last year of the $9.8 billion program to purchase 20 new C-130J Hercs in coming years. In the meantime, I welcome the funding for deeper maintenance and planned upgrades to existing aircraft that will sustain them until the first new Herc arrives.

Because so many Defence personnel have their work in my electorate it means so many retired personnel also call it home. I'm proud to have more than 2,000 DVA clients in my electorate. Earlier this year I welcomed the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to Richmond, where he announced funding for the Veterans' and Families' Hub, delivering on a commitment I made in the run-up to the 2022 election. This will make it easier for veterans in Macquarie and across north-west Sydney, and their families, to access the practical support that they deserve.

The Albanese Labor government is continuing to invest in veteran support with an additional $477 million in this budget for the Department of Veterans' Affairs to support the more than 340,000 veterans and their dependents around the country. We're delivering on our commitment to simplified and harmonised veteran compensation legislation, which was the first recommendation of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide. This is important reform.

And as well as the simplifying and harmonising of the legislative framework for veterans compensation and rehabilitation, we're reducing the complexity of the system, speeding up the time taken to process claims, meeting the continued growth in claims and addressing other service delivery pressures. There is investment to address critical gaps in our IT systems to help reduce the time veterans and families have to wait to receive support and services, and improvements in accessing benefits and supports.

The 2024-25 budget includes $222 million of additional funding for veteran and family entitlements and supports that have been made available through this new simplified veteran compensation legislation, ensuring veterans and their families can better understand and access the supports that they are entitled to much faster. The budget will boost veterans homecare and community nursing programs with an additional $48.4 million in funding, so there are no gaps in service delivery.

The royal commission has created a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver meaningful and long-lasting change to the way we support our veteran communities, and this government is committed to addressing its recommendations. Investments in this budget ensure funding for DVA remains at a record high. It's now better funded than it has been in 30 years, and it means we will improve the experience of veterans and families who reach out to DVA for assistance.

Recent years have seen substantial growth in the demand for DVA services, which has resulted in a backlog of unallocated claims and significant delays in claims processing across a range of benefits and services, and those opposite knew about that. I was horrified to learn, when we came to government in 2022, that there were 42,000 claims that had not even been looked at.

Minister Keogh has explained that there were a large number of labour hire staff and there was a high degree of churn in that workforce, and it takes a long time to get them trained. So that's why, in recognising the important role that the Public Service plays in delivering services for Australians, we've invested nearly $234 million to engage 500 new frontline staff at DVA, to eliminate the veteran compensation claims backlog, in our very first budget in October 2022. Now all of those claims have been assessed or are currently being assessed, and we've brought down the time it takes to do those assessments. Compared to this time last year, we're now doing those two months faster than they used to be done, and we're continuing to try and bring this down. We've converted a large labour hire workforce into actual public servants, properly trained, so we're able to deliver to veterans and their families the services that they deserve.

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

Minister for Veterans' Affairs, thank you for coming to Wagga Wagga last November to announce money for RSL LifeCare and for Pro Patria; I appreciate that. But, after two years in office, the budget confirms that Labor has no plans to extend the veterans hubs, with the budget papers showing that all the money for the program will dry up in two years. Just $11.6 million will be committed to veterans hubs in 2024-25, compared to $34.1 million last year and reducing to zero in 2026-27. Australians—our veterans—deserve better.

This was the third budget where veterans will pay a price for losing their voice in cabinet under Labor. Now, I am standing in for the shadow minister for veterans' affairs; the shadow minister is here, but he's unwell. But, as Deputy Prime Minister, I had put the veterans portfolio into cabinet by June 2019. When Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister, the first decision was to dump the Minister for Veterans' Affairs from cabinet. This budget confirms the ramifications of that decision. Your portfolio, Minister, should be in cabinet. Veterans should have a voice around the big table.

The budget confirms Labor will miss the 2025 deadline set by the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide to reform, streamline and harmonise veterans entitlements. No budget provision has been made for a new scheme to come into effect by 1 July 2025, as stipulated by the interim report of the royal commission. The royal commission is set to hand down its final report on 9 September. However, in August 2022, the commission handed down an interim report so the government could urgently address critical recommendations. We feel that this is not happening fast enough. And it may well be because of the fact that Veterans' Affairs is not in cabinet.

A question for the minister: Budget Paper No. 1 says: 'The Government will provide $222.0 million to harmonise veterans' compensation and rehabilitation legislation'—it's on page 31. I would like the minister to provide details on what makes up that cost for each of the forward-year estimates. What changes have been costed that specifically equate to $222 million? Could you please answer that.

On staffing: overall total DVA resourcing will be cut by about $19 million from $797 million in 2023-24 to $778 million this coming year. While the minister issued a press release claiming Labor is investing $186 million to employ an additional 141 staff to ensure there is no veterans claims backlog, there is no evidence—none—in the budget papersto support this. Page 16 of the PBS Budget Related Paper No. 1.4B for DVA shows, in fact, the opposite. It shows that staffing numbers will actually drop in DVA during 2024-25. Of the net 36,000 growth in public servants that Labor is budgeting for, we now know that none of that net growth will be for our veterans. A question for you, Minister: can you identify where the 141 apparent extra staff appear in the budget papers and over what period of time, given page 16 of that paper shows that the department will experience a decrease of 78 ASL staff in 2024-25 compared to this year. And, Minister, what sections are those ASL staff being cut from? I appreciate that you are staying—that's good—because you can hear the rest of it.

The claims backlog peaked in August 2022, under Labor, with 45,226 claims—over 3,000 more than at the change of government, unlike the previous speaker's account. Those are the facts. Since then, the 2024-25 budget papers refer to having cleared the backlog of unallocated compensation claims in DVA. It's important to understand that the government's definition of clearing a claim does not mean it is being assessed, finalised and paid. It is simply not good enough.

I want to go to a couple of other quick things in the time left. Labor has also put the veteran chaplaincy program on life support, with just over $1 million for a one-year extension as it is being reviewed. This is an important program, and I would urge you to reconsider that, perhaps when the Prime Minister puts you in the cabinet. Unmarked war graves—Labor has no plans to reinstate the $2.9 million it stripped from the World War I unmarked war grave program. Ahead of the election, Labor promised $3.7 million to match the coalition's commitment to the program. That pledge has been cut to $800,000, spread over four years. It is simply not good enough. This is from a government that in its first year of office made the Anzac Day public holiday optional and exchangeable for Commonwealth public servants. Shame on you for that.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our veterans and their families have sacrificed so much for our nation. Many of them are our nurses, farmers, teachers and emergency service personnel. They come from every walk of life. They have served on our shores and abroad, and, upon returning home, many face a battle that tragically is not always won. And so we believe it is the role of government to ensure our veterans don't fight this battle alone.

In my electorate of Corangamite, there are almost 4,000 veterans who receive and deserve our support. It's this principle that's enshrined in our latest budget. Our government has allocated an additional $477 million to ensure veterans and their families get the support they need and deserve. This is a significant investment, and it's all about supporting our veterans and clearing the backlog of claims created under the former coalition government. When we came to office, DVA had around 42,000 claims—that's 42,000 claims—that were unresolved, with many more that hadn't been picked up or actioned. The fact of the matter is that the DVA was underresourced and its staff needed much more support. Our government recognised this and the important role that the Australian public service plays in delivering services for veterans. In our first budget, we invested more than $233 million to employ 500 new frontline staff at DVA. Now, we're investing a further $186 million towards the employment of an additional 141 staff to ensure backlogs don't re-emerge and to process claims faster.

In the weeks since the Treasurer handed down our third budget, we have heard those opposite complain about reckless spending and the size of the public service. However, the coalition has been very quiet when it comes to discussing the additional $6.5 billion included in our budget to pay out veterans compensation claims. What they see as a cost blowout we see as a result of our government reducing the claims backlog to zero, a feat only possible through the DVA receiving staffing and resourcing levels it hasn't seen in 30 years.

The 2024-25 budget also delivers an additional $220 million to deliver our government's simplified veterans compensation legislation. Earlier this year, Minister Keogh released an exposure draft of the legislation to ensure veterans and their families can raise their voices and contribute to the final bill. I sent copies of this draft legislation to every RSL branch across my electorate—because who better to consult than those the bill is designed to support? On top of this, all veterans in the workforce will now receive a tax cut, just like every other Australian worker. Every household that a veteran calls home will receive $300 of energy bill relief. Every veteran in an aged-care home will be cared for by workers, who are now better supported themselves, with a registered nurse onsite 24/7. This budget also boosts veterans home care and community nursing programs with an additional $48.4 million to ensure there are no gaps in service delivery.

Of course, we're also proud to be delivering veterans and families hubs right across this nation, with one now underway in my region. The hub will be easily accessible to veterans. It will have a focus on financial advice, health and wellbeing and will offer much-needed outreach to veterans, who at times miss out on the support they need.

I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge all of my local RSL sub-branches: in Torquay, Geelong, Waurn Ponds, Inverleigh, Bannockburn, Portarlington-St Leonards, Queenscliff-Point Lonsdale, Ocean Grove-Barwon Heads, Drysdale and Leopold. You have all played a significant role in this process.

In closing, I would like to thank Minister Keogh for all the work he does in this important area, where we support our veterans. Our government is making good on our commitment to better support veterans and their families across Australia, and I thank them for their service.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'If they won't fight for us, why would we fight for them?' Those were the words that were said to me just a couple of days ago by a group of diggers that I was talking with. They complained to me that morale in the ADF, particularly in the Army, is at an all-time low. Why do you think that is? Let me tell you. I asked this group of gentlemen what, if they could be minister for defence for a day, they would do.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, to be fair, it wasn't that. They said, 'We would get rid of all of the woke insert-expletive-here that is infecting the ADF.' These guys weren't officers but diggers—good, hardworking young diggers. Whenever I go on an ADFPP, I always search that sort of person out, because they will sock me in the face and tell it to me straight as to what their views are about where the ADF might be going wrong. They will always tell me honestly. It wasn't, 'Spend more money here or there.' It was, 'Get rid of all this woke BS insert-expletive.'

Morale is an all-time low. Under this government, we are now 5,000 personnel under strength in our full-time ADF. This government and this Minister for Defence, under the DSR, gutted the order for infantry fighting vehicles from 450 down to 129. They gutted two-thirds of the order for infantry fighting vehicles. What does that say to a digger? That says: 'We don't value you. We're going to send you out but not give you the protection that you deserve.'

Why else is morale so low, apart from the gutting of the order for infantry fighting vehicles? I've never served in the Army, but I reckon that, if I were ever in a firefight with an enemy, I'd want to know that there was some artillery that would back me up. What does this lot do? They scrap the planned second regiment of self-propelled howitzers. We don't need them, they reckon. The Minister for Defence may not need them but do you reckon the diggers will or might? Hopefully, they never will.

Do you know why else morale is so low? Funnily enough, ADF members read newspapers. When they read that this government doesn't back their naval personnel—like our naval aviators in the Seahawk that had China's People's Liberation Army Air Force dropping flares in front of their helicopter, putting at risk its crew—how do you reckon that goes down with ADF personnel? How do you reckon it goes down when the same thing happens with Navy divers off HMAS Toowoomba?

Morale is at an all-time low because our members of the ADF don't believe that this government has their back. It's interesting that the Minister for Defence isn't here, so it's good to see the Minister for Defence Industry is here. Chances are he's here because he's the only one who hasn't been caught up in this confusion about what's been going on in relation to personnel, but that's for another day. My question to you, Minister standing in for 'MinDef', is: what are you going to do to lift the morale of the ADF? At the moment it is appallingly low.

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

I thank the member opposite for his contribution and his question. What we're doing to support the ADF is evident. What we're doing is record resourcing of the ADF. We are matching our rhetoric with action—something those opposite failed to do in 9½ long years in government. I don't question the patriotism of those opposite. I think they're all firmly committed to serving this nation; you wouldn't be in this place otherwise. I note that I am talking in front of four members of the opposition, three of whom are veterans, and I honour their service and thank them for what they have done for this country. But rhetoric must be matched by action, and that's what the Albanese government is doing in record resourcing of the ADF in the most strategically challenging circumstances since the Second World War.

We've increased the defence budget by $50 billion over the next decade, with $5.7 billion coming in the first four years. Under our new IIP, 10 per cent of the new funding flows in the first four years. When those opposite released their new IIP in 2016, only five per cent of the new funding was in the first four years. So, if anyone opposite gets up and talks about it being backloaded, I would argue that they are being incredibly hypocritical. Importantly, within two years, two-thirds of the new funding from those opposite was taken back from defence into consolidated revenue. Their actions demonstrated a lack of commitment to the defence of the nation.

What this increased resourcing enables us to do is a more than doubling of the surface fleet—moving from a surface fleet of 11 to 12 major surface combatants to one with 26—and accelerating that, so that we will be cutting the steel on the general-purpose frigate in 2026. It will be delivered in 2029 and in service in 2030—the fastest acquisition of a major surface asset in the history of the nation or, certainly, since World War II. We've brought forward incredibly significant projects for the Australian Army. The infantry fighting vehicle will be brought forward by a couple of years, so much so that we will have finished the production line before those opposite would have delivered one. I'll give a tip to the member for Fisher: 129 is more than one. We will have our entire production line done before you would have produced one. We've brought forward the landing craft, medium, by two years and we brought forward landing craft, heavy, by seven years as part of the transformation of the Australian Army into one focused on littoral manoeuvre, a key recommendation of the Defence Strategic Review. We're also focusing on long-range strike for the Australian Army—and I respect the former speaker's contribution about self-propelled howitzers. We're moving from an Australian Army whose longest-range weapon is 40 kilometres to one that will have long-range strike in excess of 500 kilometres. That is a massive exercise. We're bringing forward the acquisition of HIMARS, and establishing Australian missile manufacturing industry in this country. We'll be making missiles from 2025 onwards. These are all important contributions to the defence of the nation.

I'm going to spend my remaining time talking about what the test is for the opposition—the alternative government. We're a year out from an election. It's time to go from carping about what we're doing to presenting alternative policies, so I'll make a couple of suggestions. First, you should apologise for the fraud you perpetrated amongst the defence industry and the people of this nation by adding $42 billion worth of spending commitments—

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for—

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

I withdraw so I can keep time. They need to apologise for adding $42 billion of spending commitments without adding a single dollar to the IIP or rescheduling other projects or rescoping. That was massively detrimental to the defence industry.

Secondly, they need to commit to matching Labor's commitment of $50 billion. The opposition spokesperson is here. He's been rolled by so many people in the shadow ERC. He went out saying they'd matched Labor's $50 billion commitment. The member for Hume, on Insiders, contradicted that. Senator Jane Hume contradicted that. The opposition spokesperson can't point to a single decision from the shadow cabinet matching our $50 billion. The best I've heard is that he got a text from the opposition leader when he was about to get on a plane. Seriously? That's how you're matching our funding commitments?

So, my challenge to the opposition spokesperson is: demonstrate it by pointing out where you're doing it. The opposition leader couldn't even mention it in his budget reply. The truth is that only Labor is committed to the defence of the nation. Only Labor has allocated sufficient resources to do that job. Only Labor is serious about defence.

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my colleagues who are here from all sides, particularly the previous speaker, who gave an impassioned speech, and the members for Canning and Herbert, who are my good friends, and we also served in various capacities and times. One of the things those of us who have served in uniform know, as well as those of us who know someone who serves in uniform, is that there is a moment in time when the seed is planted. We heard this at the tragic funeral of Jack Fitzgibbon, when his dad stood up and said that the moment his son, Jack, first thought about it was when he saw an Army truck moving around the electorate. That inspired him. And we know that there were various seeds in our minds that made us think about it. But there's a window where a young person, a young man or woman from one of the many corners of this country, wants to turn that seed into action. They go onto the website or they call 131901, and they're keen; they're ready to get started. This is the moment in time when they want to give everything to that.

So when I hear that at the moment the contractor who's supposed to process those applications has pushed them out to 300 days, I know that that is a key factor in why we are short by 5,000 full-time Defence Force members. I want you to picture what 5,000 is. We've got a target of 64,000, so 5,000 is roughly one in 12. Imagine a dozen Defence Force members, and there's one missing. There's one missing in every dozen Defence Force members throughout the nation—one in a dozen. At a time when we hear both sides, particularly the government, talking about the unprecedented strategic threat we face, they are sitting there in charge, two years in, with one in a dozen missing.

Yet what are their priorities? What are they doing about it? We saw in the budget an increase in public servants by 36,000. So, on one hand we're short of 5,000 people who are prepared to do the most dangerous, serious work to keep us safe, and on the other we have prioritised 36,000 public servants. That's not a criticism of public servants, and many of those 36,000 are needed, including some in DVA, of course. No-one's saying that; we won't accept that straw man argument. But it is unacceptable, at this moment in time, in this moment in history and with this threat, to sit there and say that that level of recruiting is adequate.

So, what are you doing about it? We heard in the last few days some thought bubbles about expanding the pool of potential recruits, and there may be some merit to that. But, again, minister after minister has left us feeling that they are not across their brief, that they didn't read the materials of that day, that they didn't check with their friends and colleagues in the relevant portfolios and that they didn't do the work. I don't know what ministers in this government do when they wake up every day, but I would have thought that the first thing you do is read the papers, talk to your colleagues in the relevant areas and then, when you go on the media, at least be consistent, if for nothing else than political reasons.

But this isn't just about politics; it's about national security. And I will say, as someone not born here, that the opportunity to serve in uniform as a migrant is one of the greatest honours I've had, as well as my way of giving back. Again and again I meet young Australians who weren't born here who have come from all corners of this earth, and they are desperate to serve. But, when they make that call or click that website and they're told to wait 300 days, guess what people of talent and action do. They go somewhere else. So we are losing people of talent and action who want to give to this nation at the moment in time of their life when it matters and for whom it's not happening.

In the last minute of my time, my questions are: What has the government done to hold Adecco to account for not bringing the processing time from 300 days to 100 days? What are you doing? What else are you doing about recruiting beyond a thought bubble? This should be a full-court press by every minister, including the Minister for Defence Industry, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the minister himself. In fact, the Prime Minister should be asking for a daily brief about where our recruiting strategy is. What are you doing to fill the gap of one in 12? He shouldn't be going to sleep at night knowing that that exists right now. It's unacceptable.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've never heard such a contradiction in terms as I just have from the member for Menzies. On one hand, he described the government's recent initiatives to recruit more people and invite people from our Five Eyes allies to serve with us here in Australia. At the same time, he said it was the greatest honour of his life as someone born overseas to serve for us. I respect your service enormously, Member for Menzies. There is a certain timeframe when an incoming government talks about what has preceded it. It is certainly legitimate to talk about what has preceded us. I was elected here in 2016 as the member for Paterson, and I have the great honour of having RAAF Base Williamtown, the home of the F-35A—a wonderful aircraft and capability for our country—in my electorate. Of the 72 we will have, 54 of them will be located in my seat, at Williamtown. I know the base intimately, and I again pay my deepest respects and thanks to those who pull on the uniform at Williamtown every day.

It is of utmost importance that we absolutely have recruitment. When I got elected, I made it my business to find out the business of the military in my seat. One of the things that was absolutely obvious, not only through me talking to people in service in my seat but also through me being on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee, was that we had a massive hole in defence. We knew it in 2016. The government of 2016 knew it. When I talked to military people, they were saying, 'We need to recruit more people.' We were constantly reminding every minister—I might remind those present today that over the preceding nine years of government we had six defence ministers; come on, let's talk about continuity—and, in that time, the service categories were never properly addressed, the way that we recruited people was difficult and clunky and we weren't looking at the way people move through their lives when they have families.

We are now looking at this. I want to thank the military. I want to thank the public servants who are working hand in hand with those who are in the military to understand service categories, to make it better and to actually think about how we need people. I just want to indulge for a moment because we're talking about Lance Corporal Jack Fitzgibbon and his service to his nation. I had the great privilege of going to Holsworthy and meeting with those commandos. I knew Jack. I know his father even better. I talked to those people, but I talked to their boss. He said to me: 'Meryl, it's so interesting. When we talk about recruitment in the military, 10 years ago I wasn't thinking about the blue-haired guy drinking Mountain Dew in a basement working on a computer as being one of my people. Now I am.' That's what we have to do. We have to be more flexible in our thinking. This government has brought that flexibility of thinking to the table. We are talking to the military. We know what they need. We know that things are changing not only vastly but incredibly quickly.

We know that we sit at a time in our history when it has never been more important to have our defence fully subscribed. We know we need that. We are absolutely front-footing it. I will tell you, member for Menzies, what ministers do when they get out of bed every morning: they think. They look down that barrel and they think, 'How can we get more people into our military?' We are coming up with good ideas to recruit people. I cannot help but think describing inviting friends from Five Eyes countries who live here to be part of our military as a thought bubble.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that's what he said. Also, I can't help but engender the spirit of Anzac. No-one was thumbing their nose at the New Zealanders in the First World War when we stood shoulder to shoulder and formed that incredible bond that we still hold and stand with 100 years later. We were proud to stand with our New Zealand friends in 1914 and beyond. I can tell you everyone I speak to in our current modern military is more than happy to welcome our friends from New Zealand, from our Five Eyes partners, to be in our modern military, because we recognise we do need them. What we have is a forward-thinking government that wants to look after our military. We know we need to be flexible, we know we need to be surefooted and, the most important thing is, we know that we need to spend the money and that's what we are doing, so we are working with our Five Eyes partners and we are answering the call of our country.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a privilege to participate in this debate this morning alongside the member for Menzies, the member for Herbert and those opposite as well. We don't question your motives. Certainly, we think that you are here for the same reasons we are—you want a stronger Australia. We just question your competence, your sense of mission, your sense of purpose and your drive. The Minister for Defence Industry, who spoke only 10 minutes ago, said, 'Rhetoric must be matched by action.' We will judge you by your actions. Sadly, there is a yawning gulf between Labor's rhetoric and the actions they are taking to defend Australia and to build us and our security over the next decade.

Last month, the Deputy Prime Minister, with all the usual fanfare, pomp and pageantry, announced the National Defence Strategy at the National Press Club. He had a glowing press gallery. He got up once again and said, 'Australia is facing the most dangerous strategic circumstances since the end of the Second World War.' And he said—again, to use his highfalutin language—'We will use impactful projection across the full spectrum of proportionate response.' The question is, though, how are they going to do that? How they going to fund that? You'd expect after giving the Australian public such a dire warning about strategic circumstances that there would be immediate investment, there would be crash action, there would be all hands, they would be mobilising defence industry, there would be a sense of mission and there would be immediate funding over the forward estimates. Well, they've made announcements about defence funding over the next 10 years, $50.3 billion, which is three electoral cycles. The Deputy Prime Minister, I doubt, would be in parliament 10 years from now. He may well be but it's unlikely given the pace of modern politics. So he can't actually ensure that the money will be spent that way nor can he guarantee that the projects he is promising will be delivered.

Let's come back to the forward estimates. There is $5.7 billion from this government over the forward estimates, and $3.8 billion of that $5.7 billion is invested in year 4 of the forwards. There is less than $1 billion spent over the next three years in each year, so they are not actually serious about getting us ready for the challenges that we are facing as a country. I think the sad truth is that the Deputy Prime Minister is a show horse and not a plough horse. He likes trotting out when people are watching but, when there's work to be done, he will not come out of the barn, and that's the bottom line. This government is about smoke and mirrors.

Yesterday, at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the Deputy Prime Minister sat there on the stage regaling us about his time at Shangri-La. He said it's Disneyland for defence ministers. I think we can agree that the defence portfolio is not Disneyland, because, if you fail on the battlefield, your opponents will crush you. This is very important stuff we're talking about and this is not about gloss and good times; it's about serious planning for the country and about making sure that we are ready, which is why I'm concerned that he got up in the National Defence Strategy and said the 10-year warning time is no longer valid. Yet, if you look at the budget, that 10-year warning time planning assumption is baked in, because all the money is in the next 10 years, not the forward estimates, and that is a big problem.

So what are we seeing across the board? We're seeing a decline in morale. We're seeing an understrength ADF. The CDF only minutes ago said that ADF numbers are 5,300 short—a 10 per shortage for their workforce. Recruiting is going backwards. We're not retaining enough people, and what did we see yesterday? We saw a very ham-fisted plan to fix the problem hatched by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence Personnel. It was quite amusing to watch. They got up with, again, lots of fanfare and lots of trumpeting this great news. They said it's crossing the Rubicon. Well, they are crossing the Rubicon, and it turns out they can't swim and they don't have a life raft either, because the Minister for Defence Personnel got up yesterday and said, 'From 1 January, we're going to be recruiting from all countries. Permanent residents from all countries will be able to join the ADF and get citizenship within 90 days.'

It turns out that, this morning in Defence estimates—after the Deputy Prime Minister tried to unsuccessfully clean this up yesterday—Defence officials couldn't even confirm who is going to be eligible for enlisting in the ADF from 1 January. So, in the biggest Defence recruiting policy change since Federation, we still don't understand what this government is on about. They have botched this policy, and it just shows that they're all about the message but not about delivery. Their rhetoric is big and bold, but in the end they don't match it with the competence, the drive and the sense of mission we expect from these people sitting opposite.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just remind members about inputs and not reflecting on members.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the Albanese government was elected, we undertook the most comprehensive review of the posture and preparedness of the Australian Defence Force in the last two decades, the Defence Strategic Review. That indicated that the Australian Defence Force was not fit for purpose to defend our nation and to meet the challenges of the future.

So the government is fixing that. We've developed a plan to ensure that we can fix that issue of preparedness of the Australian Defence Force, and we'd like to work with the opposition to achieve that aim. When it comes to defence, the defence of our nation should be above politics. It should be bipartisan. We shouldn't be taking pot shots at each other over petty little things here in this chamber. We should be trying to work together. So we've got a plan, and we'd like to work with the opposition.

You can summarise the plan with three words: we're investing in people, power and posture of the Australian Defence Force to ensure that it's ready to meet the challenges of the future. What are we doing to invest in people? We know that the Australian Defence Force is underpowered by about 5,000 troops. We know that, and we know that our people are our greatest asset. So we're making changes to ensure that we can recruit more Australians and we can retain more Australians in the Australian Defence Force.

That's why we introduced the $50,000 retention bonus. That's why we're changing a lot of the housing policies to provide more flexibility for ADF members around their housing options. That's why we legislated to improve the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. That's why we're doing more to support families of Australian Defence Force members, making it more flexible for them to support their spouses' careers and more options to support their children, and why we're supporting the great work of people like Gwen Cherne, the defence families advocate, and Kahlil Fegan, the Repatriation Commissioner. They are advising the government about how we can improve the career prospects and the family oriented nature of the Australian Defence Force.

Those policies are starting to bear fruit. We know that the retention problems that we had under the previous government, with record numbers leaving the Australian Defence Force, are now coming down. We need to do more to recruit, and that's what yesterday's announcements were about—trying to open up the Australian Defence Force to more Australians.

In terms of power, we're investing an additional $5.7 billion over the forward estimates and $50 billion over the decade, on top of the proposed expenditure of the previous government. That is an additional $50 billion investment by this government in improving the power and the strike capability of the Australian Defence Force. It's all aimed at ensuring that we have the power to deter potential adversaries, particularly within our region. It's led by AUKUS, which was an initiative of the previous government that this government has continued and has put the plan in place to deliver.

We recently saw some announcements regarding the surface combatant fleet and improving the lethality of that. Now when it comes to AUKUS, it's the largest industrial endeavour that our nation has ever undertaken and we will need to do that in partnership with industry. I know the member for Warringah has some questions about that, which we're happy to answer. It will be through the Defence Industry Development Strategy and through ASCA that companies such as the ones in the member for Warringah's electorate will get the opportunity to participate in AUKUS and in other endeavours.

We're ensuring that we're investing in the short term as well. Here are some of the investments that we're making in the short term. We're about to receive 20 new C-130 aircraft. We're investing in GWEO—guided weapons and explosive ordnance. We're acquiring Tomahawk missiles, and they'll be manufactured here in Australia. We're acquiring the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System—HIMARS—in the next four years. We're investing in more Redback infantry fighting vehicles. There's the REDSPICE program, which will improve our cyber capability.

The final area is the posture of the Australian Defence Force. We're basically upgrading every single base across the north of Australia, getting major upgrades from Scherger, in the north of Queensland, right through to Learmonth, in the north of Western Australia. Every single one of those bases will get an upgrade to improve the capability and capacity of the Australian Defence Force.

This government is making investments in the Australian Defence Force through that additional $50 billion, which will see it grow to about 2.3 per cent of GDP over the decade, ensuring that we improve the people, the power and the posture of the Australian Defence Force.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We live in a very volatile geopolitical era. A catastrophic war rages in the Middle East and has heightened regional tensions. We've seen the horrific taking of hostages by Hamas and we must use all possible diplomatic pathways to unequivocally call on the Israeli government to uphold the international rule of law, keep civilians safe and encourage all sides to agree to a permanent ceasefire. The war in Ukraine continues; after two years, Australia remains a steadfast ally of Ukraine in the face of needless Russian aggression. Australia has now contributed more than $1 billion in total assistance to Ukraine, including some $880 million in military support. And we continue to see increasingly belligerent and authoritarian behaviour from China in the South China Sea showing little regard for international norms. And then there is the threat from climate change, and I have an ongoing request for the government to release the Office of National Intelligence report in relation to Australia's exposure from a security point of view. That is a backdrop that we face.

The new money in the budget in relation to Defence—this is appropriation and so this is why we're here, to ask these questions. The new money allocated to Defence as part of this year's budget totals are some $5.7 billion. It is a huge part of our budget. It focuses on three priorities: the AUKUS submarines, surface warships, and long-range strike targeting and autonomous systems.

AUKUS is, at its core, a technology-sharing alliance between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. It's also closely linked to the Inflation Reduction Act and to the focus on developing sovereign manufacturing capacity in the world's energy transition, especially for the UK, Australia and the US, and reducing that manufacturing reliance on China. It's essential, within this framework, that substantial opportunity flows to Australian industries and companies, especially the smaller ones that are traditionally squeezed out by larger, more well-known international companies.

I know there are many questions as to how Australian companies and workers can participate and contribute to our major defence projects and to our nation's national security. I note that as part of this year's budget allocation, there is some $165.7 million put aside to establish a defence industry development grant program. Its funding, according to the government, is to support Australian businesses, to increase their scale and competitiveness, and to respond to capability requirements required within the defence portfolio in the years ahead. This is a worthy aim, but all too often many businesses find the procurement pipeline inaccessible. I have businesses in Warringah that face these challenges, producing, for example, drones and microchips and other capabilities that Defence will need in the coming years. Ironically, all too often they are able to do business overseas more easily than they can in Australia, and that's wrong and should be fixed.

So my questions to the government and to the minister are: How will sovereign Australian businesses be defined in the eligibility criteria for the defence industry development grant program? At present, to be classified as an Australian business, an ABN will suffice. Will the defence industry development grant program require substantially more significant ties to Australia as evidence of being a genuinely Australian business to ensure that we don't have essentially overseas companies benefiting from the grant process? Also, how will Defence ensure Australian businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, get their fair share of opportunities in bidding for the defence industry development grant program? A further question is: how will you, the government, ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises like those I represent in Warringah, including DroneShield and Warringah Plastics, get the industrial uplift to genuinely partake in the defence technology and procurement pipelines that have let so many down to date.

Further, what key industries do you anticipate will benefit from the technology-sharing alliance of AUKUS? It's really important that the government comes out on the front foot and is specific about where those technology uplift areas will be. Finally, AUKUS includes very specific workforce parameters, particularly concerning security clearances and the use of engineers. It is likely to absorb many Australian-born engineers, because migrant engineers are excluded, so what workforce planning is currently being done by the minister to ensure we meet those requirements?

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

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

This Labor government has delivered the most significant budget for the future of Australia's resources sector in a generation. Overall, it's a total investment of over $20 billion. This is a game changer for the Australian resources sector. It will be the bedrock of a future made in Australia.

The government is providing a total of $3.4 billion over 35 years for the Resourcing Australia's Prosperity program. This will enable Geoscience Australia to fully map our nation's geological endowment by 2060. There has never been such a vote of confidence in the geoscience capability and ambition for Australia to grow our resources prosperity. This program will fund precompetitive public geoscience and map all of Australia's critical minerals, strategic materials and alternative energy sources such as hydrogen, and also the groundwater of Australia. We will search for geological storage and other resources essential for the transition to net zero. Precompetitive geoscience comes before private exploration and investment, not instead of it. It lays the groundwork for the private sector to explore and invest private capital in Australia's resources sector.

Related to the resources portfolio is the 10 per cent production tax credit for all 31 critical minerals, which will help drive critical minerals processing and value-adding in Australia, at a value of $17.6 billion over 14 years. This incentive is for processing critical minerals, and it is a zero-risk approach for Australia. If companies don't produce a value-added product, they don't receive a tax credit. If they do, it means they have grown our sovereign capability, they have attracted investment, they have diversified supply chains, they have value-added onshore, and they have grown new jobs in this future made in Australia. These are all good things.

But what do we get from those opposite about these policies? Instead of supporting these sensible policies, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Hume have blitzed southern states' media outlets, attacking production tax credits and the resources policy of this government. There is weird class warfare going on in the Liberal and National parties. It is anti resources, anti Queensland, anti Western Australia and even anti Northern Territory. The thing about critical minerals and rare earths is that they are found in many places, including in the south of the country. So the stance of those opposite will also affect investment and impact development of projects in South Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales and Victoria.

Where are the Liberals and Nationals putting on the handbrake on critical minerals and resources projects? In Western Australia, the member for O'Connor and the member for Durack have had a thing or two to say about this approach. In New South Wales, the member for Parkes has an interest in critical minerals. In Queensland, the member for Flynn also hosts critical minerals projects. The members for Gippsland and Mallee, in Victoria, and the member for Braddon, in Tasmania, might want to register some protest to the view of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to this policy.

With our $3.4 billion investment into fully mapping our nation's geological endowment by 2060, I trust there'll be more critical minerals and rare earths in electorates such as Maranoa, New England and Riverina. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! I never imagined the day where I'd see the Liberals and Nationals oppose and take an anti-resources stance to what is a very pro-resources budget.

Those opposite have been absolutely tone deaf to the work the Labor government is doing with key strategic partners such as the United States. We've been working with the Biden administration and senior officials in the US to ensure that Australia is enabled to take steps to support our critical minerals and rare earths industries, because the US and other partners recognise the importance of having diversified supply chains. So the opposition's irrational, quick, brash, unthinking response to production tax credits is truly staggering and shows their lack of understanding of the resources sector in thinking that you can bunch the critical minerals and rare earths thin supply chains and thin international markets with the vast bulk commodities such as iron ore and coal.

The truth is: the coalition have taken the resources sector for granted for far too long, and they have just stopped listening while keeping the cup out for resources sector donations. The opposition Liberal and National parties want to offshore a Future Made in Australia, to do things somewhere else. But this Albanese Labor government will ensure there will be a future made in Australia.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australian businesses shutting up shop in record numbers managed to survive the pandemic and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression but have clearly been unable to survive this Albanese Labor government. External administrations are at a record high, and manufacturing insolvencies have tripled under this government. Industry is expecting anaemic growth, at or near the lowest levels in a decade. Industry is reporting a decline in new orders at the largest rate since the GFC. CreditorWatch reports invoice defaults at record highs.

This budget was an opportunity for the Albanese government to provide a credible economic plan for struggling Aussie manufacturers, but it has failed to deliver yet again. The Prime Minister promised before the last election:

Australia can be the land of cheap and endless energy—energy that could power generations of metal manufacturing and other energy intensive manufacturing industries.

Yet, we've seen power prices go up and up and up. So I ask the minister: when will the energy prices our manufacturers have to pay actually start coming down?

At the last election, the government promised a National Reconstruction Fund which would 'rebuild Australia's industrial base', yet, two years on, the NRF has not spent a single dollar on a single project. Embarrassingly, the Prime Minister claimed the NRF was open for business when it wasn't. Indeed, there were no formal processes until the coalition's questioning forced the government to airbrush their own website. The Assistant Minister for Manufacturing said that the fund would be up and running this financial year, so I ask the minister: When will the NRF invest the first dollar? When will the first dollar be spent in this financial year? Indeed, will the first dollar be spent before the next federal election?

This signature policy, they said, couldn't achieve. What couldn't it achieve? They haven't spent a dollar. It's a confused policy as part of a confused economic agenda of a confused government. The NRF Corporation CEO thinks we shouldn't pick winners. The corporation's chair thinks we should. And, depending on who you ask in the government, you get a different answer. There is not a dollar for our struggling manufacturers, but there is an additional $80 million in this bad budget to build the capacity of the NRF. When are we going to see funds put towards building the capacity of our struggling Australian manufacturers.

We have an industry minister on the outer—one who freelances policies and his own thought bubbles, signalling the rudderless nature of this government's industry policy. So I ask: will this government change the corporate tax rate? Will the government introduce economy-wide investment allowances? We know the industry minister has no say at the decision-making table, and our manufacturers are paying for it.

The government's latest $22.7 billion announcement in the budget, a series of measures labelled A Future Made in Australia, again makes no progress on a list of demands our manufacturers are making. They need better business conditions, not more government intervention. Productivity commissioners past and present have lined up to criticise this latest approach. So I ask the minister: what does this budget achieve for blue-collar manufacturers? What does the budget do for those industries who aren't hand-picked by this government?

There are more questions than answers around the strange dealings this government has had with PsiQuantum, a $1 billion deal. We've learnt that a legal services contract to get this deal over the line has risen from $280,000 to $3.3 million in just over a year, with nine amendments, three extensions and zero answers for taxpayers, who continue to see the largesse and waste of this tired government.

The coalition's Entrepreneurs Program was replaced by the Industry Growth Program, which has not progressed in a substantial way. So I ask the minister: are there grant opportunities open to applicants? When will the Industry Growth Program start delivering on the grants it advertises?

This government's failed and confused economic policies have delivered an insolvency crisis across the Australian economy. Manufacturing insolvencies are set to exceed last year's figures by the end of May. When will this government deliver a plan for all of our manufacturers, not just those with teams of lobbyists?

Our jetsetting industry minister needs to spend less time overseas and at glitzy black-tie functions and more time on the factory floors around Australia. Manufacturers large and small have been forthcoming with their concerns. Minister Husic actually needs to listen to the concerns and needs of our manufacturers and, much more importantly, he needs to respond.

Andrew Charlton (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's been quite extraordinary to watch, over the last couple of weeks, the coalition's quite severe backflip and about-face on the importance of the mining sector in Australia and what governments need to do to support the mining sector. These are the parties that for many decades have been proudly claiming that they're the ones keeping mining strong. These are the parties that have been opposing tax increases on the gas sector, even though those tax increases were supported by the sector, and trying to give handouts in any possible way they could to their friends and supporters in that industry. Yet all of a sudden, when the budget is released, they are now opposing a once-in-a-generation set of measures to support the mining industry and to develop critical industries that Australia has long talked about but that the government now has a plan to deliver. So you'd forgive the Australian people for having a little bit of a sense of whiplash with this about-face from the coalition.

The question is: what is driving it? After trying so hard to deliver so much money to support their friends in the mining sector, why are they now opposed to this once-in-a-generation budget that delivers a significant investment into Australia's resources sector? Is it because suddenly they don't feel that the mining sector is important in Australia? Is it because they don't have faith in the industries that have long been talked about as being central to Australia's future—critical industries, batteries, mineral processing and green hydrogen? Have they suddenly decided that these industries don't have a hope in Australia and can't be supported, or do they think that this is a set of proposals which are old-style industry policy, won't work and won't have their intended impacts?

None of their objection to this package makes much sense. Australia has been talking about developing these industries for decades. We know that we have the underlying resources in order to be globally competitive in these sectors.

We know that Australia has a comparative advantage in these industries and all of the raw materials to create global export industries but we have waited for many decades and seen so little progress, and that is why this budget is so important. Because, for the first time, it backs these industries and creates a platform for them to reach global scale and international competitiveness. Are those opposite objecting on the basis that this money won't deliver that global competitiveness? Are they claiming that this money will lead to this industry becoming reliant on government money? Well, if that's their claim then they haven't read the substance of the proposal.

These measures are well crafted. They are designed to ensure that businesses only get the funds if they are producing and if they are delivering. That's why this mechanism of production tax incentives, particularly for critical minerals, will make such a difference and why it has been carefully crafted to safeguard the Treasury finances. It really begs the question of what is it that those opposite don't think Australia can achieve in these industries? What is their logic for opposing it, particularly when we've had so much support from across the industry? Paul Kopejtka from Alliance Nickel said, 'It's an absolute shot in the arm because this will boost investment, there is no doubt.' Rob Scott from Wesfarmers said, 'This is a smart targeted use of the tax system to solve big problems, leverage our competitive advantage and enhance Australia's prosperity.' And Adia Resources said, 'It will be significant benefit and will help make the Australian critical minerals sector more cost effective with our international peers.'

These are industries where Australia really has the capacity to achieve global excellence and achieve that global excellence in sectors where global demand is expanding. For a long time, Australia has mined minerals and delivered those minerals to our partners around Asia and around the world but we've never done much in the way of mineral processing, never done as much as we could have done on value adding to those minerals.

Finally, with the energy transformation that we have, with the abundance of solar resources that Australia has— (Time expired)

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget was a missed opportunity for Australia's highly regarded world-renowned scientific and research sectors. I must express my regret that the Minister for Industry and Science has not bothered to grace us with his presence, which shows a degree of contempt for this important form of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. It is a contempt that has been replicated by many of his ministerial colleagues and is entirely at odds with the rhetoric that we saw from Mr Albanese, the current Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps the minister doesn't want to be here to defend the deal that he has done to boost funding for a range of American venture capital firms and the Canberra bureaucracy at the expense of funding for basic scientific research activity. We know that $466.67 million has been allocated to the American incorporated company PsiQuantum following a deal cloaked in secrecy and lacking in transparency, and we know that a further $27.7 million has been allocated for Canberra bureaucrats to oversee this controversial deal, deploying of course their considerable commercial expertise and investment experience. What can possibly go wrong?

The Albanese Labor government has chosen to bet a very large amount of money on one particular company, pursuing one particular technology path within the broad field of quantum, a field in which people who have been working for 20 or 30 years cannot say with certainty which of the many paths being explored is likely to achieve a successful outcome most rapidly. On any view, it will be at least several years and very possibly longer before the technology being developed by PsiQuantum is proven to work, if it can be proven to do so at all. We have seen the Albanese Labor government following a questionable process which has failed to meet normal standards of transparency and contestability. Those who were invited to participate felt that they were doing so in an exercise that had been reverse engineered, with terms of reference that made it look as if PsiQuantum was always going to be the winner.

It is troubling that so much funding has gone to an American incorporated and based quantum computing company, with a large ownership stake in the company being held by venture capitalists, including American venture capitalists, rather than any of the outstanding Australian based quantum computing companies and researchers. It would be a particular tragedy if this decision made by the Albanese Labor government to allocate, alongside the Queensland government, almost a billion dollars of taxpayers money to this particular American company ended up making it more difficult for other Australian based quantum computing companies to compete for and attract global investment because of a perception that their own government, having surveyed the field, does not believe in them and considers that their work is inferior to the work of this American based company.

At the same time that so much money has been sprayed in the direction of this American based company we are seeing money and resources for onshore scientific activity here in Australia being cut back. Labor has axed funding in the space sector by terminating the $1.2 billion National Space Mission for Earth Observation. At a time when, in the broad, the Public Service is increasing materially, CSIRO is having its staffing cut by 146 people and its funding cut by $14 million in 2024-25. That is at odds with much of the rhetoric we have heard from the minister about support for science. We have seen strong criticism of this government's priorities in relation to artificial intelligence. For example, Simon Bush of the Australian Information Industry Association said, in relation to the vital field of artificial intelligence, that Australia is now going backwards when other countries are going forwards.

My questions for the minister in relation to the PsiQuantum investment include: How much of the funding is a loan, how much is equity and how much is grants? What's the interest rate on the loan? How much of the funding will be sent overseas? Will the Australian government receive an ownership stake in the company? Will there be rights to the intellectual property that's developed? When will the deal be finalised? When will the computer be built? How much of the computer will be manufactured overseas? What will happen if the technology remains unproven? And was the minister aware of PsiQuantum's links to Chinese academics before approving the funding?

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As an engineer, a scientist and a proud member of the Albanese Labor government, it is my pleasure to stand here, after a decade of waste, delay and inaction. It is outrageous to see what has happened in the past. We are the land of opportunity, and we have the opportunity to build on the opportunities of this place. But what happened under the previous government? We did not see that investment. And what can we do? We can plan our economy for the next generation.

So it is my deep pleasure to stand here in the Federation Chamber to recap the extraordinary, record levels of investment that the Albanese government is making into the resources sector to help achieve net zero emissions. As the mighty resources minister said, 'The pathway to net zero emissions runs through Australia'—and we Western Australians can say proudly that it will run through Western Australia. I am the daughter of a miner. My dad worked in the nickel mines. I am an engineer who started her career in steelcap boots on a mine site. And I am excited about the investment and the pathway that we will see happening in Australia.

We are providing $3.4 billion to Geoscience Australia over 35 years until 2060. This will comprehensively map Australia's natural resources. This is a long-term plan. It's a visionary program. It will map the most prospective areas of Australia's 7.7 million square kilometres. It will double our knowledge of Australia's geological resources and triple our understanding of Australia's critical minerals prosperity. This will help incentivise the private sector to explore and make discoveries and developments that will generate new jobs and opportunities under the Future Made in Australia. This program will fund precompetitive public geoscience and will map all of Australia's critical minerals, strategic minerals, alternative energies such as hydrogen, groundwater, geological storage and other important resources essential for our transition to net zero.

Precompetitive geoscience comes before private exploration and investment, not instead of it. In fact, it lays the groundwork for the private sector to explore and invest in private capital in Australia's mighty resource sector. The investment will send a strong signal to the international trading partners that the Albanese Labor government fully supports critical minerals exploration and development. It will place Australia in a strong position to maintain our competitive investment edge and our fair share of the resource market. This groundbreaking government investment in understanding where our critical minerals are in this vast continent will ensure that Australia and Australians minerals can be an indispensable part of the global drive to net zero emissions. It will lay the groundwork for minerals that we extract, refine and process and the goods that we can manufacture for decades to come. This program will be the foundation for Australian jobs, now and into the future.

The road to net zero runs through Australia's resource sector, and the Labor government's investment in Geoscience Australia will be a multi-decade on-ramp to things such as delivery of an inventory of national resource potential, consisting of multiple national maps including maps of hot spots for critical minerals and strategic minerals and other resources we need to support the transition. It will also assess all of Australia's groundwater systems, supporting our climate resilience and our agricultural output and water security, something that we can all agree that we need. Geoscience Australia will also investigate 12 regions onshore that are considered highly prospective yet haven't been explored for the resources we need to support the transition. They will also provide essential geoscience information to a wide audience including regional communities and farmers to support land and water management practices.

The benefits are clear. Deloitte Access Economics found that existing public precompetitive geoscience was estimated to support $76 billion worth of value to the Australian economy and also support 80,000 full-time equivalent jobs. This is a very exciting program. Go, team!

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed—go, team! Can I start by commending my coalition colleagues the deputy leader and the Manager of Opposition Business on the important questions that they've put to the minister with regard to the scrutiny of the government's industry policy. I won't reiterate the points they've made, although I particularly highlight the very serious issues that the Manager of Opposition Business has raised about the PsiQuantum computing decision that has been made—a billion dollars, it seems, of taxpayer funds across the Commonwealth and Queensland government there, with some very serious questions to answer. It is a really concerning approach to the prudent management of taxpayer funds and also the way in which people—particularly Australian businesses—are given a fair opportunity to seek support from their own government. That doesn't seem to be an overly controversial principle, which I thought we'd all be seeking to honour. The answers from the minister will be keenly anticipated by myself and my colleagues because that one's very serious.

I just want to raise a couple of additional matters as questions to the minister on top of what my other colleagues have already raised. Obviously, the National Reconstruction Fund was legislated over a year ago, and we're extremely concerned about the progress of that. We didn't support it at the time, and, unfortunately, a lot of the concerns we had are proving to be very true. I start by asking the minister to inform this chamber: How much money has actually been provided so far from that fund to Australian manufacturers? How many jobs can they quantify have been created so far from that? It's been more than a year.

I also ask the minister about the National Reconstruction Fund. It's very curious that this fund was created a year ago and, a year later, what is essentially a whole new industry policy has been outlined—this 'made in Australia' policy. That is, very curiously, the sort of language you'd hear an opinion pollster recommend to a political campaign manager: 'You've got a problem out there with people thinking you're not doing enough for Australian industry. Why don't you create a policy called 'made in Australia'? We've run it past some focus groups, and they think that sounds good.' One wonders whether the terminology emanated from there. Particularly, I ask the minister to justify the $54 million in this fund. It seems to be for some kind of publicity advertising campaign—curiously, to be run over the next 12 months in the 2024-25 financial year. That's also an election year, I think. If I've got it right, the happy coincidence is that the government will be spending $54 million advertising the 'made in Australia' campaign during an election year.

One wonders, in terms of people watching the football or the nightly news, what call to action from the government is required of the average citizen in this country under the 'made in Australia' fund? It's all about tax break for billionaires and all the rest of it. You could easily write a letter to every billionaire, and it would cost about $1.20 a billionaire—or, as it's Australia Post, possibly more than $2 a billionaire. You could send them a letter. I think the people who are going to access this fund could be informed about it, if they haven't already read about it in the newspaper, for about $54, not $54 million. Just write them a letter and tell them about it, because the people to benefit under this are an exclusive group of billionaires, yet the government seem to be planning on running a big glitzy television advertising campaign to all Australians about 'made in Australia'. I'd love to hear the minister explain why a big television campaign is required for the elements of that program.

I'd also ask the minister to explain to all my friends in the space industry why this government doesn't back the space industry and why they've ripped billions of dollars out of space. I'm the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of the Space Industry, and all my friends in the space sector want to know why this government doesn't see any value in investing in space. I couldn't think of a more exciting opportunity for future industry than space. It is going to be central to everything. Even our most traditional industries, like mining and agriculture, have an exciting future through space technology. I do ask the minister: why is it that all that money is ripped out of space and what are they are spending it on? PsiQuantum—American companies without proper process for Aussie companies to get a chance to be considered for that money. At the same time, the space industry is missing out. So I finish by asking the minister to explain to the space industry: What have they done wrong? Why don't you back them and their future in this country?

Alison Byrnes (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just last week it was an absolute honour to welcome back the Minister for Industry and Science to the Illawarra for his third visit to our region in as few as 84 days. Back in March the minister joined me at the University of Wollongong's Innovation Campus for the launch of LIFT 2024—a transformative initiative to empower women in STEM and entrepreneurship. The program is run by two amazing women who are absolutely passionate about getting more women into STEM, Dr Tamantha Stutchbury and Professor Danielle Skropeta, and is powered by UOW's business incubator, iAccelerate , with a $1 million grant from our government's Women in STEM and Entrepreneurship, or WISE, program.

With the opportunities arising from the cleantech revolution, STEM jobs are predicted to grow by 14.2 per cent by 2026. That's almost twice as fast as non-STEM jobs. In this budget we are investing $38.2 million to support a thriving skilled and diverse STEM workforce, bringing total government funding for women in STEM programs to $90 million. This includes providing extra funding for the Women in STEM and Entrepreneurship grants, the Superstars of STEM program, the National Youth Science Forum, and Science in Australia Gender Equity, or SAGE. We are making sure that people from all corners of the community can make the most of opportunities from A Future Made in Australia.

On 10 May, the minister made the journey to the Illawarra again—this time to visit Hysata in Port Kembla, which was celebrating the southern hemisphere's largest ever series B capital raise of $172 million. The Albanese Labor government supported this capital raising, with a $15 million investment through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation for the expansion of manufacturing at their Port Kembla facility, which aims to reach gigawatt-scale production of its electrolyser. After a decade of neglect from those opposite, the Albanese government is backing in Australian manufacturing. We are supporting Australian companies like Hysata to invest, grow and build sovereign capability to create a pipeline of well-paid jobs now and into the future.

Finally, on Friday last week, the minister returned again to our city of innovation and attended our mighty Port Kembla BlueScope steelworks to launch the green metals consultation paper. We are kickstarting Australia's green metal industry, and that will make us a world leader in green steel, aluminium, alumina and iron and lead to us making more things here in Australia and in the Illawarra. As the world continues to transition to net zero, demand for solar panels, electric cars, batteries and wind turbines will continue to grow along with an increasing need for them to be produced sustainably.

This budget has already backed green metals as an opportunity under the Future Made in Australia policy, including: an estimated $8 billion over the decade for renewable hydrogen production incentives; the $1.7 billion Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund that will accelerate new and innovative technologies and facilities linked to priority sectors including green metals; and the Guarantee of Origin scheme, which will be expanded to green metals. This will certify the emissions intensity of green metals, helping us to establish stronger markets for green manufacturing.

Our renewable energy transformation will require five billion tons of steel between now and 2050. We hope that green steel will play a significant role in this mix. Understandably, demand for green steel is expected to rise by 25 per cent by 2040, while demand for aluminium is predicted to increase by 63 per cent by 2050. These green metals will need a lot of renewable energy and green hydrogen to come to fruition, which are areas that we hope to have a long-term competitive advantage in, thanks to the investment and action by this Labor government in the past two years after a decade of climate denial. The transformation to green metals can provide a boost of up to $122 billion to the economy by 2040 and a sizeable win in the global fight against climate change. It will help protect the current jobs of Australian metalworkers, like those on the production line at BlueScope, and will deliver more secure well-paid jobs into the future.

We are looking to develop a uniquely Australian industry policy with a Future Made in Australia, and I commend the minister for his tenacity in reviving the Australian manufacturing industry. Of course, we can't wait for him to visit the Illawarra again.

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Budgets are about choices, and this government had this choice: would they genuinely support small business, or would they use this budget to support unions, corporate mates, and vested interest? Unfortunately, we have the answer. Prime Minister Albanese, Treasurer Jim Chalmers and the minister for industry are supporting vested interests and corporations.

I stand here today representing the 60,000 small businesses in the seat Cook. These people right now in our economy feel like they are being ignored. Because right now this government is governing for the squeaky wheel, the vested interests, the corporations with their lobbyists and their megaphones and the unions. The small businesses of Cook are the people being let down by this government. They're too busy employing people and paying tax to tune into question time or line up for the grants, the corporate welfare, from the Albanese government.

We just heard from the member for Cunningham about a company in her electorate receiving a subsidy as part of a private sector capital raise. Why is this government obsessed with picking winners and subsidising select companies? Hopefully this one was Australian—that's all I can say—but we've got a government picking winners, picking large corporations. The 60,000 small businesses in Cook would love the opportunity to get that $15 million that was gifted to one company that we just heard about. I would love to know more, and I'm sure the 60,000 small businesses in my electorate would love to know more.

This Future Made in Australia was said to be the centrepiece of the budget. It was claimed to support Australian industry and manufacturing, but the reality of this is very different. Labor's Future Made in Australia says it only really cuts red tape for foreign investors or big businesses with dedicated procurement channels. It does absolutely nothing for the growing small and medium businesses and those in my electorate of Cook.

Now, the Treasurer was out there trying to claim that this is tax reform—only to be corrected by the chairwoman of the Productivity Commission yesterday, saying it's tax policy. She also expressed concerns as to how they would wean corporate Australia off. What is the ramp off? They're already worried.

Now, to be fair to the Minister for Industry and Science, he's arguing for tax reform—he's asking for lower taxes. But then he was corrected, only the next day, by the Treasurer: 'No, we're not for lower taxes.' Right now, with the dysfunction in this government and the arguments they're having amongst themselves between the Treasurer and the minister for industry, this is a government at sixes and sevens. They'd do very well to look back to the Hawke and Keating governments to see what tax reform really looks like. Instead, your Treasurer and your industry minister cannot agree on tax policy.

Government Member:

A government member interjecting

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope the member in his speech in a moment can come and clarify for me: do you agree with your Treasurer that we should not be cutting company tax, or do you agree with your industry minister that we should? I'd love to hear it from the next member.

Instead, what I think we'll hear is that the big players who've been given the resources to navigate these procurement channels are the ones who'll be prioritised. It'll be the small businesses who'll be ignored—continually ignored and ignored. It's not surprising that the Labor government is cosying up to these large corporates or that the small businesses in my electorate have never felt smaller, because, under this Labor government, corporates and government have never been larger. This government has been adding 50 bureaucrats a day, with over 30,000 bureaucrats added since the last election. So I ask the small businesses of Cook: Do they feel better? Do the small businesses of Cook feel better for these 30,000 bureaucrats?

Honourable members interjecting—

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Please direct your questions through the chair.

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do they feel better supported because of these 30,000 bureaucrats, or do they think the government is just not listening? Do they think the government is governing for the squeaky wheels, the large corporates and the unions? I would love the industry minister to answer that. I'd love the Treasurer to answer: is he going to be for this tax cut that his industry minister is calling for?

The people of Australia and the people of Cook want answers. Instead, they have a confused budget from a government at sixes and sevens that can't get on the same page when it comes to what tax reform is, what tax policy is or what their next steps are.

Finally, we need a deregulation agenda. We need to allow growing small businesses to compete and flourish and to put them on an equal footing with these vested interests of the unions and large corporates and their lobbyists.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the proposed expenditure—

Honourable members interjecting—

That is sufficient. Before I call the next member, can I just ask that we wind back the interjections a little bit, please. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, and I call the member for Tangney.

Sam Lim (Tangney, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I stand before you with a vision—a vision of a stronger, more prosperous Australia. For too long, we have faced neglect in key sectors. But the Albanese government is here to change that. We are committed to revitalising Australian manufacturing, creating well-paid jobs and ensuring a future made right here in Australia.

The National Battery Strategy is a cornerstone of this vision. With global demands for batteries set to quadruple by 2030, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lead the charge.

This strategy is not just about batteries. This initiative is projected to contribute $16.9 billion to our economy. It's about creating more than 60,000 high-skilled, high-paid jobs in our suburbs and regions by 2030. This strategy will also help us to transition to 82 per cent renewables, securing Australia's place in global battery supply chains.

We are focusing on high-value battery products where Australia has a competitive edge. From energy storage systems for renewable grids to batteries for our transport industry, we are harnessing our world-leading expertise.

We are committed to innovation, scaling up manufacturing in battery-pack assembly, sales and recycling. Our $523.2 million Battery Breakthrough Initiative will transform our battery industry, moving us up the value chain and solidifying our position as a renewable energy superpower. Independent analysis shows the potential of a diversified battery industry in Australia. We are targeting the highest value opportunity in battery technologies and chemistry, including lithium and vanadium, to ensure we remain at the forefront of this global shift. This project will create up to 400 highly skilled workers, create local jobs and provide our universities and research institutions with unparalleled resources, furthering our commitment to a Future Made in Australia.

I'm proud to have Murdoch University, whose main campus sits in my electorate of Tangney, as a key partner to the Future Battery Industries Cooperative Research Centre, FBICRC. With its established extractive metallurgy research and education centre at the Rockingham Campus led by Professor Aleks Nikoloski, Murdoch University is at the forefront of battery research and education. Murdoch University's commitment of $1.25 million to the FBICRC and its successful projects, worth over $4 million, highlights its significant role in advancing battery technology. Murdoch University's efforts in hydrometallurgy and its partnership with the FBICRC exemplify the kind of collaboration needed to supercharge our battery manufacturing capabilities. Their research will attract further investment and create teaching and learning opportunities in the Kwinana and Rockingham areas, fostering a new generation of skilled workers ready to drive our battery industry forward.

It does not stop there. Our green metal consultation paper aims to kickstart Australia's green metal industry, positioning us as a world leader in green metal: aluminium, alumina and iron. This initiative is expected to boost our economy by up to $122 billion by 2040 and significantly reduce global carbon emissions.

We are also investing in STEM diversity, ensuring all Australians can benefit from these opportunities. With $38.2 million dedicated to supporting a skilled and diverse STEM workforce, we are opening doors for underrepresented groups to pursue careers in these growing industries.

Finally, we are also investing in the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation with $479.9 million to build a new medical manufacturing facility. This will ensure a reliable supply of affordable medicines for Australians, particularly benefiting those with cancer, brain disorders and heart disease. Our vision is clear: a prosperous, productive Australia that leaves no-one behind. With the National Battery Strategy, we are not just preparing for the future; we are creating it. Together, let us power Australia forward.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first question that I ask of the minister is: where is the minister? I was a little bit worried that the minister had been sent to Siberia after he dared question the Treasurer and call out the failures of a Future Made in Australia. But good news! The minister is not in Siberia. He's in Silicon Valley checking on his 'Made in Silicon Valley strategy'. He's going to visit PsiQuantum. I spoke in this chamber earlier this week about the dodgy process that led to the EOI of PsiQuantum, so I won't spend time today on that. It's good to see that the minister is in Silicon Valley, making sure that his constituents in Silicon Valley are looked after as part of their 'Made in America strategy'! That's $460 million of Australian taxpayers' money well spent!

The question today for the minister is: what is the government's plan to increase productivity? Productivity is something that this government doesn't talk about, but it is one of the key economic drivers to bring prices down and deal with the inflation challenge that we face.

When I worked in business, getting efficiencies, a unit per hour was crucial to our pricing. What businesses do is sit down and look at all their costs and put all the costs together—I've sat in these meetings. They then look at how many units they can produce per hour, and that gives them their final unit cost. They then allow for their finance and other margins. That's the price that they then pass on to the supermarket and to the others. You can bring the unit price down through productivity initiatives. You can bring prices down. You can pay your workers, you can pay Australians, more without driving inflation up.

This government does not have an agenda to drive productivity. The Treasurer and the minister for industry don't talk about productivity at all. But don't take my word for it. Just today, the RBA governor, Michele Bullock, said: 'The risk is that if productivity doesn't pick up and wages growth doesn't slow to reflect that then you'll get inflationary pressures, in the bank's view.' The RBA governor also said: 'We're interested in productivity as far as it goes for inflation. But productivity is going to be driven by government decisions.' This is the problem we have with this government. There's no agenda to drive productivity. Their Future Made in Australia policy is falling apart. The minister has already spoken out against it.

Another question that the minister needs to answer is: how much of the $15 billion for the National Reconstruction Fund has been spent since the October 2022 budget? The minister needs to answer that. I can answer it for him as well. It's a really easy answer—zero. Another question that the minister needs to answer is: how much money has been spent from the industry growth fund since it was announced? Well, luckily, I know the answer to that as well, but it would be great for the minister to confirm it. I understand that the answer to that is also zero. So, out of the two big funds that they announced with a lot of hoopla and spin, not a dollar has been spent to support manufacturers.

What manufacturers want is not a government that tries to pick winners and industries that are going to work; they actually just want the handbrake to be taken off—less regulation so they can do their work. As the minister said, and I agree with him on this, when they earn money after they've risked their capital and, in many cases, put their houses on the line, they want to be able to keep more of that money.

As the Productivity Commissioner, Danielle Wood, handpicked by the Treasurer, said: 'As a broad principle, reducing company tax will make us more internationally competitive.' What that means is more capital will naturally come into Australia, but it will come into all businesses, not those businesses deemed winners by this government—businesses like Twiggy Forrest's that are able to convince the government that they need that extra support. If it stacks up, the private capital will be there, and if it delivers a profit then there's going to be more capital coming into this country. That's why we shouldn't be picking winners. We should be creating the conditions for the Australian economy to grow and prosper. (Time expired)

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The political amnesia of those opposite is extraordinary. Talk about picking winners. There was the NAIF, for example. They were the ones who established the NAIF. Then, of course, we had a former member for North Sydney, a former Treasurer, who sacrificed his political career on the altar of destroying the manufacturing industry and the car industry in Australia, with all the supply chains that went, including for people involved in manufacturing in Kilcoy in my electorate. So don't give us lectures, when you handed out huge amounts of money, including hundreds of million of dollars to organisations who had no experience in conservation, the environment or the Great Barrier Reef et cetera. Don't give us lectures about that. Seriously!

We're supporting Australian companies to make sure we invest and grow those companies and build their sovereign capability. We believe in a future made in Australia. Don't believe those opposite. They had nine years to do anything about it. All they did was dole out sports rorts and other types of things like that. We need to create jobs in manufacturing, in clean energy, for a prosperous future in that area, so we're supporting manufacturers in this area. The current global energy transition and industrial transformation are there for all to see, except those opposite don't want to look. They are delivering high-skilled, high-wages secure jobs.

We launched our first national battery strategy to support a Future Made in Australia and to make more from what we mine here in Australia. Global demand for batteries is said to quadruple by 2030 as the world transitions to net zero. A key election commitment, the National Battery Strategy, sets Australian industry up for success, and those opposite don't want to know about it. It will harness our world-leading expertise and build a battery manufacturing industry here in Australia, creating good, secure, well-paid jobs. We expect this will create more than 60,000 new high-skilled, high-paid jobs in the suburbs and regions by 2030.

The objectives of the strategy are to create greater wealth for Australians by manufacturing batteries onshore, help transition to 82 per cent renewables and secure our place in the global battery supply chain. We will focus on high-value factory products, manufacturing energy storage systems for renewable grids, providing battery-active materials et cetera. The strategy outlines how we will drive innovation and scale up manufacturing in battery pack assembly, cells and recycling.

In May this year, I visited the Queensland University of Technology advanced battery facility pilot plant and the Queensland Energy Storage Technology Hub at Banyo in Brisbane when Minister Husic recently launched the battery strategy. There are some existing industry-linked energy storage research projects and a terrific demonstration of our ability to manufacture batteries and innovate in South-East Queensland. Minister, I'm keen to learn about how we can have an ABIC, a battery centre in my electorate in Swanbank where QUT wants to go. I would much rather have a battery centre than a nuclear power plant, as the Liberals will propose. My question is: how can entities like QUT participate in the National Battery Strategy and what can the government to do the support good projects like this in my electorate? Those opposite, I would prophesise, if they came to power—and God help the country if they ever do—would have a road-to-Damascus conversion experience to support PsiQuantum. They support the idea of quantum computing, so I don't know what those Queensland LNP members have against Brisbane and South-East Queensland.

PsiQuantum is a world-leading quantum computing company. It's based in Silicon Valley and has a $3.2 billion US value. Two of the four founders are alumni of University of Queensland, where I went to university—but I studied law, not quantum computing. What do those opposite have against Queensland? PsiQuantum will create 400 high-skill local jobs, help investment in our local companies and help open up new digital and advanced technical supply chain opportunities. They will provide support here for internships, opportunities to fund PHC positions for our nation's scientists. A dedicated climate research centre will be established in Brisbane as part of this investment to identify quantum applications in the climate sector. Springfield City Group and other Springfield based businesses in my electorate are keen to establish a quantum education centre within Springfield's the Knowledge precinct with the support of Albanese Labor government. Minister, what can we do to get that centre here in my electorate and how can we support a Queensland based PSI Quantum education centre in Springfield in my electorate?

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was pleased to see that the centrepiece of the budget that the government delivered last month was a move to invest in Australia's transformation to a net zero economy. The Future Made in Australia program is a big-picture policy that will deploy $22.7 billion in direct investment, production tax incentives and loans to drive development of future industries like green hydrogen, green metals, critical minerals and renewables. But this is just a first step in what needs to be a much larger investment to drive our transition to clean energy and to become a clean and renewable energy superpower.

The global energy transition is already well under way. In Australia, already 40 per cent of our energy generation is from renewable resources. But we have reached an inflection point, a watershed moment, where our country's future will be determined by the decisions we are making right now. Australia must choose whether to step boldly into the global race to make the most of our abundant renewable assets and become a leading renewable energy exporter or face being left behind. I believe it is beyond time for Australia to move away from the 'dig it and ship it' mentality and futureproof our economy and prosperity by building our value-adding and manufacturing capacity right here in Australia. So I support the Future Made in Australia program. It's an important investment in the diversification of our economy, future jobs and future prosperity. But the government's announced plan represents only the first step.

However, at the same time the Future Made in Australia strategy was announced with much fanfare, the government also announced its Future Gas Strategy. This strategy paves the way for major new and massively expanded gas projects to be approved, with lifespans beyond 2050, including some of the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive and most polluting mines in the world. This is a confounding conflict the government has created—the most monumental example of a bet each way—and it is dangerous. The government is trying to convince Australians it is serious about climate change while at the same time giving the green light to fossil fuel companies to spend up big on infrastructure that will guarantee our reliance on gas for decades to come. Australia and the world are at a crossroads, and what we need is bold and visionary leadership, not equivocation. This equivocation by the government will not help Australia to become a renewable energy superpower. Rather, it will hold us back as it creates confusion, conflicting signals and uncertainty. What investors in our future renewable economy need is certainty and strong government leadership.

The announcement of the government's Future Gas Strategy has devastated climate scientists. What does this mean for our future? Esteemed climate scientist Joelle Gergis gave a briefing in Parliament House yesterday about her just-released Quarterly Essay 'Highway to hell'. In that briefing session, Joelle explained:

… there is a 90% chance that the continuation of current climate policies will result in 2.3C to 4.5C of global warming by the end of century, with a best estimate of 3.5C.

How is that consistent with a livable future? Quite clearly, if we veer away from our current path towards one that is expanding gas as the Future Gas Strategy does for us, we are locking ourselves into a devastating future. I do acknowledge that there is a small role for gas to play in firming and for industry as we transition to the clean energy generation. But to massively expand and bake in decades of gas production under the guise of acting on climate change, in my view, is a most monumental exercise in greenwashing and an egregious misrepresentation to the people of Australia.

So my questions to the minister are these. If the government truly believes in acting on climate change and driving Australia's journey to becoming a renewable energy superpower, why is it equivocating and not showing clear and decisive leadership on this? Why is it pursuing two energy strategies that are completely incompatible? When it comes to gas, isn't the government's plan to massively expand Australia's gas production and export irreconcilable with a safe climate, baking in our country's use of gas and economic reliance on gas exports for decades? Will the government be building on the Future Made in Australia plan as announced in the May budget, which can only be regarded as a first step at best for what is required for Australia to become a renewable energy superpower? If our goal is to truly become a renewable energy superpower, isn't encouraging new and expanded gas infrastructure investment a dead end? (Time expired)

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the resolution agreed to by the House on 28 May, the question is that the proposed expenditure for the Industry, Science and Resources portfolio be agreed to.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the consideration in detail stage of these appropriation bills. I note that, just last week, the Registrar of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal confirmed in evidence to a Senate committee that tribunal members take very seriously their obligation to make decisions under the law. We know that tribunal members are required by law to implement and give effect to direction 99. The government has been trying to blame the tribunal for the disastrous results of this direction, claiming that the minister has been misinterpreted. That might be remotely plausible if we were talking about a single case, but we know that many different members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal implementing direction 99 have, in case after case, permitted violent offenders and serious sexual offenders to remain in Australia.

The Attorney-General, we know, and his department, for some mysterious reason, did not regard this systemic problem as a significant legal issue, even though the Attorney administers the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, oversees our legal system and has responsibility for community safety. In fact, as far as we can tell—and perhaps the Attorney will enlighten us all—it appears he never even considered the interpretation of direction 99 as possibly being a significant legal issue until that was pointed out by this side of the House. Why would that be? Last week, the tribunal confirmed that, if a minister disagrees with a ruling of the tribunal, there are two pathways open to the minister: to appeal to the courts on a point of law or to use ministerial powers to quash the tribunal decision.

In evidence to the Senate on Friday, the registrar of the tribunal made clear that, to the best of his understanding, the minister has the power to quash every single decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where a person is permitted to remain in Australia based on direction 99. Despite the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs seeking to blame the tribunal and imply that tribunal members misapplied direction 99, it seems that he completely failed to take any action in relation to decision after decision which, on his version of events, misapplied his direction. He did not use the powers that the registrar says he has to quash those tribunal decisions. He did not systematically launch appeals in relation to those directions.

Let me turn now to the question of the new tribunal that the Attorney is imposing on the Australian people. We know from the budget papers that the government intends to spend $1 billion of taxpayers' hard-earned money to change from the AAT to the ART. This is an extraordinary level of expenditure. In judging whether this is appropriate, we should ask: what did Australians have before these bills and what will they have afterwards? Before these bills, Australians had an administrative tribunal that reviewed government decisions. After these bills, Australians have an administrative tribunal that reviews government decisions. They're also a billion dollars down in terms of money remaining available to taxpayers because this government is spending $1 billion. Why is this costly rebranding exercise being indulged? Where does this money come from? Some of it comes from the National Disability Insurance Agency, Veterans' Affairs or social services—from agencies dealing with vulnerable Australians. Why has the government decided that it's better to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new tribunal rather than, for example, deploy this money to support women fleeing family and domestic violence?

One of the other features of this government's unconstrained spending spree is $168 million over the forward estimates on an anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing reform. What's the government now proposing to expand this framework to cover real estate agents, accountants, law firms, conveyancers and the like? Will these entities, I ask the minister—the Attorney—now need to prepare detailed AML/CTF programs, potentially at the cost of many thousands of dollars and many hours of lost time? Will these many businesses that are now going to be caught in this regulatory web need to deal with competing regulation, in that, on the one hand, they will be required to destroy personal information under the Privacy Act but, on the other hand, they will be required to retain personal information under the AML/CTF Act? I ask the Attorney for clarification on that matter.

I further ask: How many new businesses around Australia will be dragged into his expansive new regulatory net? How many real estate agencies are there in Australia that will now be dragged into this regulatory net? How many accountancy practices and how many law firms will be within the remit of these new laws?

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the consideration in detail of the diverse portfolio that the Attorney-General manages. Of particular interest to me is our government's reform of Australia's system of administrative review. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Immigration Assessment Authority are being replaced with a new federal administrative review body, the Administrative Review Tribunal, the ART. This is not, as the member for Bradfield would have us think, a name change. It goes way beyond that. It's about fixing a system that those opposite broke and totally undermined. The creation of the ART will restore trust and confidence in Australia's system of administrative review.

Tens of thousands of people rely on the AAT every year to independently review government decisions such as whether they qualify for an age pension, whether they should be compensated for an injury they suffered while serving their nation in the military or whether they should receive NDIS funding for essential supports. The AAT's public standing was irreversibly damaged as a result of the former government's appointment of as many as 85 former Liberal MPs, failed Liberal candidates, former Liberal staffers and other close Liberal associates, without any merit based assessment process.

The former government fatally compromised the AAT, undermined its independence and eroded the quality and efficiency of its decision-making. The Albanese government has inherited an AAT that was not on a sustainable financial footing and that was beset by delays and an extraordinarily large backlog of applications. To its shame, the opposition voted against Labor's reforms, demonstrating its ongoing commitment to using the AAT as a job agency for Liberal mates at the expense of the Australian public.

A central feature of the new ART is a transparent and merit based selection process for the appointment of non-judicial members. Existing non-judicial members of the AAT, many of whom continue to embody the best traditions of that once-celebrated institution, were invited to apply for positions on the new body in accordance with the new process. The government has introduced legislation to give effect to its reform. That came in early in December and was passed, and I was privileged to be Chair of the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee inquiry into the ART bills. We recommended those bills be passed. Last week, they were finally passed in the parliament and received assent on Monday of this week. This is going to enable the ART to commence operation as soon as possible.

AAT resources, including staff, will transfer to the ART on establishment. The priorities of the AAT, for 2024-25 and until such time as it no longer exists, are to manage its large and diverse case load, including through ensuring the continued delivery of high-quality services to its users. It will prepare for the transition to the ART, including the ongoing development of the case management system. It will support members and staff during this transition period.

Our legislation establishes an ART that is fair and just and resolves applications in a timely manner and with as little formality and expense as is consistent with reaching the correct or preferable decision. It will be an ART that is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties. It will improve transparency and the quality of government decision-making and, most importantly, will promote public trust and confidence in itself.

The funding in the budget will ensure the new tribunal is supported by a sustainable and demand driven funding model, producing timely decision-making. The funding package also includes $9.6 million to provide improved access to merits review for regional, rural and remote communities as well as a user experience and accessibility team and a pilot First Nations liaison officer program. This funding builds on the Albanese government's investment of $128 million in previous budgets to tackle the AAT's substantial backlog, develop a fit-for-purpose case management system and re-establish the Administrative Review Council. My question to the Attorney is: how soon can the ART commence operations?

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My questions are about what the Attorney has done about the failure of his portfolio agency the Australian Human Rights Commission to appropriately deal with the rise of antisemitism since 7 October. The commission is the institution charged with protecting Australians from racism, but for eight months, since 7 October, the commission has failed to call out antisemitism despite a 738 per cent increase across Australia.

At Senate estimates last week, when asked if she'd specifically referenced antisemitism in relation to the Opera House protests, the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission could only say, 'All of our material refers to the impact on all of the community.' In the past, the commission's rightly made specific statements about negative experiences of Australian Muslims and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, but not Jews. Although the president's rightly condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine, she failed to condemn Hamas when repeatedly asked to do so. The commission has repeatedly failed to stand up for Jewish Australians and specifically and singularly call out the antisemitism which has been rife since 7 October.

Has the Attorney spoken to the president or to any commission staff about why the commission has repeatedly failed to call out the rising antisemitism in Australia since 7 October? If so, when did he first speak to the commission? What undertakings, if any, did the commission give about what the commission would do? If he hasn't raised these issues with the commission, why has he not done so?

The phrase 'from the river to the sea' calls for the violent destruction of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. The Prime Minister agrees that it's an extremely violent statement which has no place on our streets. A bipartisan motion in the Senate condemned the use of the phrase. So what does the Attorney-General say to his new Race Discrimination Commissioner, who, at Senate estimates last week, failed to condemn the phrase 'from the river to the sea' and instead said that he'd have to look at the context?

There is systemic racism against Jews at the commission, as evidenced by the statements of their staff and actions of their contractors. This includes the head of Hue Consulting, who was engaged to prepare antiracism material but was involved in the doxxing of 600 Jewish creatives and publicly urged her followers to 'let these effing Zionists know no effing peace'. It was the commission's lawyer who publicly stated that Jewish people as a group are not entitled to cultural safety and suggested the terrorist attacks of 7 October could make sense. Referring to Jewish people, another staff member wrote: 'What are they without Zionism? If we take that away—their violence, their toxicity, their racism—what's left of them as a people?' Then there was the call by commission staff, in relation to the terrorist attacks, to acknowledge Israel's occupation of Palestine as the source of the violence and embed an acknowledgement of Israel's apartheid, occupation and genocide in all communications regarding this matter from the commission.

Has the Attorney expressed concern to the commission about the apparent systemic racism against Jewish people among their staff and contractors? Has he spoken to the commission about their employment and contracting policies to ensure those engaged by the commission are not biased against Jewish Australians? Has the Attorney asked the commission to undertake an audit of its staff and contractors to establish whether any other staff or contractors have engaged in acts of racism against Jewish Australians?

The government's policy is to have the commission undertake a two-year inquiry into racism on campus, which includes racism against First Nations people, antisemitism and Islamophobia. Does the Attorney believe the level of campus antisemitism is not significant enough to have its own standalone inquiry?

Given the problems of campus antisemitism before October 7 identified by the Australian Jewish students' survey, including that 64 per cent of Australian Jewish university students experienced antisemitism on campus and 19 per cent stayed away because of antisemitism, and given the massive increase in antisemitism on campus has included Jewish students being spat on and taunted with swastikas, the office of Jewish staff members being urinated on, academics saying Jews don't deserve cultural safety, academics denying the rapes of October 7, the failure of university leaders—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

The failure of university leaders to deal properly with antisemitism includes dealing with encampments, vice-chancellors implying that hate-fuelled protests are just the price Jewish students have to pay for free speech and a collective statement from 39 university chancellors which was so weak it didn't even mention the words 'Jew' or 'antisemitism'.

Given all of this—given failure of the commission president to call out antisemitism and condemn Hamas, given the Race Discrimination Commissioner could not condemn 'from the river to the sea', given the systemic racism of its staff and contractors—does the Attorney believe the commission is really the appropriate body to undertake an inquiry into antisemitism on campus? Or does he agree with the opposition, the non-Green crossbenchers and almost every Jewish organisation in the country that only a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus can deal with this matter properly?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My focus during this consideration in detail is on legal aid, which we all know is a critically important resource for vulnerable Australians. I knew this fact from my very first day, last century, as an article clerk. I knew it while working as a solicitor, while working as an MP and working for the then shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, and during my two years serving on the joint select committee looking into Australia's family law system.

During that time I came to even better appreciate how essential legal assistance is when it comes to ensuring Australians have access to justice and equality before the law. My wife, Lea, back when she was a solicitor this century also volunteered at Queensland's amazing Women's Legal Service. The work that comes out of that small office in Annerley is all about helping a marginalised clientele—and a big shout-out to the dedicated staff and volunteers there. You provide an essential service to all of Queensland.

The legal assistance sector is supported by the National Legal Assistance Partnership between the Commonwealth and all states and territories. It provides funding for legal aid, commissions, community legal centres and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services. The current agreement expires at the end of June in 2025. The recent independent review, conducted by Dr Warren Mundy, considered how legal assistance in the future could provide better access to justice for all who need it. The review was asked to evaluate legal need, legal assistance funding, the effectiveness and challenges of service delivery, and data collection outcomes and reporting.

The resulting report has 39 recommendations to resolve a range of issues, with four main themes. Firstly, it recommended increased funding. Marginalised people have been further disadvantaged by little investment in the sector over the past decade. Dr Mundy recommended changes to funding calculations and distribution, changes to indexation, and highlighted the opportunity to target funding to priority cohorts.

Secondly, the sector needs to be strengthened by developing a sustainable workforce. Pay disparities need to be addressed to help with staff attraction and retention. Service providers are also facing growing pressures on their fixed costs, so the report recommends options to invest in infrastructure, such as technology, data and evidence. I saw this recently when I met with some CLCs in Alice Springs and Darwin.

Thirdly, a group of the recommendations concerns better justice outcomes for First Nations people. The review found that the National Legal Assistance Partnership has not progressed on the priority reforms and socio-economic outcomes of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. The recommendations included funding arrangements for Aboriginal community controlled organisations to enhance self-determination and service coordination effectiveness and coverage.

Fourthly, Dr Mundy recommended improved administration of funding as well as an outcomes framework, improved performance indicators and consistent data collection. These measures will assist with monitoring progress towards priorities and will inform future policy decisions.

The report is under consideration by the Commonwealth states and territories. Currently, there are about 200 CLCs across Australia. The hardworking staff of these centres help hundreds of thousands of Australians who otherwise would not have access to legal assistance. As we all know, the common areas of assistance are family law, civil law and criminal law matters. The work is challenging but rewarding. One aspect that makes CLCs special is that there are many specialist services catering to specific cohorts or issues. These include women, tenancy and housing, culturally and linguistically diverse people and refugees and migrants. It's a sad reflection of our national gendered violence crisis that women's legal services are experiencing unprecedented demand, and the chairperson of CLCs Australia also said that the cost-of-living crisis has created further demand, especially for assistance with credit, debt, consumer concerns and tenancy services.

The Albanese Labor government recognises both the crucial role played by legal assistance centres and the uptick in demand for services. This year's budget included over $44 million as an immediate funding boost to the sector. Seventeen million dollars of the funding is a one-off indexation boost to legal aid commissions, community legal centres and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services. The remaining money, approximately $27 million, is being directed to stabilising the workforce and reducing the pay disparities which are affecting retention problems.

I conclude by asking the Attorney-General to provide an update on the consideration of the National Legal Assistance Partnership report and on plans for additional funding for this crucial service.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In questioning at Senate estimates last week, it was revealed that the Attorney-General has removed the Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia from a panel that recommends who should be appointed as a judge to the court that he oversees. The Chief Justice no longer has a say in the hiring of judges who work for him. In fact, as a result of decisions made by the Attorney, the court isn't represented on the selection panel at all. In fact, when deciding earlier this year to put on a panel to select specialist family law judges, the Attorney-General's hand-picked panel comprised a long-term public servant, a judge from a court that doesn't deal with family law and a lawyer in the field with no judicial experience. Why did the Attorney do this?

When the Chief Justice administers his role or performs the functions of his role, he obviously has the ability to assess the competence of often advocates that appear before him. Yet, Mr Attorney-General, you're removing his ability to select judges with the benefit of seeing their skills as advocates who would invariably and often be chosen as potential candidates to sit on the bench. This Attorney is removing the Chief Justice's ability to have a say on who would be meritorious, who would be good candidates, to ultimately take that prized position of public life of serving their community on the bench.

This is a classic missed opportunity. In fact, the Attorney is spending $1,000 million dollars, a billion dollars, in reforming the AAT. Yet, on something that is so important—the appointment of judges—he is effectively sidelining the Chief Justice, and that is inexplicable. I would be very keen to hear why he has done that.

Why did he ask people who aren't experts in the field to rate the merit of candidates in extremely specialised and important roles? A similar approach was revealed in division 2 of the court. But, wait, there's more. It was also revealed that the Attorney-General has racked up over 2,000 days of delays in appointing judges to the bench of the division 2 court. In one case, he left a position vacant for more than 14 months. You would need to appoint an extra judge to work in that court and have them work for more than five years before you would catch up the time that was lost. That is before you even start to include the additional 10 judges that were promised but have not been delivered by this government. So far as we can tell from MYEFO, these 10 judges were all meant to start on 1 January this year, but it seems as if they won't be appointed until the end of June. Perhaps the Attorney-General could enlighten us in that regard? It doesn't matter if you budget for additional judges, if you don't appoint them.

The effect of these delays by the Attorney-General is that for many Australian families who are at their most vulnerable the pain and sadness of separation and Family Court proceedings are drawn out and made more costly, and it is a price paid in misery. I hope it doesn't pan out that way; I hope that we're wrong, because it is families who are paying the cost because they cannot get their case in front of a judge. Each of us in this place would know a family or families who have proceedings in the Family Court. It is just not fair to those families, to those children, who are waiting to get their matters resolved because justice delayed is justice denied.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following shocking reports of an alleged rape in this building just couple of years ago now, our parliament as a workplace came under intense scrutiny, resulting in the then Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins leading an independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. The report of the review Set the standard was published in 2021 and laid bare a workplace culture influenced by power imbalances, gender inequality and exclusion, and a lack of accountability. The report made 28 recommendations to enact positive change and improve parliamentary behaviours and standards—all of which were agreed to by this parliament.

Oversight of the implementation of these recommendations is done by the cross-party Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, of which I am a member along with my fabulous Labor colleagues Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher, Minister for Finance and Women, and Senator the Hon. Don Farrell, Special Minister of State and Minister for Trade and Tourism. We've made great progress. Every recommendation of the report has now been either fully implemented or partly implemented, or it's in progress. The only exception is the recommendation for independent external review, which will be conducted next year as agreed by the PLT.

I draw the minister's attention today to the recommendation which called for the establishment of a centralised independent office to provide human resource support to parliamentarians and their staff that is accountable to this parliament. I note that the government legislation to establish the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, or PWSS as it's now known, passed in the parliament last year. This advanced the Albanese Labor government's commitment to implementing all the recommendations of the Set the standard report.

The PWSS has since become an integral part of changing the culture and uplifting the standards of parliamentary workplaces through its role in providing independent and confidential trauma-informed complaint resolution and counselling services and support for referrals to specialised services and, where necessary, the police. It'll work closely with the soon to be established Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to ensure that all incidents of concern in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces can be adequately investigated and, if necessary, the appropriate sanctions applied.

The PWSS has also recently expanded its services to provide workplace health and safety and employment life cycle support to offices, such as assistance with job design, recruitment, performance management, and education and training through the PWSS Academy. The academy is a great initiative and one that my staff have utilised as part of their professional development journey. The PWSS has become an important part of the fabric of this workplace and is integral to improving our standards and culture. I know that the PWSS is making a difference to people here, because I hear it every day from colleagues and staff on all sides.

I have also taken advantage of the HR resources provided by PWSS, which has strengthened my own office's processes, providing efficiencies and enabling my team to better support my Newcastle constituents. And I know I am not alone. Indeed, in the last 12 months of the PWSS's operations it has reported a 239 per cent increase in the number of cases it is managing. I am so pleased to hear this, because it means that that early intervention and early detection of conflict and complaints is being managed where it should be, at the lowest level possible, before matters escalate.

That's why I'm so pleased that this government has included in this year's budget $51.7 million in funding over four years from 2023-24 and $12.4 million per year ongoing to support the continued work of the PWSS. Minister, can you outline how this funding will continue the good work of the PWSS in improving parliamentary standards for all who work in Commonwealth parliamentary offices?

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since Labor handed down their third budget, numerous economists have been exclaiming their thoughts on what we know is a true Labor budget. And there's no doubt about it: the people of Australia are doing it really tough, not just in Queensland but in all the states and territories around Australia. It's a known fact that Australians are poorer under Labor and that Aussies are paying the price for Labor's bad decisions and wrong priorities.

I was contacted by Vimal, a local business owner from Bracken Ridge in my electorate who runs a restaurant there. He was saying he's had to close his business as he can't afford to run it anymore, with inflation and costs going up and up and up. And I'm saddened to hear that this is the case for more and more businesses. This of course hurts consumers. It hurts the people who vote for us. The price of food is up by 11 per cent. The cost of housing is up by 14 per cent. There's record homelessness. Gas prices are up by 25 per cent and electricity prices by 20 per cent. And the minister will know that insurance premiums are up by 26 per cent.

There's not a lot in this budget for Australians. It does little to tame inflation and little to ease the cost of living. It does nothing to lower rent, which has probably doubled for most renters throughout Australia, and it does nothing to lower mortgages. The lousy $300 off electricity bills that they offered is a drop in the ocean. It's good for one year. What happens in years 2, 3, 4 and 5? The bill keeps going up. KPMG economist Brendan Rynne said, 'Bringing down inflation through the energy payment and rent assistance is smoke and mirrors.' Stephen Halmarick said:

The risk is now more real that the first interest rate cut could be delayed and that the neutral cash rate is higher than we currently estimate due to the expansionary fiscal setting and the high level of investment in the economy.

It goes on. There's a whole list of quotes from economists saying that this budget does little.

I've got some questions for the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services. Professor of Economics Steven Hamilton said that this is 'the most irresponsible budget in recent memory'. He said:

… in the current and coming financial years, when the inflation crisis is at its most acute, real growth in spending is double that benchmark at 4.5 per cent and 3.6 per cent, respectively.

So why has the government put its foot on the funding accelerator when the Reserve Bank is hitting the brakes? How much more will Australian families pay the government in bracket creep due to Labor's homegrown inflation? Bracket creep is a big issue. How will that impact people? How is it economically responsible, Minister, to increase spending by twice the rate of economic growth?

I've also got questions in relation to financial advice. Financial advisers are doing it tough and paying more under this government at a time when people in our electorates right around Australia need advice. That's what they need. The budget includes several measures, on pages 71, 179, 181 and 184 of Budget Paper No. 2, that will require additional ASIC levies. My question to the minister is: how much of these additional ASIC levies will be paid for by financial advisers? On page 180 of Budget Paper No. 1, GST receipts in 2023-24 were upgraded from the MYEFO estimate of $84,079 million to $85,758 million. Does this upgrade include increased receipts due to the ATO's revised interpretation on eligibility for trustees to claim the reduced input tax credit for GST on fees paid for financial advice? I have a couple more questions to the minister on financial advice. We've estimated that GST receipts have increased by $250 million because of the ATO's new interpretation. Does that account with the minister's estimate? Finally, does this situation, Minister, accord with the government's stated aim of reducing the cost of financial advice and increasing accessibility for Australians? They're the minister's own words. I'd love some answers in relation to that.

We're all here to represent Australians in our electorates. We want to do the best job we can. But right now, in 2024, people are doing it really tough. This has all happened in the last two years, since the Albanese government were elected. There's no doubt that during the coalition years people had more money in their pocket. They were better off. Their rents weren't as high. Their mortgages weren't as high. Certainly their insurance wasn't as high. Right now, they're doing it tough. We'd love answers from the minister.

Andrew Charlton (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow Assistant Treasurer just said that Australians are doing it tough, and he's right. He pointed out that prices have increased, that rents have increased and that many families are struggling to make ends meet. He's right about all of those things. What he's not right about is the cause of that pressure on Australian family budgets. The cause of that pressure is that the previous government left inflation running at record high levels. Inflation under this government has been cut in half. The shadow minister spent a lot of time talking about the price of energy and rents and about other family costs. What he didn't tell you is the trajectory of those prices since his government left office and our government began. Let's take them one by one.

Energy costs—when his government left office, they were forecasting electricity costs to increase by 20 per cent in the following year, a 20 per cent annual increase. That's not something they were upfront about in the election period, but that was information that they provided to then energy minister, now shadow Treasurer. Subsequently, the runs are on the board. The latest inflation numbers that were released the week before last showed that electricity prices in the last quarter fell by 1.5 per cent. So we've reduced electricity prices, which were running at 20 per cent before the last election when the Liberals had stewardship, by 1.5 per cent in the most recent quarterly numbers. Similarly, gas prices in Australia—the gas component of the CPI—have fallen by 1.7 per cent in the latest quarterly numbers.

I am sure that the empathy that the shadow Assistant Treasurer speaks of for Australian families doing it tough is well meant and sincere. Unfortunately, the reason that prices were going up so much for those Australian families is that the Liberals left a legacy of high inflation across the board, and the hope that those families have is that the Labor government continues the work that it has done to reduce prices across the board, to halve inflation and to reduce pressure on interest rates.

The truth is that, if we had left inflation running at the level that the Liberals left it at, which was 2.1 per cent quarterly growth in the last quarter printed before they left office, the average Australian family would be paying $200 more a week for their expenses. If we'd left inflation at that level, prices today would be 17 per cent higher now than they were at the time of the election. So it's true that Australian families are doing it tough and that prices have risen, but they have risen by a lot less than they would have if we had let the rate of inflation that the Liberals were running stay intact.

But that is not what we have done. What we've done is work to reduce the level of inflation in Australia through prudent budget measures that have helped take the pressure off prices, provide fiscal surpluses and reduce the cumulative underlying cash balance by $214 billion. This is one of the largest fiscal turnarounds in Australian history. Indeed, it's one of the largest fiscal turnarounds in world history. We've reduced the cumulative deficits by around two-thirds over the six years to 2028. We've found $105 billion in responsible savings and budget improvements, and doing so has avoided around $80 billion in interest payments over the medium term. What we've delivered is the first budget surplus—in fact, back-to-back surpluses, not back to black, which was their idea—in 15 years.

This is the hope that Australian families have—that, through the prudent and responsible fiscal management that they have seen in the last two budgets, we can bring down inflation from the horrific levels left by the Liberal government. That provides relief to families on their daily pressures and ultimately provides relief as it gives more room to the RBA to bring down interest rates. That's the hope for Australian families, and that's what Labor is delivering.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll start on a genuinely meant positive note: I want to thank the Assistant Treasurer for his opening conversation on APRA's proposed changes to capital and liquidity requirements for the customer owned banks. In a cost-of-living crisis, it is clear that, if there is an increase in those requirements and that results, as is unfortunately expected, in a reduction of competition in the banking sector, those additional costs—the higher costs of capital—will be passed on to consumers. For customer owned bank customers, we are talking about mums and dads who are living through some very difficult times. These costs will be passed on. That is clear. So I thank the Assistant Treasurer for his conversation. I look forward to further conversation. My question is: will he seriously consider the concerns raised and commit to increasing competition in the banking sector, which was, I point out, a very strong finding of the Standing Committee on Economics report into economic dynamism, which the member for Parramatta was a part of?

To slightly change speed, Labor's third budget ensures that inflation will remain higher for longer, and that is the view of most economists, of the bond markets and of the Australian people, who have overwhelmingly expressed how underwhelming this budget has been. In the AFR, Phil Coorey wrote:

The poll showed just 11 per cent—

of respondents—

thought the budget decreased the prospect of another rate rise while 39 per cent … feared it could push up rates.

Does the minister accept that the budget has raised expectations of an interest rate rise in the Australian community, and does the minister accept that this budget has painted a grim picture for Australians who have been going through difficult times and now look ahead with slightly more trepidation?

Labor's third budget is a typical high-taxing, high-spending budget. In the AFR under the headline 'Spending addiction fuels a new decade of deficits', Coorey writes:

… the … Treasurer … relied on a late tax revenue surge to forecast a $9.3 billion surplus for this financial year … before embarking on a spending spree that drives the budget headlong into deficit for the next decade.

Why did the Treasurer have to rely upon a windfall surplus rather than do the hard work of delivering a structural surplus, which is the right response in these fiscal times? Does the minister accept that taxpayers are again carrying the weight of Labor's high-spending agenda? And does the minister think that it is fair in a cost-of-living crisis, which has been spoken about by almost everybody here and acknowledged, that taxpayers should be carrying that burden, and that the taxpayer revenue should be spent so frivolously and immediately by the government?

In the same article Phillip Coorey said, 'The Albanese government has increased net spending by more than $24 billion over the next four years.' How does this additional spending align with the Treasurer's claims of spending restraint? Given the total increase in spending of over $300 billion the government has committed since coming to office, can the minister confirm a standard definition of the word 'restraint' has been used when applied? There is no evidence whatsoever that restraint has been applied to Labor's spending; it has increased and increased.

On energy rebates, again, in the AFR Steven Hamilton—no relation—writes, 'Energy rebates do not lower inflation.' If anything, they increase it by boosting aggregate demand. End of story. Does the government accept that the deployment of $300 energy rebates is both inflationary and a clear acknowledgement that its pre-election promise of reducing energy bills by $275 has failed?

Cherelle Murphy, the chief economist at EY, in her budget analysis wrote:

With billions being spilled into the economy from 1 July, and without offsetting new spending with cuts elsewhere, the Budget has thwarted the task of tightening the structural deficit.

It also undermines the government's inflation forecast—

Does the minister accept this budget has ensured inflation will stay higher for longer? Does the minister accept the financial pain many Australians are now feeling will be drawn out for longer because this government refused to rein in its spending?

Prior to the 2022 election, Jim Chalmers said there were plenty of things they could do to reduce cost-of-living pressures, specifically mentioning reducing grocery prices. Can the minister point to any element of the budget or the previous two Labor budgets that led to a reduction in grocery prices, or point to a single grocery item that has gone down as a result of policies deployed by this government? After three failed attempts, is the government still trying to reduce grocery prices or has it given up? I note that, since coming to government, Labor have overseen an average rising in food prices of 11 per cent.

The Treasurer in his 6,000-word essay in TheMonthly previously promised to remake capitalism. Does the predicted decade of deficits that this budget costs align with the Treasurer's vision? Is that what remade capitalism is—a decade of deficits? If there was a comparison made previously by the member for Parramatta to getting surpluses, we delivered 10 surpluses in a row; the government is guaranteeing 10 deficits in a row. Is that acceptable?

Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Groom for his contribution and I do note that he is the deputy chair of the economics committee, so he has a strong interest in this space. I have one word for him—that is, surplus. Surplus not in one year but in two years, something we haven't seen in years and years under those coalition governments. If he wants to talk about spending restraint and fiscal responsibility, that is my answer to him—two surpluses back to back.

I have been in this House now for a little over two years. I have been elected for a little over two years and there have been moments in the last two years that will stay with me forever regardless of how long I get to stay in this place. There is one that I want to share with everyone here today because it is a good indication of what good governments do. As a female federal member of parliament, International Women's Day is a very busy time in the calendar. You get invited to a lot of events. There was one event in particular that I made sure I went to and that was at a construction company down the road from my electorate office in Burwood. I must admit that I had some preconceived ideas about the make-up of the company and the type of workers they would have. But I really wanted to go to this International Women's Day event because I wanted to talk to the people there about all the measures we are taking as a government to ensure we have great gender equity in this country. So I bowled up and talked about the fact that we have, for the first time in our country's history, a majority-female federal government. But that in and of itself is not the achievement. The achievement is all the things that come from that: we've made child care more affordable, we've increased pay for those working in the aged-care sector, and we've made domestic and family violence leave a part of work entitlements. All of these measures are there because we have a majority-female federal government.

I finished on this one note, and I think it's important that I bring it up. I talked about the Paid Parental Leave scheme that the Labor government introduced and is strengthening. An important part of that is that part of the paid parental leave is put aside for the other parent. That was the key point that I wanted to make to this group of construction workers: we want to encourage both parents, mothers and fathers, to take leave so that they can provide care during this critical time.

I finished up my speech and asked if anyone had any questions. There was a gentleman who put his hand up, and I thought: 'Oh no. He's going to be accusing me of being too woke or the like.' But he put his hand up and he said something that really floored me. Mind you, he did it in front of all his colleagues, his male CEO and his male chair of the company. He said that, when his daughter was first born, he took a year off to look after her and it was the best year of his life; he bonded with her, and he was so grateful to be able to take that time off. That, to me, illustrates what good governments do: they recognise where the country is at and where society is moving towards—that is, to have both parents play a critical role in the care of their kids—and they help to nudge it there. So I'm so proud of the measures that we are taking on paid parental leave.

It was a Labor government that introduced this country's first government paid parental leave more than a decade ago, and it was something that I personally got to benefit from. And it's a Labor government that is strengthening that paid parental leave scheme. We are going to be increasing it to 26 weeks by 2026, and one of the key measures announced in this budget was that we are going to be paying superannuation on that paid parental leave. All of us in this place know that superannuation is an investment in someone's retirement. You put the money in now, and it's an investment that grows. We know that, at the moment, women retire with 25 per cent of the retirement income of men. This is a critical change that is going to change that. My lesson to those opposite is that, when you put women at the heart of your government, you also put women at the heart of your budget. This is the change that we need to see.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to start by commending my coalition colleagues for some of the important issues they've raised in their contributions in the consideration in detail here, so I won't re-prosecute those important points that have already been made, but I certainly endorse them. I want to ask the minister a few questions about the increase in the size of the Public Service. I was quite surprised to see the dramatic growth in the number of public servants in the budget. It's a 36,000 increase to, I think, 209,000 public servants that are expected to be employed across the APS in the 2024-25 year. I'll clarify that absolutely does not include uniformed defence personnel. This, to my brief looking at the history of the Public Service, is the first time we've ever had more than 200,000 bureaucrats employed. I'm a strong supporter of a well-resourced Public Service that's independent, frank and fair, but I'm quite surprised that an increase of that size since we left office, more than 15 per cent, is justifiable or necessary.

I'd ask the minister to give us a breakdown of the justification for 36,000 additional public servants. Some lines have been used publicly that don't come anywhere near stacking up the justification for 36,000. There's this claim of re-internalisation. The finance minister has publicly indicated there are about 3½ thousand people in the category of re-internalisation. I don't know if there's an updated figure that the minister can confirm to the chamber, because 3½ thousand is about 10 per cent of that growth, of those 36,000, and, whilst there might have been some examples given of where we need more public servants, there's been nothing to justify 36,000. I'd really like to hear what that explanation is, because it's a lot of money—it's towards $24 billion, over the forward estimates, that we'd be spending on an extra 36,000 public servants. That's an enormous amount of money.

It's our responsibility to make sure that we expend taxpayer funds judiciously. Every dollar that's spent on any growth in government is coming out of the pockets of everyday Australians, and they don't need to be paying any more tax than is absolute necessary right now. For government to be growing at that rate—15 per cent growth in the Public Service within a couple of years of this Labor government—does certainly concern me. So I'm keen for the minister to give us an in-depth explanation of that.

The other thing that's quite astounding in this budget is the amount of government advertising that's been financed. There's some tricky wording in the budget papers around 'public awareness' and this and that. I've tallied up nearly $200 million of government advertising that's either happening now or will happen into the next financial year—the next financial year, of course, being an election year. If it's been advertising the stage 3 tax cuts, on what basis would someone need that? Which Australian out there has to speak to their employer and say, 'Hey, I just want you to make sure that you've adjusted my tax rate from this to this'? The obligation is on the person paying to do so.

The fact that Australians are getting a tax cut is all well and good, but spending $40 million advertising something which occurs automatically is just blatantly the government trying to improve their dismal electoral fortunes; it is not achieving any valuable outcome from that expenditure. There's $54 million for the made in Australia policy suite. Again, if you're watching the footie or the nightly news, on what basis do you need to be told that the government is doing all these new things for tax incentives for billionaires? I mean, you could send a letter to all the people who might actually access this policy, and that might cost $54, not $54 million. It's completely unnecessary, but of course it smacks of the fact that a pollster has said to the government, 'You need to dramatically improve your government's reputation on some of these issues, so put a lot of money into government advertising, in an election year, in the budget.' So I'd ask the minister to explain on what basis there's any justification—other than for the personal political benefit of the government—for the sorts of expenditure that have been outlined.

We strongly support important public messaging, on things like health and domestic violence. There's some very important government advertising that should absolutely occur. But some of this political advertising should be justified by the minister.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the time available to me, I'll respond to some of the questions that have been put to me. But I think it's worth outlining the budget strategy that is contained within these appropriation bills. Firstly, it's to ensure that Australians are equipped to deal with some of the cost-of-living pressures that they're encountering.

The shadow Assistant Treasurer, in his contribution, expressed his concern about inflation. You can imagine how concerned he must have been as they left office, when inflation was running at over six per cent!

We've managed to halve inflation. We still think it's running too high, and our efforts are directed towards ensuring we can bring it back within the Reserve Bank's inflation target zone—predicted, on Treasury analysis, to occur by the end of this calendar year. Of course that's important, because it enables the Reserve Bank, then, to review its interest rate setting as to taking the pressure off interest rates.

The budget is all about ensuring that we can deal with these cost-of-living issues and ensuring, in the area of energy bills, $300 of energy bill relief to every household in the country. I have to say that, if you're concerned about cost-of-living pressure, the entry price to that conversation is not what you say but what you actually do. Over the last two years, we've seen the coalition fail time and time again when they've had the opportunity to support cost-of-living relief and measures which will improve affordability for Australian households.

On wages, they've opposed every wage increase. When we said it was reasonable for Australians on the minimum wage to get an increase of a dollar an hour, this, according to the Leader of the Opposition, was something that was going to bring the economy to its knees. Wages are growing faster and more sustainably than at any time over the last decade. That's actually a deliberate design feature of our government, and the opposite was a deliberate design feature under the coalition.

On medicines, we introduced policies which will reduce the price of medicines. Those opposite campaigned against those policies. I'm pleased to say that not only have we reached agreement with the Pharmacy Guild on these measures but Australians now are paying sustainably lower prices for the medicines that they have been prescribed and that they need to keep them healthy.

The energy bill rebate was voted against by that mob over there. Energy price caps were voted against by that mob over there. So they whinge and carry on about energy prices and cost-of-living increases but, every time they have the opportunity to do something about them, they vote against it. So it's not what they say; it's what they actually do that matters. We're putting in place measures which will support Australian households. They're opposing and voting against every single one of those measures.

I think it was the member for Sturt who asked some questions about the growth in Public Service numbers, an important issue. It is important, as every member in this place would understand, that we have a well-staffed, professional, permanent Public Service which is able to provide frank and fearless advice to the government of the day. I see the member for Canberra in the chamber, and this is something that I know she feels very passionate about.

When we came into government, up to a third of the staff of critical agencies were contractors or labour-hire employers. Those opposite say they care about veterans and, whenever they get the opportunity, they have something nice to say about our veterans, and we agree with that. But it's not what you say; it's what you actually do. One-third of the staff of the Department of Veterans' Affairs were labour-hire or contract staff. I'm not talking about low-level staff; it went right up to the SES level. The direct impact of the deliberate staffing policy of the coalition was that millions and millions of dollars worth of claims made by veterans weren't being processed because the department didn't have the staff, particularly the professional staff.

So, when the member for Sturt asked us why we have increased APS numbers and converted outsourced staff and contract staff into permanent APS employees, there's your reason: because it was costing the Australian taxpayer dearly and it was costing people who rely on government services dearly. (Time expired)

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my questions to the government on the budget, I'd like to focus on productivity, because productivity is the fundamental driver of living standards growth in this country. It drives wages, it drives growth and it reduces prices. So if we can get productivity right then we can get the entire economy moving and bring down inflation to boot. But productivity growth in Australia is at a 60-year low, and Australia has even transitioned to being a net exporter of capital, which is concerning if we understand that capital and investment are a key driver of productivity. We know that this makes a huge difference, and we know that, frankly, if we achieved our long-term rates of productivity growth over the next 40 years, we would be literally 40 per cent better off than we would be if we stuck with the low productivity growth that we have right now. The issue on productivity is not in the business sector; it is also in the government sector, which is a significant part of the economy and which is where some economists are saying that some of our greatest challenges in productivity growth are coming from.

I appreciate that government might say, 'Well, this is about the Future Made in Australia package.' I appreciate that there are some potential positive elements of that package. However, I'm concerned that the vast majority of Australian businesses will not benefit from that package, so we need approaches on productivity growth that reach more broadly across the economy.

I would like to acknowledge, because I think it's important to be fair, that there are some things in the budget which I think do drive productivity growth, such as the simplification of the Foreign Investment Review Board, the removal of nuisance tariffs, and the single front door for investment. They are the positive parts. But one of the questions I want to ask the government is: what are the broader reforms to make productivity grow?

The Productivity Commission, in its most recent report last year, did a five-year review of productivity growth and identified dozens of recommendations to improve productivity. So my question is: where's the government's formal response to the Productivity Commission's Advancing prosperity report? If we could understand what the government's perspective is on all of the recommendations that have been made by people completely focused on productivity then we would have a better idea of where productivity is going. That's the first question.

The second issue I want to talk about is tax reform. I have been in this parliament for two years, talking about tax reform, and I was talking about tax reform long before I got here. When I talk to key productivity experts across the country, they tell me that two of the biggest drivers of productivity growth are tax and IR. In both of those areas, certainly from a taxation point of view, the government has made steps, but not fundamental changes—nor, to be honest, has the coalition, who also made commitments about fundamental changes. What changes would the government make to actually fundamentally improve the productivity of our economy? On the second point, I've had many debates about IR in this place. The challenge I want to put to the government on industrial relations is: why won't you move to simplify the awards? This is something that could increase productivity, certainly in our businesses, but at the same time be a good thing for workers' wages as well. It could actually unlock productive resources into the economy.

This is my final question to the government, so the government has a chance to reply before 1.30: what steps are the government taking to improve productivity in the government sector? We need to make it easy to build and grow businesses in this country, but we also need to make sure that we are pursuing productivity growth in the government sector, given it's such a significant part of the economy. I'll leave those questions with the minister. I'll be very interested in his reply.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wentworth for her questions and for her broad engagement across this and so many other pieces of legislation that we're dealing with in the parliament. She rightly focuses her questions around the productivity challenge, which is something that is bedevilling countries around the world.

The focus of this government in driving national productivity is getting investment into our energy sector, because energy is going to drive productive development in not only manufacturing but every other sector of the economy over the next few decades. If we get energy right, it will deliver massive increases in our productive capacity. It's why we're putting so much focus on the generation of energy. It's why we're putting so much focus on the distribution of energy. The Rewiring the Nation program is about ensuring that the distribution system is connecting the places where energy is being generated to where it is being used—and they're not the same places that they have been over the last two or three decades.

We're also looking at ensuring that we are investing in the energy sources that will drive productive capacity over the century to come, particularly in the area of mobile fuels. Hydrogen is going to be the energy source which drives so much in the area of mobile fuels but also in the area of metal manufacturing and other heavy industry as well. It's why we are not only investing but also ensuring, in the area of taxation, for example—you asked about tax reform—that we're putting in place tax incentives which encourage not only investment in hydrogen but also the production of hydrogen. The production credits are about driving the outputs of, not the inputs into, energy generation. Of course, energy matters a lot, and I will argue that it will be one of the things that will drive productive growth throughout the economy over the next century.

But it's also about our workforce, which is why so much of the contribution that we've made in this budget is around vocational education and training, our skills agenda and higher education. The education minister wants to see more kids from backgrounds like mine and his entering university and having the benefits that higher education brings not only to them but also to our nation. The cost of a university degree and, indeed, the cost of the HECS loan, which supports the university degree, are things which are impacting students across the country. That's why we're wiping $3 billion off university debt, changing the way that indexation of university HECS debts are calculated and making a big investment in skills development throughout the country.

Of course, government investment, including in the energy system and in skills development, is absolutely critical, but we know it's going to be business investment and capital formation that are going to drive productive capacity over the decades ahead. Government has got a role to play, and individuals have got a role to play, but business investment is absolutely critical. Yes, Australians are doing it tough, and we know that immediate conditions are difficult. But, when I look to the near future, two things give me a lot of hope: record unemployment and record number of people in jobs. That is the miracle of the Australian economy over the last two years. There was a record number of jobs created—close to 800,000—and record low unemployment. That is fantastic. It's good for not only them and the budget bottom line but also business investment. There has been a very strong pipeline of business investment and record levels of business investment over the last two years.

These are the things that are going to drive productive capacity in the economy over the year ahead. So, whilst we have some near-term challenges, there's no doubt about it. That's what our budget strategy, which is about not only providing cost-of-living relief and fiscal restraint but investing in the areas that are going to drive productive capacity, will do over the decade ahead. I agree with the member for Wentworth: more focus and more discussion around productivity challenges are absolutely essential. We're doing our bit in this budget, and we hope to do much more over the years ahead.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 13:32 to 16:00

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

The proposed expenditure now before the Federation Chamber is for the Health and Aged Care Portfolio: $18,934,460,000. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, and I give the call to the minister.

Gavin Pearce (Braddon, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health, Aged Care and Indigenous Health Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many of us wouldn't live anywhere but in the bush. But the fact is that the further you live away from the cities then the more challenging access to health services becomes. If you live in regional, rural or remote Australia, you are likely to be: firstly, older; secondly, sicker; and thirdly, poorer health outcomes are in line for you than your city cousins. If we're ever going to turn these damning statistics around then access to your local GP means everything.

Medicare is the foundation of our primary healthcare system. I have to agree with Minister Butler when he said 'Bulk billing is the beating heart of Medicare.' But despite those words, Medicare has been significantly weakened since Labor came to government two long years ago. Under Labor it's never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor. Since July last year, the GP bulk-billing rate has decreased by four per cent. That is despite this government pumping millions of taxpayer dollars into bulk-billing incentives. That has obviously failed. Bulk billing has plummeted by 11 per cent since this government came into power. It's fallen from 88.5 per cent under the former Liberal National government to just 77 per cent under Minister Butler.

Over the same period, we've also seen 3.1 million fewer GP attendances. That's because it's never been harder or more expensive to see that doctor. It's hurting Australians. It is hurting them in their hip pockets at a time when they are already struggling under serious rising cost-of-living pressures. Due to cost concerns alone, 1.2 million Australians avoided seeing a GP last year. We already know the flow-on effects that has: more patients are being pushed into our overflowing emergency departments. Therefore, I ask the minister: is the government concerned about patients being pushed towards our overburdened hospital system because of increasing costs and the difficulties accessing a GP?

It's not rocket science when we start talking about workforce challenges. The key issue that everyone faces when they need to see a GP is there just aren't GPs available in the bush or in the regions. You don't need another inquiry to work that out; all you need to do is listen to local communities and they'll tell you loud and clear. It's obvious to me that Minister Butler hasn't listened because he has not addressed this in this budget. There is nothing to incentivise new locally-trained GPs. There is nothing to implement a comprehensive national workforce strategy, which is so desperately needed. This is simply bad oversight as far as I'm concerned. It's bad for patients and preventative health outcomes, it is bad for the hip pockets of struggling Australians and it is bad for our already under pressure hospital systems.

According to the Royal Australian College of GPs, the Australian GP shortfall is expected to approach 11,000 by 2031. This is because fewer medical graduates are choosing general practice as a speciality. Why? Why would a junior doctor become a GP when they're paid about three-quarters of the salary of their counterparts in hospitals? Why would you do it? This pay gap is one of biggest disincentives to choosing a career in general practice, along with the loss of paid leave. That's why the Liberal Nationals government announced a $400 million plan to incentivise more junior doctors to enter GP practice. It should be re-implemented. This will provide junior doctors with the direct financial incentive payments, assistance with leave entitlements and support for prevocational training.

I've also seen firsthand, through the Burnie Rural Clinic School, the impact of home-trained GP graduates and the effect that has on a region. They train locally. They come from the local region, and they stay and work locally. Therefore, they're more likely to remain in those regional areas. It's critical to delivering the essential health care that every Australian would expect no matter where they live. Our initiative will address Labor's primary care crisis. Therefore I ask the minister— (Time expired)

Gordon Reid (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll start by saying that the member for Braddon, given some of his comments, has been extremely misinformed, because Tasmania has been a significant beneficiary of the Albanese Labor government's investments into Medicare, bulk-billing and the PBS. Look at the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive. I know that in my region and in the member for Dobell's region, there were over 10,000 additional bulk-billed visits to the GP. Those people are having their chronic medical conditions seen to so that they don't become acutely exacerbated, resulting in their ending up in the emergency department.

Look at freezing the price of medications—the PBS co-payment that's coming up. Look at the cheaper medicines act that we passed early on. I have seen that policy actually work on the ground of a health facility. People are able to afford their blood thinners, their MDIs, their puffers and their diabetes medication. I have seen that work in real time. That is the result of an Albanese Labor government, led by a fantastic health executive who know that Medicare, with universal access to doctors and medications, is one of the most important things that a country can have.

Then we have our urgent-care clinics. I think this isn't said often enough: we are creating a new model of care and a new speciality in Australia—urgent-care medicine. If you are too sick for the GP but not sick enough for the ED, prior to the election of the Albanese Labor government, you would have nowhere to go. You'd be going to an overcrowded emergency department or you'd be going to a general practitioner who is under significant strain from the number of patients that they are seeing in the community. Now you have somewhere to go. I have seen firsthand that these clinics on the Central Coast and across Australia are making a difference.

On the Central Coast alone, there were over 10,000 visits to our urgent-care clinics. Across the country, there were over 400,000 visits to these urgent-care clinics. We're talking about people with conditions like exacerbation of asthma and extremity trauma, as well as unwell children with respiratory disease and gastrointestinal disease. These are patients who would have otherwise gone to emergency departments or who may have been too complex for the clinic of the general practitioner. They would have had nowhere to go, but now they do, thanks to the Albanese Labor government.

These urgent-care clinics are right across the world. They're in other countries as well. We saw this and we recognised this. The health executive and the Prime Minister saw this, and we thought, 'This is going to work in Australia,' and it is working in Australia. This is part of the Albanese Labor government's broader plan to strengthen Medicare right across the board. We're talking about the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive, the PBS co-payment freeze and the provision of affordable medications. We've just signed the recent community pharmacy agreement with our friends in the community pharmacy sector.

We've established these urgent-care clinics, and we're working with universities and with our education institutions to make sure that we can encourage more medical students to pick general practice as a speciality. It is a rewarding career to be a general practitioner. It's a challenging career, but it's a rewarding career. It's one of the only medical specialties where you will see an undifferentiated patient—a patient who comes in with a symptom where you have to figure out what's wrong with them and then either treat and manage them or refer them on to another speciality or to a higher level care centre. It's a challenging but rewarding career. It's a career where you see all manner of patients across the lifespan from babies to the middle-aged and all the way to our young-at-heart Australians. It is a rewarding career and I would encourage medical students across this country to select general practice as a speciality, because you'll be making a difference in the healthcare landscape of this country. Know that, in the Albanese Labor government, you have a Medicare system, and a general practice system, that is supported by our government—it is absolutely supported by our government—whether it be in the urgent care space or with bulk-billing incentives and the like.

But I want to go back to the urgent care clinics, and I think this is really important: over one in four visits are made by someone aged under 15 years. There is a significant disease burden from the paediatric population that would otherwise be going to the GP or the ED that is now going to the urgent care clinics—and they're being seen in a timely manner, which is not only good for the kids; it is also good for the parents and the wider health landscape across the country.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's often been said that government budgets are an expression of priorities. What we saw from the most recent budget is that the Albanese government is not prioritising the mental health of Australians. Australia is in the middle of a mental health crisis. That fact is undisputed by experts and stakeholders in the sector. The previous coalition government took the crisis seriously. In our last budget in 2021 we invested a historic $2.3 billion in the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan. That funding guaranteed essential services and led landmark reforms in mental health support and treatment. We did that because every year, sadly, more than 3,000 people die by suicide, and it remains the leading cause of death for Australians between the age of 15 and 44 years. In addition, one in five Australians experience some form of chronic or episodic mental illness each year.

This Labor government have already shown that they don't take this issue seriously enough. Budget night marked 500 days since the Albanese government's cuts to the Better Access initiative, reducing the number of Medicare subsidised psychology sessions available for vulnerable Australians from 20 back down to 10. This change ripped away affordable access to psychology sessions for around 240,000 Australians who had been prescribed the additional 10 psychology sessions by their medical practitioner. Under our government, Australians were able to access affordable sessions roughly every two weeks. Under this government, that changed to less than monthly. Anyone who is or loves a person with a chronic or complex mental health condition will tell you that this isn't enough. We raised the number of Medicare subsidised sessions because doing so saved lives. I know it did because, even before COVID, as the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention group, I had mental health patients and stakeholders in the sector saying to me that 10 sessions were simply not enough.

The government's cuts have made life harder for Australians who are already struggling. There have been recent reports of vulnerable Australians having to rely on buy-now pay-later platforms like Afterpay in order to access the mental health support they need amidst the rising cost-of-living pressures. That's particularly concerning when we know that short-term loan arrangements can lead to additional stress for vulnerable Australians. Australians with chronic and complex mental health conditions should have affordable access to the consistent specialised treatment they need from a psychologist because they deserve the full level of support that's been prescribed to them. It would be completely unacceptable, for example, to purposely restrict patients to only half the course of treatment for a physical health condition, but we're doing it in mental health. As the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, reiterated in his budget in reply, a re-elected coalition government will restore the number of Medicare subsidised psychological sessions from 10 to 20 on a permanent basis.

The Albanese government has missed a critical opportunity to listen to the calls of experts and patients by reinstating full access to Medicare subsidised psychology services, as the coalition has committed to doing. Just as physical health shouldn't be a luxury, mental health shouldn't be a luxury. So I ask the government: why does this budget fail to provide adequate support services to ensure Australians have access to mental health treatment they need, particularly when it comes to the more complex and chronic mental health conditions in the form of establishing new measures or reinstating old ones.

Also shockingly, this budget has quietly dissolved the National Mental Health Commission, including the National Suicide Prevention Office. Those bodies were established as a recognition of the depth and significance of this issue. The dissolution of those bodies is yet another indication that this government is not prioritising the mental health of the Australian community. As I said at the start of my contribution: government budgets are an expression of priorities. So above all I ask the government why is it not properly responding to the Australian mental health crisis that this country is facing? Why is this not a priority for the Albanese Labor government?

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Medical misogyny is not a term that I learnt in any medical textbook. It's a phrase that I became familiar with only once I became a parliamentarian. It refers to the inbuilt bias against women that is baked into the medical system. I was aware of it when I practised, particularly in women presenting with cardiac symptoms—who often presented late or were misdiagnosed and had poor outcomes—but I probably didn't fully appreciate it.

Medical misogyny occurs for lots of reasons. It refers to the denialism that women face when they present with their symptoms, which may not necessarily be textbook. It refers to the silencing and shaming of women. It refers to a lack of appreciation for how women's health issues are often related to hormonal and reproductive phases of their life. And it also refers to, frankly, the poor representation of all types of women—ethnicities, shapes and sizes—in clinical trials—those same clinical trials that lead to the registration of drugs, which then are dispersed to millions of women in the market. And so is it any wonder that some women simply don't respond to those drugs, as described in actual journal articles? It starts at the root.

This government has taken a strong focus on women's health. We're really running the ruler over our women's health approach in Medicare. One of the first measures we introduced was the Women's Health Summit. That was led by assistant minister Ged Carney in March of this year. It was very much informed by a survey of 3,000 women around Australia, which demonstrated that two out of three women experienced a type of medical bias in the health system—something we now call 'medical misogyny'. Perhaps the archetypal condition is endometriosis. Endometriosis affects about a million Australian women. That's a lot of women. It affects one in nine women, and it takes, on average, seven years to diagnose. Seven years! That's extraordinary. Cancer doesn't take seven years to diagnose, and yet endometriosis takes seven years. And the symptoms are not particularly hard; they're basically symptoms that occur with a woman's cycle. They're cyclical symptoms—whether they be tummy bloating, pain in the abdomen or in the pelvis, diarrhoea or constipation, painful sex—and yet it is very poorly recognised in the health system.

This is why we have funded 20 endometriosis clinics and pelvic pain clinics right around the country. I had the privilege of visiting one. I went to the EACH endometriosis and pelvic pain clinic in Ringwood East, a very long way from my electorate. I was really pleased to visit the clinic because what I saw there was multidisciplinary care. It was GP led, but supported by dietitians, physios, occupational therapists. They even had an ultrasound on site. This clinic was overflowing with patients. Why? Because people from far and wide are attending this clinic. I learnt that patients from as far away as Traralgon would turn up, often with wads of files, because they had been going from pillar to post to try and get good advice. They would come to the EACH clinic and it was such a relief.

Endometriosis is a chronic condition; there is no cure for it. This clinic offers a one-hour consultation that is bulk-billed. It is free. It is walk-in. The public waiting list to see a specialist for chronic pelvic pain is actually between one to four years. One to four years to just get in through the front door! This clinic has shortened that waiting time to 14 days. And I've never met such a dedicated, impassioned group of healthcare workers, who were simply asking us for more space. What a good problem to have! They had simply run out of space, and as a result the GP was working from home, seeing patients, and she wanted an extra consulting room. They had also planned on partnering with a hospital in the area, Eastern Health Box Hill, in order to have consultant gynaecologists also attend with their doctors.

On that note, we have increased the Medicare rebate for women to see consultant gynaecologists in order to make it much more affordable and accessible for them to do so. Again, this is a way that we are ironing out the biases in the system.

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025, being the federal budget, and I specifically want to address the areas of women's health, urgent care clinics and mental health. Labor heralded this budget as putting women's health as a central component. There are some parts of this budget that are very positive for women's health, and the coalition has acknowledged this and will continue to acknowledge this. We have over the past couple of decades in particular made significant gains in many areas of women's health, particularly, for example, in the area of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.

However, many Australian women suffer from chronic pelvic pain—conditions such as endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome and chronic period pain. These conditions are debilitating and distressing and impair women's ability to live their lives to the fullest. Therefore, the coalition does welcome the government's investment into women's health, which was $49.9 million over four years, to support women who have endometriosis and pelvic pain. The government has acknowledged that this builds on significant work that was commenced by the coalition in this critical area. The funding will support gynaecology consultations of 45 minutes or longer for patients with complex conditions such as endometriosis, which we know requires specialised care.

I'm very pleased to say that the coalition had led the way in committing significant funding to initially set up this process so that women suffering from endometriosis and pelvic pain have access to the support they need. I do commend the government for continuing the work that was started by former coalition governments.

We want to ensure, though, that the establishment of the pelvic pain clinics will result in the integrated multidisciplinary care that the coalition committed to delivering. Therefore, my question to the government is: can the government provide any data on the number of additional services that are being provided to women suffering from endometriosis and POS since these clinics were established? We do recognise, as the federal opposition Leader said in his budget reply speech, that more needs to be done to support women's health. That's why I'm very pleased to be part of a coalition that is committed to undertake a review of women's health items available through Medicare and the PBS and also to support measures and develop policy around primary care as well as around menopause and perimenopause.

I turn now to ovarian cancer. It's a silent cancer, difficult to diagnose and, tragically, often diagnosed too late for treatment. The coalition, in its budget reply this year, again committed to increasing funding for this scourge and has committed $4 million in funding for Ovarian Cancer Australia.

I turn now to urgent care clinics. Despite the urgency of Labor's primary care crisis, the budget's Strengthening Medicare package focuses on an unproven election commitment by funding an additional 29 urgent care clinics. In principle, urgent care clinics are a very good idea. However, we have found that, in the delivery of this policy, many urgent care clinics have already been established that are not open for the promised extended hours. We've heard reports that they are not even equipped with the critical services necessary to address patients' urgent inquiries and illnesses, as they were established to do. Therefore, my question to the government is: has the government undertaken an evaluation of the existing urgent care clinics to assess whether they are achieving their intended purpose of taking pressure off local emergency departments, prior to the funding of an additional 29 that was announced in this budget?

In the time allocated, I want to talk about mental health. Mental ill health is a terrible scourge in our community, particularly with rising rates among our teenagers and younger people. We previously had 20 Medicare subsidised psychology sessions. The government in the last budget took that away, halving it to 10. The coalition has repeatedly asked for the extra 10 to be put back into the system. We have committed to putting those extra 10 back in to ensure that people who are experiencing mental health crises are not punished by not being able to afford to see a psychologist at a time when they really need to.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government, with its wonderful health team, which is doing a really great job in getting equitable health care to all Australians, whether it be newborn screening programs; increasing the number of disorders tested for; new MRI licences, of which there are five in my lecture of Macarthur, enabling people to get urgent scans done and rebated by Medicare; the urgent care centres; more funding for medical research; or supporting organisations such as the Children's Tumour Foundation and other really excellent medical organisations, including the DIPG group for children with brain cancers. The health team is doing a fantastic job: Mark Butler, the Minister for Health and Aged Care; Assistant Minister Ged Kearney, the member for Cooper; and Emma McBride, the member for Dobell. They are doing a wonderful job, trying to repair the damage that was done over 10 years of rule by the Liberal and National parties.

You ask me what evidence there is for that. I can tell you I have half a century of experience in the health system. I saw the development of Medibank, our first national health insurance scheme, by Gough Whitlam. It was the first time in Australia that people who had socioeconomic challenges could actually get access to decent health care without bankrupting themselves. We saw that destroyed by the Fraser government when it came into power. We saw the constant undermining of Medicare, which was introduced by the Hawke Labor government, during more than 10 years of Liberal Party rule. The present Leader of the Liberal Party did his best to get rid of universal access to bulk-billing, with almost tragic results. Thankfully, he was stopped, but then there was the gradual withering of Medicare on the vine under the Liberal governments of Scott Morrison, Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott—a tragedy in the making.

We are trying to repair some of that damage, and Mark Butler and his team are doing a great job. The tripling of the Medicare bulk-billing incentives has led to increasing rates of bulk-billing after a 10-year decline, and the results released, I think, yesterday showed an increase of almost 3½ per cent in bulk-billing rates around the country. That's really important in my electorate. It is really important for equitable health care, and it's really only Labor that understands it. The Liberal and National parties do not understand it. We see some of the worst health statistics in the country in areas where they have National Party members, such as Parkes, and regional Liberal Party members, such as Grey in South Australia. There are really terrible health statistics in terms of life expectancies and incidence of things like breast cancer, bowel cancer and cardiovascular disease. After 10 years, the statistics are getting worse, not better, and only Labor knows how to improve that.

Our 2024-25 budget includes funding for things like the PrOSPeCT trial, which is looking at genetic markers for certain cancers, like breast cancer, prostate cancer and bowel cancer. This will dramatically improve health outcomes. Our new medicines funding is unbelievably good. We now have access to some of the most advanced medicines in the world for very little cost to the individual patient. The Albanese government is also delivering $4.3 billion to deliver cheaper medicines through 60-day prescribing and the freezing of payments for medications for people on healthcare cards and even people who are paying privately. This is really making access to health care much more equitable and having a huge effect around the country, particularly in my electorate of Macarthur. In the new budget, we're putting in $1.4 billion for groundbreaking new health and medical research, through the Medical Research Future Fund. It's a really great advancement.

Labor understands the importance of having a universal healthcare insurance scheme that gives equitable access, whether you live in the inner city or rural, regional or remote areas. Our Macarthur residents already have saved over $2.1 million thanks to our government's policies on cheaper medicines. We will now save more with better access to MRI scans— (Time expired)

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025 and the consideration in detail of the Health and Age Care portfolio. Regional Australia has felt the brunt of subpar health services for far too long. From maternity bypasses, like we've seen recently at the Gladstone and Biloela hospitals, to the lack of GPs and specialists, it is an issue no matter where you live in the Flynn electorate, in Central Queensland. This is not acceptable in capital cities like Brisbane and Canberra, and it shouldn't be acceptable in big regional electorates such as Flynn.

Aged care is a significant issue that needs serious attention and practical outcomes and solutions. At a time when waiting lists for home-care packages have blown out, we know that the next generation of older Australians will want to stay in their homes for longer. Labor's budget has only provided an additional 24,100 home-care packages. This follows revelations that a mere 9,500 additional home-care packages have been released by the Albanese Labor government. This compares to 50,000 older Australians who are already waiting on the national priority system for home-care packages, and this demand is growing. Demand for home-care packages grew over the last quarter by 14 per cent, while new home-care recipients represented only seven per cent of the HCP Program. It also compares to the 80,000 additional home-care packages provided by the coalition over our last two years in government. It is clear that demand is far outpacing the supply of home-care packages under this government.

Recent data has shown that some of the most vulnerable older Australians are waiting as long as an entire year to get access to home-care packages. Wait times for level 3 packages have blown out to nine to 12 months, while wait times for level 4 packages have risen to six to nine months. Why did the government fail to provide even half the number of additional home-care packages needed to address the current waitlist, and will the government commit to urgently bringing down home-care wait times so that older Australians get the support they need to stay in their own homes for longer?

Last year, Carinity Summit Cottages, an aged-care facility in Mount Morgan, in my electorate of Flynn, closed. They advised that the ongoing nationwide shortage of aged-care staff combined with Mount Morgan's regional location had made staffing the facility incredibly difficult. Given the national care workforce shortage and the increased difficulty in recruiting staff, the only viable option was for Carinity aged-care cottages to close. The Labor government misunderstand that their one-size-fits-all approach simply does not work, particularly in regional Australia. I wrote to the Minister for Aged Care asking what the Labor government is doing to stop this aged-care facility and others around the electorate from closing. I ask again: what is the government doing to stop more of these aged-care facilities from closing?

The Labor government made an election commitment to fund an additional 29 urgent care clinics, including one in Rockhampton and one in Bundaberg. Not only are these urgent care clinics that have already been established not open for the promised extended hours but we have also heard reports that they have not even been equipped with the critical services necessary to treat patients for urgent injuries and illnesses, as they were intended to be. Can the minister explain why Rockhampton and Bundaberg were chosen as locations for these urgent care clinics? Will the minister commit to opening and funding urgent care clinics in locations such as Gladstone, Gracemere, Biloela and Emerald?

Earlier this year, I hosted the general practitioners, health professionals and local community advocates for a regional health roundtable in Gladstone. Topics of discussion included challenges in recruiting and retaining staff, lack of GPs in regional Australia, underserviced areas, development of local health training opportunities and policy initiatives to improve regional health outcomes. It was an important opportunity for local professionals to discuss regional health challenges, as well as the practical solutions and initiatives that can be implemented by both state and federal governments. Ultimately, the No. 1 issue was the lack of GPs and health professionals overall. I strongly welcome Peter Dutton's announcement that he will incentivise junior doctor training and general practice. Working with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Australian Medical Association, a coalition government would invest $400 million to provide junior doctors who train in general practice with incentive payments, assistance with leave entitlements and support for prevocational training. I ask the minister: will this commitment be matched by the Labor government? (Time expired)

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese government is delivering historic investments to strengthen Medicare and reduce the cost of medicines. Our unwavering commitment to strengthening Medicare and the Australian healthcare system is evident in the measures we've introduced in this budget. With more Medicare urgent care clinics—including one at Top Ryde in Bennelong—expanded free mental health services, higher Medicare rebates for essential medical tests and a significant women's health package, we are ensuring that every Australian has access to the health care they expect and deserve.

In our 2023-24 budget, we've made a groundbreaking $6.1 billion investment to strengthen Medicare, including a $3½ billion commitment to triple the bulk-billing incentive. This initiative alone benefits over 11 million Australians, marking the largest investment in bulk billing in Medicare history. We know this initiative is working because, since the introduction of this incentive, the GP bulk-billing rate has risen by 3.4 per cent, resulting in over 950,000 additional bulk-billed visits. Building on this success, the 2024-25 budget further allocates $2.8 billion to continue strengthening Medicare with more Medicare urgent care clinics, more free mental health services and higher medical rebates for many common tests, including investments in women's health.

In my electorate of Bennelong, health care isn't just something we think about when it's time to go to the doctor. Macquarie Park, one of the largest innovation, research and development precincts in the state and the country, is also home to some of the biggest healthcare providers. Bennelong stands at the forefront of medical advancements and healthcare innovations. One critical area of focus in our healthcare strategy is supporting and enhancing cardiac technical services. Cardiac implanted electronic devices such as pacemakers, implantable loop recorders and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators play a vital role in treating life-threatening heart conditions including irregular heartbeats, heart failure and sudden cardiac death. These devices are not just medical marvels; they are lifelines for countless Australians.

Australia is home to five companies providing these life-saving products, including Abbott and Medtronic, both based in Bennelong. Ensuring these devices are supported throughout their life span, often over 10 years, requires ongoing servicing by highly trained cardiac technicians in collaboration with cardiologists. These technical services are essential for the clinical effectiveness of the devices and are provided in various inpatient and outpatient settings nationwide. The former government initiated significant reforms to the funding arrangements for these technicians, impacting the prescribed list for medical devices and human tissue products. However, they did so with limited advice and without fully understanding the potential workforce and patient impacts, especially in rural and regional areas. These essential services were at risk due to these misguided decisions.

Thankfully, the new government and its new Minister for Health and Aged Care—one that recognises the critical nature of these services—have ensured their continuation under the prescribed list until an alternative model is agreed upon. This important decision of the Labor government will ensure that patients can continue to receive vital services alongside their clinical care and that these companies can maintain employment for these highly skilled technicians, many of whom are based in my electorate.

During a recent visit to cardiologist Dr Bill Petrellis, I had the opportunity to witness firsthand the invaluable work of a cardiac technician, Carolyn. Patients and Dr Petrellis spoke passionately about the importance of having skilled cardiac technicians to support these implanted devices, highlighting how life changing these devices are. Our decision to continue funding for these services in this budget will save lives, and it has saved jobs.

Furthermore, the inclusion of indexation for selected pathology services in the budget is a welcome recognition of the importance of maintaining widespread public access to critical diagnostic services. These services are the backbone of our healthcare system, providing essential diagnostic information that underpins effective treatment. The introduction of a new MBS item for NT-proBNP to aid in diagnosing suspected heart failure brings Australia in line with other jurisdictions, improving the standard of care for many Australians at risk of heart failure. This has the potential to save lives and reduce costs associated with undiagnosed conditions.

Labor created Medicare, Labor protected Medicare, and now Labor will strengthen Medicare.

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to the member for Bennelong's speech just then, I feel nothing but how fabulous it must be to be a constituent in the member for Bennelong's electorate with the amount of health care there, the dollars that are spent there and the expertise that is there. But I would point out that that is not the case in regional Australia, and the disparity between healthcare delivery in the regions and our urban centres is so vast, it is no wonder that our mortality and morbidity rates are as high as they are in comparison to an urban setting.

I notice my counterpart here today, the Assistant Minister for Rural and Regional Health. I'm really glad that she's here. She might even be able to answer some of my questions as we move along. In my relatively new role as the shadow assistant minister for regional health, I decided to hold summits and forums wherever I could. These have elicited a vast amount of knowledge from those who are grassroots—those who work, talk the talk and live the walk—healthcare providers in regional settings, and they acknowledge all the difficulties and challenges that are being faced there and the complexity of how difficult these issues are to resolve.

I've been to the north coast of New South Wales, Central Queensland, regional Victoria and also the south of South Australia, in the Riverland. Just recently, I took the deputy opposition leader, David Littleproud, down to the Clarendon Medical Centre in Maryborough, and we talked about how hard it is to get doctors and to bring them into Australia—the hurdles that they need to go through and the barriers that they face in coming to Australia. I think one of the most devastating things that I have heard since doing this role came in a comment from a South African doctor. She is a mother with kids. Her husband is also a doctor, and they were brought out to Australia. She has friends back home in South Africa who are interested in coming to Australia to offer their skills, and she told them: 'Don't do it. Just don't do it. It's too hard.' I think that's an indictment on our entire system and the fact that we need an serious overhaul of our Home Affairs process, the Ahpra process and the colleges processes. I would urge the government to look into that.

I think we will look at the numbers in the short time I have left with regard to some of the reviews that have occurred regarding regional health. We find that the Royal Flying Doctor Service's Best for the bushbaseline report shows that in very remote regions people are 2.7 times more likely to die from potentially avoidable causes. Australians living in the nation's most remote areas are likely to die on average 14.3 years earlier than someone in Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne. Women, specifically, have a life expectancy gap of 16 years. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has found that those living outside major centres have higher reported rates of chronic diseases, diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure. They have a higher incidence of low-birth-weight babies and poorer antenatal and postnatal care. There's also a greater prevalence of mental health problems. Yet there are 2.7 doctors per 1,000 people in rural and remote compared to 4.3 in the cities. It is not quite twice, but it is a number that ought to shock us.

Labor's expansion of the distribution priority areas, as one of the health minister's decisions, took 56 per cent more doctors out of the regions and put them in outer suburbs. That has created even more of a headache for us out in the regions. In my electorate, 58 per cent of the GPs in my entire electorate, which is over a third of Victoria, are over the age of 55. That bodes really badly when we are not replacing those doctors. The fact is that we're not replacing like for like. My husband is 70 years old. Last week, the week before—a GP looking to retire very shortly. He's not the only one. But he works 70 hours a week, compared to a lot of the younger GPs who are coming through who want to work 30 hours a week and want to manage a work-life balance. I actually don't know what that is, but we need to address the real issues that face our regional communities. (Time expired)

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

I received this email just yesterday. I changed the names for privacy reasons and brevity:

[My] [f]ather-in-law (age 93) has a heart condition (triple bypass…), he also has lung problems … and needs a walking frame to get around.

In July 2023 he had seizure and in September 2nd 2023 he was approved for a level 3 My Aged Care package. We were told … the waiting time was 3 to 6 months. We were approved for immediate lawn mowing and gardening but when I rang … I was told that there was none available in this area. After about 5 months I was then told that it was 6 to nine months wait when I rang.

In April 2024 I rang again as my Father-in-law had another fall while in the shower … His doctor said that he should have someone with him whenever he has a shower. I again rang my aged care and was given approval for someone to come in 3 days a week to help with the showering. I contacted the provider they said organised all the paperwork and then didn't hear from them again.

… My Aged care rang early in May … they said that the full package would be available within a month

I rang My Aged Care 28th May as the 9 months was up and was told that the wait is now 12 to 15 months.

During this time he has had several falls. Some of which we had to call the ambulance to get him up.

My wife aged 61 (their Daughter) is their carer …. She has got one frozen shoulder, the other shoulder keeps dislocating, she has Bursitis in both hips and one shoulder and needs to have a knee replacement ….

I have been trying to help her … but I [have had] a double knee replacement, arthritis in most joints and a collapsed vertebrae

….

I was wondering if you could help me find out how we can get some help as I am worried that my wife will end up crippling herself trying to look after her parents.

Yours faithfully

P.S. … about 2.30am this morning he had another fall. Luckily we were able to get him up. We have tried to get a lifter to get him up but cannot find anywhere that we can hire them from and they are too costly to buy. We have been told that we should be able to get one once he has his home care package but that is now another 6 months away.

… we are at the stage where we are not able to get him up and will need to call the ambulance to help get him up when he falls.

My team reached out to this gentleman today. In the intervening day and a half, his father-in-law has been hospitalised. This is just the latest story shared with me. Each one breaks my heart, and what is worse is that, even when I escalate my concerns to the department, to the minister or to the media, we simply do not see any change.

Minister, what modelling has been done on the impact of the 24,100 additional packages promised in this budget on the waiting list for home care, which sat at 51,000 last December and is undoubtedly higher now? What will the impact be on waiting times for home-care packages, noting the level 3 package waiting time has gone from one to three months in February 2023 to now 12 to 15 months in April 2024? Let me repeat that. In February 2023, people were waiting one to three months for a level 3 package; they are now waiting 12 to 15 months for a level 3 package.

Further, based on the waiting list figures for December, how many people does the modelling predict will pass away while they're waiting for a home-care package?

Emma McBride (Dobell, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would start by addressing the question from the member for Mayo. It is deeply distressing to hear of any person or family that find themselves in a situation that your constituent did—or their 93-year-old parent. I wish them all the best as they recover in hospital. I can offer you a meeting with the minister, as I understand this is one of a number of cases that you are helping people with in your local community. We will offer you that meeting so you can discuss not only that particular case but also others that you are responding to.

A lot has been said about this budget and more will be written including in today's consideration in detail focus on health and aged care. But at its heart it is a Labor budget. I say that because it is about fairness. In Australia today, where you live and what you can afford largely determines your health and quality of life. The differences are stark and growing. Experts will use terms like 'health outcomes' or 'priority populations' or the 'social determinants of health' but what they are really talking about is fairness.

Forty years ago, before the introduction of Medicare, the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in Australia was unpaid health bills. Before the introduction of Medicare, one in seven Australians had no coverage for health bills. That is why Labor introduced Medicare and affordable medicines through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—the PBS as we know it. It is important to remember the Liberals' record on Medicare: tearing it down after it was first introduced as Medibank under Whitlam, opposing its re-establishment as Medicare under Hawke and the disastrous attempts to undermine it in a decade of neglect under the previous government, including when the now Leader of the Opposition was health minister.

We heard earlier from my friend and colleague Dr Mike Freelander, the chair of the aged care and sport committee, an esteemed paediatrician. When I first met Dr Mike, as candidates in the 2016 election, he told me why he was running. He said he didn't want his career to end as it had started, without Medicare, because he had seen the difference Medicare had made to hundreds of children and families over decades in his community in south-west Sydney.

Before coming to this place, I worked for many years at Wyong Hospital in the electorate I now represent on the Central Coast of New South Wales. I was a specialist mental health pharmacist and then later a director of pharmacy. My day-to-day role was part of a team of nurses, social workers, OTs, psychologists and psychiatrists providing care to over 50 in-patients. I saw many people in crisis after they had been brought in by ambulance or police and ended up in seclusion. I also saw our health service discharge people back to the circumstances that made them sick without the crucial support they needed in the community, which is why I am determined in working alongside Minister Mark Butler to reform mental health support and care in Australia, to steer the introduction of Medicare mental health centres and make sure everyone can get access to the help they need when they need it. That is why we are introducing a new national intervention service, establishing 61 Medicare mental health centres, making it easier to access affordable mental health care from GPs, enabling better multidisciplinary care and expanding the mental health workforce.

Our new national early intervention service will provide free high-quality evidence based therapy from trained professionals. We are establishing 61 Medicare mental health centres, where people will be able walk in and get free help, including from a psychologist or psychiatrist on call. These centres, building on the Head to Health model, are designed to remove barriers to care. These centres, the Medicare mental health centres, will be free, they will be walk-in, and people will not need an appointment or a referral to get support and care.

We are also making it easier to access affordable mental health care through general practitioners by allowing GPs to use standard consultation items to review mental health treatment plans and we are enabling better multidisciplinary care for people with severe or complex needs by funding more than 150 mental health nurses, counsellors, social workers and peer workers to provide free care coordination, navigation support and general practice. We know that the success of mental health reform relies on expanding and broadening the workforce. Sometimes the best support comes from someone who has walked in your shoes and lived through a similar experience, which is why we are also creating a new national peer workforce association to mobilise, professionalise and unlock the potential of peer workers.

These reforms to expand free mental health services right across the country alongside our work to strengthen Medicare will ease cost-of-living pressures with cheaper medicines, and will make sure that everyone can get the care they need and deserve.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you so much, Deputy Speaker Chesters, and may I say how great it is to see you in the chair. I will make a few introductory comments about the budget overall. This is Labor's third budget. It's one that we're incredibly proud of. The budget very clearly is directed at the very obvious No. 1 issue that faces our constituents today, and that is the difficulties in managing the cost of living. In communities like mine in Melbourne's south-east, this is the predominant topic of discussion around the dinner table, at the schoolyard, at sporting events on the weekend and everywhere else where constituents and citizens are getting together.

The budget is designed and tailored to help people who are under really significant pressure right now while setting Australians up for the future. That's why, broadly across the budget, we see that every single taxpayer in our country gets a tax cut. That's why every household gets $300 off their energy bills, and that's why we're investing in A Future Made in Australia. This is also a budget that's going to be very important for delivering border protection for our country. We're investing in a safer, more secure and more resilient Australia, which every citizen in our country deserves.

This was a really big and important budget for the Home Affairs portfolio. What's made clear in the budget papers is that this budget invests $1.2 billion more for Home Affairs and Australian Border Force. That's because the safety and security of the Australian community is core business for us at Home Affairs. It means securing our borders, ensuring the safety of our community and cleaning up a lot of very significant messes that we inherited when we came to government. It also means delivering on a smaller and better targeted migration program, and that's something that I know the immigration minister will want to speak to. What we have here is a real plan. For the first time, our country has a written strategy for our migration system, and it's going to deliver the better quality system that we need. It's going to deliver the smaller migration program that we need, and it's going to deliver it with better planning so that, for example, state governments are better able to plan for housing, schools and hospitals to service a growing population. It also means significant investments in improving economic and social outcomes for migrants, ending those incredible rorts and exploitation that we saw under the approach of the previous government.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the specific funding for border protection in the budget. An additional $569.4 million will boost the capabilities that underpin the principles of safety and security. This includes some very substantial investments in planes, boats and vehicles that our Operation Sovereign Borders personnel rely on to protect the integrity of our borders. This brings the additional investment made by our government—versus what was promised by those opposite—to an extraordinary $1.31 billion. Let me say that again: our government is spending $1.31 billion more on this critical national security task than was promised by those opposite. I can't stand the way some of the debates in my portfolio end up with 'he said, she said' debates across the chamber, so, instead of using my words, I'll use the words of the Commissioner of the Australian Border Force who—even before this budget, based on the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been committed before this budget to Border Force—has said, 'Border Force funding is currently the highest it's been since its establishment.'

Of course, the important work of our department doesn't stop with migration and borders. I want to point out the Albanese government's commitment of $71.6 million in the budget to combat the ever-present threat presented by foreign interference and espionage. The Director-General of Security, Mike Burgess, has spoken to parliamentarians and to the Australian public about the fact that foreign interference and espionage have supplanted terrorism as the principal national security concern facing the country. Of course our agencies and our government will always prioritise threats to life. However, he is pointing to what is a very significant and growing problem of foreign interference and espionage. That's why that commitment of $71.6 million was made in the budget.

We also made the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce permanent. This is a unique feature of our approach to foreign interference in this country and something we're very proud of.

There's a lot to say in migration, but I have the immigration minister next to me here, and I know he'll want to speak in detail to those topics and to the issues about migrant economic and social outcomes. I want to commend the budget to the parliament, and I'm keen to hear the debate that ensues.

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

Today's GDP figures really put paid to any sense that the budget is working for Australians. As a matter of fact, today—in five quarters now—we've had a GDP per capita downturn. We have never had five GDP per capita downturns in the last 20 or 30 years. It shows that the budget is, sadly, not working, and it means people's real wages are going down while the cost of insurance, the cost of electricity, the cost of gas and interest rate payments continue to go up and up.

When it comes to the home affairs department, the omnishambles continues. We've seen, through the ministers being referred to on numerous occasions as 'hopeless' and 'hapless', that they are not across their brief at all. And there are serious questions that they need to answer in this debate today, during this consideration in detail. The home affairs minister needs to answer the question: is the ABF's drone fleet still grounded? She won't answer it in question time. She refers to estimates 12 months ago, when they did say it was grounded. It's a simple question. We need to know today, Minister: is the drone fleet still grounded? It's a very, very simple question. And we need to know if it's still grounded because it will help enlighten us a little bit on what the minister for immigration said about drones—he said they were flying above and monitoring the detainees, and then all of a sudden that proved to not be the case. So, that would help us no end.

I'd also like to hear from the Minister for Home Affairs and the minister for immigration: will the government's NOM target of 395,000 be met for this financial year? I'd love to hear from the home affairs minister that yes, that 395,000 target will be met. But I don't think we'll hear anything from them on that, because, as we know and as the Australian people know, we are getting nearly a million people coming into this country, during a housing and rental crisis, when people can't see the doctor, when congestion continues to grow in our cities. Yet it would seem that the forecast NOM, which has gone up and up, will continue to go up this financial year. So, will that 395,000 target be met, Minister for Home Affairs or minister for immigration? It would be really good to know the answer to that question.

On ministerial direction 99, which I'm sure the Deputy Speaker has heard about a few times now—I don't think any of us had heard much about ministerial direction 99, but I'm sure she's right across now—I'd like to know: when will it actually come into force? We're hearing that the minister for immigration will sign it sometime this week. What that new ministerial direction will look like, we're very interested to see. I'd then be very interested to know when it will come into force and what it will mean for the AAT in the next four to six weeks that we think it will take for it to come into force. And for the minister's delegate: will they have to continue to use the very flawed ministerial direction 99, which the government has had to walk back from and admit that they got wrong?

Another issue that I would really like to hear from both ministers on is the NZYQ cohort. We have been told in the parliament that they are being continuously monitored. Well, how? How is that continuous monitoring actually taking place? Can either minister confirm: when the roughly 25 per cent—or it might have been a little less—of those who have been released reoffended, were they being continuously monitored when they reoffended, and, if so, how were they being continuously monitored when they reoffended? I think the Australian people would dearly love an answer to that question.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this budget, the Albanese government is investing in a safe, secure and resilient future for the entire Australian community. As my colleague and friend Minister O'Neil has spoken about, many of the funding measures and programs in the Home Affairs portfolio are directed at these ends. In my remarks I want to focus in particular on three parts of this budget. The first one is improving economic and social outcomes for migrants.

The Albanese government will be investing $120.9 million from next financial year on a number of proven programs to deliver better economic and social outcomes for refugees—a matter that I know is of keen interest to you, Deputy Speaker Chesters. This funding includes $86.6 million to improve the sustainability of settlement services, which have been under so much pressure for so long, and $27 million to extend successful programs, including the Youth Transition Support program and support for refugee and migrant women who have been experiencing domestic and family violence. These are all critical programs to support new people who are coming to Australia, often in very difficult circumstances, and these investments will deliver a real dividend.

Additional measures will include conversational English classes in community hubs and further support for the Community Refugee Education and Settlement Pilot, supporting the government's commitments on complementary protection. These investments ensure newly resettled refugees in Australia are provided with the support they need to succeed and thrive in our communities.

The government will also provide additional funding of $15 million for an information and education package to help combat migrant worker exploitation. This builds on our strong agenda more broadly of protecting vulnerable migrant workers who speak out and cracking down on those rogue employers who do the wrong thing and seek to profit by that. Our tough new laws, cracking down on these employers who do the wrong thing, passed the parliament recently.

As outlined in the Migration Strategy, the temporary skilled migration income threshold will be indexed on 1 July, further increasing wages for both Australians and workers holding temporary skilled visas. The figure will be $73,150. After a decade of the former government deliberately holding down wages by refusing to index the TSMIT, I'm so proud to be ensuring that wages are moving again in Australia—and to say to the shadow minister, of course, that real wages are going up right now under our economic management and our plan to secure better living standards for all Australians.

I firmly believe that the best way to tackle exploitation is to ensure people being mistreated can speak up. That's why I'm looking forward to introducing new rules in the coming months so that people with temporary visas don't need to worry about losing that status and can speak freely.

In the time available to me I want to highlight a couple of additional matters. One of them is the progress being made in addressing shortages in the aged-care sector. First and foremost, salaries have increased substantially following the decision of the Fair Work Commission to increase wages and the Albanese government's historic commitment to increase funding for these hardworking—predominantly—women. To complement this, the Albanese government has introduced the Aged Care Industry Labour Agreement. This is the first tripartite labour agreement where business, unions and government are working together to address workforce shortages in a collaborative manner in the national interest.

Under Labor, I'm pleased to say, almost 70 agreements have been struck with aged-care providers who've signed memoranda of understanding. In the little over a year since the agreement was launched, this has resulted in about 1,000 visa applications being lodged, with many more to come. For these aged-care providers, there's the ability to sponsor up to 22,000 workers over the next five years, should we need the workforce to care for those Australians. This is in stark contrast to measures under the former government. The then minister, Minister Coleman, announced in early 2019 that aged-care providers could apply for labour agreements, and a grand total of seven such agreements were struck until May 2022. Those agreements covered fewer than 200 visas.

More broadly, we've slashed waiting times from months to days for essential workers, reducing uncertainty. I really want to touch on the contribution of essential workers in health care, education and construction. They are so essential to everyday lives and to the functioning of our economy: the houses we live in, the care for our family, the education for our future. That's why I'm so proud that our government has focused on ensuring visas for these workers, including over 10,500 workers in construction, broadly double the number previously. This year, we're on track to match these figures.

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My questions are for the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Firstly, how many noncitizens whose visa cancellations have been overturned by AAT under ministerial direction 99 had previous criminal convictions or allegations of criminal conduct or serious conduct involving family and domestic violence, sexual assault or offences relating to children? Secondly, subject to the decision made by the AAT to revoke a visa cancellation pursuant to ministerial direction 99, how many noncitizens since the relevant decision have committed or have been alleged to have committed criminal offences or serious conduct involving family and domestic violence, sexual assaults or offences relating to children? Thirdly, how many of these noncitizens have now had their visas cancelled?

We all, in this House, know that right now there is a national crisis happening, and that is a crisis in relation to gender based violence. This budget contains $3.2 billion to address domestic violence for women and children. An additional $1.1 billion is provided for the ongoing escaping domestic violence payment. We are all working together to address domestic violence. So, in dealing with convicted rapist or a person who bashes, stalks, intimidates or threatens a woman, in what parallel universe would their ties to Australia or the time they've been here be given equal weight to the protection of a victim? Why would their rights be given the same weight in the AAT under ministerial direction 99?

I say to the minister: sit down with a victim. I've done it plenty of times; I've had 12 years in the police. The moment that a rapist or somebody who bashes a woman or somebody who assaults a young child is convicted, they forfeit their rights to be here if they are noncitizens. Their rights should not be given equal weight to the rights of the victim. The victims' rights were taken away when these scumbags committed those offences. For the minister to include in ministerial direction 99 rights for paedophiles, rapists and men who bash women and children that are equal to the rights of victims just goes to show that he doesn't get it.

But he said he's going to change it. Well, how long is that going to take, and what will that look like? Will the rights of the victims be greater than those of these scumbags who have been protected and released under his ministerial direction 99? The Australian public are outraged, and they should be outraged. They should have the answers to these questions, and the rights of those victims need to come over and above the rights of somebody who is a noncitizen of this country. These people have suffered at the hands of these perpetrators, but these offenders have been given the benefit of freedom and citizenship under ministerial direction 99. It is outrageous, and Australian citizens should be outraged. This minister is a woeful, hapless minister who should step down, because time after time he has bungled the legislation, the bills and the ministerial directions. He has been unfit and unable to carry out his duties as the minister for immigration in protecting the citizens of Australia.

Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the new interest from those opposite in community safety, because they were found wanting when they were in government. In contrast, think about what we are doing on this side of the House compared to what they did when they were in government. On this side of the House, we are cleaning up the mess in the immigration system that we were left with by those opposite. Under the Leader of the Opposition's watch, nearly 1,300 serious criminals were released. What's worse is that he oversaw an immigration system that was described by Christine Nixon, who conducted a review into the system, as having an 'almost industrial-scale' exploitation of vulnerable temporary migrants.

I want to tell everyone in this House just how bad it got. Those opposite cut the number of immigration compliance staff, which resulted in known sex traffickers entering our country. These are people who had committed serious crimes overseas and were jailed for that. We knew about it, and they were allowed into this country. One of them, Binjun Xie, lived in my electorate. He was convicted and jailed in the UK for sex trafficking and, despite his very serious criminal record, he was allowed into this country to run another illegal sex ring, exploiting vulnerable women. So I welcome the interest from those opposite in protecting women, but where were they when they allowed Binjun Xie into this country? He arrived in 2014 with a student visa, and who was immigration minister then? Depending on when he came during that year, it was either the former Prime Minister or the current Leader of the Opposition, two members of parliament who love to cultivate a tough-guy image—tough cop on the beat. Well, they've been exposed as the chihuahuas of the Australian parliament: all bark, no bite. I want to remind you of what the former Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police, Christine Nixon, said when she conducted the review into this immigration system. She said that there were 'grotesque abuses' of temporary migrant workers.

So Binjun Xie was allowed to operate his illegal sex ring for years and years. What finally stopped it? When we came into government, we had the home affairs minister and the immigration minister finally stop the criminal activity that was taking place in this country, and we deported him. He is just one of several crime syndicate figures who exploited a migration system that was riddled with holes. The UK detective who investigated and helped to jail Binjun Xie said he was shocked Australia allowed him to enter this country. This is what he said:

I'm flabbergasted that he's able to get into Australia, bearing in mind that he was jailed here—

in the UK—

for five years with a condition that he was deported back to China upon his release.

Instead of staying in China, he was allowed into this country.

Let's remember what those opposite did when they were responsible for the government departments that were processing visas: they absolutely gutted those departments. Between 2015 and 2022, as onshore protection claims went through the roof, the number of visa processing staff shrank by a third. During their nine years in power, the immigration compliance team was halved. That resulted in gaping holes in the migration system.

Thankfully, we now have a Minister for Home Affairs and an immigration minister who are cleaning up the mess that those opposite left behind—filling those holes; closing those gaps. We have established a permanent strike force which will address problems as we find them, instead of ignoring them. We've doubled the department's resources. Instead of cutting staff, we've increased staff so that they can do those compliance checks. And we are imposing penalties on migration agents who are involved in misconduct. We are providing record investment to keep our borders safe. As the Australian Border Force Commissioner has said, Border Force funding is currently the highest it has been since its establishment.

So the contrast between two approaches, when it comes to migration, could not be more stark. They had gaping holes in their migration system and ignored them. We are reforming the system and putting Australia's national interest at the heart of it.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My first series of questions go to the Minister for Home Affairs, so I'm thankful that she's in the chamber today. Will the home affairs minister confirm whether it's government policy to amend the ASIO Act or any other provisions, any other laws, to remove the government's power to seek compulsory questioning warrants for juveniles? Secondly, has the home affairs minister met with the Director-General of Security to discuss the removal of this power, and, if so, when did they meet? Thirdly, did the home affairs minister suggest to the Director-General of Security that these powers were no longer required?

My next series of questions go to the immigration minister. We've all heard so much about direction 99. I'm not sure that, since section 44 of the Constitution, we've heard so much about a particular provision. But we are all familiar with it now. We know that, on 23 January 2023, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs signed into existence ministerial direction 99, which provided new guidance when considering visas cancelled under the character test of the Migration Act.

How did this come about? We all know that it came about because certain discussions were held between the Prime Minister of Australia and the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

New Zealand is a good friend to Australia, but one thing they did not like was the coalition's policy that if you are a noncitizen of Australia and you break the law, then you will be deported. Well, that's how it used to be, when the coalition was in government: you would be deported.

As we all know, there are a lot of Kiwis who live in Australia, so New Zealand is perhaps disproportionately affected by those provisions. I'm not suggesting that New Zealanders are in any way more recidivist or prone to crime than any other group of individuals. But the reality is: we have a lot of New Zealand citizens in Australia, and the law of maths will say that they will fall foul of the law more than anyone else.

So, under the coalition, we unashamedly made it so that if you broke the law and it was a serious offence then you would be deported. Jacinda Ardern had discussions with the Australian Prime Minister. Clearly, New Zealand did not like this law. They didn't like it when we were in government, but they thought that they would get a better response—and they did. Clearly, they did, because this prime minister caved. We all heard and saw Minister Giles throw himself on top of the grenade in parliament, in question time a couple of days ago—it may even have been Monday—where he said, 'It was all my idea,' but, clearly, he would have been acting on instructions from the Prime Minister.

Whether the minister drafted this direction 99 or whether it came from above, it doesn't really matter. The reality is that the immigration minister is responsible. Once upon a time we used to have this concept in our parliamentary democracy called ministerial accountability. Do you remember that? Ministerial accountability means the minister is responsible for his or her department. That's our Westminster system. These days, under this mob, no-one seems to care about ministerial accountability. This minister continues to blame everybody, everything; he continues to throw his department under the bus. 'It wasn't me.' 'The dog ate my homework.' At some stage, the music is going to stop. At some stage you would think that this minister would say, 'I have brought my government into such disrepute I'm going to fall on my sword and resign.' If he doesn't resign then he should be sacked. My question is: how many appeals has the minister instituted in the Federal Court— (Time expired)

Mary Doyle (Aston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The world in which we live is incredibly and deeply connected. This brings opportunities, but also additional issues that we must, as a government, consider carefully. Tackling the growing threat of foreign interference is one such threat.

By investing over $71 million to tackle this, our government's ability to prosecute and deter foreign interference is greatly enhanced. Through investments in counterintelligence we help build and maintain systems that will protect Australians from potential acts of espionage and foreign interference. It is through these kinds of investments that we can ensure that the future of Australia is safe and secure, an outcome I'm sure is hoped for by all. We do this to protect our democracy. We do this because Australia is one of the most resilient, prosperous and democratic countries in the world, and we must make sure we are protecting it to the best of our ability.

We know that threats to Australians' data is an urgent national problem and we need to act now. Cybersecurity touches the lives of every Australian and, on average, one cybercrime is reported every six minutes, with ransomware alone causing up to $3 billion in damage to the Australian economy every year. This is a massive drain on Australians, and we must do all that we can to ensure we are safe as we see technology advance at a rapid rate.

As we protect Australians and our democracy, we must also remember the values that make us stronger and more united. Australia is a multicultural country. We need a system that is built to ensure that people are not only treated fairly, but provided with support as they settle into our great country. Through programs delivered by the Australian government, new migrants are supported when they arrive so that they are able to thrive.

The Albanese Labor government will always look at ways to improve Australia's migration system because we know that, by attracting migrants from around the world with an ongoing focus on skilled migration, we create jobs and drive productivity. Our government will invest $120.9 million from 2024-25 on a number of proven programs to deliver better economic and social outcomes for refugees. This funding includes $86.6 million to improve the sustainability of settlement services and $27 million to extend successful programs, including the Youth Transition Support program and support for refugee and migrant women experiencing domestic and family violence so they know what their rights are and where they stand in the law.

Our government will also provide additional funding of $15 million for an information and education package to combat migrant worker exploitation, building on our strong agenda of protecting vulnerable migrant workers who speak out and cracking down on employers who do the wrong thing. Additional measures for migrants include conversational English language classes in community hubs and further support for the Community Refugee Integration and Settlement Pilot, supporting the government's commitment on complementary protection.

These investments ensure newly resettled refuges in Australia are provided with the support they need to succeed in the community. When governments support, protect and nurture those newly arrived migrants and refugees, a country benefits immensely. History has always proven this. Look at how Australia benefited from the Fraser government's decision to take in refugees from Vietnam in the 1970s and how so many have thrived and succeeded in the 4½ decades since. It has made us as a country.

These programs are about building social cohesion, because we know that when we come together as a country we are stronger for it. The migration system we inherited was completely broken, and our goal is to build a better planned, more strategic migration system that works for Australia. National security and social cohesion go hand in glove, and it is not a political plaything for our government. Building and investing in Australia's future is what our government is all about, and we're getting on with the job of that.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to start with a question to the immigration minister, which I think my colleague the member for Fisher was not quite able to get on record. It was to the minister. Could he outline how many cases or decisions of the AAT on visa matters has he appealed to the Federal Court? Because I note, as the member for Fisher has, that the minister has at times chosen to comment, when the AAT has made a decision, that it's not his fault. He's even made disparaging comments about the appointment of members to the AAT and suggested certain things about their decision-making. So if he's been dissatisfied with any AAT decisions, I'm sure he would have appealed against them to the Federal Court. I'd certainly start with this question to him: could he please inform us how many AAT decisions on these visa matters he's appealed to the Federal Court and/or beyond? That would be much appreciated.

He's also been good at blaming his department for a variety of issues in recent days. The most eye-catching was the initial claim he made about the monitoring of released detainees by way of drones, which I think was subsequently proved to be incorrect. He's then advised publicly that that was because his department inaccurately advised him. I suppose I've got questions to him about the drone program that his department runs and when he was advised that that drone program was monitoring these released detainees. I'm interested in whether he inquired of them at that point, given he believed it to be the case, as to whether or not that was the most efficient way of monitoring concerning released individuals and what the cost would be to undertake drone monitoring of a variety of released detainees compared to the more standard and conventional ankle bracelet monitoring that, it turns out, wasn't in place in this case. I'd appreciate the minister elaborating on that and the cost of monitoring individuals by drone—if that is something that the department does consider doing as a matter of course. It turns out it didn't in the cases that he claimed it had.

He's also been good at blaming the High Court for the NZYQ decision and the subsequent need to release a large cohort of detainees. There's an indication that it's cost about $250 million to provide the various monitoring of those released detainees subsequent to the High Court decision, and the budget certainly covers further resources for that. It would be good if the minister could break that $250 million down and explain what it's being used for, because it's not for drones, as he's conceded, and that same cohort aren't wearing ankle bracelets or what have you. The $250 million is $7 million or $8 million a person. If he could indicate what that money is being spent on now that we know what it's not being spent on, we would appreciate that. Did any of that cost potentially reach the velocity that it did because he and his department simply weren't prepared for that decision whatsoever? He and his department seemed to be caught off guard, despite, I think, Justice Gleeson—from memory—giving some comments during that trial that led to that judgement, which did foreshadow the potential for that circumstance to arise. How prepared was he and his department for that? For that $250 million cost, if that is what it was, could he outline to us and break down what it was spent on. Would some of that money not needed to have been incurred if he and his department had better anticipated that circumstance and those costs?

We're certainly very concerned about the ongoing fallout from both direction 99 and the High Court NZYQ decision and, in the context of consideration in detail here, the cost to the taxpayer on top of the fear in the community and the actual impact on people that have been victims of these released detainees and those that didn't go where they should have because of direction 99. The budgetary implication of that is also something we would appreciate the minister addressing.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question for the minister is: how is the government ensuring we are better prepared to face bushfire in the next high-risk weather season? I ask this because I live in the Perth Hills surrounded by the Beelu forest and, due to the effects of climate change, the risk of fire in some parts of Australia is elevated. The south-west of the country—of Western Australia, in particular—over at least the past 30 years has been experiencing a drying climate. The region includes about 92 per cent of Western Australia's population. These challenges are shared across the south-west and are felt most keenly by people who live in my electorate across the hills and in the forests of the region. Some of us have sadly also experienced losing a house to fire. My husband and I and 37 other families lost our home in the Toodyay fires in 2009. More recently, in Wooroloo in 2021, 86 homes were lost across the community. We neither wish to repeat this experience nor want anyone else to have to experience it.

In the face of the growing environmental challenges and the high risk of fire in my electorate, I did organise recently a disaster resilience and adaption forum in Mundaring. We provided information and advice to over 100 people who attended to hear about how they could improve their resilience to storms and bushfires and also access insurance savings. We had presenters from: Natural Hazards Research Australia—funded by the federal government; Telstra; the NBN; the Resilient Building Council, which has a wonderful app now that people can access to learn how to mitigate and lower their risk; insurers; and the Western Australian state government. The event was really well received, with many electors from my community grateful to obtain the tools that they need to increase their own household resilience.

Attendees also took comfort in the fact that the government's researchers and service providers are all working towards a common goal: to make our communities safer. The first duty of government is to provide security. Security in relation to bushfire requires the federal government to take a coordinating and support role where appropriate, to marshal its resources in a consistent and useful manner and to work in concert with the states, who do have the primary responsibility to meet the needs of bushfire preparedness, emergency response and disaster recovery in a timely manner.

Prior to the election of the Albanese government, we had a coalition government that couldn't even hold a hose. No single Commonwealth department had overall emergency management authority. Moreover, they allowed the federal funding of the National Aerial Firefighting Centre to slide to a mere 23 per cent by 2017, with the states left to pick up the rest. By 2019, as we know, the country was on fire. Across Australia, there were 34 fatalities and over 3½ thousand homes lost. Following black summer, the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, which reported in October 2020, recommended a greater role for the federal government and in chapter 8 stressed the need for a sovereign aerial firefighting capability.

The Albanese government, under the leadership of Minister Watt, has acted. We have established NEMA, the National Emergency Management Agency, bringing together the functions of Emergency Management Australia and the National Recovery and Resilience Agency. We have provided additional funding to support the work of NEMA—$188.2 million over four years and indicative ongoing funding of $48.2 million thereafter.

We acknowledge that emergency management needs a secure footing as an enduring entity so we can plan for the challenges of the future as well as those in the present. These provisions afford certainty to NEMA and also demonstrate the government's commitment to reducing risk and bringing about systemic change in the way we prepare for and respond to emergencies such as bushfires. We have provided more funding for a review this year into Australia's national firefighting fleet requirements with a view to creating a fleet that is capable, cost-effective and adaptable for use not only in firefighting but also in other emergency situations too. Without waiting for that review, the budget already sees increased funding for the national aerial capability by $35.1 million over the next two years, bringing the total annual funding over that period to about $50 million.

In addition, the government has injected extra funding into the National Emergency Management Stockpile with funding of over $26 million over the next three years, with an independent review expected again in 2026. This commitment to preparedness is matched by mitigation, with our support of initiatives through the Disaster Ready Fund. Examples include fire breaks, business cases to develop infrastructure investigation planning and many others that demonstrate our commitment to keeping our community safe while being mindful of climate change and its effects and being prepared for the future.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese Labor government's budget provides real cost-of-living relief for all Australians. Whether it is a tax cut for every taxpayer or the $300 in energy relief, we understand people are doing it tough. Our budget also specifically includes very targeted support for pensioners and for income support recipients and, of course, this builds on our previous budgets as well. We know people are doing it tough and facing those cost-of-living pressures, and we know how important it is to deliver these important changes. It really shows that our government will also do what we can do to boost workforce participation, address disadvantage and provide much-needed support to many in our community.

I want to outline a few of those issues today. There are many but I will certainly go through a number of them. When it comes to paid parental leave, we will be investing $1.1 billion to pay superannuation on government funded paid parental leave. This is another step, a really important step, towards gender equality. As we know, the majority of paid parental leave recipients are women who are more likely to have lower superannuation balances. We know that paid parental leave is good for families, especially for women, and it is very good for the economy as well, so we are very proud to be delivering on that initiative.

Another measure in the budget is the increase in Commonwealth rent assistance. We will be increasing the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by a further 10 per cent, with close to one million households set to benefit. We know how important that is, and, since our government was elected in May 2022, maximum rates of Commonwealth rent is have increased by 42 per cent when combined with indexation.

There are some really important changes to carer payment participation rules. The budget has really reinforced our commitment to Australia's more than two million carers by ensuring that, if they want to work, study or volunteer, they can do so with flexibility. We will change the 25 hours-per-week participation rule for carer payment recipients to allow instead up to 100 hours over a four-week period and remove restrictions on studying and volunteering activities.

To assist with the cost-of-living pressures, again, for those that are struggling, we are extending the higher rate of JobSeeker payment to single recipients who have a partial capacity to work up to 14 hours a week. We know that, for those on JobSeeker payments who have being unable to work because of a whole series of impairments or injuries, it is a barrier for them to return to employment. Since our government was elected, the rate of JobSeeker base payment has increased by $120 per fortnight.

Another very important measure in this budget is deeming rates, an issue that we all hear about all the time, and the need to make sure we act. We are. Our government will be freezing social security deeming rates for a further 12 months to 30 June 2025. More than 870,000 current income support recipients will benefit, including 450,000 age pensioners. That will make a huge difference to them.

Importantly, this budget delivers on a whole range of women's safety initiatives. All of us in this parliament are committed to ending violence against women and children in one generation, and this budget again reaffirms our commitment to that. We all know about the extent—and feel distress about the level—of domestic violence that we are seeing throughout the country. It is at epidemic proportions. We know that financial barriers are often a huge impediment to victim-survivors being able to leave a violent relationship, and we're working very hard to reduce those barriers. That's what we saw in the budget. We're investing over $925 million over five years to permanently establish the Leaving Violence Program. This supports those victim-survivors of intimate partner violence as they are making decisions about leaving those violent relationships and in being able to access the help that they need. In this case, they can access up to $5,000 in financial support along with referral services, risk assessments and safety planning. We estimate that the Leaving Violence Program will support over 36,000 victim-survivors each year.

We also saw some more measures in the budget—the expert group who will lead a rapid review to advise the government on additional efforts to prevent and end the cycle of violence, and an investment of $4 million for ANROWS for a rapid review. Of course, all of these new measures support all of those aims in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. It brings our total investment in women's safety since coming into government to $3.4 billion, which includes funding for the states, for frontline services and for more workers as well. I know that everyone in this House stands with me in wanting to make sure that we eliminate violence against women and children in one generation.

Overall, this budget delivers for all Australians. It targets cost of living and has taken many steps to address disadvantage and boost workforce participation.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've seen this week some pretty remarkable revelations out of Senate estimates in relation to a major part of this portfolio—the NDIS. It's troubling that the minister is not here, but I will ask questions of the assistant minister to feed through to the minister for the NDIS, who, let's be frank, has a lot to answer for. This week alone we've seen that Australian taxpayers are funding an NDIS which is now being used to pay for drugs, as was outlined in Senate Estimates by the agency itself. Heroin, cocaine, narcotics—essentially, you name the drug, and it's on the list. That was the evidence that was given. This follows revelations that we saw in the past, of the NDIS being used for the procurement of prostitutes and of recently released prisoners using it to harass care workers within the NDIS. All of these problems are seemingly getting worse on the watch of the minister.

Let's recall that the minister came to government saying that the NDIS was tracking just as predicted, that anybody who spoke about sustainability within the NDIS was opposed to the scheme and that it was improper to raise those questions. In fact, the immortal quote from the then shadow minister for the NDIS was, 'You can't walk down a hall of parliament without a Liberal politician talking about the sustainability of the NDIS, and I'm here to tell you that that's a lie.' Well, all we've heard from the minister since then is that the NDIS has sustainability issues. In fact, he has spent his time trying to make an argument against himself, when he said in opposition that the scheme was entirely sustainable. Now, clearly, the NDIS is going to have sustainability issues if you've got a minister who can't control it and if you've got money going out the door for drugs, prostitutes and—to name a couple of others—a $73,000 car, holidays, and, to be frank, God knows what else. The agency itself said that up to $2 billion per year is being wasted on those things. I suspect that that's a fairly conservative figure. I suspect it's much worse.

There are a range of questions that the minister needs to answer: Why, on his watch and with his hand-picked CEO out of the Andrews Labor Victorian government, are these things being allowed to happen? Why are Australian taxpayers, who support the NDIS in good faith, being asked to fund a program which is being utilised for drugs and prostitutes? Can the minister now level with the Australian public: does he believe the scheme is sustainable or not? He seems to dodge that question.

How many NDIS participants have had their funds slashed, notwithstanding the fact that this government and minister went to the election saying that no plan would go backwards and that there were no sustainability issues? Why have plan-review wait times more than doubled since this minister has been in government and since his hand-picked CEO has been administering the scheme? How much cash is in the pay system that has seen a blowout of review wait times for NDIS plans? Why are we consistently hearing—it continues to this day—active review cases taking as long as six months, if not longer, to be resolved? Will the minister reinstate monthly summary reports, which were brought in by the former coalition government? What information is the minister trying to hide by removing these monthly reports?

Can the minister outline how on earth the government's going to meet its eight per cent growth cap when, at the first hurdle, it seems as though that growth cap is going to be missed? We saw that in the most recent budget, of which we're speaking about now. We're sadly seeing a scheme which is being totally rorted and misused and a government that's seemingly hapless in its ability to ensure that every dollar goes where it should—to people with disabilities.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll give the previous speaker a hot tip: as you acknowledge, this is a big portfolio with multiple ministers. You went off a bit early because Minister Shorten, I understand, will be here shortly.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Deakin was heard in silence. He will give the same respect to the others present.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed. I was simply informing the member that the minister will be here in due course, because this is a big portfolio, and there are multiple ministers. So you went off a bit early. It is disappointing, though, listening to that. I want to talk about disability employment services, but I'll just make this point: the member well knows, given he was the Assistant Treasurer for that brief glorious time, that the NDIS is not sustainable without reform. That's a publicly stated fact. The trajectory which we were on as a country—and this should be a bipartisan issue—was to see over a million Australians on the NDIS by 2032 spending more than $100 billion. That's what we inherited. In the House, your leader, your shadow minister and you say that you want to work with the government on a bipartisan basis to fix up the problems and that you'll vote for the legislation. Then you come in here, the place where good speeches go to die in your case, and want to have a sledge and make snide digs. I think you need to go and have a good hard conversation with yourself and decide whether you actually mean what you say in the House—that you want to work with the government to fix the scheme and get it refocused on people with a permanent and significant disability—or whether you want to mean what you say in here. You can't have it both ways.

One in six Australians have a disability, and they should be reflected in our workforce and workplaces, but they're not. People with a disability want to and have a right to dignified work, and we pledged in the election to tackle job insecurity, wages and skills. We pledged in the employment white paper Working future to reform employment services. I'm delighted to see those commitments to reform the disability employment services reflected in this budget. There's an extra $227 million for DES, which will help people prepare for and find suitable employment. There's $23 million allocated for the Disability Employment Centre of Excellence.

I want to commend the minister, though, on a couple of aspects—in particular, on the minister's personal commitment, which flows through in this budget, to service quality. It is astounding that when the minister came into the portfolio—many of us are interested in this—the previous government had no quality framework. I chaired the Workforce Australia Employment Services Select Committee, and we saw this. When you want to marketise services, as has happened for a range of reasons—some of them good, some of them not so good—in social services, in human services, you have to have a view, as the public sector, as a government, as to what a quality service is. Otherwise, it's just like The Hunger Games: you've got a whole lot of providers, and they're just relatively good or relatively bad. You can't sustain the ideology of the former government, where you just privatise stuff and sit and watch and see what happens. So, the minister's commitment to a quality framework, to listening to service users so that we actually have some idea as a country as to whether an individual service is meeting the benchmark—not just kind of relative degrees of performance—is critical.

I also commend the minister on the commitment to restore the role of specialist service providers, to exercise greater market stewardship. Providers will be engaged through a procurement process rather than a grants agreement. And it's just profoundly weird that you'd engage people for hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in critical services through a series of grants, because the public sector doesn't have the flexibility to deal with problems when they emerge. So, that's a boring, arcane but critically important shift to improve service quality.

And, frankly, specialist providers are not that specialist. The previous government's ideology of privatisation was to let people profiteer, let the market rip. Let's be really clear: governments create this market, and they have to exercise active market stewardship. We've seen in too many regions a couple of big providers with deep pockets effectively buy market share with loss leaders, setting up offices everywhere, and close down the small providers. That's not a good deal for people with a disability who need a specialist provider who might specialise in their particular disability. So, I commend the minister on the budget initiatives around that, and on introducing more controls over market entry. The changes towards a focus on meaningful engagement of participants with their provider to cut back the number of pointless payment suspensions—which corrupt and demoralise participants, actually make people less employable, and hurt the relationship between a skilled worker and consultant and the participant—are absolutely welcome. The higher-value wage subsidies, as well as showing leadership in disability employment through the centre of excellence, are terrific initiatives.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's interesting that the member for Bruce wants to congratulate the minister on service standards, yet wait times have doubled. So, congratulations to the minister: wait times have doubled. So, Australians who have genuine disabilities, and their families, are waiting twice as long, and the member for Bruce is congratulating the minister. Meanwhile, while they're waiting, there are people who are using the NDIS for drugs and prostitution.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd ask the member for Bruce to restrain himself.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's why the illustrious career of the member for Bruce has stagnated on the backbench—because he can't control himself when he's not in his seat.

Secondly, the member for Bruce, in another glaring error, said, well, of course we all agree that there are sustainability issues with the NDIS. Clearly he didn't get the talking points from the minister, because the minister was quoted before the election as saying:

You can't move around the corridors of parliament in Canberra without tripping over a coalition minister whispering the scheme is unsustainable. I'm here to tell you today that is a lie.

That was the now minister for the NDIS, as shadow minister. That's one of two things ultimately: either he was deceiving the Australia people before the election, or he was ignorant at that time, and once he became the minister he realised that the coalition was right in trying to get the NDIS back on a sustainable footing. But I digress. I just wanted to address two of the very spurious points made by the low-altitude-flying member for Bruce.

Moving on to another aspect of the social services portfolio, an issue we have spoken about consistently, probably since the first sitting of parliament, is the lamentable decision by this government to abolish the cashless debit card. At that time we in fact pleaded with the government: 'Do not do this. Do not abolish the cashless debit card.' You don't need to be a professor, you don't need to be a genius, you don't need to be a surgeon to realise that if you put more drugs and alcohol onto the streets of vulnerable communities there will be very bad outcomes.

The assistant minister, who's a very good assistant minister, talks about reducing domestic violence. How on earth is abolishing the cashless debit card—which we know has led to a spike in a range of violent behaviours, including domestic violence and antisocial behaviour—consistent with that very noble and, I'm sure, consistent view on that side of the House? They have taken away a card that was working for communities that asked for it, communities that did not have it introduced against their will but by and large supported its introduction. We've seen the sad consequences of this decision in Ceduna and in WA. We've seen violence and antisocial behaviour spike. We've seen public drunkenness go through the roof, we've seen a succession of media reports and we've seen a succession of community leaders in those communities say—again, I'm not claiming to be particularly intelligent—that if you put more drugs and alcohol on the street, there's going to be a bad outcome for those communities.

It's never too late to reverse course when you make a bad decision. In the end, in government, you sometimes have to swallow your pride. The truth is: there will be families, women and children increasingly suffering violence because there are more drugs and alcohol in those communities as a result of the decision taken by this government to abolish the cashless debit card.

If you're genuine about wanting to abolish domestic violence, and not just in our major capital cities, you have to want to abolish domestic violence in those communities that don't get the media and don't have lobbyists walking around the halls of parliament. They are the communities that are being ignored here. So I ask the minister: Is the government reconsidering abolishing the cashless debit card? Will it agree with the communities that are crying out for this card to be reintroduced? Will it accept the folly of that decision and reverse course to save women and children in those communities? (Time expired)

Alison Byrnes (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know that people are doing it tough. That is why the Albanese Labor government is increasing funding to support Australians in financial distress and build financial resilience over the long term.

This budget provides around $23 million over four years and ongoing funding to strengthen precrisis and early intervention support. This is in addition to the significant investments that we have already made since coming to government. From day one we have been making investing in frontline services a priority. With bill shock, cost-of-living pressures and natural disasters hitting almost every Australian at some point, we know that more people are experiencing financial distress, which is putting pressure on services that are already struggling to meet demand.

In January, the Minister for Social Services announced an additional $114.8 million over five years to assist frontline services such as emergency relief, food relief and financial counselling to meet this increased demand. This funding makes a real difference to areas like the Illawarra, which has endured two severe flood events in the past 18 months.

The budget also references an expansion of the food relief program from 1 July 2025. This expansion will encompass material aid and enable local service footprints to address service gaps, particularly in regional and remote areas. This will make a real difference to organisations like Good360, which the assistant minister visited. Good360 helps businesses donate their excess or unsold non-perishable goods to charities and vulnerable people across the country. These goods include clothing, personal care products, toys, electronics, whitegoods, furniture and so much more. Good360 is run by two amazing women from Woonona, which is where I grew up. They are founder and managing director Alison Covington AM and head of philanthropy Susan Wallis, my very good friend. I'm so fortunate to have Good360 operating in my electorate. I thank them again for their donations, totalling over $27,000 of material aid last year, to my annual community dinner in support of the Wollongong Homeless Hub. In addition to the expansion of food relief, data and evaluation activities, including on-the-ground surveys, this will help provide a clearer picture of unmet demand, such as waiting lists for services and client turnaway rates.

Strengthening frontline services and support for those in crisis has been a key focus for the minister and for our government, but it is also really important to build longer term financial capability and resilience to prevent people from reaching crisis points in the first place. There is a clear need for cohesive investment along the chain of support, from prevention and early intervention through to response and recovery. To ensure reliability, from 1 July 2025 we will restructure our financial wellbeing programs to operate under two streams: financial capability and resilience, and financial crisis response and recovery. To this end, the budget provides ongoing funding for several successful pre-crisis and early intervention programs.

The National Debt Helpline will receive an additional $1.6 million each year to enable the ongoing operation of the appointment booking system and the live webchat function. This system allows the helpline to triage clients and book directly with a financial counsellor on their behalf. For the client, this simplifies the process and reduces the stress of having to call multiple financial counselling organisations to get an appointment and risk not getting connected with support. Good Shepherd will receive $6.3 million over three years for the ongoing operation of the No Interest Loans Scheme for vehicles. This program helps vulnerable people needing to purchase a vehicle for essential use. We know this support is particularly important for women impacted by family and domestic violence, who currently make up around 12 per cent of applicants.

On 25 May I attended the One Voice Illawarra march, run by Women Illawarra, the Illawarra Women's Health Centre and Healthier Illawarra Men. I spoke with our community and our frontline staff about their needs and experiences. Addressing family and domestic violence is a priority for our government, and we are acting. The Albanese Labor government announced we will invest almost $1 billion over five years to permanently establish the Leaving Violence Program. We know that financial insecurity is just one barrier to escaping violence, and I commend the minister for the measures in the budget.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in relation to the government services portfolio in this consideration-in-detail debate. I note the Minister for Government Services has not bothered to grace us with his presence, which is, I'm sorry to say, entirely typical of the contempt and lack of respect that has been consistently shown by Albanese Labor government ministers during this consideration-in-detail process on the appropriation bill. Time after time, ministers have failed to attend, have failed to participate, have failed to be available to respond to questions. They are showing contempt for the parliamentary process of scrutiny, and it's entirely inconsistent with the rhetoric that we saw from the current Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, about the approach that he claimed he was going to bring to governing.

It is perhaps no surprise that the Minister for Government Services is not here to defend what is in this budget in relation to his portfolio. We've seen a promise to spend more than $1.8 billion on more than 7,500 additional bureaucrats. The first point to make is that it's very unclear as to the basis for doing this. On 6 November last year the minister told Chris O'Keefe of 2GB, 'Demand is up on previous use.' In other words, perhaps the stated rationale for hiring more people is there's more to deal with.

But what is fascinating is that in budget estimates just this week officials have conceded that in fact customer demand for this financial year is not up, but down. Nor is there any factual basis for the implied assumption that more public servants will lift service standards. The evidence shows that there is no correlation between more public servants and service standards. Let's start with the proposition that service standards are plummeting under this government. Where's the data? Services Australia is now taking 101 days to process a disability support pension claim. What was it in 2021 to 2022 when the coalition left office? It was taking 40 days on average. Service levels have been absolutely trashed, but staff levels are up. When we left government in 2021-22, the average staffing level at Services Australia was 26,838. As of February 2024, it was 28,570. Staff levels have gone up; service levels have gone down. With increased staff numbers, service levels have in fact got worse.

What we've also seen from this minister is the pausing of automation processes. It is deeply disturbing that the first instinct of the member for Maribyrnong was to distrust and block the use of technologies that are critical to the efficient delivery of government services. The benefits of the use of data and digital services for better customer service outcomes are there for all to see. In the 2022-23 financial year, there were over 3.5 million income support related reports made using the single-touch payroll prefilled data. That is technology making life easier for Australians. The minister's hostility to technology is seen right across the government services portfolio. Funding over the forward estimates for the technology and transformation program will decline, and the execution of the multimillion-dollar Health Delivery Modernisation Program is being done very badly. In February 2024, officials from Services Australia claimed it was going 'extremely well', but in this week's estimates we learned that in fact it's in red status.

Similarly, myGov is stagnating under Labor. It's allocating the bare minimum of funding required to keep this important platform on life support. The myGov user audit recommended a road map setting out the timing of when new features would become available. No road map has been issued. This minister has form in making big promises. In February 2023, he promised that the Commonwealth digital Medicare card would be available by mid-2023 within the Service NSW app. It's June 2024, and it still hasn't happened. I ask the Minister for Government Services: What specific customer analytics inform Services Australia's advice to government on the apparent need for 7,500 additional staff? Will the minister guarantee these staff will be wholly dedicated to telephony and claims processing work? Will the minister lift the pause on automation processes? What's his plan to rescue the Health Delivery Modernisation Program? (Time expired)

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm always amused to listen to the member for Bradfield talk about taxpayer value after he spent $30 million purchasing the Leppington Triangle from Liberal Party donors. I notice he has run out of the room. The $30 million purchase of the Leppington Triangle was analysed by the Auditor-General, and it was concluded to be $26.7 million over the odds. I do say this though: I accept that the member for Bradfield can help the taxpayer. I understand that Snowy Hydro is having trouble with a giant boring machine—we could lend them the member for Bradfield!

I return to the more serious part of my submission tonight. We speak on this debate on the Appropriation Bill with real confidence in the budget measures in the portfolio responsibilities for government services and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We believe Australians deserve to be supported at every stage of their lives to ensure their ability to participate socially and economically in our community. Investment in both Services Australia and the NDIS is an investment in the wellbeing of Australians and our vision of a more inclusive, fairer society. Of course, we come into government having seen the previous government wreak robodebt, where they illegally raised debts against nearly half a million of our fellow Australians with no authority at all to do so. Over four years, despite the warnings—the succession of failed and disgraced government services—ministers of the coalition did nothing. The royal commission has exposed the hollowness at the top end of the previous government in the delivery of services.

On a more positive note, in this budget, we were able to announce an investment of $2.8 billion extra into Services Australia. This funding is going to increase service delivery capability, improve safety for staff and customers and operate and enhance myGov. Building services delivery capability in Services Australia is essential if it's to meet community expectations, so we've invested an extra $1.8 billion over three years to 2025-26 to maintain a customer service workforce to deliver timely services, to reduce call waiting times and processing times and to sustain our emergency response in natural disasters and other aspects of the agency's operations that impact its ability to serve the Australian people. There will be an additional 4,000 staff in financial year 2024-25 and 3,530 staff in financial year 2025-26. This additional staff includes continuing current emergency response capability of an extra 850 staff.

We have been improving the safety of the workforce and the customers at our 318 service centres. We will be investing $314 million across the next two financial years to improve safety. Services Australia intends to improve our security and systems and practices, increased use of security guards, upgraded and enhanced security features at all service centres, enhanced service centre design, improved technical data and capability. We will also be legislating additional penalties for addressing acts of aggression or violence towards Commonwealth frontline staff.

We also have measures to invest to improve, operate and maintain myGov and deliver targeted improvements. It is accessed by over 870,000 people every day and over two million people a day in peak periods, allowing Australians to access 16 government agencies and services in one location. Over the next four years, the agency will receive an additional $629 million to fund the ongoing operation and maintenance of myGov to keep it available, secure, safe and contemporary.

With the NDIS, we continue our commitment to get it back on track and make the investments needed to ensure the scheme is delivering outcomes for the people for whom the scheme was designed. This is important for all Australians, not just Australians with disability. It is one of the most significant social initiatives this century. Like Medicare, the NDIS is an essential safety net and it is important that people know they can receive fair, equitable and consistent treatment in accessing the scheme. The NDIS has changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians for the better. The Albanese government is designing our reforms in consultation with the Australian disability community to make sure we can continue to improve the scheme.

In this budget the NDIS will benefit from a further $468 million in funding, an investment that comes on top of the $732 million that we provided in the last budget. We want to fight fraud, we want to discourage the criminal element and we want to make sure that Australians on the scheme have the necessary choice and control, and that they receive supports that are reasonable and necessary. The government remains committed to making sure that the overdue investments in the NDIS mean it can deliver and keep delivering sustainably in the future.

In conclusion, our budget commitments for both Services Australia and the NDIS are emblematic of our commitment to Australians as customers of services and programs and as taxpayers. We feel keenly the responsibility to do the right thing by the people and we do this every day.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the social services portfolio, specifically in regard to violence against women, because the family violence prevention sector wants answers as to why there wasn't any new funding for frontline services in the budget. Given violence against women and children is a national emergency, it was reasonable to expect more money for the services that keep women and children safe. As author and educator on coercive control Jess Hill said in this place last week, 'Violence against women and children is the most corrosive social issue of our time.' It is an uncomfortable truth, but family and domestic violence is gendered. The family home is statistically the most dangerous place for a woman to be. It should be a safe and secure place for everyone who lives in it, not a place of fear, danger and sometimes death.

So on behalf of the sector I ask: where was the new funding for family and domestic violence frontline services, and, if not now, when? Women's legal services turn away an estimated 52,000 women every year due to lack of capacity. If it doesn't receive any more funding, Southside Justice that services my electorate and south-east Melbourne will have to reduce its family law and family violence free legal services.

It is self-evident that domestic and family violence services are not funded to meet demand for their vital case management services. Sexual violence trauma counselling services have dire waiting lists around the country, and many victim-survivors have to wait months. Frontline services need sustainable, consistent and certain investment. Women and children escaping violent men need 24/7 wraparound services. If these services aren't available, women are forced to go back to their violent partner, couch surf or live in the car. This is happening to women in our country, this is happening to women in my electorate, and this is a disgrace.

We know that family violence is the leading cause of women's homelessness in Australia. I'm pleased the government will provide an additional $1 billion to the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, targeted toward crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence. But my question to the minister is: when and where will we see the $1 billion for crisis and transitional accommodation, and what will be the oversights to make sure this is delivered by the states? Each night, more than 200 women and children are being sent to motels across Victoria by Safe Steps because there aren't enough crisis accommodation places available. When victims-survivors are placed in motels, there's no on-site security, monitoring or support, and motels carry significant risks for victims-survivors, including suicide, suicide attempts and easy access for perpetrators. Women escaping violence face homelessness, poverty and financial insecurity.

Where was the income support in the budget to stop women from going back to danger? The $5,000 leaving violence payment will not prevent this. More than 200 women leaders wrote to the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the budget urging him to provide economic security for women leaving violence by raising the rate of JobSeeker. This did not happen. The government has increased Commonwealth rent assistance by 10 per cent, but this is only $11 a week for a single mother with one or two children. The government expanded eligibility for the single parenting payment at the last May budget, helping 82,000 more single parents remain on higher rates until their youngest child turns 14, but this payment remains inadequate to ensure single parents and their children do not live in poverty. Women should not have to choose between violence and poverty.

We know from the findings of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence that perpetrators use the justice, health and finance systems to continue their control. Where was the recognition of perpetrators weaponising these systems? The Women's Economic Equality Taskforce and Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee reports both recommended delinking child support from family payments. This is a tool of financial abuse, and the loophole that allows child support and family payments to be used as vehicles for enacting financial abuse must be closed.

In conclusion, to drive down rates of violence urgently, our response must come from all angles, and everything needs to be on the table. We must also focus on prevention and perpetrators. We need to hold industries and institutions that continue to promote harm to account. Online porn and gambling spring to mind. This is the moment for comprehensive action, for solutions and for working together to address this national emergency.

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The NDIS, originally a Labor creation, was legislated by the Gillard government in 2013, and it fills me with great pride to see the good it has done for so many. I have spoken with countless constituents who talk about the transformative way the NDIS has changed their lives and the lives of family members. That's why it's so important that the Albanese government act now to protect the NDIS so that this life-changing work is sustainable into the future. The previous government failed to adequately monitor the NDIS, and this has put its future in jeopardy. In contrast, our government has always made the NDIS an absolute priority.

During the election campaign, Labor announced a commitment for a root-and-branch review of the NDIS conducted by independent experts. The NDIS Review was launched by the Minister for the NDIS, the Hon. Bill Shorten, on 18 October 2022. The objective of the NDIS Review was to put people with a disability back in the centre of the scheme, and this has characterised the Albanese government's response to the review and our third budget.

Building on our commitments to the NDIS, this budget ensures the scheme is on track and can support those Australians with a disability. It provides a further investment of $468.7 million, building on the $732.9 million provided in the 2023-24 budget and the $511.12 million investments in the 2023-24 MYEFO. This year's investments include $83.9 million to support the NDIA in reducing waste and combating fraud by improving its ICT compatibility, and a further $23.5 million for Services Australia to extend the agency's involvement in the Fraud Fusion Taskforce until 30 June 2026.

The Minister for the NDIS has made it a priority to crack down on fraud within the scheme and to stop the overcharging of NDIS participants. The minister said it best earlier this year when he said, 'The era of ripping off disabled people on the NDIS is over.' It is a shameful practice. It takes advantage of Australians who are in need of disability support, and this government is working to end it. Additional funding of $5.3 million will also support preliminary work to reform NDIS pricing arrangements, to help ensure that NDIS participants get a fair deal and to increase the transparency of how prices are set. The government also understands how important proper consultation and co-design are for the future of NDIS reforms, which is why the Albanese government is investing $129.8 million for design and consultation work to respond to the findings of the NDIS review. This government is committed to safeguarding the NDIS and ensuring it is sustainable into the future, but not at the expense of Australians with a disability. The funding contained in this budget will be critical for achieving this shared goal.

The Albanese government has also provided funding of $45.5 million over four years to establish an NDIS evidence advisory committee. The new committee, which was a key recommendation of the review, will provide government with independent advice on what works for participants and on the evidence for therapeutic supports, ensuring better outcomes and value for money. The government will invest $20 million over two years on design work and consultation to help Australians with a disability navigate their services. This is in response to several key findings of the review, which brought to light the challenges that many with a disability, their families and carers face when attempting to access vital support services.

The budget also invests $160.7 million over four years to upgrade the NDIS commission's IT under the Data and Regulatory Transformation, or DART, program, helping the commission collect and analyse data to better protect participants, reduce regulatory burdens and improve cybersecurity. The Albanese government is committed to building on the NDIS and honouring its initial purpose when it was first established in 2013. I've seen firsthand that the Minister for the NDIS is committed to setting things right, working tirelessly with the sector, peak bodies and, more importantly, participants to ensure their needs are met and that we see the National Disability Insurance Scheme be sustainable and robust and provide for the goals of the person with a disability. I look forward to continuing to work beside the minister to ensure that the NDIS can support all Australians with a disability, especially those in my community.

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025, particularly as it relates to the portfolio of social services and disability services. I will start with the royal commission that was held into disability services. This was established by the coalition in April 2019, and it was properly established in response to community concern about widespread reports of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability. It has now come down with 222 recommendations. It was a long road leading to the release of the royal commission's findings. Although released over eight months ago, we still have not seen a proper ministerial response to those recommendations.

Just to recap, the royal commission was far reaching. There were almost 8,000 submissions received, 17,824 phone inquiries, 14 issues papers published and 1,785 private sessions held. With all the energy that went into that royal commission, it is appropriate that it should be responded to by the minister. My question to the minister is: aside from budget commitments of $227 million from 2023-24 to replace the existing Disability Employment Services program and $23 million to establish a disability employment centre of excellence, how much is in the budget this year and across the forward estimates in response to the royal commission's 222 recommendations?

Secondly, what specific measures has the minister taken to improve outcomes for people with disabilities in response to the findings—222 findings—of the disability royal commission's final report? And how does the government plan to prioritise engagement and consultation with the disability community in formulating its formal response to the disability royal commission's final report? Most importantly, when will the minister release the government's formal response?

I want to turn now to education for students with disability. There is an increasing number of students with disability in our schools—they're an increasing proportion of our schools' students—and there's increasing demand for higher levels of adjustment for these students.

… Australian schools do not consistently deliver an inclusive education that protects students with disability from violence, abuse and neglect.

That's a direct quote from the disability royal commission's report. It goes on:

Students with disability face multiple barriers to inclusive education, underpinned by negative attitudes and low expectations.

We need to do far better in this space. Schools do systematically exclude students with disability. They do this by sometimes not providing appropriate adjustments and supports to enable those students' participation in classrooms and in the broader school community. However, there are many students who simply cannot be accommodated in mainstream schools, and—no matter the will of the teachers and the extraordinary work that the teachers and teachers' aides are doing in those schools—for some students, mainstream schools simply are not the answer.

We have some excellent segregated or special schools doing remarkable work for students with disabilities across our country. I particularly want to mention three in my electorate: Bates Drive School, the Minerva School and also the Cook School.

However, unfortunately, the royal commission's report did state that, in many cases, students with disabilities are channelled into special or segregated schools and classes. The commissioners were divided as to whether or not we should be proceeding to maintain systems of special and segregated education settings, separate from mainstream schools, or whether, instead, we should be further empowering teachers and better funding schools to move far more students with disabilities into mainstream schools.

It's an important issue for our community. It's an important issue for the students and for their parents. Therefore, my question to the minister is: can the minister provide any indication on whether the government is supportive of, or taking into consideration, the phasing-out of special education schools for students with disabilities? That's just one reason why we desperately need a response from the minister on that report. (Time expired)

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse laid bare a shocking history of betrayal and abuse of innocent children by adults working in the very institutions that were entrusted with their safety and innocence. Over five years, the commissioners comprehensively examined large volumes of evidence, from some 57 public hearings, at which 1,200 witnesses appeared over 400 days, over 25,000 items of correspondence and more than 8,000 private sessions. Indeed, many of those were conducted in my home town of Newcastle.

The National Redress Scheme was the primary outcome of this royal commission. It told survivors of institutional child sexual abuse that they were believed, that what happened to them was never okay and that they deserved the full respect of and a proper response from our community, our legal institutions and our political parliaments. The NRS, the National Redress Scheme, is holding institutions to account for having failed to protect those that were in their care.

Victims and survivors from Newcastle and the Hunter region spent a lot of time agitating for the royal commission to take hearings in Newcastle. Sadly, there were two entire volumes dedicated to the abuse that took place in my region. My community knows firsthand the ongoing impacts that that abuse has had on not just survivors but their families and the whole community. Victims-survivors are not just traumatised by the abuse. They're traumatised by the stigma and by the historical disbelief and the turning of a blind eye to—or, indeed, deliberate cover-ups of—the shocking crimes against children.

In just under six years of the National Redress Scheme being in place, over 40,000 applications have been received from across Australia. Of those, there have been 16,000 applications with outcomes, including over $137 billion in payments that have been issued to survivors. This has gone some way to addressing survivors' trauma by recognising that it happened and that it was never, ever okay.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to a timely, trauma-informed and accessible National Redress Scheme that supports survivors. That's why this government, for a third time, has provided additional resourcing to support the scheme in this year's budget. We have committed $33.3 million for new and expanded services for National Redress Scheme applicants, including $26.1 million over four years for some new targeted support services. This expanded service will assist survivors to submit applications to the scheme, which will improve the completion of applications and cut down on the processing times, meaning quicker outcomes for the applicants.

We'll also be investing $7.2 million towards boosting free legal services and support for survivors as they navigate applications for redress. It makes sense that we help people navigate their way through this difficult application process, and it's great to see this budget initiative. This package recognises that for survivors accessing the scheme it can mean revisiting the trauma that they hold from their abuse. Some people may need help, and, for those who need it now, they'll be given help, including a further $2.16 million for targeted support for incarcerated survivors and those requiring culturally safe support services, particularly for regional and remote applicants. This government is ensuring that no survivor of institutional child sexual abuse is locked out of accessing the scheme, if they wish to access it, no matter what their barrier.

This is the third budget that we have provided additional support to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. We know that this job is by no means done, but it is a commitment from this government that we will always seek to improve the scheme and the support for survivors. Minister, how important is it that we continue to recognise and support survivors of institutional child sexual abuse through boosting resourcing for the National Redress Scheme?

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak to the appropriation bill consideration in detail for social services. My question for the Minister for Social Services is: is the rapid review of prevention approaches an acknowledgement that the government has failed to identify and prioritise investment in prevention and appropriate early interventions as a pathway to ending violence in a generation?

I will always work in a bipartisan way with the other side when it comes to domestic violence and tackling the scourge that faces our society. The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 is the Australian, state and territory governments' central policy initiative designed to address family and domestic violence. To their credit this government has continued the good work of the coalition government and invested close to $2.3 billion in funding for women's safety measures across the October 2022-23 and the 2023-24 budgets, along with a further $1.1 billion towards the national plan and women's safety. This is needed. This is required. These support services are required to care for and provide those support networks and safety nets for victim-survivors and those escaping domestic violence. However, this budget largely prioritises responses rather than prevention and early intervention. Given the scale of the problem, it is unclear whether the combined effects of the Commonwealth's efforts and that of the states and territories will succeed in mitigating the harm that victims-survivors continue to face.

It's pleasing to see an additional $900 million in payments for escaping domestic violence. This is a continuation of the program that the coalition put in place. It was estimated that there would be some 12,000 applications during the life of the escaping domestic violence payments. There was, in fact, 60,000 payments to the tune of $400 million. It's important that we continue these payments to help those victims-survivors and those women and children who need to escape domestic violence situations. But we have to address prevention and intervention. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result. That's exactly what we've been doing. We have been doing the same thing over and over, year after year, and not providing dollar-for-dollar funding for prevention and intervention.

I have travelled, in the role of shadow assistant minister for the prevention of family violence, around Australia, and I have spoken to agencies. I've spoken to service providers. I've spoken to victims-survivors. They all agree that whilst those support services are needed, we have to change our thinking and we have to look at the programs and look at the systems which are not in place that need to be in place and that are preventative programs. These are programs such as men's support programs for male offenders. We're not rewarding the male offenders; we are educating them to change their behaviour. There are waiting lists of hundreds of people on the programs which currently exist. In Queensland, there are over 400 people on one list alone who have self-referred. These programs work.

We as a government need to directly fund those agencies who can show evidence based programs that work to change the thinking generationally. Until we do that, we will keep doing the same thing over and over, and nothing will change. Domestic violence numbers will only get worse. The other thing we have to implement immediately is a national curriculum for respectful relationships—not one day a year, not one day a month, but part of the curriculum: reading, writing, arithmetic and respect. Until we do that, we'll keep going around and around.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind members that the debate tonight must be conducted strictly in accordance with the resolution of the House. The speakers must alternate, and the debate for each portfolio must end at the designated time. To that end, in accordance with the resolution agreed to by the House on 28 May 2024, the question is that the proposed expenditure for the social services portfolio be agreed to.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

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

The Albanese Labor government understands how critical international trade and investment is for the Australian economy. That includes the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Don Farrell, who I'm very proud to represent in this place. He is such a strong advocate for our country on the international stage. He's a great South Australian and a great trade minister. More trade and investment means more national income and more secure, well-paid local jobs. It means a stronger, more diversified and more resilient Australian economy, which is why the Albanese Labor government is making significant investments to expand our trade opportunities, repair our international reputation and simplify our trading system.

This includes stabilising our relationship with China, Australia's largest trading partner. Since the election of the Albanese Labor government two years ago, nearly $20 billion in trade impediments have been removed. Just last week, China lifted suspensions on a further five meat establishments. It followed the lifting of trade impediments on Australian barley, cotton, oaten hay, wine, coal, copper ores and timber. This government is working to see all remaining trade impediments removed as soon as possible, including for Australia's rock lobster industry, which is particularly important to my home state of Western Australia.

I would note that just a week ago it was the one-year anniversary of the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement, which Minister Farrell ensured got through this parliament in record time. This has unlocked tariff-free beef and sheepmeat into the UK.

I do acknowledge the member for Wannon who, as trade minister at the time, had a lot to do with the negotiations in that free trade agreement. I was shadow trade minister at the time, so I had a bit to do with it as well. It is undoubtably a great free trade agreement, and congratulations to all concerned.

Trade diversification remains a key element of this government's trade policy strategy. That is why we are generating new and diversified trade and investment opportunities for Australian businesses. Negotiations have started on an FTA with the United Arab Emirates, which will facilitate investment, grow Australian exports and create secure, well-paid jobs across the country. The UAE is Australia's largest trade and investment partner in that region, with two-way trade worth $9.4 billion in 2022-23.

Since the Albanese Labor government brought the Australia-India Economic Trade and Cooperation Agreement into force, trade with one of the world's fastest growing economies has surged. I might take this moment to congratulate Prime Minister Modi on his re-election as the Prime Minister of India. The government is building on this success by progressing negotiations for a more ambitious agreement, allowing us to go further into areas such as digital trade and deliver even more opportunities for our exporters. The recent budget includes $14.4 million to expand the successful Australia-India Business Exchange, allowing even more Australian businesses to benefit from new trade and investment opportunities with India and across South Asia. The budget also includes a $2 billion South-East Asia investment financing facility to boost our trade and investment in the region and over $500 million to deepen economic ties with South-East Asia, the fastest growing region in the world.

The Albanese Labor government understands the economic opportunities that a global energy transition brings. The resources needed for the world to reach net zero lie right beneath our feet, and that is why we are working closely with our trading partners to promote investment in critical minerals, hydrogen and clean energy technologies. Just last week, alongside Minister Farrell, I signed a memorandum of understanding between Australia and the European Union on the strengthening of critical minerals supply chains. This will ensure that Australian miners and Australian mining processes will have greater access to European Union automotive original equipment manufacturers and green tech manufacturers, which will be vital for supply chains into the future for our country and also for the massive market that is the European Union.

The government is also making changes to streamline Australia's trading system and strengthen Australia's foreign investment framework. We have invested $29.9 million to streamline trade processes through the Simplified Trade System, making trade faster, easier and cheaper for Australian importers and exporters. We've invested over $10 million in the successful Go Global Toolkit, which offers online export information and advice to help Australian businesses expand overseas.

These are just some and there are many more of the 2024-25 budget measures that will support trade, and there are also, of course, measures to support tourism. We know all of these industries are very important for national prosperity.

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

I'm going to talk on the foreign affairs part of this discussion, and my very good friend here will talk on the trade aspects. We've got some serious questions that we'd like the government to answer. When it comes to foreign affairs, it is a shame that the Minister for Government Services has left the chamber, because I know he's going to a very important meeting regarding Ukraine, and he's saying that he will be standing with Ukraine. Well, what we would like the Minister for Government Services to say when he goes over there is that Australia is going to reopen its embassy in Ukraine, in Kyiv. Given that around 70 other countries, including Canada, which previously hosted the Australian embassy in Kyiv, have been able to reopen their embassies, we need to know: why is the Albanese Labor government making Australia, as Michael Fullilove from the Lowy Institute puts it, a 'notable laggard' and, as Mick Ryan says—and I take my hat off to Mick Ryan for his outstanding work on Ukraine—'unserious' and 'interested but not committed to supporting Ukraine'? We would really like an answer to that question.

The second question is also with regard to Ukraine. Australia used to be the largest non-NATO contributor to Ukraine. Japan and South Korea have already overtaken Australia's financial contributions to Ukraine, and they've managed to reopen their embassies in Ukraine ahead of Australia. When will the Albanese government admit that their late and half-hearted decisions have resulted in Australia losing its leadership role in supporting Ukraine? And when will we up our financial contribution and other contributions to Ukraine? Why does the Prime Minister's rhetoric talk about standing with Ukraine but his actions are to have our ambassador standing over the border in Poland? As someone who has worked as a diplomat, I know it is very difficult to do your job when you're not actually present in the country. So, we want an answer from the government as to when this decision is going to be taken.

I'll just give you a sense of the types of countries that have a diplomatic presence, have embassies, in Ukraine: Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Chechnya, Denmark, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kurdistan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkiye, Turkmenistan, United Kingdom, United States, Egypt, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Hungary, India, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Libya. It is a fairly comprehensive list, and when you read out every one of those names it puts Australia to shame, sadly.

I know we've got the minister here, and maybe he can take this message back to the senior minister: when are we going to see the embassy in Kyiv reopen? If ever there was a time when countries needed to stand with Ukraine, it is now. If ever there was a time when we needed to stand up to totalitarianism, it is now. If ever there was a time for us to stand up and defend liberal democratic principles, it is now. If ever there was a time for us to stand up and say to Vladimir Putin, 'Your treachery, your heinous behaviour will not be tolerated; we will not let you bully this sovereign, independent country,' that time is now. The heinous crimes he is committing in Ukraine need to be stopped, and we need to stand with Ukraine. Opening our embassy in Kyiv would be a very good first step.

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

I thank the last member for his contribution, and I'll take his questions on notice.

I'm proud to serve in a government that's working so hard to secure our place in the region. At a time of such uncertainty, the Albanese government is investing in all aspects of our national power to keep Australia safe. Our National Defence Strategy recognises that our front line of securing our interest in keeping Australians safe is in fact our diplomacy. That's why in this budget we've invested so significantly in our diplomats, in our overseas network, in our bilateral and regional relationships and in supporting sustainable development across the Indo-Pacific. That's because the government understands that our future is inextricably linked with the prosperity and security of our neighbours and our region.

This budget will deliver $227 million over the forwards to improve our international communications, infrastructure and property, because you can't be an effective partner if you don't have the facilities there. We're providing $206 million to improve our presence across the Pacific, and we're matching our ambitions with the resources needed to do the job. Through this budget, we're providing $206 million in new official development assistance for new initiatives in the Pacific and South-East Asia. Through this budget, we're delivering on the groundbreaking Falepili Union with Tuvalu, including $110 million in total to support infrastructure, telecommunications, land reclamation and service delivery. Our investments in official development assistance are also worth highlighting. In 2024-25, we'll provide a total of more than $2 billion in ODA to the Pacific, a record level. We'll provide $1.3 billion of ODA to South-East Asia, and we anticipate hitting the threshold of providing $5 billion in total ODA next year, in 2025-26, which is a year earlier than we anticipated. These are all strong achievements of a government that's committed to acting in the national interest and putting the national interest ahead of political interests.

It was a coincidence, but a happy coincidence, that I'm following the member for Wannon's contribution, because I want to use a bit of time to reflect on how the coalition, the opposition, when given a choice between the national interest and short-term political interest, put their short-term political interest first. This budget is an example of that. The shadow minister's stance on the Pacific engagement visa was one of the greatest examples of putting petty politics ahead of the national interest. This Pacific engagement visa was a critical part of our strategy of using every tool of statecraft to advance our position in the Pacific region. By building the diaspora of Pasifika communities in Australia, we would build the people-to-people ties that are so critical to us being the partner of choice to the region. What did the coalition opposition do? They opposed it. You would have thought, after they spent 9½ years destroying our relationship with countries in the Pacific—you just have to look at the Pacific governments' attitude and public statements about Mr Morrison and at how they stuffed up our relationship with the Pacific—

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Page will restrain himself.

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

You'd think they would have learnt and would get on board with team Australia and try to repair the damage. But no. The member for Wannon, as the shadow immigration minister, does what he does best: putting petty political interests ahead of the national interest. He blocked the Pacific engagement visa.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I would remind all honourable members that the minister has every right to be heard.

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

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, but I'll take that interjection. The reason the coalition opposed the Pacific engagement visa is that they 'want to keep Australia safe'. So are they suggesting migrants from the Pacific who go through all relevant police checks are a risk to Australia? That just demonstrates their attitude to the Pacific and how they stuffed up the relationships. If they really cared about keeping Australia safe, they would know that it's critical that we be the partner of choice in the Pacific and that we have a position where we're strongly supported in the Pacific region. Instead they dog-whistle and put petty politics ahead, and the Pacific engagement visa is exhibit 1 in that. Quite frankly, the shadow trade minister's response to my statement, in which he talked about keeping Australia safe by keeping Pacific migrants out, is a demonstration that they are unfit to govern, cannot be trusted with national security, cannot be trusted with putting the national interest first and cannot be trusted with government full stop.

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

I will go on record as saying the coalition government, when in government, loved the PALM scheme, Minister. We're very supportive of the PALM scheme, and in fact we're very disappointed by the fact that you're going to put more restrictions on it.

Deputy Speaker Wilkie, I will start by saying—you've been in this place longer than I have—what a joke this process by the Labor government is. Consideration in detail, when we were in government, was a very robust process. We would have ministers here and ministers there. The fact that the minister who is representing the Minister for Trade and, I assume, the Minister for Foreign Affairs made a five-minute presentation and left was a joke, Deputy Speaker Wilkie. I know that you would have witnessed many more robust discussions than this. So they're not interested in this process, and it just shows the lack of due process. They're not into democracy, really.

Let me start on the trade figures. One of the great achievements of the coalition government when in government from 2013 to 2022—and you would have observed this, Deputy Speaker Wilkie—were the free trade agreements that we did. There were quite a number of both bilaterals and multilaterals, to the extent that goods and services covered by trade agreements when we came into government were at about 25 per cent and, by the time we left, were at 80 per cent. That was because of the number of free trade agreements that we had done during that time, both multilateral and bilateral.

With those free trade agreements, we're selling, I would say, over $650 billion a year of goods and services to other countries, and a lot of that is on the back and on the basis of the free trade agreements that we did. They are funding our export industries. The four biggest are coal, gas, iron ore and farming. That side doesn't like a lot of those things, but they're funding our life right now. The government services they're paying for are enormous and very important to our economy and our country's welfare.

I have a question about an important part of those for the minister who's not here—a question for the minister who has disappeared, but anyway. As we know, the issue with the Labor Party, which has always been an issue for the Labor Party, is that they only have one stakeholder. We, as a government, had a lot of stakeholders. They only have one stakeholder, and that's the union movement. The union movement have told them, because they're operated by the union movement—they're puppets of the union movement, whichever union they've come from—that they cannot do a free trade agreement with an ISDS provision in it. That's the investor-state dispute settlement process.

Let me just remind those opposite of the free trade agreements that have got you in and wouldn't have been done if you were in government. You wouldn't have been able to do them because you wouldn't have been able to—

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

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

Well, I know the one you wouldn't have been able to do. Andrew Robb told me a story. He had a job KPI to do three free trade agreements in his first year as trade minister in 2013. Do you know the first one he did? The first one he did was South Korea, because it had been done, dealt and dusted. The only problem is the Labor trade minister couldn't sign the deal because the union said, 'You can't sign this deal with that ISDS provision in it.' So they didn't. Guess what? Andrew Robb came in on day 1, saying, 'That's fine. Great. There you go. Thank you,' because we were happy to sign up to those ISDS provisions.

I'll go through some of them. The deals that have an ISDS provision in them are the CPTPP, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Our agreements with Chile, Singapore, Thailand, ASEAN, Peru, Hong Kong and Indonesia all have ISDS provisions. The union movement have told this lot, 'You've got to revisit all those,' and all those free trade agreements are at risk because of that. Again, this is just ideological blindness.

When you look at the stats, what do the ISDS provisions mean? They mean that only once has another country questioned us on our free trade agreements and what we've done. It got defeated within our court process. They don't like hearing it, but 12 times has an Australian investment in another country been protected by the ISDS provisions. So they are actually working for people in Australia when they invest in other countries. But, again, we're not surprised. This is just another demonstration that the other side are owned and occupied by the trade union movement. So my question to the minister who disappeared is: are you going to risk our free trade agreements by abandoning ISDS provisions in existing free trade agreements? (Time expired)

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

There's no question that, for an island-continent-nation like Australia, our engagement with the wider world and especially with our region is absolutely critical to our wellbeing and to our national interest in every dimension. Of course, that engagement occurs primarily through the three Ds and a T—diplomacy, development assistance, defence and trade. While there is an understandable focus on trade and defence, it is critical that Australians understand the massive importance of diplomacy and development assistance. That is because for Australia—an open, peaceful, multicultural trading nation—international cooperation is vital for dealing with matters that we alone cannot solve, like the pressure on global fisheries and the impacts of climate change. So too the stability, health and inclusive prosperity of our neighbours are vital. We know carefully and compassionately administered development assistance is not only essential for saving lives and reducing poverty but also the best dollar-for-dollar investment Australia can make in regional peace and mutually beneficial economic engagement.

We already know very well but we certainly have been reminded in recent times that the observance of the rule of law is vital. Australia benefits from a world in which there is a prevalence of support for a rules based system whether in relation to trade, freedom of navigation or management of conflict through the UN, the ICC and the ICJ, rather than backsliding towards an approach in which anything goes and narrow temporary self-interest comes to undermine the broad and enduring common good.

From the outset the Albanese government has set out to repair the characteristic neglect, inaction and carelessness in all these areas that were a feature of the coalition government. It has been good to hear from the minister about that. As he knows, he has been a part of the full court press led by the indefatigable and resolute Minister for Foreign Affairs, who has visited every ASEAN nation except Myanmar—for good reason—and has successfully returned Australia to our most effective role as an influential middle power that pursues our national interests on the basis of principled and pragmatic optimism, taking the world as we find it while seeking to make it more peaceful and sustainable and inclusively prosperous where we can. We do that on the basis of respectful dialogue and constructive multilateral participation. That work has been thoroughly advanced by the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, who has been relentless in his attention to Australia's role as a responsive and respectful member of the Pacific family. The value of enhancing our role in that state of affairs has delivered improvements in terms of our regional security—awfully neglected by those opposite, it has to be said—but of course it's meant that we have been well placed to support a partner like Papua New Guinea when they manage an awful event like the recent landslide.

We made it clear in coming to government that we deeply respect Australia's Public Service—another stark contrast with those opposite, a sadly stark contrast—in order to build back Australia's diplomatic capability. This budget invests $254 million in our diplomatic network as a whole, with $206 million to enhance our presence in both infrastructure and human capital across the Pacific, as the minister has outlined. Because we know climate impact mitigation and adaptation are existential concern for the Pacific, we are providing $150 million over four years with the Green Climate Fund and the Pacific Resilience Facility. Add to that $505 million in the budget for deepening engagement in South-East Asia, which will be complemented by a new trillion-dollar South-East Asia investment financing facility to expand trade investment.

I want to note the not so up-in-lights work that has been occurring steadily with respect to disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, two areas which Australia has a substantial record of leadership and achievement. Last month the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs was in Vienna to represent Australia as co-president for the International Atomic Energy Agency's conference on nuclear security. In 2023, the assistant minister represented Australia at the conference on disarmament to advance work on the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. These are matters that are important in the Pacific, noting that 12 Pacific Island nations are already signatories to the landmark treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

It's welcome that Australia continues to support the Republic of Marshall Islands to develop a sovereign radiation monitoring capability and we will make submission to the UN Secretary-General's report in the 2023 Kiribati-sponsored resolution on addressing the legacy of nuclear weapons.

The Albanese government knows the extent to which focus, strategic and wholehearted international engagement is in Australia's national interest and is consistent with our national values. I would ask the minister to explain how this has already manifested in a range of positive outcomes.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fremantle. Someone might let the member for Page know that the standing order on relevance does not apply to the consideration in detail debate of the appropriation bills.

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

I'm going to put partisan politics aside and put on record that the first person I called when I was given the role of shadow minister for international development and the Pacific was the minister at the table, the member for Shortland. We've worked together well on some initiatives; we've disagreed on others. I would appreciate, if not an answer in person tonight, an answer in writing to a couple of very important questions I have.

I read from the 'Building a vibrant future for Papua New Guinea and Australia: working together to achieve better health outcomes'. I note that Papua New Guinea is one of the most underdeveloped countries in the world, ranked 154 of 193 in the 2022 Human Development Index. There are some alarming statistics. Sixty-five per cent of children aged 12 to 23 months have not received necessary vaccinations. One in 20 children in PNG do not survive to their fifth birthday. Twenty-one per cent of deaths in PNG are a result of infectious disease. There is one dentist to everyone 100,000 people. There are 27,000 cases of tuberculosis each year, and of these 3.4 per cent of cases are drug resistant. The proportion of deaths from injuries is 19.1 per cent—more than double global estimates, which is eight per cent.

The minister would have met, as I did, in recent days with Papua New Guinea's first lady, Mrs Rachael Marape. There were others with the Youth With A Mission medical ships, including former PNG deputy prime minister Charles Abel, a good friend of our country—they're both patrons of this wonderful organisation—YWAM Townsville managing director, Ken Mulligan, and the general manager of this community development program, Dr Sarah Dunn, who I'm sure you would agree gave compelling evidence.

This ship operates in PNG, with a focus on the remote western province, providing critical health services including immunisation programs, health education, eye and dental care, medical training, antenatal services and family planning amongst other services. Critically, they're providing vital services for women and children. I, like the minister, appreciate that the future for PNG belongs in making sure we get women and children the proper health care they need, they expect and they deserve. PNG is our closest neighbour; it is a stone's throw from our northern shores.

The delegation told the shadow minister for foreign affairs, Senator Simon Birmingham, and I that through the vessel's 130 volunteers—volunteers; just consider that—that immunisation rates have gone from less than five per cent to above 50 per cent. How good is that? But there's so much more we can do; there is so much more we should do. In the meeting, the delegation outlined its need for $7.5 million in capital to provide life extension of the vessel, MV YWAM PNG. The funding would ensure upgrades to allow the vessel to meet maritime requirements when it reaches 25 years of age mid next year.

Australia has a longstanding connection with our closest neighbour. No-one knows that more than the minister and I. We've spent time there in recent years. We've visited the capital, Port Moresby; we've visited highland villages; we've seen in remote provinces what can be done with Australian funding. Minister, I ask you tonight, from the bottom of my heart, will you make a commitment to fully fund this worthwhile project to continue to strengthen our wonderful relationship with PNG? If you want to give me an answer, I'm happy to sit down and you can use the last minute for that.

I'm happy to give up my one minute.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you give up your minute—it can go to the minister, but then it must go back to a non-government member.

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

Anyway, I would love an answer at some stage because the project is vital. You know that. I know that. I'm sure Senator Wong and Senator Birmingham know that as well. I'll hope for a positive answer. The $7.5 million, in the grand scheme of what we do with our foreign aid in the area PNG, is a brilliant investment.

Given the fact that I am allowed the last 30 seconds—I'm sure I'll get a positive answer on that other one, because it's too important not to do it, Minister—I note that changes have been made with the PALM labour mobility scheme. Stakeholders who have consulted with me say the changes are moving in the right direction, but they'd like to see it extended further, to be averaged over eight to 12 weeks, not just the four weeks that you've done, to bring it in line with the horticultural award. Will you please consider making this change to further ensure the success of this scheme. Again, it's too important not to do it.

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak tonight and, like the last couple of speeches, I will focus on Australia's work in international development. I might just pick up where the previous member left off on investment in health in our region because it is a vital part of our international development program. Certainly, as one of the co-chairs of the parliamentary caucus for TB, I know just how important that health investment is—the $17 million that we are putting into the global alliance to help tackle TB in our region. We know that there are real challenges in our area, but there are also real gains to be made. If we invest in the health of people in our region, we unlock so much potential. We unlock the ability for people to go on from that stable foundation of good health to being able to get an education and being able to work towards economic prosperity. So it, absolutely, is a vital part of our international development program.

I have had the privilege of seeing this investment in action in a number of circumstances in the Pacific. Most recently, I was in the Solomon Islands as part of a parliamentary delegation. I was pleased to be able to visit Munda to see a pathology clinic there that had been funded under the Australian government's international development program in recognition of the need, which had become evident during the pandemic, for them to be able to do pathology testing locally and how important that was to local health services. We spoke with the doctor at the local hospital where the pathology clinic was located and heard firsthand about the benefit that it is going to provide through some wonderful machines. I'm not going to pretend I understand the technical nature of pathology testing, but the machines will be important in detecting and managing diseases in the region. There are locally trained pathologists, which, again, is fantastic. We have Australian development assistance helping people to get skills and work locally in good jobs.

When I was in that region I was also fortunate to see a childcare centre funded under Australia's international development program. I believe it is the first of its kind in the Solomon Islands, and it is associated with one of the local factories. Recognising that women who come to work in the factory from surrounding areas may not have the traditional family structures there that would have looked after their children, this childcare centre is providing them with another option and is, therefore, providing them with a chance for economic development, stability for their family and a great start for their children. What we talk about here in Australia, in terms of how child care and early education provide our young children with the best start in life, is absolutely true for our neighbours as well. I've been really privileged to have had a lot of experience seeing some of this firsthand, both in my work here in this parliament and in my previous life, where for a brief period of time I also worked in international development and humanitarian aid.

It is also important to note that we get these gains through investing, and our government has made serious investments in our international development budget. Our 2024-25 budget marks an increase of $542 million compared to the previous year. In the coming year we will be providing $4.96 billion in official development assistance. This builds on the increases we've delivered since we came to office, and it means we will reach $5 billion of ODA in the 2025-26 financial year, one year earlier than originally planned.

The need is obviously great, but I think this budget demonstrates that our government is taking this challenge and the need seriously. We are focusing on how we can support and rebuild this budget after it was slashed under nine years of the coalition. We recognise that this investment not only gets the types of outcomes I was just talking about but also builds relationships. It shows people particularly in our Pacific region that we take our role as a good neighbour seriously and that we are prepared to put our money, our thoughtfulness and our resources behind those investments. We are doing that as well through unions that we've put in place. I particularly highlight the work we've been doing with Tuvalu on a very important agreement for both our nations, which is helping to strengthen our collective peace, security and sovereignty and, of course, putting at the forefront the pressing needs that the people of Tuvalu face with regard to climate change. I have already addressed the health challenges that we are working with our Pacific neighbours on, but it is absolutely true that climate change is a part of the health picture as well. We will stand by our Pacific neighbours and continue to invest in our relationships.

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

Tonight I'm having dinner with the Georgian, Turkish and Azerbaijani ambassadors. I'm looking forward to that opportunity because, as the shadow minister for international development and the Pacific, it's important—as the member for Jagajaga has just said—to have diplomatic relations.

I do take umbrage, however, with the assertion that the coalition in government between 2013 and 2022 did not do enough in the space of foreign assistance, foreign development and foreign aid. I have to say that, as a foreign affairs minister, Senator Marise Payne was excellent. Her work with the then minister, the member for Mitchell, to rescue Australians and others when Afghanistan collapsed was nothing short of remarkable. Indeed, there should be a movie made with the rescues at the airport and the scenes there, and getting people out of the capital when everything went asunder.

More than that, this shadow portfolio role is important in ensuring that the government has bipartisanship in many areas of foreign affairs. I have worked well with Senator Birmingham, the shadow foreign affairs minister, along with the member for Shortland, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, and, indeed, Senator Penny Wong, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. We've gone on a very successful trip to the Pacific. No-one put their body on the line more than I did on that trip. Just google my name and the Federated States of Micronesia and you will see that sakau is a potent brew!

I was very pleased that the government answered the cross-party call to provide more assistance for Kenya and the Horn of Africa, which has endured five failed rain seasons. When you've been to the remote areas of Kenya and you speak to the local villagers there about their needs and wants, they very much value Australian agricultural expertise. I have to say that I was absolutely impressed with the number of women going into agriculture and the number of women who were apiarists and had lifted that side of agriculture such that it was providing great domestic supplies and a great potential export for Kenya, despite the failed climate and despite everything that was being thrown at them. Times have been troubled in that area of the world, and I was pleased that, when the delegation returned, Minister Wong saw fit to increase the amount of assistance on the back of the letter co-signed by coalition and government members. It was good bipartisan politics.

I have been disappointed with the government's response to the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. The PALM scheme was introduced in April 2022 during the Morrison coalition government. It replaced the Seasonal Workers Program which the Gillard government had introduced in 2012 and the Pacific Labour Scheme under the Turnbull administration in 2018. The scheme allows Australian businesses to hire workers through nine Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste, but the government finally came to the table—kicking and screaming, I might add, on the back of losing a lot of the PALM workers—to provide a more even range of work availability with an average of 120 hours over four weeks. It needs to be across eight to 12 weeks. That's what the stakeholders tell me. My question to the minister is: will you do that to bring it in line with the horticultural award?

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

Six months ago, Australia voted at the United Nations, with 152 other countries, for a ceasefire in the conflict in Gaza. I was in the Middle East at the time on a visit to the region that included Qatar, Egypt, Jordan and, of course, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. While Australia is not a central player in this conflict, on this visit I used Australia's respected voice to speak to countries who do have influence in the region to explain Australia's call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. I called for all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law and the laws of war, and I reiterated calls for rapid, safe and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian relief to Gaza. I also made clear Australia's expectation for hostages taken by Hamas as part of the 7 October attacks to be released immediately and unconditionally.

The human suffering we have seen in Gaza in the six months since then is intolerable. The war must end, and every day of delay means more deaths and more suffering. The World Food Programme has warned that there is already a full-blown famine in the north of Gaza, and these conditions are rapidly spreading to the south. More than half of Gaza's population of 2.3 million have fled to Rafah, where they have been seeking shelter.

Against this setting, Israeli military operations in Rafah have caused the deaths of innocent civilians—men, women and children—that have been witnessed by the world. Large-scale military operations in densely populated areas risk further devastation and even more civilian casualties. That's why we and the global community have repeatedly told the Netanyahu government: 'Listen to the world. Do not go down this path.'

Australians are rightly horrified by what they've seen in this conflict, and there is significant trauma and tension in our own community as a result of what Australians witnessed on their TV screens and on their phones during the 7 October attacks and the conflict that has followed. These are serious times that call for serious leadership. Despite this, in recent weeks we've seen the Greens deliberately using misleading conspiracy theories to further inflame tensions.

The government has made it clear repeatedly that Australia has not provided weapons or ammunition to Israel since the start of the conflict. This week in Senate estimates, Defence officials have further confirmed that, despite the deliberately misleading and inflammatory claims being made by the Greens on social media and in this parliament and by the Leader of the Greens on the Insiders program, the $1.5 million in exports to Israel in February, a figure regularly cited by the Greens this year, was actually Australian Defence Force equipment going overseas for manufacture before subsequently returning to Australia for use.

Since the start of this conflict, the Greens have sought to make up direct connections between Australia and the crisis in Gaza to elevate the stakes of their domestic political campaigning. In doing so, they've made themselves wilfully ignorant of the truth, because misleading conspiracy theories are better fuel for the partisan political strategy than the reality. There are actively constructing a false reality with alternative facts designed to exploit real distress and cause real harm. We've seen in other countries how destructive this approach is.

Many people in Australia who are understandably deeply distressed by Gaza are exercising their right to peaceful protest, but the Greens' misleading campaign seeks to manipulate legitimate concerns to incite political conflict, to reproduce the conflict for their own benefit. The Greens' incitement is seeing some peaceful protests become violent and aggressive. Greens social media pages are collaborating with social media pages that call for the death of political opponents or call on people to stop condemning 7 October. Other people speak at protests at which there are signs calling for death for their political opponents. It might be in the interests of Greens politicians to use misinformation to inflame and divide the Australian community, but it's not in the interests of our democracy or of the unity of our country.

Australians want their leaders to bring the community together in these serious and difficult times. We need to show the maturity necessary to listen to each other and to try to understand rather than to shout at each other and abuse those with different perspectives. We need more empathy and respect and less contempt and conspiracy theories. The Australian government is not a central player in the conflict in Gaza, but we've used our respected voice to help build the conditions necessary for peace.

Our government recognises that the only way to break the cycle of violence is through a two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in peace and security within internationally-recognised borders, in their own state. The only way we will achieve this is through peace-building between the parties. Politicians can't say they're for peace in Gaza if they reproduce the conflict at home.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the resolution agreed to by the House on 28 May 2024, the question is that the proposed expenditure for the Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio be agreed to, and I put that question.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

It being approximately 7.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and further consideration of the bill will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:36