Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

This government's incompetence and inability to keep Australians safe and keep inflation and costs of living under control

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a very important day in the history of this parliament because the prime minister of our country has come into the parliament and has deliberately misled this parliament. That is the most serious allegation that can be made against a prime minister or, indeed, against a member or senator in this House or in the other place. I cannot recall a time in recent history were such a claim has been made against a member with the evidence so clear in relation to this matter. It is clear that the government has taken steps to avoid a debate. It is obvious now, with the Prime Minister leaving the chamber, that he is not prepared to defend his own position—again something without precedent in my 20-odd years in this parliament. Normally, you would expect a prime minister to stand up and defend himself or herself, to correct the record if, indeed, there had been an inadvertent misleading of the House. But this Prime Minister went on, question after question in his responses to those questions, perpetrating his misleading of this house. This is a very serious—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand the Leader of the Opposition said the Prime Minister had deliberately misled—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask you to withdraw that as it is against the standing orders, as every other member has done over time.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm making reference to the process that went on today, which is exactly what I said in the House in my motion, where I said: 'considers that this constitutes a deliberate misleading of the House'.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand the cause of the issue. It's the statement which has been made. All members since Federation—and Practice dictates that statement is unparliamentary. To assist the House and let the debate continue, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw on the basis that the Prime Minister refuses to be here. It is difficult, particularly when the government has taken a decision to use parliamentary process not to debate the matter, which I think reflects very poorly on this Prime Minister. It's a sobering day when the Prime Minister can't be here to defend himself against an allegation in my motion today, which I moved during the course of question time. I quote from that motion: '(c) considers that this constitute a deliberate misleading of the House.' It's a very serious allegation.

What's the basis here? We're talking about the issue of national security. We have a situation where on 7 October there was an attack of the most serious nature in Israel where 1,200 people were slaughtered. One hundred people are still held hostage in a tunnel network, and we know that the atrocities that Hamas committed don't stop there, because they're hiding weapons within the population, under hospitals, in places of worship and in places of gathering, including residential areas, to this very day.

They have no regard for the Israelis, but they have less regard for Palestinians. On 9 October, in our country there was a protest on the steps of the opera house where the antisemitism that we're seeing almost as common practice today was first highlighted and emphasised with that unruly crowd. It's important to recite that part of this story because the Prime Minister, from that very first moment, that very first test of his leadership, decided not to condemn those actions and not to condemn those blatant, obvious and transparent acts of antisemitism.

And what has happened between 9 October and today? We've seen a level of antisemitism in our country that has never been witnessed. We have people who were in the Holocaust as survivors from the camps who shifted here post 1945, and, for the first time in our country's history and in their new lives here in our country, they say that they feel unsafe—in our country! How could that be? How could it be that people who have contributed to our country and have been peaceful in their presence here, who have educated their children and have worked hard and contributed to the fabric of our society—how could they be made to feel unsafe to the point where they're talking about wanting to return to Israel, a country under attack?

It's because of this weak Prime Minister. This Prime Minister had the opportunity on 9 October. We've seen the protests on the university campuses go on for weeks and weeks. We've seen the response on the streets of Melbourne and Sydney and Brisbane and elsewhere around the country. We've seen the blatant acts of antisemitism, of driving them from the river to the sea, talking about annihilating, wiping out and exterminating—exactly the same language that Hitler used in the 1930s. This Prime Minister goes missing in action, and he has the audacity to stand up today to say to us that we should heed the advice from the director-general of ASIO that we need to lower the temperature of debate in this country. This Prime Minister's negligence, this Prime Minister's weakness, has given rise to a level of antisemitism in our country that is without precedent and should be condemned but which escapes his capacity to do, and this is a most egregious abrogation of his responsibility.

What is the latest manifestation of this Prime Minister's incompetent period in office? It's not just the cost of living. It's not just in relation to the way in which they have gone about destroying parts of our economy. That is a very worthy discussion within this parliament, but today we condemn this Prime Minister for the work that he has done to undermine our national security agencies and the work that he has done, the decisions he's taken and the decisions that he hasn't taken which have resulted in an undermining of the security settings in our country.

He was in here yesterday, and he said, 'Well, look, there's nothing to see here because we brought in or we issued visas for 2,900 people, and 1,300 people have come in'—from a war zone controlled by Hamas, a listed terrorist organisation. Can you imagine if John Howard or Kim Beazley or Paul Keating as leaders of parties had advocated bringing in people with affiliations or sympathies to Hamas or to Hizballah or to al-Qaeda or to ISIS or to ISIL? They would have been rightly condemned. Yet this Prime Minister has changed the settings for our security agencies such that they now allow people to come into our country who have sympathies for an organisation listed by this parliament as an organisation of terror.

This Prime Minister is now saying that the bar has been lowered so low that people can come in who have sympathies to the acts that we've spoken about on 7 October, where women were beheaded, people were slaughtered and pregnant women were run down in the streets and the fields, and this Prime Minister says that that's okay. And he comes into this parliament yesterday and tries to say that every person who has come here of the 1,300—on tourist visas, which is without precedent—who hadn't been interviewed face to face and who hadn't been properly screened would be tested and checked by ASIO. That is not true. He misled the parliament. As I said in my motion earlier today, 'it considers that this constitutes a deliberate misleading of the House.' That is the quote from my—

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

The Leader of the Opposition has been warned—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am quoting from an earlier motion.

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

It being a quote doesn't actually make it any better.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw if it helps the process.

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

I appreciate that. Thank you for the withdrawal. That was my request.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the problem here is that we've now got the Prime Minister coming in here today quoting from Mike Burgess, the director-general of ASIO. In a quote, you can perhaps not quote the first sentence but quote sentences two, three and four and omit sentence five. You can accurately quote somebody in that fashion. But that is not what has happened here. The Prime Minister has come in today and deliberately twisted the words of the director-general of ASIO—one of the most serious allegations to be made against a prime minister. That is exactly what he did to suit his mistake from yesterday. This means that the Prime Minister is at odds with the director-general of ASIO. The Prime Minister has deliberately and selectively quoted the director-general of ASIO, omitting operative words to suit the Prime Minister's narrative from yesterday and justify his misleading the House, but it is clearly inaccurate and twists the words into a different meaning not meant to be delivered by the director-general of ASIO.

This is a prime minister who can't be trusted. He's making Australia less safe and he should be voted out at the next election.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian people will be very disappointed with the attempts to divide rather than bring people together in the speech that we just saw. What the Australian people know and what the Leader of the Opposition himself knows is that this government condemns antisemitism and this government seeks to bring Australians together, recognising that we are stronger because we are a multicultural community where there is mutual respect. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. He can't look at me right now, because he knows what I am saying is true. You keep looking at your phone, Leader of the Opposition.

Social cohesion is a responsibility that we all share. I take that responsibility seriously. Those on this side take that responsibility seriously. Actually, it's in our national interest that we all take that responsibility seriously. As the Prime Minister outlined in question time for question after question today, we take advice from the same security agencies that those opposite did. We follow the same processes that those opposite followed and, indeed, have the same personnel.

Beyond that, this government has proudly and happily invested in efforts to boost our social cohesion explicitly to address antisemitism in this country. There is no place for it, and we will take that work and that responsibility seriously. As the Leader of the Opposition himself knows, there is $25 million in security funding to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry in response to the Jewish community's explicit security needs. We saw $10 million in further support to securing the faith based places grants program, improving security at religious schools—again, something the Leader of the Opposition knows himself that we did and something that is on top of the funding that has already been delivered. We've seen funding to the Department of Education to help support states and territories with delivering mental health and wellbeing support to students at Jewish and Islamic schools. We've seen the Department of Health provide $3 million of funding for mental health and community wellbeing. We've seen funding to the Australian Human Rights Commission for targeted communications to increase awareness about combating racism and hate—again, a responsibility we all share. And we've seen the appointment of a special envoy to prevent antisemitism and to advise government. I also note my good colleague here at the table, the member for Bruce, is also doing excellent work making sure that we do everything we can to bring people together.

I did notice that, when the Leader of the Opposition put his MPI in, he said he was going to talk about the cost of living, but instead we just saw a dummy-spit because he couldn't debate his motion, because he stood up at the wrong time. He didn't choose to debate the very MPI that he himself introduced. The Leader of the Opposition this morning wanted to talk about cost of living, and this afternoon he didn't. It's a bit like how, when he's on the east coast, he says that he doesn't support production tax credits for Western Australia's critical minerals industry and, when he gets over to Western Australia, he spends five days there and says that he does. There are different stories in the morning and in the afternoon. There are different stories on the east coast and on the west coast.

This Leader of the Opposition mentioned, in his remarks just then, 'gutlessness'. Well, I'll tell you what's gutless, Leader of the Opposition: not going to Collie, where you plan to build a nuclear power plant. You spent five days in Western Australia—

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Assistant Minister, I'm just going to remind you to direct your comments through the chair. I do not want personal attacks across the dispatch box. Members might want to consider their interjections.

I'm looking straight at you, Member for O'Connor. No more interjections.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is very correct, Deputy Speaker, because the entire nation should know that this Leader of the Opposition didn't visit Collie when he spent five days in Western Australia, maybe because he thought he had to go up to Collie when in fact it's down, south of Perth. He would know that if he had driven there. But I agree that it is important that every Australian know that and it's important that we discuss that in this parliament.

If any mining executive in Western Australia did what the Leader of the Opposition has done, which is to put out a completely uncosted, un-fact-checked plan around nuclear energy, they would be sacked by the end of the day. You couldn't hold that standard to the ASX. But what we have here with the Leader of the Opposition is that now, two months on, we have seen no costings, no economic modelling, no job projections, nothing on the cost of electricity, and no plan on how to fund it. Is it going to be debt funded, is it going to be funded by jacking up people's power bills, are you going to jack up taxes or are you going to make cuts? Again, we don't know how they're going to fund their signature—in fact, their only—policy. It's reasonable that people would ask those questions, and it's reasonable that people would expect that, if this Leader of the Opposition puts himself forward as an alternative leader of Australia, he would have some of those plans.

Opposition members interjecting—

We see—and I hear it now—lots of anger coming from those opposite. They have no costed policies. We have lots of campaigning in Western Australia, but there was no time to get to Collie. There are lots of complaints about this government, but they will never vote for action on anything, including HECS. We even struggled on getting them to agree to clean up the CFMEU today. They are an endlessly petty opposition who spend more time on the side of John Setka than on the side of the Australian people. We see endless negativity—all problems, no solutions. The Leader of the Opposition couldn't even bring himself, when he was there welcoming our Olympians back, to have an entire hour where we could just share in the joy of some of our outstanding Olympians. He had to politicise it. He chose that moment—a deliberate choice, a captain's call, a policy that he himself set.

The Leader of the Opposition and his deputy are so angry that they're angry that others aren't angry. I saw in the Australian today a report that they're so angry that they want small businesses to be angry. Small businesses just want to run a business. They just want to make sure they can employ people and serve the Australian people. But the opposition want small businesses to share their anger, so we've seen the Deputy Leader of the Opposition say that she wants small businesses to be more angry and more political. Again, small businesses just want to get on with their business.

I would ask something of all those in the coalition. There are a few more of them speaking on this MPI. Maybe one of them will tell us where their cost-of-living plan is. We know what you oppose: you oppose cheaper child care, you oppose fee-free TAFE and you want to cut the pension. We saw that from the shadow Treasurer last week. But they won't tell us what their plans are.

I note that this MPI talks about safety for Australians. Let's be clear: when this Leader of the Opposition sat at the cabinet table, he was responsible for a range of foreign policy failures, but he was also responsible for messes that led to this government having to commission three separate reviews: the Richardson review, the Parkinson review—that's the hefty one—and the Nixon review. They told us that the incompetence of the Leader of the Opposition led to a completely rorted visa system. They told us that, under this Leader of the Opposition's watch, they had created and encouraged, within the Home Affairs portfolio, the toxic, demoralising culture—the same as what we saw through robodebt.

This government has been left to clean up the mess left by the Leader of the Opposition. He left the borders wide open. He left communities less safe. He left systemic failures in our visa system. This Leader of the Opposition says, 'I'll open the door for more organised crime.' He opened the door for the Albanian mafia to infiltrate the country. Don't take it from me. Here's what Christine Nixon, the former Victorian Police Commissioner, had to say in the forward to her report—and I dare you to check this quote, Leader of the Opposition; if you want to have a debate about checking quotes, check this quote. This is the quote that I encourage you and all members, including the Leader of Opposition, to check:

I have been appalled by the abuses of sexual exploitation, human trafficking and other organised crime that have been presented to me …

That's Christine Nixon talking about the Department of Home Affairs under the watch of the Leader of the Opposition.

I encourage all members, including the Leader of the Opposition, to check this quote:

During the consultation phase of this review, it was raised that visa fraud was a common theme in many major investigations over the last five to 10 years relating to gangs, drug cartels, and casino money laundering.

Further, there was another quote:

Australia's visa system must be strengthened to resist organised crime syndicates, to ensure they don't prey upon Australia as an easy destination to conduct their exploitative and criminal business, and to protect those who are most vulnerable.

What was the Leader of the Opposition's response to all this? He cut combined staffing by 50 per cent. (Time expired)

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

Before I give the call to the Member for Wannon, I accept it's Thursday afternoon. If people want an early mark, you will be getting one very shortly because I'm very tired of the interjections. I hope you show a bit of respect to somebody on your own side during this debate now.

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

It's worth reminding the House what we're talking about here. There is no precedent in Australian history for bringing 1,300 people from the terrorist-controlled territory into this country on tourist visas, so something has happened that is absolutely unprecedented—1,300 people have been brought into this country from the terrorist controlled territory on tourist visas. As a responsible opposition, we first have to ensure that the government is doing its No. 1 priority: keeping the Australian people safe. Its No. 1 duty is keeping the Australian people safe. That is the question we've asked the Prime Minister: are you keeping the Australian people safe? The sad reality is that, both yesterday and today, the Prime Minister hasn't been truthful with the Australian people in answering those questions. And today he stooped to a new low. He sought to quote the director-general of ASIO to suit his purpose of misleading the Australian people. This is unprecedented. I cannot think of any time ever before in this place where a prime minister has sought to misquote the director-general of ASIO so that it suits his purpose for having misled the Australian people.

Let's go to the facts. On Insiders, David Speers asked the director-general this question: 'Sorry, those from Gaza who have come here have gone through the very standard checks.' Mike Burgess said:

If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process.

This is the important part:

Part of that visa process is where criteria are hit. They're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.

What did the Prime Minister say in question time when he was quoting the director-general of ASIO—not some individual but the person whose responsibility it is to keep us safe? This is what the Prime Minister said in question time:

If they've been issued a visa, they've gone through the process … they're referred to my organisation and ASIO does its thing.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's something missing. What's missing? There's something missing in the middle.

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

There is something missing, and do you reckon that's the operative bit? Do you think it bells the cat on how the Prime Minister has misled the Australian people? Yes, it does. It bells the cat. The Prime Minister should have the decency to come back into this place and admit he got it wrong. He should have the decency to do it because he has misquoted Mike Burgess, the director-general of ASIO—someone who has spent his lifetime trying to do his absolute best to keep the Australian community safe.

If the Prime Minister hasn't got the decency to do that, then I think the standards that he is setting for this parliament are beyond the pale. We know he's happy to let his former immigration minister, who was responsible for the decisions to bring these people in on a tourist visa, to misquote him in this place and make sure that the Australian people are given false pretences about the processes that he followed when he released detainees into the community—many of them hardened criminals, murderers and child six offenders. We know he's happy to wave that by, but now he's happy to do it himself. It is an absolute disgrace.

If he's half decent, he will come in here and admit he got it wrong when it came to quoting the director-general of ASIO to suit his own purposes because he knows decisions have been made that potentially threaten the safety of the Australian people. (Time expired)

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

Those listening will maybe take some comfort from the fact that I'm not going to scream, carry on or confect this outrage, which is an attempt to cover up the fact that they're not actually talking about the cost of living at all, which is part of the MPI. The fact of the matter is that there's good reason for that—because their leader, their deputy leader and their shadow Treasurer keep talking about ripping billions of dollars out of the budget that goes towards seniors and their pensions—the indexation of those, appropriately, to help with the cost of living and many other things.

But I'll get to the veterans and the other elements that they want to rip out from what the Australian government gives in support of the Australian people, not only for their service, when it comes to veterans, but also because of the fact that many age pensioners, of course, have been paying tax all their lives and it's only proper that we give our senior Australians the support that they need to live decent lives.

Our government is of course managing the economy competently. What evidence do I have for that? Well, we've had two budget surpluses. In nine years, they couldn't pull one. They also racked up $1 trillion of debt. That's relevant. We have halved the inflation, and I think those listening outside of this bubble might have missed that—that those opposite, the coalition, left us with inflation that was at more than six per cent. We have halved that, and we're continuing to put downward pressure on inflation, whilst also assisting Australians with the cost of living.

We're also creating tens of thousands of full-time jobs, and, as the Treasurer said in question time, no government, no Prime Minister, has ever created so many jobs in their first term.

So, that's what we're doing. But, again: what are those opposite planning to do? Well, we know, because the Leader of the Opposition, his deputy and the shadow Treasurer keep talking about ripping out the responsible budget measures where we put significant funding—over $300 billion—into the budget to look after Australians. Now, what is that funding about? Let's just talk about veterans for a minute. Those opposite, the coalition, like to think they're good economic managers, but I've just pointed out a couple of reasons they're not. They also like to point out that they're for veterans. But they fought the establishment of a royal commission into defence and veterans' suicide all the way. There had to be a grassroots campaign, led by the mothers and the veterans themselves, backed by our leader, the now Prime Minister, to get that royal commission established. That's one thing. They also left us with about 42,000 uncleared claims in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The royal commission itself has said that that massive backlog of claims was indeed causing harm and in all likelihood led to the suicides of veterans. That's shameful.

So, what we've done is put a lot more resources into clearing that backlog of claims, so that Australian veterans and their families are getting the funding they so richly deserve. That comes with a price tag. Those funds are within the extra funding allocated through the budget in a responsible and budgeted way that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about withdrawing, as well as the deputy leader and the shadow Treasurer. They are talking about ripping that funding out of the budget.

Those opposite might remember that the member for Calare, when he was the coalition's Minister for Veterans' Affairs, tried to plead with and then threatened his own political party that he would resign from that post if further funding wasn't put into DVA. But those opposite, the coalition, did not do it. It took a Labor federal government and this Labor Prime Minister to put the funds into the budget, and those opposite are talking about ripping those funds out.

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

I listened closely to the contribution of the member for Solomon, and I thank him for his service; I thank him for being a veteran. Veterans should be lauded and applauded for the fact that they have kept our country safe. So, for his efforts, and for the efforts of the member for Pearce and the member for Braddon, I thank them for their service, and all other members in this place.

The topic of today's matter of public importance discussion is this incompetent government's inability to keep Australians safe and to keep inflation under control, moved by the member for Dixon. I would ask: do Australians feel safer now than they did prior to May 2022? Do Australians feel poorer now than they did prior to 2022? I think there would be resounding answers to both of those questions. Today in question time I asked the Prime Minister about the 2,900 people from the terrorist controlled Gaza war zone who were issued visas, primarily led in by the former immigration minister, the member for Scullin. The primary word in the question—which was whether all of them have been subjected to a biometric test and an in-person interview—was 'all'. He came up with a good example of one of those people who have come into Australia and contributed greatly to our nation. And we thank our migrants for what they do. But the fact remains that Australians do not feel safer, because this government is allowing into this country people who have not had the in-person interviews or the biometric testing. That is of great concern, particularly given research and evidence from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research report of June this year, from Dr Khalil Shikaki, who is their director and was interviewed on ABC Radio, who said:

For the third time since October 7, we asked the respondents in this poll what they thought of Hamas' decision to launch the October the 7th offensive. Two thirds, compared to 71% in March 2024 and 72% in December 2023, say it was correct.

…   …   …

… almost all Palestinians (97%) think Israel has committed war crimes during the current war … 88% think Hamas did not commit war crimes during the current war.

…   …   …

That is disturbing. By any measure, that is alarming. The respondents to the poll are living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. They are right there on the ground, witnessing and suffering from this conflict. While they rightfully deserve sympathy, humanitarian aid and efforts to bring an end to the violence, what deeply concerns me and, moreover, many, many Australians is just how many of the respondents condone Hamas and its attacks on Israel. It's not just in capital cities; it's right throughout Australia. It's in regional Australia. It's in Wagga Wagga, where we have a group of Greens who are protesting outside my office every Sunday under the guise of Sundays for Peace. It's quite a misnomer for the organisation. They are marching in the streets. They are putting things on Facebook which are beyond belief. Then we have the Prime Minister, who selectively quotes the Director-General of Security in charge of ASIO, Mike Burgess, someone who is beyond reproach and someone who has been doing an outstanding job since 2019 and does not deserve to be selectively quoted. He should be quoted in his entirety. He should be quoted to the fullest.

What we are seeing in this country is social disruption. It is not cohesion. We are genuinely concerned that people who are coming in are not having the proper testing of their validity and that what we will be seeing in the future as a result of that is unrest. What we saw on 9 October on the steps of the Opera House and elsewhere throughout this nation since those revolting, disgraceful attacks on 7 October was social unrest in our country. We are a free and democratic country. We welcome migrants who want to do the right thing by our nation, but Hamas is a terrorist organisation. What the Greens have done and what indecisiveness by the Labor government has done is make sure that we'll disgracefully allow future unrest to occur. (Time expired)

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

This MPI is evidence that the Liberal and National parties have simply given up. Now they don't even know what they want to discuss in parliament. I wait with bated breath to see if maybe next week they'll put three topics into their MPI. The member for Dickson shows a certain level of indecision in his effort to chuck a few things around and see if something might just stick. The trouble is that there's no good news for the coalition. Their strategy of just opposing everything may have worked for Tony Abbott, but it's not going to work for the member for Dickson.

On the other hand, these two MPI topics provide me with a platform to outline in my brief five minutes a few of the excellent initiatives of the Albanese Labor government that we have already done, in just a two short years, to make Australians safer and to address the cost-of-living challenges facing Australians, especially those Australians who need help the most.

Firstly, the Australian government hit the ground running on national security. In August 2022, the Hon. Stephen Smith and Sir Angus Houston were asked to conduct the Defence strategic review, the most important work of that kind since the Dibb report in 1986. That review underpins the ongoing agenda for an ambitious but necessary reform to defence posture and structure. This makes Australia safer. The House recently passed the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. That committee will ensure proper oversight of defence strategy and provision in the years ahead. I acknowledge the work of the late senator Jim Molan. The defence committee, if the Liberals will actually pass the bill in the Senate, will help keep Australia safer.

In cybersecurity, the Albanese Labor government has elevated the portfolio to cabinet. When the opposition were in power they weren't even sure whether it was important enough to have a portfolio for it. Cybersecurity threats are many and varied, and the government's efforts have already made Australians safer. But we need to ask, since the coalition were in office for nine years and pretend to care about national security and making Australians safer: Where was the coalition's defence strategic review? Where was the coalition's legislation for the joint committee on defence? Where were the coalition ministers for cybersecurity and a national office a cybersecurity? Nada—they didn't exist. Instead, chasing headlines, we saw the Leader of the Opposition try to claim that Border Force were underfunded. Then Australian Border Force commissioner, Michael Outram, confirmed that under Labor funding for the agency is the highest it has been since its establishment in 2015. It must be difficult for the Leader of the Opposition as, every time the member for Dickson stands up to dog whistle, the facts simply don't support him.

It is simply not possible to cover all the great initiatives and support on cost of living by the Albanese government, so I'll cover just a few. I think it is worth pointing out at the same time just how little would have been done in this area if the coalition were in government at this crucial time. We have provided tax cuts for every Australian. A Border Force police officer recruit trainee just starting out on $54,439 will receive a tax cut of $1,040, and that's ongoing. That trainee, who's going to be helping to keep our country safe, hopefully over a long and rewarding career, certainly deserves to have the benefit of that tax cut. But how much of a tax cut would the Border Force officer recruit trainee have received if the coalition were in office? Nothing—nil. We know this because, even though the opposition knew that they couldn't, in the end, oppose the tax cuts, they truly, in their hearts, wanted to oppose them. They would never in a million years have thought of it on their own—tax cuts for all Australians, especially for those who need it most, to address their cost-of-living challenges. It's a sensible policy because the Albanese government wants Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. It's a sensible policy because when circumstances change government policy should change too. It's a sensible policy that the member for Dickson would never have supported if he thought he had any choice at all.

Our Border Force officer recruit trainee will also benefit from the government's action in addressing health needs and health costs. There's more support for bulk-billing, free medical urgent care clinics, capping the cost of scripts and 60-day dispensing, all designed to make Australians healthier while, at the same time, saving them money. Would a coalition government have taken any of these measures? No. Indeed, the Abbott government shut Medicare locals.The Morrison government ignored the advice to allow 60-day scripts. The coalition, quite demonstrably, does not care about the health of Australians and won't assist in meeting healthcare costs.

Tracey Roberts (Pearce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shame.

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

The list goes on. We will do more where we can, but, in every one of these policy areas, the salient question here on this MPI is: what would the coalition have done? The answer is little or nothing.

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

A government's most important obligation is to keep its citizens safe. This MPI today concerns both the safety of Australians and the disposable income and wealth of Australians. I have two questions. Do Australians feel safer now than they did in May 2022? Do Australians feel poorer or better off than they did in May 2022? The No. 1 duty of the government and the Prime Minister of the day is to keep Australians safe and also make Australians feel that they are safe. That involves ensuring that proper processes are in place that mean that the government is properly ensuring that everybody that wants to come to our country, particularly those who are coming from war-torn areas, are subject to processes to ensure they have not been radicalised, for example, and are going to continue the great tradition of multiculturalism we have in this country.

But we have seen in question time this week, on very sensible questions that have been put to the Prime Minister and to the immigration minister, is a failure to be able to ensure that those processes are in place—processes that have been in place under successive governments for many decades. Today in question time I asked the Prime Minister a question. I asked him about the government's policy. Is it now the Australian government's policy that sympathy for Hamas, a listed terrorist organisation, is not grounds for visa refusal or cancellation? The Prime Minister was unable to answer that question and instead treated it with contempt and went off on some tangent about polling and some other ridiculous nonsense, again demonstrating that he could not convince anybody in this chamber that he was in a position to keep Australians safe.

Let us turn to inflation. After more than two years, this government has completely failed Australians on the economy. As well as having an obligation to keep Australians safe, governments have an obligation to facilitate an economy where every Australian who wants to can get ahead and where Australians can earn and keep more of what they earn. But what we have seen over two years is $315 billion worth of spending. That's $30,000 for every single Australian household. That spending has directly caused the inflation rate to be where it is—the highest out of any of the G10 countries. Our inflation rate's higher and that has kept interest rates at a higher level for longer. It's not just me saying it; it is the Reserve Bank Governor, Michele Bullock, last week. While ever inflation remains high, interest rates remain high.

What that means for people in my electorate—people in southern and south-western Sydney—is that things are a lot harder. They know that they have had nearly an eight per cent drop in their disposable income. Whether they're in Engadine, Ingleburn, Heathcote, Holsworthy, Glenfield, Menai, Moorebank, Bangor or Bundeena, they know that their mortgages and their rents have gone up by 15 per cent. Those who hold mortgages, and there are 22,000 of them in my electorate, have now paid more than $35,000 in interest payments over two years that they did not pay under the former government. That is directly the result of this government's overspending.

This is causing Australians to have to make real choices about their spending. Do they enrol their children in summer sports this year? What after-school activities can they still afford to do? Can they go to the movies on the weekend? Can they go out to dinner? What are they going to do about Christmas this year?

This is a government and a Prime Minister that has failed Australians with security and it's failed Australians with the economy. (Time expired)

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm partially glad that the opposition has brought on this MPI, because the safety of Australians and cost-of-living relief are actually priorities of the Labor government. Bizarrely, given they have brought on this MPI, those weren't real priorities of those opposite when they were in government.

I'll explain this. In their 10 years of government, they did not keep Australians safe and they did not, in fact, support Australians with cost-of-living pressures. As usual, it's a Labor government—in this case the Albanese Labor government—that's had to come in and clean up the mess left by the coalition.

We know as a government that cost-of-living is front of mind for Australians right now. We know that supply chain shocks, jumps in global energy prices and economic downturns are impacting billions of people across the world. In turn, this impacts Australians. Every country around the world is dealing with higher inflation. The Russian invasion of Ukraine drove up oil prices and the pandemic caused supply shortages. Inflation is still higher than we'd like, but it's less than half its peak and much lower than the 6.1 per cent we inherited from the coalition. Unlike the Liberals and Nationals, we're actually taking action to relieve the pressure on Aussies finding it hard to get by. The Albanese Labor government delivered a budget focused on cost-of-living support. The focus was to ease pressures on Australians while combating inflation at the same time.

Here are some facts for those opposite who brought this MPI. We increased Commonwealth rent assistance by 25 per cent—that's $4.6 billion back into the pockets of renters, we delivered cheaper medicines, we waived $3 billion of student debt, we delivered a tax cut for every taxpayer, we expanded government funded paid parental leave, we provided a $300 energy bill relief rebate to every household and a $325 energy bill rebate to every small business in the country. We have invested, and will continue investing, $32 billion in housing in just two short years—probably the biggest investment ever, and certainly the biggest in over a decade—to build more houses. We've delivered three consecutive increases to the minimum wage since coming into office, and we've helped 2.6 million Australian workers. Everything we're doing is helping keep inflation at bay, and the ABS data shows that our cost-of-living relief took half a percentage point off inflation just this year.

Our policies have had a direct and positive impact on all Australians, lowering inflation that was higher under the coalition and putting us on track for a larger-than-forecast surplus. Those on the other side should take a look at the budget they delivered when inflation was on the way up and had a '6' in front of it. They spent more to do less. Even the Nobel-Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said that it was 'unambiguous' that current inflation is not caused by excess government spending.

Responsible economic management is about investing in our economy and investing in our people. But the opposition calls for huge cuts to spending. That's what they want: cuts to basic support payments to older Australians, or wage cuts for some of our lowest-paid workers in the care economy. That's just cruel. Australia's already experienced a decade of neglect and cuts under previous Liberal governments. Australia was left with falling real wages, cost of living pressures and a trillion dollars of debt.

When it comes to our commitment to community safety and security, it is our primary priority. This includes our immigration practices. Our agencies undertake a series of assessments on every application to determine whether an applicant poses a threat to our community. We're not going to be lectured about community safety and security by those opposite—by the opposition leader, a man who released 102 convicted sex offenders and two men convicted of being accessories to murder into the community. We know that the director-general of ASIO has said that there is a direct correlation between violent rhetoric, inflammatory language and subsequent violent action. As elected representatives, as politicians and—I would dare to say—as political leaders, we have an obligation to be careful with our words, because that rhetoric does actually have an impact on communities. We need to ensure our language doesn't negatively impact our social cohesion and doesn't add to the fraying of our social cohesion.

This government is providing genuine cost-of-living relief that doesn't drive up inflation. We're paying back a trillion dollars in Liberal debt with our surpluses, we're delivering an ambitious agenda to support Australians, and we're doing the work necessary to keep Australians safe. (Time expired)

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wills for his contribution. One of the great successes of this country is the fact that we have, for many decades, successfully brought migrants to this country. But we've brought migrants to this country through a process. Those migrants have come from a variety of situations. We've had those that came, post World War II, through from Europe. More recently we've had those from various war-torn areas of the Middle East. Now we're seeing the request for those coming from Gaza, given what's going on in that territory following Hamas's barbaric attack on Israel on October 7.

I don't think anyone in this place has an argument with the fact that we should look to support people in need, and I think, as a country, we've had a tremendous track record of doing that. We should be very proud of that track record. But, in the same vein, we should ensure that the people we are letting into this country come here through the right channels and through the right processes. We should make sure that we know who is coming to this country and their background, to ensure that they are not involved with terrorist organisations.

I'll give the House a little bit of clarity as to why this is so important. There was a report today in the Jerusalem Post about somebody on the terrorist watchlist who was caught at the US-Mexico border for the very reasons we are talking about in this House—

Debate interrupted.