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 failure to keep Australians safe and the economy strong.

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

The Prime Minister's moment of truth has just been before us. He failed that moment of truth; there's no question about that. He was asked a question about whether or not it was the policy of his government to be sympathetic to people who had an allegiance or had a sympathy to the Hamas terrorist organisation. Hamas has been listed as a terrorist organisation by our country. Today the Prime Minister, yet again, did what he's done in previous questions and answers in this place—that is, he tried to hide behind public servants.

If it is the policy of the Australian government that somebody with a sympathy for the Hamas terrorist organisation or another terrorist organisation is eligible to be granted a visa in this country, that is a radical departure from the policies of any previous Labor or Liberal government, yet today the Prime Minister tried to hide behind ASIO yet again. He tried to suggest that this would be a decision of ASIO—what, that somebody had a sympathy for a listed terrorist organisation who had just committed acts of atrocity in Israel only a matter of months ago?

Think about that proposition and what the Australian Prime Minister is saying here—what message he is delivering to the Australian public and to the world. He is saying that for his government, a democratically elected government that has continued listing Hamas as a terrorist organisation, a sympathy for the barbaric acts of Hamas doesn't preclude somebody from being granted a visa to come into this country. That is quite astounding. Are people who have sympathy for a far-right organisation involved in a Neo-Nazi movement or are affiliated with or have sympathies for al-Qaeda, ISIL or ISIS now eligible for a visa to come into our country—a tourist visa, no less? It's without precedent that a government in our country would allow people from a war zone governed by Hamas, a listed terrorist organisation, into our country—even under the refugee and humanitarian program, in the current circumstances, let alone on a tourist visa without the proper checks.

When people apply for the refugee and humanitarian program, they come here with proper checks. That's the reality. When we brought people in from Syria, we looked at people individually. We didn't take people from Syria proper. People were located in Jordan. They were located in northern Iraq and elsewhere. We conducted biometrics checks. We checked them against databases to make sure people were who they said they were. We wanted to make sure that they hadn't been sympathisers with the terrorists at the time. We wanted to make sure that they weren't involved in the persecution of minorities or involved in acts of atrocity otherwise. It took a long period of time. In fact, the Labor Party criticised me at the time because, by the 12-month mark, we hadn't issued all of those 12,000 visas. If you look at what we did there in the uplift in Kabul, we provided safety and security as the paramount consideration for the government and, therefore, for the Australian people.

What the Australian government and the Prime Minister have done now has departed from that previous conduct. The Prime Minister came in here and said, 'There's no difference between what you did and the way in which the Labor Party has brought in 1,300 people from Gazan territory on a tourist visa without the requisite checks.' That is completely and utterly untrue. The Prime Minister hasn't corrected the record. The Prime Minister came in here and quoted—I saw him read from the page he was holding—the director-general of ASIO. This is not some low-level public servant. This is the Director-General of Security for Australia. Mr Burgess is an accomplished public servant. He has sacrificed. He receives death threats, and he serves his country with great distinction. The Prime Minister of our country came in here and deliberately read from a piece of paper, and the quote that he delivered to this chamber—and, through this chamber, to the Australian public—was a misquote of what Mr Burgess had actually said.

It wasn't any misquote. It wasn't that he skipped a sentence or that he just missed out on a couple of words. What it did show was that the Prime Minister was willing to misrepresent the director-general of ASIO to suit the Prime Minister's own failings, because what the Prime Minister had done by coming into this parliament and saying earlier that the same process had applied to bringing 1,300 people in as it did to the Syrians—what he was suggesting and what he was express about was that each of the 1,300 people who had been issued a tourist visa was subject to an ASIO assessment. But, as we now know, that is not true either. So when the Prime Minister misquoted the director-general of ASIO the words he missed out quoting, the words that he decided not to read out quite deliberately, were words that would otherwise have shown the Prime Minister for the fraud that he is. That's what happened here. That's what happened.

Has the Prime Minister come to this dispatch box, as is the tradition and is this precedent in this chamber, to correct the record? No, he has not. He tabled a transcript which demonstrated the difference. He tabled a transcript which demonstrated that he had misquoted Mr Burgess.

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

On a point of order, just a moment ago there was a reflection on the member of improper motives, and I think it should be withdrawn.

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

I've listened very carefully and I think I know the reference you're referring to, and it is very close. But I listened to the Speaker's guidance earlier on, and I'm listening extremely carefully to the language being used in this debate, I can assure you. I'd ask the Leader of the Opposition and indeed every member who will participate in this debate to be very, very mindful of that.

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

What we've seen this week is a course of conduct by this Prime Minister, and it's a deceptive course of conduct. When the Australian people voted for this Prime Minister they believed him to be a man of integrity, to be forthright and to be honest with them. What he's demonstrated over the course of the last 2½ years is that he is anything but.

The Prime Minister promised the Australian public a reduction in their electricity prices—gone. He promised the Australian people he would provide detail on the Voice—he deliberately made a decision not to provide detail. He said to the Australians in three budgets that he would have a plan to help them out economically. He has failed on each front. Interest rates have gone up on 12 occasions. Inflation is not contained in this country, and yet interest rates are coming down in the United Kingdom, are on the way down in the United States, and they've already come down in New Zealand and in Canada.

The reality is that this Prime Minister now has broken his golden promise at the election. His golden promise at the election was to keep Australia safe, and what we now know is that the Prime Minister has made our country less safe.

We are a welcoming country. When we brought the 12,000 people in from Syria, when we brought countless thousands of others in from around the world to be a part of our society—to be a wonderful part of our society—we did it in a structured way and we did it in a way where, when there were people in the queue who had a compelling story to put but who were not classified as anything other than a safety risk, we excluded those people from the line. We excluded those people from the line. We made the tough decisions that needed to be made.

But what this Prime Minister has done is he's made us less safe, and the motive is obvious to all. The motive is for domestic political gain. That's what the Prime Minister has done here and that's what he's been called out on. The Prime Minister decided to bring people in—as we now know because the Minister for Industry and Science pointed it out on the weekend—on a tourist visa because we get people here more quickly, not a humanitarian visa where there are greater checks. This Prime Minister has sold the Australian public out, and for that he should be condemned.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How pathetic. Who puts forward an MPI about the economy and then gets to the ninth minute of his speech and realises he hasn't mentioned it yet? He read out a couple of little token dot points before he got back to his main business of trying to divide this community. At a time when we've got no shortage of economic and social challenges, his main game and his main priority is to try and set Australians against Australians.

On Wednesday I experienced a profound moment of solidarity with the member for Hume, the shadow Treasurer, and that was when the Leader of the Opposition tried to stop me talking about the economy. This is a very familiar experience for the shadow Treasurer. The member for Hume and I don't have a lot in common, but we do have that in common. The Leader of the Opposition wants neither of us talking about the economy. That's why he relegates the shadow Treasurer to this humiliating silence day after day. It's why we still didn't get any questions whatsoever in this entire week from those opposite on the cost of living, inflation, employment, wages or closing the gender pay gap. There's been absolutely nothing on the economy all week. Doesn't that speak volumes about the approach that is being taken by those opposite?

I want the House and the people who are watching and listening outside the House to understand that this week on this Labor side of the parliament, under Prime Minister Albanese and our team, we've advanced our agenda on paying super on paid parental leave. We've advanced our agenda on making multinational companies pay their fair share of tax. We've made progress on the NDIS. We've approved the world's biggest solar precinct. We've advanced our efforts to cut HECS debt for millions of people. We've advanced our efforts when it comes to the net zero authority, and we've strengthened our ties with Indonesia. We've done all of those things while maintaining a primary focus on the cost of living and rolling out substantial and meaningful cost-of-living help in the most responsible way. That's how we've spent our week, and that's how we've spent the last few days of question time. We've focused on the cost of living because that is the No. 1 thing that people are confronting in the communities that we represent.

Because these colleagues are in touch with their local communities, they know that our highest priority is and must be rolling out a tax cut for every taxpayer and energy bill relief for every household, making medicines cheaper, helping with rent, making early childhood education cheaper, paying educators fairly for the important work that they do, getting wages moving again and closing the gender pay gap. These are our priorities, and we have made progress this week.

At a time when the cost of living is the No. 1 issue in our communities, those opposite couldn't care less. That's not just something I say; it's something we know from the fact that on Thursday afternoon, at the end of a long sitting week, not once did they ask us about the cost of living or, indeed, anything about the economy. I've told the House how we have spent our week. The Leader of the Opposition has spent the whole week trying to divide the community, and that's because it's all he knows and all he does. His little dog whistle plays only one tune, and we heard it all week. As I said the other day, when the Leader of the Opposition plays his little dog whistle, the shadow Treasurer rolls over. We saw once again today that the shadow Treasurer is in the doghouse. The Prime Minister has Toto and the Leader for the Opposition has the member for Hume, but Toto has more to offer the economic debate in this country than the shadow Treasurer does.

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

Excuse me, Treasurer. The member for Moncrieff on a point of order.

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer is aware that reflections on members are not acceptable in the House. I ask him to withdraw.

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

Member for Moncrieff, I gave a warning during the Leader of the Opposition's speech, as well, that any members participating in this debate should be mindful of the language that they use. I ask the Treasurer to be a little bit reflective on that request. The Leader of the Opposition did not withdraw; he was asked to by another member and did not. I'm asking you to now be reflective and to desist from using language that is going to be inflammatory and might cause offence.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Out of respect for you, Deputy Speaker, why don't I do one better than that and withdraw and do something that the opposition member wasn't prepared to do.

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

I really appreciate that, and the House appreciates it, too.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The point I'm making is that we will start to take the shadow Treasurer seriously when his own colleagues do and give him a question, and there is absolutely no sign of that.

We know why there's been a sole focus from those opposite on trying to divide our community and diminish our country. It's because they're trying to distract from the fact that we are in the third year of a parliamentary term and we still haven't heard one costed or credible policy on the economy or the cost of living from those opposite. This is quite an extraordinary thing: the third year of a three-year parliamentary term and not one idea about fighting inflation nor one policy for the cost of living.

I think the thing people are starting to cotton on to, in terms of the silence of those opposite on the economy and their motives for that, is that the shadow Treasurer and the shadow minister for finance have both said there is $315 billion too much spending in our budget, and the logical conclusion from that is that they will cut $315 billion from the budget. So they need to come clean on what their $315 billion in secret cuts means for Medicare and what it means for pensions. One of the reasons for that spending is the indexation of the pension. We wrongly assumed it was a bipartisan position that the pension be indexed to keep up with the cost of living, but we will assume that no more, because they have said that indexing the pension or investing in Medicare or spending on the PBS is, in their words, 'wasteful spending'. So let's have no more delays when it comes to those opposite and their $315 billion in secret cuts. Let's hear where the axe will fall, and let's hear what it means for Medicare and pensions and for the economy more broadly.

The other thing that this whole confected, divisive outrage has been all about this week is that in their heart of hearts, if those opposite know that people are under pressure, they want more inflation. They want higher interest rates. They want higher unemployment. They want a more divided community. In the absence of any compelling or costed or credible policies, they think their best way to sneak back into office is through the back door. They think that, if inflation is higher and interest rates are higher and people are under more pressure, those opposite will profit from that politically, and they should be ashamed of themselves for taking that view.

We take a completely different view. We don't pretend for one second that all the challenges in our economy have been solved. We acknowledge that people are still under pressure, but we know that inflation had a six in front of it when we came to office and it's got a three in front of it now. Under Prime Minister Albanese, we've created almost a million jobs, and that's never happened before in a parliamentary term. We know that real wages are growing again. They were falling under those opposite. We know that nominal wages growth is almost double what we saw in their wasted decade of deliberate wage stagnation and wage suppression. We know that tax cuts are rolling out for every taxpayer. Those opposite wanted tax cuts for only some taxpayers; they wanted tax cuts only for people who were already doing relatively well in comparison to others. We also know that in a little over two years in office we have turned two enormous Liberal deficits into two big Labor surpluses, and the Reserve Bank governor has said that that is helping in the fight against inflation.

So, whether it's our responsible economic management, whether it's our cost-of-living relief—which is meaningful and substantial but designed in the most responsible way—whether it's our investments in the future, whether it's paying super on PPL or whether it's all the other things we've been working on this week, the contrast could not be clearer: a Labor side of this parliament who cares deeply about and understand the pressures on people and is responding with real and responsible policy versus an opposition that could not care less about the pressures people are under. They are horrendously out of touch. They would rather start another culture war than finish the fight against inflation, and every question time this week has made that clear.

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

I think Driving Miss Daisy is starting to weigh heavily on the Treasurer, because that was one of the flattest things that I've seen for a long time.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

No, it wasn't, and it goes to show who's got the glass jaw around this place. Go and pick up the shards as you're going out!

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

Member for Wannon, direct your comments to me in order to stop causing this slanging match and offence. Every speaker has had a point of order raised on offence; I'd like it to stop.

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

It was telling today that the last question of question time from our side went to the Prime Minister was about a character test. Sadly, this week we have seen the Prime Minister's character put to test. He has been asked question after question after question on very serious national security issues, and he has failed to fully answer any of them. After three days of questioning, we got a partial answer to a figure which had already been reported on the Channel 7 news. We got that out of the Prime Minister, but that was it. The Australian people are feeling like they're being treated with contempt. They have no trust when it comes to national security and this government, especially when it comes to immigration, because they have seen, time and time again, the government fail them. That is why they are looking at the Prime Minister and saying, 'Please, for once, give us a straight answer.' Time and time again, the Prime Minister continues to fail them.

We even had the absurd status where the Prime Minister said he couldn't talk because it was similar to on-water matters. Yet as Channel 7 pointed out in their news report, this was something that the Prime Minister rallied against. He said: 'We cannot have that. We need to make sure the questions are answered in the parliament.' The new immigration minister, when these issues were raised, came into this place and said the parliament deserves answers, yet what have we heard this week? Nothing but a cone of silence. We have seen the Prime Minister duck and weave like an Australian batsman facing the West Indies fast bowlers when they were at their best—duck and weave, duck and weave, duck and weave.

Today, we saw this on display, sadly, with the last two questions. I want to repeat these questions—they were asked by the member for Berowra. He asked them to the Prime Minister:

On 7 October, Hamas terrorists went into small Israeli farming villages and a music festival, where they filmed themselves gleefully murdering children, raping women and mutilating their victims, including after death. Thirteen hundred innocent people were [hunted] down and murdered for sport and 251 hostages were forced at gunpoint into Hamas … tunnels under Gaza. On return, thousands of people were dancing in the street in celebration. Does supporting Hamas pass the character test for an Australian visa?

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

I'm going to stop you right there. This was dealt with during question time. You cannot repeat the offence. The Speaker spent some considerable time explaining to the House—and we were all present—about questions with improper motives. I ask you to withdraw that, and you can move along. You are absolutely able to quote questions, but you are not to include those matters that were ruled out of order in question time.

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

Deputy Speaker, with respect, the member for Berowra asked those two questions and he wasn't asked to withdraw those two.

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

There was a long debate in this House about improper motives being assigned to members during questions.

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

I ask you to check the record.

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

Well, I am asking you to withdraw it.

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

Okay, I will withdraw for the benefit of the House.

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

Thank you very much.

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a boring predictability to the cycle—the cravenly politically motivated cycle—of the focus of the Liberal Party. It happens parliament after parliament and year after year. For those playing at home who aren't aware: shocking as it might be to those who sat through the Leader of the Opposition's contribution and the member for Wannon's contribution, this debate, as it's listed in the papers of the parliament, is about Australia's economy. It is supposed to go to the challenges facing Australian households and people across our communities in regard to the cost of living. Fundamentally, that's what this debate is supposed to be about.

We heard the Treasurer speak entirely about the efforts that the Albanese Labor government has gone to, the policies that our government has implemented, and some of the successes that we've realised and those that we still aim to realise in regard to assisting and helping Australian households and people all across our community deal with the cost-of-living challenge and keeping our economy very, very strong. What we know absolutely, clearly and transparently is that the Liberal Party have no interest in speaking about the Australian economy. They have no interest in dealing with the cost-of-living challenge that this government—our government, the Labor government—has a relentless focus on addressing. In fact, all that the opposition leader and the Liberal Party want to talk about are foreign policy matters that are, in effect, a cloaking device for the dog whistle that we all saw coming.

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

Member for Hawke, before the member for Moncrieff rises to her feet on a point of order I'm going to ask you not to continue to use that word.

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, Deputy Speaker. Thank you. I don't need to use any particular words, because the Australian people can see right through this pathetic and cynical approach that the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party are so desperate to pursue, because ultimately they know that, when the Labor government are delivering for the Australian people, working tirelessly to address these cost-of-living challenges and, indeed, maintaining a strong and robust economy now and into the future, their political fortunes are entirely tied to their ability to drive fear and division in our communities.

I want to talk about the matter that this debate is supposed to focus on: the Australian economy, keeping the Australian economy strong and robust, and ensuring that it delivers for working people all across our nation. We inherited an economy that the Liberal Party had trashed. They had inflation running above six per cent. They had racked up a trillion dollars of Liberal debt, and they had nothing to show for it; it hadn't been invested wisely in order to continue to serve the community and build the economic structures that were required for the future. They had racked up a trillion dollars of Liberal debt, ploughing it into niche, partisan political pursuits that in no way benefited either the taxpayers or the broader Australian community. Of course, what we know is that that mismanagement on their part began the process of interest rates rises that we then saw.

Our government has more than halved that inflation rate, and we have done what the Liberal Party could not do in their decade of government: we have delivered not just one but two budget surpluses that are contributing to the disinflationary environment that the Reserve Bank governor has explicitly referred to. The Australian economy is in a very strong and robust position. Households have been doing it tough, but there is light at the end of the tunnel, and our government will continue to prosecute households' interests relentlessly. (Time expired)

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reject the comments from the member for Hawke and also his imputations about the coalition. I want to look at the sad story of this government's record when it comes to failing to keep Australians safe and failing dismally to manage the economy, the two things that right now actually matter most to Australians, who are in a cost-of-living crisis and are worried about their personal safety and their family needs. Those opposite should perhaps open their uni textbooks and look up Maslow's hierarchy of needs. No. 2 is safety. No. 1 is a roof over your head and enough to eat, or enough money to be able to provide those.

The only things that this government is actually strong on are weakness and incompetence when it comes to managing immigration and the economy. We know that the government's first responsibility to individual Australians, to the general public and to our nation really is to keep citizens safe in our own country—national security. Under the former immigration minister, the Prime Minister's mate who was unceremoniously booted to a portfolio with less stress following the NZYQ High Court decision, the Albanese government released 178 detainees from detention. In that cohort were seven murderers, 37 sex offenders and 72 violent offenders. The former immigration minister and the former home affairs minister—who was also booted to a less stressful portfolio, one a bit less susceptible to blunders of national security significance—didn't have a plan B when that NZYQ decision by the High Court occurred. They weren't ready to protect Australians from the criminals that they let out.

The ministerial submissions released under the FOI laws and published by the Australian confirm that Labor had released detainees with no visa and therefore no safeguards such as reporting conditions or monitoring devices. That should be frightening. It should be ringing alarm bells for Australians. Former minister Giles then misled the parliament on 15 November, 2023, when he said during question time:

I can confirm that all of those individuals required to be released as a result of the decision of the High Court are on bridging visas with appropriate conditions.

So the Prime Minister proceeded with reshuffling his ministers, and now we have the member for Watson, who has four portfolios, including home affairs and immigration. I'm sure members opposite will have a great time on that particular point that I just made, but think back to the last time the member for Watson was the immigration minister, in 2013, when 83 asylum seeker boats arrived in 80 days. That's a pretty good strike rate if you're in sales, but it's not a very good strike rate if you are in immigration, so let's see what will happen on his watch.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Interjections, Deputy Speaker. Constant interjections, Deputy Speaker.

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

Well—

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now, Australia is a generous nation with a big heart, and we punch above our weight when it comes to supporting refugees. We have a history of supporting refugees from other conflict zones—those 12,000 from Syria, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, and those from Afghanistan—but this government has issued almost 3,000 visas to people from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but we do not know how many people were subject to a clearance from our security agencies. In contrast, the UK granted 168 protection visas, 153 temporary residence visas have been approved by New Zealand, and the US has accepted 17, so these countries have been more cautious as to who they let in and the time that they take to do that. It is not so with this government.

It's not about racism, as the member for Warringah shamelessly said in this chamber. This is about averting a public safety disaster should the proper processing steps not be followed by this government. Face-to-face interviews by Australian officials in neighbouring countries like Jordan, as we did in the Syrian crisis, would be acceptable.

I haven't got a lot of time left to talk about the failure of this government on the economy, but Australians know. They are hurting. They can't pay their bills. I would ask them to look back to before the last election, think about the promises that were made to them that life would be easier and ask themselves the question: is it?

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

Just before the member for Paterson gets the call, I'm just going to remind the member for Page that, if you had wanted to raise a point of order, you would have had to stop the member for Moncrieff and seek the call, and we would have had a discussion. What you did was disorderly. I ask everyone to try and be respectful in this debate.

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

We live in times of great global uncertainty. Although the Albanese government is unable to control global economic issues and events, we can control how we respond to them. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite, we aren't seeking to frighten the Australian population. We aren't seeking to divide Australians. We are seeking to lift them up. We are seeking to take the pressure off. We are giving every Australian taxpayer a tax cut. We have increased the wages for many tens of thousands of Australians, putting more money into their pay packets every week. We have cut a trillion dollars of debt. We have delivered two surpluses off the back of almost a decade of waste and deficits.

We have not treated the Australian people as mugs, and we certainly did not have mugs made to celebrate our surpluses. We have determinedly, calmly and sensibly, under the leadership of Anthony Albanese and his cabinet, charted a path for Australians that sees their lives measurably better. As the Treasurer ably pointed out today, we had inflation with a six in front of it when we took control of our economy and the Treasury coffers. That inflation now has a three in front of it. As a government, we don't completely control inflation—a little bit like global events—but our Treasurer has worked tirelessly with business leaders and with people who do have a good understanding of the economics of our nation to bring down that figure. That's what Australians care about, because that's what impacts their mortgages. That's what impacts the pressure that they have to withstand day to day in their lives.

Let's be frank. The previous government left us with a massive train wreck to clean up. The Albanese government isn't satisfied with just patching up the holes. We plan to fix up this mess properly. Whilst in government, we've delivered for the Australian people, as governments should do. We have released policy after policy that makes a difference. We aren't claiming that it's easy at the moment but we are saying that we are putting in place concrete policies that make a difference.

In my electorate of Paterson, 75,000 hardworking, taxpaying Australians will pay less tax under the Labor government, and that means something. That's measurable, and people can see it. We've delivered bill relief for every Australian household by way of our energy assistance. We have frozen the cost of the PBS. That's medicine that's coming to every Australian for less cost. That's important, because people value of their health in my electorate.

We have given a third consecutive pay rise to millions of Australians. We have expanded bulk billing and we have made child care cheaper whilst paying properly those people who educate our children and who do care for them, which is so important. We have delivered fee-free TAFE. We have cut billions in student debt for those people who are going to university. We are planning for a future made in Australia. We want to make things here. We want people to be well paid. We have a course that has been thought through and is being sensibly charted. We are not seeking to divide the Australian people and put fear in their hearts. We are leading them.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this place we all agree—or, at least, I think we all agree—that the No. 1 responsibility of government is to keep its citizens safe. I have now lost count of the number of times this Albanese government has failed in its most primary responsibility through its fundamental failure to carefully manage Australian's immigration system. This week it has been laid bare that no robust vetting processes were applied to the 2,922 tourist visas issued to people coming from Gaza. Of the 1,300 who have used their visa to come to Australia, despite persistent questioning this week, we do not know how many of these tourists were required to undertake face-to-face interviews or subjected to biometric testing to make sure that we were not bringing into Australia anyone who was involved in the 7 October attacks, anyone who participated in the ransacking or looting which followed, anyone who supported or housed terrorists or weapons or anyone who in any other way supported the extremists or terrorism sympathisers.

The ability to live in Australia is the most precious of privileges. We are a free, democratic, liberal, pluralistic and tolerant society. Like all of us in this place, I get to attend citizenship ceremonies. They are instances of the purest joy as we recognise and thank those who have left their homes to create prosperous, productive lives for their families in this beautiful country. Australia's immigration system gives us in this place the right to decide who comes to Australia and the circumstances in which they come, and that places on our shoulders the responsibility of guarding Australia's borders and looking after her people.

Those opposite seem to care none for that responsibility. The granting of visas without the necessary rigor undermines trust in our migration system. The issuance of tourist visas en masse, knowing full well that the recipients of them were unlikely to go home, mocks the sacrifice and endeavour of every immigrant who has come to this country. This week we learned almost 3,000 visas have been granted, most in less than 24 hours. Tens of questions to the Prime Minister this week have not revealed whether any security checks had been done before their issuance. Those opposite have argued that this is the same system as every other time we have brought people here from a war zone. Really? The humanitarian visas granted to Syrians in 2017 involved biometric tests, face-to-face interviews in third-party countries where necessary and crosschecking with US intelligence datasets. At the moment, Australia is unique in its willingness to hand over visas, ones usually provided to tourists coming here for a holiday, to people from a war zone currently controlled by a terrorist group. It is worth noting, once again, how cautious our key intelligence partners have been. Canada has issued 254 visas, the United Kingdom has issued 168, New Zealand has issued 153 and the USA has issued just 17. Even France, which has a long history of working with the people of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, has allowed only 260 entries from Gaza.

Gaza is a war zone. Its ruling authority, terrorist organisation Hamas, undertook the most devastating slaughter of 1,200 Jewish and Arab Israelis on 7 October. It was the greatest massacre of Jewish people since the Second World War. It is not a war like others, in which professional soldiers fight professional soldiers. As my friend the member for Berowra said in his question to the Prime Minister today, where he described some of what happened on that day, on October 7, Hamas terrorists went into small Israeli farming villages and a music festival, where they filmed themselves gleefully murdering children, raping women and mutilating their victims, including after death. Thirteen hundred innocent people were hunted down and murdered for sport, and 251 hostages were forced at gunpoint into Hamas tunnels under Gaza. On their return, thousands of people were dancing in the street in celebration.

This was an attack of abject horror, with no respect for human life, human dignity or, indeed, humanity. The acts of the terrorists were disgusting, repulsive actions of unimaginable horror executed against those who until then had lived in relative harmony with their Gazan neighbours. The Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research's June poll of this year showed so much support for Hamas's October 7 attacks, and with this level of support we must ask more questions about who comes here.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I start, I want to talk about the hypocrisy of the opposition. Some of us on this side remember the Tampa. I certainly remember the Minasa Bone and other boats that came in through the Tiwi Islands and the shambolic way in which the Liberal minister dealt with those issues at that time. Part of that was to excise all of the waters in the Top End or around the coast from classification as Australian.

On this side, Labor has worked hard to help Australians with the cost of living. That's what we want to know about. We fight for and care for everyday Australians with regard to the cost of living. We know there is still more to do, particularly in regional and remote Northern Territory, my electorate, with tax cuts and energy rebates. A lot of students are in regional Northern Territory, and wiping student debts is really important. The Labor budget is delivering cost-of-living relief for every Australian, particularly including my constituents in Lingiari. Cost of living continues to be a major concern for us in the Territory, particularly across my electorate of Lingiari.

From 1 July, Labor delivered a tax cut, and it's been great getting around the electorate and talking to people who have done their tax returns and who will be getting some money back from doing their tax. People living in my area of regional and remote Lingiari are no different from others who are looking forward to some of that cost-of-living relief. There are 43,000 taxpayers in Lingiari, enjoying an average tax cut of around $1,621. It doesn't matter who you are or what you earn; every taxpayer will pay less tax.

On the cost of living, my constituents are feeling pressure from higher global energy prices. From 1 July, we're delivering $300 of energy bill relief for every Australian household, including my residents in Lingiari. We're also providing small business with energy relief of $325, which is good for local business and local consumers. Labor is putting small business at the centre of future growth of our economy by extending for a further 12 months the $20,000 instant asset write-off and talking to a lot of small businesses. They are certainly looking forward to that. On paid parental leave, we are talking to a lot of new parents—particularly women. They are certainly happy with the 26 weeks of paid parental leave with super now included. In the six months before the last election, the financial viability of general practice was in serious trouble. In terms of GP visits being bulk-billed, in my electorate of the Northern Territory, bulk-billing has increased by 4.8 per cent. That's thanks to Labor's investment in strengthening Medicare.

We have also seen with the urgent care clinic—with residents in my electorate of Lingiari and particularly in Alice Springs—10,700 visits to Mparntwe and the Palmerston Medicare urgent care clinics. They have been fantastic clinics that have been established. It certainly takes the burden and eases that burden in terms of accident and emergency. Labor's cost-of-living measures are making a real difference to everyday Australians and particularly to those residents who are doing it tough in my electorate of Lingiari. Our cost-of-living measures are part of Labor's long-term economic plan, helping all Australians right now, and working to bring down inflation and planning a future made in Australia, which is also important for my electorate of Lingiari.

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

In this matter of public importance, I would like to begin by referring to the wording of the topic and the order of the words chosen. It says:

This government's failure to keep Australians safe and the economy strong.

It is put in that order because that is the order of priority. Of course Australians are suffering throughout this country and the cost of living is chief amongst them, and a very close second is housing. But we put 'keeping Australians safe' first because that is the fundamental duty of government. To follow on from my friend, the member for Flinders, who referred to the specific incidents and the specific crimes that occurred on 7 October, it is more than just keeping Australians safe. It is about keeping children safe. The people who prosecuted that attack on that day attacked teenagers at a concert, children in their homes and babies in their cots. This isn't some isolated part of the world that has no connection to us. You only have to open a newspaper to see that concerts run by Taylor Swift get cancelled because of a fear of teenagers being killed and attacked. So when we turn our mind to keeping Australians safe, let's not forget what is at stake. It is everything. What we have seen in the last two weeks has been a race to the gutter not only by the crossbench but by the government. When we have asked proper questions about that crucial topic, some have used the word 'racist', but then others have used euphemisms like 'divide' and 'fear' as if that's okay and that they're not hinting at the very same thing.

I rise here as a migrant to this nation and as someone who is only alive because of the courage of people of Muslim faith who saved my life. I never forget that. I acknowledge their contributions in saving many Australians' lives in the war in Afghanistan and in other wars. There would be many more names on that war memorial, and I would count my own amongst them. When we ask questions like this and the allegation is thrown out that we're doing it as some sort of discrimination against Palestinians or Muslims, I totally reject that and I totally reject that any of my colleagues think otherwise. Think about what you are saying. You are saying, if that is true, that a huge percentage of the House of Representatives are people of such bad character that they think that poorly of people of a dominant faith in this country. It cannot be true, you know it's not true and it shouldn't be prosecuted that way.

In my experiences in a conflict zone, I also know this to be true: we hear of the fog of war and many think of the fog of war as that moment when there's incomplete information and a particular person has their fight or flight system kick in—their mouth is dry, their heart is racing—because they don't know what is happening in all of the chaos that is in war. But the fog of war applies to information too. Again and again we had on-the-ground missions confirm that the intelligence we were given was wrong. It happened all the time. I noticed it when I had the experience as someone who worked in a headquarters and then became a platoon commander. Getting on the ground and looking people in the eye is the only form of intelligence and information that you can rely on. Yet what we have seen from this government is a cavalier attitude to that process—a complete dismissal of it. We've had the Treasurer and many others get up and say, 'Well, why aren't you asking questions about the cost of living?' The government didn't answer the questions that we put to them. In fact, there was a bristling that we dared even ask them.

Let's go to some of the questions. I asked about the cancellation of visas. The Prime Minister talked about a journalist and said only that any cancellations were offshore. I asked about visa security vetting, and he talked about robodebt. Asked if he was making Australia less safe, he talked about Sir Robert Menzies. Asked about face-to-face interviews and biometric testing—again, the only vetting that matters—the Prime Minister talked about the coalition. And today, when asked about what the state police and Federal Police have told him, what did he reply? He talked about nominations for councils in New South Wales.

David Smith (Bean, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Peter principle is a concept in management which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to a level of respective incompetence. Employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent. It's hard to find a better example of people embodying the Peter principle than in a week where the opposition have vacated the field on the economy and thought that undermining social cohesion and the work of national security agencies is talking tough. All it's shown the Australian people is their true character. They're not turning up on the issues that matter and are obsessed with the politics of division.

The Albanese Labor government will always show up, take responsibility and bring people together to find solutions to the problems facing Australia. We know Australians are doing it tough right now. That's why we're doing everything we can to help with the cost of living without adding pressure to inflation. That's why we are relieving cost-of-living pressures with cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, strengthened paid parental leave and fee-free TAFE. That's why we're investing record amounts into Medicare and bulk-billing. And that's why we're building new homes, investing in affordable housing and making renting fairer. Already we have seen bulk-billing rates across Canberra increase by 5.6 per cent, equating to an additional 17,417 bulk-billed GP visits.

We are creating a record number of jobs in Australia, ensuring that workers in critical sectors receive increased wages. This includes 2.6 million Australians who are receiving real wages growth due to proper increases in the minimum wage and, as recently announced, the 15 per cent wage increase for early childhood education and care workers. People in these sectors are vital workers in the Australian community and economy. And all Australian workers are benefiting from the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts, which ensure that every taxpayer pays less tax. Of the 82,000 people in Bean, every single taxpayer received this tax cut. We are ensuring that Australians are earning more and keeping more of what they earn. This morning the member for Kingston was in this chamber moving vital amendments for paid parental leave and superannuation, ensuring that Australians are earning more and keeping more of what they earn in the immediate future but also ensuring that they're set up for the future and have security in retirement.

For much of this week, we've been discussing a future made in Australia and the opportunities this presents for the Australian people and economy. We are taking actions to ensure that Australia is an active participant and player in a rapidly changing global marketplace by driving investment in new industries and encouraging the creation of secure jobs. We are giving the Australian people and Australian businesses every opportunity to thrive, while those opposite, through a nuclear haze, can't refrain from talking Australian manufacturing down. Just earlier this afternoon, we were discussing the Universities Accord and our work to reform the HECS-HELP system to ensure that Australians of all backgrounds can access higher education. It's key to our future prosperity and to ensuring that debts are not allowed to balloon to levels that place higher education out of reach. These are the actions the Albanese Labor government is taking to ensure Australians are supported. Where was the opposition when these meaningful actions were being taken? They were doing what they always do—saying no. I think the Prime Minister summed it up best yesterday: nastiness is not strength, and it can't disguise an opposition that embodies the Peter principle.

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

The discussion has concluded.