Jenny Macklin's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Valedictory | Parliamentary Representation | House debates
Breathe deeply? Okay! There is Tanya, of course. I can't say anymore. She's a lot younger than me, that's why it's an unlikely friendship. And there is my friend Wayne, from the Queensland Right....
Breathe deeply? Okay! There is Tanya, of course. I can't say anymore. She's a lot younger than me, that's why it's an unlikely friendship. And there is my friend Wayne, from the Queensland Right. You could say it's practically another planet! But I am originally a Queenslander, so that must be it. They are both so special to me, and I thank them. Anthony Albanese—oh dear, this is hard!—has always had my back. Always—for 23 years. That's not a bad innings, Anthony. Linda Burney has the biggest heart. There is Tony Burke, the Leader of Opposition Business—I just can't get off the tactics committee! As well as our leaders, it's our whips who keep us all together. Chris Hayes, it's true, is a gentleman of politics. Frankly, his only failing of leadership has been his decision to appoint me as captain of our parliamentary swimming team! In all this time, we've only beaten the coalition swimmers once, and that's only thanks to Matt Thistlethwaite, and we've never beaten the parliamentary press gallery team. I think they're all a lot younger. An honourable member: Not you, Dennis! He's not in the team! On a serious note, Chris and I have spent many hours with our arms around our colleagues when they needed our professional and personal support. That is something that people don't see. There are so many things here that people don't see. There have been many Speakers in my time here, and a few unusual ones. Mr Speaker, it would probably be unparliamentary to tell too many stories about them. I will just say to you, Mr Speaker, thank you for your patience. I know that I can be cheeky or noisy. I think you have done a wonderful job for this parliament, so I want to say to you, and to all the staff of the parliament—and particularly to you, David—all the very best for the future. My dozens and dozens of personal staff that I've had over the years have been renowned for their kindness, their brilliance, their commitment to Labor values and their incredible fertility. Everybody knows I love children, and I have to say it has been such a joy to welcome so many Macklin office babies over the years. You cannot do anything without great staff. My electorate office has been led for so long by the wonderful Antony Kenney and, before him, Vicki Ward. Thanks so much to Lachlan, Ann, Katelyn, Emily and Mitch. In my ministerial office, I can't mention all of the wonderful staff, but just the chiefs of staff: Joanna Brent, Ryan Batchelor and Corri McKenzie. They have just been so outstanding in their contributions to our country. I particularly want to thank Mike Dillon. Thanks to the young ones—I still call them the young ones—Gerard and Max. In my office in opposition, thanks to Alistair, Alice, Catherine, Alicia and Tim. Thanks to all the public servants—whom I won't name because it might get them into trouble—and advocates. Without the public servants and the advocates, you cannot deliver big reform. Like all MPs, I think it's true, we love our communities that we represent. I certainly do. I love the sporting clubs, the historical societies, the groups that look after the rivers and the creeks, the volunteers who sit with the sick and the lonely, the wonderful Somali community and my branch members, who are so dedicated, passionate and supportive. If there can be such a thing, I am the No. 1 ticket holder for the Austin and Repatriation Hospitals, having saved them from Jeff Kennett trying to sell them off. The Banyule Community Health Centre, one of the first Whitlam community health centres, is just the best. I just want to say to all of my constituents that it has been the greatest privilege to support you, stand with you and serve you. Thank you to my neighbours in the parliament and at home in Melbourne, Andrew Giles and Ged Kearney. I also just want to say something to those opposite. It doesn't happen often, but when we do find a common cause, it's important and very impactful. What an amazing day it was when we all voted together for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Now for the hard part—this has been easy so far—my family. The hardest thing about political life has been the time I've missed with my children. There you go, I got it out! But here they are, the three of them, all grown up into the most delightful adults: Josie, Louis and Serge. We're so proud of each of you. And now we're joined by Julia, Laura and, of course, top of the pops, our granddaughter Camille. Another is to be born in a few weeks. We are so lucky. I recall being in a cabinet meeting, only to be called out by one of the boys when they couldn't find their football boots. Of course, whatever I was doing was irrelevant; they needed their boots. But they didn't like it when people were in the news being mean to their mum. When I was the shadow minister for health, I was in a serious scrap with Michael Wooldridge, the health minister at the time. Some of you may remember the scan scam. This was happening at the same time as the debate over the introduction of the GST. Mr Wooldridge kindly suggested the only time I'd have to pay the GST on Panadol was when I had my tattoos removed. The children were not impressed. Although, after this, an older Liberal gentleman approached me in the chamber to say, 'We know a nice girl like you wouldn't have a tattoo.' In typical Labor form, one of our Labor colleagues—not here today—followed him by shouting, 'Show us your tatts!' Nothing, absolutely nothing at all, would have been possible without Ross. It has been a great gift, the 40 years of love and friendship, and it would be impossible for me to say what that means to me. Thank you so much. I've been lucky to have been sustained by the companionship of Canberra friends, some of whom are here today—especially the so kind Julia Ryan—and also by the patience of our Melbourne friends. I do want to particularly thank those people who helped us when Ross was sick and also when the children were doing year 12—I think they mostly fed them. My thanks also to my parents and sister, who have been an endless source of love and support. I don't like to reflect on it much as I am aware I'm getting older, first and foremost, because I'm a grandmother, and secondly because of the pride I feel in all of you, this amazing new generation of Labor MPs. When I first came into Parliament, there were only four Labor women in the House—four, can you imagine? Now we are on the cusp of 50-50 representation and so much stronger for it—quotas work. I'm excited for this generation and excited that you'll be joined, I hope, by Kate Thwaites as the new member for Jagajaga. I was fortunate to have her working for me as we delivered paid parental leave and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. She knows how to think big and get the big things done and she's a mum so she knows how to multi-task. My first vote was in 1974 for Gough and for Labor. I couldn't vote in the 1972 because 18-year-olds weren't allowed to vote back then; though of course Gough would change that. But I do remember being swept up in the energy and urgency of that election, the infectious feeling that change was finally coming. Gough said, 'It's time,' and it was. And now 'it's time' for me—time to move on, time to step back, time for this wonderful new generation of brilliant people to make their impact, as I know you will. There is nothing wrong with having a big heart in politics—maybe don't sob as much. Seriously, there is nothing wrong at all with a big heart. There are people who really depend us, who really need us. So heed the words of Martin Luther King: Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anaemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love. Thank you.
Those of you who do know me very well know that the hardest thing about delivering this speech will be whether I make it through. Over 23 years in this place, I have, it's true, quietly, or not...
Those of you who do know me very well know that the hardest thing about delivering this speech will be whether I make it through. Over 23 years in this place, I have, it's true, quietly, or not so quietly, sobbed as good friends have said their farewells. God. You see? Who am I going to miss the most? Well, now it's time for mine. It's true I don't like talking about myself but I hope you will all permit me to say a few personal things and, of course, many thank yous. I do want to talk about some things I've been thinking about—our party, our parliament, our country, and its future. First, I want to acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, who are the traditional custodians of the Canberra area, and I pay respects to the elders past and present of all Australia's Indigenous peoples. These are the words the Speaker uses to start every sitting day. When I was first elected, all that time ago, we didn't do that. We do now. Back then, we hadn't said sorry to the Stolen Generation, and the disadvantage gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians was a gulf. A lot has changed but too much has not. The shameful historical treatment, the present disadvantage and injustices should make us determined do more and do better with our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens. And please, please, let us not go back to the false dichotomy between practical and symbolic change in Indigenous affairs. A good education is vital as are health care, housing and employment but so is pride in yourself, power over your own life, a sense of belonging and respect, and that's what the voice to parliament is all about—our First Australians being heard, being included, being respected. This could be a powerful unifying new institution for our country, something all of us can be proud of, so let's get on with it. I do very much hope that this fabulous new generation of parliamentarians sitting here today will do just that. You, all of you, are the custodians of our democracy now, and our democracy really must be nurtured. In my first speech, I spoke about citizenship. I said it wasn't just about: … having a vote or holding a passport. It means being able to share in the life of the community. It means enjoying a certain level of security. It means belonging. The truth is that we all need each other. We need to look out for each other, protect each other and protect the institutions that bind us together. There are some things in life we should all be able to rely on. We all deserve to know that no matter what—old or young, city or bush, rich or poor—we will be able to lead good, meaningful lives that are full of purpose; that Australians everywhere can afford to see a doctor; that the children I have met in Fitzroy Crossing get the same chance at a great education as children in Melbourne; that pensioners in my Heidelberg West can have dignity and security in retirement, just like everyone else; and that my children's generation can fulfil the dream of home ownership. Each of us is subject to the twists and turns of fate. Our social safety net is there to protect everyone, and everyone deserves the security of knowing it's there when they need it. If these fundamentals of Australian life break down or only exist for the better off, then our social fabric breaks down. The same goes for our national institutions. Canberra can seem a world away for someone trying to raise a family or find a job, as they turn on their TV sets on to see politicians talking about nothing else but themselves. Australians are losing faith. They don't trust the institutions and systems that they are told are there to provide for them and protect them, and why would they? What splashed across the front pages during the Royal Commission in to Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry reinforced what many people had long suspected: that the system is rigged; that the powerful people can do what they want and take what they want, and nothing will change; and that there is one Australia for a few and another Australia for the rest. I do fear something has shifted in our national psyche in these past few years. There is a disconnect—in fact, a giant chasm—between the lives that most Australians are leading and the priorities of the institutions and people who are meant to be serving them. But I fear more for the reckoning it seems to be heralding. It is bad enough for Australians to lose faith in us; it is worse still if they give up on us. We cannot allow this to happen. Our people are too important and what we have all built is too precious to let it all crumble. I believe there is a common cause to the divisions and exclusions that exist in our society. It is inequality, and it is dragging us down. It is the wealth gap between the top and the rest. It is the disadvantage gap between the First Australians and the rest of us. It is the opportunity gap between young Australians and the rest of us. It is something less tangible and less recognisable, but more pervasive and punishing: it is the poverty of hope that inequality breeds. Inequality in all its forms is the driving force behind the divisions in our society and confronting inequality, wherever it is found, has been my motivation for a career in public policy, because tackling inequality needs government—a government that believes in creating opportunity. I came to this place knowing that government matters, but I leave here more sure of that than ever. When I was studying economics at university—it was a long time ago—they taught us about Adam Smith's invisible hand. When I was a young policy researcher, Margaret Thatcher was telling the Brits: … there is no such thing as society. I thought it was a load of nonsense back then, and I haven't changed my mind. Government matters. Good government matters, and good governments are active governments—activist governments. They protect. They empower. Only government can put the rules in place to stop the gross abuse by the powerful and corrupted. Only governments can create something like Medicare or the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the essential supports that are there for all of us. Good, active governments need leaders prepared to make big decisions and people prepared to do the detailed policy work and the advocacy. That's what I've tried to do here, and we did do some good. We delivered the single biggest increase to the pension in its history, lifting one million older Australians out of poverty. We delivered the first national Paid Parental Leave Scheme, enshrining the economic and social value of working parents, particularly working women. We introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the biggest social reform of our generation, giving people with disability the equal place in society that they deserve but had been denied. We also secured the largest funding increase for housing in remote Indigenous communities. As I've reflected on these achievements in recent weeks, it's certainly clear there is no finish line for us progressives—no distant point in the future when we can say that our job is done. The social democratic task, building an economy where everyone can contribute and everyone can share in its growth, is a perpetual task. I do have enormous faith that the next Labor government will be a progressive, reforming Labor government in the best of our traditions. Bill and Tanya's leadership, and their partnership, has defined this period of opposition—I can't look at Tanya; you're definitely right about that, Wayne! Their unity of purpose and policy focus means Labor is ready to take up the task, ready to rebuild the safety net that's been cut, ready to restore the trust that's been lost and ready to return fairness to the centre of economic and social policy. As ever, this will require hard work and tough choices. I have to say, I think of one person when I say those words: Penny Wong's leadership in the Senate personifies this approach. I think all of us come here a little naive—I certainly did—and not aware of how much we'll be tested and how often we'll have to grapple with competing priorities. I see the member for Curtin opposite me. She and I have shared a lot of instability in our parliamentary careers that I don't think we anticipated when we first came in. We all have very high hopes of what we can achieve, but each of us is confronted with very difficult decisions about what we will or won't say, what we will or won't do and how our words and actions could heal or hurt. The evidence before us, public opinion, our relationships, party loyalty and personal morality all influences us. I remember the first time I was confronted with something like this, an issue where I had to stand up for what I believed. It was the fight over overseas aid that supported the reproductive rights of women. I had actually only been here a few weeks. Maybe it was a bit too soon to be disagreeing with the wonderful Kim Beazley, but so it was. There have been many, many more of these difficult decisions since, particularly on the Expenditure Review Committee where you have to weigh the value of spending money on one group of people or another. But this is why we're here. We are brought here to make these hard decisions. It doesn't mean we always get it right—we don't—but the public will understand us more and respect us more if they know how we make these decisions and know about the choices that they involve. It's also sometimes the case that the big decisions aren't so big after all. They're not so hard, after all, when their time has come. Think of the Apology. For all those years it was resisted, compounding the hurt. But in the moment, when Kevin finally spoke for all of us, and I mean all of us, and said that one word—sorry—it seemed so simple, so easy. Why did it take so long? It needed leadership. And so it was for the royal commission into institutional child sexual abuse. It was so important for so many people who had been abused and not believed. Yet I remember that one prominent commentator at the time referred to Julia's decision to hold a Royal Commission as 'gesture politics'. Of course, no one would say that now. I am so honoured to have been involved in delivering on these two huge decisions, and honoured to have come to know and love so many of the stolen generations and their families, and the people that we now know as the forgotten Australians. These have been moments to treasure. There are many other memories and special moments that I'll take with me—far too many to mention, but I just want to touch on a few: welcoming the Japanese Prime Minister with a haiku poem in Japanese; getting a hug from Nelson Mandela—beat that; sitting in the cabinet room on the Sunday when the global financial system was collapsing, with Kevin and a few others, and Wayne was on the phone from the United States as we decided the plan to save Australians from mass unemployment; singing Stand by Me with an Aboriginal friend whose two brothers had committed suicide, as Bill would know; being with the communities affected by the Black Saturday bushfires, as they walked through the wreckage of where their homes used to stand; standing arm in arm with families as Julia announced we would begin the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and, one of my favourites, hugging a mum whose child with autism had just learned to speak as he sang Baa Baa Black Sheep. I've given and received a lot of hugs! And I've made so many wonderful friends—all of you. I will miss the camaraderie. I do wish I could mention you all. We're brought together from so many different parts of the country, with different backgrounds. In this intense environment, over a long period, you make deep connections and come to understand and trust one another. Although, after what we've all been through—and I mean all of us—over the last few years, it may not seem like it. But it is possible and it does happen. Some of the friendships are more unlikely than others, but are borne out of shared values and a deep commitment to serve others, like with two of my oldest friends.
Early Childhood Education: Preschool Funding | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
Disability Services; Consideration of Senate Message | Resolutions of the Senate | House debates
I say to the advocates here with us today: this is a very, very significant day. You and I know how long we've all been talking about the importance of this royal commission. But today is not...
I say to the advocates here with us today: this is a very, very significant day. You and I know how long we've all been talking about the importance of this royal commission. But today is not enough—it's not enough. We actually need the terms of reference finalised. We need the royal commission announced. We need to get it started. Today is a good start, but it is not enough. I think, as all of us who have lived through the experience of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse know, a royal commission is a place where the truth can be told but also where justice can be found. People with disability who have been abused need to find that place where they can tell their stories, where they will be believed and, also, where justice can be found. That is so important for people with disability. It is also the case that a royal commission will be the guiding light for the future. We want to see a royal commission that will outline how people with disability can live, work and be educated in places that will be safe. Not closed places: not closed places of housing, not closed schools and not closed institutions where what goes on can't be seen. That's why we need a royal commission; to make clear to those who set up the places where people are going to be cared for in the future—the places that people with disability themselves control—that these are open places and that they are places where people can get the support and care that they need and get it in a way that people with disability themselves determine. We know how important it is that people with disability determine these terms of reference, because without that they won't have the control and the faith in this royal commission that they seek. That is what the government needs to take the most seriously. People with disability themselves must guide this royal commission. That is what we commit to today. That is what we want to see and that is what we will lend our support to. I would say to the government that, of course, we appreciate very much the commitment that has been given today, but, please, hasten with people with disability. Get this royal commission established; it needs to be done for the sake of justice. Question agreed to.
Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples | Statements by Members | House debates
This was the day 11 years ago that this parliament told the truth. This was the day that Kevin Rudd as the Prime Minister apologised on behalf of the parliament and the Australian people to those...
This was the day 11 years ago that this parliament told the truth. This was the day that Kevin Rudd as the Prime Minister apologised on behalf of the parliament and the Australian people to those children who had been taken from their families. Finally the truth was told, and so many people—the people who were taken, the mothers and fathers, the brothers and sisters, all of the families—finally knew that they were believed. It was an extraordinary day. This amazing chamber was full of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We had decided, on the advice of Linda Burney, that the members of the stolen generations would sit on the floor of the parliament, but all the galleries were full of members of the stolen generations and people who had come to support them. In the Great Hall, on the lawns outside, in every single capital city, in workplaces and schools, everyone came together to say sorry—to acknowledge the truth. People cannot heal unless they hear the truth, unless they are believed, and they were that day. It was an amazingly special day, and I thank everyone who made it such an important occasion for those who were taken.
Liberal Party Leadership | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why are you the Prime Minister and not Malcolm Turnbull?
Liberal Party Leadership | Statements by Members | House debates
Or is that the member for Wentworth, the dead man walking? The dead man walking's still sitting down the front there, but he doesn't have the numbers, and the member for Dickson is going to be...
Or is that the member for Wentworth, the dead man walking? The dead man walking's still sitting down the front there, but he doesn't have the numbers, and the member for Dickson is going to be counting every day till he knocks him off. We had the most extraordinary extra gem from the Liberal Party room this morning: that the member for Flinders is part of the dream team! So they want to have the worst health minister as Prime Minister, and, as the deputy, the second health minister who's delivered the worst results for Australia! What a shambles! And the Australian people are paying the price. (Time expired)
or is it the member for Wentworth—
I've said it before and, unfortunately, I have to say it again: who is the Prime Minister? Is it the member for Warringah, who sits up the back, directing all the policy, or is it his new friend...
I've said it before and, unfortunately, I have to say it again: who is the Prime Minister? Is it the member for Warringah, who sits up the back, directing all the policy, or is it his new friend up the back, the member for Dickson? The member for Dickson is up the back now, counting his numbers!
Australian Broadcasting Corporation | Statements by Members | House debates
The Liberals are waging the biggest war on the ABC in a generation. Despite promising no cuts to the ABC, they've cut $282 million from the ABC since 2014, with 800 jobs cut. This year, they cut...
The Liberals are waging the biggest war on the ABC in a generation. Despite promising no cuts to the ABC, they've cut $282 million from the ABC since 2014, with 800 jobs cut. This year, they cut another $84 million from the ABC. At the Liberal Party's Federal Council recently, not a single person stood up to oppose the sell-off of the ABC. Australians love and trust our public broadcaster. From Bananas in Pyjamas to the Hottest 100 to getting critical warning messages about local floods and fires, the ABC is part of who we are. We on this side will not stand for the ABC being attacked just so the Liberals can fund their big tax cuts to the top end of town. Labor in government will reverse the Liberals' latest cut of $84 million. We'll keep fighting against the Liberals' war on our public broadcaster right through to the next election. I'm glad to say that Labor has preselected Kate Thwaites to be the Labor candidate to replace me in Jagajaga. She's a former ABC News journalist. She understands we love the ABC and will fight to keep it safe.
National Redress Scheme | Questions without Notice | House debates
On indulgence: I thank the minister very much. Maybe he should wait until he sees Leonie and let her cut his tie. I'm sure she'll take great pleasure in doing so. I do want to associate the...
On indulgence: I thank the minister very much. Maybe he should wait until he sees Leonie and let her cut his tie. I'm sure she'll take great pleasure in doing so. I do want to associate the opposition with the words of the minister and thank him for his commitment and his hard work, frankly, to get to today. As he said, it is an extraordinary achievement, first and foremost, for the survivors of child sexual abuse, for the care leavers from institutions. Of course, as all of us know, no amount of money will enable these people who were abused as children to get their childhoods back, but this will be a way in which all of us, all Australians, can acknowledge and pay some compensation for the horrific abuse that people have suffered. Today is a very significant day. It will be a very, very difficult task for this redress to be delivered. A lot of people will have to remember again the abuse that they suffered. But it is something that people have worked very hard for, and I thank the government for their efforts. Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Income Tax | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. Treasury has confirmed that the entire third stage of the government's personal income tax scheme goes to the top 20 per cent of income earners, at a cost of...
My question is to the Prime Minister. Treasury has confirmed that the entire third stage of the government's personal income tax scheme goes to the top 20 per cent of income earners, at a cost of $42 billion. How is it fair that under this arrogant and out-of-touch Prime Minister a property developer in Arncliffe earning $1 million will get a tax cut of over $7,000 a year, while a worker in a charcoal chicken shop in the same suburb will only get a tax cut— (Time expired)
Taxation | Questions without Notice | House debates
Can this arrogant and out-of-touch Prime Minister confirm that, under his unfair budget, a banker from Vaucluse earning a million dollars a year will get a tax cut of over $7,000 a year, his bank...
Can this arrogant and out-of-touch Prime Minister confirm that, under his unfair budget, a banker from Vaucluse earning a million dollars a year will get a tax cut of over $7,000 a year, his bank will get a company tax cut—with $17 billion going to the big banks—but a hospitality worker from Adelaide will only get a tax cut of $10 a week, and that's before she loses $77 in penalty rates?
Dixon, Ms Eurydice | Statements by Members | House debates
Tonight, thousands of Melburnians will gather at Princes Park in Carlton to remember Ms Eurydice Dixon and to reclaim the night. Eurydice was 22 years old. Her friends say she was smart, funny...
Tonight, thousands of Melburnians will gather at Princes Park in Carlton to remember Ms Eurydice Dixon and to reclaim the night. Eurydice was 22 years old. Her friends say she was smart, funny and kind. She was walking home from her comedy show when she sent a text to her friend, 'I'm almost home safe,' but she didn't make it home that night. Walking home alone at night isn't a privilege; it's a right—a right each and every one of us should feel entitled to. Everyone has the right to be safe. Women are not responsible for the decisions of men who attack them. Women have every right to walk safely in our streets and parks. We have every right to be safe in our homes. One woman in Australia dies every week at the hands of a partner or ex-partner. The murder of Eurydice Dixon is devastating and tragic beyond words. I know that many women, like me, are so angry as well as sad about her death—not to mention the outrageous vandalism of her memorial in Melbourne last night. It's time for all of us to harness that anger, to reclaim our streets and parks, to reclaim the night, to be home safe, to not live in fear and to change the culture of violence against women in this country.
Just briefly, on indulgence, I'd like to associate the opposition with the remarks of the minister and extend our thanks to him for his excellent work in getting the redress scheme to this point....
Just briefly, on indulgence, I'd like to associate the opposition with the remarks of the minister and extend our thanks to him for his excellent work in getting the redress scheme to this point. It has been a very long time, particularly for the survivors of child sexual abuse, and 1 July will be a very significant moment for them particularly but also for our nation.
Age Pension | Questions without Notice | House debates
It is on relevance. What about this Prime Minister—
My question is to the Prime Minister. This Prime Minister is forcing Australians to wait until they're 70 for the age pension. Does this arrogant and out-of-touch former investment banker of a...
My question is to the Prime Minister. This Prime Minister is forcing Australians to wait until they're 70 for the age pension. Does this arrogant and out-of-touch former investment banker of a Prime Minister seriously expect a nurse or a bricklayer to work until they're 70, at the same time that he's working with One Nation to give an $80 billion handout to big business?
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
This is the fifth Abbott-Turnbull budget. In every single budget from this conservative government there have been cuts to the age pension, cuts to Newstart, cuts to hospitals and schools, an...
This is the fifth Abbott-Turnbull budget. In every single budget from this conservative government there have been cuts to the age pension, cuts to Newstart, cuts to hospitals and schools, an increase in the pension age to 70 and now in this budget the latest proposal: a flattening of the income tax system that will see inequality get worse in this country. It's very clear that with this budget the Prime Minister wants people to forget its five-year catalogue of cuts, cuts that define this government and have defined this government since the horror budget of 2014. The Prime Minister would of course like to go to the next election having whitewashed the terrible cuts of the last five years. I say to him and to all of the Liberal and National party members that over the last month or so I've done a number of very large pension forums, particularly in Perth—I did five very well attended pension forums there—and more recently in Tasmania and down in Frankston, in Victoria. Pensioners have not forgotten what this government wants to do to them. They understand the implications of the government's desire to increase the age-pension age to 70. I should say to anybody who's listening that this isn't some policy change that's off on the never-never. People who turn 60 from this July will have to work longer because of Mr Turnbull's plan to increase the pension age to 70. It's not something that's just going to affect people who are in their 40s or their 50s; it's actually going to start affecting people who turn 60 very, very soon. Australians also haven't forgotten what this government wants to do to the energy supplement. For the information of those opposite, who I'm sure would like to forget that this is what they have already voted for twice and that the government has it in this budget again, they want to axe the energy supplement. This is worth $14 a fortnight for single pensioners and $8.80 a fortnight for people on Newstart. Very vulnerable people who find themselves out of work and need to rely on Newstart will face a cut to Newstart as a result of this government's budget. This is a cut in this budget. Of course, it has been a cut in previous budgets. The government has so far been unable to get this through the parliament, but it is in this budget. This government is determined to see a cut to the pension, with the abolition of the energy supplement, and a cut to Newstart. Labor will continue to strongly oppose this very significant cut. We hear the government boast every day about the number of jobs that have been created. But what they don't tell us, what isn't said every day but Australians understand, is that there are about one million people in our country who are underemployed. That is on top of the people who are unemployed. According to the Australian Council of Social Service, 730,000 children are living in poverty. And another fact that never crosses the lips of those opposite is that nearly half the number of people on Newstart, nearly half the number of people on unemployment benefits, are unemployed for more than a year. Long-term unemployment in this country is getting worse and this government is doing absolutely nothing about it. Inequality in this country is at a 75-year high. This isn't the 'jobs and growth' story that you hear from the Prime Minister every day, but these are the facts. It is a fact of life for millions of Australians who are really doing it very tough under this government. It is not what our country should be like. It certainly is time that we gave these people and families a much better shot at a decent life. One of the important ways in which Labor wants to address this fundamental inequity in our country is to make sure those people who are struggling can get the skills that they need to get the jobs that they want. We want to improve their capacity to get a TAFE qualification. Labor, in government, would scrap up-front fees for around 100,000 TAFE students and also spend $100 million upgrading our TAFEs around the country. It is also why Labor is determined to seriously invest in our schools. This government made huge cuts to school funding back in the 2014 budget. Labor has promised to put into our schools over the next 10 years the $17 billion that is needed and, in particular, make sure that those areas in our country that are very disadvantaged are able to deliver great educational opportunities for our children. That includes areas like Doveton, in Victoria, which is not far from the member for Bruce's electorate. It has a fantastic primary and secondary school delivering 'Our Place', a model of education and support for families that is really turning those families around. But it costs money. You actually need to spend the extra money to make sure that those schools can deliver to those families, children and young people. Labor, of course, is determined to improve access to universities, with 200,000 extra places at our universities, and provide additional funding for hospitals to completely reverse the coalition's cuts. All of these initiatives that Labor would put in place are about investing in our people and also making sure that we protect people when they fall on hard times. By contrast, what we see in this budget is a plan by the Liberals that favours the well off and will worsen inequality. I want to talk about tax, because that is the starkest demonstration in this budget of how this government will, in fact, increase inequality in our country. How we raise the money that we need for our schools and hospitals and to have a decent safety net determines whether or not we have a fair society. There's been some excellent analysis done at ANU, NATSEM and the Grattan Institute, and all have pointed out that this government's tax cuts are deliberately designed to deliver the biggest gains to those people who need them least in our community. These are the facts: about 60 per cent of the benefit of the government's tax changes would go to the wealthiest 20 per cent in this country. Just today, in Senate estimates, the secretary of Treasury said that a worker on $80,000 a year would receive a tax cut worth $540 a year by the end of the government's seven-year plan, whereas someone earning $200,000 a year would get a tax cut of $7,225 dollars a year. If you want a demonstration of how this government's going to increase inequality, that is it in a nutshell. By contrast, Labor will deliver much fairer tax cuts for 10 million working Australians and for those people who really need it most. Of course, we can afford to deliver these fairer and larger tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners because we are prepared to make some very, very significant and progressive changes to the tax system, with reforms to negative gearing, capital gains tax, discounts, family trusts, and dividend imputation. Of course, all are opposed by the conservatives because they want to keep the benefits of those tax-avoidance mechanisms going to the top end of town. Of course, it's not just about tax. We understand that, in addition to tax cuts, we need to make sure that we protect people's penalty rates. Those opposite, of course, have sat by while people's penalty rates have been lost. One of the most significant changes in this budget is this government's decision to flatten our tax system, meaning that somebody earning $40,000 a year and somebody earning $200,000 a year will be in the same tax bracket. Now, how on earth could that be fair? As we have said time and time again, we certainly do not want to see an $80 billion handout to big business, especially when $17 billion of it is going to the big banks. I want to finish by talking about something that's very dear to my heart, and that is, of course, the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I'm very glad to see that the government has finally come to acknowledge that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is, and always has been, fully funded, even though this lot opposite have spent years undermining the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The government has tried to say that people have to put up with cuts to family tax benefits, cuts to the energy supplement, cuts to Newstart, cuts to pensions and cuts to paid parental leave—all of these cuts were used as excuses; they were apparently needed to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Of course, last year, the Treasurer said with great fanfare that we needed a tax rise on the lowest-income people in the country to fund the NDIS. All of this was false. People with disability were used as a political football. It was a complete and utter disgrace on the part of both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Playing politics with people with disability, holding people with disability to ransom in this way, must never happen again. It is now time for all of us to focus on making sure that the NDIS actually fulfils the promise that I would hope we all have see in it, which is to improve the lives of people with disability. We are all getting hundreds and hundreds of calls from people who feel let down and frustrated with the rollout of the NDIS. People want this government and this minister to step up and actually fix the problems with the NDIS. They don't want them blaming people with disability; they actually want the problems fixed. Let's get it back on track. Fix the ICT system. Don't treat it like a big bureaucracy which is driving people to enormous frustration. We all want a people-centred organisation. It has to actually be about helping people with disability and their families to lead the lives that they want for themselves—a life of independence, if possible, so people are able to work, have fun, live in the community and have a decent home. That's the promise of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It's a promise that Labor is absolutely determined to see delivered, and this government should do likewise.
My question is to the Prime Minister. What is the point of this Prime Minister and his government, given that his signature tax policy to give $80 billion to big business appears doomed? Is the...
My question is to the Prime Minister. What is the point of this Prime Minister and his government, given that his signature tax policy to give $80 billion to big business appears doomed? Is the Prime Minister's big business tax cut as doomed as his colleagues are claiming?
National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
The 14th of December 2017 is a day that I will never forget. It was the final hearing of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses into Child Sexual Abuse. As I approached the building, I...
The 14th of December 2017 is a day that I will never forget. It was the final hearing of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses into Child Sexual Abuse. As I approached the building, I could see the unmistakable blue and yellow shirts of the Clannies standing out against the grey suits of downtown Sydney. The Clannies are, of course, the Care Leavers Australasia Network, a support group of survivors of child abuse. They were there with the irrepressible Leonie Sheedy—kind, determined and resilient. Leonie is one of the most remarkable people I've ever had the good fortune to meet. There are so many people who've made an enormous contribution to the cause of justice for survivors of child sexual abuse, including Leonie and everyone at CLAN and Caroline, Carol and everyone from the Alliance for Forgotten Australians. I'll never forget Caroline telling me her story to help me understand the horror of what had been done to her and so many others. The late Anthony Foster and his wife, Chrissie. Chrissie and Anthony Foster discovered in the 1990s that two of their daughters, Emma and Katie, were raped by their local priest. Emma began harming herself after the trauma she experienced. In her teens, Katie was hit by a car, leaving her permanently disabled. In 2008, Emma died of an overdose. And so began Chrissie and Anthony's tireless fight for justice, taking on the Catholic Church and eventually suing the church, personally giving counsel and support to hundreds of survivors. To this day, Chrissie continues to be a powerful advocate for survivors, particularly on the issue of redress. I remember Chrissie saying to me on that day that we must implement the recommendations of the royal commissioners. These commissioners, she said to me, were the people who had listened to the experiences of the survivors of child sexual abuse. The commissioners had spent five years considering their recommendations and they must not be ignored. The hearing room that day was packed, and as the commissioners very formally filed in there was a loud cheer. So many people had been heard. So many people had finally been believed. The people in the room that day and all the others who have been so badly abused are now relying on us to establish a national redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, and we must not fail them. As the Hon. Justice Peter McClellan, chair of the royal commission, stated in his final address that day last December: …the primary responsibility for the sexual abuse of a child lies with the abuser and the institution of which they were part, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the problems faced by many people who have been abused are the responsibility of our entire society. We, as lawmakers, must uphold our responsibilities to the survivors. We must not fail them as a society. We must not fail them again, and we must establish a national redress scheme, and this time we have to make sure we get it right. On the day that Prime Minister Gillard announced the establishment of the royal commission back in 2013, she said: There have been too many revelations of adults who have averted their eyes from this evil. I believe in these circumstances that it's appropriate for there to be a national response through a Royal Commission. And she was right. Over the five years of the commission, there have been 57 public hearings held over 444 days. The commission heard evidence from 1,300 witnesses. Commissioners held almost 8,000 private sessions to listen to the personal accounts of survivors. There have been more than 2½ thousand referrals to authorities, including the police. The royal commission estimates that around 20,000 survivors were sexually abused in state and territory government institutions. It found that there were more than 4,000 institutions where sexual abuse took place. Thousands of vulnerable children were subjected to truly horrific sexual abuse in institutions right across Australia. Think about it: 20,000 people in 4,000 institutions—so widespread, so devastating. I want to thank the survivors who gave evidence to the commission. I want to say to the survivors directly: without your extraordinary courage in giving evidence, the realities and extent of child sexual abuse would not have been truly recognised—I'm looking at the member for Swan—nor would the failure of institutions to respond to that abuse be fully known. I want to say loud and clear that I believe you. We, all of us here, believe you. The parliament of Australia believes you. I say this so sharply but also so sadly because, for years, these survivors were not believed. Your personal stories greatly contributed to the royal commission's recommendations, and none of us, I think, can allow any of these recommendations to sit on a shelf and be ignored. The national redress scheme was recommended in the royal commission's interim redress and civil litigation report released in June 2015. The royal commission's case studies and private sessions made clear that many people, while children, were subjected to terrible sexual abuse in institutions. As the royal commission said, many of the injuries were severe and long-lasting. Many people have been and continue to be affected by injuries for the rest of their lives. It is the case that many, many survivors have still not had the opportunity to seek compensation for their injuries. The royal commission acknowledged: … it cannot now be made feasible for many of those who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse to seek common law damages, there is a clear need to provide avenues for survivors to obtain effective redress for this past abuse. The establishment of a national redress scheme will acknowledge the abuse that occurred. Labor understands—and I think everybody understands—that no amount of money can make up for the pain and trauma experienced. However, redress is a vital step along the path to healing—a vital step that we all have an obligation to put in place. It's also important that, under this legislation, survivors will have the opportunity to receive a direct personal response from the participating institution or institutions responsible for the abuse. A direct personal response is a statement of acknowledgement, regret or apology and will be delivered to survivors by the relevant participating institution after the survivor has accepted the offer of redress. We did announce support for a national redress scheme back in October 2015 and, unfortunately, it has taken too long to get to this point. Nevertheless, we do welcome the recent significant progress that has seen the majority of states and territories sign up to the redress scheme and we strongly urge the remaining states and institutions that are yet to sign up to do as soon as possible. Access to redress must not depend on where you live. The royal commission recommended that the Australian government announce a willingness to establish a single national redress scheme by the end of 2015 and that the scheme should be accepting applications by no later than 1 July last year, so it is very, very disappointing that this legislation is nearly a year late. But, that said, it is now time to get on with it. The two bills that we're debating here today supersede the Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Sexual Abuse 2017, otherwise known as the Commonwealth bill. The original 2017 bill would have created a redress scheme only for the few survivors whose abuse occurred in the territories and in Commonwealth institutions. Following the announcement that New South Wales and Victoria would join the scheme, the national bills that we're debating here today were drafted. On 17 May the New South Wales parliament passed redress legislation, and earlier this month legislation was also introduced into the Victorian parliament that will refer powers to the Commonwealth. On 30 April the Queensland government announced that they would opt in. The ACT and the Northern Territory have indicated their support, as has the Tasmanian government. That is very good news, and we certainly hope the remaining states will follow very quickly. We have referred these bills to a short Senate inquiry to make sure that survivors of child sexual abuse get a redress scheme that they think—that they think, that the survivors think—is appropriate and fair. That inquiry will report by 15 June. We of course want to see a national redress scheme established without further delay, so, as a gesture of good faith in our ongoing discussions with the government to resolve Labor's concerns, we will support this bill in the House today. I do, however, want to outline some of the continuing issues that Labor has with respect to the proposed redress scheme in the bill that we're debating. First, we do want to make sure that there are enough support services for all survivors of child sexual abuse and that they're accessible no matter where the survivor lives. Second, we want to make sure that survivors have sufficient time to decide whether or not to accept an offer of redress. The bill gives applicants at least six months to make this decision, while the royal commission recommended a year. It's very important that survivors have sufficient time to consider this decision, as only one application to the scheme is permitted. For many people, this will be a very emotional and overwhelming process. We must do what we can to make sure that people have a reasonable amount of time to work through their claims. The next concern we have is the compensation amount. The bill places an upper limit of $150,000 on the amount of redress that would be payable to any one survivor. The royal commission recommended that the maximum payment be $200,000. Accepting an offer will also mean signing away any rights that any survivor may have to pursue their claim for compensation through litigation. That's why it's so important that the amount of redress available under the scheme is adequate. We also want to make sure that anyone who is eligible for the scheme is able to get the redress that they deserve. We are very concerned that it could be possible, for a person whose abuse was not deemed the responsibility of government and for whom there is no remaining institution responsible, that they could be left with no avenue for redress. This outcome is unacceptable. We've sought urgent clarification from the minister and a guarantee that no-one will be left without any avenue to seek redress, either through the redress scheme or through civil litigation. This is an absolutely critical issue. The indexation of past payments is a matter particularly close to the heart of many survivors who fought long and hard for compensation. The national bill sets the rate of this adjustment, specifying that an earlier amount received as compensation would be multiplied by 1.019 for each full year since the receipt of the original amount. The Care Leavers Australia Network has been campaigning for indexation to be dropped from the scheme. For many people, past compensation amounts were small. Legal fees often ate up a significant proportion of what people received. As a result, CLAN argue that it's unfair for the past redress amount to be indexed. I fear, as the survivors do, that some survivors who are eligible for redress will end up with nothing after indexation is applied because of previous compensation payments. Survivors have been waiting for many, many years for this redress scheme. We know that. In the event that someone gets no redress because of indexation, that would really be a devastating result. We know, of course, that redress is about more than money. It is a tangible recognition of the suffering experienced by survivors. We do not believe that past redress amounts should be indexed. The bill also limits eligibility for the redress scheme to people who are living in Australia and who are Australian citizens. We know that horrific abuse occurred in institutions that cared for child migrants and that abuse of children has occurred in immigration detention. We're concerned that these people will not be able to access redress if they have returned to their country of birth. We also want to see the minister take the steps that are available under the proposed legislation to include former child migrants and immigration detainees who no longer live in Australia. This is an important issue of justice, and we're seeking a clear commitment from the government that these people will have access to the scheme. I'm sure that all members agree that providing counselling to survivors is a top priority. We also know, each and every one of us, that no amount of money can make up for the pain and suffering endured. That said, access to good-quality counselling is vital. We are concerned that the counselling provided to survivors through the redress scheme will not be adequate. The royal commission recommended—and this is very important—that recipients of redress be able to access counselling for the rest of their lives. This bill only provides access to state provided services for the length of the scheme or a payment of up to $5,000 to be put towards counselling. Frankly, these arrangements are woefully inadequate. We, therefore, call on the government to give assurances that this will be addressed. Survivors often consider that government, particularly the state governments, are responsible for their abuse, so they do not necessarily want to use state- or institution-run services. So this needs to be taken into account when consideration is given to who delivers the services. Labor also holds concerns that survivors who are granted redress late in the life of the scheme could be disadvantaged if they're not able to access services for the same length of time as those survivors who are granted redress early in the life of the scheme. It's very important that this be taken into account in future reviews. For survivors who receive the $5,000 payment for counselling, this amount of money is highly unlikely to provide adequate access to support. It is critical that these issues are addressed urgently. The government has sought to place restrictions on survivors from accessing the redress scheme who themselves have a criminal history. We also believe this is unfair. The bill requires that those who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more have special permission from the scheme operator to access the scheme. This rule ignores strong evidence that shows that people with a history of childhood abuse and trauma are more likely to be incarcerated later in life. The first Senate inquiry into these issues was inundated with evidence from a variety of witnesses and submitters that this rule is cruel and likely to increase recidivism. So we do believe that this policy should be changed. That said, for all of these concerns, I do want to acknowledge that establishing this national redress scheme is a very, very complex task. I acknowledge the Minister for Social Services, Dan Tehan, for his diligence in getting the outcome that is before us today. It is, as I said earlier, very encouraging that most of the jurisdictions have already agreed to sign on, and I understand the other two are working closely with the government. It is, next, imperative that those institutions responsible for the abuse of children sign up and pay redress. No institution should back out of its responsibility for the abuse of children that took place where it had responsibility to care for those children. There is still time to get this right, so I call on the government to consider the issues that I've raised today. I do want to make it clear that, if we are successful at the next election, a Labor government would seek to work with the states towards addressing the areas of concern that I've identified here in these remarks. I want to finish by, once again, thanking the courageous survivors who shared their own personal stories of abuse at the royal commission. It was their evidence that enabled the royal commissioners and the Australian people to understand in some way the extent of their suffering. It's also why we're here today, debating this very important piece of legislation. I want to thank the royal commissioners—what an extraordinary group of people—and all the staff who supported the survivors to tell their accounts of abuse over many years of hearings. I want to thank Julia Gillard for establishing the royal commission. It was a very big decision. Nicola Roxon, who was the Attorney-General at the time, and I worked with Prime Minister Gillard to get this started. The evidence presented to the royal commission shocked and appalled all Australians. It exposed heinous crimes. Listen to the forgotten. Believe those who had been for so long ignored. We understand the royal commissioners did not make their recommendations lightly. We do believe that all of their recommendations should be implemented faithfully, and the task for us all now in this parliament is to deliver a national redress scheme for survivors. I commend the bill to the House.