James Stevens's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
South Australia: Roads | Adjournment | House debates
The Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass is a project that involves building a new heavy-freight route from Monarto to Truro so that heavy freight that is currently travelling, say, from Melbourne to...
The Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass is a project that involves building a new heavy-freight route from Monarto to Truro so that heavy freight that is currently travelling, say, from Melbourne to Perth no longer has to come through suburban Adelaide and instead can get off the South Eastern Freeway at Monarto, travel on a new route up to Truro, connect to the Sturt Highway and go wherever it needs to go. It's a vitally important project for my community in Sturt and indeed for the entire city of Adelaide, because it is patently ridiculous that heavy freight from, say, Melbourne to Perth is travelling through suburban Adelaide. On Tuesday night, I hoped to see some kind of commitment towards this project in the budget. Regrettably, there was no money in the budget for the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass. There was only one project listed in the budget papers for South Australia, which was $125 million for the Curtis Road project in northern Adelaide—the one and only project in South Australia listed in the budget. Things became a little more curious the next morning when some South Australian Labor MPs started to purport on social media that the budget had delivered funding for what they called the High Productivity Vehicle Network. The HPVN is essentially the entire freight route from the Victoria border and New South Wales border across to the Western Australia border—a 1,500-kilometre route from Bordertown to the WA border on the Nullarbor. The morning after the budget speech, it was claimed in a press release from the honourable Catherine King, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, that the HPVN was receiving $525 million. She said in this press release: The HPVN will deliver upgrades between the South Eastern Freeway and Sturt Highway such as the duplication of the Swanport Bridge. The Swanport Bridge has nothing to do with the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass. It's, no doubt, a worthy thing to do at some point in time, but in fact the Swanport Bridge is already carrying freight that is rumbling through the suburbs of Adelaide. Indeed, an upgrade to the Swanport Bridge will ensure that even more freight can travel through the suburbs of Adelaide, whether that be through Portrush Road or Cross Road. The money wasn't in the budget or listed in the budget papers. But what was then referred to in a press release the day after the budget speech was money to increase the ability for heavy freight to travel through my community in Sturt along Portrush Road and no doubt along Cross Road in the future. This is greatly concerning because I was crestfallen to see no money in the budget to build the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass. Now, it turns out that not only is there no money to build the bypass but there is money to increase the amount of freight going through the suburbs of my constituency of Sturt. This is an absolute disgrace. But it gets more confusing still because we've heard nothing so far from the South Australian state government welcoming the announcement of this funding or even confirming that they want it or are going to be a partner in the project, which is very rare for a project that would have to be delivered by the South Australian state government. The press release doesn't specify how much of that $525 million would be going to this Swanport Bridge, which will increase freight going through my community. There's also confusion about whether or not Infrastructure Australia have even approved this funding and agreed that it passes through the processes that they have in place. There are Labor members and candidates claiming that this announcement includes building a freight bypass. That is a patent lie. This is a plan to put more freight through the suburbs of Adelaide. Duplicating the Swanport Bridge makes it easier for more freight to go into suburban Adelaide, and there is no money whatsoever to build the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass, which involves building a new carriageway from Monarto to Truro. So I say to my community in Sturt and to people in seats like Boothby and Adelaide: watch out. We thought it was bad enough that the budget was not going to take freight out of Adelaide's suburbs; it now turns out the budget is going to put even more freight throughout Adelaide's suburbs.
Budget | Constituency Statements | House debates
We South Australians all waited with bated breath last night to see what would be committed in the budget to invest in our state, and I congratulate the member for Spence in the chamber for what...
We South Australians all waited with bated breath last night to see what would be committed in the budget to invest in our state, and I congratulate the member for Spence in the chamber for what he achieved, because 100 per cent of the infrastructure funding for the state of South Australia announced the budget was in his electorate. It was $125 million, a little less than the $7.2 billion that Queensland got for the Bruce Highway. Regrettably, it's a sad reflection on South Australia's regard under this federal Labor government. To have $125 million in new infrastructure funding for South Australia is absolutely devastating given the opportunity that was presented in last night's budget to invest in the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass to get heavy trucks off streets like Portrush Road in my electorate. We can now see from the budget papers in the infrastructure statements that there is one project for South Australia referenced and another that seems to be out of existing funds, which is no doubt a very worthy project for the Port Augusta wharf redevelopment of $12 million. What is going on when South Australia only gets $125 million out of $17.1 billion? There is $17.1 billion of new expenditure, and $125 million of it is going to the state of South Australia. This is nowhere near—even if you concede, which I would never would, that we should get only our per capita allocation in new spending. We have 11 per cent of the nation's roads running through South Australia, and we heard last night that we were getting $125 million out of $17.1 billion. It's bitterly disappointing for the people of Sturt, with no commitments in our electorate whatsoever. As I said, there is only one electorate in the whole state getting new money allocated to a project, according to the budget papers. This is confirmation of what the people of South Australia, particularly the people of Sturt, regrettably already knew about this government's commitment to infrastructure spending in South Australia. We need to build the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass. What we now know is that, under Labor, it won't happen. Their budget is for the next four years—no money towards that project whatsoever. We in the Liberal Party have been fighting to get funding that we put into the budget restored to build the Truro Bypass as part of the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass. Labor ripped that money away in their infrastructure review, and it's never been seen or talked about since. It is disgraceful that the people of the eastern suburbs of Adelaide, and also those in other electorates like Boothby, Mayo and Adelaide, are all affected by this heavy freight rumbling through our suburban streets. If you're on Highway 1 and you're taking freight from Melbourne to Perth, it shouldn't be going through suburban Adelaide. This government has shown that their vision for our future is more congestion through the streets of Adelaide.
Andrews, Hon. Kevin James, AM | Condolences | House debates
In paying tribute to Kevin Andrews, I first acknowledge and associate myself with the remarks made in the contributions so far by other members. It's particularly difficult, when we have these...
In paying tribute to Kevin Andrews, I first acknowledge and associate myself with the remarks made in the contributions so far by other members. It's particularly difficult, when we have these condolence motions, to speak on them when they involve someone that you actually served with in this parliament. It was my honour to serve with Kevin in the 46th Parliament—his last term in this building and my first term in this building—and to be able to observe him and his great understanding of this building and of being a parliamentarian. All members, I think—even the Prime Minister—have referenced him being in a position of mentorship to everyone that served with him, and that was the case for me as it was for all members that have commented in this debate so far. I describe Kevin as a parliamentarian, knowing full well that he made a very distinguished contribution to the executive of this nation as well—of course, serving as a minister in both the Howard and the Abbott governments, to great distinction. But in our Westminster system, which is quite different to many others around the world, obviously our executive comes out of our legislature. You can't serve in the executive government if you're not a member of parliament. But it does sometimes diminish the importance of reflecting on the role of a legislator and parliamentarian, and in the case of Kevin, even though it's quite warranted to talk about his service as a minister, I would like to focus on the great legacy he leaves as a parliamentarian and as having served in this place, in the House of Representatives, for more than 30 years. Of course, he was the Father of the House in the last few years of his career here, and that is extremely significant. The 30-year club is a very small and exclusive one. We have one member of the current parliament, the member for Kennedy, who is in that club, and there are times when not a single member of the House of Representatives has met the 30-year milestone, which says all we need to know about how significant it is that Kevin served for more than 30 years. But time served is not in and of itself the metric; it's contribution made. I refer to Kevin as a parliamentarian. I think it's regrettable that we, in some ways, use the term 'politician' a little too often. Yes, I concede that we are politicians and that we engage in politics, but, when you're elected to this building, you become a parliamentarian. It is a worthy career, and one to be proud of. For too long, the things that are focused on and reflected on and dwelt on about parliamentarians are usually the negative sides of the process of what happens here. But, fundamentally, what we do here is a very good, important thing. We're a democracy. We represent our communities. We draft, debate, amend and pass legislation that the entire population of this nation becomes subject to. It's a very serious responsibility. And Kevin, when I think about his service, was first and foremost a person that embodied a career that should be looked upon with pride. He serviced in this place as a parliamentarian. He experienced a lot, and there has been a lot of commentary about some of the brave causes that he took up as a legislator, bringing private member's bills that succeeded through the parliament. There are things that will always be associated with Kevin's service here. Other members have reflected on the great challenges that you can face when you stick your head above the parapet, when you take on a cause or an issue that has different views in your own community let alone across the entirety of the Australian community. The bravery of Kevin and the principles of Kevin and the values that he held were his guiding fundamentals for the long period of time that he served in this parliament. I'm probably breaking important party room conventions by talking about the last meeting that Kevin attended in the party room, when he made the point that he was going to try and write a book on our party room. Particularly, he wanted to try and encapsulate the great mysteries of how the Liberal party room operates and maybe make it a little easier for some of us into the future to understand just exactly how we do what we do. I'm not sure how far along Kevin got on that project. When the time is appropriate, I'd be very interested to understand how far along he was. I think that would have been a very interesting and helpful project for those of us that are in the current party room—to understand more about the history of some of the decisions that were made and some of the ways in which we operate. From Kevin's point of view, the body of work would have been very much about how to make sure that the lessons of the past inform a great equality for our party room into the future, which was exactly the same approach he had to service in our chamber, to the service of the people of his electorate of Menzies and to his service of the people of Australia. I thank Kevin, as the defence minister, for the decision he made to commit to the surface fleet vessel construction in Adelaide. With a very different hat on, I was at a press conference that was held out at the Osborne naval shipbuilding yard. In 2015, Kevin was the defence minister. The parliament was sitting. There was a degree of ambiguity around whether or not those vessels would be made in Australia, and Kevin flew to Adelaide that morning from Canberra—he made sure he was back in time for the parliament sitting—to make a very clear announcement of commitment to the people of South Australia around that project and those future jobs. That is one of many significant legacies he leaves behind as a minister. He also leaves behind a remarkable legacy is a legislator. Most importantly, we've heard, from so many people who knew Kevin well, about the legacy he leaves behind as a husband and a father. I think, if Kevin were able to choose which he would most prefer to have as his legacy, husband and father would, beyond question, be at the top of his list. So to his wife Margie and to his family—it is an incredible loss to them. Having Margie in the chamber was very poignant and touching for the condolence motion's movement yesterday. Our hearts are with them. We're very grateful to the service of Kevin to our nation, to this parliament, to his community and to his family. Vale, Kevin Andrews.
Linear Park Connection Project | Statements by Members | House debates
Last weekend I was very thrilled to announce to my community that a Dutton government will contribute $10 million to our Linear Park Connection Project. This is going to be a partnership with...
Last weekend I was very thrilled to announce to my community that a Dutton government will contribute $10 million to our Linear Park Connection Project. This is going to be a partnership with local government and, hopefully, the state government as well, and the state Liberal team, under Vincent Tarzia, have already made a commitment to match that funding if they're elected in 2026. It is a fantastic project to invest in an already excellent local, recreational and environmental asset that we can make even better. Linear Park stretches from the Adelaide Hills all the way down to the beach, running either side of the River Torrens. The River Torrens is one of the great assets of the city of Adelaide, and we want to make it better still. Central to this is applying for World Heritage listing of the Adelaide Park Lands, which Colonel Light had central to his design of the city of Adelaide. It's one of the great urban parks on the planet, and we need to protect it and get that listing secured. Our $10 million will unlock $30 million of activity on all sorts of projects that will be led by local government, but there'll be a master plan approach that ensures we see the entire stretch developed in a sensitive and environmentally sustainable way and in a way that the families of my electorate of Sturt and all the people of Adelaide can enjoy it day in, day out.
Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I appreciate the opportunity to further contribute to the excellent points made by my friend the member for Wannon. He articulated at the end of his comments there the South Australian...
I appreciate the opportunity to further contribute to the excellent points made by my friend the member for Wannon. He articulated at the end of his comments there the South Australian perspective of the Albanese government's now abandoned plans for offshore wind zones in South Australia. Indeed, it was the Labor Premier of South Australia, Peter Malinauskas, that turned his back on the federal Labor government's energy policy position—not just on this issue, I might add. He's a very pro-nuclear guy, Peter Malinauskas. He likes nuclear. He wants nuclear submarines in Adelaide. He thinks nuclear is safe. I think he has got to be a little bit loyal to his party and has to watch his words, but I think he'd be a very excited partner. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:59 to 17:19 I think I was just making the point, before the bells went, that the South Australian Labor Premier, Peter Malinauskas, joined many others in opposing the South Australian component of the designated wind farm zone that Minister Bowen sought to create. As I was saying, there couldn't be a starker difference between the South Australian Labor Premier and the federal Labor energy minister when it comes to matters of the energy future for this country. The Premier in South Australia has been very open-minded on nuclear and very keen to embrace the opportunities of the AUKUS submarine agreement for Adelaide. In fact, you'd think it was his idea from the way he discusses it and talks about it as his own. He's made many comments over the years in support of considering civilian nuclear generation to be a part of the mix in South Australia and Australia as a whole. Indeed, I strongly suspect that, if we win the election in the coming months, the South Australian government will be a very willing partner in discussions about nuclear in South Australia. He's also probably pretty unpopular with Minister Bowen because the South Australian Labor government are extremely embracing of natural gas as an important fuel source for our energy grid well into the future. Of course, the Moomba gas fields that straddle the South Australia-Queensland border are a vitally significant industry for South Australia. The only ASX 100 listed company that's headquartered in Adelaide is Santos, who, of course, have a decades-long history of extracting gas from Moomba and piping it down to the rest of South Australia—and, of course, now there's also a pipeline that goes to Gladstone in Queensland. So the Labor Premier in South Australia is not very much in tune with this federal Labor government. The Western Australian Premier, equally, is not very much in tune with this government on energy issues or issues of environmental red tape. I suppose they still have Jacinta Allan, the Victorian Premier, to hang out with if they choose to do so in the upcoming campaign. All strength to their arm on that. Maybe the one person who, when standing next to the Prime Minister, would enable him to feel that he is not the more unpopular of the two would be the Victorian Premier. 'Least worst'—what a slogan! There's a TV ad in that, I think: 'It could be worse.' We're debating a bill that is a clean-up job for this government on significant flaws in legislation that have been revealed through a judicial decision. We in the coalition are very uncomfortable with the retrospectivity principles of this, on top of the policy principles of where this government is taking us. They went to the last election and said power prices were going to drop by $275. Poor old RepuTex! I hope they've changed their name and got a new website, because their name is absolute mud. They are the company that did the costings on Labor's $275 energy saving, and you wouldn't want to engage them for anything given what would happen when you google their name now, after they had their credibility completely destroyed by Minister Bowen and this federal Labor government's energy plan, which has delivered anything but cost savings for Australian families. Hydrogen, regrettably, is coming unstuck all across the country, and I think that the South Australian government will very shortly announce that their hydrogen plant is miraculously going to become a natural gas plant. They've already softened this up through local media coverage, saying that the steelworks situation in Whyalla means that maybe their $600 million hydrogen plant, which would definitely be more than $1 billion now, isn't viable—not that that was ever the reason they gave for undertaking this hydrogen investment in the upper Spencer Gulf. They've been briefing out to the media that the turbines that they've purchased, which were going to run the hydrogen generation, can have natural gas as an alternate fuel source to hydrogen. They haven't purchased any electrolysers yet. That's lucky—if they're not going ahead with this hydrogen plant—that they haven't been saddled with the huge cost of electrolysers. It's very conveniently looking like the South Australian government are going to be abandoning hydrogen, which is in line with everyone else in this country that is abandoning hydrogen, which this government says is an integral part of their future vision for the energy needs of this country. Whether it's offshore wind or the $1½ trillion worth of transmission lines, which we don't want to see built—happily for the communities that will be affected, we've got such an incompetent government that they can't even successfully roll out an unpopular policy like $1½ trillion worth of transmission. But it will probably ultimately come if we don't get rid of this awful government and their dangerous energy policies. On all of the metrics that they were meant to hit when it comes to their energy vision for our future, they're failing. On some, we're lucky that they're failing, through incompetence. Of course, Australian families have been deeply, deeply let down by their failure to achieve the central promise of their energy policy plan, which was cutting household bills by $275—a confirmed failure. So many families and so many businesses are now almost frightened to open that bill that they get in the mail with their energy retailer's logo in the corner. Some retailers might want to take their logo off just so there's a better chance of people opening their mail because of that bill shock that you get when you open your electricity bill, under a government that said it was going to cut your bill by $275, and you suddenly find you've got to cancel the family holiday that you've done every year on that long weekend to the caravan park by the sea. You've got to pay your electricity bills, you've got to pay your rent or mortgage, you've got to provide for your family, and you've got to pay the grocery bills. It's that discretionary expenditure—the things that people look forward to and enjoy—that they're having to cut out of their household budget. It's no wonder that we're seeing this anger, particularly in parts of Australia that are doing it the most tough, because this is not the life that they thought they were getting by voting for this Labor government. They shouldn't be mocked for thinking it was safe to trust Labor and that they wouldn't blatantly lie about cutting your electricity bill. We should live in a society where, when people that aspire to be prime minister of this country say something like: 'Vote for me. I've got a costed policy here with good old RepuTex—so it's got a big stamp on the side saying, "This thing can be relied upon",' it's not unreasonable for people to think, 'I'm sure he couldn't possibly lie to us about something like that and I would like my electricity bill to drop by $275.' People would've fallen for that, and it's a great disgrace and a shame on those that perpetrated that fraud on the people of Australia that they were misled to that extent. We've made it very clear that we have a very different vision for our energy future, one that people can count on and rely on, one that has been properly costed, one that is credible and is being pursued around the world by every advanced economy except ours—funnily, because we've got the largest uranium deposits on the planet. In fact, in my home state of South Australia, we have the largest uranium mine at Olympic Dam, run by BHP. Of course, we have not had a civilian nuclear generation industry until Peter Dutton, the opposition leader, and the coalition said: 'This has to be the future for our nation. This will bring us the security and reliability we need. This will give confidence to investors to invest in our economy, to set up businesses here and to bring businesses here knowing that there's a reliability of energy, one of the vital inputs to our economic recipe.' Going to the people of Sturt, like my other coalition colleagues and candidates will be doing, we have a solution to this Labor mess. The bill before us is a great example of the chaos that energy policy in this country is in under our Prime Minister and under this Labor government. It has to come to an end, which is why we've made the very deliberate decision to put the most comprehensive energy plan out in the public domain with all the detail that people need to understand it properly. It's there to be scrutinised—very unsuccessfully from those who have tried so far, I might add—a plan that will achieve our commitment to net zero by 2050. I echo our shadow energy minister—it will be very hard to get to net zero by 2050 with nuclear; it'll be impossible to do without it. No-one on the planet has a credible plan to get to net zero by 2050 without nuclear, not a single person. Apparently, our Prime Minister and energy minister know better than everyone else. We know what their track record is because we can see it in that $275 electricity saving that they achieved for every household in this country. We oppose this bill. We more broadly oppose the chaos of energy policy in this country under this government. Thankfully for the people of Australia, there is an election coming within months, if not weeks. It's a great chance to get our country back on track, to get our energy policy back on track and to bring certainty, reliability and stability to Australian families and Australian businesses. I urge the House to defeat this bill.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to support the passage of the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025, as well as the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4)...
I rise to support the passage of the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025, as well as the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-2025, as we all do on this side of the chamber. It's very important that we make sure the government has the funding that it needs to get through the election period and support the commencement of a new Dutton government before a budget can be passed by that new government at a later stage this year, so we very much support ensuring that the resources are in place for that important transition that is almost upon the Australian people because we desperately need a change in this country. Happily, even if the Prime Minister waits till the latest possible moment—I think the date is 17 May—by 17 May, we will have an election in this country, and the people of Australia will get the chance to cast their verdict on the last three years of this Labor government. I've got a sense of what they're going to say about all that when they get their chance at the ballot box. It's been three tough years for the Australian people. It's been three years of a government wasting our money on the wrong priorities. We had the voice referendum. That was nearly half a billion dollars of money we'll never see again that came out of the pockets of Australian taxpayers. It was torched on that divisive, unnecessary distraction of a referendum—one that was comprehensively rejected by the Australian people but that didn't result in saving the money that was spent on it. Indeed, not just was it the cost to run it but the money that was invested in that campaign by a range of organisations—the tax deductibility of the donations into that campaign—was an enormous cost to the Australian taxpayer. We've seen the Public Service grow by 36,000 people at the cost of $6 billion a year. There are 36,000 more bureaucrats here in Canberra worth $6 billion a year. That's a 20 per cent increase in the size of the public sector. Are there many parts of government that are 20 per cent better thanks to those extra 36,000 people? I don't have people stopping me in the street saying: 'It's great that you've got those extra bureaucrats because I really feel like we're getting so much more out of our government because of them.' Far from that, in fact, the data shows that simple things like the KPI failures of Centrelink processing emergency payments for people in domestic violence circumstances, those fundamental elements of government, are an absolute disgrace, despite the fact we've got 36,000 more public servants. This government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising, of course. Because they're not a good government, they have to try and look like good government, and that is very expensive. You have to spend a lot of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, on television advertising campaigns when you're an atrociously bad government to try and look like a good government, and this government is breaking all the records when it comes to advertising. It was nearly a quarter of a billion dollars—just over that in fact. I think it was $260 million spent in this financial year alone across various government advertising programs. The Future Made in Australia—that's going well. I'd up the ad buy on that one if I was the government! Hydrogen is going well. In my home state of South Australia I think the state government are about to announce that they're abandoning that as a hydrogen plant and converting it to a gas plant. They're not purchasing the electrolysers for that, and they'll probably use the tragic situation in Whyalla with the steelworks as an excuse to scrap that promise. Hydrogen ideas are collapsing around the country as we speak. So the hydrogen dream isn't going so well. Solar panel manufacturing doesn't seem to going very well. Then there's PsiQuantum, the 'Future Made in America' quantum computer that the Americans are happily receiving a billion dollars for—maybe not, though, because maybe the Queensland new LNP government will be looking pretty closely at that decision and wondering whether or not the Queensland taxpayer should be shovelling half a billion dollars of their hard-earned money into that very interesting PR exercise that is all about this government trying to look like they're doing things rather than actually achieving them for the people of this country. The waste goes on and on and on and on, and it couldn't be happening at a worst time because it has never been harder to make the household budget stack up. People are really hurting in this high inflationary environment, with high interest rates, high rents, if you rent your home, high grocery prices and, of course, extremely high energy prices, which were meant to be $275 cheaper for every Australian family. RepuTex did the modelling on that one—they staked their reputation on it, so possibly a name change could be recommended for that company—saying that this government was going to drop our power bills by $275. Well, of course, the absolute opposite has occurred. This leads to really difficult decisions for Australian families because they have had to cut back on some of the things that they had always been able to afford with everything else going up—cancelling family holidays, making difficult decisions when they're buying groceries. I met someone the other day who can't afford to buy fresh vegetables any more. She's buying frozen because the fresh is too expensive. This is Australia. This is Australia, and you're hearing those kinds of heartbreaking stories. It's because the government is wasting money on completely unnecessary things. Our taxes are higher than they need to be. And, of course, all that unnecessarily high government expenditure fuels inflation, and it's inflation that's hurting Australian families right now. The solution to that is a change of government to get this country back on track. When the average Australian thinks about how they're going to vote at the ballot box in the weeks ahead I think it's a pretty simple proposition: Do you feel better off today than you were three years ago when the Albanese Labor government came to power? Have things gotten better for you or worse for you? Is this country on the right track under this government, or do we need to change direction? A Dutton coalition government is the change that this country needs. In my own electorate of Sturt, when I think about the appropriation bills before us, I lament the lack of investment particularly in the vital Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass corridor, which has a number of components, which when completed will divert heavy freight out of the suburbs of my electorate of Sturt—getting them off Portrush Road and the future risk of them going down Cross Road through my electorate and the seats of Adelaide and Boothby—and get the freight around the back of the Adelaide Hills. I was very proud to be a part of the government that put money into the Truro bypass with the South Australian Liberal government, which was the first part of building that freight bypass. Unfortunately, that project was the victim of the cruel and nasty infrastructure cuts implemented by this government last year. That has really hurt my community, and it's really hurt my city, because that investment was going to not only transform the economic efficiency of freight movements throughout South Australia and around Adelaide but make a dramatic difference to the safety of commuters and pedestrians, who don't feel it's reasonable to live in a city of 1.2 million people and have Highway 1 running through their suburbs. Small country towns, happily for them, had bypasses built around them decades ago, but we've still got a situation where heavy freight going from Melbourne to Perth travels through suburban Adelaide. It's completely ludicrous. We need to fix that. We were on the pathway to doing that, and, regrettably, that was cruelly ripped away from my community and other communities in Adelaide by that callous decision to cut that project. We've learned, on that project, that the South Australian government has submitted to the federal government a new business case, which, it seems, based on the Labor state ministers' commentary around it on radio, is a positive cost benefit. Even the state Labor government are hoping that the federal government will decide to reconsider their cruel cuts and again partner with them on that project. Having heard that revelation this week, I call on this government to release that business case and show people what that plan looks like, what it will cost and how it will benefit the people of my electorate of Sturt, the people of Adelaide and the state of South Australia. Burying that thing and hiding it from everyone is completely unacceptable and cannot possibly be tolerated. To hear that the state government have given it to the federal government and said, 'Well, we've given it to the federal government; it's really up to them to decide what they're going to do next with it'—if this federal government refuses to release that plan, it will be an indictment on its lack of interest in investing in that project. An election is about to be upon us, and it is a very helpful and important debate to be had, equipped with all the necessary information, to compare the major parties' offerings on that project, like on many others, in the lead-up to the election. I hope Minister King is on the cusp of releasing that Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass business case which the state Labor minister said he provided to them. It's in their court to release it. We want to know what it says and we want to get on and build this thing. It needs to happen. We should have started by now. We've lost years because of this Labor government's cruel decision to defund one of those projects, but we're not giving up on it. We've got to get on with it. We want to see it get done. The other thing that's very relevant in this appropriation bill that the Labor Party is going to have to confront and take very seriously is defence expenditure. We've recently had the confirmation of what we already knew: the Greens political party have said that their policy position at the next election is to scrap the AUKUS agreement and to scrap submarine construction for the Royal Australian Navy. They've already said they want to scrap the Hunter frigate program as well—so they want to shut down naval shipbuilding in Adelaide. Most importantly, this is disastrous for our national security. To take that capability away from the future of the Royal Australian Navy is absolutely treasonous. But the double whammy in South Australia is the collapse of one of the great bright shining future industries of our state—shipbuilding. This is very relevant for the Labor Party because they've got to decide what they're doing with their preferences in the state of South Australia. If a candidate on a ballot paper has a policy position to shut down naval shipbuilding, they should be put last on that ballot paper. I'm sure that decision is forthcoming. It is very serious; we have not had this circumstance in a federal election contest in South Australia before. The Greens party also want to shut down the oil and gas industries—so that's the end of Santos and Beach. With the difficult circumstances facing the steel industry, the concept of a political force like the Greens, who want to get rid of shipbuilding and oil and gas—the overall impact on the South Australian economy would probably be approaching around 100,000 jobs, as those decisions flow through the entirety of our economy. That is an economic Armageddon for my home state. Even though we sometimes think the Greens are a joke of a political party because that happens to be the truth, this has to be taken very, very seriously, and no credible political force and no major party, no party of government, can possibly countenance indulging such a dangerous, reckless outlook for the people of South Australia and, frankly, the people of the entire country. We support the funding for the government, obviously. We look forward to this bill supporting the operation of the government through the election period that is upon us. We look forward to that campaign and to debating the significant issues that face the future of the entire nation and, as I have outlined, particularly the future of my home state of South Australia, the future of my constituents in the seat of Sturt. With that, I commend the bill to the House.
Medicare: Bulk-Billing | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, GP bulk-billing rates in my electorate of Sturt were at 79 per cent in 2019 before COVID. Under the Albanese Labor government,...
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, GP bulk-billing rates in my electorate of Sturt were at 79 per cent in 2019 before COVID. Under the Albanese Labor government, they've fallen as low as 69 per cent. Australian families are already facing a cost-of-living crisis, a housing crisis and energy bill crisis. Why are my constituents now having to endure a bulk-billing crisis?
Messner, Hon. Anthony (Tony) John, AM | Condolences | House debates
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Tony Messner in contributing to this condolence motion. Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister and the opposition leader put some very poignant...
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Tony Messner in contributing to this condolence motion. Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister and the opposition leader put some very poignant comments on the record about Tony's career and time in this parliament. He was a South Australian senator, and, as a South Australian, I want to make a few comments. I never met Tony Messner, which is quite surprising because I have two quite significant connections to him. By the time I had become active in the South Australian Liberal Party he had moved to the South Coast of New South Wales, but when he was a senator my mother worked for him, and that put her on the path to meeting my father—so it's thanks to Tony Messner that I'm standing before you today in this parliament, so we've got to hold him to account there! Also, Tony Messner served as the Administrator of Norfolk Island, and I grew up for a few years on Norfolk Island—funnily enough, in the late 1980s, when my father was the chief administrative officer over there. So I can connect with his service in Norfolk Island, and my family probably owes my existence to his election to the Senate. Tony was elected in the infamous 1975 election, which was brought about by the dismissal of the Whitlam government. In no way am I undermining my leader, Mr Dutton, who says that the upcoming election is the most important in a generation—he's right about that—but, boy, the 1975 election was pretty significant for many reasons, particularly for the future of parliamentary democracy. Indeed, we were in a very precarious situation when the Governor-General made the very sensible and relieving decision to dismiss a government that was seeking to govern without the consent of the parliament, effectively committing crimes against the Constitution of our own country. The people of Australia made very clear what they thought about that when they had the chance to vote at the ballot box in December 1975. I've had the opportunity, being very much a political nerd—that wouldn't surprise anyone here—to speak to a few people that contested that 1975 election, and it is quite fascinating to hear those firsthand accounts of what it was like to be in that contest. It was probably the most dramatic of elections that this country has ever seen—and, I genuinely hope, will ever see. The tension and the division in our country around that election is not what we want in our democratic contests; we want spirited contests but we don't want them to rip our country apart. Hopefully, 1975 is the one and only time we see anything of that great significance. Tony was elected in that election. He served for 15 years in the Senate. One thing I want to single out about his contribution—and I think we could all pay tribute to him by thinking ourselves about how we can do more and follow his example—is how much he cared for and shone a spotlight on the need for us to do better by small businesses in this country. I feel like I spend way too much time as a member of this parliament in debates around legislation putting more pressure, more restriction, more red tape and more regulation on small businesses. If Tony Messner was here, he would be calling that out at every opportunity. That was what he did through his career, and that is what I think we need to strongly consider in our own careers in this place—how we find opportunities not to put more burden on the small-business sector but in fact to take the burden off the small-business sector and make it easier for them. The Prime Minister and the opposition leader reflected on Tony Messner's career yesterday and talked about his great policy achievements in veterans' affairs and many other areas. It is beyond question that trying to find ways—many times successfully—to make life easier for small businesses was the great legacy of his career here. I always thank businesspeople when I go and visit their businesses and they're employing people and being successful. Some of them are a bit surprised, because they're not used to receiving any gratitude from government, but we're so lucky to have the small-business sector taking a risk, putting their capital on the line and employing and giving people a wage so that they can support their families. They're growing our economy and paying the taxes that provide the society that we're all so lucky to enjoy in this country. There is now and there has always been a little too much of a lack of appreciation for the small-business sector in particular, like sole traders and businesses with few employees, who take enormous risk and make this country and its economy what they are. That was something that Tony understood very intuitively. He didn't just understand it; he effectively said, 'While I'm here in this parliament, that's the thing I really want to have as my focus.' We all have things we're interested in and pursue in this building—they're all credible—and it's important that individual members pick up causes and policy priorities and objectives that they want to shine a spotlight on. But the fact that Tony's was the small-business sector is a great credit to him and is something I want to reinforce in this condolence motion. We thank him for his service to South Australia. As a South Australian Liberal Party member, I thank him for his service to the Liberal Party. He served with great distinction in the true spirit and traditions of the Liberal Party and was a senator in that House, as the house of review. He made a great contribution. He leaves a great legacy. Vale, Tony Messner.
Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Indeed, it is, in some ways, a great disappointment to speak on a bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024, that has become necessary because of actions that are happening within...
Indeed, it is, in some ways, a great disappointment to speak on a bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024, that has become necessary because of actions that are happening within our community that I never thought I would live to see in modern day Australia. Some of the things that we see in the news, in fact, and experiences I have had in the streets of the Adelaide CBD belong more in a Hollywood movie about a bygone era that we look upon and think how grateful we are that that is in history. Alas, we are far from that. We are seeing this remarkably depressing blooming of disgusting antisemitic behaviour in our community, which brings us to the need to consider legislative change to address behaviour that we couldn't have foreseen would occur in modern Australia. My heart certainly goes out particularly to members of the Jewish community in my electorate and across this country. I cannot imagine how they are feeling about the unrecognisable behaviour that they see and experience in this country that they love. Many of them descend from families that came to this country for refuge from disgusting antisemitism and the horrors of the Holocaust and have built such an amazing future for themselves and their families in this country. In some cases, they find themselves considering whether or not they have a future in this country anymore because of what we've seen happen, particularly since 7 October. It's been confronting. It's been appalling. It is completely un-Australian. We find ourselves in a situation where we have an opportunity with the bill before us to strengthen our legislative framework at the Commonwealth level to address these remarkably disgusting, impossible-to-predict developing elements of behaviour in our society. The coalition has some specific issues and hesitations around amendments and around seeking to improve the legislation from the government that is before us, and I commend other coalition speakers who have contributed on this bill and who have outlined some of those issues. We hope the government will engage in good faith to discuss with us our sensible suggestions of how to improve this framework. I hope we all want exactly the same thing. Indeed, apart from one vile element of the Australian political firmament—that is, elements of the Greens political party who couldn't even support a motion in the parliament condemning a terrorist action in the wake of the atrocities of 7 October—apart from that shameful little cabal, I know that the goodwill towards addressing this genuine, appalling rise of antisemitism in our society is shared almost unanimously in the chamber. We in the coalition look forward to being part of approving this bill and achieving the outcome we all want through its passage.
I rise to welcome the very important contribution that's recently been made to the public policy debate by Frontier Economics. Their founder, Danny Price, is a very highly respected and regarded...
I rise to welcome the very important contribution that's recently been made to the public policy debate by Frontier Economics. Their founder, Danny Price, is a very highly respected and regarded energy economist who released an important analysis into the cost of the current trajectory of Labor's policies when it comes to energy in this country. Regrettably but not surprisingly, it has revealed a very frightening difference between what Mr Price believes will be the cost of Labor implementing their energy plans and what Labor claim that cost will be. It's a pretty significant number: half a trillion dollars. That's $500 billion. The government says it will be $122 billion. Mr Price says it will be more than $600 billion. That is a very dramatic revelation when it comes to the path that we are currently taking under this government's policies in regard to energy. Mr Price is a valued adviser to Labor governments, particularly in my home state of South Australia. He has advised the Weatherill government and now the Malinauskas government on a number of energy policy issues, and they consider his views to be absolutely expert. Well, his expert view is that, under this government if we continue with its policies, we'll be spending an extra half a trillion dollars on its plan to get to net zero by 2050. Thankfully there is an alternative to the current approach. It is what the coalition has been articulating when it comes to engaging the opportunity of embracing nuclear power for civilian energy generation in this country. Of course we're already embracing nuclear when it comes to naval shipbuilding with the AUKUS agreement, which is a fantastic opportunity to acquire the best capability that has been technologically pioneered by the United States and now in partnership with the United Kingdom. We are the third nation to have access to this technology. In Adelaide, where my electorate of Sturt is located, we will be building eight submarines with nuclear reactors in their bellies out at Port Adelaide, a mere 15 kilometres from the Adelaide CBD. The government supports nuclear when it comes to submarines. They support eight nuclear reactors in the city limits of Adelaide, but they for some reason don't support embracing the logical next step, which is to also have civilian nuclear generation properly distributed across the country to replace our retiring coal fleet. Coal has been a very reliable and very affordable source of electricity for this nation for a long, long time. Particularly our two major cities, Sydney and Melbourne, have benefited from having very substantial coal deposits very close to those cities that were abundant and very easy to dig out of the ground to power coal fired plants in the Hunter Valley or in the Latrobe Valley to provide cheap and reliable energy. We know we can't continue to burn coal. We know that we have to get to net zero by 2050. So there is a very sensible technological solution to reliable base-load power replacing the coal fleet that we've got, and that is nuclear. Nuclear is zero emissions. Of course we have a lot of uranium in this country. We've got a long, proud history in the nuclear sector, but we haven't needed to embrace civilian generation until now. I have some very significant scientists from my electorate that have been pioneers in nuclear, particularly Sir Mark Oliphant, who was very instrumental in nuclear physics through his career. So it is logical for this nation to embrace the next opportunity for nuclear, which is building a civilian nuclear generation fleet of nuclear reactors in this country to replace the retiring coal fleet that we have to ensure that we've got reliability from a source that is abundant within our own country. That is something that we, the coalition, are proudly taking to the next election: a proper and serious plan to get to net zero. We know what Labor are like when it comes to costings, and they've been exposed again with this half-a-trillion-dollar hole in their policy. We will take nuclear to the next election and give that opportunity to the people of this country.
Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I would like to start by commending my colleague the member for Nicholls, who has made an exceptional contribution on this bill, the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024. In...
I would like to start by commending my colleague the member for Nicholls, who has made an exceptional contribution on this bill, the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024. In fact, I fear I am at risk of repeating many of his fine arguments in my own contribution. I rise to speak in favour of the member for Fairfax's second reading amendment. As has been made very clear, we in the coalition do not support this Labor version of the guarantee of origin. When we were in government, we had a very different scheme that we hoped to be supporting through this parliament, but, regrettably, what has been brought forward by the government is vastly different to what we intended to do when we were in government. That is regrettable because a proper guarantee-of-origin scheme would be an excellent thing for this country. What is being proposed in this bill is a lost opportunity to give that certainty and that opportunity to so many industries that would be looking for the system that we intended to legislate for. I would like to start by giving a shoutout to the HILT CRC, coordinated by the University of Adelaide. I have had a lot to do with them over the years. I met with them when they were applying for and, happily, were successful under the previous government through the CRC funds at getting support. 'HILT CRC' stands for the Heavy Industry Low-carbon Transition Cooperative Research Centre. They are doing work on trying to crack some of the challenges that are in place when it comes to industrial chemistry and commercially viable technology to undertake some of those very high-emitting heavy industry processes. We know that getting the energy that's generated and zapped down the transmission lines of this country to net zero through zero emissions technology is nowhere near enough to address the totality of emissions. One of the big ones that's probably got one of the most challenges is those industrial processes and heavy industries that emit a lot. It is very difficult to replicate those processes from the 240-volt power connections. I think this figure is still accurate, but it's certainly been the case for a long period of time that seven per cent of total emissions comes from steel alone. I think cement is about five per cent. The really important industries for the planet but particularly our country like steel, cement and aluminium at the moment are high in emissions. We have to come up with commercially viable solutions to address how they can become carbon neutral. In my home state of South Australia, the state government are putting a large amount of state government funds into building a hydrogen plant in the iron triangle. I wish them well, but there are some very concerning early signs about how that project is tracking and where it is going to end up, particularly from a cost point of view and whether or not the markets that were believed to potentially be accessible to that plant once it is constructed will exist in the form that was envisaged by Labor when they developed this scheme. It now seems that the timelines that were promised—they can't be concealed from the public; you know if you are or are not successfully building a hydrogen electrolyser plant—on that commitment are running dramatically late. But what isn't known in the public domain is just where the financial situation, the cost of that plant, has landed. Around half a billion dollars, I think, was initially earmarked by the Labor government in South Australia to build that plant. I have deep concern and I think any reasonable observer would have deep concern that not only the delays to that but also the likely cost blowouts for building that plant seem likely to be quite significant. If they weren't, you would think there'd be a lot more transparency around what is happening with that project from the state government's point of view than there currently is. In fact there were attempts, I believe, to establish a select committee in the legislative council to look into that project, and they were blocked. So the transparency around what's happening there is extremely concerning. I think the dreams of what might be possible and when for hydrogen at that plant that the South Australian government is building are pretty well replicated across all of the hoped-for hydrogen developments across this country and really across the world. There was a lot of early hype around what and where hydrogen might lead to, but regrettably a lot of boardrooms are making a lot of decisions to cancel a lot of investments in hydrogen projects and infrastructure around hydrogen because it seems to be that the sort of market that some believed might develop in a certain timeframe is not eventuating. Some of the major partners, particularly in Japan and South Korea, who seemed to be very enthusiastic around hydrogen produced in Australia for their markets, are not quite as enthusiastic as they have been in the past. Here we have before us a bill that we're discussing that could be very different to what the government's brought to us, and that's regrettable because the huge focus that they've got on green hydrogen through this is not panning out to have the same likelihood of significant success that some believed it would in previous years. As the member for Fairfax points out in the amendment to the second reading, we have significant criticism around the fact that this is not a technology-agnostic proposal. We have obviously made a decision in the coalition that there is no prospect of getting to a 'net zero by 2050' circumstance in this country without nuclear—reliable base-load generation which is obviously also emissions free. As the member for Nicholls pointed out, as we see the retirement of coal generation, that reliable base-load generation which completely underpinned the industrial development of this country for many, many decades, we want to see that replaced by an equally reliable base-load generation, being nuclear power. Not only can nuclear be a huge part of generating electricity to go through our electricity market and power our homes and businesses but nuclear has enormous applications across the other elements and challenges of getting to net zero. The heat produced from nuclear is a big opportunity for certain industrial processes. The heat that can be created out of nuclear is very superior to what you can create from three-phase electricity powered heat capability. Even with nuclear heat, there are heat requirements in certain industrial chemistry and certain heavy industries that not even nuclear can create, and those are challenges that need to be cracked. People like the HILT CRC are working on exactly that, because at the moment there is no real commercially viable non-carbon-emitting alternative. That's why we recognise that there'll be some processes that will always emit carbon and we need to accommodate the need to offset emissions. Net zero isn't absolute zero. Net zero is net zero, and there will undoubtedly be processes in certain industrial transformations from which the emissions will need to be offset, because there's no solution other than continuing to undertake chemical reactions that release carbon. None of that is accommodated in this bill. I have my friend the member for Braddon here; he is a proud Tasmanian. One of the most egregious things in this bill is that legacy hydropower generation capacity, which is resplendent throughout the great island of Tasmania, is for some bizarre reason excluded from being eligible for this scheme. Now, that surely is an oversight. I can't possibly imagine why hydropower is excluded. I concede that the government have got an ideological objection to nuclear, but I've not identified that they've got an ideological objection to hydropower—certainly not in the modern era. I know there was a time when dams in Tasmania had a degree of controversy, for different reasons to emissions reduction, but the fact that existing hydro-powered plants that have serviced Tasmania and, in fact, export that great clean energy across Bass Strait to Victoria are excluded from this scheme is just nonsensical. Hopefully that's something that the government recognises. If they're not prepared to consider other points, at least don't do this to the poor people of Tasmania. Obviously, the other thing that we think is very odd and where we need as much international interoperability as possible—because getting to net zero is a global effort that is also going to involve a lot of cooperation and collaboration between economies—is that we've got a situation where our scheme doesn't align with the one that's been designed for the EU and the UK. So our Guarantee of Origin scheme, if it passes this parliament, won't be compatible with the schemes in the EU and the UK. That's greatly disappointing, because that's an enormous opportunity lost for Australian businesses that could see an export opportunity, potentially, if we had a scheme that was aligned with the EU and UK one and accredited to that. There would be businesses that would be operating under our scheme that would also have an opportunity to access markets in the EU and UK with that accreditation through our Guarantee of Origin scheme, if it were properly aligned with those overseas ones, and the proposal here from the government does not do that. So that, of course, concerns us. Most importantly, we have a very credible concern that this is the beginning of creating something akin to the previous carbon tax regime that the Gillard government introduced, Certainly, this bill heads down that path. It provides a mechanism for putting a price on carbon again, and that is something that the Australian people have spoken very comprehensively on. Indeed, if the government believe that that would now be popular, they're very welcome to take that to an election and have it as their central campaign position. But to bring, through this legislation, a mechanism that could well open the government up to putting a price back on carbon by stealth again is something we bell the cat on very much in this debate. That is what the member for Fairfax is doing through the second reading amendment. It is regrettable that this is a lost opportunity to have a bipartisan bill that would have been able to continue on from the work we did in our last term, would create something that would provide certainty for Australian industry and, of course, would be agnostic in relation to the great opportunities around technologies like nuclear that we look forward to presenting to the people of Australia at the upcoming election. It is very regrettable that, again, the government are not open to the people having their say on a matter like that through this legislation. So, indeed, I support the second reading amendment from the member for Fairfax. We don't support this bill for all the reasons outlined. I commend the member for Fairfax's amendment to the House.
Energy | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. South Australian Rick Wahlheim lost both his legs to diabetes and now relies on electricity powered devices, including his motorised wheelchair. His wife Lyn...
My question is to the Prime Minister. South Australian Rick Wahlheim lost both his legs to diabetes and now relies on electricity powered devices, including his motorised wheelchair. His wife Lyn said that without power, they can't lift him out of bed. Their electricity bills have increased from around $900 to $1,400. Why are Australians paying the price for Labor's reckless energy policies?
Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I'm thrilled to speak on the Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024. I'm disappointed that I seem to be the...
I'm thrilled to speak on the Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024. I'm disappointed that I seem to be the only speaker, because I think this bill is on one of the extremely important issues that we should all be seeking an opportunity to discuss in this chamber—and that is expanding the economic opportunity that free trade provides. Free trade is under siege in some parts of the world at the moment. Quite concerningly, some parts of the world are looking to engage in an increase of protectionism. Thankfully, in this country, we have a very important political consensus between our major parties that free trade is a good thing. As a nation with a very healthy, and proudly healthy, trade surplus, we know that we are a wealthier country because of trade than we would be without trade. Indeed, when you look at just agriculture as an example, there are a little over 27 million people living in this country and the often quoted figure, which I'm quite sure is accurate, is that we produce enough food in this country to feed 70 million people. That means we feed 27 million Australians and 43 million other people around the world. That's good for those people that need the food but also good for our primary producers, who are able to produce more than what could be consumed just in this nation and make wealth from selling overseas. Whether it's the mining sector, the manufacturing sector or the services sector, we know that the wealth of this country is underpinned by that trade. If you think about our largest export, it's iron ore. The amount of iron ore that we use in this country to transform into steel in my home state in Whyalla for longform products and in Wollongong, the other major steel plant for sheet steel, meets the needs of this country and we have spectacular quantities of iron ore which are exported in equally spectacular quantities around the world for the steelmaking needs of other nations. It earns tens of billions of dollars, sometimes more than hundreds of billions of dollars, for our economy. And so many other natural resources that we are happily endowed with make such an enormous difference to the wealth and the standards of living of everyone in this country. I applaud the fact that we haven't lost our way and haven't gone down the path of populist rhetoric around tariffs and restricting the flow of goods and services across our border, because we are so much wealthier because of that. This bill deals with continued harmonisation opportunities with our relationship and trade agreements between ASEAN, Australia and New Zealand. I have had a regularly occurring terrible experience in my life with disgraceful nontariff barriers that certain jurisdictions try to use to obfuscate trade. In my time in the wool industry, we would always have these tactics, particularly from the European Union, to make it as difficult as possible. I happened to be in wool, but anyone in agriculture knows some of the appalling practices that the EU has engaged in over time to frustrate the ability of good-quality Australian produce getting into markets like the EU. I once had to get a government sanctioned vet to provide a health certificate for a one-kilogram spindle of yarn because there was this suggestion that it couldn't be sent into the EU unless a vet had inspected a piece of yarn—that had been superwashed, I might add. Superwashing is a hydrochloric acid treatment of wool fibre before it is combed and spun and dyed. The suggestion that that needed to have a health certificate from a vet to make sure that it wasn't carrying some kind of potential biologically risky disease was absolutely ludicrous. But these tactics have, of course, been used many, many times to frustrate our fair and free market access that we should be entitled to through agreements. I never had any issues with the excellent relationship that we have with the ASEAN and New Zealand nations. The three parties that we are discussing in this legislation are probably excellent examples of people that have some of the highest standards of good-quality trade liberalised practices and welcome the opportunity for the competition that that provides. I appreciate the opportunity to make some brief comments on this bill. I commend the bipartisanship that we have with the government when it comes to looking for every opportunity possible to continue to enter into signed agreements to provide better and more open access for good-quality Australian goods and services to export markets, and I welcome the competition that flows from that from the nations we sign these agreements with. I'm not aware of any example of Australia not being a very open and willing partner to negotiate with any other jurisdictions that want to talk about that sensible reduction in trade barriers between our economy and theirs. There are lots more opportunities to undertake into the future. The sad state of the multilateral World Trade Organization process of further trade liberalisation is very disappointing. It is not the fault in any way, shape or form of this country. We've always been a very willing participant in those trade negotiation rounds, but, disappointingly, and particularly because of the way in which you have to achieve agreement through the WTA process, we, of course, haven't seen any meaningful progress, really, since the Uruguay rounds that saw the 1994 agreements and the 1995 establishment of the World Trade Organization. I know that the bipartisanship in this chamber, by and large, will always see us being a very open, keen and willing partner to multilateral avenues, but this is a good example where we won't sit back and wait for the WTO processes to continue to grind at a glacial pace seemingly towards nowhere. We will always engage in bilateral agreements with willing parties, so I commend this bill to the House, which sees us further streamline and harmonise the way in which we undertake the specifics of trade documentation and trade bureaucracy between ASEAN, Australia and New Zealand. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Migration Amendment Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I start by thoroughly agreeing with the member for Indi that the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 should go to a Senate committee. That's the position we have outlined. The lead speaker, the member...
I start by thoroughly agreeing with the member for Indi that the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 should go to a Senate committee. That's the position we have outlined. The lead speaker, the member for Wannon, made it clear that in principle we hope to support this bill if it indeed does what the government claims it will, but regrettably the government have made these claims before and this is a subsequent piece legislation they are bringing into this place. It's nearly 12 months after the NZYQ decision was handed down last November and we still don't have a proper legislative framework in place to deal with dangerous, hardened criminals who are out there reoffending against Australians as we speak. The November decision of the High Court was thoroughly foreseen in comments by Justice Gleeson months earlier in the High Court which clearly foreshadowed that there was a risk that this decision would be made and that the High Court would go down this path on the current arrangements that are in place to keep detained dangerous people who have had their visas cancelled, some of them child sex offenders and rapists and all sorts of heinous criminals, who we don't want to this country, who don't deserve to be in this country, who don't follow the laws of this country and who are not safe to be on the streets of this country. Regrettably, despite a great deal of warning via Justice Gleeson's commentary months before, the government was completely flat-footed and caught completely by surprise when that decision was handed down and we immediately had hundreds of people let out onto the streets. Regrettably, the most tragic episodes in this whole sorry saga of government incompetence are the Australian victims of the reoffending of these criminals because they were released by this government. The government have tried to claim that they had to do it because of the High Court decision. We happen to be debating a year later legislation that they're claiming will fix this problem. Why weren't we debating it the day this decision was handed down? Why wasn't the now sacked minister on his game, on his brief, and having his department properly preparing this legislation which now we are told will address the issues of releasing these criminals into Australian society? Why was this bill not ready to go the day on which that decision was handed down? It is because of the complete incompetence and uselessness of the now removed minister from that portfolio. This is why we have got a great deal of scepticism and concern in just taking the government at their word on these matters when they say, 'This legislation is going to address these issues.' They've said that before in this House. I concede that other members have made the comment that there are legal scholars making commentary about the risk of this being struck down again by the High Court and having constitutional issues. The previous speaker mentioned that we shouldn't be passing legislation through this chamber when we think it has a risk of being unconstitutional, which is an excellent point and is why people shouldn't have supported the misinformation and disinformation bill going through this parliament. That is the piece of legislation that has the highest chance of being struck down by the High Court as being unconstitutional. But, thankfully, that looks like it has Buckley's and none of passing the Senate. We would like to see a proper Senate inquiry into this legislation because we're sick of passing legislation that the government says is going to protect Australians that subsequently fails to do so. There have been innocent Australians that have been victims of these awful criminals that were let back out into the community because of this government's incompetence. We don't want to see legislation that doesn't achieve what it claims to, which is the track record of this government in this area of policy, and again let down the people of this country and leave them unsafe. We don't want to look at any more victims on the front pages of newspapers with black and blue faces, because someone that shouldn't be out on the streets in the Australian community has offended against them, because this government can't keep these people where they should be—off the streets and away from innocent Australians. We are not standing in the way of the passage of this bill through the House of Representatives, and, of course, hopefully—there's a first time for everything—the government is right this time when they say that this legislation will address the enormous loopholes that have opened up which are letting these awful criminals walk the streets and offend against innocent Australians. But we do need to test this through a Senate inquiry because we've been told all this before and have been let down by this government making commitments about legislation that was meant to achieve the protection of Australian citizens in our society but failed to do so. We commend the second reading through the House. In the Senate, we will be supporting a full inquiry into this legislation to properly probe and understand that it is indeed going to do what the government claims it will.
Nuclear Energy | Constituency Statements | House debates
I rise to welcome the important body of work undertaken by Frontier Economics and recently released by the shadow minister for climate change and energy. It's a very important contribution to...
I rise to welcome the important body of work undertaken by Frontier Economics and recently released by the shadow minister for climate change and energy. It's a very important contribution to public policy and, frankly, something that is also highly alarming and concerning because what it has revealed is that the current government's plans for this country's energy generation into the future, which they claim would cost a little over $100 billion, will in fact cost more than $600 billion—thanks to this independent analysis from Frontier Economics. We welcome that important clarification, and that is on the record and is not being disputed in any academic, significant or scientific way by anyone that knows anything about this topic. In fact, Frontier Economics have quite a heritage in working for Labor governments, and they are very highly respected by those Labor governments. Mr Danny Price, the founder of Frontier Economics, is a very consistent adviser to the South Australian Labor government, in my home state. Both former premier Jay Weatherill and current premier Peter Malinauskas have engaged him to undertake major analysis and consultations for them when they've been undertaking significant policy development related to energy. So it's no surprise to me, given Danny Price is such a consistent adviser to Peter Malinauskas, that the current premier is such a consistent advocate for nuclear. Indeed, it was just a few months ago that Premier Peter Malinauskas made this important point: I'm okay with the presence of a nuclear industry within our country and I mean more broadly, I actually firmly believe that nuclear power is a necessary part of the global energy mix if we're going to achieve net zero. And the Labor Premier of South Australia, Peter Malinauskas, is not a Johnny-come-lately to this debate, either. In fact, before he was in the parliament, he was a very consistent advocate for nuclear energy in this country. When he was the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association state secretary—this is back in 2014—he said the following: I believe climate change is a real challenge we need to face up to, and nuclear energy can be a safe source of base load power, with zero carbon emissions. Thus, I find it contradictory and irresponsible when I see the Greens and environmentalists outright opposing nuclear power. That's the view of the Labor Party in my home state of South Australia. Whilst I don't make a habit of agreeing with the South Australian Labor government, I do on this issue. Peter Malinauskas is quite right; we do need nuclear power in this country. It's a vital part of securing our energy security into the future, and I commend him for his bravery in standing up to Anthony Albanese and his petty opposition to nuclear.
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. This bill responds to this parliament's inquiry into the 2022 election, conducted by the Joint Standing...
I rise to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. This bill responds to this parliament's inquiry into the 2022 election, conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Each parliament conducts such an inquiry to consider both the performance of the electoral system and its legislation following an electoral event, and to consider any further changes that might be required to keep our electoral regulations consistent with current behaviours and practices. The bill that was introduced by the government yesterday looks to implement recommendations from that committee's work, which the assistant minister referred to as being 'multipartisan'. But it was not multipartisan in agreement of the recommendations of that committee and its inquiry. Coalition members of that committee reflected our position when they provided a dissenting report to that committee's work. As coalition members stated, the coalition believes that any proposed electoral changes should support our system of fair, open and transparent elections which treat all political participants equally. Our system must encourage political participation that protects freedoms of speech, belief, association and thought. No participant should have fear of retribution for their beliefs or their support. The coalition believes that those who join or actively support political parties, like those who support civil society movements or not-for-profit organisations, do so on the basis of sincerely-held beliefs and a genuine desire to participate in their democratic society. Members of established political parties are not less worthy than those who support other forms of political campaigning movements or civil society causes. Changes to regulations at federal and state levels of government have increased the regulatory burden on political parties, making it harder for active grassroots participation. This is not a good outcome for democratic participation in Australia. Financially stable political parties with active membership representing the broad political spectrum are important foundations for a healthy democracy. The governing legislation and regulatory framework for political parties should ultimately encourage grassroots participation, not make it harder. This bill looks to implement recommendations 1 to 10 of the joint standing's interim report tabled in June 2023. Recommendation 1 proposed to lower the disclosure threshold of donations to $1,000, and this legislation reflects this. As the coalition stated in the response to the committee's report, we are concerned that there must be a balance between privacy and transparency. We have seen political intimidation by some in the community recently, often on the offices of parliamentarians. Any threshold should not be a discouragement to participation in the electoral system where there is any fear of intimidation or retribution from publication of the support of political parties or candidates. The Grattan Institute argued for a higher threshold of $5,000, noting this important balance, and stated: This would protect the privacy of small donors, and keep administration costs manageable, while ensuring that all donations big enough to matter are on the public record. Recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of the interim report are also reflected in the legislation. These propose to introduce donation and expenditure caps to the electoral system. The bill proposes to introduce a cap of $20,000 each year, indexed annually, which will apply to individual donors and entities. On expenditure, the bill proposes to introduce a cap of $90 million for each political party. A cap of $800,000 will apply to expenditure by any party or candidate on any individual electorate. A Senate cap will apply for a state or territory that will be valued at the number of electorates in that jurisdiction. The key concern for coalition members through the process of the committee's inquiry on this matter was that caps be applied fairly and equitably. The ability to set the caps of donations for the Commonwealth system that has never had this limitation is new ground and may require review. Another important aspect of the government's legislation is that it will capture political entities outside parties and candidates. As Professor George Williams stated on the potential loopholes with caps when he appeared before the joint standing committee: Unless we actually have a holistic regime, people will set up the equals, whether they be charities, third parties or the like. We need to make sure that they are equally covered with appropriate caps, disclosure and the like. Otherwise, we'll just end up with the electoral fundraising and the fight moving from parties to third parties. We welcome the view of the government that these caps should also apply to significant third parties, associated entities and third parties, who will be subject to expenditure caps of $11.25 million annually, with other limits at an electorate, state and territory level. Recommendations 2, 3 and 7 have been implemented through measures to implement faster disclosure timeframes, to alter the definition of 'gift' under the electoral law and to establish a system of common accounting for Commonwealth campaign accounts. These recommendations were all supported in principle by coalition members, and we see merit in these as improvements to the current system's integrity. It has taken the government nearly 18 months to bring forward legislation in response to the interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the conduct of the 2022 federal election and nearly a year to bring forward legislation to address the final report of that committee. The government has had this time to consider and draft the legislation before the parliament today and, instead of providing the House with time to debate it in the normal manner, it has introduced it in a rush on a Monday for immediate debate on a Tuesday. We will continue to work with the government on this legislation as there are aspects with which we agree; however, the process for its debate and introduction have not been conducive to considering the wide-ranging impacts on the electoral system or the broader Electoral Act. As such, the opposition will be reserving our final position on this legislation, noting that we have yet to receive advice on some aspect which the government has undertaken to provide. Debate adjourned.
Services Australia | Private Members' Business | House debates
I thank the member for Bradfield for bringing this important issue before the chamber by way of this motion. Like any member of parliament here in the room, I obviously deal with a copious number...
I thank the member for Bradfield for bringing this important issue before the chamber by way of this motion. Like any member of parliament here in the room, I obviously deal with a copious number of constituents that have issues accessing the government services they are duly entitled to. Certainly, matters regarding Services Australia are one of the higher volume categories of cases that come through my office, and I'm sure it's quite similar for most members. The member for Bradfield outlined some very concerning statistics around the performance of processing claims within Services Australia, comparing the last year of our coalition government with the most recent year under the new Labor government. Unfortunately, all the numbers are going the wrong way. The staffing is up, the efficiency of processing is down and, of course, people aren't getting the support they are entitled to from their government, because they're waiting far too long. In the recent budget, we saw a dramatic increase in the size of the Public Service; 36,000 more public servants are being employed under this government compared to the last year under the coalition. We are certainly not getting 36,000 people's worth of efficiency at Services Australia; that's for sure. It's really galling to people wanting the efficient delivery of government services, those that are waiting for their duly entitled claims to be processed and, frankly, any taxpayer that wants us to have an efficient system that gives people the support that they deserve, processes it in a timely matter and makes sure government can be as efficient as possible. The new government are bragging about increasing the number of people being employed at Service Australia. I don't know if that's something to be proud of if the performance is commensurately deteriorating at the same time. As the member for Bradfield pointed out, while the size of the workforce has gone up by a couple of thousand, the efficiency in processing and the outcomes for people that matter, when it comes to engaging government resources, are going backwards; the people entitled to it are missing out. Something is really wrong when more people are achieving poorer outcomes in processing those claims. The member for Bradfield is quite right that there are good ways and bad ways to increase the resources that go towards government service delivery, particularly at Services Australia. I agree with him in commending the former coalition government in New South Wales and the way in which they engaged in digital service delivery and created dramatic efficiencies across a number of government services through their digital government agenda. It's a model that is very worthy of reflecting upon, one that would be good for our Commonwealth government to look at in terms of ways of investing so that people have the best modern experience when it comes to their interaction with the government. Now, we all deal with individual cases that can be quite complex with Services Australia, with immigration matters, with the NDIS et cetera. It's always very reasonable to respect and understand that there will be at times quite complex matters that need bespoke service delivery and might have a complexity that means that it's not that easy to quickly and rapidly process. But the vast majority should sit within an efficient framework and should indeed be achieving reduced wait times through the performance metrics, particularly as investment in the processing of the claims goes up. They shouldn't be going backwards, like they are right now. That means that the policy decisions of this government are making are an absolute embarrassment of what they could be and should be achieving for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. So swallow the pride, admit you've got it wrong and look for opportunities to change course and see a focus on policy delivery in Services Australia that is actually going to deliver for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, because right now they're being let down by the performance of this government. They're the ones that need good government more than anyone at all. Instead, they're getting these terrible outcomes from Services Australia. We would like to see the government dramatically improve their performance in this amongst many other areas.
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Trinity Gardens School | Statements by Members | House debates
It was a great delight, as it is every year, to attend the Trinity Gardens School fun day last weekend. The whole school community do a fantastic job in pulling together what is a...
It was a great delight, as it is every year, to attend the Trinity Gardens School fun day last weekend. The whole school community do a fantastic job in pulling together what is a surprisingly—for the size of the school—significant community event. People well beyond those in the school community come from all of the surrounding suburbs to support the school. It's also just a very enjoyable fun filled day. My congratulations to the school governing council, to the school principal and to all those who were involved. All members would have thriving school communities, and the primary schools in particular throughout my electorate do fantastic work in holding events that raise money to supplement the activities that the schools undertake and to support the kids but also add a real sense of community to the local areas in which they serve. Last weekend happened to be Trinity Gardens School's turn to have their event. It was an excellent day, but so many of my schools do similar events throughout the year, and they really do knit and stitch our community together so very effectively. Congratulations to Trinity Gardens School. Thanks for having me. As usual, I look forward to being with you again next year.
Select Committee on PsiQuantum Funding | Private Members' Business | House debates
I appreciate the lecture from those opposite who are opposing a probity motion and a governance and integrity motion merely to look at something. If there's nothing to be concerned about, the...
I appreciate the lecture from those opposite who are opposing a probity motion and a governance and integrity motion merely to look at something. If there's nothing to be concerned about, the government should have no fear whatsoever in seeing the motion progress, but we seem to have touched a nerve. They seem to be very concerned about any avenue that would see a bit of sunlight shone upon what seems to be a very, very murky deal that the government has done over this massive grant to PsiQuantum of Commonwealth and state funds. I congratulate Premier Crisafulli and express some relief that we now have him at the helm in Queensland. The Queensland government shares the same concerns that the federal opposition do about just what is going on with this billion-dollar allocation of state and federal funds to this American company to build a quantum computer to a specification that has never before been successfully constructed. In the process, we seek to find out why it is that so much murkiness and such a shroud of secrecy have been cast over the decision-making process. As I say, it really does surprise me that the government has a problem with what this motion will do, which is to establish an inquiry into all these things. If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear and you should have nothing to hide. If successful, this motion would have a process that, if you believe the government, would merely confirm that everything they've done regarding this half-a-billion commitment of Commonwealth funds to an American company called PsiQuantum is completely above board. The member for Bradfield, who has moved this motion and brought it to this chamber, has made very important points in the past in scrutinising this. We know there has been correspondence with the Auditor-General. Other integrity bodies may or may not want to look at this murky deal and, in particular, some of the personalities involved in getting special access to the ministers that made these decisions and the past connection those lobbyists might have had with said ministers. All these things would be good to flesh out in the inquiry we are proposing through this motion. There was a time in the last parliament—which I was a part of—when we got very consistent lectures from the now government about integrity and looking at what the executive of government was doing. In fact, if the shoe were on the other foot, I could just hear, and my ears could ring, from the sorts of bellowing that would be coming from the now Labor government about the need to support this motion. So they have the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is—half a billion dollars of money where their mouth is. They can honour their piousness from previous parliaments on topics like this and, in particular, explain why, if they're not supporting this, what holding an inquiry into allocating half a billion dollars of Commonwealth funding through very murky and questionable processes, with no merit based opportunity for others to compete for the sorts of funds being allocated, be something to fear? Why would there be a problem with the parliament exercising its responsibility, which is the oversight of the executive and the expenditure of Commonwealth funds, and why would there be anything to fear in supporting the establishment of this inquiry that the member for Bradfield brings before us today? I want to get to the bottom of the questions we would be probing through this committee. I want to tell my constituents why this half-a-billion-dollar deal was done the way it was done, why it wasn't merit based and why certain lobbyists were able to secure meetings with ministers and spruik the investment of this scale. It's very interesting that the new Queensland government has the same concerns and is questioning whether it will invest in what was announced by the previous Labor government. Supporting this inquiry, if there's nothing to fear, should be something that this government does.