Jenny Ware's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Hughes Electorate: International Women's Day Awards | Statements by Members | House debates
This year, the women of Hughes celebrated International Women's Day at my breakfast at beautiful Doltone House, Sylvania, on 6 March. This was an opportunity for me to recognise and value the...
This year, the women of Hughes celebrated International Women's Day at my breakfast at beautiful Doltone House, Sylvania, on 6 March. This was an opportunity for me to recognise and value the contribution the women of Hughes make within our local community. My Young Woman of the Year was Grace Thorton. Aged only 21, Grace is an inspiring single mother of two who has designed the THRIVE program—a peer support program for young mothers facing trauma, homelessness, domestic violence, substance dependency and mental health struggles. THRIVE empowers women to build their parenting capacity and break cycles of intergenerational disadvantage. My Senior Woman of the Year was Dolores Gonsalves, who supports the homeless around Central Station in Sydney by personally providing essential toiletries, ensuring that people who are often overlooked can feel refreshed, more confident, respected and valued. With kindness and conversation, Dolores reminds some of our most vulnerable Australians that they do matter. My Woman of the Year was Dr Alison Short. Alison was recognised for her lifelong commitment to the allied health profession of music therapy, through which she currently mentors and supports a range of evidence based music projects that make a difference across mental health, special education, palliative care and aged care. Most recently, her research work used music to support anxiety around fertility treatment. I give a big shout-out to the women of Hughes.
Albanese Government | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
I bet there is not a single person in the electorate of Hasluck who can turn around and say to that member that they are doing it better. And if we're not going to stand up for Jewish Australians...
I bet there is not a single person in the electorate of Hasluck who can turn around and say to that member that they are doing it better. And if we're not going to stand up for Jewish Australians or for Australians generally, what about we stand up for those who have been under the scourge of gambling addiction and gambling harm? The Murphy report was delivered to the minister in June 2023, and I sat on that inquiry, as did my good friend the honourable member for Menzies. Why is it up to the Reverand Tim Costello to have to be advocating for the recommendations of that report to be put into law? It is a disgrace that this Prime Minister put the interests of his mates in big business before the interests of Australians. We need a coalition government now to get Australia back on track.
Under Labor, Australians have endured a cost-of-living crisis, an energy crisis, a housing crisis, a youth-crime crisis and now a national security crisis. These crises have been brought about by...
Under Labor, Australians have endured a cost-of-living crisis, an energy crisis, a housing crisis, a youth-crime crisis and now a national security crisis. These crises have been brought about by rising prices, radical policies and the wrong priorities under the leadership of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. This is a prime minister who is out of his depth and taking the country in the wrong direction. Well, in a couple of months, or maybe even only a couple of weeks, Australians will get the choice at the ballot box to vote out one of the worst governments since Federation—vote in the coalition and get Australia back on track. Let's look first of all at national security. The response by the Prime Minister and those on that side to the appalling attacks of 7 October 2023 have demonstrated why those on that side are not fit for government and why this Prime Minister is not fit to lead this country. Following 9 October, this Prime Minister had the opportunity to behave in the same manner as John Howard did in 1996 at Port Arthur with gun control. John Howard had to stand up to the conservative faction and farmers within his party to bring about change that he knew was right for the rest of the country. This Prime Minister has failed to stand up and do what was right for Australians. If he doesn't stand up for Jewish Australians, what guarantee is there that he's going to stand up for any other Australians? When you are Prime Minister of the country you need to be leading for all Australians, and this Prime Minister has failed. And who is next? Catholics? Hindus? Who will this Prime Minister let down next and refuse to support? When university students are terrified on campus, when four-year-olds are being accompanied to their preschool by armed guards and when synagogues are being firebombed, we see the beginning of the breakdown of the fabric of society. That is why we also have a youth-crime crisis in many parts of this country. And it has all come about under this government's watch, under this Prime Minister's leadership. Cost of living: in two years and nine months, Australians' cost of living has gone down by 8.7 per cent. That is the steepest decline for Australians under any term of government—worse than under Whitlam. So, when I stand here and hear those on the other side talking about health care being cheaper, about everything being cheaper, it is not the case, and members on that side know this. Their constituents are telling them exactly the same thing that my constituents are telling me, and that is that they are doing it really, really tough; they've never had it tougher, my constituents say to me. And if we're not going to stand up for Australians on cost of living— I hear the member for Hasluck. Deputy Speaker, I would say to the member for Hasluck—
Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025. As has no doubt already been highlighted, the opposition will be opposing this bill for some of the...
I rise to speak on the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025. As has no doubt already been highlighted, the opposition will be opposing this bill for some of the reasons I intend to set out. If we just go back to the background of this legislation, the bill's intended to amend the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, and replaces references to the childcare-subsidy activity test with a new three-day guarantee. The legislation, at this point, is set to commence in January 2026, and the three-day guarantee is intended to provide all families that have up to a combined income of $533,000 with access to 72 hours a fortnight of subsidised childcare. That all sounds absolutely fabulous as a motherhood statement—no pun intended—but this legislation does not guarantee or prioritise access for working families over non-working families, and it's absolutely crucial, when parents return to work, that they are able to access and have choice about the type of childcare and early learning that is most appropriate for their family. The government estimates the cost of the measure is $426.7 million over five years, despite the policy not rolling out until January 2026. That's $426.7 million over five years from 2024-25. The Productivity Commission's report on this, though, estimated the cost of the full removal of the activity test, which this legislation would do, as being over $2 billion per year. As usual, the Albanese Labor government love to spend money, splash money around and make headlines, but, as always, the proof is in the pudding and whether or not this will actually deliver any additional assistance for working families is really completely questionable. To highlight the finances of this, the explanatory memorandum to the legislation states that the activity test changes will cost, as I said, $426.7 million, but the MYEFO outlook for 2024-25 stated the measure would cost $291.2 million over three years. The Productivity Commission did some preliminary modelling of a similar change to the activity test for its 2023 draft report, and, in that report, the commission found that relaxing the activity test so that all families could access at least three days or 30 hours of subsidised universal early childhood education and care a week would increase cost to the government by $1.1 billion per year. So it's really unclear. We actually don't know how much this policy is in fact going to cost. The amount splashed around by Labor is completely at odds with the Productivity Commission's detailed work on this proposal. Personally, I know that I relied very much on the kindergarten model when my boys went to preschool. They went to a community preschool, and the community preschool was run by a parent board. I was very grateful that I had the ability to make a choice. I live in a metropolitan area and we do have shortages, but, at the time in 2009, when my children turned three and could start preschool, they went to Gymea Community Preschool. It was a great experience, and it was right for my family. That's what childcare and early childhood education should be about. It should be about ensuring that families can make the right decision for them because each family has different needs, different priorities and different circumstances. The reason that the coalition opposes this legislation predominantly is it does remove the priority access for working families. In that way, we say it disincentivises aspiration and increases access without addressing supply issues. I know that's a very big issue out in the regions particularly, and I know many of my colleagues on this side who represent those electorates will be speaking about that. The legislation also does nothing to increase access or flexibility for families, and it doesn't attempt to address the current cost-of-living pressures. That is a summary of why we on this side will be opposing this legislation. We are relieved to see that the bill has at least been referred to a Senate inquiry, with a reporting date of 21 March this year. On the background to this, the Prime Minister first announced this policy on 11 December last year. At the time it was described as the next steps in the Albanese Labor government's plan for a universal early learning system. In some of the commentary that went with the introduction of the legislation, Labor estimated that over 100,000 families will have access to more subsidised care and more than 66,000 families will be better off overall. But 66,000 families represent only about six per cent of all families that are currently engaged and utilising the childcare subsidy system. This is a big cash splash with very little return for the majority of parents and families who are using this system. One of the other important reasons that we oppose this legislation is that we say this guarantee is fundamentally unfair and divisive. A three-day guarantee will only increase access for a very small number of families—as I said, about six per cent—but will have a wide-ranging impact on all families. Families who need access to early childhood education so they can work—and many, many Australian parents are in that position, particularly with the cost-of-living crisis we are subject to because of this government—will be competing against families who now have extra subsidised access but may not be working, studying or volunteering at all. That is the unintended impact and implication of this legislation. Families already in the system are unlikely to be impacted, but working families about to enter the system, or trying to enrol a new child, will be greatly impacted. This appears to be, once again, Labor simply at war with aspiration, with working families and with working parents. The other, and the biggest, problem with this bill is that it simply fails to address the supply-side constraints. We've heard Labor championing, particularly, cheaper child care. But what is the point of cheaper child care if you cannot access a spot for your child when you need to return to work or study or other obligations? Modelling from the Productivity Commissioner shows most of the children affected by the activity test changes live in major cities. Families in what we call thin markets and childcare deserts who have little or no access at all to child care will be the most disadvantaged. They're already disadvantaged, and this is going to make them more disadvantaged. There is no point bringing in legislation that states, 'Yes, you've now got three days guaranteed care' if there is no actual child care available where you live. I think this legislation shows the divisive nature of this government; we've seen it over the almost three years that they've been in power. This is pitting working families against non-working families, and metropolitan families against regional families. This is inherently unfair and not the Australian way. It doesn't reflect Australian values. The Prime Minister should be here bringing the nation together and governing for all Australians instead of continuing this divisiveness that started back in May 2022, when he was elected. This legislation also does not provide sufficient choice for families. It does nothing for parents who need flexibility, families who do shift work, for example, or who work non-standard hours. There is no provision whatsoever for those. Those families will see no benefit from this change. But we on this side of the House well and truly believe that families need a choice as to the sort of care and the type of care that they can access to suit the individual needs of their families. This legislation, we say, will reward families who already access child care at the expense of families who are unable to access it or who choose not to access it. To conclude, we on this side of the House are absolutely committed to assisting families to access child care and early education. However, we say that this legislation, for all of the reasons that I have just set out, will not do the job that it is intended to do.
Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. We are opposing this bill, on our side. I think we need to start with looking at what this legislation is all...
I rise to speak on the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. We are opposing this bill, on our side. I think we need to start with looking at what this legislation is all about. This legislation is in response to a massive loss that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, had in the Federal Court at the end of last year. I say that as a recovering planning, environmental and housing lawyer! In the case of Seadragon Offshore Wind Pty Ltd v Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the Federal Court held at the end of last year that the federal Minister for Climate Change and Energy may lawfully grant a feasibility licence for an offshore wind farm development over a smaller area than applied for by the applicant. So this legislation concerns offshore wind. About 20 years ago, when I was a partner in a law firm, I had a client who was looking at onshore wind projects down in the state of Victoria. We negotiated and negotiated, and in the end the deal did not go ahead for the simple reason that the economics of onshore wind did not stack up in that particular location. I have always been absolutely committed to net zero. Those on our side have said—and through our leader, Peter Dutton—that we have absolutely committed to the net zero target by 2050. How we get there is where we disagree with those on the other side. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Prime Minister have completely and utterly stuffed energy policy in this parliament under this Albanese Labor government. We have some ridiculous examples of energy policy. Let me start with the big announcements during the election campaign. We're coming up to the three-year anniversary of the $275 cut to power bills' that we were allegedly all going to get. Instead, most Australians have seen their power bills increase by a thousand dollars. That was the big headline—they were going to reduce; they haven't. Let's look at some of the ridiculous examples of how their energy policy is playing out in practice. Victoria—your home state, Deputy Speaker McKenzie—because of the decisions by the state government under the former Premier, is now importing gas when it has enough gas to power almost all of Australia. It has said no to gas, which is supported by the federal minister—'No to gas; we don't want gas.' Instead, we're now importing gas into this country at the same time that we are exporting gas to some of our trading partners, such as India. How on earth is that any sort of way to run energy? The dislike of gas has meant that Labor has now moved firmly to committing only to renewable energy and, as our coal-fired power plants are coming to the natural end of their lives, what this government has failed to do is develop any other sensible base-load power. Solar is fine when the sun's shining. Wind is okay in certain circumstances—when the wind is blowing. When it is not, what do we do? We've relied on coal for years and we are rightly now moving away from the coal of yesteryear, but Labor will not even look at embracing nuclear energy, which has been embraced by all of our other major trading partners. It's been used for years in Europe and in America. In my electorate of Hughes, I do of course have the only nuclear plant in the country, and I'm very proud of the work that's done down at ANSTO. They do work with nuclear medicine and they do a lot of work in nuclear research, and it's certainly not the position of the coalition that we would be in any way expanding that for nuclear power. But I said in my first speech in this place that it seems to me ridiculous that we are not looking at harnessing the nuclear technology and the expertise that we already have in this country and how we can use them to reach net zero. Nuclear energy is now safe. I have said on many occasions as well that my 15-year-old self that had posters of Midnight Oil and used to wear the 'no nukes' T-shirts would be shuddering at me promoting nuclear in this way. But the nuclear energy of the 21st century is very different to the nuclear energy of the past, and it is well and truly time that we embrace this, because the government's approach on this is, with respect, pig-headed and obstinate. Why is it that Minister Bowen won't even engage in any meaningful discussion on this? I have invited Minister Bowen to come out my electorate of Hughes to have a look at the nuclear facility; he refuses. Why is that? Why bury your head in the sand so much? Why stand there and say that he is a person of science and innovation and then refuse to consider or even go out and visit a plant to learn more about the nuclear industry? Nuclear power will eventually be in this country. We just need to look at the many contributions that nuclear has made to our country already. Every single person in Australia that has to have any sort of treatment for cancer is availing themself of technology that has been developed through the nuclear medicine facility at ANSTO in my electorate. Thankfully, we have signed up to the AUKUS arrangement for nuclear powered submarines. This will be a big boost to our industry. It's a very important defence relationship, and it reflects the importance that both America and Great Britain have to Australia historically and militarily. If we say that nuclear can be used in medicine to save lives, and nuclear needs to become part of our defence and our security to protect Australians, why can't nuclear be used to power our homes? That's the question that Minister Bowen absolutely refuses to answer. When I return to wind power, which is the subject of this legislation, I am a proponent of looking at a whole hybrid mix of energy. I think that wind plays a part, and solar—certainly in a country as hot as ours with as much sun as we get—has a very big part to play. But so too does gas and so to does nuclear. But now, with Labor's offshore wind projects, for example, it has been shown the investors and the proponents of those offshore wind projects have pulled out down in the Illawarra. They've said, 'This is not going to work here.' The local communities down in the Illawarra, which is not too far from my seat of Hughes—local fishermen and local environmentalists—have said it is completely unacceptable that this will happen in our electorate. Minister Bowen has kept saying, 'No, it has to go ahead.' It's not going ahead now, and the communities were right. They were right to stand up to this government and to the minister and say: 'Why are we going to rip up our sea beds? Why are we going to potentially interfere with the whales' migratory patterns? Why are we going to do all of this in the name of supposedly saving the environment? Are we going to destroy the environment to save the environment?' It makes no sense, and Australians are far more sensible than the Prime Minister and the minister for the environment give them credit for. When I first did some work on onshore wind projects, there were many sites that were identified where the economics did not stack up, and local communities were so opposed to those going on in their community that they fell away. I think that part of the reason that Minister Bowen is so supportive of offshore wind is that onshore wind has failed. Onshore wind has largely failed. There are some parts and some companies that have been able to make it work, but, overall, the approach has not worked. So I say to the Albanese Labor government, and I say to Minister Bowen: come out to my electorate. Have a look at nuclear. Don't put all of your eggs into the renewables-only basket. It makes no sense. Our energy going forward is absolutely crucial for households, for families, for businesses, for our manufacturing, for our industry. Why won't Labor open their eyes, open their minds and consider nuclear as part of the mix to resolve our energy crisis going forward? Debate adjourned. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:56
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
That's why we say that Labor simply cannot manage the economy. That's why we've seen inflation far too high for far too long. Labor cannot manage the budget. That's why we've seen $347 billion in...
That's why we say that Labor simply cannot manage the economy. That's why we've seen inflation far too high for far too long. Labor cannot manage the budget. That's why we've seen $347 billion in additional spending that has fuelled inflation. The evidence of the Albanese Labor government's failures has been mounting since first elected in May 2022. We have to remember that is only two years and nine months—that's all it's taken for our economy to almost completely collapse. They've had $347 billion in expenditure, but what do they actually have to show for this? What they have to show for it is higher prices, higher interest rates, more small businesses collapsing, and lower living standards. Since Labor was elected, prices overall are up more than 10 per cent. This includes double-digit increases across the board for many of our essentials. Health is up by 10 per cent. Education overall is up by 11 per cent. Food is up by 12 per cent. Housing is up by at least 14 per cent. Rents are up 17 per cent. Insurance and finance are up 18 per cent. Electricity is up 32 per cent—that's without the rebates. Gas is up by 34 per cent. Under Labor's economic mismanagement ,we're witnessing the longest sustained period of inflation since the 1980s. We've seen, for example, interest rates that have been hiked 12 times. In relation to energy bills, we were promised in the last election campaign—how many times?—97 times that the now Prime Minister would cut your power bills by $275. Since then, instead, we've seen energy bills rise by an average of $1,000 per household. In my home state of New South Wales, we are now in the ridiculous situation where during summer in Sydney, we've been asked by the New South Wales government not to use our washing machines during the day, and, also, to please try not to use our air conditioning during the day. Almost every day is over 30 degrees in Sydney during summer. That is the position that we have gotten to because of the decisions that have been made, particularly by Minister Bowen. I notice Minister Bowen is fairly quiet these days. I don't expect that he'll be front and centre in this election campaign. We've seen living standards collapse by 8.7 per cent under this government. That's the biggest collapse on record, and it's bigger than any of our peer economies. We've even seen, for example, respected economics firm Deloitte release figures showing that Australians' standard of living will not recover now until at least 2030. In other words, it's forecast that it will take six years for Australians to make up the ground lost under Labor in two years and nine months. The number of small businesses that have gone to the wall has been a complete tragedy—27,000 in two years and nine months. I know that, in my electorate of Hughes, we have many, many small businesses. Close to 10 per cent of my entire electorate work in the building and construction industry, for example. These are often family businesses, and so many of these have collapsed, and that's a real shame, because this government does not care about small business, but they are very happy to spend a lot of time with big business, particularly this Prime Minister. So we've now reached the position where we are in a sustained household recession with negligible productive growth. And what is Labor's response to this? Denial, indifference—the Prime Minister tells Australians, 'Trust me, you'll be better off under Labor.' That message is certainly not cutting through in my electorate. I know, when I'm out doorknocking, when I've been at mobile offices, they are not saying that they are going to trust Labor on this. What I've found, to the contrary, for example—this is heartbreaking. Before Christmas I was doorknocking around Bardia. It's one of the new parts of my electorate; it's down in south-west Sydney. Down in Bardia, they are homeowners with mortgages. The median house price is around $1.2 million. They are small-business people. They are private sector workers. When I was doorknocking, I had three women—when I said to them, 'How are things going for you at the moment?'—burst into tears and say: 'I don't know how I'm going to pay for Christmas. I've just had to pay my energy bill,' or 'I can't pay my mortgage this month.' That's dreadful. That's middle Australia. These are absolutely the people that this government should be governing for and should be assisting, but they're not. I know that presidents of some of my local sporting associations and sports clubs have said to me that, for the first time in the 10 or 20 years that they have been involved with local sport, parents are coming up to them quietly and saying, 'Could I pay the registration fees off over a couple of months?' This is happening in the Sutherland Shire, it's happening throughout the Liverpool area, and it's happening down in south-west Sydney. That is what this Labor government has done to middle Australia; that's what it's done to Australian families. They're on their knees now. But, I tell you what, they are getting very, very angry, the ones that I'm speaking to, and they are not trusting that this Prime Minister is able. Based on what's happened over two years and nine months, they have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that he is still fit to be Prime Minister and that he is fit to be the Prime Minister in our next parliament. There are many in my electorate that are saying: 'When is this federal election going to be called? We need this to be called urgently,' because they have said, 'We cannot afford, any longer, any more of this Labor government.' We've got a situation with mortgage holders, for example. About one-third of Australians at any time are mortgage holders. The average mortgage holder in Australia has paid an additional $50,000 in repayments just to keep a roof over their head. You've got to earn close to $100,000 to have that $50,000 to pay off your mortgage because those mortgage repayments of $50,000 are, of course, net income. When I speak to small businesses, I say to them, 'The reason that you are finding it so tough at the moment is that, when mortgage holders have had to pay $50,000 in additional interest repayments, that's $50,000 they haven't had to spend in local businesses.' So as flow-on effects of this we've first of all had inflation, which has led to higher interest rates, which has then led to people having far less disposable income. That then has that immediate impact as well on our small businesses. I've seen this in suburbs such as Sutherland in my electorate, where we have had record small retailers close. I've lived in the Sutherland Shire all of my life and, for the first time, I am seeing vacant shopfronts in Sutherland and vacant shopfronts in suburbs like Engadine. This has just not happened before. It has happened under this Prime Minister's watch. It has happened under Labor. It has happened under the Labor government. My parents are in their 80s and they said that, for their generation, if you didn't vote Liberal before Whitlam, you certainly voted Liberal after Whitlam or to get rid of Whitlam. They have said to me for a number of years that this government is Whitlam-esque in its spending. When we've had $347 billion of additional spending, that is Whitlam-esque. As a matter of fact, I think that the spending of this government far surpasses that of Whitlam, with not the policy delivery to justify that level of expenditure. We hear things like free TAFE. What is the purpose of just throwing money at a centralised, unionised sector and then saying, 'We've solved the problem of apprentices'? They haven't. They have thrown money at TAFE only. They haven't looked at investing in the private vocational education and training sector. Instead, they've thrown it at TAFE, where there is only a 50 per cent success rate for apprentices to get through. It's only 50 per cent for plumbers and only 50 per cent for carpenters who go down the TAFE path as opposed to 80 per cent of plumbers who go through the Master Plumbers Association or 90 per cent for those who go through the National Electrical and Communications Association. We've got small businesses closing their doors and apprentices dropping out of their trades. This is the reality of Labor's cost-of-living crisis. Yet, despite all of this pain and suffering, the Prime Minister is just in denial. He offers no comfort, no solutions and no plan, except to be grossly insulting to Australians by saying things like, 'Australians have never had it better.' Never had it better? The Australians that I speak to have never had it worse. I tell you what, if the Prime Minister came to the electorate of Hughes and came down to south-west Sydney, he would well and truly hear from Australians who say, 'We have never had it worse.' That just shows a Prime Minister desperately out of touch with the people that he professes to lead. I just want to speak very briefly as well about the blowout in costs of the NDIS. I've heard personally from constituents some dreadful stories about how they have had NDIS funding cut unexpectedly, have had their files closed. I'm talking about little Isaac, whose mum I met on the weekend. He is 10 years of age. I've gone directly to Minister Rishworth about this issue, because his funding has been completely cut, and this is occurring over and over again at a time when we are spending more and more and more on the NDIS. I fully support that we should be supporting people with disabilities so they can live their best life. But, again, this government cannot manage departments, cannot manage policy and cannot manage the country.
Cost of Living | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
I note that members over there are interjecting, but we've also heard announcements about women's health. Let me tell you what this government has delivered for the women in my electorate since...
I note that members over there are interjecting, but we've also heard announcements about women's health. Let me tell you what this government has delivered for the women in my electorate since being elected: absolutely nothing. They told me about it in Engadine on Saturday. I had a number of women come up to me and say that we need endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. I'm in southern and south-western Sydney. Our nearest pelvic pain clinic is down in the Southern Highlands. I have written to the minister about this and said, 'We need one in southern Sydney to service the women in Hughes and adjoining electorates such as Cook,' and I have been refused that request. Also, on menopause clinics, there's been no assistance whatsoever from this government for the women in my electorate who are battling with menopause. This government has totally failed on some of the very key issues that it should be addressing. Thank you.
I rise to speak on the government's failure to manage its crippling cost-of-living crisis. I thank the honourable member for Hume for bringing this matter of public importance to this place....
I rise to speak on the government's failure to manage its crippling cost-of-living crisis. I thank the honourable member for Hume for bringing this matter of public importance to this place. Labor cannot manage the economy. We have said so many times in this place. My parents have actually said to me, after about six months of Labor, 'We didn't think that we would ever have a government that spent and mismanaged the economy the way that Gough Whitlam did,' but we've got it here. We have seen it in all of the numbers. We have seen inflation far too high for far too long. The Treasurer says things like, 'Inflation is coming down,' but I have not met anyone in the electorate of Hughes who has said to me that they now feel that their grocery prices are any less. They don't feel that their insurances are any less. They don't feel that their sports registration fees are any less. They don't feel that their fuel is any less. Certainly their mortgages are no less, because, with 12 interest rate rises under this Labor government, people in my electorate have paid more than $50,000 in additional interest payments over what they were paying under the former coalition government. What has fuelled this inflation rate is $347 billion in additional spending. Labor sit there and say that spending has gone to better TAFE services, for example—actually, they don't say it's better TAFE services; they say it's fee-free. Free TAFE. But what is the use of throwing money at supposedly free TAFE when only about 50 per cent of students that start at TAFE are finishing? Why not give students the opportunity to also attend a private vocational education training service? It's because underlying all of Labor's philosophy and thinking is centralising control—centralising control even of the VET sector. We have seen no assistance whatsoever for any apprentices who wish to avail themselves of private training. We've also heard that a lot of this spending has gone on Medicare. I'm glad I have the opportunity yet again to speak about this government's absolute failure on health. Today in question time I asked the minister, Minister Butler: '27,000 small businesses have collapsed under this government. How many GP clinics have closed in that time?' He had to take it on notice. The minister had to take it on notice. Why does he, as the minister for health, not have that figure to hand?
Medical Workforce | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Under the Albanese Labor government, 27,000 small businesses have collapsed since the last election. Minister, how many GP clinics have...
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Under the Albanese Labor government, 27,000 small businesses have collapsed since the last election. Minister, how many GP clinics have closed since the election of the Albanese Labor government?
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-2025, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on these bills, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-25, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-2025 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025. These bills do,...
I rise to speak on these bills, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-25, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-2025 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025. These bills do, of course, provide the necessary appropriations to ensure the continued delivery of essential government services and to fund decisions made since the 2024-25 budget was announced in May last year. In total, these bills appropriate $12 billion for the remainder of the financial year, the majority of which, some $7 billion, is directed towards the ordinary annual services of government. The coalition supports this legislation to ensure the smooth operation of government and the uninterrupted provision of services upon which Australians rely. However, while we support these bills as a matter of necessity, we must also use this opportunity to highlight the grave economic mismanagement that has led us to this point and put Australians under so much cost-of-living pressure. These bills, like the budget bills before them, were introduced in the context of a budget and MYEFO update that yet again exposed the Albanese Labor government's utter failure to tackle our current cost-of-living crisis. We need to get Australians back on track—
Classroom Disruption | Private Members' Business | House debates
I rise to speak in favour of this motion, and I thank the honourable member for Nicholls for bringing this motion. And I also commend the honourable member for spending a day at a school within...
I rise to speak in favour of this motion, and I thank the honourable member for Nicholls for bringing this motion. And I also commend the honourable member for spending a day at a school within his electorate. It's something that, I must admit, I've not done yet. I am going to do it, now that I've heard from the honourable member. I think that the confected outrage from the member for Lalor is really quite extraordinary. I don't know how it can be suggested by the member for Lalor that the member for Nicholls, an elected representative, cannot get up and speak about education within his electorate and, indeed, within his state and nation. I remind the honourable member for Lalor that the honourable member for Nicholls has been elected to represent his constituency and has just as much right to stand and talk about education—or about any other topic that he would like to talk about—as the member for Lalor. Simply because the member for Lalor was a teacher and a principal for many years does not mean that she is the only person in this place that has any right to speak on education. That is complete and other nonsense. The bad weekend down in Victoria that my friend the member for Nicholls has just referred to could well be part of it! The member for Nicholls has brought a very important matter to this place, and that is that the government is yet again sitting on an inquiry that had many, many recommendations. The inquiry included a recommendation that the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority strengthen the focus on behaviour within the Australian curriculum by specifically introducing a behaviour curriculum. Just as an aside, I'd be very interested in a count being made of how many reports that have been done in this place and in the other place during the term of this government and that have been presented to the government and have not been acted upon. I note that many, including me, have spoken in this place about the failure of the Albanese Labor government to act on the Murphy report into gambling. I cannot count the number of times that I have spoken on it. And I know that many others have as well. This is yet another inquiry where the government has the report, has the recommendations, but has gone, 'Oh, no, that's all too hard,' or, 'We'll look at that on another occasion,' because it was proposed by the side of the House. This report goes to empowering teachers so that they can actually teach without things like chairs being thrown at them, without the disruption of students running around the classroom. I've been into classrooms. Thankfully, in my state of New South Wales, the government has banned the use of mobile phones in the classroom. When my children first started high school in 2019, I went to a local high school. I'm not going to say its name. It was showcasing the school for parents who were supposed to be impressed by the school. We went into a food tech room, and there were three students at the front cooking and 10 at the back all on mobile phones. And that was supposed to be acceptable: 'Oh, mobile phones aren't interrupting the education of our student.' Thankfully, that has been reversed in New South Wales. While I'm here talking about teachers, I want to talk about some fabulous teachers that are working in some great schools in my electorate, and I know that because I've been out to see them. I saw them at the end of the year and also throughout last year. They are Como West Public School, Illawong Public School, Hammondville Public School, Ingleburn High School, Macquarie Fields High School, Sackville Street Public School, Macarthur Adventist College, Menai Public School, Bangor Public School, Waterfall Public School, St Pat's Catholic Primary School and the beautiful Minerva School, which does so much to educate and support children with significant disabilities within our community. So I commend this motion and thank the honourable member for bringing it.
It is, and I reserve my right to speak.
Education | Private Members' Business | House debates
I rise to speak against this motion that's been moved by the member for Lalor, and I do it for a number of reasons. First of all, I was glad I was present for the honourable member's speech today...
I rise to speak against this motion that's been moved by the member for Lalor, and I do it for a number of reasons. First of all, I was glad I was present for the honourable member's speech today when she moved this motion. This motion refers to cheaper child care, record needs based funding for schools, free TAFE and student debt relief. What this motion refers to—and all that I have heard from the honourable member's speech—are just the amounts of money that are being spent. We are opposing the fee-free TAFE legislation, and it is not because we do not support the vocational and educational training sector. On the contrary, we support all students who want to get a vocational educational qualification, regardless of where they choose to be educated. That is the whole premise. That is one of the major differences between our side and Labor. Labor love a centralised bureaucracy. I heard mention then of the public school sector. I'm very supportive of the public school sector; I'm proudly a product of public schools. But it was the Liberals who first decided to fund non-government schools, and that was one of the guiding values of our party—that parents should have choice as to where their children are educated. Parents who choose to send their children to a non-government school should not be punished for that choice, in the same way that students should have the choice as to whether they go to a non-government school or attend a government school. The reason that Labor has only funded places in the VET sector for TAFE is because the TAFE system is centralised; it's very heavily unionised. They love TAFE. They don't, for example, want to fund the National Electrical and Communications Association, which has 500 to 600 apprentices at the moment all doing training through the private sector. That money is very well spent. At TAFE, people in the building and construction sector at the moment—trainee apprentices in carpentry–have only a 50 per cent completion rate. If they do it privately, they have a 90 per cent completion rate. It's the same with plumbing. Master Plumbers have an 80 per cent success rate of getting their apprentices through. TAFE has 50 per cent. Why won't this government look at where their funding actually goes and the results of that funding, instead of simply saying, 'If we just throw money at the problem, we'll fix it'? There's no point just throwing money at it without then looking at if the money that is being spent—taxpayers' money—actually producing bang for buck. We cannot support that sort of reckless spending with no regard to the outcome. I note that this motion leaves out something very big in this whole piece, and that's the NDIS. It does refer to needs based funding in schools. Well, NDIS is on its knees. I have had that many people in my electorate come to me with the most horrendous stories. I'll give you the most recent horrendous story, which is on Saturday, when I was in the Engadine mobile office, from Sarah, who has a 10-year-old son Issac. They have now had to cease essential disability support services because they have not been able to get a reassessment of their plan for almost six months. This is a disgrace. What happens when she goes to NDIA to finally put in a complaint? This is the response from the NDIA: 'The NDIA appreciates the time you've taken to provide your complaint. Here's a feedback reference ID, and, if you require any support, please visit our website.' This is a family that are on their knees. Issac has significant needs. That is what the government have left us with—this mess that NDIS and NDIA are in. I know there are many in this place very committed to disability services; I am one. This government has failed in that space.
Apprenticeships | Private Members' Business | House debates
I thank the member for Hunter for bringing this motion, because it gives me an opportunity to say to the member for Hunter that I am similarly very proud of him—that he went through the...
I thank the member for Hunter for bringing this motion, because it gives me an opportunity to say to the member for Hunter that I am similarly very proud of him—that he went through the vocational education training sector. I'm similarly very supportive of that sector, as it is the sector that builds Australia. I have said in this place a couple of times how proud I am of my first-born son, who has just commenced a plumbing apprenticeship. I am certainly very supportive of the skills and training sector. The issue that I have, though, with the government's approach to this sector is that it only ever talks about TAFE. We hear, 'fee-free TAFE', and for the reasons I'm going to set out shortly, the fee-free TAFE legislation is simply not going to do what it was designed to do, because, yet again, Labor loves the big slogan, the big headline, 'It's all going to be free.' But over and over again, their delivery on policy demonstrates that they cannot deliver that that they proclaim so loudly through a megaphone. Data released by the National Centre for Vocational Education and Research has confirmed that, instead of trending up, as we were under the former coalition government, Australia has lost over 80,000 apprentices and trainees from the national training pipeline since the Albanese Labor government took office. Why is it that the government will only fund TAFE? Why do we just hear, 'TAFE, TAFE, TAFE, TAFE, TAFE'? On our side of the House, we support students who wish to go into vocational education and training if they want to go and get that training from a private registered operator. For example, I've met with the National Electrical and Communications Association. They currently have between 500 and 600 apprentices on their books in the carpentry and building trades. There is no funding available to this organisation from the fee-free TAFE legislation, but this organisation has a 90 per cent apprenticeship completion rate. TAFE has a 50 per cent completion rate. I've also met with the Master Plumbers NSW, and I give a big shout-out to CEO Nate Smith. He said that his operation has an 80 per cent success rate in getting their plumbing apprentices through. Compare that to the rate at TAFE of 50 per cent. In April last year, Master Plumbers NSW wrote to the then skills minister, Brendan O'Connor, and sought joint funding to establish a new skills and training centre out in Western Sydney. The response was completely unequivocal. It appears that the government, who spouts their support for this industry, will not support Western Sydney in having anything other than TAFE-provided funding. The reason that the coalition is opposing Labor's TAFE-only approach is that we support all students in this sector, not just some. We'll back every single student, regardless of whether they are training at a TAFE or at an independent provider, because, on this side of the House, we are about providing people with choice. A student who's starting vocational education or training should, if they are going to receive government funding, be able to avail themselves of the choice to either go to TAFE or go through a private operator. Why does this government so dislike private operations? Why do they not support anything other than a heavily unionised TAFE workforce? We are very concerned about Commonwealth funding, taxpayers' money, that only directs resources to one particular training model, and it's a training model that is not nearly as successful as training models developed through the private sector. I'm certainly not saying that TAFE should be defunded; I'm saying that the private sector should be equally well funded.
Medicare | Private Members' Business | House debates
I hear some sort of interjections on the other side, so I will back up this statement. In south-west Sydney, our nearest women's health centre is in Mittagong—hundreds of kilometres away....
I hear some sort of interjections on the other side, so I will back up this statement. In south-west Sydney, our nearest women's health centre is in Mittagong—hundreds of kilometres away. Mittagong is not even in Sydney; this is the Southern Highlands. So, women in my electorate who need to access a pelvic pain clinic—whether it is for endometriosis, PCOS or menopause—are required to travel hundreds of kilometres. I have been petitioning the Minister for Health, Mark Butler, almost since the day I got here requesting that one of these clinics be placed in my electorate, either in the Sutherland shire, in southern Sydney, or in south-western Sydney. To date, that has fallen on deaf ears. The minister does not appear to be terribly interested in women's health in my part of the country. It might be useful if he came out and actually saw the lack of infrastructure that's in place for women in my electorate. What the coalition will do for women, if elected, is match the government's funding that was announced only today. But we will also enhance menopause care for women. We'll have a new Medicare rebate. We'll expand health professional training. We'll develop national clinical guidelines and increase funding for endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics. And it is noted that some of the good work that the other side have done on pelvic pain clinics was started under the former coalition government when we first committed to developing a nationwide strategy and framework on endometriosis. I thank the House.
It's always a pleasure for me to stand and talk about health and Medicare. My speech today is also going to focus on women's health. Since being elected nearly three years ago, I have on every...
It's always a pleasure for me to stand and talk about health and Medicare. My speech today is also going to focus on women's health. Since being elected nearly three years ago, I have on every occasion possible spoken about health in this place, particularly as it relates to those in my electorate and also particularly on women's health issues. This motion is about the government's legislation strengthening Medicare. I do not agree with most of the statements within the motion, despite my respect for the honourable member for Robertson. But there is one part of this that I do agree with. The free Medicare urgent care clinics are, in my view, the one area where this government, to give them credit, has improved health services. Unfortunately, though, it is just the one area, and unfortunately there are no free Medicare urgent care clinics provided in my electorate. My electorate is the western end of the Sutherland shire—the Liverpool area—and now stretches down into south-west Sydney. Despite there being a number of doctors and also that south-west Sydney has been represented by Labor members for a long time, there has been very little investment in the south-west of Sydney. I am calling upon this government to, before the election, make a commitment to a free Medicare urgent care clinic within my electorate. South-western Sydney is one of the fastest growing areas in our country, in our state and in the very large city of Sydney. It is unacceptable that this area has been so neglected on health, that this government was very choosy about the electorates in which these urgent clinics would be placed, and my electorate missed out. So I'm now calling upon this government to ensure that, before we adjourn and go into full campaign mode, the Prime Minister—who says he cares about health and says he cares about south-west Sydney—will make that commitment to the people in my electorate. And while the Prime Minister is there, I would ask him to make a similar commitment for women's health. I note that Labor has recently announced an extra $573 million package for women's health, and that is supported by the coalition. I'm very glad that, at last, those on the other side have discovered that there are women's health issues and that women have very different needs to those of men.
Child Care | Private Members' Business | House debates
It's a pleasure for me to stand here to second and support the motion brought by the honourable member for Moncrieff in relation to, particularly, the government's failure on the cost of child...
It's a pleasure for me to stand here to second and support the motion brought by the honourable member for Moncrieff in relation to, particularly, the government's failure on the cost of child care. I also commend the honourable member for the work that she has done as our shadow minister in the portfolio of early child care, early childhood education and youth services. After two years and nine months of this Albanese Labor government, the cost of child care has increased by a whopping 22.3 per cent. During the last election campaign, Anthony Albanese promised cheaper child care. What have we seen instead? Yet another broken Labor promise. The data is out, and it clearly shows that this is not the case. Australians do not have cheaper child care at all. I hear this when I'm going around my electorate, whether it's doorknocking, at mobile offices or going out to the kindergartens and childcare centres. Parents and the directors of these centres tell me that child care is not cheaper. I was recently at Connect Preschool at Sutherland, for example, and parents are now pulling their children out of this preschool due to the cost. Where they were before averaging three to four days a week, they're now down to two days a week. I heard the member for Newcastle standing there spruiking cheaper child care over and over again, but the reality is completely different. Do we need cheaper child care? We need cheaper child care, but we also need better quality child care. Parents need to be assured, when they are going to work, that their children are being looked after and quality education is being provided. The other thing that Labor has completely failed to do in the area of early child care is to look at the preschool and kindergarten model. Instead, this is a return to the Rudd era of trying to subsidise early child care without the benefits actually reaching the hip pockets of parents. I particularly remember those failed reforms of the Rudd era because my children were at that age at the time. They were at a community preschool, and there was absolutely no assistance for the many families in my electorate that used the community preschool model. This government policy also fails to deliver for those parents. Why would the Albanese Labor Government reinvent a failed policy from Rudd? I would have thought that this government would have run as far as they could from those policies of the Rudd era, but it seems that Labor will never learn its lesson. It's all about the big headlines but there is a total failure of policy delivery. We are seeing total failure yet again in early child care. I've just heard the honourable member for Newcastle and various others from Labor talk about the three-day childcare guarantee. This will totally fail, because I am hearing evidence from those in my electorate that, even with these subsidies, they cannot afford to send their kids to day care three days a week. They are having to either pull out of work to look after their children or look at other options. Having options and choices is again at the heart of the way that Labor brings out policy. The coalition introduced the activity test which gave parents some choice as to how they looked after their children before they went to school, and this is what it is all about. In this upcoming election, if the Liberals are returned to government, we will look after families. We will reduce the cost of living. We understand what this cost-of-living crisis has done to Middle Australia particularly and to those now in my electorate who say to me, 'I can no longer afford to send my children to child care.' If we are re-elected, we will listen to the Australian people. We have listened to the Australian people, and our policies will reflect that we will bring down inflation. That will enable the RBA to look at interest rates, and we will certainly work with families to bring about cheaper, better-quality child care.
It is, Deputy Speaker, and I reserve my right to speak.
Housing | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
I was present in the chamber just now when I heard the member for Fraser say a number of, frankly, quite outrageous statements. He has described our housing policies, which we have released well...
I was present in the chamber just now when I heard the member for Fraser say a number of, frankly, quite outrageous statements. He has described our housing policies, which we have released well and truly before the next election, as 'populist politics'. I say that—and I'm going to talk about our policies—this is a very interesting statement, coming from a member of a government that has completely failed on housing policy. If nothing else, the failure on housing policy completely demonstrates that the Albanese Labor government stands for nothing and has not addressed any of the crucial elements that really affect and matter in the lives of Australians. Homeownership is one of those. If, over on that side, they were serious about really addressing housing affordability, they would have looked at our policies and agreed to them, or at least had a bipartisan approach, as the member for Fraser has just said. I know that there are many members of this government—and I have been in this chamber when they've said it—particularly the female members, who have said how important it is that we get housing for older women, for women who are fleeing domestic violence or for women who, for example, are going through a grey divorce. These are women who have never earnt a lot of money in their lives. They get divorced, often in their 50s or 60s, and end up in a divorce settlement, often with a matrimonial home and a large mortgage and a very small superannuation pool, but their former partner walks away with significantly more superannuation. We know that because there are many members—and I'm one of them—in this place who have spoken, over and over again, about the complete gender inequity in superannuation. So I know that this is an area of real interest and real concern to those on the other side. It really is. I also note that the Prime Minister has been very proud of the fact that he grew up in social housing with a single mother. He has now risen to be the leader of our country and, as a result, has been able to afford his own home. I commend that. That is the exact example of what he, as the Prime Minister, should be aspiring to for all Australians. That is certainly what we on this side of the House aspire to—superannuation being released to assist with first home buyers. We've made it very clear that it will be capped at $50,000 and that, if the house is sold, it is then repaid into superannuation. We are committed to superannuation; since it was introduced by a Labor government back in the late eighties or early nineties, we on this side of the House have always been committed to compulsory superannuation. However, at the end of the day, that superannuation is still our money; it's not the government's money. Women who are fleeing domestic violence and women who have ended up in divorces where they have significantly smaller assets than their husbands—we all know those women; those women are our friends, those women live in our electorates and those women have been talking to me when I've been out doorknocking—will be able to access some superannuation. They will be able to access up to $300,000, if they have it. Remember that most Australian women don't have $300,000 in their superannuation accounts, but they will be able to access that money to purchase a home, even if it is not the first home that they've ever purchased in their lives. In that way, we are demonstrating that we are absolutely committed in relation to the inequity that is there for women, particularly older women, with those lower superannuation bases. And I'll just say this, very quickly, on that issue: with superannuation today, self-managed funds can invest in commercial property and they can invest in retail property. Why can't we use our own money to invest in a house to live in?
New South Wales: Infrastructure | Statements by Members | House debates
After two years and nine months, this Labor government, led by Prime Minister Albanese, has totally failed on infrastructure in New South Wales, particularly in south-western Sydney. Western...
After two years and nine months, this Labor government, led by Prime Minister Albanese, has totally failed on infrastructure in New South Wales, particularly in south-western Sydney. Western Sydney airport is opening next year. It is to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It's to service the whole new city of Bradfield. It's supposed to be supported by an aerotropolis of 100,000 jobs and 10,000 homes. Instead, the Ingleburn Business Chamber and Campbelltown City Council are left doing the advocacy for south-western Sydney. It is now time that Campbelltown be prioritised. It needs a north-south rail link which will open from St Marys to the aerotropolis via Western Sydney airport. It needs rapid bus services linking Liverpool, Penrith and Campbelltown with the aerotropolis by the opening of the airport. Where has the federal minister for infrastructure been on this? She has been nowhere. Has she even been out to Campbelltown? Has she been out there and even started to consider delivering on some of the priorities that the former federal government and the former state coalition government put into place? Has she looked, for example, at the metro routes or at a rapid bus service? I put it to you that she has not done any of this. This government has failed in infrastructure in Campbelltown, and so too has the infrastructure minister.