George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022 and others because a number of things that we have wanted to see in North Queensland have been delivered in this budget. Notably, the biggest win for North Queensland was the introduction of a northern Australian cyclone reinsurance pool, a $10 billion fund which will back our insurers to provide lower premium products to North Queenslanders—to North Queensland residents and North Queensland businesses. We've had the problem now for the better part of a decade of insurance premiums spiralling out of control in the north and, along with that, some insurers leaving the market so that residents and businesses alike are unable to get insurance. This measure will be something that restores the balance. It will drive down insurance premiums in North Queensland, and it will bring insurers back to the market in the north so that we can have what is essentially an essential service for homes and businesses in affordable insurance back in the north.

On top of that in my electorate was the welcome announcement of a $400 million extra investment in the Bruce Highway specifically earmarked to upgrades, including in the Mackay to Proserpine stretch of the Bruce. I have already said to the state government they should look at earmarking that funding to the dreaded Goorganga Plains flooding area, an area that floods very regularly and cuts off the Whitsunday Coast Airport from the Whitsundays, which is a really dumb thing to do with your highway, but we have this decrepit highway there that needs to be rebuilt. It needs to be built up, and hopefully with that $400 million in funding we can see that happen, but it's going to take the state government getting on board and ensuring that's where the money is spent.

The most significant in the budget though for the nation was the spend on our defence, and I'm reliably informed by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute that, when they wrap all of the spending for defence together, what they get is $44.6 billion—$44.6 billion being spent on our defence. That's a 4.1 per cent increase in defence spending in real terms. It follows the plan that we set in place with the defence white paper in 2016. It also is keeping the commitment to have our defence spending at least two per cent of our gross domestic product. We've maintained that for the past two budgets. We're going to maintain it again.

It's important for one reason. As has been said by others, the drums of war are beating. They're not being beaten by anyone here in Australia. The percussion section is all in the Chinese Communist Party. Unfortunately, their illegal interventions in the South China Sea, or West Philippine Sea, are there for all to see. They're militarising areas where they shouldn't even be. On top of that, there have been the cyberattacks on Australia.

We're increasingly seeing this very dangerous, threatening behaviour from the Chinese Communist Party towards our country, and it will put our nation in very good stead to have this extra money spent on our defence forces so that we are ready if those drums of war keep beating, because, as I say over and over and over and over again, war is coming. We must be prepared. War is coming. If people in this place don't think it is, I suggest they go and read the history books about what happened in the 1930s and compare that to what is happening in the Asia-Pacific right now. War is coming, and we must be prepared.

In preparing for that situation, I would say to this parliament and to the government that we must also pivot economically away from Communist China. I note that there are some measures in the budget to help do that, with more funding to go into our trade situation, to open up more markets for our businesses. But I would say to the Australian government: look carefully at the pivot report that the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, which I chair, released earlier this year. The report contained a bunch of recommendations. One that got a lot of headlines was to scrutinise the 99-year Chinese lease over the port of Darwin and, if—or, I would say, when—it's found not to be in the national interest, to bring that port back under Australian ownership, along with other ports or strategic infrastructure in the hands of foreigners, particularly state owned or state linked enterprises that have something to do with the Communist Party of China. We have that, indeed, in the port of Newcastle, as has been exposed in recent days. It is quite concerning given that out of that port comes so much of our resources.

I have also said to the government in that report that we have to apply a clear and consistent national interest test to all future foreign investment and, if it's not in the national interest, that investment has to be vetoed with abandon. We have to focus on trade diversification by expanding our trade with nations other than Communist China. India, Vietnam and Indonesia all come to mind. They provide a brilliant opportunity for Australian industry.

We need to boost manufacturing. The establishment of a national development bank would be welcomed by many businesses. We can refocus and incentivise superannuation to actually get back into investing in Australian industry, particularly agribusiness, instead of having the investment dollars constantly come from overseas. We can work with industry, unions and universities to build up manufacturing in this country. We should be looking at our universities as well, to ensure, No. 1, that any foreign funding that goes into our universities is disclosed to the public and, No. 2, that we don't take that funding if it's not in the national interest. I have to tell you I don't think the funding for Confucius Institutes and the like out of Communist China is in the national interest. We should be making sure that we always have sufficient fuel and medical supplies, and we have to get smarter at identifying national security and national interest risks in industry, particularly in sensitive and critical areas. That is very important for our future, for our sovereignty and for our national security. So I ask at this point in time that the government look carefully at those recommendations out of the pivot report and adopt them as government policy.

Moving away from Communist China and the threat that that poses to us, I will talk about some threats at home, particularly a threat to freedom. This idea of COVID vaccine passports is one that is anathema to freedom. It is anathema to freedom because no Australian should have to carry around papers in their own country to go to places. I understand there is concern about state premiers shutting borders if someone sneezes on the other side, but the answer to that is not a domestic COVID vaccine passport. The answer to that is the Commonwealth taking state premiers to the High Court for breach of the Constitution, which actually says that there is to be free and unfettered movement between states. We are one nation, after all, not a conglomerate of nations. We are one nation.

It is disgraceful that in this country the Prime Minister was stopped from going to a particular Australian state. I cannot understand that. Many Australians cannot understand that. But the answer is not to bring in something that will be, 'Your papers, please,' if you want to get to a certain area—and it will be used and abused in other circumstances. I am sure that businesses will actually say, 'Show us your papers if you want to come and dine in our place or if you want our service.' We've even had airlines saying that they will need to see some form of proof of vaccination. I just think that this is something beyond the pale. I quote US statesman Benjamin Franklin, who said: 'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' In the long run, he is right, because we will probably get neither if we keep moving down that path. The Wuhan coronavirus is going to be with us forever, just like the flu is. The question is: are we going to keep on locking down, masking up and shutting out forever and have a situation where Australians are going to have to present to someone a document when they say, 'Your papers, please'? It just seems like we are heading down a path that is going to be bereft of the freedoms that we once enjoyed in this nation.

Along with that, I want to take this opportunity to talk about another particular freedom which must be seen to in the time that we have left in this term of parliament, and that is religious freedom. The government, going into the last election, promised that they would legislate for religious freedom. I am saying right here, right now, that it will be a broken promise unless the government actually steps up and passes legislation that is in accord with all of the faith groups who backed us on that policy. So I am calling on the new Attorney-General to actually present that legislation to the House in an amended form that conforms to what the churches and other faith groups actually want, so that they have true protection under the law from discrimination—so we don't see a repeat of the situation when the Archbishop of Tasmania was actually dragged before the antidiscrimination tribunal for sending out a booklet to Catholic school students on the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage. It is insane that we have that situation in this country, but we do have it. That is why this legislation is needed—so we don't have pastors, Christians, Jews or anyone of faith hauled up before some jumped-up kangaroo court to answer for what they believe in. That is wrong.

Finally, I go from those freedoms—the freedom of choice around vaccines, freedom of movement and the freedom of faith—to a fundamental freedom, and that is the right to life. I am putting up a private members bill to this place and I intend to pursue it with vigour. That private member's bill has been drafted. It is called the Human Rights (Children Born Alive) Protection Bill 2021. It says that children who are viable, who are born alive as a result of an abortion in this country, should be afforded medical treatment. That is in line with our international obligations under the International Covenant on the Rights of the Child, which says two things. At article 6, it says that every child shall have the right to life, and it goes on to say that all state parties must provide services to ensure that right to life. Article 24 talks about the provision of health services and actually states that no child shall be deprived of the provision of health services because of the circumstances of their birth.

I have to tell you that, from the data I have seen, around this country, hundreds of children are born alive as a result of abortions every year and are simply left to die. Not all of them are unviable. I have testimony to that fact. Children who are viable, born alive, prematurely, as a result of an abortion, are left to die. That is not in accordance with the international obligations that we as a nation have signed up to under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So I will pursue that legislation with vigour in this House while I remain in this parliament. The right to life is a fundamental freedom. The right to liberty and the right to movement are fundamental freedoms.

In summing up, I will state that we must protect these freedoms in this place because, if we don't, what then is the point of all the spending on defence? What are we actually protecting? We're protecting ourselves against other nations that might do us harm and bring in totalitarianism here. We've got to protect freedom here as well. That's why I'm supportive of the budget and it's defence spending. But I am also supportive of protecting the freedoms that many of our diggers fought so hard for and sacrificed their lives for.

See this speech in context