As someone who has consistently called out the brutal Chinese communist dictatorship, highlighting its human rights abuses—from organ harvesting and religious persecution to genocide of the Uighurs—along with its devious foreign interference in our institutions, I've been falsely called all sorts of names, gleefully parroted by certain elements in the media. Today those voices are silent—shamefully silent, one hopes. Today the stands that some of us have taken are fully vindicated, and the government's recognition in last night's budget of the threats confirms to me that we are on the right track to build an even stronger future for all Australians with a defence capacity needed.
]]>The loss of Senator Kitching leaves a hole in our body politic here in Australia and also on the world stage. Having 'welcomed'—and for the purposes of Hansard, please put that in inverted commas—Kimberley Kitching's arrival in the Senate with certain observations just a few short years ago, today I unreservedly pay tribute to the life and public contribution of a friend. As is the wont in life, one meets people with preconceived ideas. Sometimes those preconceptions are found to be deficient; we can be disappointed, betrayed or surprised. No need for me to say that, with Senator Kitching, I was surprised. While we never did reconcile or resolve our differing views on matters of the Registered Organisations Commission, which we would often robustly express in this place—undoubtedly for our mutual benefit and edification!—we didn't allow that uncomfortable start and issue to set the tone of our working together in a host of areas. I was Senator Kitching's loyal deputy chair, as I kept reminding her, of the Senate's Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade References Committee, and she would remind me of her status as my loyal deputy of the counterpart legislation committee. Indeed, our last text message exchange was only one week before her untimely death. She had sought a favour for an extension of time, and my response was simply, 'Your wish is my command', to which she responded, 'With thanks'. At the time of receiving—courtesy, might I add, of Senator Fierravanti-Wells—the devastating news of Senator Kitching's passing, I had actually locked myself away at home and was reading her draft report on Afghanistan. I was on the very final page of her report. After having read the text message of Senator Fierravanti-Wells advising me of the news, I looked back down on the page and saw 'Senator Kimberley Kitching, Chair'. And I must say that that moment will remain forever imprinted in my memory. It was a particular honour, very shortly thereafter, to be able to pay tribute to her that evening on the Paul Murray Live program.
Senator Kitching was a fellow Wolverine, a fellow member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, and, to use our terminology, my loyal deputy of the Australia-Israel Parliamentary Friendship Group, Israel being the only democratic country in the Middle East. She was also a friend of the democratic and freedom-loving people of Taiwan. It was a privilege to work with a senator so committed to the principles, values and benefits of our liberal democratic system, a colleague who had the strength, character and backbone to stand up and advocate for these principles, even when the naysayers were at their ugliest. Senator Kitching was willing to call out duplicity and cowardliness. She was a true patriot, realising leadership is to be founded on rock-solid, timeless values, not on passing fads. She knew history; she did her homework. Senator Kitching understood the issues. She displayed wisdom and long-term insight.
Unpopular as it was—and still is, in some quarters—Senator Kitching stood up for the right of Israel to exist in secure borders, something which her party was in fact instrumental in helping to establish. She understood the pure evil of barbarous dictatorships which held one million of their citizens in concentration camps, and she was willing to call it out. She was not one to turn a blind eye; that was not her way. Senator Kitching's advocacy for Magnitsky legislation was something for which all Australians and, in particular, the world's oppressed can be thankful. We both advocated the cause in our respective parties. It was a real pleasure to work with her on that issue. Her speech in support of the legislation was an absolute stand-out and is well worth a read for everybody.
In our many private conversations—which I believe are inappropriate to divulge, but the exception proves the rule, and I'm sure Kimberley wouldn't mind me saying this—I often opined to her that the one thing that concerned me about her was that it was people like Kimberley that gave the Labor Party a good name. Senator Kitching's beguiling smile and the odd cup of coffee for the chair at estimates hearings ensured we ran a pretty good ship. It was just others, from our own sides, that let us down on the odd occasion.
Much has been said today—all deserved, all appropriate and all insightful—in celebrating a wonderful contributor whose contribution has been cruelly cut short for reasons we struggle to fathom and to understand. To Labor: well done on selecting Kimberley Kitching as a senator. Who ever would have thought I would be saying that, after my 'welcome' to her to the Senate? Labor did itself proud. To future Labor senators: you could do worse than style yourself on Senator Kitching. To her staff: you've lost a great boss in your life. If you ever become a boss, be like her. To her parents: thanks for giving Australia such a wonderful individual. Kimberley has done you proud. The devastation of personally having to farewell a child must be excruciatingly painful. To husband Andrew: thank you for lending Kimberley to our nation, to the world stage and to the cause of freedom, democracy and liberty. Not only did you lend her to the service of such great causes but you also gave her 100 per cent support, which I know she personally cherished and which empowered her. As you mourn the loss of your beloved, be assured of my personal empathy and sympathy. It was a privilege and an enriching experience to have known her. It is a personal and sad blow to have to farewell her—a colleague and friend, and a patriot to boot—far, far too early. May Kimberley Jane Elizabeth Kitching rest in eternal peace.
]]>An honourable senator: Read the motion.
]]>What are the Labor Party on about when they come into this place, day after day, with their relentless negativity and their commentary on everything that is wrong without pausing to consider they might actually be presenting themselves as an alternative government. There's not a whisper as to what they would be doing differently. What we hear is just this tirade of negativity, including, might I add—because I find it amazing, and we heard it in question time today and again in the contribution from the Labor speaker just before the first speech by Senator Mirabella—about the underpaid workers in aged care. There is no doubt that aged-care workers do a fantastic job. There is no doubt that they are low-paid workers. But who sets their wage rates? It is not the government. It is not the Prime Minister. It is an independent tribunal known as Fair Work Australia. I wonder who set that up and then stacked it with their people? It was the Australian Labor Party. It is the Australian Labor Party's mechanism for wage fixation in this country. So, when the Labor Party come into this place, day after day, complaining about the low wages for aged-care workers, it is a double-whammy criticism of the trade union movement that is allegedly looking after these people and also of the independent umpire who determines the wages.
The Australian Labor Party, like with so many other things, seek to have it both ways. They say, day after day, that the Liberal and National parties cannot change the fair work legislation, and we haven't in this regard. It is the legislation as put down by Ms Gillard, Prime Minister Rudd—remember him?—and Mr Shorten. That mechanism remains in place. So each and every day when the Labor Party complain about somebody's wages and/or conditions they are complaining about the decision-making process of the organisation that they themselves established.
It therefore begs the question: what would Labor do if they were in government? Would they sack the Fair Work Commission for not providing sufficient wages to aged-care people or would they somehow legislate wages and start having this parliament determining who gets paid what and when, how and why? Surely not! So this is a vacuous criticism that they offer, day after day, in a vain attempt to con the Australian people into believing that somehow they might be able to do a better job.
We know that the Labor Party are devoid of any future policy positioning. If they had good future policies, instead of putting up these motions as they do, day after day, full of relentless negativity, they'd be saying, 'We call on the government to adopt Labor policy in this particular area,' and they would set out the Labor policy seriatim—(a), (b), (c), (d) et cetera—and tell the Australian people exactly what they want and what their aspiration is for the Australian people. But they have no aspiration for the Australian people. They only have an aspiration for themselves to somehow cheat their way into government by offering continual criticism of a government that has been, in exceptionally difficult circumstances, delivering for the people of Australia.
Let's be clear: in the three years of this government, we've seen 1.1 million jobs created since the pandemic hit. Do you know what? The Labor shadow Treasurer said that the one test the Morrison government has to pass is the unemployment rate—will it hit a certain level or not? Well, the unemployment rate is well below expectations. So by Labor's standard, the standard, the one standard by which Labor said the Liberal-National government should be judged—namely, the employment level—the Morrison government has passed with flying colours. It is not me, a Liberal senator, asserting this; it is, by implication, the Australian Labor Party asserting this. They set the test, and the test the Labor Party set for the Liberal-National government has been passed with flying colours whether the Labor Party likes it or not.
So, having set us a benchmark, which we as a government have surpassed, what else is Labor to offer than to pick up any little rock that is available and throw it at us. There is no positivity here, there is no vision for the future, there is no policy platform on which to see the nation come out of this COVID pandemic. We as a nation are doing relatively well. Can we do better? Of course we can do better, and that is what the government continually strives for day after day. But what this nation does not need is a group of individuals who have only one vision, and that is for them to be elected to government.
For Labor to be elected to government, the Australian people need the full policy platform—what they would actually do, what they would do differently, and how. It's no use saying, 'We would have done better in this area or that area.' Tell us how that would have been achieved with all the constrictions and restraints that COVID has placed upon us. There have been 1.1 million jobs created, surpassing Labor's test. And I'm sure that the hapless Labor shadow Treasurer, in setting us this task on unemployment, thought we would fail it. He put that benchmark up in lights for everybody to see—only to see us not only match it but overwhelmingly surpass it. So, humiliated, the Labor Party retreats to what it is exceptionally good at, and that is throwing rocks and offering criticism. But they are incapable of providing a positive agenda—and the record of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer speaks for itself.
I have concentrated on that which the Labor Party set us a benchmark, but let's have a look at 1,400 additional nurse placement for the regions; $1 billion to help with Closing the Gap; and 93 per cent of Indigenous children enrolled in preschool, which is up from 77 per cent in 2016. You can go through policy parameter after policy parameter and see achievement by this government in the most difficult of circumstances. The ministry has performed exceptionally well, and the benchmarks set by the Australian Labor Party have been met and achieved—indeed, overachieved. So all Labor does is come in here and provide their relentless negativity and no real alternative for the people of Australia. That is why motions such as this, which are put forward by the Labor Party day after day, should be rejected. If I were in the opposition, I would be putting forward a positive platform; but, devoid of that, all they do is throw rocks.
]]>In the motion, if you read it in detail, you will see that these gentlemen are being condemned for even standing alongside certain people. Well, the acting leader of the opposition in this place got caught out recently, didn't she, standing alongside operatives of the Communist Party of China, that brutal dictatorship? She was standing alongside such an operative. Does the Labor Party condemn her for that? There's stony silence. Indeed, the acting leader of the Labor Party in this place—I would suggest possibly unwittingly—appointed people that have now served jail terms to her ministry and the Labor Party while she was Premier of New South Wales. How did they defend the criminally convicted Craig Thomson when he was sitting in the House of Representatives? The list of Labor debacles in this space goes on and on. One wonders how this Labor motion even saw the light of day. The lack of self-awareness in this motion is genuinely and truly concerning.
In this debate, sure, there is a narrative at the moment as to the best way to deal with COVID. Let's remind ourselves that Denmark, Sweden and Norway are not in the dark recesses of far-Right clutches but they have just determined to remove all barriers whatsoever in relation to COVID—no more mandates, no more mask wearing and no more limits on crowd numbers—based on their medical advice. 'Listen to the science' is often used as a mantra to shut others down, to cancel them. There are alternative points of view held by men and women skilled in science. Often they are quoted by my colleagues. Do we agree with them? That's not the issue. The issue is: do they have the right to put those views to the public? They do.
I'll just remind people in this place that men and women of good faith and who are highly intelligent can actually come to differing conclusions on exactly the same matters. I refer to the High Court: seven men and women who are sworn into office, who are of a high intellect and who are capable lawyers. They hear the same evidence and apply the same law, and then these seven men and women sometimes come to a 4-3 decision. Are they somehow in the clutches of some conspiratorial force? No, they are not. They are men and women of good faith who have exercised a judgement in relation to a certain matter. If High Court judges can be so divided on these matters, why can't Australian citizens be divided in relation to mandates, mask wearing or whether or not they want to have a vaccine?
That is why I have consistently been against the concept of mandates. I don't want to see a divided society. I don't want to see a two-tiered society based on those that are vaccinated and those that are not vaccinated. Those men and women who make a choice are entitled to their jobs. We are, as we speak, seeing university students in Tasmania being told, 'You cannot continue with your studies if you are not vaccinated,' as a result of which their dreams are shattered, the public is denied their expertise and, halfway through, they have a HECS debt that they were expecting to pay off after graduation. They're now being denied that opportunity but are still being left with a debt. The same applies to TAFE in my home state of Tasmania. It's completely unacceptable that apprentices should be denied the opportunity. We have a shortage of tradesmen. We have a shortage of nurses, doctors and surgeons, and they're now being denied the right to practise and be of service to the community. I happen to be pro-vaccination but antimandates, and that is a right and proper position to hold, and I will defend it most vehemently with those who have an alternative view to mine in relation to vaccination. My view has always been that in this debate we should seek to educate and not discriminate. We should seek to convince and not coerce. That is the way a civilised society and community seeks to go about a discussion. And, yes, what I would say to colleagues and others is: if you are so convinced of your position, you should have no fear of an opposite view being put to you. If anything, your counter to that view will show that your initial view is in fact correct, whereas, if you cannot counter it properly, what it informs you to do is to nuance your position to accept that that which has been countering your view has some merit to it, and you need to adjust your position.
What is most disappointing about this debate is not only Labor's hypocrisy in putting forward this motion but the relentless negativity of Labor and their failure to put forward an alternative point of view and an alternative platform. Where are they in this debate? Their big criticism is for three members of the coalition. You know what? The average Australian is not concerned about two senators and a House of Representatives member; they're concerned about the fundamentals of Australian government. Allow me to read the following list. It's why the Australian Labor Party don't want to talk real policy. We have had 1.1 million jobs created since the pandemic hit. How about a motion of congratulations in relation to that? Deathly silence from Labor. To continue: 11.5 million Australians are benefiting from tax relief, 700,000 jobs were saved through JobKeeper, 71.3 per cent of trade and exports are now covered by free trade agreements, there were 815,600 female business operators in Australia as of August 2021, 220,000 trade apprentices is a record high, there has been a 20 per cent reduction in emissions since 2005, and electricity bills are down eight per cent in the past two years. They're the sorts of things people talk about: apprenticeships for their sons and daughters and their electricity bill and how can they afford to pay it. These are the real issues, and they are what the Labor Party formerly discussed on a regular basis. But today—no, no, no. Those cost-of-living issues, those things that are actually discussed under the corrugated iron roofs of our suburbs, are no longer the matters that excite the interest of the Australian Labor Party. What excites them are political stunts and their attempts to divide our society. If anybody disagrees with their elitist view of the world, they need to be shut down.
In the moments left, how about 1,213 major transport projects supporting 100,000 jobs and over 99 per cent of homes and businesses with NBN access? Despite COVID, the Morrison government has done a fantastic job, and all that Labor can point to is some illusory view about three coalition backbenchers.
]]>The call to legislate a net zero emissions outcome by 2050 is a glib, shallow approach, devoid of any analysis or consideration for our fellow Tasmanians. Legislation means it would be illegal not to reduce emissions, irrespective of the cost. We all have a common vision, and that is for as clean an environment as possible. To legislate targets may sound good, but it has job-destroying, livelihood-destroying consequences. The extreme-green ideology embedded in Senator Lambie's motion has consequences—job- and livelihood-destroying consequences. It will hit the poorest hardest, and our manufacturing jobs. Legislating targets is exactly the same as saying you support a carbon tax—something the Australian people, quite rightly, comprehensively rejected in 2013. Handing over control of our economy—our Australian jobs—to courts and activists, which would occur if this was legislated, is something the coalition will never do, but Senator Lambie champions it. It is irresponsible. A bit of research tells the story, but of course doing research might mean a bit less time for dancing for TikTok.
Where climate targets have been enshrined in legislation in the last two years alone, the people have been the losers. Look at Germany. Look at France. Look at the United Kingdom, where extensions to Heathrow Airport, under this type of legislation in the proposal of Senator Lambie, were delayed. The motion would usher in a new era of green lawfare. But, of course, Senator Lambie voted recently to protect the Bob Brown Foundation, to enable it to continue its un-Tasmanian work.
On this side, we have never legislated emissions targets—and for a good reason: it destroys jobs for everyone other than for green lawyers. On this side, we make calculated, balanced commitments, and then we get on with meeting them and beating them. We beat our 2020 target. We're on track to meet and beat our 2030 target. The only time an emissions target was legislated in Australia was the carbon tax. And that didn't end very well, did it? The people repudiated the Labor-Green carbon tax, without hesitation. They will do so again, even if Senator Lambie is used as the stalking horse for the Labor-Green alliance. It really does seem that Senator Lambie has been sitting between Labor and the Greens for a little too long, and the colour with which she started off her political branding—namely, yellow—seems to change to green when she hits Canberra.
But let's be clear: emissions are already more than 20 per cent below 2005 levels, while our economy has grown 45 per cent. We're on track to meet and beat our 2030 target. We've set out a credible plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Here I have the comprehensive book setting it out, with over 100 pages—and of course, that is so much more hard work than a glib two-line motion before the Senate. We've set out a credible plan, preserving jobs in existing industries, taking advantage of new economic opportunities to grow jobs, ensuring our regions grow even more jobs and establishing Australia as a leader in low-emissions technologies.
We do this through technology, not through taxes, and by empowering choice and delivering affordable—a word never mentioned by Senator Lambie—reliable energy to all Australians. We achieve this by getting the cost of clean energy and low-emissions technologies down, not by driving up the cost of meat, fuel or steel, or of aluminium and other goods that use intensive energy. We need to protect the cost of living—something of which Senator Lambie's contribution was completely devoid. Those doing it tough rely on us to have the calibration of our policy position to ensure that they can make their household budgets balance. That's what we are on about. A carbon tax, albeit by a different name, and sector mandates, favoured by supporters of this motion, would shred affordability.
Australia will achieve net zero emissions by 2050 in the Australian way, and that isn't through an expensive, job-destroying, ham-fisted, mandated, one-size-fits-all legislative fix, which is being promoted by the Australia Institute—of which Senator Lambie, in recent times, seems to have become the ventriloquist's doll. We will act in a practical, responsible way to reduce emissions while preserving Australian jobs and taking advantage of new opportunities for industries and regional Australia. Our plan is not a plan at any cost. It will not shut down manufacturing production or our exports. It will not impact households and jobs. There's a very straightforward message: you can either adopt this flawed, glib, green motion, or you can be clever and clean, which is our Liberal-National Party practical approach in this policy area.
]]>The majority of breaches covered by the act are of a uniquely military nature. They range from offences relating to operations against an enemy to being late for work. Serious criminal offences or other illegal conduct are usually referred to civilian authorities, such as the police. It is critical that breaches of discipline are resolved quickly and fairly to maintain morale and ensure good order and fighting capability. We need to maintain an operationally capable Defence Force with the highest levels of professional competence, commitment and discipline, both on and off duty.
The bill will reform the military discipline system, in particular the lower-level summary system and disciplinary infringement scheme. This will make it easier to use when dealing with minor discipline matters, particularly when deployed on operations. It will do this in three ways. Firstly, it will build on what is working well—the disciplinary infringement scheme—by enabling a wider range of minor breaches of military discipline to be managed quickly and simply as disciplinary infringements rather than service offences, where complex, adversarial, court-like procedures apply. Secondly, it will provide a better-structured discipline hierarchy based on the seriousness of the offending, available punishments, rank of the individual and seniority of the discipline authority. Thirdly and finally, the changes introduce several new service offences relevant to the modern ADF. Those new service offences include cyberbullying, and the related offence of failure to comply with a removal order concerning cyberbullying material; failing to perform a duty or an activity; and failing to notify a change in circumstances when in receipt of a benefit or entitlement. The changes will build on the very successful and highly regarded disciplinary infringement scheme.
Many senior non-commissioned officers and junior officers had little confidence in using the summary discipline system because of its complexity. Its use has been in constant and consistent decline, from 1,743 summary trials in 2009 to just about half of that, 923, in 2019. The people in our Defence Force live, work and fight alongside each other. Delays in dealing with discipline matters erode morale and impact mental wellbeing. Delays can also affect the careers of our people, beyond the intended discipline action. This is because leave, attendance at courses, and promotional prospects are often on hold until a discipline matter is finalised. This places undue stress on all involved.
Having had the pleasure of chairing this inquiry, I commend the explanatory memorandum, the minister's second reading speech and the bill to the Senate.
]]>I think this bill has been one of the examples of our parliament working at its very best. I recall the journey myself, and I pay tribute to the former member for Melbourne Ports. He was the one that first made me aware of the name Magnitsky and then of the legislation that might be put forward in honour of his name. I then wrote to relevant people on my side of politics and got the polite 'not needed' response, which was then followed up with an acceptance that it might be a good idea for the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's subcommittee on human rights to have a look at this idea and whether it is needed in Australia. I was very pleased to be able to serve on that committee and come down with a unanimous report, where all members of the committee, under the very able chairmanship of the member for Menzies, Kevin Andrews, produced a result which has now been adopted, from what I can gather, by all sides of the parliament in both chambers.
In short, that which is before us is legislation I fully support. Given the time constraints, I simply ask people who want to know my thoughts about this matter to read and look at things I may or may not have said in the past, but especially to read Senator Kitching's speech.
]]>Unfortunately, he missed out on leading our state. Some would say he was too good for the cut and thrust of public life. But, as an attorney-general, deputy premier and police minister, he was exceptionally highly regarded by all within the legal fraternity and the police force, who considered him a true friend. After his distinguished career in the Royal Australian Navy and as a barrister, magistrate and parliamentarian, he further distinguished himself by serving on the National Crime Authority and then the equivalent of the integrity commission in Queensland as its first chair. Today I want to salute the life and service of Sir Max Bingham and extend my condolences to his family.
]]>Not to be deterred in its campaign of misrepresentation, GetUp's misnamed human rights team set themselves the task of 'spreading joy' to people in aged care last Christmas. To ensure people in aged care would 'feel the holiday cheer' while in lockdown, GetUp members wrote self-described 'heartfelt letters', according to GetUp, to highlight the love and generosity of the GetUp movement. These were in a book delivered to aged-care homes across the country. Who would have thought it: the bird-doggers and hardcore Marxists at GetUp are really softies at heart! Their self-described heart-warming book titled Some Love from our Community to Yours, was:
… to make sure you folks in aged care get the love you deserve in this holiday season … love GetUp.
Unsurprisingly, for those familiar with GetUp, their 'heart-warming' offering to aged-care residents containing 'beautiful letters' was laced with political poison. Here are some excerpts: 'I've generally seen the best in people—state and federal Liberal politicians aside. Apologies for my language, but the federal government have been absolute bastards towards those they've been required to care for, whether they're refugees, senior citizens or Aussies also trying to get home, along the predictable racial and financial lines.' This gives you a flavour of GetUp's insensitive, base and ugly offerings, with complete disregard for the aged. There's no Christmas cheer, no good will, no joy and no peace, just 100 per cent hardcore political propaganda seeking to relentlessly attack the coalition government under the dishonest guise of Christmas greetings. There's no depth to which GetUp will not sink if it perceives some benefit for its perverse, extreme left-wing world view.
Another offering in the book reads: 'Aged care should never be a place one is put in readiness for the end, but a place where life, both long and eventful, can be celebrated. Pity our federal government doesn't value this, but there we are.' Let me repeat—this is distastefulness writ large: 'Aged care should never be a place one is put in readiness for the end.' Can you imagine the sensitivity level for such a statement? It's negative, infinitely callous and brutal—anything for cheap political advantage at the expense of aged-care residents. How do these people sleep at night or show their faces? Another ugly offering says: 'It appals me, the lack of federal government care for our ageing population. But that's the government, and mostly they are useless twits.' Really? Again, this is indicative of the standards and behaviour of GetUp. Unwitting people donate to this organisation without realising it abuses their funds to spread abuse and poison, such as I've quoted.
Then there is the question of whether all the writers were even real. Two have the same picture—just a tad awkward—suggesting fabrication.
My plea to GetUp this Christmas is: Give aged-care residents a break. Spare them your confected love and sham exercises of compassion used to peddle your ugly political propaganda. The men and women who have built our country and society—of which we are the beneficiaries—should not be subjected to such nasty, dishonest political campaigns by GetUp, especially under the guise of Christmas greetings. It is a huge disservice and displays a complete disrespect for the Christian celebration of Christmas.
]]>Let's move to that which is before us. First of all, the government is accused of its 'ongoing failure to open any new federal quarantine facilities'. Well, at Howard Springs there's already a facility that I think caters for 1,000 or so. But we are, as we speak, building facilities. In Victoria, we expect that construction of the first 250 beds will be completed by the end of 2021—within a month. And this is the shallowness of the Labor Party's attack: do you know why it will only be the end of this year? Because the state Labor government's lockdown of its state delayed completion. The federal government pleaded with the state Labor government, saying, 'Please give an exemption for the building of these quarantine facilities in Victoria so that they can be ready.' But in typical Labor style, talking out of both sides of their mouths, on one hand the state Labor government says, 'No, we will not give you an exemption,' and then federal Labor uses that denial of an exemption to condemn the federal government for not building the facility. That sort of shallowness tells you everything you need to know about the Australian Labor Party and why it is not fit for office.
In Western Australia—your home state, Mr Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan—as well as in Queensland, the federal government is working towards construction of the first 500 beds at various sites being completed by the first quarter of 2022. So here we are, on the cusp of delivering all these quarantine beds and facilities that Labor are asking about, and what do they do? Instead of celebrating the quick movement and the fact that we are on the cusp of delivering them, they're telling us, 'They're not ready yet; isn't this terrible!' It's just relentless negativity, and there's no description to us, as a nation, of how they would have done things differently.
In referring to the Victorian situation, Multiplex was the company that was on track for delivery of the first 500 beds by December, which is next month. We're on the very last day of November today. The finance minister wrote to the Victorian Premier, seeking an exemption from lockdown for the Mickleham project. The Victorian government did not agree to any concessions whatsoever, and undoubtedly that is part of the coordinated Labor Party political playbook—that the state government will refuse and delay so that federal Labor can somehow take advantage of it. How shallow. How un-Australian. Sadly, how very predictable it is for Labor to engage in such stunts, but I have every confidence that the Australian people will see through it. Labor are crying crocodile tears. It is fake concern. Surely, they must know the truth about the facilities that are about to come online, and the delays occasioned by state Labor? No, they seek to airbrush all of that out of the equation.
Having dealt with the quarantine facilities, let me turn to the other aspect of the motion, the delivery of sovereign mRNA vaccine-manufacturing capacity. Wouldn't we all love it! That'd be great, wouldn't it? But there are no new end-to-end mRNA facilities that have been established, since the vaccines were approved, anywhere in the world. That was just a slight omission, I'm sure, by the Labor Party mover of this urgency matter—that nowhere in the world do such facilities exist. Yet they seek to slap the federal Liberal-National government around the chops for not having done that which nobody else in the world has been able to achieve as yet. Please, give us a break! Do not use this pandemic for such cheap political points, when you know that what you are saying to the Australian people is demonstrably false on all the evidence. I would encourage the next Labor speaker to tell us where there is that capacity anywhere in the world. If they can't, I would say to the Australian Labor Party: apologise for having brought this matter forward.
Then we have the assertion that we somehow haven't protected Australians and our neighbours. Again, let's look at the evidence. Let's look at the facts. Australia has pledged to supply up to 60 million doses to our region by the end of 2022, of which up to 15 million would go to the Pacific and Timor-Leste. We have shared over 2.3 million doses with our neighbours in the Pacific and Timor-Leste, as of 17 November. Australia has provided 1.076 million AstraZeneca vaccine doses to Fiji. How many more would Labor have delivered? Not a word from them as to how much has been done in this space. There have been 677,000 doses given to Timor-Leste, 213,000 doses given to the Solomon Islands, 204,000 to PNG, 100,000 doses to Vanuatu—these are all figures as of 17 November—as well as medical supplies, personal protective equipment and testing equipment. Australia has committed $623.2 million to assist vaccine procurement and rollout efforts in the Pacific and South-East Asia. Excuse me, but where does Labor get this nonsense from that we have done nothing for our neighbourhood or our region? They're demonstrably false on the figures. I would encourage the next Labor speaker to say how they would have done more, and how.
Finally, let me deal with what is so vindictive and nasty: this talk about pandering to antivax extremists. I happen to be vaccinated; I encourage people to be vaccinated. But I'm willing to accept that men and women of good faith looking at the same evidence can come to different conclusions. And do you know what? Even the very best of our judiciary in the High Court—taking the same oath of office, hearing the same evidence and applying the same law—come to different conclusions, and that is why sometimes the High Court is split 4-3. Or, for those of us who did jury trials from time to time, men and women are sworn into a jury and hear the same evidence, yet you get a split jury verdict. Why? It's because men and women of good faith applying themselves to the same situation can reasonably come to different conclusions. It's the same in the vaccination space. Respectfully, I disagree with them, but to call them 'antivax extremists' is, if you like, Hillary Clinton-esque, of the 'deplorables' that cost her the election against Donald Trump.
So the Australian Labor Party deserve to lose the next election, because what they are seeking to do is to divide the Australian society into a two-tier system of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. We on this side, whilst we have certain views about vaccination, are willing to accept that there are alternative views. This motion shows that Labor is not ready to govern.
]]>Labor, in its misguided world view, wants to scrap the card and the protection it affords, especially for women and children. While they're at it, they peddle their dishonest scare campaign that the government wants to expand the cashless welfare card to include age pensioners. The truth is that the government's legislation explicitly rules this out. The legislation doesn't allow for that to happen. In an ironic twist, Labor voted against that guarantee. We saw Labor's dishonest 'Mediscare' campaign in the 2016 election. Thankfully, Australians saw through the politicking. Brazenly, one Tasmanian Labor MP's website still says, 'The government wants to expand the cashless welfare card to include all pensioners.' This is simply false, simply untrue and simply desperate.
The government has made it clear it will never place age pensioners onto the cashless debit card. Retirees can rest assured that their pensions are safe in Liberal hands. Devoid of a positive agenda, Labor is resorting to peddling falsehoods about age pensioners in the hope that pensioners will vote Labor. It's unworthy, and our pensioner community, who built our country, deserve so much better. Pensioners have no better friend than the Liberal-National parties.
]]>