Kate Ellis's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Adelaide Electorate: Road Safety | Constituency Statements | House debates
I regret that I can't also talk about cane toad sniffer dogs—something I haven't been able to do in my 15 years here! Instead I rise today, as I have on more than one occasion, to argue in...
I regret that I can't also talk about cane toad sniffer dogs—something I haven't been able to do in my 15 years here! Instead I rise today, as I have on more than one occasion, to argue in this place and make clear my deep concern about the safety of our children. I have been calling on the South Australian government to prioritise the lives of Adelaide High School students and do something to address the serious road safety issues at that school. Now, once again, I stand here to highlight more road safety issues at our schools—this time for Nailsworth Primary School students. I have been contacted by several concerned parents of Nailsworth Primary School. I and my newly elected state colleague Andrea Michaels, South Australia's new member for Enfield, and our Senate candidate Emily Gore, recently met with the Nailsworth Primary School community at the pedestrian crossing they are concerned about. The school and the crossing are a two-minute walk from my electorate office, and both are located on Main North Road. For those who are unfamiliar with Adelaide, Main North Road is a major north-south arterial route and, consequently, it is extremely busy. The road has a 60-kilometre speed limit. On one side is Prospect and on the other side is Nailsworth. There is no 25-kay school-crossing speed zone, due to the fact that the school is actually situated on the side road around the corner from the pedestrian crossing. However, families living in Prospect need to cross our Main North Road to get to Nailsworth Primary School. It is a road that I drive across almost every day. So, when parents contacted me expressing concerns about cars regularly not stopping at red lights, driving right on through, at high speed of traffic, so close to large groups of children, I knew exactly what they were talking about. Between 2014 and the beginning of 2019, SA Police records show that 1,496 motorists exceeded the speed limit in a school zone, and, of those, 776 were fined a total of $357,000. These figures were presented in the Advertiser recently. I've been writing to all levels of government to fund safer infrastructure on the roads near our schools. The students of Nailsworth primary and their safety and security must be paramount. We know—and it is placed on the record—that it is only a matter of time before there will be a tragedy at that site unless the state government puts in place greater safety mechanisms. Students are at risk. A young person would be more likely than an adult to make an error of judgement crossing this road or to not see a speeding car flying through the red light. I encourage Nailsworth Primary School students to keep pursuing this fight, and I will stand and fight with them. (Time expired)
Valedictory | Parliamentary Representation | House debates
Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I wish to make a valedictory speech to the parliament. It is impossible in one short speech to summarise the amazing ride that I have been on, from a 26-year-old girl...
Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I wish to make a valedictory speech to the parliament. It is impossible in one short speech to summarise the amazing ride that I have been on, from a 26-year-old girl preselected to try and win the seat of Adelaide off the government, to standing here saying goodbye to the parliament. I first stood in this chamber almost 15 years ago and admitted to being young and idealistic. I said that I hoped that when I left this place I would be old and idealistic. Well, what I wasn't to know was that during my period in the parliament I would witness more leadership change, more instability, more division and more chaos than at any other time in this parliament's history. I continue to witness too many focus on the sport of politics rather than the purpose of it. So I guess you could say that my idealism has been challenged at times! But, despite this, I absolutely remain passionate about this role, this place and the power that we have here to improve people's lives—the idealist survived, just! Facing the prospect of leaving has made we reflect more than ever on just what a privilege it is to stand here, what an honour it is to be selected and what a responsibility it is to serve Australia well. The time allowed to me today could easily be filled with a love letter to the people of Adelaide. I can never adequately repay the faith that they have put in me nor adequately express my gratitude. Having the honour of representing the people of Adelaide is without doubt one of the greatest privileges of my life, and my first and most heartfelt thanks must go to them. Being a local member is massively underrated by some of us who sit here and, I would argue, by most of those who cover politics. Whilst it isn't as visible as grandstanding in the parliament or running party attack lines on Sky News, to me, I have always viewed representing the people of Adelaide as both the most significant and most rewarding part of my job. Being a local MP is important work, and I think it is especially so for Labor MPs, as we are the ones who so often represent those who have fallen between the cracks. We get the chance daily to quite literally change people's lives—by fixing their Centrelink issue and helping to lift them out of poverty; by working to connect them with DV services and helping them to escape violence; and by resolving their problems with the NDIS and helping to ease their suffering. So thank you, Adelaide, for trusting me with your issues and concerns and for paying me the greatest compliment imaginable in continuing to re-elect me to serve you in this parliament. I know that the member for Hindmarsh will work diligently to represent you and I absolutely wish him every success in that. There is a general view that people get more conservative as they age. That has certainly not been the case for me when it comes to my feminist beliefs. One thing that has truly mortified me is the suggestion that my decision to leave this place shows that it is somehow incompatible to be a woman, and particularly a mother, and have a successful career in politics. That is simply not true. There is no job that's more rewarding, more interesting and more stimulating than serving our community as a member of parliament. So I would urge any woman with an interest to do it, because you will never regret it, just as I do not regret a single day that I've spent here. The truth behind my decision is that I felt that I could leave because we on our side have been so successful in electing talented women. When I was first elected as the youngest woman to ever sit in this House, I was often compared to a previous young member for Adelaide, Andrew Jones. He went out in controversy, suffering a 14 per cent swing against him after just one term. Now, rightly or wrongly, I felt an overwhelming pressure—that it was up to me to prove that you could be young, you could be a young woman, and you could succeed here, and I hoped that by doing so I might make it easier for those who followed. Following the next election, I became a minister, and I had it regularly pointed out to me that I had broken Paul Keating's record for being the youngest ever Australian minister. Again, personally I felt this enormously heavy burden to show that you could be both young and a woman, and effective in your role. What changed for me was not that I thought I couldn't be a woman, a mother and do my job but actually that the pressure lifted. One day, I looked around me and I saw this great and inspiring army of passionate, talented, hardworking women that we have in our caucus and I knew that I could go. There is no shortage of remarkable Labor women who will fly the flag, achieve amazing things and prove to all that a woman's place is in the parliament—and there are more on their way. I see in the gallery my smart, talented friend Marielle Smith. Five years ago, Julia Gillard said of Marielle, 'For journalists in the room, please write that name down; you're going to need it. I'm absolutely confident she will be one of the stars in the future.' Well, Marielle is a candidate for the Senate at this year's election, like Anika Wells in Lilley and so many other smart, talented, ambitious women putting their hands up as Labor candidates right around the country. To those opposite I would say: this doesn't just happen organically. No boys club has ever voluntarily dismantled itself. Over 15 years, I've witnessed the cultural transformation within my side of politics when it comes to women. Two factors have driven that change—most importantly, of course, adopting real structural change to attract and support more women. It's meant that our culture, our caucus and our support has dramatically increased as our female representation has. The other factor is having male leaders who believe in and are committed to gender equality. It means that, after the struggle for so many years, real change has now taken place and is taking place really quickly, and it is amazing to watch. After the strong leadership that we enjoy from our leader and deputy leader, and after learning the lesson the hard way at the ballot box, I actually credit the increase in women's representation in Labor with helping to create the stability that our side had enjoyed over the last five years. I argue that a party that better resembles Australia itself is always going to be steadier than one dominated by macho men with scores to settle and egos driven by self-promotion. Increasing gender equality in the parliament isn't just the right thing to do; it's the smart thing to do. Some say that the only thing harder than getting into this parliament is leaving it. There's always more to do. There are more issues. There's more reform. There's more progress. The job of improving Australia is never going to be complete. I've accepted this, though, because I have such faith in the Labor team around me to keep fighting the good fight, although I do remain burdened by one unfinished act. I feel deeply that the job of early childhood education reform was meant to be my purpose here, and it is unfinished business. I'm really proud of my work in establishing and entrenching the national quality framework, despite the challenges of getting all states and territories, from all different political persuasions, to agree and commit. I'm proud that universal access to kindergarten for four-year-olds is now established and recognised as critically important. I was proud to lead the debate on the need to extend this to every Australian three-year-old, and I was so delighted by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Kingston's announcement that Labor will do just that. But there remains much to do. I have publicly argued that our early childhood system is fundamentally broken. It should be universal, quality and as simple to navigate as our school system. It's shameful that the government has taken the backward step of linking children's support and early education to their parents' activities rather than as a fundamental universal right. It was deeply disappointing that many of those charged with being the key advocates for children sought to compromise with the government rather than staunchly oppose the decreasing of many children's access. It is unjustifiable that we have seen an increase in services focused on boosting profits ahead of best meeting children's needs. I absolutely know that the member for Kingston will do a fabulous job of progressing these causes. I would say to the whole parliament, though: children are not currently at the centre of our decision-making and policy debates. If we are to pursue the best outcomes for this nation's future, this must change. We must recognise the power of the first 1,000 days to determine a child's future. We should recognise that we have no greater responsibility here than to protect and promote our youth. The lack of attention to the recent spate of Indigenous youth suicides is a clear demonstration that we are not achieving this end. In fact, at the risk of having the member for Lilley roll his eyes behind me, I might take this opportunity to have one last go at a losing battle I have now been arguing for 10 years now. If this parliament is to truly get best results in social policy, you must find a new budget rule that counts second-round effects when they are clearly immediate and measurable. Without this our efforts in employment, Indigenous advancement and education will all be held back. I spoke in my first speech of my passion for the Murray River and the fight to save it. It's fair to ask just how much progress we've made since then, given the latest damning report of the South Australian royal commission. I will make one final plea: as is the case with climate change, this parliament must be guided by science. We must put politics and special interest aside. We must overcome the corruption and mismanagement and let science dictate the path to a permanent and healthy river system. Our job here is represent our communities, but on some issues our job absolutely has to be to lead our communities too. I'm not going to detail a list of accomplishments here; it feels ridiculous to do so. I do want to say that some of the things I'm most proud of are those that have not received any fanfare. Some of those things are important: making the hard decisions to redirect funding towards infrastructure and support for some of the most vulnerable Indigenous children in budget based funded services; pushing through to ensure after over 20 years only the best providers were serving jobseekers with a disability; having a chance to build on the amazing work of the member for Sydney in finalising and launching the first ever National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children; and insisting on increased resources and promotion for women's sport. These are all things I'm proud of. That is enough about me; now I'm going to move to the thank yous and talk about some of you. The saying goes that the worst day in government is better than best day in opposition. Sadly, I suspect, for many people on both sides of the chamber this hasn't always been true in the last 10 years. It wasn't for me. Disunity and division are no fun to work in at all. Of course the best days of government cannot be topped, but my favourite term in this parliament was immediately following the 2013 election defeat, funnily enough. This is in no small part due to the Leader of the Opposition restoring unity and allowing shadow ministers the space and the trust to delve deep into policy development, to be big and bold when it came to the best options for Australia's future and to make the case and win our arguments. I thank Bill for this. I thank him even more for the understanding, flexibility and support he has personally given me. I can't wait to watch him become a great Labor Prime Minister. I also want to thank Prime Minister Julia Gillard for both her support and the inspiration she continues to provide. I want to note that getting the chance to work with and to learn the art of policy development from the member for Jagajaga has been one of the greatest privileges I've enjoyed here. I wish her every success with her future. I want to particularly thank the member for Watson and the deputy leader, the member for Sydney, for their friendship over so many years. More than anyone, it is you who have showed me that true friendships can exist and survive in this building. I note the member for Corio and Port Adelaide and thank you them for the good times sitting through question time. To the Chief Opposition Whip, Chris Hayes: I don't know how to say this other than to say that you're pretty much a god in my eyes! It's not just rule changes that help parents juggle work and family in this place, it's attitudes and it's understanding. Chris, you have been an amazing support, and I thank you and your staff wholeheartedly. I've previously spoken at great length, saying nice things about Senator Don Farrell when I spoke in response to what turned out to be his premature valedictory speech so I won't repeat all of those on the Hansard today, except to say that I have never forgotten that I would not be here without him and I'm so grateful for his support. Thank you, Don. Thank you also, of course, to my South Australian colleagues, particularly the members for Kingston and Wakefield. I should note that my neighbour here, the member for Macarthur, thought he'd finished being a paediatrician when he got elected to this parliament, and then he meet me and my children! I thank him for that. I'm also indebted to those colleagues, past and present, who fought so long and hard to get a childcare centre here. I wouldn't have been able to do this job for so long without it. I want to thank Melita, Caitlin and the remarkable team of educators, who work for Communities@Work at that centre, for the fantastic job that they do providing quality care to our children. I wouldn't have been able to serve my community without the most remarkable team of staff imaginable. I wanted staff members, but, actually, I got some lifelong friends. We're organising a catch-up of Team Ellis past and present, where I intend to spend a great amount of time outlining to each and every one of them how much I love them and why. But, in the meantime, I thank and acknowledge my current staff—Tara, Michael, Mikaela and Joe—who I know are watching from Adelaide today. You are amazing and I thank you. I also need to specifically mention a few whom I can never adequately repay. To Amy Ware: you were the first person I hired upon my election and you have been on this whole crazy ride with me. Not only are you exceptional at your job but you are just a joy to be around. Thank you for everything, and I'm so glad you'll be with me right till the end. To my government chief of staff, Shannon Rees: I asked for a chief of staff and, in you, I got a first-class one, but I also gained a sister for life. I saw firsthand some of the unfair and sexist treatment that female staff can receive in this building in some of the ridiculous things that you had to endure, but I still marvel at your strength, your grace and your professionalism in dealing with it all. As two youngish women in this building, we overcame some absurd obstacles together. Your amazing work meant that we also got to do some great things, not least of which was delivering the greatest increase in funding to Australian sport in the nation's history—as we told each other regularly. To Tim Watts, my chief of staff in opposition: you are one of the smartest, kindest and hardest-working people not just that I imagine I will ever meet but that I suspect exists on the planet. You're an asset both to our party and to all of those who are lucky enough to call you a friend, and I'm so grateful that I can. And to Suzanne Kellett: I cannot even begin to thank you for all that you do to go above and beyond. I remember clearly the day I'd been called into a division just after collecting my boys from child care when I received a text from you asking if Charlie had some spare pants because he'd had a nappy explosion' and that you'd cleaned him up but he was never going to be able to wear those pants again. I remember, I just thought to myself, 'My God, that is not what anybody meant when the job description says 'and other duties as described by the member!. You have gone above and beyond anything I would ever dream of asking or expecting from you, and I don't know how I'll ever repay you for the support that you've offered me. Thank you for doing your job and keeping our office running, and thank you for not just tolerating but for loving my children. We would be lost without their beloved 'Zoozann'. There is also a team of superstars that I've been blessed to work with who are off changing the world in their own name: Jamila Rizvi, Joanne Cleary, Chris Steel, Vicky Darling, Marielle, Vicky, Claire, Wilko, Skye and so many others. Thank you to you all. Now we're getting to the bit that I thought would actually make my cry. I don't know what's going to happen here! I want to say thank you to my family. To my dear mum, Ros, and my protective big brother, Matt: I know that you have felt every criticism and every attack that's been directed at me over the last 15 years more than I ever have. You've lived this journey with me, and I thank you for your love and support. I should particularly note that Mum and my step father, Barry, who's currently in hospital and can't be with us today, basically moved to Canberra for a year when Sam was born so that they could help me juggle parliament and motherhood, and I am so very grateful for that. To my mother and father-in-law, Lloyd and Carolyn Penberthy: without your help and support our family simply wouldn't work. With me in Canberra and Dave working breakfast radio, Soph and Jim would have been on their own from 5 am each morning and without a lift to school if Lloyd and Carolyn hadn't have taken them in overnight, done the school runs and stepped in to save us each and every sitting week. I can't thank them enough for that and for all that they do to support us and our family. Lloyd, it's also really nice to have at least one Penberthy man whose political persuasions I can be confident of and support! To my amazing stepchildren, Sophie and James: I know that my work has caused you disruption, and you have never once complained about it. I thank you for your flexibility and tolerance. I tell you often about what a great big brother and big sister you are to the boys. I probably don't tell you enough that you're the best stepchildren anyone could ever hope for, and I love you both to bits. To my husband, David Penberthy—I used your full name, Dave, because, although it's been mentioned in Hansard several times before, this will be the first time it's in a positive sense and I want to make sure it comes up in searches! Dave, some may suspect that you haven't done too many favours for the Labor Party, but I'm about to outline one that you have done and that I've never told you. There has been no time that I have been more confident in my work, more focussed or grounded than once I'd found you. Your love and support made me a better MP as well as a better person, so you've helped us. Thank you. We've never known life together without me doing this job, but one of the things that I am most excited about is our next chapter together. If you can put up with me being around a bit more often then I cannot wait for the extra adventures we'll have together and the flexibility to explore the world more often together. I love you. Now, to my beautiful Sam and my adorable Charlie: I am a fretful mother. I worry about absolutely everything when it comes to the health and happiness of my children. Recently, I've been worried that you two might grow up and read about my decision to leave parliament and feel bad that I decided to leave a job that I love for you, so I need to make one thing very clear: I'm leaving a job that I love for me. I'm leaving because what you've given me is something that I love more than this excellent job, because there is nothing in the world that I want more than to be present and active in guiding you and supporting you and being with you as you grow into the amazing men that I know you'll be. There's nothing more rewarding, more entertaining, more important to me than being there for you two crazy, clever, kind and funny little people. So, as our song goes, Sam, you and Charlie are the sunshine of my life. I've set myself a really big challenge—to have a bigger positive impact on the lives of my children by being with them more than I could being here fighting for a better, fairer and more forward-looking nation. I don't know if that's a challenge that I can meet, but it's one that I look forward to working hard to achieve each and every day. So, with all of that, that's it from me. I'll finish by simply saying thank you and goodbye.
Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I don't think that I'm alone amongst Australians in that my feelings about the national crisis that we face when we look at domestic violence rates in Australia have moved from sorrow and despair...
I don't think that I'm alone amongst Australians in that my feelings about the national crisis that we face when we look at domestic violence rates in Australia have moved from sorrow and despair to now sitting squarely in white hot anger. If we have a look at what is happening in Australian society today, in 2018, we see that the statistics are stark and they are horrifying: more than one woman killed each and every week in 2018 in the Australia that we preside over. So I think we in the parliament need to ask ourselves: are we doing absolutely everything that we can be doing to stop this national disgrace? Sadly, I believe that the answer to that is no. We come here today to debate a bill which, in effect, means that a woman who is trying to flee domestic violence will not be punished by losing her job if she needs to take five days of unpaid leave. Well, woo hoo, this is a step in the right direction, but it is a teeny-tiny step in the right direction. I believe that every parliament, every member of parliament, every elected official should be asking themselves: what more could we be doing to help prevent the tragedies that are taking place far too often? Sadly, I think that there will be many, many answers that come forward. Perhaps when the Prime Minister talks, as he does so often at the moment, about the Canberra bubble, we should ask ourselves: are we living in the Canberra bubble when we are not, as a parliament, standing up and debating and discussing solutions to this crisis each and every day, when we're not taking the action which all of the evidence and the experts say is required to be taken if we are going to support those brave and courageous women who are trying to flee the situations that they find themselves in? All of that evidence and all of those experts suggest that, when it comes to leave from the workplace, it needs to be paid leave and that five days is not adequate; it needs to be 10 days of paid leave. I know that we've all heard statistics, and they stop having their full meaning when we throw them around all the time. We know that, in Australia, at least 55 women have been murdered in 2018. In fact, we know that some 63 women have been killed by acts of violence, 55 in domestic violence situations. We know that intimate partner violence is the greatest health risk for Australian women aged 25 to 44. This is quite literally killing women far too often. I know that there has been progress made in recent years. There's been progress made in terms of awareness. There's been progress made in terms of taking this out of the shadows, no longer talking about this as a private issue, as a family issue, but recognising that this is a national crisis. But, whilst there has been progress made, we still see these statistics and we know that each and every one of these statistics represents a human tragedy—a woman's life lost and, in many cases, their children's lives forever altered. We know in too many of these cases that it is continuing a cycle, which we know can have profound effects later in life. In the local area that I'm so lucky to represent, the electorate of Adelaide, The Advertiser ran an article on the weekend in which they listed the top 10 metropolitan postcodes for domestic violence related offences. Two of these, in metropolitan Adelaide, are postcodes that I have the privilege to represent in this House. Of course, what that means is that too many people whom I have been elected to represent in this House are finding themselves subjected to domestic and family violence. Postcode 5000, Adelaide City, and postcode 5084, Kilburn and Blair Athol, are among the top 10 metropolitan postcodes. We also know that South Australia Police investigated more than 10,800 crimes linked to domestic violence last financial year. That's just South Australia Police—10,800 crimes. South Australia Police Chief Superintendent Doug Barr told The Advertiser that many people thought of domestic violence as assault, but the new data shows that it is so much more than that. Examples among the 10,000 crimes include brandishing a gun and threatening a partner or a child; endangering a family member by driving at them or forcing them into a car; releasing intimate images of a partner; spray-painting offensive language on their fence; sending excessive harassing text messages; and breaking into ex-partners' homes and stealing items. This has gone on far too long and we as a parliament must challenge ourselves: what more can we do? We know that this is an issue that needs to be tackled on a range of different levels. Primary prevention is so incredibly important if we are going to change attitudes and ensure that future generations don't see these horrifying levels of this crime. Our law enforcement and judicial system needs to be best equipped to appropriately deal with these issues. There are serious issues when it comes to accommodation, when it comes to refuge, when it comes to support for women and their families who are fleeing this situation. In fact, just last week I received an email on behalf of one of the local churches in my electorate. It says: Dear Kate We write to you as Federal Member for Adelaide, to express our concern at the chronic shortage of crisis, social and affordable housing that is forcing women who want to flee a violent household to have nowhere to go. We have attached a photo of our congregation at the Parkside Baptist Church (Adelaide) reflecting on this issue at our services on 25 November. We were shocked to discover that domestic violence is the leading contributor to homelessness in Australia. Housing experts anticipate that if we are to be a country where every person can enjoy safe and secure housing we will need an additional 500,000 social and affordable homes by 2026. Yet present trends show that social housing is declining as a proportion of housing stock and a large number of crisis accommodation services report that they do not have sufficient resources to accommodate all those who need it, and as a result, regularly turn people away. Please make this a priority issue and keep it as priority issue until every woman, child and man fleeing violence has a safe and secure place to go. Thank you for your time. Kind regards Frances Hardy On behalf of Parkside Baptist Church Thank you, Frances and your congregation for continuing to speak out and keeping this issue on the agenda. For my part, I will represent your concerns and I will fight for more accommodation, something that I'm pleased Labor has released our policy for. We know how important safe shelter is for women and children in particular in these situations. That brings us to the bill that we're debating here today. Of course, accommodation and shelter are required if and when a woman makes a decision to leave the dangerous circumstances that she finds herself in. My concern about this bill here today is that we know that two out of three women who are experiencing domestic violence are in the workforce. That means that for many of them, when they are in controlling, abusive relationships at home, that time in the workforce is actually the only safe time that they have outside of the house. If these women are contemplating leaving this situation—and we can only imagine how hard that decision is—the statistics make it clear that fleeing an abusive domestic violence situation is when they are at their most vulnerable. It is the most dangerous time. So it is a hard decision. Anyone who says, 'Why don't they just leave?' needs to have a look at the huge range of issues that need to be considered and just how difficult this can be. If someone's contemplating leaving, there's a lot to do: finding accommodation, in many cases getting apprehended violence orders or restraining orders, in many cases making court appearances and in many cases speaking with the local law enforcement. All of these things can be incredibly time consuming. So of course, if people are going to contemplate undertaking all of this, we should not add the disincentive of them losing their ongoing pay as a result of that. If we do not have paid domestic violence leave, we are leaving these women in a situation where they have to decide whether they are going to forgo some of their salary, which they know they will be absolutely relying upon if they choose to go it alone, or whether, if they take more leave than they have, they are going to lose their jobs and start what should be a phase of rebuilding their lives in unemployment, where we know that poverty is a very real concern. That is what this parliament should be reflecting upon. We are not addressing those concerns in this bill here today. In this bill here today, all we're saying is that for five days you can leave without pay and you won't get sacked as a result of that. That is too little action, and I call upon this parliament to do more. I know that, as I said, there has been progress. That progress was highlighted just last week when ANROWS released the summary of the NCAS, the National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey. I was incredibly proud when one of our own South Australians, Arman Abrahimzadeh, spoke at the launch of this. Arman told his story as he has powerfully done previously—the story about how his father murdered his mother, about the household that he grew up in and about how he needs to see this cycle change. What we learned from this survey is that there has been some progress in some areas. We know that most Australians support gender equality and that Australians are more likely to support gender equality in 2017 than in previous surveys. We know that Australians are less likely to hold attitudes supportive of violence against women in 2017 than they were previously. But there are also some concerning results. There continues to be a decline in the number of Australians who understand that men are more likely than women to perpetrate domestic violence. A concerning proportion of Australians believe that gender inequality is exaggerated or no longer a problem. We know that, among attitudes condoning violence against women, the highest level of agreement was with the idea that women used claims of violence to gain tactical advantage in their relationships with men. We know that one in five Australians today would not be bothered if a male friend told a sexist joke about women. I'd like to thank the amazing team at ANROWS and, indeed, all of the amazing people who have been working to change attitudes, to bring about change and to provide support. You do an extraordinary job. I stand here and say: of course we'll support this teeny-tiny step that is being taken by the government, but each and every member of parliament owes it to our community to reflect upon what more we can be doing. I'm incredibly proud that, further than this, Bill Shorten and Labor have announced that we will introduce 10 days of paid leave. We know that this is what the evidence suggests. We know that this is what other jurisdictions are doing. New Zealand has already legislated guaranteeing 10 days of paid leave. Queensland, Western Australia and the ACT all offer 10 days of paid leave to public sector employees, while South Australia offers 15 and Victoria 20. There is more that we can do. I urge this parliament to do more when it comes to supporting women who are trying to leave and not seeing them crippled financially by unpaid leave, but also when it comes to accommodation, when it comes to shelter, when it comes to support, when it comes to primary prevention, when it comes to law enforcement and when it comes to our judicial system. It should be a priority for this parliament, for every state parliament and indeed for every local government. Australia cannot continue to see more than one woman killed by someone she loved or once loved and not treat it as a national emergency. I urge this government to go further than they have with this bill, and I stand proudly with my colleagues in saying that if we're lucky enough to be elected to government we will do more.
National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse | Motions | House debates
It's important to me that I rise in this parliament today and add some remarks about the National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse, for a couple of reasons....
It's important to me that I rise in this parliament today and add some remarks about the National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse, for a couple of reasons. The first is that, as a result of sick children, I wasn't in the chamber on Monday when the apology was given, and I need it placed on the record that there is only one reason for that, but the bigger reason is that this has been an important undertaking of the parliament. The apology was a very important moment for this parliament, and the calling of the royal commission was a very important act by the previous government. On Monday, as the speeches were given, whilst I was surrounded by illness and some unpleasantness, I was watching both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition address the chamber through the television. No matter what was going on around me at that time, you couldn't help but feel the sincerity of the words that they were saying. I place on record my gratitude to both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for the important roles that they played and the messages that they delivered on Monday. It's also important to acknowledge the role of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Hindsight's a helpful thing at times, but we should never forget that this was an incredibly brave and controversial call at the time. Earlier today former Prime Minister Gillard was saying that she had sleepless nights tossing and turning over whether we should call this royal commission and open up a whole lot of wounds. She made the right call. We should acknowledge that this has been, no doubt, an incredibly painful process at times, with deeply uncomfortable information coming to light, but if we as a parliament are going to commit to ensure that we can stamp out this kind of abuse, we cannot tackle it head-on without looking at the clear facts and making sure that we address them, so I thank the former Prime Minister for her courage in getting that call so very right. I also mention the commissioners who undertook this inquiry. Hearing some of the stories that we've heard in this parliamentary discussion, I can't imagine what it would be like hearing firsthand from victims and survivors—awful, unthinkable crimes being outlined in front of you, day after day—and what it would take to respond to that not just with anger and grief but actually with a clear-minded approach as to what is the best way forward and how we navigate our way from here. I thank them for that incredibly difficult role. Most particularly I address my words to the victims and survivors and add my apology. I am so incredibly sorry that any child in this nation has been subjected to the kinds of stories we heard far too often throughout this process. I am so deeply sorry that the people who you thought that you could trust turned out to be full of an unthinkable evil, and that you were subjected to that. I'm so incredibly sorry that we had institutions and trusted organisations that failed to act and failed to have protections in place. And I am so incredibly sorry that for far too many of these children, now adults, when they did speak up, they weren't believed or weren't taken seriously. There can never be any justice that can undo those wrongs which have occurred, but we will say here in this parliament that we are deeply sorry to you and that we are deeply sorry for the ripple effects felt by those around you. The parents feeling the guilt of not being able to fulfil that one primary function of protecting their children, thinking they were doing the best for them and sending them off into the hands of monsters. I'm so sorry that that happened to you. Most significantly, I know that we have passed legislation in this parliament for the National Redress Scheme. We acknowledge that this process, that this apology, does not undo everything that's happened, that there will need to be ongoing support and counselling. We commit to ensuring that the government sees that through. But most of all, I just want to add in my remarks that this has been an incredibly important process, but it doesn't count for anything unless we do absolutely everything in our power to do better for today's children and for tomorrow's children, and to make sure that Australia is a country that stands up and says: 'Not on our watch. Not our children.'
Adelaide High School | Constituency Statements | House debates
I've previously made clear my deep concerns about the safety of students from Adelaide High School when they are coming to and from their school, as a result of the traffic situation. I have...
I've previously made clear my deep concerns about the safety of students from Adelaide High School when they are coming to and from their school, as a result of the traffic situation. I have written to both the federal and state governments to raise these concerns and to urge action as a priority. This week, we saw in the Adelaide Advertiser results of a study which was undertaken by Carnegie Melon University in conjunction with the South Australian government to identify the schools where road safety issues for students were most concerning. According to the report that The Advertiser ran this week, Adelaide High School had a number more than three times higher than any other school as most dangerous for students and pedestrians in South Australia: 172 people were hit by cars near Adelaide High during 2014, 2015 and 2016. It is clear that action is required urgently. It's worrying to note that the chairman of the Pedestrian Council of Australia was quoted in the paper earlier this year as saying: … all of Australia should be worried about South Australia. All of this parliament should be worried about the students of Adelaide High School. I have no doubt that this is a situation that will be fixed. There will be changes made to the traffic lights. There will potentially be changes made to the traffic islands. The question is: is it going to take a tragedy before those changes are made? I'm calling on this government to ensure that it does not. We are talking about the lives of South Australians and, most particularly, we are talking about the lives of young South Australians just trying to go about the business of getting an education. It is clear this is unsafe. I have received a response from the South Australian minister, Stephan Knoll, who has acknowledged that there are changes that could be made and that they will look into. But he says: As you will appreciate, any project proposed will be the subject of a prioritisation process to ensure available funding is allocated to the projects where the greatest benefit can be provided to the community as a whole. I'm calling on the South Australian government to prioritise the lives of Adelaide High School students and I thank the Adelaide High School community—the teachers, the principals, the governing council—for working so hard to ensure the safety of those students in the current circumstances—I know it's not easy—and for continuing to advocate for change. There is nothing more important than the safety of our community, and I urge both the federal government and the state government to stand up and immediately act to make these roads safer.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker Laundy. It's delightful to see you in the role, which I'm sure you will perform with distinction. I rise today on a different matter. I rise today because I...
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker Laundy. It's delightful to see you in the role, which I'm sure you will perform with distinction. I rise today on a different matter. I rise today because I am sick and tired of the attitudes in this building, in some elements of the media and in some elements of the community which seem to equate those who are unemployed with bludgers, with leaners, with those who are just lazy and aren't getting up and doing anything to help themselves. That kind of attitude leads to us turning our backs on families who are living in poverty and, too often, are cases of intergenerational welfare dependency. So I want to address the issue of Newstart and its adequacy, because to just dismiss this issue, as we dismiss those who are unemployed, does no justice to any of us and certainly does no justice to the communities we represent. I was recently approached by one of the councils in the electorate that I am so privileged to represent here. The Acting CEO of the Prospect council, Nathan Cunningham, wrote to me saying: We have listened to our residents, heard the stories of the difficulties of living on the current rate of Newstart and write this letter to advocate on behalf of our community … An inadequate income support level not only leads to poor health and wellbeing for those who are unemployed or under employed, it is also a barrier to them finding employment and a drain on the local community … I can tell the Prospect council, I can tell the residents of Adelaide and I can tell this parliament that I absolutely agree. We cannot turn our backs on the unemployed and leave them to battle with inadequate support, as has been the case for far too long. Recently we saw a stunt from the Greens on this issue—as we so often see, grandstanding, trying to send something out to their supporters but not actually achieving anything—when they introduced a bill to increase Newstart in the Senate, achieving nothing except creating some sort of false hope for some of the most vulnerable in our community. The Greens know, as each and every one of us here knows, that appropriation bills in the House of Representatives have to be introduced by a minister. They were never going to get action; it was all about political pointscoring. It's time we talk about a course of action that will lead to increased support for those who need it. We know that, as has been the case so overwhelmingly, it is Labor who will lead the debate in this country on equality, it is Labor who will stand up for those in poverty and it is Labor who will stick up for people who have been left without a voice for far too long. I'm very proud that Labor recognise the need to assess the adequacy of Newstart and have outlined a process to do just that. In some of the amazing work that Jenny Macklin has done we've identified that we need to assess Newstart against two fundamental objectives: (1) alleviating poverty and (2) encouraging work. We also need to consider the interaction of Newstart with other factors such as jobseeker support and requirements that are placed on individuals. We know that the best way to bring about change and lift people out of poverty is through a thorough investigation—real action leading to real consequences. We know this because we have form in this regard. We set up the Harmer review, which saw a million Australians have their pensions increased and have additional support. We have announced that we need an adequate investigation and review of the levels of Newstart. This is a particular issue of importance to me as a South Australian member. In my state too many people have found themselves unemployed as a result of transitions in our economy, meaning that longstanding industries have contracted or shut down, and too many people are struggling to get back into work and to live on the Newstart payments provided for them. Unfortunately many of these people have been dealt a further blow in the recent state budget, where housing trust rents will increase massively for a number of people in our population. To all of those people I say: we hear you. We on this side will act on Newstart and alleviating poverty.
Live Animal Exports | Constituency Statements | House debates
It has now been some 12 years since I first rose in this parliament to put forward my concerns about the issue of live exports and the concerns of the constituents that I represent here— 12...
It has now been some 12 years since I first rose in this parliament to put forward my concerns about the issue of live exports and the concerns of the constituents that I represent here— 12 years , a number of speeches, countless letters , c onstant lobbying, to put forward the very deeply held concerns that so many residents of Australia have. It has been 12 years , but still it falls on the deaf ears of this government, who is committed to only doing the bare minimum at best. The constituents that I represent and I as the person who has the privilege of putting forward their concerns in this parliament are not going to give up. We will keep putting forward our concerns. We will keep advocating for change. I wanted this morning to share the words of some of the residents of the Adelaide electorate who have written to me. Like, I'm sure , every member of this parliament, we've had thousands and thousands of letters. But two of them that I received recently particularly stand out. One of them comes from Evie. Evie is six years old and , at six years old, she decided it was time that she wrote her first letter to her local MP. She said: … I watched a small part of video about how sheep are treated while aboard large transportation ships. I felt really really shocked and sad to see this. I also felt very angry. I actually ran around the kitchen table stomping my feet. I wanted to yell at the people who ran the ship b ut my dad told me that all I'd get would be a red face. Please can you stop this terrible treatment of sheep. It might mean changing some of the rules in Canberra and I don't know how to do that by myself. Evie, we will do that. I also heard from Molly, who is 12 years old. She sent me a poem. I won't read all of it, but it states: … some things on this world are too evil to be true The end of these things can be achieved by you Please end these terrors before it's too late It's up to you to decide their fate … I know the member sitting alongside me, the member for Lalor, as a former school principal would be very impressed with the efforts of both of these young women from the Adelaide electorate. I tell them and the thousands of others who have contacted me that, whilst the government are once again occupied only by themselves, speaking to each other and lobbying each other to try to protect their own jobs, we hear you. I have stood up for these concerns in this place for 12 years. I will continue to do so. Labor will take action while the government just sit back and play political games.
Child Sexual Abuse | Adjournment | House debates
I rise today for two main reasons, the first being to remind members and, indeed, all elected representatives and community leaders, that it is our most important task to try and protect our...
I rise today for two main reasons, the first being to remind members and, indeed, all elected representatives and community leaders, that it is our most important task to try and protect our community—in particular, I would argue, to protect the safety of the children that live in our community. The second reason is to pay tribute to people in the community of Adelaide, which I represent, who have successfully stood up and fought for greater protections from convicted paedophiles in our area. I'm not one to beat the traditional 'law and order' drum, which I know politicians are accused of doing in the search for votes sometimes. I rise to speak on this matter because I find it absolutely unthinkable that we would subject our neighbourhoods to having to live constantly looking over their shoulders and making sure no-one is peering over their fences or looking at the local playgrounds, local childcare centres and local schools because they know that a convicted serial sex offender has been released to live in their neighbourhood. But it is just this threat which my community has faced twice in recent years. In March 2006, the South Australian Supreme Court ruled that convicted paedophile Gavin Schuster be released to live in the area of Kilburn, an area I'm so proud to represent. This was despite the fact that the court heard that he was deemed unwilling or unable to control his sexual instincts and that he had almost a lifelong history of child sexual abuse. The Supreme Court announced that he should be granted release. We found out that Kilburn was going to be his home, despite there being schools and playgrounds and despite it being a very young neighbourhood. The local community stood up and they spoke out, and I was proud to stand alongside them and call on the then state Labor government to intervene, to appeal the decision and, if required, to introduce legislation to ensure this didn't happen. There was an appeal and that appeal was successful, and Gavin Schuster remains behind bars to this day. But then, earlier this year, in March, we learned that Mr Colin Humphrys, who has a history of child sexual abuse over three decades long, would be released from prison to live in Brompton, another suburb in the electorate of Adelaide which I represent. Now, this was deeply troubling, particularly because the Supreme Court heard that Mr Humphrys posed a risk of reoffending if released into the community, and his release was opposed by both the Parole Board and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Again, we had a scared community speaking up, begging to be heard, saying that they did not want to have to live in constant paranoia and in fear for the safety of their children. I was pleased to speak up on their behalf. Along with their state representative and the leader of the state opposition, Peter Malinauskas, we wrote to the state government and said, 'Please appeal this decision, but please legislate to ensure that this doesn't happen.' In fact, the now state opposition released draft legislation themselves to say, 'We will pass laws through the parliament so that we can ensure that this doesn't happen again and that the community can be safe.' Whilst initially labelling those draft laws as a stunt, the now state government did indeed introduce legislation, and that legislation has passed the South Australian parliament. What this means is that people who have stood up and fought for the community's interests to be put first over those sick predators who have attacked children in the past have succeeded. I would like to particularly acknowledge Sean Fewster, a journalist at the Adelaide Advertiser, who has worked tirelessly to promote this cause as part of the Right To Know campaign. He himself stood up in the court and opposed the suppression order on where Mr Colin Humphrys would live. Particularly for Mr Humphrys's victim who's gone by the name 'XX' but has spoken out publicly, I can only imagine how hard it was for him to relive his trauma to speak out against the release of Mr Humphrys. That would be the case for many victims. I also acknowledge Jodi Daniels, one of my constituents, who led the campaign efforts. Also, to Peter Malinauskas, John Rau and indeed Vickie Chapman, who have passed these laws: thank you. Let's keep our children safe.
Adult Migrant Education Program | Constituency Statements | House debates
As I know you are well aware, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, the Adult Migrant English Program is the Australian government's largest program to assist settlement when people arrive in Australia. It...
As I know you are well aware, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, the Adult Migrant English Program is the Australian government's largest program to assist settlement when people arrive in Australia. It is vitally important that we get it right and that we ensure that this critical support is operating as it should be. I know that my office has been contacted on several occasions now by people expressing deep concerns about the current operations of this program. I've been contacted by a number of teachers who have asked to remain confidential but have asked that the parliament hears the concerns about the program at the moment. Teachers are saying that the Australian Core Skills Framework is in fact diverting the program from its core business of integrating English language learning with migrant settlement. If we don't address this, if these concerns are valid, then we will see the consequences of this for decades to come. One teacher told me: 'I feel seriously demoralised in my position. There is an overload of bewildering documentation, scores of forms to fill, assessment criteria and evidence. The depth and extent of details required by assessment go beyond what is adequate documentation about student proficiency and progress.' Another has said, 'It is extremely frustrating and counterintuitive to have to ignore many of students' real needs in order to meet the artificial ones that the new administrative regime demands. A huge part of our lessons are now by necessity just sessions to prepare students for specific assessments and then for carrying out those assessments. It's very narrowly focused, not allowing time and space for global learning and orientation.' Emails are being sent—I'm sure to many members of the parliament about this issue—and they all seem to be raising the same concerns. Another has said to me: 'This is the first time I've ever contacted a member of parliament, and I sincerely hope that you will raise these concerns in parliament, that those responsible will make the necessary modifications to the contract so that, once again, we can provide a student-centred settlement and language service to our newly arrived migrant and refugee AMEP students.' Take the concerns to the parliament I have. To all of the teachers who are concerned, I can assure you that we have raised this issue in Senate estimates. Senator Cameron has ensured that there have been questions placed on notice. I don't think this is a partisan issue, but what we're doing is asking the government to investigate these concerns so that, as a parliament, we can all be confident that this critically important program is operating the way that it should and that we're supporting the migrants who will be the future of this great nation.
Water Amendment Bill 2018; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Water Amendment Bill 2018 and to once again place on the record that federal Labor will stand up and will fight for a healthy Murray River wherever and whenever we need to....
I rise to speak on the Water Amendment Bill 2018 and to once again place on the record that federal Labor will stand up and will fight for a healthy Murray River wherever and whenever we need to. It's particularly the South Australian members of our federal Labor caucus who have shown that we are passionate about making sure that we have a healthy, strong and vibrant river, and we know that that is just not possible unless you ensure that the river is healthy all throughout. When I stood in this place to make my very first speech, I made a commitment to the parliament and to the people of Adelaide that I would stand up and use my time as a member of parliament to fight for the River Murray. I'm here today to say that I intend to do that until my last speech in this parliament, because we know how critically important the river is. We know that we need to get the plan back on track, and we need to get it back on track now, which is why federal Labor have been working with the government to achieve these compromises and to make sure that the plan can proceed. We know that this plan has been worked upon for not just years or decades but a century. People have bickered about the River Murray. As South Australians, we see the result first when the Murray is not working, when consensus is not reached and when we don't have an agreement. We see it particularly in times of drought, as the member for Hindmarsh outlined to the House earlier. We also know that after a century of fighting, of different jurisdictions putting their own interests ahead of the interests of a strong and healthy River Murray, there was a historic agreement reached in 2012. We are proud that the member for Watson led those negotiations, and we are proud that it was a federal Labor government that finally saw a way forward and an agreement. That agreement was put in great jeopardy in part because of the member for New England holding the water portfolio. This is the member who famously told South Australians if they were concerned about the health of the River Murray to just move to where the water was. We have also seen some horrendous examples of water theft, of corruption and of water being diverted away from our river system. After this evidence of water theft and corruption, we saw that, once more, the National Party, particularly the member for New England, were prepared to play politics, to say one thing to the national media but to say the complete opposite in their own communities when talking to irrigators. This was particularly so following the evidence of the water theft and corruption when the member for New England was recorded saying in a pub: 'I'm glad it's our portfolio, a National Party portfolio, because we can go out and say, "No, we're not going to follow on that".' He also went on to say, 'We'll make sure that we don't have the Greenies running the show.' Today my message to the National Party, to the member for New England and to anyone who tries to stand in the way of a healthy Murray River is that there are no jobs in a dead river. There are no jobs upstream; there are no jobs downstream. We know that we need to fight to ensure that the mouth of the river stays open and that we have the necessary environmental flows to ensure that the whole ecosystem is protected. I know that there are some challenging elements of change for communities. I absolutely acknowledge that. But we have worked for far too long, for far too many decades, to see this plan fail. That's why the Labor Party were prepared to sit down, to compromise, to work with the government. We're really pleased with this package. We're pleased to see that the 450 gigalitres of environmental flows will be delivered. We're pleased with the commencement of recovering the 450 gigalitres through an expression of interest, that there is an assurance that the 605 gigalitre projects will be delivered by linking the payments for supply measures with efficiency measures for environmental water and that, if the 450 gigalitres isn't being recovered, the funding for the 605 gigalitres of projects won't be provided. The member for Murray accused us of looking at short-term politics. Let's make this very clear: the Labor Party's position is about a long-term commitment to a healthy Murray River. We fought for it, we delivered a plan, and we are not going to see the politics that is being played by some put that plan in jeopardy. We will get it back on track and we will work with the government constructively to make sure that happens. We have seen that the South Australian community and, I must say, the South Australian media, including The Advertiser, have done a great job in putting pressure on members of parliament and on members of the government to ensure that this plan is delivered. But I have great fears. The draft redistribution in front of us at the moment shows no marginal seats in South Australia. I know that those opposite have only been encouraged to come to this plan because of the electoral consequences if they do not.
International Women's Day | Constituency Statements | House debates
As we head towards International Women's Day, right around Australia and right around the world, our focus turns to remarkable women. I know that in the biggest breakfast that is held in...
As we head towards International Women's Day, right around Australia and right around the world, our focus turns to remarkable women. I know that in the biggest breakfast that is held in Adelaide, with over a thousand women, we regularly come together on International Women's Day and celebrate our— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:19 to 16:38 As we look towards International Women's Day and our focus turns to remarkable women, we will listen to inspiring speakers, celebrate trailblazers and hold up our role models, as we should, but we should also look to other women that we should be focusing on. We should further their case to serve as a reminder of the work that is yet to be done. I would bring to the House's attention one group of women that I think we can learn much from and be inspired by. I reflect on a group of young women I met late last year on a visit to the St Joseph's Education Centre. This is a school in my electorate which has been set up specifically for young mothers who fell pregnant before being able to complete their year 12 studies. Each year, the school holds a retreat and speakers are invited to come and talk to the students, and I had the absolute privilege of being able to go and do just that. These young mums are doing it tough. When we talk about juggling acts, I can't think of many that are more difficult than, while potentially being a teenager yourself, needing to complete your high school education, recognising what a priority that should be, and having a newborn baby or, in some cases, a number of children in your care. I was so incredibly inspired by these women. I heard their stories about how hard it is to make ends meet and I heard them talking about how it is all just a little bit too hard, but they were determined that the most important thing in their lives was to be a good mother to their children, and they knew that their chances of employment were greatly increased if they finished high school. So I pay tribute to the teachers and staff at St Joseph's Education Centre and to the volunteers who go and work there each and every day but particularly to those women who are working so hard to balance their education and being young mothers. I'd also like to say that, this International Women's Day, we can recommit to trying to make it a little bit easier for these women and women like these women right across Australia. There will be many debates about the number of women on boards, about gender pay gaps and about a range of different issues. But, for these women, it means that we as parliamentarians commit to essential social services and support, to a quality education system and to providing flexible workplaces.
Adelaide Electorate: Millswood Infrastructure | Adjournment | House debates
It pains me to have to stand in this place and raise this issue once again, but, on behalf of my constituents, I will. I take the time to raise an important infrastructure issue in my local...
It pains me to have to stand in this place and raise this issue once again, but, on behalf of my constituents, I will. I take the time to raise an important infrastructure issue in my local community around a walking path in Millswood which was closed several years ago. Ever since, the local residents and I, as their representative, have been fighting to have it reopened. I went through the history of this issue and see that this has involved speaking to Warren Truss when he was the minister and speaking to the member for Gippsland when he was the minister, and now I call on the Deputy Prime Minister, who may be looking for an issue that he can get himself involved in and fix. I would recommend that the Millswood walking path is just that issue. This is an example of where government has been completely out of touch with the needs of our local community. There is a walking path alongside the freight line in Millswood. It was deemed to be unsafe, so the walking path was closed way back in 2015. In 2015, it was deemed unsafe. Since then, residents have been turning to the state government, pleading with them to upgrade the walking path and reopen it. The state government have said that they can't do anything because the freight line is overseen by the federal government, so they need the federal government to undertake a safety audit. The federal government have said, 'This is not our responsibility. We don't control walking paths, so go and speak to the state government.' Local residents have been left scratching their heads and wondering why no level of government can undertake the simplest infrastructure upgrade to improve the lives of these local residents. I had the opportunity to take the shadow minister, the member for Grayndler, to the site of this walking path. When he looked at it, he said, 'This is simple to fix. This could be fixed with a phone call. All you need is for the minister to instruct the ARTC to undertake a safety audit and that safety audit would say that you could open the walking path if there were a new fence.' It should not be beyond this parliament to supply one safety audit so that we can get a new fence in place and finally reopen this walking track, but it's taken countless letters to ministers and countless speeches in this parliament, and now the Deputy Prime Minister is so busy and so side-tracked with other things. Let him prove that he is focused on the issues affecting Australians. Let him pick up the phone, call the ARTC and say, 'We need you to undertake a safety audit.' That is all we're asking in this regard. Following the last letter to the government, we got a response saying, 'It would be a bit too expensive to do a safety audit.' We heard just this week how much underspend is in the federal government's infrastructure budget. Nobody thinks that a safety audit is going to be particularly expensive, and we all expect that the safety audit will say, 'If you build a fence that will maybe cost $20,000, you'll be able to fix this issue.' For crying out loud, the federal parliament should be able to undertake the safety audit so that we can build a new fence and reopen this walking track once and for all. I stand here and continue to fight for this. I regard myself as being quite successful in lobbying for funding for projects in my electorate, but I can't conduct a safety audit. The state government have been lobbied. I note that the Labor candidate for Badcoe, Jayne Stinson, is furiously lobbying on behalf of the local community. She's also very successful. She's already secured $2½ million for new sports club rooms at Goodwood Oval, she's found a new home for the Puddle Jumpers children's charity and she's helped the Forestville Hockey Club to move to a new $9 million sports hub, but she can't conduct a safety audit either. The only people who can ensure that the safety audit is undertaken are the federal government. We need the federal minister to pick up the phone and ring the ARTC, and, once the safety audit has been conducted, we can take care of the rest. This is about the government showing that, so far, they've just been too pre-occupied and too busy chasing headlines to focus on the small issues which are never going to lead the headline news, but they are impacting on people's lives each and every day. The residents in Millswood deserve to have a minister in charge of infrastructure—a minister in charge of the ARTC who can act on this important issue, pick up the phone and just request a safety audit. As the local member, I will take care of the rest. (Time expired)
Aged Care | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
It's no wonder that Australians find themselves disillusioned with politics and with this parliament when you listen to contributions like that. The lack of home care packages is an issue which...
It's no wonder that Australians find themselves disillusioned with politics and with this parliament when you listen to contributions like that. The lack of home care packages is an issue which is affecting tens of thousands of Australians and their families each and every day. They expect and demand better of this place than to come in here and hear nothing but politicking and blame shifting. Let's be really clear about this. Rather than just standing up and reading some government lines about what Labor did, why doesn't the government stand up and concede that it has been in office for five years? The people want solutions, the people want actions and the people want policies which will set this straight. They don't want people looking back to the history books and trying to find a way to make it Labor's problem. The Abbott-Turnbull government has been there for five years, and this has occurred and got worse and worse and worse under its watch. There are lots of issues that we debate in this parliament, but there are few which affect the dignity of older Australians more than this issue, and it should be treated with absolute importance. It breaks my heart, as a mother of two young children, when they ask for my help with something and I can't assist for some reason. But I'll tell you one thing that would be even more heartbreaking than not being able to deliver for your children, and that is not being able to assist your parents—who have looked after you, raised you and supported you throughout your whole life, who have made sacrifices for you and who stand there proud yet vulnerable in their older years—when they come to you for help, because, even when they are assessed as needing extra assistance, the government won't provide it. That is the situation that we're hearing from tens of our constituents, coming to each and every one of our offices, saying, 'Can you please help me?' or 'Can you please help me to help my parents?' Every one of us has heard those stories. That's why we raise this here today—not because we want to engage in politicking and buck-passing with those opposite, but because we are pleading with the government to stand up and fix this issue. The government itself knows how absolutely shameful this situation has become. That's why it snuck this data out after parliament had risen last year. It is an absolute disgrace that more than 100,000 older Australians are in limbo, waiting for the care which they need and deserve. It is, quite frankly, unacceptable. One of my constituents, Trude, came to see me to talk to me about her 93-year-old grandmother, who, I must say, has been an absolute champion of our local community. She has contributed so much over so many decades, but she now needs us—this parliament and particularly this government—to stand up and give something back. Irene, who is 93 years old, has been assessed for level 4 care, yet, despite this, she is still receiving level 2 care six months after the assessment. We know that Irene has permanent physical issues which she will need to deal with. She's very stooped and her family are really concerned about her falling over. Irene is a very proud woman, and she wants to stay in her home. She knows that she can stay in her home, but she needs assistance to be able to do that. Her family want to support her to do that but are terrified that Irene could fall and hurt herself. The difference in the level of support between a level 2 package and a level 4 package could make a huge difference for Irene and the type of support she could have to remain in her own home; or whether she would be faced with no choice but to have to move into an aged-care facility, which is not what she wants and not what she needs if she gets the right assistance. I note that the minister said there were financial considerations as to how many of these packages were available. Let's talk about that. If you want to put aside human dignity and doing the right thing by older Australians, who have worked so hard to build this nation, if you want to just look at it in terms of dollars and cents, consider this: it is smarter and cheaper for the federal budget to support people in their own homes than to pay for aged-care facilities. I urge the government to fix it. (Time expired)
Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I'm really conscious of the fact that, whenever I have previously begun a speech by saying that I won't...
I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I'm really conscious of the fact that, whenever I have previously begun a speech by saying that I won't talk for very long, I've rapidly made a liar out of myself. So I won't claim that now, but I will say that I have spoken over many, many years about my support for marriage equality and it is not my intention to go over that ground here today. I know that, like so many people in the community, what I want to see is this vote done as soon as possible, so I just want to place a few things on the record before allowing other speakers to move on. The first thing I would say is: I am really delighted to finally be able to support this legislation in the House of Representatives and to see these laws changed forevermore. I am also really deeply sorry that it took so long. I know that in not just years to come but in days and weeks to come, people will be scratching their heads saying, 'What was all of the fuss about? Why didn't we just do this years ago?' That's something that we reflect upon as members of parliament, but I also reflect upon the impact that it's had on so many of our fellow Australians' lives that this has been delayed for so long. The other thing I want to say here today is that whilst this is a huge and very positive step that we are taking, I don't want any member of this parliament to think that with the changing of the marriage laws, with marriage equality in Australia, that means the job is done, because I am firmly of the view that we need leaders in this place to continue the fight to stamp out homophobia in Australian society, and there is a long way to go in that struggle. I will place on the record that I am the very proud representative of the electorate in South Australia that recorded the highest yes vote, with 70.1 per cent of Adelaide voters voting yes. I'm proud to represent that community and proud to represent their wishes when it comes to this vote. I also want to place on the record my thank you and my congratulations to all of the local campaigners in Adelaide. I had the chance to work with some of those in the yes campaign and to see people who came out to go doorknocking in their neighbourhoods, in the streets of Adelaide, who had never before gone out and tried to knock on doors and talk to total strangers about their views. I met people who had never before got involved in a political campaign and who had not got involved in speaking out in policy issues. I met really brave Australians who were going about our local neighbourhoods and explaining why this vote was so important to them. I want to place on the record my heart-felt thanks for those people. I know there was a really hard time had by many. Many people were so appalled by the process this government put us all through, and particularly put the LGBTI community of Australia through, that there were many of them who thought about just sitting it out and turning their backs in disgust on the whole process, but then they realised that if this was the process we had to go through, we had to win it. They stood up, went out, got involved, got active and ran a fantastic local campaign. So thank you to all of those people, and I personally hope that you'll keep involved in local issues and that we will see much more of the new faces who were out there. I mentioned it was an appalling process. I don't say this to try and make partisan political points here, but I do want to acknowledge what an incredibly hard time this was for so many Australians. There's been a lot of focus on LGBTI Australians and how hard this is. I am also really conscious of the fact that there are a lot of Australians out there who might have been thinking about how they were going to come out, and this made it harder. I spoke to one friend of mine who said that he remembers that in the years before he came out to his family he was looking for signs, because he knew that one day he was going to have to. He was constantly looking for signs. How would his family react? How would the community react? How would the neighbourhood react? I do think about how there would be young people in all of our communities today who are out there looking for these signs and having some of the really appalling materials that were distributed in so many communities placed in front of them, and about the impact that would have on them. I mentioned at the outset that I don't believe that the job's done. I say that because I know that there is everyday homophobia in Australia at a level that every member of this House should say is absolutely unacceptable. We have seen, in our lifetimes, the power of the community to change what is socially acceptable and what's not. I know, in my lifetime, we've seen big changes when it has come to racism in the community. I'm not for a moment saying that the job's done, but I know that there are jokes, there are statements and there are jibes in the schoolyards of 10, 15 or 20 years' ago that would just not be deemed acceptable today. I know that there are changed standards of acceptable behaviour at sporting events and in our community more broadly, because leaders across Australia stood up and demanded that be so. That is the same with racism. That is the same with a whole range of discrimination. It's certainly the case with sexism, though there is a long, long way to go there too. But we still do still see casual homophobia in Australia and we need to call it out. Too often we see people using the word 'gay' as a jibe. Too often we see criticisms levelled at people who are seen to be soft. Too often we see jokes that are still being made. I don't think that we do call it out in the same way that we do other forms of discrimination. So I would say that, whilst this is a very big step forward—it is a huge step forward and one that we should celebrate—we as leaders of our community should also take this opportunity to recommit to continuing to stamp out all forms of homophobia not just in our laws but also in our neighbourhoods. The reality is that we know that members of the LGBTI community face levels of suicide that are devastatingly high, mental health issues, violence—a range of indicators. This is a group of Australians who are suffering in a way that we as a parliament must always endeavour to prevent. As I mentioned at the outset, I am really good at saying I'll be quick and then not being quick. I am going to wrap it up there, but I place on the record my thankyou to all of those who have worked and fought so hard to get to this place. My apologies to my fellow Australians that, as a member of this parliament, I've been a part of this being delayed for so long, but I am very, very proud to support changing that law now. I look forward to seeing that done this week.
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017, National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to support the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017, and cognate bill, before the House. There has been huge anticipation...
I rise to support the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017, and cognate bill, before the House. There has been huge anticipation from those opposite. It is unfortunate that we had to gag the previous debate on an important issue so that we could move on to this debate, but these are necessary amendments to make sure that the Australian Skills Quality Authority, or ASQA, has certainty and that industry funded regulation of vocational education can continue. Currently providers pay an annual registration charge to ASQA. They also pay fees if complaints are substantiated or audits discover breaches. Over time, though, ASQA's regulatory techniques have developed to include intelligence collection and data analysis. These activities are now a core part of ASQA's business. While they inform targeted compliance and enforcement, they are not in themselves services for which a fee or a charge can be directly attributed to particular providers. As a result, there is a risk that the charges levied by ASQA could be considered taxes under section 55 of the Constitution rather than a fee for service. The bills before the House this evening will amend ASQA's establishing legislation to clarify that annual registration fees are collected under an act dealing with the subject of taxation for the purpose of section 55 of the Australian Constitution. This will mitigate the constitutional risk and put the continuation of the current funding arrangements for ASQA beyond doubt. Intelligence collection and data analysis are effective and efficient parts of modern regulatory systems and it is vital ASQA is able to continue to fund these activities. The regulation of quality in the VET sector matters to students, it matters to providers, it matters to industry and, of course, ultimately it matters to our national economy. That is why Labor supports these straightforward amendments. However, we know that dodgy practices in the vocational education sector in recent years have done significant reputational damage to the sector. They have left many student victims. To repair that damage, it is essential that the integrity of the regulation system is beyond doubt, and confidence in the capabilities of ASQA is central to that trust. The government's recent announcement of a review of VET regulation is long overdue. Labor is calling on the Prime Minister to ensure that this review leads to real improvements in the sector. We welcome the appointment of Professor Valerie Braithwaite, a respected expert, to lead the review. It is essential that this is a genuine and credible attempt to retrieve the reputation of the VET system, which in recent years has been trashed by unethical practices and by systematic rorting. To do this, the review must go beyond a shallow assessment of ASQA's performance within the current rules. It must address the structure and regulation of the system more broadly so that only the highest quality providers can deliver services and get access to public funding. We need a system that drives excellence, not a system that merely drives compliance. We need a regulator that is strong enough to make sure that every single qualification is recognised and valued by industry and to get rid of dodgy, low-quality providers once and for all. This review comes after ASQA itself identified that in key sectors like early childhood and aged care the competitive training market has become a race to the bottom on quality. This is not good enough in such important fields. Students and the community deserve so much better. Labor will be standing up for quality and, of course, we will continue to stand up for students. We know that the Liberals have an absolutely appalling record on vocational education and, for some reason, they also have a logic-defying ideological problem when it comes to TAFE. We know that since the government was elected it has cut more than $2.8 billion from TAFE, from skills and apprenticeships, and just weeks ago in this year's budget the Prime Minister announced a further cut of $637 million over the next four years. Australia now has 130,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than it did when this government was elected. Added to that, TAFE and vocational education funding and the number of supported students is now lower than it was a decade ago. When we know that we have more and more jobs which rely on vocational education and skills, it is outrageous that TAFE and voc ed funding are lower and the number of students in these systems is lower than it was a decade ago. What this means is that in too many towns in too many regional centres across Australia TAFE campuses have closed, courses have been scaled back and fees have continued to increase. Between 2013 and 2015, employer dissatisfaction with the availability of vocational education in regional and rural areas more than doubled. Between 2013 and 2015 investment in TAFE and vocational education capital infrastructure fell by almost 75 per cent. In the same years, the hours of training delivered by TAFE fell by over 25 per cent. None of these statistics are good enough. All of these statistics are a call to action for this parliament. It is a call that, on this side of the House, we are responding to. All of this happened while those opposite simply ignored the massive sums of public money and student debt that was being accumulated by dodgy providers. The Government Actuary estimates that $1.2 billion in debt has been inappropriately issued, and the ANAO found that thousands of tax file numbers were handed to providers in bulk in batches of hundreds. We have seen evidence from ASQA, the education department and the ACCC that concerns about VET loans and providers were raised in late 2014. In fact, it took the estimates process to reveal there were cross-government meetings at that time as departments tried to work out what to do about the failing administration of the scheme. But we did not see any real action at all from this government for another two years, when regulatory changes were brought into the parliament late in 2016. The implementation of these changes has been terribly rushed, and the consequences of this catch up job are now starting to show. It is unthinkable that the system was administered by this government so poorly for so long when students and the taxpayer should have come first, not dodgy providers. But, instead of doing their job, the government changed the minister responsible for vocational education five times as this scandal was allowed to continue to play out. It is very revealing that the one constant in the education portfolio from the 2013 election through till now has been Minister Birmingham. While the minister did have different roles in the portfolio during this time, there are serious questions that remain to be answered. What did he know? When did he know it? What actions did he take? In recent days, we have seen leaked reports revealing just what damage this government's botched implementation of the loan changes is doing to TAFE. This year, diploma enrolments at TAFE New South Wales have dropped by over 50 per cent. There has been a 50 per cent reduction this year as a direct result of the Prime Minister's cuts. This is the result of a massive gap payment of as much as $8,000 that students in New South Wales now face just to go to TAFE. It is clear that those opposite are happy to see TAFE funding spiral downward and enrolments continue to get worse. If anything, for them, it justifies more cuts. But, for us, we know that the latest attack on TAFE means that students will be forced into the hands of cheap and dodgy providers who cut corners or that we as a nation will face skills shortages as people give up on vocational education and study altogether. TAFE was never the cause of the problems in the sector, and TAFE students do not deserve to be punished as a result of them. The leaked report from TAFE New South Wales also reveals the damage the government's proposed higher education changes could do to TAFE by setting up a two-tiered funding system for diplomas and advanced diplomas where universities get more public funding and TAFE students are left with unfair up-front fees. All that this will serve to do is undermine TAFE yet again. Our tertiary education system needs more coordination and better collaboration, not some kind of false and rigged competition between TAFE and universities. We need to recognise the strength of our TAFE system and to build on these strengths. But, when it comes to ongoing funding for VET, the Liberals clearly do not have any kind of cohesive plan. It is, again, the forgotten child of the education portfolio, as it has been for far too long. Here is an example of how low a priority TAFE and VET are for this government. We have the minister badgering the Senate into passing his school cuts because he wants them to come into effect in six months. But the current TAFE funding agreement runs out in just a matter of days, and it is still not clear what is happening next. Yet those opposite do not even have it on the radar; they wish that TAFE and VET would just disappear. We do not know the details of what the government really has in mind for the replacement of the national partnership, but we do know three things when it comes to this sector. Firstly, we know that the Turnbull government will only train Australians and only possibly fund TAFE on the condition that more foreign workers are imported. That is crazy policy. It does not make any sense, yet it is the policy that this government has announced. Secondly, we also know that they will not do what Labor are doing: guarantee that two-thirds of public funding, state and federal, will go to TAFE. We recognise that TAFE has to be the strong backbone of our vocational education sector. We recognise that there are a lot of quality providers from different backgrounds, but that all of them rely upon us having a strong TAFE at the centre of the system. Thirdly, we know that the government will do one other thing: they will cut at least $637 million from our vocational education sector. As if more evidence of the government's deep-seated problem with TAFE was necessary, recently we have seen the Adult Migrant English Program and the Skills for Education and Employment program ripped away from TAFE in regional New South Wales, Tasmania, Melbourne and Adelaide. Other areas where we have seen the AMEP and SEE programs taken from TAFE and given to private providers include the capital region, Canberra; the Illawarra, South Coast; north-east Melbourne; south-east Melbourne and the peninsula; Somerset, Queensland; and Perth north. In some areas, there are double and triple subcontracts, not approved by the department, that will see foreign-owned for-profit companies take the place of trusted and quality TAFE. It is just another way that this government is trying to privatise TAFE when we should be going in the other direction. We in Labor will continue to stand up and fight for our TAFE system. There is an alternative to the low expectations and the sorry apologies from those opposite. Labor have outlined that we will not just talk about the importance of TAFE and we will not just talk about the importance of a strong vocational education sector but we will actually outline the policy to back it up. That is why we have announced that we will invest an additional $637.6 million into TAFE and vocational education, reversing the government's 2017 budget cuts in full. We have also announced that we will guarantee at least two-thirds of public vocational education funding will go towards our TAFE system. We have announced that we will invest in a new $100 million Building TAFE for the Future Fund to re-establish TAFE facilities in regional communities to meet local industry needs and to support the teaching for the digital economy. We have announced that we will set a target of one in 10 apprentices on all Commonwealth priority projects and major government business enterprise projects. While those opposite have sat back and watched the number of apprentices in Australia being wiped out by over 100,000, we have announced plans to address it. We announced that we will invest in pre-apprentice programs, preparing up to 10,000 young jobseekers to start an apprenticeship and that these will be delivered by TAFE. And we have announced that we will establish an advanced entry adult apprenticeship program to fast-track apprenticeships for up to 20,000 people facing redundancy or whose jobs have been lost—all to be delivered by TAFE. TAFE and vocational education is in Labor's DNA. Generations of Australians have got new and got better jobs because they trained at TAFE or because they did an apprenticeship. We know that in our fast-changing world, a modern, adaptable TAFE and voc ed system would not just be a good thing to have; it is an essential thing to have—essential for jobs and for economic growth. While Labor supports the bills before the House today, there is so much more to be done, more to be done for TAFE and more to be done for our vocational education system. But so little will be done if it is left for those opposite to do it. We will support these bills but we will continue to fight for more action and for real investment for TAFE and vocational education.
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
It would be helpful if he would listen.
The minister does not want any more questions. She is calling time and running away. Honourable members interjecting—
invest an additional $637 million into TAFE and vocational education, reversing the government's cuts in full. That is $637 million on this side, additional to what was in their budget. We are...
invest an additional $637 million into TAFE and vocational education, reversing the government's cuts in full. That is $637 million on this side, additional to what was in their budget. We are also going further, guaranteeing at least two-thirds of public vocational education funding for TAFE. We are investing in a new $100 million Building TAFE for the Future Fund to re-establish the facilities that have been absolutely neglected and left to be run down under those opposite. We are also setting targets for apprentices, one in 10 on all Commonwealth priority projects, investing in pre-apprenticeship programs and establishing an advanced entry adult apprenticeship program. The Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party understand TAFE. That is why we all celebrated National TAFE Day yesterday. We have the policy to backup. We know it is not just words. Perhaps the assistant minister can tell us what she did on behalf of the government to mark National TAFE Day yesterday. Did the government go out and mark it in any way? If not, why not and is it because they wanted to further their record of just neglecting, walking away, privatising and running down our TAFE sector? Why is the minister further privatising TAFE by letting the migrant English program and the Skills for Education and Employment program be run by for-profit, foreign-owned businesses who are replacing the contracts that TAFE used to have? Will the minister guarantee at least the projected funding under the proposed national partnership?
Unfortunately, in this budget what we see continued is the Liberal government's appalling treatment of our TAFE and vocational education sectors. We know that since they have been elected the...
Unfortunately, in this budget what we see continued is the Liberal government's appalling treatment of our TAFE and vocational education sectors. We know that since they have been elected the Liberals have cut more than $2.8 billion from TAFE, from skills and from apprenticeships. This is yet another example of an opportunity to try to right some of these wrongs which has not been utilised. What we know is that Australia now has 130,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than it did when this government was elected. We know that TAFE and vocational education funding and the number of students who are being supported are lower now than they were a decade ago, and this is despite an increasing number of jobs in Australia requiring vocational skills. It is clear that this government is not up to the job of ensuring that Australia has the skills that we need for the jobs of the future. We on this side know that, in too many towns and regional centres, TAFE campuses have closed, courses have been scaled back and fees have increased. We see this particular problem with TAFE, and we have seen this government absolutely neglect TAFE, let the reputation of TAFE be deeply damaged and not protect what should be at the centre of our vocational education. Those over there have a problem with TAFE, and it was once again clear in the budget. Recently we have seen that programs such as the migrant English program and the Skills for Education and Employment program have now also been ripped off our TAFE providers in regional New South Wales, in Tasmania, in Melbourne and in Adelaide, where we see the further privatisation of these programs. Other areas where these programs have been delivered include the capital region, Canberra; the Illawarra and the South Coast; north-east Melbourne, south-east Melbourne and the peninsula; Somerset; Adelaide north; and Perth north. In some areas there are double and triple subcontracts, not approved by the department, which will see foreign-owned for-profit companies taking the place of trusted TAFE providers in delivering these important government programs. This is yet another way that we are now seeing the Turnbull government continue to privatise TAFE, when we know that we should be going in the other direction. When it comes to ongoing funding for VET, the Liberal government do not have a plan. They just wish that TAFE and VET would go away. We do not know the details of what the government really have planned for the replacement of the national partnership, but we do know two things. One is that they will only train Australians, and possibly they will only fund TAFE, on the condition that more foreign workers are imported. That is what the government's budget says. They will only provide funding for the national partnership if we continue to import more skills. That is crazy policy. It does not make any sense. No. 2 is that they will not do what Labor is doing and guarantee that two-thirds of public funding, state and federal, will go to TAFE. We know it needs to be the backbone of the system. We made it really clear in the budget reply. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what we are prepared to do—