One of the most important things we're doing with this plan is making sure that people on the lowest of incomes actually get a tax cut. So people earning under $45,000 will get a tax cut. Under those opposite, they got nothing—absolutely nothing. That's the priority of those opposite. In our reformed plan, those taxpayers earning under $45,000 will actually get a tax cut. That's the commitment from us. Our plan means that people will earn more and keep more of what they earn. That's what a good, responsible government does in this cost-of-living crisis.
]]>From the outset, I want to say that I acknowledge that the war in the Middle East between Hamas and Israel—what's happening in Palestine and Israel—is hard for many. It is hard for many to watch what is happening. It is clear from our Prime Minister's engagement with the countries and aid organisations in the region that, whilst Australia has never been a central player in the Middle East, our voice is respected. I want to acknowledge the efforts that Prime Minister has made in relation to supporting the region with the aid that is required and trying to be that voice. I want to say something to the people in my electorate who regularly engage: it's important, whilst you might be passionate, upset and alarmed, to be respectful—respectful of others who may have a different view and respectful of people who may work in my office. Just remember that point. Australia doesn't have a central role to play, but we are a voice. We are seen to be an honest, pro-peace country that cares about the humanitarian crisis that is rolling out.
I think it's important in this conflict to remember the history, and it is quite similar to Myanmar's in some ways. I guess because of my background I anecdotally say we could just blame the British, which isn't fair, but there is something in that. In 1920, the British assumed responsibility for Palestine under a League of Nations mandate. They had been in Burma for 100 years prior to that. The British gave independence to the Myanmar people in 1948 following the end of the Second World War. At about the same time, they gave up their mandate in Palestine. They kind of left the people in both of those countries to fight it out. History asks us: was that the right thing to do? Here we are 75 years later, and we have two nations which the British were involved in and had ruled, yet they're still at war, and civilians' lives are being lost. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have granted them the opportunity for self-determination and self-governing, but what could we have done better as the West? What could the British have done better when they left?
I raise this in a very personal way because my grandfather, at the end of the Second World War, after serving with the British Army in Europe, was sent to Palestine. He never spoke much about his experiences in mainland Europe, but he did speak a lot about what he saw, what he did and what his experiences were in Palestine before Israel was created. Whilst I didn't get to meet him, these are the stories from my mother. I think it's fair to say that it broke him. He was dead less than 15 years later. He and his young family migrated to Australia after he finished his service. He attempted suicide, and then cancer got him a few years later. Those scars remained with him, and his scars were passed on to my mother. So I stand here saying that I grew up in a house where, when it would come up on TV, I constantly heard another side of the story, about just how terribly sad and heartbreaking it was. I think that that's where some of the hopelessness is coming from in the community. This isn't a new conflict. This isn't a shock to the system. It's an old story on repeat, yet we are losing more lives—another generation of young Palestinians, and another generation of grandparents and grandmothers. Innocents are being lost in this conflict.
Equally, we can say the same about Myanmar since the coup that occurred there just over three years ago. In Myanmar, over 4,000 people that we know of have been documented to have been killed since the most recent coup, and 25,000 people have been arrested. There have been claims of deliberate blocking of humanitarian aid from reaching millions of people. I have a big Karen community in my electorate who have close connections back to the Karen State. Whilst they somewhat have self-determination at the moment, they are constantly being attacked and bombarded by their own military. What's so heartbreaking about Myanmar is that it was only a few years ago that we were celebrating their transition to democracy. People from this place went to be UN observers in their election vote. Our own AEC worked with their electoral commission to make sure it was free and fair. So to see a democracy collapse so quickly is for many quite heartbreaking, and I know there is lots of concern for the many people left behind. We can't take everybody, but what can we be doing to help advocate for peace in the region?
When it comes to the way forward in the Middle East, I do stand with other colleagues calling for a permanent, immediate ceasefire. As demonstrated by our vote in the United Nations, Australia is part of a diplomatic effort supporting an immediate and humanitarian ceasefire. We see that as a crucial step towards a pathway to a permanent ceasefire. Like many ceasefires, though, this cannot be one-sided. We also require Hamas to cease their attacks and to release the hostages. We also stand against the violence by Israeli settlers in parts of Palestine. We have made it very clear that the violence must cease, and the perpetrators must be held accountable. We are a government and a parliament that still believes strongly in a two-state solution. If we think back to that history, 75 years ago, it was always envisioned that there would be two states—a Palestinian state and an Israeli state. We do need to keep talking about that opportunity so that people can have peace and live together. Australia is urging these humanitarian pauses so that we can get assistance in. I do feel deeply for the aid agencies that are trying to do what they can. Thirty thousand civilians are estimated to be lost. The damage that we see on our TVs daily is a reminder of the human toll and cost of this conflict.
Whilst in my grievance debate tonight I've raised two conflicts, I know they are not the only two. We still think of the people of Ukraine, and we think of the people of Afghanistan. In all of these conflicts, it's the civilians who lose everything and then are left to try to rebuild. We have a challenge—the UN, the West and free democratic countries that believe in democracy—to continue to promote the idea of democracy and to see that growth within other countries. We do have a challenge, and I just ask the people of my electorate to think longer term. Think about the efforts that we can make to support people today but also about how we are calling for long-term peace in these areas. We do not want the parliament in 75 years time to be standing here saying: "A hundred-and-50 years ago this started, and we still haven't brought about a peaceful solution. We haven't supported peace being achieved—that lasting, enduring peace being achieved in Myanmar and both Palestine and Israel.'
I want to thank the people who've reached out to me about this issue, and I want to let them know that I'll continue to listen and continue to engage.
]]>The previous speaker mentioned that stage 1 was legislated. Yes, it was, but it was temporary. If the previous government had been genuine about giving low- to middle-income earners genuine tax relief, they would have made that offset permanent at that time, but they didn't; they made it temporary. They legislated that it was temporary, and then it ran out last year. So, while they try to put the blame on us, they weren't really interested in low- and middle- income earners. They let that lapse. They never legislated it. It was temporary in their reforms. We were left with a situation, and it got through. We tried to amend it in the Senate and we tried to amend it in the House when we had stage 3. Fast forward to where we are today, the economic circumstances have changed. We know that there are cost-of-living pressures, and we know that people are doing it tough. We also know from the data that those on the lowest of incomes are the ones that are struggling. That is why I'm so proud to be part of a Labor Party government that said, 'We need to do what is responsible; we need to amend stage 3 and we need to make sure that everybody gets a tax cut on 1 July.'
What we are saying to those opposite is that not only are you getting a very generous tax cut but your staff are also getting a tax cut. Rather than getting upwards of $9,000, why don't you share it with your electorate office. That's what we're saying because everybody is feeling the cost-of-living pressures. Everybody is feeling those pressures, and that is why we have changed it so every Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut. That is the proposal. That is the core of what this is. It is saying, 'Share the tax cut and the tax relief with everybody.' Can I just address the furphy that has been put out that this does not deal with bracket creep. The previous stage 3 way of dealing with bracket creep was to abolish a bracket. That's not dealing with bracket creep; that's effectively trying to flatten our tax structure. That is about saying that everybody earning from $45,000 to $200,000 pays the same marginal tax rate. That isn't in the spirit of our progressive tax system. That isn't dealing with bracket creep; that abolishes a bracket.
What I respect and applaud in this proposal that is before the House is that it genuinely deals with bracket creep in a fair and transparent way and really supports those on low to middle incomes. It is lowering the tax rate for people earning from $18,200 to $45,000 from 19 per cent to 16 per cent. In the current stage 3 that was legislated by the previous government, they got nothing. Those opposite were saying, 'Oh, you should have done something about it.' Well, we are, in this plan. We are reducing the marginal rate. We're not making it temporary. We're going to permanently reduce their rate from 19 to 16. That is dealing with bracket creep. What we're also doing is lifting the top of the next tier above $45,000. Prior to stage 3 coming in, it was $120,000. We're raising it to $135,000 before you tip into the next bracket. Again, that is dealing with bracket creep—not abolishing the bracket, but doing the sensible and fair thing by lifting the top of that bracket. The next bracket goes from $135,000 up to $190,000. Again, we are lifting the bracket—not abolishing it or collapsing our tax system into virtually a flat system but actually restoring the integrity of the progressive tax system that we have in this country and dealing with bracket creep in a fair way.
Above that is the bracket which we, the parliamentarians in this place, sit in, along with about two per cent of taxpayers. We still get a generous tax cut. I had my local paper say, 'Well, what do you say to the 8,000 people in your electorate who earn more than $180,000 and are not going to get as much?' I said, 'You know, they're still going to get a decent, fair and generous cut.' It's still about $4,500. But I'm asking them to think about the people in their community, including the aged-care workers caring for their parents, the early childhood educators caring for their children, the nurses in the hospitals, and the primary and secondary school teachers. If they're on that kind of income, they're likely to have a cleaner and a gardener. I ask them to think about people cleaning their homes and cutting their lawns. I'm asking those in my community to think of their neighbours and about the person selling them their coffee or their groceries. That is what is so vital about the plan that's before us: it delivers tax relief to all workers, regardless of their occupation. Regardless of what income they are on, everybody gets a benefit from this tax cut.
The other furphy out there is this idea that, if you are on a income of less than $180,000, you don't have aspirations. It is such nonsense. It is snobbery. I think about all the very hardworking community sector workers in my electorate, the people who didn't go for a high-flying corporate job—of which there aren't too many in my electorate, I should say—but instead studied social work at university or are working in disability support work. I think about our social workers, the men and women who are working on the front line of our housing crisis or in the community not-for-profit sector. I think about our financial counsellors and the aspirations that they have, not just for their own careers but for our community. I am so relieved, and I can look them in the face now knowing that on 1 July they're going to share in this tax cut and get a decent tax cut too, because they deserve it. They work super hard, full time. They have such a critical job to do at the moment. They deserve a tax cut. Under those opposite, they would have got nil or little. What we're saying to them is: we recognise your worth and the value of your work, and we are giving you support in these tax cuts.
The other part that is so critical about the tax reforms before us is that they relieve a little bit of the pressure off our small businesses. They know that their workers are going to get some tax relief from 1 July. It helps keep their good workers in the jobs they have if they know that they get a little bit of tax relief. They know that their workers are going to get that little bit extra in their pocket every pay cycle coming through. That pressure is being relieved in the workplace, where people, particularly those on low and middle incomes, are a bit worried.
My electorate is a regional electorate, and we've seen from the data that the regional electorates will do overwhelmingly better under this reform. Why? Our incomes are smaller. By population, spread across our region, the average income is less. The other group that we know will do exceptionally well under this reform, and for whom fairness is being returned, is young people—people starting out their careers or working in insecure part-time casual jobs. Whether they're studying at university or building their career, young people are on smaller incomes and will benefit overwhelmingly from our fairer tax plan.
So rural Australia will be better off under this plan, women will be better off under this plan and younger workers will be better off under this plan. The people who hold up our community and work super hard to make sure it continues to function, including our truckies, cleaners, retail workers, hospitality workers, nurses and teachers—all those people who we said were the heroes of the pandemic—will get a fair tax cut under this reform, as will the community sector workers I talked about. There's a reason why during question time we can go to every member of our frontbench and ask them a question about how the workers in their sector will do, because every taxpayer will benefit under this.
I'm not surprised that those opposite are turning their noses up. I'd say it's a little bit of self-interest. Yes, we're asking you to share your tax cut with people in your community—with your own staff, your neighbours, the person who sells you coffee or groceries, the person who cares for your parents in aged care and the person who might care for or teach your children. That's what makes our country stronger. Yes, we acknowledge that the economic circumstances have changed, and that's why we have changed stage 3—and in the nick of time. We need to get this through the parliament so it's in place for 1 July.
This is just one of the many measures that our government is taking to help tackle the cost of living and the pressures people are feeling. What is most important about this reform is that we know from the Reserve Bank that it's not going to have an impact on inflation and is not going to force inflation up. What is also critical about this reform, and where I want to commend the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, is that they've got the timing right, the politics right and the policy right. That's why so many Australians get it.
As to this idea that it's a broken promise, just keep saying that, because out there in the community all people hear is: 'The Prime Minister is going to get less of a tax cut and he's going to share it with me. That's a pretty good bloke. I don't mind that.' That's what we're saying. A responsible Prime Minister and government said: 'The economic circumstances have changed. We need to share this because lots of others need that support.' That is generosity, fairness and the right economic plan, and people out in the community recognise that. That's why they're saying that they agree with this. Regardless of how they vote or their political colour, people across the board recognise that this is a good deal. I know this from the people who've spoken to me in my community, including self-funded retirees saying how great this is for their grandkids and how it's really going to help their grandkids pay for their rent or pay for their car or get themselves up and going. There is concern about how young people get a start. They see this as a real boost for young people. Similarly, for people who are working really hard and saying, 'I just can't work any harder, yet I can't meet my bills,' this will help them get that little bit further.
Knowing that on 1 July everyone in my community is going to get a little bit extra in their pocket to help pay their bills is a good thing. Around 88 per cent of the taxpayers in my electorate will receive a bigger and fairer tax cut because of these changes. The average tax cut across my electorate will be about $1,400 from 1 July. That's around 66,000 taxpayers in my electorate who will receive a tax break. Every single taxpayer in my electorate will get one. That is the power of this change. And not just in my electorate, but in all electorates.
You cannot get past the fact that this delivers for everybody. It is the right thing to do. I'd encourage those opposite to stop being so negative about it. You're voting for it, so embrace it. You're being really disingenuous going back to your electorates and saying: 'Yes; I voted for it. I'm glad you're getting a little bit extra, but I didn't really like it. I didn't really support it. We're going to go back and do more.' Don't. Just be proud to be here in this parliament and support good economic policy that delivers fairness, restores integrity to our tax system and makes sure that every taxpayer gets some tax relief on 1 July.
]]>What we're also debating before the House is the stage 3 changes to the tax laws, which will see all Australian workers get a tax cut. That means in my electorate, a regional electorate, all our taxpayers will get a tax cut. Eighty-four per cent of workers will get a better tax cut under this reform—roughly about $14,000 extra in their pocket. That's what they will get from this government. That's what happens when you have a government that is committed to all workers receiving a fair outcome for what they do—all workers, not just the people who earn the higher incomes but the people who care for their parents, the people who look after their children and the people who cut their grass and clean their houses. That is what a responsible government that cares for all workers does, and that is what I'm so proud to do and why I stand here today—making sure that people earn more and keep more of what they earn.
]]>International students, to enter the country, have to demonstrate before they enter the place that they are enrolled to study. If people are employer sponsored to enter the country, they have to demonstrate who they're going to work for and show proof of that. Under the design of the agricultural visa, they didn't have to demonstrate that. Farmers—you're right—did not want to be connected to these workers, so they left that out of the visa design. So there's a very good reason why the former government did not let anyone in. We know how bad and unscrupulous these labour hire companies are in the agriculture industry. I've met workers who've come into this country, thinking that they're going to work in higher education, thinking that they're going to work in the city, only to be picked up at the airport in a black van and driven all the way to Wagga Wagga or driven all the way to somewhere else, dropped off at a caravan park and told: 'We've taken your passport. You are going to be working on this farm until I come pick you up.' People are literally trafficked here. We have seen through report after report people tricked into working out in the regions.
How many media, government, and committee reports does the opposition have to have received? Blueberry pickers are being paid less than $4 a day to pick blueberries. Strawberry workers, people picking tomatoes—when we talk about horticulture and the exploitation of temporary migrant workers in this country, it is just mind-blowing that we have not done more to protect them. Yet the agriculture visa didn't offer any protection to those workers. How in good conscience could any government continued to have that visa on offer given the treatment of workers in this country? Clean-up needed to happen.
I remind those opposite that no visa applications were received or granted within the program prior to the swearing in of the Albanese government on 23 May 2022. So why are we here are debating this? You want to keep a visa that no workers entered the country on. What's the point of that? You're offering false hope to farmers to try to fix their labour hire problems. We should be working with the farming sector to improve the PALM scheme, making sure that it is working and flexible. We need to ensure that any worker coming here, particularly to work in agriculture, has protections. There's a reason why backpackers are reluctant to go to the bush. It is because of the experience of other backpackers, who don't have to wait for the media reports to tell us that working in agriculture is not only a tough job; it can be a very dangerous job and we have seen far too many examples of backpackers being exploited, and they are now choosing not to go to the bush, which is tough for those who do the right thing.
I should say that we know it is not all of the farming community and the farming sector who mistreat their workers, but there is that old saying: a few bad apples do disrupt the applecart. That's the problem that we have. Workers don't want to work in agriculture because we haven't cleaned up the seedy bottom, and the agriculture visa does not fix that. The fact that we have an opposition that are still trying to push it means they have not learned from their mistakes. They've not learned that the reason they didn't grant any visas is the flaws within the visa. If you're serious about helping the farming sector, then you would work with the government, the unions and with the sector to improve the PALM program.
]]>The industry associations representing hospitality workers, like the AHA, do not share the same fears as the previous speaker because they understand that the new requirement under the casual conversion clause is, if the person is regularly doing the same hours, consistently has the same roster, then there is an opportunity for that worker to convert to those hours. It's not about creating a full-time job if that full-time job doesn't exist. It's about saying that you cannot continue to roll somebody over as a casual, with those opportunities to dismiss when you like, if they continually do the same roster. It's strengthening the casual conversion clause that already exists.
It's not fair for members to come into the House and spread misinformation. It's just not fair. We need to make sure that we're working off the facts and that, when we're talking to small businesses in our community, they understand what their obligations are. They should talk to their industry association. They should talk to the Fair Work Ombudsman. Before dismissing anybody, find out what your obligations are and what these new laws mean.
What I really respect about what the parliament did at the end of last year, before we took the break, was the legislation that we adopted that stopped labour hire companies being used to underpay workers. Far too often in this country, when I've gone out to workplaces, whether they be in the mining industry or in manufacturing, you meet people who've consistently been doing the same job as the person next to them—they have the same job title, they have the same experience and they're doing the same job—yet one is being paid less than the other. That's because they're hired by a labour hire company. It's just not fair. The minimum standards in that particular workplace, if you work for labour hire, are those in the award—or those in an enterprise agreement, if one has been struck with that particular employer. The minimum standards for the worker, in many cases, are those in the enterprise agreement that has been struck, that has been built up over years to a certain level of conditions. So labour hire—and this was completely legal—was being used as a way to underpay those workers.
What the closing the loopholes legislation did was to change that to say: 'For the same workers doing the same job with the same relevant experience, site rates must apply.' This is good legislation. This is about closing a loophole and restoring fairness and integrity. It encourages employers to look at those labour hire workers and work out who they want to bring onto their books.
Introducing a new criminal offence for industrial manslaughter is important. This is about changing culture on our worksites and making employers, in the most grievous of situations, accountable. We've seen it used already in Victoria, for the owner of the truck company who allowed his driver to drive far too many shifts in a row, for far too many hours, which led to the tragic killing of those police officers on the Monash Freeway. This legislation is about saying to employers and companies: 'You have a responsibility to make sure that your workers are working safely and fairly.'
We're protecting workers who are subject to family and domestic violence from discrimination in the workplace. Again, we're making sure that we're lifting standards and supporting women to not lose their job when they're going through this tough moment in their lives. We've expanded the functions of the former Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency to include silica—again, an important reform that passed the parliament back in December.
These changes strengthen our industrial relations laws. They will help employers and employees in their workplaces. These changes make our workplaces safer. They close the loopholes and give workers and employers the opportunity to work more closely together.
]]>Do they not understand that everybody else out there who are low- and middle-income earners—who are the people cleaning our homes, who are cleaning this parliament, who are doing the lawns, who are making sure that our children are cared for and who are making sure that our mothers and grandmothers are cared for in aged care—are going: 'So he's decided to share the tax cut with all of us? He's a pretty good bloke for doing that.' That's what you're doing each and every time that you say it's a broken promise. You're reminding all of those low- and middle-income earners that the Prime Minister had the courage to do what was right because the economic circumstances have changed. That is what this government does. We evolve with the times and go, 'What needs to change?', unlike a previous opposition leader who became Prime Minister.
Let's just remember what Tony Abbott did. He stood up on the eve of the 2013 election and said there would be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no cuts to the ABC and the SBS, no changes to the pension. That is what he said. And what did he do the moment he became Prime Minister, in his first budget? He slashed education funding. Our public schools have fallen so far behind we now have an education minister working to fix the funding gap in our public schools. We have a health system we are trying to resurrect and rebuild. The previous government cut many billions of dollars from our healthcare system and then tried to impose a GP tax on people who were turning up at public hospitals. This was from a government who said in opposition there would be no cuts to health. Let's not even talk about the cuts to the SBS and the ABC, so much so that the SBS said it was a direct correlation to their funding cuts that they had to introduce paid advertising. Then there were the broken promises on pensions and the cuts that they had to pensions. It is this government, when coming to office, who said, 'We have to turn this around.'
Maybe it is just a bit of self-interest for those opposite because they were banking on that big tax cut that they and their mates were going to get. We are asking them to think of everybody else. Think of all the people in all your communities—rural, regional, women—who will benefit from these changes. This is good tax policy. It is restoring integrity to our tax system. It is dealing with bracket creep. The opposition's version of dealing with bracket creep is to abolish the brackets. That is not dealing with bracket creep; that is abolishing brackets and flattening our tax system. That is not good tax policy. That would see all the benefit going to those at the top end of town and not flowing through.
Our tax reform is making sure that every Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut. Those opposite will still get a very generous tax cut. But we are now saying you need to share that tax cut with your own staff, with your own people in your community, with the person who is serving the food, working at the petrol station, caring for your kids, caring for your parents. Be fair, do the right thing. This is what a responsible government would do.
]]>I want to give a shout-out to the amazing SES and CFA volunteers who helped community members. This rain happened over the Christmas to new year period. It happened overnight. People found themselves cut off and isolated. In my electorate, once you get outside Greater Bendigo, there are highways between the towns. Towns were again isolated and cut off. I know that lots of regional members experienced this, but for my electorate it's quite new. It is quite new to be isolated in the way that we were for the second time in 18 months. Unfortunately, as I said, the same homes went under. It's estimated that at least 200 homes had water over the floorboards. What is quite tragic for these people is that some of them hadn't settled their insurance claims from the last floods. They say their saving grace is that they didn't lose the kids' Christmas presents because they weren't living there.
Whilst the recovery effort is underway, it has been clunky. I truly believe that at local, state and federal government levels we need to work better together to get support to people right now, when they need it. We also need to work better on the recovery and resilience plan. One of the biggest frustrations for people on the night of the big downpour was not knowing where they could go that was safe. We need to make sure that everybody has a plan so that, whether you're preparing for a bushfire or whether you're preparing for a flood, you know to go where it's safe.
I really want to say to my community: we're here with you and we'll continue to stand with you to get through this tough period. We know it has been tough, and we'll continue to work to see you rebuild and build back better.
]]>After that election, she became chief of staff to the then shadow minister for workplace relations, Brendan, and that's where I really got to work with her. In that parliament, I was the shadow assistant minister and I had one of those very long titles that you can get in this place: shadow assistant minister for workplace relations and shadow assistant minister for rural and regional Australia. It's one of those ones where your title takes up half a press release. In that role is where I got to work closely with Peta, and one of the things that I can say about Peta is that she had an amazing policy brain and ability, also, to navigate politics. She was that rare combination of policy, politics and values, and you could see that in her work. A lot of what is in the closing the loopholes bill that is before us is Peta's work and the work that she did in her time when we were in opposition, where they say you have time to think and to work through. It is the result of the way in which she engaged with the many people within the union movement and the high regard in which they held her. You can see that by the people who came out to campaign for her in 2019—the number of union members and union delegates that campaigned for her.
There are some other things that I want to share about Peta. My sister was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was in her late 30s, a very similar age to Peta. When Peta was diagnosed with breast cancer at 37, that was rare. And so when I mentioned to her, 'My sister's been diagnosed'—she'd never met my sister—she said: 'What's her number? I'll text her. I'll reach out to her. I know the best oncologists. I know the best support groups. It's really important that we look out for each other, that we support each other.' And the way in which she was organised and supportive and encouraging for a woman that she had never met spoke volumes to the character of who Peta was in her fight against this disease.
My sister was very lucky, early detection meant that she didn't need chemo and she is in a very good place. But I can remember having this conversation with my sister Deb about Peta's battle when her breast cancer came back. We talked about how it is warriors like Peta that encourage other women to think more closely about their health and to take the time to make that doctor's appointment, because you might not be so lucky. And that's exactly what my sister did.
But I also remember those days of campaigning. Peta was fun to campaign with. She was so honest. Even though I had that very long, silly title she'd be like: 'I need you to come so I can meet with this sporting club. Would you come to the electorate?' I can remember going there on one occasion. The teams were gathered and she spoke so passionately about the importance of sport. She was so proud of her community, and in particular of all of the sports which were active in her area. One particular announcement was in relation to change rooms for women at this local sporting club—before it was topical. Before it was something that we would all stand in this place and discuss, she was out there campaigning for it.
I also remember her sharing the heartbreak of not being able to have children and how cancer took that from her. I think that's what made her so determined to keep coming back to this place. Cancer had taken so much from her. I can remember her saying to me—not that I'd had cancer, but I have severe endometriosis—'Don't wait. Go on the right side of 40.' I actually had to postpone a visit to Peta's electorate in the lead-up to the 2019 election because I was going through the process of IVF. I couldn't tell her at the time; I just said, 'I have to delay the visit to the electorate.' Years later, we were talking about it, and I said, 'Well, that was actually the Daisy appointment.' She said, 'Well I'm glad my sacrifice was worth it.'
But the truth is she didn't need me to be campaigning next to her in Dunkley. When we went to an early learning centre, even though she was a candidate, she knew half the educators, she knew the parents. To stand with her in the shopping centres, she knew everybody. They would come up to her. It was remarkable and encouraging and inspiring to see the way that she engaged with people. She truly embodied what it meant to be a local representative. At this difficult time, I think of good friends like Senator Jess Walsh, in the other place, who spent a lot of time campaigning with Peta in the seat of Dunkley. I think about all the union members, in particular from my own union, and the days they spent there. They just loved to be around her because she was inspiring. That fun, that wit, that humour.
To the class of 2019: you're an incredibly close class and I cannot begin to think of the pain and of the grief that you're going through to lose such a dear and close friend. Coming into this place is a culture shock for a lot of people, even those who might have worked here as staffers. And you are close to your class, particularly when you come in in opposition. So, to the Labor class of 2019: I have to be honest, a lot of us in this place have always looked upon your class with a little bit of envy at how close you are and how supportive you are—in the last parliament, there were a lot of babies of that class—and the way in which you rallied around and supported one another. But I will never forget in those moments that, even though there were lots of photo ops and lots of babies and lots of fun moments, Peta never missed one of them. She was always there. She was always supportive, particularly of her sisters who had had children. She was an aunt and a best friend to all of them. That just spoke to her character and who she was.
To her family: thank you for letting her be here to spend time with us and be that warrior that we all need—that good person—because she was one of the good ones. To her second family, her staff in her electorate office: thank you, and we feel your pain, and we know it's real. It's going to be a tough few weeks, months and years. You were there for Peta when she most needed it, and we now need to be there for you when you need it. That is what we can do.
To all of us in this place: her first speech is something that we should remind ourselves of each and every day. She came here last week and asked a question. She was struggling, but she wanted this place to be better. She wanted politics to be better. She wanted to be part of a generation that changed politics. We have the opportunity to embrace that and do better, to create the change that people can be proud of. She believed in justice and a fair go, and she was a warrior, and, if we really want to honour her, we should take that on board.
I will miss her in question time, sitting behind me, and her remarks. She is much funnier than the member for McEwen, so I do worry about what next year will be like. But, like everybody knows, it was her energy, her smile, her tenacity, her wit, her generosity and her large orbit, and the way in which she would include people and the way in which she inspired people. Thank you, Peta, for your time, your words and your support.
]]>