Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the address-in-reply, in response to the speech by the Governor-General, His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley, in the Senate on 2 July. His Excellency set out the parameters of our economic strength and prosperity, including in our regions. I would like to take the opportunity to offer some remarks on various points in the speech.

His Excellency noted:

On 18 May 2019, more than 15 million Australians had their say about the future of our country and what they expect from the government and parliament … for the next three years.

The coalition won the election. Scott Morrison ran an excellent campaign. But he was able to do so because of Labor's dud policies: negative gearing changes, which would have affected around 1.3 million Australians, especially mum-and-dad investors; franking credits, which hit hardworking retirees; the assault on the coal industry, which saw large swings in areas like Newcastle and in Queensland; and concerns about religious freedom, which manifested itself with the Israel Folau sacking. This was the sleeper issue of the election. Quiet Australians, the silent majority, rejected Labor's dud policies and returned the coalition to power. They voted to keep Labor and their fiscal vandalism away from the treasury bench. It is fair to say that the prospect of a Labor win, as the polls were predicting, had a negative impact on business and economic sentiment. Business owners speaking to coalition candidates expressed concerns about the effect of Labor policies on the economy. Labor was hiding what the impact of their high taxes would be on the economy, jobs, property values and the cost of rent. They were not to be trusted, and the electorate understood this.

I now return to His Excellency's speech. On the issue of trade, of course the US and China are important trade partners, but there are trade tensions between the two countries. It is now evident that the US believes that the rules based trading system in its current form is not capable of dealing with Beijing's economic structure and policy practices. Let us not forget that China is not a democracy; it is a Communist regime. Its values and beliefs are different to ours. The freedoms and practices that we take for granted are not the same under the Communist Party of China. The US has legitimate concerns. Forced technology transfers and unfair intellectual property theft cannot be justified, and industrial subsidies are promoting overproduction. The United States has acted responsibly, respecting the independence and sovereignty of other nation-states.

The level of global interconnectedness means that the need to maintain peace and stability that ultimately underpin our prosperity and prosperity of other countries has never been more has never been truer than today. As a rising power China now has additional responsibilities; therefore, it is important that these trade tensions are resolved within the broader context of international world order, under the WTO consistent rules that don't undermine the interests of parties like Australia.

It's important that our relationship with the United States has never been stronger, and it's important to note that. Ours is a resolute and mutually beneficial alliance and partnership, when neither party has the need to prove anything to the other. It is the bedrock of our security. Australia is a stronger regional power because of our alliance. As the US ambassador said earlier this year, Australia is the United States's most important economic partner, with two-way investment totalling A$1.6 trillion and a US$3 billion investment in Australia. We will work with like-minded countries to reform international institutions, including the WTO, to ensure that they are fit for purpose and serve members' interests.

Australia has the most liberal foreign investment regime in our region. It is not possible for Australians to invest in China in the same way that Chinese investments are made here. This is unlikely to change and therefore our policies need to be framed in the national interest. We must retain our sovereignty over these investments, especially in relation to strategic and national security considerations. Whilst Beijing is our top two-way trading partner, I would like to stress the importance of diversification. On the issue of trade it should be 'fair trade' rather than 'free trade'. I believe that bilateral trade is preferable because multilateral trade can, and does, undermine fair trade. It begs the question: 'Free trade for whom?'—that is, free trade should not be a vehicle for wealth redistribution.

On the issue of infrastructure, I would like to highlight that the advent of the airport in south-western Sydney and the development of those areas have made access to coastal areas—and, most particularly, Port Kembla port—more vital, and hence the development of the Maldon-Dombarton rail line.

On the issue of congestion in cities, especially in Western Sydney, it is important that we look to alternative areas for settlement. Since World War II we have welcomed over 7.5 million migrants to Australia, including about 850,000 under our humanitarian program. We have amongst the best settlement services in the world; however, with our humanitarian entrants there is a practice of locating new arrivals close to other people from their country of origin. With growing numbers in Western Sydney, the continuation of this practice will only compound existing congestion issues that need to be addressed.

On defence, our decision to contribute to a naval presence in the Strait of Hormuz is a necessary one. Iran is not a good international citizen and does not commit to a rules based global culture. It is also time to scale down Garden Island and build a naval base at Port Kembla, with our new submarines as phase 1. Since this idea was first raised in 2006, the changing security environment and the planned commissioning of a variety of new warships in the coming years have increased pressure on existing facilities, necessitating the Navy's requirement for a new basing arrangement on the east coast. I and other stakeholders have been working together—and I thank the Labor Party and Labor members in the Illawarra for working in conjunction with stakeholders—to prepare necessary reports, which have been submitted to both state and federal governments.

Our foreign policy white paper professes to be a projection of our values. It is important to stand by those values and not be clouded by commercial interests. This is what the Australian public expect. We support the international rules based order. We should vigorously support it and be engaged in promoting it. Stability, security and prosperity are Australia's primary objectives. Indeed, the stability and security of our region is second only to the defence of Australia. Beijing has denied reports of plans for a base in the region. We can only take this on face value. It would be of grave concern if any external power sought to establish a military base in the Pacific. Following on from my honest and forthright comments early in 2016, I have strongly advocated for Australia to shift its overseas development assistance footprint to the Pacific. During my time as Minister for International Development and the Pacific we had a record spend of $1.3 billion in the Pacific, and I strongly believe that we should spend a higher proportion of our ODA in the region. This is our neighbourhood, and our allies expect us to look after this part of the world. We need to stand up for our values and call out conduct that is not becoming of good international citizenry.

In relation to the South China Sea, Beijing simply ignores the fact that it has no right under international law to any claim in the South China Sea. The unanimous ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 against China was that there was no legal basis to claim historic rights within sea areas falling within the nine-dash line. Beijing has failed the test of being a good international citizen in the South China Sea and should be held to account. We should be calling out Beijing, utilising our Navy and working with other countries to exercise right of innocent passage through international waters. Appeasement should never be an option, hence my comments about the inappropriateness of the visit by the amphibious assault group of three Chinese warships on the 30th anniversary of Tiananmen Square.

It is important to recognise that over one million people of Chinese heritage live in Australia. Many have strong family and commercial ties to China; therefore, it is important to distinguish the actions of the communist regime in Beijing from the hardworking and industrious Chinese Australian community, who appreciate living in a democracy. Let us not forget that many of them fled oppression from the Communist Party of China.

As US Vice President Pence stated in the Hudson Institute speech on 4 October last year:

After the fall of the Soviet Union, we assumed that a free China was inevitable. Heady with optimism at the turn of the 21st Century, America agreed to give Beijing open access to our economy, and we brought China into the World Trade Organization.

Previous administrations made this choice in the hope that freedom in China would expand in all of its forms — not just economically, but politically, with a newfound respect for classical liberal principles, private property, personal liberty, religious freedom — the entire family of human rights. But that hope has gone unfulfilled.

The dream of freedom remains distant for the Chinese people. And while Beijing still pays lip service to "reform and opening," Deng Xiaoping's famous policy now rings hollow.

One only has to look at what is happening in Hong Kong today.

I was unfairly hung out to dry in January 2016, especially by the then foreign minister and defence minister, when I made comments about debt levels in the Pacific. My comments have been fully vindicated, and 'debt-trapped diplomacy' has now entered international parlance and the lexicon. Every time this issue is raised, it vindicates the stance that I took. I was pleased to have been the tip of the spear on this issue.

I was also pleased that I pushed for a much greater focus on the Pacific to ensure it was one of the five priorities of our foreign policy. Beijing is increasingly asserting its influence in the Pacific through its Belt and Road Initiative and its leveraging of debts of Pacific countries. About $1.5 billion of the about $5.5 billion debt owed by Pacific islands countries is owed to China, hence saddling our neighbours with more debt is not in the long-term interests of the Pacific.

I would have preferred to see our $3 billion assistance spent in two ways: weatherproofing critical infrastructure like schools, community halls and hospitals through capitalisation of an independent Pacific resilience fund, mobilising private sector investment in larger infrastructure projects through our Efic initiative; and Australia's support being an innovative combination of grants and private sector support. I fear that utilising $2.5 billion of that amount in loans is only going to exacerbate an already heavy debt burden on our Pacific neighbours.

At the Pacific Islands Forum meeting in 2016 it was agreed that there would be a framework for resilient development in the Pacific, and therefore I strongly support the establishment of the Pacific Resilience Fund. As minister, I put in train a lot of the work being now rolled out as the Pacific Step-up. Given 35 trips, I saw for myself firsthand what was happening in the Pacific and the impact of debt distress. My honest and forthright comments last year stimulated an international debate and focused on debt not just in the Pacific—hence, I am concerned about policies that would increase debt.

On climate issues, our strategic policy should reflect the need for clean air, clean water and a clean food chain. CO2 is not a pollutant but a clean, odourless and colourless gas vital for the health of our planet through the generation of oxygen by the process of photosynthesis and the role of phytoplankton. This is not, however, what is being taught in our schools today.

I saw firsthand the disgraceful behaviour of climate activists in the Stegall campaign in Warringah, including by GetUp!. It was hypocritical when people pulled up in their gas-guzzling SUVs and proceeded to take the Stegall and GetUp! how-to-vote cards. They were working in tandem on that campaign. What really concerned me about that campaign was the anxiety of a young girl who was in tears; she thought the world was going to end if there was no action on climate change. It brought home to me the false and misleading narrative used by GetUp! and the climate change lobby. As one voter said to me, 'This is a form of brainwashing and is tantamount to child abuse.'

Ecoterrorists are very active in our communities to further their antisocial and dangerous agenda. It should be called out for what it is, and those who support and conduct such dangerous activities should be held accountable. The recent fires in Queensland, New South Wales and elsewhere have, I fear, a disturbing element of potential ecoterrorism. Those under-aged offenders need to be asked to determine any link between their dangerous actions and those who might influence their behaviour. We, as a government and as a society, owe it to our communities who have lost everything.

In an ageing and culturally diverse Australia, I am concerned that there needs to be major reform of the aged-care sector. I envisage that this will have to occur after the royal commission delivers its findings. As someone who became a founding board member of an aged-care facility at age 23, I am concerned at the lack of progress that we have made. My father passed away three years ago after a long battle with dementia and my mother is in care. I have seen the interaction of the aged-care and health systems firsthand, and there is the need for a lot of improvement. It is complicated and challenging, especially for older Australians whose knowledge of English is limited and deteriorates with age.

I support a federal integrity commission. Integrity in government is vital, especially as faith in the political class diminishes in the public's mind. Whilst we need to learn from the mistakes of the New South Wales ICAC processes, nevertheless, revelations in my home state have shown the importance of accountability of the political class. Regrettably, I suspect a federal body will have its fair share of work to do.

I would like to conclude with some comments on religious freedom. During the election campaign, a consequence of the advent of the Israel Folau issue was that it only deepened the concerns of Australians of family and faith. At the kitchen table, Australians of family and faith were concerned. They asked, 'If I say something about my religion, will I find myself in trouble?' When freedom of speech, thought, conscience and belief are framed only as exemptions to other rights they are read down against positive rights, rendering them subordinate to those other rights. During the election campaign it was very clear that there was a strong perception that Scott Morrison, our first Pentecostal Prime Minister, rather than Bill Shorten, would protect religious freedom, and many of those quiet Australians who voted for the coalition, especially in religiously and culturally diverse communities in Labor's heartland seats in Western Sydney, did so in the expectation that their religious freedoms would be protected. A regime of positive rights in the form of religious freedom legislation would give greater effect to the right to manifest one's freedom of thought, conscience and belief as outlined in article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Many Australians voted yes for same-sex marriage on the understanding that religious freedoms would be protected. At a speech at the National Press Club in 2015, I foreshadowed that culturally and religiously diverse areas in Australia would vote strongly against same-sex marriage. Indeed, this was the case. Of the 17 electorates that voted no, 12 were in New South Wales, with the majority falling in Western Sydney. Eight of the top 10 no votes were in Labor seats. Consequently, as I predicted, we are now attempting to unscramble the egg. The results from the 18 May election showed strong swings against Labor of up to seven per cent, especially in its electoral heartland of Western Sydney. What is even more remarkable about these swings—which went to Liberal candidates who had only been in the field for a short period of time—is that, most especially, these were the same seats that strongly voted no in the same-sex marriage postal survey in 2017. There is now, I have to say, greater pressure on us as a government to deliver to retain that electoral support. The test of whether those expectations have been fully met will depend on what religious leaders advise their congregations. Their views will be paramount in influencing the views of their flocks in the lead-up to the next election. In short: at the kitchen table, Australian families of faith have to know that if they quote their bible they will not be in trouble. This is now the test, and any doubt in their minds will have political ramifications. I conclude by saying that at the last election we ran a very good campaign capitalising on Labor's dud policies. It may not always be the case.